The New Interpreters Bible 9 Compress

LT
SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AT CLAREMONT
—- = May “ ~
v me
ATs a > —
[a in hd a Db)DD Bin we DL ae — 4 OD,
ae NTERPRETER’S
&
. ipo oe) eS Ge ee Se DIBLE
7 TANY , SSCUTITY CIT TIT rT 1 mC
\ oa an) We Ow, | ivan . AN an ] »®) W/E \ me) | h 4 KS
2h WWIVEIVIEOIN EL SLIN IT ZINN £ WEOLVE VAYLUWIVIE
. oF
4
Z
7! 7
A Shes
_ - ' y
24 ; i
eee oneee as i
:7 ; ¥‘Gt y ag tt
a) -
os on
7
‘ a’
as
© «=
>,
vie) ita Ay
Sp ater.
I a lnheggtnegy
ase
Bi soy Poe 4
rat
="h a
tee%» BY 4
0 JobINA imonso sitesi la fa yrsuGhy PL evIO?

spirited“abort een
A or mehovbenpt fia iss ob sce
ee va ‘aah > >) oe
A oid eeainaiad £3 fsa es "lb SMioy
PROT. sailed
Vauay
jesleala, :ad eR PIP Tee etenihison v RIO |
eh bend jaw to so sigane |
Ee
=e
| slatcnonst Hsikai saprets Haines a: oaicoyal »
wT Scry
Sy haga stenoe oa
ae
Fatbomb te suns’ ae
=e om ‘ah Gailpoubante?
ea tenth.“na
: mal
# Yt yeuriet wi Pris athe 2 SS leant ited
.i
a
fv aMiOY
Ki RE
2 MIE
ik ansetioy
WBNS
THE NEW INTERPRETER’S BIBLE
IN TWELVE VOLUMES
VOLUME I General Articles on the Bible; General Articles on the Old Testament;
Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus
VOLUME II Numbers; Deuteronomy; Introduction to Narrative Literature; Joshua;

Judges; Ruth; 1 & 2 Samuel
VOLUME III 1 & 2 Kings; 1 & 2 Chronicles; Ezra; Nehemiah; Esther; Additions to
Esther; Tobit; Judith
VOLUME IV 1 & 2 Maccabees; Introduction to Hebrew Poetry; Job; Psalms
VOLUME V Introduction to Wisdom Literature; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes; Song of

Songs; Book of Wisdom; Sirach
VOLUME VI Introduction to Prophetic Literature; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Baruch; Letter of

Jeremiah; Lamentations; Ezekiel
VOLUME VII Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature; Daniel; Additions to Daniel;

Hosea; Joel; Amos; Obadiah; Jonah; Micah; Nahum; Habakkuk;
Zephaniah; Haggai; Zechariah; Malachi
VOLUME VIII General Articles on the New Testament; Matthew; Mark
VOLUME IX Luke; John
VOLUME X Acts; Introduction to Epistolary Literature; Romans; 1 Corinthians
VOLUME XI 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians;

1 & 2 Thessalonians; 1 & 2 Timothy; Titus; Philemon
VOLUME XII Hebrews; James; 1 & 2 Peter; 1, 2, & 3 John; Jude; Revelation
VOLUME NINE
THE GOSPEL OF
LUKE
THE GOSPEL’ OF
JOHN
EDITORIAL BOARD
LEANDER E. KECK
Convener and Senior New Testament Editor
Winkley Professor of Biblical Theology
The Divinity School
Yale University
Tuomas G. Lonc Davip L. PETERSEN

Senior Homiletics Editor Senior Old Testament Editor
Francis Landey Patton Professor Professor of Old Testament
of Preaching and Worship The Iliff School of Theology
Princeton Theological Seminary
JouN J. CoLLins
Bruce C. BircH Old Testament Editor
Old Testament Editor Professor of Hebrew Bible
Professor of Old Testament The Divinity School
Wesley Theological Seminary University of Chicago
KATHERYN PFISTERER DARR Jack A. KELLER, Jr.

Old Testament Editor Project Director
Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible The New Interpreter’s Bible
The School of Theology Reference Books Senior Editor
Boston University Abingdon Press
WILLIAM L. Lange James EArt Massey

New Testament Editor Homiletics Editor
Paul T. Walls Professor of Wesleyan Dean Emeritus and
and Biblical Studies Distinguished Professor-at-Large
Department of Religion The School of Theology
Seattle Pacific University Anderson University
Preacher-in-Residence, Park Place Church
Galt R. O’Day Anderson, Indiana
Homiletics Editor
Almar H. Shatford Associate Professor Marion L. Soarps
of Homiletics New Testament Editor
Candler School of Theology Professor of New Testament Studies
Emory University ' Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
‘GENERAL ARTICLES
&
INTRODUCTION, COMMENTARY, & REFLECTIONS
FOREACH BOON OF THE BIBER
INCLUDING
THE APOCRYPHAL / DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS
IN
TWELVE VOLUMES
VOLUME
IX
ABINGDON PRESS
Nashville
CLAREMONT
SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
| Claremont, CA
THE NEW INTERPRETER’S® BIBLE
VOLUME IX
Copyright © 1995 by Abingdon Press
All rights reserved.

No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by
the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to
Abingdon Press, 201 Eighth Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37203:
This book is printed on recycled, acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The New Interpreter’s Bible: general articles & introduction,

commentary, & reflections for each book of the Bible, including the
Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books.
p. cm.
Full texts and critical notes of the New International Version and
the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible in parallel columns.
Includes bibliographical references. \
ISBN 0-687-27822-8 (v. 9: alk. paper)
1. Bible--Commentaries. 2. Abingdon Press. I. Bible. English.
New International. 1994. Il. Bible. English. New Revised
Standard. 1994.
BS491.2.N484 1994
220.7'7----dc20 94-21092
CIP
Quotations from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by
International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.
Quotations from the NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION OF THE BIBLE. Copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian
Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Quotations from the following are used by permission: The Good News Bible-Old Testament: copyright © American Bible
Society 1976; New Testament: copyright © American Bible Society 1966, 1971, 1976. The Revised English Bible, copyright
© 1989 Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright
© 1946, 1952, 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA.
The Hebraica® and Graeca® fonts used to print this work are available from Linguist’s Software, Inc., PO Box 580,
Edmonds, WA 98020-0580 tel (206) 775-1130.
PUBLICATION STAFF
President and Publisher: Robert K. Feaster
Editorial Director: Neil M. Alexander
Managing Editor: Michael E. Lawrence
Project Director: Jack A. Keller, Jr.
Assistant Editor: Eli D. Fisher, Jr.
Production Editor: Linda S. Allen
Art Director: Nancy R. Bozeman
Designer: J. S. Laughbaum
Copy Processing Manager: Sylvia S. Marlow
Composition Specialist: Kathy M. Harding
Publishing Systems Analyst: Glenn R. Hinton
Prepress Manager: William E. Gentry
Prepress Systems Technicians: Thomas E. Mullins
J. Calvin Buckner
Production Coordinator: James E. Leath
Scheduling: Laurene M. Brazzell
Helen M. Pouliot
Print Procurement Coordinator: David M. Sanders
98 99 00 01 02 03 04---1098 765432
MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CONSULTANTS
Nei. M. ALEXANDER Nancy C. MiILLer-HERRON

Vice President/Editorial Director Attorney and clergy member of the
Abingdon Press Tennessee Conference
Nashville, Tennessee The United Methodist Church
Dresden, Tennessee
Owen E Campion
Associate Publisher RosBert C. SCHNASE
Our Sunday Visitor Pastor
Huntington, Indiana First United Methodist Church
McAllen, Texas
Minerva G. CarcANo
Minister-in-Charge BILL SHERMAN
South Valley Cooperative Ministry Pastor
Albuquerque, New Mexico Woodmont Baptist Church
Nashville, Tennessee
V. L. DaucHTERY, JR.
Ropney T. SMOTHERS
Pastor
Pastor
Park Avenue United Methodist Church
Central United Methodist Church
Valdosta, Georgia
Atlanta, Georgia -
SHARON NEUFER EMSWILER WiuiaAM D. WATLEY
Pastor Pastor
First United Methodist Church St. James African Methodist Episcopal Church
Rock Island, Illinois Newark, New Jersey
JUAN G. FELICIANO VALERA TALLULAH FISHER WILLIAMS

Pastor Pastor
Iglesia Metodista “Juan Wesley” Trinity United Methodist Church
Arecibo, Puerto Rico Mt. Prospect, Illinois
CELIA BREWER MARSHALL SuK-CHONG Yu

Lecturer Pastor
University of North Carolina at Charlotte San Francisco Korean United Methodist Church
Charlotte, North Carolina San Francisco, California
aA ht
| . eepetet Ce THE oy
‘ rae oe Seebenes, A
| , pete ae
—
we fee were a sae
F : , ; af
eho PE 8) iy an
: % = pies: - 7
, : es ey ee La ie ee ae
; cnr :
3 ; ; ‘ tit 8;
ae se a we '
ms ae . —_—-
>" i “= on am xe 7 vate “sa _ wv é We -

i ft 3 ; i> rw
Pe on ‘ aoeed oy oe wer “ce ite vy
aes ” < ery i#
spe Pg
a
ye
Ste teak “eY 4 Sens? re :
Sr TPS? ec
time Ea Lael ike i——meeerr:
~ ws ee —
ete ene — Bt de meee tp ee
;
+
ste Wet
—
© e
: ” «. - 4 ix
+ a
ons
: = -
~
~ 6 @ _ : re a i a‘ i
a 7 ty Te ll ei a 4 Mey
; 7 ; = : . vi
= > , a rs : "F
i - Te ey ey
‘- cele Parse C2 r A ae
eas 5 a
tayborhent eat tt gat onTe cont
ra cael aes Ayre aes tne! ‘hy Soil
Seeded Saridaa EN. S" AE Sg!
aah
- a ‘ha aa - ndeea:ca ie Pen
- as ca *4. sears ar ily
Pade Psat,
Wide
we _
Ss A : —
insi ree
2 i/+-,e
|e
ine eas
eet
rs oan
eer
1 re
4:
A Soom,
:
wei- “
» os
7:a eeeFoghaint icra a |

an)
ss mae
oa
nt
: =!
aes alts i a
7 it weFat
| ee
ph aa oo gee
= ; '
ne : oeF ro aeont, ups One|
: ee Fain
= nai abil: 2 ve eae
Se
aor
—“> Saba. ame .

: ™ é bl 4
cot *s
int See oh
ub ae Wie. come
tai
ples five
te AT Sx iyty: grpares,
Sr waete
a hd on : MY ae ‘ m Ss sie es
fates —* PE -
=) sip s ee pie i “s ee a.
‘ s ~ Dae dl aot TE ay et
: he deeeee
heteokWty Se oa nestle late ee Pron
se agp «fd
ey, ek (oe eae
a
oF jaagasye *e
cham
sar a riboeee "reat

Bele ait ah 4 sch € r7
aSaa
ae
‘
ce ‘ Sepia, Howe ; oak rigs
eaeAr he a
oeaie
Onsguai
; epier e
a
needs ei, , ’ 7 ee rohAstn ‘gt eape ane we 2 =e. is aa ’
ae
er waeromtere: TiAl
,
ee
re is
sa
; -” 7 a 4
a ° 7 Cres Mw Tk
ne “
— +a ’ Wiis ae wins es, aie 7 se

7 : : Hine i aoe. ; eee
ze ee Fed eee ay
Raia wit fase Asset t “wcemobgftl 28ue
ne Aa es 7 aidist plore mt i
wring -
-
ee = : ee or pay rie a a bade a

—— a) et = : a 2 “i viv éy . Lege ie.
: ; t - ae oe Mt
‘ mr (i OF sewed «
CF ea
ill
7 e : Pa
' ad d '
oF
‘ 7 ar ”righ aa
os t t as
_ ere sai) |
< 4 t
ian
CONTRIBUTORS
ELIZABETH ACHTEMEIER Bruce C. BircH

Adjunct Professor of Bible and Homiletics Professor of Old Testament
Union Theological Seminary in Virginia Wesley Theological Seminary
Richmond, Virginia Washington, DC
(Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.]) (The United Methodist Church)
Joel 1 & 2 Samuel
Lesuig C. ALLEN
Professor of Old Testament Puytus A. Birp
Fuller Theological Seminary Associate Professor of Old Testament
Pasadena, California Interpretation
(Baptist) Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary
1 & 2 Chronicles Evanston, Illinois
(The United Methodist Church)
Gary A. ANDERSON The Authority of the Bible
Associate Professor of Religious Studies
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia C. Ciirron BLAcK
(The Roman Catholic Church) Associate Professor of New Testament
Introduction to Israelite Religion Perkins School of Theology
Southern Methodist University
Davip L. BarTLeTT Dallas, Texas
Lantz Professor of Preaching and (The United Methodist Church)
Communication Lian RS Jonn
The Divinity School
Yale University
JosEPH BLENKINSOPP
New Haven, Connecticut
John A. O’Brien Professor of Biblical Studies
(American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.)
Department of Theology
1 Peter
University of Notre Dame
Ropert A. BENNETT Notre Dame, Indiana
Professor of Old Testament (The Roman Catholic Church)
Episcopal Divinity School Introduction to the Pentateuch
Cambridge, Massachusetts
(The Episcopal Church) M. EuceNe BorING
Zephaniah I. Wylie and Elizabeth M. Briscoe Professor of
New Testament
ADELE BERLIN Brite Divinity School
Professor of Hebrew and East Asian
Languages and Literature Texas Christian University
University of Maryland Fort Worth, Texas
College Park, Maryland (Christian Church [Disciples of Christ])
Introduction to Hebrew Poetry Matthew
CONTRIBUTORS
WALTER BRUEGGEMANN TONI CRAVEN
William Marcellus McPheeters Professor of Old Professor of Hebrew Bible
Testament Brite Divinity School
Columbia Theological Seminary Texas Christian University
Decatur, Georgia Fort Worth, Texas
(United Church of Christ) (The Roman Catholic Church)
Exodus Introduction to Narrative Literature
Davip G. BuTTRICK
James L. CRENSHAW
Professor of Homiletics and Liturgics
Robert L. Flowers Professor of Old Testament
The Divinity School
Vanderbilt University The Divinity School
Nashville, Tennessee . Duke University
(United Church of Christ) Durham, North Carolina
The Use of the Bible in Preaching (Baptist)
Sirach
RonaLD E. CLEMENTS
Samuel Davidson Professor of Old Testament KEITH R.* Crim
King’s College Pastor
University of London New Concord Presbyterian Church
London, England Concord, Virginia
(Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland) (Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.])
Deuteronomy Modern English Versions of the Bible
RICHARD J. CLIFFORD
R. ALAN CULPEPPER
Professor of Old Testament
Dean
Weston School of Theology
The School of Theology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
(The Roman Catholic Church) Mercer University
Introduction to Wisdom Literature Atlanta, Georgia
(Southern Baptist Convention)
JouN J. CoLtins Luke
Professor of Hebrew Bible
The Divinity School KATHERYN PFISTERER DARR
University of Chicago Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible
Chicago, Illinois The School of Theology
(The Roman Catholic Church) Boston University
Introduction to Early Jewish Religion Boston, Massachusetts
Ropert B. Coote Ezekiel
San Francisco Theological Seminary Ropert DoRAN
San Anselmo, California
Professor of Religion
(Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.])
Joshua
Amherst College
Amherst, Massachusetts
FreD B., CRADDOCK 1 & 2 Maccabees
Bandy Distinguished Professor of Preaching
and New Testament, Emeritus THomas B. DozeMAN
Candler School of Theology Professor of Old Testament
Emory University United Theological Seminary
Atlanta, Georgia Dayton, Ohio
(Christian Church [Disciples of Christ]) (Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.])
Hebrews Numbers
CONTRIBUTORS
James D. G. DUNN Justo L. GonzALEz
Lightfoot Professor of Divinity Adjunct Professor of Church History
Department of Theology Columbia Theological Seminary
University of Durham Decatur, Georgia
Durham, England (The United Methodist Church)
(The Methodist Church [Great Britain]) How the Bible Has Been Interpreted in
1 & 2 Timothy; Titus Christian Tradition
ELDON Jay Epp DonaLp E. Gowan
Harkness Professor of Biblical Literature Robert Cleveland Holland Professor of Old
and Chairman of the Department of Religion Testament
Case Western Reserve University Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Cleveland, Ohio Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
(The Episcopal Church) (Presbyterian Church |U.S.A.})
Ancient Texts and Versions of the New Amos
Testament
KATHLEEN ROBERTSON FARMER JupirH Marie Gunpry-VoLF

Professor of Old Testament Assistant Professor of New Testament
United Theological Seminary Fuller Theological Seminary
Dayton, Ohio Pasadena, California
(The United Methodist Church) (Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.])
kuth Ephesians
Cain Hope FELDER DANIEL J. HARRINGTON

Professor of New Testament Language Professor of New Testament
and Literature Weston School of Theology
The School of Divinity Cambridge, Massachusetts
Howard University (The Roman Catholic Church)
Washington, DC Introduction to the Canon
Philemon RicHarp B. Hays
Associate Professor of New Testament
TERENCE E. FRETHEIM The Divinity School
Professor of Old Testament Duke University
Luther Seminary Durham, North Carolina
Saint Paul, Minnesota (The United Methodist Church)
(Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) Galatians
Genesis
THEODORE HIEBERT
Francisco O. Garcia-TRETO
Professor of Hebrew Bible
Professor of Religion and Chairman of the
McCormick Theological
Department of Religion
Seminary
Trinity University
Chicago, Illinois
San Antonio, Texas
(Mennonite Church)
Habakkuk
Nahum
CATHERINE GUNSALUS GONZALEZ Cart R. HoLtapay

Professor of Church History Professor of New Testament
Columbia Theological Seminary Candler School of Theology
Decatur, Georgia Emory University
(Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.]} Atlanta, Georgia
The Use of the Bible in Hymns, Liturgy, Contemporary Methods of Reading the
and Education Bible
xi
CONTRIBUTORS
Morna D. Hooker Ravpw W. Kein
Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity Dean and Christ Seminary-Seminex Professor of
The Divinity School Old Testament
University of Cambridge Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Cambridge, England Chicago, Illinois
(The Methodist Church [Great Britain])
(Evangelical Lutheran Church in America)
Philippians
Ezra; Nehemiah
Davip C. Hopkins
Professor of Old Testament MiIcHAEL KOLaRCIK, SJ.
Wesley Theological Seminary Assistant Professor
Washington, DC Regis College
(United Church of Christ) ~ Toronto, Ontario
Life in Ancient Palestine
Canada
(The Roman Catholic Church)
DENISE DomBKOwWSKI HopkKINS
Professor of Old Testament Book of Wisdom
Wesley Theological Seminary
Washington, DC WILLIAM L. LANE
(United Church of Christ) Paul T. Walls Professor of Wesleyan
Judith and Biblical Studies
Department of Religion
Luxe T. JOHNSON Seattle Pacific University
Robert W. Woodruff Professor of New
Seattle, Washington
Testament and Christian Origins
Candler School of Theology (Free Methodist Church of North America)
Emory University 2 Corinthians
Atlanta, Georgia
(The Roman Catholic Church) Anprew T. LINCOLN
James Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield
Water C. Kaiser, JR.
Sheffield, England
Colman Mockler Distinguished Professor
of Old Testament (The Church of England)
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary Colossians
South Hamilton, Massachusetts
(The Evangelical Free Church of America) . Cuinton McCann, Jr.
ol
Leviticus Assistant Professor of Old Testament
Eden Theological Seminary
LEANDER E. KECK
Winkley Professor of Biblical Theology St. Louis, Missouri
The Divinity School (Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.])
Yale University Psalms
New Haven, Connecticut
(Christian Church [Disciples of Christ) ABRAHAM J. MALHERBE
Introduction to The New Interpreter’s Bible - Buckingham Professor of New Testament
Criticism and Interpretation, Emeritus
Cuan-Hie Kim
The Divinity School
Professor of New Testament and Director of
Korean Studies Yale University
The School of Theology at Claremont New Haven, Connecticut
Claremont, California (Church of Christ)
(The United Methodist Church) The Cultural Context of the New Testament:
Reading the Bible as Asian Americans The Greco-Roman World
xii
CONTRIBUTORS
W. EuceNe Marcu Georce W. E. NICKELSBURG
Arnold Black Rhodes Professor of Old Professor of Christian Origins and Early Judaism
Testament School of Religion
Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary University of Iowa
Louisville, Kentucky Iowa City, Iowa
(Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.]}) (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America)
Haggai The Jewish Context of the New
Testament
James Ear. Massey
IRENE NOWELL
Dean Emeritus and
Associate Professor of Religious Studies
Distinguished Professor-at-Large
Benedictine College
The School of Theology Atchison, Kansas
Anderson University (The Roman Catholic Church)
Preacher-in-Residence, Park Place Church Tobit
Anderson, Indiana
(Church of God [Anderson, Ind.]}) KATHLEEN M. O’CoNNOR
Reading the Bible from Particular Social Associate Professor of Biblical Studies
Locations: An Introduction; Maryknoll School of Theology
Reading the Bible as African Americans Maryknoll, New York
J. Maxwett MILLER Lamentations
Candler School of Theology Gait R. O’Day
Emory University Almar H. Shatford Associate Professor of Homiletics
Atlanta, Georgia Candler School of Theology
(The United Methodist Church) Emory University
Introduction to the History of Ancient Israel Atlanta, Georgia
(United Church of Christ)
Patrick D. MILLER John
Charles T. Haley Professor of Old Testament
Theology BEN C. OLLENBURGER
Princeton Theological Seminary Associate Professor of Old Testament
Princeton, New Jersey Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries
(Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.]) Elkhart, Indiana
(Mennonite Church)
Jeremiah
Zechariah
FREDERICK J. MURPHY
Dennis T. OLSON
Associate Professor and Chair of the
Department of Religious Studies Assistant Professor of Old Testament
Princeton Theological Seminary
College of the Holy Cross
Princeton, New Jersey
Worcester, Massachusetts (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America)
(The Roman Catholic Church) Judges
Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature
Carolyn OSIEK
CaroL A. NEWSOM Professor of New Testament
Associate Professor of Old Testament Department of Biblical Languages
Candler School of Theology and Literature
Emory University : Catholic Theological Union
Atlanta, Georgia Chicago, Illinois
(The Episcopal Church) (The Roman Catholic Church)
Job Reading the Bible as Women
CONTRIBUTORS
SAMUEL PAGAN JupitH _E. SANDERSON
Evangelical Seminary of Puerto Rico Assistant Professor of Hebrew Bible
San Juan, Puerto Rico Department of Theology and Religious Studies
(Christian Church [Disciples of Christ]) Seattle University
Obadiah Seattle, Washington
Ancient Texts and Versions of the Old
SIMON B. PARKER Testament
Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible and
Harrell F. Beck Scholar in Hebrew Scripture
EILEEN M. SCHULLER
The School of Theology
Boston University Associate Professor
Boston, Massachusetts Department of Religious Studies
(The United Methodist Church) McMaster University
The Ancient Near Eastern Literary Hamilton, Ontario
Background of the Old Testament Canada
PHEME PERKINS Malachi
Professor of New Testament
Boston College FERNANDO E, SEGOVIA
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts Associate Professor of New Testament
(The Roman Catholic Church) and Early Christianity
Mark The Divinity School
Vanderbilt University
Davip L. PETERSEN
Professor of Old Testament Nashville, Tennessee
The Iliff School of Theology (The Roman Catholic Church)
Denver, Colorado Reading the Bible as Hispanic Americans
Introduction to Prophetic Literature CHRISTOPHER R. SEITZ
Associate Professor of Old Testament
CHRISTOPHER C. ROWLAND The Divinity School
Dean Ireland’s Professor of the Exegesis
Yale University
of Holy Scripture
The Queen’s College New Haven, Connecticut
Oxford, England (The Episcopal Church)
(The Church of England) Isaiah 40-66
Revelation
CHOON-LEONG SEOW
ANTHONY J. SALDARINI Associate Professor of Old Testament
Professor of Biblical Studies Princeton Theological Seminary
Boston College Princeton, New Jersey
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
1 & 2 Kings
Baruch; Letter of Jeremiah
J. PauL SamMPLey Micuaet A. SIGNER

Professor of New Testament and ' Abrams Professor of Jewish Thought and
Christian Origins Culture
The School of Theology and The Graduate Division Department of Theology
Boston University University of Notre Dame
Boston, Massachusetts Notre Dame, Indiana
(The United Methodist Church) How the Bible Has Been Interpreted in
1 Corinthians Jewish Tradition
CONTRIBUTORS |
Moisés Sitva W. Siptey TOWNER
Professor of New Testament The Reverend Archibald McFadyen Professor of
Westminster Theological Seminary Biblical Interpretation
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Union Theological Seminary in Virginia
(The Orthodox Presbyterian Church) Richmond, Virginia
Contemporary Theories of Biblical (Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.])
Interpretation Ecclesiastes
Danie J. SIMUNDSON PHYLLIS TRIBLE

Professor of Old Testament Baldwin Professor of Sacred Literature
Luther Seminary Union Theological Seminary
Saint Paul, Minnesota New York, New York
(Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) Jonah
Micah
Gene M. TUCKER
ABRAHAM SMITH Professor of Old Testament, Emeritus
Assistant Professor of New Testament Candler School of Theology
and Christian Origins Emory University
The School of Theology Atlanta, Georgia
Boston University (The United Methodist Church)
Boston, Massachusetts Isaiah 1-39
(The National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.)
1 & 2 Thessalonians
CHRISTOPHER M. TUCKETT
Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism
DanigL L. SMITH-CHRISTOPHER ~and Exegesis
Associate Professor of Theological Studies Faculty of Theology
Department of Theology University of Manchester
Loyola Marymount University Manchester, England
Los Angeles, California (The Church of England)
(The Society of Friends [Quaker])
Jesus and the Gospels
Daniel; Bel and the Dragon; Prayer of
Azariah; Susannah
RayMonp C. Van LEEUWEN
Professor of Religion and Theology
Marion L. Soarps
Eastern College
Professor of New Testament Studies
Saint Davids, Pennsylvania
Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
(Christian Reformed Church in North America)
Louisville, Kentucky
Proverbs
(Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.]}}
Acts
Ropert W. WALL
Professor of Biblical Studies
Rogpert C. TANNEHILL
Academic Dean and Harold B. Williams Department of Religion
Professor of Biblical Studies Seattle Pacific University
Seattle, Washington
Methodist Theological School in Ohio
(Free Methodist Church of North America)
Delaware, Ohio
(The United Methodist Church) Introduction to Epistolary Literature
The Gospels and Narrative Literature
Duane E Watson
GeorGE E. TINKER Associate Professor of New Testament Studies
Department of Religion and Philosophy
Associate Professor of Cross-Cultural Ministries
The Iliff School of Theology Malone College
Denver, Colorado Canton, Ohio
(Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) (The United Methodist Church)
Reading the Bible as Native Americans 2 Peter, Jude
XV
CONTRIBUTORS
Renita J. WEEMS N. THomas WRIGHT
Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible Lecturer in New Testament Studies
The Divinity School Fellow, Tutor, and Chaplain
Vanderbilt University Worcester College
Nashville, Tennessee Oxford, England
(African Methodist Episcopal Church) (The Church of England)
Song of Songs Romans
= A. Pe, f Religi GALE A. YEE

ssistant Frolessorof Religion Associate Professor of Old Testament
Department of Religion Department of Theology
Albright College University of Saint Thomas
Reading, Pennsylvania Saint Paul, Minnesota
(TheEsther;
Episcopal Church)
Additions to Esther
(TheHosea
Roman Catholic Church)
VINCENT L. WimBusH
Professor of New Testament and
Christian Origins
Union Theological Seminary
New York, New York
(Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.)
The Ecclesiastical Context of the New
Testament
FEATURES OF —
he general aim of 7he New Interpreter’s text itself is reprinted in The New Interpreter’s
_ Bible is to bring the best in contemporary Bible. Dealing with Scripture in terms of these
biblical scholarship into the service of the church primary units allows discussion of important issues
to enhance preaching, teaching, and study of the that are overlooked in a verse-by-verse treatment.
Scriptures. To accomplish that general aim, the Each scriptural unit is identified by text citation
design of Zhe New Interpreter’s Bible has been and a short title.
shaped by two controlling principles: (1) form The full texts and critical notes of the New
serves function, and (2) maximize ease of use. International Version and the New Revised Stan-
General articles provide the reader with con- dard Version of the Bible are presented in parallel
cise, up-to-date, balanced introductions and assess- columns for quick reference. Since every transla-
ments of selected topics. In most cases, a brief tion is to some extent an interpretation as well,
bibliography points the way to further exploration the inclusion of these two widely known and
of a topic. Many of the general articles are placed influential modern translations provides an easy
in volumes 1 and 8, at the beginning of the comparison that in many cases will lead to a better
coverage of the Old and New Testaments, respec- understanding of a passage. Biblical passages are
tively. Others have been inserted in those volumes set in a two-column format and placed in green
where the reader will encounter the correspond- tint-blocks to make ‘it easy to recognize them at
ing type of literature (e.g., “Introduction to Pro- a glance. The NIV and NRSV material is clearly
phetic Literature” appears in Volume 6 alongside identified on each page on which the text appears.
several of the prophetic books). Immediately following each biblical text is a
Coverage of each biblical book begins with an section marked “Commentary,” which provides
“Introduction” that acquaints the reader with the an exegetical analysis informed by linguistic, text-
essential historical, sociocultural, literary, and critical, historical-critical, literary, social-scientific,
theological issues necessary to understand the and theological methods. The Commentary serves
biblical book. A short bibliography and an outline as a reliable, judicious guide through the text,
of the biblical book are found at the end of each pointing out the critical problems as well as key
Introduction. The introductory sections are the interpretive issues.
only material in The New Interpreter’s Bible The exegetical approach is “text-centered.”
printed in a single wide-column format. That is, the commentators focus primarily on the
The biblical text is divided into coherent and text in its final form rather than on (a) a meticu-
manageable primary units, which are located lous rehearsal of problems of scholarship associ-
within larger sections of Scripture. At the opening ated with a text, (b) a thorough reconstruction of
discussion of any large section of Scripture, read- the pre-history of the text, or (c) an exhaustive
ers will. often find material identified as “Over- rehearsal of the text’s interpretive history. Of
view,” which includes remarks applicable to the course, some attention to scholarly problems, to
large section of text. The primary unit of text may the pre-history of a text, and to historic interpre-
be as short as a few verses or as long as a chapter tations that have shaped streams of tradition is
or more. This is the point at which the biblical important in particular cases precisely in order to
XVil
FEATURES OF THE NEW INTERPRETER’S BIBLE
illumine the several levels of meaning in the final section presents multiple possibilities for preaching
form of the text. But the primary focus is on the and teaching in light of each biblical text. That
canonical text itself. Moreover, the Commentary is, instead of providing the preacher or teacher
not only describes pertinent aspects of the text, full illustrations, poems, outlines, and the like, the
but also teaches the reader what to look for in Reflections offer several trajectories of possible
the text so as to develop the reader’s own capacity interpretation that connect with the situation of
to analyze and interpret the text. the contemporary listeners. Recognizing the
Commentary material runs serially for a few power of Scripture to speak anew to diverse
paragraphs or a few pages, depending on what is situations, not all of the suggested trajectories
required by the biblical passage under discussion. could be appropriated on any one occasion.
Commentary material is set in a two-column Preachers and teachers want some specificity
format. Occasional subheads appear in a bold about the implications of the text, but not so
green font. The next level of subdivisions appears much specificity that the work is done for them.
as bold black fonts and a third level as black italic The ideas in the Reflections are meant to stimulate
fonts. Footnotes are placed at the bottom of the the thought of preachers and teachers, not to
column in which the superscripts appear. replace it.
Key words in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek are Three:quarter width columns distinguish Reflec-
printed in the original-language font, accompanied tions materials from biblical text and Commen-
by a transliteration and a translation or explana- tary.
tion. Occasional excursuses have been inserted in
Immediately following the Commentary, in some volumes to address topics of special impor-
most cases, is the section called “Reflections.” A tance that are best treated apart from the flow of
detailed exposition growing directly out of the Commentary and Reflections on specific passages.
discussion and issues dealt with in the Commen- Set in three-quarter width columns, excursuses
tary, Reflections are geared specifically toward are identified graphically by a green color bar that
helping those who interpret Scripture in the life runs down the outside margin of the page.
of the church by providing “handles” for grasping Occasional maps, charts, and illustrations ap-
the significance of Scripture for faith and life pear throughout the volumes at points where they
today. Recognizing that the text has the capacity are most likely to be immediately useful to the
to shape the life of the Christian community, this reader.
XVili
CONTENTS
VOLUME IX
Luke
R. Alan Culpepper
John
Gail R. O’Day 491
Transliteration Schema 867

Index of Maps, Charts, and Illustrations 869
Index of Excursuses 871
Abbreviations 873
ols
¢
Rutegyt tasted Wve |erneny at be HB,

Sis, hal x ae Se ie pees oy rely je <x: ihe
Lee tue Ques’ Wiper ine 7)eae
LP EE HeIGs eA Sabet oF Oye Bs
ie ace SC, Ser eee, eel th ee ee
i ip 438 nr hye nade’ oud camney
: tt a i lh Tiyte Te lent -
hae SRM Hare Pet
a alee ape Seanane F oe a ee
anAt ote ee ( ot word a ae
i. ; ie ida! & akak ase chen ae er
af diag nan ihn. upleg?! 1% 2 Tae, Pent 2 wpe fey!io
: / as a bee! et i rae asl
Pa
* Lh heagieser wrest 7 Tae ae
_ So HS aewRL see seer crtho agroninig: —e
Feech|
SRE ee aree
aaa roe Se
oT
RR
Se Be ee LOY HR
ee
Bea. pis mieten ie Ageniec,. _aveang hime
7 5 eee o. Ae BOsTg cataa * <buttes theie A wit

WP: Rgtniis owl Breer oi? of Se Cate faa Fetes ah
n Deu
La eneME Seah
oe fraseswih). he Cory
sortthally ‘geet
“G8 in "eos Mier, “sy, a
ed ee Le pens
pet, See wt xievet * wotws inthe bile mec WY, WE tof the g
ae Manhel genie Sein’ tos gretving Cocca Po reat, a
pa i 5 etna; Or. Say and ile - gees Desiptamet Cowra hte ina
ty *be. Re Sy ee ey fy ary cyhee thetty a.oe neath
hy ig nee at) (P45 tyby me AT al oy
i » ~~ a yea" Me
A Go ee , : } Ss
be Ta ‘
Ee F*s 7
is
—
e e
ae
”. a
- os _ om
ee :
a Kan — a”
: _ Pa =
« ~
ne a .
- .
a an I -
a aren F ma
> ° :
a - a =r
—
7 _ Pi > _
=i
—
;
. ,
= ie
~ I : ”
¥ as
= 7
,
—
JME GOSPEL @P.LUKE
INTRODUCTION, COMMENTARY, AND REFLECTIONS
BY
AEA GUIEREREBE
P sean
oa
4 *
‘ ’ a/ ba a Ly
‘otc
- «
sd
,
7
7 oo)
: 2 : i i 4 _ g2
os ’
~
ae a
‘
a - a
: oe woe
- : :
= ee
F|
' _
ie he +
- 3 ae
>~et
0) S
ac ; - = :
‘
. cd
ce
HAUIIO 18100 FHT ee eo ne pee
Sy rrerrt GHA SAAT OMNES2 AOUTIORTita

IAL
7 : Yo.
BEVIS. Pole A.
Ge, Sa Cs aut ve
Toe? , ee * * :
2
a a od - per
sO
a ‘4 : ‘ 5 ' ‘ =P ©, fox _ = a — : A,
: - =>
—_ 7
i
om
7
~ =
7 ‘el.
J =
; =
‘ 7 os * 4?
THE GOSPEL OF
LUKE
INTRODUCTION
he Gospel according to Luke, as readers through the centuries have discovered, is
one of the treasures of biblical literature. It merits sustained attention and disciplined
reading and calls for a radical openness to its challenges. This commentary gives special
attention to the literary and theological treasures of the third book of the New Testament.
The Overview sections interpret the larger divisions in structure of the text. The Com-
mentary sections lead the reader to grasp the intricacies of the text by examiningits primary
themes, its narrative character, the structure of individual sections, its contacts with the
Old Testament, its place in the development of various Gospel themes, and its christology.
The Reflections sections offer a variety of approaches to the interpretation of specific
passages for the church and contemporary believers: extensions of key themes, theological
reflections, musings over the continuing challenge of key phrases, hermeneutical sugges-
tions, applications to contemporary situations, examples from church history, and quota-
tions or allusions to poetry and other literary works that resonate with the text. The
commentary, however, is only a starting point for the reader’s own engagement with the
text and reflections on its meaning. Interpretation is a personal odyssey. The commentary
can guide readers and offer reference points, but readers make their own journeys, and
the text will move, inspire, and challenge different readers in different ways.
Each of the Gospels presents the story of Jesus in a different way, and much of their
richness is lost if one tries to harmonize them into one consistent account. Each Gospel
contains a different structure, develops different themes, and portrays the person ofJesus
in its own unique way. The Markan Jesus is an enigmatic and tragic figure, misunderstood
3
and abandoned. Being a disciple of the Markan Jesus means taking up the cross and
following him. The Matthean Jesus is anew Moses who fulfills the Scripture and establishes
the authority of his own words. Being a disciple of the Matthean Jesus, therefore, means
keeping his teachings and making other disciples. The Johannine Jesus is the Word
incarnate, the heavenly revealer who is not of this world but who was sent to reveal the
Father. Being a disciple of the Johannine Jesus means responding to the revelation with
belief, being born from above, imbibing living water and eating the bread of life, and
fulfilling one’s place and vocation in the community of the “children of God.”
The Lukan Jesus is compassionate, a friend to outcasts. Luke also relates Jesus to the
history of Israel, the Scriptures, contemporary world history, and the unfolding of God’s
redemptive purposes in human history. Jesus is the Savior sent to seek and to save the
lost. For Israel, Jesus’ ministry has ironic and tragic consequences. The religious leaders
reject Jesus, and like those who killed God’s prophets in the past, they hand Jesus over to
be crucified. The people, however, are far more receptive to Jesus than are their leaders,
and they are only temporarily implicated in his death during the trial before Pilate. The
Gospel ends with the disciples being commissioned as witnesses for the mission they will
undertake in the book of Acts.
In order to enter more deeply into the reading of this Gospel, one needs to consider its
place among the Gospels, recognize its distinctive structure, sensitize oneself to its
dominant christological emphases, and summarize its leading themes.
LUKE AMONG THE GOSPELS

Like the other Gospels, Luke’s author is anonymous; it does not indicate who wrote it
or where or when it was written. According to early tradition that can be traced to the
second century, Luke, the physician and companion of Paul, wrote both Luke and Acts.
The earliest manuscript of the Gospel, yp” , dates from 175-225 CE and contains extensive
portions of the Gospel. This manuscript contains the earliest occurrence of the title “Gospel
According to Luke.” How much earlier the titles of the Gospels may be traced is a matter
of debate. The titles were apparently attached to the Gospels, however, when they began
to circulate and it became necessary to distinguish one from another.
The NT provides meager information about Luke. Philemon lists Luke among Paul’s
“fellow workers” (Philemon 24). Colossians, which was probably written about the same
time, names Luke among Paul’s companions and identifies him as “the beloved physician”
(Col 4:14). Second Timothy, which was probably composed later by one of Paul’s
associates, reports of Paul’s final imprisonment, “Only Luke is with me” (2 Tim 4:11).
The “we” passages in Acts (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16) have contributed
further to the tradition of Luke’s association with Paul. In these verses the narrator in Acts
shifts from third-person to first-person narrative. These passages have been interpreted in
various ways: as evidence that the author was present with Paul on these occasions and
4
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
wrote from firsthand experience (or, in a variation of this view, that he used his own
diaries); that he drew from a diary written by one of Paul’s companions and did not change
the voice of the narrator to make it consistent with the rest of his account; or that he wrote
in the first person at this point in the narrative to heighten interest or to follow a literary
convention in the reporting of sea voyages.
Even if one takes the NT references to Luke at face value and agrees that Luke was
the author of Luke and Acts and that the “we” sections report Luke’s firsthand
experiences, the NT does not tell us how much Luke was influenced by Paul’s thought.
Since Luke is listed among those who “send greetings” (Col 4:14; Philemon 24), one
might presume that Luke knew of Paul’s letter writing. Nevertheless, we do not know
that Luke read Paul’s letters; we do not know how long Luke was with Paul or how
familiar he was with the patterns of Paul’s theology and preaching. As a result, we
must read the Gospel according to Luke on its own terms and not against the
background of Pauline theology.
The earliest references to Lukan authorship in the writings of the Church Fathers appear
in ancient prologues and in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian. The latter are easier
to date than the former.
Irenaeus (c. 130-200), bishop of Lyon and defender of the fourfold Gospel, wrote
Against Heresies, a lengthy apologetic work in five books, around 185 CE. At issue in the
interpretation of Irenaeus’s testimony is how much he knew of Luke and the composition
of the Gospel beyond the New Testament references surveyed above. Irenaeus wrote:
“Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.”!
Irenaeus, therefore, attributes to Luke a role in relation to Paul similar to the role that
tradition from Papias accorded to Mark: “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did
also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” Citing the “we”
passages, Irenaeus claims further that “Luke was inseparable from Paul” and that he
“performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down tous aGospel.”°
In doing so, Luke, who was “not merely a follower, but also a fellow-labourer of the
Apostles,” learned from the apostles what they had learned from the Lord and delivered
to us “what he had learned from them,” as he himself testified in Luke 1:1-4.4 Valuable
as his testimony is, therefore, Irenaeus, our earliest witness, tells us nothing more than
can be found in the NT references.
In his treatise Against Marcion, Tertullian (c. 150—-c. 225, writing c. 207-208) attacks
both Marcion’s rejection of the other three Gospels and his abridgment of the Gospel
according to Luke. Regarding the first, Tertullian insists on the succession of the Lord, the
apostles (Matthew, John, and later Paul), and those who followed the apostles (Mark and
Luke)...
1. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1 (ANF, 1:414).
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., 3.14.1 (ANF, 1:437-38).
4. Ibid., 3.14.1-2 (ANF, 1:438).
Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; whilst of apostolic men,
Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. . . . Luke however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic
man; not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master—at least as far subsequent to him
as the apostle whom he followed (and that, no doubt was Paul) was subsequent to the others.
... Inasmuch, therefore, as the enlightener of St. Luke himself [Paul] desired the authority of
his predecessors for both his own faith and preaching, how much more may not I require for
Luke’s Gospel that which was necessary for the Gospel of his master.
Nevertheless, Tertullian affirms the authority of the Gospel and defends the credibility of its
transmission prior to Marcion’s proposed emendation of it. Marcion must have found it in its
original form, since he argued that it had been “interpolated by defenders of Judaism.”° Luke’s
Gospel, Tertullian affirms, “has stood its ground from its very first publication. .. . For even
Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul” and “Luke’s Gospel also has come
down to us in like integrity [as the other Gospels] until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion.””
Tertullian, therefore, attests the authority of Luke and the reliability of its original form, rejecting
Marcion’s argument for an abridged version of the Gospel.
The date of the Muratorian Canon, which survives in an eighth-century manuscript, is
debated. It has been suggested that it comes from Rome around 200 CE, but more recently
arguments fora fourth-century date and provenance have gained ground.® The introduction
to Luke, at least, contains little that could not have been gleaned from the NT.
The third Gospel book, that according to Luke. This physician Luke after Christ’s ascension (resurrec-
tion?), since Paul had taken him with him as an expert in the way (of the teaching), composed it in
his own name according to (his) thinking. Yet neither did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and
therefore, as he was able to ascertain it, so he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.”
The prologue to Luke in the ancient Gospel prologues contains further biographical
information. The “Oldest Gospel Prologues” were once thought to have been composed
together as anti-Marcionite prologues to the four Gospels, but they are now generally
treated as independent documents. R. G. Heard concluded that the prologue to Luke in
its present form dates from the third century. Nevertheless, he suggested that the first part
of it “incorporates, if not an earlier and purely biographical Prologue, at least earlier and
very valuable biographical data.”!° The first part of the prologue reads as follows:
Luke is a Syrian of Antioch, a doctor by profession, who was a disciple of apostles, and later
followed Paul until his martyrdom. He served the Lord, without distraction, unmarried, childless,
and fell asleep at the age of 84 in Boetia, full of the Holy Spirit. |!
5. Tertullian Against Marcion 4.2 (ANF, 3:347-48).
6. Ibid., 4:4 (ANF, 3:349).
7. Tbid., 4:5 (ANF, 3:350).
8. See A. C. Sundberg, Jr., “Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List,” H7R 66 (1973) 1-41; and Sundberg,
“Muratorian Fragment,” in /DBSup (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) 609-10.
9. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, rev. ed., trans. R. McL. Wilson (Louisville: Westmin-
ster/John Knox, 1991) 1:34. '
10. R. G. Heard, “The Old Gospel Prologues,” /7S6 (1955) 11.
11s thidi7s
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
The second part adds that he wrote the Gospel “in the regions of Achaea.” While these
biographical details are credible, they are also unsubstantiated, making it difficult to know
how much value to assign to them.
As this brief survey of the testimony of the Church Fathers indicates, from late in the
second century the tradition that Luke wrote the Gospel and Acts was widely accepted.
Most of what we know about Luke, however, comes from the NT itself. By the third
century, added details about Luke and the circumstances of the composition of the Gospel
appear in the old Gospel prologues, but this data cannot be corroborated from other sources.
In view of this impasse, scholars have turned to the Gospel of Luke itself and its relationship
to the other Gospels for further information regarding the evangelist and the composition
of the Gospel.
This commentary is primarily concerned with the Gospel of Luke as an independent
composition with its own literary and theological integrity. Nevertheless, it is often instructive
to note parallels (or a lack of them) in Mark or Matthew. Luke himself indicates that he knows
of other written accounts (see 1:1). Luke does not number himself among the eyewitnesses,
however, but among those who came later and learned the tradition “handed on to us by those
who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (1:2-3).
For comparative purposes, the commentary adopts the widely held view that Mark was the
earliest of the Gospels and that Luke used a second written source, identified by the letter Q.
The latter seems to have been a collection of the teachings of Jesus that pre-dated the writing
of the narrative Gospels. Luke, like Matthew, also contains material that is not found in any
other Gospel. The resulting pattern of relationships can be diagrammed as follows.
Mark Q
ee [ee
Matthew uke
The Gospel of John is the result of a similarly complicated, but probably independent,
composition history. Using the Two Source hypothesis (Mark and Q) one can derive the
following rough outline of Luke’s use of his sources.
Luke 1:1-2:52 L
Luke 3:1-6:19 Mark (and Q for material about John the Baptist
and the Temptations)
Luke 6:20-8:3 Qand L
Luke 8:4—9:50 Mark
Luke 9:51-18:14 Qand L
Luke 18:15-24:11 Mark and L
Luke 24:12-24:53 ib
The infancy narrative has no parallel in the other Gospels and is quite different from
the birth account in Matthew 1-2. Whereas Matthew features Joseph’s role in the birth
of Jesus, Luke’s account highlights Mary’s role. The only elements common to the two
accounts can be summarized in a confessional statement: Jesus was born of the virgin
Mary in Bethlehem. Luke defers the genealogy of Jesus until after the baptism and
temptations, and the genealogy is quite different from that found in Matthew 1:1-18,
except that both are genealogies of Joseph and both trace the line of Jesus to David and
Abraham.
Luke also brings forward Jesus’ visit to Nazareth (Mark 6:1-6) and uses the scene in the
synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30) as the keynote for Jesus’ public ministry. For the ministry
in Galilee, Luke (4:31-6:19) follows Mark (1:21-3:19) until the Sermon on the Plain, which
is not found in Mark but has parallels in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount.
Following the sermon, Luke adds a collection of miracles and teachings (7:1—8:3) that
clarify Jesus’ role in relation to John the Baptist and his identity as one greater than the
prophets. This section, which is compiled from tradition drawn from Q and L, has been
called the “little interpolation.”
Through the rest of the Galilean ministry (Luke 8:4—9:50) Luke follows Mark (Mark
4:1-9:40). Curiously, Luke’s account of the Galilean ministry skips sections of the Markan
account: the so-called big omission (Mark 6:45-8: oeat Luke 9:17) and the “little omission”
(Mark 9:41—10:12 at Luke 9:50).
The “big interpolation” follows (9:51—18:14). Luke fills nine chapters of the extended
journey to Jerusalem with incidents and teachings drawn from Q and L. Luke, therefore,
places most of the Q material in the little and big interpolations, whereas Matthew places
it in five sermon blocks (Matt 5:1—7:27; 10:5-42; 13:3-52; 18:3-35; 23:2-25:46).
For the entry into Jerusalem, Jesus’ ministry in the Temple, and the passion narrative,
Luke again follows Mark, expanding and inserting material from one or more other sources.
Scholars have often suggested that Luke drew from a separate passion narrative in addition
to Mark, but the evidence for a second passion narrative is thin and can be accounted for
by appeal to oral tradition and Lukan redaction.
Mark has no resurrection appearances of Jesus in its earliest form (which concludes
with Mark 16:8), so Luke again goes his own way at this point, narrating the appearance
to the two on the road to Emmaus and the appearance to the eleven back in Jerusalem
(neither appearance has a parallel in Matthew ). Throughout Luke 24 there are fascinating
points at which Luke and John share common traditions.
Since the Gospel according to Mark is usually dated about the year 70, a date for Luke
in the mid-eighties appears likely. Moreover, because the book of Acts makes no mention
of Paul’s letters or letter writing (as does 2 Pet 3:16), it also appears likely that Luke and
Acts were written before Paul’s letters were collected and circulated as a collection. Unless
the prologue to the book of Acts was added later, it indicates that the Gospel was written
first: “In the first book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus did and taught from the
8
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven” (Acts 1:1-2 NRSV). A further
factor in the date of Luke’s composition of the Gospel is his handling of Jesus’ predictions
of the destruction of Jerusalem (esp. the embankments in 19:43-44 and the camps in
21:20). Without disputing that Jesus may well have forecast the destruction of Jerusalem,
the commentary on these passages cites Josephus’s report of the events leading to the
destruction of the city and suggests that Luke has drawn from the tradition of Jesus’ words,
reflected on them in light of Old Testament prophecies of destruction, and set forth the
predictions in such a way that readers in his own time could easily see that Jesus’ words
had been fulfilled in the bloody days at the end of the war of 66-70 CE. A date for the
composition of the Gospel in the mid-eighties is based, therefore, on Luke’s use of Mark,
the absence of references to Paul’s letters in Acts, and the Lukan form of Jesus’ predictions
of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Some definition of the character of the evangelist can be gleaned from the Gospel itself.
Luke is a skilled writer who is adept with the Greek language, knows the conventions of
Hellenistic historiography, demonstrates a remarkable knowledge of the OT, has been
influenced by the style of the Septuagint, and has carefully compiled a full record of the
ministry of Jesus and the development of the early church. Luke is both a miniaturist and
a master designer. Repeatedly, the commentary notes that an individual story or pericope
is a Gospel in miniature, artfully depicting Jesus’ message, his ministry among the outcasts,
or the central elements of the kerygma. Luke is a good storyteller. He knows how to use
character and color and paints scenes vividly with his words. Luke is also a master designer
in the sense that he gives structure to the whole of his work. Luke situates Jesus in the
context of the history of his time and also in the long history of the purposes of God and
God’s redemption of Israel and of all people. Moreover, Luke expands the genre of Gospel
writing by linking the story of Jesus more securely to the leading figures ofJesus’ time, by
narrating both the annunciations and the births of John and Jesus, by inserting a genealogy
that traces Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, “the son of God” (3:38), by including in his Gospel
more of Jesus’ teachings, and by tying the Gospel story to the events that followed in the
Acts of the Apostles. Luke chronicles God’s call for the repentance of Israel, Israel’s rejection
of the gospel, and the beginnings of the mission to the Gentiles. Luke’s skills and artistry
are evident, therefore, both from the examination of particular scenes and stories and from
the design and thematic development of the two books.
Luke was probably a Gentile, but apparently one who was knowledgeable in the OT
and had a working grasp of Jewish practices and institutions. His description of houses
(5:19), cities, and social classes (e.g., 14:15-24) shows that he was familiar with the
structure and social organization of a Hellenistic city like Antioch or Ephesus. The
evangelist’s deference to Theophilus (“most excellent Theophilus,” 1:3) indicates that he
himself was probably a member of the artisan class rather than the elite—Theophilus’s
subordinate, not his equal. Even if the tradition based on Col 4:14 is correct and the
evangelist was a physician, that would not make him wealthy or a member of the elite.
9
In the first century, physicians were artisans. Efforts have been made to show that Luke’s
descriptions of illnesses, afflictions, and healings in the Gospel are more precise than those
in other accounts, but the evidence will not support the argument that the Gospel must
have been written by a physician. Moreover, the theological differences between Luke
and Paul mean that even if Luke was Paul’s associate and companion for a period of time,
the Gospel of Luke must be read on its own terms and not against the background of Paul’s
writings. One important step in the reading of the Gospel is the recognition of its design
or structure.
STRUCTURE
Banal as it may seem to say so, the Gospel according to Luke is about Jesus. For that reason,
it owes a great deal in form to ancient biography. It begins with a literary prologue that confirms
the author’s qualifications and guarantees the reliability of the biography. The events surround-
ing the birth of the hero serve as divine omens of his future greatness. An event from his youth
foreshadows the work he will do in his maturity. Similarly, the events at the beginning of his
public life characterize the significance of the work he is about to do. The heart of the work,
then, is a record of his mighty acts and sage teachings. The narrative ends, appropriately, with
accounts of the hero’s farewell discourse, the manner of his death, the mysterious events that
followed his death (appearances to his acquaintances and a translation into heaven), and his
parting words to his followers. Distinctive as the Gospel is, each of these elements appears in
other Jewish and Greco-Roman biographies. '7
Some parts of the Gospel’s structure are clearly discernible and universally recognized.
At other points, the structure is open to various interpretations. The major units of the
Gospel are often marked by transitions, introductions and conclusions, lapses in time,
changes of geographical location, and the introduction of new characters. From such
indications, the following structure emerges.
Luke 1:1-4 The Prologue

Luke. lo 402 The Infancy Narrative
Luke 3:1—4:13 Preparation for the Ministry of Jesus
Luke 4:14-9:50 The Ministry in Galilee
Luke 9:51-19:27 The Journey to Jerusalem
Luke 19:28-21:38 The Ministry in Jerusalem
Luke 22:1—24:53 The Passion and Resurrection Narratives
The Gospel contains seven main sections, most of which contain subsections indicated in
the outline below and the commentary. The prologue is distinguished both by its content
12. See esp. Charles H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1977); and Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? AComparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992).
10
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
and by its style. The first four verses of the Gospel follow the pattern of the prologues
of other historical works and are written in some of the most polished and elevated
Greek of the entire NT. With v. 5, the style changes dramatically, becoming much
more Semitic.
Luke’s infancy narrative is distinctive in that it constructs parallels and contrasts between
the births and roles of John the Baptist and Jesus. Seven sections are clearly visible; the
annunciation of the birth of John the Baptist to Zechariah in the Temple (1:5-25), the
annunciation of the birth of Jesus to Mary (1:26-38), Mary’s visit to Elizabeth (1:39-56),
the birth of John the Baptist (1:57-80), the birth of Jesus and the visit of the shepherds
(2:1-20), the presentation of Jesus in the Temple (2:21-40), and Jesus in the Temple at
the age of twelve (2:41-52). Luke is also the only Gospel to report any event from Jesus’
boyhood. Unlike the legends in the /nfancy Gospel of Thomas, however, Luke’s story of
Jesus in the Temple points ahead to his ministry, and especially to his teaching in the
Temple in Luke 19:47—21:38.
The elapse of years and the extended introduction to the historical context in 3:1-2
indicate the beginning of a new section of the Gospel, one that is devoted to the preparations
for the ministry of Jesus. The individual units of this section are also clearly identifiable.
The first three describe John’s ministry, the second three Jesus’ preparation for ministry:
(1) the setting ofJohn’s ministry (3:1-6), (2) John’s preaching (3:7-18), (3) the imprisonment
of John (3:19-20), (4) the baptism of Jesus (3:21-22), (5) the genealogy of Jesus (3:23-38),
and (6) the temptation of Jesus (4:1-13).
Luke divides the ministry of Jesus into three periods: the ministry in Galilee (4:14-9:50),
the ministry en route to Jerusalem (9:51—19:27), and the ministry in Jerusalem (19:28-
21:38). The primary ambiguity in the structure of Luke concerns the end of the journey
to Jerusalem and the beginning of the ministry there. Most commentators regard Jesus’
parable on kingship in 19:11-27 as the conclusion of the journey section and the transition
to his entry into the city. Others, however, mark the end of the Lukan journey section at
18:14 (after which Markan parallels resume) or at 18:34 (after which the sequence of
events and the geographical references become significant to the progress of the narrative),
and the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem at 19:41 (his weeping over the city) or
at 19:45 (his entry into the Temple).
The structure of the journey section is also vigorously contested. Fitzmyer divides the
journey into three parts using the references to Jerusalem as indications of the beginning
of a new section (9:51-13:21; 13:22-17:10; 17:11-18:14, with a return to Markan
material in 18:15-19:27), but he recognizes that this scheme is “a mere convenience,
since the division at these points is otherwise insignificant and somewhat arbitrary.”!°
Evans contends that the journey section is patterned on the arrangement of materials in
Deuteronomy lense Others find lectionary cycles or chiastic structures as the basis for
1981) 825.
13. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (IIx), AB 28 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H.
14. C. F. Evans, “The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel,” in Studies
Lightfoot, ed. D. E. Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955) 37-53.
11
the organization of this section of the Gospel. The lack of consensus and the variety of
approaches to solving the problem of the structure of the journey section underline the
reality that Luke has neither related the material in these ten chapters to the journey motif
nor made the basis for its organization clear.
Rather than attempting to fit the material into a consistent pattern on the basis of
geographical references, the sequence of the parables, or perceived parallels with Deuter-
onomy, the following commentary has attempted to mark the internal linkages, organiza-
tion, and subject matter of these chapters while despairing of achieving a neat, balanced,
or consistent structure. For example, Jesus’ visit to the home of Mary and Martha is coupled
with the lawyer’s question and the parable of the good Samaritan in 10:25-42. Luke
11:1-13 offers instruction on prayer. The debates and exchanges of 11:14-36 fit under the
subject of responses to charges of deviancy. The extended unit in 12:1—13:9 collects
instructions on readiness for the coming judgment. Luke 13:10-35 contains events and
parables that concern the unexpected reversals brought by the kingdom of God (the stooped
woman, the mustard seed and the yeast, the narrow door, and warnings for Jesus and
Jerusalem). Luke 14 returns to the meal scenes that are characteristic of Luke. Luke 15 is
a famous collection of parables on the joy of recovery and return (the lost sheep, the lost
coin, and the prodigal son). Luke 16 contains two parables on rich men and lovers of
money that are joined by a miscellaneous collection of sayings in 16:14-18. Luke 17 does
not offer a thematic unity as readily as other sections, since it contains the demands of
forgiveness and faith (17:1-10), the healing of the ten lepers (17:11-19), and sayings on
the kingdom and its coming (17:20-37). Much of the travel section develops Luke’s
emphasis on Jesus’ gospel to the rich and the poor, and this theme provides a unifying
thread for the various paragraphs of Luke 18:1—19:27 (the unjust judge and the persistent
widow, the Pharisee and the tax collector, the little children and the rich ruler, the blind
beggar, Zacchaeus, and the parable of the greedy and vengeful king).
The structure of the rest of the Gospel falls in place more easily. Jesus’ ministry in
Jerusalem (19:8-21:38) is set in the Temple. After Jesus enters the city (19:28-40), he
weeps over the city and drives the merchants from the Temple (19:41-46), preparing it
for his ministry there and pointing ahead to its imminent destruction. Teaching in the
Temple each day, Jesus is supported by the people and opposed by their leaders. First he
is questioned by one group after another as they seek to trap him in his answers. Then he
warns of the coming wars and persecutions, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the coming
of the Son of Man.
The passion and resurrection narratives (22:1-24:53) report the preparations for the
Passover (22:1-13), the last supper (22:14-20), and the Lukan farewell discourse (22:21-
38). The events that lead up to Jesus’ trial before Pilate follow in succession: Jesus is
arrested (22:47-53); Peter denies Jesus in the courtyard (22:54-62); Jesus is challenged to
prophesy (22:63-65) and is then brought before the Sanhedrin (22:66-71). Luke arranges
the trial before Pilate neatly in five scenes in 23:1-25: Pilate’s first declaration of Jesus’
12
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
innocence, Jesus’ appearance before Herod, Pilate’s second declaration of Jesus’ innocence,
Pilate’s third declaration of Jesus’ innocence, and Pilate’s capitulation to the crowd. Luke’s
artistry is also visible in his account of the crucifixion, death, and burial of Jesus (23:26-56).
On the way to the cross, Jesus is supported by three individuals or groups (Simon of Cyrene,
the people, including women from Jerusalem, and the two crucified with him). Following the
crucifixion, Luke notes the responses of three other individuals or groups (the centurion,
the crowds, and his acquaintances, including the women from Galilee).
The resurrection narratives in Luke 24 cluster in three sections: the discovery of the
empty tomb (24:1-12), the appearance on the road to Emmaus (24:13-35), and the
appearance to the eleven (24:36-53). The latter is composed of three subsections: proofs
of the resurrection (24:36-43), Jesus’ interpretation of the Scripture and commissioning
of the disciples (24:44-49), and the blessing of the disciples and Jesus’ departure (24:50-53),
which also serves as the conclusion of the Gospel. Significant as the structure of the Gospel
is, however, most of the freight is carried not by its structure but by Luke’s christology
and the various themes for which Luke is famous.
CHRISTOLOGICAL EMPHASES
Not only is Luke centered around the person of Jesus, but also it focuses the question
of his identity so that it becomes part of the plot of the Gospel during the Galilean ministry.
The scribes and Pharisees question, “Who is this who is speaking blasphemies?” (5:21).
John sends two of his disciples to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait
for another?” (7:20). Those at the table in Simon the Pharisee’s house ask, “Who is this
who even forgives sins?” (7:49). Then, Jesus’ own disciples ask one another, “Who then
is this?” (8:25). In the next chapter Herod asks the same question, “John I beheaded; but
who is this about whom | hear such things?” (9:9). Shortly thereafter, Jesus asks his
disciples the question of his identity: “Who do the crowds say that I am?” (9:18). The
repeated question sustains the issue, and the characters search for an answer while the
identity of Jesus, revealed from the annunciation of his birth, is confirmed and amplified
for the reader. The Galilean ministry concludes, then, with Peter’s confession, “The
Messiah of God” (9:20) and the voice from heaven, which says, “This is my Son, my
Chosen” (9:35).
While much of Luke’s characterization of Jesus is conveyed by the biographical form
of the Gospel and the presentation of the events and teachings that typified his ministry,
the titles employed at various points in the Gospel also serve to characterize Jesus in various
roles. The titles, however, are not static entities with consistent meanings. On the contrary,
they are fluid, and their meaning develops and changes with the unfolding narrative, the
interaction between contéxt and title, and the tensions and complementarity among the
different titles. The reader may find it helpful, therefore, to survey Luke’s use of the leading
christological titles in order to sensitize oneself to this aspect of the narrative.
13
1. Son of God. This title occurs surprisingly seldom in Luke—only six times, once
in the annunciation (1:35), twice in the devil’s temptations of Jesus (4:3, 9), twice in the
outcry of the demons (4:41; 8:28), and once in the accusations of the chief priests, the
scribes, and the council (22:70). The disciples never confess or worship Jesus as “Son of
God,” and where the centurion confesses that Jesus was the Son of God at his death in
Mark, Luke has altered the confession so that the centurion says instead, “Certainly this
man was innocent” (23:47). The difference between the roles of the title “Son of God”
in Mark and Luke is all the more striking when one realizes that it appears in the first line
of the Gospel (Mark 1:1) and then at the christological high point of the Gospel, which
comes with the centurion’s confession in Mark 15:39. Luke has neither of these. From
such observations, one might conclude that Luke denies or diminishes the significance of
this title for Jesus by using it to characterize the distorted perception of Jesus by the devil,
the demons, and Jesus’ adversaries.
On the other hand, the title also appears Spiquely in very positive contexts. Jesus is
first introduced in the annunciation with the words “He will be great, and will be called
the Son of the Most High” (1:32). The only occurrence of the actual title in a positive
context follows immediately (1:35). At his baptism, the voice from heaven declares, “You
are my Son, the Beloved” (3:22), and at the transfiguration the voice from heaven says,
“This is my Son, my Chosen” (9:35). Thereafter, Jesus himself appears to adopt the title
in his words to the disciples, “No one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who
the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (10:22).
The last occurrence is even more oblique; in the parable of the wicked tenants Jesus echoes
the language of the voice from heaven when he says that the owner of the vineyard resolves,
“T will send my beloved son” (20:13).
In effect, the title is not part of the public discourse in the Gospel but part of the privileged
communication to the reader. Only one who has heard the words of Gabriel at the
annunciations and the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration would
understand the significance of Jesus’ allusions to the title in 10:22 and 20:13. Jesus never
uses the title directly with the crowds or his opponents and only indirectly (“the Son”)
with his disciples. Luke appears to endorse the title “Son of God” and uses it indirectly to
define Jesus’ relationship to God as Son to the Father, while treating it as a mystery known
to the spiritual beings (Gabriel, the devil, and the demons) and a scandal to his adversaries.
If the title was originally used metaphorically or suggested kingship (as in 1:32, “and the
Lord God will give to him the throne of his-ancestor David”), the virgin birth narrative
affirms the literal sense rather than the metaphorical meaning of the title.
The heart of the issue is not whether Jesus is the Son of God (that is made clear at the
annunciation, the baptism, and the transfiguration) but how Jesus will fulfill his identity.
What is the role of the Son of God? The devil challenges him to turn a stone into bread
or throw himself down from the Temple (4:3, 9). Ironically, eating with outcasts and
14
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
feeding his followers, blessing, breaking, and giving bread will indeed characterize his
ministry, as will his teaching in the Temple—but not in this way.!°
2. Prophet—One Greater Than the Prophets. At least one aspect of Jesus’
identity revolves around his role as a prophet. Jesus is a prophet who fulfills Moses and
the prophets, but he is also one greater than the prophets.
Jesus’ prophetic identity is tied to his relationship with John. The annunciation to
Zechariah declares that John will possess the spirit and power of Elijah (1:17), and his
work is described in terms that echo the OT prophets. By contrast, Jesus will be the Son
of the Most High (1:32) and the “mighty savior” from the house of David (1:32-33, 69).
Zechariah later affirms the angelic announcement concerning John when he says, “And
you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High” (1:76). John’s prophetic role is
confirmed in the accounts of his ministry (e.g., 3:1-6) and even by Jesus himself: “A
prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet” (7:26). Jesus is greater than John, who
is the forerunner of Jesus; therefore, it follows that Jesus, too, is greater than the prophets.
Nevertheless, at significant points Luke portrays Jesus as a prophet and as one who
fulfills the prophets. As a description of his ministry, Jesus reads from the prophet Isaiah
(Luke 4:18-19). In the dispute that follows, Jesus characterizes the crowd’s antagonism
by saying, “No prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown” (4:24); and he defends
his interpretation of Isaiah by appealing to events in the ministries of Elijah and Elisha
(4:25-28)2
The issue of Jesus’ relation to John and the prophets takes center stage in Luke 7. Luke’s
account of the raising of the widow’s son in 7:11-17 exhibits clear parallels with Elijah’s
raising of a widow’s son in | Kings 17 (see the Commentary on Luke 7:11-17). The crowd
aes the significance of the event and responds, “A great prophet has arisen among
s” (7:16). Such a confession is especially significant in view of the widespread notion
ie the spirit of prophecy had been taken from Israel and that there ee ve no other
prophets until the end times (see, e.g., 1 Macc 9:27; cf. Luke 4: eo; 14: nye
John’s disciples come to Jesus to ask if he is “the coming one,” an allusion to Mal 3:1;
4:5-6, but Jesus attributes that messenger role to John himself (7:27), while defining his
ministry in terms of fulfillment of the prophets (esp. Isaiah and Elijah/Elisha; see the
Commentary on 7:21-22). John fulfilled the role of the one who would prepare the way
for the Messiah. Thus he was greater than the prophets (7:26, 28), but even the least in
the kingdom is greater than he. This clarification opens the way for Jesus to assume other,
more adequate titles while he fulfills the work of the prophets.
Simon the Pharisee mistakenly thinks Jesus is not even a prophet (7:39), while others
think he is a prophet, or one of the prophets (9:8, 19; 24:19). At the transfiguration, Moses
and Elijah appear with Jesus and talk with him about his “exodus” in Jerusalem (9:30-31).
Perhaps elevating Jesus’ authority over that of even Moses and Elijah, the voice from
15. See further Martin Hengel, Zhe Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic
Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976).
16. Josephus Against Apion 1.41.
1D
heaven then claims Jesus as “my Son” and admonishes the disciples to “listen to him”
(9:35, italics added). As a prophet, and indeed the one’who fulfills the prophets, it is
appropriate that he die in Jerusalem (13:33). Finally, the resurrection narratives emphasize
that Jesus fulfilled the prophets and that the gospel story must be understood in their light
(24:25, 27, 44). While Luke recognizes that Jesus was more than a prophet, it also insists
that he must be understood as “a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all
the people” (24:19).
3. Lord. The importance of the title “Lord” in Luke is evident first by its frequency.
The term occurs 103 times in Luke, but in some forty of these instances it refers to God
as “the Lord.” In another 24 instances the term is used of persons besides Jesus (19:33)
or characters in Jesus’ parables (12:36, 37, 42-47; 16:3, 5; 20:13, 15). Of the remaining
instances, when “Lord” refers to Jesus, eighteen are in the vocative, where others address
Jesus as “Lord.” In these instances, it is difficult to decide when the title means simply
“sir” and when it carries the meaning “Lord” (as it seems to at least in 5:8; 6:46; 9:61;
and 10:17). Most important, however, the narrator frequently calls Jesus “Lord” in the
narration (7:13;195.10:),39, 4131 123991 2:42. 13:4594 7:5-6s-1 82052 9:8222:615 24:3),
Since the narrator’s speech patterns carry great authority, it is significant that while the
narrator refers to Jesus as “the Lord,” the narrator does not commonly call Jesus “the
Messiah” (see 2:26; 4:41), “the Savior,” or “the Son of Man” (see 5:24).
Statistics do not tell the whole story, however, and the categories are neither as
clear nor as static as they may appear. The repeated use of “Lord” to refer to God in
the infancy narratives colors its use in reference to Jesus later in the Gospel. Fitzmyer
suggests, further, that the title was first used of Jesus in reference to his status as risen
Lord and then retrojected back into the ministry of Jesus. '7 The title was used of rulers
and masters in the Greco-Roman world, and it apparently was used as a term of respect
for teachers and great men and in an elevated sense in reference to God in pre-Christian
Judaism.
Interesting subtleties become evident when Luke’s use of “Lord” to refer to Jesus is
examined systematically. After encountering the term in reference to God ten times in
Luke 1:6-38, the reader hears Elizabeth ask, “Why has this happened to me, that the
mother of my Lord comes to me?” (1:43). Then, at the birth of Jesus, the angels announce,
“To you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord” (2:11).
The uses of “Lord” in the vocative begin in Luke 5:8, and there the juxtaposition of “Lord”
and “sinner” implies that the term means more than “sir”: “Go away from me, Lord, for
I am a sinful man!” Jesus uses the title in a Son of Man saying in Luke 6:5, “The Son of
Man is lord of the sabbath.” Shortly thereafter, he asks his disciples, “Why do you call me
‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you?” (6:46). The narrator’s references to Jesus as
“the Lord” start in the next chapter (7:13, 19).
At points there are interesting relationships between the metaphorical use of “Lord”
17. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX), 203.
16
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
and the use of the title in the vocative or by the narrator. For example, the term occurs
nine times in 12:36-47. In Luke 12:36-37, Jesus speaks of a master or lord in a parable,
where the master seems to represent the coming Son of Man. In 12:41, Peter asks, “Lord,
are you telling this parable for us or for everyone?” and the narrator continues, “And the
Lord said” (12:42), after which Jesus uses the term five more times in an explanation of
the parable and in related sayings in 12:42-47. Similarly, the vocative occurs in 13:23,
“Lord, will only a few be saved?” and Jesus gives a parabolic or metaphorical answer in
which many seek entrance, saying, “Lord, open to us” (13:25), but the owner of the house
will not let them in. The metaphorical and the absolute uses of the term are again difficult
to distinguish in 16:8, where interpreters have debated whether the verse is part of Jesus’
parable or a comment by the narrator following the parable (see the Commentary on this
verse). The precise connotations of the term are also difficult to determine in Luke 19:31,
34, where the disciples take a colt for Jesus to ride on and tell its owners, “The Lord [or
its lord] needs it.” By the end of the Gospel, the disciples use the term not only in the
vocative but also in the absolute when they echo the Easter confession, “The Lord has
risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon” (24:34).
The title “Lord,” therefore, subtly infuses the Gospel with the church’s post-Easter
confession of the risen Lord. Luke affirms the confession of Jesus as Lord. Even from his
birth, Jesus is the Lord who would rise from the dead.
4. Messiah or Christ. Much like the title “Son of God,” the title “Messiah” or
“Christ” also belongs to the privileged knowledge of who Jesus is that is communicated
by the Gospel. Literally, Messiah means “the anointed one” or “the Christ.” The title first
appears at the birth of Jesus, where the angels announce, “To you is born this day in the
city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord” (2:11). Ofall the constructions using
these titles in the NT, this verse is the only place where this one (xptotOs Kuptos christos
kyrios) occurs, but it resembles the combination of the two titles in Luke 2:26, “the
Lord’s Messiah,” and Acts 2:36, “know with certainty that God has made him both
Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Anointing was connected with
kingship (cf. 1 Sam 24:6), and “the Lord’s anointed” was the one anointed by God to
serve as king.
The identity of Jesus as the Messiah is then treated as “inside information” known to
the narrator, the reader, and the angels and demons, but not to the other characters. The
Holy Spirit revealed to Simeon that he would not die until he saw “the Lord’s Messiah”
(2:26), and then guided Simeon to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. The people question
whether John might be the Messiah (3:15), but the reader knows better. In an interpretive
comment, the narrator explains that the demons also knew that Jesus was the Messiah
AA hat
| i knowledge of Jesus’ full identity as the Messiah breaks upon the disciples in 9:20
when Peter confesses that Jesus is “the Messiah of God.” Even so, they do not understand
the fate that awaits Jesus in Jerusalem. The superiority of the Messiah to David is explained
17
in 20:41-44. Jesus’ messiahship becomes the source of ironic mockery at his trial and
crucifixion. The council of the religious leaders demands, “If you are the Messiah, tell us”
(22:67). One of the three charges leveled against Jesus when he is brought before Pilate
is that he says “that he himself is the Messiah, a king” (23:2). The charge may arise out
of Jesus’ words about the Messiah and the son of David in 20:41-44, but he does not
openly claim these titles in Luke. The mockery of the leaders of the people at the cross
connects the title with the words of the voice from heaven in 9:35: “Let him save himself
if he is the Messiah of God, his chosen one!” (23:35; cf. Isa 42:1). Similarly, one of those
crucified with Jesus challenges him, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”
(23:39).
The title “Messiah,” therefore, conveys the hidden identity of Jesus, as does the title
“Son of God,” but it also serves as a bridge to the more functional title “Savior” (see below).
Further aspects of Jesus’ role are conveyed by the title “Son of Man,” and these must be
examined before we turn to the title that defines the dying Christ in Luke (“Savior”). The
title “Son of Man” appears repeatedly in the passion predictions, but in the resurrection
narratives, “Messiah” replaces it in sayings where we might have expected to find “Son
of Man”: “Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter
into his glory?” (24:26), and “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise
from the dead on the third day” (24:46).
5. Son of Man. In Luke, Jesus speaks of himself as “the Son of Man” more
frequently than with any other form of self-reference. The title “Son of Man” occurs
25 times in Luke (not counting the variant in 9:56). Moreover, with the possible
exception of Luke 5:24, which may be a comment by the narrator, the term occurs
only on the lips of Jesus in Luke. All three of the traditional categories of Son of Man
sayings occur in the Gospel. The sayings that describe Jesus’ earthly ministry (8 sayings)
are the most diverse and the most like circumlocutions (where “the Son of Man”
simply stands for “I”). The Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth (5:24);
he is lord of the sabbath (6:5); his followers will be persecuted on his account (6:22):
in contrast to John the Baptist, he came eating and drinking (7:34); he has no place
to lay his head (9:58); those who speak against him will be forgiven (12:10); he came
to seek and to save the lost (19:10); and Judas betrays him with a kiss (22:48). Five
times the title “Son of Man” occurs in predictions of Jesus’ suffering and death (9:22,
A4; 18:31; 22:22; 24:7), and twelve times in sayings that refer to the future coming
of the Son of Man in glory (9:26; 11:30; 12:8, 40; 17:22, 24, 26, 30; 18:8: Zhe,
36; 22:69). Moreover, Luke has added the title to sayings where it does not appear
in Mark or Matthew (e.g., 6:22; 9:22; 12:8, 40; 19:10).
The background of the use of “Son of Man” in the Gospels is still vigorously debated.
It occurs in Dan 7:13: “I saw one like a human being/ coming with the clouds of heaven”
(NRSV), where it seems to refer to the exaltation of the holy ones of Israel to God. Use of
the term to designate an apocalyptic figure (as in the parables of / Enoch) is attested in
18
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
later sources, as is the use of “the son of man” as a circumlocution in Aramaic. Jesus may
have used the term in its generic sense (“a human being”) or as a self-reference.
Alternatively, he may have used the term because it was sufficiently ambiguous to force
the hearer to discern its intended meaning. The various uses of the title in Luke, however,
alternate between emphasizing Jesus’ humanity and his future role as risen Lord. The
lowly one seen in Jesus’ ministry will suffer and die, but God will vindicate him and he
will return in the future as the exalted Son of Man. One’s response to the Son of Man
who died on the cross determines the judgment that one will receive when the Son of
Man comes in the future. Thus the title “Son of Man” serves an important role in the
Gospel, because it links Jesus’ ministry, his death, and the future judgment.
6. Savior. Luke is the only one of the Synoptics to call Jesus “Savior.” Yet, as
significant as the characterization of Jesus as the Savior is in Luke, the title occurs only
twice in the Gospel, both times in the infancy narrative. In the first instance it is applied
to God (1:47), and in the second the angel of the Lord announces to the shepherds: “To
you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord” (2:11).
In this case, however, one cannot gauge the importance of a term merely by counting
the frequency of its occurrence. Although the title “Savior” occurs only twice, Jesus is
repeatedly identified as God’s salvation or as the one who saves. Zechariah rejoices that
God has “raised up a horn of salvation for us/ in the house of his servant David” (1:69;
cf. 1:71, 77), clearly a reference to Jesus. When Simeon sees Jesus, after he had been
promised that he would see the Messiah, he too gives thanks to God, “for my eyes have
seen your salvation” (2:30; cf. 3:6).
During the course of his ministry, Jesus assures various ones that their faith has “saved”
them or made them whole (7:50; 8:48; 17:19; 18:42). Then, in Jericho, he tells
Zacchaeus, “Today salvation has come to this house... . For the Son of Man came to
seek out and to save the lost” (19:9-10). Fittingly, the theme reaches its climax at the
crucifixion of Jesus, where through the irony of the mockery Jesus is portrayed as the
taunted Savior. First the leaders of the people scoff, “He saved others; let him save
himself if he is the Messiah of God, his chosen one!” (23:35). Then the soldiers join the
sport, introducing another title: “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” (23:37).
The third time it is one of the two crucified with Jesus who says, “Are you not the
Messiah? Save yourself and us!” (23:39). The functional sense of the title has displaced
the title itself while also defining the role of the Messiah, the King of the Jews. By the
end of the passion narrative, the reader understands clearly the import of both the angelic
announcement at Jesus’ birth and Simeon’s ominous words that a sword would pierce
Mary’s heart (2:35).
18
Other titles also serve to characterize Jesus: “servant,” “master,” and other titles.
Luke’s characterization of Jesus is distinctive, however, not for the defining role of its titles
but for the variety of themes that flesh out these confessions.
18. See ibid., 197-219.
THEMES
Luke is noted for its richness of themes. No other Gospel develops so many themes as
fully as does Luke. For this reason, the reader will find numerous references in the
commentary to related verses in the Gospel. Seeing the relationship of a particular verse
to others that develop a common theme is vital to gaining appreciation for any given
passage in the Gospel. The reader is encouraged, therefore, to take the time to read the
related verses in context. As an aid to such thematic study of the Gospel, the development
of some of its principal themes is traced here. This part of the Introduction can serve as a
handy reference point and as a compendium that enables the reader to study the
relationship between the Gospel’s most important themes.
1. God’s Redemptive Purposes. Luke sets the life of Jesus both in its historical
context and in a theological context. All that happens in the Gospel and in Acts is ultimately
a part of God’s redemptive plan for the salvation of all humanity. The phrase “God’s
purpose” occurs only once in Luke, but several times in Acts (Luke 7:30; Acts 2:23; 13:36;
20:27). Luke’s development of this theme is evident in the Gospel’s treatment of three
related emphases: the sovereignty of God, the fulfillment of Scripture, and the scope of
Jesus’ redemptive work. ,
The sovereignty of God means that God’s purposes direct events in human history.
Some events “must” happen, and there is a divine purpose at work even in puzzling and
tragic events. Jesus must be about his Father’s business (or in his Father’s house; 2:49).
He must proclaim the kingdom of God (4:43) and suffer and die (9:22; 17:25; 24:7, 26).
It was necessary in God’s purposes that Jesus come to Zacchaeus’s house (19:5). Even
wars and insurrections must occur before the end (21:9). The Scriptures too must be
fulfilled (22:37; 24:44).
Gabriel, God’s emissary, inaugurates the new era chronicled in the Gospel by declaring
first to Zechariah and then to Mary the births and the future work of John the Baptist and
Jesus. From the beginning, they are to be understood as carrying out what God has
purposed. All things are possible with God, even things that are not possible for ordinary
mortals (1:37; 18:27). God is our Savior (1:47), and we are saved by God’s mercy (1:78).
If it were necessary, God could even raise up children to Abraham from the stones (3:8).
In a manner reminiscent of the records of the prophets of old, Luke says that the Word of
God came to John the son of Zechariah (3:2), and the Spirit of the Lord anointed Jesus for
his ministry (4:18). It was “necessary” (S<t dei) that he proclaim the kingdom of God
(4:43), so each of the succeeding references to the kingdom is to be understood in this
light. Jesus’ mighty acts are also transparently God’s acts. For example, when he raises
the son of the widow of Nain, the people respond: “God has looked favorably on his
people!” (7:16). The Pharisees and the lawyers are characterized as those who rejected
“God’s purpose” (7:30). When Jesus exorcised the unclean spirits from the Gerasene
demoniac, he instructed him to go and “declare how much God has done for you” (8:39).
_ Such exorcisms are evidence both that Jesus acts “by the finger of God” and that “the
20
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
kingdom of God has come to you” (11:20). God’s providence extends even to sparrows
that are sold at a rate of five for two copper coins worth only a sixteenth of a denarius
each (12:6). God feeds even the ravens (12:24) and clothes the grass of the field (12:28).
Consequently, God also “knows your hearts” (16:15) and will respond quickly to grant
justice to the chosen ones who cry out night and day (18:7-8). Ina sense, the whole Gospel
declares what God has done and leads the reader to follow the example of the disciples
in praising God in response (24:53).
Because God is sovereign, the Scriptures must be fulfilled (22:37; 24:44). In no sense
can the Gospel according to Luke be pitted over against the OT in a Marcionite fashion.!”
Luke takes care to relate the events of the Gospel to the Scriptures, so that an attentive
reader must constantly consult OT passages that are quoted or alluded to in the Gospel.
Luke refers to “all that is written” three times (18:31; 21:22; 24:44) and to that which
“is written” thirteen times (in various forms: 2:23; 3:4; 4:4, 8, 10, 17; 7:27; 10:26; 19:46;
20:17, 28; 22:37; 24:46). Jesus declares that “today” the Scriptures are fulfilled (4:21),
and three times in the resurrection narratives Luke says that Jesus opened the Scriptures
for his disciples (24:27, 32, 45). The Scriptures are an expression of God’s purposes, so
the roles of John and Jesus are characterized at the annunciation in allusions to Scripture;
the disciples do not fully understand the events that have transpired among them until
they understand them in the light of Scripture. The fulfillment of the Scriptures, conse-
quently, is a further confirmation for the reader that the plan of God is being accomplished.
The plan of God reaches from the works of God among Moses and the prophets through
the ministries of John and Jesus to the mission of the church in Acts. The preaching of the
gospel to the Gentiles is a direct consequence and outworking of the purposes of God that
guided Jesus, but will not be fulfilled until the coming of the Son of Man in glory. The
plan of God in Luke and Acts extends temporally through the history of Israel, the ministry
of Jesus, and the mission of the church; geographically, from the Temple to the ends of
the earth; and ethnically, from the religious leaders to the outcasts, and from the Jews to
all peoples. As a result, many of the themes that are treated below could be subsumed
under the rubric of the fulfillment of God’s redemptive purposes.
2. Salvation for All Alike. Perhaps Luke’s most dramatic insight is his perception
that Jesus announced salvation for all people alike. Although Jesus’ initiatives toward all
persons regardless of their social standing are a common feature of all the Gospels, no
other Gospel is so clear and emphatic on this point. If Luke was influenced by Paul’s
mission and Paul’s grasp of the gospel, it may have been at this point. Paul declares that
the gospel is for “the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom 1:16 NRSV). In the blessing
of John the Baptist, traditionally called the Benedictus, Zechariah praises God for fulfilling
the covenant with Abraham and bringing salvation to Israel (1:68-79). Simeon, in the
blessing traditionally called the Nunc Dimittis, declares that God has prepared this salvation
19. Marcion, c. 140 cE, rejected the OT, deleted OT references from Luke, and held that only his edited version of
Luke and ten Pauline letters were Scripture.
21
“in the presence of all peoples,/ a light for revelation to the Gentiles/ and for glory to your
people Israel” (2:31-32). Luke then extends the quotation from Isa 40:3, which is found
at the beginning of Mark, reading also the next two verses:
“Every valley shall be filled,
and every mountain and hill shall be made low,
and the crooked shall be made straight,
and the rough ways made smooth;
and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” (Isa 40:4-5; Luke 3:5-6)
At the synagogue in Nazareth, where Jesus interprets a later passage in Isaiah, he provokes the
anger of his townsmen by reminding them that God sent the prophets Elijah and Elisha to a
widow in Sidon and to a leper from Syria (4:24-30). The mighty works of God’s deliverance
were not for Israel alone. In his parables and teachings, Jesus emphasizes further that the
inclusiveness of God’s mercy knows no bounds: “Then people will come from east and west,
from north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God” (13:29). It will be like a master
sending his servant out again and again, saying, “Go out at once into the streets and lanes of
the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame” (14:21) and “Go out
into the roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled” (14:23).
At the end of the Gospel, Jesus commissions his disciples for this task, sending them out because
the fulfillment of the Scriptures, the fulfillment of God’s purposes, requires that “repentance
and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed . . . to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (24:47;
cf. Acts 1:8). The universalism of the gospel means that what God has done in Christ, God has
done for all people, but it does not mean that all people will repent and accept God’s mercy.
The very proclamation of such a radical gospel leads some to exclude themselves from it. The
people at Nazareth seek to kill Jesus (4:29). The patriarchs and the prophets will feast in the
kingdom of God, but “you yourselves [will be] thrown out,” Jesus warns those who took offense
at his gospel (13:28), and the master of the banquet fills his house with nondescript guests so
that “none of those who were invited will taste my dinner” (14:24). Tragically, the gospel of
God’s universal grace will not be universally accepted.
Luke’s concern to present the radical inclusiveness of Jesus’ ministry is evident in the
numerous scenes in this Gospel in which Jesus reaches out to sinners, Samaritans, tax
collectors, women, and outcasts. Both social and religious factors conditioned the prevailing
attitude to the privileged toward these groups. A vital part of Jesus’ proclamation of the
new order of the kingdom of God, therefore, consisted in his challenge to the collusion of
the religious authorities in the social prejudices of his day. Although the various groups of
the oppressed and outcasts of society all illustrate this aspect of Jesus’ ministry, by handling
them separately we can see the role each plays in the Gospel.
Luke refers to “sinners” more than does any other Gospel (17 times). Interestingly, the
term does not occur in the annunciations or the poetic sections of the infancy narrative,
and the only reference in the passion and resurrection narratives is the echo of the passion
22
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
predictions in Luke 24:7. Peter acknowledges that he is a sinner (5:8). The pattern of the
majority of the references to sinners in the Gospel reveals that “sinners” are often associated
with tax collectors. The term often emerges in the context of table fellowship and Jesus’
practice of eating with those scorned by the religious authorities, and it often represents
the viewpoint of the Pharisees and religious leaders. When Jesus’ disciples are criticized
for eating with “tax collectors and sinners” (5:30), Jesus responds that he has not come
to call the righteous but sinners to repentance (5:32). In the Sermon on the Plain (6:17-49),
Jesus challenges his disciples to do more than the sinners who love those who love them,
do good to those who do good to them, and lend to those from whom they hope to receive
(6:32-34). Jesus again refers to sinners when he quotes his critics as saying that “the Son
of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a
friend of tax collectors and sinners’” (7:34). The narrator identifies the woman who
approaches Jesus in the house of Simon the Pharisee as “a woman in the city, who was a
sinner” (7:37), and Simon refers to her as a sinner (7:39). When the Pharisees and scribes
see the tax collectors and sinners coming to Jesus, they grumble and complain that Jesus
“welcomes sinners and eats with them” (15:1-2). Jesus responds by telling the parables
of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son. The first two of these parables end
with the lesson, “Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who
repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (15:7; cf. 15:10).
In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (18:9-14), the tax collector beats his
breast and says, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner” (18:13), and Jesus assures his audience
that “this man went down to his home justified” (18:14). Once more, when Jesus went
to the home of Zacchaeus, the people complained, “He has gone to be the guest of one
who is a sinner” (19:7). The only other references to sinners in Luke come in 13:2, where
Jesus asks whether the Galileans who perished were worse sinners than others, and in
24:7, where the angel at the tomb recalls Jesus’ warning that he would be “handed over
to sinners.” The contexts in which most of the references to sinners occur in Luke serve
to define “sinners” primarily as those who were shunned by the Pharisees and scribes.
They are the tax collectors, harlots, and others with whom Jesus ate and drank, thereby
violating the social codes and prescriptions of the Pharisees.
The Samaritans were another stereotypical group of outcasts from the perspective of
pious Jews. The Samaritans are shown in a positive light in each of the three instances
where they appear in the Gospel. When the disciples want to call down fire on a Samaritan
village, Jesus rebukes them (9:51-56). The “good Samaritan” (10:33) has become one of
the most famous figures in Jesus’ teachings, and when Jesus heals ten lepers only a
Samaritan sees what has happened and returns praising God (17:11-19). To this one also
Jesus gives the assurance, “Go on your way; your faith has made you well” (17:19).
Women play a significant role also, and Luke often features male and female characters
in pairs. The infancy narrative features the role of Zechariah and Elizabeth, Joseph and
Mary, and Simeon and Anna. In contrast to the Gospel of Matthew, Mary rather than
23
Joseph is the principal character in Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus. Later in the Gospel,
Jesus exorcises an unclean spirit from a man in the synagogue in Capernaum and then
heals Peter’s mother-in-law (4:31-39). He heals a centurion’s servant and then raises a
widow’s son (7:1-17). Jesus vindicates the sinful woman over Simon the Pharisee (7:36-50).
Luke is also the only Gospel to note that Jesus was accompanied by a group of women
who supported him and the male disciples (8:1-3). Jesus’ mother and brothers are not
dismissed but are held up as “those who hear the word of God and do it” (8:21; cf.
11:27-28). Jesus heals a woman with a hemorrhage and then raises Jairus’s daughter
(8:40-56). The account of Jesus’ words to Mary and Martha, defending Mary’s sitting at
his feet and attending to his teachings like a disciple, is unique to Luke (10:38-42). The
account of the healing of the crippled woman who could not stand up straight clearly
declares Luke’s understanding of Jesus’ concern for the dignity and wholeness of the
woman (13:10-17; for further development of this theme, see the Commentary on this
passage). The story has often been linked with the healing of the man with dropsy (14:1-6).
Jesus draws his parables from the experience of women as well as from male experiences:
The kingdom is like “yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour”
(13:21). Elsewhere Jesus’ parables feature both male and female characters: a shepherd
who loses a sheep and a woman who loses a coin (15:3-10), an unjust judge and a persistent
widow (18:1-8). Later, in the Temple, Jesus castigates the scribes who “devour widows’
houses” (20:47) and praises the poor widow who gives two copper coins (21:1-4). When
Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, he laments in particular the suffering it will
inflict on mothers and infants (21:23). Only in Luke does Jesus call upon the daughters
of Jerusalem to weep not for him but for the suffering that they will experience in the
coming days (23:27-29). Luke again notes the role of the women from Galilee following
Jesus’ death (23:49, 55-56). At the tomb, the angel declares the Easter tidings to the
women; they are not merely messengers to the male disciples (24:1-12).
The various references to women in Luke’s Gospel demonstrate both Jesus’ concern to
extend God’s mercy to women as well as to men and Luke’s sensitivity to Jesus’ radical
departure from the social conventions of his time. Luke portrays Jesus associating freely
with women and calling for a new pattern of relationships both by his actions and in his
teachings. Recent interpreters have pointed out, however, that Luke distances women
from the prophetic ministry and confines women to traditional roles: “prayerful, quiet,
grateful women, supportive of male leadership, forgoing the prophetic ministry. 720 T uke
remains grounded in the social context of the first century. Nevertheless, if itsportrayal
of Jesus’ relationships with women falls short‘by contemporary standards, it was radical
in a first-century context. Jesus permits a woman to touch his feet in public and to sit at
his feet with male disciples, and he defends a woman from the scorn of Simon the Pharisee.
While Luke’s Jesus does not succeed in freeing women from the shackles of societal
20. Jane Schaberg, “Luke,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. Carol Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox, 1992) 275.
24
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
repression, he specifically includes women among those for whom the coming of the
kingdom is good news and points to the inauguration of a new community in which
freedom, dignity, and equality may be realized.
3. The Blessings of Poverty and the Dangers of Wealth. The poor are also
prominent in Luke. Just as Jesus habitually associates with tax collectors and sinners, so
he also declares God’s vindication of the poor and divine judgment upon the rich. Popular
theology held that the rich were blessed of God, but Jesus turned popular theology on its
head, maintaining that God would lift up the poor and cast out the rich. From the time
of the exile, poverty had come to be associated with humility and dependence on God.
Whereas Matthew spiritualizes the beatitudes, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matt 5:3
NRSV), Luke faces the economic realities of poverty, “Blessed are you who are poor” (6:20)
and laments the condition of the rich, “But woe to you who are rich,/ for you have received
your consolation” (6:24).
Luke’s handling of the beatitudes and woes is part of the pattern of his characterization
of Jesus’ responses to wealth and poverty throughout the Gospel. Not surprisingly, Luke
refers to the poor and the rich more than does any other Gospel. Modern readers must,
therefore, guard against efforts to pull the prophetic sting from Luke or spiritualize poverty
in spite of Luke’s efforts to prevent us from doing so. The canticles of the infancy narrative
announce the theme. The Lord has “looked with favor” on his lowly servant (Mary),
“prought down the powerful from their thrones and lifted up the lowly,” and “sent the
rich away empty” (1:48, 52-53). In his opening address at Nazareth, Jesus reveals that he
has been sent to “bring good news to the poor” (4:18), and he refuses to allow those in
Nazareth to hear the Scriptures as promises of deliverance for themselves only. To John’s
disciples, Jesus responds that the preaching of good news to the poor is one of the signs
that validates his ministry (7:22). Embarrassingly, Jesus exhorts the guests at a banquet to
invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind when they give a banquet (14:13,
21). The rich fool thought he was fixed for life, that his future was secure, but the Lord
demanded his life of him that night (12:16-21). “Life does not consist in the abundance
of possessions,” Jesus warned (12:15). Indeed, some of the seed is choked out by “the
cares and riches and pleasures of life” (8:14). The poor man Lazarus, who lay at the rich
man’s gate, is carried to Abraham’s bosom, while the rich man who feasted every day is
condemned to perpetual torment. They are two men separated by a table, and in the
hereafter the tables are turned (16:19-31). How hard it is, Jesus laments, for those who
have wealth to enter the kingdom of God (18:24). His exhortation to the ruler who sought
eternal life is to sell what he has and give to the poor (18:22), which is just what Zacchaeus
pledges to do: “Half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor” (19:8). When the
poor widow gives all she has, however, she is praised above the rich who give great sums
of money (21:1-4).
Contemporary interpreters face the temptation either to dismiss or to spiritualize Luke’s
teachings on the dangers of wealth on the one hand or to literalize and absolutize them
25
on the other hand. The challenge is to deal seriously with this aspect of the Gospel in the
context of individual life-styles and caring communities in a.materialistic and technological
society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
4. Table Fellowship. One of the most characteristic settings for the ministry of Jesus
in the Gospel according to Luke is the meal scene. Jesus eats with tax collectors and
sinners, with Pharisees, with the crowd, and with the disciples. According to a perceptive
quip, “Jesus is either going to a meal, at a meal, or coming from a meal.”2! The meals in
Luke become a “type scene,” a scene repeated at intervals with subtle variations. The
importance of the meal scenes is suggested both by the significance of table fellowship in
the first century and by the repetition and complexity of the meal scenes in this Gospel.77
Immediately after Jesus called Levi, the tax collector, to follow him, Levi gave a banquet
for Jesus. For the first time, we hear the charge that Jesus eats and drinks “with tax
collectors and sinners” (5:29-32). In chap. 7, Simon the Pharisee invites Jesus to a meal
at his house, where a sinful woman weeps at Jesus’ feet and anoints them (7:36-50). When
the crowds follow Jesus to a deserted place, Jesus feeds the multitude with five loaves and
two fish (9:12-17). When another Pharisee invites Jesus to a meal, Jesus scandalizes his
host first by not washing before the meal and then by castigating the Pharisees for being
more concerned about washing the outside of vessels than about inner purity (11:37-52).
In chap. 14 Jesus is again invited to the house of a leader of the Pharisees (14:1-24). This
time he challenges the guests to take the lower seats rather than the seats of honor and
then admonishes the host not to invite friends and relatives to a dinner but to invite “the
poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind” (14:11). The parable of the great banquet
follows (14:15-24).
Related to the meal scenes is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which features
the offending table of the rich man (16:19-31). Against this background, the institution
of the Lord’s Supper (22:14-20) and the meal at Emmaus (24:13-35) take on a special
significance. The meal is connected with Jesus’ death. His breach of the social boundaries
through his inclusive table fellowship fueled the opposition that led to his death. Whenever
the Lord’s supper is observed both his table fellowship with outcasts and his death for
sinners is commemorated. The Table becomes the place where disputes over greatness
are set aside and divisive barriers are overturned by means of voluntary servanthood
(22:24-27). Table fellowship also characterizes both the eschatological promise and the
experience of the church. The hope of the disciples and the promise Jesus offers is that
they will eat and drink at Jesus’ table in the kingdom (23:30). The risen Lord, moreover,
is present with the believing community and makes himself known to them in “the breaking
of bread” (24:35). Here then is the heart of Luke’s hermeneutic: After investigating
everything carefully (1:3), Luke has found that he recognizes “the truth concerning the
21. Robert J. Karris, Luke: Artist and Theologian, Luke’s Passion Account as Literature (New York: Paulist, 1985)
7
22. Foran insightful analysis of the role of the Lukan meal scenes, see Craig Thomas McMahan, “Meals as Type-Scenes
in the Gospel of Luke” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1987)
26
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
things about which you have been instructed” when memory of the actions and teachings
of Jesus’ ministry is enlightened by the Scriptures and reenacted in the hospitality and
table fellowship of the community of believers.
5. The Role of a Disciple. Christology and discipleship are always connected. How
one understands the role of Jesus as the Christ shapes one’s understanding of discipleship.
Luke takes the hard edge off Mark’s portrayal of the disciples, omitting the statement that
the disciples’ hearts were hardened (Mark 6:52), Jesus’ rebuke of the disciples for their
failure to understand about the loaves (Mark 8:17-21), Jesus’ rebuke to Peter, “Get behind
me, Satan” (Mark 8:32-33), and the disciples’ final abandonment ofJesus (Mark 14:50-52).
At other places Luke softens the critique of the disciples. At the transfiguration, when
Peter asked if they could build booths and stay there, Luke adds “not knowing what he
said” (Luke 9:33). In the Gethsemane scene, Jesus finds the disciples “sleeping because
of grief” (22:45). The disciples are called not to die with Jesus but to take up their cross
daily and follow him (9:23).
Jesus is the model to be imitated. He is empowered by the Spirit, he is compassionate
toward the poor and oppressed, he heals and forgives, he prays, and he dies a model
martyr’s death. The disciples are called with an unconditional, absolute, person-centered
call: “Follow me” (5:27; 9:59). Complementing the Gospel’s emphasis on the dangers of
wealth and possessions, Luke notes that the disciples “left everything and followed him”
(5:11, 28). Those who offer to follow him but cannot leave other concerns behind are
rejected (9:57-62).
Aspects of Luke’s characterization of Jesus need to be explored further, therefore, as
reflections of the model that Jesus offers for his disciples. Jesus’ obedience to God’s direction
is a model for his followers. He “must” be in his Father’s house, or “about my Father’s
interests” (see 2:49). Jesus rebuffs the devil’s attempts to gain his allegiance or direct the
course of his ministry; Jesus follows the direction of Scripture and chooses to worship God
“and serve only him” (4:8). What the Lord has anointed Jesus to do (4:18), he faithfully
accomplishes in the following chapters. His prayer at the end of his ministry, “not my will
but yours be done” (22:42), is consistent with all that he has done to that point.
Related to both Jesus’ empowerment by the Spirit and his obedience to God is the role
of prayer in Luke’s account of Jesus’ ministry. The Spirit descends on Jesus “when Jesus
also had been baptized and was praying” (3:21, italics added). Jesus regularly withdrew
from the crowds to deserted places to pray (5:16). He prayed all night in the mountains
before he chose the twelve disciples (6:12), then he taught the disciples to pray for those
who abused them (6:28). Jesus’ conversation with the disciples and Peter’s confession
that he was the Messiah occur while Jesus was praying (9:18). Similarly, the three disciples
witness the transfiguration when they accompany Jesus on another of his retreats to the
mountains for prayer (9:28). Jesus teaches the disciples the model prayer on another
occasion when they have seen him praying (11:1-4). In addition, several of Jesus’ parables
are related to prayer: the parable of the neighbor in need at midnight (11:5-8; cf. 11:9-13),
P|
the parable of the widow and the unjust judge (18:1-8, esp. v. 1), and the parable of the
Pharisee and the tax collector (18:9-14). In contrast to Jesus’ practice and teaching
regarding prayer, the scribes say long prayers for the sake of appearance (20:47).
Like various other themes, the emphasis on prayer as a facet of Jesus’ character that is
modeled for the disciples culminates in the passion narrative. Jesus prays on the Mount
of Olives before he is arrested. He instructs the disciples to “pray that you may not come
into the time of trial” (22:40, 46). Then, he kneels and prays for deliverance from the
suffering he knows lies ahead, and in a textually dubious verse is strengthened by an angel
(see the Commentary on 22:43-44). Later, when Jesus is dying, he dies praying: “Father,
forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (23:34, which is absent in some
MSS; see the Commentary); and “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” (23:46).
Both of these prayers from the cross, moreover, are unique to Luke, and Jesus’ role as a
model of martyrdom is confirmed when in the book of Acts Stephen echoes the two prayers
of Jesus as he dies (Acts 7:59-60). If following Jesus in Luke means doing as Jesus does,
then prayer is a vital part of being a follower-of Jesus.
The trial and death of Jesus also confirm his identification with the oppressed, and that
he was innocent under the law—a righteous man. Just as it was characteristic of Jesus
that he ate with tax collectors and sinners, so also at his death “he was counted among
the lawless” (22:37) and died with criminals (23:33). The beginning of Luke’s passion
narrative makes it clear that the religious leaders were “looking for a way to put Jesus to
death” (22:2) and that Satan facilitated their plot against Jesus (22:3-6).
Luke underscores the innocence of Jesus repeatedly throughout the trial and crucifixion
scenes. The Gospel takes pains to ensure that the reader understands that the accusations
against Jesus are false charges. Jesus did not forbid the payment of taxes (23:2; cf. 20:20-26).
His role as the Messiah was diametrically opposed to that of an earthly king (23:2; cf.
19:11-27), and by the end of the trial Luke has shown that it is the leaders themselves
who pervert the people (23:2; cf. 23:13-18). The trial before Pilate is structured around
Pilate’s three declarations that he finds no crime in Jesus (23:4, 14, 22). When Pilate sends
Jesus to Herod, Herod returns him and Pilate reports that Herod found him innocent also
(23:6-12, 15). Jesus’ innocence is confirmed by two authorities, but Pilate nevertheless
capitulates to the will of the leaders of the people (23:25). At the cross, the “penitent thief”
crucified with Jesus also maintains that Jesus has done nothing wrong (23:41), and the
centurion who witnessed Jesus’ death “praised God and said, ‘Certainly this man was
innocent’ ” (23:47). .
The function or functions of Luke’s emphasis on Jesus’ innocence can again be
interpreted variously. If Theophilus is a Roman official, Luke may be concerned to make
the point that Jesus (and the disciples and Paul in Acts) was repeatedly declared innocent
by the Roman authorities, confirming that from its inception Christianity was not an illegal
religion and was not perceived as a threat to Roman authority. On the other hand, if (as
seems more likely) the Gospel is intended for the believing community, the repeated
28
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
declarations of innocence in the Gospel and Acts may serve to reassure believers of the
rightness of their convictions and to give them precedents to which they can appeal when
they too are “brought before kings and governors” (21:12).
The centurion’s praise of God and affirmation that Jesus was 8tkatos (dikaios) moves
the characterization of Jesus to another level. The term may mean “innocent,” but Luke
uses it elsewhere with the sense of “just” or “righteous.” Among those whom Luke
characterizes as “just” are Zechariah and Elizabeth (1:6), Simeon (2:25), and—in the same
context as the centurion’s confession—Joseph of Arimathea (23:50). In Acts, moreover,
Jesus is called “the Righteous One” (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14).
The prominence of joyand the praise of Godin Luke defines the response of those who
see God’s power at work in John the Baptist and Jesus and hear the good news of the
kingdom. The birth of John brought joy and gladness (1:14, 44, 58), and at the birth of
Jesus the angels brought the shepherds “good news of great joy for all the people” (2:10).
Some who receive the gospel with joy, however, are like seed sown in rocky ground:
“They believe only for a while and in a time of testing fall away” (8:13). The seventy Jesus
sent out on mission returned filled with joy at what they had seen (10:17), and Jesus
reminds the scribes and Pharisees that there is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents
(15:7, 10). Joy also characterizes the response of the disciples to the appearances of the
risen Lord (24:41-52).
In Luke those who see the power of God at work or hear the good news are not only
filled with joy, but their characteristic response is to glorify or praise God as well. This
doxological undertone to the Gospel is evident in the response of the shepherds at Jesus’
birth, who returned, “glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen” (2:20).
Thereafter, both terms, “glorify” (80&d4¢w doxazo) and “praise” (aivéw aineo), occur in
various contexts, but not together. The more common term is “glorify” (doxazo). The
paralytic and those who witness his healing glorify God (5:25-26). The raising of the son
of the widow at Nain (7:16) leads the crowd to glorify God, and the crippled woman
(13:13), the Samaritan leper (17:15), and the blind beggar in Jericho (18:43) respond to
their healings by glorifying God. Then, when the centurion witnesses Jesus’ death, another
of God’s mighty acts, he too glorifies God (23:47).
The other term Luke uses to describe responses of awe, penitence, gratitude, and worship
is aineo (“to praise God”). The angelic host that announces Jesus’ birth praises GodZsl3};
and then the shepherds answer the angels with their own praise of God (2:20). Later, the
disciples add their antiphonal response, praising God (19:37) with a variation of the angels’
words, saying, “Peace in heaven,/ and glory in the highest heaven!” (19:38).
Significantly, the Gospel ends with the disciples’ praising God (24:53). Here a third
verb occurs: “blessing” God (evAoyéw eulogeo). Codex Bezae (D) has the more common
“praise” God (aineo; which also occurs in Acts 2:47; 3:8-9), but the idiom “to bless God”
also occurs earlier in the Gospel when Zechariah praises God (1:64) and when Simeon
may be
takes Jesus in his arms and praises God (2:28). The choice of the verb in 24:53
29
due to the occurrence of the verb twice earlier in the same scene (24:50-51), where Jesus
blesses the disciples. Appropriately, the Gospel ends on a.note of blessing and doxology.
6. The Importance of an Accurate Witness. This theme is more important to
Luke than a tallying of the frequency of its occurrence in the Gospel might indicate. The
only occurrence of the verb “to bear witness” (aptupéw martyreo) is in 4:22, where the
people of Nazareth initially respond to Jesus by bearing witness to him. The two related
words for the witness borne occur only four times (uaptupia martyria, 22:71; and
waptup.ov martyrion, 5:14; 9:5; 21:13). The Sanhedrin asks what further need there is
for testimony after Jesus responds to their question as to whether he is the Son of God by
saying, “You say that I am” (22:70-71). The disciples, however, are to be witnesses for
Jesus and the gospel. Thus the term evokes a judicial context. When the disciples are
persecuted and brought before kings and governors, “This will give you an opportunity to
testify” (21:13). The concept of “witness” develops in the course of the NT writings from
the role of an eyewitness, to one who can testify to’ the gospel, to one who dies for the
sake of the gospel (“a martyr” [udptus martys]). The special Lukan use of this term links
two senses of it: The disciples can bear witness to the fact of Jesus’ death and resurrection,
and they can testify to its significance. Luke 24:48 links both senses (see the discussion
of this verse in the Commentary). By the time we come to Paul (Acts 22:15), the sense
has already shifted from the first to the second sense. Paul can bear a confessing witness,
but he was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ ministry (Acts 1:22).
For their work as witnesses, the disciples will be empowered by the Holy Spirit. The
Gospel of Luke plays an important role in shaping the biblical doctrine of the Spirit in that
it affirms that the Holy Spirit was active before the birth of Jesus (1:35, 41, 67; 2:25-27),
the Spirit rested upon Jesus during his ministry (3:22; 4:1, 14, 18; 10:21), and Jesus
charged the disciples to wait in Jerusalem until the Spirit had come upon them (24:49; cf.
11:13). The witness of the disciples, therefore, is guided and empowered by the Spirit.
Confirming this promise, the book of Acts notes that the Spirit guides the disciples and
the early church in each of its major new ventures. The linkage between witness and Spirit
is explicit in Acts 5:32: “And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit
whom God has given to those who obey him” (NRSV). The concern for an accurate and
continuing witness also guided Luke in the writing of the Gospel, “So that you may know
the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed” (1:4).
READING THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

The study of the Gospel according to Luke is a richly rewarding experience. Luke is a
good storyteller and has the penetrating insight of a prophet. As a result, the Gospel is
engaging and offers a perspective on the redemptive events of Jesus’ ministry. It continually
calls the Christian community to model more fully Jesus’ concern for the oppressed, the
overlooked, and the outcast. The kingdom community is one in which the social barriers
30
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
that divide and exclude are torn down and God’s grace can begin to flow to and among
the wealthy and the poor, the sick and the self-righteous, the powerful and the excluded.
The study and teaching of such a Gospel can serve to actualize in individuals and in
congregations the redemptive purposes of God that guided Jesus’ ministry and resulted in
his death and resurrection. If the Spirit empowered the witness of this Gospel, then by
opening ourselves to it we may also be guided by God’s Spirit to be a part of God’s ongoing
redemptive work. The study of the Gospel, therefore, calls us to see the sights and hear
the words of Jesus’ ministry as if we had been among the eyewitnesses, to grasp Luke’s
distinctive perspective on the person and work of Jesus, and to see the implications of the
Gospel for the times and circumstances in which we live.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Commentaries
Craddock, Fred B. Luke. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990. Treats Luke as preaching
and offers fresh insights for preaching the Gospel.
Danker, Frederick W. Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel. Rev. ed. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988. Danker’s masterful grasp of the literature of the Greco-Roman world leads him to read
Luke as a bridge builder between the Jewish and Gentile cultural-religious experiences who portrays Jesus
as the Great Benefactor who introduces the New Age.
Ellis, E. Earl. Zhe Gospel ofLuke. NCB. Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1966. A commentary on the RSV that treats
with respect the view that the Gospel was written by Luke, the companion of Paul, shortly after Paul’s
death.
Evans, Craig A. Luke. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1990. A
readable commentary on the NIV that offers an interpretation of each section followed by additional notes
that explain technical textual issues for a general readership.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke. AB 28 and 28A. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981,
1985. The standard reference commentary that provides a thorough and reliable treatment of the
introductory, textual, philological, historical, form critical, redaction critical, and theological issues.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. 7he Gospel ofLuke. Sacra Pagina 3. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991. This recent
commentary offers a fresh reading of the Gospel as a literary whole that focuses on the theme of Jesus as
the prophet for the people of God. The introduction is especially good.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978. A reference commentary that is particularly valuable for its attention to philological and
historical issues.
Nolland, John. Luke. 3 vols. WBC 35A-C. Dallas: Word, 1989-93. This encyclopedic work canvasses the
various possible interpretations of each section and verse and guides the reader to a judicious handling
of the options.
Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Luke. Translated by David E. Green. Atlanta: John Knox,
1984..A commentary that is well worth consulting for the theological insights that emerge from
Schweizer’s reading of the Gospel.
Stein, Robert H. Luke. The New American Commentary, 24. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. A useful resource
for preachers and teachers, the text of this commentary is structured under three rubrics (Context,
ot
Comment, and the Lukan Message). Stein, an accomplished redaction critic, highlights the christology
of the Gospel.
Talbert, Charles H. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel. New York:
Crossroad, 1982. Valuable for its reading of Luke in light of parallels from Greco-Roman literature and
for its analysis of the Gospel’s literary patterns and theological motifs.
Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke—Acts: A Literary Interpretation, vol. 1: The Gospel
According to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. A narrative critical reading of Luke and Acts as a
theological interpretation of the purpose of God for Israel and all humanity.
Tiede, David L. Luke. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988. This
commentary highlights the narrative of the Gospel, Luke’s interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel, and
Luke’s witness to God’s judgment and salvation.
Specialized Studies
Brown, Raymond E. Zhe Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke. New York: Doubleday, 1977. The definitive work on the birth narratives in Matthew
and Luke. Brown shows how the birth accounts are rooted in the OT and how they develop theological
perspectives that are integral to the Gospels in which they appear.
. The Death of the Messiah: ACommentary on the Passion Narratives. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday,
1994. This magisterial work minutely examines each element of the passion narratives in the four Gospels,
showing how historical traditions serve theological purposes in the Gospel accounts.
Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke. Translated by Geoffrey Buswell. New York: Harper & Row,
1961. This standard work was the first monograph to use redaction criticism in an effort to discern the
theological perspectives of the Third Evangelist.
Darr, John A. On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke—Acts.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992. In studies of the characterization of John the Baptist, the
Pharisees, and Herod, Darr develops a reader-response approach to characterization in the Gospel and
casts new light on each of these characters.
Karris, RobertJ. Luke: Artist and Theologian. New York: Paulist, 1985. Karris provides a valuable perspective
on the Lukan passion narrative by showing how it handles some of the Gospel’s leading themes, especially
justice, food, and innocent suffering.
Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Following
a narrative-critical approach, Kingsbury shows how the Gospel develops three separate but intersecting
stories. By examining the stories of Jesus, the authorities, and the disciples, Kingsbury brings to light the
various levels of conflict in the plot of the Gospel and reflects on their significance for its christology.
Kurz, William S. Reading Luke—Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox,
1993. Reading Luke—Acts as a continuous narrative, Kurz highlights the role of the narrator and the
importance of narration, gaps, and implicit commentary for the reading of the Gospel and Acts.
Maddox, Robert. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. In this meticulous
and rewarding monograph, Maddox sought further understanding of the purpose(s) of Luke and Acts by
considering the potential significance of their treatment of Jews, Gentiles, and Christians; the picture of
Paul; Christians in the Roman Empire; Luke’s eschatology; the affinities of Luke and John; and Luke’s
purpose in the church of his time.
Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. A Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic.Gospels.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. A handy, nontechnical interpretation of the synoptic Gospels in the light of
insights drawn from social-science criticism.
of
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
Navone, John. 7hemes of St. Luke. Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1970. Navone shows how twenty
different themes are developed in Luke.
Neyrey, Jerome H., ed. The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1991. This challenging collection of essays harvests the promise of social-science criticism
for understanding the social codes and norms that are implicit in Luke—Acts.
Parsons, Mikeal C. The Departure ofJesus in Luke—Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context. JSNTSup 21.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987. Drawing on recent developments in both textual criticism and narrative
criticism, Parsons shows how the departure of Jesus brings closure to the Gospel and a narrative opening for Acts.
Powell, Mark Alan. What Are They Saying About Luke? New York: Paulist, 1989. This brief review assesses
the state of scholarship on the composition of the Gospel, the concerns of Luke’s community, christology
and soteriology, political and social issues, and spiritual and pastoral concerns in Luke.
Schaberg, Jane. “Luke.” In The Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Carol Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992. Ina brief commentary on selected passages, Schaberg contends
that Luke is a dangerous Gospel because it reinforces the subjugation of women by defining subordinate
roles for women while denying them positions of leadership.
Sheeley, Steven M. Narrative Asides in Luke—Acts. JSNTSup 72. Sheffield: SOT, 1992. Sheeley calls attention
to a neglected feature of the Lukan narrative and analyzes the functions
of the asides in the light of their
role in other ancient narratives.
OUTLINE OF LUKE
I. Luke 1:1-4, The Prologue
Il. Luke 1:5-2:52, The Infancy Narrative

. 1:5-25, The Annunciation of the Birth of John the Baptist
1:26-38, The Annunciation of the Birth of Jesus
1:39-56, Mary’s Visit with Elizabeth
. 1:57-80, The Birth of John the Baptist
2:1-20, The Birth of Jesus
2:21-40, The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple
LS . 2:41-52, The Boy Jesus in the Temple
QmMmMOOw
[Il. Luke 3:1-4:13, Preparation for the Ministry of Jesus

3:1-6, The Setting of John’s Ministry
3:7-18, John’s Preaching
. 3:19-20, The Imprisonment of John
. 3:21-22, The Baptism of Jesus
3:23-38, The Genealogy of Jesus
Co4:1-13, The Temptation of Jesus
eye
33
IV. Luke 4:14-9:50, The Ministry in Galilee

A. 4:14-15, Introduction to the Ministry in Galilee
B. 4:16-30, Preaching in Nazareth
C. 4:31-44, Teaching and Healing in Capernaum
D. 5:1-6:16, Calling and Training Disciples
5:1-11, Calling the Fishermen
5:12-16, Cleansing a Leper
5:17-26, Healing the Paralyzed
5:27-32, Calling Levi, Eating with Outcasts
5:33-39, Debate About Fasting
6:1-11, Debate About Sabbath
6:12-16, Choosing the Twelve
. 6:17-49, Jesus’ Instruction to His Disciples
6:17-19, The Setting for Jesus’ Instruction
6:20-26, Blessings on the Poor and Woes to the Rich
6:27-36, Love Your Enemies
6:37-38, Judge Not
6:39-49, Parables on the Meaning of Discipleship
. 7:1-50, The Messiah Greater Than a Prophet
7:1-10, Healing the Centurion’s Slave
7:11-17, Raising the Widow’s Son
7:18-23, Signs of the Coming One
7:24-30, More Than a Prophet
7:31-35, Responses to John and Jesus
7:36-50, Responses of a Pharisee and a Harlot
. 8:1-21, Hearing and Doing God’s Word
8:1-3, Jesus’ Followers: The Women
8:4-15, The Parable of the Seed and the Soil
8:16-18, What Is Hidden and What Is Revealed
8:19-21, Jesus’ Followers: His Mother and Brothers
. 8:22-56, The Power of God at Work in Jesus
8:22-25, Master over Storms
8:26-39, Master over Demons
8:40-56, Master over Sickness and Death
i 9:1-50, The Messiah of God and the Son of Man
9:1-17, The Mission of the Twelve and Herod’s Question
9:18-27, Peter’s Confession and the Demands of Discipleship
9:28-50, Clarifying Jesus’ Messiahship
9:28-36, The Transfiguration
9:37-43 a, The Epileptic Boy
34
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
9:436-45, The Second Announcement of Jesus’ Death
9:46-48, Discipleship and Greatness
9:49-50, The Unauthorized Exorcist
V. Luke 9:51-19:27, The Journey to Jerusalem

A. 9:51-56, Rejection in Samaria
B. 9:57-62, The Failure of Three Would-Be Followers
C. 10:1-16, The Commissioning of the Seventy(-two)
Dz. 10:17-24, The Return of the Seventy(-two)
E. 10:25-42, The Love of God and Neighbor
10:25-28, The Lawyer’s Question
10:29-37, The Good Samaritan
10:38-42, Mary and Martha
. 11:1-13, Instruction on Prayer
11:1-4, The Lord’s Prayer
11:5-8, The Parable of a Shameless Neighbor
11:9-13, Assurances That God Hears Our Prayers
. 11:14-36, Responses to Charges of Deviancy
. 11:37-54, Woes to the Pharisees and Lawyers
—. 12:1—13:9, Readiness for the Coming Judgment
12:1-12, Fear Judgment, Not Persecution
12:13-21, Better a Poor Farmer Than a Rich Fool
12:22-34, More Important Things About Which to Be Anxious
12:35-48, Learning Watchfulness from Masters and Slaves
12:49-53, Division Caused by Decision
12:54-59, Interpreting the Times and Settling Accounts
13:1-9, A Call for Repentance
13:10-35, Unexpected Reversals Brought by the Kingdom of God
13:10-17, The Stooped Woman
13:18-21, The Mustard Seed and the Yeast
13:22-30, The Narrow Door
13:31-35, Fateful Warnings for Jesus and Jerusalem
. 14:1-24, Lessons in Kingdom Etiquette
14:1-6, The Man with Dropsy
14:7-14, Parables of Humility and Hospitality
- 14:15-24, The Parable of the Great Banquet
ie 14:25-35, Conditions for Discipleship
M. 15:1-32, Parables of the Joy of Recovery and Return
toe hel. The Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin
35
15:11-32, The Prodigal Son, the Waiting Father, and the Elder Brother
. 16:1-31, Rich Men and Lovers of Money:
bose i3. 2856 Dishonest Steward
16:14-18, Condemnations of the Corrupt at Bear
16:19-31, The Rich Man and Lazarus
. 17:1-10, The Demands of Forgiveness and Faith:
17:11-19, The Healing of the Ten Lepers
. 17:20-37, The Kingdom and Its Coming
Sa 18:1-19:27, Jesus’ Gospel to the Rich and the Poor
Gey
18:1-8, The Unjust Judge and the Persistent Widow
18:9-14, The Pharisee and the Tax Collector
18:15-30, The Little Children and the Rich Ruler
18:31-34, The Third Passion Prediction
18:35-43, The Blind Beggar
19:1-10, Zacchaeus, a Son of Abraham
19:11-27, The Parable of the Greedy and Vengeful King
. Luke 19:28-21:38, Jesus’ Ministry in Jerusalem

A. 19:28-40, The Entrance Procession of the King
B. 19:41-46, Jesus Weeps over the City and Drives the Merchants
from the Temple
= 19:47-21:38, Jesus’ Teachings in the Temple
19:47-48, The Beginning of Jesus’ Teaching in the Temple
20:1-8, The Question of Jesus’ Authority
20:9-19, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants
20:20-26, The Question About Paying Taxes
20:27-40, The Question About the Resurrection
20:41-44, The Question About David’s Son
20:45-47, The Denunciation of the Scribes
21:1-4, The Widow’s Offering
21:5-19, The Coming Wars and Persecutions
21:20-24, The Destruction of Jerusalem Foretold
21:25-36, The Coming of the Son of Man Foretold
21:37-38, The Conclusion of Jesus’ Teaching in the Temple
VIL. Luke 22:1—24:53, The Passion and Resurrection Narratives

—
A. 22:1-13, Preparations for Passover

B. 22:14-20, The Last Supper
C. 22:21-38, The Lukan Farewell Discourse
36
LUKE-INTRODUCTION
22:21-23, Jesus’ Announcement of His Betrayal

22:24-30, The Disciples’ Debate over Greatness
22:31-34, Jesus’ Prediction of Peter’s Denial
22:35-38, Jesus’ Call for Purse, Bag, and Sword
. 22:39-46, Praying for Strength and Deliverance
. 22:47-53, The Arrest of Jesus
22:54-62, Denials in the Courtyard
. 22:63-65, The Challenge to Prophesy
. 22:06-71, Jesus Before the Sanhedrin
23:1-25, Jesus’ Trial Before Pilate
eee,23:26-56, The Crucifixion, Death, and Burial of Jesus
pe
Ie
IR,
oe
Fe
23:26-32, Simon of Cyrene and the “Daughters of Jerusalem”
23:33-38, The Crucifixion and Mocking of Jesus
23:39-43, The Assurance of Salvation
23:44-49, The Events Surrounding Jesus’ Death
23:50-56, The Burial of Jesus
. 24:1-53, The Resurrection Narratives
24:1-12, The Discovery of the Empty Tomb
24:13-35, The Appearance on the Road to Emmaus
24:36-53, The Appearance to the Eleven, Commissioning of the Disciples,
and Jesus’ Departure
Bi
ie : dee ? ersfy
fone See (T.

eee
ne
poLaed4, Rig: .
Gr? Lady i 1SG0E ce aon ;
oki Senta at ; Yes ie
O°), The@etstiyilath bantipaswe
sob gays’
‘3. 171)-20, Thi fomands af Boe ude ay |
? AY, TT2 canny eytine Dem alsins SDR
G17:2837 The Kinet sygbgane Sacagamllt) seth 02
€. tibet? Jesus’ Gc caistaarn uthamote DeeouTS
a fy ‘eee Dindiniust Jy ans Ham
pes es ‘eat
eg-t4, 5 Bogie aa,
ae 4 Bethy
fey aa me Les
‘7 fs:
be 5 'Be bad OS
“> )-20), caccnacis as

19: 12227, The Porat Or
Ve, Lake 19:28-2 1:34; ji Eesites 2o Na

vigind sf 10aren ant SE:
Ac W280, The enka gerimtng eeEts
item sr amiRRIRIERR NOP rope enc de. StL. SADE
7 : es
frotethe Tenyte
sy BNF 2 194, Segus’ Teachings in the Temple 4 se

bee eve a5, a ieaaanel jesus” Tea ig ir: the.sera
+5, Thshangers hla AO ae asoils
Sa +? Tite. hevatte of the Wickes. J nants“ er.
W226, The esi bast Paying F bates ey Fd
sia? AG. The tia About ike Resarresten -. «Sa ad
Peat The Onan Alait Dave d's Son ie Es ; r pe
disswet? The Deutantiatien: cs, the Sg eT

2trb-d The Widow's Oiering Seth
21S 19, The Coming Visty sin ‘Porseculliiae oe ‘i eee aha ea
etic 4, THe Desi co es te galem Royse se - ae
‘ai2 *), i 2 Coming | "ear % wi ae Man Foretaht = a
aN5ST By1Fhe Gonetush eyany Teaching ‘nthe Temple
pi. dake 2223-" S72, The7 Pabaion: aed nespunted is arvativ

imc i nite a]
A, 73 : H _ a iea idarationsS far Pasiaver i. “ "i ary

ae7 r
Bb. hes 4—- Tye Last. 3

OUP PET... % ov 2s
7 cyi.-
G. 22°34 OR The Laan &reel

= Se eh
|
: ~ os e
: el bad :
LUKE 1:1-4
‘THE PROLOGUE
NIV NRSV
Many have undertaken to draw up an ] Since many have undertaken to set down
account of the things that have been ful- an orderly account of the events that have
filled? among us, 2just as they were handed down been fulfilled among us, @just as they were handed
to us by those who from the first were eyewit- on to us by those who from the beginning were
nesses and servants of the word. *Therefore, since eyewitnesses and servants of the word, °I too
I myself have carefully investigated everything decided, after investigating everything carefully
from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to from the very first, to write an orderly account
write an orderly account for you, most excellent for you, most excellent Theophilus, “so that you
Theophilus, “so that you may know the certainty may know the truth concerning the things about
of the things you have been taught. which you have been instructed.
a] Or been surely believed 2Or for a long time
(COMMENTARY
Luke opens the Gospel with a perfectly con- (except the author’s name) are present in Luke,
structed prologue, setting forth the occasion and the prologue leaves a number of questions unan-
purpose for his writing. That being the case, it swered. It does not mention Jesus by name or
is surprising how little the prologue tells us. It title (cf. Matt 1:1; Mark 1:1; John 1:1), and it
seems to be both carefully worded and deliber- gives no indication of the subject matter of the
ately vague, simultaneously clarifying and ob- work. Neither does it name any of the author’s
scuring. predecessors or sources, nor does it state the plan
As a prefatory statement, Luke 1:1-4 is one of or scope of the work. The statement of purpose
the most literary, stylized sentences in the New is cryptic, and Theophilus’s role and relationship
Testament, rivalled only by John 1:1-18; Eph to Luke are not stated. What then does the
1:3-14; and Heb 1:1-4. In contrast to the other prologue tell us?
opening statements, however, Luke’s prologue Verses 1-4 are an extended, periodic sentence
clearly reflects the conventional form of prologues in which verses 1-2 comprise the protasis (“if...”
found in contemporary historical and biographical or “since...”) and verses 3-4 the apodosis
works. Stich prologues contain most or all of the (PTINCM c cuiy Olen OTEIOle oo. | eV un geacn
following components: (1) a statement about the member there are three parts, with some corre-
author’s predecessors, (2) the work’s subject mat- sponding elements. These relationships, which
ter, (3) the author’s qualifications, (4) the plan or are more visible in Greek than in English, may
arrangement of the work, (5) the purpose of the be set forth as follows.
writing, (6) the author’s name, and (7) the The italics identify three corresponding ele-
official addressee.2 While all of these elements ments. The English translation creates the ap-
23. See Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke;A Literary and Theological
parent repetition of “an orderly account,” since
Commentary on the Third Gospel(New York: Crossroad, 1982) 7-11. See there is no noun for the writing in verse 3.
also, e.g., Josephus Against Apion 1.1.1-3; 2.1.1; Antiquities of the Jews
1.1-9; Philo Life of Moses.
oY
LUKE 1:1-4 COMMENTARY
Protasis (vv. 1-2) Apodosis (vv. 3-4) traditions found also in John). Luke was not an
Since many I too decided, eyewitness, and he may not have included himself
have undertaken after investigating among the “servants of the word.” Instead, he
everything carefully had followed the events closely, received the
from the very first, traditions handed on by the eyewitnesses and
to set forth to write an orderly servants of the word, and profited from the writ-
an orderly account account for you, most ings of his predecessors. Evidently, he had col-
excellent Theophilus, lected his material from both oral traditions and
so that you may earlier writings. He himself, however, stood at
know the truth some distance from the events, and possibly even
of the events that concerning the things from those who were eyewitnesses to the events
have been fulfilled about which you have
of Jesus’ ministry.
among us, just as been instructed
Luke’s concern is not merely historical, though.
they were handed
He signals that his narrative will relate the things
on to us by those who
“that have been fulfilled,” that the events are “the
from the beginning
word”, (the Christian message or preaching), and
were eyewitnesses and
servants of the word,
that his account will provide Theophilus with
“assurance.” Beyond the honorific title “most ex-
In contrast to other prologues, Luke’s does not cellent,” which probably indicates an elevated
criticize other accounts as inaccurate. At most social status, we are told nothing further about
there is the implication that his work will supply Theophilus. The references to “us” and “the
“the truth.” This term can mean “security,” things about which you have been instructed,” as
“safety,” “assurance,” or “certainty.” One debated well as the understanding of Scripture assumed
issue that arises from these verses concerns Luke’s
throughout the Gospel, suggest that Theophilus
aim and purpose in writing a gospel. Is he sup-
was a believer or a God-fearer, but nothing else
plying (a) an orderly account to correct (historical)
is known of him. The reference may indicate that
inaccuracies in other accounts, (b) (doctrinal)
he was Luke’s patron, but there is no evidence
truth where false teaching was a threat, or (c)
that Theophilus was a Roman official or that the
assurance where uncertainty had prevailed? While
various interpretations have emphasized Luke’s name identifies every reader who is a “friend of
historical, theological, or pastoral concerns, it may God,” as Origen suggested. Theophilus is ad-
not be possible or desirable to settle on one dressed again in Acts 1:1, following a reference
interest and exclude the others. to “the first book.” While the prologue to Luke
Although Luke does not name the others who may have been intended to introduce both vol-
had written—possibly because at this early date umes, the references to “the beginning,” “the
their writings were not yet called Gospels and word,” and “the things about which you have
individual names had not been attached to the been instructed” are better understood as allusions
accounts—he obviously knows of other accounts to the Gospel traditions than as terms for the story
of the life and teachings of Jesus (probably at least of the church in Jerusalem and Paul’s work among
Mark and Q, possibly a passion narrative, and the Gentiles.
REFLECTIONS
In literary terms, the prologue serves not only as an introduction but also as a narrative frame.
As one begins to read a narrative, the narrator or voice telling the story ushers the reader into a
narrative world. The prologue is the air lock to this new atmosphere, the crackle on the screen
as the picture appears, the vestibule connecting the sanctuary to the world outside. The prologue
is not the beginning of the story; rather, it is an introductory comment about the story, its author,
LUKE 1:1-4 REFLECTIONS
readers, and purposes. Because the prologue leaves so many of these issues uncertain, it invites
us to read further while setting a tone for the narrative that follows.
Actually, the reader has no explicit information about the content of the story. Commentators
have remarked both on the “secular” character of the prologue and on its elevated, polished
style. It has a sophisticated appeal. The style is literate, the terms are lofty, and the appeal is
couched in the conventions of historical writing. Every detail creates the impression of an
educated, informed writer who is concerned to give the reader a lucid, informed, and reliable
report of significant events. The writer has prepared carefully and addresses Theophilus as one
held in great esteem. The prologue, therefore, can serve as a provocative pattern for the
church’s proclamation of the gospel. What can we learn from it regarding how the church
should address the secular world in order to gain a hearing for its message?
Three words foreshadow concerns that will recur in the Gospel: fulfilled, eyewitnesses, and
assurance. The reference to the things that have been “fulfilled among us” looks back on
God’s redemptive acts in the history of Israel. In a word, Luke acknowledges that the story
of Jesus is also the story of the fulfillment of God’s redemptive purposes, the climactic episode
in a sequence of events that stretches back through the promises of the prophets. Repeatedly
Luke will emphasize the pattern of the fulfillment of Scripture in the events of the Gospel (cf.
Luke 1:20; 4:21; 9:31; 24:44). For both interpretation and proclamation the warning is clear:
These events can be understood only in the context of Scripture. Apart from this context, or
more technically the relationships between these texts (Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospel),
one misses the dynamic tensions, motifs, echoes, and continuity that are vital to a perceptive
reading of the Gospel. Theologically, it is vital that the continuity of the Gospel with the
redemptive acts of God in the history of Israel be preserved. Without that continuity, the
Gospel is truncated and distorted; the twin demons of Marcionism and anti-Jewish sentiment
lie close at hand.
The prologue also signals Luke’s emphasis on the importance of eyewitness testimony (cf.
Luke 11:48; 24:48; Acts 1:8, 22; 2:32). While Luke’s intent to write accurately and completely
does not mean that he worked with the sensitivities or methods of a modern historian, he
has taken pains to ensure that his account stands in continuity with the history of Israel and
with the preaching of the apostles and the witness of those who had been with Jesus.
The third word, which connotes truth and assurance, has been interpreted alternatively as
the content of the gospel and its fulfillment in the experience of the hearer. Because God’s
promises to Israel have been fulfilled through the life and teachings of Jesus, we can know
the assurance that is grounded in God’s redemptive love, praise God with unbounded joy,
fervently follow Jesus’ example and teachings, open our lives to the leading of God’s Spirit,
and respond to the call to join the company of witnesses spreading to the ends of the earth
the good news of Jesus’ coming.
4]
bWKEalid-2:02
THE INFANCY NARRATIVE
C)VERVIEW
__n order to appreciate the significance of nied the births of great leaders.24 The events
Luke’s infancy narrative, one must recog- surrounding the births of great heroes gave evi-
nize the conventions of its genre, its role as a dence of their future greatness and important
miniature Gospel, and its principal themes. clues as to what their roles were to be. Luke
Whereas Mark and John begin without any employs this convention by defining the roles of
accounts of the birth of Jesus, Matthew opens John and Jesus through the prophecies given at
with a genealogy and an account of Jesus’ birth their births. The annunciations also draw upon
in Bethlehem, the family’s subsequent flight to . the pattern of Old Testament annunciations that
Egypt, and their return to Nazareth. Luke is foretold the births of Ishmael (Gen 16:7-13), Isaac
distinctive; it is the only Gospel to report the (Gen 17:1-3, 15-21; 18:1-2, 10-15), and Samson
births of both John and Jesus. Luke also elevates (Judg 13:2-23). Five features form the pattern of
the roles of Mary and Elizabeth, whereas the story these “type scenes” of the announcement of one
in Matthew is guided by Joseph’s dreams. Angelo- who will play a significant role inthe divine
phanies, prophetic predictions, and references to design for the destiny of God’s people:
the fulfillment of Scripture all serve to alert the
reader that the events surrounding the births of 1. The appearance of an angel (or of the Lord)
John and Jesus are part of a larger story—the 2. The response of fear
fulfillment of the hopes of Israel and the Scriptures 3. The divine message
through the coming of the Messiah.
4. An objection
Careful attention to each of these elements
5. The giving of a sign to guarantee the divine
opens new insights into the initial chapters of
announcement”
Luke. They are not a dispensable preamble, insig-
nificant for Luke’s theology; the infancy narrative
is both the Gospel in miniature and the opening Standard features also mark the divine mes-
statement of themes that will be developed sage: The visionary is addressed by name; a quali-
throughout Luke (and in a new key in Acts). Luke fying phrase describes the one to whom the
1:5-2:52 sets the literary and theological context announcement is made; the subject is encouraged
apart from which the rest of Luke would be not to be afraid; the woman will give birth to a
greatly diminished. male ‘child; instructions are given regarding the
name of the child, often with an etymology inter-
First impressions are always important, and the
preting the name; and the future role of the child
infancy narrative both introduces us to the narrative
is announced. Variations, contrasts, or expansions
world of the Gospel and provides us with the scrip-
of this pattern can all signal significant implica-
tural, thematic, and theological norms by which we
, tions. Indeed, Luke uses references to the fulfill-
are to respond to the rest of the story. Reading the
ment of various scriptures and subtle contrasts in
infancy narrative closely is an essential part of our
education as readers of the Gospel. The “primacy 24. See Charles H. Talbert, “Prophecies of Future Greatness: The
effect” means that we will judge later episodes by the Contribution of Greco-Roman Biographies to an Understanding of Luke
1:5-4:15,” in The Divine Helmsman, ed. James L. Crenshaw and Samuel
expectations created in these opening chapters. Sandmel (New York: KTAV, 1980) 129-41. :
Greco-Roman biographies often opened with 25. Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on
the Infancy Narratives of Matthew and Luke (New York: Doubleday,
accounts of the wondrous omens that accompa- 1977) 156.
42
LUKE 1:5—2:52 OVERVIEW
the announcements to show that while John will and wonderful thing. The Son of God is coming
prepare the way, Jesus will be the Messiah. into the world, breaking into and putting an end
The infancy narrative, therefore, both an- to the ordinary. Those who are able to see in the
nounces themes that will be developed later and births of these children the mighty act of God that
functions as a Gospel in miniature. Among the will lead to redemption for all God’s people re-
typically Lukan themes that appear in these scenes spond with joy, celebration, and praise. But not
are the importance of God’s redemptive purposes, all will respond with openness to what God is
the fulfillment of Scripture, the role of the Spirit, doing. The child who will bring deliverance will
the redemption of the poor and oppressed, the himself be delivered to a cross. In a vital but still
special role of women in the Gospel story, the embryonic form, therefore, the narrative an-
role of the Temple and Israel’s religious authori- nounces the gospel and calls for all to receive it.
ties, the witness of those who receive God’s But it is not merely a tale of the birth of a child,
mercy, the atmosphere of joy, and the praise of for as William Wordsworth said, “the Child is
God. father of the Man,” and this man was the Son of
The infancy narrative announces the end of the God.
period of waiting. God is beginning to do a new
LUKE 1:5-25, THE ANNUNCIATION OF THE

BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST
NIV NRSV
In the time of Herod king of Judea there was SIn the days of King Herod of Judea, there was
a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the
priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant
also a descendant of Aaron. °Both of them were of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. °Both of
upright in the sight of God, observing all the them were righteous before God, living blame-
Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly according to all the commandments and
lessly. 7But they had no children, because Eliza- regulations of the Lord. 7But they had no children,
beth was barren; and they were both well along because Elizabeth was barren, and both were
in years. getting on in years.
8Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty 8Once when he was serving as priest before
and he was serving as priest before God, °he was God and his section was on duty, ’he was chosen
chosen by lot, according to the custom of the by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood,
priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and to enter the sanctuary of the Lord and offer
burn incense. '°And when the time for the burn- incense. '°Now at the time of the incense offering,
ing of incense came, all the assembled worshipers the whole assembly of the people was praying
were praying outside. outside. ''Then there appeared to him an angel
"Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, of the Lord, standing at the right side of the altar
standing at the right side of the altar of incense. of incense. '*When Zechariah saw him, he was
12When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and terrified; and fear overwhelmed him. '*But the
was gripped with fear. '*But the angel said to him: angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah,
“Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been for your prayer has been heard. Your wife Eliza-
heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, beth will bear you a son, and you will name him
and you are to give him the nafne John. 'He will John. '4You will have joy and gladness, and many
be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great in
because of his birth, '*for he will be great in the the sight of the Lord. He must never drink wine
43
LUKE 1:5-25
NIV NRSV
sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or or strong drink; even before his birth he will be
other fermented drink, and he will be filled with filled with the Holy Spirit. '°He will turn many of
the Holy Spirit even from birth. "Many of the the people of Israel to the Lord their God. '’With
people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord the spirit and power of Elijah he will go before
their God. '7And he will go on before the Lord, him, to turn the hearts of parents to their children,
in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righ-
of the fathers to their children and the disobedient teous, to make ready a people prepared for the
to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready Lord.” !8Zechariah said to the angel, “How will I
a people prepared for the Lord.” know that this is so? For I am an old man, and
'87echariah asked the angel, “How can I be my wife is getting on in years.” '°The angel
sure of this? |am an old man and my wife is well replied, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of
along in years.” God, and I have been sent to speak to you and
The angel answered, “I am Gabriel. I stand to bring you this good news. °But now, because
in the presence of God, and I have been sent to you did not believe my words, which will be
speak to you and to tell you this good news. ?°And fulfilled in their time, you will become mute,
now you will be silent and not able to speak until unable to speak, until the day these things occur.”
the day this happens, because you did not believe 21Meanwhile the people were waiting for
my words, which will come true at their proper Zechariah, and wondered at his delay in the
time.” sanctuary. *?When he did come out, he could not
*IMeanwhile, the people were waiting for speak to them, and they realized that he had seen
Zechariah and wondering why he stayed so long a vision in the sanctuary. He kept motioning to
in the temple. ??When he came out, he could not them and remained unable to speak. *When his
speak to them. They realized he had seen a vision time of service was ended, he went to his home.
in the temple, for he kept making signs to them 24After those days his wife Elizabeth con-
but remained unable to speak. ceived, and for five months she remained in
*3When his time of service was completed, he seclusion. She said, #°“This is what the Lord has
returned home. *After this his wife Elizabeth done for me when he looked favorably on me and
became pregnant and for five months remained took away the disgrace I have endured among my
in seclusion. “The Lord has done this for me,” people.”
she said. “In these days he has shown his favor
and taken away my disgrace among the people.”
215 Or from his mother’s womb
(COMMENTARY
The first scene is a carefully structured unit: tions. Through it the narrator draws the reader
the introduction of Zechariah and Elizabeth (vv. into the story world of the Gospel. The beginning
5-7); the setting of the annunciation—in the Tem- point for all that follows is Jewish piety, the
ple (vv. 8-12); the angelic announcement (vv. Temple, and the fulfillment of Scripture. By means
13-17); Zechariah’s response (vv. 18-20); ? ° of angelic revelations, authoritative predictions,
Zechariah’s departure from the Temple (vv. 21- commissionings, and references to the fulfillment
23); and the conception of the child, fulfilling the of Scripture, the text conveys the sense that
angelic announcement (vv. 24-25). everything that is reported happens as the unfold-
The thematic center of the scene is the an- ing of God’s foreordained redemptive plan. Later
nouncement of John’s birth and future greatness, events are foreshadowed, and expectations are
but the scene also fulfills other significant func- created that are crucial to the reading of later
44
chapters of the Gospel narrative. The appearance of Abijah (1 Chr 24:10; Neh 12:4, 17). Elizabeth
of a heavenly messenger in the opening scene also came from a priestly family and had fulfilled
lends an air of mystery and wonder to the Gospel the expectations for a daughter of a priest by mar-
from the very beginning. This is not a story of rying a priest. Two words characterize the devout
ordinary people or mundane events. couple: “righteous” (Stkavo. dikaioi) and “blame-
1:5-7. By means of the reference to the days less” (dLepttToL amemptoi; v. 6). The words
of a king and the introduction of a righteous old evoke a picture of one who has fully participated
couple, the first words transport the reader from in the provisions of the covenant (see Gen 26:5
the secular literary context of the prologue into a [Abraham]; Job 1:1 [Job]; Phil 3:6 [Paul]). Blame-
Semitic context. Luke’s words “In the days of less does not appear again in Luke or Acts (cf.
King Herod of Judea, there was a priest... ” echo Phile2:1533:63el “Thess: 2:10; 13139 Heb 6:7) but
historical references from the prophets: “The words Luke will later characterize Simeon (2:25) and
of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, of the priests... in report that Jesus told the parable of the Pharisee
the days of King Josiah....It came also in the and the tax collector to those who thought they
days of King Jehoiakim...” (Jer 1:1-3 NRSV); were righteous (18:9; cf. 20:20). At the death of
“The words of Amos...in the days of King Jesus, the centurion pronounces him righteous
Uzziah of Judah...” (Amos 1:1 NRSV). The (23:47), and Joseph of Arimathea is introduced as
consistent element is the phrase “in the days of” “a good and righteous man” (23:50). Later, in
a king who is named. The name of the prophet Acts 7:52, Jesus is called “the Righteous One.”
is then given. Any reader familiar with the He- Verse 7 introduces the complication that sets
brew Scriptures will recognize from Luke’s idiom the course for the events that will follow. The
that the Gospel record is being narrated in the narrator reports that the devout couple was child-
voice and style of the Scriptures. less, Elizabeth was barren, and they were both
The first temporal reference is very general: “in getting on in years. This note completes the
the days of King Herod.” Nothing happens in vv. introduction of the characters. Any reader familiar
5-7. They provide the stable setting for the reader’s with the Scriptures will be reminded of the stories
introduction to the story world; the reader is told of Abraham and Sarah (Gen 16:1; 18:11), Isaac
who the characters are and how they live. The and Rebecca (Gen 25:21), Jacob and Rachel (Gen
events of the story begin in the next verse. In Luke 30:1), Manoah and his wife (Judg 13:2), and
the temporal references become increasingly specific Elkanah and Hannah (1 Sam 1:1-2). The bearing
so that the reader has the sense of watching a of children was considered a great blessing, and
camera zoom in on a particular character: “In the it was essential for carrying on the family name,
days of King Herod” (v. 5), “Once when he was perpetuating God’s covenant with Israel, and pro-
serving as priest” (v. 8), “at the time of the incense viding oneself with care in one’s old age. Barren-
offering” (v. 10), “then there appeared to him an ness was regarded as a tragedy, a disgrace, and
angel” (v. 11), and finally, “but the angel said to even a sign of God’s punishment. The wonder of
him...” (v. 13). From verses 5 to 13 the speed John’s birth is heightened by the report of the
of the narrative slows from years to days to hours couple’s age. Like Sarah, Elizabeth was beyond
to the moment of the first dialogue in the Gospel, the age of child bearing. Like Isaac (Gen 25:21)
and we are brought directly into the scene of the and Hannah (1 Sam 1:9-18), Zechariah and Eliza-
angelic appearance. beth had prayed for a child.
Rather than letting the reader gather clues to 1:8-12. Echoes of the story of the birth of
the characters’ identities from what they do and Samuel increase as we are told that the setting
say (indirect characterization), in this opening for the announcement was Zechariah’s service in .
scene the narrator tells the reader who the char- the Temple. The priests were divided into 24
acters are (direct characterization). Even their groups, and each group served twice a year for a
names are appropriate to the pervasive piety of week at a time in the Temple. On this occasion,
the setting: Zechariah means “God has remem- Zechariah was chosen to enter the sanctuary and
bered,” and Elizabeth means something like “My offer the incense. A sacrifice was offered twice a
God’s oath.” Zechariah is a priest from the order day, both on the outer altar and on the inner
45
altar, inside the sanctuary. A list was compiled of one of terror and fear. What mortal can stand to
those priests who had never been chosen to enter be in the presence of the Divine?
the sanctuary, and then lots were cast to deter- 1:13-17. The angel’s first words (v. 13), and
mine the priests who would bring the sacrifice to significantly the first words of dialogue in the
the altar and clean the ashes off of it. This honor Gospel, are an encouragement not to be afraid (cf.
normally came only once in a lifetime. The Mish- Dan 10:12, 19). Zechariah’s prayer has been
nah describes the ceremony as follows: heard. From this report we fill an earlier gap in
the narrative; apparently Zechariah had been pray-
He to whom fell the lot of [offering] the incense
ing, perhaps even as he entered the sanctuary,
took the ladle. ... He whose lot it was to bear
the firepan took the silver firepan and went to that God would give them a child. As we soon
the top of the Altar and cleared away the cinders learn, not only will God give the aging couple a
on this side and on that, scooped up fire with son, but their child will be the forerunner of the
the firepan, came down and emptied it out into Messiah as well. What greater blessing could
the golden [firepan].... Then they began to go
come to a faithful priest? Zechariah, therefore, as
up the steps to the Porch. They went first whose
lot it was to clear the ashes from the inner Altar the father will name the child “John,” which
and the Candlestick. He whose lot it was to clear means “Yahweh has shown favor” or “Yahweh is
the ashes from the inner Altar went in and took gracious.”
the ash-bin, prostrated himself, and came out. The second prediction (v. 14) is the first an-
... He whose lot it was to bear the firepan piled
up the cinders on the [inner] Altar, smoothed
nouncement of the joy and gladness that will
them with the back of the firepan, prostrated accompany not only the birth of John (1:44, 58)
himself, and came out. He whose lot it was to but also the coming of the Messiah to Israel (2:10;
bring the incense took the dish from the midst 8:13; 15:7, 10; 24:41, 52). Throughout Luke, joy
of the ladle and gave it to his friend or kinsman. and praise are the spontaneous responses of God’s
... He began to smooth it down and came out.
He that offered the incense did not offer it until people to the mighty acts they witnessed.
the officer said to him, ‘Offer the incense!’... The angelic announcement also declares the
When all were gone away he offered the incense child’s future greatness. Zechariah’s son would be
and prostrated himself and came away.”° “great before the Lord” (Luke 7:28), and—as was
appropriate for a descendant of Aaron (Lev 10:9},
Once all of the priests had come out onto the
a Nazirite (Num 6:3; Judg 13:4), or a prophet (1
porch, they pronounced the priestly blessing
Sam 1:11; Mic 2:11)—John would drink no wine
(Num 6:22ff.).
or intoxicating drink (7:33). References to indi-
At this high moment—the hour of the sacrifice,
viduals being “filled with the Spirit” (1:15, 41,
the pinnacle of Zechariah’s life of priestly service,
67) occur frequently in Luke and Acts. The prom-
while all the multitude of the people were praying
ise of the Spirit indicates that divine-_ power would
outside, waiting for Zechariah to emerge from the
be active in John. It was commonly held that
sanctuary—an angel of the Lord appeared on the
there had been no prophets in Israel since the
right side of the altar. The temporal references and
time of Malachi, so the announcement that John
explanations of vv. 8-10 delay the action and
would be filled with the Spirit was a signal that
heighten its drama as the reader waits to learn what
the messianic age was dawning.
happened inside the sanctuary. The specificity of the
Priestly and prophetic functions are blended in
location of the appearance lends credibility and
the announcement that John would turn the peo-
creates a mental image in the mind of the reader.
ple of Israel to the Lord (Mic 2:6). The idiom is
The intrusion of the divine into the mundane
used in Acts and elsewhere as a technical term for
interrupts and brings an end even to the sacred .
Christian conversion (Acts 3:19; 9:35; 14:15). No
ceremonies of worship. We are not told whether
Jewish writings depict Elijah as the forerunner of
Zechariah had burned the incense; all that matters
the Messiah. Rather, in Jewish thought Elijah was
from this point on is his response to the Lord’s
expected to make peace, reassemble the tribe,
charge to him. Following the pattern of other
purify Israel, restore manna, and raise the dead.27
angelic appearances, Zechariah’s initial response is
27. See J. Louis Martyn, The Gospel ofJohn in Christian History (New
26. See m. Tamid 5.4-6.3. York: Paulist, 1978) 18n. 25.
46
In Christian interpretation, however, Elijah would passed (v. 18); now he will count the days until
return before the coming of the kingdom of God. The the angelic announcement is fulfilled (v. 20). All
angelic announcement in Luke echoes Mal 4:5-6: in due time! The next words that Zechariah
Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the speaks will begin with the pronouncement
great and terrible day of the LorpD comes. He “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel” (v. 68) and
will turn the hearts of parents to their children continue to confirm the role announced for the
and the hearts of children to their parents. child by Gabriel (v. 76).
(NRSV; cf. Sir 48:10)
1:21-23. As the scene closes, time once again
The last line of v. 17 associates the references in speeds up. The focus cuts from Gabriel’s second
Mal 3:1; 4:5-6 with Isa 40:3, which is linked to speech (vv. 19-20), to the awkward moments
John the Baptist in the Synoptics. John will pre- when Zechariah is unable to pronounce the bless-
pare the people for the Lord’s coming (cf. Matt ing (vv. 21-22), the closing days of Zechariah’s
3:3; Mark 1:2-3; Luke 3:4-6; John 1:23), and his duties (v. 23), the time of Elizabeth’s conception,
preparatory role will be forecast again in and the months of her seclusion (vv. 24-25). The
Zechariah’s blessing of the child (1:76). scene is also framed by travel reports—Zechariah’s
Although Luke has no parallel to Mark 9:9-13, travel to Jerusalem and his return home.
in which Jesus alludes to John’s fulfillment of the The people who had been at prayer (v. 10),
role of Elijah (cf. Matt 11:13-14; 17:3), the refer- and whom John would prepare for the coming of
ences to Elijah at the annunciation of John’s birth the Lord (v. 17), were amazed at how long
alert the reader that the accounts of John’s min- Zechariah stayed in the sanctuary and waited for
istry (3:1-20; 7:18-35) are to be read in the light him (v. 21). According to custom, the priest was
of this role. Indeed, echoes of the announcement not to linger in the sanctuary.2® When Zechariah
occur in the later passages (“prophet,” 7:26; “fa- emerged, he was not able to speak. The first sign
ther... children,” 3:8; “wisdom is vindicated by of the fulfillment of the angelic announcement,
all her children,” 7:35), where again Isa 40:3-5 ironically, was Zechariah’s inability to tell anyone
and Mal 3:1 are cited (3:4-6; 7:27). The role of what the angel had said. At this point, the priest
John announced at his birth will be confirmed by was supposed to pronounce the priestly blessing
Luke’s later reports of his preaching and his calls (Num 6:24-26) over the people,?? but Zechariah
for repentance. Significantly, however, John was could not speak a word. Zechariah’s inability to
no healer or miracle worker, like Elijah. That role speak, however, was a sign to the people that he
was fulfilled by Jesus. had seen a vision in the sanctuary, as others had
1:18-20. Zechariah’s response is a direct quo- before him.*° Daniel also had been unable to speak
tation of Gen 15:8, “How will I know that this following the angelic appearance to him (Dan
is so?” (v. 18). The allusion to Abraham is under- 10:15). The scene concludes with Zechariah’s de-
scored by a reminder of what the narrator has parture from Jerusalem at the end of his priestly
already told the reader (v. 7): Zechariah and his service.
wife were getting on in years. The reader can 1:24-25. Thereafter, Elizabeth conceived.
hardly miss the implication: A new child of the Here too the report echoes related passages in the
covenant is about to be born; God is acting in a Old Testament. The Lord remembered Hannah,
mighty way, just as in the days of Abraham. and she conceived after she had returned home
The angel returns Zechariah’s emphatic “I am (1 Sam 1:19-20). Similarly, God remembered Ra-
old” with an equally emphatic “I am Gabriel” chel, and she too conceived and then gave thanks,
(Dan 8:15-16; 9:21; 7 Enoch 9:1; 20:7; 40:2, 9). saying, “God has taken away my reproach” (Gen
His function is to stand before the Lord (cf. Tob 30:23 NRSV). Elizabeth’s five-month seclusion
12:15), and his mission is to bring good news to sets the stage for the angelic revelation of Eliza-
Zechariah. Gabriel was sent to speak for God, but beth’s condition to Mary (1:36). Because of Eliza-
because Zechariah did not receive the good news, beth’s seclusion, the reader will understand that
he would not be able to speak until the annun-
28. m: Yoma5.1.
ciation was fulfilled and the child was born. 29. m. Tamid7.2.
Zechariah was concerned that his “days” had 30. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 13.282-83.
47
Mary did not learn that Elizabeth was expecting Daniel and / Enoch), and at every point the
a child until Gabriel revealed it to her. angel’s words and the narrator’s report echo an-
The annunciation of John’s birth, therefore, is nunciations of births in the Old Testament. In
communicated in a setting of Jewish piety (a priest every respect, therefore, the scene is filled with
burning incense in the sanctuary of the Temple), numinous wonder, divine purpose, and the prom-
through the dramatic appearance of the angel ise of joy for God’s people.
Gabriel (who is previously mentioned only in
REFLECTIONS
The opening scene in the Gospel tells of the end of Israel’s waiting for the decisive,
history-fulfilling acts of God. It presumes the suspense created by the centuries of waiting,
promise, and prophetic anticipation in the OT. Israel’s plight is paralleled and dramatized by
an aging couple’s waiting and hoping for the birth of a child. In both cases the waiting was
so prolonged that hope was beginning to seem futile. The announcement of the coming birth
of John, therefore, is a call for the renewing of hope and a challenge for the despairing to
believe that it is never too late for those who wait upon the Lord.
1. Both continuity and surprise characterize the pattern of God’s redemptive work. The
annunciation is given in the Temple, at the hour of the burning of the incense, to a priest,
the husband of one of the daughters of Aaron. In this new thing that God was about to do,
God was not abandoning Israel. This theme will be developed throughout Luke and Acts (see
Acts 3:26; 13:46). It is the Lukan equivalent of the Pauline formulation “to the Jew first and
also to the Greek” (Rom 1:16; 2:9, 10). If, by the time Luke wrote, Christianity had become
a predominantly Gentile religion, it was not because God had abandoned or rejected Israel.
Both Luke and Acts begin at the heart of Judaism, in the Temple, with announcements of the
fulfillment of Israel’s hopes. Fulfillment, however, required a response of openness to God’s
redemptive works. Israel’s failure to embrace the Messiah when he came constitutes the tragic
element of this history and once again pushes into the future the culmination of God’s
_ redemptive work.
If the beginning of Luke stands in continuity with the OT, repeating the familiar pattern of
an annunciation, it also offers its own surprises. The angelic announcement says nothing about
the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6) and gives no promise of the expulsion of
the Gentiles (Psalms of Solomon 17). Instead, John will be a successor to the prophets, calling
Israel to repentance, reconciliation, and obedience. Justice is required of a people prepared for
what God is about to do.
2. The annunciation subtly asserts the relationship between the indicative (what God has done,
is doing, and will do) and the consequent imperative (what the faithful should do in response):
Indicative Imperative
he will be great he shall drink no wine (v. 15)
he will be filled with the Holy Spirit he will turn many of the people of
‘Israel to the Lord their God (v. 16)
with the spirit and power of Elijah... to turn the hearts of parents to their
children... (v. 17)
Implicit in each of the predictions of John’s greatness is a call for faithful, obedient response.
How does the announcement of gladness (v. 14) fit into this scheme? Does the gladness that
arises from God’s act lead us to obedience? Or is the gladness the result of obedience? The
48
answers to these questions go beyond what is said in this scene, but they are probably both/and
rather than either/or.
3. After the stately and formal prologue, the reader may be prepared to read a history of
kings and generals, the wealthy and the mighty. The opening words of v. 5, “in the days of
King Herod of Judea,” seem to confirm this false expectation. Instead, the story of God’s mighty
acts does not involve Herod but a devout old couple. The world’s standards lead us to attribute
power and worth to the royal functionary, who was but a puppet of Rome. God chose instead
the poor and humble as the venue for the great work of redemption. History would remember
Herod only as the king at the time when John the Baptist and Jesus were born. Yet, Herod
Was not even aware of the events for which he would be remembered. The church can easily
continue to perpetuate the false assumptions that can lead the reader of the opening verses of
Luke to false expectations. The old, the poor, the humble, and the insignificant are not to be
overlooked; they are God’s chosen people.
4. Even the faithful may grow dull in their expectations, however. Here is a story of a priest
who was praying fervently but who was not prepared for his prayers to be answered. He was
Officiating in the sanctuary itself, but he did not really expect to experience God’s presence. The
scene once again challenges us, this time to trust in God expectantly and to be prepared for God’s
response to our needs. We go through the motions of prayer and worship, but we hardly expect
to meet God in the midst of our daily activities—not even in the holy moments of worship. Even
the faithful, like Zechariah, need to recover the vitality of worship. Our cynical response often
echoes Zechariah’s: “How will I know that this is so?” The response as always is to witness what
God has done and what God continues to do in our midst. Can we see in the birth of a child
God’s continuing affirmation of hope for the world in which we live?
5. Throughout, the opening scene of Luke trumpets the fulfillment of the age. Time is
important. The period of waiting is over. God is about to bring redemption to all who look
to God with hope and faith. The story tells of years, days, and moments, but ultimately it tells
of the kairos of God’s redemption of Israel and of all people. The time that God gives each
of us is important, and its importance is heightened by the awareness that God gives meaning
and worth to life. Each day is the day the Lord has made, a day for us to be glad and seek
in each moment to join our activities to the fulfillment of God’s redeeming glory. When that
message breaks through the shells of our cynicism, we too can join Elizabeth in the joyful
exclamation, “This is what the Lord has done for me!”
LUKE 1:26-38, THE ANNUNCIATION OF THE

BIRTH OF JESUS
NIV NRSV
26In the sixth month, God sent the angel 26In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was
Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, *’to a sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth,
virgin pledged to be married to a man named 27to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was
Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name
was Mary. The angel went to her and said, was Mary. 28And he came to her and said, “Greet-
“Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord ings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”* **But
is with you.” she was much perplexed by his words and pon-
2°Mary was greatly troubled at his words and aQOther ancient authorities add Blessed are you among women
49
- LUKE 1:26-38
NIV NRSV
wondered what kind of greeting this might be. dered what sort of greeting this might be. *°The
30But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for
Mary, you have found favor with God. 3'You will you have found favor with God. */And now, you
be with child and give birth to a son, and you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and
are to give him the name Jesus. °?He will be great you will name him Jesus. °*He will be great, and
and will be called the Son of the Most High. The will be called the Son ‘of the Most High, and the
Lord God will give him the throne of his father Lord God will give to him the throne of his
David, “and he will reign over the house of Jacob ancestor David. **He will reign over the house of
forever; his kingdom will never end.” Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be
34“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, no end.” 34Mary said to the angel, “How can this
“since I am a virgin?” be, since I am a virgin?”* *The angel said to her,
35The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the
come upon you, and the power of the Most High power of the Most High will overshadow you;
will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born therefore the child to be born’ will be holy; he
will be called? the Son of God. **Even Elizabeth ~ will be called Son of God. **And now, your
your relative is going to have a child in her old relative Elizabeth in her old age has also con-
age, and she who was said to be barren is in her — ceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her
sixth month. *’For nothing is impossible with who was said to be barren. °’For nothing will be
God.” impossible with God.” **Then Mary said, “Here
38“T am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me
“May it be to me as you have said.” Then the according to your word.” Then the angel departed
angel left her. from her.
435 Or So the child to be born will be called holy, aGkfdo not know a man oOther ancient authorities add of you
(COMMENTARY
The next scene opens as though it will continue nouncement came as an answer to fervent prayer;
to tell of the birth of the child promised to the second was completely unanticipated. John
Zechariah and Elizabeth. Instead, it tells of a would be born to parents past the age of child
greater miracle and the birth of one who would bearing, but the miracle of Jesus’ birth would be
be even greater than John. In many respects the even greater. Jesus would be born to a virgin. The
scene that follows is similar to the annunciation announcement of Jesus’ future role also shows
of the birth of John. The angel Gabriel appears to that at every point Jesus would be even greater
announce the birth of the child, and the annun- than his forerunner. Watch how these nuances
ciation follows the pattern of birth annunciations are developed in the course of the details of this
in the OT: The angel says, “Do not be afraid,” scene.
calls the recipient of the vision by name, assures 1:26-28. The opening phrase locates the scene
him or her of God’s favor, announces the birth temporally and connects it to the preceding an-
of the child, discloses the name of the child to be nouncement. The credibility of what is about to
born, and reveals the future role of the child in take place is already underscored by the subtle
language drawn from the Scriptures. After their ‘reminder that what Gabriel announced to
respective announcements, Zechariah and Mary Zechariah has already begun to take place. Since
each ask a question, a sign is given, and the scene we have already met Gabriel, no further introduc-
closes with a departure. The similarity of structure tion is needed. What is about to take place,
and content between the two scenes invites the however, is a further unfolding of God’s design
reader to consider the differences between them for the salvation of all humanity. Gabriel is just
all the more closely. For example, the first an- God’s agent. The central figure in the annuncia-
50
LUKE 1:26-38 COMMENTARY ne
tion is neither Gabriel nor Mary—it is the gracious “the Son of the Most High” (v. 32). Jesus would
God of Israel. be superior to John, therefore, even though John
Time flies—from the sweeping reference to the came first. Jesus would reign over Israel as had
interval of six months to the moment of Gabriel’s his forefather David. This prediction adds signifi-
words to Mary. As readers, we are imaginatively cance to Luke’s earlier report that Joseph was a
drawn into the scene through the frame of the descendant of David (v. 27).
shifting spatial references. Notice how they move Again, we hear echoes of past promises. Second
from general to specific: from God to a city, of Samuel records the promise, “I will make for you
Galilee, Nazareth, to a virgin, betrothed to a man a great name” (7:9 NRSV), and Gabriel confirmed,
named Joseph, to Mary. By this careful arrange- “He will be great” (v. 32). In 2 Samuel, the
ment, Luke lets us sense the coming of the angel. prophet Nathan was told that through David’s son
The angel greets Mary, “Greetings, favored God would “establish the throne of his kingdom
one! The Lord is with you” (v. 28). The words forever” (7:13 NRSV). Similarly, the angel an-
echo the distant words of Hannah, the mother of nounced that Mary’s child would “reign over the
the prophet Samuel: “Let your servant find favor house of Jacob forever” (v. 33). The same OT
in your sight” (1 Sam 1:18 NRSV). The words passage: records God’s promise, “I will be his
also parallel assurances of power and favor given father, and he will be my son” (7:14 NIV). God’s
to the judges of Israel: “The Lorp is with you” promises to David, therefore, were about to be
(judg 6:12 NRSV). Matthew conveys the same fulfilled in a way David could not have imagined.
assurance that the birth of Jesus meant the prom- Jesus’ kingdom, however, would not be an
ise of God’s redeeming love by means of the name earthly, political reign but a spiritual kingdom that
Emmanuel, “God is with us” (Matt 1:23). would never end.
1:29-33. Mary was greatly troubled. Tobit, a 1:34-35. In response to this angelic an-
popular folk tale included in the apocrypha, tells nouncement, Mary asks a question reminiscent of
of a jealous angel who appeared on a bride’s Zechariah’s query, “How can this be?” She had
wedding night each time she married and killed not had sexual relations with a man. Gabriel’s
her bridegroom. Against the background of this response emphasizes that the baby would be born
popular story, the fear of a betrothed girl at the by the power of God. Like the presence of God
appearance of an angel is all the more under- in the cloud at the transfiguration (9:34), the Holy
standable. Could it be that she thought an evil Spirit would come upon her and overshadow her.
spirit was threatening to prevent her marriage? The child, therefore, would be God’s child, and
Although Mary was not yet married, she was he would be called the Son of God. As with all
betrothed. According to ancient customs, the mar- the annunciations in Scripture and in ancient
riage would have been arranged by her father. biographical accounts, the purpose of the annun-
She would live at home for a year after her ciation is to declare something vital about the
betrothal. Then the groom would come to take identity of the child. The Lukan account repeat-
her to his home, and the wedding celebration edly affirms that Mary’s son would be called “Son
would last for an entire week. Legally, the mar- of the Most High” (v. 32a), son of David (v. 320),
riage was sealed after the engagement. Thus, if and finally the title by which he would be most
Joseph had died before the wedding, Mary would widely recognized, “Son of God” (v. 35).
have been considered a widow. 1:36. The announcement to Mary, apparently,
Immediately, the angel reassures Mary with the was a double announcement. The implication of
all-important promise that she had found favor y. 36 is that Mary did not know that Elizabeth
with God. Then came the staggering an- was carrying a child also. The interpretation that
nouncement: She—Mary—was going to have a Elizabeth and Mary were cousins can be traced
baby, and he would be the Son of God! His name to Wycliffe, but Luke leaves the nature of their
would be called Jesus. The explanation that fol- relationship vague (“relative,” v. 36). The earlier
lowed the announcement told of Jesus’ role in reference that Elizabeth remained in seclusion
makes this lack of communication plausible. The
God’s plan. In contrast to John, who would pre-
pare the people (1:16-17), Jesus would be called announcement of Elizabeth’s joy to Mary, there-
51
"LUKE 1:26-38 COMMENTARY _
fore, serves as a sign to her. If Elizabeth, who had mission. It is a promise in the future tense: With
been called barren, could bear a child, then Mary God nothing, will be impossible.
could be sure that what had been told to her 1:38. The conclusion to this scene wraps
would come to pass also. the mantle of Hannah around Mary as she
The repetition of the temporal notice, that it echoes the words of her OT predecessor:
was the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be
closes this scene with a return to its opening with me according to, your word” (v. 38; cf. 1
words in v. 26. At least since the fourth century, Sam 1:18), and shortly Mary will sing praise to
churches have observed the births of John the God, just as Hannah had long before (cf. vv. 46-55
Baptist and Jesus six months apart. The traditional and 1 Sam 2:1-10). Throughout the Gospel of
dates are June 24 and December 25, which co- Luke, Mary is portrayed in a positive light as one
incide with the pagan celebrations of the summer obedient to the Lord (1:39-56; 2:34, 51), and
and winter solstices, though nothing in the New Jesus will later declare, “My mother and my
Testament confirms these dates. The church may brothers are those who hear the word of God and
have chosen these dates for several reasons. De- do it” (8:21).
cember 25 falls nine months after March 25, Gabriel has completed his mission successfully.
which was traditionally regarded as the first day The artnunciation would not have been complete
of creation. In this view, the conception of Jesus without Mary’s trusting, obedient response. Mary
was viewed as the beginning of a new creation. had been chosen, “favored,” to have an important
In addition, December 25 comes just after the part in God’s plan to bring salvation to God’s
winter solstice, when the days start growing people, but it is unthinkable that God would have
longer. Christians saw Jesus as the true light of forced Mary to have the child against her will.
the world that would enlighten all people John Mary is an important example, therefore, of one
1:9); who is obedient to God even at great risk to self.
1:37. Gabriel’s parting words ring with reas- Just as the scene of the annunciation to
surance: “Nothing will be impossible with God.” Zechariah concludes with his departure from Je-
They echo the wonder of Sarah: “Is anything too rusalem, so also this scene ends with Gabriel’s
wonderful for the Lorn?” (Gen 18:14 NRSV) and departure. The departure, moreover, complements
Jesus’ later declaration, “What is impossible for the detailed announcement of Gabriel’s coming at
mortals is possible for God” (18:27). A barren the beginning of the scene. The repetition of
woman can bear a child. A virgin can conceive. temporal and spatial notices at the end of the
The Lord can enter into human history as a child. scene serve, therefore, as a transition from the
From a tomb can come resurrection, and the Holy dialogue between Mary and Gabriel to the narra-
Spirit can empower the church for its worldwide tion that follows.
REFLECTIONS
Luke’s distinctive attention to God’s work among ordinary people continues to be evident.
The angel Gabriel appeared first to Zechariah, an old priest going about his duties in the
Temple, and then to a young girl not yet married. God chose the lowly rather than the high
and mighty to fulfill the plan of redemption. Instead of sending Gabriel to a queen or princess,
God sent the angel to a young girl betrothed to a carpenter. They lived in an insignificant
town in an unimportant province of the Roman Empire. Nothing about their circumstances
would have led anyone to suspect the role they would play in God’s plan.
1. Mary had been chosen, “favored” by God. But what a strange blessing. It brought with
it none of the ideals or goals that so consume our daily striving. Today many assume that
those whom God favors will enjoy the things we equate with a good life: social standing,
wealth, and good health. Yet Mary, God’s favored one, was blessed with having a child out
of wedlock who would later be executed as a criminal. Acceptability, prosperity, and comfort
32
LUKE 1:26-38 REFLECTIONS | R
have never been the essence of God’s blessing. The story is so familiar that we let its familiarity
mask its scandal.
2. If Mary embodies the scandal, she also exemplifies the obedience that should flow from
blessing. Mary was favored and would bear a king, but only if she gave herself obediently in
response to God’s call. The greatest blessings are bound up in the fellowship God shares with
us. They are not rewards separate from that fellowship. Perhaps we would inject more realism
into our Advent celebrations if we recognized that the glory of Christmas came about by the
Willingness of ordinary people to obey God’s claim on their lives.
3. The ultimate scandal is that God would enter human life with all its depravity, violence,
and corruption. Therefore, the annunciation ultimately is an announcement of hope for
humankind. God has not abandoned us to the consequences of our own sinfulness. Rather,
God has sent Jesus as our deliverer. There is another way, a commonwealth under Jesus’
Lordship that is without end.
LUKE 1:39-56, MARY’S VISIT WITH ELIZABETH
NIV NRSV
S°At that time Mary got ready and hurried to 39In those days Mary set out and went with
a town in the hill country of Judea, ““where she haste to a Judean town in the hill country,
entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 4°where she entered the house of Zechariah and
4\When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby greeted Elizabeth. *!When Elizabeth heard Mary’s
leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And
the Holy Spirit. *7In a loud voice she exclaimed: Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit “?and
“Blessed are you among women, and blessed is exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you
the child you will bear! “But why am I so favored, among women, and blessed is the fruit of your
that the mother of my Lord should come to me? womb. “And why has this happened to me, that
44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached the mother of my Lord comes to me? “For as
my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. soon as | heard the sound of your greeting, the
45Blessed is she who has believed that what the child in my womb leaped for joy. **And blessed
Lord has said to her will be accomplished!” is she who believed that there would be? a fulfill-
4eAnd Mary said: ment of what was spoken to her by the Lord.”
“My soul glorifies the Lord 46And Mary? said,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, “My soul magnifies the Lord,
48for he has been mindful 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
of the humble state of his servant. 48 for he has looked with favor on the lowliness
From now on all generations will call me of his servant.
blessed, Surely, from now on all generations will call
49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me blessed;
me—= 4° for the Mighty One has done great things for
holy is his name. me,
SOHis mercy extends to those who fear him, and holy is his name.
from generation to generation. 5° His mercy is for those who fear him
51He has performed mighty deeds with his arm, from generation to generation.
he has scattered those who are proud in their aOr believed, for there will be 6Other ancient authorities read
inmost thoughts. Elizabeth
53
LUKE 1: 39-56
NIV NRSV
°2He has brought down rulers from their thrones 51 He has shown strength with his arm;
but has lifted up the humble. he has scattered the proud in the thoughts
He has filled the hungry with good things of their hearts.
but has sent the rich away empty. 52 He has brought down the powerful from their
*4He has helped his servant Israel, thrones,
remembering to be merciful and lifted up the lowly;
>to Abraham and his descendants forever, 53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
even as he said to our fathers.” and sent the rich away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
‘Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about three in remembrance of his mercy,
months and then returned home. % according to the promise he made to our
ancestors,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever.”
50And Mary remained with her about three
months and then returned to her home.
(COMMENTARY
A master storyteller, Luke has begun the Gospel Mary set out, went with haste, entered the house,
with a stately literary prologue and two separate and greeted Elizabeth.
but parallel birth announcements. At the end of The meeting of the women is also accompanied
the second announcement, Mary was told that by a sign: The child in Elizabeth’s womb leaps.
Elizabeth was expecting a child. The two separate The report of the movement of a child in the
story lines merge when Mary visits Elizabeth. The womb recalls, for those familiar with the Scrip-
significance of this scene arises from the following tures of Israel, other prenatal signs. Jacob and Esau
observations: The sparse narrative in these verses struggled so fiercely in Rebekah’s womb that she
(vv. 39-41, 56) serves primarily to frame the lamented: “If it is to be this way, why do I live?”
prophetic oracles uttered by Elizabeth (vv. 42-45) (Gen 25:22 NRSV). Similarly, the birth struggles
and Mary (vv. 46-55). The oracles, in turn, offer of Perez and Zerah are noted in Gen 38:27-30.
The movement of her unborn child is interpreted
praise for the faithfulness of Mary, the blessedness
immediately by Elizabeth.
of the Lord’s birth, and the wonder of God’s work
1:42-45. These verses contain four oracles.
of redemption.
Indeed, there are two signs at the encounter
1:39-41. The opening and closing words of
between Mary and Elizabeth. Not only does the
the scene again describe a coming and going, this
child leap, but also Elizabeth is filled with the
time Mary’s. As in the previous scene, Mary’s
Holy Spirit and prophesies. Another of the words
approach to Elizabeth moves the reader into the
of announcement to Zechariah is thereby fulfilled.
dialogue between Mary and Elizabeth by shifting Zechariah remained speechless (vv. 20, 22), Eliza-
from general to increasingly specific spatial refer- beth conceived (vv. 13, 24), and now the babe
ences: She went to the hill country, to a village ‘ has leaped in the womb at the approach of Mary
of Judea, to the house of Zechariah, to Elizabeth. and Elizabeth has been filled with the Spirit,
Her haste may convey obedience, but since she fulfilling the announcement that “even before his
was not told to go to Elizabeth, it is more likely birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit” (v.
an indication of joy and wonder. There is no 15). The report that Elizabeth was filled. with the
question or doubt. The verbs convey the move- Holy Spirit also serves to alert us that what she
ment, the urgency, and the joy of her journey: says will come as an inspired prophetic utterance,
54
the word of God. Her loud cry, while it may Magnificat. A few manuscripts attribute the Mag-
remind one of a birth pang, is the cry of the Spirit nificat to Elizabeth, but the structure of parallel
in song. scenes describing the annunciations and birth of
The first oracle declares the blessedness of John and Jesus favors the traditional reading that
Mary and the child that will be born to her. Luke the Magnificat is Mary’s answer to the words of
has given no indication that Elizabeth knew of Elizabeth. Whether the words fit the situation of
the angelic announcement to Mary. The implica- Mary or Elizabeth better is moot if, as has often
tion is that her knowledge of Mary’s pregnancy been suggested, the words of the canticles in Luke
was given to her by the Spirit. Her oracle did not were drawn from early Jewish-Christian liturgical
confer God’s blessing on Mary but recognized that compositions. The song of Mary turns, therefore,
she was already blessed. Luke 11:27 will later to the effects of the Lord’s coming for all God’s
resonate with Elizabeth’s cry, much in the same people. Just as surely as the annunciations, these
way that the cry of the disciples at the entry into words echo the promises to Israel through the
Jerusalem (19:38) answers the angelic blessing at generations and declare their fulfillment. Only v.
the birth of Jesus (2:14). Elizabeth’s words also 48 speaks directly to the situation, and it echoes
evoke the blessings pronounced on Jael (Judg the words of blessing that have already been
5:24) and Judith (Jdt 13:18; see also 2 Bar 54:10). pronounced upon Mary. Just as the annunciations
Whereas Jael and Judith were praised for their followed the pattern of angelic annunciations in
heroism in wielding the sword, however, Mary the OT, so also the Magnificat clearly owes much
will experience the point of the sword in her own of its inspiration to the song of Hannah in 1 Sam
heart (2:35). 2:1-10. Both open with a couplet exalting the
The second oracle takes the form of a question, Lord. Verse 48 declares the reason for Mary’s
but discloses more explicitly the identity of the praise and identifies her with the lowly, foreshad-
child in Mary’s womb. Her reference to Mary as owing both the promise of exaltation of the lowly
“the mother of my Lord” is already a Christian later in the Magnificat and the fulfillment of this
confession, signaling that as with the rest of the promise in the ministry of Jesus. The words of
birth narratives, Luke has told this part of his story praise, however, speak of God’s redeeming work
in light of the entire story. To the blessing of the not as future but as already having been fulfilled.
answer to her prayer for a child has now been Such is the confidence of faith. The overthrow of
added the blessing of a visit from the one who the powerful has not come about through the
would be the mother of the Lord. mounting up of the weak in rebellion but through
The third oracle explains the meaning of the the coming of God in the weakness of a child.
movement of the babe in her womb. It was a leap The couplets describe the dramatic reversal that
of joy. The angel had promised Zechariah that he is the signature of God’s mighty acts. The proud
would have joy, and now joy has come to Eliza- are scattered. The powerful are deposed. By con-
beth at the visitation of Mary (cf. vv. 14, 44). trast, the lowly are exalted and the hungry are
John has already begun to fulfill his calling as one fed while the rich are sent away empty. According
who would declare the Lord’s coming and prepare to the promises, the Lord has helped Israel to
the way for him. Later, Jesus would rejoice that remember God’s mercies. More than predictions
the Lord of heaven and earth who had hidden of what is to come, the Magnificat praises God
things from the wise had revealed them to infants for the goodness of God’s nature and the redemp-
rO:2ry tion that Israel and the church have experienced.
The fourth oracle is a beatitude on Mary for The Magnificat also makes clear the pattern of
her faith that the promise to her would be ful- God’s activity. In every line there are echoes of
filled. The oracle, therefore, recalls both the an- the Scriptures of Israel.
nunciation to Mary and her humble response. 1:56. The scene ends with Mary’s departure
Blessing always comes from trusting that God’s about three months later. The temporal reference
Word will be fulfilled. ; effectively fills the span of time between the
1:46-55. The oracles from Elizabeth are annunciation to Mary and the birth of John in the
matched by the song of praise from Mary—the next scene.
55
’ LUKE 1:39-56 REFLECTIONS
REFLECTIONS
1. What mother has not waited for the first stirrings of a child or felt the goodness of
God’s blessing in the fullness of her womb? The joy of Mary and Elizabeth is the joy of all
who look forward with wonder and thankfulness to the birth of a child. The joining of this
wonder with God’s saving work invites us to consider how the experience of expectancy
teaches us the ways of God’s gracious work in human experience. Joy is peaked by waiting.
Love is disclosed in tenderness and promise. Every birth, therefore, can be a sign of salvation,
of finding favor, of being blessed, of living with promise, and of realizing its fulfillment. The
experience of Israel and of Jesus are but extensions of these same realities.
2. The joy of the mother will be the job of the son. Mary rejoiced that God had looked
on her with favor, that God had shown the strength of God’s arm, and that God would
overthrow the powerful and exalt the poor. Echoes of her words come to the fore again in
Jesus’ address in the synagogue at Nazareth and in his parables of the rich man and Lazarus
and the Pharisee and the tax collector. Mary praises God as Savior (v. 46), yet it is Jesus who
will bring about that salvation.
3. Joy is a recurring theme throughout Luke. The joy of the annunciations and the births
in the first two chapters recurs in the joy of forgiveness, healings, raising the dead, and receiving
the outcasts throughout the ministry of Jesus. Appropriately, at the end of the Gospel, the
disciples return to Jerusalem with joy and are in the Temple praising God. God’s redemptive
work brings joy to expression in human experience, and that joy is most fully expressed in
the praise of God.
4. Mary’s praise of God as Savior should not escape notice. The confession “Savior”
expresses the desperate need of the lowly, the poor, the oppressed, and the hungry. Those
who have power and means, privilege and position have no need sufficient to lead them to
voice such a term that is itself a plea for help. “Savior” gives evidence of one’s sense of need
greater than one’s own strength. The proud are thereby excluded from the beginning from
the confession that leads to joy and salvation. “Savior” also confesses that the need for
deliverance has been met by another. The whole history of redemption, therefore, is evoked
by a single word that runs the gamut from desperate need to joyous fulfillment: Savior.
Verse 47 is theologically clear: God is our Savior. The title should never be limited to our
confession of Jesus, as though it did not apply to God. All that Jesus does in the Gospel of
Luke to effect salvation—calling for repentance, forgiving sinners, healing the sick, casting out
demons, eating with outcasts, and dying a redemptive death—he does according to God’s
purpose and intent. In Jesus, therefore, the role of God as Savior is transparent.
To confess that God is our Savior means that we will not look to some other power for
salvation from the chaos we have created. Neither technology nor social progress, neither
education nor legislated reforms will deliver us in and of themselves from meaningless lives,
amoral secularism, and the various forms of degradation that are rampant in society. God may
use any of these processes, but the basis of our trust, hope, and commitment should be clear:
God is our Savior.
56
LUKE 1:57-80 _
LUKE 1:57-80, THE BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST
NIV NRSV
*’When it was time for Elizabeth to have her 57Now the time came for Elizabeth to give
baby, she gave birth to a son. **Her neighbors and birth, and she bore a son. **Her neighbors and
relatives heard that the Lord had shown her great relatives heard that the Lord had shown his great
mercy, and they shared her joy. mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her.
°°On the eighth day they came to circumcise 59On the eighth day they came to circumcise
the child, and they were going to name him the child, and they were going to name him
after his father Zechariah, “but his mother Zechariah after his father. °°But his mother said,
spoke up and said, “No! He is to be called “No; he is to be called John.” °'They said to
John.” her, “None of your relatives has this name.”
lThey said to her, “There is no one among “Then they began motioning to his father to
your relatives who has that name.” find out what name he wanted to give him.
“Then they made signs to his father, to find °3He asked for a writing tablet and wrote, “His
out what he would like to name the child. “He name is John.” And all of them were amazed.
asked for a writing tablet, and to everyone’s Immediately his mouth was opened and his
astonishment he wrote, “His name is John.” °Im- tongue freed, and he began to speak, praising
mediately his mouth was opened and his tongue God. ®Fear came over all their neighbors, and
was loosed, and he began to speak, praising God. all these things were talked about throughout
©The neighbors were all filled with awe, and the entire hill country of Judea. °°All who heard
throughout the hill country of Judea people were them pondered them and said, “What then will
talking about all these things. °Everyone who this child become?” For, indeed, the hand of
heard this wondered about it, asking, “What then the Lord was with him.
is this child going to be?” For the Lord’s hand 67Then his father Zechariah was filled with the
was with him. Holy Spirit and spoke this prophecy:
°7His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy 68 “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
Spirit and prophesied: for he has looked favorably on his people
and redeemed them.
68“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, 69 He has raised up a mighty savior? for us
because he has come and has redeemed his in the house of his servant David,
people. 70 as he spoke through the mouth of his holy
°He has raised up a horn? of salvation for us prophets from of old,
in the house of his servant David 71 that we would be saved from our enemies
70(as he said through his holy prophets of long ago), and from the hand of all who hate us.
7\salvation from our enemies 72 Thus he has shown the mercy promised to our
and from the hand of all who hate us— ancestors,
72to show mercy to our fathers and has remembered his holy covenant,
and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our ancestor
73 the oath he swore to our father Abraham: Abraham,
74to rescue us from the hand of our enemies, to grant us “that we, being rescued from
and to enable us to serve him without fear the hands of our enemies,
75 in holiness and righteousness before him all might serve him without fear, in holiness and
our days. righteousness
before him all our days.
76And you, my child, will bercalled a prophet of 76 And you, child, will be called the prophet of
the Most High; the Most High;
269 Horn here symbolizes strength. aGk a horn of salvation
LUKE 1:57-80
NIV NRSV
for you will go on before the Lord to prepare for you: will go before the Lord to prepare
the way for him, his ways,
77to give his people the knowledge of salvation 77 to give knowledge of salvation to his people
through the forgiveness of their sins, by the forgiveness of their sins.
78hecause of the tender mercy of our God, 78 By the tender mercy of our God,
by which the rising sun will come to us from
the dawn from on high will break upon? us,
heaven .
79 to give light to those who sit in darkness and
to shine on those living in darkness
in the shadow of death,
and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the path of peace.” to guide our feet into the way of peace.”
80The child grew and became strong in spirit,
8°And the child grew and became strong in and he was in the wilderness until the day he
spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared appeared publicly to Israel.
publicly to Israel. aOther ancient authorities read has broken upon
(COMMENTARY
Following the meeting of Mary and Elizabeth, “that the Lord had shown his great mercy to her”
the story line returns to the fulfillment of the (cf. vv. 50, 54, 72, 78). The cause for rejoicing,
announcement to Zechariah. This section falls into therefore, is subtly shifted from the birth to the
two parts. The first describes the birth, circumci- demonstration of God’s mercy.
sion, and naming of the child (vv. 57-66). The The report of John’s circumcision on the eighth
second contains Zechariah’s blessing of the child day in accordance with the Mosaic Law (Gen
(the Benedictus, vv. 67-79). A concluding verse 17:12; Lev 12:3) adds one more facet to Luke’s
(80) bridges the time between the birth and the portrayal of the origins of the Christian story from
beginning of John’s ministry. the heart of the heritage and piety of Israel. The
1:57-66. The birth of John the Baptist is naming of the child serves also to confirm the
narrated with striking brevity (vv. 57-58). The fulfillment of the annunciation of John’s birth. At
emphasis throughout this section continues to fall the circumcision he was being called by his fa-
on the phenomena that accompany the birth, the ther’s name: Zechariah. His mother’s protest may
fulfillment of the angelic announcement, Luke’s be taken as evidence either that Zechariah had
theological interpretation of the event, and the communicated the angel’s instructions to her or
foreshadowing of John’s future role. The fulfill- that in some wondrous way she had arrived at
ment of the announcement of John’s birth in such the same name independently. Naming a son was
a dramatic fashion also serves to heighten the normally the father’s prerogative, and in the nam-
reader’s anticipation of the fulfillment of the even ing he claimed the child as his own. The name
greater predictions regarding the birth of Jesus. “John” is found in priestly families, but not ex-
Each element of Luke’s narrative of the birth clusively among priests, and means “God has been
and accompanying phenomena confirms the ful- gracious” (1 Chr 26:3; Ezra 10:6). When the
fillment of the annunciation. Elizabeth bore a son. others present responded that no one in her family
Even this bare report of the birth echoes the ‘was named John, they made signs to Zechariah
words “Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son” for him to indicate the name that should be given
(v. 13). When her neighbors and relatives heard to the child; evidently, Zechariah was deaf as well
of the birth, they rejoiced with her, fulfilling the as mute. The detailed account of the naming
prediction that “many will rejoice at his birth” (v. contrasts with the brevity of the report of John’s
14). What the neighbors heard, however, is rebirth. The drama of the naming, however, fulfills
ported as a theological interpretation of the birth: the sign of Zechariah’s speechlessness. What
58
Gabriel foretold has now come to pass (v. 20). vv. 68-75, with the possible addition of vv. 78-79.
When Zechariah requests a writing tablet and If the earlier verses were drawn from a traditional
writes “His name is John,” the people are amazed, psalm, then vv. 76-77 were inserted by Luke to
his tongue is freed, and he begins praising God make the hymn fit the context as Zechariah’s
(cf. Dan 10:15-16). answer to the question “What then will this child
The naming of John and Zechariah’s recovery become?” These two verses are also thoroughly
brought fear and amazement both to the neigh- Lukan in style. If vv. 78-79 are treated as part of
bors and throughout the hill country of Judea. the Lukan addition, then one avoids the problem
Fear is a typical response in Luke to a disclosure of identifying the antecedent of v. 78. On the
of God’s power (cf. 5:26; 7:16; 8:37; Acts 2:43). other hand, one is still faced with the vexing
Similarly, like Mary (2:19), all who heard these problem that many interpreters have thought that
things “placed them in their hearts.” In the OT vv. 78-79 characterize the ministry of Jesus rather
this idiom means that the person perceives that than John’s ministry. At least this addition links
something significant has happened and is pre- the Christian community to those in Israel who
pared to act on it (see Gen 37:11; 1 Sam 21:12; were looking forward to God’s deliverance of the
Dan 7:28). The effect of their amazement is to people.
lead the people to speculate over the identity of The language of vv. 68-75 is thoroughly
this child. Their question, “What then will this covenantal and frequently echoes phrases from the
child become?” has already been answered for the OT. Luke understood the births of John and Jesus
reader by the annunciation to Zechariah, who as a part of God’s fulfillment of the promises to
answers the question in the blessing that follows. David (2 Sam 7:8-16) and to Abraham (Gen
The last phrase of v. 66, “For, indeed, the hand 12:1-3; 26:3). Jesus was the promised “horn of
of the Lord was with him,” may be taken either salvation” (v. 69; cf. Ezek 29:21; 1 Sam 2:10; Ps
as a continuation of the previous question or as 18:2). The people of Israel had long expected that
a comment by the narrator. The latter is preferable God’s deliverance would take the form of deliv-
(and is followed by the NRSV) because of the past erance from the domination of foreign powers.
tense verb. The idiom is peculiar to Luke in the The deliverance would be a new exodus (v. 71;
NT (cf. Acts 11:21) but common in the OT (Isa. Ch Pss 16:17 106:10"2 Sam’ 22:16); The: pro-
31:3;"41:20; 06:14). gression of thought in the Benedictus shows,
Every element of this paragraph, therefore, however, that the true end of God’s redemption
either heightens the fulfillment of the prophecies is not merely deliverance from political domina-
regarding John’s birth or fuels such Lukan themes tion—as important as that is—but the creation of
as fear, joy, and praise as the appropriate response conditions in which God’s people can worship and
to God’s mercy and God’s mighty deeds. Every serve God without fear. As Schweizer perceptively
aspect of these events occurred following God’s observes: “The ultimate purpose of God’s salva-
design and led to the fulfillment of God’s redemption presupposes deliverance from the enemy but
tive work in Israel and beyond. is in fact undisturbed worship.”*! Deliverance
makes worship in peace—unhindered worship—
1:67-79. Zechariah’s blessing, traditionally
called the Benedictus, locates the work of John possible.
in reference to both God’s promises to Israel and We are a covenant people, saved and rescued
the saving work of Jesus. Gabriel had said that by God’s hand. God has thereby fulfilled the
John would be filled with the Spirit (v. 15), then promises to Abraham and to David. Holiness and
Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit (v. 41; tighteousness—two important elements of the
covenants—are to mark God’s people “all the
cf. v. 57), and now Zechariah is likewise “filled
days of our life” (v. 75). The worshiping commu-
with the Holy Spirit.” Once again we are prepared
nity is therefore invited to join their voices with
to receive the words that follow as a divine oracle.
Zechariah’s and Luke’s, to serve God, and to live
Interpreters have debated the extent and origin
in holiness and righteousness.
of the hymn of praise that follows, assigning the
core of it to Jewish Christians or to a traditional 31. Eduard Schweizer, 7he Good News According to Luke, trans.
Jewish psalm. The traditional source is found in David E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox, 1984) 43.
2)
» LUKE 1:57-80 COMMENTARY
The hymn comes to a climax as it describes salvation, the new covenant, foreseen by Jeremiah
the place of John in God’s redemptive work. (31:34), would be fulfilled and inaugurated. Ac-
John’s birth announced God’s new deliverance. cording to Jeremiah, the new covenant would
John would be a prophet (v. 76; cf. 7:26-27) who mean that each person would “know the LorpD...
would go before the Lord (fulfilling Isa 40:3 and for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember
Mal 3:1; 4:5). Four infinitives outline the progress their sin no more” (NRSV).
of God’s redemptive work. The first two describe The reference to the knowledge of God leads
the role of John the Baptist (vv. 76-77). The last quickly to the announcement of “light to those
two (v. 79) allude to the inauguration of the who sit in darkness” (v. 79; see Isa 9:2; 42:6-7).
kingdom, “when the day shall dawn upon us from
The mark of the redeemed is that they live out
on high” (see v. 78).
of the knowledge of God that has been given to
John would prepare the way (Isa 40:3; Mal
them. Darkness is dispelled by the revelation of
3:1), turning the hearts of parents to their chil-
dren, turning the disobedient to the wisdom of God’s being and God’s grace toward us. Finally,
the just, and making a people prepared (cf. v. 17). through John’s call for justice and righteousness
John would also “give knowledge of salvation” to (see Luke 3:7-14), and far more through Jesus’
the people, calling them to repentance and point- exemplary ministry, God would “guide our feet
ing them to Jesus. Through the knowledge of — into the way of peace” (v. 79).
REFLECTIONS
What constitutes evidence that “the hand of the Lord” (v. 66) is with us? The hand of the
Lord is seen wherever one arises to call for peace and to bring deliverance and reconciliation
to the oppressed and the estranged. ‘
The historical context of the Benedictus is as important as its literary context. As Luke was
concerned to remind his readers, the births of John the Baptist and Jesus, heralding God’s
redemption, occurred while Israel suffered under the domination of Rome and the vassal king,
Herod. It can hardly be accidental that Luke began his “orderly account” by setting the time
of God’s wonderful new deed “in the days of King Herod of Judea” (1:5). But God did not
act through Herod. Instead, God visited an elderly priest and his barren wife. Luke also sets
the birth of Jesus in the context of a decree from Caesar Augustus that the conquered people
be enrolled by name and city—presumably for the purpose of taxation (2:1-3). God was visiting
the people in the midst of their oppression.
That haunting phrase, “to guide our feet into the way of peace,” ends Zechariah’s blessing
upon John, his newborn son. This is the first of fourteen references to peace in the Gospel of
Luke. The Benedictus links the promise of salvation and redemption inseparably to the
achievement of peace. God’s people cannot have redemption without peace, for each is
necessary for the realization of the other.
Throughout the Gospel peace is closely associated with God’s redemptive work and the
salvation that comes to God’s people. Angels announced Jesus’ birth with the refrain of “peace
on earth” (see 2:14), and those who followed Jesus answered antiphonally, “Peace in heaven,/
and glory in the highest heaven!” (19:38). Jesus brought peace to those who received him:
Simeon (2:29), the woman who wept on Jesus’ feet (7:50), and the woman with a hemorrhage
(8:48). Through faith, each found peace.
Luke also explores the ways of peace. Disciples on mission announce peace and are received
by sons and daughters of peace (10:5-6; Acts 10:36). There are various kinds of peace. Peace
that is achieved by strength is always vulnerable to the attack of one who is stronger (11:21-22).
A king whose troops are outnumbered will, therefore, make peace with his enemy (14:32).
Paradoxically, in a saying regarding the sifting that revelation inevitably causes, Jesus says that
60
_ LUKE 1:57-80 REFLECTIONS _
he has not come to bring peace but division (12:51). Affirmation of the “way of peace” provokes
hostility, often with terrible consequences. Jesus himself suffered violence from those to whom
he offered peace, for Jerusalem did not know “the things that make for peace” (19:42). Bringing
peace, he died, but (following the reading now favored by text critics) when Jesus appeared
to the disciples his words of common greeting still echoed his ultimate purpose: “Peace be to
you” (24:36). The Benedictus affirms that God’s purposes are being fulfilled in the delivering
of God’s people from their oppressors. Their feet are being guided in the way of peace so that
they may worship without fear. Where then are the sons and daughters of peace who can
receive this word of faith?
LUKE 2:1-20, THE BIRTH OF JESUS

NIV NRSV
2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a ? In those days a decree went out from
decree that a census should be taken of Emperor Augustus that all the world
the entire Roman world. *(This was the first should be registered. *This was the first registra-
census that took place while Quirinius was gov- tion and was taken while Quirinius was governor
ernor of Syria.) 7And everyone went to his own of Syria. All went to their own towns to be
town to register. registered. “Joseph also went from the town of
4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David
Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the called Bethlehem, because he was descended from
town of David, because he belonged to the the house and family of David. "He went to be
house and line of David. °He went there to registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged
register with Mary, who was pledged to be and who was expecting a child. “While they were
married to him and was expecting a child. there, the time came for her to deliver her child.
While they were there, the time came for the 7And she gave birth to her firstborn son and
baby to be born, ’and she gave birth to her wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in
firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and a manger, because there was no place for them
placed him in a manger, because there was no in the inn.
room for them in the inn. 8In that region there were shepherds living in
8And there were shepherds living out in the the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night.
fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at °Then an angel of the Lord stood before them,
night. °An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them,
and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. '°But the angel said to
and they were terrified. ‘But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for see—I am bringing
them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news you good news of great joy for all the people: ''to
of great joy that will be for all the people. '!Today you is born this day in the city of David a Savior,
in the town of David a Savior has been born to who is the Messiah,? the Lord. '*This will be a
you; he is Christ? the Lord. '*This will be a sign sign for you: you will find a child wrapped in
to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths bands of cloth and lying in a manger.” '%And
and lying in a manger.” suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of
\3Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host the heavenly host, praising God and saying,
appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, '4 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace among those whom he
14“Glory to God in the highest, favors!”°
aOr the Christ oGk army cOther ancient authorities read
a/1 Or Messiah. “The Christ” (Greek) and “the Messiah” (Hebrew)
both mean “the Anointed One”; also in verse 26. peace, goodwill among people
LORE 21+ 205":
NIV NRSV
and on earth peace to men on whom his favor 15When the angels had left them and gone
rests.” into heaven, the shepherds said to one another,
'SWhen the angels had left them and gone into “Let us go now to Bethlehem and see this thing
heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s that has taken place, which the Lord has made
go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has known to us.” '°So they went with haste and
happened, which the Lord has told us about.” found Mary and Joseph, and the child lying in the
'eSo they hurried off and found Mary and manger. '7When they saw this, they made known
Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the what had been told them about this child; ‘and
manger. '7When they had seen him, they spread all who heard it were amazed at what the shep-
the word concerning what had been told them herds told them. '*But Mary treasured all these
about this child, '®and all who heard it were words and pondered them in her heart. *°The
amazed at what the shepherds said to them. !*But shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God
Mary treasured up all these things and pondered for all they had heard and seen, as it had been
them in her heart. ?°The shepherds returned, told them.
glorifying and praising God for all the things they
had heard and seen, which were just as they had
been told.
(COMMENTARY
Surprisingly, after a long chapter describing the tions add to the difficulties. There is no record of
annunciations of the two births, the meeting of a registration of “all the world” (or the whole
Mary and Elizabeth, and the events surrounding Roman Empire) under Augustus, and Josephus
the birth and naming of John, the birth of Jesus does not record an earlier census of Judea. Such
is reported with a minimum of detail. The first a census for tax purposes would not have oc-
seven verses describe the setting of Jesus’ birth in curred during the time that Judea was under the
the context of the census. Only vv. 6 and 7 are charge of Herod, because the collection of taxes
devoted to the birth itself. Verses 8-20 then record was delegated to him. Moreover, the Roman
the angelic annunciation to the shepherds and system of registration did not require one to return
their visit to the Christ child. The structure of the to one’s place of birth or family origin. Property
account suggests, therefore, that Luke interprets was registered at its location. Neither would Mary
the significance of the birth in relation to world have been required to accompany Joseph.*?
history, the content of the angelic announcement, If the historical evidence for a worldwide census
and the visit of the shepherds. The few details in cannot be sustained, we must look for reasons why
this sparse account, such as the references to the Luke might have recorded the story of Jesus’ birth
manger and the bands of cloth in which the child in this way. One suggestion is that he knew of the
was wrapped, are also likely to be significant. census, which is also referred to in Acts 5:37, but
2:1-7. Luke’s reference to Caesar Augustus, was confused about its date. While this suggestion
Quirinius, and the census has caused no end of is entirely plausible, it does not explain why the
difficulty for those who have sought to verify the census was linked to Jesus’ birth. Another suggestion
chronology from other ancient sources. The difficulty is that Luke was influenced by Ps 87:6.
is evident even in the dates of the principal figures.
Augustus reigned in various capacities from 44/42 “The LorD records, as he registers the peoples,
‘This one was born there.’ ”
BCE until his death in 14 ce. Luke 1:5 dates the
annunciations “In the days of King Herod of Judea”
32. For detailed discussions of the difficulties posed by Luke’s descrip-
(40/37 sce-4 cz). Quirinius, however, became gov- tion of the census, see Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (New
ernor or legate of Syria only in 6 ce, at which time York: Doubleday, 1977) 547-55; Emil Schiirer, The History of the Jewish
People in the Age ofJesus Christ (175 8.c-A.p. 135), 2 vols., rev. and ed.
he conducted a census of Judea. Other considera- Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973) 1:399-427.
62
This verse links census taking with birth, but it that while they were in Bethlehem, Mary “gave
is hardly prominent enough to explain why birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in
Luke related Jesus’ birth to the census. The bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because
linkage, however, serves several important pur- there was no place for them in the inn” (2:7).
poses. First, it continues the pattern Luke estab- The narrator gives no other details. We are not
lished in the first chapter of relating the gospel told where they were or what time of the year it
story to significant events and rulers of the time was. The innkeeper is never mentioned, and there
(1:5). Luke returns to this pattern again in is no reference to a cave, the traditional site of
3:1-2. Second, Augustus was widely acclaimed Jesus’ birth. This absence of detail has led to
as a bringer of peace. By relating Jesus’ birth— intense scrutiny of the four particulars that are
and the accompanying angelic announcement of reported: (1) Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn”; (2) she
“peace on earth” (2:14)—to Augustus’s decree, wrapped him in “bands of cloth” and (3) laid him
Luke is able subtly to proclaim that the true in a manger because (4) there was no place for
bringer of peace was not Caesar Augustus but them in “the inn.”
Jesus the Savior. Third, the census enrollment The term firstborn has sparked discussion be-
casts the family as complying with Roman law cause it has implications for the Roman Catholic
(cf. 20:20-26; 23:2, 47). Fourth, the census, teaching regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary.
with the assumed requirement that Joseph had Lucian of Samosata put the matter sharply in
to return to Bethlehem for it, allows Luke to another context: “If the first, not the only; if the
explain how it was that Jesus was born in only, not the first.”°° In this context, however,
Bethlehem but grew up in Nazareth. Matthew the term may mean no more than that Mary had
resolves this difficulty by means of the dream no other children at the time Jesus was born, but
warnings that Joseph should take the family it may also mean that Luke either knew of other
from Bethlehem and flee to Egypt, and later that children or was not concerned to emphasize Jesus’
he should return not to Bethlehem but to Naz- uniqueness as Mary’s only child.
areth after the death of Herod the Great. In Wrapping a child in bands of cloth was a
both Matthew and Luke the birth of Jesus in common practice. It demonstrated maternal
Bethlehem and the lineage of Joseph establish care and may have kept the child’s limbs
his claim to the title “son of David.” References straight (Wisd Sol 7:4). The manger was prob-
to David are prominent in the birth account in ably a feeding trough, but sometimes the term
Luke (1:27, 32, 69; and the title “Son of David” refers to a stall. The “inn” may refer to a place
occurs three times in Luke: 18:38, 39; 20:41). where caravaners and pilgrims could spend the
The context of Jesus’ birth, therefore, has the- night, a guest room in a house (cf. 22:11), or
matic and theological significance. Jesus, the son of to the sleeping area in a single-room Palestinian
David, the bringer of peace, was born in Bethlehem, peasant home. Since there was no place in the
the city of David. The Savior of all people was born sleeping area, the child was placed in a feed
under the reign of Caesar Augustus, whose peace trough. This detail may emphasize the humble
paled before that announced by the angels. The origins of Jesus, but interpreters have often read
Messiah born under Roman oppression, which was it as foreshadowing the failure of humanity to
so evident in the forced registration, would over- receive the Lord. In this regard, it has been
throw the powerful and raise up the oppressed. In connected with Isa 1:3:
yet another respect, therefore, the context of Jesus’ The ox knows its owner,
birth—tike the annunciations—serves as commen- and the donkey its master’s crib;
tary on his future role. It is an omen or sign. but Israel does not know,
Understood in this way, undue emphasis should not my people do not understand.
be given to either Luke’s precision as a historian or 2:8-20. The next scene describes the angelic
the significance of the historical problems posed by announcement to the shepherds and their visit to
his reference to the census. °
As has been noted, Luke describes the birth 33. Lucian of Samosata Demonax 29, cited by Raymond E. Brown, The
itself with surprising brevity. All we are told is Birth of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1977) 398.
63
Palestine at the
Time of Jesus svat
igh
ii
City of the Decapolis

Fortress
SHeHeN
the Christ child. Luke and Matthew tell different occasion for celebration is described in formal
stories at this point also. Whereas in Matthew the language familiar to everyone who has ever
magi follow a star to Bethlehem sometime after heard the Christmas story. The declaration em-
the birth of the child, in Luke it is the humble phasizes the fulfillment of Israel’s messianic ex-
shepherds from the local area to whom a sign of pectations “today”; the long-awaited child has
the birth is given. The first two verses set the been born (cf. Isa 9:6). The titles all define
scene for the announcement; v. 8 describes the Jesus’ role: a savior (a deliverer; Judg 3:9, 15),
shepherds, and v. 9 the appearance of the angel. “Christ the Lord,” in the city of David. The title
The announcement and the heavenly chorus fol- “Christ the Lord,” however, occurs nowhere
low in wv. 10-14. else in the NT. Next, a sign is given, just as
Shepherding was a despised occupation at the signs accompanied each of the previous angelic
time. Although the reference to shepherds evokes announcements in Luke. The sign this time is
a positive, pastoral image for the modern reader no more than the humble surroundings of the
and underscores Jesus’ association with the line birth that were described in the previous verses:
of David (1 Sam 16:11; 17:15; Ps 78:70), in the a child wrapped in cloth bands and lying in a
first century, shepherds were scorned as shiftless, manger. Before the shepherds can respond to
dishonest people who grazed their flocks on oth- the announcement, however, a great army of
ers’ lands. Against this background, it is possible angels (cf. Isaiah 6) appears in the heavens.
that Luke gets double duty from the shepherds— From the heavenly host a song rises in praise
first, developing further Jesus’ connection with to God (as in Rev 5:9-10; 12:10-12).
David and Bethlehem, and, second, graphically The song of the angels is a couplet with three
picturing Jesus as one sent to the lowly and parallel members in each line: (1) glory—peace;
outcast. It is to some of their number, shepherds, (2) in the highest (heaven)—on earth; and (3) to
that the birth is announced. Typically, the story, God—among people of goodwill. No verbs or
which begins with a reference to Caesar Augustus, articles clutter this joyful song. Praise for peace is
ends with the shepherds’ visit to the birth scene again implicitly directed not to Caesar Augustus
in Bethlehem. but to God. Later in Luke, the disciples entering
Luke describes the appearance of the angel in Jerusalem will provide an antiphonal response:
three statements: The angel stood before them; Peace in heaven, .
the glory of the Lord shone around them; and and glory in the highest heaven! (19:38)
they were greatly afraid. These descriptions carry
The last word of the song of praise has been
us again to the angelophanies of the OT and to
interpreted variously. The KJV follows the reading
the angelic annunciations in Luke 1. The words
of some ancient mss in which goodwill, like peace,
that will be spoken will provide a divine interpre-
is given: “peace, goodwill toward men,” but the
tation of the events just described. The darkness
ms evidence no longer favors this reading. The
is showered with brilliance as the people who NRSV follows the interpretation that God’s good-
wait in darkness see a great light (Isa 9:2). The will—not that of the people—is intended: “and
contrast between the humble setting of the birth on earth peace among those whom he favors.”
and the glory of the angelic announcement could This interpretation is now sustained by parallel
hardly be more dramatic. constructions in the Qumran scrolls.“
The angels announce good news. The verb here The response of the shepherds is described in
is the same one that is used for the proclamation three stages: their conversations with each other
of the gospel. The effect of the good news, as is (v. 15); finding Mary, Joseph, and the child (v.
typical in Luke, will be joy for all the people. The 16); and their report of the angelic appearance
familiarity of these words should not prevent us (vv. 17-18). Mary’s response (v. 19) and the
from overhearing that, first and foremost, the birth shepherds’ return (v. 20) conclude the scene.
of Jesus was a sign of God’s abundant grace. Joy Throughout, the emphasis falls on the confirma-
and celebration are the only appropriate re- tion of the things that had been spoken to them—
sponses. The birth of Jesus, however, is a sign for
all the people—all Israel, all God’s people. The 34. 10H 4.32-33; 11.9.
65
the angelic announcement. The center of the When the shepherds saw the child in the
entire birth scene (2:1-20), therefore, is the chris- manger, the sign they had been given, they re-
tological affirmation of the angel (vv. 10-12) and ported to all'‘who were there the things they had
the response from the heavenly chorus {v. 14). been told about the child. Even without a detailed
The child is the Messiah. The words of the summary, the reader’s attention is drawn back to
prophet Isaiah had been fulfilled in an even more the angelic announcement. A double response
wonderful fashion than he could have imagined. follows—from all who heard the shepherds’ re-
The Lord, the savior of God’s people, had been port (v. 18) and from Mary (v. 19). All were
born. The whole creation would celebrate, but at amazed, but Mary kept the words in her heart
first only the shepherds knew what had happened (cf. 1:66; 2:51; cf. Gen 37:11; Dan 7:28). Another
in Bethlehem. stroke is added to the characterization of Mary
The departure of the angels leaves the spotlight with this report from the narrator. Mary is not
on the shepherds. They immediately resolve to go only the servant of the Lord, but also she quietly
to Bethlehem. The key point is the way the considers the meaning of these wonderful events.
purpose of their journey is described: to “see this Luke repeatedly emphasizes the theme of faithful
thing that has taken place, which the Lord has witness to the gospel. The shepherds now join
made known to us” {(v. 15). The angelic an- the chorus of witnesses, for they have seen and
nouncement was a revelation from the Lord. The heard. The result of the whole episode is the
reader’s interest is implicitly focused on the con- response that should arise from all God’s people:
firmation of that revelation. The child in the The shepherds returned to their flocks glorifying
manger was a sign to them that they had found and praising God. The focus of the birth scene is
the child of whom that angel had spoken. The underscored one last time, “as it had been told
manger, therefore, is mentioned in each part of them” (v. 20).
Luke’s birth story (vv. 7, 12, 16).
REFLECTIONS
Each year during the Advent and Christmas seasons, we worry about how we are going to
get to Bethlehem this year. Bethlehem is the place where God came to us through the birth
of a child. It is a place of mystery and wonder, far removed from the ordinary world in which
we live. Angels populate the skies and may appear at any time to shepherds in the fields.
Although there is a foreign king and an oppressive tax structure, all is well in that tranquil
rural setting. Far from the problems of the world, the mother and father hover over their
firstborn child lying in a manger. This child will be the Messiah, the Savior for all the earth.
Familiar as it is, the Christmas scene often seems to be little more than a fairy tale, a
wonderful story that provides a brief escape from the real world we face each day. A meaningful
experience of the good news of the season, however, must inevitably involve entering
imaginatively into the story, feeling the wonder of God’s grace, and considering the choices
that the story puts before us.
1. The first question is, how will we get to Bethlehem? In Matthew, the magi are directed
by great learning, by their ability to interpret the movements of stars and planets in the heavens,
and by the learning of the sages in Jerusalem. In Luke, however, Mary and Joseph travel to
Bethlehem as a family going about the business of life. The shepherds go to Bethlehem by
dramatic, heavenly revelation. By all these roads travelers can reach Bethlehem. Not all will
follow the road of scholarship or historical investigation. Many will come as families surprised
to hear God’s Word in the midst of life. Others will come as the result of dramatic, moving
experiences of the immediacy of the spiritual and the wondrous in the fabric of ordinary
existence. By whatever road we take, the story invites us all to Bethlehem.
66
LUKE 2:1-20 REFLECTIONS —_|
2. At Bethlehem, we also witness the scandal of the Christmas story. Neither the familiarity
nor the season’s festivities should prevent us from realizing the scandal that God came into
human history completely helpless, as a newborn, and was laid in a feeding trough. Consider
in what splendor God might have come, but instead God slipped unobtrusively into a small
province far from the seat of earthly power, born to a young couple, unwed or only recently
married. No elaborate preparations were made for the birth. God was born on the road. The
crib was a feed trough, and those who came to visit were shepherds, not kings. By entering
human history in this way, God identified with the powerless, the oppressed, the poor, and
the homeless. Among them, God could do the divine new work. A humility born of need
may be the prerequisite for entry into this new kingdom.
3. The Christmas story tells of the birth of a new king. This child would be given the
throne of his father, David. The world was moving according to the orders of Caesar Augustus,
but although he was hailed as the great bringer of peace, real peace on earth would be realized
only through the sovereignty of the child born in Bethlehem. This is the story of the birth of
a new kind of king. The birth reveals a new world order, a world not under Caesar but under
the direction of God’s design for the redemption of all peoples. In this world, God’s Word is
heard by the humble. There is a place even for shepherds. There is hope for the oppressed,
and those who heard what God is doing were filled with joy. God has not forgotten us or
abandoned us to the brokenness we have created. The story of Christmas, therefore, is both
an announcement of hope and a call to humility.
LUKE 2:21-40, THE PRESENTATION OF

jpoUSdI NG HE TEMPE:
NIV NRSV
210n the eighth day, when it was time to 21After eight days had passed, it was time to
circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the
the angel had given him before he had been name given by the angel before he was conceived
conceived. in the womb.
22\WVhen the time of their purification according 22When the time came for their purification
to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph according to the law of Moses, they brought
and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the 23(as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every
Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the
to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice in keeping Lord”), 24and they offered a sacrifice according to
with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair what is stated in the law of the Lord, “a pair of
of doves or two young pigeons.”° turtledoves or two young pigeons.”
25Now there was a man in Jerusalem called 25Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose
Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was name was Simeon; this man was righteous and
devout, looking forward to the consolation of
waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy
Spirit was upon him. **It had been revealed to Israel, and the Holy Spirit rested on him. **It had
him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he
before he: had seen the Lord’s Christ. ?7Moved by would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s
the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When Messiah.° 2”7Guided by the Spirit, Simeon* came
the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for into the temple; and when the parents brought
aGk Symeon 6Or the Lord’s Christ eGk In the Spirit, he
223 Exodus 13:2,12 024 Lev. 12:8
67
_ LUKE 2:21-40
NIV NRSV
him what the custom of the Law required, in the child Jesus, to do for him what was
28Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, customary under the law, Simeon? took him in
saying: his arms and praised God, saying,
29 “Master, now you are dismissing your servant?
20“Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, in peace,
you now dismiss? your servant in peace. according to your word;
30For my eyes have seen your salvation, 3° for my eyes have seen your salvation,
31 which you have prepared in the sight of all 31 which you have prepared in the presence of
people, all peoples,
32a light for revelation to the Gentiles 32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles
and for glory to your people Israel.” and for glory to your people Israel.”
33And the child’s father and mother were
33The child’s father and mother marveled at what amazed at what was being said about him. **Then
was said about him. **Then Simeon blessed them Simeon’ blessed them and said to his mother
and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined Mary, “This child is destined for the falling and
to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and the rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that
to be a sign that will be spoken against, *°so that will be opposed *‘so that the inner thoughts of
the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And many will be revealed—and a sword will pierce
a sword will pierce your own soul too.” your own soul too.”
3°There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter 36There was also a prophet, Anna? the daugh-
of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; ter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of
she had lived with her husband seven years after a great age, having lived with her husband seven
her marriage, *’and then was a widow until she was years after her marriage, °’then as a widow to the
eighty-four.’ She never left the temple but worshiped age of eighty-four. She never left the temple but
night and day, fasting and praying. **Coming up to worshiped there with fasting and prayer night and
them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God day. *8At that moment she came, and began to
and spoke about the child to all who were looking praise God and to speak about the child? to all
forward to the redemption of Jerusalem. who were looking for the redemption of Jerusa-
3°When Joseph and Mary had done everything lem.
required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to 39When they had finished everything required
Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. *°And the by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee,
child grew and became strong; he was filled with to their own town of Nazareth. ““The child grew
wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him. and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the
favor of God was upon him.
a29 Or promised, / now dismiss 637 Or widow for eighty-four
years aGk he 6Gk slave ¢Gk Symeon @Gk Hanna eGk him
(COMMENTARY
This section brings the birth narrative to a The major motif of this section is.that the law
close. Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus began of the Lord was fulfilled at Jesus’ birth. This
with the notice that Joseph and Mary journeyed ‘section is held together by repeated references to
from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem (2:4). the law (vv. 22-24, 27, and 39), all of the actions
Appropriately, the birth narrative ends with the taken by Joseph and Mary fulfill what the law
report that they returned to Galilee, to Nazareth prescribes (circumcision and purification), and the
(2:39). Within the sequence of scenes in the birth transition to their departure from Jerusalem is
narratives, it is the counterpart to the naming and marked by Luke’s report that “they had finished
dedication of John (1:57-80). everything required by the law of the Lord”
68
(v. 39). Other significant motifs include the im- The emphasis in v. 21 falls not on the act of
portance of Jerusalem (vv. 22, 25, 38), the Tem- circumcision, but on the conferring of the name
ple (vv. 27, 37), the guidance of the Holy Spirit Jesus (cf. the naming of John in 1:59-63; cf. also
(vv. 25-27}, and the fulfillment of God’s promise Matt 1:21). The names of both children, John and
of salvation (vv. 25, 30, 38) for both Israel (vv. Jesus, were given at the annunciation of their
25, 32, 34, 38) and the Gentiles (vv. 31-32). births. Luke underscores the significance of the
In spite of its unity, the section unfolds in five name by reminding the reader that the name
clearly marked units: the circumcision of Jesus (v. Jesus had been given not by Joseph but by the
21), the purification (vv. 22-24), Simeon’s blessing angel of the Lord. It declared the child’s future
(vv. 25-35), Anna’s blessing (vv. 36-38), and the role as “Savior” of all people. The conferring of
conclusion to the birth account (vv. 39-40). The the name, therefore, was itself an act of fulfill-
first four units are paired: The circumcision and ment.
purification are linked together, as are the roles 2:22-24, The Purification. Two further acts
of Simeon and Anna. Just as a devout couple, were required of devout parents: the redemption
Zechariah and Elizabeth, were featured in the of the firstborn and the purification of the mother.
birth of John the Baptist, so also another male and Luke seems to describe both in these verses,
female pair of devout persons is introduced in though interpreters have debated whether Luke
these verses: Simeon and Anna. Neither the acts understood the prescriptions of the Jewish Law in
of obedience in the Temple nor the introduction these matters. As a reminder of the exodus, the
of Simeon and Anna hold the key to the impor- firstborn child was consecrated to the Lord (Exod
tance of this section, however. As in Luke’s ac- 13:2, 11-16). The firstborn male was to be re-
count of the annunciation and birth of Jesus, the deemed (i.e., bought back) at a price of five
real cargo conveyed by these verses is found in shekels of silver (Num 18:15-16). Eventually, the
what they say about the role of Jesus and his birth Levites were designated to offer service to God
in the fulfillment of God’s promise of salvation. and atonement for the people in place of the
Simeon and Anna, as devout persons, are impor- firstborn (Num 8:14-19). An entire tractate of the
tant because they recognize and prophetically ar- Mishnah is devoted to “the firstlings.”°° The re-
ticulate what Jesus’ role will be. Although this demption of the firstborn apparently did not re-
section involves arcane details of the law regard- quire that the child be presented in the Temple
ing circumcision of the child and purification of (but see Neh 10:35-36). Neither does Luke men-
the mother after birth, the reader should not miss tion the redemption of Jesus—either because he
the point that it conveys the gospel; its primary was not aware of this requirement or because he
purpose is to declare who Jesus is and foreshadow deliberately omitted it to imply that Jesus contin-
what he would do. ued to be devoted to the Lord. The latter inter-
' 2:21, The Circumcision of Jesus. Circum- pretation, however, requires a level of familiarity
cision of the male child marked his acceptance with Jewish law that could hardly have been
into the covenant community (Gen 17:9-14). Both assumed among Gentile Christians.
rites, circumcision and naming, gave the child an The other ritual prescribed by the Law was the
identity. As was often the case, the granting of a purification of the mother. After the birth of a
biblical or religious name was an act of blessing, male child, the mother was ceremonially unclean
a dedication of the child to God, and a declaration for seven days and underwent purification for 33
of the child’s heritage and character. days (the period was twice as long for a female
The law specified that circumcision was to take child; Lev 12:1-5). During this time, she was not
place on the eighth day (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; permitted to enter the Temple or touch any holy
cf. Luke 1:59; Phil 3:5). The introductory tempo- object. After the 40 (or 80) days, she was to offer
ral phrase that introduces v. 21 occurs frequently a lamb and a pigeon or turtledove. If she could
in these early chapters to report completion or not afford a lamb, she could offer instead two
fulfillment (1:23, 57; 2:6, 22). The same verb is turtledoves or pigeons (Lev 12:6-8).
also used in this context to describe the work of
the Spirit (1:15, 41, 67). 35. See m. Bekhoroth.
69
*LUKE 2:21-40 COMMENTARY
Luke’s account of the presentation of Jesus in that Simeon would see the consolation of Israel
the Temple underscores the fulfillment of all that and the coming of the Messiah.
the law required at the birth of a child. The The introduction of Simeon follows the common
descriptions in these verses continue to evoke biblical pattern (cf. Job 1:1; John 1:6), conveying his
echoes from the Hebrew Scriptures, especially the location and his name. Luke characterizes him as
dedication of Samuel in the sanctuary at Shiloh. “righteous,” like Zechariah and Elizabeth (1:6; cf.
The parallels between the two dedications are 23:50; Acts 10:22) and “devout” (cf. Acts 2:4; 8:2;
unmistakable: The birth of Samuel was promised 22:12). The characterization extends two steps fur-
beforehand; Hannah brought Samuel to the sanc- ther. First, Luke records Simeon’s piety and hope in
tuary and dedicated him to the Lord; Eli blessed looking forward to the “consolation of Israel.” Then
Samuel’s parents; and the biblical account men- the narrator informs the reader that the Holy Spirit
tions the women who ministered at the sanctuary was upon Simeon and that the Spirit had revealed
(1 Sam 1:24-28; 2:20-22). Each of these elements to him that he would see the coming of the Messiah
is repeated in the presentation of Jesus and the
before his death. Simeon, therefore, exemplified a
devout response to God’s promise and God’s re-
blessings by Simeon and Anna.
sponse to human devotion. The “consolation of
The scene returns to the Temple, where the
Israel” was a term for the restoration of the people
Gospel began (1:5-25). The reference to “their”
and the fulfillment of God’s redemptive work. Like
purification may indicate that Luke did not under- .
much of the language of the Nunc Dimittis, the
stand that purification was required for the mother
term comes from references in Isaiah:
only. Alternatively, some interpreters have sought
to relieve Luke of the onus of misunderstanding ‘Comfort, O comfort my people,
by suggesting that he viewed the act as a family says your God
Speak tenderly to Jerusalem. (Isa 40:1-2 NRSV;
matter. Five of the nine references to the Law in
cf. 49:13)
Luke occur in these verses (2:22, 23, 24, 27, 39;
cf. 10:26; 16:16, 17; 24:44), and the only two For the LorD will comfort Zion. (Isa 51:3 NRSV)
quotations from the OT in Luke 1-2 occur in wv.
Break forth together into singing,
23 and 24 (Exod 13:12 [or Exod 13:2, 15] and
you ruins of Jerusalem;
Lev 12:8 for Lev 5:11] respectively). Luke does for the LorD has comforted his people,
not mention the requirement to offer a lamb, but he has redeemed Jerusalem. (Isa 52:9 NRSV;
the reference to the offering of two turtledoves cf. 66:10-13)
or pigeons may underscore the point that Jesus
Just as the Spirit had come upon John (1:15, 80),
was born to the poor of Israel. Attention to the
Mary (1:35), Elizabeth (1:41), and Zechariah
details, allusions, and overtones of the passage,
(1:67), so also now Simeon is identified as one
therefore, cast fresh light on its significance.
on whom the Spirit rests. “The Lord’s anointed”
2:25-35, Simeon’s Blessing. The account of
functions in 1 Samuel to designate the king (24:6,
Simeon’s blessing of the child unfolds in the
10; 26:9, 11). For Simeon, therefore, the birth of
following manner: the narrator’s introduction of
Jesus fulfilled Israel’s hope for a royal Messiah.
Simeon (vv. 25-26), Simeon’s meeting with the
Just as the Spirit had revealed to Simeon (cf. Acts
holy family in the Temple (vv. 27-28), Simeon’s 10:22) that he would not see death before he
blessing of the child (vv. 29-32, traditionally witnessed the arrival of the Messiah, so also later
known as the Nunc Dimittis), the response of Jesus would promise his disciples that some of
Jesus’ parents (v. 33), and Simeon’s blessing of them would not “taste death” before they saw
Mary (vv. 34-35). Throughout, the aura of piety ‘the kingdom of God (Luke 9:27).
illuminates the scene: It is set in the Temple, the Following this extended introduction of
speaker is guided by the Spirit, the parents of the Simeon, the narrator reports that the meeting in
child have come to fulfill the Law, words of the Temple was no accident. Simeon was guided
Scripture echo in Simeon’s oracle, the scene there by the Holy Spirit. For the third time the
evokes the account of the blessing of Samuel, and Spirit is mentioned in the introduction to this
the event marks the fulfillment of the promise scene (vv. 25-27). What is about to happen is
70
God’s doing. Devout Simeon was in the Temple Luke, where it is both the goal and the result of
because he was prompted to be there by the God’s redemptive work in Jesus. Simeon saw
Spirit; Jesus’ parents were there because they God’s salvation not because he happened to live
were fulfilling the requirements of the Law (see at the right moment in history but because his
Commentary on vv. 21-24). devotion and the work of the Spirit in him had
The birth of a child, the fulfillment of God’s led him to understand that God’s hand was at
promises, the consolation of Israel, and the com- work in Jesus’ birth. The OT prophets had looked
ing of the Messiah are all occasions for praising forward to the time when God would establish
God. The doxological motif in Luke echoes again peace on earth (Ps 72:7; Isa 9:5-6; Zech 8:12; cf.
in this scene (cf. 1:64; 2:34; 24:53). Like the Luke 10:23-24). “Salvation” (owtrpiov sotérion)
other Lukan canticles (1:46-55, 68-79), the Nunc is actually an adjective used as a noun and denotes
Dimittis is only loosely related to the occasion of here the means of salvation, or the bringer of
the birth of Jesus. It declares the praise of God salvation. Verses 30-31 illustrate “stair-step” par-
for faithfulness and the redemption of the people, allelism, with v. 31 extending the thought of v. 30.
so it has often been suggested that these verses The two lines of v. 32 are an example of synony-
Were not originally composed for this setting. mous parallelism: light for the Gentiles, glory for
Luke may have drawn them from the canticles Israel.
used in worship by Jewish Christians and added The themes of these verses—salvation for all
them at a secondary stage to the birth narratives. peoples, a light for the Gentiles, and the glory of
On the other hand, the introduction of the Nunc the Lord in Israel—echo various passages in Isaiah
Dimittis fits the context and characterization of (40:5; 42:6; 46:13; 49:6; 52:9-10). The words of
Simeon so closely that it is difficult to separate it Isaiah (42:6; 49:6) concerning light for the Gen-
from its narrative context. tiles will be cited later in Acts 13:47 and 26:23,
The assurance that a patriarch can die in peace which suggests that Luke understands the whole
because he has seen the fulfillment of God’s course of events recorded in these two volumes
promises is an OT motif (Abraham, Gen 15:15; as the fulfillment of God’s promise of salvation for
Jacob, Gen 46:30). The opening of the Nunc both Jews and Gentiles. The announcement oc-
Dimittis need not refer to Simeon’s death, how- curs in the Temple, just as had the announcement
ever. Simeon had been watching for the coming of the birth of John the Baptist. The Gospel ends
of the Lord’s anointed, and now as a faithful with the disciples in the Temple (24:53), and in
watchman he is dismissed from his post by his the early chapters of Acts the disciples are repeat-
master. As the NRSV emphasizes, the verb trans- edly in the Temple. But rather than the Gentiles
lated “dismiss” (attrodvw apolyo) is indicative, not coming to Jerusalem, those who have seen God’s
imperative. The form may be imperative, but the salvation will go to the nations. The promises
context of praise favors the indicative. The Nunc were fulfilled, but not quite as Isaiah had envi-
Dimittis follows a discernible structure: Simeon sioned.
recognizes that he is being released from his Verse 33 records the reaction of Joseph and
mission to watch for the coming of the Messiah Mary, “the child’s father and mother.” While
(v. 29) because he has now seen the coming of there is no evidence that the material that follows
the one who will bring salvation (v. 30). Compare Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus was shaped
the emphasis on God’s word in Luke 1:38 and in light of the virgin birth tradition, by this point
2:29. God has prepared this salvation for all peo- Luke has recorded the annunciation and birth in
ples (v. 31), both Gentiles and Israelites (v. 32; detail and does not need to assert its uniqueness
cf. 4:25, 27; 7:9). Simeon’s blessing, therefore, again. Amazement often follows an oracle or
again relates the birth of Jesus to the fulfillment dominical saying in Luke (1:63; 2:18; 4:22; 8:25;
of the promise of salvation found in the Scriptures 20:20; 24:41).
of Israel, especially in Isaiah, and looks ahead to Simeon’s second oracle follows in vv. 34-35.
the inclusion of Gentiles as well as Jews in the Again following the pattern of the dedication of
experience of God’s blessings. Samuel {1 Sam 2:20), both parents are blessed.
“Peace” (eipywn eirene) occurs 14 times in As Hannah dominated the 1 Samuel story, so in
71
Luke’s account the second oracle is directed to hearts (5:22; 6:8), and he was also aware of the
Mary. This oracle foreshadows the rejection of inner thoughts of the disciples (9:46-47; 24:38).
Jesus. Not all will receive the salvation that has (4) “... and a sword will pierce your own soul
been prepared, see the light of revelation, or too.” This line, which so interrupts the flow of
recognize the glory of God in the coming of the oracle that it is set off by dashes, has at times
Jesus. The counterpart of this oracle in Matthew been interpreted as a secondary insertion, but it
is the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem is consistent with the context and content of the
and the flight of the holy family to Egypt. While rest of the oracle. Many interpretations have been
the particular references are often obscure, each advanced that relate this line to the role of Mary
of the four lines of this oracle speaks of dis- in John 19:25-27 and later mariology, but as
crimination and judgment. Raymond E. Brown points out, these interpreta-
(1) “This child is destined for the falling and tions are not supported by Luke.*” Luke does not
the rising of many in Israel....” This motif is record that Mary was present at the cross, nor
similar to the combination of the stone passages does he record the piercing of Jesus’ side John
from Isaiah (8:14; 28:16) and Psalms (118:22) 19:34). The reference to a sword passing through
that one finds in Luke 20:17-18; Rom 9:32-33; 1 echoes Ezek 14:17, where the Lord warns of
Pet 2:6-8.°° The one who would bring salvation judgment by saying, “Let a sword pass through
would also bring judgment; the cornerstone the land.” The language and theme of the verse
would be the stone of stumbling for others. “Fall- are consistent with the oracle in Luke. The state-
ing” and “rising,” therefore, refer to two different ment is obscure and starkly symbolic. The most
groups, not to a sequence of falling and then we can say is that Mary is presented here in a
rising. The precedence of “falling” signals that this positive light (as in Luke 8:19-21); she will share
oracle concerns judgment and rejection. Jesus will in the pain of the rejection of Jesus and the
be rejected by his own people (Luke 4:29; 13:33- division of Israel.
35; 19:44, 47-48; 20:14-17). This oracle makes 2:36-38, Anna’s Blessing. Luke is fond of
much the same point as Jesus’ warning that he
pairing male and female figures in his narrative.
had not come to bring peace but division (Luke
The role of Simeon and Anna in the Temple at
12:51-53). Israel would be divided, and as the
the end of the birth narrative balances the role of
book of Acts will show, many rejected the gospel.
the aged Zechariah and Elizabeth at the beginning
(2) “...and to be a sign that will be op-
of the narrative. Anna’s character and piety are
posed. ...” Later in the Gospel, Jesus warns that
emphasized, but not her words. As a prophet,
just as the sign of Jonah announced judgment on
Anna continues the tradition of female prophets
Nineveh, so also the Son of Man would be a sign
in the OT (Miriam, Exod 15:20; Deborah, Judg
of judgment on that generation (11:29-30). Acts
4:4; Huldah, 2 Kgs 22:14; and Isaiah’s wife, Isa
chronicles the Jewish rejection of Paul using the
8:3) and anticipates the role of female prophets
same verb (avtiréyw antilego; Acts 13:45; 28:19,
EAE in the early church (Acts 2:17; 21:9; 1 Cor 11:5).
She was a descendant of a family from the north-
(3) “...so that the inner thoughts of many
em kingdom, and a devout widow, advanced in
will be revealed....” The NRSV (followed here)
reverses the sequence of the third and fourth lines
age. The chronology in v. 37 is not entirely clear.
of the oracle. The two lines are independent, as Anna evidently married young and was widowed
the translation suggests. The exposing of inner seven years later. The reference to 84 years prob-
thoughts continues the theme of discrimination ably records her age, but may be read as the
and judgment. Many would “fall and rise” (v. 34), , number of years she had lived as a widow. In her
and the thoughts of “many” will be exposed. piety she corresponds closely both to the figure
Undoubtedly, the “thoughts” in question are of Judith and to the description of pious widows
doubts and refutations; Jesus perceived that the in 1 Tim 5:3-16. Judith was from the northern
scribes and Pharisees were questioning in their kingdom (Jdt 8:1); she fasted regularly (8:6), lived
to an advanced age without remarrying (16:22-
36. Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (New York: Dou-
bleday, 1977) 461. 37. Ibid., 462-63.
a2
23), and praised God for the deliverance of Israel record of the census as the pretext for their
(15:14-16:17). The ideal for widows in the journey to Bethlehem, so Joseph is directed by a
Pauline churches stipulated that a widow sup- dream to take the family to Galilee to escape
ported by the church should not be less than 60 Herod Archelaus. In Luke there is no sojourn in
years of age, have married only once, be known Egypt; at the end of the birth narrative, the family
for her good works, and pray “night and day” (1 returns to their home in Nazareth.
Tim 5:5, 9-10). Anna, therefore, exemplifies the Verse 40 serves as a transition between the
pious widow in both Judaism and the early birth narrative and what follows. The repetition
church, and she prepares the reader for the fre- of a similar description of the growth of the child
quent references to widows in the rest of Luke in v. 52 has led interpreters to suspect that the
(where widows are mentioned a total of 9 times) story of Jesus in the Temple in vv. 41-51 may
and Acts (6:1; 9:39, 41). have been added as an appendage to the birth
Anna’s blessing, though not recorded, is char- narrative after it was already substantially finished.
acterized as praising God (cf. v. 28) and speaking The description echoes growth statements from
about the child. Since this description corresponds the OT (Isaac, Gen 21:8; Samson, Judg 13:24;
to the content of Simeon’s oracles, the reader is and Samuel, 1 Sam 2:21, 26; 3:19). In its Lukan
left to understand that Anna’s prophecy matched context, however, it also continues the pattern of
his. Similarly, the reference to “all who were affirmations that John was great but that Jesus was
looking for the redemption of Jerusalem” (v. 38; greater. At the conclusion of the account of John’s
cf. Isa 52:9) serves as an inclusion, balancing the
birth, Luke records: “The child grew and became
description of Simeon as one who was “looking
strong in spirit” (1:80). The first part of v. 40 is
forward to the consolation of Israel” at the begin-
the same, but the second part surpasses the earlier
ning of this scene. Simeon and Anna, who repre-
growth statement: “The child grew and became
sent the pious ones, declare that Jesus is the one
strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God
who will bring salvation for Israel, but not all
was upon him.” (See Commentary on 2:52 be-
would receive this salvation. Jesus himself would
low.)
be rejected, and many in Israel would reject the
The two terms used in the latter part of this
gospel, but it was also meant for “a light for
verse—“wisdom” (codta sophia) and “grace” (xapts
revelation to the Gentiles” (v. 32).
charis, or “favor”)—are significant in Luke. Each
2:39-40, Conclusion. These verses neatly
appears more frequently in Luke than in the other
recapitulate the presentation in the Temple and
Gospel. In fact, grace does not occur at all in
conclude the birth narrative. The three references
Matthew or Mark. Luke uses both terms to char-
to the Law in wv. 22-24 characterized Joseph and
acterize Jesus. Wisdom is used in both vv. 40 and
Mary’s desire to do “everything required by the
law of the Lord.” This reference in v. 39, there-
52 to describe Jesus’ growth. Later, Luke records
fore, serves as an inclusio that lends cohesion to that Jesus spoke “the Wisdom of God” (11:49; cf.
the scene. The acclamation of Jesus, which gives Matt 23:34). Jesus bestowed wisdom on the dis-
ciples (21:15), and the seven chosen by the
it its real significance, is not mentioned. Instead,
church were men of wisdom (Acts 6:3, 10). At
the second part of v. 39 brings the birth narrative
Nazareth, Jesus spoke “gracious words” (4:22).
to an appropriate conclusion, recording the fam-
ily’s return to Nazareth (cf. 2:4). Similarly, the grace of God and the favor of the
Both Matthew and Luke relate that Jesus was people would characterize the early church (Acts
born in Bethlehem, yet that he was from Naz- 2:47; 4:33; 6:8; 7:10, 46). Just as Luke’s account
areth. At the end of both birth narratives, the of the annunciation, birth, and presentation of
family travels to Nazareth, but there the similarity Jesus serve to proclaim his identity, so also the
ends. In Matthew there is no evidence that the conclusion to the birth narrative prepares the
family had been to Nazareth previously and no reader for Jesus’ ministry.
73
REFLECTIONS
As Joseph and Mary went about the process of fulfilling the requirements of the Jewish law
regarding circumcision of the child and purification of the mother, they received God’s blessing
through Simeon and Anna. This episode merits careful reflection among modern Christians.
The observance of religious requirements and rituals has fallen on hard times. Essential to
Judaism is the praise of God in all of life. The Jewish law taught that God was to be honored
in one’s rising up and lying down, in going out and coming in, in how one dressed and what
one ate. The danger, however, was always that adherence to external requirements could mask
a disregard for purity of heart and sincerity in one’s love of God and neighbor. Jesus attacked
the hypocrisy of some of the Pharisees of his day, and early Christians soon moved to distinguish
themselves from Jewish practices. Ritual observances had a well-established place in Christian
devotion in the Middle Ages, but the Reformation again precipitated a separation of the interior
aspects of faith from the believer’s ritual expressions of that faith.
The pressures of secularism and modern life have again reduced the significance of ritual
observances in the lives of most Christians. Busy schedules, dual-career marriages, and
after-school activities mean that families eat fewer meals together. Prayer before meals and
family Bible study are observed in fewer homes today than just a generation ago. For many,
religious rituals are reduced to church attendance at Christmas and Easter and to socially
required ceremonies at births, weddings, and funerals. The marking of both daily and special
events with rituals that recognize the sacredness of life and the presence of God in the everyday
is practically extinct. In the minds of many it is associated either with superstitions and cultic
practices of the past or the peculiar excesses of religious fanatics. The result has been that
God has receded from the awareness and experience of everyday life. Many assume that God
is found only in certain places, in sacred buildings, in holy books, or in observances led by
holy persons. Their lives, on the other hand, move in a secular realm devoid of the presence
of the holy. Daily experiences are reduced and impoverished. They have no meaning beyond
themselves, no opening to transcendence. Little room for mystery remains in the everyday as
it becomes increasingly subject to secularism and technology. What have we lost by removing
ritual observances from our daily experience?
Reflection on the presentation of Jesus in the Temple can serve to challenge modern believers
to recover the mystery of life and the transcendence of everyday experience through ritual
celebrations.
Where is God found? The oral law of the rabbis, codified in the Mishnah, recognized that God
Was present wherever the Torah was studied: “If two sit together and words of the Law [are
spoken] between them, the Divine Presence rests between them.”” For Christians, Jesus took the
place of the study of Torah: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among
them” (Matt 18:20). A saying attributed to Jesus in an early Christian papyrus text that dates from
early in the third century recognizes the possibility of discovering the divine presence in the ordinary:
“Wheresoever there are (two, they are not without) God: and where there is one alone I say I
am with him. Lift the stone and there shalt thou find me: cleave the wood, and I am there.”””
The last part of this saying may speak either to the cosmic presence of Christ or to the sanctity
of work (contrast Eccl 10:9). Either way, the author of this saying recognized that one could
meet Christ in the ordinary experiences of life, apart from any temples or priests, even in hard
work with stone and wood.
The challenge to modern Christians, therefore, is to find effective rituals for celebrating the
38. M.’Abot 3.2.

39. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1. See M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924) 27.
74
__LUKE 2:21-40 REFLECTIONS
presence of God in the ordinary. We need to learn to greet the morning with gratitude; to
celebrate the goodness of food, family, and friendship at meals; to recognize mystery in beauty;
and to mark rites of passage—like a sixteenth birthday and the freedom and responsibility that
statewith a driver’s license. Rituals are not restrictive; they celebrate the goodness and mystery
of life.
Words can be powerful, especially in the context of rituals and celebrations. Commitments
are made. Love is given a voice. Promises shape relationships. The words spoken to Joseph
and Mary are the center of this scene, but they stand in a powerful context: obedience to the
Law, celebration of a birth, worship in the Temple, and recognition that God’s promises were
being fulfilled. The ceremony was not a foreign intrusion into their lives but an expression of
their deepest awarenesses and commitments. Joseph and Mary saw God at work in events
they had experienced. They lived within a covenant community, and they sought to fulfill
vows they had made as well as to introduce their son into that covenant community. Simeon
and Anna, whose lives of devotion had made them sensitive to God’s presence in the events
of their time, responded to Joseph and Mary’s obedience by speaking words of blessing. The
blessing gave the ceremony meaning that it would not have had otherwise. Mary and Joseph
would remember that blessing the rest of their lives. Each of these elements of ritual and
blessing merit reflection as we search for ways to dramatize our gratitude for the goodness
and mystery of life.
LUKE 2:41-52, THE BOY JESUS IN THE TEMPLE

NIV NRSV
4lEvery year his parents went to Jerusalem for 41Now every year his parents went to Jerusa-
the Feast of the Passover. 47When he was twelve lem for the festival of the Passover. *7And when
years old, they went up to the Feast, according he was twelve years old, they went up as usual
to the custom. “After the Feast was over, while for the festival. ““When the festival was ended and
his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus they started to return, the boy Jesus stayed behind
stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were un- in Jerusalem, but his parents did not know it.
aware of it. “Thinking he was in their company, 44Assuming that he was in the group of travelers,
they traveled on for a day. Then they began they went a day’s journey. Then they started to
looking for him among their relatives and friends. look for him among their relatives and friends.
45When they did not find him, they went back to 45When they did not find him, they returned to
Jerusalem to look for him. “After three days they Jerusalem to search for him. *°After three days
found him in the temple courts, sitting among the they found him in the temple, sitting among the
teachers, listening to them and asking them ques- teachers, listening to them and asking them ques-
tions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at tions. 47And all who heard him were amazed at
his understanding and his answers. “When his his understanding and his answers. “*When his
parents saw him, they were astonished. His parents? saw him they were astonished; and his
mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated mother said to him, “Child, why have you treated
us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously us like this? Look, your father and I have been
searching for you.”
searching for you in great anxiety.” “He said to
4“Why were you searching for me?” he asked.
them, “Why were you searching for me? Did you
“Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s
not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”?
house?” *°But they did not understand what he
50But they did not understand what he said to
was saying to them.
5IThen he went down to Nazareth with them aGk they ’Or be about my Father's interests?
75
LUKE 2:41-52
NIV NRSV
and was obedient to them. But his mother trea- them. *'Theh he went down with them and came
sured all these things in her heart. **And Jesus to Nazareth,.and was obedient to them. His
grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with mother treasured all these things in her heart.
God and men. 52And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years,?
and in divine and human favor.
a Or in stature
(COMMENTARY
Luke is the only Gospel to include a story from knowledge of God/ and calls himself a child of
Jesus’ childhood. Stories of the precocious wisdom the Lord” (Wisd Sol 2:13 NRSV).
of the hero or philosopher were standard fare in Neither Matthew nor Luke integrates the virgin
ancient biographical accounts.’° birth accounts with later sections of the Gospel
The apocryphal infancy gospels contain fanciful in such a way that the events of the birth of Jesus
stories of the miracles Jesus performed as a child. : are recalled or alluded to later. Just as the parents
By comparison, Luke’s account of Jesus in the of Jesus are referred to in Luke 2:33 without any
Temple at the age of twelve is restrained. The explanation or clarification, so also the events of
Infancy Gospel of Thomas concludes with a ver- Jesus’ birth do not seem to have any effect on
sion of this story that contains expansions that Mary’s or Joseph’s response to Jesus in this ac-
report that Jesus “put to silence the elders and count. The story of Jesus in the Temple at the
teachers of the people, expounding the sections age of twelve makes a christological point about
of the law and sayings of the prophets” (19.2). Jesus’ wisdom and his divine sonship. It does not
The scribes and the Pharisees responded to Mary furnish psychological data for interpreting the
with praise for Jesus, exclaiming, “For such glory emergence of Jesus’ messianic consciousness or
and such excellence and wisdom we have never Mary’s understanding of Jesus’ ministry.
seen nor heard” (19.4). The story begins and ends with travel notices, as
The story of Jesus in the Temple also serves as do other sections of Luke 1-2. Some interpreters
a transition from the birth narratives to the min- find a chiastic structure centering on Jesus and the
istry of Jesus. The former announced Jesus’ birth teachers (vv. 460-47), but the dramatic center of the
as the birth of the “Son of God” (1:32, 35). Luke’s story in Luke is not the teachers’ praise of Jesus’
account of Jesus’ ministry returns to this title wisdom—as in the /nfancy Gospel of Thomas—but
frequently i(e.0:7 3:22; 74:3, 9°41; 9:35; 22:70), Jesus’ response to his parents in v. 49. These are
This transitional story records Jesus’ dawning the first words Jesus speaks in the Gospel of Luke.
awareness of his identity and foreshadows his In this respect, the unit is similar to the pronounce-
relationship to his divine Father, the teachers of ment stories later in the Gospel, which provide
Israel, and the Temple (see 19:45, 47-48; 20:1). narrative settings for sayings of Jesus. The saying
Luke 2:40 records that as a child Jesus was “filled always conveys the main point of the story.
with wisdom,” so it is not out of place for the The previous scene emphasized that Joseph and
next pericope to illustrate his wisdom while he Mary carefully observed the Jewish laws. Thus the
was still a child. Wisdom and divine sonship were family’s journey to Jerusalem each year for the
already linked together in the Jewish wisdom ° Passover celebration fulfilled the requirements
materials: The wise man “professes to have that all male Israelites should make a pilgrimage
to Jerusalem for Passover, Pentecost, and Taber-
40. Each of the following accounts records an event—often set when
the hero was twelve—which gives an indication of his future vocation:
nmacles (see Exod 34:23). Moving at a pace of
Moses: Philo Life ofMoses 1.20-24, and Josephus Antiquities of the Jews fifteen miles a day, their journey to. Jerusalem
2.228-38; Samuel: Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 5.348; Solomon: 1
Kings 2:12 (LXX); Epicurus: Diogenes Laertius Lives ofEminent Philoso- would have taken four or five days.
phers 10.14; Josephus: Josephus Life 8-9. 2:41-45. According to later Jewish custom, a
76
male child became a man and embraced the tradi- Jesus’ response to his parents contains the logion
tions of his ancestors at the age of thirteen. At on which the whole episode hangs. His second
twelve, therefore, Jesus was still a child. Verses question expects a positive answer. It assumes that
41-42 describe the setting of the story, providing his parents would know where he was or what he
geographical and chronological notices and describ- was doing. The phrasing of the question is ambigu-
ing the occasion for the journey to Jerusalem. Verse ous, however, and perhaps deliberately so. In Greek
43 supplies the complication: Jesus stayed behind in it lacks the noun for “house” or “affairs” or “inter-
Jerusalem without his parents’ knowledge or per- ests.” The translation “in my Father’s house” has
mission. Verses 44-45 explain how Jesus might have often been favored because it fits the narrative of
been left behind and describe his parents’ search for Jesus’ parents’ searching for Jesus and finding him
him. The explanation and the description of the in the Temple. The Temple is called God’s house
search build suspense by prolonging the interval in Luke 19:46 (see also John 2:16 and the reference
between the complication and the resolution. In to the tabernacle as God’s house in Luke 6:4). The
form it is a quest story: When, where, and how will alternative translation, “about my Father’s business”
they find Jesus? When Jesus’ parents do not find (KJV), also fits the context in terms of both Jesus’
him among the company of travelers, they return involvement with the teachers and the function of
to Jerusalem to search for him. this story as a transition to Jesus’ public ministry.
2:46-47. Jesus had been in the Temple, Hidden in Jesus’ response, but not to be missed,
among the teachers. Care should be taken not to is his pronouncement of the necessity of what he
overinterpret the details of this story. The refer- was doing: “I must be....” The statement con-
ence to three days is not entirely clear, since no notes an awareness of God’s purposes that makes
indication is given of whether Luke is counting the fulfillment of certain activities imperative (see,
from their departure from Jerusalem, their discov- C10. AAS 022+ lt AQ. 2s eo a isl eStls: Was
ery that Jesus was missing, or their return to responding to the divine imperative that he fulfill
Jerusalem. Some interpreters find here an allusion God’s purposes for his life. His life was not driven
to the resurrection, but the connection is not by fate—the force that many ancients believed
obvious and the formula “after three days” does controlled one’s destiny. Neither was he driven
not appear elsewhere in Luke. Similarly, although by political coercion or religious legalism. Instead,
sitting was the normal posture for a teacher, his life was bound to God’s design for it.
students also sat. Luke may or may not infer that The sharpness of Jesus’ response is set up by
Jesus had joined the ranks of the teachers of Israel the reference in Mary’s question to “your father
or that he was actually teaching the teachers. and J.” The counterpoint of Jesus’ insistence that
Nevertheless, they were all amazed at his under- he had to be in his Father’s house (or about his
standing (cf. Isa 11:2). Although Jesus’ first public Father’s business) forcefully sets forth Jesus’ iden-
appearance finds him “in the midst” of teachers tity as the Son of God and shows that his life
in the Temple, he would serve in their midst as would be guided by his unique relationship to the
a servant (22:27; cf. 24:36). Father. That is the point of this story, and the
2:48-50. This is the climax of the story. Nar- main point of the infancy narratives as a whole.
ration gives way to dialogue. The parents’ amaze- 2:51-52. The verses that follow Jesus’ pro-
ment is similar to their response to Simeon’s nouncement bring closure to the scene and relate
blessing (v. 33). It is an expected part of such a it to its narrative context. Jesus would not begin
story (cf. 4:32) and should not be interpreted as his public ministry until he was about thirty years
inconsistent with the birth annunciation and birth old (3:23). Luke makes clear that in the interven-
accounts. Neither should one conjecture that the ing years Jesus fulfilled the commandment to
parents were astonished only at the way Jesus was honor one’s father and mother. The event in the
Temple did not result in open rebellion against
developing his unique identity and role. Their
his parents. The return to Nazareth closes the
reaction is true to life. What parent cannot em-
episode here, just as the return to Nazareth sig-
pathize with their distress? A tone of reproach
naled the conclusion of the birth narrative in 2:39.
crosses Mary’s question as she conveys their anxi-
ety while searching for Jesus. Mary and Joseph reacted with wonder at what
i
* LUKE 2:41-52 COMMENTARY
Jesus had said. They were not privy to Jesus’ ment here adds a further reason for suspecting
understanding of his identity as the Son of God. that the evangelist added Luke 2:41-52 after the
Although the events of Jesus’ birth did not prepare birth narrative had already been composed. Verse
Jesus’ parents for the events of his ministry, Mary 52 does not just take us back to the conclusion
is depicted in Luke as consistently responsive to of the birth narrative, however. It brackets the
the revelatory experiences in her life. Treasuring story of Jesus in the Temple within references to
experiences that are infused with God’s presence his growth in wisdom and affirms that this one
can bring insight later and provide a firm founda- who was already advanced in wisdom grew still
tion for a life of obedient discipleship (see 2:19). further in his understanding. The son who was
For comments on v. 52, see the Commentary on both divine and human was shaped by the expe-
Luke 2:40. The repetition of a similar growth state- rience of the grace of others and the grace of God.
REFLECTIONS
This episode from Jesus’ life evokes a host of reflections that may lead to appropriate
preaching themes. Rather than focus on just one aspect of the text, let us walk around it and
wonder at its richness.
1. As a story from Jesus’ childhood, this account is unique among the canonical Gospels.
As much as any other passage of Scripture, it calls for reflection on Jesus’ uniquely divine and
human personhood. Apparently independent of the virgin birth accounts that precede it, this
pericope pushes Jesus’ recognition of his identity as God’s Son back prior to his baptism. Jesus
was fully human, yet fully cognizant that God was his Father.
2. One of the developmental tasks of childhood, teenage, and young adulthood is discov-
ering and affirming one’s identity. What defines one’s identity—family ties, religious experience,
a sense of vocation, a personal creed, or one’s dreams and ideals? Jesus found his identity by
affirming his relationship to God.
3. Is faith in God a peripheral matter for you, or does it shape your life in some profound
way? What role has God in your life? Is religion for you a matter of appealing to a divine
being for help in times of need, finding forgiveness, or fulfilling prescribed religious obligations?
The story of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve provides a ready source of reflection on
the significance of God’s claim on our lives. .
4. God’s claims may stand in tension or open conflict with human desires for social
acceptance, loyalty to family, economic prosperity, and other worthy ideals. The hard decisions
are not those between right and wrong but those that call for us to choose between options
when both represent worthy claims. In this event, Jesus was already subordinating other
priorities to his sense of God’s purpose for his life.
5. Both searching and finding occur frequently in Luke. Together they mirror the human
experience of questing for something better, for truth or knowledge, for love, or for God. What
are you searching for, and where or how do you expect to find it? Jesus’ parents were searching
for Jesus while he sought to be about the tasks that his divine Father had set for him. What
we are searching for reveals a great deal about who we are.
6. There are two ways of approaching obedience to God. Some define their religious beliefs
and practices with lists of things they may not do: “Thou shalt not... .” Such lists set boundaries,
but they do not define goals. A commitment to God that is born of the experience of God’s love
and presence is expressed in grateful participation in God’s redemptive work. There are some
things we have to do just because of who we are: “I must be about my Father’s business.”
78
LUKE 3:14:13
PREPARATION FOR THE
MINISTRY OF JESUS
OVERVIEW
___uke’s account of the preparation for Jesus’ ancestry then reaffirms his identity as the Son of
»= ministry begins with the work of John the God. Jesus’ preparation for his ministry includes
Baptist. Following the parallel accounts of the baptism, prayer, and a period of withdrawal to
annunciations and births of John and Jesus, Luke the wilderness, during which he is tempted by
describes John’s preaching and baptizing. John the devil.
prepares the way for Jesus. The record of Jesus’
LUKE 3:1-6, THE SETTING OF JOHN’S MINISTRY

NIV NRSV
3 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius 3 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Em-
Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor peror Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was
of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler? of Gali-
Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and lee, and his brother Philip ruler? of the region of
Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— during the high Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler? of
priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of Abilene, *during the high priesthood of Annas and
God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of
3He went into all the country around the Jordan, Zechariah in the wilderness. -He went into all the
preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgive- region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism
ness of sins. “As is written in the book of the of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, “as it is
words of Isaiah the prophet: written in the book of the words of the prophet
Isaiah,
“A voice of one calling in the desert, “The voice of one crying out in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way for the Lord, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
make straight paths for him. make his paths straight.
SEvery valley shall be filled in, 5 Every valley shall be filled,
every mountain and hill made low. and every mountain and hill shall be made
The crooked roads shall become straight, low,
the rough ways smooth. and the crooked shall be made straight,
And all mankind will see God’s salvation.’ ” and the rough ways made smooth;
a6 Isaiah 40:3-5 6 and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’”
aGk fetrarch
79
(COMMENTARY
The introduction to John’s prophetic ministry “Lysanias ruler of Abilene [in Syria]” cannot be
blends patterns from Greco-Roman historiography identified with any known tetrarch and therefore
(chronology) and the Hebrew prophets (call). The provides no further chronological information.
date of John’s call is fixed (vv. 1-2a), and the call This detailed correlation of the events of John’s
is described in a manner reminiscent of the proph- ministry with the political events of the period
ets (v. 26). The location and essence of John’s reflects Luke’s attention to the form of historical
ministry are recorded (v. 3), and its fulfillment of writing, but it also resonates with his emphasis that
the Scriptures is noted with a quotation from through Jesus God brought salvation for all persons.
Isaiah (vv. 4-6). The chronological data given here The coming of the kingdom of God is set in relation
are more detailed than earlier references in 1:5 to the events of the reign of human rulers. The
and 2:1-2, signaling that John’s ministry of preach- reference to “the high priesthood of Annas and
ing and baptizing marks the real beginning of the Caiaphas” (v. 2) also sets the inauguration of the
period of Jesus’ ministry. work of John and Jesus in opposition to the priestly
In the days before events were dated according hierarchy. The ambiguous references to both Annas
to the years of the Christian era (which was initiated . and Caiaphas reflect the continued influence of
in 533 ce by Dionysius Exiguus), events were dated Annas and his family. Annas was high priest from
in relation to the rulers of the period or the number 6 to 15 cz, and his son-in-law, Caiaphas, was high
of years since the founding of Rome. Luke follows priest from 18 to 36 ck (see John 11:49; 18:13, 19;
the former method, fixing the date of John’s call by Acts 4:6). Pilate, Herod Antipas, and the high priest
six chronological vectors. Even taken together, how- are also important later in the Gospel. Jesus is
ever, they do not provide a precise date because of brought before the high priest and is tried by Pilate.
the uncertainties that surround ancient calendars Herod Antipas, similarly, plays a greater role in Luke
and systems of reckoning. “The fifteenth year of the than in any of the other Gospels: He imprisoned
reign of Emperor Tiberius” is the most promising John (3:19-20), speculated that Jesus was John redi-
vector, but it does not furnish us with a reliable date vivus (9:7, 9), sought to kill Jesus (13:31), and
because we do not know which calendar Luke was questioned Jesus before his death (23:7-8, 11-12,
using or the event from which he counted the years. 15).
The Julian, Jewish, Syrian-Macedonian, and Egyptian If the chronological data of vv. 1-2 reflect
calendars each reckoned the years differently. Nei- the conventions of Greco-Roman historiogra-
ther is the date of the beginning of Tiberius’s reign phy, the call of John echoes the call of a
clearly established. Tiberius’s co-regency with prophet. (The parallels are especially clear in Jer
Augustus began in 11 or 12 ce; Augustus died in 1:1-5, but see also Isa 6:1; Ezek 1:1-3; and Hos
14 ce; and we do not know whether Luke counted 1:1.) Typically the call of a prophet records that
the year of Tiberius’s accession as one of the years (a) “the word of the Lord came” to or upon (b) the
of his reign. Counting from 14 ce, and counting part prophet; (c) the son of (the name of his father)
of a year as a whole year, brings us to about 28 cz, is recorded; (d) it occurred in a certain location;
which accords well with Luke’s later note that Jesus and that (e) it came “in the days of” a certain
was “about thirty years old when he began his king. The last element is expanded and placed first
work” (3:23; see Commentary on v. 23). in Luke 3:1-2a. The remaining elements of the
The five other references are less helpful. Procu- story of the call of a prophet follow in v. 2b. The
rators governed Judea following the removal of ' reference to Zechariah serves also to recall the earlier
Archelaus from office in 6 ck. Pontius Pilate was account of John’s annunciation and birth, and the
procurator from 26 to 36 ce. Herod Antipas re- note that John was in the wilderness ties his call
mained tetrarch over Galilee, serving the Romans to the last previous reference to John in 1:80. It
from the death of Herod the Great (4 ace) until 39 also sets the scene for the events that follow. Here
cE, while Herod Philip governed his territories east for the first time Luke’s account employs tradi-
of the Jordan until 34 ce. Luke’s reference to tional material found in the other Gospels. The
80
account of John’s ministry and preaching weaves as a prophet, (2) the call for an ethical renewal
together material from the Gospel of Mark and in Israel, and (3) the extension of the work of
Q, a collection of the teachings of Jesus used by salvation to all peoples.
both Matthew and Luke. At various points Luke’s Luke’s omission of the description of John as
handling of his source material sets his thematic “clothed with camel’s hair, with a leather belt
and theological interests in relief. around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild
The wilderness was a desolate area. Some schol- honey” (Mark 1:6 NRSV; cf. Lev 11:21-22; 2 Kgs
ars have speculated that John may have lived with 1:8) is puzzling because it would have served to
the Essenes for a period of time and that his practice further characterize John as a prophet. The asso-
of baptizing those who responded to his call for ciation of John with the role of Elijah has been
repentance was drawn from the Essene initiation affirmed from even before John’s birth, however:
ceremonies and repeated washings. John’s baptism “With the spirit and power of Elijah he will go
predates by fifty years the first reference in Jewish before him, to turn the hearts of parents to their
writings to a baptism of proselytes to Judaism, children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of
nevertheless a connection with Essene practices the righteous, to make ready a people prepared
cannot be taken for granted. Like the Essenes, John for the Lord” (1:17). The quotation of Isaiah 40
called Israelites to repentance in the wilderness and repeats not only v. 3 but the next two verses as
subjected converts to a ceremony of water cleansing well. Although Isa 40:3 is quoted in Matt 3:3;
that either expressed their repentance or conveyed Mark 1:3; and John 1:23, only Luke quotes Isa
God’s cleansing to the convert. The water ritual was 40:4-5 with its universalizing allusions to “every
not effective apart from genuine repentance. In both valley,” “every mountain and hill,” and “all flesh.”
cases, the washing was probably also understood as The quotation follows the Septuagint text with
a fulfillment of the levitical requirements for puri- minor changes. Luke changes “make our God’s
fication (see Leviticus 15) and metaphorical refer- paths straight” to “make his paths straight” so that
ences to washing in the OT (see Ps 51:7; Isa it can apply to Jesus more easily, and omits the
1:16; Jer 4:14). following clause from v. 6: “and the glory of the
The Gospel of Mark begins with a quotation Lord will be seen” (cf. Luke 2:9). The last phrase,
from Isaiah 40 and a description of John’s baptiz- “the salvation of God,” also appears in Acts 28:28
ing ministry. Luke sets the quotation in the con- (see also Luke 2:30).
text of the infancy material and the preceding The introduction to this chapter, therefore,
account of John’s call. Luke also extends the fixes the call of John to a prophetic ministry
quotation from Isaiah and deletes the description chronologically and describes that ministry as both
of John’s clothing and diet, while adding an ex- the fulfillment of the prophets and the preparation
tended account of John’s preaching. The effect is for Jesus’ ministry. John’s preaching was an im-
to emphasize three Lukan themes: (1) John’s role portant part of God’s plan for Israel.
REFLECTIONS
1. The first several verses fix the time and political circumstances of John’s call. The story
begins with a roll call of important persons: governors and kings, even the high priest. In surprising
contrast, however, “the word of God” comes not to any of these but to an unknown prophet out
“He
in the wilderness. The redemptive work of which Mary sang in the Magnificat is under way:
the lowly” (1:52). In all ages,
has brought down the powerful from their thrones,/ and lifted up
nominally
God’s work proceeds among the poor and the dispossessed. A middle-class church in a
fact that Luke does
Christian society that enjoys religious liberty will have a hard time grasping the
not use these terms in a merely metaphorical or spiritual sense.
corner of Judea
2. Moreover, the redemptive events that began with John in a remote
t of God’s concern for the salvation of
were, by God’s design, the beginning of the fulfillmen
ed. Our human tendency is to
“all flesh.” Repeatedly in Luke we find this theme underscor
81
: LUKE 3:1-6 REFLECTIONS
circumscribe God’s activity and limit it to our own kind of people and the causes that are
socially and ethically important to us. But God’s concern for all continually pushes us to break
across the boundaries that we set for it. In many respects, the story of the ministry of Jesus in
Luke and the spread of the early church in Acts is the story of God’s challenge to social, ethnic,
economic, and racial barriers to the spread of the gospel. “All flesh” always includes precisely those
groups who are not present in our religious assemblies, either because we have not allowed them
to be there or because we have maintained cultural patterns that have excluded them.
3. Because God’s redemptive work is still unfinished—the salvation of “all flesh” has not
yet been realized—John serves as a role model for the church. The Gospel announces not
only what God has done through Jesus but also what God is still in the process of doing. All
who hear “the word of God” (v. 2) are called to declare what God is doing in our midst and
to point ahead to the fulfillment of God’s reign as king. John was a forerunner, announcing
the great things of God that are yet to come, a vision of a society redeemed and renewed by
the vision of the prophets. As John’s preaching (in the next section) shows, he held the vision
before others, issued a challenge for them, and called for repentance. He is, therefore, an
appropriate model for the church as it seeks to recover its vocation as a prophetic voice in a
secular culture.
LUKE 3:7-18, JOHN’S PREACHING

NIV NRSV
“John said to the crowds coming out to be 7John said to the crowds that came out to be
baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who
warned you to flee from the coming wrath? warned you to flee from the wrath to come? *Bear
®Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. fruits worthy of repentance. Do not begin to say
And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’;
have Abraham as our father.’ For | tell you for I tell you, God is able from these stones to
that out of these stones God can raise up raise up children to Abraham. °Even now the ax
children for Abraham. °The ax is already at is lying at the root of the trees; every tree there-
the root of the trees, and every tree that does fore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and
not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
thrown into the fire.” 10And the crowds asked him, “What then
'o“What should we do then?” the crowd asked. should we do?” ''In reply he said to them, “Who-
"John answered, “The man with two tunics ever has two coats must share with anyone who
should share with him who has none, and the has none; and whoever has food must do like-
one who has food should do the same.” wise.” '*Even tax collectors came to be baptized,
Tax collectors also came to be baptized. and they asked him, “Teacher, what should we
“Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?” do?” '3He said to them, “Collect no more than
'“Don’t collect any more than you are required . the amount prescribed for you.” '4Soldiers also
to,” he told them. asked him, “And we, what should we do?” He
4Then some soldiers asked him, “And what said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone
should we do?” by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with
He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t. your wages.”
accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” 15As the people were filled with expectation,
The people were waiting expectantly and and all were questioning in their hearts concern-
82
LUKE 3:7-18
NIV NRSV
were all wondering in their hearts if John might ing John, whether he might be the Messiah,?
possibly be the Christ.? '*John answered them all, ‘John answered all of them by saying, “I baptize
“I baptize you with? water. But one more pow- you with water; but one who is more powerful
erful than I will come, the thongs of whose than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the
sandals 1 am not worthy to untie. He will baptize thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with?’
you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. '7His the Holy Spirit and fire. '7His winnowing fork is
winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his thresh- in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to
ing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, gather the wheat into his granary; but the chaff
but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
fire.” 'SAnd with many other words John exhorted 18So0, with many other exhortations, he pro-
the people and preached the good news to them. claimed the good news to the people.
215 Or Messiah 616 Or in aOr the Christ 6Or in
(COMMENTARY
Luke combines Q sayings with sayings drawn brood of vipers” has no clear parallels in the OT,
from elsewhere to give us the most complete but the image of malicious evildoers as poisonous
account of John’s preaching in the NT. Luke’s snakes is readily intelligible. John’s question “Who
account of John’s preaching is organized into three warned you?” introduces the theme of the coming
groups of sayings, each with its own theme: judgment and evokes an image of crowds hurrying
warnings of the coming judgment (vv. 7-9), a call to be baptized in order to escape that judgment.
for ethical reforms (vv. 10-14), and an an- John likens the crowds to snakes slithering in
nouncement of the coming Messiah (vv. 15-17).4! flight, as they might to escape the danger of a
Verse 18 is the evangelist’s summary of John’s fire. The warning of the coming eschatological
preaching ministry. judgment places John in the tradition of the proph-
3:7-9. John’s devastating warning of eschato- ets of Israel who issued warnings of the “day
logical judgment is addressed to the Pharisees and of the Lorp” or “the day of the Lorp’s wrath”
Sadducees in Matthew (3:7) rather than to the (Isa 2:11-22; 13:9; Amos 5:18-20; Zeph 1:14-15,
crowds, as it is in Luke. Compare the references 18; 2:2; see also “wrath” in Luke 21:23).
to crowds in vv. 7 and 10 with the references to John challenges the crowds that have come for
“the people” in vv. 15 and 18. “The people” have baptism to “bear fruits worthy of repentance.” The
already been established in Luke as the people of metaphor of reformed or repentant living as “good
Israel and the responsive recipients of God’s reworks” and, therefore, “fruits” (v. 8) or “good
demptive work (1:10, 17, 68, 77; 2:10, 31-32), fruit” (v. 9) is common in ancient ethical teach-
but these are the first references to “the crowds” ings and in Jewish wisdom materials (cf. 6:43-44;
in Luke. 13:6-9). The calls for repentance in Luke raise
If John’s preaching is part of the preparation interesting questions: Who is called to repen-
for Jesus’ ministry, Luke could hardly have found tance? Are any not called to repent? The preach-
a more disturbing introduction than John’s address ing of John the Baptist is characterized as “a
to the crowds: “You brood of vipers!” For readers baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins”
whose hopes for the blessings of God’s salvation (3:3), and the challenge to bear fruit worthy of
of Israel have been stirred by the oracles of the repentance follows in this context. Here the
birth narratives (see 1:77; 2:30-32), the an- preaching is addressed to the descendants of Abra-
nouncement of judgment is as alarming as it is ham. Later, when Jesus is challenged for eating
unexpected. As a prophetic call, the address “You with tax collectors and sinners, he responds, “I
have come to call not the righteous but sinners
41. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (FIX),
AB28 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981) 463.
to repentance” (5:32). Who are the righteous, and
83
who are the sinners? The righteous persons need image for judgment (Isa 6:13; 10:33-34; Dan
no repentance (15:7). It may be that the poor whom 4:14; Mal 4:1) that appears in Jesus’ parables also
Jesus blesses are considered righteous, while the rich (Luke 13:6-9; John 15:1-6). In fact, the last part
are sinners (see 6:20-21, 24-25), but in the context of v. 9 is attributed to Jesus in Matt 7:19. The
of John’s keynote to Jesus’ ministry, the challenge image of Israel as a vine or a tree was common,
is that all whose lives do not exemplify the righ- and God expected good fruit from it (see esp. the
teousness of God as described by the prophets are song of the vineyard in Isa 5:1-7).
in danger of judgment and need to repent. Eventu- 3:10-14. The crowds understand the prophetic
ally, the call for repentance will extend beyond Israel call to an ethical reform and ask what they are to
to all peoples (see 24:47). do. The next section of John’s preaching (which
Neither the ritual of baptism nor the rights of does not appear in Matthew) unfolds in three parts
birth will substitute for repentance and ethical as three groups (the crowds, v. 10; toll collectors,
reform. The covenant with Abraham (Gen 12:1-3) v. 12; and soldiers, v. 14) each ask John the same
was often interpreted as a promise of salvation for question: “What should we do?” John’s answers
all of his descendants (Isa 51:2-3; Sir 44:21; Jub give concrete examples of the ethical reform he
12:22-24). In the NT as well, Paul (Romans 4; called for in the previous verses. All three answers
9-11; Galatians 3) and John (8:39-58) wrestled call for an end to a life-style based on greed and the
with Israel’s appeal to the covenant and rejected . accumulation of material possessions. Such actions
the interpretation that it ensured salvation for all of unqualified concern for one’s neighbor illustrate
who claimed Abraham as their father regardless the “fruits worthy of repentance” (v. 7).
of whether they lived by faith and practiced _To the crowds, John answers that if anyone has
righteousness. Ethnic heritage apart from righ- two tunics (garments worn next to the skin), that
teousness, the Baptist warned, offers no assurance person should give one to someone who has none
of salvation (cf. 16:19-31). (cf. Jas 2:15-17; 1 John 3:17). Traditionally, re-
Indeed, God is not dependent on the physical peritance was expressed by putting on sackcloth
descent of Israelites in order to accomplish the and ashes or offering sacrifices. For John, repen-
redemptive work. If necessary, God can cause the tance should take the form of a radicalizing of the
stones to produce children to Abraham. This say- commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself
ing is related to Isa 51:1-2: (Lev 19:18) and to do deeds of loving kindness
Look to the rock from which you were hewn, (som hesed; Mic 6:8). John does not call for the
and to the quarry from which you were dug. crowds to withdraw from society (like the Essenes
Look to Abraham your father at Qumran) or to seek a military solution (like the
and to Sarah who bore you. (NRSV)? Zealot groups). He addresses individual needs
John the Baptist reverses the line of dependence rather than societal problems, and the answer
implied here. If, metaphorically, the Israelites are begins with the individual. If one has more than
stones hewn from Abraham, then a fortiori God is needed to sustain life, one who does not have
can use stones to produce other children to Abra- such abundance should lay claim to it. He does
ham. And every Israelite knew there was no not say that one who does not have food or
shortage of stones in the wilderness! God could clothing should take from one who has more than
produce children from lifeless stones. The stone needed. His interest is in repentance and ethical
motif will be developed further later in Luke (see reform rather than revolution. The first step to-
19:40). Jesus himself is identified as a stone ward a redeemed community is for those who
(20:18). have to share with those who have not.
The last saying in this section (vv. 7-9) returns To those who collected tolls for the Romans,
to the warning of imminent judgment. The ax has John said to collect no more than the prescribed
already been placed on the exposed root to mea- amount. Direct taxes (poll tax, land tax) were
sure the blow that is about to come. The burning collected by tax collectors employed by the Ro-
of rotten or unproductive trees was a prophetic mans, while tolls, tariffs, and customs fees were
collected at toll houses by toll collectors, the
42. See Joachim Jeremias, \{80s TDNT, 4:270-71. group that appears frequently in the Gospels and
84
is not entirely accurately identified as “tax collec- rather than from the authorities and expresses
tors.”“° Toll collectors paid in advance for the right expectancy rather than opposition. The change
to collect tolls, so the system was open to abuse from the references to the crowds in vv. 7 and
and corruption. Zacchaeus, a chief toll collector who 10 to “the people” further characterizes the peo-
would have had others working for him, pledges to ple of Israel as receptive to God’s mighty work
pay back any whom he has defrauded (19:1-10). (seem: T0j.17,2215:6887751:2:10;-3 1-32).
The soldiers in view here were probably not Nowhere in John’s preaching does he announce
Romans but local mercenaries serving the Herods the kingdom of God, and to this point he has made
or the Roman procurator. Their role, therefore, no reference to the Messiah. In the last two centu-
was similar to that of the toll collectors, whom ries sce the expectation of a Davidic Messiah had
they may have protected. Both were hated by the emerged in Palestinian Judaism. Nathan’s oracle to
local population. The practice of extorting pay- David (2 Sam 7:8-16) fueled speculation regarding
ments by threats was apparently common. a future David (Jer 30:9; Ezek 37:23-24). Evidence
Josephus records that both he and John of Gis- of the expectation of one or more messiahs remains
chala warned their troops to avoid theft, extortion, in the Psalms of Solomon (chaps. 17-18) and the
and rape and to be content with their rations. Qumran scrolls (10S 9:11; 10Sa 2:14, 20).
Since a soldier’s allowance was minimal, there Twice Luke underscores the significance of the
may even have been the expectation that he coming of the Messiah by emphasizing that what
would supplement it by extortion. The verb used was happening was for all people (vv. 15-16).
here for “to accuse falsely” (cuKobavtTéw syko- John was the forerunner of the Messiah, and not
phanteo) is a colorful one meaning literally “to the Messiah himself (cf. John 1:20). The “coming
make figs visible.” It refers to those in Athens One” would be greater than John. The reference
who informed against anyone exporting figs from echoes Malachi’s prophecy of the coming of the
Attica. Such informers were “fig showers,” from Lord (Mal 3:1; 4:5-6). Luke follows the sequence
which we get the English word sycophant—a of the sayings in Q rather than Mark 1:7-8,
swindler or extortionist. although v. 16 follows the wording of Mark 1:7.
All three of the practical, ethical examples that John baptizes in water, a baptism of repentance
John gives to illustrate the “fruits worthy of re- (cf. Matt 3:11). The coming One would be so
pentance” call for ethical reform. The tax collec- much greater than he that John would not be
tors and soldiers are to refrain from exploiting worthy even to untie the thong of his sandals.
their positions for personal gain at the expense of Untying sandals was such a menial duty that it
others, while the crowds are challenged to dem- was expected only of slaves; disciples were not
onstrate their concern for the well-being of others expected to untie their master’s sandals (see Acts
by sharing whatever they do not need for their 13:24-25). Luke will return to the theme of the
own survival. coming One in 7:19-20, where John asks Jesus if
3:15-17. These verses contain John’s an- he is the One who is to come.
nouncement of the coming of the Messiah. Fol- The nature of the baptism of the coming One
lowing the pattern established in the birth has evoked various interpretations. In agreement
narratives, John points to Jesus as one greater than with Matt 3:11, Luke declares that the One to
he. The sayings of vv. 16-17 have parallels in come “will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and
Mark 1:7-8; Matt 3:11-12; and John 1:26-27. fire” (v. 16). The reference to fire is omitted in
Luke’s narrative introduction to the sayings, Mark 1:8 and the parallels in Acts 1:5; 11:16.
which reports that the people were questioning What is the relationship between Spirit and fire
whether John might be the expected Messiah, in this saying? The following interpretations have
summarizes the kind of questioning that John been advanced: (1) fire describes the inflaming,
describes in more detail (1:19-28). In Luke, how- purifying work of the Spirit; (2) the repentant will
ever, the questioning arises from “the people” receive the Spirit, while the unrepentant will
experience the judgment of fire; (3) since the
43. See John R. Donahue, “Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Greek term for “Spirit” can also mean “wind,”
Identification,” CBQ 33 (1971) 39-61.
44, Josephus Life 244; The Jewish War 2.581.
the meaning is that Jesus’ baptism will bring the
85
judgment of a mighty wind and fire; (4) as might therefore, warns of the imminence of the judg-
be implicit in the first option, “Spirit” or “wind” ment (cf. v. 9). The added detail that the fire is
and “fire” reflect the Christian interpretation of “unquenchable” removes this parabolic saying
the Pentecost experience; or (5) John saw in Spirit from ordinary life, unless the term means only
and fire the means of eschatological purification: that the fire will burn so ferociously that it cannot
the refiner’s fire for the repentant and destruction be extinguished. The detail may be allegorical,
for the unrepentant.*> The last combines elements however, describing the fire of judgment (Isa
of (2) and (3) and fits both the historical context 34:8-10; 66:24) or the fires of the garbage heap
of John’s preaching and the literary context in in the Valley of Hinnom—Gehenna (cf. Matt
which the saying about winnowing follows. Luke, 18:8; 25:41; Mark 9:43-48; Jude 7; Rev 20:9-15).
of course, may have seen the fulfillment of this While announcing the coming of the Messiah,
saying at Pentecost in ways John could not have therefore, John emphasizes in four different ways
imagined. that the Messiah will be greater than he: (1) John
The double proclamation continues in v. 17. baptizes in water, while the Messiah will baptize
At the harvest, grain was gathered to a threshing with Holy Spirit and fire; (2) the coming One is
floor, where the farmer would pitch the grain into more powerful than he; (3) John is not worthy to
the air with a winnowing fork. The wind would untie the sandal of the coming One; and (4) the
blow away the lighter chaff, but the grain itself » coming One will bring salvation for the repentant
would fall back to the floor where it could be and judgment for the unrepentant.
gathered for use. In the picture painted by this 3:18. The closing verse of this section (v. 18)
saying, the separation has already taken place and concludes the summary of John’s preaching and
the farmer is at the point of gathering the grain characterizes his work as “exhorting,” or in this
into the granary and burning the chaff. The saying, context calling for repentance, while preaching
“good news” to the people of Israel.
45. See Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX), 473-74; John
Nolland, Luke 1—9:20, WBC 35A (Dallas: Word, 1989) 152-53.
REFLECTIONS
1. John rebuked the Israelites who dismissed God’s claims on them by appealing to their
heritage as the descendants of Abraham. The temptation to self-justification is universal,
however. With what rationalizations do we dismiss God’s calls to us? The civil-religion
rationalization claims that God needs us because we are a Christian nation. The pietist
rationalization offers individual piety as a substitute for genuine commitment, while limiting
religion to matters of the heart and one’s private relationship to God. The universalist
rationalization maintains that one’s response to God really doesn’t make a great deal of
difference, since ultimately all will experience God’s grace anyway. Whatever our modern
equivalent to the appeal to Abraham, John’s call comes ringing, “From these very stones... . ”
2. Another of the haunting phrases from John’s preaching is “fruits worthy of repentance.”
To say that we can never be worthy of God’s grace is to miss the point of John’s challenge.
John calls instead for a change of life-style that reflects the genuineness of our repentance. Just
as a false love is not love at all, so also repentance that is not sincere is not repentance. There
is an integrity to the repentant. They are: whole numbers, integers. Their way of life, their
priorities, commitments, personal relationships, passion for peace and justice, and their un-
planned acts of compassion all give evidence of their repentance.
3. John’s preaching contains three emphases: a prophetic warning against the coming
judgment, a call to justice and compassion in our dealings with others, and a confession of
the coming Messiah. Think for a moment about the relationship among these three emphases
and their expressions in contemporary churches. Each congregation has its own unique blend
86
of heritage, theological distinctives, setting in the community, style of worship, and homogeneity
or diversity among its members. Some churches strongly emphasize one or another of the
themes of John’s preaching—some spend their time interpreting prophecy; others are involved
in social action; while others just praise Jesus. Is any one of these emphases by itself a sufficient
gospel? More often than not.a church will combine christological confession with one of the
other two emphases; conservative churches and fundamentalist churches tend to blend praise
and prophecy, while liberal mainline Protestant churches often call for social reform as an
expression of commitment to Christ. Less frequent is a church that finds a way to maintain
both a prophetic/eschatological urgency and an involvement with social issues related to
poverty, abuse, hunger, and world peace. Is it desirable for the church today to embody all
three strands of John’s preaching? If so, how can this be done? By listening to one another,
churches that are socially and theologically quite different might learn from each other.
4. Finally, what John points to is a religious experience that is beyond our control. Because
it arises from a responsiveness to what God is doing among us, such experience cannot be
channeled or domesticated to our tastes. There is the mystery: God acts among us in ways
that defy explanation or institutionalization. God calls for a genuine repentance and a
commitment to the life-style of a covenant people. Nevertheless, our experience of God is
always as Spirit and fire.
LUKE 3:19-20, THE IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN
NIV NRSV
'9But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch '9But Herod the ruler,? who had been rebuked by
because of Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all him because of Herodias, his brother’s wife, and
the other evil things he had done, ?°Herod added because of all the evil things that Herod had done,
‘this to them all: He locked John up in prison. 20added to them all by shutting up John in prison.
aGk tetrarch
(COMMENTARY
Luke is distinctive among the Gospels in re- Luke seems to draw from Mark 1:14, which
cording the imprisonment of John prior to the places the beginning of Jesus’ ministry after the
baptism of Jesus. Theologically, the Lukan se- imprisonment of John (cf. John 3:22-24; 4:1, which
quence neatly separates the preparatory work of envision a period of parallel ministries; Mark 6:17-
John from the ministry of Jesus.*° As narrative 29, which describes John’s death). Nevertheless,
artistry, it concludes Luke’s account of John’s Luke changes Mark’s sequence of baptism-arrest-
ministry with an account of his departure from beginning of Jesus’ ministry and offers no account
the scene that is reminiscent of the references to of John’s death. Instead, Luke adds a sequence
departures at the end of various scenes in the (7:18-35) that has no parallel in Mark.
Lukan birth narratives. Apologetically, it parries The story of Herod Antipas’s relationship with
possible claims by followers of John the Baptist Herodias is as colorful as it is scandalous. Herodias
that John was the greater because he had baptized was born between 9 and 7 sce, the daughter of
Jesus (see the discussion of Jesus’ baptism below). Aristobulus (a son of Herod the Great) and Bernice.
Herodias married a son of Herod the Great by
46. See Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, trans. Geoffrey
Buswell (New York: Harper & Row, 1961).
another of his ten wives. Herodias’s first husband
87
’ LUKE 3:19-20 COMMENTARY
is identified in Mark 6:17 as Philip, while Josephus and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives,
to practice justice towards their fellows and piety
gives his name as Herod.*” Scholars have sought to
towards God, and so doing to join in baptism.
harmonize the two accounts by use of the conflated In his view this was a necessary preliminary if
name “Herod Philip,” which does not appear in any baptism was to be acceptable to God. They must
ancient account. Luke refrains from naming not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they
Herodias’s first husband, noting only that he was committed, but as a consecration of the body implying
Herod Antipas’s brother (i.e., half-brother). Josephus that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by
indicates that Herodias and her first husband had a right behaviour. When others too joined the crowds
about him, because they were aroused to the highest
child, Salome.** Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee degree by his sermons, Herod became alarmed.
and Perea, was married to the daughter of King Eloquence that had so great an effect on mankind
Aretas of Nabatea. Antipas had rebuilt Sepphoris might lead to some form of sedition, for it looked
(near Nazareth) and built Tiberius even though the as if they would be guided by John in everything
construction of the city defiled a cemetery. Conse- they did. Herod decided therefore that it would be
quently, Antipas had to use forced settlement to much better to strike first and be rid of him before
his work led to an uprising, than to wait for an
populate the new city. On the other hand, Antipas
upheaval, get involved in a difficult situation and
showed sensitivity to Jewish complaints about im- see his mistake. Though John, because of Herod’s
ages on shields and coins in Jerusalem.*? While suspicions, was brought in chains to Machaerus, the
visiting Herodias and his half-brother prior to a trip . stronghold that we have previously mentioned, and
to Rome, Antipas proposed marriage to Herodias, there put to death, yet the verdict of the Jews was
and she consented on the condition that he send that the destruction visited upon Herod’s army was
a vindication of John, since God saw fit to inflict
away his first wife. The marriage was an offense to
“such a blow on Herod.°°
pious Jews because it violated the law against such
a relationship (Lev 18:16; 20:21). Josephus gives a political interpretation of Herod’s
Luke records that Herod arrested John because motive for arresting John, but Luke’s explanation
of John’s condemnation of Herod’s marriage. The that it was because of John’s condemnation of
marriage also resulted in the ruin of Herod Anti- Herod’s marriage is entirely plausible. Herodias ulti-
pas’s army. Antipas’s first wife fled to her father, mately brought a further and final defeat to Herod
who then attacked Antipas. Josephus records that Antipas. When her brother Agrippa I was given the
the destruction of Herod Antipas’s army was title of king, she convinced Herod Antipas to appeal
viewed by some Jews as God’s judgment on to the emperor for the same title. Agrippa, however,
Herod for the death of John the Baptist: sent envoys who persuaded the emperor that Anti-
But to some of the Jews the destruction of pas was guilty of treason with the king of Parthia.
Herod’s army seemed to be divine vengeance, As a result, the emperor deposed Antipas, and
and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment Herodias followed her husband into exile in either
of John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had Lyons or northern Spain.>!
put him to death, though he was a good man
50, Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18.116-19, in Louis H. Feldman,
47. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 18.109. trans., Josephus: Jewish Antiquities XVII-XX, LCL (Cambridge, Mass.:
48. Ibid., 18.136. Harvard University Press, 1965) 81-85.
49. See H. W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas, SNTSMS 17 (Cambridge: 51. See Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 18:240-55; The Jewish War
Cambridge University Press, 1972; reprint 1980). 2:183.
REFLECTIONS
The sordid story of Antipas and Herodias is a study in human evil and its consequences.
How ironic that the prophet calling for repentance, justice, and compassion is put to death by
those seeking only their own pleasure and position. John had done his work, however—the
one coming after him would be even mightier than he. On the other hand, Antipas and
Herodias would eventually reach for more than they could grasp and bring about their own
ruin. The righteous do not always succeed, and the wicked are not always overthrown, but
evil is eventually self-destructive. And in the end God will triumph over the worst that we can do.
Figure 1: Partial Family Tree of Herod the Great
Wives of Children
Herod of Herod Grandchildren of Herod
Doris ————— Antipater Agrippa I

; Bernice
Alexander Agrippa I Drusilla ( married Felix )
: Aristobulus Mariamne — Aristobulus
M
ariamne I Salampsio Herodias
.
.
first marriage
Cypros |second marriage
Mariamne II — Herod-Philip Salome

go first marriage i
second marriage s=sssessss
Arona: i Herod Archelaus
Herod Antipas ———! Bold type : Persons mentioned

in the New Testament
Cleopatra Philip
Ch Ic
Herod the Great King of Galilee, fe Sh
Trachonitus, Samaria, Judea, and Idumea
see ‘
(37-4 BcE) i
Herod-Philip Did not rule 8 itubee
Herod Archelaus Governor of Samaria,
Judea, and Idumea (4 BCE-6 CE)
Herod Antipas Tetrarch of Galilee and
Perea (4 BCE-39 CE)
Philip Tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis
(4 BcE—34 cE)
AgrippaI King of Iturea, Traconitis, and
Abilene (34-44 ce), of Galilee and Perea
(39-44 ck), of Samaria and Judea (41-44 cg)
Agrippa II King of Chalcis (49-53 ce);
King of Iturea and Traconitus (53-93 cE),
of Galilee and Perea (56-93 cE)
“SAMARIA
<thiladelphia
Emmaus Jericho,
Jerusalem®*Bethany /
es Bethlehem®
=<. lerritory ruled by / a U D EA
Herod the Great Cotbed
_20
Miles —
da
29530.
Kilometers —
49
89
LUKE 3:21-22
LUKE 3:21-22, THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

NIV NRSV
21When all the people were being baptized, 21Now when all the people were baptized, and
Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, when Jesus also had been baptized and was pray-
heaven was opened “and the Holy Spirit descended ing, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit
on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice descended upon him in bodily form like a dove.
came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom | And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son,
love; with you I am well pleased.” the Beloved;? with you I am well pleased.”?
aOr my beloved Son +Other ancient authorities read You are my
Son, today I have begotten you
(COMMENTARY
Each of the Gospels treats the baptism of Jesus Luke does not explain why Jesus was baptized
differently. In Mark, which lacks a birth narrative *. or how Luke understands the significance of Jesus’
and begins with the work of John the Baptist, the baptism. For answers to these questions, we must
baptism of Jesus serves to identify who Jesus is. interpret the Gospel of Luke on the bases of both
Mark is distinctive among the Gospels in reflecting the Lukan pattern of the relationship between John
no apparent embarrassment at saying that Jesus and Jesus and the details of Luke’s account. The
was baptized by John. birth narratives establish John as the prophetic fore-
In Matthew, John the Baptist voices the pious runner of Jesus, the Son. John will “make ready a
reader’s objection, saying “I need to be baptized by people prepared for the Lord” (1:17). Jesus will be
you, and do you come to me?” (3:14), which allows called “Son of the Most High” (1:32); he will bring
Jesus to explain that the baptism is necessary “to a kingdom (1:33) and salvation (2:30). There could
fulfill all righteousness”—a theme important to Mat- be no question, however, that Jesus required “a
thew. In John, the baptism of Jesus is not actually baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins”
narrated. Instead, it is referred to in John’s testimony (3:3). The baptism of Jesus, therefore, which is
to Jesus. John the Baptist’s only role in the Gospel reported after the arrest of John the Baptist, marks
of John is to bear witness to Jesus, so there is no the succession. John’s work has been completed,
account of his preaching such as we read in Luke and Jesus’ is just beginning.
3:7-17. And those who were followers of John the Prayer is a recurring emphasis in Luke. The
Baptist could not claim to follow his preaching unless announcement of John’s birth occurred at the
they began to follow Jesus as the one whose coming hour of prayer (1:10). Jesus prays at significant
John had announced. junctures in his ministry: before calling the disci-
Luke’s account is distinctive in several respects: ples (6:12), at Caesarea Philippi (9:18), before the
It follows the report that John was imprisoned; transfiguration (9:28), before his death (22:40-46),
John is not mentioned by name; the baptism itself and on the cross (23:34, 46). It is not surprising,
is not reported, only the events that followed therefore, that Luke should emphasize that Jesus
Jesus’ baptism; prayer is emphasized; and Luke was praying at the time that the Spirit came upon
adds that the Spirit descended “in bodily form” ‘him. Prayer will again be emphasized at the
as a dove. These peculiarities probably serve vari- disciples’ preparation for the coming of the Spirit
ous Lukan interests. In particular, Luke empha- at Pentecost (Acts 1:14).
sizes Jesus’ practice of prayer, the apocalyptic The opening of heaven is an apocalyptic motif
fulfillment signaled by the baptism of Jesus, and found in the OT and in apocalyptic writings (Ezek
the twin distinctives of Jesus’ identity: the Spirit 1:1; Isa 64:1; John 1:51; Acts 7:56; 10:11; Rev
and sonship. 19:11). The opening of heaven at the baptism of
90
Jesus signals that he is the Messiah and that the heaven. This voice (called the “daughter voice,”
fulfillment of Israel’s eschatological expectations is ip ma bat gol) was not to be regarded as a
at hand. If the closing of heaven brought drought continuation of the revelation in the Torah or the
(Luke 4:25), the opening of heaven would bring Prophets or as a substitute for the Holy Spirit.°?
God’s blessings. God’s power and mercy is about The voice from heaven is reported in Matthew
to be unleashed. as a declaration that could be heard by others:
The blessing that descends from heaven is the “This is my Son” (Matt 3:17). But Luke follows
Spirit in the form of a dove, descending upon Mark in interpreting the voice as something that
Jesus. The descent of the Spirit is referred to in only Jesus may have heard: “You are my Son”
the OT only in Isa 63:14 LXX. Luke heightens (Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). The affirmation of Jesus
Mark’s description of the Spirit “as a dove” by adding as God’s Son resonates with declarations of son-
the word for “bodily” (owywatikds somatikos). As ship throughout Israel’s history. Isaac was the
in the later description of the coming of the Spirit promised child of the covenant, the son whom
upon the disciples at Pentecost “like the rush of Abraham loved (Gen 22:2). The king of Israel was
a violent wind” and with “tongues, as of fire” acclaimed the son of God, as the coronation psalm
(Acts 2:2-3), the language here emphasizes both suggests (Ps 2:7). Later, Israel itself was designated
tangibility and inexpressibility. The Spirit was not as God’s son. (Jer 31:20; Hos..11:1), and the
a dove, but it appeared as something like a dove. servant songs of Isaiah declare that God’s election
The addition of the term bodily is also consistent of the servant/child (Isa 42:1). From before Jesus’
with the “bodily” form of the risen Lord, who in birth Luke has traced the affirmation of Jesus as
Luke’s accounts of the post-resurrection appear- God’s Son (see 1:32, he will be called “the Son
ances walks, talks, eats, and finally is removed of the Most High”; 1:35, “he will be called Son
from earth by the ascension. of God”). At twelve years of age, the precocious
The antecedent of the choice of a dove as the child referred to the Temple as “my Father’s
symbol for the Spirit at Jesus’ baptism has been house” (2:50), and now the voice from heaven
sought in several OT references—e.g., the Spirit confirms both the angelic annunciation and the
of God hovering over the chaos at the creation child’s intuition. In the Gospel narrative, Jesus will
(Gen 1:2); the dove Noah released after the flood need to respond to this confirmation of his divine
(Gen 8:8); or the eagle that stirs its young to leave identity, but the reader can have no doubt that
the nest in Deut 32:11. In none of these refer- Luke confirms the things that have been taught
ences, however, is the Spirit of God represented regarding Jesus (1:4).
by a dove. Even if its origin cannot be traced with Two descriptors characterize the Father’s rela-
confidence, the power of the image of the dove tionship to the Son: “the Beloved” and “with
descending on Jesus is attested to by its promi: whom I am well pleased.” The term rendered
nence in Christian art. Jesus’ declaration that the “beloved” (dyatntés agapetos) is used in Luke
Spirit was upon him in his reading of Isa 61:1 in only on two other occasions, and in each it refers
Luke 4:18 should probably be taken as an indica- to Jesus: When the voice from heaven speaks
tion that the reference in Isaiah was fulfilled at again at the transfiguration of Jesus (9:35), and in
Jesus’ baptism. The Spirit will also play an impor- the parable of the wicked tenants, in which the
tant role in Luke and Acts; Luke takes care to owner’s son interprets Israel’s rejection of Jesus,
point out that the work of John, Jesus, and the at least in the Lukan form of the parable (20:13).
apostles was empowered and guided by the Spirit. Being “well pleased” (ev8oxéw eudokeo) is also
The coming of the Spirit upon Jesus commis- an attribute reserved only for God in the Gospel
sioned and empowered him for his ministry. The of Luke. The angelic chorus at Jesus’ birth an-
voice from heaven was another common feature nounces God’s favor (2:14); it is God’s gracious
of apocalyptic literature (Ezek 1:25,.28; 4 Ezra will to hide the revelation from the wise but to
6:13-17; John 12:28; Rev 4:1; 10:4). The rabbis give all things to the Son (10:21-22); but it is
taught that the Spirit had departed from the earth God’s good pleasure to give the kingdom to those
with the last of the prophets of Israel, but that on
occasion God caused a voice to come forth from
52. See Otto Betz, dwvr) TDNT, 9:288-90.
91
‘ LUKE 3:21-22 COMMENTARY
who are prepared to receive it (12:32). The voice the identity of the Son and the character of the
at the baptism of Jesus, therefore, discloses both Father.
REFLECTIONS
1. The text invites reflection at various levels. Theologically, it approaches the mystery of
Jesus’ relationship to God, the Son’s awareness of his relationship to God as Father. It confesses
that Jesus could not have done what he did apart from God’s empowerment and blessing.
Here we find one of the taproots of the confessions the church later shaped regarding the
divinity of Jesus and the triune nature of God. With none of the later language of essence and
being, the narrative characterizes both Jesus and the divine Father through familial terms and
expressions of endearment. Before it is abstracted in creedal language, therefore, our theology
expresses our human experience of acceptance, love, and well-being within the family.
2. Pastorally, the description of Jesus’ baptism points to the significance of the experience
of baptism or confirmation, in which the individual submits to God’s grace and finds identity
and affirmation. On the part of the one being baptized, baptism expresses repentance, trust,
and faith. The people of God, however, :participate as those who live out God’s words of
affirmation to those who submit to God’s grace. Here baptism finds new meaning as the pastor
and the congregation follow God’s example in responding with affirmation and blessing to the
one who comes for baptism.
3. For parents, the words of the voice from heaven serve as a reminder that declarations
of the parents’ love and affirmation of the child are vital to the child’s development. Any child
who strives to affirm his or her own identity: and self-worth without having heard that
affirmation from his or her parents faces intense struggles. The voice from heaven, on the
other hand, models for us the parental blessing. We who are made in the image of God, and
whom God allows to be co-creators in the process of birth, are obligated in return to emulate
God in our blessing of the children God gives to us.
PORE 325-367 THE. GENBALG

May. COR sie ahs
NIV NRSV
*3Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old 23Jesus was about thirty years old when he
when he began his ministry. He was the son, so began his work. He was the son (as was thought)
it was thought, of Joseph, of Joseph son of Heli, *4son of Matthat, son of
the son of Heli, “the son of Matthat, Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki, | son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, son of Esli, son of Naggai, *°son of Maath, son of
the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, ‘Joda, ?’son of Joanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerub-
the son of Naggai, *°the son of Maath, babel, son of Shealtiel,? son of Neri, 28son of
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of El-
the son of Josech, the son of Joda, madam, son of Er, *°son of Joshua, son of Eliezer,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, °°son
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, 4Gk Salathiel
LUKE 3:23-38
NRSV
the son of Neri, “the son of Melki, of Simeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, son of Eliakim, 3!son of Melea, son of Menna, son of
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, *?son of Jesse,
°the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, son of Obed, son of Boaz, son of Sala,? son of
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, Nahshon, “son of Amminadab, son of Admin, son
the son of Levi, *°the son of Simeon, of Arni,’ son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, *4son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, Terah, son of Nahor, *son of Serug, son of Reu,
3!the son of Melea, the son of Menna, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Shelah, *°son of
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, Cainan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah,
the son of David, *the son of Jesse, son of Lamech, °’son of Methuselah, son of Enoch,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan, **son
the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,? aOther ancient authorities read Salmon oOther ancient authori-
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, ties read Amminadab, son of Aram, others vary widely
thefa) son of Judah, **the son of Jacob,

the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, *°the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
theom son of Kenan, **the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.
232 Some early manuscripts Sala 533 Some manuscripts Amminadab,
the son of Admin, the son of Arng other manuscripts vary widely.
(COMMENTARY
Luke is the only Gospel to record Jesus’ age chronological references in Luke 3:1, but this
at the time of his baptism: “about thirty.” effort does not yield a more precise date for Jesus’
birth. Alternatively, the reference may be com-
Chronologically, this datum conforms well with
pared to notices that OT figures began their ca-
other reference points: the birth of Jesus (per-
reers at thirty years of age: Joseph (Gen 41:46),
haps two years before the death of Herod the
the sons of Kohath (Num 4:3), David (2 Sam 5:4),
Great in 4 ce); a ministry of about three years’
and Ezekiel (Ezek 1:1). Contemporary references
duration (based on the three Passovers in the indicate that the age of thirty was viewed as the
Gospel of John); and the death of Jesus at age of maturity.°°
Passover in the year 30. These reference points Modern readers have no sense of how to read
put the baptism of Jesus in 27 or 28, when a genealogy, so they usually skip them and go on
Jesus would have been a few months past his to more interesting parts of the Gospels. The
thirtieth birthday. frequency of genealogies in the OT—where there
Of what significance is this reference? Some
interpreters have sought to relate it to the other
53. See Josephus Life 80; m. ‘Abot 5.21; 10Sa 1.13.
‘ LUKE 3:23-38 COMMENTARY
are about twenty-five genealogies—shows that his true father was. The first point of divergence
they fulfilled an important social function and occurs with the father of Joseph, whose name is
suggests that there were established conventions Jacob in Matthew and Heli in Luke. With the
for written genealogies. Documentation of ances- exception that the list may occasionally preserve
try was especially common among royal and variations in spelling of the same name (e.g.,
priestly families. Succession and kinship conferred Matthat and Matthan), the next point of agree-
power and privilege. Genealogies established lines ment occurs with the names Zerubbabel and
of relationship among families and tribes, but they Shealtiel. Whereas, counting from Jesus, these are
could also describe the character of an individual. the twenty-first and twenty-second names in
In order to fulfill such purposes, genealogies were Luke’s list, they are the twelfth and thirteenth
often oral and marked by fluidity. First Timothy names in Matthew’s. The two genealogies diverge
1:4 warns against those who are preoccupied with again at the point of Shealtiel’s father and do not
“myths and endless genealogies that promote converge again until David. In Luke’s genealogy,
speculations.” there are twenty-first generations from Shealtiel
The NT contains two genealogies, both in the to David; in Matthew there are only fifteen.
Gospels and both genealogies of Jesus. The nearest Significantly, Luke traces the line from David
equivalents are the lists of the twelve disciples, through Nathan, whereas Matthew traces it
Paul’s list of the resurrection appearances {1 Cor » through Solomon. The greatest parallels between
15:5-8), and the heroes of the faith in Hebrews the two genealogies are to be found in the gene-
11. The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke alogy of David, where the only differences (except
both reflect attention to their structure, deliberate for spelling) are found in the generation(s) be-
numerical patterns, and evidence of their author’s tween Hezron and Amminadab. From these com-
theological interests. On the other hand, the dif parisons, it is clear that any attempt to harmonize
ferences between the two are more pronounced the two genealogies is futile. Both evangelists
than their similarities. Matthew places the gene- presumably worked with traditional genealogies
alogy in the infancy material, prior to the birth of (which followed biblical accounts of the genealogy
Jesus; Luke places it after the baptism of Jesus. of David), and Luke seems to employ the gene-
Matthew traces the line of Jesus from Abraham alogies in Genesis 5 and 11 to complete the line
through David to Joseph; Luke works backward back to Adam. Each evangelist exercised consid-
from Joseph to Adam. Matthew includes refer- erable freedom in constructing the genealogy,
ences to four women and occasional significant therefore, and each genealogy, by its selection and
parenthetical comments; Luke never interrupts arrangement of the names, serves as a comment
the succession of “A son of B, B son of C....” on the identity of Jesus.
Matthew calls attention to the intended structure Matthew features Jesus’ lineage through Abra-
of his genealogy: “So all the generations from ham and David (1:1). Parenthetical comments
Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and highlight the significance of the twelve tribes of
from David to the deportation to Babylon, four- Israel (“Judah and his brothers,” 1:2) and the
teen generations; and from the deportation to unusual role of women in Jesus’ ancestry, perhaps
Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations” in preparation for the role of Mary in the birth
(1:17). Luke gives no such interpretation of the account. David is given the title “King,” and the
structure of his genealogy. time of the “deportation to Babylon” is marked.
Among the agreements and divergences be- While both the structure and the intent of
tween the two genealogies, the following are Luke’s genealogy are less explicit, there are suffi-
notable. First, contrary to some interpretations, ‘cient clues to give us some indication of its
both Matthew and Luke trace the line of Jesus significance. In Luke, as in Matthew, the geneal-
through Joseph. The phrase “as was thought” in ogy appears to feature sequences of sevens. In all,
Luke 3:23 does not indicate that Luke traces the there are seventy-eight names, counting Jesus and
line through Mary; it suggests, rather, that con- Adam, or seventy-seven generations, and these
trary to popular thought Joseph was not the actual seem to have been divided into sequences of
father of Jesus—and the genealogy reveals who seven. Counting from Jesus, significant names
94
appear at multiples of 7 generations: 21 generations ginning of the messianic age with Jesus, who
from Jesus to Shealtiel, 42 generations to David, 56 inaugurates the twelfth series of seven. (2) It
generations to Abraham, and 70 generations to juxtaposes Jesus and Adam, so that Jesus may be
Enoch. In other words, Luke has so structured Jesus’ seen as the second Adam. (3) It relates Jesus to
genealogy that there are 3 sevens of generations the history of Israel, through David and Abraham.
from Jesus to Shealtiel, 3 sevens from Shealtiel to (4) It places the ministry of Jesus in the context
David, 2 sevens from David to Abraham, and 3 of universal, human history, reaching back .to
sevens from Abraham to Adam. Therefore, Jesus Adam. (5) It affirms Jesus’ divine sonship, which
begins the twelfth sequence of seven. Like Matthew, is highlighted at the beginning and end of the
Luke records for Jesus a royal lineage through David genealogy. Objections may be raised to each of
and an Israelite lineage through Abraham, but ulti- these interpretations, and it is certainly possible,
mately he sets Jesus in the context of all human even probable, that Luke had more than one
history, as a descendant of Adam. interest in mind, but the options are listed here
The real emphasis, however, is not on Adam in order of ascending significance. The first two
but on the last link in the chain: “son of God.” are elusive. The first depends on assigning a
Luke seems not to be so concerned with a “sec- certain significance to the structure of sevens. The
ond Adam” christology but with the affirmation second lacks support elsewhere in Luke. The third
that Jesus was “son of God.” The final position is weakened by the consideration that the gene-
of this title ties the genealogy to its context. The alogy continues on to Adam (in contrast to Mat-
voice from heaven at the baptism of Jesus declared, thew’s). The fourth is more probable, but does
“You are my son,” so the genealogy offers another not account for the emphatic last link, and exclu-
indication of how Jesus is the Son of God. Its sive emphasis on the fifth risks treating all the
function, therefore, is to serve as further support and generations between Jesus and God as items
clarification for Luke’s presentation of Jesus as the within a parenthesis. The best solution, therefore,
Son of God. The angel announced Jesus as the Son seems to be to recognize the force of each of these
of God before his birth, and Jesus was born of a interpretations, especially the last three.
virgin. Jesus’ birth was received with joy by the host The fifth interpretation, affirming Jesus as the
of angels and by those who recognized its signifi- Son of God, has the added strength of explaining
cance. In the Temple, Jesus gave an indication of the placement of the genealogy between the bap-
his divine sonship. When the Word of God came tism of Jesus and the temptations. Immediately
to John in the wilderness, John announced Jesus’ prior to the genealogy the voice from heaven
coming. At the baptism, the voice from heaven declares that Jesus is “my Son,” and immediately
declared, “You are my Son,” and the genealogy— after it the temptation of Jesus begins with the
which concludes as no other known genealogy, with challenge “If you are the Son of God....” The
the designation “son of God”—underscores this identity of Jesus is now fixed for the reader, so
same christological theme. the next section of the Gospel can begin: the
Various interpretations of the Lukan genealogy fulfillment of Jesus’ role as the Son of God during
are possible, therefore: (1) It emphasizes the be- his ministry in Galilee.
REFLECTIONS
Why do so many families find it important to try to reconstruct their family tree? Genealogies
seldom confer real power in American society. Nevertheless, establishing one’s ancestry and
distant relatives seems to meet an important need. Several years ago the nation was galvanized
by Alex Haley’s retelling of his family history in the television miniseries “Roots.” Family stories
are passed down from generation to generation, and each name evokes a story and a set of
shared experiences, traits, or values.
Theologically, the genealogy of Jesus is important, regardless of the difficulties one faces in
establishing its historical accuracy, because it connects Jesus with God, with Israel, and with
comes
humanity. These three relationships define his identity and the significance of all that
later in the Gospel. Jesus is the Son of God who was born to bring salvation to God’s
people. Jesus stands within the history of God’s covenant with Israel; yet, the story of his
life has significance for all people. Jesus is the Son of God who entered human history to
declare the arrival of God’s reign in human history, to‘call together a new community,
and to redeem humanity. Read in this way, the genealogy, like the birth narratives, is a
gospel in miniature.
LUKE 4:1-13, THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS

NIV NRSV
Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from A Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from
4 the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the
desert, where for forty days he was tempted by wilderness, *where for forty days he was tempted
the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and by the devil. He ate nothing at all during those
at the end of them he was hungry. days, and when they were over, he was famished.
3The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of — 3The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of
God, tell this stone to become bread.” God, command this stone to become a loaf of
4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not bread.” “Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One
live on bread alone.’2” does not live by bread alone.’”
°The devil led him up to a high place and 5Then the devil? led him up and showed him
showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. °And
world. °And he said to him, “Iwill give you all the‘ devil? said to him, “To you I will give their
their authority and splendor, for it has been given glory and all this authority; for it has been given
to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. ’So over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. 7If
if you worship me, it will all be yours.” you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.”
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Jesus answered him, “It is written,
Lord your God and serve him only.’®” ‘Worship the Lord your God,
°*The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him and serve only him.’”
stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you 9Then the devil? took him to Jerusalem, and
are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying
down from here. '°For it is written: to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself
““He will command his angels concerning you down from here, '°for it is written,
to guard you carefully; ‘He will command his angels concerning you,
"they will lift you up in their hands, to protect you,’
so that you will not strike your foot against 11 and s
a stone.’°” ‘On their hands they will bear you up,

'2Jesus answered, “It says: ‘Do not put the Lord so that you will not dash your foot against
your God to the test.’2” a stone.’”
'SWhen the devil had finished all this tempting, “Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘Do not put the
he left him until an opportune time. Lord your God to the test.’” '3When the devil
a4 Deut. 8:3 68 Deut. 6:13 el] Psalm 91:11,12 412 Deut. ’ had finished every test, he departed from him
6:16
until an opportune time.
aGk he
96
COMMENTARY
The sonship of Jesus has been confirmed for tions from Deuteronomy in reverse order: Deut
the reader by this point in the narrative, but the 8:3; 6:16, 13. At the conclusion, Matthew reports
reader has been given few clues as to the nature that the devil left Jesus.
of the Son of God’s work. Expectations varied. The Lukan sequence reverses the last two temp-
Some expected a royal Davidic Messiah, one who tations so that the climactic scene occurs at the
would reestablish the kingdom of Israel (see Acts Temple, where the Gospel begins and ends. Luke’s
1:6). This expectation fanned hopes that the Mes- sequence also allows the temptations to begin and
sian would overthrow the Roman overlords.%4 end with references to Jesus’ sonship (4:3, 9); and
Others looked for a priestly Messiah who would after Jesus has responded twice, citing Scripture, the
purify the worship of Israel.°> Linked with messi- devil tempts Jesus the third time by citing verses
anic expectations was the promise of a prophet from the Psalms. While the Matthean order may be
like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18), one who would lead the more original, therefore, there are good reasons
the people as Moses had led the Israelites. Specu- why Luke preferred the sequence in which he
lation fanned fantastic visions of the messianic presents the three scenes.
age. Even the vineyards would yield fantastic The temptation scene is peculiar for several reasons:
harvests.°° Having established the sonship ofJesus, The devil appears and speaks to Jesus directly; Jesus
Luke turns immediately, before the beginning of responds three times, and each time his response is a
Jesus’ public ministry, to the story of the tempta- quotation from the Scriptures; no one is present to witness
tions. On one level the story describes Jesus’ or report these events; and the settings as well as the
response to calls for misuse of his power and temptations themselves project important symbolic
sonship. On another level, the story educates, overtones. It has been suggested that the temptation
disabusing the reader of any expectation that Jesus scenes are based on Jesus’ responses to actual requests
would manifest his sonship by a series of theatrical for a sign during his ministry (see Luke 11:16, 29). At
demonstrations. The work of the Spirit requires this point the Gospel of John, which contains no
faithfulness; neither compromise with Satan nor account of the temptations following the baptism of
concessions to popular demands could be allowed. Jesus, may be helpful. More clearly than the other
The form and function of the temptation scene Gospels, John shows how the temptations may have
in Luke emerge more clearly when it is compared had a basis in the ministry of Jesus as it was under-
with the parallel scenes in the other Gospels. stood by the evangelists. Following the feeding of the
Mark’s account contains features on which the 5,000, the crowd seeks Jesus out again, hoping that
Lukan account builds: the Spirit, the wilderness, he will make bread for them (John 6:26, 30-31). The
forty days, tempted by Satan. The three separate coming of the Greeks in John 12:20 brings Jesus as
temptations are described in Matthew, but in a close to temptation as he ever comes in the Fourth
different order: bread, Temple, mountain. The Gospel, as he considers whether he should ask to be
sequence in Matthew, which many commentators delivered from his hour (John 12:27). Later, at the
consider to be the sequence in the source com- death of Jesus, his kingship is declared in Hebrew,
mon to Matthew and Luke, moves from the desert the language of religion; in Greek, the language of
to the pinnacle of the Temple to a high mountain. culture; and in Latin, the language of the state. The
The sequence may have been attractive to Mat- brothers of Jesus tempt him to go up to Jerusalem
thew because it concludes on a high mountain, and show the people assembled there the works he
just as Matthew’s Gospel concludes on a moun- could do (John 7:3). John further declares that Jesus’
tain in Galilee. The Matthean structure holds in brothers did not believe in him, and Jesus said they
sequence the two temptations that begin “if you belonged to the world (John 7:5-7). John, therefore,
are the son of God....” It also cites the quota- shows how Jesus faced the temptations in the course
of his ministry, and it may actually be closer to the
54. See Psalms of Solomon 17. historical basis for the stylized and symbolic ac-
55. 10S 9.11; 10Sa 2.19.
56. 2 Bar 29:5-8. counts of the temptations in Matthew and Luke.
oF
* LUKE 4:1-13 COMMENTARY
The temptation scene serves several impor- the Scriptures. As we have noted, one of the
tant functions in Luke. (1) 7he temptations clarify striking features of these verses is that in Jesus’
the nature of Jesus’ work as the Son of God. three responses to the devil he quotes scriptures.
Following the birth accounts, the episode in the There is no other dialogue or interpretation; these
Temple when Jesus was twelve years old, the bap- are the only words Jesus speaks. The effect is to
tism of Jesus at which he was declared the Son of focus attention on both the power and the fulfill-
God by the voice from heaven, and the genealogy, ment of Scripture. Throughout Luke, the Scrip-
which concludes with the designation “Son of tures form the context for understanding the
God,” the temptations serve to interpret the im- meaning of the Gospel narrative. The annuncia-
plications of his identity for his coming ministry. tions echo biblical hopes and expectations. John’s
Jesus will fulfill the heritage of Israel, combat the work is a fulfillment of the prophets (see 3:4-6).
rule of Satan, and fulfill his work as Savior by Jesus’ inaugural address in Nazareth announces
his faithfulness. the fulfillment of Isaiah 61 (see 4:18-19), and his
(2) The temptations identify Jesus with the heri- response to John’s queries again points to the
tage of Israel. Like Israel, Jesus was led by the Spirit fulfillment of the prophets (see 7:18-23), The end
in the wilderness. The period of forty days also of the Gospel makes the same point: Jesus fulfilled
evokes the period of Israel’s testing. The temptation what was written in the Law of Moses, the
to make bread evokes memories of the manna God . Prophets, and the Psalms (24:44), and those who
supplied Israel. Even more clearly, the three quota- would understand Jesus must have their minds
tions from Deuteronomy link the temptation scene open to the Scriptures (24:45).
with Israel’s experience. Consequently, the three (5) The temptations offer Jesus’ followers a
temptations themselves may be seen as correspond- model for resisting temptation. In various respects,
ing to the temptations of Israel, which involved Luke paints a picture of Jesus as a model for his
bread (Exod 16:15), testing the Lord (Exod 17:1-7), followers. At the risk of caricaturing the nuanced
and idolatry (Exodus 32); for the remembrance of thernes of discipleship in each of the Gospels, one
these events, see Psalm 106; 1 Cor 10:6-9.°7 might say that for Matthew discipleship means living
(3) The temptations mirror the conflict of by Jesus’ teachings, “observing” all that Jesus taught
God’s reign with the reign of Satan. The inter- (Matt 28:20). The enigmatic Jesus of the Fourth
pretation of the parable of the sower explains that Gospel is hardly one to be imitated; for John disci-
some do not receive the Word because, like the pleship begins with being born from above. Luke
birds who peck the seeds, the devil comes and stands closer to Mark, but in Mark the imitation or
snatches the Word from them (8:12). The success following is focused more narrowly on the call to
of the mission of the seventy signaled the fall of Satan suffering servanthood: self-denial, taking up the
from heaven (10:18). Later, Jesus explains that he did cross, and being a servant to others (Mark 8:34;
not cast out demons by the power of Beelzebul, but 9:35; 10:44-45). In Luke Jesus is more frequently
that the coming of the kingdom is a sign of Satan’s portrayed as exemplifying characteristically Christian
defeat (11:14-23). Similarly, the crippled woman is virtues: Jesus is empowered by the Spirit; he prays
identified as “a daughter of Abraham whom Satan regularly; he is compassionate toward the outcast
bound for eighteen long years” (13:16). Not surprising and afflicted; he associates with women, sinners,
is Luke’s emphasis that the failures of Jesus’ disciples and tax collectors; and he dies a martyr’s death,
during the events of Jesus’ passion are due to Satan’s praying for his persecutors. In the temptation scene,
temptations (22:3, 31). Jesus’ conflict with Satan at therefore, Jesus faithfully resists temptations to do
the beginning of his ministry, therefore, serves as an
less than or other than he was called to do. He
interpretive frame that enables the reader to under-
" relies on Scripture and refuses to put God to the
stand the whole of Jesus’ ministry as an attack on the
test. The temptation scene, therefore, can serve as
enslaving and destructive effects of Satan’s work.
an example story for all who are tempted.
(4) The temptations emphasize that Jesus’ min-
The temptation scene is neatly arranged in five
istry should be understood as the fulfillment of
parts: A. The setting (vv. 1-2); B. The first temp-
57. See Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke:A Literary and Theological tation: turn stones into bread (vv. 3-4); Jesus’
Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1982) 47. response: Deut 8:3; C. The second temptation:
98
the kingdoms of the world (vv. 5-8) Jesus’ rein response (Deut 8:3). Jesus is challenged to
sponse: Deut 6:13; 10:20; D. The third tempta- repeat the sign of God’s provision for the people,
tion: jump from the pinnacle of the Temple (Ps but if he makes bread for himself, he abuses his
91:11-12; vv. 9-12) Jesus’ response: Deut 6:16; sonship by serving his own needs rather than
E. Conclusion: The devil’s departure (v. 13). depending on God’s provision for his needs. The
4:1-2. Detailed features of the account are fact that the temptation was to give his ministry
interesting as well as its grand design. The temp- to meeting the physical needs of the people is less
tation is closely connected with the baptism, giv- clearly supported. Such an interpretation is plau-
ing rise to theories that the genealogy is a later sible when the first temptation is read in conjunc-
insertion between the two. Jesus, “filled with the tion with the other two, which more directly concern
Spirit,” leaves the Jordan. Although this phrase the issue of the nature of Jesus’ ministry, but the
does not occur elsewhere in Luke, it is common singular loaf, the nature of Jesus’ reply, and the fact
to his vocabulary for describing Christian leaders that he later feeds the multitude weaken this view of
in Acts (the Seven, 6:3; Stephen, 6:5; 7:55; the nature of the first temptation.
Barnabas, 11:24). Jesus was led “in the Spirit,” In Luke, Jesus responds with only the first part
“in the wilderness.” The first phrase may be of Deut 8:3. Luke does not add the rest of the
understood either instrumentally, “by means of verse, which offers a positive alternative: “but by
the Spirit,” or locatively, “in the Spirit.” every word....” The negative response is suffi-
The period of forty days evokes Israel’s forty cient to define human life as more than meeting
years of testing (Num 14:34; Deut 8:2; Ps 95:10; one’s own physical needs. The work of the Son
Ezek 4:6). In the early theology of Israel, God of God would have to involve more than that.
tested the people (Gen 22:1; 2 Sam 24:1). Later, 4:5-8. The second temptation is the gain of power
testing was attributed to Satan (Gen 3:1-19; 1 Chr by compromise. Luke describes the setting only ellip-
21:1; Job 1:6-12). Luke’s account represents a tically: The devil “led him up” and showed him all
conflation of Mark and Q. For forty days, Jesus the kingdoms of the earth in an instant. The devil
was tempted (Mark) and ate nothing (Matthew). then claims both authority over the kingdoms and
Consequently, in Luke, the three temptations ac- the prerogative to give that authority to whomever
tually come after the period of forty days. By he chooses. A Faustian deal is offered: Worship me,
implication, then, the temptations catch Jesus in and it will all be yours. The Son of God would
a vulnerable condition, weakened by hunger. indeed have authority over the kingdoms of the
Here Luke’s skill as a storyteller is evident. The earth, but his authority would come from God. This
three temptations convey a sense of the nature of is the first reference to authority in the Gospel, but
the temptations during the forty-day period, they Luke is more concerned with the exercise of author-
are psychologically plausible, and the first temp- ity than any of the other Gospels. Jesus taught with
tation arises out of Jesus’ physical need. authority (4:32) and commanded the unclean spirits
4:3-4. The first temptation may be understood on (who were subject to the devil) with such authority that
several levels: as a challenge to Jesus’ sonship, as a they came out (4:36). He had authority to forgive sins
temptation for him to use his sonship to perform a (5:24). A centurion recognized his authority (7:8). Jesus
popular sign for the people, as a temptation to exploit gave the Twelve authority over demons and diseases
his sonship for his own benefit, or as an expression (9:1). Jesus claimed that he saw Satan fall from heaven
of his independence from God. The construction of and gave his disciples authority to tread on snakes and
the conditional sentence “If... then...” may im- scorpions (10:19). He instructed them to fear the one
ply either a testing of the condition (“If you really who has authority to cast them into hell (12:5). In Luke,
are... ”) or an acceptance of the condition (“Since therefore, the authority of God, exercised by Jesus, is
you are... ”). The immediate temptation is to make superior to that of the authority of the devil, exercised
one loaf of bread (cf. Matthew). The references to through unclean spirits and “the kingdoms of the world.”
testing, the wilderness, and the,forty days, and the In response to this temptation, Jesus quotes
quotations from Deuteronomy all evoke parallels with Deut 6:13 (see also Deut 10:20), but the Lukan
the provision of manna in the wilderness. Further- form of the text changes the word for “worship”
more, manna is mentioned in the verse Jesus quotes (Tpookuvéw proskyneo) to the same word used
99
’ LUKE 4:1-13 COMMENTARY
in the devil’s proposition in v. 7, and he adds the pinnacle of the Temple, therefore, is the coun-
word for “only” (udvos monos) in the second terpart to his prayer in the Garden of Gethse-
part of the verse for emphasis. mane. Jesus would fulfill his divine sonship not
4:9-12. The climactic scene occurs in Jerusalem, by escaping death but by accepting death and
where the devil takes Jesus to the “winglet” of the defeating it. Unlike Israel of old, Jesus refused to
Temple. There are no contemporary references to put God to the test (Deut 6:16). The words of
this feature of the Temple, but it is often supposed Deuteronomy are not a prohibition that Jesus
that the site intended is the southeast corner of the challenges the devil to obey, but a command to
Temple wall, its highest point above the valley which Jesus submits himself.
below. According to later legend, James the brother Thus the verses from Deuteronomy with which
of Jesus was thrown from the “winglet” of the Jesus wards off temptation are each applicable to
Temple.*® In a wonderfully devious manner, the devil all people, not just to Jesus. Taken together, they
frames the third temptation in a quotation from declare that we are to make life more than just
Scripture. Twice Jesus has fended off temptations with the pursuit of our physical needs; we are to
words from Scripture, so this time the devil addresses worship and serve God and God alone; and it is
Jesus by citing a text from the Psalms, in effect saying: not for us to test God. The first and third re-
“Did the psalmist not promise angels to protect you sponses are negative, but both imply the positive
and to bear you up so that you would not even strike that is stated in the second response: The supreme
your foot against a stone?” (See Ps 91:11-12.) “If you purpose of all life is the worship of God. Any
are the Son of God,” he challenges Jesus once more, pursuit, priority, or preoccupation that diverts us
“throw yourself down from here.” from that purpose should be seen for what it is:
This time the temptation is to put God’s prom-
the devil’s temptation.
ises to the test. Specifically, Jesus was tempted to
4:13. The notice of the devil’s departure is a
call upon God to deliver him from death in
typical Lukan device for closing a scene. The three
Jerusalem. Ironically, as every Christian reader
temptations are exemplary of all the temptations
knows, Jesus would eventually face death in Je-
Jesus faced and would face during his ministry.
rusalem, and when he did he would choose not
The reference to the devil’s departure “until an
his own deliverance but faithfulness to his Father’s
opportune time” foreshadows Satan’s return later
will (see 22:42). Jesus’ response to the devil on the
in the Gospel story, in the events leading up to
58. See Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2.23.11. Jesus’ death (see 22:3, 31, 53).
REFLECTIONS
1. In the temptation scene Jesus fulfills the command that was at the heart of Judaism:
“Hear, O Israel: The Lorp is our God, the Lorp alone. You shall love the Lorp your God with
all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.” These words introduce the
Shema, Israel’s confession of faith (Deut 6:4-9; 11:13-31; Num 15:37-41). According to
tradition, these words were to be recited twice a day, morning and evening. Two of the verses
of Scripture quoted by Jesus follow immediately after the opening section of the Shema (Deut
6:13, 16). Jesus responds to the temptation to make bread, thereby dividing his heart between
love of God and craving to satisfy his physical needs. He rejects the temptation to compromise
his devotion to God for the sake of the world’s mammon; he loves God with all his might.
And in the third temptation, he refuses to demand that God save his life (“soul”) by deliberately
placing himself in jeopardy. If Jesus’ temptations represent a fulfillment of the Shema, then in
yet another way Luke has shown that Jesus was a model Jew. He was the fulfillment of Israel’s
heritage, the Son of God who loved the Lord with all his heart.
2. Temptation is a universal human experience. Had Jesus not been tempted, he would
not really have been human. The temptations, therefore, are a vital part of the narrative
100
christology, which portrays Jesus as fully human. The author of Hebrews, writing in a different
genre, asserts that Jesus “in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin” (4:15).
The wonder is not that Jesus was incapable of sinning but that he was able to avoid sinning
although he was tempted. Along with the birth narrative, therefore, the temptations make an
important anti-docetic statement: Jesus was fully human and knew what it meant to be tempted.
3. Fascination with the thought of making a deal with the devil has propelled the story of
Faust through the past four centuries. The story is based on the life of a German magician (c.
1480-1540) who claimed to be in league with Satan. Marvelous tales developed around his
exploits. After Faust died of mysterious causes, “Philipp Melanchthon, Luther’s collaborator,
reported that Faust was strangled by the Devil in a rural inn in Wiirtemberg on the day his
evil pact came due.”” From the sixteenth century on, the story of Faust has been told in
various forms. In the early accounts, he sells his soul to the devil in return for magical
powers—usually for a period of 24 years. At the end of the agreed upon period, the devil
takes Faust to hell. The story of Faust was spread as a reaction against Roman Catholicism
and as a warning that learning must be kept within limits. Faust’s quest for forbidden knowledge
finally led him to damnation. Christopher Marlowe, the British dramatist, turned the story into
a play, and later Johann Wolfgang von Goethe introduced elements from the book of Job into
the story: God permitted the devil to mislead Faust, but God redeemed him in the end. In
Goethe’s imagination, Faust becomes “a universal hero, a self in quest of fulfillment” who
discovers that he is to be judged “not by his finding but by his seeking.”
4. For modern readers, the problem with the temptation story is that it seems unreal, far
removed from our experience. The devil does not appear to us and transport us from place
to place. The temptations we experience are often not so clearly recognizable. The choice is
not between good and bad but between bad and worse or good and better. We deal in “gray
areas” and do not have the choice of rejecting “Mr. In-between.” In the classic westerns, the
good guys wear white hats and the bad guys black hats, and ultimately the clash between
them is settled on Main Street at high noon. But this type scene has broken down. We seldom
experience such clear choices any longer, and even if we have the moral fortitude to handle
the clearly recognizable evils, we often lack the wisdom to deal with the moral choices we
face more typically. When does what is good for the corporate body outweigh the need of an
individual? Which has the higher claim, the needs of the unemployed for a job or anti-pollution
standards that protect the ecology but close down certain industries? Should the medical
community allow fetal research or the use of fetal tissue to save one life at the expense of
another? Where are the guiding words of Scripture for questions like these?
Although the temptation story does not offer ethical instructions that cover every eventuality,
it does describe the perennial ethical challenges that Christians face: the temptations to forget
one’s baptismal identity, to attempt to use one’s religion for personal gain, to try to be successful
rather than faithful, to be dazzled by the riches of the world, to make compromises where
first
one is called to stand firm, and to avoid the path of sacrifice and suffering. The story is
it offers an example for others to follow. Faced with
a christological staternent, but secondarily
pressing decisions regarding his identity and vocation, Jesus allowed himself to be led by the
Spirit. In the experience of wrestling with the temptations, Jesus responded to the Scripture’s
In the
admonitions regarding God’s purpose for life and the call to worship and serve God.
specific situations that would follow he would have to work out the shape of his obedience
to adherence
to these admonitions. Christian ethics does not come prepackaged. The call is not
to the call and purposes of God.
to a list of rules and regulations but to faithfulness
York: Random House, 1992) 604.
59. Daniel J. Boorstin, The Creators: AHistory of Heroes of the Imagination (New
60. Ibid., 605, 607.
101
LUKE 4:14-9:50
THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE
OVERVIEW
uke follows the structure of the Gospel of of Jesus, setting forth the perspective from which
_ ©) Mark, in which the ministry of Jesus takes it is to be understood. Consequently, there is no
place in Galilee, with only brief forays to the north subsequent visit to Nazareth corresponding to
and to the Decapolis (Mark 7:24, 31; 8:27). With Mark 6:1-6. Other passages have also been omit-
the exception of these passages, Jesus is in Galilee ted: the so-called longer omission (at Luke 9:17,
throughout Mark 1:15-9:50. He then travels to where Mark 6:45-8:26 is omitted) and the
Jerusalem, where he may have spent no more shorter omission (at 9:50, omitting Mark 9:41-
than a week before his death at Passover. By . 10:21). The most notable addition to the Galilean
comparison, Luke abbreviates the period of Jesus’ ministry in Luke is the section 6:20-8:3, which
ministry in Galilee and greatly expands the period includes the Sermon on the Plain. But Luke has
of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51—19:28). inserted other sections of the Galilean ministry
The ministry in Galilee is introduced by Jesus’ into the Markan framework (e.g., Luke 4:16-30;
reading and interpretation of the words of Isaiah 5:1-11). The rest of the material has parallels in
in the synagogue at Nazareth. This scene, there- the Gospel of Mark, but often contains minor
fore, functions as a keynote to the entire ministry differences that accentuate Lukan themes.
LUKE 4:14-15, INTRODUCTION TO THE

MINISTRY IN GALILEE
NIV NRSV
‘Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the 14Then Jesus, filled with the power of the
Spirit, and news about him spread through the Spirit, returned to Galilee, and a report about him
whole countryside. He taught in their syna- spread through all the surrounding country. 'SHe
gogues, and everyone praised him. began to teach in their synagogues and was
praised by everyone.
(COMMENTARY
The Gospel of Mark introduces the ministry in , ductory summary. Instead, Luke devotes the first
Galilee with a reference to the imprisonment of major pericope of the Galilean ministry to the
John the Baptist and a declaration of the coming announcement of the coming of the kingdom
of the kingdom of God. Luke has already reported (4:16-30), though the phrase “the kingdom of
John’s imprisonment (prior to Jesus’ baptism; Luke God” does not occur until 4:43.
3:20) and hence does not repeat it. Neither is the The opening phrase notes Jesus’ return from
announcement of the kingdom given in the intro- the temptations in the wilderness. Luke often uses
102
geographical notices and reports of comings and next scene, is also a favorite Lukan emphasis.
goings to open and close sections of the narrative. Among the many references to the universal scope
In a manner reminiscent of OT references, Luke of Jesus’ work in the ensuing scenes we read that
describes the disclosure of the power of God’s “all” testified to Jesus (4:22), all the crowd sought
Spirit in Jesus. Just as Jesus’ birth had been to touch him (6:19), and all were amazed at what
characterized by Spirit and power (1:35), so also he was doing (9:43).
now the Spirit empowers Jesus at the beginning The praise of God also forms an underlying
of his ministry. References to the Holy Spirit form theme throughout the Gospel of Luke. It is the
a leitmotif linking John’s preaching (3:16), the only appropriate human response to God’s disclo-
baptism of Jesus (3:22), the temptations (4:1), and sure of Jesus as the Savior. Three times in the
the beginning of his ministry in Galilee (4:14). ministry in Galilee, Luke reports that those who
Manifestations of the power of the Lord will also
had been touched by Jesus’ power departed prais-
be evident in Jesus’ works in this section of the
ing God (5:25, 26; 7:16). Brief as it is, therefore,
Gospel (see 4:36; 5:17; 6:19; 8:46; 9:1).
Luke’s introduction to the ministry in Galilee gives
Luke’s reference to the reports of Jesus’ works
the reader an indication of the nature of Jesus’
establishes the fact that what Jesus does in Naz-
work (teaching), one of its common settings (the
areth (4:16-30) and Capernaum (4:31-41) is typi-
synagogues), the source of its power (the Spirit),
cal of his work in other locales also. These
its result (praise), and its extent (to all).
episodes are paradigmatic and representative of
The rest of Luke 4 is carefully structured.
this period of Jesus’ ministry. Luke characterizes
Jesus’ work as teaching rather than preaching (cf. Between the summary of Jesus’ return to Galilee
Mark 1:14), though the term “to preach, pro- in 4:14-15 and the summary of his departure to
claim” (knpvoow kerysso) will be featured in Judea in 4:44, Luke summarizes Jesus’ work in
4:18-19 and in another summary verse at the end two villages: Nazareth (4:16-30) and Capernaum
of this chapter (4:44). The reference to teaching (4:31-41). In Nazareth, Jesus teaches in the syna-
in the introduction to this section is appropriate, gogue; in Capernaum, while he is teaching, he
however, because Luke repeatedly describes Jesus casts out an unclean spirit and then heals Peter’s
as teaching (4:31; 5:3, 17; 6:6). Similarly, syna- mother-in-law and various others. Together, these
gogues will be the setting for Jesus’ work in scenes portray the power of the Spirit in both
Nazareth and Capernaum, in Judea (4:44), and in word and deed, in Jesus’ teaching and in his
other scenes (6:6; 13:10). The universal acclaim healing. What he proclaimed in Nazareth, he
of Jesus, which will play an important role in the began to do immediately thereafter in Capernaum.
LUKE 4:16-30, PREACHING IN NAZARETH

NIV NRSV
l6He went to Nazareth, where he had been 16When he came to Nazareth, where he had
brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into been brought up, he went to the synagogue on
the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up
up to read. '7The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was to read, '7and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah
handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place was given to him. He unrolled the scroll
where it is written: and found the place where it was written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
18The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me
because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.
to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the captives
prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind,
103
LUKE 4:16-30
NIV NRSV
and recovery of sight for the blind, to let the oppressed go free,
to release the oppressed, '® to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
'9 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”? 20And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the
attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the
20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to synagogue were fixed on him. *!Then he began
the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone to say to them, “Today this scripture has been
in the synagogue were fastened on him, *'and he fulfilled in your hearing.” *?All spoke well of him
began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is and were amazed at the gracious words that came
fulfilled in your hearing.” from his mouth. They said, “Is not this Joseph’s
22All spoke well of him and were amazed at son?” *8He said to them, “Doubtless you will
the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t quote to me this proverb, ‘Doctor, cure yourself!’
this Joseph’s son?” they asked. . And you will say, ‘Do here also in your hometown
Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this
the things that we have heard you did at Caper-
proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself! Do here
naum.’” *4And he said, “Truly I tell you, no
in your hometown what we have heard that you
prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown.
did in Capernaum.’”
But the truth is, there were many widows in
24“T tell you the truth,” he continued, “no prophet
Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was
is accepted in his hometown. **I assure you that
there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, shut up three years and six months, and there
when the sky was shut for three and a half years was a severe famine over all the land; ?°yet Elijah
and there was a severe famine throughout the land. was sent to none of them except to a widow at
°Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a Zarephath in Sidon. @”There were also many lep-
widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. ?7And ers*in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha,
there were many in Israel with leprosy? in the time and none of them was cleansed except Naaman
of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was the Syrian.” **When they heard this, all in the
cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.” synagogue were filled with rage. ??They got up,
28All the people in the synagogue were furious drove him out of the town, and led him to the
when they heard this. ?°They got up, drove him brow of the hill on which their town was built,
out of the town, and took him to the brow of the so that they might hurl him off the cliff. °°But he
hill on which the town was built, in order to passed through the midst of them and went on
throw him down the cliff. °°But he walked right his way.
through the crowd and went on his way.
aThe terms /eper and leprosy can refer to several diseases
219 Isaiah 61:1, 2 627 The Greek word was used for various
diseases affecting the skin—not necessarily leprosy.
(COMMENTARY
Scholars generally agree that Luke’s account of In these few verses we find the following motifs:
Jesus’ preaching in Nazareth is based on the the anointing of the Spirit, the fulfillment of
parallel account in Mark 6 and that it represents Scripture, the pattern of prophetic activities, the
the conflation of various sources, so that tensions » announcement of the gospel “to the Jew first,” a
and rough transitions remain within Luke’s ac- specific illustration of acceptance being followed
count. Turned another way, the arguments for by rejection, and a dramatic reminder that the
various sources also confirm that Luke did not work of God that began in Galilee would extend
find other accounts adequate and, therefore, con- to “the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). We will
structed aspects of the following scene to serve note the significance of each of these themes in
as an exemplary introduction to Jesus’ ministry. the commentary that follows.
104
4:16-19, Reading the Prophet Isaiah. The to bring good news to the poor
narrator’s summary in vv. 16-17 guides the reader [Luke omits: to bind up the brokenhearted]
into the scene and prepares for the first spoken He has sent me to proclaim
release to the captives
words in v. 18. Nazareth has figured prominently and recovery of sight to the blind,
in the infancy narratives (1:26; 2:4, 39, 51), but to let the oppressed go free [Isa 58:6],
Luke reminds us that this is where Jesus had been to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
brought up. This first synagogue scene follows the
The phrase translated “he has sent me”
reference to Jesus’ teaching in the synagogues of
(aTéoTakev pe apestalken me) can be taken
Galilee in the previous verse and therefore sets
either with the preceding line or with what fol-
up the teaching that follows as typical of what
lows. Luke has also changed the verb in Isa 58:6
Jesus was doing throughout Galilee.
to an infinitive so that it fits the context and
Jesus stood to read, as was customary. He results in a sequence of four infinitives: to bring
would then sit while he taught (4:20; 5:3). Al- good news, to proclaim, to let go free, and to
though we do not know exactly what transpired proclaim. The threefold repetition of the pronoun
in the worship of a Jewish synagogue of that time, me also underscores the role of this passage as a
the following elements seem to have been pres- description of Jesus’ ministry. Significantly, Jesus
ent: the Shema, recitation of the Decalogue, the does not go on to read the next phrase in Isa
eighteen benedictions, the reading of Scripture, 61:2: “and the day of vengeance of our God.”
the Psalms, the exposition, and the blessing. Vari- The reference to the anointing of the Spirit
ous people might have been asked to lead in connects these verses with the baptism of Jesus
reading and praying. Luke reports only part of the (3:22), and the description of the work of God’s
event. The Hazzan, or assistant, would have anointed prophet serves as a positive counterpoint
handed Jesus the scroll. By the first century there to the temptations. It does not signal a separate
was a fixed triennial cycle of readings from the anointing. The first part of the quotation explains
Torah, but arguments that the readings from the the significance of the Spirit at the baptism and
Prophets were also fixed by this date are incon- serves as a confirmation of Jesus’ authority when
clusive. Presumably Jesus was able to read the later we read of activities that illustrate Jesus’
Scriptures in Hebrew and then interpret them in fulfillment of the four infinitive phrases in this
Aramaic, as would have been customary. (The text. In Matthew, this same text underlies the
practice of giving a translation and exposition of first two of the beatitudes in the Sermon on the
the text can be traced to Neh 8:8.) There was Mount.
usually more than one reader, and each was Significantly, Jesus’ work will be good news to
expected to read at least three verses. The read- the poor. The Magnificat praises the Lord for
ings from the prophets were probably chosen lifting up the lowly and sending the rich away
because they had substantial or linguistic affinities empty (1:52-53). Later, Jesus announces God’s
with the reading from the Torah. Luke’s descrip- blessing on the poor (6:20) and then refers to the
tion of Jesus’ finding the place where the verses fulfillment of the charge to bring good news to
quoted from Isaiah occur probably means that the poor in his response to John (7:22). The poor
Luke understood that Jesus himself chose this also figure more prominently in Jesus’ teachings
passage. in Luke than in any other Gospel (14:13, 21;
Luke 4:18-19 brings together in modified E620 S221 S222213):
form verses from the Septuagint (LXX) version The term used here for “captives” (aixpaduTot
of Isa 61:1 and 58:6. Once more, the reader is aichmalotoi) does not appear elsewhere in the
given indications that Luke has carefully chosen NT, and elsewhere Luke uses the term “release”
and arranged elements of this account in order to (dbeots aphesis) only for forgiveness of sins, but
tell the story in a particular way and convey various events later in Jesus’ ministry can be
certain understandings to the reader. The Lukan understood as illustrating the fulfillment of this
modifications are indicated in italics: aspect of his commission. The word for “release”
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, recurs in the line from Isa 58:6, inserted here by
because he has anointed me Luke: release for the oppressed. Jesus released
105
persons from various forms of bondage and op- motivation and intent of Jesus’ response to the
pression: economic (the poor), physical (the lame, people is not clear. Interpreters have, therefore,
the crippled), political (the condemned), and de- attempted various solutions: source critical—
monic. Forgiveness of sin, therefore, can also be “Various traditions have been welded together
seen as a form of release from bondage to iniquity here”;°* psychological—“Hidden in the hearts
(Acts 8:22-23). of his townsfolk are attitudes of which they,
The restoration of sight to the blind was closely perhaps, are not yet ,conscious: resistance to
associated with the prophetic vision of the fulfill- God’s purpose combined with jealous mo-
ment of God’s promises to Israel (Isa 35:5; 42:6- tives.”°> The challenge is to make sense of the
7). When Jesus restores sight to the blind (as he text without reading into it.
does in Luke 7:21-22; 18:35), he is figuratively The narrator provides a transition between the
fulfilling God’s work of salvation as foreseen by reading from Isaiah and Jesus’ first words. Follow-
the prophet Isaiah. Jesus is dramatically fulfilling ing the practice of synagogue worship, Jesus rolled
the role of the one who would be a “light for the up the scroll and handed it back to the attendant.
nations” (see 2:32; Acts 13:47).°! Like Jesus, his He then sat down to teach. The tension and
followers are to be light for others (Luke 8:16; suspense are heightened by Luke’s reporting that
41333). all eyes ‘were fixed on Jesus.
The proclamation of the “year of the Lord’s Jesus’ first words are electric. He announces
favor” in Isaiah 61 is connected with the Jubilee that the centuries of waiting on God’s blessing
year legislation in Leviticus 25. Following a series have ended: “Today this scripture has been
of seven sevens, the fiftieth year was to be a time fulfilled in your hearing.” The words from Isaiah
when “you shall proclaim liberty throughout the spoke of an anointing by the Spirit, the work
land to all its inhabitants” (Lev 25:10). It has of a prophet, and dramatic signs of God’s re-
occasionally been suggested that Jesus was actu- demption. The townspeople had heard reports
ally proclaiming the observance of the Jubilee year of Jésus’ teaching elsewhere and might reason-
through his reading of Isaiah 61, but this is far ably have expected that if he was a prophet
from certain. More likely is the interpretation that endowed by the Spirit of God he would favor
Jesus related the figure of “the year of the Lord’s his hometown with his mightiest works. Thus
favor” to the kingdom of God (cf. Luke 4:43). they would share in the fame of the prophet
Jesus’ ministry signaled that the time for the from Nazareth so that no longer would anyone
liberation of the impoverished and oppressed had be able to say (however wrongly) that there
come, and in that respect at least his work would were no prophets from Galilee (John 7:52). In
fulfill the ideal and the social concern of the short, they heard Jesus’ declaration of fulfillment
Jubilee year. as a promise of special favor for his own people
The importance of the reading of Isaiah in this and his “hometown” (i.e., his tatpis patris).
scene can scarcely be exaggerated. For Luke it As confirmation of the crowd’s initial enthusi-
proclaimed the fulfillment of Scripture and the asm for Jesus’ announcement, Luke reports that
hopes of Israel through Jesus’ ministry as the Son they bore witness to him and marveled at the
of God. It stated the social concern that guided “gracious words” he spoke. Luke is depicting a
Jesus’ work and allowed the reader to understand positive response to Jesus based on the content of
all that Jesus did as the fulfillment of his anointing Jesus’ proclamation. If the people find him elo-
by the Spirit. What Jesus understood by these quent it is because they are pleased by what he
verses, however, differed sharply from what those has said. Their question “Is this not Joseph’s son?”
gathered in the synagogue assumed they meant. "may be read with varying degrees of approval or
4:20-27, Declaring the Inclusiveness of skepticism. (1) Who would have thought that
God’s Mercy. From this point on, the scene in Joseph’s boy would someday be God’s prophet?
the synagogue becomes difficult to interpret. The (2) Isn’t this the son of Joseph (whom we all
know)? Does he really expect that we are going
61. See Robert C. Tannehill, 7he Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A
Literary Interpretation, vol. 1: The Gospel According to Luke, FENT 62. John Nolland, Luke /—9:20, WBC 35A (Dallas: Word, 1989) 192.
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 67. 63. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 69.
106
to believe that he is a prophet? (3) There may The NRSV changes the singular “prophet” in
further be the irony that the townspeople think Mark 6:4 and Matt 13:57 into a plural in order
of Jesus as the son of Joseph when Luke has to avoid using a masculine pronoun later, and
repeatedly established that he is the Son of God. patridi is translated variously as “hometown”
Luke often reports reactions in universalizing (Mark and Luke) or “country” (Matthew and
terms—“all spoke well of him.” Because the first John). Only Luke introduces the proverb with the
part of v. 23 establishes a positive response to initial amen, which does not occur outside of
Jesus, there is no reason to read a hostile intent Jesus’ words in the NT and is unprecedented in
into the question. Therefore, the first paraphrase earlier sources. Three points are notable regarding
(1) is probably closer than the second, but the Luke’s use of the proverb: (1) Luke and John give
developments that come later in the story also the proverb in a negative form, without an excep-
render the irony of (3) possible also. tion clause; (2) Luke uses dektos (as in Isaiah; see
Verse 23, in which Jesus quotes the proverb v. 19) rather than atimos or time as in the other
“Doctor, cure yourself,” is the crux of the diffi- forms of the proverb; and (3) the term patris can
culty. The alternatives facing the interpreter are mean either “hometown” or “home country,” an
(1) to take it as a retort or insult directed at Jesus ambiguity that will become important in the rest
personally. This is the natural sense of the proverb of this scene, since Jesus’ interpretation of Isaiah
and is consistent with how it is used elsewhere, moves from the first (Nazareth) to the second
but it does not explain the sharp shift in tone (Israel). Not only will Jesus be rejected by his
from the preceding verse. (2) The proverb may hometown, but he will also be rejected by his
be read as an extension of the preceding response own people; by the end of Acts, Paul will turn to
to Jesus, if one takes the singular “yourself” as a the Gentiles as well.
reference to Jesus’ hometown, as in the request The people of Nazareth had heard Jesus’ dec-
that follows. The singular more appropriately re- laration of the fulfillment of God’s promises as a
fers to Jesus than to Nazareth, but the story flows guarantee of God’s blessing on them, but Jesus
more smoothly if one follows the latter reading of affirmed a fulfillment that was not limited to Israel
the proverb. The meaning of the proverb Jesus only—God would bless all the poor, all the cap-
quotes to the crowd is explained by the rest of tives. Neither was the fulfillment Jesus announced
v. 23. Jesus has understood the crowd’s positive radically different from the work of the prophets.
response; they are eager for him to begin to do Israel’s Scriptures themselves bear witness to
the works of God’s grace among them. They are God’s blessing on Gentiles as well as Jews. Re-
ready to share in the benefits that might accrue minders of the mighty works of Elijah and Elisha
to the prophet’s hometown and miffed because follow naturally after the proverb about the
he has already done wonderful things in Caper- prophet and the prophet’s home. (The relationship
naum. between Jesus and Elijah will be developed further
The second proverb occurs four times in the in Luke 7:11-17.)
Gospels, each time in a different form: The comparison between Jesus and Elijah is
double edged. On the one hand, many in Israel
Mark 6:4 “Prophets are not without honor did not receive God’s blessing. On the other hand,
[atiwos atimos], except in their hometown some Gentiles did. The time of Elijah was remem-
[matpiSt patridi], and among their own kin, bered as the petiod when the heavens were shut
and in their own house.” and it did not rain for three and a half years (1
Matthew 13:57 “Prophets are not without honor Kgs 18:1; cf. Jas 5:17). By the time of Jesus the
[atimos| except in their own country (patridi) period of three and a half years had also been
and in their own house.” connected with the period of similar duration
Luke 4:24 “Truly [aurv amen] | tell you, no during which the Syrians persecuted Israel during
prophet is accepted [Sexrds dektos] in the the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the
prophet’s hometown [patridi].” Maccabees (Dan 7:25; 12:7; cf. Rev 11:2; 12:6,
John 4:44 “A prophet has no honor [rim timen| 14). Elijah, however, was sent to Zarephath,
in the prophet’s own country [patridi].” which belonged to Sidon, and there he met a
107
widow who was responsive to the instructions news, and the rich would hear woes. Those with
God had given Elijah. When her son died, Elijah faith would be blessed, while others would hear
restored him to life (1 Kgs 17:17-24). Similarly, judgment. —
there were many lepers in Israel during the time The people of Nazareth then began to act on
of Elisha who had a “double portion” of Elijah’s their rage. They drove Jesus out of town (cf.
spirit (2 Kgs 2:9). The passive verbs imply God’s 23:26; Acts 7:58). The end of this scene is so
direction: God closed the heavens (4:25), God condensed and elliptical that interpreters have
sent Elijah (4:26), and God cleansed Naaman often felt the need to fill in conjectural details.
(4:27; see 2 Kgs 5:1-14). The site in question cannot be located with any
4:28-30, Jesus Driven Out of Town. The certainty. Nor is it necessary to speculate about
people of Nazareth were filled with rage. This a miraculous deliverance or the force of Jesus’
time the passive-verb does not imply God’s action. personality or presence. The intent of the crowd
At first Jesus had seemed to be promising that was hostile, but Luke emphasizes that Jesus was
God’s blessing would be poured out on them. not stopped by them. The emphasis is on the
They would share in the unexpected bounty of last word, which in the Greek text is a verb
having a prophet arise from their midst. But now that implies a continuous action: “He was going
Jesus has told them that God’s blessing would not on” (éTropeveto eporeueto). The verb (tropevopat
come upon them but upon others. No historical . poreuomai) recurs frequently in Luke as the
or ethnic boundaries would contain or limit what Gospel narrates the journeys that eventually
God was about to do. The poor would hear good lead Jesus to Jerusalem and the cross.
REFLECTIONS
This scene is more significant than its brevity: might suggest. Its position at the beginning
of Jesus’ ministry, its emphasis on the Spirit and Scripture, and its depiction of themes that
will dominate the rest of the Gospel all point to its paradigmatic character. Readers of the Gospel
now understand that all Jesus does in the coming chapters occurs by the power of the Spirit. Jesus
teaches, preaches, heals, and casts out demons. He moves among the poor, the outcast, the sick,
and the blind. His actions fulfill the Scriptures, especially the Prophets, but even those who awaited
the fulfillment of the Scriptures took offense at Jesus and eventually put him to death. This
scene suggests that the basis for their hostility toward Jesus was a difference in the way they
read the Scriptures. The people of Jesus’ hometown read the Scriptures as promises of God’s
exclusive covenant with them, a covenant that involved promises of deliverance from their
oppressors. Jesus came announcing deliverance, but it was not a national deliverance but God’s
promise of liberation for all the poor and oppressed regardless of nationality, gender, or race.
When the radical inclusiveness of Jesus’ announcement became clear to those gathered in the
synagogue in Nazareth, their commitment to their own community boundaries took precedence
over their joy that God had sent a prophet among them. In the end, because they were not
open to the prospect of others’ sharing in the bounty of God’s deliverance, they themselves
were unable to receive it.
Not only is this scene paradigmatic of Jesus’ life and ministry, but it is also a reminder that
God’s grace is never subject to the limitations and boundaries of any nation, church, group,
or race. Those who would exclude others thereby exclude themselves. Human beings may be
instruments of God’s grace for others, but we are never free to set limits on who may receive
that grace. Throughout history, the gospel has always been more radically inclusive than any
group, denomination, or church, so we continually struggle for a breadth of love and acceptance
that more nearly approximates the breadth of God’s love. The paradox of the gospel, therefore,
is that the unlimited grace that it offers so scandalizes us that we are unable to receive it.
Jesus could not do more for his hometown because they were not open to him. How much
108
more might God be able to do with us if we were ready to transcend the boundaries of
community and limits of love that we ourselves have erected?
LUKE 4:31-44, TEACHING AND HEALING

IN CAPERNAUM
NIV NRSV
3'Then he went down to Capernaum, a town 31He went down to Capernaum, a city in Galilee,
in Galilee, and on the Sabbath began to teach the and was teaching them on the sabbath. °?They were
people. °**They were amazed at his teaching, be- astounded at his teaching, because he spoke with
cause his message had authority. authority. “In the synagogue there was a man who
33In the synagogue there was a man possessed had the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried
by a demon, an evil? spirit. He cried out at the out with a loud voice, **“Let us alone! What have
top of his voice, *4“Ha! What do you want with you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you
us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy
us? | know who you are—the Holy One of God!” One of God.” *°But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be
“Be quiet!” Jesus said sternly. “Come out of silent, and come out of him!” When the demon had
him!” Then the demon threw the man down thrown him down before them, he came out of him
before them all and came out without injuring without having done him any harm. °°They were
all amazed and kept saying to one another, “What
S°All the people were amazed and said to each kind of utterance is this? For with authority and
other, “What is this teaching? With authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and out
power he gives orders to evil spirits and they they come!” °’And a report about him began to
come out!” °’And the news about him spread reach every place in the region.
throughout the surrounding area. 38After leaving the synagogue he entered Si-
Jesus left the synagogue and went to the mon’s house. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was
home of Simon. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked him
suffering from a high fever, and they asked Jesus about her. *’Then he stood over her and rebuked
to help her. °°So he bent over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her. Immediately she got up
the fever, and it left her. She got up at once and and began to serve them.
began to wait on them. AOAs the sun was setting, all those who had
40When the sun was setting, the people brought any who were sick with various kinds of diseases
to Jesus all who had various kinds of sickness, brought them to him; and he laid his hands on
and laying his hands on each one, he healed them. each of them and cured them. *'Demons also came
4\Moreover, demons came out of many people, out of many, shouting, “You are the Son of God!”
shouting, “You are the Son of God!” But he
But he rebuked them and would not allow them to
rebuked them and would not allow them to
speak, because they knew that he was the Messiah.?
speak, because they knew he was the Christ.’
A2At daybreak he departed and went into a
42At daybreak Jesus went out to a solitary place.
deserted place. And the crowds were looking for
The people were looking for him and when they
him; and when they reached him, they wanted
came to where he was, they tried to keep him
to prevent him from leaving them. “But he said
from leaving them. “But he said, “I must preach
to them, “I must proclaim the good news of the
the good news of the kingdom of God to the other ©
kingdom of God to the other cities also; for I was
towns also, because that is why I was sent.” “And
sent for this purpose.” “4So he continued proclaim-
he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea.°
ing the message in the synagogues of Judea.°
433 Greek unclean; also in verse 36 641 Or Messiah c44 Or
the land of the Jews; some manuscripts Galilee aOr the Christ Other ancient authorities read Galilee
109
(COMMENTARY
The rest of this chapter amplifies the nature of that authority was evident in his teaching. In the
Jesus’ ministry in a parallel setting. Jesus travels previous episode he did not cite a succession of
to Capernaum, where he is again in the syna- rabbis as his authority (as others did) but read a
gogue, again meets conflict, and ultimately moves passage of Scripture with three first-person singu-
on. The scene in Capernaum is not simply a lar pronouns and declared it fulfilled in their
repetition of the scene in Nazareth, however. hearing. We should imagine that his teaching in
Jesus heals the sick and casts out demons, and Capernaum followed the same pattern.
then declares that he has been sent to preach the At this point the story departs from the previous
kingdom in other cities also. Luke’s account of scene. A man with “an unclean spirit” challenges
Jesus’ work in Capernaum is divided into four Jesus. This is one of four exorcisms in Luke and
distinct scenes, the last of which also leads Jesus the first of the miracle stories. In effect it demon-
out of Galilee and concludes the initial period of strates that the power and authority of Jesus’
Jesus’ ministry there (cf. 4:14). words (now recorded in the Gospel) were also
4:31-37, Teaching and Healing in the demonstrated in his mighty works. A contest of
Synagogue at Capernaum. The tradition un- . spirits is also implicit here. What Jesus did, he did
derlying this scene is also found in Mark 1:21-28, because the Spirit of the Lord was upon him (v.
but whereas redaction critics have generally read 18), and the spirit of an unclean demon was no
Luke against the text of Mark, attention to Luke’s match for the Spirit of the Lord. Calling the name
narrative rhetoric demands that we also read it in of the opponent was a means of exposing him or
the context of the foregoing scene in Nazareth. gaining control over him. In this context there is
From the hill country around Nazareth, Jesus a certain irony to the title “Jesus of Nazareth,”
went down to Capernaum, a fishing village on sincé his hometown had rejected Jesus and he
the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The reference to would not return there again. The demon rightly
Capernaum as “a city in Galilee” may serve to perceives Jesus as a threat; what Jesus was doing
identify it for readers unfamiliar with the geogra- would eventually break the oppressing, dehuman-
phy of Palestine, but it also ties the coming izing power of all that is demonic in human
episode to the initial phase of the Galilean minis- experience.
try that was introduced in Luke 4:14. Verses “The Holy One of God” is a title drawn from
15-16 link together teaching on the sabbath and tradition (Mark 1:24) that does not occur else-
the synagogue, so that Luke is now able to report where in Luke (but cf. 1:35). Jesus silenced the
teaching on the sabbath in 4:31 without explicitly unclean spirit and commanded it to come out of
mentioning the synagogue setting until v. 33. The the man. Luke heightens the miracle by reporting
repetition of the setting (teaching on the sabbath that although the demon threw the man down it
in a synagogue) prepares the reader for a repeti- did not harm him. The noun Luke uses to describe
tion of the events of the previous scene. The the response of the crowd is found only in Luke
amazement of the people (v. 32) echoes the initial and Acts (8d\B0s thambos) in the NT (Luke 5:9;
response of the people of Nazareth {v. 22), and Acts 3:10). Jesus silences the demon with a word,
in both contexts Luke comments on the character so the people question among themselves, “What
of Jesus’ words. This time it is the authority of kind of word is this?” As readers who have just
his word (cf. vv. 22, 32). This is the first reference read the programmatic teaching of Jesus in Naz-
to Jesus’ authority (there is no direct reference to ‘ areth, we understand the character of the word
authority in the infancy material), so its occur- in question. Jesus has not only declared fulfillment
rence here stands in direct relation to the devil’s of the promise of deliverance of the captives, but
lure of the promise of authority (4:6). The devil by his word he has also released one who has
promised Jesus authority and glory; here the peo- been held captive by a demonic spirit. Jesus had
ple marvel because he teaches with authority. returned to Galilee “in the power of the Spirit”
Jesus possessed the authority of the Spirit, and (4:14); now that power was becoming evident to
110
LUKE 4:3 1-44 COMMENTARY
others. The initial response, however, is amaze- 4:40-41, Healing the Sick. The third heal-
ment and questioning, not confession. The ques- ing scene in Capernaum culminates in the con-
tion raised in the synagogue in Capernaum will fession of Jesus as the Son of God and the Christ.
be echoed repeatedly in the coming chapters as This third scene continues the portrayal of Jesus
various characters in the Gospel strive to under- as healer and exorcist, as in the previous scenes,
stand who Jesus is. The result is that Jesus’ fame and the verb translated “rebuke” (EmTLidw epi-
spread (cf. again 4:14). Although Jesus does not timao), which occurs in each of the three scenes,
leave Capernaum, this first scene of his work provides another link between them.
there concludes with a typical Lukan report of a The third scene occurs following sundown,
coming or going; news of Jesus went out to every significant in this instance because it marks the
place in that region. end of the sabbath. Carrying the sick and healing
4:38-39, Healing Simon’s Mother-in-Law. those with chronic conditions would have been
A second demonstration of the power of Jesus’ considered a violation of sabbath laws, but it is
word follows immediately. The scene begins with not clear whether Luke is sensitive to this point
a transitional report of Jesus’ movement from the or would have expected his readers to grasp it
synagogue to Peter’s house. At this stage in Luke’s (cf. the more cumbersome temporal references in
account, Jesus has not yet called any disciples, so Mark 1:32-34). Luke streamlines the narrative.
there is no reference to Andrew, James, and John The sick are brought to Jesus, and he heals them
as there is in Mark (1:29). In the Lukan sequence, by laying his hands on them. The laying on of
therefore, the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law hands was accompanied by prayer in the OT and
may serve as part of the preparation for Peter’s was used to invoke God’s blessing on the person.
call to discipleship (5:10-11). References to laying on hands for healing do not
Lacking a modern understanding of disease, occur in Jewish literature until the NT period.
infection, and fever, Luke describes the mother- As some were being healed, demons came out
in-law’s illness in terms that border on possession. of them. Thus the line between healings and
Luke uses a term that suggests that she was oppressed, exorcisms is blurred. In the previous scene Jesus
ruled, or “held captive” (ovvéxw synecho) by the healed by rebuking the fever (as he had previously
fever. The fever is seen as the cause of her illness, rebuked the demons); now he exorcises by laying
not a symptom of an infection. When “they” (the his hands on the sick. This Lukan summary of
family?) ask Jesus about her, he assumes a com- Jesus’ power to heal and exorcise culminates in
manding position—‘“he stood over her”—and two christological titles that have no parallel in
commands the fever to leave her. Jesus rebukes the Markan account. The demons shouted “You
the fever, just as he had rebuked the unclean spirit are the Son of God” because they knew that he
(cf. 4:39; 4:35, 41), and the fever “released” her, was the Christ. The combination of these two
just as Jesus had declared that he had come to titles in this summary greatly enhances its signifi-
“proclaim release to the captives.” In both in- cance in the plot of the Gospel. Luke 4 opened
with the devil tempting Jesus with the challenge,
stances the verb used is the same.
“If you are the Son of God” (4:3, 9). The towns-
Luke’s account of the healing of Peter’s mother-
people of Nazareth supposed that Jesus was the
in-law functions differently from Mark’s in that it
son of Joseph (4:22), but the chapter ends with
demonstrates the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophetic
the demons broadcasting Jesus’ divine sonship.
announcement in Nazareth, and it dramatizes the
Others will confess Jesus as the Son of God only
power of Jesus’ word, which was also emphasized
in Luke 8:28 (the Gerasene demoniac); 9:35 (the
in the first scene in the Capernaum cycle (see
voice from heaven); and 22:70 (the unbelieving
4:36). The scene closes with the report that
question of the council of elders, chief priests, and
Peter’s mother-in-law recovered instantly and that scribes). Adding further weight to the demons’
she began to serve them. In this respect, she cry is the narrator’s comment that they knew that
serves as a pattern for all who would subsequently he was the Christ. Jesus was announced as the
be delivered by Jesus’ word and then express their
gratitude through serving (see esp. the role of the 64. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Zhe Gospel According to Luke (I-IX), AB
women in 8:1-3; 10:38-42; 23:49, 55; 24:24). 28 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981) 555.
111
Christ at his birth (2:11, 26; cf. 3:15), but prior to (Topevoua poreuomai; 4:30, 42, 43), carrying
the trial and death of Jesus the term occurs only the good news of the kingdom to other towns.
here, in 9:20 (Peter’s confession) and 20:41 (Jesus’ As with the confession of Jesus as the Son of
question regarding the Davidic sonship of the Mes- God, so references to the kingdom of the earth
siah). The two christological titles serve, therefore, to and the kingdom of God bracket the chapter (4:5,
bring the chapter to a climax at the end of the 43). The intent of proclaiming the kingdom also
Capernaum cycle. What is implicit in the reading from serves to make explicit the message of Jesus that
Isaiah in Nazareth has become explicit in the healings began with the reading of Isaiah 61 in Nazareth
and exorcisms in Capernaum. Only at Peter’s confes- and that will repeatedly occupy the teachings of
sion in Luke 9 and in the trial and death of Jesus will Jesus from Luke 6:20 on. Similarly, just as Jesus
the Gospel again declare Jesus’ identity so clearly. The had declared in Nazareth that the Spirit of the
silencing of the demons may explain why such titles Lord had “sent” (dtootéd\\w apostello) him to
do not recur more frequently, but the function of the proclaim release to the captives (4:18), so also
silencing is not as clear in Luke as it is in Mark. Jesus left Capernaum referring to the purpose for
4:42-44, Departure from Capernaum.
which he had been “sent.” Again, the passive
The fourth scene concludes both the Capernaum
suggests that God is the one who sent him (cf.
cycle and the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in
9:48; 10:16). God’s redemptive purpose, which
Galilee (4:14-44). The next day Jesus goes to a
guides the course of the action in Luke and Acts,
deserted place, presumably alone, but Luke does
propels Jesus to carry the preaching of the king-
not mention prayer as does Mark (1:35) even
dom—which included healing the sick and exor-
though Luke normally emphasizes the importance
of prayer for Jesus. The crowds seek Jesus to cising demons—throughout all the land of the
prevent him from leaving them. In Mark those Jews. The reference to Judea in v. 44 is suffi-
who wanted to prevail on Jesus to stay in Caper- ciently puzzling that scribes altered it to Galilee
naum were “Peter and those with him,” but Luke in various manuscripts, but the effect of the
has not yet related the calling of Peter, and the reference is not to mark the end of Jesus’ ministry
reference to the crowds creates a parallel with the in Galilee but to drive home the point of its
response Jesus received in Nazareth. There too spread throughout all the region of Palestine.
the people wanted to keep Jesus’ mighty works Both in Luke and in other sources “Judea” is
for themselves only. In both cases Jesus refused occasionally used to designate not the particular
to allow the crowds to impose their restrictions region south of Galilee and Samaria, but all of
on the work of the kingdom. The same verb is the land of the Jews (see Luke 1:5; 7:17; 23:5;
used in both places: Jesus must “travel on” Acts 10:37; 1 Thess 2:14).
REFLECTIONS
The Capernaum cycle is composed of a series of four scenes in which Jesus performs the
first healings and exorcisms in the Gospel of Luke. The interpreter must decide at what level
to engage these accounts: literary motif, theology, or history. The foregoing commentary has
set this cycle in its literary context and illustrated how it coheres and functions as a unit
within the Gospel.
1. As we move to the second level, the following questions press themselves upon us:
What does it mean theologically to affirm that Jesus healed and exorcised demons? Is there a
didactic purpose for these stories? What do they mean for our understanding of christology or
providence? The place to start is with the text itself. Luke’s account of the healings in
Capernaum makes several connections. It connects the healings and exorcisms with Jesus’
teaching so that the power of his words is dramatically demonstrated in his mighty works. By
implication, where his words are heard, there the power that was manifested in the miracles
continues to be active. In the contemporary congregation, the hearing of the gospel leads to
112
acts of ministry in which the hungry are fed (soup kitchens), the blind see (eye clinics, literacy
programs), the lame walk (programs for the disabled), and prisoners are set free (prison
ministries and rehabilitation programs).
Running through both the Nazareth and the Capernaum episode, however, is the warning
that the power of God cannot be possessed, contained, or limited for our own purposes. It
moves on, and it is always reaching across the barriers that separate communities and peoples
from one another. The mighty works of Jesus’ ministry, however, are a manifestation of the
power of the Spirit. As the Lord’s anointed, Jesus was empowered to extend the work of the
prophets and begin the work of the kingdom. What was stated in the reading from Isaiah 61
saw its first small beginnings in the healings in Capernaum. God was moving to free persons
from the debilitating and dehumanizing conditions that prevented human beings from living
as God willed life to be. In that respect, the text gives up a significant clue when as a result
of Jesus’ healings, demons flee from those who have been delivered from their illness or
impairment. The healings are theologically significant, therefore, because they convey important
insights into God’s intention for human life and God’s unrelenting efforts to free captives and
give sight to the blind. Healing and deliverance are manifestations of the work of the kingdom.
What the text does not answer is why some are healed and others are not. Naaman the Syrian
and the widow at Zarephath were persons of faith, but the demoniac in the synagogue cried out
against Jesus, so that Luke describes his cry as the utterance of the spirit of an unclean demon.
Yet this man too was delivered from the demon. Faith or lack thereof may be part of the answer
(Luke does not record any miracles performed in Nazareth), but it is not the whole answer. There
is still a freedom to God’s grace that is not controlled by human response.
2. The most difficult level of reflection is the third, the historical. Did Jesus heal persons? Did
Jesus “cast out demons”? What does it mean to say that Jesus exorcised demons? The quest for
the historical Jesus began in earnest with the Rationalists who could not accept the miracle accounts
of the Gospels at face value. The mighty acts of the Gospels were called “miracles,” or acts contrary
to the “laws of nature.” The Rationalists then proposed non-miraculous, “rational,” or reasonable
interpretations of the miracle stories. Jesus cured psychosomatic conditions; he appeared to be
walking on water while walking beside the lake; he led the multitude to share their food with
one another or instructed the disciples to bring food out of a hidden cave; and he “raised” those
who had swooned or had been comatose for a brief period. Recently, however, theologians have
contended that there is more mystery in human experience than the Rationalists admitted, that
God should not be seen as invading natural processes from outside them but as working within
natural processes. The line between natural and supernatural has blurred considerably. Historians
of Jesus have likewise asserted that Jesus was a healer, as were other charismatic Galilean Jews.”
While the debate is far from settled, most would agree that the healings and exorcisms of the
Gospel narratives cannot be dismissed as first-century superstition. They represent an early Christian
interpretation of an aspect of Jesus’ historical ministry, and to that extent they are vital to our
understanding of Jesus.
By healing the sick, Jesus fulfilled the work and words of the prophets, as we will have
occasion to note in coming chapters. Jesus does not perform just any miracles; he does works
that are similar to the works of Moses, Elijah and Elisha, and the words of Isaiah. The miracles,
therefore, declare the continuance of God’s mighty presence among God’s people. The miracles
declare the fulfillment of Moses and the prophets in Jesus.
The casting out of demons, however, is not a part of the OT tradition. Here we are drawn
into the culture and worldview of first-century Palestine. Whereas today we tend to attribute
Jews
symptoms to internal causes stich as chemical disorders or mental illness, first-century
Peasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins,
65. See, e.g., John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish
1991).
113
attributed similar phenomena to external powers acting on the person. Perhaps the most honest
response for an interpreter is to acknowledge how limited our understanding of spiritual and
demonic forces is. While we may not wish to encourage belief in demons that invade human
persons, neither are the explanations of the Rationalists very satisfying. The Gospels declare
that Jesus approached the mystery of evil in human experience and conquered it. In his
presence and by his word or act, human beings were delivered from their bondage, derange-
ment, or illness and restored to wholeness. In such stories we understand God’s nature and
work among us even if. we do not also always understand the mystery of the spiritual or
demonic forces that some human beings experience.
LUKE 5:1-6:16, CALLING AND

TRAINING DISCIPLES
OVERVIEW
To this point Jesus has acted alone, unaccom- Luke 6:1-5—Mark 2:23-28
panied by disciples. In the next major section Luke 6:6-11—Mark 3:1-6
(5:1-6:16), however, Jesus begins to call others The similarities between the two accounts should
to leave everything and join him in the work not mask the significant differences. The call of the
of the kingdom. This section is framed by two first disciples (paralleled in Luke 5:1-11) comes just
scenes that feature the disciples: the call of fifteen verses into Mark’s Gospel (1:16-20). Mark
Simon and the fishermen (5:1-11) and the ap- races through the ministry of John, the baptism of
pointment of the Twelve (6:12-16). Between Jesus, the temptation in the wilderness, and the
these two scenes Jesus heals a leper (5:12-16) announcement of the gospel of the kingdom. By
and a paralytic (5:17-26), calls Levi to follow contrast, Luke has provided extensive interpretation
him and eats with tax collectors (5:27-39), al-
of Jesus’ birth and identity as the Son of God, God’s
lows his disciples to pluck grain on the sabbath
redemptive work has been highlighted, the pro-
(6:1-5), and heals a man with a withered hand
phetic context of Jesus’ work has been presented,
on the sabbath (6:6-11). Throughout this sec-
and Jesus’ teaching in Capernaum and healing of
tion we see the work of the kingdom spreading
Peter’s mother-in-law have been reported. In terms
and separating those who respond from those
who refuse Jesus’ call. The latter are often of the characterization of Peter and the other fish-
represented by the scribes and Pharisees. ermen, Luke’s sequence makes their response to his
Striking comparisons can be made between call to discipleship psychologically plausible. Perhaps
Mark and Luke in their handling of these scenes. more significantly, Luke has delayed the introduction
Throughout this section, Luke reproduces Markan of characters who might serve as role models for
material with varying degrees of revision: the reader’s response to the challenge of the gospel
Luke 5:1-3—Mark 1:16-20; 4:1-2 until the identity of Jesus and the nature of his
Luke 5:8-11—Mark 1:16-20 ministry have been clearly developed: The reader is
Luke 5:12-16—Mark 1:40-45 now ready to begin to consider a response to the
Luke 5:17-26—Mark 2:1-12 " call to follow Jesus, just as the first disciples turned
Luke 5:27-32—Mark 2:13-17 away from their daily pursuits to give themselves to
Luke 5:33-38—Mark 2:18-22 the kingdom work to which Jesus called them.
114
LUKE 5:1-11
Luke 5:1-11, Calling the Fishetirier:

NIV NRSV
One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake Once while Jesus? was standing beside the
of Gennesaret,? with the people crowding lake of Gennesaret, and the crowd was
around him and listening to the word of God, Zhe pressing in on him to hear the word of God, 7he
saw at the water’s edge two boats, left there by saw two boats there at the shore of the lake; the
the fishermen, who were washing their nets. “He fishermen had gone out of them and were wash-
got into one of the boats, the one belonging to ing their nets. °He got into one of the boats, the
Simon, and asked him to put out a little from one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put
shore. Then he sat down and taught the people out a little way from the shore. Then he sat down
from the boat.
and taught the crowds from the boat. “When he
4When he had finished speaking, he said to had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out
Simon, “Put out into deep water, and let down?
into the deep water and let down your nets for
the nets for a catch.”
a catch.” °Simon answered, “Master, we have
*Simon answered, “Master, we’ve worked hard
worked all night long but have caught nothing.
all night and haven’t caught anything. But because
Yet if you say so, I will let down the nets.” “When
you say so, I will let down the nets.”
they had done this, they caught so many fish that
- (When they had done so, they caught such a
their nets were beginning to break. ’So they
large number of fish that their nets began to
signaled their partners in the other boat to come
break. ’So they signaled their partners in the other
and help them. And they came and filled both
boat to come and help them, and they came and
filled both boats so full that they began to sink. boats, so that they began to sink. ®But when
8When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees,
knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am saying, “Go away from me, Lord, for | am a sinful
a sinful man!” °For he and all his companions man!” °For he and all who were with him were
were astonished at the catch of fish they had amazed at the catch of fish that they had taken;
taken, '°and so were James and John, the sons of 10and so also were James and John, sons of Zebe-
Zebedee, Simon’s partners. dee, who were partners with Simon. Then Jesus
Then Jesus said to Simon, “Don’t be afraid; said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on
from now on you will catch men.” ''So they you will be catching people.” ''When they had
pulled their boats up on shore, left everything and brought their boats to shore, they left everything
followed him. and followed him.
a/ That is, Sea of Galilee 64 The Greek verb is plural. aGk he
(COMMENTARY
The call of the fishermen takes the form of an verses set the scene and introduce the characters.
extended pronouncement story (a story that fea- The catch of fish introduces the first dialogue
tures a saying of Jesus) centered around Jesus’ between Jesus and Simon Peter and prepares for
challenge to Simon in v. 100. The larger unit is the call to discipleship at the end of the scene.
Isolating the dialogue serves to highlight its role
a composite constructed from three distinct parts:
in this scene:
the setting by the lake (5:1-3), for which Luke
used Mark 4:1-2; a miracle story—the catch of
fish (5:4-7), for which there is a parallel in John Jesus: “Put out into the deep water and let
down your nets for a catch.”
21:3-8; and the call of the fishermen (5:8-11), for
which Luke used Mark 1:16-20. The first three Simon: “Master, we have worked all night long
115
but have caught nothing. Yet if you say more fish was eaten than any other meat (see
so, I will let down the nets.” Luke 11:11; 24:42) and a thriving fishing industry
flourished on the Sea of Galilee. Fish was eaten
Simon: “Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful fresh, processed, salted, dried, or pickled, for
man!” export. The fish of the Sea of Galilee are of three
Jesus: “Do not be afraid; from now on you will main varieties: the cichlidae, a family of large
be catching people.” panfish that includes “St. Peter’s fish”; the cyprini-
dae, or carp family; and the siluridae, or catfish.
Following the narrative technique of framing The Jews did not eat catfish, however, because it
scenes or episodes by means of entrances and did not have “fins and scales” (Lev 11:9-12; Deut
departures that Luke uses repeatedly, the scene is 14:9-10).
introduced by a reference to the crowd’s coming The various types of nets mentioned in the NT
to Jesus and closes with the report that the were probably similar to the nets used by Arab
fishermen left everything to follow Jesus. fishermen until recent decades. These include (1)
the casting net (aydiBAnotpov amphiblestron,
5:1-3, Teaching the Crowd Beside the
Lake. The temporal relationship between this Matt 4:18), a circular net that was cast by a
scene and the preceding one is left vague. wading fisherman; (2) the trammel net (though
Whereas Luke 4:42-44 indicates that Jesus left . this word is used generically for various nets
Capernaum and went to Judea, the beginning of [Sixktvov diktyon, Matt 4:20]), or a line of three
Luke 5 finds Jesus still in Galilee, beside the lake. nets hanging from floats, the inner net having a
This is the only place in the NT where the lake small mesh that trapped the fish; and (3) the drag
is identified by reference to the adjacent territory net (caynvn sagene, Matt 13:47), which could
(Gennesaret, south of Capernaum; cf. Matt 14:34; be several hundred yards long. Luke’s description
Mark 6:53), but the designation is found in of putting out into deep water and letting down
Josephus, who knew Galilee well.©° The crowd is nets suggests that the fishermen were using the
presumably the same crowd introduced in 4:42, trammel nets.
who were thronging to Jesus because of the Luke underscores the wonder of the catch of
mighty works he was doing. Consistent with fish by saying that it filled the boats so much that
Jesus’ announcement in 4:43 that he had to they began to sink. Recently, a first-century fishing
declare the good news of the kingdom of God, boat was recovered from the mud near the edge
Jesus is not healing but preaching “the word of of the Sea of Galilee. The shell of the boat is 26.5
God” (cf. 8:11, 21; 11:28). In the light of Luke feet long, 7.5 feet wide, and 4.5 feet deep and
4, the reader is prepared to associate “the word could be rowed or sailed.°”
of God” with the work of the prophets, God’s By placing the call of Simon Peter ahd the other
redemptive work declared in the canticles of the fishermen after the miraculous catch of fish, Luke
birth narratives, the preaching of John the Baptist, provides a psychologically plausible account of
and above all the teaching of Jesus in the syna- why they left everything to follow Jesus. Luke
gogue in Nazareth. 5:4-7 seems to depend on a traditional story found
The primary elements of this scene are all also in John 21:1-14, where a strikingly similar
found in Mark in the call of the fishermen and catch of fish is reported in a post-resurrection
the introduction to the parables in Mark 4: the context. Raymond E. Brown lists ten points shared
lake, the boat, the crowd, and the fishermen by the two accounts: (1) The disciples had fished
washing their nets. As in Mark 4:1-2, Jesus gets _all night with no results, (2) Jesus challenged
into the boat to teach the crowd on the shore. them to let down the nets, (3) the disciples
The second boat will be summoned following the enclosed an enormous catch, (4) the effect on the
catch of fish (cf. v. 7). nets is mentioned, (5) Peter reacts, (6) Jesus is
5:4-7, Enclosing a Catch of Fish. Fish was
one of the staples in first-century Palestine, where 67. For a more detailed discussion of the fishing industry and the status
of Galilean fishermen, see R. Alan Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee:
The Life ofa Legend (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994)
66. Josephus The Jewish War 3:463, 506. 10-15.
116
called Lord, (7) other fishermen take part in the (“Go away from me, Lord, for 1 am a sinful man!”)
catch but say nothing, (8) the theme of following would have a special force if it followed his
Jesus, (9) the catch of fish “symbolizes a successful denials of Jesus in the courtyard. Luke seems to
Christian missionary endeavor,” and (10) the have retrojected the tradition of the catch of fish
same words appear at various points in the two into the ministry as a call story. The alternative
stories.°® In spite of all these similarities, the is that John 21:1-14 is a story from the ministry
differences between the two accounts should also of Jesus that has been recast around the themes
be noted, the foremost being its setting in Luke of resurrection and eucharist. Whether the miracle
as the call of Simon Peter rather than as his story was originally an appearance tradition is
post-resurrection reconciliation to Jesus following indeed debatable, since no other appearance takes
Peter’s treachery in the courtyard during the trial the form of a miracle story. This story, therefore,
of Jesus. Other differences between the two ac- may have had a complicated history that we
counts arise from the fact that in John 21 Jesus cannot now recover with any confidence.
is not in the boat but on the shore, there is only 5:8-11, Calling the First Disciples. The
one boat, and the nets are untorn despite the large story concerns Simon Peter and his commissioning
catch. as a disciple. Peter is the only disciple introduced
What are we to make of these parallel ac- prior to this scene (see 4:38-39), he is the only
counts? Do the traditions reach back to one event one to speak to Jesus, and Jesus’ commission is
or two? If one event lies behind both accounts, addressed to Peter. The others, James and John,
was it originally the call of Peter to discipleship are introduced as Simon’s partners, almost as an
or a post-resurrection appearance? The tradition afterthought.
has apparently gone through an extended process At the heart of this scene is Jesus’ call to the
of development, but the similarities are sufficient fishermen to leave their nets and give themselves
to point to a common tradition lying behind both to the work of the kingdom. The metaphor “fish-
Luke 5 and John 21. Three considerations tilt the ers of men,” or “catching people,” is striking both
balance in favor of the hypothesis that Luke has because it arises out of the situation and because
taken .a post-Easter appearance tradition and it is a clever play on words. The fishermen are
placed it back in the ministry of Jesus. First, other themselves caught by Jesus and given a new
accounts of the call of Peter and the other fisher- vocation. In the OT and the Dead Sea Scrolls
men to discipleship do not involve a miraculous fishing is used metaphorically for gathering people
catch of fish (Mark 1:16-20; Matt 4:18-21; John for judgment (Amos 4:2; Hab 1:14-15; Jer 16:16;
1:35-42). In Luke, moreover, the account of the
10H 5:7-8). Seen against this background, the call
catch of fish is sandwiched between other tradi- to the disciples was a commission to gather people
tional elements of the call of the disciples (Luke
for judgment, a theme found in the preaching of
5:1-3, 10-11), suggesting that Luke has created
John the Baptist (3:7-9). The metaphor of fishing
this setting for the story. Second, following Luke’s
was also common in Greek literature as a meta-
geographical scheme of the ministry in Galilee—
phor for the activity of philosopher-teachers. In
the journey to Jerusalem, and the mission begin-
the Gospels, however, the call to become fishers
ning from Jerusalem following Jesus’ death and
of men becomes a call to gather men and women
resurrection—there is no place for a Galilean
for the kingdom. It retains eschatological over-
appearance (as in Mark and Matthew). The story tones from the biblical traditions, it authorizes the
of the catch of fish from the Sea of Galilee, if disciples as representatives of their teacher and
included, had to be placed somewhere during
agents of the kingdom, and it looks forward to
Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. Third, Peter’s response
the church’s evangelistic mission.”
68. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XII-XXI}, AB
29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970) 1090. 69. See Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee, 20-21.
.
117
REFLECTIONS
1. Peter’s call to leave everything and “catch people” is the counterpart in Luke of the call
of Paul in Acts, where the commission is actually communicated through Ananias (Acts 9:15).
Both Peter and Paul were called dramatically, through a miraculous event, while they were
in the midst of their routine activities, and both were given a commission to devote themselves
to bringing others to Jesus. Peter would become the leader of the early church in Jerusalem,
Paul would become the great apostle to the Gentiles. These call scenes are important because,
although not everyone experiences such a dramatic conversion or call, these scenes contain
elements that continue to mark experiences of God’s calling in our own context.
2. Christologically, the miraculous catch of fish should probably be understood as a sign that,
as the Messiah (4:41) anointed by the Spirit, Jesus did mighty works not unlike the works of
Moses, Elijah, and Elisha. This is the first miracle that was not a healing or an exorcism. Jesus
does not command the sea or the fish, nor does he instruct the fishermen to do anything out of
the ordinary. Like Moses, whom God used to supply manna and water in the wilderness, or Elijah,
who supplied an abundance of meal and oil (1 Kgs 17:8-16), and Elisha, who provided an endless
supply of oil and fed a hundred people with twenty loaves of barley bread (2 Kgs 4:1-7, 42-44),
Jesus provided an abundance of fish. The work of the kingdom, therefore, will be accompanied
by signs of God’s gracious love. It will inaugurate-a time of abundance and blessing.
3. The counterpart to christology is the Gospel’s teaching on discipleship. Three observations
can be made in this context. First, the fishermen had done nothing to warrant or merit Jesus’
call to them. Regardless of what Jesus may have seen in the fishermen, to contend that he
called the most capable or most qualified to be his disciples would contradict an important
element in the Gospel story. The fishermen were not called because of their qualifications,
character, or potential. God’s call is as unpredictable as it is unmerited. Second, the call to
discipleship did not come in a holy place (the temple or a synagogue) but in the midst of the
fishermen’s daily work. The point is significant not because God does not call people in a holy
place (cf. Zechariah in Luke 1) but because it is a further sign of the work of God’s kingdom
reaching into the arena of human life. Third, the call to discipleship in Luke’s account does
not include the familiar words “follow me,” as in Mark 1:16-20. Rather, Jesus commissions
the fishermen for kingdom service: “catching people.” Fourth, the metaphor of fishing suggests
various facets of the disciples’ role in relation to Jesus and the kingdom. Henceforth they will
live by Jesus’ teachings and call others to him just as they themselves have been called. Their
work will be evangelistic in nature and infused with eschatological urgency. Finally, the call
of the kingdom requires a reversal of priorities and a reordering of commitments. The disciples
left everything (a more inclusive term than is used in the call accounts in Mark and Matthew),
and “they followed him.” The language of following Jesus echoes both Elijah’s call to Elisha
(1 Kgs 19:19-21) and Socrates’ call to Strepsiades: “But come and follow me.”” The last word
in Luke’s story is Jesus. He will order their lives from now on.
70. Aristophanes The Clouds 497-517; Diogenes Laertius Lives I1.48.
118
LUKE 5:12-16
Luke 5:12-16, Cleansing a Leper
NIV NRSV
"While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man 12Once, when he was in one of the cities,
came along who was covered with leprosy. When there was a man covered with leprosy.? When he
he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground saw Jesus, he bowed with his face to the ground
and begged him, “Lord, if you are willing, you and begged him, “Lord, if you choose, you can
can make me clean.” make me clean.” '°Then Jesus’ stretched out his
'SJesus reached out his hand and touched the hand, touched him, and said, “I do choose. Be
man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” And made clean.” Immediately the leprosy? left him.
immediately the leprosy left him. 4And he ordered him to tell no one. “Go,” he
“Then Jesus ordered him, “Don’t tell anyone, said, “and show yourself to the priest, and, as
but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the Moses commanded, make an offering for your
sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleans- cleansing, for a testimony to them.” But now
ing, as a testimony to them.” more than ever the word about Jesus® spread
'Yet the news about him spread all the more, abroad; many crowds would gather to hear him
so that crowds of people came to hear him and and to be cured of their diseases. '*But he would
to be healed of their sicknesses. '°But Jesus often withdraw to deserted places and pray.
withdrew to lonely places and prayed.
aThe terms /eper and leprosy can refer to several diseases
a/2 The Greek word was used for various diseases affecting the 6Gk he ¢Gk him
skin—not necessarily leprosy.
(COMMENTARY
The characterization of Jesus as the Messiah lepers. When approached by another person, the
anointed by the Spirit to fulfill the work of the leper was to cover his or her upper lip and call
prophets by his mighty words and deeds continues out, “Unclean, unclean” (Lev 13:45-46). Leviticus
in this pericope. In the synagogue at Nazareth, 14 prescribes a detailed ritual for the cleansing of
Jesus interpreted the words of Isaiah by referring a leper who has been healed from the disease.
to Elisha’s healing of Naaman the Syrian. The The leper must be examined by a priest, a ritual
reader can hardly miss the connection when Jesus involving two birds was performed, and then the
now heals a leper. cleansed leper would bathe, shave, and wash his
In the NT, “leprosy” seems not to be limited or her clothes before returning to the community.
to Hansen’s disease but denotes various skin dis- For the core of the story, Luke follows Mark
eases that could produce scales, inflammation, or 1:40-45. The two accounts agree very closely in
lesions. The priestly legislation regarding the de- the dialogue between Jesus and the leper and
tection and treatment of leprosy is reported in differ most noticeably in the introduction and
detail in Leviticus 13-14, but the symptoms de- conclusion to the story. In the introduction to
scribed there do not conform to what is known both this pericope and the next, Luke adopts the
of Hansen’s disease today. The Levitical law re- Semitic style of the Septuagint: “And it happened
quired that the afflicted person be examined by a that” (kai €yéveto kai egeneto; cf. 1:23, 41, 59,
priest. If the priest determined that the person 65; 2:15; 5:17). Luke further situates the healing
had leprosy, he or she was to be quarantined for “in one of the cities,” which suggests either that
seven days. At the end of the week, the priest the levitical legislation requiring the leper to re-
might extend the quarantine, a second week or main outside the community was not being fol-
pronounce the person clean or leprous. The law lowed or that Luke was unfamiliar with the
required that a leprous person wear torn clothing requirement. In comparison with Mark, the
and disheveled hair and live alone or with other leper’s condition is heightened: “covered with
119
leprosy.” When the leper sees Jesus, he falls on the man keep silent about his cure until he had
his face and begs Jesus to make him clean. Ap- been certified:clean by a priest. The fulfillment of
parently, from the reports of Jesus’ mighty works the Mosaic commands is consistent with the of-
(4:37), the leper had heard of the healings Jesus fering of the required sacrifices at the presentation
had performed and trusted that Jesus could heal of Jesus in the Temple (2:21-24; cf. 17:14, where
him too. Whereas a priest could only pronounce the same command is repeated). The only way in
the leper clean or unclean, the man believed that which the sacrifices could function as a testimony
Jesus could actually free him from the disease. or proof for them (the priests?) would be if the
The means by which Jesus heals the leper, leper also told the priests how Jesus had healed
which is not usually significant, is important in him. The story of the healing of the leper gives
this pericope. Whereas in other instances Jesus us, therefore, a rather perplexing glimpse of
heals at a distance, or simply by his command, in Luke’s characterization of Jesus’ relationship to
this case he extends his hand, touches the leper, the religious authorities of Israel. While Jesus
and commands him to be clean. Not only does heals by the power of the Spirit, touching a leper
the healing continue Luke’s emphasis on the in the process, he commands observance of the
power of Jesus’ word (see 4:36, 39, 41), but also law and provides a witness for the priests. In this
it violates both the Mosiac law and natural human instance at least, Jesus, while independent of the
reactions to one afflicted by a disfiguring and ». religious authorities and structures, was not delib-
contagious skin condition. Jesus touched the erately antagonistic toward them.
leper, thereby rendering himself unclean. More- The ending of the story in Luke is markedly
over, although the rituals for certifying that a leper different from the Markan account. Luke says
was healed were elaborate, Jesus healed the man nothing further about the leper who was healed.
by a touch and a word. The power to heal, Instead, Luke declares that the reports about Jesus
therefore, resides in Jesus even more directly than spread even more widely. The effect was that
it had in the prophet Elisha, who sent Naaman crowds gathered to Jesus all the more. The twin
to wash seven times in the Jordan River. The cure emphases on Jesus’ teaching and his healing are
was instantaneous—the leprosy left him. There extended in this conclusion, but to them is added
was no seven-day quarantine or waiting period. a reference to prayer, which will become a recur-
The charge that the leper should fulfill the law ring theme in coming chapters (6:12, 28; 9:18,
by showing himself to a priest and completing the 28-29). Jesus is thereby characterized as a holy
ritual for cleansing is difficult to interpret. While man, a man of Spirit and prayer who is conse-
it repeats verbatim the instruction given in Mark quently mighty in word and deed, teaching and
1:44, in the Lukan context at least the intent healing. The crowds pursue him, but Jesus with-
seems to be positive. Jesus was concerned that draws to desolate places to pray.
REFLECTIONS
This brief account is filled with reversals that carry the deeper meaning of the event. The
story opens in the city, where Jesus meets a leper (who by law was barred from the community).
By the end of the story, the leper has become clean and has returned to society, but because
Jesus touched the leper and healed him, Jesus is himself forced out of the cities-and into the
wilderness. The turning point is the touch, which renders the man clean and at least by
implication makes Jesus unclean. Ironically,’ Jesus then suffers the estrangement that the law
imposed on lepers—he was exiled to desolate places.
1. At one level the conclusion of the story extends the pattern of the previous chapter.
Being driven from his hometown and fleeing*the crowds that gathered around him in
Capernaum, Jesus moved on to other cities (4:44; 5:12), but now he is forced out of all the
cities.
At another level, the story reflects Jesus’ conflict with sin. Leprosy was a natural symbol
for sin. It was repugnant, defiling, and destructive of human community. When the leper fell
before Jesus, Jesus “made him clean” (ka8apiCw katharizo), a term that could mean forgiveness
as well as healing. The healing changed both Jesus and the leper. In a symbolic sense, Jesus
took the leper’s uncleanness upon himself and suffered the estrangement from society that was
normally a leper’s lot. By the end of the Gospel, this plot will have been writ large across the
narrative. Jesus will die forgiving sinners, and they will be given life. The healing of the leper,
therefore, is the gospel in miniature.
2. A contemporary equivalent of leprosy, socially and religiously, is AIDS. It carries with it
a social and moral stigma in the eyes of many. It is feared and little understood, and victims
often find themselves exiled from the rest of society in the equivalent of leper colonies. Part
of the scandal of this story lies in the report that Jesus touched the leper, thereby exposing
himself to the man’s disease and rendering himself ritually unclean. Jesus could hardly have
chosen a more dramatic act by which to affirm the importance of the individual, whether leper
or person living with AIDS. Jesus’ rejection of his culture’s judgment on lepers may, therefore,
also be seen as judgment on our culture’s denial of dignity, humanity, and at times care for
persons with AIDS.
3. A further invitation for reflection arises from the leper’s confident claim, “Lord, if you
choose, you can make me clean.” Who told this leper that he did not need to follow the
prescribed treatments and sanctions for his condition? What led him to believe that Jesus could
(and would) respond to his need? Here is another example of the simple faith that is at times
associated with “the poor” in Luke—who depend totally on God’s mercy. For such as these,
Jesus had come to proclaim the good news of the kingdom. But only those who recognize
their need and turn to God for mercy can hear the response: “I do choose. Be made clean.”
Luke 5:17-26, Healing the Paralyzed

NIV NRSV
7One day as he was teaching, Pharisees and 17One day, while he was teaching, Pharisees
teachers of the law, who had come from every and teachers of the law were sitting near by (they
village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem, had come from every village of Galilee and Judea
were sitting there. And the power of-the Lord and from Jerusalem); and the power of the Lord
was present for him to heal the sick. '*Some men was with him to heal.? '*Just then some men
came carrying a paralytic on a mat and tried to came, carrying a paralyzed man on a bed. They
take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. were trying to bring him in and lay him before
When they could not find a way to do this Jesus;’ !but finding no way to bring him in
because of the crowd, they went up on the roof because of the crowd, they went up on the roof
and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into and let him down with his bed through the tiles
the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus. into the middle of the crowd° in front of Jesus.
20When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, 20When he saw their faith, he said, “Friend,? your
your sins are forgiven.” sins are forgiven you.” *'Then the scribes and the
21The Pharisees and the teachers of the law Pharisees began to question, “Who is this who is
began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow speaking blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but
who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 22When Jesus perceived their ques-
God alone?” : tionings, he answered them, “Why do you raise
22Jesus knew what they were thinking and such questions in your hearts? ?*Which is easier,
asked, “Why are you thinking these things in your aQther ancient authorities read was present to heal them 5GCk
hearts? 223Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are him ¢Gk into the midst aGk Man -
121
LUKE 5:17-26
NIV NRSV
forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? *4But that to say, ‘Your ‘sins are forgiven you,’ or to say,
you may know that the Son of Man has authority ‘Stand up and walk’? *4But so that you may know
on earth to forgive sins....” He said to the that the Son of Man has authority on earth to
paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat forgive sins’—he said to the one who was para-
and go home.” **Immediately he stood up in front lyzed—“I say to you, stand up and take your bed
of them, took what he had been. lying on and and go to your home.” “Immediately he stood up
went home praising God. *°Everyone was amazed before them, took what he had been lying on,
and gave praise to God. They were filled with and went to his home, glorifying God. ?°Amaze-
awe and said, “We have seen remarkable things ment seized all of them, and they glorified God
today.” and were filled with awe, saying, “We have seen
strange things today.”
(COMMENTARY
The healing of the paralytic introduces a series of characterization of Jesus’ activity as teaching ex-
four controversy stories. The religious authorities, tends the emphasis on Jesus’ word that we have
the Pharisees and scribes, are introduced for the first traced in 4:15, 31, 36, 43-44; 5:3.
time. The general resistance Jesus met in Nazareth This time, rather than noting the press of the
now becomes much more focused, and a specific crowds around Jesus (as in previous scenes and
charge is considered: blasphemy. The story also as in Mark’s account), Luke reports that Jesus was
weaves together even more closely than earlier surrounded by Pharisees and teachers of the Law
scenes the twin themes of the power of Jesus’ words who had come from “every village” in Galilee and
and his power to heal. For the first time also faith Judea and from Jerusalem. This is the only refer-
and forgiveness of sins are introduced. ence to “teachers of the law” in the Gospels (but
In this story, as in the entire sequence that see Acts 5:34, where Gamaliel is identified by this
began with the healing of the leper in Luke title). There is still a great deal of debate about
5:12-16, Luke at the same time follows and adapts the role of the Pharisees in first-century Jewish
Mark’s account of these events. Since Mark seems society and in the villages of Galilee in particular.
to have been Luke’s only source for these ac- Josephus traces the Pharisees to the Maccabean
counts, the points at which he departs from Mark period.”! Whatever their political involvements
become all the more important. Originally the during the period of the Hasmoneans, by the first
story may have reported a healing (Mark 2:1-5a, century they appear to have been a non-priestly
11-12) without the debate about blasphemy and group concerned primarily with the teaching, in-
the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:56-10). By terpretation, and observance of the Law. If there
the time Luke became acquainted with it, how- were reports that Jesus was claiming a special,
ever, the story already combined the themes of personal authority derived from the Spirit that
teaching and healing that Luke has cultivated in enabled him to interpret the Scriptures, that he
was healing on the sabbath, or that he was
the preceding scenes. His redaction of Mark’s
violating the rules regarding contact with unclean
account, however, sets in relief the literary strate-
persons, it is entirely plausible that the Pharisees
gies he is developing in this section of the Gospel.
would have become concerned about Jesus’ teach-
5:17. As in the preceding scene, Luke’s most
ings and activities. There is still a great deal of
extensive and telling editing of the story occurs
uncertainty, however, about their role and author-
in its introduction and conclusion. The introduc-
ity in the villages of Galilee and their relationship
tory phrase (literally “And it happened one day
to the priestly authorities in Jerusalem. It is also
while he was teaching... .”) echoes the introduc-
tion to the story of the leper in v. 12. The 71. See Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 13.171.
122
unclear whether the religious figures gathered departure from Mark at this point suggests that
around Jesus in order to investigate him or Luke envisions a different style of house, and
whether they were genuinely interested in his apparently a different social setting. Mark says that
teaching. In other words, is their presence a sign the men dug through the roof—that is, they dug
of their opposition to Jesus or did that opposition through the reeds and baked mud that were used
arise later as a result of his claim to be able to to cover a Palestinian peasant’s house. Yet Luke
forgive sins? Once earlier Jesus had been seated says they removed the “tiles,” which would have
among the teachers of Israel (2:46-47), but this covered more affluent Hellenistic homes.
time they have come to hear him, and probably 5:20. Here the surprise comes: By underscor-
to examine his teachings. ing Jesus’ power to heal (v. 17) and the bringing
Luke’s note that they had come from “every of a crippled man to Jesus, the narrator has led
village” in the surrounding areas introduces an the reader to expect that Jesus will heal the
interesting tension with the earlier reports that man—just as he has healed others. Instead, Jesus
news of Jesus’ activities had spread through the pronounces the man’s sins forgiven. The first
area (4:37; 5:15). Not only have the reports reference to faith in the Gospel of Luke refers to
drawn crowds that have prevented Jesus from the confidence and determination of those bring-
moving about in the cities, but also now they ing the crippled man to Jesus—confidence that
have drawn the attention of the Pharisees, setting Jesus could heal him and determination to get the
the stage for the controversy stories that follow. man through the crowd. Jesus pronounces the
Equally significant is Luke’s comment that “the man’s sins forgiven, using a formula of forgiveness
power of the Lord was with him to heal.” The that recurs again in Luke 5:23; 7:47-48. To this
comment, which is not present in Mark, high- point the forgiveness of sins has been more closely
lights an aspect of Luke’s characterization of Jesus associated with John the Baptist than Jesus (see
and prepares the reader for the healing that fol- 1:77; 3:3), but Christian readers would already
lows. The use of “Lord” to refer to God rather have understood that John’s work was preparatory
than Jesus is consistent with Luke’s use of the and that Jesus was the one who brought forgive-
term throughout the infancy narratives (where the ness. In this scene, faith, healing, and forgiveness
term occurs 27 times). It also resonates with the are closely related. Jesus sees the faith of the men
reading of Isaiah 61 in Luke 4:18 and Luke’s who brought the paralytic, and he pronounces the
characterization of Jesus as being empowered by man’s sins forgiven. This surprise pronouncement
the Spirit (4:14) and commanding the unclean leaves unresolved the man’s paralytic condition
spirits with power (4:36). As the Messiah who while also aggravating the tension between Jesus
fulfilled the work of the prophets, Jesus had been and the Pharisees. A popular theological view
empowered by the Spirit (cf. the interpretation of interpreted physical afflictions as punishment for
Jesus’ healing in 4:38-41; 5:12-16; and hereafter sin (Exod 20:5; cf. Luke 13:2-3), but the relation
in 6:18-19; 7:7; 8:47; 9:2, 11, 42). between the two is ambiguous in this scene. Jesus
5:18-19. The introduction of the third set of does not treat sin as the cause of the man’s
characters (the paralyzed man and those who affliction. Rather, he uses the healing to confirm
bring him to Jesus) precipitates the exchange his authority to forgive sin.
between Jesus and the Pharisees. Luke omits 5:21. The response of the “scribes and Phari-
Mark’s report that the paralytic was being carried sees” (cf. 5:30; 6:7; 11:53; 15:2) is to question
by four men but adds that he was being carried Jesus’ authority to make such a pronouncement.
on a bed or stretcher. Luke also shows greater Luke states their questions in such a way that
sensitivity in describing him as “a man who was they focus the issue on Jesus’ identity: “Who is
paralyzed” rather than as “a paralytic.” The crowd this who is speaking blasphemies? Who can for-
around Jesus has become a barrier separating him give sins but God alone?” (see the similar ques-
from the man in need. In an act of persistence tions in 7:49; 8:25; 9:9). The punishment for
and determination that will be interpreted as faith blasphemy was death (Lev 24:10-16; m. Sanh.
(v. 20), the men go up on the housetop and lower 7.5). Blasphemy normally implied that one had
the paralyzed man down through the roof. Luke’s spoken the divine name, but it could also be
123
construed more broadly as failure to recognize readers rather than to the scribes and Pharisees:
God’s glory, ungodly speech or action, or violation “But to let you know that the Son of Man has
of God’s majesty. In the eyes of the religious authority on earth to forgive sins, he said to the
authorities, by claiming a divine prerogative Jesus paralyzed man, ‘I say to you, “Get up, pick up
had committed blasphemy. By adding the word your pallet, and go home!” ’ ””* Other asides have
for “alone” (udvos monos) to the question “Who been found in Luke 1:1-4; 2:22-23; 7:29-30; and
can forgive sins?” Luke heightens the authority 14:35, but these are not really comparable to this
that the scene confers upon Jesus. verse.’?
5:22-23. Jesus perceived that they harbored The grammatical construction at the beginning
these thoughts (cf. 4:23) and responded with a of the verse may also be read as (3) an imperative
question of his own. The entire exchange assumes addressed to the reader: “Know that the Son of
that the reader recognizes the importance of vin- Man has authority to forgive sins!—He said to the
dicating one’s honor and avoiding shame. By paralyzed man, ‘I say to you, get up and, when
presenting the paralytic for healing, the men who you have picked up your bed, go home.’ ””4
brought him lodged a positive challenge to Jesus’ At issue here are the syntax of the verse, its
honor. By healing the man he could vindicate his probable meaning, and whether this verse is an
honor. If he did not do so, he would be shamed. exception to the consistent pattern that in the
Jesus escalated the issue by claiming an even ‘ Gospels the title “Son of Man” occurs only on
higher level of honor—a divine prerogative. When the lips of Jesus. The common translation of this
the scribes and Pharisees questioned his right to verse (1) assumes the syntax is broken and places
such a claim, Jesus further escalated the conflict a dash before “he said to the paralyzed man.” The
by stating their question openly for all the crowd third proposal forces a construction that normally
to hear, placing the honor of the scribes and expresses purpose (“but in order that...”) to be
Pharisees in jeopardy if they could not sustain read as an imperative. The second translation
their charge. creates a disjunction between v. 23 and v. 24,
The question Jesus poses to the assembled and assumes a change in the speaker (the narrator,
authorities is nuanced with a fine ambiguity. On not Jesus} and a change in the addressee (the
the one hand, it would be easier to say that a readers rather than the scribes and Pharisees). It
person’s sins are forgiven than to pronounce him also places the title “Son of Man” in a comment
or her healed because the latter is subject to by the narrator rather than in Jesus’ speech, but
verification, while the former is not. On the other it relieves the need to conjecture that the syntax
hand, the claim to forgive sins was the higher is broken or that the subjunctive verb should be
claim because others had been known to have the read as an imperative. Thus none of the solutions
power to heal. Added to the nuance of Jesus’ is completely satisfactory, but the second, which
question was the lurking suspicion that the man’s treats the first part of v. 24 as a narrative aside,
sin and his paralysis were related. Was Jesus is the least objectionable since it allows for a
moving directly to the root cause of the man’s smooth reading of v. 24.
condition by forgiving his sin, dealing with the The Son of Man saying, whether a dominical
weightier rather than the lighter, the cause rather saying or a narrative aside, is important both for
than the result? the plot of the story and for its theology. In the
5:24. The first part of this verse can be read synoptic Gospels, Jesus speaks of himself as “the
in three ways. (1) Most translations treat it as part Son of Man” more frequently than with any other
of Jesus’ response to the scribes and Pharisees: “ ‘But form of self-address. Interpreters have suggested
so that you may know that the Son of Man has ‘that this title is derived from Dan 7:13, or that it
authority on earth to forgive sins’—he said to the renders an Aramaic circumlocution for “I,” or that
one who was paralyzed—I say to you, stand up
and take your bed and go to your home.’ ” 72. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX), AB 28
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981) 577.
Alternatively, (2) the first part of the verse may 73. See, e.g., Steven M. Sheeley, Narrative Asides in’ Luke-Acts,
be read as an aside or parenthetical comment to JSNTSup 72 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 154.
Riss John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, WBC 35A (Dallas: Word, 1989) 230,
the reader. Accordingly, the “you” refers to the ile
124
it is a title for an apocalyptic figure, as in 7 Enoch. for “immediately” from evdUs (euthys), which
The date of the relevant portion of / Enoch is occurs 42 times in Mark but only once in Luke, -
debated, however. It is clear, nevertheless, that to Tapaxpfya (parachrema), which occurs 10
the title was used in a generic sense for “man” times in Luke and 6 times in Acts but never in
in pre-Christian usage, and that Luke has added Mark. He uses participial phrases more skill-
it to sayings where the term does not appear in fully, and doubles the report of glorifying God.
Mark or Matthew (6:22; 9:22; 12:8; 12:40; First, the man who had been healed glorifies
19:10). For Luke, therefore, it is a familiar title God (v. 25); then, all who were gathered glorify
for Jesus. The question of what the title meant God (v. 26).
for Luke may be separated from the issue of what This story is rich and complicated both in form
Jesus meant in using it. Although the issue is far and in meaning. It presents Jesus both as healer
from settled, it appears that Jesus used the title and as teacher, and more as the Son of Man who
in its generic sense or as a common self-address. forgives sins. The healing is used to confirm an
Alternatively, he may have used the title because even higher authority—Jesus’ authority as the Son
it was not clearly defined and forced the hearer of Man—and all of this in the context of exami-
to search for its meaning. For Luke, “Son of Man” nation by the scribes and Pharisees, so that the
combines or alternates between emphasizing story serves both to develop Jesus’ character and
Jesus’ humanity and his future role as risen Lord. to advance the conflict between Jesus and the
In this respect, it is tensive and not susceptible to religious authorities.
any simple interpretation—a human being has Each of the Gospels points to a different mean-
authority to forgive sin, will be exalted, will judge ing in the conclusion to the story. In Matthew
the nations, and will raise the dead. Ultimately, the crowds glorify God for giving “such authority
the enigma resides not in the title but in the to human beings” (9:8). In Mark the response
person of Jesus. seems to magnify the healing: “We have never
5:25-26. The rest of the pericope follows the seen anything like this!” (2:12). Luke uses a term
form of a typical healing story: the action of the that occurs nowhere else in the NT: “We have
healer, confirmation of the healing, and the re- seen strange things [rapddo€a paradoxal today.”
sponse of the crowd. Luke has edited Mark’s The scene, therefore, extends the characterization
account of the ending of the story rather freely, of Jesus as the prophetic, miracle-working Mes-
improving its syntax and vocabulary; Luke avoids siah, adding now the themes of faith and the
Mark’s rough term for “pallet” (kpaBattos kra- forgiveness of sin and the designation “Son of
battos) and uses the diminutive of “bed” Man.” These strange and wonderful things prop-
(kAtvidiov klinidion) instead. He changes the term erly elicit the response of awe and glorifying God.
REFLECTIONS
The power and fascination of this story lie to a great extent in the way it combines significant
themes. The one who heals is also the one who forgives. Faith consists not in affirming a
particular tradition’s theological creeds but in the conviction that Jesus is able to mediate God’s
power. Because of the determination of friends, a man who could not come to Jesus on his
own is forgiven and healed. Faith is found not in the assembly of scribes and Pharisees from
all the surrounding region, but in four unnamed neighbors. The mystery of the relationship
between sin and human bondage or affliction is approached. While the mystery is not resolved,
The
the solution is revealed: Jesus came to free us from all that cripples, binds, and enslaves.
orthodoxy but on concern for meeting
priority in this story is clearly placed not on religious
stand in
human need. Because those who brought the paralyzed man to Jesus let no obstacle
because
the way of getting God’s help for him, their quest was rewarded. On the other hand,
quest was
the scribes and Pharisees were more concerned about defending orthodoxy, their
frustrated.
125
By doubling the reference to glorifying God at the end of the scene, Luke underscores the
irony that runs quietly through it from beginning to end. The authorities whispered blasphemy,
which technically could include anything that disparaged or denied God’s glory. Yet, by what
he says Jesus brings all of those present to glorify God. The charge of blasphemy, therefore,
is overturned by the response of the authorities themselves. Thus the real blasphemy, by
implication, is found in those who resisted Jesus’ ministry to the afflicted, bound, and oppressed.
As we have seen, Jesus worked in a context of suspicion that the man’s paralysis was a
result of his sinfulness. The scandal was that Jesus responded to the man’s need and pronounced
his sins forgiven. He did not even extract a confession of sin from the man before forgiving
him and healing him—a scandalous demonstration of God’s unconditional mercy. Today we
generally do not attach to illness the implication of sin, but many still view AIDS as God’s
punishment of practicing homosexuals and sexual promiscuity. AIDS, however, is no longer
confined to one segment of the population, and the theological implications of a God who
would respond to any sin by unleashing such a disease on humanity are so terrible that no
thoughtful person could ever seriously advocate this view. Nevertheless, this distorted theo-
logical view persists, offering the interpreter a ready analogy to the link between paralysis and
sin that was accepted by many in first-century Palestine.
In this story, by choosing to meet the man’s needs for forgiveness and healing rather than
attempt to guard God’s glory or heap condemnation on the victim, Jesus made the man whole
and brought glory to God by doing so. The defense of orthodoxy is not the goal of discipleship,
therefore—it is the by-product of ministering to.the needs of others.
Luke 5:27-32, Calling Levi, Eating with Outcasts

NIV NRSV
27After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax 27After this he went out and saw a tax collec-
collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax tor named Levi, sitting at the tax booth; and he
booth. “Follow me,” Jesus said to him, 28and Levi said to him, “Follow me.” 78And he got up, left
got up, left everything and followed him. everything, and followed him.
"Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at 29Then Levi gave a great banquet for him in his
his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and house; and there was a large crowd of tax collectors
others were eating with them. *°But the Pharisees and others sitting at the table? with them. The
and the teachers of the law who belonged to their Pharisees and their scribes were complaining to his
sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with
and drink with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?” tax collectors and sinners?” °Jesus answered,
3Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy “Those who are well have no need of a physician,
who need a doctor, but the sick. “I have not but those who are sick; 22] have come to call not
come to call the righteous, but sinners to the righteous but sinners to repentance.”
repentance.” 4Gk reclining
(COMMENTARY
The call of Levi and the pronouncements of force of this scene, the reader must understand
Jesus at the banquet that follows take us deeper the social values and functions attached to its
into first-century Palestinian society. More impor- characters and settings. The scene places Jesus and
tant, they expose the scandal of Jesus’ mission those who followed him between two sharply
and his call to discipleship. In order to grasp the different groups: the Pharisees and the toll collectors.
126
LUKE 5:27-32 COMMENTARY __
Direct taxes (poll tax, land tax) were collected God would transform his life. The term “he saw”
by tax collectors employed by the Romans, while (E8edoato etheasato) is one Luke has chosen in
tolls, tariffs, and customs fees were collected at place of the more common term found in Mark,
toll houses by toll collectors, the group that ap- but probably one should not read too much into it.
pears frequently in the Gospels and is not entirely Jesus’ call to Levi echoes Jesus’ call to the
accurately identified as “tax collectors.” Toll fishermen in Mark’s account (Mark 1:16-20).
collectors paid in advance for the right to collect Here Jesus, whom Luke has earlier introduced as
tolls, so the system was open to abuse and cor- the one who would fulfill the prophets (see 4:16-
ruption. The toll collectors were often not natives 30), now repeats the words with which Elijah had
of the area where they worked, and their wealth called Elisha: “Follow me” (1 Kgs 19:19-21; cf.
and collusion with the Roman oppressors made 5:11). As a disciple, Jesus chose a toll collector—
them targets of scorn. one who had no apparent qualifications and no
In contrast, the Pharisees lived out their devo- virtue or reputation to commend him. The call of
tion to God through the study and observance of God is sheer grace. Levi may even serve as an
the Torah and by maintaining purity in all matters. example of the “foremost of sinners.” If Jesus
Discipleship to a rabbi meant mastering the oral could call a toll collector, he could call anyone.
tradition, “the hedge about the law.””° Detailed No one else could have more dramatically illus-
interpretations of the Law guided the Pharisees in trated Jesus’ commitment to the rejected.
matters pertaining to food and meals, so the It is difficult to make sense of the names of the
Pharisees maintained a separation from others and disciples. Mark 2:14 identifies Levi as “the son of
ate only with those who, like them, observed the Alphaeus.” However, Levi does not appear sub-
laws of purity. sequently in the list of the Twelve, but Matthew,
Meals are especially prominent in Luke. Indeed, who appears in all the lists, is identified as “the
so frequent are meal scenes that someone once tax collector” in the Gospel of Matthew (10:3).
commented that in Luke Jesus seems always to One James, “the son of Alphaeus,” also appears
be on his way to or from a meal,’ usually with in each of the lists. Whether Levi/Matthew had
outcasts and those viewed as sinners (7:29, 31-34; a double name or whether these were two per-
14:1-24; 15:1-2; 19:1-10). Jesus himself cites the sons is, therefore, uncertain.
reputation he has earned: “The Son of man has Levi’s acceptance of the call is expressed in two
come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a ways. First, he left everything (cf. 5:11), arose,
glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and began to follow Jesus. Luke adds the refer-
and sinners!’ ” (7:34). Meals were important so- ence to forsaking everything—a point that be-
cial occasions. A banquet such as the one Levi comes important in the light of Jesus’ later
gave in Jesus’ honor expressed joy and celebra- teachings on poverty and wealth. The verb “to
tion. The meals during the ministry of Jesus were arise” (aviotnut anistemi) is also the same one
then part of the ritual and memory of the early Luke used in v. 25 to describe the action of the
church as it observed fellowship meals. Eating man who had been paralyzed. The same call that
together, and not fasting, became the way in lifted the paralytic from ‘his mat now lifts Levi
which the church remembered Jesus and declared from his toll station. Both events illustrate the
the coming of the kingdom. transforming power of God in the life of a sinner.
Luke moved directly to the value-laden settings: Second, Levi gave a great feast for Jesus (cf.
the toll collector’s station and then the banquet 14:13). The call of God requires a complete
at Levi’s home. Mark’s summary reference to reorientation of life. Levi’s leaving everything be-
teaching the crowd by the lake is omitted (cf. hind does not mean that he would not have had
Mark 2:13). Jesus spotted Levi, or looked intently the means with which to give a feast. It speaks,
at him, or looked at him with love foreseeing how rather, of his abandoning of the past to give
himself completely to following Jesus. Luke makes
75. See John R. Donahue, “Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at
Identification,” CBQ 33 (1971) 39-61. it clear (in contrast to Mark 2:15) that Levi gave
76. M. Abot 1.1. the feast in his own house. In a Galilean village
77. RobertJ.Karris, Luke: Artist and Theologian (New York: Paulist,
1985) 47. a “great feast” was a public affair. Even those who
127
were not invited gathered around to watch the had no problem with Jesus for calling sinners to
event, hence the presence of “the Pharisees and repentance. Had he called all the toll collectors
their scribes,” who were obviously not eating with to repentance, the Pharisees would have made
Levi’s friends. Similarly, Luke reports that a him a national hero. The offense was that Jesus
“woman of the city” approached Jesus while he was demonstrating God’s grace by not requiring
was eating in the home of a Pharisee (7:36-37). repentance before he would eat with toll collec-
Luke refrains from calling Levi’s guests “tax tors and sinners.
collectors and sinners” (Mark 2:15-16), allowing Jesus answered with a proverb and a statement
that phrase to be used by the Pharisees. Instead, that characterized his mission and purpose. These
he reports that a “large crowd of tax collectors two sayings are the climax of the whole scene.
and others [was] sitting at table with them.” Jesus The proverb of the physician is similar to that in
had commissioned the fishermen to “catch peo- Luke 4:23, “Doctor, cure yourself!” (cf. 8:43). Its
ple”; Levi was already drawing others to Jesus. meaning is largely determined by its context. The
Scribes were first those who could read and proverb states the obvious, but it leaves open the issue
write, and later those trained in the law. Since of the metaphorical identification of the healthy and
the law was both civil and religious (a distinction the sick. In context, Jesus justifies his association
the scribes would not have made), the scribes with the tax collectors and those reputed to be
were both lawyers and religious experts. Here sinners. In the previous scene the Pharisees had
Luke adapts Mark’s phrase, envisioning scribes first questioned and then glorified God because
who were allied with the Pharisees. To them, the Jesus had forgiven the crippled man and then
spectacle of the prophet-healer-teacher eating with healed him. If a healer was needed by the sick,
a crowd of tax collectors at a tax collector’s home not the healthy, then was not the forgiver of sins
was scandalous. They complained (literally “grum- needed among the sinners? The mission of the
bled” [yoyyvGw gongyzo|) to Jesus’ disciples; the righteous was thereby redefined. Discipleship con-
very sound of the Greek verb suggests its mean- sists not in separation (as was practiced by the
ing. Luke uses the cognate form of this verb Pharisees) but in association. Jesus’ worldview, his
elsewhere (15:2; 19:7) to describe the response definition of God’s work, and the value he placed
of those who took offense at Jesus’ association on other persons completely overturned his critics.
with toll collectors or sinners. The report that the The scene concludes with the same theme with
critics complained not to Jesus but to his disciples which it opened: Jesus’ call to sinners. The closing
may mean that Luke is aware that the church statement is tensive, opposing the righteous and
faced similar criticism—they ate together with the sinners, raising the question of who is actually
sinners and outcasts. Rather than associating with righteous and who is sinful, and forcing readers
those who would bring honor to them, they were to choose paradoxically to place themselves not
bringing shame upon themselves. Jesus at table with the righteous (the Pharisees) but with the
with sinners, therefore, is an apt paradigm for the sinners (those at table with Jesus). Luke empha-
life of the church. The Pharisees put the question sizes repentance, but it is Jesus’ purpose, not the
to the disciples, but Jesus gives the answer for condition of his fellowship with sinners. Neither
them. Luke’s addition of the phrase “and drink- acceptance on the condition of repentance nor
ing” to Mark’s “eating” brings the activity in line acceptance without the call to repentance charac-
with his characterization of Jesus in Luke 7:33-34 terizes Jesus’ association with sinners, though in-
and elsewhere (13:26; 22:30), but references to evitably the church has often erred on one side
eating and drinking occur frequently in Luke. The or the other. The preaching of repentance is a
offense was probably twofold. By eating with toll consistent theme that ties together John the Bap-
collectors, they were making themselves unclean, tist’s preaching (3:3, 8), Jesus (13:3, 5; 15:7, 10;
but further they were showing their acceptance 17:3-4), and the commission to Jesus’ disciples
of the toll collectors. The Pharisees would have (24:47).
128
REFLECTIONS
1. This brief scene is important because it describes not just the calling of one disciple but
Jesus’ call to every person. The stubborn stuff of history demands, however, that we wrestle
with the brute fact that Jesus called the outcast, the despised, and the hated. He did not move
through Galilean society, handpicking the most religious, most virtuous, or most popular to
follow him. He built his movement from the castoffs of society. The key is not to lose sight
of the specific scandal—that Jesus called a toll collector to follow him—when we reflect on
the general characteristics of the call to discipleship that are mirrored in this scene.
Our tendency to domesticate the tradition and find a place for the righteous at the table
can be seen in the history of Jesus’ saying: “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners
to repentance.” First, in Luke 19:10, we find a version of the saying in which the exclusion
of the righteous is dropped, removing the tensiveness from the saying: “For the Son of Man
came to seek out and to save the lost.” A later stage in its interpretation appears in | Tim
1:15: “The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world
to save sinners—of whom I am the foremost.” At this point the righteous have been included
in the mission to save and have been identified as the “foremost” of sinners. What remains
of the rejection of the righteous?
The scandal of this scene in the eyes of the religious people was that Jesus called for and
modeled a style of discipleship based on association with sinners rather than separation from
them. On a scale running from separation to association with the outcasts of society, where
would most churches fall? Again, by whatever interpretive sleight of hand, we have taken the
tradition of the Savior who came to seek and to save sinners and have evolved a style of
church life based on separation rather than association.
What good is a physician who will treat only the healthy and will not associate with the sick?
This scene calls us to a radical and daring reorientation of our understanding of discipleship. The
question the Pharisees put to the disciples is not a bad litmus test for faithfulness to Jesus’ mission:
When the righteous and religious ask why you are associating with the unwashed and the unwanted
(by whatever name), there the work that Jesus began is continuing.
2. Jesus’ call to discipleship is startlingly brief: “Follow me.” In contrast to other forms of
discipleship, Jesus called for a personal commitment. He did not challenge others to find a
teacher, as did the Pharisees. He did not call for commitment to a philosophy or set of teachings,
as did the street-corner philosophers. He did not call for commitment to a political program,
as did the revolutionary leaders. He did not promise rewards or allow for a trial period. His
call was absolute, unconditional, and person-centered: You follow me. Neither should the
context of the call be disregarded. The call to follow Jesus is given in a scene in which Jesus’
character and the character of Christian discipleship are further defined by his scandalous
association with tax collectors and sinners.
Luke 5:33-39, Debate About Fasting

NIV NRSV
They said to him, “John’s disciples often fast 33Then they said to him, “John’s disciples, like
and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, the disciples of the Pharisees, frequently fast and
but yours go on eating and drinking.” pray, but your disciples eat and drink.” 34Jesus
24Jesus answered, “Can you make the guests of said to them, “You cannot make wedding guests
the bridegroom fast while he is with them? But fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you?
129
LUKE 5:33-39
NIV NRSV
the time will come when the bridegroom will be 35The days will come when the bridegroom will
taken from them; in those days they will fast.” be taken away from them, and then they will fast
3¢He told them this parable: “No one tears a patch in those days.” *He also told them a parable: “No
from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If one tears a piece from a new garment and sews
he does, he will have torn the new garment, and it on an old garment; otherwise the new will be
the patch from the new will not match the old. torn, and the piece from the new will not match
37And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. the old. *7And no one puts new wine into old
If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the
wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. skins and will be spilled, and the skins will be
38No, new wine must be poured into new wine- destroyed. **But new wine must be put into fresh
skins. *°And no one after drinking old wine wants wineskins. *°And no one after drinking old wine
the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’” desires new wine, but says, ‘The old is good.’”?
aOther ancient authorities read better, others lack verse 39
(COMMENTARY
Luke has dropped Mark’s narrative introduction ment of prayer (Tob 12:8; Luke 2:27), and divina-
to the question about fasting, thereby allowing the tion or preparation for a divine revelation (Exod
conversation in the previous scene to continue. The 34:28; Dan 9:3). According to Luke (18:12) and the
exchange that follows is related to the preceding Didache (8:1), Pharisees fasted twice a week. The
material by motif (the meal setting), by theme (the early: church continued the practice of individual
relationship between Jesus’ piety and that of the fasts (Acts 13:2-3; 14:23) and later required fasting
Pharisees), and by catchword (“eating and drinking,” on Good Friday. And Jesus himself fasted during the
vv. 30, 33). The linkage Luke has created (cf. Mark temptations (Luke 4:2), and taught that fasting
2:18) is not altogether successful, however. The should not be practiced for the purpose of public
tension between the banquet setting and the discus- commendation (Matt 6:16-18).
sion of fasting remains, and the reference to “the Against this background, the present scene is
disciples of the Pharisees” in v. 33 is jarring if one all the more distinctive. It is the only passage in
is expected to assume that the question has been the NT that questions the value of fasting or
raised by the Pharisees who had questioned Jesus’ signals a change in the place of fasting in Christian
eating with the toll collectors. devotion. Luke makes the question concern both
The practices of Jesus’ disciples are set in con- fasting and prayer, but prayer is not mentioned in
trast to those of both John the Baptist and the the response. Jesus answers the question with a
Pharisees. Indeed, Jesus here takes a position that metaphor of a wedding and then adds three
is dissimilar from both the Jewish practices of the metaphorical sayings, each of which contrasts the
time and the practices of the early church. Fasting new with the old. The sayings, therefore, gener-
is “the deliberate, temporary abstention from food alize and escalate the issue. More than just the
for religious reasons.””* In the OT, fasting meant question of whether Jesus’ disciples will fast, the
complete abstention from food and water (Exod issue to which Jesus responds concerns the rela-
34:28; Deut 9:9). Originally, the only national day -tion of Christian discipleship to Jewish piety.
of fasting was the Day of Atonement, but later Since mourning was one of the reasons for
other fast days were added (Ezra 8:21-23; Neh
fasting, Jesus points out that mourning would be
9:1; Zech 8:19). Individual fasts were held for a
inappropriate in the context of a wedding (cf.
variety of reasons, including penance (1 Sam 14:24),
Matt 9:15). In the extended metaphor, which
mourning (2 Sam 1:12; 3:35-36; 12:16), reinforce-
easily lends itself to Christian allegorization (bride-
78. John Muddiman, “Fast, Fasting,” Anchor Bible Dictionary (New groom, friends, wedding mean Jesus, disciples,
York: Doubleday, 1992) 2:773. the earthly ministry of Jesus), Jesus may have
130
been claiming his time, the time of the coming ferments it will give off gas and stretch the wine-
of the kingdom, as a time of joy and celebration, skin. If the wineskin is old and brittle, it will break
not unlike that of a wedding. Fasting might be rather than stretch, and the wine will be lost. The
appropriate at other times (and Luke may have result of putting new wine in old wineskins is
an interest in grounding the Christian practice of that both the wine and the wineskins will be lost.
fasting in Jesus’ own pronouncements), but the Everyone knew that new wine required new
time of the announcement of God’s good news wineskins. The challenge of the sayings, therefore,
to the poor and the outcast was a time for is to see Jesus and his teachings as a new garment
celebration, not fasting. The statement “the days that cannot be used to patch up the old, or as
will come” is repeated in eschatological warnings new wine that will require new wineskins. By
later in the Gospel (17:22; 19:43; 21:6; 23:29). implication, it also defines fasting and other con-
Luke explicitly introduces the three appended
temporary religious practices as “old wineskins.”
sayings, or at least the first of them, as a parable.
The contrast, therefore, is a double one, between
Such introductions are common in Luke (see, e.g.,
wine and wineskins and between the old and the
6:39; 8:4; 12:16; 13:6). Luke significantly alters the
new. Those who took offense because Jesus’ dis-
wording of the first saying, underscoring the contrast
ciples were not fasting had failed to see that
between new and old and describing the destructive
something new had come, and they were unable
effect of tearing up a new garment to make a patch
to distinguish the wine from the wineskins. Their
for an old one. The point is thereby shifted slightly
concern was simply with patching the old garment
from the Markan form of the saying in which the
problem is not the destruction of the new garment and preserving the old wineskins.
in the process of trying to patch an old one but the That attitude is wryly exposed by the third
shrinkage of the new patch so that the patch is saying (v. 39). Those who drink old wine prize
ineffective and results in a worse tear. The new is it as better than the new. Jesus was not trying to
inherently different from the old; it has its own reverse the connoisseur’s judgment on the quality
integrity and will not match the old. of vintage wines (cf. Sir 9:10). Instead, he pointed
Similarly, no one would pour new wine into out with subtlety, wit, and humor that those who
old wineskins. Here Luke repeats the similitude drink old wines do not appreciate the new. Since
from Mark almost verbatim but still adds a clari- the old wines were more expensive, Jesus’ dry
fying and emphatic reference to the “new” wine humor may have also implied a critique—from
in v. 37. The point of this saying, which may well the perspective of the poor—of those who could
have been proverbial, is that as the new wine afford expensive tastes.
REFLECTIONS
Each successive controversy story has driven wider the rift between Jesus and his critics.
At one level this controversy concerns the place of fasting in Christian devotion. At that level
it allows a place for fasting but points to the overriding concern with the celebration of Jesus’
coming as the bridegroom who inaugurates the eschatological banquet (a theme to which Luke
will return in 14:15-24).
At a deeper level, Jesus’ metaphorical sayings declare that there can be no accommodation
between the old and the new. The new will supersede and displace the old. The kingdom is
greater than anything that went before it. Jesus’ ministry stands in the tradition of the prophets,
but it cannot be made to fit into the traditional patterns of piety of the past. Fasting was tied to
a social system of purity that was antithetical to Jesus’ extension of God’s grace to the outcasts.
The new could not be patched to the old. The entire system by which persons were judged clean
or unclean would have to go. As will become clear later (14:15-24), in the social strata of the
kingdom there are only those who accept the invitation to the kingdom and those who refuse
the king’s hospitality. All who eat at table with the Lord are “tax collectors and sinners,” but
131
if we are honest, most of us are mirrored in the crowd of as religious people who complained
about what Jesus was doing.
The challenge to the church has always been to feet the wine from the wineskins
and to be ready always to find new skins for the new wine. Repeatedly, however, the church
has fought to preserve its old wineskins. Traditional patterns of worship and organization
easily become confused with the new wine of Jesus’ announcement of good news to the
poor and his mission to the outcast.
The closing, wry observation may be one of the Gospel’s most piercingicMetene As Christians
in a privileged society, have we cultivated such a taste for the old wine that we despise the new?
How different the taste of one who would welcome even a cup of cold water! Have we had “the
good stuff” (houses, cars, freedoms) for so long that we have lost sight of the power of Jesus’
invitation to a toll collector to follow him, his touch of the leper, or his table fellowship with
outcasts? That is the celebration of a new vintage. The new wine has arrived bearing the date
“the acceptable year of the Lord,” and nothing in our relationships with others—especially the
wretched, despised, and overlooked among us—can continue as it was.
Luke 6:1-11, Debate art Sabbath

NIV NRSV
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the One sabbath? while Jesus? was going
grainfields, and his disciples began to pick through the grainfields, his disciples
some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and plucked some heads of grain, rubbed them in their
eat the kernels. 7Some of the Pharisees asked, “Why hands, and ate them. But some of the Pharisees
are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful on
3Jesus answered them, “Have you never read the sabbath?” %Jesus answered, “Have you not
what David did when he and his companions read what David did when he and his companions
were hungry? “He entered the house of God, and were hungry? *He entered the house of God and
taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it
lawful only for priests to eat. Andhe also gave is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and
some to his companions.” *Then Jesus said to gave some to his companions?” °*Then he said to
them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” them, “The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.”
°On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue 6On another sabbath he entered the synagogue
and was teaching, and a man was there whose right and taught, and there was a man there whose right
hand was shriveled. 7The Pharisees and the teachers hand was withered. ’The scribes and the Pharisees
of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, watched him to see whether he would cure on the
so they watched him closely to see if he would heal sabbath, so that they might find an accusation
on the Sabbath. *But Jesus knew what they were against him. °Even though he knew what they were
thinking and said to the man with the shriveled thinking, he said to the man who had the withered
hand, “Get up and stand in front of everyone.” So hand, “Come and stand here.” He gotup and stood
he got up and stood there. there. °Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it
°*Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, which is lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to
lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, ‘save life or to destroy it?” !After looking around at
to save life or to destroy it?” all of them, he said to him, “Stretch out your hand.”
‘He looked around at them all, and then said He did so, and his hand was restored. |'But they
to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, were filled with fury and discussed with one another
and his hand was completely restored. !'But they What they might do to Jesus.
were furious and began to discuss with one an-
Other ancient authorities read On the second first sabbath
other what they might do to Jesus. 5Gk he cOther ancient authorities add fo do
132
(COMMENTARY
The succession of discipleship, healing, and threshing, however, were considered to be forms
controversy stories in Luke 5:1—6:16 continues of work forbidden on the sabbath. The preparation
now with two sabbath controversy scenes. The of food was also forbidden on the sabbath.”
structure of this part of the Gospel is clarified in The reference to “some of the Pharisees” and
part by the introductory phrases, for the first the continuation of the motif of eating link this
three and the last three units of this section are scene with the preceding one. Having set aside
each introduced with the construction “And it came the system of purity as it pertained to eating with
to pass” (Kal eyeveto kai egeneto, or éyéveTto 5€ outcasts and fasting, Jesus now authorizes the
egeneto de) followed by a temporal clause. The provision of food for the hungry even if it means
parallelism is lost in translation, but the temporal violation of the sabbath. The effects of the new
transitions are still clear in 5:1, 12, 17 and in 6:1, era inaugurated by Jesus continue to ripple out-
6, 12. In the latter three units, the temporal clause ward, sweeping away old conventions, requiring
is followed in each instance by an infinitive. The the revaluing of ritual observances in relation to
two healing stories in 5:12-16 and 5:17-26 are persons, and eliciting opposition from the guardi-
balanced by the two sabbath controversies in ans of religious tradition.
6:1-5 and 6:6-11, which are introduced with the The Pharisees’ question focuses the issue Luke
phrases “One sabbath” (6:1) and “On another is concerned with: why the disciples were violat-
sabbath” (6:6). The calling of Levi at the center ing Pharisaic tradition regarding the sabbath. Jesus
of this section underscores the theme of disci- responds, challenging the Pharisees on their own
pleship in the opening and closing scenes: the call grounds, by arguing from Scripture. In Luke, Je-
of the fishermen (5:1-11) and the call of the sus’ question has an added sting, literally: “Have
Twelve (6:12-16). The banquet with toll collectors you not read this—what David did?” The event
and sinners celebrated the inauguration of the that Jesus recalls is recorded in 1 Sam 21:1-6.
David confronted the priest Ahimelech (not
new era and sharpened its conflict with the old.
Abiathar, as in Mark 2:26, a difficulty Luke reme-
Jesus’ announcement of the new priorities of the
dies by omitting any reference to the priest) at
kingdom leads him into conflict with the Pharisees
Nob (not the Temple at Jerusalem, as may be
over sabbath observance in the next two scenes.
intended by “the house of the Lord”). Jesus’
6:1-5, Plucking Grain on the Sabbath.
summary of the event in Luke highlights the
The first sabbath controversy is a pronouncement
authority of David to overturn the Levitical rules
story that presents the claim that Jesus as the Son with reference to the eating not just of ordinary
of Man is “lord of the sabbath” (v. 5). While the
bread but the bread of the Presence. Leviticus
story is drawn from Mark 2:23-28, Luke has 24:5-9 prescribes that the priests should arrange
simplified and clarified the description of the dis- twelve loaves of bread in two rows on the table
ciples’ actions, dropped the anachronistic refer- each sabbath “as a commitment of the people of
ence to Abiathar, and omitted the pronouncement Israel. ... They shall be for Aaron and his descen-
that the sabbath was made for humans and not dants, who shall eat them in a holy place, for they
humans for the sabbath (Mark 2:27). are most holy portions for him from the offerings
The actions of Jesus’ disciples provide the by fire to the Lorp, a perpetual due.” David
setting for Jesus’ pronouncement. The issue is claimed the authority to offer this bread to his
sabbath violation, not stealing from a neighbor’s men, vowing that they had kept themselves pure.
field. Hebrew law allowed a person to go into There is no reference to the sabbath in 1 Sam
another’s field and pluck the ears of grain so 21:1-6; the parallel lies in Jesus’ authority to set
long as that person did not harvest it with a aside prescriptions regarding sacred time, just as
sickle (Deut 23:24-25). Luke’s addition of the David had superseded the law regarding sacred
phrase “rubbed them in their hands” describes what bread. In each instance, hunger—human need—is
one would do with an ear of grain in order to separate
79. See Jub, 2:29; m. Sabb. 3.1-4.2; 7.2; 9.5.
it from the chaff before eating it. Both reaping and
433
given priority over ritual observance of what God (see 6:1). Luke tells the reader at the outset that
has decreed as sacred. the day is the sabbath and adds that Jesus went
The juxtaposition of Jesus with David in this into the synagogue to teach (cf. 4:15, 31; 5:3,
scene is consistent with Luke’s presentation of 17). Jesus seizes'a teachable moment and teaches
Jesus as the son of David. In the infancy narrative not just with words but by means of a dramatic
Jesus was introduced as one born to the house of life situation. On an earlier occasion there had
David (1:27) and who would receive the throne been a man with an unclean spirit in the syna-
of David (1:32). Later, Jesus will be addressed as gogue (4:33); this time there is a man with a
“son of David” (18:38-39) and will defend his withered, shriveled, or crippled right hand. Only
claim to be one who is greater even than David Luke adds that it was the man’s right hand, the
(20:41-44). The positive evaluation of David is hand normally used for work, gesturing, and
expressed most clearly in Acts 13:22, where greeting. Since one performed chores of bodily
David is described as “a man after my heart, who hygiene with one’s left hand, that hand was not
will carry out all my wishes.” to be presented in public.®'The man had lost the
In the Markan account on which Luke de- use of his good hand, presumably forcing him to
pends, Jesus affirms that “the sabbath was made use his left hand in public, thereby adding shame
for humankind, and not humankind for the sab- to his physical disability.
bath” (Mark 2:27). The effect of this saying is to Luke also adds that “the scribes and Pharisees”
clarify that sabbath observance was intended as a were present (cf. 5:21, 30), watching Jesus closely
gift for humanity, not as an onerous duty. The to see whether he would heal on the sabbath so
sabbath could, therefore, be violated by work that they might have something with which to
when that work met a real human need. The accuse him. The scene is set, therefore, with three
saying in Mark 2:28 seems to be an early Chris- parties, which allows the reader to interpret the
tian interpretation based on the christological scene from various perspectives. From the crippled
claims implicit in this scene: “So the Son of Man man’s point of view, Jesus is a potential healer or
is lord even of the sabbath.” Luke has omitted source of help, while the scribes and Pharisees pose
the saying in Mark 2:27, perhaps because it an obstacle or threat to the possibility that Jesus
seemed to permit too much latitude in sabbath might heal him. From Jesus’ point of view, each of
observance, or perhaps because Luke was more the other parties represents a competing priority,
concerned with the christological emphasis of the whether to heal the man or to keep the sabbath,
pronouncement in Mark 2:28. Regardless of thereby complying with the scribes and Pharisees’
Luke’s motivation, the effect of his handling of interpretation that sabbath observance takes prece-
the tradition is to place what probably was origi- dence, since the man’s condition is chronic and not
nally an early Christian interpretation of Jesus’ life threatening. From the scribes’ and Pharisees’
sabbath saying on the lips of Jesus: “The Son of point of view, the man with the withered hand
Man is lord of the sabbath.” In this saying “the offers the opportunity to put Jesus, who has violated
Son of Man” is clearly used in its titular sense as the sabbath in the past, in a no-win situation. If
a reference to Jesus, the risen Lord. Jesus heals the man, they can accuse him of sabbath
6:6-11, Healing on the Sabbath. The sec- violation. If he refuses to heal the man, he has
ond sabbath controversy story sets in opposition complied with their authority and denied his mission
the obligation to save life and the obligation to to “release the captives.”
keep the sabbath. At least according to later Because he knows what they are thinking (cf.
rabbinic tradition, one was allowed to heal on the , 4:23; 5:22), Jesus instructs the man to stand in
sabbath only when faced with a life-threatening their midst (cf. 4:35). Contrary to any suspicions
condition: “And whenever there is doubt whether the scribes and Pharisees may have that he would
life is in danger this overrides the Sabbath.”®° try to do something that would escape their
The introductory temporal clause is similar to notice, Jesus makes a public example of this man.
the one Luke has used repeatedly in this section All will see what he is about to do. Instead of
80. M. Yoma 8.6. 81. See 10S 7.15.
134
healing the man directly, however, Jesus asks a The scribes and Pharisees offer no response,
question, just as earlier he had asked the scribes and though Luke omits Mark’s report that they were
Pharisees a disarming question before healing the silent. Luke also omits Mark’s description of Jesus’
man who was paralyzed (cf. 5:22-23). This device anger and its justification (Mark 3:5). Jesus’ look
strengthens the parallels between the two earlier means that his question has scored a direct hit.
healing stories (5:12-16, 17-26) and the two sabbath All present can see that Jesus has silenced his
Stories here. The question also serves as a pro- Opposition. Having dealt with the scribes and
nouncement, again blending elements of a healing Pharisees, and in the process taught an important
miracle and a pronouncement story. lesson, Jesus turns to heal the man. No touch or
Verses 6-8, therefore, are preparatory for what cleansing process is needed. Just as Jesus had
follows. They set the scene, introduce the char- defeated his critics with a word, so also he heals
acters, pose the alternatives, and heighten sus- with a word: “Stretch out your hand.”
pense. Jesus’ question reinterprets the situation in As the scene closes, Luke notes the effects of
two respects. First, he sharpens the issue by Jesus’ words on each of the other parties. The
posing two sets of antitheses: to do good or to do man’s hand is restored, and the scribes and Phari-
evil, to save life or to destroy it. The second set sees are filled with fury—mindless rage. Luke
both interprets and escalates the conflict between omits Mark’s report that the Pharisees began to
the alternatives of the first antithesis. The tensive plot Jesus’ death with the Herodians (Mark 3:6).
power of the statement arises from its ambiguity. The Pharisees’ mindless fury (avota anoia) is not
Does the question apply to Jesus, to the scribes far, however, from the ignorance (ayvota agnoia)
and Pharisees, or to both? For Jesus, if to do good that will lead to Jesus’ death (cf. Acts 3:17;
is to save life, he should heal the man. The 13:27). Before the authorities move to charge
Pharisees, however, are also faced with a choice. Jesus, however, Luke will report two other heal-
How are they observing the sabbath: By doing ings on the sabbath that will sharpen the issues
good or doing evil? Specifically, while Jesus is and the conflict between the old and the new
seeking to do good, are they not doing evil? Are (see 13:1-17; 14:1-6).
they seeking to destroy him while he is seeking
82. See Robert C. Tannehill, Zhe Narrative Unity of Luke—Acts: A
to heal? The question places the alternatives in a Literary Interpretation, vol. 1: The Gospel According to Luke (Philadel-
new light. Sabbath observance is defined posi- phia: Fortress, 1986) 176.
tively, not in terms of what one will not do, but
in terms of what one must do.
REFLECTIONS
The two sabbath stories expose the conflict between competing values and duties. The issue
of the relative claims of the duty to meet human need and the duty to observe religious
traditions is still with us in various forms. When preaching on these texts, the interpreter
needs to avoid the temptation to set up the Pharisees as “straw men” representing a hollow
point of view. To do so leaves the conflict in the first century, where it will have little meaning
for contemporary Christians, and may even invite them to understand the texts as a Christian
polemic against Judaism. While Luke may be chronicling the tragedy of the rejection of Jesus
by the religious authorities, the point of identification for modern Christians is not with Jesus
over against the Pharisees, but with the Pharisees in their struggle to choose between competing
obligations and the difficulty in accepting Jesus’ “new” teachings.
the
Both sabbath controversies set God’s command to observe the sabbath in conflict with
or the
command to love one’s neighbor. Which takes precedence, the duty of sabbath rest
and
duty to feed the hungry and heal the sick? Can the love of God be separated from
of neighbor an expression of our love of God
juxtaposed with love of neighbor, or is the love
(cf. Luke 10:25-27)?
135
In the first story, the language of taking holy bread, giving it, and eating it reverberates in
Christian ears with the accounts of the feeding of the five thousand and with the observance
of the Lord’s Supper. Thus when Jesus gives bread to others in the course of the Gospel, it
is no less a holy act than the eating of the bread of the Presence. All bread becomes holy
when it is given to the hungry in obedience to Jesus.
Jesus’ penetrating question in the second story asks not only what is permitted (6:2) on the
sabbath, but also what is required. Can one honor God if one neglects human need? On the
contrary, then, does not the sabbath require that we take initiativeto restore those who are
hungry or sick to wholeness and health? Even more sharply, to refuse to do good, to save
life, is tantamount to a decision to do evil, to destroy life. From this perspective, rather than
defining piety negatively—by what one does not do or what one opposes—Jesus’ challenge
calls us to demonstrate our faith by the good and beneficial things we do.
The two sabbath controversies present Jesus as the lord of the sabbath, the bringer of the
new that sweeps away the old. The process of realizing the implications of that confession,
however, forces us constantly to confront the residue of the old in our own efforts to love
God and love our neighbor.
Luke 6:12-16, Choosing the Twelve

NIV NRSV
"One of those days Jesus went out to a moun- 12Now during those days he went out to the
tainside to pray, and spent the night praying to mountain to pray; and he spent the night in prayer
God. ':When morning came, he called his disci- to God. '*And when day came, he called his
ples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also
also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named apostles: ‘Simon, whom he named Peter,
named Peter}, his brother Andrew, James, John, and his brother Andrew, and James, and John,
Philip, Bartholomew, '°"Matthew, Thomas, James and Philip, and Bartholomew, '°and Matthew, and
son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Simon,
Zealot, 'Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was called the Zealot, '°and Judas son of
who became a traitor. James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
(COMMENTARY
The naming of the twelve apostles stands at a and the scribes and Pharisees have already shown
critical point in Luke’s narrative. Structurally, it that they represent the old and that, therefore,
concludes the section devoted to discipleship and they are no more fit for leadership in the kingdom
controversy that begins at Luke 5:1 and features than old wineskins are fit for new wine. The
the calling of the fishermen in the first scene events at this juncture of the Gospel foreshadow
(5:1-11) and the call of Levi at its center (5:17- the opposition that will lead to Jesus’ death and
26). By placing the appointment of the Twelve the witness of the apostles in Acts.
immediately after the controversies with the The appointment of the Twelve also prepares
Pharisees—and the dramatic distinction between for Jesus’ preaching to the disciples in the latter
old and new that these controversies exposed— part of chap. 6. Here Jesus turns from debates
Luke presents the appointment of the Twelve as with the Pharisees to instruction for those who
the constitution of a new nucleus for the people have been receptive to his announcement of the
of God, perhaps in deliberate succession to the kingdom. Luke’s highlighting of these develop-
twelve tribes of Israel. The conflicts between Jesus ments is set in relief by comparing his arrange-
136
ment of the material with that of the other evan- the early church in Acts and in the rest of the
gelists. Luke depends primarily on Mark, but Luke NT make it clear that many who were not among
has reversed the sequence of two paragraphs at the Twelve were still called apostles; Paul con-
this point: Mark 3:7-12, a summary statement; trasts the Twelve with “all the apostles” in his list
and Mark 3:13-19, the appointment of the of the appearances of Jesus {1 Cor 15:3-8); Paul
Twelve. By reversing these two, Luke is able to repeatedly claims for himself the title “apostle”
make the appointment of the Twelve the conclu- - (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1; 9:1-5); Luke calls Barnabas
sion of 5:1-6:16, on controversy and discipleship, and Paul apostles (Acts 14:14); and Paul refers to
and to use the summary statement as the intro- Andronicus and Junia as apostles (Rom 16:7). In
duction to the Sermon on the Plain. Matthew also Luke’s account of the Jerusalem conference, the
adapts the Markan summary statement in his phrase “the apostles and elders” occurs six times
introduction to the Sermon on the Mount (Mat- (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4), but the apostles
thew 5-7), but delays the appointment of the disappear from Luke’s account at that point.
Twelve until later in the Gospel (Matt 10:1-4). Two aspects of Luke’s characterization of the
John has neither a list of the Twelve nor anything Twelve stand out prominently: (1) the relationship
like the Sermon on the Plain. between the twelve apostles and the twelve tribes
Luke again signals the introduction of a new of Israel and (2) the role of the Twelve in the
scene by means of “Now it came to pass” leadership of the early church. The relationship of
(eyeveto S€ egeneto de) and a temporal phrase: the Twelve to the tribes of Israel becomes explicit
“Now during those days.” The significance of the in Luke 22:29-30, “I confer on you, just as my
coming scene is indicated both by its setting on Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, so that
a mountain and the report that Jesus spent the you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom,
night in prayer. The only other time Jesus goes and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve
up on a mountain to pray in Luke is the occasion tribes of Israel.” This association probably also
of the transfiguration (9:28), just prior to the start explains the importance Luke attaches to the
of his journey to Jerusalem. Prayer is a regular choice of Matthias to take Judas’s place as the
feature of Luke’s account of the ministry of Jesus twelfth apostle. In this process, the following
and the growth of the church, and references to criteria for apostleship are stated: (1) a man, (2)
prayer often occur in connection with significant who accompanied Jesus and the other disciples
turning points in this history (Luke 3:21, the during Jesus’ ministry and (3) was a witness to
coming of the Spirit upon Jesus; 9:18, Peter’s the resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8). Implicit in
confession that Jesus is the Messiah; 9:28, the the election process is also the requirement of a
transfiguration; 11:1, the Lord’s prayer; and commission (cf. Acts 9:15; Gal 1:15-16).8° In the
22:40-46, Gethsemane). It is not surprising, there- context of these references, the importance of
fore, that Luke adds a reference to prayer at this election also emerges clearly. Jesus “chose” the
apostles (Luke 6:13), just as God chose the twelve
point, even though Mark has none.
tribes of Israel (Acts 13:17; cf. Deut 4:37; 10:15).
In one verse, Luke refers to “the disciples,”
Similarly, Paul was “a chosen instrument” (Acts
“the Twelve,” and “apostles,” but the terms are
9:15), the church prayed to be guided to the
not synonymous and do not refer to the same
person God had “chosen” to replace Judas (Acts
groups. In Luke’s account, in contrast to Mark
1:24), and Peter was chosen to take the gospel
and Matthew, the Twelve are distinct from the
to the Gentile house of Cornelius (Acts 15:7).
larger group of disciples: “He called his disciples
Luke’s use of the term for “chose” (€khéyopat
and chose twelve of them.” In the next scene eklegomai) in connection with the appointment
Jesus is still surrounded by “a great crowd of his of the Twelve, therefore, is hardly incidental; it
disciples” (6:17). Luke also departs from Mark by designates the Twelve as witnesses and leaders
omitting Mark’s twofold statement of the purpose chosen by God, just as God had chosen the twelve
for Jesus’ appointment of the Twelve (Mark 3:14- tribes of Israel.
15). Instead, Luke declares that Jesus named the
Twelve “apostles,” thereby characterizing their 83. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX), AB
role as witnesses. The references to apostles in 28 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981) 615-16.
137,
The second facet of Luke’s characterization of Luke’s list of the Twelve also bears close inspec-
the Twelve—their role as apostles—stands out all tion. None of the four lists of the Twelve in the NT
the more clearly when one recognizes how sel- agrees exactly with any other (see Fig. 2).
dom the Twelve appear in the NT outside of the Each list tells a story, but one that we can only
synoptic Gospels. John mentions the Twelve only partially recover. While none of the lists is exactly
four times, and then without listing their names like any other, they are remarkably similar. All four
(6507 ,.770487 le 20324) eThe expression iathe traditions agree that there were twelve disciples, and
Twelve” designates the apostles only three times all four lists transmit the names in three groups
outside of the Gospels. Paul mentions the Twelve
of four. The lead name in each group is the same
only once, in the tradition of the appearances (1
in each list: Simon Peter, Philip, and James son
Cor 15:5); Revelation links the number twelve
of Alphaeus. Moreover, the first and second groups
with the apostles in 21:14; and the only other
reference to the Twelve is in Acts 6:2. If Luke of four names are the same in each of the lists, with
had not linked the Twelve with the role of the variations only in the sequence of the names. The
apostles in Acts, their place in the leadership of differences in the names included in each list
the early church would have been even more appear only in the last group: Matthew and Mark
puzzling and short-lived than it appears to be have Thaddaeus, Luke and Acts have Judas son
when Acts is considered. of James. Judas Iscariot, who is always last, is
Figure 2: “The Twelve” Identified in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts
Matthew 10 Mark 3 Luke 6

Simon, also Simon (to whom Simon, whom
known as he gave the he named
Peter name Peter) Peter
Andrew his James son of Andrew his
brother Zebedee brother
James son John the brother James
of Zebedee of James (to
whom he gave
the name
Boanerges, that
is Sons of Thunder)
John his brother Andrew John Andrew
Philip Philip Philip Philip
Bartholomew Bartholomew Bartholomew Thomas
Thomas Matthew Matthew Bartholomew
Matthew the Thomas Thomas Matthew
tax collector
James son James son James son James son
of Alphaeus of Alphaeus of Alphaeus of Alphaeus
Thaddaeus Thaddaeus Simon, who was Simon the
called the Zealot Zealot
Simon the Simon the Judas son Judas son
Cananaean Cananaean of James of James
Judas Iscariot, Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot
the one who who betrayed who became a
betrayed him him traitor
138
identified in Matthew and Mark as the one who had followed this sequence, placing Andrew
handed Jesus over; Luke is the only one to use last, since Andrew’s name was omitted from the story
the term “betrayer” (tpoSdtns prodotes). of the call of the fishermen. The group of three
The stories told about the names in the first group does not have the same importance for Luke that it
are more familiar to us. Matthew and Luke list does for Mark, since Luke does not separate them
together the names of the two sets of brothers, from the other disciples at Gethsemane (cf. Mark
recalling the story of the call of the fishermen. This 14:33; Luke 22:40). The sequence of the first four
story is recorded in Mark 1:16-20 and Matt 4:18-22. names in Acts 1 tells a different story; it foreshad-
Because Luke’s account in 5:1-11 features Peter and ows the prominence of Peter and John in the
the great catch of fish, James and John are men- narrative that will follow (Acts 3:1, 3-4, 11; 4:13,
tioned only in passing, and Andrew is not even 19; 8:14). The naming of Peter and John as the
named. The sequence of the first four names in two disciples who were sent to prepare the Passover
Luke, therefore, recalls a tradition that Luke has meal (Luke 22:8) prepares the reader for the appear-
obscured by his redaction of Mark 1:16-20. Mark ance of this pair in Acts. Each of the lists, therefore,
lists first the “inner three,” who are featured more reflects particular traditions about the disciples. Unfor-
prominently in Mark than in any other Gospel, tunately, we know so little about most of the disciples
although we would not have been surprised if Luke that we cannot reconstruct their stories.
REFLECTIONS
Several themes can be drawn from this brief report of the naming of the apostles that would
bear further theological or homiletical reflection:
1. Throughout the biblical record, God calls individuals for particular tasks. Sometimes the
person has gifts that are uniquely suited to the task (e.g., Samuel, Jeremiah, Barnabas), but more
often than not the person either discovers his or her gifts after setting about the task or succeeds
in spite of apparent shortcomings and obstacles (e.g., Moses, Gideon, David, Peter, or Paul). In
each case, however, the call begins with an experience of being addressed by God or an inner
conviction that God has called the person to serve God and the community in a particular way.
Usually, the community of faith recognizes God’s call of the individual, but again the recognition
may not come immediately, and sometimes not for years thereafter. Both the person and the
community of faith need to be alert, therefore, to the leadings of God’s Spirit.
2. If the number of the disciples is significant in relation to the twelve tribes of Israel, then
Jesus’ calling and appointment of the Twelve signals that the new movement that he began and
that resulted in the birth of the church stands in continuity with the community of Israel. One
may see here varying degrees of fulfillment, reconstitution, or replacement, but at a minimum one
may say that what God began in the election of Israel, God has continued to do in the calling of
persons to discipleship to Jesus. God is still calling together a people of faith through whom God
can bless all the peoples of the earth (Gen 12:1-3). Consequently, blessing and mission are vital
aspects of God’s purpose for the community of faith, whether it be Israel or the church.
3. Particularly in Luke, the call to follow Jesus is a call to imitate him, and in Acts we see
the disciples continuing to do what Jesus began during his ministry. Jesus blessed the poor
and the outcast; he ate with the excluded and defended them against the religious authorities.
matters the
Jesus showed compassion on the weak, the sick, and the small, and in these
, if discipleship
disciples had a particularly hard time in following Jesus’ example. Nevertheless
vital for the church.
and lordship are directly related, then the Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus is
he is. Ultimately, of
We can follow Jesus in the Lukan sense only when we see clearly who
and join the
course, the Gospel challenges each reader to respond to the call to discipleship
Twelve as followers of Jesus.
139
LUKE 6:17-49 OVERVIEW
LUKE 6:17-49, JESUS’ INSTRUCTION TO HIS DISCIPLES
OVERVIEW
The conclusion to the previous section (5:1—6:16) without comparing it to Matthew and noting what
and the insertion of a summary statement (6:17-19) is missing or different in’ Luke. While the Sermon on
at this point prepare the reader for the opening of the Mount extends over three chapters (109 verses),
a new section: Jesus’ instruction of his disciples the Sermon on the Plain is packed into part of one
(6:20-49). The previous chapters have led the reader chapter (30 verses). Despite the disparity in content,
through a section in which the focus was on chris- the sequence of the sermon in Luke agrees with that
tology and the announcement of the Messiah’s work of Matthew, giving rise to the assumption that there
(4:14-44) and then a series of controversy and call must have been a version of the sermon that predated
stories that introduced the disciples and illustrated both Matthew and Luke. It should be noted that at
various responses to Jesus (5:1-6:16). The coming this point in the Gospel Luke departs from Mark and
section reports Jesus’ teachings on the nature and
inserts ‘material not found in Mark. Hence Luke
demands of discipleship (6:20-49).°4
' 6:20-8:3 has often been called the Little Interpolation.
Luke’s account of Jesus’ Sermon on the Plain has
Luke’s editorial work, drawing from Q and other
been so overshadowed by Matthew’s Sermon on
sources, however, would not account for the parallels
the Mount that it is difficult to read the former
to the Sermon on the Mount illustrated in the synopsis
84. See John Nolland, Luke /—9:20, WBC 35A (Dallas: Word, 1989) 274. of the two accounts in Fig. 3.
Figure 3: Synopsis of the Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain

Matthew 5:7 Luke 6:20-49
9 beatitudes 6:20-23 4 beatitudes
6:24-26 4 woes
The salt of the earth (cf. 14:34-35)
The light of the world (cf. 8:16)
The law and the prophets (cf. 16:16-17)
Murder and anger (cf. 12:57-59)
Adultery and divorce (cf. 16:18)
Oaths
Retaliation 6:29-30
Love of one’s enemies 6:27-28, 32-36
Almsgiving, prayer
The Lord’s Prayer (cf. 11:1-4)
Fasting
Treasures (cf. 12:33-34)
The sound eye (cf. 11:34-36)
Serving two masters (cf. 16:13)
Anxiety (cf. 12:22-32)
Judging
Profaning the holy
God’s answer to prayer (cf. 11:9-13)
The Golden Rule (6:31)
The two ways (cf. 13:23-24)
Trees and their fruit
“Lord, Lord” (cf. 13:25-27)
The house built on rock
140
This overview quickly reveals five features of Our synopsis defines some of the basic units of
Luke’s work: (1) Much of what is present in Luke’s sermon, but it does not resolve the ques-
Matthew but absent in Luke concerns the relation of its structure. Because the sermon flows
tionship between Jesus’ teachings and the Law from one theme to-another in a rather loose
(e.g., 5:17-20 and the structure of six antitheses fashion, any structure is probably artificial, reflect-
in 5:21-48), matters that would have been of ing the interpreter’s reading strategy. Neverthe-
more interest to Jewish Christians than to Gentile less, the interpretive options are exposed by
Christians. It is difficult to tell whether these surveying the structures that have been proposed.
sections were added to the traditional sermon by Commentators have proposed dividing the sermon
Matthew or omitted from it by Luke. (2) Luke into three parts (6:20-26, 27-38, 39-49), four parts
has sharpened the edge of Jesus’ teachings on (6:20-26, 27-36, 37-42, 43-49), five parts (6:20-
wealth and poverty by refusing to spiritualize 26, 27-36, 37-42, 43-45, 46-49), or six: parts
Jesus’ words and by adding the four woes, which (6:20-26, 27-35, 36-38, 39-42, 43-45, 46-49).
are the only significant addition to the tradition All agree that the blessings and woes in 6:20-26
found in Matthew. (3) Luke has preserved the constitute the first section, which defines God’s
instruction dealing with loving one’s enemies, relationship to the disciples. Those who follow the
judging, bearing fruit, and heeding Jesus’ words three-part division have the strongest evidence to
(6:27-36, 37-42, 43-45, 46, 47-49). (4) The se- appeal to because the only formal divisions are
quence of the sermon in Luke runs parallel to the indicated by the address in v. 27, “But I say to
sequence of the material in Matthew, with omis- you that listen,” and the aside in v. 39, “He also
sions, insertions, and a slight change of sequence told them a parable.” This division also accords
in 6:27-36. (5) Some of the material omitted from with the character of the material in each section
the Sermon on the Mount is found elsewhere in of the sermon: blessings and woes (vv. 20-26),
Luke, but even here the material is often abbre- paraenetic exhortations (vv. 27-38), and parables
viated, as a careful comparison of the numbers of (vv. 39-49). Any other proposed divisions are
verses in the Lukan material and the Matthean based on changes in theme (e.g., at v. 36 or 37)
parallels reveals. While respecting the tradition, or breaks between individual units (e.g., at v. 43
therefore, Luke has been free to alter the se- or 46). In the analysis that follows, therefore, the
quence, length, and wording of his materials, tripartite structure is followed, and the breaks
thereby shaping the tradition of Jesus’ teachings between units are recognized as secondary divi-
for his own purposes. sions.
Luke 6:17-19, The Setting for Jesus’ Instruction

NIV_ NRSV
17He went down with them and stood on a 17He came down with them and stood on a
level place. A large crowd of his disciples was level place, with a great crowd of his disciples
there and a great number of people from all over and a great multitude of people from all Judea,
Judea, from Jerusalem, and from the coast of Tyre Jerusalem, and the coast of Tyre and Sidon. '*They
and Sidon, ‘who had come to hear him and to had come to hear him and to be healed of their
be healed of their diseases. Those troubled by evil? diseases; and those who were troubled with un-
spirits were cured, 'and the people all tried to clean spirits were cured. '’And all in the crowd
were trying to touch him, for power came out
touch him, because power was coming from him
from him and healed all of them.
and healing them all.
a18 Greek unclean
141
_ LUKE 6:17-19 COMMENTARY
COMMENTARY.
Luke has freely adapted Mark 3:7-10 (Mark him. The motif of hearing Jesus continues
3:11-12, the remainder of the Markan summary throughout the sermon (see 6:27, 47, 49), so its
statement, has already been used in Luke 4:41). introduction here sets up an inclusion with vv.
Luke picks up the emphasis on healing from Mark 47 and 49 and adds force to the sermon’s con-
and adds the focus on hearing Jesus’ teaching so clusion.
that the summary may serve as a Suitable intro- Luke preserves Mark’s list of surrounding ter-
duction to the sermon in the following verses. ritories, omitting only Idumea and the Transjor-
Because Jesus has been up on a mountain with dan. Because Luke does not present the crowd as
the Twelve, Luke notes that he descended to a being hostile, the threat of its crushing Jesus is
level place. Mark’s reference to the sea is omitted, omitted (cf. Mark 3:9). Exorcisms of unclean
and hence also his mention of the boat (which spirits will be a recurring feature in the rest of
will not reenter the story until 8:22). The crowd
the Galilean ministry (see 7:21; 8:2, 26-39; 9:37-
is more precisely identified as “a great crowd of
43). In this respect, these summary verses intro-
his disciples,” which picks up the theme of disci-
duce not only the sermon but also the next phase
pleship, further distinguishes the special role of .
of the Galilean ministry (cf. the summary state-
the Twelve, and prepares for Jesus’ teaching on
discipleship. “The people” (Aads /aos), who seem ment in 4:14-15). Luke’s notice that the crowd
to respond to Jesus more positively than the sought to touch Jesus because power issued from
“crowd” (6xAos ochlos), also reenter the story for him continues the characterization of Jesus as a
the first time since 3:21. This is a gathering of Spirit-endowed, charismatic healer. Charac-
those who have been responsive to Jesus’ work teristically, Luke also emphasizes the universal
and his call to discipleship. They have not come scope of Jesus’ power; the people came from all
to test Jesus or out of idle curiosity. They have Judea and Jerusalem, a// the crowd sought to
come, rather, to hear Jesus and to be healed by touch him, and Jesus healed a// of them.
Luke 6:20-26, Blessings on the Poor and Woes to the Rich

NIV NRSV
°L ooking at his disciples, he said: Z0Then he looked up at his disciples and
“Blessed are you who are poor, said:
for yours is the kingdom of God. “Blessed are you who are poor, |
71Blessed are you who hunger now, for yours is the kingdom of God.
for you will be satisfied. 21 “Blessed are you who are hungry now,
Blessed are you who weep now, for you will be filled.
for you will laugh. “Blessed are you who weep now,
2Blessed are you when men hate you, for you will laugh.
when they exclude you and insult you 22“Blessed are you when people hate you, and
and reject your name as evil, when they exclude you, revile you, and defame
because of the Son of Man. you? on account of the Son of Man. ?°Rejoice in
that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward
*3“Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors
great is your reward in heaven. For that is how did to the prophets.
their fathers treated the prophets. 4 “But woe to you who are rich,
for you have received your consolation.
24“But woe to you who are rich, 2° “Woe to you who are full now,
for you have already received your comfort. @Gk cast out your name as evil
142
LUKE 6:20-26
NIV NRSV
*°Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will be hungry.
for you will go hungry.
“Woe to you who are laughing now,
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
for you will mourn and weep.
2°Woe to you when all men speak well of you, 26“Woe to you when all speak well of you, for
for that is how their fathers treated the false that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.
prophets.
COMMENTARY
When Jesus speaks, he speaks specifically to his must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of
disciples. What follows is the standard for which God to the other cities also”—echoes Jesus’ an-
every disciple should strive. Nevertheless, the nouncement of good news to the poor in Nazareth
sermon does not begin with admonitions and (cf. 4:18). These earlier references to the poor, to
exhortations, but with the pronouncement of the kingdom of God, and to good news prepare
God’s blessings on the disciples. The beatitudes the reader to understand that the first beatitude
are active and performative; they declare God’s is tied to Jesus’ fulfillment of Isaiah 61 and that
favor on the poor, the hungry, those who weep, the teaching for disciples that follows is an exten-
and those who are hated. How fortunate they are sion of what Jesus has already been doing.
because theirs is the kingdom. At the same time, The blessing of the poor neither idealizes nor
the woes declare that those who prosper now will glorifies poverty. It declares God’s prejudicial com-
be judged. Alas, how terrible it will be for them. mitment to the poor. The coming of the kingdom
A note of eschatological expectancy pervades both will bring a reversal of fortunes (cf. Lazarus, 16:19-
the beatitudes and the woes; the word now (vbv 31). Indeed, the first two references to the kingdom
nyn) occurs four times in vv. 21 and 25, suggest- in Luke (4:43; 6:20) make it clear that one of the
ing the disparity between the conditions of this principal hallmarks of the kingdom will be the
age and the rewards of the age to come and redemption of the poor. They will be released from
underscoring the force of the future tense verbs. their degradation. Oppressed now, they will enjoy
Luke’s beatitudes differ from Matthew’s in that God’s blessings in the kingdom. The hungry will be
Luke’s speak in the second person rather than the fed, and those who weep (cf. “mourn” in Isa 61:2;
third person, they speak to real socioeconomic Matt 5:4; Luke 6:25) will laugh.
conditions rather than to spiritual conditions or Jesus’ teachings are scandalous because they
attitudes, and they declare God’s partisan commit- overturn every conventional expectation. The
ment to the poor and the oppressed. Luke in- scandal of his ministry was his association with
cludes the beatitudes that stand first, fourth, and outcasts, and it was on them that he pronounced
ninth in the Matthean sermon, while the blessing God’s blessing, just as Jacob had pronounced his
on those who weep has no parallel in Matthew. blessing on his sons (Genesis 49), thereby passing
The four woes correspond to the four beatitudes on God’s blessing of Abraham’s descendants (Gen
and follow in the same sequence. 12:1-3). Henceforth, God’s presence, advocacy,
6:20-23. The first beatitude sets the tone for and redemptive work will be seen among the
all that follows. Whereas the next two beatitudes poor. On the one hand, this declaration makes no
merely pronounce a reversal—the hungry will be mention of Israel, but on the other hand, it is
filled and those who weep will laugh—the causal consistent with the prophetic calls for justice for
section of the first beatitude declares that the the poor. In the OT God is the protector and
kingdom of God belongs to the poor. This is the defender of the poor.
second of thirty-two references to “the kingdom So scandalous is Jesus’ message that revisionist
of God” in Luke. The first reference, in 4:43—‘l interpretations began as early as Matthew’s
143
change of the “poor” to the “poor in spirit” and 17:1; 21:23; 22:22). Just as the beatitudes an-
his change of those who “hunger” to those who nounce God’s, favor, which is an occasion for joy
“hunger and thirst for righteousness.” Spiritualiz- among the poor, so also the woes announce God’s
ing the beatitudes grants those who are not poor judgment, which should be a cause for grief and
access to them, but it also domesticate s Jesus’ remorse among the rich. Alas, how terrible it will
scandalous gospel. be for them!
Hunger and weeping are treated as aspects of More than any other Gospel, Luke expounds the
poverty, preventing any romanticized view of the dangers of wealth. The woe picks up the thread
poor. God’s promise is that the hungry will be fed. from the Magnificat: God sends the rich away empty
This promise echoes the OT expectations of an (1:53). The rich are shortsighted and are lulled into
eschatological banquet for the elect (Ps 107:9; Isa a false security when they think that their present
25:6; cf. Luke 12:37; 13:29; 14:14-24), but the abundance ensures their future comfort (12:15-21).
beatitude will also be fulfilled by Jesus (6:1-5; 9:12- However, if there is a correlation between treasures
17) and by the early church (Acts 2:46; 6:1-4; 11:28- on earth and treasures in heaven, it is an inverse
30). Laughter and joy among the oppressed will one (12:21). The rich are apt to be so preoccupied
characterize the kingdom (Psalm 126). Although the with their possessions that they fail to respond to
verb used for “to laugh” (yeAdw gelao) does not God’s invitation (14:15-24). The rich who neglect
recur in Luke, joy among the people at what God . the poor at their gate will find that in the hereafter
was doing is a common theme in this gospel they will have none of the abundance they enjoyed
Weta 210; -6r1S: Ory to.7, 10; 24:40 52): in this life (16:19-31). Because the kingdom of God
The fourth beatitude is different in form and means God’s vindication of the poor, it is nearly
assumes the situation of the early church (see esp. impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom (18:22-
its reference to the “Son of Man”). It envisions four 25). Nevertheless, those like Zacchaeus, who was
situations in which the disciple may suffer abuse: rich (19:2), can still repent. Repentance for the rich,
being hated, excluded, reviled, and defamed. This however, requires more than just giving generous
beatitude has parallels in other early Christian ex- gifts (21:1-4); it means divesting oneself of wealth
hortations (1 Pet 3:14; 4:14), so it may well rest on that encumbers a genuine dependence on God (18:22)
an earlier form: “Blessed are you when you are and making restitution for unjust profits (19:8).
hated [v. 22a], for your reward is great in heaven Echoing Matthew’s warning to those who prac-
[v. 230].” The condition of being despised is then tice their piety for public approval, Luke declares
related to the church’s experience of being perse- that the rich have already received their reward in
cuted, and reward is promised for those who are full (6:24; cf. Matt 6:2, 5, 16). They can expect no
faithful to the Lord even when they are cast out more. Similarly, those who are full now will hunger.
and reviled (cf. Isa 66:5; Jas 2:7). The use of “Son Laughing here is not a joyful response to God’s
of Man” in this context clearly reflects the post-Eas- work, as it is in v. 21. It is instead the laughter of
ter confession of Jesus as the exalted Lord. Persecu- the fool who is both unaware and unconcerned
tion of the prophets, however, further demonstrates about the priorities of the kingdom. That laughter
the opposition of Israel’s religious leaders to God’s will turn to the mourning of remorse (Jas 5:1).
redemptive work, and the stirrings of rejection have Like the fourth beatitude, the fourth woe differs
already begun (3:19-20; 4:29; 6:11; see later 11:49- in form and follows the pattern of the last beati-
51; 13:33-34). The admonition to the reviled persists tude. A good reputation may be desirable (Luke
even in this redacted form of the beatitude: Rejoice 2:52; Acts 2:47; 5:13), but when a// speak well
in your oppression (cf. Jas 1:2) because God’s favor _ of you it is probably a sign either of the flattery
is with those who are reviled. accorded the rich or the popularity of the false
6:24-26. The four woes drive home the mes- prophets (Jer 5:31; Mic 2:11). The reference to
sage of the four beatitudes by following them in false prophets in 6:26 corresponds to the reference
sequence and stating the inverse. Drawing from to the persecuted prophets in 6:23, and the em-
its use in the Septuagint, Luke makes more fre- phatic reference to “their ancestors” (6:23, 26)
quent use of the “woe” form than do any of the identifies the flatterers and persecutors with the
other Gospels (15 times; cf. 10:13; 11:42-47, 52; ancestors who eventually suffered God’s judgment
144
in exile. The beatitudes and woes announce that reign there will be a radical reversal in the for-
the end is not yet; when God establishes a just — tunes of the rich and the poor.
REFLECTIONS
1. One of our problems today is that we have forgotten the power and the art of blessing.
The election of Israel began with God’s promise to bless Abraham and his descendants and
make them a blessing to all the peoples of the earth (Gen 12:1-3). It is no wonder, then, that
the words preserved on the oldest scrap of Scripture that we possess are the familiar words
of the blessing of Aaron in Numbers 6, which begin: “The Lorp bless you and keep you....”
The blessing of Aaron was recently found on a piece of silver in a tomb at Ketef Hinnom, just
south of Jerusalem, that dates from about 600 sce. The biblical message is not only that God
redeems us, but that God blesses us as well.
But what has happened to the art of blessing? The church has abandoned blessing to the
charismatics and televangelists. Families have given up the rituals and ceremonies of blessing.
Yet, nothing is more important to the development of children than to have their parents’
blessing. Without the sure knowledge of that blessing, children may spend their whole lives
seeking approval or the substitutes of success.
Beyond their individual words, the beatitudes call us back to the power of blessing and
being blessed. They are not first and foremost ethical demands or eschatological promises. They
are pronouncements of blessing. The word for “blessed” (axdptos makarios) means something
like “Oh, how fortunate.” God as Father rejoices in his children and voices his fondest hopes
for them. The beatitudes characterize God’s people both in their attributes and in the reality
that they are blessed by God.
2. The first beatitude describes a way of life, and we, who are not poor—not really—run
to Matthew in relief. But our preference for Matthew says much more about us than about
the words of Jesus. The poor are those whose desperate need and inability to help themselves
have driven them to turn to God for their hope, but we are now being called upon to recognize
that Jesus really meant the poor and not just the humble. Gustavo Gutiérrez, the liberation
theologian, has commented that
God has a preferential love for the poor not because they are necessarily better than others, morally
or religiously, but simply because they are poor and living in an inhuman situation that is contrary
to God’s will. The ultimate basis for the privileged position of the poor is not in the poor themselves
but in God, in the gratuitousness and universality of God’s agapeic love.”
Because we are not poor, this beatitude either mystifies us or leaves us feeling guilt rather
than joy. Like the rich young ruler, we hear the Lord’s word and go away sorrowful because
our possessions are many. Our pride and our ability to provide for ourselves have blocked the
channels of blessing. Our first response, therefore, needs to be repentance and a reordering of
the priorities we have set for our lives. But what a hard thing that is!
3. The last beatitude implies that those who live by God’s blessing will find themselves so estranged
from the world that others will persecute them. The world has little tolerance for saints who set their
sights on values and principles the world does not share. But those who are persecuted for participating
are
in God’s work will find that God has prepared the kingdom for them. These words of blessing
a two-edged sword. What is blessing and promise to the poor at the same time is a pronouncement
of judgment and woe to those who reject God’s sovereignty (see Reflections at 6:37-38).
Bible in the Third World, ed. R. S.
85. Gustavo Gutiérrez, “Song and Deliverance,” in Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the
Sugirtharajah (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991) 131.
145
LUKE 6:27-36
Luke 6:27-36, Love Your Enemies
NIV NRSV
27™“But I tell you who hear me: Love your 27“But I say to you that listen, Love your ene-
enemies, do good to those who hate you, “bless mies, do good to those who hate you, **bless those
those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat who curse you, pray for, those who abuse you. “If
you. °If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other
to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, also; and from anyone who takes away your coat
do not stop him from taking your tunic. *°Give do not withhold even your shirt. °°Give to everyone
to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your
what belongs to you, do not demand it back. *!Do goods, do not ask for them again. *'Do to others as
to others as you would have them do to you. you would have them do to you.
32“If you love those who love you, what credit 32“If you love those who love you, what credit
is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love is that to you? For even sinners love those who love
them. *%And if you do good to those who are good them. “If you do good to those who do good to
to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners
do that. °4And if you lend to those from whom ‘do the same. “If you lend to those from whom you
you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even
Even ‘sinners’ lend to ‘sinners,’ expecting to be sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good 35But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expect-
to them, and lend to them without expecting to ing nothing in return.? Your reward will be great,
get anything back. Then your reward will be and you will be children of the Most High; for he
great, and you will be sons of the Most High, is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. *°Be
because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”
3°Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” aOther ancient authorities read despairing of no one
(COMMENTARY
The first part of the sermon dealt with the 6:29-31. Four applications or illustrations of the
assurance of God’s blessing on the poor, with principle of love for enemies follow in vv. 29-30:
whom the Christian community is closely identi- turn the other cheek, do not withhold your
fied, and conversely, God’s judgment on the rich shirt, give to the one who asks of you, and if
who persecute the community. The next part of your goods are taken do not ask for them back.
the sermon, however, instructs disciples to love In context, the third example, giving to one who
their enemies. There is no place in the Christian asks of you, probably does not concern the duty
ethic for vengeance or retaliation. of a generous response to the destitute, but willing
6:27-28. The beginning of a new section of compliance to the requests of one who is more
the sermon is marked by an appeal “to you that powerful. In this sense, it is closely related to the
listen” (cf. 6:18, 47, 49). Verses 27-28 contain a fourth example. A positive form of the Golden
fourfold repetition; the principle of love for one’s Rule (cf. Matt 7:12) follows at this point, sum-
enemies is stated and then repeated in three ‘ ming up the preceding statements and illustrations
variations. The principle itself is found in a ver- of the principle of love for one’s enemy. By
batim parallel in Matt 5:44, and the last variation, moving the Golden Rule to this earlier position in
to pray for those who abuse you, is similar to the the sermon, Luke has placed it more directly in
command to pray for those who persecute you in the context of instructions regarding the disciples’
the same verse. The first and second variations of response to adversaries.
the principle have no parallel in Matthew. 6:32-36. Verses 32-34 contain a threefold
146
repetition of questions that expose the deficiency Both Jesus and Luke employed ethical teachings
of an ethic that does not extend love beyond the that circulated rather widely in parallel forms in
circle of those who are already doing good to one Greco-Roman, Jewish, and early Christian tradi-
another. Each time, the question has the same form: tions. In many instances, however, Jesus re-
(1) If you love/do good/lend (2) to those who sponded to and went far beyond the ethical
love/do good/lend to you, (3) what credit is that standards of his day, and Luke provided his own
to you? And each time, the answer is: For even interpretation of Jesus’ teachings in the composi-
sinners do the same. Verse 35 sums up the preced- tion of this sermon.
ing section of the sermon with three injunctions: One of the key issues is whether Jesus’ teach-
“love your enemies” (cf. vv. 27, 32), “do good” (cf. ings address the problem of oppression by the
wy. 27, 33), “and lend, expecting nothing in return” Romans and their collaborators—who were often
(cf. vv. 30, 34). The result of such love for one’s also rich—or whether Jesus’ teachings more nar-
enemies is great, but more—“you will be children rowly concern the relationship of Christians to
of the Most High” (v. 35). Here again, Luke’s those who reject their witness and persecute them
connection between loving one’s enemies and being for their adherence to Jesus and his teachings. The
children of God resembles the peculiarly Matthean latter has at least come to the fore more clearly
beatitude “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will in the Lukan context.
be called children of God” (Matt 5:9). The disciple’s Conventional wisdom dictated that one should
relationship to God is based on the axiom that the do harm to one’s enemies and good to one’s
child is like the parent, so the character of God friends,®° as a course of wisdom some philosophers
dictates that we practice a love that is not limited were already counseling that one should turn one’s
by others’ responses to us, for God “is kind to the enemies into friends.®” The Essenes at Qumran
ungrateful and the wicked” (v. 35). The injunction instructed their adherents to love or hate each
to “be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (v. person according to his or her share in the Council
36) adapts the OT command to “be holy, for I the of God or the Vengeance of God.*® Jesus’ admoni-
Lorp your God am holy” (Lev 19:2), which in the tion to bless those who curse you (cf. Matt 5:44;
Sermon on the Mount has become “Be perfect, Rom 12:14) reverses the extended blessing of the
therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt godly and cursing of the men of Belial.®° Striking a
5:48). Whereas this injunction stands at the conclu- person on the cheek was a form of insult—a physical
sion of the six antitheses in Matthew 5, here it caps expression of cursing or reviling. Turning the other
the section on love for one’s enemy by placing the cheek is an equally dramatic and physical form of
ethical imperative in a theological context. non-retaliation that breaks the cycle of violence and
The imperative to love one’s enemies can have rejects the principle of retaliation (cf. Exod 21:24;
a range of meanings, depending on its context: Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21). The taking of one’s outer
Win over your opponent by kindness; take the garment may refer to thievery, but in the context
moral high road; shame your enemy by your of Luke’s attention to how one should respond to
superior goodness; deflect hostility or prevent fur- one’s enemies it probably refers to the act of taking
ther abuse by offering no resistance; rise above one’s outer garment through legal action or as
pettiness; or demonstrate a Christ-like character repayment of a debt (see Exod 22:25-27; Deut
as a Christian witness. These interpretations are 24:12-13; Amos 2:8).°° The Golden Rule can be
neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive, but found in both its positive and its negative forms in
they do suggest the range of meanings the com- various sources, among them Tob 4:15; ms D of
mand can have. Especially when taken individu- Acts 15:29; Did. 1.2; and 6. Sabb. 31a (where it is
ally, the exhortations in this section can be applied attributed to Hillel). (See Reflections at 6:37-38.)
widely and virtually indiscriminately. The prob-
lems for interpretation concern the source of these 86. Lysias Pro milite 20.
87. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX), AB
teachings, their settings in the ministry of Jesus 28 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981), 637-38; Thucydides 4.19, 1-4;
and in Luke, and the determination of contempo- Diogenes Laertius 8.1, 23.
88. 10S 1.9-11.
rary contexts in which their application would be 89. See 10S 2.2-17.
90. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX), 638-39.
appropriate.
147
LUKE 6:37-38
Luke 6:37-38, Judge Not
NIV NRSV
37™Do not judge, and you will not be judged. 37“Do not judge, and you will not be judged;
Do not condemn, and you will not be con- do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.
demned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. **Give, Forgive, and you will be forgiven; “give, and it
and it will be given to you. A good measure, will be given to you. A good measure, pressed
pressed down, shaken together and running over, down, shaken together, running over, will be put
will be poured into your lap. For with the measure into your lap; for the measure you give will be
you use, it will be measured to you.” the measure you get back.”
COMMENTARY
The next two verses move beyond the theme of one’s bosom, chest, or the fold of a garment. In
love for one’s enemies and counsel non-judgmental . this instance, it probably describes the practice of
generosity. Two prohibitions (do not judge; do not holding out one’s garment or robe, as if to make
condemn) are followed by two positive commands a basket, and having it filled with grain (Ruth
(forgive; give; cf. Acts 20:35). The consequences are 3:15). Jesus promises that the law of one measure
stated with passive verbs (you will not be judged; will be invoked—not one measure for buying and
you will not be condemned; you will be forgiven; one for selling. If the passive again implies divine
it will be given to you), leaving the agent unnamed. action, then just as a buyer might specify that the
The passive construction may indicate divine action buyér’s measure would be used (to ensure that
(cf. 18:29-30), but it may also affirm that those who he or she was not cheated), so God will use our
are non-violent, merciful, non-judgmental, and gen- measure; the standard of our relationships with
erous toward others will indeed be treated in the others will be the standard God uses in relation-
same way. ship with us. This principle stands in tension with
The latter part of v. 38 draws images, and the earlier affirmation that God is merciful, but in
perhaps a saying, from the marketplace. The both instances the primary interest is the resulting
image is that of the sale of grain. The buyer ethic: Be merciful because God is merciful; be
gets his or her money’s worth: a full measure, generous because God will use the measure of
packed down, shaken, and running over. The our generosity toward others (or lack thereof)
word for “lap” (kdAttos kolpos) literally means when God judges us.
REFLECTIONS
Jesus’ teachings in this section of the sermon concern questions we all face: How do you deal
with enemies? Who should you love? The principle of retaliation lies at the very foundation of
law and can be traced back to the code of Hammurabi, which guaranteed the victim the right to
recompense yet set limits on revenge. As someone has said, however, the end result of the law
of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would be a society in which everyone is blind and
toothless! Disciples are not to let selfishness or ill will determine their response to mistreatment.
Any limitation on the standard must come from the best interest of the wrongdoer. Taken
legalistically, this principle could lead to anarchy, of course, but it presupposes the new quality of
relationships that Jesus makes possible. Give and forgive because you have been given and forgiven
so much! The command to love one’s enemy replaces the concern for limits on whom we treat
as neighbors with a concern for inclusiveness: Treat everyone as a neighbor. Such peacemaking
partakes of the very character of God. God’s love is indiscriminate.
LUKE 6:37-38 REFLECTIONS .
The first and second sections of Jesus’ teachings to his followers (6:20-26; 6:27-38) set in
place two principles that pose stumbling blocks for most modern Christians: the repudiation
of privilege based on wealth and the repudiation of retaliation that spawns violence. These
principles are diametrically opposed to the assumptions of the marketplace and the media that
shape American culture: The wealthy are privileged, and conflict requires that one show
strength through retaliation. Our heroes, therefore, are usually neither poor nor non-violent.
As a result, the power of materialism and the quest for possessions have increased dramatically
during this century, and violence in our homes, schools, and streets is rampant.
Jesus’ alternative is not sheer passivity but aggressive action to undermine hostility and
violence. He taught a new attitude toward possessions and persons in need and a new response
to hostility. The juxtaposition of the first and second sections of the sermon, which deal with
poverty/wealth and hostility respectively also suggests the relationship between the two
problems. Oppression of the poor, materialism, and the presumption that problems can be
settled by violence and force are all related. Jesus’ teachings to his disciples, therefore, call for
imaginative, aggressive, but non-violent responses to the problems that have borne such bitter
fruit in our own time.
Luke 6:39-49, Parables on the Meaning of Discipleship

NIV NRSV
3°He also told them this parable: “Can a blind 39He also told them a parable: “Can a blind
man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall person guide a blind person? Will not both fall
into a pit? “°A student is not above his teacher, into a pit? 4°A disciple is not above the teacher,
but everyone who is fully trained will be like his but everyone who is fully qualified will be like
teacher. the teacher. *'Why do you see the speck in your
41“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in neighbor’s? eye, but do not notice the log in your
your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank own eye? “Or how can you say to your neighbor,”
in your own eye? “How can you say to your ‘Friend,’ let me take out the speck in your eye,’
brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your when you yourself do not see the log in your own
eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your
own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of own eye, and then you will see clearly to take
your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your neighbor’s? eye.
the speck from your brother’s eye. 43“No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does
a bad tree bear good fruit; “for each tree is known
43“Nio good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad
by its own fruit. Figs are not gathered from thorns,
tree bear good fruit. “Each tree is recognized by
nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. “The
its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thorn-
good person out of the good treasure of the heart
bushes, or grapes from briers. “The good man
produces good, and the evil person out of evil
brings good things out of the good stored up in
treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abun-
his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out
dance of the heart that the mouth speaks.
of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the
46“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do
overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.
not do what I tell you? 471 will show you what
46“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do
someone is like who comes to me, hears my
not do what I say? 471 will show you what he is
words, and acts on them. *°That one is like a man
like who comes to me and hears my words and
building a house, who dug deeply and laid the
puts them into practice. “He is like a man build-
foundation on rock; when a flood arose, the river
ing a house, who dug down’ deep and laid the
burst against that house but could not shake it,
foundation on rock. When a flood came, the
torrent struck that house but could not shake 4Gk brother's 6 Gk brother
149
_ LUKE 6:39-49
NIV NRSV
it, because it was well built. “But the one who because it had been well built.? 4*But the one who
hears my words and does not put them into hears and does ‘not act is like a man who built a
practice is like a man who built a house on the house on the ground without a foundation. When
ground without a foundation. The moment the the river burst against it, immediately it fell, and
torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its great was the ruin of that house.”
destruction was complete.” a Other ancient authorities read founded upon the rock
(COMMENTARY
The third major section of the sermon is intro- series of parables that develop the theme of what
duced by the Lukan transitional clause “He also told is required of a disciple.
them a parable” (cf. 5:36; 8:4; 12:16; 13:6; 14:7; 6:39-40, The Blind Leading the Blind.
15:3; 18:1; 21:29), which is actually followed by a The proverb that a blind person cannot lead a
string of four parables (vv. 39-40, 41-42, 43-45, . blind person or else they will both fall into the
46-49). It has occasionally been suggested that this pit is found elsewhere in Matt 15:14 and Gospel
section is addressed to teachers of the church, but of Thomas 34. Jesus began his ministry announc-
no such transition is indicated, nor do the parables ing the recovery of sight for the blind (4:18), and
themselves require such a change of audience or later he will give sight to the blind (7:21-22;
theme. On the other hand, each of these parables 18:35-43; cf. 14:13, 21). If Jesus has concern for
probably circulated independently before they were blind persons, then literally and metaphorically his
collected in the version of the sermon that underlies disciples should be prepared to lead the blind (cf.
both Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6:20-49. Their present Acts 8:31, where the Ethiopian eunuch acknowl-
context, therefore, influences their interpretation, but edges that he needs someone to guide him).
each parable and saying retains its own voice, which Luke 6:40 effectively sums up Luke’s under-
at times refuses to be confined by its present context. standing of discipleship: When fully prepared, the
Nevertheless, in context one can discern the disciple will be like the teacher. Parallels to the saying
coherence of this section of the sermon. The blind occur in Matt 10:24-25 and John 13:16; 15:20,
person needs a guide (v. 39), so one blind person where it is related to humility and to persecution.
cannot lead another. In the language of the ap- Taken with the preceding saying, about leading the
pended saying, in order to be a guide, the disciple blind, the two sayings establish the appropriate status
needs to learn from the teacher (v. 40). The for a disciple; disciples must be better qualified than
second parable illustrates the same point in gro- those they seek to lead, but a disciple can never be
tesque imagery. Before one can help another, that greater than the teacher. The appropriate goal is to
one must attend to his or her own faults—first strive to be like the teacher. The parables that follow
remove the log from your own eye, then you in the rest of the sermon and later in the Gospel will
will be able to take the speck out of your neigh- define what that calling entails.
bor’s eye (vv. 41-42). Our efforts to be good 6:41-42, The Log in Your Own Eye. The
disciples, guides to the blind, or speck-removers second parable graphically contrasts the disciple’s
for our neighbor require a good heart—integrity _ faults with those he or she may find in others. In
of character. Only a good tree bears good fruit context it resonates with the admonition not to
(vv. 43-45). Being a good disciple, therefore, re- judge others in the preceding section (vv. 37-38).
quires far more than confession or lip service to Taken independently, the parable exposes the com-
the Lord. It requires acting on the Lord’s teaching, mon human predilection to point out even the
making it the foundation of one’s life (vv. 46-49). slightest faults in others while being blind to our own,
The alternative leads to destruction. The final even though they may be much greater (for parallels,
section of the sermon, seen in this light, offers a see Matt 7:3-5; Gospel of Thomas 26; Oxyrhynchus
150
Papyrus 1.26). Jesus’ parables often make a point mon early Christian confession (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor
by exaggeration—the size of the harvest, a camel 12:3; Phil 2:11). The question easily leads to the
through the eye of a needle. The term “hypocrite” parable of the two builders, which is interpreted
(uToKptTHs Aypokrites) originally referred to an as the contrast between those who hear and act
actor, one who played a role. There is no known and those who hear but do not act. James 1:22
comparable term in Hebrew or Aramaic. | develops the same theme in early Christian teach-
6:43-45, Producing Good Fruit. The third ing: “But be doers of the word, and not merely
parable is also found in a variety of contexts (Matt hearers who deceive themselves.” Following the
7:16-20; 12:31-35; Gospel of Thomas 45; 5; Ign. parable of one who looks in the mirror and forgets
Eph. 14.1). In Matthew in particular, this parable is what he or she looks like, James concludes, “[Be|
related to the warning concerning false prophets. not hearers who forget but doers who act—they
They will be known by their fruit. The metaphor of will be blessed in their doing” (1:25). Jesus has
fruit, for the character of one’s deeds is also found been addressed as “Lord” and “Sir” earlier in the
in the OT Jer 17:10; 21:14; -cf. Heb 6:7-8). Luke Gospel (5:8, 12), but this saying underscores the
does not relate the parable to the problem of false confessional sense of the title when it occurs later
prophets, however. Instead, he speaks to the truth in the Gospel (e.g., 7:6; 9:54, 59, 61).
that what is required of a disciple is not cosmetic Matthew 7:21-23 introduces the story of the
alteration, even removing a log from one’s eye, but two builders with a version of the same saying
a genuine goodness of heart. Finally, there is a followed by an eschatological interpretation, “On
consistency between who one is and what one does, that day many will say to me....” Both the
the inner and the outer, the invisible and the visible. indicative and the interrogative forms of the say-
The former will inevitably be exposed by the latter. ing can be found in other sources.” The verb for
Discipleship, therefore, requires not just good deeds. “to do” (totéw poieo) links the question in v. 46
It requires integrity and a purity of heart such as with the statement in v. 47, which contains three
one sees in Jesus himself. participles in series: the one who comes, hears,
The basic parable is stated in wv. 43-44, a vari- and does. Various characters are introduced as
ation of Matt 7:16-17. The nature of the tree ones who come to Jesus (7:7; 8:35, 41, 47). In
determines the quality of its fruit. Similarly, each each instance, an obedient response is possible.
plant bears its own kind of fruit; thorns do not bear Hearing, and more specifically hearing the Word
figs, nor brambles grapes (cf. Jas 3:12). The parable of God, is a recurring theme in Luke (5:1; 8:15,
then shifts through two variations. First, the lan- 21; 10:39; 11:28). The references to hearing at
guage of trees and fruit is dropped, the correspond- the end of the sermon (6:47, 49) tie the end of
ing elements of good person and good (deeds) are the sermon to its beginning (6:18, 27). Jesus’
introduced, and the person becomes a storehouse mother and brothers are later presented as exam-
of good or evil deeds (cf. Matt 13:52). Then, the ples of those who “hear the word of God and do
connection between heart and mouth is introduced it” (8:21), but in response to a woman who
at the end of v. 45 (cf. Mark 7:14-23; James 3, esp. pronounces a blessing on Jesus’ mother, Jesus
vv. 10, 12, 13, 17). What we say is a reflection of answers, “Blessed rather are those who hear the
who we are—i.e., what is in our heart. Or, as John word of God and obey [do] it!” (11:28). The
Nolland put it, summing up the entire parable: theme that concludes the sermon, therefore, will
“Whether one likes it or not, what one produces is continue to be significant later in the Gospel (e.g.,
finally a product of what one is.”®! 12:43, 47). Indeed, hearing and doing will be
6:46-49, Building on a Solid Foundation. important in the next scene (see 7:7-8).
Luke introduces the fourth parable and the con- The one who comes, hears, and does is likened
clusion to the sermon with the question “Why do to a man who builds his house well. Luke’s
you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what | version of this parable differs from Matthew’s
tell you?” The question contrasts right confession (7:24-27) in several respects: (1) Luke does not
with true discipleship, since “Lord” was a com- contrast the two builders as wise and foolish.
92. P Egerton 2.3; 2 Clem. 3:4; 4:2.

91. John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, WBC 35A (Dallas: Word, 1989) 309.
151
(2) In Luke, the good builder builds on a founda- or her model. Disciples will also tend to their own
tion (something that was unusual in Palestine), faults before presuming to help others with theirs.
while in Matthew the good builder builds on the A good heart is required of those who would bear
rock. (3) In Luke, the house is assailed by a good fruit, and obedience to Jesus’ words is required
flooding river (singular), while in Matthew the of those who would make Jesus their Lord. More-
threat is rain, floods (plural), and winds. over, the words of Jesus that are featured in the
The third section of the sermon declares the sermon bless the poor and warn the rich (6:20-26)
necessity of responding to the teachings of Jesus. and exhort his followers to love their enemies and
Lest the disciple be an example of the blind deal generously and non-judgmentally with others
leading the blind, the disciple will make Jesus his (6:27-38). These are the bywords of discipleship.
REFLECTIONS
Once there was a man who took great pride in his automobile. He performed all the routine
maintenance on schedule and kept the car clean inside and out. When he could afford to do
so, he began to trade cars every couple of years so that he always had a relatively new vehicle.
He also traded up, getting a larger, more luxurious car each time. Then he began to trade
every year so that he would always have the current model. Eventually, he got to the point
where he would buy a new car, drive it home, and leave it in the garage. He refused to use
it because he didn’t want to put any miles on it or run the risk of getting it scratched. So the
new car just sat—pretty, but never used. This could be a parable of the way some people
treat their faith, becoming less and less active in church while professing more and more
strongly that they are committed Christians.
Jesus knew that it would not be easy for anyone to respond to the call to discipleship. The simple
call, “Follow me,” meant such a radical change of life. Knowing how difficult it would be, Jesus
concluded the sermon with sayings that warn about the urgency of putting discipleship into practice.
1. The first danger threatening discipleship is the inclination to judge others, but how can
we help making judgments? What sort of persons would we be if we made no moral judgments?
We are constantly faced with the need to make discriminating moral choices. Learning to judge
between right and wrong and developing an acute sense of rightness and justice while being
able to spot hypocrisy, moral compromises, and oppression reflects a heightened. spiritual
awareness. What, then, does Jesus mean by this warning not to judge others?
Jesus was talking about a particular kind of judgment. The judgment in view is the inclination
to condemn others for their faults and failures. Disciples do not grow better by comparing
themselves with someone else. Some of us have gotten so sharp that we can put someone
else down with just the quickest flick of the tongue. We are black belts in innuendo and faint
praise. Not a speck in our brother’s eye escapes our notice. “The Smiths are fine people,” we
say. “I just don’t know why they bought a house in that neighborhood.” “Aunt Bea, bless her
heart, just never would let Arnold stand on his own feet.” “Oh, I love that dress. It’s just
right for you. Did you find it on sale?” Of course, we would never judge others. Sometimes
we merely “speak the truth in love” with a little too much relish. .
The warning not to judge and the invitation for the one without sin to cast the first stone are
twin sayings that cut the ground from beneath smug superiority. Their sin may not be ours, but
ours is just as bad. Judging is the sin of those who are blind to their own faults. It is the obsession
of those who seek to make themselves better, not by lifting themselves up, but by bringing others
down. It is the mock justice of those who presume to know what others should do. The login
our own eye hardly qualifies us to judge the faults of our brothers and sisters.
Uncommitted Christians masquerading as reliable guides are a serious danger to the church,
but the path of wisdom is to let the fruit they bear expose them. We can make two possible
152
responses to these words of Jesus. One is to be aggressive in trying to unmask wolves pretending
to be sheep (Matt 7:15). This response leads to suspicion, distrust, and accusations. The other
response is to be careful about who we follow, and look again to be sure that we are not
misguided ourselves. The calling of the Christian is not to “skin the wolves,” but to be obedient
and bear good fruit. Judgment belongs to the Lord, who knows our hearts even before the
fruit of our lives becomes evident to others.
Deuteronomy counsels that anyone who leads the people to worship other gods is a false
prophet (Deut 13:1-3). Similarly, Paul instructed the Corinthians that no one speaking in the
Spirit of Christ can say, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the
Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3). But Jesus pointed us even beyond the utterance of a true confession.
Only those who do the will of God are actually children of God. This is not a works theology,
though. Obedience and righteousness are the tests of true faith, not the means of our salvation.
2. Another of the dangers to discipleship is that of living our lives without a firm foundation.
The parable of the two builders vividly draws the contrast between doers of the Word and
those who are hearers only. Jesus’ teaching was different from that of the scribes and Pharisees
because he did not appeal to the authority of his teachers, nor did he dispute fine points in
the interpretation of the Law. Instead, he told vivid stories drawn from ordinary life. Everyone
had seen houses under construction, and they had also seen houses destroyed by storms.
Luke makes the point graphically. The wise builder “dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock”
(6:48). Dig deep and lay the foundation of your life on the Word of God. Keep digging until you get
in touch with the revelation of God in the person of Jesus, and then build your life upon that Rock.
How do you put your life back together after a storm? Many have found that faith in God
was the only thing that gave them the strength to keep going, renew their hope, and make
a new beginning. We do not choose whether we will face severe storms in life; we only get
to choose the foundation on which we will stand.
The alternative choice is both simple and disastrous. Hear the words of life, and pay no
attention to the teachings of Jesus, and you will be like the man who built with no foundation.
The house probably looked wonderful. Neighbors may have talked enviously about how
fortunate this man was to have been able to build a new house. The man in Jesus’ parable
built a new home, but he built it without a foundation.
So there it is. The sermon offers us a vision of life as Christ saw that it could be. Others,
too, have shared visions of what life could be and have called us to join them in making their
visions a reality. The difference is that Jesus both exposed the inherent nature of human life
and called us into a relationship with God, which empowers us to live this life of discipleship.
The mystery of discipleship is that it is as much receiving as it is striving.
LUKE 7:1-50, THE MESSIAH GREATER

THAN A PROPHET
OVERVIEW
The theme of the next three chapters (7:1- tween recurring questions about Jesus’ identity
9:50) is the identity of Jesus as the Messiah and repeated testimonies to him until finally Peter
greater than a prophet. Luke shows that Jesus confesses him to be the Messiah (9:18-20) and
continues the works of the prophets and fulfills the voice from heaven at the transfiguration de-
their words. Yet, he is greater than the prophets. clares, “This is my Son” (9:28-36).
The theme is carried along by the interplay be-
153
LUKE 7:1-10
Luke 7:1-10, Healing the Centurion’s Slave
NIV NRSV
When Jesus had finished saying all this in After Jesus? had finished all his sayings in
the hearing of the people, he entered the hearing of the people, he entered
Capernaum. There a centurion’s servant, whom Capernaum. 2A centurion there had a slave whom
his master valued highly, was sick and about to he valued highly, and who was ill and close to
die. °The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some death. 3When he heard about Jesus, he sent some
Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and
elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come
heal his slave. “When they came to Jesus, they
and heal his servant. “When they came to Jesus,
appealed to him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy
they pleaded earnestly with him, “This man de-
of having you do this for him, °for he loves our
serves to have you do this, °because he loves our
people, and it is he who built our synagogue for
nation and has built our synagogue.” °So Jesus
us.” °And Jesus went with them, but when he
went with them. was not'far from the house, the centurion sent
He was not far from the house when the ‘friends to say to him, “Lord, do not trouble
centurion sent friends to say to him: “Lord, don’t yourself, for 1 am not worthy to have you come
trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you under my roof; ’therefore I did not presume to
come under my roof. 7That is why I did not even come to you. But only speak the word, and let
consider myself worthy to come to you. But say my servant be healed. *For I also am a man set
the word, and my servant will be healed. °For | under authority, with soldiers under me; and |
myself am a man under authority, with soldiers say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another,
under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’
that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my and the slave does it.” °When Jesus heard this he
servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd
°When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, that followed him, he said, “I tell you, not even
and turning to the crowd following him, he said, in Israel have I found such faith.” '!°When those
“T tell you, I have not found such great faith even who had been sent returned to the house, they
in Israel.” '°Then the men who had been sent found the slave in good health.
returned to the house and found the servant well. aGk he
(COMMENTARY
The first story in this new section sets forth (Luke 6:20-—8:3). Matthew records a close parallel
themes that will be developed in the coming to the story (Matt 8:5-13) in much the same
chapters. Here Luke tells of a Gentile centurion’s sequence, following the Sermon on the Mount.
response of faith in Jesus. Jesus’ authority is lik- Matthew’s account is simpler and perhaps earlier
ened to that of the centurion, and Jesus heals the than Luke’s. In Matthew, Jesus speaks directly to
centurion’s slave. The emphasis given to the the centurion; in contrast, Luke has two delega-
power of Jesus’ word forms a fitting transition tions to Jesus—the elders and then the servants.
from the sermon on discipleship in the previous On the other hand, Matthew has embellished
chapter. Jesus’ pronouncement recognizing the centurion’s
A great deal of attention has been given to the faith by the addition of sayings that occur in Luke
parallels between this story and related stories in 13:28-29. Matthew’s story also lacks the: tension
the other Gospels. This pericope still falls within between the elders’ testimony to the centurion’s
what has been called Luke’s little interpolation worthiness and the centurion’s own humility. In
154
Matt 8:13, Jesus affirms that the slave will be the reader for the conversion of Cornelius, the
healed: “Go; let it be done for you according to God-fearing centurion in Acts 10 (see esp. 10:22),
your faith.” and the link between the two is established by
The healing of the nobleman’s son in John the report that this Gentile was a centurion. The
4:46-54 offers a more distant parallel. In this story words of the Jewish elders contrast sharply with
also there is an official (though not a centurion) the accusations of the Jewish assembly later in the
from Capernaum, whose son (not his slave) is ill, Gospel (cf. 23:2).
who sends a delegation to Jesus (as in Luke, not Jesus started toward the centurion’s home (cf.
Matthew). In John, however, the pronouncement Peter’s response in Acts 10:23) but was stopped by
is different since it introduces the Johannine con- a second delegation before he arrived. Structurally,
cern for the relationship between signs and faith. therefore, there are similarities between this story
In both stories, Jesus’ word is emphasized, and and the healing of Jairus’s daughter in Luke 8:40-56,
the healing occurs at a distance. where Jesus is approached by Jairus himself but is
More tenuous are the parallels between this stopped on the way to Jairus’s house by a delegation
story and the healing of the Syrophoenician reporting that his daughter has died.
woman’s daughter in Mark 7:24-30. Like the The second delegation, friends sent by the
Lukan account, however, the story depicts the centurion, carry a message to Jesus in the centu-
faith of a Gentile, records an extended dialogue rion’s own words (vv. 608). The verb translated
between the Gentile and Jesus, and ends with the “do not trouble” (oxv\\w skyllo) occurs again in
healing of a child at a distance. Although the the message of the delegation from Jairus’s house
Markan story preserves a separate tradition, it is in 8:49. The centurion’s words in 7:6, “I am not
structurally similar to the story of the healing of worthy” (ov yap ikavés ou gar hikanos), contrast
the centurion’s slave, and the parallels between sharply with the tribute paid him by the Jewish
the stories may have led to their being developed elders, who testified, “He is worthy” (déids éotiv
in similar ways during the period of their oral axios estin, 7:4; the Greek words are different
transmission. but synonymous). The effect is to place the cen-
When he concluded his words to the disciples, turion in an even better light. First we are told
Jesus returned to Capernaum (see 4:23, 31-41; that he valued his slave highly and was ready to
10:15). The centurion was probably serving Herod turn to Jesus for help, then that he was worthy,
Antipas rather than the Romans. Capernaum was and now his own words have shown him to be
a minor trade center and toll station where roads humble also, thereby setting up Jesus’ praise of
crossed in Galilee. Whereas Matthew records that his faith in v. 9. More is implicit here, however.
the boy was paralyzed, Luke describes his condi- The centurion’s words may well convey that he
tion as a grave illness. The earlier healings in was aware that the Pharisees regarded a Gentile’s
Capernaum provide a background for the centu- house as unclean and that a Jew would have been
rion’s request to Jesus. When he heard about defiled by entering a Gentile’s home.** Moreover,
Jesus, the centurion sent a delegation of Jewish the centurion clarifies that he only expects Jesus
elders to Jesus. The elders would have been the to say the word to heal his slave, thereby indicat-
“town fathers” or distinguished men of Caper- ing that he was confident that Jesus could heal at
naum, leaders in its synagogue. The action of the a distance and showing that he acknowledged the
centurion is consistent with both the elders’ tes- power of Jesus’ words, a point that Luke has
timony to him and his own declaration of unwor- already established for the reader (4:36, 39; 5:13,
thiness. He does not approach Jesus directly, but 24; 6:10). The parallel that the centurion draws
diplomatically sends the Jewish leaders, who between Jesus and his own status is designed to
could vouch for the merit of his request. The underscore Jesus’ authority to command. Just as
resulting picture is one of good relations among the centurion acts by commanding his subordi-
all parties—the centurion has built a synagogue nates, he expects no more than that Jesus would
for the Jews; the Jewish leaders speak well of him; do the same.
and the centurion is deferential toward Jesus. This
story, therefore, provides effective preparation of 93. M. Oholot 18.7.
155
LUKE 7:1-10 COMMENTARY _
The point of this story is Jesus’ affirmation of slave’s healing, while subordinated to the impor-
the centurion’s faith in v. 9, not the report of the tance of Jesus’ pronouncement, not only contin-
healing that concludes the story. Luke’s descrip- ues to underscore Jesus’ role as a healer but also
tion communicates Jesus’ surprise at the Gentile’s adds to it the confirmation of the centurion’s
faith, and his approval as well. Jesus’ praise of the confession that Jesus had the authority merely to
centurion’s faith contains no judgment on Israel. command and the slave would be healed. Jesus’
Instead, it affirms that whereas Jesus might have authority has, therefore, been elevated by the faith
expected to find an Israelite with faith, here he of a respected man of military authority.
has found faith in a Gentile. The report of the
REFLECTIONS
The story of the centurion’s faith is a brilliant gem in Luke’s cluster of scenes from the life of
Jesus. Especially when read in a Gentile-Christian context, the scene reflects appealing hues. Because
the centurion never actually meets Jesus or speaks with him, in contrast to the Matthean and
Johannine parallels, his request is like a prayer mediated to Jesus by others. Thus the story implicitly
promises that the Lord hears the prayers of faithful Gentiles and encourages us to believe that
when we turn to the Lord in need our requests will be heard also.
At the same time, the centurion serves as a role model for Gentile believers. He is concerned
about the well-being of those around him, even his slave. His generosity has extended to the
Jewish community as well—he built a synagogue. Although he has not met Jesus, because of
what he has heard about Jesus from others he has faith that Jesus can help, and he turns to
Jesus with his request. The centurion, therefore, is a model of compassion for weaker persons,
goodwill in the midst of divisive tensions between ethnic groups, and faith in Jesus as a result
of the testimony of others. He has respect for Jewish sensitivities about entering a Gentile’s
house, and although he is a man of position and power, he does not want Jesus to be troubled
by his problems. Seen in this light, the centurion is one of the unsung and unnoticed heroes
of faith in the Gospels.
The other side of the story is the power of Jesus’ word. A centurion was a powerful figure,
the commander of a military unit of a hundred soldiers, with all the authority of Herod or
Rome behind him. With such authority, he was accustomed to doing things by simple
command. He ordered soldiers and servants, and his instructions were carried out. His
understanding of power serves as a foil to set forth the greater power of Jesus’ word. Although
readers of the Gospel may never see Jesus or witness his mighty works, where his word is
present, there the power that was evident in his works also continues to be present. The Lord
we worship is mighty in word, responsive to our needs, and compassionate to heal.
Luke 7:11-17, Raising the Widow’s Son
NIV NRSV
Soon afterward, Jesus went to a town called 11Soon afterwards? he went to a town called
Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went
along with him. '2As he approached the town with him. '7As he approached the gate of the
gate, a dead person was being carried out—the town, a man who had died was being carried out.
only son of his mother, and she was a widow. He was his mother’s only son, and she was a
And a large crowd from the town was with her. aOther ancient authorities read Next day
156
LUKE 7:11-17
NIV NRSV
'SWhen the Lord saw her, his heart went out to widow; and with her was a large crowd from the
her and he said, “Don’t cry.” town. '*When the Lord saw her, he had compas-
“Then he went up and touched the coffin, and sion for her and said to her, “Do not weep.”
those carrying it stood still. He said, “Young man, “Then he came forward and touched the bier,
I say to you, get up!” '*The dead man sat up and and the bearers stood still. And he said, “Young
began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his man, I say to you, rise!” °The dead man sat up
mother. and began to speak, and Jesus? gave him to his
'oThey were all filled with awe and praised mother. '°Fear seized all of them; and they glori-
God. “A great prophet has appeared among us,” fied God, saying, “A great prophet has risen
they said. “God has come to help his people.” among us!” and “God has looked favorably on his
“This news about Jesus spread throughout Judea? people!” '’This word about him spread through-
and the surrounding country. out Judea and all the surrounding country.
a17 Or the land of the Jews aGk he
COMMENTARY
The story of the raising of the widow’s son at that much of the power of the new story comes
Nain represents an advance over the healing of from its resonance with the old.
the centurion’s slave in that healing has escalated The place to begin is by noting the importance
to resuscitation. The story also anticipates Jesus’ of the Elijah-Elisha parallels to this point in Luke.
response to John’s question: “The dead are raised” The “spirit and power of Elijah” go before John
(7:22). The primary effect of the story, therefore, the Baptist (1:17), and he is called “the prophet
is to underscore once more Jesus’ work as one of the Most High” (1:76). In his inaugural sermon
like the prophets, mighty in word and deed. in Nazareth, Jesus spoke of the work of Elijah and
Although there are Greco-Roman accounts of Elisha, citing Elijah’s ministry to the widow at
resuscitations,°* the resuscitations accomplished Zarephath in particular (4:26). As readers, we
by Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17:10, 17-24; 2 Kgs have been educated to the importance of Elijah
4:18-37) form the background for the raising of and Elisha for Luke’s understanding of John the
the widow’s son. When one story follows another Baptist and Jesus, but the relationships have not
well-known story closely, it creates an “echo ef-
been precisely defined.
fect,” a reverberation between the two stories, so The parallels between the two accounts are
94. E.g., Philostratus Life ofApollonius 4.45. unmistakable:
1 Kings 17:10, 17-24 Luke 7:11-17

“When he came to the gate “As he approached the gate of the town”
of the town” (v. 10)
She was a widow (v. 10) She was a widow
The widow’s son died (vv. 17-18) The widow’s son had died
Elijah cried out to the Lord (wv. 20-21) He had compassion for her
Elijah stretched himself out over Jesus touched the bier and said,
the child three times (v. 21) “Young man, I say to you, rise”
The life of the child came into The dead man sat up and began to speak
him again, and he revived (v. 22)
Elijah “gave him to his mother” (v. 23) “and Jesus gave him to his mother”
The woman said, “Now I know that you The crowd said, “A great prophet has
are a man of God and that the word of risen among us,” and “God has looked
the Lord in your mouth is truth” (v. 24) favorably upon his people”
The similarities in genre, structure, detail, and vo- becomes all the more important when one notes
cabulary establish the linkage between these stories. that this is the first time the narrator in Luke has
Because the similarities between the two stories are referred to Jesus as “the Lord,” a title that has
so extensive that they must be deliberate, the dif- occurred previously in dialogue (5:8, 12; 6:46;
ferences between Luke’s narrative and the story of 7:6) and will occasionally recur later in the Gospel
Elijah call for even closer attention. First, one notes narrative (e.g., 10:1, 39, 41; 11:39).
that in Luke a crowd is present—actually two Fourth, the crowd’s response is distinctive when
crowds, Jesus’ followers and the mourners (vv. compared closely with the response of the boy’s
11-12). In the previous story, Jesus had instructed mother in 1 Kings. In each case the response has
the crowd, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I two parts: The first affirmation has to do with the
found such faith” (7:9). Now in a story that echoes identity of Elijah or Jesus. The second affirmation
Elijah’s ministry to a non-Israelite (cf. Luke 4:25-26), affirms more generally the authenticity of God’s
the crowd, functioning like the chorus in a Greek work. In Luke, the first affirmation drives home the
drama, responds confessing, “A great prophet has point that the echoes with the Elijah story have
risen among us!” (7:16). made so clear: “A great prophet has risen among
Four other distinctive elements in Luke’s story us.” The crowd’s confession is not all that Luke will
call for attention. First, Luke notes that the son
want to say about Jesus, but it establishes the
was the widow’s “only son.” Although the term
‘important point that Jesus is a prophet who had
has an important christological function in John
fulfilled the work of the great prophets of Israel. In
(1:14, 18; 3:16, 18), Luke does not use it in this
coming episodes, Luke will both underscore Jesus’
fashion. Instead, Luke uses the term in two other
role as a prophet (7:18-23; 9:8, 19; 13:33; 24:19)
stories, for which there are Markan parallels
and affirm that Jesus is greater than both the proph-
where the term is not used. Luke heightens the
tragedy in each case—it is Jairus’s only daughter ets and John the Baptist (7:24-28; 9:18-20, 28-36).
(Luke 8:42), and the epileptic boy was his father’s Both John and Jesus continue the work of the
only son (Luke 9:38). prophets, but both are greater than the prophets,
Second, Luke records Jesus’ compassion for the and John announces Jesus as the coming one, just
widow. Somewhat surprisingly, however, Luke as Elijah was expected to announce the coming of
does not add references to Jesus’ compassion to the day of the Lord (Mal 4:5). This relationship will
his account but omits all the references from the be clarified in later scenes.
Markan material he uses (Mark 1:41; 6:34; 8:2; The second response of the crowd, “God has
9:22). The only other occurrences of the verb for looked favorably on his people,” resonates with
“to have compassion” (oThayxviCopar splagchni- earlier affirmations: Zechariah declared, “Blessed
Zomati) that remain are in Jesus’ parables (10:33; be the Lord God of Israel,/ for he has looked
15:20). Jesus’ reassuring words, “Do not weep,” favorably on his people and redeemed them”
demonstrate his compassion while heightening (1:68; cf. 1:78). Later, Acts 15:14 will serve as a
anticipation for the act he is about to do. counterpoint to this affirmation: “how God first
Third, whereas Elijah cried out to God and then looked favorably on the Gentiles.” The raising of
stretched himself out over the child three times, the the son of the widow of Nain, however, estab-
resuscitation is accomplished in Luke by a simple, lishes God’s favor on Israel first (cf. 4:25-26). The
authoritative command, “Young man, I say to you, report of this mighty act went throughout all the
rise,” again affirming the power of Jesus’ word. The land of the Jews. (For Luke’s use of “Judea” in
contrast between Luke and 1 Kings at this point this manner, see also 4:44; 6:17.)
REFLECTIONS
Death and life are the ultimate polarities of the human condition. Death represents the limit of
human autonomy and control over life and poses for everyone a reminder of the frailty and: brevity
of life. Persons we love pass from our presence, and we can do nothing to prevent their passing.
The widow’s only son had died. We do not know their names, his age, or the cause of his
death. In the end, none of that matters—only that she had already lost her husband and now
she has lost her only child. James says, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the
Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress” (1:27). Had Jesus passed by
that funeral procession on the other side when he had the power to stop it, none of his other
works would have made much difference. If religion has nothing to say to a grieving widow,
it has nothing to say.
Jesus’ words to the young man, “Be raised,” reverberate with other Gospel words in the
presence of death. The angel at Jesus’ own tomb will declare that another young man has
risen; the disciples will announce, “This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses”
(Acts 2:32); and Paul will connect Jesus’ resurrection with our own hope for life beyond death:
“Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died” (1 Cor 15:20).
The resurrection of Jesus, the one who had compassion on a widow in her grief, provides the
basis for the apostle’s confident vision of the end: “For the trumpet will sound, and the dead
will be raised imperishable” (1 Cor 15:52). The hope of the resurrection, therefore, is not
grounded in the fact that the widow’s son came back to life but in the fact that the one who
had the compassion to bring back the widow’s son has himself triumphed over death.
Luke 7:18-23, Signs of the Coming One
NIV NRSV
'8John’s disciples told him about all these 18The disciples of John reported all these things
things. Calling two of them, '°he sent them to to him. So John summoned two of his disciples
the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who was to and sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the
come, or should we expect someone else?” one who is to come, or are we to wait for
20When the men came to Jesus, they said, another?” 2°When the men had come to him, they
“John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask,
the one who was to come, or should we expect ‘Are you the one who is to come, or are we to
someone else?’” wait for another?’” Jesus? had just then cured
21At that very time Jesus cured many who had many people of diseases, plagues, and evil spirits,
diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight and had given sight to many who were blind.
to many who were blind. 7*So he replied to the
22And he answered them, “Go and tell John what
messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their
you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight,
sight, the lame walk, the lepers? are cleansed, the
the lame walk, those who have leprosy? are cured,
deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good
the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good
news brought to them. 7?And blessed is anyone
news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man
who does not fall away on account of me.” who takes no offense at me.”
aGk He oThe terms /eper and leprosy can refer to several
422 The Greek word was used for various diseases affecting the
skin—not necessarily leprosy. diseases
(COMMENTARY
The raising of the widow of Nain’s son, with has surfaced in Luke in the annunciations, the
its parallels to Elijah’s raising of the widow of blessings on John and Jesus, John’s preaching, and
Zarephath’s son and its acclamation of Jesus as a Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth: How are John and
great prophet, has focused sharply on an issue that Jesus related to the prophets? In that light, what
is the relationship between John and Jesus, and coming he had announced; or (4) as an effort
most important, who is Jesus? The question of either to encourage Jesus to make a public an-
Jesus’ identity will continue to play a guiding role nouncement of his identity or as a witness to his
in the narrative through Luke 9. The issue of the own disciples. Within the narrative world of Luke,
relationship between John and Jesus and their the second and third interpretations work best,
fulfillment of the prophets is the unifying theme because they do not require assuming motives
of the next three pericopes (7:18-23, 24-30, 31- that the story neither requires nor introduces. The
35), which appear in the same sequence in Mat- tension between the characterization of the com-
thew (11:2-6, 7-11, 16-19). Was Jesus the ing one as a fiery reformer in John’s preaching
fulfillment of the coming of Elijah (Mal 3:1; 4:5), (3:16-17) and Jesus’ response to John (7:22) lends
the coming of the Son of Man (Dan 7:13), the weight to the view that Jesus’ ministry took a
prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18), or the different course than John expected. What is at
Messiah? The first pericope features Jesus’ answer issue is how the promises of the OT would be
to John’s question regarding Jesus’ identity. fulfilled. Since Jesus’ work in raising the widow’s
Although Luke reported earlier that John was son so closely parallels Elijah’s raising of the dead,
in prison (3:20), Luke says nothing about John’s did that mean that Jesus was Elijah redivivus, the
imprisonment in these verses (contrary to Matt one promised in Malachi (3:1; 4:5)? Mark identi-
11:2). Verse 18 describes the setting for John’s fied John the Baptist as the fulfillment of the
question. When his disciples report to him what coming of Elijah (9:10-13; 15:35-36), but the
Jesus had been doing—“all these things,” i.e., Gospel of John seems to reserve that role for Jesus
information that we as the readers of the Gospel (1:21, 25). In Luke, Jesus continues the work of
already know—John calls two of his disciples (a Elijah, but he is one greater than the prophets.
detail not found in Matt 11:2 but probably based Ironically, if John expects Jesus to be Elijah, he is
on the requirement that there be two witnesses— mistaken—the Gospel has already assigned that
Deut 19:15; cf. John 1:35). role to John himself.
John’s question, “Are you the one who is to These observations also lead us to greater clar-
come?” is open to multiple interpretations, both ity about the meaning of “the one who is to
of the figure who is expected and of John’s reason come” in John’s question. Within the Gospel
for asking the question. We may treat the latter narrative the question echoes John’s an-
first. The report of John’s sending for an answer nouncement that “one who is more powerful than
to this question stands in tension with the more I is coming” (3:16). When he came, this one
prevalent NT portrait of John as a confident wit- would baptize with the Holy Spirit, clear the
ness to Jesus, especially in John (1:29-36; 3:26-30; threshing floor, gather the wheat, and burn the
but also in Matt 3:14-15), which may be an chaff. That role may well have been linked with
indication of its historicity. Whatever its origin, the expectation that Elijah would bring judgment
however, Luke uses the tradition to develop fur- (a refiner’s fire; Mal 3:2) when he came.
ther the theme of Jesus’ identity vis-a-vis the Luke allows the messengers to repeat John’s
prophets and John. In Luke, John has announced question (v. 20) and.then records Jesus’ answer
that “one who is more powerful than I is coming” both in deeds and in words, something the mes-
(3:16), but he did not identify Jesus as this one, sengers could see, and something they could hear:
and Luke does not explicitly say that John bap- “Tell John what you have seen and heard” (v.
tized Jesus (3:21). Thus John’s question may be _22). Luke has reported the healing of the sick and
read in various ways: (1) as failure of nerve in the exorcism of demons previously, but this is the
which John, in prison, is troubled by uncertainty; ‘first reference to anointing the eyes of the blind,
(2) as surprise that whereas he had expected a a sign that fulfills Jesus’ announcement in 4:18
fiery reformer and prophet of judgment, Jesus has and prepares for his response to John.
come bringing grace and healing; (3) as eager In v. 22 Jesus offers a list of six prophetic
hopefulness that Jesus is indeed the one whose activities. (See Fig. 4.) This compilation of references
160
Figure 4: Jesus’ Works in the Gospel of Luke as Fulfillment of the Prophets
Elijah/Elisha Isaiah Luke

the blind 2 Kgs 6:17 PASTAN SRE fe Hoh 4:18; 7:21
42:18; (cf. 6:39-42)
61:1 (LXX) 12 Se a) nySFRfe
the lame 33:6 I es ae
the lepers 2 Kgs 5:1-14 DiliOm Z312"to
(cf. 4:27)
the deaf DATERSElevee bei
42:18
the dead 1 Kgs 17:17-24 26:19 7:11-17; 8:40-42,
49-56
the poor 61:1 4:18; 6:20;
Lato. 21:
TOMS Sts FOr:
19:8; 21:1-4
shows that Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’ works blends lame and the deaf, both of which appear in Isa
elements from both the Elijah/Elisha cycles and 35:5-6.
the book of Isaiah. If John expected Elijah redivi- The raising of the widow’s son established once
vus, what Jesus offered was instead a fulfillment again Jesus’ credentials as a prophet; his answer
of the prophets that concentrated on the healing to John establishes his fulfillment of John’s an-
of the afflicted and the promise of redemption for nouncement of the coming one. What remains to
the poor. Luke has prepared for this scene care- be established more clearly is Jesus’ relationship
fully, as the addition of v. 21 would suggest (cf. to John and his identity as one greater than the
Matt 11:3). Prior to this point in the Gospel, each prophets.
of the six groups has been mentioned except the
REFLECTIONS
What do you do when Jesus turns out to be someone other than who you thought he was
or hoped he would be? John’s question, whether Jesus was the Coming One, suggests that
the reports John was receiving painted a different picture of Jesus than he had expected. Jesus’
final statement in this scene, another beatitude, “Blessed is anyone who takes no offense at
me,” speaks to all who discover that Jesus is not fulfilling their expectations. Blessed are those
who do not reject Jesus, even though he turns out to be someone different from what they
had expected, imagined, or hoped he would be.
No biographical issue in human history compares with the effort to understand Jesus. The
NT contains not one but four Gospels, four rather different portraits of Jesus. Church councils
developed confessions that state his role and identity. Artists have adapted Jesus to various
cultures and centuries. Historians and scholars have proposed first one understanding of Jesus
then another: a Rationalist who performed no miracles; a liberal who taught the Fatherhood
of God and the ethic of love in the human community; the eschatological prophet announcing
the end of the world; the existentialist calling for radical obedience and openness to the future;
the social reformer; the Galilean peasant—and the parade of portraits goes on. Individual
Christians often find that in their own experience Jesus turns out not to be the one they once
thought he was as childhood images give way to adolescent expectations and adult disappoint-
ments. Typically, each of us shares in John’s experience. We think we know who Jesus is,
161
what he is doing, and what he stands for, and then we are forced by experience to revise our
understandings: Are you the one, or should we look for another?
In a consumer-oriented age, the question reminds us that other religious options are open
to believers. Other religious traditions also claim the authority of revelation and inspired
teachings. If the Christian tradition has disappointed us, we tell ourselves that perhaps we
should try another.
Jesus’ answer first focuses the important issues and then invites a tolerant belief: Don’t take
offense. The important issue is that through Jesus, God has acted in human experience and
relieved the suffering of the poor and the afflicted. In Jesus, God has declared that God is on
the side of those who suffer and those who are in need. Color the portrait any way you will,
dot the i’s and cross the t’s of the christological creeds, finally what authenticates any claims
for Jesus is that God has acted through Jesus and that through Jesus we see God’s commitment
to the afflicted, the oppressed, and the impoverished. Those who confess Jesus share in the
joy that God has shown that God cares about human suffering, and we share in the call to
follow Jesus in ministering to those to whom he mediated God’s love. The alternative to taking
offense, therefore, is responding to Jesus’ call to follow him.
Luke 7:24-30, More Than a Prophet

NIV NRSV
4After John’s messengers left, Jesus began to 24When John’s messengers had gone, Jesus?
speak to the crowd about John: “What did you began to speak to the crowds about John:’ “What
go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A
the wind? **If not, what did you go out to see? reed shaken by the wind? *What then did you
A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who
go out to see? Someone‘ dressed in soft robes?
wear expensive clothes and indulge in luxury are
Look, those who put on fine clothing and live in
in palaces. ?°But what did you go out to see? A
prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.
luxury are in royal palaces. *°What then did you
27This is the one about whom it is written: go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and
more than a prophet. ?’This is the one about
““T will send my messenger ahead of you, whom it is written,
who will prepare your way before you.’ ‘See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.’
*81 tell you, among those born of women there is 8] tell you, among those born of women no one is
no one greater than John; yet the one who is least greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of
in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” God is greater than he.” *°(And all the people who
*°(All the people, even the tax collectors, when heard this, including the tax collectors, acknowl-
they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s edged the justice of God,’ because they had been
way was right, because they had been baptized baptized with John’s baptism. °°But by refusing to
by John. *°But the Pharisees and experts in the be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers
law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, be-
rejected God’s purpose for themselves.)
cause they had not been baptized by John.)
aGk he 5Gk him cOr Why then did you go out? To see
427 Mal. 3:1 ‘someone dOr praised God
COMMENTARY
This is the second of the three paragraphs that unit, Jesus responded to John’s expectations re-
define the role of John and Jesus. In the preceding garding Jesus’ identity. In this cluster of sayings,
Jesus responds to the crowd’s expectations regard- to the wilderness to find such a spectacle? Luke
ing John. In the process the roles of both John says nothing about John’s clothing, but Mark says
and Jesus emerge more clearly. he wore the rough camel’s hair garment of a
Verses 24-28 are drawn from Q material, with prophet (Mark 1:6; cf. 2 Kgs 1:8; Zech 13:4). If
a close parallel in Matt 11:7-11, whereas vv. 29-30 they went out to see a prophet, the crowds should
are a Lukan addition. The first part of v. 24 sets not have expected to find someone bearing the
the scene and links the sayings to the preceding marks of worldly success. At this point, Luke
scene. Three times Jesus asks the crowd what embellishes the tradition to drive home the point
they went out to see, and each time he suggests (cf. Matt 11:8): Those who wear fine clothing and
an inadequate answer (vv. 240-250). The first live luxuriously live in palaces—not in the wilder-
answer needs no rebuttal, but the inadequacy of ness. John was neither a weak reed nor one
the second answer is stated (v. 25c). The third compromised by worldly pursuits; he was a true
answer (a prophet) is accepted, but its inadequacy prophet. Hence the third answer. The people had
is asserted in three stages: first by assertion (v. 26c— gone to see a prophet, but what they had actually
“more than a prophet”), then by proof from Scrip- seen was one greater than a prophet. John’s role
ture (v. 27), and finally by means of a double as a prophet has been established (1:17, 76; 3:2).
comparison (with other men and with the least The thrust of this entire unit is conveyed by Jesus’
in the kingdom; v. 28). Verses 29-30 are best read assertion that John was more than a prophet. As
as a comment or narrative aside rather than as confirmation of that assertion, quotations from
added sayings by Jesus. Scripture follow. The verse is a composite that
A historical link between these sayings and the draws from and resonates with several other sig-
previous scene is plausible, though in their present nificant verses:
form the sayings reflect the theological influence
of the early Christian community and the stair- fakes 7:27, “See, | am sending my
step parallelism by which Luke has compared messenger ahead of you,
Jesus and John from their births, while elevating who will prepare your way
Jesus over John. The crowds have served alter- before you.”
nately as a chorus (7:16) and as an audience (7:9, Malachi 3:1 “See, I am sending my
11-12). Jesus’ address to the crowd here implicitly messenger to prepare (MT)
links them with the crowd that went out to John the way before me.”
in the wilderness (3:7, 10). What did they go out
Exodus 23:20 “J am going to send an
to see? Implicitly at least, and by virtue of the
angel in front of you, to
references to John in the preceding paragraph, the
guard you on the way and
question asks for a clarification of who John was. to bring you to the place
The wilderness has been the place where John that I have prepared.”
was in earlier contexts (1:80; 3:2, 4).
The first answer Jesus suggests is “a reed shaken Isaiah 40:3 “A voice cries out: ‘In the
by the wind” (kd\ajov UT dvéou cadevopLEvov wilderness prepare the way
kalamon hypo anemou saleuomenon). Each of of the Lorp.’”
the terms in this phrase suggests weakness, vac- Luke 1:17 “With the spirit and power
illation, or fear (cf. 21:25-26; Eph 4:14). One of Elijah he will go before
might expect to see reeds blown by the wind in him [the Lord]... to make
the wilderness, but who would go out to see such ready a people prepared for
a thing? The second answer suggests one who has the Lord.”
risen to power and wealth by human standards:
“someone dressed in soft robes.” In a society in Luke 1:76 “And you, child, will be
which many had only one garment that they wore called the prophet of the
Most High; for you will go
every day, fine clothes were a sure sign of wealth
before the Lord to prepare
(see Jas’ 2:2;°5:1-2;'1 Pet 3:3). One might go to
his ways.”
see a person in fine clothes, but who would go
163
Luke 3:4 “The voice of one crying siah. That understanding, however, is underscored
out in the wilderness: by Luke’s presentation of John and by the reso-
‘Prepare the way of nance of this verse with the others listed above.
the Lord.” Therefore, the verse shows why John was indeed
“more than a prophet.”
The verse that follows (v. 28) both offers Jesus’
Jesus’ citation of Scripture, therefore, echoes these
conclusion from the verse of Scripture he has
earlier contexts, both in the OT and earlier in Luke.
quoted and lifts the characterization of John to a
The effect is to identify not himself but John with
new plane. No one is greater than John—no
the expected messenger of the Lord, who would
prophet, no person dressed in soft clothes. On the
prepare the way. By implication, therefore, John—
not Jesus—is Elijah (Mal 4:5), but Luke does not other hand, John was a forerunner announcing
make this identification explicit, as Matthew does the Messiah, who would inaugurate the coming
(11:14). Thus John is greater than a prophet, be- kingdom. Therefore, as one outside the kingdom,
cause he is the messenger and forerunner of the John is less than the least within the kingdom.
Lord. There is no evidence from pre-Christian Jewish The effect of this chain of relationships is to
sources that Elijah’s role was interpreted as the elevate both John and Jesus. John was great; Jesus
forerunner for the Messiah. Rather, that seems to was greater—the same theme Luke developed in
have been an early Christian inference: Since John * the infancy narrative. Near the surface, however,
was the forerunner of Jesus, and Jesus was the is the reminder that ultimately the only status that
Messiah, then John was the forerunner of the Mes- matters is one’s status with God.
REFLECTIONS
Image, popular appeal, and religious authority often mix in powerful and destructive ways.
Televangelists with star-quality appeal every year bilk thousands of gullible believers out of
dollars they cannot spare. Cult leaders mix a forceful personality, the assurance of divine
authority, and the social pressures of the community to forge an irrational control over the
lives of cult members. At times the fascination with guns and sex is mixed in as well. What
makes people so vulnerable to such figures? What did they go out to see?
We might reflect on our need for authority figures, the sense of identity that comes from
being part of a community or movement, and the influence of culture on our perception of
what is religious. These verses force a more personal question on us, however: What did you
go out looking for? What is it that you expect to fulfill your spiritual needs? What is the shape
of that vacuum or hunger that you are seeking to fill?
Jesus’ suggestions of inadequate answers call us to recognize the inadequacy of our efforts
to fill that need. If we have turned to human figures or movements, they can be likened to
reeds shaken by the wind. If we have turned to charismatic figures with wealth, image, and
all the trappings of success, they are nothing more than someone dressed in soft clothes. Are
we looking for a prophet? Then what legitimates the prophet?
Look at the relative ranking set up by Jesus’ words and the evangelist’s comment that follows
in vv. 29-30. From the least to the greatest, the figures can be arranged as follows: a reed
shaken by the wind, someone in soft robes, a prophet, John—the forerunner, then the least
in the kingdom of God, including tax collectors. These are greater even than John because
they have acknowledged God’s claims on them. By contrast, the Pharisees and lawyers rejected
God’s purpose for them. This pericope, therefore, moves the reader from searching for figures
or movements that will satisfy their spiritual needs to finding and accepting God’s justice and
God’s purposes. The answer is not in our attachment to any movement or human figure, but
in our submission to God’s claims on us. The two are radically different, and it is important
164
that we recognize the difference and check our personal questing from time to time to be
sure that we have not been fooled into substituting one for the other.
To be even the least among those who have submitted to God’s sovereignty is to be greater
than any of the prophetic figures outside the kingdom, regardless of their appeal or their following.
Luke 7:31-35, Responses to John and Jesus

NIV NRSV
31“To what, then, can I compare the people of 31“To what then will I compare the people of
this generation? What are they like? **They are this generation, and what are they like? °**They
like children sitting in the marketplace and calling are like children sitting in the marketplace and
out to each other: calling to one another,
‘We played the flute for you, and you did not
““We played the flute for you, dance;
and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep.’
we sang a dirge, 33For John the Baptist has come eating no bread
and you did not cry.’ and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a
demon’; *“the Son of Man has come eating and
33For John the Baptist came neither eating bread drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a
nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and 3>Nevertheless, wisdom is vindicated by all her
you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a children.”
friend of tax collectors and “sinners.”’ But wis-
dom is proved right by all her children.”
(COMMENTARY
The third unit devoted to clarifying the rela- be justified by “her works,” while Luke has “all
tionship between John and Jesus responds to the her children.”
failure of the crowds to take seriously the calls of Scholars have debated how much of this unit
either John or Jesus. As different as John and Jesus should be traced to Jesus’ words: (a) the riddle
were, the people did not accept either. alone, (b) the riddle with its application to John
and Jesus, or (c) the whole unit (including v. 35).
This unit is composed of a parable or riddle
Although the riddle conceivably may have ex-
(vv. 31-32), its interpretation in relation to John
posed an adversary’s fickleness or obstinance in
and Jesus (vv. 33-34), and a concluding proverb
another setting, the close fit between the riddle
(v. 35). Matthew 11:16-19 preserves a close par-
and the contrasting character of the ministries of
allel, confirming that the unit was drawn from Q, John and Jesus suggests that the riddle and its
where it already had its present structure. The application were linked from the beginning. More-
riddle of the children (v. 32) and the accusation over, the character of the accusation against
against Jesus (v. 34) are nearly verbatim in both Jesus—that he was “a glutton and a drunkard”—
accounts. The differences between the two, on points to the sort of charges brought against Jesus
the other hand, are slight: (1) Matthew says the during his ministry rather than in the context of
children called “to the others,” while Luke says the early church.
they called “each other”; (2) Luke calls John “the The original form of the proverb was probably
Baptist”; (3) Luke adds the terms “bread” and “Wisdom is vindicated by her children.” Matthew
“wine”; and (4) Matthew says that wisdom will changed “children” to “works” (a Matthean
165
theme), while Luke has characteristically added quence, since the first line characterizes Jesus and
the word for “all,” so that v. 35 echoes v. 29. the second John. The point is that those who
Verses 29 and 35, therefore, frame the riddle and rejected both John and Jesus could not be pleased;
its interpretation and provide clues to Luke’s un- they were like obstinate children who would not
derstanding of the unit. Note the repetition of join in any game.
“all” and a form of the verb for “to justify” in the The third interpretation, which interprets the
bracketing verses. riddle as a refrain from the game of mime, takes
The initial question sets the context for the the meaning in a different direction. John and
riddle: Jesus will compare “this generation” to the Jesus have mimed God’s call to “this generation,”
children sitting in the marketplace. First and fore- whose members have not understood the mime.
most, therefore, it characterizes those who would Those who were critical of John and Jesus are
not respond—not John or Jesus. The riddle itself therefore characterized as children shamed by
is open to various interpretations. Common to all their failure to understand a simple mime. While
interpretations is the assumption that the first this interpretation cannot be ruled out, it does not
line—the call to dance to the flute—is a challenge correlate with the contrast between mourning and
for the other children to mimic a festive celebra- dancing (John and Jesus) as forcefully as the
tion, such as a wedding, while the call to wail second interpretation. In addition, the condemna-
and weep was a challenge for their playmates to . tion comes from what they would not do rather
mimic the mourners at a funeral. From there, than from what they could not do.
interpretations vary: (1) one group is calling out Even after the basic options for interpreting
the first line, and another group of children an- these verses have been evaluated, difficulties re-
swers with the second; neither group will play main: the function of the designations “the Bap-
the other’s game, and neither group can get the tist” for John and “the Son of Man” for Jesus,
other to play its game. (2) Both lines come from Luke’s references to bread and wine, the accusa-
the same group of children; they offered to play tion against Jesus, and the meaning of the con-
two very different games, but the others would cluding proverb. Two of the three occurrences of
not join them in either game. (3) The two lines the title “the Baptist” occur in this chapter, one
are actually part of a game of mime; the first group in the first of the three units on John and Jesus
is taunting the second because it has failed to (7:20) and the other here in the third unit (7:33).
figure out what the first group was miming. The third occurrence is in 9:19. The title is
The first interpretation would suggest that the traditional, appearing in all three synoptic Gospels,
two groups of children represent the followers of but not in John and not in the infancy material
John and the followers of Jesus. In disputes be- or the description of John’s preaching in Luke
tween the two groups, neither can persuade the (chaps. 1-3). The addition of “bread” and “wine”
other. If taken in this way, the initial question, in v. 33 is probably no more than idiomatic; to
which targeted “this generation,” would have to eat bread and drink wine means no more than to
be considered a later adaptation of the riddle. eat and drink (as in Matt 11:18).
The second interpretation is the most acceptable. The charge against John is that he is a demo-
Verse 29, as indeed the preceding material, speaks niac—a wild man. The title “Son of Man” is used
favorably of John. But the ministries of John and here of Jesus. At least the titular use of the term
Jesus were strikingly different. Whereas John was a represents a later addition to the unit. If Jesus
prophet announcing judgment and calling for repen- used the term in this context, it should be con-
tance in the wilderness, Jesus announced God’s strued as an idiomatic circumlocution for a refer-
blessing on the poor and called the rich to repent ‘ence to himself. Alternatively, the title may have
while he ate and drank with the outcasts. The meal replaced an earlier self-reference.
settings that were evidently so scandalous but so The charge against Jesus echoes Deut 21:20
characteristic of Jesus’ ministry (see Commentary on (see also Prov 23:20). If Luke’s readers knew the
5:27-32) were the point of contrast. The Pharisees reference in Deuteronomy—which incidentally
and lawyers (see v. 30) refused to accept either John occurs just prior to the well-known prescription
or Jesus. The lines of the riddle reverse the se- that if one were hanged on a tree, the corpse
166
should not be left overnight—the interplay be- Three terms at the end of this unit also occur
tween the two texts sets up a powerful irony. In in v. 29, a transitional verse composed by Luke
Deuteronomy, the charge “He is a glutton and a himself: “tax collectors” (teduvat telonai), “jus-
drunkard” is leveled at “a stubborn and rebellious tify” (StKatdw dikaioo), and “all” (tds pas). The
son who will not obey his father and mother” concluding proverb gives the unit a promising
(Deut 21:18). The penalty for such stubbornness ending. Not all will neglect the call of John and
is extreme: All the men of the town shall stone Jesus. Those who are wise will see in their min-
him to death (Deut 21:21). In Luke, however, istries—each of which was offensive in its own
Jesus has just castigated “the men of this genera- way—the evidence of God’s redemptive work.
tion” for their stubborn refusal to heed the calls Wisdom—which was closely aligned with God’s
of either John or Jesus himself. Now he repeats teachings, or with the Spirit—will be vindicated
their self-incriminating accusation against him: by “all her children”—all who would hear God’s
“Look, a glutton and a drunkard” (Luke 7:34). So prophet and God’s Son.
who has “rejected God’s purpose” for them (v. 30)?
REFLECTIONS
Jesus condemned the people of his generation because they let their expectations prevail over God’s
call to them. They had a long tradition of interpretation about how God would vindicate them and
deliver them from their enemies. The apocalyptic literature of the period contains various descriptions
of the coming of God’s kingdom and the bounty that would accompany it. Some looked for a political
leader like David or the Maccabees. Others looked for an apocalyptic end to the world, and still others
for a return to the Garden of Eden. The announcement of the kingdom by John and its dawning in
the person of Jesus, however, did not fulfill the expectations that others had for the fulfillment of
God’s promises. As a result, like children, they sat on the sidelines and refused to join in the game.
As different as John and Jesus were, neither satisfied the people of that generation. Because God had
not acted as they had expected, they refused to respond to God’s call for them to leave the sidelines
and join in the fulfillment of God’s redemptive purposes for that generation and for generations to come.
This pericope exposes our readiness to criticize and find fault, and our refusal to join in the
struggle to bring about God’s justice and the celebration of the announcement of good news for
the poor and oppressed by forming new communities. One reason for our repeated refusal to
respond to the kingdom announcement may be that, like the people of Jesus’ generation, we have
let our expectations for what God can do and is doing, and our restrictions on what passes for
proper church life, prevent us from seeing how God is still at work in our own generation.
For all who seek to heed the words of wisdom and fashion a favorable response to God’s
call, the twin challenges of this pericope are (1) to recognize the surprising and sometimes
even scandalous ways in which God is at work in our time, and (2) to reject the conventional
expectations that may otherwise prevent us from responding to God’s call to join in the work,
struggles, and celebration of the kingdom. Who are we, obstinate children sitting in the
marketplace who refuse to play, or the children of wisdom who are ready to play God’s game,
regardless of whether it is the game we expected?
Luke 7:36-50, Responses of a Pharisee and a Harlot

NIV NRSV
36Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to 36One of the Pharisees asked Jesus? to eat with
have dinner with him, so he went to the Phari- aC Aim
167
LUKE 7:36-50
NIV NRSV
see’s house and reclined at the table. *’When a him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and
woman who had lived a sinful life in that town took his place at the table. °7And a woman in the
learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s city, who was a sinner, having learned that he
house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an
38and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, alabaster jar of ointment. **She stood behind him
she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet
she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and with her tears and to dry them with her hair.
poured perfume on them. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing
3°When the Pharisee who had invited him saw them with the ointment. °7Now when the Phari-
this, he said to himself, “If. this man were a see who had invited him saw it, he said to
prophet, he would know who is touching him himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would
and what kind of woman she is—that she is a have known who and what kind of woman this
sinner.” is who is touching him—that she is a sinner.”
4Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have some- 4°Jesus spoke up and said to him, “Simon, I have
thing to tell you.” something to say to you.” “Teacher,” he replied,
“Tell me, teacher,” he said. “speak.” 4!“A certain creditor had two debtors;
41Two men owed money to a certain money- one owed five hundred denarii,? and the other
lender. One owed him five hundred denarii,? and fifty. “*7When they could not pay, he canceled the
the other fifty. *?Neither of them had the money debts for both of them. Now which of them will
to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. love him more?” “*Simon answered, “I suppose
Now which of them will love him more?” the one for whom he canceled the greater debt.”
43Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had And Jesus? said to him, “You have judged rightly.”
the bigger debt canceled.” “Then turning toward the woman, he said to
“You have judged correctly,” Jesus said. Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your
“Then he turned toward the woman and said house; you gave me no water for my feet, but
to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried
your house. You did not give me any water for them with her hair. “You gave me no kiss, but
my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and from the time I came in she has not stopped
wiped them with her hair. ®You did not give me kissing my feet. “You did not anoint my head
a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, with oil, but she has anointed my feet with
has not stopped kissing my feet. *°You did not put ointment. *’Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which
oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on were many, have been forgiven; hence she has
my feet. *’Therefore, I tell you, her many sins shown great love. But the one to whom little is
have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he forgiven, loves little.” “Then he said to her, “Your
who has been forgiven little loves little.” sins are forgiven.” **But those who were at the
48Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are table with him began to say among themselves,
forgiven.” “Who is this who even forgives sins?” *°And he
“The other guests began to say among them- said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go
selves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” in peace.” f
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has aThe denarius was the usual day’s wage for a laborer 6 Gk he
saved you; go in peace.”
a4 A denarius was a coin worth about a day’s wages.
(COMMENTARY
All of the units in this chapter have been prophet, either by comparison with the OT proph-
devoted to portraying Jesus as one greater than a ets or by comparison with John. The story of the
Pharisee and a harlot is the culmination of this 40-43); Jesus’ response to Simon (vv. 44-47);
narrative sequence and is clearly related to what Jesus’ response to the woman (vv. 48, 50); and
precedes it. The responses of the two characters the response of the other guests (v. 49).
illustrate the contrasting responses to John in The problems of tradition history are probably
wv. 29-30, and Jesus is eating at a banquet, best solved by positing two events in the ministry
following the characterization of his ministry in v. of Jesus that have given rise to these interrelated
34 as “eating and drinking.” Even more to the accounts. Luke preserves the tradition of an event
point, however, this scene demonstrates both that in Galilee in which a harlot approached Jesus at
Jesus was a prophet and that he was more than a banquet and wept in gratitude. When her tears
a prophet. When Simon the Pharisee reasons that fell on Jesus’ feet, she let down her hair and
if Jesus were a prophet he would know the wiped away the tears. The parable of the two
character of the woman who was touching him, debtors almost requires such a setting, and it is
Jesus’ response shows that he knows both Simon’s not easily detached from this context. The Markan
thoughts and the character of the woman. His account records an event in Bethany at which a
response, therefore, confirms that he is a prophet; woman anoints Jesus’ head with pure nard from
but when he forgives the woman’s sins, he is an alabaster flask. The event is related both to
greater than a prophet. Consequently, this story Jesus’ coronation and to his burial. In John’s
completes the development of the theme “more account, the home in Bethany has become the
than a prophet” and serves as a transition to the home of Mary and Martha, and the occasion and
vital question that will occupy the coming chap- motivation for the act is gratitude for the raising
ters: “Who is this one?” (see 8:25; 9:9, 18). of Lazarus; the woman is Mary of Bethany, not
The history of this tradition is hard to trace, in a harlot, and in a clear sign of conflation of the
part because of the complexity of the parallels in traditions Mary wipes not her tears from Jesus’
the other Gospels and in part because of the feet but the expensive ointment. Luke’s account,
artistry and coherence of the Lukan account. therefore, preserves one of these traditions with
Some relationship with the other stories of the relatively few signs of borrowing from the other
anointing of Jesus is undeniable, but the unity of tradition. The references to the alabaster flask and
Luke’s account is not easily explained in terms of the anointing probably originated with the other
redaction of the Markan or Johannine parallels. tradition, but their presence in Luke’s account
Whereas in the other Gospels the anointing of probably predates Luke’s use of Mark and is not
Jesus takes place in Bethany during the Passover to be explained as Luke’s editorial work. The
season (Matt 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-8), similarity between the identity of the host in Mark
this story is set in Galilee earlier in Jesus’ ministry. (Simon the leper) and in Luke (Simon, a Pharisee)
In Luke’s account there is no relation between is probably also due to a mingling of details from
the anointing and the burial of Jesus (Matt 26:12; the two similar stories, but we cannot be sure
Mark 14:8; John 12:7). Nor can it be interpreted which has borrowed the name from the other.
as an ironic coronation following Jesus’ entry into Beyond these details and the meal setting in each
Jerusalem, as it may be in Matthew and Mark, of the accounts, Luke reports an altogether differ-
where the woman anoints Jesus’ head. The ent story.
woman brings an alabaster flask, as in Mark and 7:36-37. These verses introduce the setting
Matthew, but the ointment is not identified as for the story. One of the Pharisees—who were
“pure nard” as in Mark and John. Beyond the last mentioned in v. 30 as those who rejected
tabulation of similarities and differences in setting God’s purpose for them—invites Jesus to a ban-
and detail, however, the Lukan story is distinctive quet. Jesus and the harlot each come to the
because of its development of the relationship Pharisee’s home, Jesus invited, the harlot as one
between forgiveness and love, the power with of the uninvited townspeople who would have
which it evokes the character of the woman and crowded around the walls inside or the courtyard
her response to Jesus, and the‘unity of its various outside to see the Pharisee and his guests. Such
components: the anointing, with Simon’s response an occasion would have been much more public
(vv. 38-39); the riddle, with Simon’s response (vv. than a dinner in a private home today, so the
169
presence of uninvited persons would not have inferences. First, he assumes the woman is a
been unusual. The woman’s past is sufficiently sinner, as the narrator has reported in v. 37.
defined by the two brief descriptions: “a woman Second, he assumes that if Jesus were a prophet
in the city, who was a sinner.” Identifying the he would know what sort of woman she was.
woman as a sinner is more important than iden- From these assumptions, both of which appear to
tifying her specifically as a harlot because the term have been correct, he draws two false inferences.
for “sinner” (ayaptwros hamartolos) connects First, he infers that if Jesus knew what sort of
with the previous reference to sinners in v. 34, woman was touching him, he would not allow
where Jesus is called “a friend of tax collectors it. Second, he infers that since Jesus has done
and sinners.” The introduction to the story, there- nothing to stop the woman, he is not a prophet.
fore, sets the scene for Jesus’ interaction with a The Pharisee’s assumption, therefore, is expressed
Pharisee and a sinner, following references to both as a condition contrary to fact: “If this man were
groups in the immediately preceding verses. We a prophet |which he is not], he would have known
will not be surprised that the Pharisee takes who and what kind of woman this is who is
offense at Jesus while Jesus vindicates the sinner. touching him [which he did not because he did
7:38. This verse reports the woman’s actions. not stop her].” As readers, we already know that
At such a banquet, the guests would have been Jesus is.more than a prophet and read with delight
reclining on pillows, supported by their left arms as Jesus immediately confirms that he not only
and eating with their right hands, with their feet knows what sort of woman has touched him but
away from the mat on which the food would have what sort of man the Pharisee is as well. Jesus
been spread before them. Thus the woman could even knows what the Pharisee was thinking at
easily approach Jesus’ feet. The fact that she has the moment he thought Jesus was not a prophet.
brought a jar of ointment shows that she has 7:40-47. In v. 40 the first dialogue is reported.
planned to anoint Jesus—a sign of her love (see Jesus calls the Pharisee by name, “Simon,” which
v. 47). Small flasks of alabaster or gypsum quar- has:not been introduced previously. Jesus ad-
ried along the Jordan or imported from Egypt dresses the parable to Simon and will speak to
were often used for perfumes. the woman later. At banquets and feasts it was
As the woman stood weeping behind Jesus, she common for the host or guests to pose riddles for
began to wash his feet with her tears. In a one another in a contest of wit and wisdom. Jesus
spontaneous act, she let down her hair and began poses for Simon a riddle based on the convention
to wipe the tears from Jesus’ feet and then of patron-client relationships. If a certain patron
anointed them with the perfume. The woman’s had two debtors who could not repay him, one
act expresses love and gratitude, but it also vio- who owed a little and one who owed much, and
lated social conventions. Touching or caressing a the patron canceled the debt of each, who would
man’s feet could have sexual overtones, as did love him more? Since a day laborer earned a
letting down her hair, so a woman never let down denarius per day (Matt 20:2), the scale of the
her hair in public. Moreover, the woman was debts is fairly modest, yet sizable enough to be
known to be a sinner. Assuming she was unclean, prohibitive for any but the wealthy: 50 denarii
she would have made Jesus unclean by touching and 500 denarii. The only relevant points, how-
him. The sinner has, therefore, created a scene at ever, are the benevolence of the patron and the
the Pharisee’s dinner, and he is scandalized. But relative sizes of the two debts.
how will he respond? And how will Jesus re- The answer is so obvious that the Pharisee
spond? In the Pharisee’s eyes, the woman’s act responds cautiously or with apparent disdain: “I
represents a challenge both to his honor and to . Suppose the one for whom he canceled the greater
Jesus’. debt.” The trap has been sprung. What remains
7:39. The reader learns the Pharisee’s is to connect the Pharisee’s answer to his con-
thoughts. Luke has previously reported interior demnation of the woman’s act of love and grati-
monologue and Jesus’ knowledge of what others tude. First, Jesus confirms that Simon has given
were thinking (see 5:21-22; 6:7-8). The Pharisee the right answer. Then, after turning toward the
makes two assumptions that imply two further woman, Jesus exposes the contrast between Simon’s
170
Figure 5: Coins in the Gospels
By New Testament times coins had been in use in “What woman having ten drachma. . . .”
Palestine for over six hundred years. The Jews struck
currency of their own from the Persian era (fifth cen- The drachma (Luke 15:8), a Greek silver
tury BCE) until the end of the Bar Kochba revolt (135 coin, was approximate in value to the
cE). The currency circulating at Jesus’ time would Roman denarius. The coin shown here,
have been a mixture of various denominations of from Parthia, has the bust of Orodes I,
gold, silver, brass, and bronze coins from all parts of the Parthian emperor (57-37 BcE) who
the Roman Empire and beyond. briefly drove Herod I from Jerusalem; the
reverse shows a seated Arsaces (founder
“They paid him thirty silver coins.” of the Parthian Empire) and reads “King
of Kings; Arsaces, Benefactor, Righteous
Because they were made of the one, God Manifest, Lover of the
highest grade of silver, Greeks.”
shekels and half-shekels
struck at the mint at Tyre “Take nothing for the journey except a staff—
were accepted by the no bread, no bag, no money [chalkon] in your belts.”
Jews as the official stan-
dard for payments speci- The Greek term chalkon (“copper”; Mark 6:8) could
fied in the Bible. Thus the refer to any midsize copper coin.
Greek word argyria (“sil-
ver”), used to describe the “Are not five sparrows sold for two
money paid to Judas for betray- assaria?”
ing Jesus (cf. Exod 21:32;
Zech 11:12), is believed to Assarion (Matt 10:29; Luke 12:6) is {
refer to the silver Tyrian the designation of various copper Se
shekel, worth approxi- coins struck outside of Palestine. In
mately four denarii. This NT times, sixteen assaria equaled one %
same coin is probably what denarius. The obverse of the coin pic-
Jesus refers to as a stater tured here shows Augustus and reads
(Matt 17:27), which Peter “Deified Augustus, Father”; the
used to pay the temple tax for reverse shows an altar between the
Jesus and himself. The coin shown letters S(ENATVS) C(ONSVLTO),
here, struck in 60/59 BcE, pictures the Phoenician meaning “By the Consent of the
deity Melkart as Heracles; the reverse pictures an Senate,” and reads “Providence.”
eagle and reads “Tyre, Holy and Inviolate.” The
didrachma, or “two drachma” (Matt 17:24), a silver “A poor widow came and put in two
coin used to pay the half-shekel temple tax (Exod lepta, which are worth a quadrans.”
30:13), may refer to a silver half-shekel struck at
Tyre, essentially the same design as the shekel but The guadrans (Mark 12:42) was a small
half the weight. Shekels and half-shekels of this type bronze coin; four quadrans normally
were struck at the mint at Tyre from 126 sce until equalled an assarion, sixty-four a denar-
about 70 CE. ius. The coin pictured here was struck
in Rome about 5 sce, during the reign
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” of Augustus. The obverse (not pictured)
shows an altar; the reverse contains the
The denarius, a Roman silver coin, was legend “Apronius Gallus [the overseer of
the typical day’s wage. The coin minting operations], maker of gold, silver, and bronze
shown, first issued c. 19 cg, pictures coins.”
Emperor Tiberius (14-37) and reads
“Tiberius Caesar, son of the Deified A lepton (or “thin piece” [Mark 12:42; Luke
Augustus and himself Augustus.” The 21:2]), also called a perutah by the Jews, was
reverse shows Livia, mother of Tiberius, a small copper coin, the coin of least value in
prey represented as Pax, goddess of peace, and circulation. These coins varied greatly in size
reads “High Priest.” The denarius is and value; normally, two lepta equaled one
mentioned in Matt 20:2; 22:19; Mark quadrans. The coin pictured, struck in either
6:37; 12:15; 14:5; Luke 7:41; 10:35; 8 or 12 cE, shows a palm tree with clusters
20:24; and John 6:7; 12:5. (obverse), and a wheat head with the legend
“Belonging to Caesar” (reverse).
Photographs and text by Dr. E. Jerry Vardaman
171
' LUKE 7:36-50 COMMENTARY
lack of hospitality and the woman’s selfless ado- second half of v. 47 each dictate that the woman’s
ration of Jesus. This is the longest stretch of loving act is evidence that she has been forgiven
uninterrupted speech in the story. Verses 44-46 much. By implication, the woman’s preparation
contrast the way in which the Pharisee and the in bringing the alabaster flask in the first place
woman have treated Jesus, and v. 47 draws the suggests that she has experienced acceptance and
inference from this contrast. In this speech, parts forgiveness prior to this event. Something more
of the story that were not narrated earlier are fundamental is implicit here, however. It is not
filled in. As readers we had not been told about that the Pharisee had less for which to be forgiven
the way in which the Pharisee received Jesus into than the harlot. Rather, because he did not rec-
his home. Instead, the story began with its dra- ognize his need for forgiveness he received less.
matic moment—the woman’s scandalous act. And she, because she recognized her need and
Now we learn that when Jesus arrived the Phari- received forgiveness joyfully, received more.
see gave him no water with which to wash his 7:48-50. With v. 48, Jesus speaks to the
feet, no kiss, no oil for anointing his head. None woman for the first time, confirming that her sins
of these was required, but they were gracious have been forgiven. Without such a direct ad-
gestures of hospitality attested elsewhere (foot- dress, the story would remain incomplete and the
washing: Gen 18:4; 19:2; Judg 19:21; 1 Sam relationship between the woman and Jesus would
25:41; John 13:3-5; a kiss of greeting: 2 Sam 15:5; have remained unvoiced. When Jesus declares the
Luke 15:20; 22:47-48; anointing with oil: Pss harlot’s sins forgiven, however, the other guests
23:5; 133:2; Mark 14:3). The effect of Jesus’ begin to raise the question the Pharisees had
words is to connect the Pharisee’s right answer raised earlier, but in a slightly different form. At
to Jesus’ riddle to his wrong judgment of the the healing of the paralytic, they asked: “Who is
woman’s anointing of Jesus’ feet. this who is speaking blasphemies? Who can for-
The crux of this story is Jesus’ pronouncement give sins but God alone?” (5:21). Now, by com-
in v. 47. Did the woman love because she had bining the first part of the first question with the
been forgiven, or was she forgiven because she last part of the second question, the result is a
loved Jesus? Verse 47 draws together the riddle query that suggests that the answer to this divine
and the two responses to Jesus, showing that the act lies in Jesus’ identity: “Who is this who even
Pharisee has responded as one who has been forgives sins?” The pursuit of an answer to that
forgiven little, while the woman has acted as one question will lead us through the next two chap-
who has been forgiven much. The difficulty lies ters of Luke. For the moment, however, Jesus’
in the causal clause at the end of the first half of blessing of the woman remains paramount. Her
v. 47. Some have taken it to mean that the openness to God’s forgiveness and her selfless,
woman was forgiven much because she loved loving response are accepted as faith, and forgive-
much, but the logic of the riddle, its application ness is equated with salvation. The result is peace,
to the woman’s act, and the parallel with the shalom: “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
REFLECTIONS
Unless we see something of ourselves in the character of Simon the Pharisee, we are so
blind to our own need that we have failed to hear the story. The soft underbelly of hypocrisy
is always vulnerable to the truth, and we are most vulnerable when we are blind to our own
faults. Simon thought he was blameless. He “knew” the woman was a sinner, and he assumed
she had defiled Jesus. Jesus then exposed the contrast between Simon’s distant hospitality and
the woman’s sincere affection. The contrast was clear, and it left Simon doubly exposed and
embarrassed. First a shameful display of affection from a sinful woman occurred in his house.
Second, a guest had called attention to the host’s lack of hospitality. In the Middle East the
importance of honor and shame and the family name can hardly be overestimated.
Does love lead to forgiveness, or is the ability to love the result of being forgiven? The
question is not easily answered because the issue can be seen from both perspectives. Jesus
accepted the woman’s expression of love as a sign that she had been forgiven much. Love is
the natural response of the forgiven, but the capacity to love is directly related to the ability
to receive grace, forgiveness, and love. Simon’s problem was not his conduct but his attitude
and self-understanding. Jesus cut through social amenities to Simon’s regard for himself and
others and his relationship to God. Because Simon thought of himself as pious and righteous,
he had no idea what it meant to be forgiven and no awareness of his own need for forgiveness.
He loved little because he had experienced so little of God’s love. Simon, therefore, represents
the position furthest from God. Because Simon did not recognize his need for forgiveness, he
excluded himself from God’s grace. On the other hand, because the woman knew she was a
sinner, she could receive God’s forgiveness. Knowing she was a sinner, she could also know
what it meant to be forgiven.
If our lives have been changed by an experience of God’s grace, we can never get over the
fact that we have been forgiven. God’s love, experienced in forgiveness, becomes the controlling
force in our lives. The gratitude of the forgiven is also the source of new life. Ultimately, that
is what salvation is all about. Such gratitude, however, cannot be forced or faked; it requires
absolute, transparent humility before God.
The camera recedes from Jesus in the closing verses of this story. The focus is on the
reaction of those who were eating at the table with him. They marveled that Jesus dared to
pronounce sins forgiven. Only God could forgive sins. No priest, prophet, or rabbi would dare
to claim that prerogative. The irony is that Jesus’ readiness to forgive the humble and the
sinful was one of the clearest evidences that Jesus was more than a prophet. More than any
. Of his miracles or mighty works, Jesus’ ability to forgive revealed that he shared the heart and
character of God.
LUKE 8:1-21, HEARING AND DOING

GOD’S WORD
OVERVIEW
The next section of the Gospel (Luke 8:1-21) istry and to depict models for positive responses
contains four units that develop the theme of to Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom. At the
hearing and doing God’s Word. The section opens center of this section are the parable of the sower,
and closes with references to groups who followed Luke’s account of Jesus’ explanation of the pur-
Jesus: the Twelve, a group of women, and his pose of the parables, and the interpretation of the
mother and brothers. The effect is to heighten the parable of the sower. Sayings on what is hidden
sense of movement and itinerancy in Jesus’ min- and what is revealed follow.
Luke 8:1-3, Jesus’ Followers: The Women

NIV NRSV
After this, Jesus traveled about from one 8 Soon afterwards he went on through cities
town and village to another, proclaiming and villages, proclaiming and bringing the
the good news of the kingdom of God. The good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were
_ LUKE 8:1-3
NIV NRSV
Twelve were with him, 2and also some women with him, 2aswell as some women who had been
who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called
Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven de- Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone
mons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, out, °and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward
the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who pro-
many others. These women were helping to sup- vided for them? out of their resources.
port them out of their own means. aOther ancient authorities read him
(COMMENTARY
Luke 8:1-3 is a Lukan summary that introduces again in Acts 16-17, where Paul “travels”
important motifs for both the section that follows and (StoSevw diodeuo]; cf. Luke 8:1; Acts 17:1) from
for later sections of Luke and Acts. As the only town to town in Macedonia and Greece and con-
reference in any of the Gospels to the role of a group verts “not a few of the leading women” (Acts 17:4).
of women followers during Jesus’ Galilean ministry, it The previous references to the kingdom of God
serves aS a corrective to the assumption that all of were in Luke 4:43; 6:20; 7:28, but references to
Jesus’ followers were men. For raw material, Luke the kingdom will become increasingly frequent. In-
evidently picked up the earlier description of Jesus’ deed, the section introduced by this summary will
itinerant ministry of healing and preaching (Luke 4:40- feature Jesus’ interpretation of the parables of the
44); the appointment of the Twelve (with an echo of kingdom (8:10), and in Luke 9:2 Jesus will send the
Mark 3:14); the list or lists of the women who were Twelve out to proclaim the kingdom. Therefore,
present at the crucifixion and burial of Jesus; and other althdugh Luke does not reproduce Mark’s statement
traditions regarding the identity, background, and role of Jesus’ purpose for appointing the Twelve—“to be
of the women that are found only in Luke. with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message”
The allusions, connections, and foreshadowings (Mark 3:14)—Luke 8 and 9 feature this under-
contained in this short unit give it an importance standing of the role of the Twelve, who are said to
in the development of Luke’s Gospel that if missed be “with him” in Luke 8:1 and “sent” in Luke 9:2.
leaves the unit looking like an odd insertion. The Characteristically, where Luke mentions a male
summary opens with a favorite Lukan transitional figure or group, he often links it with a corre-
phrase, “And it came to pass” (kai €yéveto kai sponding female figure or group—for example,
egeneto), and a term that has special significance Zechariah and Elizabeth, Mary and Joseph,
in Luke and Acts but is not easily translated. The Simeon and Anna, in chap. 4 the widow of
term rendered “afterwards” (ka8eEfs kathexes) Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian, in chap. 7 the
occurs in Luke 1:3; 8:1; Acts 3:24; 11:4; and centurion and the widow of Nain, and in chap.
18:23, where it indicates sequence, order, and 15 the shepherd and the woman with the coins.
progression, sometimes emphasizing temporal se- The group of women who followed Jesus are
quence, sometimes geographical progression, and given special prominence in Luke by introducing
sometimes order or accuracy. Echoing the pro- them at this point and alluding to their role when
logue to the Gospel (1:3), this summary under- they are introduced again in Luke 23:49 and
scores Luke’s intention to present an “orderly 23:55 (cf 24:10; Acts 1:14; 13:31).
narrative.” The description of Jesus’ movement The syntax of vv. 2-3 is difficult, making un-
through towns and villages preaching and bringing clear whether the final clause of v. 3, “who
the good news of the kingdom echoes Luke 4:42- provided for them out of their means,” refers to
44 and prepares the reader for Jesus’ movements the group of women in v. 2 or the “many others”
in chapters 8 and 9, and more distantly, the long in v. 3. Healing and exorcism are referred to
journey section later in the Gospel (9:51-19:44). together in 4:40-41; 6:18; and 7:21. As with other
Some elements of this summary are also taken up elements in this summary, the reference to un-
174
clean spirits prepares the reader for the exorcism tion of whether a married woman had left her
of the Gerasene demoniac (8:26-39) and the boy husband to follow Jesus in the company of other
with convulsions (9:37-43). The introduction of women. The reference to Herod prepares the
women who had been healed of various diseases reader for the role of Herod in Luke 9:7-9.
foreshadows the healing of the woman with a Susanna is not mentioned elsewhere in the Gospel
hemorrhage and the raising of Jairus’s daughter records. Although Joanna and Susanna are named
(8:40-56). after Mary Magdalene, as though in a list of those
The only woman healed earlier in Luke was healed or exorcised by Jesus, presumably some of
Peter’s mother-in-law (4:38-39), but the reader the women following Jesus had not required heal-
may assume that by this point Jesus has healed ing or exorcism. A sizable group is implied, and
many people who have not been singled out these women provided for Jesus and those who
individually. There is no previous reference to followed him. In this respect, their role foreshad-
Mary Magdalene or to the exorcism of demons ows that of Mary and Martha in 10:38-42 and
from her. Magdala, for which she is named, is the roles of the seven men in Acts 6 and the
usually thought to have been located on the west women who served and assisted Paul in his work.
side of the Sea of Galilee, north of Tiberias, and The proper use of one’s possessions is a significant
is identified with Migdalnunaiya, which means theme in Luket(ci, 12:15, 337°14:33; 19:8).
“fish tower.” The state of having seven demons By means of references that pick up earlier
would have been far worse than having one (see threads of the narrative and prepare for coming
11:24-26). Mary Magdalene is also traditionally scenes, Luke 8:1-3 serves an important role in
named first among the women at the cross and giving Luke’s Gospel “order” (1:3). Before con-
the tomb of Jesus (cf. Luke 24:10; Mark 15:40, tinuing with the larger theme of Jesus’ identity as
47; 16:1; John 20:1-2, 11-18). Joanna follows the Christ (9:20), however, Luke will return to
Mary Magdalene in 24:10, as she does here, but the reception of the Word of God, and the expe-
is otherwise unknown. She is identified as the rience of the kingdom among Jesus’ followers and
wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, raising the ques- disciples.
Luke 8:4-15, The Parable of the Seed and the Soil

NIV NRSV
4While a large crowd was gathering and people 4When a great crowd gathered and people from
were coming to Jesus from town after town, he town after town came to him, he said in a parable:
told this parable: °“A farmer went out to sow his 5“A sower went out to sow his seed; and as he
seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell sowed, some fell on the path and was trampled
along the path; it was trampled on, and the birds on, and the birds of the air ate it up. “Some fell
of the air ate it up. “Some fell on rock, and when on the rock; and as it grew up, it withered for
it came up, the plants withered because they had lack of moisture. “Some fell among thorns, and
no moisture. 7Other seed fell among thorns, the thorns grew with it and choked it. Some fell
which grew up with it and choked the plants. into good soil, and when it grew, it produced a
8Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up and hundredfold.” As he said this, he called out, “Let
anyone with ears to hear listen!”
yielded a crop, a hundred times more than was
9Then his disciples asked him what this parable
sown.”
meant. !°He said, “To you it has been given to
When he said this, he called out, “He who has
know the secrets? of the kingdom of God; but to
ears to hear, let him hear.”
others I speak? in parables, so that
°His disciples asked him what this parable
‘looking they may not perceive,
meant. !°He said, “The knowledge of the secrets
and listening they may not understand.’
of the kingdom of God has been given to you,
but to others I speak in parables, so that, aOr mysteries 6Gklacks J speak
175
LUKE 8:4-15
NIV NRSV
“though seeing, they may not see; 11“Now the parable is this: The seed is the
though hearing, they may not understand.’ word of God. '*The ones on the path are those
who have heard; then the devil comes and takes
“This is the meaning of the parable: The seed away the word from their hearts, so that they may
is the word of God. !2Those along the path are the not believe and be saved. '3The ones on the rock
ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes are those who, when they hear the word, receive
away the word from their hearts, so that they may it with joy. But these have no root; they believe
not believe and be saved. ‘Those on the rock are only for a while and in a time of testing fall away.
the ones who receive the word with joy when they \4As for what fell among the thorns, these are the
hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a ones who hear; but as they go on their way, they
while, but in the time of testing they fall away. ‘The are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures
seed that fell among thorns stands for those who of life, and their fruit does not mature. But as
hear, but as they go on their way they are choked for that in the good soil, these are the ones who,
by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do when they hear the word, hold it fast in an honest
not mature. But the seed on good soil stands for and good heart, and bear fruit with patient en-
those with a noble and good heart, who hear the . qurance.”
word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.”
210 Isaiah 6:9
COMMENTARY
This section of Luke 8 is devoted to the theme contrast to Mark 4:1-2, Luke introduces not
of hearing the Word of God. The verb for “to “many parables” but this one parable. Mark’s
hear” (akovw akouo) is repeated seven times, and repeated references to Jesus’ teaching the crowd
“the word” (0 \oyos ho logos) is repeated three are also gone. Luke retells the parable with a
times. This parable has sown its intrigue in the greater economy of words. In spite of Luke’s
minds of hearers since its first telling, undoubtedly emphasis on hearing, the initial injunction to hear
by Jesus himself. Is it a parable of the sower, of is dropped, as is Mark’s extended description of
the seed, or of the soil? The choice of a title the rapid germination of the seed that fell on the
already tells something of how it is being under- rocky soil, the report that the seed that fell among
stood. The inclusion of an interpretation of this the thorns did not bear fruit, and the reports of
parable in the synoptic Gospels, however, is itself thirty- and sixtyfold harvests. Breaking this pattern
a recognition that the parable is open to various of abridgment, Luke adds the phrase that the
interpretations. sower sowed “his seed,” thereby shifting attention
Since Luke 6:20, the evangelist has drawn from the sower to the seed.
upon Q and other sources. At this point Luke 8:4-8. The parable is open to various readings,
returns to the Gospel of Mark and continues depending on how one understands the Galilean
following its sequence. If Luke draws the parable practices of sowing and plowing and how the
from Mark, he abbreviates the description of the report of a hundredfold harvest would have been
setting, the parable, and Jesus’ explanation of the understood. The parable is not introduced as a
purpose for the parables. Mark’s description of ' kingdom parable, but references to the kingdom
Jesus’ teaching from a boat by the sea has already of God bracket it in vv. 1 and 9. Why does the
been used in Luke 5:1-3 to introduce the great sower sow on the path, the rocks, and the thorns?
catch of fish. What remains is a statement that Is the sower careless, sowing with confident aban-
Jesus spoke the parable when a great crowd don, or merely following the normal. practice?
gathered around him from the towns (cf. the Joachim Jeremias claimed that the sower was
similar reference to towns in 8:1). Moreover, in following the normal practice of sowing first and
176
then plowing the seed into the ground.®> Simi- Galilean farmers would have smiled knowingly,
larly, Jer 4:3 warns, “Do now sow among thorns,” especially at the mention of the rocky soil. An old
and Jub 11:11 shows that Jesus drew upon a Arabic folk tale explains that when Allah created
common metaphor: “Prince Mastema sent ravens the world he entrusted all the stones to two
and birds to devour the seed which was sown in angels. Each had a full bag. As they flew over
the earth . . . before they could plough in the seed Palestine, one of the bags broke, spilling half the
the ravens plucked it from the surface of the stones that were intended for the whole world.!°!
ground.” K. D. White responded to Jeremias, 8:9-10. Luke abbreviates and softens the hard-
citing evidence that plowing preceded sowing,” edged statement on the purpose of the parables
and P. B. Payne claimed that whereas plowing in Mark 4:10-12, which quotes that judgment on
normally preceded sowing, in the fall sowing Israel from Isa 6:9-10. This passage is used else-
preceded plowing because the ground had already where in the NT, in passages not associated with
been broken up.”” Regardless of the sequence of the parables, to explain why Israel rejected the
plowing and sowing, one would not deliberately Gospel (John 12:40; Acts 28:26-27). In Mark,
sow on a path, but in broadcast sowing the loss Jesus contrasts “those around Jesus” with those
of some seed is inevitable. who are “outside” (see Mark 3:31-35). Only those
A similar debate has arisen over the way the around Jesus are able to understand. Those who
report of a hundredfold harvest would have been remain outside cannot enter the kingdom through
received. The average yield was probably around the parables alone. Luke has discarded Mark’s
tenfold, calculating the weight of the seed gath- report of Jesus’ withdrawal to a private place,
ered in relation to the weight of the seed sown. identified the interlocutors as the disciples, and
A harvest of a hundredfold would have been focused their question on “this parable.” Whereas
considered fantastic.*® Visions of the age to come in Mark Jesus responds that to them “the mystery
described a harvest of ten thousandfold,”’ but for of the kingdom of God” has been given, in Luke
a Palestinian farmer a harvest of a hundredfold he says that to them has been given “to know
would have been quite miraculous.'°° the mysteries of the kingdom.” The difference is
If the sowing is ordinary and the harvest is slight but contributes to the softening of Jesus’
bountiful, the parable contrasts the end with the response in Luke. Instead of distinguishing “those
beginning and calls for faith that from the ordinary outside” as in Mark, Luke merely contrasts the
beginnings of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee God would disciples with the “others.” Like Matthew, Luke
bring a bountiful harvest. If the sowing is not also draws the sting from the words of judgment
meager but a broadcasting of the seed with con- from Isa 6:9-10 by omitting the phrase “so that
fident abandon, then the parable calls for hearers they may not turn again and be forgiven.” At each
to live expansively, confident in God’s goodness. point where Luke differs from Mark, therefore, it
If the three unproductive sowings are emphasized softens the effect of this pronouncement: Jesus
(path, rock, thorns), then the parable may speak and the disciples have not withdrawn from the
to the crowds’ fawning over Jesus—many will crowd; what is given to the disciples is not the
turn away, but some will bear fruit. mystery of the kingdom but knowledge of its
mysteries; the disciples’ counterparts are not “out-
95, Joachim Jeremias, The Parables ofJesus, rev. ed., trans. S. H. Hooke siders” but merely the “others”; and the refusal
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1963) 11-12,. esp. n. 3. The
following rabbinic references support Jeremias’s interpretation: b. Sabb.
of forgiveness is omitted from the quotation from
73b: “In Palestine ploughing comes after sowing”; Tosefta Berakoth 7.2: Isaiah.
“He sows, ploughs, reaps, binds the sheaves, threshes. . . 2”; m. Sabb. 7.2:
“Sowing, ploughing.”
The allusion to “mysteries” may have been
96. K.D. White, “The Parable of the Sower,” /7S 15 (1964) 300-307. understood variously by different readers. In the
97. P. B. Payne, “The Order of Sowing and Ploughing in the Parable
of the Sower,” NTS 25 (1978-79) 123-29. Greco-Roman world, mystery cults drew followers
98. Genesis 26:12 and Varro On Agriculture 1.193 are sometimes with their assurances of eternal life for those who
cited to the contrary.
99. See 2 Bar 29:5-8.
were initiated into mystery. Such initiation cere-
100. See further Robert K. McIver, “One Hundred-Fold Yield— monies seem to have consisted of being shown
Miraculous or Mundane? Matthew 13.8, 23; Mark 4.8, 20; Luke 8.8,”
NTS 40 (1994) 606-8; and for a different view Bernard Brandon Scott,
101. Peter Rhea Jones, 7he Teaching of the Parables (Nashville:
Hear Then the Parable: ACommentary on the Parables ofJesus (Minnea-
polis: Fortress, 1989) 356-58. Broadman, 1982) 70.
177
sacred objects and given secret knowledge. In Jewish are the devil, and the thorns are “the cares, and
tradition, the prophets had been given the mystery riches and pleasures of life.”
of God’s redemptive work (Dan 2:28; Amos 3:7). Luke has evidently drawn the interpretation
Later, the Essenes at Qumran claimed that the from Mark 4:13-20. Careful comparison of the
prophets were given only the mysteries, which they accounts reveals that Luke has removed the ob-
did not understand, and that the interpretation of tuseness of the disciples (as he will do elsewhere);
those mysteries was given to the Teacher of Righ- inserted an explanation of the devil’s effort to
teousness.!°2 With these references may be com- prevent hearers from believing and being saved;
pared Eph 3:3-6 and 1 Pet 1:10-12. abridged Mark’s emphasis on persecution (Mark
By characterizing rejection of the Word and 4:17); and added references to the dangers of the
ignorance of the mysteries of the kingdom as “pleasures of life,” failure to bear fruit to maturity,
blindness and deafness, v. 10 connects the par- and the importance of endurance. The charac-
ables with the healings of the blind and the deaf, terization of the devil’s purpose as “so that they
which are demonstrations of Jesus’ power to bring may not believe and be saved” (8:12), when
not only physical but also metaphorical sight and coupled with the omission of the pronouncement
hearing (see 4:18; 6:39-42; 7:21-22; 18:35-43). of judgment from v. 10—“so that they may not
Hence, it is all the more significant that the final turn again and be forgiven” (Mark 4:12)—makes
part of Isa 6:10, with its denial of forgiveness, has “it appear that Luke has added the one and omitted
been omitted from Luke. the other in order to relieve-any implication that
8:11-15. Luke also smoothes the transition from Jesus’ purpose was to prevent those who heard
the pronouncement of judgment to the interpreta- the parables from believing.
tion of the parable, so that the interpretation can be There are various reasons why some do not
read as part of Jesus’ response to the disciples’ believe. The seed that falls on the path never has
question. The allegorizing interpretation, which a chance because it is trampled underfoot, and
probably originated in the context of the church’s the birds take it away. The seed that falls on the
preaching of the gospel, explains that the varied rocky soil germinates but withers from lack of
responses of acceptance and rejection depend on the moisture, while the seed that falls among the
soil. The seed is identified as the Word of God, the thorns grows but does not produce fruit. The
places where the seed is sown are the different types fruitful ground, in contrast, is distinguished by two
of hearers, the “birds of the air” (see 9:58; 13:19) qualities: It holds fast to the seed “in an honest
and good heart” and bears fruit “with patient
102. 1QpHab 7.4-5, 8. endurance.”
REFLECTIONS
The parable of the sower (or perhaps better the parable of the seed and the soils) and its
interpretation, which already moves in the direction of allegory; serves as a spectrum that
separates and tints the responses of various characters in the Gospel with hues that make them
recognizable to the reader.
1. The reference to the seed along the path being trodden underfoot is peculiar to Luke,
as are the later echoes of the role of the “birds of the air,” which suggests that we are justified
in reading the parable and its interpretation fn its larger narrative context. Who is Luke talking
about? On one occasion the crowd that gathered to hear Jesus was large and became unruly,
like some persons at contemporary rock concerts and soccer games. The people began to
trample one another (12:1). The seed was being trodden underfoot.
The elder brother charged that the father’s younger son had devoured their father’s living
with harlots (15:30), and Jesus warned his disciples about the scribes who devoured widows’
houses (20:47). The Word of God apparently can be devoured in many ways. What we do
178
to each other can determine whether we are able to hear God’s Word. Our actions can also
deprive others of the opportunity to hear.
Although the birds of the air devoured the seed (8:5), they had nests (9:58) and could find
shelter in the branches of the mustard tree (13:19). God feeds them. Are we not of more
value than they (12:24)?
2. Clear examples of rocky-soil hearers are more difficult to find in Luke. Certainly, Judas
Iscariot qualifies as one who hears God’s Word, follows for a while, but in crisis betrays Jesus
(22:3). The other disciples were also in danger of falling away, but Jesus said to them, “You
are those who have stood by me in my trials” (22:28). Growing in discipleship requires that
we put down roots that will hold us firm in time of trial or temptation.
3. The third category is characterized by the seed that fell among the thorns. The
interpretation of the parable lists three specific thorns that may choke the hearer’s life: cares,
riches, and the pleasures of life. The cares of life include anxiety and worry. These are
experiences common to all of us, but if we allow ourselves to give in to them they consume
our lives. While Mary chose to listen to Jesus’ teachings, Martha was anxious and troubled
about many things (10:41). In other sayings, Jesus charged his followers not to be anxious
about what they would say when brought to trial on account of their faith (12:11). He also
charged them not to be anxious about what they would eat or wear (12:22). After all, we
cannot add an inch to our stature or an hour to the span of our lives by worrying (12:25).
The dangers of wealth is a theme to which Luke returns more than any other Gospel writer.
Jesus lamented the plight of the rich; they had received their consolation (6:24). Repeatedly
the rich person is a negative example in Jesus’ parables (12:16; 14:12; 16:1, 19; 21:1). The
rich young ruler is the prime example of one whose wealth crowded the Word from his life
(18:23). Again, Jesus lamented: “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the
kingdom of God!” (18:24).
The pursuit of pleasure can also take a destructive turn. Jesus’ teachings associate the cares
of life with foolish living and drunkenness. These can weigh down the heart and prove to be
a detriment to prayer (21:34; see also 17:27).
4. With a minimum of words, the parable describes what it means to be the good soil. The
good soil represents those who (1) hear the word, (2) hold it fast (3) in a good heart, and
(4) bring forth fruit (5) with patient endurance. Hearing involves listening, but it also means
understanding and being willing to obey. Impressed on the memory of every devout Jew were the
words “Hear, O Israel: The Lorp is our God, the Lorp alone. You shall love the Lorp your God
with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut 6:4-5; Luke 10:27);
Hearing the Word of God and responding in obedience were the foundation of Israel’s covenant
with God. Those who are the good soil also hold fast the Word they have heard. One of the
neglected beatitudes says, “Blessed .. . are those who hear the word of God and obey it” (11:28).
The temptation to let go of that Word, to accept some other word as the truth by which to live,
constantly presses upon those who live in a secular, wealth-oriented, pleasure-seeking society.
Bearing fruit and enduring are the marks of a mature disciple. Again, parallel passages
elsewhere in Luke illuminate this verse. Jesus said, “The good person out of the good treasure
of the heart produces good” (6:45). Moreover, “By your endurance you will gain your souls”
(21:19). Growth is not automatic, bearing fruit may not come easily, and spiritual maturity
may require patience. But the harvest can be so magnificent!
In Luke’s hands the parable of the seed and the soils has become a call to hold fast and
endure. The theological vocabulary of the interpretation reflects the church’s situation (the
In
Word of God, the devil, their hearts, believe and be saved, fall away, hold fast, endure).
this context, Luke recognizes that many will reject the Word of God. Hearing requires a strong
it is easy
resolve. Like the fast-germinating seed on the rocky ground and among the thorns,
179
to make a good beginning, but reaching maturity and bearing fruit require faithfulness and
dogged endurance.
Luke 8:16-18, What Is Hidden and What Is Revealed
NIV NRSV
16No one lights a lamp and hides it in a jar or 16“No one after lighting a lamp hides it under
puts it under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, a jar, or puts it under a bed, but puts it on a
so that those who come in can see the light. '’For lampstand, so that those who enter may see the
there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, light. '7For nothing is hidden that will not be
and nothing concealed that will not be known or disclosed, nor is anything secret that will not
brought out into the open. '*Therefore consider become known and come to light. ‘Then pay
carefully how you listen. Whoever has will be attention to how you listen; for to those who
given more; whoever does not have, even what have, more will be given; and from those who do
he thinks he has will be taken from him.” not have, even what they seem to have will be
. taken away.”
(COMMENTARY
Luke refashions Mark’s handling of the sayings provides a warning and summary of the foregoing,
following the interpretation of the parable so that appears in 19:26 (Matt 25:29).
they become a further commentary on the parable 8:16. Here we have the unusual use of a
of the seeds and the soils. Luke preserves the parable as a commentary on another parable. The
Markan setting and sequence of these sayings, but parable of the lamp consists of two parts, negative
omits the transitional formulas (“And he said to and positive, each of which also has two parts.
them”) in Mark 4:21 and 24 so that the sayings The observation is drawn from everyday life.
flow without any transitional break following the When one lights a lamp, one does not cover it
preceding verses. In this way, Luke signals that with a vessel or put it under a bed. Instead, one
the sayings—which otherwise might be applied to puts it on a lampstand so that it may give light.
Jesus’ reluctance to take a high profile, or to the
Given Luke’s editorial handling of the context,
the challenge to the interpreter is to discover how
warning that all sins will be exposed in the last
association with the parable of the seeds and the
judgment—should be interpreted in relation to
soils controls the meaning of this parable, and
the theme of hearing and doing'God’s Word.
then what this parable says about the meaning of
Luke 8:16-18 consists of three sayings that
the former. The connection would hardly be evi-
probably circulated independently but are gath-
dent apart from the second and third sayings.
ered in this sequence in Mark 4:21-25. Luke
Structural parallels may be suggested, however.
omits the parable of the seed growing secretly and
Just as one sows in order to reap a harvest, so
Mark’s comment on Jesus’ use of the parables, also one lights a lamp in order that it may give
but he retains these sayings to underscore the light. One does not sow so that the birds may
importance of attention to how one hears. The ‘ feed on the seed or so that it may be choked by
three sayings also appear scattered in other con- the thorns. Similarly, one does not light a lamp
texts in Luke, suggesting that they also appeared in order to extinguish it under a jar (where the
in Q. Luke 8:16, which is most like a parable, air would be cut off and the smoke would be
also appears in 11:33 (Matt 5:15); v. 17, a pro- trapped) or to hide it, ludicrously, under a bed.
verbial saying that serves as a comment on v. 16, The purpose for the sowing—God’s purpose for
appears in 12:2 (Matt 10:26); and v. 18, which the Word—is that it effect change.
8:17. This may well have been a common respond to God’s Word. The hearer has a respon-
proverb in a Galilean village: Nothing can be kept sibility for understanding, openness, and making
secret for very long. Sooner or later, it will get a decisive response. Be careful how you listen.
out. Or as one wag put it, a secret is something The last saying in this cluster extends a further
you tell one person at a time. If related to the warning. The grim patterns of prosperity and poverty
theme of God’s Word, however, this saying picks dictate in common experience that those who have
up another aspect of the parable. Although the get more, while those who don’t lose even what
seed sown in the first three locations was fruitless, little they have. If you receive God’s Word like the
ultimately the sower reaped a bountiful harvest. good soil receives the seed, then you gain even
8:18. This verse issues a warning, which is greater insight, maturity, and knowledge of God. On
followed by. another proverbial saying. Luke omits the other hand, if you are like the unfruitful soils
the saying in Mark 4:24 about receiving the measure and God’s Word remains barren in your hearing,
you measure out, since this saying was used in Luke you will be even worse off than before. The proc-
6:38. “Pay attention to how you listen”’—this ex- lamation of the Word, therefore, is a dynamic act
hortation reminds us that we are not soil; we are that effects change for good or for ill in the hearer—
persons. We can choose and control how we will so be careful how you hear it.
REFLECTIONS
Like the interpretation of the parable, the sayings that follow it contain references that in their
present context imply a church setting and theological meanings. The one who hears God’s Word
is likened to a lamp. “Those who come in” (v. 16) may be those who come to the church to
hear the gospel. “Those who have” are persons who have already received God’s Word, and “those
who have not” are outside and choose to remain outside by rejecting God’s Word. If that is their
response, they are even further from God than they were before. It is not just that the soil affects
the seed; in this allegorical interpretation, the seed changes the soil.
The seed is the Word of God (v. 11). Be careful, therefore, how you hear it (v. 18). This
interpretation arises from the life of the church. There are always consequences to what we
do, especially our responses to God’s call to us. Hearing is an active process. God’s Word calls
for a commitment of life. Those who actually hear God’s Word, therefore, burn like a candle.
They give light for others, they produce a bountiful harvest, and they will receive an even
greater reward. Because the Word is powerful, be careful how you hear it. The very hearing
of God’s Word can transform us. Moreover, God’s Word can have such far-reaching conse-
quences, for blessing or for judgment, that we must always be careful not to consider it casually
or hear it only superficially. God’s Word demands a radical openness on our part, our most
serious and thoughtful consideration, and our most trusting response.
Luke 8:19-21, Jesus’ Followers: His Mother and Brothers

NIV NRSV
19°Nlow Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see 19Then his mother and his brothers came to him,
him, but they were not able to get near him but they could not reach him because of the crowd.
because of the crowd. 2°Someone told him, “Your 20And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers
mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting are standing outside, wanting to see you.” */But he
to see you.” said to them, “My mother and my brothers are those
2\He replied, “My mother ahd brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”
who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”
181
(COMMENTARY
The interpretation of this scene, in which Jesus’ sisters are, and his pronouncement in Mark 3:34
mother and his brothers come to him and Jesus that those seated around him were now his fam-
responds with a pronouncement regarding the ily. The result is that Jesus’ rejection of his physi-
family status of those who hear and do God’s cal family has been excised from the Gospel story,
Word, is guided by three factors: (1) the context while leaving his pronouncement in place, grant-
of this scene at the conclusion of Luke 8:1-21; ing those who hear and do the Word of God
(2) Luke’s editing of the Markan form of this status equal to his family. This positive portrayal
scene; and (3) the translation of Jesus’ pronounce- of Jesus’ family accords well with the role of Mary
ment in v. 21. in the infancy narrative, Luke 11:27-28, and Acts
In Mark, the scene occurs earlier, prior to the 1:14. Luke says nothing about the family’s motive
parable of the sower and its interpretation. There, in coming to Jesus and explains their position
it contributes to the rising opposition against Jesus. outside (a note held over from Mark) as being
Scribes come down from Jerusalem and declare due to the crowd around Jesus.
that Jesus is controlled by Beelzebul. His family Jesus’: response, which in Mark consists of a
comes to him “to restrain him” (Mark 3:31; cf. question and two statements, is reduced to one
3:21), and while the crowd is around Jesus, his statement. Both the question and the first state-
family is outside. Jesus responds, first asking who ment, which Luke omits, distance Jesus from his
his mother and brothers are, and then announcing family. The remaining statement, however, is
the formation of a new family: “Whoever does open to various interpretations and translations
the will of God is my brother and sister and that range from affirmation of Jesus’ family to
mother” (Mark 3:35). affirmation of those who hear and do the Word
By placing Jesus’ pronouncement immediately of God, as illustrated by the translations offered
after the interpretation of the parable of the seeds in two leading commentaries on Luke:
and the soils and the appended sayings, and by “My mother and my brothers, they are the ones
altering Jesus’ pronouncement so that it echoes who listen to the word of God and act on it.”!
“the word of God” from v. 11 and “these are the
“These who hear and do the word of God are
ones who hear” from v. 15, Luke places the scene
a mother and brothers to me.”!%
in a positive context. It balances the reference to
the women who followed Jesus at the beginning Although the nouns “mother” (untnp meter) and
of the chapter and the references to the Twelve “prothers” (aS¢eAdov adelphoi) do not have the
in v. 1 and his disciples in v. 9. Taken together, article, the word order and use of the demonstra-
these references form a complete set of examples tive article favor treating “my mother and my
of those who hear the Word of God and do it: brothers” as the subject rather than the predicate.
the Twelve, the group of women who followed The ambiguity of the saying might be preserved,
him, the disciples, and finally the family of Jesus. however, by substituting “these” for “they” in
Luke omits the reference to Jesus’ family and Fitzmyer’s translation: “My mother and my broth-
their effort to restrain him (Mark 3:20-21). Luke ers, these are the ones who listen to the word of
also compresses the scene, omitting any reference God and act on it.”
to Jesus’ sisters, the contrast between the family
outside and the crowd seated around Jesus, Jesus’ 103. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Zhe Gospel According to Luke (I-1X), AB 28
question about who his mother and brothers and * 104, John Nolland, Luke, 3 vols., WBC 35A-C (Dallas: Word, 1989-93).
REFLECTIONS
Not to be missed in the debate over the nuance of Jesus’ saying and the position of his
physical family in Luke and Acts is the function of this scene at the conclusion of Luke 8:1-21.
This section develops the theme of hearing and doing God’s Word. Various groups have been
LUKE 8:19-21 REFLECTIONS ;
listed (the women, the crowd, and the disciples), a parable of the seed and its reception by
various
soils has been told and interpreted, and a series of sayings has warned readers to be careful how
they hear God’s Word. In the context of this foregoing material, Jesus’ pronouncement in v. 21
opens the way for all who hear and act on God’s Word to be included in Jesus’ family. More
important even than familial bonds is the urgency of being receptive and obedient to God’s Word.
Obedience to that Word also opens the way for a new relationship to the Lord, a kind of spiritual
kinship. As Hosea said, we who are no people, by receiving God’s Word may become God’s people
(Hos 2:23; 1 Pet 2:10). No wonder it is urgent to take care how you hear that word.
LUKE 8:22-56, THE POWER OF GOD AT

WORK IN JESUS
OVERVIEW
The next section is composed of three stories that as the recurring element in the titles chosen for
demonstrate Jesus’ power over nature, demons, ill- the three stories. By so dramatically emphasizing
hess, and death. The one who brought the Word Jesus’ power, Luke raises once again the question
of God also exercised the power of God (cf. 4:14). of Jesus’ identity, which binds together 7—9:50—
The term translated “master” (Emotdta epistata), “Who then is this?” (8:25).
which occurs in two of the stories (8:24, 45), serves
Luke 8:22-25, Master over Storms

NIV NRSV
22One day Jesus said to his disciples, “Let’s go 22One day he got into a boat with his disciples,
over to the other side of the lake.” So they got and he said to them, “Let us go across to the
into a boat and set out. *?As they sailed, he fell other side of the lake.” So they put out, and
asleep. A squall came down on the lake, so that while they were sailing he fell asleep. A wind-
the boat was being swamped, and they were in storm swept down on the lake, and the boat was
great danger. filling with water, and they were in danger.
*4The disciples went and woke him, saying, 74They went to him and woke him up, shouting,
“Master, Master, we’re going to drown!” “Master, Master, we are perishing!” And he woke
He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging up and rebuked the wind and the raging waves;
waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. they ceased, and there was a calm. 7°He said to
25“Where is your faith?” he asked his disciples. them, “Where is your faith?” They were afraid
In fear and amazement they asked one another, and amazed, and said to one another, “Who then
“Who is this? He commands even the winds and is this, that he commands even the winds and the
the water, and they obey him.” water, and they obey him?”
(COMMENTARY
The introductory phrase Signals a change of quence of the Gospel of Mark (4:35-5:43) and
setting and the introduction of a new series of here abridges Mark’s account of the stilling of the
related scenes. Luke continues to follow the se- storm (Mark 4:35-41), omitting the reference to
its being late, leaving the crowd, the other boats, of God’s power over the sea, which often recalled
the waves hitting the boat, the cushion, the stern, the exodus, were acclamations of God’s power to
Jesus’ words of rebuke, and the disciples’ fear. In preserve and protect (e.g, Ps 107:23-25, 28-29;
Luke’s hands, the story moves directly through see also Job 9:8; Ps 77:16, 19; Isa 43:2). By stilling
the description of danger, the request for deliver- the wind and the waves by his word of command,
ance, and Jesus’ command to the winds and the therefore, Jesus does what in the OT God alone
sea to the two questions at its conclusion: Jesus’ could do. The story is an,epiphany, a manifestation
question, “Where is your faith?” and the disciples’ of Jesus’ divine power and identity.
question, “Who then is this... ?” The disciples’ Characteristically, Luke portrays the disciples in
question about Jesus’ identity continues the re- a better light than Mark does. Luke does not
frain that began with the scribes (5:21), the dis- develop the theme of the disciples’ lack of under-
ciples of John the Baptist (7:20), and those at the standing or their hardness of heart, but it is clear
table with him (7:49); it will culminate with that at this point they still do not understand who
Herod’s question (9:9). Jesus is. Luke omits the disciples’ sharp question,
This is the only sea miracle in Luke, in contrast “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?”
to Mark and Matthew, which also report Jesus’ (Mark 4:38) and Jesus’ rebuke to the disciples,
walking on the water (Matt 14:22-33; Mark 6:45- “Why are you afraid?” Luke also changes the
52; cf. John 6:16-21). It is set at the point of Jesus’ ‘disciples’ address to Jesus from “Teacher” to
crossing to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, “Master,” a title that Luke uses of Jesus in other
where he will encounter Gentiles and exorcise the miracle stories (5:5; 8:45; 9:33, 49; 17:13).
demons from the Gerasene demoniac. Unlike Mark, Although this miracle story is directly related
however, the symbolism of crisis in moving from to the stories that will follow it, one should not
Jewish to Gentile regions is not developed in Luke. miss the fact that Jesus’ word effects the miracle.
On the other hand, Paul’s command of the storm The disciples marvel that even the wind and the
at sea (Acts 27:9-44) echoes the present account. In sea obey him. The effect, therefore, is to under-
the OT the sea is a place of danger; the Hebrews score once again the theme of the preceding
were desert people, not seafarers. Thus declarations section: hearing and doing God’s Word.
REFLECTIONS
Miracle stories offer special challenges for the interpreter. Many believers, for example, will
find it difficult to personify winds and waves so that they could be subject to the command
of a superior authority. On the other hand, to claim that there was no miracle, only a
coincidence of timing and that the wind and the waves subsided when Jesus commanded the
storm to cease, does violence to the story and strips it of its wonder and power.
Interpreting the story of Jesus stilling the storm, therefore, calls for the interpreter to use the
tools of a poet: imagery, imagination, and subtlety. The story is evocative because it paints a picture
of primal power: human beings caught in the grip of the forces of nature. The storm indicates that
the sea, a place of danger and chaos, had turned violent. The disciples were being victimized by
a force they could not control, and the conditioning of generations of desert-dwelling ancestors
would make any Jewish audience recoil at the thought of being caught in a storm at sea.
The sea was a challenge to God’s sovereignty. It evoked images of the primordial chaos.
God’s mighty act of deliverance had led thé Israelites through the sea at the exodus, so by
telling how Jesus had calmed the sea, early Christians were confessing that Jesus exercised
the power of the Lord, which had delivered the Israelites so long ago. What God had done
through Moses at the exodus, God was continuing to do through Jesus.
The story leads the reader to two questions, one that probes the nature of the reader’s faith
and one that leads the reader to consider again the identity of Jesus. The real question is not
whether Jesus stilled a storm on the Sea of Galilee but whether the God who delivers people
184
from bondage and from forces beyond their control still acts to deliver those who call on the
Lord in desperate circumstances today.
Luke 8:26-39, Master over Demons

NIV NRSV
°They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes,? 26Then they arrived at the country of the
which is across the lake from Galilee. 27?When Gerasenes,? which is opposite Galilee. ?”As he
Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon- stepped out on land, a man of the city who had
possessed man from the town. For a long time demons met him. For a long time he had worn?
this man had not worn clothes or lived in a house, no clothes, and he did not live in a house but in
but had lived in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, the tombs. "When he saw Jesus, he fell down
he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the before him and shouted at the top of his voice,
top of his voice, “What do you want with me, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the
Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don’t Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me”—
torture me!” 2°For Jesus had commanded the evil? 2°for Jesus® had commanded the unclean spirit to
spirit to come out of the man. Many times it had come out of the man. (For many times it had
seized him, and though he was chained hand and seized him; he was kept under guard and bound
foot and kept under guard, he had broken his with chains and shackles, but he would break the
chains and had been driven by the demon into bonds and be driven by the demon into the wilds.)
solitary places. Jesus then asked him, “What is your name?” He
Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” said, “Legion”; for many demons had entered
“Legion,” he replied, because many demons him. *'They begged him not to order them to go
had gone into him. *!And they begged him re- back into the abyss.
peatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss. 32Now there on the hillside a large herd of swine
32A large herd of pigs was feeding there on the was feeding; and the demons? begged Jesus® to let
hillside. The demons begged Jesus to let them go them enter these. So he gave them permission.
into them, and he gave them permission. **When Then the demons: came out of the man and
the demons came out of the man, they went into entered the swine, and the herd rushed down the
the pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep steep bank into the lake and was drowned.
bank into the lake and was drowned. 34When the swineherds saw what had hap-
34When those tending the pigs saw what had pened, they ran off and told it in the city and in
happened, they ran off and reported this in the the country. Then people came out to see what
town and countryside, *and the people went out had happened, and when they came to Jesus, they
to see what had happened. When they came to found the man from whom the demons had gone
Jesus, they found the man from whom the de- sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right
mons had gone out, sitting at Jesus’ feet, dressed mind. And they were afraid. °°Those who had
and in his right mind; and they were afraid. seen it told them how the one who had been
possessed by demons had been healed. *”Then all
36Those who had seen it told the people how the
the people of the surrounding country of the
demon-possessed man had been cured. *’Then all
Gerasenes* asked Jesus® to leave them; for they
the people of the region of the Gerasenes asked
were seized with great fear. So he got into the
Jesus to leave them, because they were overcome
boat and returned. **The man from whom the
with fear. So he got into the boat and left.
demons had gone begged that he might be with
38The man from whom the demons had gone him; but Jesus* sent him away, saying, “Return
out begged to go with him, but Jesus sent him
away, saying, “Return home and tell how much
aQther ancient authorities read Gadarenes; others, Gergesenes
6Other ancient authorities read a man of the city who had had de-
mons for a long time met him. He wore eGk he aGk they
426 Some manuscripts Gadarenes, other manuscripts Gergesenes, also
in verse 37 629 Greek unclean eGk him
185
LUKE 8:26-39
NIV NRSV
God has done for you.” So the man went away to your home,’ and declare how much God has
and told all over town how much Jesus had done done for you.” So he went away, proclaiming
for him. throughout the city how much Jesus had done for
him.
(COMMENTARY
Master over the forces of nature, Jesus now proposed. Luke, who draws the story from Mark
demonstrates that he is also master over demonic 5:1-20, adds the clause “which is opposite Gali-
spirits. This lengthy and complicated account lee,” indicating that Jesus and the disciples have
moves at several levels. It not only demonstrates crossed to the east side of the lake.
again the power of Jesus’ word but also foreshad- For clarity, the story may be divided into its
ows the mission to the Gentile world and de- constituent parts: (1) Jesus’ arrival (v. 26); (2)
scribes Jesus’ restoration of a deranged person to Jesus’ encounter with the demoniac and a descrip-
health and wholeness. In the process, the destruc- .tion of the demoniac’s background (vv. 27-31); (3)
tive power of evil is unmasked, and Jesus rises as the destruction of the demons and the swine (vv.
victor over the devil’s deceptions. 32-33); (4) confirmation of the exorcism by three
The story assumes the sensitivities of Jewish groups: the swineherds, the people, and “all the
piety. Pigs were unclean and abhorrent (Lev 11:7; people of the surrounding country” (vv. 34-37); and
Deut 14:8). They were easily associated with (5) the demoniac’s second request and the departure
Gentile uncleanness. Tombs were also a source of of both Jesus and the demoniac (vv. 38-39). Jesus’
uncleanness, and in Jewish areas they were white- command for the demon to come out of the man
washed so that one might not come in contact and the subsequent description of the man’s history
with a tomb accidentally. Demons roamed deso- are both reported after the fact. The latter part of
late places seeking refuge, but knowing the name v. 29 is therefore put in parentheses in the NRSV.
of the demons gave the exorcist control over By means of this device, Luke takes the reader
them. One can imagine the delight with which directly to the dramatic moment of the demoniac’s
this story was told in a Jewish-Christian context. initial response to Jesus, even though the later report
Luke does not say whether the purpose of the (v. 29a) stands in some tension with v. 28a.
sea crossing was to minister to this demoniac, but 8:27-31. Luke reduces Mark’s initial description
it is the only incident reported in that area. The of the man’s condition and defers further details
location is uncertain and has been debated from until v. 29, so the severity of his condition is not
an early time, as the manuscript tradition makes underscored until after the initial exchange between
clear. Gerasa (Jerash), located thirty miles south Jesus and the demoniac. All we are told at this point
of the Sea of Galilee in the Transjordan, was a is that the man had demons (plural, foreshadowing
leading city of the Decapolis. “The country of the the name “Legion”), that he wore no clothes (setting
Gerasenes” is the reading best supported by the up the contrast with v. 35), and that he lived among
manuscript tradition for Luke, but as Fitzmyer the tombs rather than in a house.
wryly commented, the distance is such that “the When he sees Jesus, the demoniac does not
stampede of the pigs from Gerasa to the Lake “bow down before him” as in Mark 5:6, but falls
would have made them the most energetic herd
at Jesus’ feet, shouting. His initial question con-
in history!”'° Gadara, lesser known but only six
veys that there can be no accommodation be-
miles from the lake, is named in other manu-
tween Jesus and the powers of evil. As a demon
scripts, and at least since the time of Origen
with access to the spirit world, the unclean spirit
Gergesa, on the shore near Tiberias, has been
knows Jesus’ identity, while ironically the disci-
105. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX), AB 28 ples have just been asking, “Who then is this?”
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981) 736. Perhaps in an effort to deprive Jesus of his power
186
by revealing his identity, the demon calls out, sion: the swineherds, the people who came out
“Jesus, Son of the Most High God” (v. 28). But to see, and finally “all the people of the surround-
rather than abjuring Jesus “by God” (Mark 7), in ing country” (v. 37). Three descriptors confirm
Luke the spirit begs Jesus not to torment it. the exorcism. The man (Luke does not call him
Only now are we told that Jesus had com- a demoniac) was clothed (cf. v. 27), sane, and at
manded the spirit to come out of the man. Jesus’ the feet of Jesus. As one at the feet of Jesus, the
command is also interpreted as an act of compas- man who had been possessed ranks with the
sion for the man because of all that he had woman who anointed Jesus’ feet (7:38), Jairus
suffered under the power of the demon. Simulta- (8:41), Mary (10:39), and the grateful leper
neously, the strength of this demon is dramatized. (17:16). The fear of the onlookers acknowledges
No one had been able to subdue him before. He the numinous power that had worked in their
even broke chains and shackles. midst. As in other references, Luke reports a
Jesus first demonstrates his power over the universal response: from “all the people” (v. 37).
demon by requiring it to divulge its name. “Le- They recognize the mystery and the power of
gion” is a number rather than a name, or at least what has taken place, but they cannot make a
a name that conveys the number and power of place for it or accommodate their lives to it. Their
the demons that possessed the man. A Roman response, therefore, is to ask Jesus to leave.
legion was composed of five or six thousand men. 8:38-39. When Jesus got into the boat, the
Whereas Mark reports that the demons urged man who had been possessed by the demons
Jesus not to send them “out of the country” (Mark asked that he might “be with him” (v. 38). Being
5:10), Luke sets up the action to come by report- “with him” is a phrase Luke has used of Jesus’
ing that they pleaded that Jesus not send them disciples (8:1; cf. 8:51). This is the man’s second
“into the abyss” (v. 31). In the thought world of request. His first was voiced in protest: “What
the NT, the abyss was the place where disobedi- have you to do with me?” (v. 28). Jesus had
ent spirits were imprisoned (Jude 6; 2 Pet 2:4; delivered him from his torment, and now he
Rewi9:125 Lis 20:1-3), wants to “have to do” with Jesus. But Jesus, who
8:32-33. Now, the herd of swine is intro- has been calling disciples, sends this man to his
duced. Luke’s account is less explicit about the home—which was in the Decapolis. Thus the
demons’ request to enter the swine, but never- beginning of the mission to the Gentiles in Luke
theless it is clear that the demons negotiate their and Acts can be traced not just to the work of
fate and that Jesus allows them to enter the swine. the apostles but to Jesus’ charge to the Gerasene
Luke also omits Mark’s report that there were demoniac as well. Mark underscores this commis-
two thousand pigs in the herd. The drowning of sion by reporting that the man began “to preach
the swine adds a suggestive twist to the story. No in the Decapolis” and “all were amazed.” Luke,
Jewish Christian would have raised questions who usually favors such universal responses, omits
about the ethics of Jesus’ allowing the destruction the final phrase because he wants the story to end
of the livelihood of the Gentile swineherds. In- with a different emphasis. In place of Mark’s
stead, the fate of the pigs would show that justice description of the Gentiles’ response, Luke has a
had prevailed all around: The man had been Subtle repetition that once again conveys an an-
delivered from the demons’ torment, the unclean swer to the disciples’ question, “Who then is this
herd had been destroyed, the demons had gotten that the wind and waves and now the demons
what they wanted, and in the end they had been obey hime” (see 8:25). Luke, who writes “an
destroyed along with the pigs. Jesus has outwitted orderly narrative” (1:1-4), reports that Jesus in-
the devil. The demons that wanted most to avoid structed the Gerasene demoniac to “relate” or
being sent into the abyss have been drowned in “narrate” “how much God has done for you,” and
the lake. When it gets its way, evil is always he went proclaiming “how much Jesus had done
destructive and ultimately self-destructive. for him” (v. 39). The story begins and ends,
8:34-37. The exorcism is confirmed by wit- therefore, with confessions whose force may be
nesses who see the man restored to peace and lost on the characters in the story but is clear to
normalcy. Three groups are mentioned in succes- the reader: the confession of the demons, “Jesus,
187
Son of the Most High God,” and the veiled serves both the theme of the power of Jesus’ word
affirmation of the narrator’s parallel phrases in in Luke 8 and the larger theme of the disclosure
which “Jesus” stands in place of “God.” of the identity of Jesus.
The story of the Gerasene demoniac, therefore,
REFLECTIONS
In the first century, this story probably had its greatest impact in affirming Jesus’ power over
demonic spirits, his compassion for a man of the Decapolis, and its foreshadowing of the apostles’
victories over the demons and pagan magic (see Acts 8:9-24; 13:6-12; 16:16-18; 19:11-20). In the
understanding of many, the world was populated by demons, spirits, nymphs, centaurs, and angels,
who controlled natural processes and often took possession of persons or controlled their fate. ‘The
demons could enter a person through the ears, nose, or mouth. Amulets, magic, sacrifices, and
rituals were needed if one were to have any hope of appeasing or escaping these spiritual powers.
Stories of Jesus’ power to exorcise demons demonstrated his power and elicited faith.
In our day, we have become far more accustomed to attributing calamities and disorders to
the forces of nature or to internal mental or emotional problems. The remedy is not exorcism
but counseling or medication. The story of the Gerasene demoniac should now be interpreted
so that it speaks a word of assurance and hope to those for whom every day is a battle with
depression, fear, anxiety, or compulsive behavior. They will understand what would lead a
person to say that his name is “mob” (Aeytwv legion, GNB). With such a response, the man
had acknowledged that he no longer had any individual identity. He had lost his name. He
had lost his individuality. All that was left was a boiling struggle of conflicting forces. It was
as though a Roman legion was at war within him.
How many families are at their wits’ end because no one has been able to help them cure or
care for a mentally ill loved one? We no longer use chains and shackles but straitjackets, padded
cells, injections, tranquilizers, and electric shocks. But still some mentally ill persons are driven
“into the wilds” (v. 29). This gospel story affirms that the compassion of Jesus led him to cross a
sea to reach such a person and that the power of Jesus’ word vanquished the greatest imaginable
assembly of demonic powers from this person and restored him to wholeness.
For many whose depression, grief, and fears are not so severe, the story also speaks a word
of assurance. Part of the remedy, however, may lie in the commission Jesus gave this man:
Tell others “how much God has done for you.”
Luke 8:40-56, Master over Sickness and Death
NIV NRSV
4°Now when Jesus returned, a crowd wel- 4ONow when Jesus returned, the crowd wel-
comed him, for they were all expecting him. comed him, for they were all waiting for him.
“IThen a man named Jairus, a ruler of the syna- “Just then there came a man named Jairus, a
gogue, came and fell at Jesus’ feet, pleading with leader of the synagogue. He fell at Jesus’ feet and
him to come to his house “because his only begged him to come to his house, “for he had
daughter, a girl of about twelve, was dying. an only daughter, about twelve years old, who
As Jesus was on his way, the crowds almost was dying.
crushed him. #*And a woman was there who had As he went, the crowds pressed in on him.
been subject to bleeding for twelve years,? but no “SNow there was a woman who had been suffer-
443 Many manuscripts years, and she had spent all she had on doctors ing from hemorrhages for twelve years; and
188
LUKE 8:40-56
NIV NRSV
one could heal her. “She came up behind him though she had spent all she had on physicians,?
and touched the edge of his cloak, and immedi- no one could cure her. “She came up behind him
ately her bleeding stopped. and touched the fringe of his clothes, and imme-
4“Who touched me?” Jesus asked. diately her hemorrhage stopped. “Then Jesus
When they all denied it, Peter said, “Master, asked, “Who touched me?” When all denied it,
the people are crowding and pressing against Peter? said, “Master, the crowds surround you and
you.” press in on you.” “But Jesus said, “Someone
But Jesus said, “Someone touched me; I know touched me; for I noticed that power had gone
that power has gone out from me.” out from me.” *7When the woman saw that she
47Then the woman, seeing that she could not could not remain hidden, she came trembling; and
go unnoticed, came trembling and fell at his feet. falling down before him, she declared in the
In the presence of all the people, she told why presence of all the people why she had touched
she had touched him and how she had been him, and how she had been immediately healed.
instantly healed. “*Then he said to her, “Daughter, 48He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made
your faith has healed you. Go in peace.” you well; go in peace.”
“While Jesus was still speaking, someone came A49While he was still speaking, someone came
from the house of Jairus, the synagogue ruler. from the leader’s house to say, “Your daughter is
“Your daughter is dead,” he said. “Don’t bother dead; do not trouble the teacher any longer.”
the teacher any more.” “°When Jesus heard this, he replied, “Do not fear.
°Hearing this, Jesus said to Jairus, “Don’t be Only believe, and she will be saved.” °'When he
afraid; just believe, and she will be healed.” came to the house, he did not allow anyone to enter
*'When he arrived at the house of Jairus, he with him, except Peter, John, and James, and the
did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, child’s father and mother. °?They were all weeping
John and James, and the child’s father and and wailing for her; but he said, “Do not weep; for
mother. **Meanwhile, all the people were wailing she is not dead but sleeping.” °2And they laughed
and mourning for her. “Stop wailing,” Jesus said. at him, knowing that she was dead. **But he took
“She is not dead but asleep.” her by the hand and called out, “Child, get up!”
They laughed at him, knowing that she was Her spirit returned, and she got up at once. Then
dead. *4But he took her by the hand and said, he directed them to give her something to eat. °°Her
“My child, get up!” *Her spirit returned, and at parents were astounded; but he ordered them to tell
once she stood up. Then Jesus told them to give no one what had happened.
her something to eat. Her parents were
aOther ancient authorities lack and though she had spent all she
astonished, but he ordered them not to tell any- had on physicians oOther ancient authorities add and those
one what had happened. who were with him
(COMMENTARY
The interlaced miracles of the healing of the (8:40-56}. In two of these stories, the term “Mas-
woman with the twelve-year-long hemorrhage ter” (emtoTtata epistata) has been used (8:24,
and the raising of Jairus’s twelve-year-old daugh- 45), and in each Jesus has exercised his power
ter add a further level to the development of by means of a command (8:24, 29, 54). The
the theme of Jesus’ power. Jesus’ power was two parts of Luke 8, therefore, develop related
demonstrated in his mastery over the elements themes: hearing and doing Jesus’ word (8:1-21),
of nature in the stilling of the storm (8:22-25), and the power of Jesus exercised through his
then in his mastery over the demonic spirits who word (8:22-56).
tormented the Gerasene demoniac (8:26-39), The sandwiching technique—in which the
and now in his mastery over sickness and death first part of a story is told, then a second story,
189
and then the rest of the first story—is typical of spired is deferred until after his question, “Who
Mark (see Mark 11:12-20; 14:53-72). Luke has touched me?” and the report of the woman’s
drawn the sandwiched miracles from Mark 5:21- knowledge of what had happened is omitted, so
43 with no change in their basic structure. Not that only Jesus has such knowledge. Like the
only are the two stories sandwiched, but also they Gerasene demoniac (8:28, 35) and Jairus (8:41),
are related by parallel motifs: “daughter” the woman falls at Jesus’ feet (8:47), explaining
(Quyatnp thygatér; Luke 8:42, 48); twelve years why she had touched him before “all the people”
(8:42, 43); “saved/well” (owfw sozo; 8:48, (8:47) and confirming the healing.
50); less significant parallels in the role of the 8:49-56. Luke’s insertion of Jesus’ assurance
crowds and the mourners; power leaving Je- to Jairus, “Only believe, and she will be saved”
sus and the spirit returning to Jairus’s daugh- (8:50, italics added) echoes his earlier assur-
ter; and the role of the desire for secrecy in ance, “Your faith has made you well” (8:48).
the two stories. Moreover, Luke has short- Both pronouncements contain forms of the same
ened the account and improved its style and Greek words, “faith”/“have faith [believe]”
syntax. (tiotis pistis, tiotevoov pisteuson) and “has
8:40-42. Among the Lukan alterations, the healed”/“will be healed” (céowkev sesoken,
following are the most significant. The introduc- ow8noetat sothesetai). This is the first scene to
tion to the story is told with greater economy and ‘feature the group of three disciples. Peter, James,
explains that the crowd gathered because they and John have a significant role in Mark as those
were “all” waiting for him. The girl is Jairus’s only who witness the raising of Jairus’s daughter, the
daughter, which invites comparison between the transfiguration, and Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane.
earlier raising of the only son of the widow of The role of secrecy and epiphanies before these
Nain (son/mother) and this story of the raising of three is not important to Luke, who adds no other
the only daughter of Jairus, a ruler of the syna- scenes in which these three are alone with Jesus
gogue (daughter/father). In addition, the notice and does not single out the group of three in his
that she was twelve years old is moved from the account of Jesus at Gethsemane. Luke sharpens
end of the story to the beginning (v. 42). the exchange between Jesus and the mourners,
8:43-48. Luke softens Mark’s comment that so that Jesus commands them, “Do not weep,”
the woman with a hemorrhage had suffered and the narrator explains that the mourners
much from many physicians and was no better. laughed because they knew the child was dead.
The NRSV translates the longer reading of v. Luke thereby removes the ambiguity that lingers
43, which contains the clause “and though she in Mark regarding whether the child was dead or
had spent all she had on physicians”; but a not. Luke does not report Jesus’ movement into
strong case can be made for following the manu- the house (or into another part of the house) or
scripts that omit this text, saying only that “no his casting out the crowd (cf. Mark 5:40), but
one could cure her.” If Luke himself was a moves directly to Jesus’ action and the words he
physician, his omission of Mark’s deprecatory spoke. Mark’s Aramaic command, “Talitha kumi”
remark is all the more understandable. Luke (“Little girl, rise”), is translated into Greek. Luke,
omits the woman’s interior monologue but adds who typically notes comings and goings at the
that the woman touched the fringe or tassels of beginning and end of each scene, reports that “her
Jesus’ garment. Luke also makes Peter the spirit returned.” The command to give the girl
spokesman for the disciples and adds the title something to eat not only underscores Jesus’ care
“Master,” which has been used earlier in Luke for her well-being but also corresponds to Jesus’
(5:5; 8:24). Just as Luke omitted the disciples’ action in eating fish with his disciples after his
harsh address to Jesus in the stilling of the storm resurrection (Luke 24:42-43). The action of eating
(“Do you not care that we are perishing?” [Mark proves that the person is no ghost, spirit, or angel
4:38; Luke 8:24]), so also here Luke omits the (see Tob 12:19).
disciples’ implied rebuke of Jesus, “How can The effect of these editorial modifications is to
you say, ‘Who touched me?’ ” (Mark 5:31). The diminish the role of secrecy while tying the inter-
report of Jesus’ knowledge of what had tran- twined miracles more closely to the preceding
190
S
demonstrations of Jesus’ power. In Luke, the | demonstrate faith by coming to Jesus in the con-
theological vocabulary of believing and being fidence that he can help them. As a result, Luke
saved is enhanced by the addition of the promise, shows that Jesus is master not only of the natural
“and she will be saved” (v. 50). Little theological © order and the demonic powers but master over
content can be attached to faith at this point, but — sickness and death also.
both the woman with the hemorrhage and Jairus
REFLECTIONS
1. In both the story of the Gerasene demoniac and in these miracles Jesus moves toward
persons in need with no apparent regard for the laws of ritual purity. The demoniac, who
lived among tombs and a herd of pigs, was certainly unclean. The woman with a hemorrhage
had lived for twelve years in a state of impurity (Lev 15:25-31), and any contact between her
and Jesus would have made him unclean. An entire tractate of the Mishnah is devoted to
restrictions regarding menstruants.'”° Similarly, the corpse of Jairus’s daughter was unclean, and
by taking her hand Jesus would have been defiled. In each case, however, Jesus moved to
bring healing, life, and wholeness to the person in need. By implication, if Jesus reached out
to an unclean person and a corpse, no such barriers should stand in the way of extending the
gospel to Samaritans and Gentiles.
2. Although Luke does not develop the secrecy motif as Mark does, secrecy nevertheless
plays an interesting role in these stories. The woman with a hemorrhage sought to keep her
condition a secret, confident that even the fringes or tassels of Jesus’ garments (see Num
15:38-39) possessed the power to heal her. Because mere contact with Jesus’ garment produced
healing, the story might have fostered the growth of superstition and magic rather than faith
in Jesus (cf. Acts 5:15; 19:11-12, which show that such magic was not unknown in early
Christianity). By demanding a personal confrontation with the woman, Jesus was not seeking
to shame or embarrass her but to recognize her faith and offer her his blessing. In an interesting
contrast, following the resuscitation of Jairus’s daughter Jesus ordered her. parents not to tell
anyone what had happened. The fact that the daughter was alive and well could not be hidden,
but the crowd could be left to assume that she had not been dead after all and that she had
recovered suddenly. Luke, therefore, portrays Jesus’ power to heal and give life, but also records
his efforts to stifle reports that would have interpreted Jesus’ power as the exercise of magic.
The only difference between miracle and magic, however, is whether the act is viewed as
being within or outside the bounds of what can be sanctioned.
3. Jesus’ claim that the daughter was sleeping and the crowd’s jeering response that she
was dead call for further reflection on the common euphemism of sleep for death (see John
11:11-15). Jesus’ words were not a description of her physical condition but a prediction of
her return to life. Because Jesus would take her hand and awaken the little girl, her condition
was temporary. Thus the euphemism of sleep for death is a confession of God’s promise of
life. Luke no doubt understands, on the far side of the resurrection of Jesus, that what Jesus
did for Jairus’s daughter is a picture of the hope for all believers. Jesus takes the hand of all
who trust in his power and says, “Young man, | say to you, rise” (7:14), “Child, get up”
(8:54).
106. See m. Niddah.
191
LUKE 9:1-50, THE MESSIAH OF GOD

AND THE SON OF MAN
OVERVIEW
In Luke 9 the themes and issues that have been life. Jesus’ identity and role as the Messiah are
developing in the previous two chapters reach a confirmed and clarified by the events that follow
climax. Jesus extends his ministry of healing by Peter’s confession. At the transfiguration, the
sending out the Twelve. When reports of their voice from heaven declares “This is my Son, my
work reach Herod, he asks, “Who is this about Chosen; listen to him!” (9:35). The next day, after
whom | hear such things?” (9:9). This section of casting the demon out of the epileptic boy, Jesus
the Gospel provides an answer to Herod’s ques- tells of his death a second time. The disciples still
tion. Jesus is “the Messiah of God” (9:20), but he have not understood, however, because they de-
is also the Son of Man who will be rejected and bate among themselves as to which of them is
killed by the religious authorities. Discipleship, the greatest and attempt to prevent others from
therefore, requires a total commitment of one’s ‘casting out demons in Jesus’ name.
Luke 9:1-17, The Mission of the Twelve and Herod’s Question

NIV NRSV
When Jesus had called the Twelve to- * Then Jesus? called the twelve together and
gether, he gave them power and authority Q gave them power and authority over all
to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2and demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them
he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal.
and to heal the sick. *He told them: “Take nothing He said to them, “Take nothing for your journey,
for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money—not even
money, no extra tunic. “Whatever house you an extra tunic. “Whatever house you enter, stay
enter, stay there until you leave that town. ‘If there, and leave from there. °Wherever they do
people do not welcome you, shake the dust off
not welcome you, as you are leaving that town
your feet when you leave their town, as a testi-
shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against
mony against them.” °So they set out and went
them.” °They departed and went through the
from village to village, preaching the gospel and
villages, bringing the good news and curing dis-
healing people everywhere.
eases everywhere.
’Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that
was going on. And he was perplexed, because 7Now Herod the ruler?’ heard about all that had
some were saying that John had been raised from taken place, and he was perplexed, because it was
the dead, ®others that Elijah had appeared, and said by some that John had been raised from the
still others that one of the prophets of long ago dead, *by some that Elijah had appeared, and by
had come back to life. °But Herod said, “I be- others that one of the ancient prophets had arisen.
headed John. Who, then, is this I hear such things ’Herod said, “John I beheaded; but who is this
about?” And he tried to see him. about whom I hear such things?” And he tried to
'°When the apostles returned, they reported to see him.
Jesus what they had done. Then he took them 10On their return the apostles told Jesus* all
with him and they withdrew by themselves to a they had done. He took them with him and
town called Bethsaida, ''but the crowds learned withdrew privately to a city called Bethsaida.
about it and followed him. He welcomed them aGk he ®Gk tetrarch ¢Gk him
192
LUKE 9:1-17
NIV NRSV
and spoke to them about the kingdom of God, "When the crowds found out about it, they
and healed those who needed healing. followed him; and he welcomed them, and spoke
'2Late in the afternoon the Twelve came to him to them about the kingdom of God, and healed
and said, “Send the crowd away so they can go those who needed to be cured.
to the surrounding villages and countryside and 12The day was drawing to a close, and the
find food and lodging, because we are in a remote twelve came to him and said, “Send the crowd
place here.” away, so that they may go into the surrounding
'SHe replied, “You give them something to villages and countryside, to lodge and get provi-
eat.” sions; for we are here in a deserted place.” '*But
They answered, “We have only five loaves of he said to them, “You give them something to
bread and two fish—unless we go and buy food eat.” They said, “We have no more than five
for all this crowd.” '4(About five thousand men loaves and two fish—unless we are to go and buy
were there.) food for all these people.” '4For there were about
But he said to his disciples, “Have them sit five thousand men. And he said to his disciples,
down in groups of about fifty each.” !°The disci- “Make them sit down in groups of about fifty
ples did so, and everybody sat down. '°Taking the each.” !°They did so and made them all sit down.
five loaves and the two fish and looking up to 'eAnd taking the five loaves and the two fish, he
heaven, he gave thanks and broke them. Then he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke them,
gave them to the disciples to set before the people. and gave them to the disciples to set before the
"They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples crowd. '7And all ate and were filled. What was
picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that left over was gathered up, twelve baskets of
were left over. broken pieces.
(COMMENTARY
Luke 9 opens with scenes that tie together the particular statement, he seems to structure this
issue of Jesus’ identity and the spread of the work section of the Gospel-around these two aspects of
of the kingdom. Having manifested his power in discipleship (see 8:1). The disciples have been
the series of miracle stories at the end of the instructed by Jesus during the sermon in Luke
previous chapter, Jesus sends his disciples out to 6:20-49 and by Jesus’ sayings and acts of power
preach and heal in the villages. Herod raises the on other occasions. This is the first of four scenes
question that others have voiced: “Who is Jesus?” in which the disciples are commissioned in Luke:
The first answer that is given is a symbolic act: (1) sending the Twelve to preach and heal
Jesus takes bread and feeds a multitude. (9:1-6), (2) sending the seventy in pairs (10:1-
9:1-6, Commissioning the Twelve. 9:1-2. 11), (3) Jesus’ preparation of the apostles for their
Jesus’ instructions to the Twelve parallel Mark post-Easter mission (22:35-38), and (4) the com-
6:60-13, but Luke has edited his source, adding missioning of the eleven and the others at the end
greater emphasis to the conferral of “power” over of the Gospel (24:48-49). A further commissioning
“all” the demons (v. 1), and specifying that the follows in Acts 1:6-8.
Twelve were to heal the sick and preach the In contrast to Mark’s concentration on the
kingdom of God (v. 2). Perhaps reflecting his conferral of power over the unclean spirits, Luke’s
setting in a more affluent social class, Luke records account of the commissioning is more inclusive
that Jesus forbade the disciples to carry silver and more reflective of the character of Jesus’
coins—not copper coins as in Mark. ministry as it has been described to this point.
Mark 3:14 explains that Jesus called the disci- The disciples will have power over all the demons,
ples for two reasons: (1) to be with him and power to heal the sick, and to preach the kingdom
(2) to be sent out. Although Luke omits this of God. The work of the kingdom requires both
193
preaching and healing (9:2) so that if either is Jesus and the universal extent of the kingdom:
neglected the distinctive nature of the kingdom They were successful “everywhere.”
may be lost. 9:7-9, Herod’s Question. Although the issue
9:3-5. The second part of this scene—Jesus’ of Jesus’ identity is an underlying theme of the entire
instructions to the Twelve—is introduced by a Gospel, it comes to the fore in this section. Herod
transitional phrase at the beginning of v. 3. The has an effective intelligence system. He hears “all
instructions cover three related topics: (1) what that had taken place” and the suggestions that others
they may and may not take with them, (2) how were offering as to Jesus’ identity. In response,
they are to receive hospitality, and (3) their re- Herod rejects the suggestion that it could be John
sponse to rejection. Although the instructions are because he has beheaded John: “Who is this about
clear, the rationale and social context for these whom | hear such things?” This is the way in which
restrictions have been interpreted variously. Jesus readers of the Gospel learn about John’s fate (see
forbade the disciples to take any provisions for earlier 3:19-20; 7:18-23).
their journey—not a traveler’s staff (allowed in Herod’s question is the culmination of a series
of such questions:
Mark 6:8) nor a traveler’s bag (cf. Mark 6:8; Luke
10:4; 22:35), which might also be interpreted as The scribes and Pharisees: “Who is this who is
a beggar’s bag nor bread (cf. Mark 6:8) nor silver speaking blasphemies?” (5:21).
coins nor two cloaks (cf. Mark 6:8). Various
John the Baptist: “Are you the one who is to
interpretations have been offered for these restric- come?” (7:19).
tions. By traveling in this way the disciples will
dramatize the urgency of their mission, they will Those at table with Jesus: “Who is this who even
declare their complete dependence on God’s pro- forgives sins?” (7:49).
vision for their needs, and they will define their
The disciples: “Who then is this, that he com-
solidarity with the poor. Regardless of the precise mands even the winds and the water, and they
rationale for these restrictions, they set the pattern obey him?” (8:25).
for the practice of hospitality in the context of the
mission of the early church. The book of Acts, 3 Herod’s question, therefore, prepares the reader for
John, and the Didache all describe a similar pat- the series of answers that the coming scenes will
tern; traveling apostles, prophets, and evangelists provide. Jesus is “the Messiah of God” (9:20), “the
depended on the hospitality of other believers
Son of Man” (9:22), and “my Son, my Chosen”
(9:35). The effect of this series of questions is not
wherever they went. For this reason, hospitality
just to set up the answers that are coming, however.
was crucial to the conduct of the church’s mission
The recurring questions about Jesus’ identity from
(Rom 12:13; Titus 1:8; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The
different characters who have witnessed different
admonition to stay wherever they are received
aspects of his work lead the reader to wonder and
(and therefore not to seek better accommodations)
marvel at the person and work of Jesus. The ques-
cautioned them against offending their hosts or
tions are even more powerful than the lofty titles
appearing to be concerned about their own com-
attributed to Jesus because the answer to the ques-
fort. Jesus’ instructions envision the response not
tions is not exhausted by the titles. Jesus is every-
just of individuals or families but of whole villages thing the titles confess him to be, but he is more.
(such as what Paul and his companions experience “Who then is this?”
in Acts 13; 16; 17). If a village refused to receive Luke has edited Mark 6:14-16 in order to
them, the disciples were to testify against the village create a sharper focus on the issue of Jesus’
by shaking the dust from their feet as they left. ‘identity. Whereas Mark presents an extended sec-
9:6. This verse concludes the commissioning tion at this point describing the arrest and behead-
scene, underscoring the disciples’ obedience and ing of John, Luke has moved the report of the
success, and reiterating the principal features of arrest to 3:19-20 and has Herod merely allude to
their mission: preaching the good news and heal- John’s death at this point. Herod is more accu-
ing the sick. The last word affirms both the power rately called tetrarch (cf. 3:1, 19) rather than king,
of the disciples who had been commissioned by as in Mark 6:14. In addition, Luke’s reference to
194
“all that had taken place” is not only more inclu- plished by the Twelve while they are away from
sive than Mark’s emphasis on Jesus’ miracles but Jesus. Mark fills this gap with an extended ac-
also serves to recall for the reader all that has been count of the arrest and execution of John the
reported to this point of Jesus’ ministry. The report- Baptist. Luke has only the report of Herod’s reac-
ing of the speculations about Jesus’ identity is tion to the reports in vv. 7-9. The summary
streamlined, and Herod’s response is changed from reference to “all they had done” in v. 10 leaves
a rather flat statement to a question that resonates the reader to imagine works like those performed
with the earlier questions about Jesus. Luke does by Jesus earlier in the Gospel.
not need to have Herod link Jesus with John (as in The feeding of the five thousand is the only
Mark 6:16) because he has already devoted a series one of Jesus’ miracles that is reported in all four
of scenes to establishing the relationship between Gospels; in Mark and Matthew, there is also a
Jesus and John (see 7:18-35). second feeding of four thousand. Luke appears to
The speculations about who Jesus is are significant have depended on Mark 6:30-44 for his account
even if they are not accurate. All of the speculations of the feeding, but there are several minor agree-
link Jesus with a prophetic figure, but Luke has ments between Matthew and Luke, and Luke has
already established that whereas Jesus’ mighty works extensively rewritten the account presented in
were like those of the prophets he was greater than Mark. For reasons that are not entirely clear to
the prophets (see 7:1-35). Elijah was expected to us, Luke changes Mark’s account of the site of
return before “the great and terrible day of the Lorp” the feeding of the multitude. Whereas Mark says
(Mal 4:5; Sir 48:10), but John has fulfilled the role that they went by boat to a wilderness place
of Elijah (Luke 1:17). Still, Elijah will play a signifi- (Mark 6:32), Luke reports that Jesus led the
cant role in the transfiguration account as the rep- disciples to Bethsaida. The references to Bethsaida
resentative of the prophets of Israel (see 9:19, 30, in the omitted material in Mark 6:45 and 8:22
33, 54). Herod’s confession that he had beheaded may have influenced Luke’s understanding of the
John serves ironically to underscore the truth that tradition. Nevertheless, Luke moves closer to
God’s redemptive work has never been defeated by Mark’s account by reporting later that they were
killing God’s prophets. Herod still had John’s blood in a deserted place (see 9:12).
on his hands, yet Jesus’ great works were on every- Luke omits the reference to Jesus’ compassion
one’s lips. The violence of the wicked is no match and the allusion to the people being like sheep
for God’s grace. without a shepherd (Num 27:17; 1 Kgs 22:17) in
Herod’s question and his desire to see Jesus Mark 6:34 and rejects Mark’s bland report that Jesus
foreshadow coming events. Herod might seek to kill “taught them many things” in favor of a description
Jesus (13:31), but Jesus would not die in Galilee of Jesus teaching about the kingdom of God and
(Herod’s territory) but in Jerusalem. When Herod healing the sick. In Luke’s account, the feeding is
did meet Jesus—after Pilate sent Jesus to him— initiated by the disciples. Seeing that evening is
Herod’s desire was fulfilled, but he wanted only to coming and that they are in a deserted place, the
see Jesus perform a sign. If indeed Herod had disciples suggest that Jesus send the crowd away to
wanted to kill Jesus (13:31), he further implicates the villages and countryside so that they could find
himself by recognizing Jesus’ innocence (23:15). lodging and food for themselves.
Therefore, Herod is a tragic figure; although his The language of the feeding of the five thou-
desire to meet Jesus is eventually fulfilled, he never sand reverberates with echoes from three other
grasps the answer to his question. biblical contexts: (1) the feeding of the Israelites
9:10-17, The Return of the Twelve and the in the wilderness; (2) Elisha’s feeding of a hun-
Feeding of the Five Thousand. This passage dred with twenty loaves (2 Kgs 4:42-44); and
serves as a bridge between Herod’s question and (3) the traditional language of the eucharist. Luke
Peter’s confession in 9:20. This sequence is created does not make the exodus context explicit, as
by Luke’s “big omission” at Luke 9:17. At this point, John does, but the provision of bread for a mul-
Luke omits Mark 6:45-8:26 and moves directly titude in the wilderness would have evoked pow-
from the feeding to Peter’s confession. erful associations for all for whom the exodus was
None of the Gospels narrates the work accom- a significant event in their religious heritage and
195
Scriptures. The contacts with Elisha’s miraculous prepares for the relief efforts described in Acts
feeding are more direct. Elisha does not feed the (4:32-37; 6:1-6; 11:27-30).
men himself but instructs another to do so: “Give The significance of the two fish is not as easily
it to the people and let them eat” (2 Kgs 4:42). explained as the symbolism of bread. Fish was a
The man protests that there will not be enough staple in Galilean diets and the only meat eaten
for such a crowd. Elisha repeats his instructions. in great quantities by Jews in the first century. If
After the men had eaten, they “had some left” the accounts of the feeding of the five thousand
(2 Kgs 4:44). The collection of the fragments after have been shaped by early Christian worship and
the feeding of the five thousand probably echoes reflection on the Hebrew Scriptures, it is possible
both 2 Kgs 4:44 and the references to gathering that the fish would have been understood either
manna in the wilderness (Exod 16:15-21). What as echoes of the prophet’s description of Leviathan
is distinctive in the feeding account when com- at the eschatological banquet (4 Ezra 6:49-52;
pared with these echoes from Moses and the 2 Bar 29:4; 1 Enoch 6:7-9, 24) or as an allusion
Prophets is the peculiar action of taking the bread, to the sign of the fish in early Christian art. Based
on an anagram for the Greek word for “fish”
looking up to heaven, blessing the bread, breaking
(ix8Us ichthys) the sign of the fish denoted the
it, and giving it to the disciples. With the excep-
Christian confession “Jesus Christ is the Son of
tion of looking to heaven, which was the common
‘God, the Savior” (cf. Acts 8:37).
posture for prayer (Job 22:26-27; Luke 18:13;
The reference to seating the crowd in groups of
John 17:1), the other verbs in this series echo the
fifty has at times been interpreted as imposing some
early church’s eucharistic formulas (Mark 14:22-
organization on the crowd in fulfillment of the
23; Luke 22:19; 24:30; 1 Cor 11:23-24). It is also
organization of Israel, in imitation of the organization
just at this point that Luke’s account of the feeding
at Qumran, or as the beginning of a zealot revolt.
reproduces the language of Mark’s account most
Nevertheless, the text of Luke does not naturally
faithfully (cf. Mark 6:41; Luke 9:16). Luke follows
lead one to any of these interpretations.
his source closely at this point because it echoes Luke’s report that the multitude who ate “were
the words that were regularly repeated at the filled” echoes not only 2 Kgs 4:44 but also Jesus’
observance of the eucharist. earlier beatitude in the sermon on the plain: “Blessed
For early Christian readers, Jesus’ actions, described are you who are hungry now,/ for you will be filled”
in the sequence of verbs that follow the eucharistic (6:21). The feeding of the multitude, therefore, is a
pattern, also have a revelatory function. Just as Jesus’ sign that the kingdom of God is present in Jesus.
breaking of bread after his death revealed his identity The one who feeds the hungry is the one who fulfills
to the two who had accompanied him on the road the exodus hopes of Israel, the words of Isaiah that
to Emmaus (24:30-31, 35), so also the echoes of Jesus’ announce good news for the poor (4:18), and Jesus’
distinctive action in taking, blessing, breaking, and teachings on the kingdom. Luke’s placement of the
giving bread to his followers serves in this scene as feeding as the bridge between Herod’s question and
an allusion to his identity. By teaching the disciples Peter’s answer, therefore, exploits the full revelatory
to meet hunger by giving bread, Jesus’ instruction also power of the feeding tradition.
REFLECTIONS
Luke’s account of the sending out of the Twelve, Herod’s question, and the feeding of the five
thousand present powerful themes for theological reflection. Luke has set the question of Jesus’
identity between a commissioning of his followers to preach and heal and the miracle of feeding.
Christology and mission are thereby wedded as two sides of the same reality. Jesus’ identity is
revealed in what he does and what he calls others to do. By the same token, those who desire
to see who Jesus is will see him only if they respond to his call to preach the gospel, heal the
sick, and feed the hungry. There is still truth in Albert Schweitzer’s immortal words at the
conclusion of The Quest of the Historical Jesus:
He speaks to us the same word: “Follow thou me!” and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for
our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal
Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and,
as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.'”
Jesus’ instructions for the mission are still important, even if few would be tempted to carry
a staff today. Jesus’ commissioning of the disciples exposes the theological and social core of
the mission. First, commitment to the redemptive mission is inseparable from the commitment
to be a follower of Jesus. Being sent out is the natural result of being with Jesus. In modern
theological terms, missions and evangelism are the natural result of worship and Christian
education. The Christian calling never finds its fulfillment in one’s own worship, nurture, and
piety but always in the extension of God’s grace and care to others. Similarly, the Christian
mission is rooted in worship, meditation, and study that sustain and empower the disciple.
Although the disciples do not yet understand fully who Jesus is, they serve effectively when
they respond to Jesus’ commissioning, and as a result of their obedience they will eventually
see more clearly who Jesus is. Revelation is the companion of experience and the by-product
of obedience. The disciples, therefore, will eventually see Jesus as the crucified and risen Lord,
while Herod never moves beyond the scandal of political threat, curiosity about the miraculous,
and questions of guilt and innocence.
Those who are sent out on mission travel in faith. There is no guarantee of success or
safety. The disciple trusts in God’s providence and the power of the gospel. Neither can the
disciple who brings good news to the poor remain wedded to the system of wealth. The
disciple carries no trappings of wealth. Nor will the representatives of God’s kingdom seek to
climb society’s social ladder. Good news for the poor, therefore, can be proclaimed only by
those who are willing to take their stand with the poor.
The practice of hospitality gives witness to the power of the gospel to create community.
Christians open their doors to one another. Social barriers between rich and poor, native and
newcomer are torn down. By receiving outsiders at our table, we declare the power of reconciliation
to a fragmented society. Perhaps it is time to revive the practice of evangelical hospitality.
The other side of the sandwich created by the commissioning and feeding scenes reminds
us that the preaching of the gospel can never be separated from care for-social and physical
needs. The early church understood the giving of bread as a sacramental act. The last supper,
the institution of the eucharist, was tied to both the meals with the outcasts and the multitudes
in Galilee and to the post-resurrection meal scenes at the end of Luke. God’s love has been
symbolized through the provision of bread ever since the Israelites ate manna in the wilderness
and Elisha fed hungry men with “food from the first fruits” (2 Kgs 4:42). The sequence of
scenes in Luke suggests the revelatory function of the feeding: Because Jesus fed the multitude,
his disciples saw that he was God’s anointed one. This conjunction of the feeding of the five
thousand and Peter’s confession also foreshadows the disciples’ recognition of the risen Lord
in the breaking of bread at Emmaus. When their companion on the road took bread, blessed
it, and gave it to them, they recognized that the risen Lord had been present with them. What
do others see when we feed the hungry in the name of Jesus?
Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, trans. W. Montgomery

107. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: ACritical Study of Its
(New York: Macmillan, 1950) 403.
197
LUKE 9:18-27
Bake 9:18-27, Peter’s Confession and the

Demands of Discipleship
NIV NRSV
1'8Once when Jesus was praying in private and 18Once when Jesus? was praying alone, with
his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who only the disciples near him, he asked them, “Who
do the crowds say I ame” do the crowds say that I am?” '°They answered,
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; “John the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still
others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the others, that one of the ancient prophets has
prophets of long ago has come back to life.” arisen.” ?°He said to them, “But who do you say
20“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do that I am?” Peter answered, “The Messiah? of
you say I am?” God.”
Peter answered, “The Christ? of God.” 21He sternly ordered and commanded them
2\Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to not to tell anyone, **saying, “The Son of Man
anyone. *And he said, “The Son of Man must must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by
suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, _the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed,
chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must “and on the third day be raised.”
be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” 23Then he said to themall, “If any want to
*8Then he said to them all: “If anyone would become my followers, let them deny themselves
come after me, he must deny himself and take up and take up their cross daily and follow me. ?4For
his cross daily and follow me. *4For whoever wants those who want to save their life will lose it, and
to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his those who lose their life for my sake will save it.
life for me will save it. *?What good is it for a man "What does it profit them if they gain the whole
to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his world, but lose or forfeit themselves? ?°Those who
very selfe *°If anyone is ashamed of me and my are ashamed of me and of my words, of them the
words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him Son of Man will be ashamed when he comes in
when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the his glory and the glory of the Father and of the
Father and of the holy angels. ?’I tell you the truth, holy angels. ?”But truly I tell you, there are some
some who are standing here will not taste death standing here who will not taste death before they
before they see the kingdom of God.” see the kingdom of God.”
a20 Or Messiah aGk he 6Or The Christ
(COMMENTARY
This section consists of a conversation in three oped the theme of “who then is this” and offered
parts between Jesus and the disciples. The first indirect answers by developing Jesus’ fulfillment
part contains two questions regarding Jesus’ iden- of the prophetic traditions drawn primarily from
tity (vv. 18-20). The first question elicits three Isaianic themes, the Elijah-Elisha cycles, and exo-
answers regarding who the crowds say Jesus is. dus motifs, the disciples offer the first confession
The second question leads to Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah. The language of Peter’s
that Jesus is “the Messiah of God.” The second ‘confession echoes earlier declarations embedded
part of the conversation joins Jesus’ charge that in the infancy account, but the second part of the
the disciples tell no one with the first of the conversation immediately begins to qualify and
passion predictions (vv. 21-22). The third part interpret Peter’s confession. Both the confession
links the confession of Jesus to teachings on and the modifications that follow in the remainder
discipleship (vv. 23-27). of this chapter will have to be considered care-
After an extended section in Luke that devel- fully.
198
9:18-20, Peter’s Confession. Here again, The third Lukan modification that serves an
Luke depends on Mark. Luke has moved directly important function in the narrative is the change
from the feeding of the five thousand, which in of “one of the prophets” (Mark 8:28) to “one of
Mark occurs in 6:30-44, to Peter’s confession (Mark the ancient prophets has arisen” (Luke 9:19). The
8:27-30). Various explanations for this omission of difference between the two phrases is not great,
Markan material have been suggested (avoiding dou- but in Luke the phrase is a verbatim repetition of
blets or omitting accounts of Jesus’ work outside of Luke’s earlier summary of Herod’s words (9:8).
Galilee), but the omitted material is not sufficiently By means of this repetition, the confession scene
homogeneous to confirm any of these conjectures. is tied directly to Herod’s question. Peter will give
The effect of the omission, as was noted in the the answer that Herod never finds. ,
commentary on the feeding of the five thousand, is The answers that the disciples give to Jesus’
to bring the feeding and Peter’s confession into question about the level of the crowd’s under-
direct relation to each other—a fact that may prove standing underscore Jesus’ identification with the
significant for defining the meaning of the confession prophetic tradition: John the Baptist, Elijah, one
“the Messiah of God.” of the ancient prophets. The crowds have under-
Three other Lukan modifications of the confession stood that Jesus’ mighty works are of the same
scene give it a distinctive meaning in this context. cloth as those performed and predicted by the
First, Luke has omitted Mark’s designation of the prophets: announcing good news for the poor,
geographical location (Caesarea Philippi) and substi- challenging the rich, giving sight to the blind,
tutes instead a designation of the spiritual context healing lepers, and raising the dead. Luke 7 and
of the confession. Rather than locate the confession 8 especially have defined Jesus as one greater than
of Jesus as the Christ at a place named for the the prophets and greater than John the Baptist.
Roman emperor and his tetrarch, the confession The time has now come to articulate the nature
occurs where Jesus is at prayer to God with his of that “greater than.” By means of the succession
disciples. Prayer is an important theme in Luke of two questions regarding Jesus’ identity and the
because it serves as another way of emphasizing that emphatic opening of the second question, literally,
all Jesus does is a part of God’s redemptive plan (see “But you, who do you say that I am?” Luke
the references to prayer in 3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 11:1; telegraphs the fact that the answers the crowds
22:40-41, 44, 46; 23:46). Luke also omits Mark’s have proposed are inadequate. The disciples,
reference to being “on the way,” reserving the through Peter, now show that they have moved
introduction of the passion motif until after Peter’s to a higher level of understanding.
confession. Peter’s confession, “the Messiah [xptotds chris-
Second, Luke changes Mark’s allusion to “peo- tos| of God,” has been interpreted in various
ple” in Mark 8:27 to “the crowds.” The crowds ways, as has the issue of whether it accurately
have been a recurring fixture of Luke’s account reproduces a pre-Easter confession. The issue of
of Jesus’ ministry since the end of Luke 4. The whether the title is to be understood in a pro-
crowds press around Jesus. On one occasion Jesus phetic context or a royal, Davidic context is
challenged the crowds with the question of John relevant to both of these questions. The reader
the Baptist’s identity: “What did you go out into already knows that Jesus is the Christ from refer-
the wilderness to look at?” (7:24). The crowds ences in Luke 2:11, 26; 3:15; 4:41. Luke has
are also mentioned three times in the feeding of cited the connection between the title “Christ,”
the five thousand (9:11, 12, 16), so under Luke’s or the anointed one, and the prophetic tradition
editing of the material Jesus’ question “Who do by placing Jesus’ recitation of Isa 61:1 at the
the crowds say that I am?” must be understood beginning of his ministry, in Nazareth (4:18). It
in direct relation to the previous scene. (In an is clear from Luke’s repeated description of Jesus
interesting way, this is parallel to the prominence as one greater than the prophets that this title
of the crowd’s speculation about Jesus in John cannot signal merely that Jesus was a prophet. He
6:22-29.) If the feeding has a revelatory function was the eschatological prophet who fulfilled
(at least for Christian readers), have the crowds Isa 61:1. The feeding of the five thousand, with
understood what Jesus has done? its allusions to the exodus, the Moses traditions,
199
and Elisha prepares us to understand this title in sequence of responses to Herod’s question regard-
context as an indication that Jesus is the fulfilling the identity of Jesus. Hirst came the three
ment of these traditions, including the expectation answers proposed by the crowds (9:18-19); then
of the coming prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, the disciples’ answer, voiced by Peter (9:20); and
18). Peter’s confession also resonates with the now Jesus’ own answer (9:22). Jesus’ own answer
predictions of Jesus’ fulfillment of the Davidic emphasizes neither fulfillment of the works of the
tradition (Luke 1:32-33). prophets nor his role as a Davidic king but the
The angelic prediction at Jesus’ birth foreshadows necessity of his death and resurrection.
for the reader God’s intention for Jesus. He will Because the title “the Son of Man” has been the
fulfill God’s promises for David and his. descendants subject of intense debate, the interpretation of the
(2 Sam 7:9-14). The Lukan narrative, therefore, will passion predictions (see also 9:440; 18:31-33) has
not allow an easy choice between prophetic and often been controlled by one’s estimate of the back-
royal contexts for understanding the title “the Mes- ground, meaning, and titular force of that term
sian of God.” Luke has prepared the reader to rather than by the prediction itself. In context, the
understand the importance of both traditions. The saying makes sense only if it is understood that by
two are joined and fulfilled in Jesus, but the nature “the Son of Man” Jesus is referring to himself. This
of that fulfillment has yet to be defined, and to that term lacks the royal and political overtones of
task Luke turns immediately (9:21-50). . “Christ,” or “the anointed One.” Its background is
9:21-22, Jesus’ Death Foretold. Immedi- more obscure and, therefore, more open to question
ately, Peter’s confession of Jesus is qualified in and interpretation. On the one hand, it appears in
three respects: (1) Jesus orders the disciples not Dan 7:13 as a description of the one who ascends
to tell anyone; (2) Jesus tells the disciples that he to the Almighty in the last days, and its use in
must be killed; and (3) Jesus teaches the disciples 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra shows that messianic specula-
what following him will require. tion had embraced the term by the end of the first
The Greek verb for “rebuke” or “sternly order” century ce. On the other hand, its meaning was not
(emTLLAW epitimao) in v. 21 is a strong word clearly defined, and the passion predictions reflect a
that has been used previously for Jesus’ commands new development by linking the term with predic-
to unclean spirits (4:35, 41), fevers (4:39), and the tions of death and the fulfillment of Isaiah’s expec-
wind and the sea (8:24). These previous occurrences tation of a suffering servant.
of the term have built the impression that it de- We make no attempt to settle the difficult
scribes Jesus’ response to impersonal or demonic issues that control the interpretation of “the Son
forces that threaten his work as the agent of the of Man,” but two points are beyond dispute:
kingdom. The force of its use for Jesus’ response to (1) Luke’s Christian readers already understood
the disciples at this point cannot be missed (see this title as a reference to Jesus (see 6:5, 22); and
further (9:42; 553 17:351 81551395» 19:395 23:40). (2) the passion prediction, placed immediately
Similarly, the verb for to “command” (tapayyé\dw following Peter’s confession, serves as a sharp
parangeillo) has a peculiar use in Luke, where it corrective to any expectations that Jesus would
is used almost exclusively for Jesus’ commands to fulfill expectations of the coming of a descendant
those around him that they not tell others what of David who would drive out the Gentiles and
they have seen or heard (see 5:14, a leper; 8:56, reestablish the kingdom of Israel (see Psalms of
Jairus and his wife; cf. 8:29). Although Luke Solomon 17; Acts 1:6). If “the Son of Man” was
retains the verb epitimao from Mark 8:30, he already understood as a title for a coming heav-
shifts the emphasis by making it a participle and enly figure at the end of time (as in 7 Enoch and
making parangello the principal verb. Luke also ‘4 Ezra), then the passion prediction serves as a
omits Jesus’ rebuke to Peter following the first of double corrective: Jesus will not be a Davidic king,
the passion predictions (Mark 8:32-33). and although he is indeed that expected Son of
The perplexing problems that the passion pre- Man, he will suffer and die—something nowhere
diction presents to the interpreter should not so predicted of the apocalyptic Son of Man. If “the
narrow the focus of our attention that we over- Son of Man” was not already clearly understood
look the fact that it is the third in a closely related as a title for an apocalyptic figure, then Jesus may
200
be taking a term with vague connotations and the officers of the Temple take the place of the
attaching it to the Isaianic predictions of a suffer- scribes, arrests Jesus on the Mount of Olives.
ing servant rather than to more popular expecta- (22:52). The three groups listed in the passion
tions of a political messiah. Jesus was not only prediction are also absent from the second and
greater than the prophets, but also his role—while third predictions, demonstrating once more that
a fulfillment of the suffering servant passages in there was no set form for these predictions. The
Isaiah—would be radically different from current, three groups, however, were represented in the
popular interpretations of the prophetic predic- Sanhedrin, and they foreshadow the role of that
tions. council in Jesus’ trial (see 22:66).
The first point that Jesus underscores regarding The heart of the passion predictions is the decla-
his role as the Son of Man is its necessity. God’s ration that Jesus would be killed (9:22; 18:33; 24:7)
redemptive will demands it. The term that de- and rise or be raised “on the third day” (9:21; 18:33;
notes the necessity, “must” (Set deZ), occurs 18 24:7, 46). Luke’s temporal phrase here is more
times in Luke. The necessity that God’s plan of precise than Mark’s “after three days” (Mark 8:31;
salvation be fulfilled guides the course of events cf. “on the third day” in Hos 6:2 and 1 Cor 15:4).
in Luke’s “orderly narrative.” Jesus must be in his Jesus’ answer to Herod’s question effectively ex-
Father’s house (2:49), just as later he must preach plains why Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ
the kingdom of God (4:43). By the end of the cannot be broadcast publicly and charts the course
Gospel, Jesus’ death and resurrection will be for the rest of Luke’s narrative.
wrapped in divine necessity (24:7, 26, 44). Along 9:23-27, The Demands of Discipleship.
the way Jesus teaches that other things also are The five sayings on discipleship that follow the
necessary (see e.g. 11:42; 12:12; 15:32), so that first passion prediction also serve as an answer to
the teachings on discipleship (the Didache) are Herod’s question regarding Jesus’ identity. Lord-
linked by the force of God’s will to the necessity ship and discipleship are always vitally related. By
of Jesus’ death and resurrection (the kerygma). defining what it means to follow Jesus, one de-
The fact that Jesus must “suffer” (taoxw fines the nature of Jesus’ lordship. Jesus first asked
pascho) does not occur in the second and third the disciples who the crowds said he was. Then
passion predictions (9:446; 18:31-33), but it vir- he asked them who they said he was. Jesus’
tually becomes a shorthand reference for Jesus’ response declaring the necessity of his death was
redemptive death in 17:25; 24:26, 46. As a result directed to the disciples. The five discipleship
of the deaths of faithful martyrs during the Mac- sayings, however, are now addressed to “all”—
cabean revolt, the suffering of the righteous was both the disciples and the crowd (see Mark
understood to have redemptive significance for 8:34)—thereby extending the invitation to disci-
Israel: “[the martyrs] having become, as it were, pleship to all people.
a ransom for the sin of our nation. And through Luke has drawn the sayings from Mark 8:34—
the blood of those devout ones and their death 9:1, where the same five sayings occur in the
as an atoning sacrifice, divine Providence pre- same sequence. As with other sayings of Jesus,
served Israel that previously had been mistreated” Luke follows his source closely, making relatively
(4 Mace 17:21-22). minor modifications. Luke simplifies Mark’s intro-
Similarly, rejection is not mentioned in the duction to the sayings in v. 23, adds “daily”
second or third passion predictions, but its occur- (xaQ’ huépav kath hemeran) to the demand that
rence in 17:25 and 20:17 shows that it was a the would-be disciples take up the cross and
significant element of the passion tradition and follow Jesus, and omits the phrase “and the
that it was related to Ps 118:22. On the other gospel” (kal Tod evayyedtou kai tou euangeliou),
hand, whereas the second and third passion pre- which occurs in Mark 8:35. Mark 8:37, “Indeed,
dictions declare that Jesus will be “handed over,” what can they give in return for their life?” is
that motif is absent from the first prediction. The omitted, perhaps because it adds little to the
combined group of elders, ‘chief priests, and previous saying (Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25). Luke also
scribes appears again in 20:1, where they chal- omits three other Markan phrases: “in this adul-
lenge Jesus in the Temple. A similar group, where terous and sinful generation” (Mark 8:38), the
201
introduction to the last saying, and “come with pation with material wealth. What have human
power” (Mark 9:1). beings gained, even if they own the whole world,
9:23. The five sayings draw together a variety if they lose themselves? This saying reminds us
of images from various contexts to convey the that there are dimensions of life vital to fulfillment
radical demands of following Jesus. The central and happiness that are not satisfied by financial
image of the first saying is the cross. Although it security or material wealth. The implication left
is not impossible that Jesus may have alluded to unstated is that each person should seek for those
death by crucifixion as a graphic metaphor during things that bring true fulfillment.
his ministry—much like his references to a mill- 9:26. The fourth saying involves a set of im-
stone hung around someone’s neck (Luke 17:2), ages and contrasts that link our public profession
one who strains out a gnat but swallows a camel of the lordship of Jesus to his acknowledgment of
(Matt 23:24), or a camel passing through the eye our discipleship at the end of time. This apoca-
of a needle (Luke 18:25)—for Luke’s readers the lyptic Son of Man saying promises the future
image of a cross was unalterably linked with Jesus’ coming of Jesus in glory. Again, it is no doubt
death. To follow Jesus means to be ready to lay colored by the early church’s expectations of
down one’s life just as Jesus did. Luke makes two Jesus’ coming as the one who would raise the
subtle alterations in the Markan form of the dead and judge the nations, but for disciples and
saying: he changes the aorist infinitive of the verb ' would-be disciples its force lies in its recognition
“to come” to a present infinitive, thereby empha- of the temptation to try to make discipleship a
sizing its durative, continuing force, and adds the private matter. This saying allows no private dis-
phrase “daily.” Thus Luke emphasizes not readi- cipleship that makes no difference in how one
ness to die with Jesus in the hour of persecution, lives. If one denies Jesus, the Son of Man will
but rather that discipleship requires a continuing, deny that person. Discipleship requires a public
daily yielding of one’s life to the call to follow commitment so that the way one lives and what
Jesus. The first saying contains three imperatives: one does may be a witness to others.
deny yourself, take up the cross, and follow me. 9:27. The fifth saying affirms that the hope for
The first two are aorist, but again the third is a the kingdom, drawing on the promise of the
present tense: Go on following me. coming of the Son of Man in the previous saying,
9:24. The second saying (v. 24) picks up on is not a vain one. Difficult as it may be after 2,000
the motif of laying down one’s life by taking up years, the saying promises that the coming of the
the cross in the first saying. It echoes the exhor- kingdom is so near that some of those who were
tations given to soldiers about to enter battle. The alive during Jesus’ ministry will live to see it. Each
first to die will be those who turn and run. The of the synoptic Gospels renders this saying slightly
one who seeks to preserve his or her life will lose differently. Luke has simply “before they see the
it, but the one who gives no thought to the kingdom of God” (9:27); Mark has “until they
preservation of life will keep it. The saying may see that the kingdom of God has come with
have had special relevance to Christians facing power” (9:1); and Matthew is the most explicit:
persecution, but its truth penetrates to the nature “before they see the-Son of Man coming in his
of life itself. In the polarity of spending one’s life kingdom” (16:28). The variations are semantic,
in the pursuits to which Jesus would direct the however, not substantial, and the problem is not
disciple or indulging only one’s own ambitions relieved by explaining one form of the saying but
and interests, true fulfillment is to be found, not the others. In all likelihood, the present forms
paradoxically, in the giving up of one’s life. of the saying go back to the apocalyptic expecta-
9:25. The third saying moves from the battle- ‘tions of the early church, which made more
field to the marketplace. The impulse to succeed, explicit Jesus’ own affirmations of the nearness of
to acquire, and to prosper is powerful. In a ma- the kingdom. Foreshadowings of the coming of
terialistic culture we are easily seduced by the the kingdom can be seen in the transfiguration
assumption that security and fulfillment are (which follows immediately) and in the events of
achieved by means of financial prosperity. This Pentecost, but these do not in themselves fulfill
saying cuts the ground from under the preoccu- Jesus’ promise of the kingdom.
202
The fifth saying, therefore, is more properly a answer to Herod’s question. Jesus is the Son of
kingdom saying rather than a discipleship saying. | Man who will come in glory at the end
of time.
It is added as the fifth in this sequence of sayings, Consequently, discipleship to Jesus requires a total
however, because of its relationship to the warn- | commitment of life, taking the cross, giving one’s
ing of Jesus’ coming as the Son of Man in the _ life in obedience to Jesus’ direction, forsaking the
fourth saying. pursuit of wealth, and living out one’s discipleship
Taken together, the five sayings supply a further publicly before others.
REFLECTIONS
At this point in the Gospel, partial answers and proleptic references are giving way to
definitive statements of Jesus’ identity as the Son of God. Jesus’ question to the disciples is an
existential query that every reader of the Gospel must answer sooner or later: “Who do you
say that I am?” Repeatedly the disciples and others around Jesus had asked one another who
Jesus was. Jesus now turns the question back on the disciples. He did not ask who he was
but who they believed him to be. Beyond the question of identity is the issue of confession.
Peter gave the best answer he knew, the highest confession he could imagine, but it wasn’t
enough. On the one hand, it failed to see the struggle and sacrifice that lay before Jesus; on
the other hand, it wasn’t enough because it failed to recognize the sacrifice and demand that
would be required of any who confessed Jesus to be the Christ.
The questions that mean most in life may be the questions of identity and relationship.
“Who are you?” “Who is God?” “What does it mean to be a follower of Jesus?” What do our
answers to these questions mean for our values, priorities, and commitments? The answers to
these questions, however, are not strictly cognitive, rational, or intellectual. They usually emerge
from experience and require a commitment of life. We answer these questions by the way
we live. Peter may have been partially right about who Jesus was, but he was completely
wrong about what following Jesus would mean for him. Jesus was on his way to a cross, not
a throne, and those who followed him must be ready to follow him on this road of obedience
to God’s redemptive will and sacrifice for the salvation of others. ;
Those who preach a cheap grace or a gospel of health and wealth not only offer false
promises, but also they preach a false gospel. Discipleship and lordship are always interrelated.
When we offer false assurances and teach a crossless discipleship, we proclaim a distorted
christology. On the other hand, when we preach a crucified Christ, the only authentic response
is for one to give up all other pursuits that might compromise one’s commitment and devote
oneself completely to the fulfillment of the kingdom tasks for which Jesus gave his own life.
The nature of our discipleship always reflects our understanding of Jesus’ lordship.
Discipleship is also a continuing process. That means first that however lofty our under-
standing or obedient our discipleship, most of us are probably not far from Peter—confessing
but failing to grasp the implications of our confession; understanding, but only in part; following
Jesus, but maintaining our own aspirations and ambitions also. The present tense verbs of the
sayings on discipleship should, therefore, not be overlooked. We might paraphrase: “If you
want to continue following me, deny yourself now and take up the cross every day, and keep
on following me.” What net profit is there if having gained everything you lose your own life?
There are only two impulses in life.-One is the impulse to acquire, take, hoard, own, and
protect. The other is the impulse to give and to serve. One assumes that each of us can be
the Lord of our own lives and that our security and fulfillment depend on our ability to provide
for ourselves. The other confésses the sovereignty of God and devotes life to the fulfillment
of God’s redemptive will in delivering and empowering others, establishing justice and peace,
tearing down barriers, reconciling persons, and creating communities. Those who devote
203
themselves to these tasks confess that the true fulfillment of life is to be found in the service
of Christ and that our only security is in him.
There is a further truth hidden in the contrasts between the present and the future in the
coming Son of Man sayings. In the context of teachings on discipleship, the emphasis is not
on the coming Son of Man but on the truth that the way we live in the present determines
our relationship to the Lord in the future. We are becoming who we shall be. Who we say
Jesus is now determines what he will say of us in the future. How we answer the question
“Who do you say that | am?” through our day-to-day discipleship is the only answer that
matters—but everything depends on that answer.
Luke 9:28-50, Clarifying Jesus’ Messiahship
OVERVIEW
The next five scenes serve to clarify the nature three booths. The next day Jesus heals the epilep-
of Jesus’ Messiahship, but they also reveal the tic boy: (whom his disciples could not heal) and
disciples’ lack of understanding. At the transfigu- . forecasts his death a second time (which the
ration the voice from heaven announces that Jesus disciples do not understand). The last two scenes
is God’s Son, and symbolically Moses and Elijah before Jesus begins his journey to Jerusalem also
speak with Jesus about his “exodus” and then continue the education of the disciples and show
depart, leaving only Jesus. Not understanding that more teaching will be required.
what he has seen and heard, Peter wants to build
Luke 9:28-36, The Transfiguration

NIV NRSV
®About eight days after Jesus said this, he took 28Now about eight days after these sayings
Peter, John and James with him and went up onto Jesus? took with him Peter and John and James,
a mountain to pray. ??As he was praying, the and went up on the mountain to pray. ??And
appearance of his face changed, and his clothes while he was praying, the appearance of his face
became as bright as a flash of lightning. °°Two changed, and his clothes became dazzling white.
men, Moses and Elijah, *'appeared in glorious S°Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah,
splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his talking to him. *'They appeared in glory and were
departure, which he was about to bring to fulfill- speaking of his departure, which he was about to
ment at Jerusalem. **Peter and his companions accomplish at Jerusalem. **Now Peter and _ his
were very sleepy, but when they became fully companions were weighed down with sleep; but
awake, they saw his glory and the two men since they had stayed awake,° they saw his glory
standing with him. °°As the men were leaving and the two men who stood with him. *3Just as
Jesus, Peter said to him, “Master, it is good for they were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, “Mas-
us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one ter, it is good for us to be here; let us make three
for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” (He dwellings,“ one for you, one for Moses, and one
did not know what he was saying.) ‘ for Elijah”—not knowing what he said. *4While
**While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and he was saying this, a cloud came and overshad-
enveloped them, and they were afraid as they owed them; and they were terrified as they en-
entered the cloud. *°A voice came from the cloud, tered the cloud. *Then from the cloud came a
saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; voice that said, “This is my Son, my Chosen;4
listen to him.” *°When the voice had spoken, they
aGk he Or but when they were fully awake cOr tents
found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this dOther ancient authorities read my Beloved
204
LUKE 9:28-36
NIV NRSV
to themselves, and told no one at that time what listen to him!” %°When the voice had spoken,
they had seen. Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent and
in those days told no one any of the things they
had seen.
(COMMENTARY
Luke’s account of the transfiguration is one of mountain. As usual, however, the points at which
the most elusive and evocative scenes in the Luke diverges from Mark are revealing. For rea-
Gospel. Interpreters are far from a consensus as sons that are not clear, Luke has changed Mark’s
to its historical roots. Does the transfiguration interval of six days from Peter’s confession to eight
report a mysterious event or a vision during the days, perhaps as a way of saying “a week later.”
ministry of Jesus? Is it a post-resurrection appear- Luke also lists the names of the disciples in a
ance that has been placed back in the ministry? different order: Peter, John, and James. This group
Or is it entirely the creation of the early church of three disciples has a special role in Mark as the
to affirm the church’s confession of Jesus as the group of disciples who witness the “secret epipha-
exalted Lord? Whatever the historical origins of nies” of Jesus: the raising of Jairus’s daughter, the
this account, we are on safe ground with two transfiguration of Jesus, and Jesus’ prayer at Geth-
observations that can serve as the starting point semane. Luke does not mention the special role of
for our study of these verses: (1) Luke depends these three at Gethsemane and does not single them
on Mark’s account of the transfiguration (9:2-10), out in any scenes other than those he derives from
and (2) Luke has composed his account of the Mark. By naming John before James (as in Luke
event with considerable freedom, using images 8:51 also), Luke places Peter and John together,
and terms that link this event with other scenes foreshadowing the role of Peter and John later in
in Luke’s account of Jesus’ ministry. Luke (22:8) and in Acts (3:1-10; 4:1-22; 8:14-25).
The transfiguration scene is actually composed of Luke has also explained that Jesus’ withdrawal to
the following elements: (1) Jesus’ withdrawal to the the mountain was for the purpose of prayer. Just as
mountain to pray with the three disciples (v. 28), the voice from heaven after Jesus’ baptism occurred
(2) the transfiguration (v. 29), (3) the appearance while Jesus was praying, so also now the transfigu-
of Moses and Elijah (vv. 30-334), (4) Peter’s re- ration and the voice from the cloud occur in the
sponse (v. 336), (5) the voice from the cloud (vv. context of prayer. The location of the mountain is
34-35}, and (6) the disciples’ response. The structure not given anywhere in the Gospels. Some have
of the scene reveals, therefore, that it moves between thought that it was a part of Mt. Hermon, near
revelatory disclosures and responses from the disci- Caesarea Philippi, since the transfiguration occurs
ples. In this respect, it continues the pattern of this shortly after Peter’s confession there in Mark. On
part of the Gospel, where questions have been raised the other hand, since the time of Origen, the
regarding Jesus’ identity, answers are offered, and mountain has been identified as Mt. Tabor, near
the disciples have been sent out on mission and Nazareth, but the significance of the location may
taught about the meaning of discipleship. The trans- actually lie more in its parallel with the experience
figuration, therefore, clarifies Jesus’ identity—espe- of Moses and Elijah on Mt. Sinai and Mt. Horeb.
cially his divine sonship—foreshadows his exaltation The transfiguration itself is narrated briefly.
to heaven, and continues the training of Jesus’ Luke omits Mark’s suggestion of a metamorphosis,
disciples. saying instead that “the appearance of his face
Luke’s hand is evident in each of the elements changed” while he was praying, and his clothing
of this scene listed above. In the introduction, became “dazzling white” (v. 29). In this way,
_ Luke follows Mark in noting that after some days Luke underscores the power of prayer to mediate
Jesus took the three disciples and went up on a the presence of God. Like Moses, who was so
205
radiant when he descended from Mt. Sinai that Again, however, Peter has only partially grasped
the Israelites could not look at him, Jesus’ appear- the significance of the event. He wants to freeze
ance confirmed his presence with God. In this the moment and commemorate the place, but
context, however, the transfiguration may also be faithfulness will’ require following Jesus to the
understood as a further disclosure of Jesus’ divin- cross, not commemorating the place of the trans-
ity as God’s Son, or as a foreshadowing of his figuration, which—fittingly—is not named in any
resurrection and ascension. The two men who of the Gospels. ’
appeared to the disciples at Jesus’ ascension were Clouds also serve in Luke and Acts as in other
also clad in white robes (Acts 1:10). biblical accounts to manifest and conceal the pres-
Similarly, two men appear talking with Jesus: ence of God (Exod 16:10; 19:9; 24:15-18; 33:9-
Moses and Elijah. Although the point has been 11). Daniel foresees that the Son of Man will
debated, these two may represent the “Law and come to the Ancient of Days with the clouds of
the prophets.” The two may also have christologi- heaven (Dan 7:13). So, too, Jesus would be taken
cal significance in that Jesus has demonstrated his up in a cloud (Acts 1:9) and return on the clouds
mastery over the sea and fed the multitude in the (Luke 21:27; cf. 1 Thess 4:17; Rev 1:7; 14:14).
wilderness (fulfilling the pattern of Moses at the As at Mt. Sinai, a cloud overshadowed them,
exodus) and has multiplied loaves, cleansed lep- and God spoke from the cloud (Exod 19:16-20).
ers, and raised the dead (fulfilling the prophetic . The voice from the cloud speaks the climactic
works of Elijah and Elisha). Moses and Elijah affirmation of Jesus’ identity in this section of the
appear in glory, and later the disciples see Jesus’ Gospel: “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to
glory (vv. 31-32). Luke’s addition of these two him!” The pronouncement echoes two verses
references to glory to Mark’s account, which has from the OT. Psalm 2:7, “You are my son;/ today
none, shows that the transfiguration is also a I have begotten you,” was also echoed at the
foreshadowing of Jesus’ return in glory, fulfilling baptism of Jesus (3:22). Isaiah 42:1, which is one
Jesus’ saying in Luke 9:26 (cf. 21:27). The resur- of the servant songs, reads, “Here is my servant,
rection and ascension, however, are also charac- whom I uphold,/ my chosen, in whom my soul
terized by Luke as Jesus’ entering “into his glory” delights;/ I have put my spirit upon him;/ he will
(24:26; cf. 2 Pet 1:17). Significantly, Moses and bring forth justice to the nations.” Earlier, at the
Elijah talk with Jesus about “his exodus,” which baptism of Jesus, the voice from heaven had
he would fulfill in Jerusalem. Again, events in spoken to Jesus alone: “You are my Son, the
Jesus’ life are interpreted by alluding to events in Beloved; with you I am well pleased” (3:22).
the history of God’s redemption of Israel. The Now, the divine voice pronounces the fullest
transfiguration, therefore, also serves to confirm answer to the question of Jesus’ identity to this
the last part of Jesus’ passion prediction. The story point in the Gospel. Jesus is both the unique son
will not end with Jesus’ death; on the third day and the chosen Servant in whom God delighted
he will be raised and “enter into his glory.” and through whom God would bring salvation to
Peter and the others have been sleeping while the nations.
Jesus prayed, but rouse themselves in time to wit- The injunction to hear Jesus follows immedi-
ness Jesus’ glory, the two speaking with Jesus, and ately upon Jesus’ first passion prediction and his
their departure from him. Here sleep functions as teachings on discipleship. In context, therefore,
the faithless counterpart to watching and praying. the injunction endorses both Jesus’ interpretation
At Gethsemane, Jesus will rebuke the disciples: of his death and resurrection and his teachings on
“Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you discipleship. The command to listen to Jesus may
may not come into the time of trial” (22:46). ‘ also be related to the role of Moses and Elijah in
When Moses and Elijah had withdrawn, Peter this scene, because immediately after the voice
responded, suggesting that they build three booths from the cloud Luke reports that “Jesus was found
or dwellings there. The term for these structures alone.” Moses and Elijah have departed, suggest-
suggests that Peter saw in the event the fulfillment ing perhaps that Jesus has superseded the Law
of Israel’s celebration of the wilderness wandering and the prophets. Now the command is “Listen
at the Feast of Booths, or Tabernacles, each year. to him!”
206
According to Mark Jesus commanded the dis- _transfiguration is a proleptic event. It foreshadows
ciples to tell no one what they had seen, but in Jesus’ “exodus,” his ascension. It confirms Jesus’
Luke the disciples keep silent about the transfigu- forecast of both his death and his resurrection in
ration without having to be told. Their silence “in Jerusalem, so its full meaning would not be ap-
those days” adds a further suggestion that the — parent until after those events had come to pass.
REFLECTIONS
The account of the transfiguration records the kind of experience that only a privileged few
ever had in the entire history of Israel and the early church. Mystics and saints have lived
lives of disciplined piety in hopes of attaining such a beatific vision. Others among us—ordinary
mortals—have had experiences we could not explain or moments in which we thought we
felt God’s presence. Who can explain how the divine is present in everyday experience?
Here is a story, though, of the transfiguration of Jesus, the appearance of Moses and Elijah,
and an audible voice from a cloud. At times along the way, the future may come clear to us,
or we may stop momentarily to survey the distance already traveled and the goal ahead, like
a hiker in the woods who climbs a tree to get a clear fix on the peak that lies ahead. There
are times for retreat for prayer, meditation, and rest, when the shape of the whole may become
clear to us. We may also find that in the midst of the struggle, at a bedside or a graveside,
the meaning of the gospel and the nature of God become clear to us in ways that transcend
ordinary experience. In the throes of a hard fight for justice, we may discover a purpose or a
calling that casts a radiant light over the rest of our lives.
In the transfiguration we, like the disciples, witness such a moment in Jesus’ life. The
transfiguration is like a composite of the whole Gospel tradition. In one scene we hear echoes
of the baptism of Jesus, Jesus’ passion predictions, Jesus’ fulfillment of the Law and prophets,
the death and resurrection of Jesus, and his ascension and future coming. The voice from the
cloud, moreover, serves only to underscore the importance of what was happening throughout
the ministry of Jesus: The divine voice affirms Jesus’ identity as God’s Son and instructs the
disciples to heed Jesus’ teachings. If God were to say nine words to us, what would they be?
“This is my Son, the Chosen One; hear Him!” From his baptism to his death, Jesus’ experience
summed up the whole and allowed him and us to see his path clearly.
The dangers of such experiences, perhaps because they are so rare, are that we may either fail
to learn from them as we ought, or we may want to make them the norm and withdraw from
the day-to-day struggle that fills most of life. Surprisingly, the transfiguration seems to have little
impact on the three disciples. They still do not understand what Jesus told them about his death
and resurrection. Peter still denies Jesus, and the others look for an earthly kingdom—a restoration
of the kingdom of Israel. Neither do the three refer to this experience in the preaching early in
Acts. The Gospel of John does not contain an account of the transfiguration, and the brief reference
to it in 2 Pet 1:17-18 is of dubious authorship. The implication, therefore, is that the disciples
were not transformed by this “mountaintop” experience.
The disciples wanted to build booths and stay on the mountaintop, but they could not stop
time or live on in the radiance of that moment. Discipleship involves following, going on. As much
as they were awed by what they had seen, they were not yet ready to be witnesses to Jesus. Only
later, after further following, the grief of the cross and the joy of the resurrection, and the coming
of the Holy Spirit would they be ready to speak their witness to what God had done in Jesus.
Faithfulness is not achieved by freezing a moment but by following on in confidence that God is
leading and that what lies ahead is even greater than what we have already experienced.
So what do we say about the quest for visions and revelations in our own time? The
transfiguration emphasizes that God has been revealed through Jesus and that the essence of
207
Jesus’ identity and work cannot be understood apart from the cross and resurrection. Only
in their light do we ever understand the character of God or the significance of Jesus. At
best, therefore, dreams, epiphanies, and visions can give new meaning to the whole of
our experience, making the goal clear in the midst of the journey; but they also point us
pack to the tasks and struggles that give our lives purpose. The view from the overlook
may be majestic, but the road beckons, and there will be other vistas and other transforming
experiences ahead.
Luke 9:37-43a, The Epileptic Boy

NIV NRSV
3/The next day, when they came down from 370n the next day, when they had come down
the mountain, a large crowd met him. **A man from the mountain, a great crowd met him. °*Just
in the crowd called out, “Teacher, I beg you to then a man from the crowd shouted, “Teacher, |
look at my son, for he is my only child. °°A spirit beg you to look at my son; he is my only child.
seizes him and he suddenly screams; it throws Suddenly a spirit seizes him, and all at once he?
him into convulsions so that he foams at the . shrieks. It convulses him until he foams at the
mouth. It scarcely ever leaves him and is destroy- mouth; it mauls him and will scarcely leave him.
ing him. “Il begged your disciples to drive it out, 401 begged your disciples to cast it out, but they
but they could not.” could not.” “Jesus answered, “You faithless and
41“OQ unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus perverse generation, how much longer must I be
replied, “how long shall | stay with you and put with you and bear with you? Bring your son
up with you? Bring your son here.” here.” “2While he was coming, the demon dashed
42Even while the boy was coming, the demon him‘ to the ground in convulsions. But Jesus
threw him to the ground in a convulsion. But rebuked the unclean spirit, healed the boy, and
Jesus rebuked the evil? spirit, healed the boy and gave him back to his father. **And all were
gave him back to his father. “And they were all astounded at the greatness of God.
amazed at the greatness of God. aOr it
a42 Greek unclean
(COMMENTARY
No better counterpoint to the transfiguration exorcism. As in the healing of the centurion’s son
could be found than the healing of the epileptic and the raising of the only son of the widow of
boy. Luke again follows the sequence in Mark Nain (7:1-17), a great crowd is present. On the
(9:14-29) but reports it in half as many verses. mountaintop, God affirmed his Son; now a trou-
Without changing the basic structure of the story, bled father asks for help for his only son. The son
Luke omits whole sections of Mark’s account: the is the silent victim throughout the story. He never
conversation between Jesus and the disciples as speaks, cannot help himself, and depends on his
they descend from the mountain, Jesus’ initial father’s intercession for help. His symptoms are
conversation with the crowd, Mark’s extended ‘ convulsions and foaming at the mouth. Even the
description of the boy’s symptoms, Jesus’ second disciples, who earlier had cured diseases (9:6),
conversation with the father, details of the exor- could not help the boy.
cism, and Jesus’ private conversation with the Jesus’ response is a judgment on this “faithless
disciples. and perverse generation,” which reminds the
In Luke’s abbreviated account, v. 37 serves as reader of earlier declarations that God’s Son
a transition from the mountain scene to the public would be rejected by the very people he had been
208
LUKE 9:37-43a COMMENTARY
sent to save. The rising conflict can be traced in As in other exorcism accounts in Luke, the power
Jesus’ escalating condemnations and laments over of the demon is demonstrated in a final violent
“this generation” (see 7:31; 11:29-32, 50-51; convulsion before submitting to Jesus’ power (cf.
16:8; 17:25; 21:32). Lurking in the background 4:35). This time the demon does not call out Jesus’
and providing a tragic resonance to Jesus’ words identity, as in earlier exorcisms (4:34, 41; 9:28),
is Moses’ lament over the faithlessness of Israel because now Jesus’ identity has been confessed by
(Deut 32:4-6). Earlier Jesus had asked, “To what the disciples and declared by the voice from heaven.
then will 1 compare the people of this generation?” Similarly, the response of the crowd is not a question
(7:31). The echo from the Song of Moses provides (4:36; 8:25) but praise to God for Jesus’ mighty act
a deeply tragic answer to that earlier question. (Ch 9:25°20> 710952453}.
REFLECTIONS
One of the puzzling facets of this brief story is the exasperation and anger evident in
Jesus’ pronouncement in v. 41. It will not do to explain it as a Markan element that is
out of place in Luke. The reader may fill the gap in the narrative at this point in various
ways. Is Jesus angry with the disciples for their not being able to do anything for the boy,
or is he angry at the crowd or at the demon’s power over the boy? The repetition of “this
generation” sayings in Luke keeps reminding the reader that Jesus will soon be rejected
and killed.
In this section of the Gospel, moreover, Luke portrays the disciples in a very poor light.
Although the disciples are successful when Jesus sends them out on mission, and although
Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, they are not yet ready to be witnesses. Jesus orders
them to tell no one about him; they don’t understand the transfiguration experience; they are
not able to help the boy with a demon; and shortly John will try to stop someone who is
casting out demons in Jesus’ name. The failures of the disciples at this point set the stage for
the teachings of Jesus, which will fill the next section of the Gospel. Jesus may lament the
faithlessness of “this generation,” but he continues to bear with the aiscipies and eventually
dies for all, even those who rejected him.
This brief story also repeats the pattern of blessing that was characteristic of Jesus. He
takes what is brought or given to him, blesses it, and gives it back. Jesus restored the
leper (5:12-14), the paralytic 5:17-26), and the man with the withered hand (6:6-11). He
touched the bier, raised the widow of Nain’s son, and “gave him to his mother” (7:15).
He took loaves, blessed them, and gave them back (9:16), and now he gives the boy back
to his father (9:42). If blessing involves giving back, then faith is demonstrated in what
we give to the Lord: “Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down,
shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will
be the measure you get back” (6:38). Luke’s grasp of this principle explains why the verb
“to give” (dmroSi8wpt apodidomi) occurs sixty times in Luke—more often than in any other
book of the NT except the Gospel of John.
Luke 9:43b-45, The Second Announcement of Jesus’ Death

NIV NRSV
While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus While everyone was amazed at all that he was
did, he said to his disciples, “*“Listen carefully to doing, he said to his disciples, “*“Let these words
what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is sink into your ears: The Son of Man is going to
209
LUKE 9:43b-45
NIV NRSV
going to be betrayed into the hands of men.” *But be betrayed into human hands.” *But they did
they did not understand what this meant. It was not understand this saying; its meaning was con-
hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, cealed from them, so that they could not perceive
and they were afraid to ask him about it. it. And they were afraid to ask him about this
saying.
(COMMENTARY
Sharp juxtapositions lend pathos and power to passion prediction, Luke focuses on Jesus’ being
Luke’s brief account of Jesus’ second passion handed over and omits any explicit reference to
prediction. Following immediately after Jesus’ Jesus’ death and resurrection. The verb translated
mighty work in exorcising the demon in the to “be handed over” (mapadtdwput paradidomi)
previous scene, Jesus announces that he will be Was not a part of the first passion prediction (9:22),
handed over to men. The crowd praises God for and has:not occurred previously in Jesus’ words
what Jesus has done, but soon enough crowds . to the disciples. It is used to characterize Judas’s
will call out for Jesus’ death. Similarly, through- betrayal of Jesus and Jesus’ arrest elsewhere in the
out this section, the more clearly Jesus’ identity Gospel tradition, and so would be readily under-
is made known, the more the disciples reveal stood by Christian readers. The effect is to create
their inability to grasp who he is or what it means ironic distance. We as readers understand what
to follow him. Earlier in the chapter the three Jesus has said, though this term has not been used
failed to understand the transfiguration, then the of Jesus’ fate earlier in the Gospel, but the disciples
disciples could not heal the boy with a demon, do not understand. Verse 45 is an aside, or com-
and now they do not understand Jesus’ predic- ment by the narrator. Not only do the disciples
tion. Its meaning was hidden from them, and not understand but also the meaning of Jesus’
they were afraid to ask about it. Although Luke saying is hidden from them—either by God or
typically abbreviates material he takes over from more likely by Satan (see 8:12; 18:34)—and they
Mark, and here abbreviates the passion prediction are afraid to ask Jesus. Retrospectively, Jesus’ ex-
(cf. Mark 9:30-32), Luke adds a saying about the asperation with the disciples as well as the crowd
gravity of understanding the passion prediction is understandable in light of this verse. Only later
(v. 44a) and expands the report of the disciples’ will they understand that it was necessary for Jesus
inability to understand (v. 45). By shortening the to be “handed over” (see 24:7, 20; cf. 24:31, 45).
Luke 9:46-48, Discipleship and Greatness
NIV NRSV
“°An argument started among the disciples as 46An argument arose among them as to which
to which of them would be the greatest. 47Jesus, one of them was the greatest. *7But-Jesus, aware
knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had of their inner thoughts, took a little child and put
him stand beside him. “*Then he said to them, ‘it by his side, “and said to them, “Whoever
“Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes this child in my name welcomes me,
welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me wel- and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one
comes the one who sent me. For he who is least who sent me; for the least among all of you is
among you all—he is the greatest.” the greatest.”
210
(COMMENTARY
Continuing the motif of the failure of the dis- ing [Tous StaAoytopovs atvtav tous dialogismous
ciples, this scene shows the disciples debating auton|” (6:8).
among themselves as to which of them will be Jesus’ role, however, will be to reveal “the
the greatest. Their debate underscores their failure inner thoughts of many” (2:35; cf. 20:14; 24:38).
to understand Jesus’ words about being handed Indeed, later the disciples will pray to “the one
over. Not only do they not understand Jesus’ fate, who knows every heart” (see Acts 1:24). The
but also they do not understand that as his fol- point is clear. By debating among themselves over
lowers they too will be “handed over” (see 21:12, greatness, the disciples have fallen into the char-
16; ci. Acts 8:3; 12:4). acter trait of Jesus’ opponents. No stronger cen-
Luke binds this scene to the foregoing by
sure could be given to the Christian community
omitting any notice of the passage of time or
than to warn it that even its leaders (the disciples)
change of location (cf. Mark 9:33). Luke also
were susceptible to this temptation. In God’s
characterizes the nature of the dispute among
realm, however, the child—the least in the com-
the disciples by calling it an “argument” (or
munity—will be greatest among them. One who
“debate,” Stadoytouds dialogismos) and repeat-
receives a child—one who could not bestow any
ing the term in the next verses (vv. 46, 47). Indeed,
this scene distills into a single event the reversal honor or power—receives Jesus, but even more,
predicted in the Magnificat (1:51-52). While the that one receives the one who sent Jesus. By this
disciples “debate” over which of them is the succession Jesus cuts the ground from beneath
greatest, knowing the thoughts of their hearts, any concern for standing, position, or power
Jesus takes a little child and puts him by his side. among his followers (see 13:30; 18:15-17; 22:24-
The child will be greater than any who argue over 273; John: 132hOy-20):
their own greatness. The least will be the greatest A rabbinic principle stipulates that “a man’s
in God’s new order. Debating (Stadoy(Copat dia- agent is like to himself.”!°° The confession of Jesus
logivzomai) in their hearts” is a trait that Luke as one sent by God, which is so important in the
assigns to Jesus’ opponents, especially the Gospel of John, also plays a significant role in Luke
scribes and Pharisees: The people “questioned (4:18, 43; 10:16). As God’s agent, Jesus carried
in their hearts” whether John might be the God’s authority. But the real scandal for the
Messiah (3:15). The Pharisees “questioned” whether Christian community in this chain of relationships
Jesus could forgive sins, and Jesus confronts them is Jesus’ affirmation that this child is his agent,
with the “questions in their hearts” (5:21-22). since the one who receives the child receives
The scribes and Pharisees disapprove of Jesus’ Jesus.
healing of the man with a withered hand on the
sabbath, but Jesus knows “what they [are] think- 108. M. Berakoth 5.5.
REFLECTIONS
In the first scene, the disciples’ petty quarreling over which of them is the greatest reveals
not only that they apparently thought Jesus had come to establish an earthly kingdom in which
they would enjoy positions of power but also that they viewed their discipleship as a means
of attaining their own aspirations. They had set the agenda for their goals and viewed following
Jesus as a convenient or effective means of attaining those goals. Their commitment to Jesus
had not changed their underlying aims and ambitions, however. This scene, therefore,
demonstrates that discipleship,to Jesus means giving up one’s own ambitions and taking on
in their place the demands of faithfulness to Jesus and aims of the kingdom of God.
LUKE 9:49-50
Luke 9:49-50, The Unauthorized Exorcist
NIV NRSV
49“Master,” said John, “we saw a man driving A9John answered, “Master, we saw someone
out demons in your name and we tried to stop casting out demons in your name, and we tried
him, because he is not one of us.” to stop him, because hé does not follow with us.”
5°“To not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him; for
is not against you is for you.” whoeveris not against you is for you.”
(COMMENTARY
The last scene before Jesus turns toward Jeru- his cue from the observation that the last word
salem places one of the disciples in a poor light, in the book of Acts is “unhindered” (dkwAUTWs
again establishing the need for further teachings akolytos), Frank Stagg interprets the book as a
on discipleship. This is the only scene in which . chronicle of the church’s effort to surmount the
the apostle John appears alone in the synoptic geographical, racial, and political barriers that
Gospels. It is related to the previous scene by would have limited the spread of the gospel (see
catchword linkage—“in my name” (v. 48), “in Vio2s* 10: 16> Acts 6:30) TWAT: Tit7o 26:51).
your name” (v. 49)—and it prepares the reader The issue here is more than just pettiness. Who
for the role of James and John in wv. 51-56.
has the authority to invoke the power of the
The disciples’ concern for position and authority
gospel or act in the Lord’s name? The issue can
continues. John voices the sentiment that only Jesus’
be found in ancient Israel when the unauthorized
disciples, perhaps only the Twelve, should have the
person prophesied (Num 11:24-30) and would
power conferred by Jesus’ name. When they saw
someone else casting out demons in Jesus’ name, John emerge later in Acts (8:14-24; 19:13-16) and in
had forbidden him. The irony is that the unauthorized Paul’s letters (Phil 1:15-18; 1 Cor 3:5-11).
exorcist was doing what recently the disciples had Jesus’ response commands openness and toleration:
been unable to do (cf. vv. 40-41). Hence, the disciples “Whoever is not against you is for you” (9:50). A
at this point are unable to cast out demons and are parallel saying seems to counsel the opposite: “Who-
unwilling to allow anyone else to do so. ever is not with me is against me” (11:23), but the
Later, the disciples would not only cast out de- two can be reconciled if the former is interpreted
mons in Jesus’ name (10:17), but in Acts they as Jesus’ counsel for how one should relate to others,
baptize (3:6; 8:16; 10:48), heal (4:10), teach (4:18; and the latter is interpreted as a challenge for each
9:28, 40), and do signs and wonders (4:30) “in the disciple to examine his or her own commitment to
name of Jesus” as well. Hindering is also a significant Christ. The first welcomes the support of any who
motif in Acts—so significant that an influential com- will join in; the second warns that only those whose
mentary on the book carried as the subtitle “The commitment leads them to make a difference are
Early Struggle for an Unhindered Gospel.”! Taking really disciples—“with me.” In each case it comes
109. Frank Stagg, The Book of Acts; The Early Struggle for an Unhin- down to the question of who is actually doing the
dered Gospel (Nashville: Broadman, 1955). work of the kingdom with Jesus.
REFLECTIONS
John, and we may assume the other disciples as well, looked on relationship to Jesus as
one that conferred special privileges and powers. Brokering was the order of the day. Those
in the service of a king or governor shared in the sovereign’s power. Others had no right to
claim the privileges of their exclusive relationship. Jesus, however, conferred no special
privileges on his hometown, his family, or his disciples. He was on the way to Jerusalem—to
die there—and all that mattered was faithfulness to God’s plan for saving sinners, showing
mercy, establishing peace and justice, vanquishing the rich, and lifting up the poor. It matters
not whether that work is done by insiders or outsiders. Indeed, one’s relationship to the
kingdom is determined by what one does, not by the privileges of one’s position. The temptation
is always there, however, for the church to turn from relationships based on faithfulness to
exclusive circles based on privilege.
PAS
LUKE 9:51-19:27
THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM
OVERVIEW
n verse 51 Luke reports that Jesus “set his to Jesus’ traveling (9:52, 57; 10:38; 13:22; 14:25;
"face to go to Jerusalem.” This geographical 17:11; 18:31, 35)? Why does he give such vague
notice marks off the long section that follows, so references to Jesus’ progress toward Jerusalem:
that from this point until Jesus’ arrival at Jerusa- “a village of the Samaritans” (9:52), “a certain
lem in 19:28 Jesus is on the way, traveling to his village” (10:38), “one town and village after
“exodus” (see 9:31), the cross and the resurrec- another” (13:22), “the region between Samaria
tion. Coincident with this geographical notice, and Galilee”: (17:11), “Jericho” (18:35;-19:1),
Luke departs from the sequence of scenes in Mark . “near Jerusalem” (19:11)? The real difficulty, in
and introduces a lengthy collection of parables, addition to the general sparcity of such refer-
sayings, meal scenes, controversies, and warnings
ences, is 17:11, which still locates Jesus—after
drawn from Q and from Luke’s own sources.
eight chapters of travel—“between Samaria and
Having followed Mark (4:1—9:40) since Luke 8:4,
Galilee.”
Luke leaves Mark aside until Luke 18:15 and then
Interpreters have also searched for a unifying
takes up Mark again at Mark 10:13, omitting
Mark 9:41-10:12. theme or structure for this section, proposing
Like Mark, Luke’s account of Jesus’ ministry chiastic structures, lectionary patterns, testa-
includes only one journey from Galilee to Jeru- mentary forms, structured parable collections,
salem, where Jesus dies a week later. By ex- and correspondences with Moses’ teaching in
panding the journey into a major section of the Deuteronomy. No consensus has been reached
Gospel, Luke creates a setting for the Q mate- on these matters, however, and since both the
rials that are not found in Mark. Interpreters formal structure and the thematic coherence of
have agonized over the anomalies of this central this section are so elusive, we will treat it scene
section of the Gospel. Why does Luke introduce by scene, noting structural and thematic motifs
the journey motif but make so few references as we go.
LUKE 9:51-56, REJECTION IN SAMARIA
NIV NRSV
-'As the time approached for him to be taken 51When the days drew near for him to be
up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusa- - taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. °2And
lem. °*And he sent messengers on ahead, who he sent messengers ahead of him. On their way
went into a Samaritan village to get things ready they entered a village of the Samaritans to make
for him; °but the people there did not welcome ready for him; “but they did not receive him,
him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. because his face was set toward Jerusalem.
“When the disciples James and John saw this, “When his disciples James and John saw it, they
they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire said, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to
214
LUKE 9:51-56
NIV NRSV
down from heaven to destroy them??” **But Jesus come down from heaven and consume them?”?
turned and rebuked them, **and® they went to But he turned and rebuked them. *°Then® they
another village. went on to another village.
254 Some manuscripts them, even as Elijah did 655,56 Some aOther ancient authorities add as Elijah did >Other ancient
manuscripts them. And he said, “You do not know what kind of spirit authorities read rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what
you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, spirit you are of, 5°for the Son of Man has not come to destroy
but to save them.” 56And the lives of human beings but to save them.” Then
(COMMENTARY
No sooner has Jesus “set his face to go to messengers to prepare his way (v. 52). The first
Jerusalem” than he meets opposition. As Jesus and reference to Samaria occurs in this scene (cf.
his followers start out on their journey, a Samari- 10:33; 17:11, 16), but it foreshadows Philip’s
tan village refuses to receive them. The overtones work in Samaria in Acts, which results in Peter
of this section are set up by its location in the and John laying hands on the Samaritans. That a
narrative and its allusions to Elijah. In the end, Samaritan village should refuse to receive Jewish
Jesus asserts not only his determination to go to pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem was not un-
Jerusalem but also the nature of his mission. usual. Later in the first century, a serious incident
Fitzmyer points out that the rejection at the begin- that led to the removal of Herod Antipas from
ning of the travel section corresponds to the rejection office began with a massacre of Jewish pilgrims
at Nazareth at the beginning of Jesus’ Galilean min- in Samaria.''' The repetition of “his face was set
istry (4:16-30).!!° The rejection at the beginning of toward Jerusalem” in v. 53 underscores the im-
each of these major sections of the Gospel foreshad- portance of this new information.
ows the rejection that lies ahead in Jerusalem. Just as John erred in hindering the unauthorized
The Elijah motif serves both to prepare for exorcist, so now James and John ask Jesus to let
Jesus’ death and ascension and as a foil against them call down fire on the Samaritan village. The
which the nature of Jesus’ mission can be clarified. request echoes Elijah’s answer to the officer sent
The term for the fulfilling of the days of Jesus’ by the king of Samaria: “If 1 am a man of God,
ministry in v. 51 is repeated in Acts 2:1, and the let fire come down from heaven and consume you
reference to Jesus’ being taken up echoes not only and your fifty” (2 Kgs 1:10, 12). Because James
Acts 1:2, “until the day when he was taken up and John are called “Sons of Thunder”
to heaven,” but also the beginning of the account (Boavnpyés Boanerges) in Mark 3:17, it has
of Elijah’s death: “Now when the Lorp was about been suggested either that the nickname was
to take Elijah up to heaven by a whirlwind” derived from this incident or that the name
(2 Kgs 2:1). The term used in v. 51 for Jesus’ explains why Luke names these two disciples in
being “taken up” (avadnprbsis analempsis) is also this scene. Unfortunately, no connection between
the noun form of the verb used of Jesus’ ascension
this scene and the name given to James and John
in Acts 1:11, 22 (avadapBdavw analambano), sug-
by Jesus can be verified.
gesting not only Jesus’ coming death and resur-
Jesus was not Elijah redivivus, however, as
rection but also the culmination of the story in
the earlier declarations of his identity have
Jesus’ ascension. Just as Elijah set out for Gilgal, made clear, and his mission was not to destroy
so also Jesus sets his face for Jerusalem.
but to save and to reconcile. Textual variants
Malachi 3:1 declares that the Lord will send a offer early interpretations of this scene. Some
messenger to prepare the way (see the reference
manuscripts add “as Elijah did” at the end of
to Elijah in Mal 4:5). The connection can hardly
v. 54. Some manuscripts also give words to
be missed, then, when we are told that Jesus sent
Jesus’ rebuke: “You do not know what spirit
110. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 7he Gospel According to Luke (I-IX), AB 28
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981) 827. 111. See Josephus Antiquities 20.106-136.
215
you are of, for the Son of Man has not come to If not originally part of Luke, these interpretations
destroy the lives of human beings but to save them.” are not alien to it.
REFLECTIONS
This episode allows us to study the temptation to use violence to achieve right. Does insult
entitle one to do injury? Does being right or having a holy cause justify the use of force or
violence? Elijah had called down fire on the Samaritans; could not Jesus’ followers do the
same? Misunderstanding the identity of the one they followed, the disciples mistakenly thought
they could achieve his ends by violence. How often have those who claimed to be following
Christ repeated the mistake of these early disciples? They had yet to learn that violence begets
violence, and that Jesus had come to break the cycle of violence by dying and forgiving rather
than by killing and exacting vengeance.
LUKE 9:57-62, THE FAILURE OF THREE

WOULD-BE FOLLOWERS
NIV NRSV
‘7As they were walking along the road, a man 57As they were going along the road, someone
said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.”
‘8Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes and birds of 58And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and
the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no birds‘of the air have nests; but the Son of Man
place to lay his head.” has nowhere to lay his head.” °°To another he
°He said to another man, “Follow me.” said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, first let me
But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and go and bury my father.” “But Jesus? said to him,
bury my father.” “Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for
6Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their
you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom
‘Another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but let
of God.”
me first say farewell to those at my home.” “Jesus
6lStill another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but
first let me go back and say good-by to my family.” said to him, “No one who puts a hand to the
Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of
the plow and looks back is fit for service in the God.”
kingdom of God.” aGk he
(COMMENTARY
Luke’s introduction to the journey to Jerusalem Together the three function to set. the call to
continues with a warning of the radical demands discipleship above every other duty, whether care
of discipleship. The responses of three would-be for self, care for the dead, or care for family. So
followers of Jesus show that they have not under- stringent is the demand, however, especially in
stood the demands of discipleship and are not the second saying, that one is tempted to place these
prepared to give it the priority that Jesus demands. sayings in the category of Semitic hyperboles that
The first two sayings are paralleled in Matt dramatize a point but are not meant to be taken
8:19-22. Luke adds a third related saying that is literally: “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear
not found elsewhere in the Gospel traditions. it out and throw it away” (Matt 5:29 NRSV).
216
9:57-58. The three would-be followers are simi- Jesus’ response is harsh. It demands that the priority
lar but not identical cases. The first came with the of service to the kingdom be set above every other
lofty, enthusiastic promise, “I will follow you wher- priority. The saying should probably be understood to
ever you go.” The promise is made “as they were mean “Let the spiritually dead bury the physically
going along the road,” however, a setting that dead.” Others, who had not come alive to the sov-
reminds the alert reader of the journey’s tragic ereign rule of God, could discharge the duty of
destination. Jesus had told his followers that he burying the dead. Again the saying assumes implicit
would be rejected and despised (9:22, 44). He had relationships. Those who have not responded to the
been in Samaria, and the people there would not call to the kingdom are like the dead, thus let the
receive him (9:53). Would this enthusiastic volun- dead bury the dead. Those who have responded to
teer really follow him in the face of such rejection? the call to discipleship are no longer dead. Their
The first saying establishes two relationships, concern should be with life and the living: “Go and
one explicitly and one implicitly. Explicitly, it proclaim the kingdom of God” (9:60).
contrasts the security of the Son of Man with the 9:61-62. The third example is similar at points
condition of animals at the mercy of nature. Even to each of the first two. The third would-be
foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the disciple offers to follow Jesus (as did the first) but
Son of Man has no such home. Implicitly, the asks to bid farewell to his family first (a milder
saying works on the assumption that the follower version of the request made by the second). Both
will be like the one who is followed: If the Son Jesus’ call, “Follow me,” and the disciple’s re-
of Man has no place to lay his head, then neither sponse echo 1 Kgs 19:19-21, which records Eli-
will those who follow him. Does the would-be jah’s call to Elisha. Elisha, who was plowing at
follower realize what he has promised? the time, responded, “Let me kiss my father and
9:59-60. Jesus then calls another to follow mother, and then I will follow you” (1 Kgs 19:20).
him. This would-be follower asks for permission The Elijah motif links this scene with earlier
to “go and bury my father.” The duty to bury the scenes with allusions to the expectation of the
dead was binding on all devout Jews. In Jewish coming of one like Elijah, most recently 9:28-36
folklore, for example, Tobit’s piety is demon- and 9:52-56. Unlike Elijah, however, Jesus will
strated by his faithfulness in burying the dead not let the would-be disciple turn aside from the
(Tob 1:16-20), and his son Tobias takes seriously call to follow him even to bid farewell to his
his duty as an only son to bury his father and family. If one looks back while plowing, the
mother (Tob 4:3; 6:15). From the sparse context furrow will be crooked. Therefore, building on
it is not clear whether the father has already died. this element of the story of the call of Elisha, Jesus
The one whom Jesus called may have been pledg- emphasizes again the unconditional demand of
ing to follow Jesus as soon as possible. First, the call to discipleship. On the way to the cross
however, came the responsibility to care for one’s there is no place for rash promises or misunder-
parents for the rest of their lives. standings regarding the cost of following Jesus.
REFLECTIONS
This is the final of four scenes, after Jesus foretells his death for a second time (9:44), that
illustrate the disciples’ lack of understanding: their quarrel over which of them is the greatest
(9:46-48); John’s rebuke of the unauthorized exorcist (9:49-50); James and John’s offer to call
down fire on the Samaritan village (9:52-56); and the false starts of three would-be disciples
(9:57-62). Taken together, these four scenes offer a showcase of potential dangers for aspiring
disciples. Each scene of discipleship failure also illustrates the connection between the disciples’
conceptof Jesus and the resulting understanding of discipleship. Every one of us is susceptible
to these obstacles to discipleship, but perhaps we can learn from the failures of others. The
final scene, which depicts the errors of would-be disciples who do not understand that Jesus
is on the road leading to the cross in Jerusalem, challenges us with the radical demands of
discipleship. Because faithfulness would require Jesus to lay down his life, the call to discipleship
to Jesus inevitably means unconditional commitment to the redemptive work of God for which
Jesus gave his life. The disciple will be like the Lord. Therefore, one should not rush into
discipleship with glib promises. On the contrary, the radical demands of discipleship require
that every potential disciple consider the cost, give Jesus the highest priority in one’s life, and,
having committed oneself to discipleship, move ahead without looking back.
LUKE 1LOel-16; 1Gtk COMMISSIONING GE siPLE

SEVENTY (-TWO)
NIV NRSV
] After this the Lord appointed seventy-two? ] After this the Lord appointed seventy? others
others and sent them two by two ahead and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to
of him to every town and place where he was every town and place where he himself intended to
about to go. *He told them, “The harvest is go. *He said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but
plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord . the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the
of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. °Go on
his harvest field. °Go! I am sending you out like your way. See, J am sending you out like lambs into
lambs among wolves. “Do not take a purse or bag the midst of wolves. “Carry no purse, no bag, no
or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road. sandals; and greet no one on the road. °Whatever
*“When you enter a house, first say, ‘Peace to house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house!’ “And
this house.’ “If a man of peace is there, your peace if anyone is there who shares in peace, your peace
will rest on him; if not, it will return to you. Stay will rest on that person; but if not, it will return to
in that house, eating and drinking whatever they you. ’Remain in the same house, eating and drinking
give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do whatever they provide, for the laborer deserves to be
not move around from house to house. paid. Do not move about from house to house.
“When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat 5Whenever you enter a town and its people welcome
what is set before you. Heal the sick who are there you, eat what is set before you; °cure the sick who
and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is near you.’ are there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has
‘But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, come near to you.’® !°But whenever you enter a town
go into its streets and say, ''“Even the dust of your and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and
town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. say, ''Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet,
Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ Wwe wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the
'T tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for kingdom of God has come near.’ !7I tell you, on that day
Sodom than for that town. it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town.
“Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, 13“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!
Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed For if the deeds of power done in you had been done
in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long
they would have repented long ago, sitting in ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 'But at the
sackcloth and ashes. 'But it will be more bearable judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon
for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. than for you. And you, Capernaum,
‘And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to will you be exalted to heaven?
the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.? No, you will be brought down to Hades.
'°“He who listens to you listens to me; he who 16“Whoever listens to you listens to me, and
rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever
rejects him who sent me.” rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”
a/ Some manuscripts seventy; also in verse 17 @Other ancient authorities read seventy-two Or is at hand for
615 Greek Hades you cOr is at hand
218
(COMMENTARY
Although the failures of the three would-be dis- Paul and Barnabas (11:30; 13:1), Barnabas and
ciples in the previous scene might lead the reader Mark (15:39), Paul and Silas (15:40). The pattern
to wonder how anyone could become a disciple, is not uniform, however, since various persons
this scene records Jesus’ commissioning of seventy also work alone (Philip, 8:5, 26; Peter, 10:1-48).
(or seventy-two). The material is a doublet of the Echoing the reference in Luke 9:52, the sev-
commissioning of the Twelve in 9:1-6 and has enty(-two) are sent “ahead of him” (lit., “before his
parallels in Matt 9:37-38; 10:7-16; and Mark 6:7-13. face”). Their work, therefore, is to prepare the way
The commissioning of this larger group of followers, for Jesus in each of the villages. In that sense they
which is not recorded elsewhere in the Gospel are forerunners, evangelists who perpetuate the role
records, conveys a sense of growth and movement. of John the Baptist, who was beheaded by Herod.
As Jesus turns toward Jerusalem, he is still preaching 10:2-16. These verses contain the commis-
the kingdom of God, but now the kingdom is being sioning of these messengers. Actually, although
preached not just by Jesus and the Twelve. In that there is no break in the discourse, vv. 2-11 give
sense, this commissioning foreshadows the mission directions to those who are about to be sent out,
of the early church and establishes the pattern for v. 12 pronounces a warning on any city that will
those who are sent out. not accept them, and vv. 13-16 declare woes on
10:1. The manuscript tradition is evenly bal- Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, for which
anced between those that read “seventy”!!? and there is a verbatim parallel in Matt 11:20-23a.
those that read “seventy-two.”!'3 Perhaps more im- The situation is more complicated, however, be-
portant than resolving the manuscript evidence is cause Luke 10:12 parallels the allusion to Sodom
the question of the significance of the number. Is it in Matt 10:15, which is repeated in Matt 11:23-
merely a round number for a large group? The 24; and Luke 10:16, which concludes the dis-
significance of the number can probably be traced course, also concludes the commission in Matt
to the list of nations in Genesis 10, where the 10:40 (cf. John 13:20). The entire discourse,
Hebrew text lists seventy nations and the Septuagint therefore, appears to have been compiled from
lists seventy-two. Alternatively, the commissioning individual sayings that are gathered here by catch-
may recall Moses’ appointment of seventy elders to word linkage and common themes.
help him (Exod 24:1; Num 11:16, 24). The Letter 10:2-11. Just as the disciples are sent out in
of Aristeas records that seventy-two translators, six pairs, so also the commissioning discourse is struc-
from each of the tribes, completed the translation tured in paired sayings: two proverbs (vv. 2-3),
of the Septuagint in seventy-two days.'!* The most anticipation of a positive response (vv. 5-9) and a
likely interpretation, however, is that the number is negative response (vv. 10-11), instructions for enter-
related to the biblical number of the nations (Genesis ing a house (vv. 5-7), instructions for entering a
10), so that the commissioning foreshadows the town (vv. 8-9), and the repetition of the message
mission of the church to the nations (see Luke that the kingdom of God has come near (vv. 9, 11).
24:47). The prophets of the OT used harvest as a
The pattern of sending the disciples out by twos metaphor for eschatological judgment and for the
occurs in Mark 6:7 but not in the sending out of gathering of Israel in the last times (Joel 3:13; Mic
the Twelve earlier in Luke (9:1-6). According to 4:11-13). In every culture, harvest season is a time
the Mosaic Law (Deut 19:15), two witnesses were of great urgency. The common day laborer would
required for a testimony to be credible. For this understand the exhortation to plead with the
reason, and probably because of the rigors of landowner to bring in more laborers to help with
travel in antiquity, the practice of apostles working the harvest. In the context of the parable of the
in pairs is evident in Acts—Peter and John (8:14), sower and the seed earlier (8:4-8), it is now time
to gather in the harvest from the soil that has
Eide, Big Sy Cyclon We kaOn Wail
e° produced a hundredfold.
113. E.g., 9’°, B, D, 0181.
114. See Letter of Aristeas 39, 50, 307.
The wolf was the natural predator of the lamb
219
(Isa 11:6; 65:25). The metaphor warns the disciples 13.3). The injunction not to “move about from
of the opposition they will encounter. Unlike Mat- house to house” may have been intended to
thew (10:16), Luke does not give any instruction as prevent the disciples from seeking better quarters
to how the disciples should prepare for or respond -or seeking to prolong their stay.
to the opposition they will encounter, unless the Three instructions are given regarding the con-
instructions that follow are understood as following duct of the mission in each village: (1) Eat what
from this warning. The instructions to the disciples is provided, (2) heal the sick (cf. Matt 10:8), and
about what to take parallels the instructions given (3) announce the kingdom. The three facets of
to the Twelve earlier (9:3-5), but little is actually the mission encompass the creation of community
repeated. The Twelve had been instructed to take (table fellowship), care of physical needs, and
nothing—no staff, bag, bread, money, or extra tunic proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom. The
(9:3). The seventy(-two) are told to carry no purse, disciples, therefore, were charged to continue the
bag, or sandals and to greet no one along the way. three facets of Jesus’ work in Galilee.
The only common term is the prohibition of carrying Following instructions regarding how they should
a traveler’s bag (cf. 22:35-37). The instruction not respond to a positive reception, the disciples are told
to greet anyone underscores the need for urgency how they should respond to rejection. The act of
and singleness of purpose (2 Kgs 4:29; Ps 129:6-8). shaking off dust from their feet is here given even
The instructions for how the disciples should . greater consequence than in 9:5. The disciples were
receive hospitality are greatly expanded from 9:4, told to go out into the broad streets, street corners,
which simply commanded that they stay wherever or public squares, shake off the dust from their feet
they were received. Here the instruction has two in the traditional act of repudiation, and declare the
parts, with commentary on each: (1) say, “Peace to meaning of their actions. The rejection of their
this house,” and (2) remain in the house where you message did nothing to threaten its truth: “The
are received. The pronouncement of peace was a kingdom of God has come near” (v. 11). The
common greeting (1 Sam 25:5-6), but later, after repetition of this summary of Jesus’ proclamation
the resurrection, Jesus would greet the disciples, (see Mark 1:15; Luke 9:2) is just a declaration of
saying, “Peace be with you” (24:36). Similarly, the kingdom’s eschatological imminence. The disci-
Peter, entering the house of Cornelius, a Gentile, ples declare that the kingdom has come near to
says, “You know the message he sent to the people those who receive them because of Jesus’ works and
of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ—he is the disciples’ preaching. In their presence, the king-
Lord of all” (Acts 10:36). The promise of peace in dom has come near.
the infancy narrative is being realized (see 1:79; 10:12. This serves as a transition to the second
2:14, 29; 19:38). Only a “son of peace” can receive part of this discourse: Jesus’ warning to the villages
the peace conferred by the greeting, however. To that do not or have not received them. Sodom was
be a “son” was to share the character or quality of the epitome of the wicked, godless city (Gen 19:24-
the parent (see Luke 5:34; 16:8; 20:34, 36; Acts 28; Isa 1:9-10). “That day” (Isa 10:20; Jer 30:8;
4:36). The character of the host is determined by Amos 8:9; Zech 12:3-4) is a reference to “the last
whether the host receives the disciples and their days” (Isa 2:2; Jer 23:20; 49:39; Ezek 38:16;
message of the kingdom. Mic 4:1) or “the great and terrible day of the
It was universally understood that “The laborer Lorp” (Mal 4:5).
deserves to be paid” (1 Tim 5:18), so the disciple 10:13-16. Appended to the commissioning of
should receive the hospitality, food, and drink the seventy(-two) in Luke are pronouncements of
provided by the host. Implicit in this command is woes on Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum.
the removal of all social barriers. In the book of These woes are found in two places in Matthew
Acts, Peter and Paul will be received in Gentile (10:15 and 11:24), but the duplication is omitted
homes and will eat with Gentiles as part of the by Luke. The woes are pronouncements of warn-
mission of the church. Later, because such privi- ing, judgment, and lament such as those found in
lege at times led to abuse, Paul refused to accept Num 21:29; Isa 10:5; and Jer 13:27, where woes
the support he could have claimed from the are pronounced on particular cities or regions.
Corinthians (1 Cor 9:4-14; cf. Did. 11.3-6; 12.1- Chorazin has often been identified with a town
220
whose ruins lie two and a half miles northwest of and what to do when they are rejected, these
Capernaum. Bethsaida is a fishing village (see John woes serve to lend further authority to the work
1:44) that lies near where the Jordan flows into the of the disciples. If the towns reject them, the
Sea of Galilee. The pronouncement of woe in v. 13
towns themselves will be rejected.
is followed by a double comparison that contrasts the The final verse of the commissioning makes this
Tesponses of the two towns with the responsiveness
point explicitly but in a more general sense. It
of Tyre and Sidon and then compares the judgment
confers on the disciples the rights and authorities
coming on each pair of cities. Tyre and Sidon would
of a legal agent. See the comments on 9:48,
have been more responsive (see 6:17) than Chorazin
where Jesus indicates that the one who receives
and Bethsaida, so the judgment on the latter will be
him receives the one who sent him. Both sets of
more severe than the judgment on these foreign cities
(for condemnations of Tyre and Sidon, see Isa 23:1-18; sayings develop the principle that the agent carries
Ezek 26:1-21; 27:1-28:24). Sackcloth and ashes were the authority of the sender, and both develop a
traditional signs of mourning or repentance (Esth chain of three members: the ones whom Jesus
4:2-3; Isa 58:5; Dan 9:3; Jonah 3:6). sends, Jesus, and the one who sent Jesus.
In the Gospel according to Mark, Capernaum The motif of hearing plays a significant role in
seems to have been the center of Jesus’ ministry Luke. Hearing means acceptance and obedience.
in Galilee (Mark 1:21; 2:1). From Luke’s account, It is related to the Word of God (5:1; 11:28), and
it is clear that Jesus had done mighty works in those who hear glorify God (7:29). Hearing also
Capernaum (4:23, 31-41) and that he had re- requires understanding (8:10) and doing (6:49;
turned there on several occasions (cf. 7:1). Al- 8:21), so one must take care how one hears
though it does not use the woe form, Jesus’ (8:18). Later in this chapter, Jesus will pronounce
pronouncement over Capernaum echoes Isaiah’s a blessing on the disciples because they have
warning of the downfall of Babylon: “You said in heard what prophets and kings desired to hear
your heart,/ ‘I will ascend to heaven;’.../ But but did not (10:24).
you are brought down to Sheol,/ to the depths Similarly, the language of sending and being
of the Pit” (Isa 14:13, 15). In context, these woes sent, especially in Jesus’ own references to his
are an integral part of the commissioning of the being sent (Luke 4:18, 43; 9:48), echoes a motif
disciples. Following on the instructions for what found frequently in the Gospel of John (3:34;
the disciples are to do when they enter a town, 5:36; 6:29), :
REFLECTIONS
Luke 10 contains a concentration of sayings that are embarrassing and difficult for the
church. The pronouncement of woes on towns and villages is seldom heard from contemporary
pulpits, and certainly not from fashionable churches. More revealing, however, is our neglect
and discomfort with the commissioning of the seventy(-two). The mission of the church has
come to be regarded as something that only a few specially called professionals carry out. One
has to be called to be a missioner—one doing the mission of the church. The sending out of
the seventy(-two), however, which is peculiar to Luke, reminds us that Jesus sent out not just
the Twelve, but perhaps all of his followers. A few churches (such as the Mormons and
Jehovah’s Witnesses) still send out members on mission, sharing their faith door to door, but
most churches have abandoned that practice.
More than ever, therefore, the church must struggle with its understanding of its mission.
Having abandoned one traditional form or expression of that mission, has the church abandoned
its mission entirely? How does the church articulate its mission today? Can working with and
through agencies and institutions substitute for talking with individuals about their response
to the gospel? In what ways can the mission of the church be articulated and pursued by the
church today? Such questions do not permit easy answers, but the interpretation of these
es
verses for the church is not complete until it leads us to grapple with these issues. The church
can neither recreate the itineracy of the earliest days of the Jesus movement in Galilee nor
abandon the gospel call to announce the kingdom and devote oneself to kingdom tasks. The
expression of the mission of the church in concrete forms and specific activities, however, has
changed from generation to generation.
In our own time, the challenges of a shrinking world, ease of travel and communication,
multiculturalism, and religious pluralism require us to enter into dialogue regarding what we
as American Christians have to offer to people of other cultures arid faiths. The development
of a world economy and the oppression of Third World countries require that we include in
our awareness of the church’s mission concerns for the end of economic exploitation of other
people, alleviation of disease and hunger, and assurance of basic human rights. It is not that
the mission of the church has become unnecessary or impractical, but simply that the changing
conditions of the communities in which we live are forcing us to rethink the Gospel’s teaching
about the mission of those who follow Jesus and to find avenues of obedience that are effective
and appropriate for our times as well as faithful to Jesus’ teachings.
Jesus’ commission to the disciples can serve as a guide for the new models of mission that each
generation requires. It contains ten principles. First, it affirms the world’s need for the church’s
mission: “The harvest is plentiful.” There is more work to do than laborers to do it. Second, Jesus’
commission affirms the importance of prayer in support of the church’s mission: “Ask the lord of
the harvest.” Third, it insists on the active participation of each disciple: “Go on your way.” The
work of the church is not merely the calling of a select few. Believers can contribute to it in their
own way and in the context of their own spiritual journey. Fourth, Jesus’ commission warns of
the dangers believers will face and provides guidelines: “I am sending you out like lambs into the
midst of wolves.” By means of this metaphor, Jesus seems to be counseling innocence and sincerity,
vulnerability and non-resistance as means of turning aside anger and danger. Fifth, Jesus calls for
singularity of purpose: “Greet no one on the road.” Sixth, the commission specifies the purpose of
the mission: “Say, “Peace to this house’ and ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ ” Disciples
declare what God is doing and bring God’s peace to whomever receives them. Share table fellowship
with whomever receives you. Seventh, the host, not the guest, sets the context for the disciple’s
witness: “Eat what is set before you.” The disciples do not seek to dictate the menu or impose
their own cultural background on others. Eighth, Jesus’ commission recognizes that the
disciples will not always succeed: “[When] they do not welcome you....” Jesus knew that
the disciples would meet resistance and rejection some of the time. Ninth, Jesus admonished the
disciples to persevere: Shake their dust from your feet. Tenth, and finally, Jesus gives the disciples
a word of assurance about the fulfillment of God’s redemptive mission: “Know this: the kingdom
of God has come near.” By principles such as these the church can be guided in every generation.
The context, means, and forms of the mission change continually, but its basis in God’s redemptive
love remains constant.
LUKE 10:17-24, THE RETURN OF THE

SEVENTY(-TWO)
NIV NRSV
"The seventy-two returned with joy and said, 17The seventy? returned with joy, saying,
“Lord, even the demons submit to us in your “Lord, in your name even the demons submit to
name.” aOther ancient authorities read seventy-two
Dae
LUKE 10:17-24
NIV NRSV
'8He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning us!” '®He said to them, “I watched Satan fall from
from heaven. 'I have given you authority to heaven like a flash of lightning. '?See, I have given
trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions,
all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing
you. *°?However, do not rejoice that the spirits will hurt you. *°Nevertheless, do not rejoice at
submit to you, but rejoice that your names are this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that
written in heaven.” your names are written in heaven.”
21 At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy 21At that same hour Jesus? rejoiced in the Holy
Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven Spirit? and said, “I thank* you, Father, Lord of
and earth, because you have hidden these things heaven and earth, because you have hidden these
from the wise and learned, and revealed them to things from the wise and the intelligent and have
little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was
pleasure. your gracious will.” 7All things have been handed
22“ All things have been committed to me by over to me by my Father; and no one knows who
my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Son is except the Father, or who the Father
the Father, and no one knows who the Father is is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son
except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
chooses to reveal him.” 23Then turning to the disciples, Jesus? said to
23Then he turned to his disciples and said them privately, “Blessed are the eyes that see
privately, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you what you see! For I tell you that many prophets
see. 4For I tell you that many prophets and kings and kings desired to see what you see, but did
wanted to see what you see but did not see it, not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did
and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.” not hear it.”
aGk he ©Other authorities read in the spirit cOr praise
dOr for so it was well-pleasing in your sight
(COMMENTARY
Just as the commissioning of the seventy(-two) 10:17-20. Joy characterizes the experience of
has no parallel in the other Gospels, so also there the disciples who have obeyed Jesus’ mission charge.
is no parallel report of their return. As with the The joy of the annunciations (1:14; 2:10) of what
sending of the Twelve earlier, neither is there God was about to do is being realized in the work
any further account of their activities. Following of disciples empowered by Jesus. The joy of the
the report of the return, Luke adds Jesus’ words disciples on mission also foreshadows the joy they
of thanksgiving to the Father, which parallel would experience at the resurrection (24:41, 52).
Matt 11:25-27, and a beatitude regarding those Whereas the Twelve had preached and healed
who have seen, which parallels the saying in (9:6, 10), the success of the seventy(-two) is
Matt 13:16. When considered together, wv. 17-24 epitomized in their power over demons. Earlier,
report three clusters of sayings, each of which is the disciples had been unable to help a boy
preceded by a brief introduction by the narrator plagued by demons (9:40) and had forbidden
fvvny Ujip2lye 23). Rea first section (vv. 17-20) another to cast out demons in Jesus’ name (9:49).
declares the apocalyptic significance of the disci- As noted in the comment on 9:49, acting “in
ples’ mission, the second gives thanks to God for Jesus’ name” enables the disciples to do various
their success (vv. 21-22), and the last picks up mighty deeds in the early chapters of Acts. Again,
the themes of both apocalyptic significance and therefore, the success of the disciples appears as
a proleptic sign of the power they would experi-
thanksgiving in a beatitude that reasserts the im-
ence after the resurrection.
portance of seeing and hearing (vv. 23-24).
223
Jesus’ oracle is couched in the language of a kingdom is joy, not only for the defeat of evil and
vision: “I saw” (v. 18). Whether we are to read the vanquishing of demonic powers but also for
this as the report of an actual vision, or whether the experience of life rightly ordered in God’s
it should be understood as simply a metaphorical fellowship.
description of the significance of the apostle’s 10:21-22. This is Q material (Matt 11:25-27),
work may be debated. Either way, it sets their but the use of the terms “Father” and “Son”
work in the context of the expectations that the (tatép pater and vids huios) has a distinctly
end times would be marked by a conflict between Johannine ring (see John 3:35; 13:3; 17:2). A
God and Satan in which Satan would be defeated direct literary dependence cannot be established,
(see Isa 14:12; John 12:31; Rev 12:7-9). For Satan however, but only a similarity of language and
to be cast out of heaven means that Satan has thought. The question of direction of influence
been defeated, his power broken. Here, the sign can be put as follows: Do these sayings reflect
of Satan’s defeat is the disciples’ obedience and contact between the Q and the Johannine tradi-
success. Their power to liberate others from de- tion at an early stage, or do these sayings indicate
mons is a sign that the promise of the end time that in the core of sayings from Jesus that circu-
is being realized. The work of the disciples, there- lated in the early church there were sayings that
fore, has even greater significance than they may served as a catalyst for the discourses now found
have grasped: It signals the coming of God’s -in the Gospel of John? The latteris the more
sovereign reign on earth. commonly accepted explanation. Beyond the par-
Verse 19 continues the apocalyptic imagery of allels with John, it should be noted that these
the previous saying. The language of “giving sayings use terms that are seldom or never found
authority” echoes Luke 9:1, where Jesus gave the elsewhere in Luke and Acts (I thank/praise, Fa-
disciples authority over the demons, but here ther/Son, hidden, wise, intelligent, infants, and
Jesus’ language is metaphorical, not literal. Ser- chooses). The vocabulary is distinctly non-Lukan.
pents and scorpions appear as images for the In‘ Luke this unit follows the return of the
power of evil in prophetic and apocalyptic writings seventy(-two) and continues the note of celebra-
(serpents, Gen 3:1-14; Num 21:6-9; scorpions, 1 tion in vv. 17-20. Verse 21 contains the first
Kgs 12:11, 14; Rev 9:3; serpents and scorpions reference to the Holy Spirit in the ministry of
together, Deut 8:15; Sir 39:30; Luke 11:11-12). Jesus (see 3:22; 4:1) and echoes the celebration
Treading on serpents as a sign of divine power of the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth
and protection echoes Ps 91:13, and though such (1:41, 47). Jesus’ words in v. 21 take the form
language seems to have been taken literally by of a prayer to God, addressed as Father, while
some early Christians (Mark 16:18; Acts 28:3-6), v. 21 is instruction apparently addressed to the
its original purpose was metaphorical. By casting disciples. The two sayings are bound together
out demons, the disciples had demonstrated their by a common vocabulary of antithetical pairs:
power over Satan; they had trodden on serpents Father/Son, hidden/revealed, wise and intel-
and scorpions. Vanquishing the enemies of God’s ligent/infants. Although the two sayings share
people was another of the apocalyptic hopes (see a common vocabulary, the second statement
(71, 74: 19:27, 20:43" Acts 2:35). moves considerably beyond the first. Both the
Verse 20 picks up several motifs from v. 17, language and the sentiment of v. 21 can be
rounding off this unit of sayings: joy/rejoicing, the found in Jewish wisdom materials and
demons/spirits, are subject, in your name/your prayers. God is addressed as “Father” in 3
names, from heaven/in heaven. This saying points Macc 6:3, 8, and the expression “Lord of
to a higher reason for rejoicing—not just that ‘heaven and earth” is found in Gen 14:19, 22:
Satan’s power has been broken, but because the Jdt' 9:12; Tob 7:17 [ms B]; and® Acts “17:24:
disciples’ names are now written in the book of Similarly, the expression of praise because God
life. This image is also found in prophetic and has imparted knowledge is found in the hymn
apocalyptic writings (e.g., Exod 32:32-33; Ps scroll from Qumran: “I give [Thee thanks,O
69:28; Dan 12:1; Mal 3:16-17; Phil 4:3; Rev 3:5; Adonai], for thou hast given me understanding
13:8). The proper response to the coming of God’s of Thy truth and hast made me know Thy
224
marvellous Mysteries.”!'> Close parallels to and “Son,” but the rival to Jesus’ authority is not
hiding wisdom from the wise and revealing clear, as it is in John, which polemicizes against
truth to the simple can be found in 1 Cor those who claim to have knowledge of God
1:18-25 and in Pss 116:6; 119:130; and Isa through Moses and the Law.
29:14. It is God’s pleasure to reveal truth and 10:23-24. The third cluster of sayings is intro-
mercy to the simple (see Luke 1:51-52; 2:14). duced by v. 23, which addresses the ensuing sayings
The motifs and sentiment are common to Jew- to the disciples. The Matthean parallel is found in
ish wisdom literature. Matt 16:16-17. Verse 23 pronounces a blessing on
The saying in v. 22, by contrast, is distinctly the disciples for what they have seen, and v. 24
Christian and christological. That all things have offers an explanation of the blessing. The beatitude
been given to the Son by the Father parallels the affirms the privileged position of the disciples, who
claim of the risen Lord in Matt 28:18 and claims have witnessed the mighty works of Jesus and the
made by the Johannine Jesus John 3:35; 5:21-22; fall of Satan, alluded to earlier (10:18-19). Being an
10:29; 13:3). The Son is the sole revealer because eyewitness of the ministry and resurrection of Jesus
no one knows the Father but the Son (John 1:18; would later become a requirement for the one who
14:6-7). Rather than the assertion that God reveals would be chosen to take Judas’s place (Acts 1:21-
wisdom to the simple, as in the previous saying, 22). Elsewhere Luke emphasizes the importance of
v. 22 grants to the Son the authority to dispense the eyewitnesses for the proclamation of the gospel
the revelation of the Father. Accordingly, this (232431540):
verse makes an exclusivistic claim for salvation— The privileged role of the disciples is empha-
here interpreted as knowledge of God—through sized by the explanation in v. 24. Even prophets
Jesus as the Son, which may be compared with and kings desire to see and hear what the disciples
Rom 10:9 and 1 Cor 12:3, but especially the have seen. The saying contrasts sharply with Je-
Johannine text already cited (John 14:6-7). The sus’ rebuke of the disciples in Mark for what they
Pauline texts that make an exclusive claim for did not see or hear (Mark 8:18). Jesus is greater
salvation through Jesus do not use the language than the prophets, and now the disciples see what
of Father and Son (though this language is not was denied even to the prophets (cf. Eph 3:4-6;
unknown to Paul; Rom 8:15-17). This Q saying, 1 Pet 1:12). The blessing on the disciples for what
on the other hand, employs the terms for “Father” they have seen follows naturally, therefore, from
115. 10QH7:26-27. See A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from
the lofty claims for Jesus as the Son in the
Qumran, trans. G. Vermes (Cleveland: World, 1961) 224. previous sayings.
REFLECTIONS
The three clusters of sayings that follow the return of the seventy(-two) advance both the
christology of Luke and its characterization of the disciples. Through the work of the disciples
on mission, following Jesus’ commission, the power of Satan is broken and demons are cast
out. This vision of things to come affirms the victory of those who are faithful to Jesus,
regardless of the fearsomeness of those who oppose them.
The sayings also affirm not only that the disciples have power, but also that their names
are written in heaven (v. 20), that knowledge of the Father has been revealed to them
(v. 22), and that they have seen and heard what even prophets and kings desired to see and
hear but could not (vv. 23-24). For this reason, they will later have an important role as
witnesses (1:2; 24:48; Acts 1:8).
Similarly, these sayings foreshadow Jesus’ ultimate victory over Satan (recall 4:1-13) and
extend the characterization of Jesus as God’s Son (see 1:35; 2:49; 9:35). All things have been
given to Jesus as the Son of God, only the Son knows the Father, and the Son chooses those
to whom he reveals the Father. The disciples are blessed, therefore, as persons chosen to
receive the revelation through Jesus, to see and to hear.
225
Seeing and hearing, however, involve both gift and responsiveness. Luke has already
emphasized the importance of hearing well (8:9-18). To them has been given to know the
secrets of the kingdom, to see and to perceive and to hear and to understand (8:10). They
are the good soil, but they must give light with what they have seen and make known what
they have heard (8:16-17), and they must be careful how they listen (8:18).
The blessing and the earlier admonitions speak to the gift of election and grace and the
responsibility for obedience and faithfulness. The disciples have a high status as witnesses, but
that status carries a responsibility for how they carry out their task. Their status is given; they
were chosen and called. They were commissioned for their work (10:1-12), and now they are
blessed (10:23-24).
These sayings, therefore, develop themes of both christology and discipleship. They affirm
election and demand faithfulness, but in the end the words of blessing echo from these verses.
Jesus blesses those whom he calls to serve, and they are equipped for their mission by what
they have experienced—what they have seen, and what they have heard. That is always the
experience of those who serve the Lord.
LUKE 10:25-42, THE LOVE OF GOD AND NEIGHBOR
OVERVIEW
Several themes tie this part of the travel narra- ditch, but only the Samaritan stops to help him.
tive together. Jesus has just affirmed that no one Having established the priority of loving God and
knows the Father but the Son, and now he is loving one’s neighbor, Jesus tells a story about
challenged to interpret what one must do to have being a neighbor, and Luke adds a story about a
eternal life—life in God’s kingdom, the age to woman who breaks the rules by listening to Jesus’
come. Jesus has declared that God has hidden teachings while her sister works in the kitchen.
wisdom from the wise; now Jesus is questioned Neither the lawyer nor Martha understands Jesus.
by one of the wise—a scribe. Jesus has praised The two stories, therefore, illustrate the scandal
the disciples for what they have seen; now he that radical obedience to Jesus’ commands re-
tells a story in which three men see a man in the quires.
Luke 10:25-28, The Lawyer’s Question

NIV NRSV
25On one occasion an expert in the law stood 25Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.?
up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit
I do to inherit eternal life?” eternal life?” ?°He said to him, “What is written
26“What is written in the Law?” he replied. in the law? What do you read there?” 27He
“How do you read it?” answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with
7He answered: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with
all your heart and with all your soul and with all all your strength, and with all your mind; and
your strength and with all your mind’ and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.” #8And he said to him,
your neighbor as yourself.’>” “You have given the right answer; do this, and
6“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. you will live.”
“Do this and you will live.” aGk him
427 Deut. 6:5 627 Lev. 19:18
226
_LUKE 10:25-28 COMMENTARY _
COMMENTARY
Although there are other scenes in which Jesus life” or life in God’s kingdom. But was the lawyer
is approached by a lawyer, scribe, or one of the testing Jesus to see whether he would give the
rulers and is asked a question about the command- answer the lawyer expected, or was he testing
ments or what is required to inherit eternal life the one who had claimed to be the Son to see
(Mark 12:28-34; Matt 22:34-40; Luke 18:18-20; whether he would “choose” to reveal the Father
and pars.), only Luke uses this story as the intro- to him (see v. 22)?
duction to the parable of the good Samaritan. Jesus responds to the lawyer’s question with
Luke is distinctive in other aspects as well. one of his own, now a challenge to the lawyer’s
Luke has the lawyer ask, “What must I do?” honor: “Isn’t the answer to your question written
(cf. Mark 12:28; Matt 22:36). Jesus answers with in the scriptures [and are you not an expert in
a question of his own: “How do you read?” The the scriptures?], how do you read it?” The last
command to love the Lord is qualified by four part of Jesus’ question acknowledges that the
phrases not found elsewhere in exactly that form, matter is not so simple and that it has been
and the citation of the command is followed by debated for generations. How did the lawyer
the assurance, “Do this and you will live.” understand what was written? Whereas in Mat-
The setting is not entirely clear. Jesus spoke to thew and Mark, Jesus quotes the commands to
the disciples privately in v. 23, but in v. 25 he is love God (Deut 6:5) and to love one’s neighbor
addressed by a lawyer. The lawyer’s question is (Lev 19:18), in this story the lawyer quotes these
readily understandable following Jesus’ blessing of commandments, which had become important in
the disciples in vv. 23-24 for what they have seen Jewish life. Deuteronomy 6:4-9 was part of the
and heard. What if one has not seen and has not Shema, repeated twice each day, but it had not
heard what the disciples were privileged to see been linked to Lev 19:18 as it is here. (The closest
and hear? Is there any hope for them? The lawyer parallels are in the 7estaments of the Twelve
asks the question that all who were not among Patriarchs,''® but these may be Christian interpo-
the eyewitnesses would ask: “But what must / do lations.!'”) The quotation from (and expansion of)
to inherit eternal life?” Deut 6:5 includes four qualifying phrases: “heart”
The lawyer is testing Jesus. The term “test” or (kapdia kardia); “soul” (bux psyche); “might”
“tempting” (Exmetpacw ekpeirazo) signals explic- (iaxts ischys); and a fourth qualifier not found
itly the challenge to one’s honor that is posed by in the Masoretic Text or the LXX, “and with all
any question. The lawyer, moreover, was recog- your mind |6tdvota dianoia|.” The Gospels use a
nized as an expert in these matters because in different Greek word for “strength” or “might”
Jewish society there was no distinction between than that found in the Septuagint (8vvayts dyna-
civil law and religious law. The lawyer was an mis). Mark 12:30 has the same four qualifiers but
expert in the Scriptures. Jesus had just made reverses the sequence of the last two, whereas
outrageously lofty claims for himself. Could he Matt 22:37 lists only “heart, soul, and mind.”
answer a simple question? In Luke, however, the Whether three or four, the importance of the
lawyer does not ask which is the greatest com- qualifiers is to plant the flag of God’s sovereignty
mand as in Mark and Matthew, but what one over the whole of one’s life. God’s claim on us
must do to “inherit eternal life.” Inheritance was reaches to every area of our experience, to our
the reward promised to those who belonged to innermost being (heart); our lives—what gives us
the covenant people. God had promised to make our individual identity (soul); our energy, strength,
them a great people, to bless them, and to give resolve, and resources (might); and our under-
them a land (Gen 12:1-3), but that inheritance standing and intellectual capacities (mind). No
had been continually pushed to the future, until part of ourselves is to be withheld from God. The
now it was associated with the blessings of “the
WO. 7 Ussachars:2* 1. Dan's:3;
Age to Come” (see Rom 8:17; Eph 1:14; 3:6). 117. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X—XXIV),
That inheritance is here understood as “eternal AB 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 879.
_LUKE 10:25-28 COMMENTARY
fourth qualifier, though missing from Deut 6:5, enough. The Pharisaic elevation of the importance of
was consistent with the teachings of Hillel, who study of the Torah reached its zenith in the pro-
is reputed to have said, “An ignorant man cannot nouncement of Akiba: “Study of the Law is of higher
be saintly.”!'8 rank than practising it.”"° In stark contrast, Jesus
There is no dichotomy between the commands responds: “Do this, and you will live.” Eternal life
to love God and to love one’s neighbor. Indeed, is found not just in knowing the commandments
when one loves God, one lives out love for others but in doing them. The answer to the lawyer’s
as well (see 1 John 4:7-21). The phrase “as yourself” question is implicit in the question itself: “What
implies that love for oneself is also expected. Three must I do to inherit eternal life?” Those who live
loves, therefore, characterize the life of one who is rightly ordered lives now—living out of their love
already experiencing a measure of that life that will for God, others, and self—show that they have been
characterize the age to come: love of God, neighbor, touched by the kingdom of God. They will have the
and self. Only in this sequence of priority, however, capacity to receive the promised inheritance: life in
does each require the others. fellowship with God and others in the age to come.
The lawyer has read well, but reading is not (See Reflections at 10:38-42.}
118. M.’Abot 2.6. 119. Sifre Deuteronomy41 on 11:13; b. Qiddushin 40b.
Luke 10:29-37, The Good Samaritan

NIV NRSV
"But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked 29But wanting to justify himself, he asked
Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” “Jesus replied,
3°In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down “A man was going down from Jerusalem to
from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who
hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving
beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. him half dead. ?!Now by chance a priest was going
1A priest happened to be going down the same down that road; and when he saw him, he passed
road, and when he saw the man, he passed by by on the other side. °*So likewise a Levite, when
on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he he came to the place and saw him, passed by on
came to the place and saw him, passed by on the the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling
other side. “But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came came near him; and when he saw him, he was
where the man was; and when he saw him, he moved with pity. **He went to him and bandaged
took pity on him. *4He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them.
his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he Then he put him on his own animal, brought him
put the man on his own donkey, took him to an to an inn, and took care of him. *The next day
inn and took care of him. *The next day he took he took out two denarii,? gave them to the inn-
out two silver coins? and gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I
keeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when | come back, I will repay you whatever more you
return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense spend.’ *°Which of these three, do you think, was
you may have.’ a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of
e“Which of these three do you think was a the robbers?” °’He said, “The one who showed
neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do
robbers?” likewise.”
*’The expert in the law replied, “The one who aThe denarius was the usual day’s wage for a laborer
had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
235 Greek two denarii
228
COMMENTARY
10:29. In its current setting, the story of the ence may easily identify with this innocent victim
good Samaritan is linked to Jesus’ exchange with of random violence and brutality.
the lawyer. The lawyer’s third response to Jesus 10:31-32. The next words signal hope. “By
is intended as a trap. His original motive was to chance” there was another traveler, one who
test Jesus (v. 25), but Jesus had gained the upper might come to his aid. Moreover, that traveler is
hand by forcing the lawyer to answer his own a priest, one who would be expected to help, and
question and then challenging the lawyer to put he sees the man. The end of the sentence (v. 31)
his answer into practice. Attempting a rally, there- dashes the hope kindled by its beginning; the
fore, the lawyer posed a question that never failed priest passes by on the other side. No reason is
to generate controversy. Like most societies, first- given, but in the end no reason justifies his neglect
century Judaism was ordered by boundaries with of the man in need. Could one really argue that
specific rules regarding how Jews should treat pressing duties prevented him from stopping? If a
Gentiles or Samaritans, how priests should relate priest on a journey found a corpse, he had a duty
to Israelites,.how men should treat women, and to bury it.!2° The Levite’s response is described in
so on. Because the boundaries allowed for certain the same terms. He too saw the man and passed
groups to establish their positions, power, and
by on the other side. In both cases, their seeing
the man renders them culpable.
privilege, maintaining the boundaries was vital to
10:33-35. The story has reached its turning
social order. It was a religious duty. The command
point. By storytelling conventions, the audience
to love one’s neighbor (Lev 19:18) immediately
can expect that in a series of three, the third
prompted the lawyer’s question, which was un-
character will break the pattern created by the
derstood to define the limits of required neighbor- first two. Moreover, the expected sequence would
liness. Leviticus 19:34, for example, requires that be a priest, a Levite, and then an Israelite.'!2! The
an alien should be treated as a citizen: “Love the story would then have an anticlerical edge to it.
alien as yourself.” The ordinary Israelite would do what the priest
10:30. The central character in Jesus’ story is and Levite would not.
noticeably undefined. He is not characterized by Shattering all expectations, the third traveler is
race, religion, region, or trade. He is merely “a a Samaritan. The story does not pit an Israelite
certain man” who by implication could be any against a priest and a Levite. By making the hero of
one of Jesus’ hearers. The phrase “a certain man” the story a Samaritan, Jesus challenged the long-
(advOpwttds Tis anthropos tis), however, will be- standing enmity between Jews and Samaritans. The
come a common feature of the Lukan parables latter were regarded as unclean people, descendants
(12shOgedid:2 165015: Eg G621, 19% 19:12;,20:9). of the mixed marriages that followed from the
Jesus’ audience no doubt imagined the man to be Assyrian settlement of people from various regions
Jewish, but Luke’s audience may have assumed in the fallen northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:6, 24).
he was a Gentile. The point is that he is identified By depicting a Samaritan as the hero of the story,
only by what happened to him. therefore, Jesus, demolished all boundary expec-
The road from Jerusalem to Jericho was noto- tations. Social position—race, religion, or re-
riously dangerous. It descended nearly 3,300 feet gion—count for nothing. The man in the ditch,
in 17 miles. The road ran through narrow passes from whose perspective the story is told, will not
at points, and the terrain offered easy hiding for discriminate among potential helpers. Anyone
the bandits who terrorized travelers. This unfor- who has compassion and stops to help is his
neighbor. The question is thereby turned when
tunate man had been stripped, beaten, and left
viewed from the perspective of the one in desper-
for dead. His assailants had left him with nothing
ate need. The alteration of the expected sequence
to identify his status except his desperate need.
The story is told from the point of view of the 120. M. Nazir7.1.
beaten man, who may be anyone, and the audi- 121. M. Gittin 5.8; m. Horayoth 3.8.
229
by naming the third character as a Samaritan not sential nature of neighborliness. Neighbors are
only challenges the hearer to examine the stereotype defined actively, not passively. As an Arab proverb
regarding Samaritans, but it also invalidates all says, “To have a good neighbor you must be one.”
stereotypes. Community can no longer be defined The lawyer had initially asked what he must do
or limited by such terms. The three on the road are to inherit eternal life. Jesus has now answered the
each identified by social class, but the man in the question by telling a story about a Samaritan who
ditch is not identified by such labels. kept a beaten man from dying. Jesus had steered
Like the first two, the Samaritan sees the man, the lawyer to quote the commandments to love God
but seeing him, he has compassion for him. The and love one’s neighbor. The first round of the
detailed account of the Samaritan’s care for the contest between Jesus and the lawyer ended with
beaten man stands in sharp contrast to the sparsity Jesus’ injunction “Do this, and you will live” (v. 28).
of detail in the first part of the story. Count the The second round ends with a similar command:
verbs in v. 34: “He went to him and bandaged his “Go and do likewise” (v. 37). But this time no
wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then promise is attached to the command. The duty of
he put him on his own animal, brought him to an neighborliness is an expression of love of God and
inn, and took care of him” (italics added). Pouring love of others, and those who show mercy show that
wine on a wound would help-to cleanse it; the oil they belong among the heirs of the kingdom, but the
would keep it soft. The next day the Samaritan goes duty of neighborliness transcends any calculation of
on with his business, but he leaves two denarii reward. The Samaritan could not have expected any
(equivalent to two days’ wages) to pay for the beaten reward or repayment for what he did for the beaten
man’s care at the inn—not a lavish amount, but man. One who shows mercy in order to gain a reward
perhaps enough to provide for him through his would, therefore, not truly be doing “likewise.”
recovery. If more is needed, the Samaritan pledges Jesus’ parable, therefore, shatters the stereo-
to pay it on his return. By his care for the beaten types of social boundaries and class division and
man, the Samaritan demonstrates that he is a faithful rendérs void any system of religious guid pro quo.
man. The innkeeper will not have to worry about Neighbors do not recognize social class. Neither
whether he will repay his debt. is mercy the conduct of a calculating heart, nor
10:36-37. Jesus then turns the question back eternal life the reward for doing prescribed duties.
to the lawyer, and the lawyer is caught on the Eternal life—the life of the age to come—is that
very question with which he intended to impale quality of life characterized by showing mercy for
Jesus. “Which of these three was a neighbor?” those in need, regardless of their race, religion, or
The multiple choice question forces such a dis- region—and with no thought of reward. Mercy
tasteful answer that the lawyer will not even use sees only need and responds with compassion.
the word Samaritan. He says instead, “The one The story of the good Samaritan, therefore,
who showed him mercy,” but ironically his cir- gives new meaning to Jesus’ blessing on the
cuitous answer provides an accurate description disciples who had gone out preaching and caring
of a neighbor. Jesus has turned the issue from the for the sick: “Blessed are the eyes that see what
boundaries of required neighborliness to the es- you see!” (10:23). (See Reflections at 10:38-42.)
Luke 10:38-42, Mary and Martha

NIV NRSV
*8As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, 38Now as they went on their way, he entered
he came to a village where a woman named a certain village, where a woman named Martha
Martha opened her home to him. 2°She had a welcomed him into her home. °°She had a sister
sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet named Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and
listening to what he said. 4°But Martha was dis- listened to what he was saying. “But Martha was
tracted by all the preparations that had to be distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him
230
LUKE 10:38-42
NIV NRSV
made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t and asked, “Lord, do you not care that my sister
you care that my sister has left me to do the work has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her
by myself? Tell her to help me!” then to help me.” 4'But the Lord answered her,
“Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted
are worried and upset about many things, “but by many things; “there is need of only one thing.
only one thing is needed.* Mary has chosen what Mary has chosen the better part, which will not
is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” be taken away from her.”
242 Some manuscripts but few things are needed—or only one aOther ancient authorities read few things are necessary, or only
one
(COMMENTARY
The story of Mary and Martha stands in a welcomes Jesus and begins preparing a meal for
complementary relationship with the story of the him (see 19:6-7).
good Samaritan and gains much of its meaning 10:39. The complication appears when we are
from the tensive relationship between the two told that Mary, Martha’s sister, is sitting at Jesus’
stories. The journey motif runs through Luke 10: feet (in the place of a disciple; see 8:35; Acts 22:3)
Jesus sends the seventy(-two) out on mission with and listening to his word. Luke has already estab-
instructions for their journey and what to do lished a strong link between Jesus’ teachings and
when they enter a village or a house, and the God’s Word (see 5:1; 8:11, 21). The scene reso-
parable of the good Samaritan is the story of four nates positively and negatively with rabbinic lore:
travelers. The lawyer correctly identified the pri- “Let thy house be a meeting-house for the Sages
ority of the commands to love God and love one’s and sit amid the dust of their feet and drink in
neighbor. The story of the good Samaritan then their words with thirst... [but] talk not much
develops the meaning of the command to love with womankind.”'? By sitting at Jesus’ feet,
one’s neighbor, and the story of Mary and Martha Mary is acting like a male. She neglects her duty
highlights the overriding importance of devotion to assist her sister in the preparation of the meal,
to the Lord’s Word as an expression of one’s love and by violating a clear social boundary she is
for God. The story of the good Samaritan features bringing shame upon her house.
“a certain man” (v. 30), while Martha is intro- 10:40. Martha’s protest is justifiable, but the
duced as “a certain woman” (v. 38). The good narrator casts it in a negative light by characterizing
Samaritan exemplifies the disciples’ seeing; in a Martha as “distracted” by her work (lit., “service,”
similar way, Mary exemplifies the virtue of hear- dtakovia diakonia). Earlier, Jesus spoke of the
ing (see 10:23-24). Moreover, both the Samaritan seed (i.e., the Word of God) that fell among
and Mary, a woman, represent marginalized per- thorns—those who do not receive it because they
sons—unlikely heroes. As a composite, they are are preoccupied with “the cares and riches and
model disciples: “those who hear the word of God pleasures of life” (8:14). Martha’s distraction
and do it” (8:21). places her in this category. Although she is
10:38. The encounter with Mary and Martha, fulfilling the role assigned to her by society, she
which takes the form of a pronouncement story allows secondary matters to distract her from
featuring Jesus’ response to Martha, is set in the hearing the Word of God. After all, “One does
not live by bread alone” (4:4). Like the disci-
context of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem and echoes
ples, Mary had left everything to follow Jesus
the journey instructions previously given to the
fet S2hig 28),
disciples (9:1-6; 10:1-12). The connection be-
The conjunction of the three words or phrases
tween being received and eating is established by
10:8: “Whenever you enter a town and its people 122. M.’Abot 1.4-5. See Herbert Danby, ed. and trans., 7he Mishnah
welcome you, eat what is set before you.” Martha (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933) 446.
23h
“leaving” (Topevojat poreuomai), “the word of only one thing is needed. This is not a counsel
God” (tov déyov Tod Beot. ton logon tou theou), to prepare a simple meal rather than a lavish one,
“to serve” (Stakovéw diakoneo) will be found but a reminder that the duty of the love of God
again in Acts 6:1-6, where the disciples choose and obedience to God’s Word take precedence
not to leave the ministry of the Word of God to over all other concerns.
serve tables and instead appoint the seven for this Mary, on the other hand, has chosen the “Chosen
task. In this parallel scene, Jesus allows Mary—a One” (9:35). While Martha is distracted by “parts”
woman—to claim the same role that the disciples of the meal, Mary chooses “the good part.” Disciples
later claim for themselves. often need more discrimination, not more vigorous
10:41-42. Jesus’ response to Martha forms the effort. Martha presumes to tell Jesus what he should
climax of this scene. The repetition of her name, do; Mary lets Jesus tell her what she should do. By
“Martha, Martha,” conveys a mild rebuke or choosing to attend to Jesus’ teachings while laying
lament. Like demons, her cares about fulfilling her aside everything else, Mary exemplifies what it
duties have thrown her life into disorder. Like means to “love the Lord your God with all your
thorns, they have prevented her from attending heart, and with all your soul, and with all your
to Jesus’ teachings. Like the cares of a husband strength, and with all your mind” (v. 27). As if to
for his wife, her cares have prevented her from affirm Mary’s radical violation of Palestinian social
“unhindered devotion to the Lord” (1 Cor 7:32- - roles, Jesus adds that what she has chosen “will not
35). Martha is anxious about many things, but be taken away from her” (v. 42).
REFLECTIONS
Neither the story of the good Samaritan nor the story of Mary and Martha is complete
without the other. Each makes its own point—the Samaritan loves his neighbor, and Mary
loves her Lord—but the model for the disciple is found in the juxtaposition of the two. To
the lawyer, Jesus says, “Go and do,” but he praises Mary for sitting and listening. The life of
a disciple requires both.
The power of these two stories consists not just in that they exemplify the great commands
of 10:27 but in Jesus’ choice of characters to illustrate the love of neighbor and the love of
God: a Samaritan and a woman. The social codes and boundaries were clear and inflexible; a
Samaritan would not be considered a model of neighborliness, and a woman would not sit
123
with men around the feet of a teacher.
In its own way, the conjunction of the stories about the good Samaritan and the female
disciple voice Jesus’ protest against the rules and boundaries set by the culture in which he
lived. As they develop seeing and hearing as metaphors for the activity of the kingdom, the
twin stories also expose the injustice of social barriers that categorize, restrict, and oppress
various groups in any society (Samaritans, victims, women). To love God with all one’s heart
and one’s neighbor as oneself meant then and now that one must often reject society’s rules
in favor of the codes of the kingdom—a society without distinctions and boundaries between
its members. The rules of that society are just two—to love God and one’s neighbor—but
these rules are so radically different from those of the society in which we live that living by
them invariably calls us to disregard all else, break the rules, and follow Jesus’ example.
123. Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, A Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1992)
348.
LUKE 11:1-13, INSTRUCTION ON PRAYER
OVERVIEW
While continuing to provide instruction for the chapter: ask of God as a loving father, and forgive
early church by reporting Jesus’ instruction of his others. Three units follow an introductory verse:
disciples, Luke 11 shifts from the great command- the Lord’s prayer (vv. 2-4), the parable of a
ments to love God and love one’s neighbor to shameless neighbor (vv. 5-8), and assurances that
teachings on prayer. Nevertheless, the teachings God hears our prayers (vv. 9-13).
on prayer combine themes from the previous
Luke 11:1-4, The Lord’s Prayer

NIV NRSV
] One day Jesus was praying in a certain | He was praying in a certain place, and after
place. When he finished, one of his disci- he had finished, one of his disciples said
ples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught
John taught his disciples.” his disciples.” *He said to them, “When you pray,
*He said to them, “When you pray, say: say:
Father,? hallowed be your name.
““Father,? Your kingdom come.?
hallowed be your name, Give us each day our daily bread.¢
your kingdom come.? 4 And forgive us our sins,
3Give us each day our daily bread. for we ourselves forgive everyone
“Forgive us our sins, indebted to us.
for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.° And do not bring us to the time of trial.”¢
And lead us not into temptation.” ” aOther ancient authorities read.Our Father in heaven bA few
ancient authorities read Your Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse
42 Some manuscripts Our Father in heaven 62 Some manuscripts us. Other ancient authorities add Your will be done, on earth as in
come. May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. c4 Greek heaven cOr our bread for tomorrow @Or us into temptation.
everyone who is indebted to us d4 Some manuscripts temptation Other ancient authorities add but rescue us from the evil one (or
but deliver us from the evil one from evil)
(COMMENTARY
Luke gives more emphasis to Jesus’ practice of ing and again in the evening. If the situation
prayer than do any of the other Gospels, reporting prohibited reciting these prayers in their entirety,
that the Spirit came upon Jesus while he was a shorter version could be said. Apparently, John
praying (3:21-22) and that he withdrew to deso- had also taught his disciples a set prayer.
late places periodically to pray (5:16). He also 11:1. This verse repeats the introductory
prayed before significant turning points in his phrase of 9:18 with the addition of the phrase “in
ministry—e.g., the call of the disciples (6:12-13), a certain place.” Luke’s reference to the unnamed
Peter’s confession (9:18), and the transfiguration “certain” (tis tis) disciple continues the string of
(9:28). Later, Luke will report Jesus’ prayers at references to “a certain lawyer” (10:25), “a cer-
Gethsemane (22:40-42), on the cross (23:34, 46), tain man” (10:30), “a certain village,” and “a
and at table with his disciples’ (24:30). certain woman” (10:38). The disciple’s question
By the first century there were set prayers. A is prompted by Jesus’ own practice of prayer.
devout Jew would repeat the prayers in the morn- The model prayer appears in the context of
233
instructions on prayer in Matthew (6:9-13) and closely related in Semitic thought. To sanctify or
here in Luke. While recognizably the same prayer, make holy is to set apart from the mundane for
there is a greater difference between the two divine service, or to recognize as being claimed
versions than between many other sayings drawn by God. The petition that God’s name might be
from the Q material—which probably attests to sanctified is double sided. On the one hand, it is
the influence of independent liturgical traditions. a prayer that God would act to establish God’s
The wording of the prayer in Matthew is more own sovereignty. On the other hand, it voices the
polished, and the Matthean version contains seven longing for the day when all people will revere
petitions, whereas the Lukan form contains only God. The second petition, therefore, is an exten-
five. Neither form of the prayer contains the sion of the first. If God’s name is sanctified, then
traditional benediction (see 1 Chr 29:11-13; Matt God’s sovereignty and dominion will have been
6:13; Did. 8.2). It is generally agreed that whereas established (Ezek 36:22-23). The preaching of the
the Matthean wording is more original in places, kingdom of God has been the driving purpose of
the Lukan structure is probably closer to the Jesus’ ministry (4:43; 6:20; 8:1; 9:2, 11), and
original form of the prayer. there have been hints of its imminence (9:27;
11:2. The Lukan form of the prayer lacks 10:9, 11). Old Testament hopes for the coming
the following elements of the Matthean prayer: of the Day of the Lord (Isa 13:6; Joel 2:1) are
“Our... who art in heaven. .. . Thy will be done . therefore recast in the form of a petition that
on earth as it is in heaven... but deliver us from echoes Jesus’ announcement of the coming of the
evil.” Stripped of the familiar language of the kingdom (see 17:20; 22:16, 18).
traditional form of the prayer, the Lukan prayer 11:3. Following the twin “thy” petitions come
focuses the reader’s attention on its simplicity and three petitions for our needs: bread, forgiveness,
the directness of its petitions. Joachim Jeremias’s and deliverance. The most debated section of the
contention that Jesus’ use of 'Abba’ (sax) was Lord’s Prayer is the petition for bread. Is this a
without parallel in ancient Jewish prayers has prayér for ordinary bread or the eschatological
been qualified by others who have pointed to the bread of the messianic banquet (Isa 25:6-8; Luke
use of “Father” in Ps 89:26; 3 Macc 6:8 and a 6:21; 14:15; 22:29-30)? What is the meaning of
fragment from Qumran.’ The distinctiveness of the unusual Greek term €mtotvotos (epiousios),
Jesus’ use of the Aramaic ’'Abba’ with its conno- which occurs in only one papyrus outside the NT:
tations of familial intimacy, however, is attested “essential,” “daily,” or “for the morrow”? Luke
by its place in the memory of the early church changes the wording of the prayer at this point
(see Mark 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6, where the by introducing the present tense, which connotes
Aramaic term is preserved). Elsewhere in Luke, continual giving, and by adding the phrase “each
Jesus also addresses God as Father (10:21; 22:42). day” (cf. Luke’s addition of these words in 9:23;
The first-person plural “our” (nudv hémon) may 16:19; 19:47; 22:53). The manna given to the
not be a Matthean addition, but use of the first- Israelites in the wilderness could not be hoarded,
person plural later in the Lukan prayer shows that so the Israelites had to rely on God’s provision
it is still understood as the community prayer of each day (Exod 16:4; Ps 78:24). The interpreta-
Jesus’ disciples. Even in Luke, therefore, the tion “bread for tomorrow” fits uneasily with Jesus’
prayer is not an expression of individual piety teachings about anxiety and concern for the future
apart from the life and worship of the community. (12:22-31), or with the mission instructions given
With the possible exception of 11:13, Luke does earlier (9:3). The occurrence of such a rare word
not refer to God as being “in heaven,” but the (epiousios) in both Matthew and Luke shows that
phrase is a Matthean favorite. The address “Fa- ‘it was well fixed in early tradition. The claims for
ther” establishes the relationship that makes the understanding bread in an ordinary sense rather
rest of the prayer possible. than as a symbol of the messianic age are probably
A person’s name, character, and identity were stronger, favoring the interpretation that the peti-
tion is that of a peasant who prays that God will
124. Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1978) 11-65, esp. 60, 62. See also John Nolland, Luke 9:21—18:34, WBC supply each day’s needs. Understood in this sense,
35B (Dallas: Word, 1989) 613; 40372 1:16. the petition echoes Prov 30:8: “Feed me with the
234
food that I need (NRSV).” In Luke, of course, forgiveness. We can address these needs to God,
concern for the needs of the poor, the giving of however, because we have experienced God as
bread, and sharing common meals are distinguish- Father.
ing marks of Jesus’ ministry. Genuine prayer, Interpretation of the final petition again calls
therefore, begins with expressing to God as “Fa- for resolution of two issues, one lexical and one
ther” our complete dependence on God’s mercy theological. Does it speak of “temptation” or
for even our most elemental needs (cf. 18:13-14). “trial”? Would God want to lead us to either
11:4. Luke has changed the metaphorical language temptation or trial? James 1:13-14—which may
of Matthew (“debts” [odetrjpata opheilémata]) reflect interpretation of the model prayer, since
to theological language, “sins” (Guaptiat hamar- James has numerous allusions to the Sermon on
tiai). Forgiveness was one of the expected blessings the Mount—asserts that God tempts no one. The
of the day of salvation (Jer 31:34; Ezek 36:25-32; devil tempts us to sin, not God (Rev 3:10). On
Isa_ 40:2; 55:6-7), and the sixth of the eighteen the other hand, there is a strong biblical tradition
benedictions was a prayer for forgiveness. The alter- of God’s testing believers: the testing of Abraham
nation of tenses continues. The aorist was used in (Gen 22:1), the testing of Job, the righteous one;
the two “thy” petitions, the present in the bread the testing of the children of Israel in the wilder-
petition, and now the aorist is used in the request ness (Exod 15:25; Deut 8:2); and Gethsemane,
for forgiveness and the present in the justifying the testing of Jesus (Heb 5:7-8; cf. 12:3-11). In
clause “for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted the light of this tradition and the threat of per-
to us.” As surely and desperately as we need bread, secution, the model prayer appeals to God as the
we need forgiveness. Jewish teachings, moreover, One who controls all of life for deliverance from
had already linked the necessity of forgiving others any trials that will threaten either our confession
to one’s ability to receive forgiveness: “Forgive your of the “thy” petitions (“hallowed be thy name,
neighbor the wrong he has done,/ and then your thy kingdom come, thy will be done”) or God’s
sins will be pardoned when you pray” (Sir 28:2). provision of our physical and spiritual needs (the
One who will not forgive cannot receive forgiveness; “our” petitions). In this sense, the final petition
mercy flows through the same channel, whether is a climactic one that underscores our relation-
being given or received. There is no quid pro quo ship to God as a Father to whom we can appeal
here; however, the ability to forgive and to be for protection from any circumstances that might
forgiven is part of the same gift. We stand in need threaten our lives or our relationship to God. (See
not only of daily sustenance but also of continual Reflections at 11:9-13.)
Luke 11:5-8, The Parable of a Shameless Neighbor

NIV NRSV
5Then he said to them, “Suppose one of you 5And he said to them, “Suppose one of you
has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and has a friend, and you go to him at midnight and
says, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread;
because a friend of mine on a journey has come for a friend of mine has arrived, and I have
to me, and | have nothing to set before him.’ nothing to set before him.’ 7And he answers from
7“Then the one inside answers, ‘Don’t bother within, ‘Do not bother me; the door has already
me. The door is already locked, and my children been locked, and my children are with me in bed;
are with me in bed. I can’t get up and give you I cannot get up and give you anything.’ °I tell
anything.’ *I tell you, though he will not get up you, even though he will not get up and give him
and give him the bread because he is his friend, anything because he is his friend, at least because
yet because of the man’s boldness* he will get up of his persistence he will get up and give him
and give him as much as he needs. whatever he needs.
a8 Or persistence
235
(COMMENTARY
Whereas the Lord’s Prayer is followed in Mat- tioner and the sleeper. The petitioner has received
thew by an admonition to forgive others because a guest and is obliged to provide him with a meal.
if we do not then God will not forgive us, in Luke Presumably there was other food in the house,
the Lord’s Prayer is followed by assurances that but not the essential ingredient of the meal—
God answers prayer. The assurance is implicit in bread. The parable then asks whether anyone
the parable of vv. 5-8 and explicit in the sayings could imagine a situation in which one would go
of vv. 9-13. Both sections employ comparisons to a friend in the middle of the night and be told
and an argument from the lesser to the greater. by the neighbor that he could not get up to give
If we agree that a neighbor or a father will answer his friend the bread the petitioner needed because
a neighbor’s or a child’s request, then should we he and his family were asleep. To get up in the
not also believe that God answers those who call middle of the night, get the bread, and draw the
out to God in need? bolt on the door would awaken the whole family.
The parable assumes the setting of a Galilean Would a neighbor turn away a friend in the
village. Houses were simple structures of one or two middle. of the night and allow him to be shamed
rooms. Women baked bread in ovens in common . because he would not provide hospitality for a
courtyards, and so they would know who might guest? Such a thing would be unimaginable in a
have bread left at the end of the day. Hospitality Galilean village. Proverbs 3:28-29 speaks to a
was such a serious duty that any failure to provide comparable situation: “Do not say to your neigh-
for a guest would bring shame on the host. bor, ‘Go, and come again,/ tomorrow I will give
The parable unfolds in one long question it’—when you have it with you.”
(vv. 5-7) and an answer that drives home the The response in v. 8 not only drives home the
point of the parable (v. 8). Difficulties in interpret- poirit that the sleeper will answer the petitioner’s
ing the parable arise at two points: What is the request but explains why such a conclusion is ob-
meaning of the Greek term dvatde.a (anaideia) vious. The Greek term anaideia means “shameless-
in v. 8 (translated “persistence” in the NRSV and ness,” but the difficulty in understanding how it
less satisfactorily as “boldness” in the NIV), and to applies in this context has led interpreters to trans-
whom does it apply: the petitioner outside or the late it as “persistence,” a meaning it does not have
sleeper inside? How one resolves these difficulties in any other ancient text. Following the normal
determines whether the parable encourages per- meaning of the term, we may understand v. 8 as
sistence on the part of the petitioner or invites posing a comparison between the obligations of
confidence because of the assurance that God will friendship and those of the honor-shame code. The
answer prayer. ambiguous pronouns leave room for debate over
The question, “Which of you?” expects a nega- whether the petitioner is shameless for begging for
tive answer: “No one; it would be unthinkable.” food in the middle of the night or whether we are
The repetition of the word for “friend” (tos to understand that the sleeper would be shameless
philos) four times makes friendship the underlying for refusing a neighbor’s request. Either reading is
premise of the parable, but in the end that premise possible, but the latter is preferable. The situation is
will be displaced by another. The syntax of v. 5 unthinkable not because of the petitioner’s persis-
allows some uncertainty regarding whether the tence but because honor demanded that a neighbor
hearer is cast in the role of the petitioner or the one get up, awaken his whole family if necessary, and
petitioned, but the former seems to be the apparent " supply his neighbor’s need—if not from friendship,
meaning. The parable constructs a web of friend- then at least to avoid being shamed.
ships: the hearer and his or her imagined friend, Jesus often drew parables from common expe-
the one who goes to a friend’s house in the rience. Had he perhaps been awakened one
middle of the night to ask for bread, and the friend memorable night in Nazareth when his father
who arrives late as an unexpected guest. The two opened the door to a neighbor in need? The
central characters can be designated as the peti- parable requires us to compare our expectations
236
of a neighbor with our assumptions about God. If 18:1-8, Bishop Richard C. Trench, writing in
a neighbor would help us, will God be slow to beautiful Victorian English, concluded, “If churlish
answer an urgent request? The neighbor might man may be won by mere importunity to give,
have to be roused from sleep, but the psalmist and unjust man to do right, how much more
sang: “He who keeps Israel/ will neither slumber certainly shall the bountiful Lord bestow, and the
nor sleep” (Ps 121:4). We may pray confidently, righteous Lord do justice.”!25 (See Reflections at
therefore, not because we trust in our own per- 11:9-13.)
sistence but because we know that in a time of
need God is even more trustworthy than a neigh- 125. Richard C. Trench, The Parables of Our Lord (London: Kegan
Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co. Ltd., 1915) 330.
bor. Commenting on this parable and the twin
parable of the widow and the unjust judge in Luke
Luke 11:9-13, Assurances That God Hears Our Prayers

NIV NRSV
*“So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to 9“So I say to you, Ask, and it will be given
you; seek and you will find; knock and the door you; search, and you will find; knock, and the
will be opened to you. !°For everyone who asks door will be opened for you. !°For everyone who
receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds,
Knocks, the door will be opened. and for everyone who knocks, the door will be
“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for? opened. !'Is there anyone among you who, if your
a fish, will give him a snake instead? !7Or if he child asks for? a fish, will give a snake instead of
asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you a fish? !*Or if the child asks for an egg, will give
then, though you are evil, know how to give good a scorpion? 'SIf you then, who are evil, know how
gifts to your children, how much more will your to give good gifts to your children, how much
Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those more will the heavenly Father give the Holy
who ask him!” Spirit’ to those who ask him!”
2/7 Some manuscripts for bread, will give him a stone; or if he asks aOther ancient authorities add -bread, will give a stone; or ifyour
for child asks for oOther ancient authorities read the Father give
the Holy Spirit from heaven
(COMMENTARY
The sayings that follow develop further the prin- 9-10 can be understood either as encouraging
ciple that we may pray confidently because we persistence or as suggesting that “such appeal to
know God’s readiness to answer. This unit contains God will work again and again.”!7° The saying in
a threefold admonition (vv. 9-10) to pray confi- vv. 9-10 has a verbatim parallel in Matt 7:7-8,
dently, using three metaphors (ask, seek, knock), and it is followed by the same cluster of sayings
followed by two questions similar to the question in both Gospels. The three sayings evoke a spirit
and posture that is in keeping with both the Lord’s
in wv. 5-7. The two questions contrast the goodness
Prayer and the parable in vv. 5-8. Asking in the
of a human father with the superior goodness of
hope that something will be given to you puts the
God. The unit then concludes by underscoring the hearer in the posture of a beggar. Seeking and
argument from the lesser to the greater: “how much finding is language common to the quest for
more will. the heavenly Father... .” wisdom, but it could have wider applications—
11:9-10. Just as v. 8 can be read as teaching perhaps even seeking lodging or shelter. Similarly,
either persistence or confidence because of God’s
greater goodness, so also the imperatives of wv. 126. Nolland, Luke 9:21—18:34, 630.
237
‘LUKE 11:9-13 COMMENTARY
knocking in the hope of being received some- child a snake instead of fish or a scorpion instead
where again puts the hearer in the posture of the of an egg? The cruel substitutes may each bear a
destitute and the homeless. resemblance to the foodstuff requested. A snake
Key words in the sayings in vv. 9-10 appear again is scaly like a fish, and a scorpion that has rolled
later in Luke (see 11:29; 13:24-25). The three into a ball may be mistaken momentarily for an egg.
related sayings in vv. 9-10, therefore, draw on a Matthew 7:9-10 renders the same sayings with
system of metaphors that appear in other Lukan different pairings—bread/stone, fish/snake—but
sayings. The assurances given in these sayings as- the point is the same. °
sume that the petitioner, the seeker, and the 11:13. This verse draws the conclusion from
knocker are seeking God’s kingdom and are praying the hypothetical questions, just as v. 8 draws the
in the posture of one who prays the model prayer. conclusion from the question-shaped parable in
To such as these the assurances are given, and at vy. 5-7. The conclusion invites the hearer to
the end of the Gospel Luke signals the fulfillment compare contrasting pairs and reason from the
of these assurances by repeating the verb “to open” lesser to the greater: You being evil [human fa-
(avotyw anoigo) three times in reference to the thers|/the [good] heavenly Father; good things/the
risen Lord’s activities: He opened the eyes of the Holy Spirit. If a human father will give his chil-
disciples (24:31), he opened the Scriptures to dren good things, then how much more will the
them (24:32), and he opened their minds (24:45). _ heavenly Father give? Therefore, if human fathers
11:11-12. Two related sayings concerning the “give good things, the heavenly Father will give
goodness of a father follow. Again the question the Holy Spirit—the greatest gift—to those who
begins with the typically Lukan phrase “Who ask. Matthew draws the more obvious parallel—
among you...?” The question asks the hearer you being evil/the heavenly Father will give good
to put himself or herself in the position of a parent things—but Luke breaks the parallelism in order
whose child asks for a fish or an egg—a request to foreshadow the giving of the Holy Spirit and
for common food parallel to the petition for bread its work in the early church (see Luke 24:49; Acts
in the model prayer. What parent would give the P35 O% Zi leAye
REFLECTIONS
As we have seen, Luke 11:1-13 provides a unit of instruction on prayer. The disciples ask Jesus
to teach them to pray, but Jesus does not give the disciples magic words to say. Instead, Jesus
teaches them about the nature of the one to whom they pray. Luke 11:1-13 begins and ends
emphasizing that disciples of Jesus can pray to God as to a heavenly Father. The first word of the
model prayer is “Father.” The “thy” petitions establish what it means to revere God as Father,
while the “our” petitions assure that the Father will provide for the physical and spiritual needs
of those who worship him. The concluding and climactic petition asks for protection as from a
heavenly Father. The parable of the neighbor in need raises the issue of God’s reliability, arguing
that if a neighbor will get up in the middle of the night to answer one’s need in order to avoid
being shamed, how much more can the one who prays count on God’s readiness to answer a call
for help. The sayings that follow encourage confident and persistent prayer in the knowledge that
God’s goodness is greater than that of any human father.
When the disciples ask for a lesson on prayer, therefore, Jesus responds with a lesson on
the nature of God as Father. The greatest stimuli to prayer are the awareness of our need and
absolute dependence on God and our knowledge and experience of the character of God. Only
those who know their own need and the love of God as a heavenly Father will be able to
pray truly. The sayings in this unit, consequently, speak explicitly of the Fatherhood of God
while implicitly casting the one who prays in the position of a beggar or child in need.
The triple sayings in vv. 9-10 seem to offer assurance that ours is a God who gives, opens,
and allows us to find. Certainly that is true. The danger comes when we take these sayings
238
as a blank check on which we can write anything our hearts desire. Jesus assured his followers
that God answers prayer, but he did not guarantee that they would receive whatever they
requested. The assurances that follow the Lord’s Prayer assume that those who ask, seek, and
knock are asking from their need and for God’s will, seeking the kingdom, and knocking at
the door as a neighbor in the night. We may be anxious about the necessities of life, but Jesus
calls us to a higher pursuit: “Seek his kingdom, and these things shall be yours as well... for
it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (see 12:31-32). Our praying should
be consistent with our seeking. Then, when we pray as Jesus taught us, the assurance that
God answers is hardly needed.
Not only does God give, open, and allow us to find God, but God also asks, seeks, and
knocks. In the parable of the fig tree, the owner comes seeking fruit but finds none (13:6-7).
In another parable the servants wait for their master to come and knock so that they may
open the door for him to enter (12:36). Again, Jesus asked in another parable on prayer, “And
yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (18:8).
Jesus’ teachings on prayer, therefore, require that the one who prays will pray as one aware
of desperate self-need before God. Jesus’ teachings assure us that prayer is effective not because
of our cajoling, or because we have found the right words, but because of God’s nature as a
Father who loves his own and wants to give to those in need. Both the model prayer and
parables elsewhere in the Gospel underscore the related point that prayer is ultimately the
worship of God as Father, acknowledging God’s holiness and devoting ourselves to the coming
of God’s kingdom. Where we bring our need to God’s love in faith, that is prayer.
LUKE 11:14-36, RESPONSES TO CHARGES

OF DEVIANCY
NIV NRSV
4Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. 14Now he was casting out a demon that was
When the demon left, the man who had been mute; when the demon had gone out, the one
mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. '°But who had been mute spoke, and the crowds were
some of them said, “By Beelzebub,? the prince of amazed. "But some of them said, “He casts out
demons, he is driving out demons.” '*Others demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.”
tested him by asking for a sign from heaven. 16Others, to test him, kept demanding from him
\7Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: a sign from heaven. '7But he knew what they
“Any kingdom divided against itself will be ru- were thinking and said to them, “Every kingdom
ined, and a house divided against itself will fall. divided against itself becomes a desert, and house
\8]f Satan is divided against himself, how can his falls on house. 'If Satan also is divided against
kingdom stand? | say this because you claim that himself, how will his kingdom stand?—for you
I drive out demons by Beelzebub. '’Now ifI drive say that I cast out the demons by Beelzebul.
out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your 19Now if I cast out the demons by Beelzebul, by
followers drive them out? So then, they will be whom do your exorcists? cast them out? Therefore
your judges. 2°But if I drive out demons by the they will be your judges. ?°But if it is by the finger
finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come of God that I cast out the demons, then the
to you. ~ kingdom of God has come to you. *!'When a
21“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his strong man, fully armed, guards his castle, his
own house, his possessions are safe. But when property is safe. 7But when one stronger than he
al5 Greek Beezeboul or Beelzeboul; also in verses 18 and 19 aGk sons
239
LUKE 11:14-36
NIV NRSV
someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away
takes away the armor in which the man trusted his armor in which he trusted and divides his
and divides up the spoils. plunder. ?7Whoever is not with me is against me,
3“He who is not with me is against me, and and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
he who does not gather with me, scatters. 24“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a
24«When an evil? spirit comes out of a man, it person, it wanders through waterless regions look-
goes through arid places seeking rest and does not ing for a resting place, but not finding any, it says,
find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house | ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’
left.’ 2>When it arrives, it finds the house swept 25When it comes, it finds it swept and put in
clean and put in order. ?°Then it goes and takes order. *°Then it goes and brings seven other spirits
seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and more evil than itself, and they enter and live
they go in and live there. And the final condition there; and the last state of that person is worse
of that man is worse than the first.” than the first.”
27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in 27While he was saying this, a woman in the
the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed
gave you birth and nursed you.” . is the womb that bore you and the breasts that
*8He replied, “Blessed rather are those who “nursed you!” *But he said, “Blessed rather are
hear the word of God and obey it.” those who hear the word of God and obey it!”
2°As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is 29When the crowds were increasing, he began
a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, to say, “This generation is an evil generation; it
but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it
°For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also except the sign of Jonah. °°For just as Jonah
will the Son of Man be to this generation. °!The became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the
Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with Son of Man will be to this generation. °!The
the men of this generation and condemn them; queen of the South will rise at the judgment with
for she came from the ends of the earth to listen the people of this generation and condemn them,
to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one? greater than because she came from the ends of the earth to
Solomon is here. **The men of Nineveh will stand listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, some-
up at the judgment with this generation and thing greater than Solomon is here! °?The people
condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this
Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. generation and condemn it, because they repented
33“No one lights a lamp and puts it in a place at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something
where it will be hidden, or under a bowl. Instead greater than Jonah is here!
he puts it on its stand, so that those who come 33“No one after lighting a lamp puts it in a
in may see the light. “Your eye is the lamp of cellar,? but on the lampstand so that those who
your body. When your eyes are good, your whole enter may see the light. $Your eye is the lamp of
body also is full of light. But when they are bad, your body. If your eye is healthy, your whole body
your body also is full of darkness. °°See to it, then, is full of light; but if it is not healthy, your body
that the light within you is not darkness. *°There- is full of darkness. Therefore consider whether
fore, if your whole body is full of light, and no
the light in you is not darkness. **If then your
part of it dark, it will be completely lighted, as
whole body is full of light, with no part of it in
when the light of a lamp shines on you.”
‘ darkness, it will be as full of light as when a lamp
424 Greek unclean 631 Or something; also in verse 32 gives you light with its rays.”
aOther ancient authorities add or under the bushel basket
240
(COMMENTARY
Abruptly, the scene shifts and a crowd is pres- demonstration of power posed than the healing
ent with Jesus. The exorcism of a man who could that the man has experienced. Unable to deny the
not speak sets the stage for charges that Jesus casts exorcism, they brand the exorcist as an ally of
out demons by the power of Beelzebul and for Beelzebul, “Baal, the Prince.” The name Baalze-
requests for a sign. Jesus’ teachings and mighty bub, which is a deliberate corruption meaning
works set him apart from every “in” group and “Lord of the Flies,” appears in 2 Kgs 1:2-3, 6, 16.
broke the stereotypes by which persons were By the first century, however, Beelzebul appears
identified in the first century. One way of dealing to have been synonymous with Satan. The second
with the threat that Jesus posed to established response is not found in the parallel material in
groups, norms, and authorities was to discredit Matt 11:22-30 or Mark 3:22-27, but echoes Mark
him by pinning on him a label of deviancy. This 8:11. The narrator’s description of the response
section chronicles the rising hostility and conflict as arising out of a desire to test Jesus signals that
that Jesus encounters. Jesus’ answer is composed this encounter is like the devil’s temptations of
of several discrete parts: three arguments against Jesus at the beginning of his ministry—the only
the Beelzebul charge (vv. 17-20), the simile of the other place where this verb (“test” or “tempt”
strong man and the metaphor of gathering and [metpdcw peirazo]) is used in Luke (4:2; cf. 10:25).
scattering (vv. 21-23), the danger that the unclean Jesus is not allied with Satan; he is being tested
spirit may return (vv. 24-26), the response of a just as Satan had tested him earlier (cf. 4:13; 8:13;
woman from the crowd (vv. 27-28), Jesus’ answer 11:4; 22:28, 40, 46). Although Jesus has just
to the request for a sign (vv. 29-32), and his exorcised a demon and restored the deaf-mute
call for light and health in the whole person man, some ask for a sign from heaven—some-
(vv. 33-36). In response to the crowd’s challenges, thing to prove the power or identity of Jesus. The
Jesus rejects both their charges and the demand request should probably be understood in the light
for a sign and warns that the removal of evil is of the function of signs in confirming the words
not the final solution, since the spirits may return, of prophets in the OT (Deut 13:1-2; 2 Kgs
wholeness and light throughout the body are 20:8-11; cf. John 6:30-31). The request for a
required. Because Jesus’ work represents the van- sign will be answered in vv. 29-32, and the
quishing of Satan and the coming of light and issue of the persecution of the prophets will
wholeness, it is itself a sign that the kingdom of recur in vv. 47-51. But first, Jesus responds to
God is present in Jesus. the charge that he worked by the power of
11:14, Exorcising the Mute Spirit. The only Beelzebul. Regarding the narrator’s comment
other reference to the healing of the deaf (or mute) that Jesus knew what they were thinking, see
in Luke occurs in 7:22 (cf. 1:22), where it is related Commentary on 9:47.
to the fulfillment of the prophets. While that con- 11:17-20, Jesus and Beelzebul. Jesus’ first
nection is not developed here as it is in Matthew, response is to insist that those who charged that
it is nevertheless noteworthy that Jesus meets oppo- he was working with Satan did not understand
sition when he does the mighty works anticipated the meaning of the exorcisms; the exorcisms rep-
by the prophets (Isa 35:5; cf. Matt 12:22). When resented a direct assault on Satan’s power. If Jesus
Jesus exorcises the demon, he sets the stage for the were Satan’s ally, the exorcisms would represent
charge against him and his response concerning the a mutiny, and neither a kingdom nor a house can
fate of the demons and those who have been stand if there is internal dissension.
delivered from demons (vv. 24-26). Jesus’ second argument is that if his exorcisms
11:15-16, The Charges Against Jesus. indicate that he works under the power of Satan,
The exorcism generates a controversy dialogue. then the same would have to be said of other
Although the deaf-mute man speaks, confirming Jewish exorcists: their sons. This argument as-
that the miracle has occurred, some in the crowd sumes that there were other exorcists who were
are more concerned about the threat that such a esteemed by Jesus’ critics (see Mark 9:38; Acts
241
19:13-14). Josephus writes that he personally saw a no time for indecision; in the struggle to establish
certain Eleazar “free men possessed by demons” in God’s claims over Satan’s there can be no neutrality.
the presence of Vespasian and his soldiers.!?” If they 11:24-26, The Return of the Unclean
believed that other exorcists worked by the power Spirit. This cluster of sayings follows easily from
of God, then they should believe the same of Jesus. the foregoing interpretations of Jesus’ exorcisms.
Otherwise, they were condemning their own exor- While the exorcisms may be understood as dem-
cists with their condemnation of Jesus. onstrating that the power of Satan has been bro-
Jesus’ third argument explains the real meaning ken, decisive action is still needed. Although it
of his works. If they are not by the power of Satan has been argued that in this parable the unclean
but indeed by the power of God, then Jesus’ works spirit has not been cast out but is just traveling
signal that the kingdom of God has come among in search of a better dwelling place,!?° the present
them. Because the exorcisms show that Satan’s literary context of the parable suggests that it is
power has been broken, they are at the same time an extension of the debate over Jesus’ exorcisms
evidence that God’s reign is being established. The and a counterpoint to vv. 21-22. Because there is
tense of the verb is past (aorist): in Jesus the kingdom no middle ground, no room for neutrality (v. 23),
has come upon them. The expression “the finger of the person who has been delivered from the
God” is drawn from the Egyptian magicians’ expla- power of the unclean spirit must fill his or her
nation of Moses’ signs in Exod 8:19. If Jesus’ » life with the kingdom of God (v. 20) and obedi-
Opponents understood as much as the Egyptian ence to the Word of God (v. 28). Otherwise, it
magicians, they would see that Jesus’ works were will be as though having expelled one demon
signs that the kingdom had come. from a house, that house is set in order only to
11:21-23, The Simile of the Strong Man. be inhabited by the original demon and seven
The simile of the strong man is found in a less others worse than the first.
developed form in Mark 3:27 and Matt 12:29 The waterless places of the desert were thought
(cf. Isa 49:24). Luke, however, has developed the to be haunted by demons (Lev 16:10; Isa 34:13-
image so that the strong man fortifies himself 14). The language of this parable echoes early
with armor. Rather than the common word for Christian warnings about apostasy. Second Peter
“house,” Luke uses a word that can also mean calls apostates “waterless springs” (2:17): “For if,
“castle” (avAy aule). The strong man’s goods are after they have escaped the defilements of the
safe until one who is even stronger comes and world through the knowledge of our Lord and
takes away his armor. Then, his armor and the Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in
rest of his goods will be divided among the them and overpowered, the last state has become
conquerors. By embellishing the image, Luke worse for them than the first” (2 Pet 2:20).
enhances the meaning of Jesus’ works. Seen in 11:27-28, The Condition of True Bless-
the light of this simile, the exorcisms confirm edness. The introductory phrases of v. 27 tie the
that two kings have clashed. Powerful as Satan next pronouncement to the previous context. Fol-
is, God had defeated him, seized his armor, and lowing Jesus’ exorcism of the deaf and mute man,
is plundering his possessions. the crowds were amazed (v. 14), but some
The saying that concludes this paragraph is the charged that Jesus acted by the power of Beelze-
more restrictive form of the saying in 9:50. There bul (v. 15). Now a woman “in the crowd” praises
Jesus with a maternal blessing. The blessing is
Jesus said that one who was not against him was
for him; here he says that one who is not for him
formulated in traditional language (see Gen
49:25). The blessing on Jesus by proclaiming the
is against him. (See Commentary on 9:50.) Be-
blessedness of Jesus’ mother echoes the benedic-
cause one must choose one side or the other (cf.
tion of Mary in 1:42, 45, and 48. In effect, the
Josh 5:13), each disciple should examine his or
woman’s blessing claims that Jesus is so wonderful
her own commitment to Jesus. The latter part of
that he is a blessing to his mother. Jesus does not
the verse shifts the metaphor; one is either gath-
deny the blessing on his mother but seizes the
ering or scattering the sheep. A time of crisis is
128. John Nolland, Luke 9:21—-18:34, WBC 35B (Dallas: Word, 1989)
127. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 8.46. 645-47,
242
moment to point to the basis for blessing for all for a sign. Jesus’ response, however, is not to give
disciples: Those who hear God’s Word and obey them a sign but to underscore his call for them
it will be blessed (cf. 8:15, 21). to hear and obey the Word of God (see v. 28).
The particle (evotv menoun) used to intro- The call for a sign indicates that the crowd has
duce this beatitude can have various meanings: not been receptive to Jesus and his message of
contradiction (“no, but”), affirmation (“yes, in- the kingdom. Therefore, it justifies the verdict,
deed”), or modification (“yes, but”). One from “This is an evil generation”—indeed, a generation
whom a demon has been expelled may be no whose iniquity might be compared with that of
better off (vv. 24-26), but one who hears the the people of Nineveh. They were given the sign
Word of God and obeys it is truly blessed. Another of Jonah, and none other would be given to the
counterpoint is suggested by the repetition of the crowd around Jesus.
same verb in different senses in vv. 21 and 28; The question to be answered is, “What was the
the strong man who guards his possessions may sign of Jonah?” Matthew (12:39-40) interprets
be defeated and plundered, but the faithful disci- Jonah’s three days and nights in the belly of the sea
ple who guards God’s Word will be blessed. monster as portentous of Jesus’ three days in the
11:29-32, The Sign of Jonah. Jesus’ debate tomb. Luke, however, says nothing of this early
with the crowd.following his exorcism continues Christian interpretation, saying that Jonah was him-
but now takes up the second charge. Some said self a sign (v. 30) and that the people of Nineveh
he worked by the power of Beelzebul (11:15), a repented as a result of Jonah’s proclamation (v. 32).
charge Jesus rebuffed in vv. 17-23. Others called For Luke the sign of Jonah was his call for repen-
for him to give them a sign (11:16). Jesus’ re- tance, and no other sign would be given to that
sponse to this request has parallels in Mark 8:11- generation except Jesus’ call for them to hear the
12 and more immediately in the Q material also Word of God and obey it (v. 28).
found in Matt 12:38-42. These passages display a The Queen of Sheba, or the Queen of the
variety of responses to the request for a sign: South, journeyed from her kingdom in south-
(1) no sign will be given (Mark 8:11-12); west Arabia to test the reports she had heard
(2) no sign will be given except the sign of Jonah of Solomon’s wisdom (1 Kgs 10:1-13; 2 Chr
(Matt 16:4); 9:1-12). When she had tested Solomon with
(3) no sign will be given except the sign of Jonah, “hard questions” (1 Kgs 10:1), she was con-
who became a sign to the people of Nineveh vinced of the wisdom God had given to him
(Luke 11:29-30); and and blessed the Lord who had set Solomon on
(4) no sign will be given except the sign of Jonah: the throne of Israel (1 Kgs 10:9). At the judg-
The Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth ment, therefore, she would rise to condemn
for three days and three nights, just as Jonah was that wicked generation because they had one
in the belly of the sea monster for three days and who was greater than Solomon, and they did
three nights (Matt 12:39-40).!2° not hear him. Similarly, the people of
In both the latter passage in Matthew and here Nineveh—who were Gentiles!—would add
in Luke the saying about Jonah is followed by a their condemnation because they had repented
comparison with the Queen of the South, but the as a result of Jonah’s preaching, but that gen-
sequence is reversed. In Matthew the saying eration had heard the preaching of one greater
about the men of Nineveh (Matt 12:41; Luke than Jonah and yet did not repent. The argu-
11:32) precedes the saying about the Queen of ment is reminiscent of the warnings to Chorazin
the South (Matt 12:42; Luke 11:31). The result and Bethsaida, who did not repent when they
is that in Luke this cluster of sayings opens and saw deeds of power that would have led Tyre
closes with references to Jonah, and Jonah’s and Sidon to repent (10:13-16). Luke has sys-
preaching is interpreted by association with Solo- tematically shown that Jesus was greater than
mon’s wisdom. any of the prophets (see Commentary on 7:18-
The clamor of the crowds recalls their request 35). Jesus was greater than either a prophet
(Jonah) or a king (Solomon). They had heard
129. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke Luke (X-
XXIV), AB 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 930. the Messiah (9:20), the Son of God (9:35).
243
11:33-36, Giving Light to the Whole healthy, then it gives sight. Here the physical
Body. A collection of sayings gathered by the condition for, sight suggests ethical purity and
catchwords “lamp” and “light” follows. Verse 33 spiritual health. When the eye is clear and gives
is a doublet of Luke 8:16 (Matt 5:15; cf. Mark light, then one’can see, and the whole body is
4:21). Verses 34-35 have a parallel in Matt 6:22- filled with light. On the other hand, if the eye is
23, but v. 36 appears to be a conclusion fashioned not clear, the whole body remains in the dark.
by Luke. Again, the language suggests not merely a physical
The metaphors of light and the lamp are put but an ethical condition: literally, “but if it is
to different uses in these verses. In context, the evil”—the same word used in 11:4, 13, 26, 29.
lamp in v. 33 may represent Jesus, the one greater Jesus therefore invites that evil generation to con-
than Jonah or Solomon, who has come to give
sider whether the light in them has become
light. That light should not be hidden but set so
darkness. Verse 36 mixes the metaphors of the
that it can give light to all who come into the
two preceding statements. If the body is light (v.
house. The latter phrase may be an allusion to
34), then it will be as full of light as when a lamp
converts—those who come into the early Chris-
tian house churches. illumines you (v. 33).
Verse 34 takes the metaphor of the lamp in a The sayings have been drawn from independent
different direction. The verse has often been mis- _ contexts and woven into this controversy scene by
interpreted, however, because it assumes an an- the evangelist. In context they remain loosely con-
cient understanding of the eye and sight. We nected to the preceding exchange, but at least by
know that the eye responds to light from outside implication Jesus is the lamp in v. 34. This evil
the body, but in antiquity the common under- generation, which would have recognized Solo-
standing in both Greco-Roman and Jewish litera- mon’s wisdom and responded to Jonah’s preaching
ture was that the eye emitted light and that sight of judgment, does not accept Jesus because its “eye”
was possible when the light from within met light is evil. The light that Jesus gives should fill the whole
from outside. The Testament of Job, for example, body. The point is similar to that made earlier in
contains the following statement: “My eyes, acting other ways. It is insufficient merely to exorcise the
as lamps, looked about” (18.4).'°° Therefore, the demons if the space they vacate is not filled with
eye, that sparkles and flashes, is the lamp of the something good. True blessing comes to those who
body. Now the lamp is not Jesus but the light hear the Word of God and obey it. The controversy
within the disciple. If the eye is clear, pure, and concludes, therefore, with the insistence that the
130. Cited by Dale C. Allison, Jr., “The Eye Is the Lamp of the Body
light Jesus gives to all who enter should fill the
(Matthew 6.22-23=Luke 11.34-36),” N7S 33 (1987) 70. whole body.
REFLECTIONS
This extended controversy dialogue offers various possibilities for theological reflection and
homiletical development. The controversy begins when some in the crowd react to Jesus’
exorcism of a deaf and mute person. Jesus was helping a person in need and fulfilling a line
from the prophet Isaiah, but still there were those who criticized him for what he did. Many
people can identify with the frustrating circumstance of being attacked for doing good {see
John 10:32). The hostile reaction to the exorcism reveals further the threat that good poses
for those who are not bound to doing good under the sovereignty of God. This confrontation
is not petty jealousy or envy but exposes the enmity of Satan to the kingdom of God. Thus
the church should never underestimate the level of hostility it may encounter when attempting
to carry out its redemptive mission. Jesus named the evil powers for what they were and
defined the meaning of his own work—the advent of the kingdom of God (VeZoes
In the struggle between good and evil, change does not come without conflict—not only
opposition from others, but internal turmoil. To heal, Jesus had to expel the demon from the
244
man. The images of Beelzebul, divided kingdoms, and overcoming the strong man in his
fortress are metaphors of combat. Internally one may expel the demon only to have it return
with seven more. What does one do when light has shined into one’s soul and the light within
is darkness?
In the early chapters of Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, Jean Valjean, the ex-convict, steals
the bishop’s silver. When the police apprehend Valjean and bring him back to the bishop’s
house, the bishop verifies Valjean’s story that the silver was a gift to him and adds that he
meant to give the silver candlesticks to him also. The sheer grace of the bishop’s act sets off
a furious struggle within Jean Valjean that is best described in Hugo’s own words:
Faced with all these things, he reeled like a drunk. ... Did a voice whisper in his ear that he
had just passed through the decisive hour of his destiny, that there was no longer a middle course
for him, that if, thereafter, he were not the best of men, he would be the worst, that he must
now, so to speak, climb higher than the bishop or fall lower than the convict; that, if he wanted
to become good, he must become an angel; that, if he wanted to remain evil, he must become
a monster? ... One thing was certain, though he did not suspect it, that he was no longer the
same man, that all was changed in him, that it was no longer in his power to prevent the bishop
from having talked to him and having touched him.
An act of grace so changed Jean Valjean’s life that he could no longer be the person he had
been. One may wonder what became of the deaf-mute man touched by Jesus. Did the demon
return or did light fill the man’s entire life thereafter? What became of those in the crowd, those
who called for a sign, or the woman who called out the blessing on Jesus and his mother? In the
end, the text touches the reader so that he or she can no longer be the same.
The controversy poses a range of responses for readers. Some may test it, like those who
asked for sign. Some may reject it entirely, like those who charged Jesus with using the
power of Beelzebul. To reject the preaching of Jesus, however, is to reject a wisdom greater
than Solomon and a prophetic warning more dire than Jonah’s. Fortify yourself against grace
as you will, but one even stronger has come. No halfway response is permitted. If one merely
expels the demon, seven more will return. If one has a good eye, however, the light of Jesus’
kingdom will flood one’s entire being. True blessedness comes to those who hear the Word
of God and obey it (v. 28).
Good preachers paint pictures. Notice the kaleidoscope of images this controversy dialogue
spins before the reader: a divided kingdom, demons and exorcists, the finger of God, the strong
man’s castle and the one who takes his armor, waterless regions, a house swept clean, the
womb and breasts that nourish, Jonah and the Ninevites, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba,
a lamp and a lampstand, a clear eye and a darkened eye. Who doesn’t reel like a drunkard
when touched by the grace of such images and metaphors?
LUKE 11:37-54, WOES TO THE PHARISEES

AND LAWYERS
NIV . NRSV
37When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee 37While he was speaking, a Pharisee invited
invited him to eat with him; so he went in and him to dine with him; so he went in and took
reclined at the table. °*But the Pharisee, noticing his place at the table. **The Pharisee was amazed
that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was to see that he did not first wash before dinner.
surprised. 3°Then the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees
245
LUKE 11:37-54
NIV NRSV
Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but
Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, inside you are full of greed and wickedness. *°You
but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. fools! Did not the one who made the outside
4You foolish people! Did not the one who made make the inside also? *!So give for alms those
the outside make the inside also? *!But give what things that are within; and see, everything will be
is inside the dish? to the poor, and everything will clean for you. :
be clean for you. 42“But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe
42“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect
a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of justice and the love of God; it is these you ought
garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love to have practiced, without neglecting the others.
of God. You should have practiced the latter ‘3Woe to you Pharisees! For you love to have the
without leaving the former undone. seat of honor in the synagogues and to be greeted
43“Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the with respect in the marketplaces. “*Woe to you!
most important seats in the synagogues and greet- For you are like unmarked graves, and people
ings in the marketplaces. walk over them without realizing it.”
“4“Woe to you, because you are like unmarked A4S5One of the lawyers answered him, “Teacher,
graves, which men walk over without knowing it.” when you say these things, you insult us too.”
One of the experts in the law answered him, 4°And he said, “Woe also to you lawyers! For you
“Teacher, when you say these things, you insult load people with burdens hard to bear, and you
us also.” yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them. *7Woe
4°Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets
woe to you, because you load people down with whom your ancestors killed. “So you are wit-
burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves nessés and approve of the deeds of your ancestors;
will not lift one finger to help them. for they killed them, and you build their tombs.
47“Woe to you, because you build tombs for “°Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will
the prophets, and it was your forefathers who send them prophets and apostles, some of whom
killed them. *8So you testify that you approve of they will kill and persecute,’ °°so that this genera-
what your forefathers did; they killed the proph- tion may be charged with the blood of all the
ets, and you build their tombs. **Because of this, prophets shed since the foundation of the world,
God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them proph- *'from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah,
ets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and who perished between the altar and the sanctu-
others they will persecute.’ °°Therefore this gen- ary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this
eration will be held responsible for the blood of generation. °”Woe to you lawyers! For you have
all the prophets that has been shed since the taken away the key of knowledge; you did not
beginning of the world, °*'from the blood of Abel enter yourselves, and you hindered those who
to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed be- were entering.”
tween the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, 53When he went outside, the scribes and the
this generation will be held responsible for it all.
Pharisees began to be very hostile toward him and
“Woe to you experts in the law, because you to cross-examine him about many things, “lying
have taken away the key to knowledge. You in wait for him, to catch him in something he
yourselves have not entered, and you have hin- might say.
dered those who were entering.”
3When Jesus left there, the Pharisees and the
teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely
and to besiege him with questions, “waiting to
catch him in something he might say.
44] Or what you have
246
COMMENTARY
In the next section, the scene shifts to a meal the outside of the cup and the dish while leaving
at a Pharisee’s home, which becomes the occa- the inside dirty, as is more nearly the case in
sion for the pronouncement of three woes Matthew. In the second half of the saying, how-
against the Pharisees and three woes against the ever, Luke abandons the metaphor, saying instead
lawyers. The topic of debate changes, but the “but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.”
level of hostility continues to rise. This is the The metaphorical image of the contrast between
third in the sequence of scenes in Luke in the condition of the inside and the outside of a
which Jesus debates with Pharisees at a meal cup or vessel continues in Jesus’ retort. The Phari-
or eats in the home of a Pharisee (5:29-32, at sees should realize that God made the whole
Levi’s house; 7:36-50, with Simon, the Pharisee; person, inside and out, and that God is not just
11:37-54, with a Pharisee; 14:1-24, with a leader concerned with the observance of rituals of purity
of the Pharisees). but with the purity of one’s heart. Verse 41 is
The sayings in this scene have parallels in surprising and probably deliberately cryptic. The
Matthew 23, as will be noted below, but it is NRSV gives a literal translation. Compare the more
difficult to determine the extent of Luke’s own interpretive translation of the NIV. Does this refer
contribution to the shaping of these sayings. In to what is within the cup or what is within the
general, Luke has collected the sayings in two person? If the former, then by giving away the
groups of three, separated those addressed to the food or drink within the vessel one renders it all
lawyers from those addressed to the Pharisees, clean—a surprising and delightful twist!'*? On the
and deleted references to Jewish concerns that other hand, if Jesus challenges the Pharisees to
would not have been understood by Gentile-Chris- give as alms what is within the person, then the
tian readers.'3' The woes have a double function saying requires reflection on how one can give
in Luke. On the one hand, they explain Jesus’ away what is within the person. Or is it that the
conflict with the religious authorities of his day, almsgiving is to be an expression of what is in the
and on the other hand they serve as a warning person?!3 A person’s actions should reflect her or
to Christian readers not to fall into the same traps his inner purity. It is probably best to read Jesus’
of false piety. The woe is an expression of lament solution as a continuation of the metaphor: Give
that looks to the future judgment. “Alas” for those away the contents of the cup, and it will all be
whose piety is so misdirected that it cloaks greed, clean. Almsgiving (see 12:33) is the most effective
corruption, and impurity within. antidote to greed (v. 39).
11:37-41. The stage is set for the confronta- 11:42-44. The first woe continues the contrast
tion when Jesus takes his place at the table between the inner and the outer aspects in the
without having washed first (see Mark 7:2, which previous saying but adds the contrast between the
appears in a section of Mark that is omitted by important and the insignificant. Comparison with
Luke). The Pharisees observed strict rules regard- the Matthean version of the saying (Matt 23:23)
ing ritual cleanness, formed associations called highlights Luke’s emphases. Whereas Matthew
habdrot, and generally ate only with those who lists herbs on which the payment of a tithe was
also maintained ritual purity (Mark 7:3-4). By not required,'** Luke drops these two from his list
washing—especially after having performed an and makes the list all inclusive by adding “rue
exorcism and been in contact with the crowds— and herbs of all kinds,” even though no tithe was
Jesus scandalizes his host. required on rue or other herbs that grew wild.'*
Jesus’ initial response has a parallel in Luke also omits Matthew’s reference to “the
Matt 23:25 but lacks the introductory “woe,” weightier things of the law,” which Matthew
perhaps in order to create the Lukan scheme of summarizes as justice, mercy, and faith. In their
two groups of three woes. The saying starts as
132. Ibid., 945.
though it will condemn the Pharisees for washing 133. John Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, 664-65.
134. See m. Maaseroth 4.5, “dill”; m. Demai2.1, “cummin.”
131. See Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (XXXIV), 943. 135. See m. Shebiith 9.1.
247
place, however, Luke charges that the Pharisees woes against the lawyers that parallel and balance
neglect justice and “the love of God”—concerns that the previous. woes.
echo the two great commands named in 10:27— Just as the first woe against the Pharisees con-
love God: and your neighbor as yourself. Jesus’ demned them for observing the law regarding the
criticism of piety that observes external obedience tithing of herbs while neglecting matters of justice
while neglecting justice and the love of God is an and love, so also the first woe against the lawyers
echo of Mic 6:8, “And what does the Lorp require condemns them for imposing legal restrictions on
of you/ but to do justice, and to love kindness,/ others while doing nothing to help them. Rather
and to walk humbly with your Gode” than a blessing (as it was intended), they have
The second woe, which parallels Matt 23:6-7, made God’s law a burden to the people. Inter-
continues the critique of external piety but lacks preting what is allowed and what is not, therefore,
the corresponding statement of a corrective act. does not exhaust the role of those who are called
True piety does not seek praise from others (see to interpret God’s Word for others.
Matt 6:1; Mark 12:38-39). Those whose spiritual If the first woe to the lawyers deals with the
discipline is concerned with the fulfillment of the law, the second deals with the prophets. The
corrective statements in vv. 41-42—almsgiving, lawyers build monuments to the prophets whom
justice, and the love of God—will not be con- their fathers killed. The force of this woe depends
cerned with occupying the seats of honor in the - on the axiom that the child is like the parent; the
synagogue or being given special recognition in sons are like their fathers. They are not really
the marketplace. The love of the thing that brings honoring the prophets. Rather, they show them-
public applause to oneself (v. 43) is contrary to selves to be accomplices in the murders commit-
the love that is directed toward God {(v. 42). ted by their ancestors. They do not really honor
The third woe to the Pharisees returns to the either the prophets of old or the prophets of God
contrast between the outer and the inner. Con- in their own time.
tact with a corpse rendered a person unclean The reference to “the wisdom of God” in
(Lev 21:1-4, 11; Num 19:11-22). Graves had to v. 49 can be interpreted variously: (1) as a quo-
be marked, therefore, so that persons would not tation from an otherwise unknown source; (2) as
unwittingly defile themselves by contact with a reference to what Wisdom had said or revealed
them. Matthew’s version of this woe refers to the to Jesus; (3) as a self-designation, in which Jesus
practice of whitewashing tombs so that they speaks of himself as “the wisdom of God”; or
would be evident to all who passed by. The (4) as a title for Jesus (compare Matthew’s use of
Matthean woe then charges that the scribes and the first person in Matt 23:34). While “the wis-
Pharisees are like whitewashed tombs, clean on dom of God” is not a title Luke uses for Jesus,
the outside but corrupt within (Matt 23:27-28). the Gospel narrative has indicated that Jesus was
Luke’s form of the woe makes the same point filled with wisdom (2:40, 52) and promises that
with a different image. Because the inner corrup- he will give wisdom to his followers (21:15). The
tion of the Pharisees is not visible, others are Queen of Sheba came to hear Solomon’s wisdom
defiled by their influence. (11:31), but now there is one greater than Solo-
11:45-52. Three woes to the lawyers follow the mon, and he too can speak the wisdom of God.
three woes to the Pharisees. The lawyers appear Jesus speaks for God: “I will send them proph-
elsewhere in Luke (7:30; 10:25; 14:3), usually in ets and apostles.” We may ask whether this pro-
combination with a reference to the Pharisees. The nouncement speaks of the prophets of old whom
implication of the lawyer’s response to Jesus is that their ancestors killed, Jesus and John the Baptist,
his condemnation of the Pharisees casts shame on ‘or the apostles whom Jesus would send. Whereas
them also—and surely Jesus cannot have intended Matthew speaks of “prophets, sages, and scribes,”
that they too were guilty of such things. The address Luke has “prophets and apostles,” thereby looking
to Jesus as “teacher” is a gesture offering Jesus a forward to the role of the apostolic martyrs. The
place among them and inviting Jesus to commend force of this pronouncement, therefore, is to link
them while condemning the Pharisees. The com- Jesus and the apostles with the prophets whom
ment, however, provides the occasion for three the lawyers and their ancestors had killed. As a
248
result, Jesus speaks in a veiled way of his own perts in the law for possessing the key to the
fate and that of his followers. Just as the prophets house of knowledge (Prov 9:1), or the way of
had been persecuted and killed, so also now those salvation, and yet they neither used that key to
who followed Jesus would be persecuted by the
enter the house nor allowed others to enter. The
religious authorities, who would not honor the
term translated “hinder” (kwAtw kolyo) will play
words of God’s prophets. a strategic role in the book of Acts, where it
Because that generation had participated in the
signals the progressive removal of the barriers to
murder of the prophets (see v. 48), they would
the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 8:36;
be held responsible for the blood of the prophets
10:47; 11:17; 28:31).'87 The impulse of the law-
from the beginning of time (see Jer 7:25-26;
yers to hinder, therefore, is an early indication of
Acts 7:52; Rev 18:24). To “seek the blood” is to bring
the resistance that will eventually force the apos-
the guilty parties to justice for the blood they have
shed (Gen 9:5; Ezek 3:18; Matt 27:24-25). The tles to turn to the Gentiles.
11:53-54. These verses bring this scene to a
murders of Abel (Gen 4:8-10) and Zechariah
(2 Chr 24:20-22) may be cited here because they close by narrating Jesus’ departure from the Phari-
were the prototypical murders in Israel’s history see’s house and the response of the scribes and
or because they were the first and the last mur- Pharisees, which is even more hostile than that
ders cited in the Hebrew Scriptures. The problem described in Luke 6:11 (cf. Mark 3:6; 12:13). The
with the latter interpretation is that it is difficult verb at the end of v. 53 does not fit easily in this
to establish the sequence of the writings or the context from what is known of its usage else-
state of the Hebrew canon in the first century. where, where it means “to teach by dictation” or
The place where Zechariah was murdered is de- “to repeat from memory.” Thus the NRSV has
scribed in 2 Chronicles as “in the court of the changed the translation from “to provoke him to
house of the Lorp” (24:21; see “house” [NRSV, speak of many things” to “to cross-examine him
“sanctuary”] in Luke 11:51). The coincidence of about many things.” The NIV is again more in-
the name with the reference to the Temple and terpretive: “to, besiege him with questions.” The
the altar led some early interpreters to suggest meaning is probably an attempt to trap him in his
that this Zechariah was the father of John the responses, as v. 54 explains. The language is that of
Baptist.3° hunting prey; they lie in wait for him (cf. Acts 23:21)
The third woe condemns those who were ex- and set traps in their effort to ensnare him.
136. See Protevangelium of James 23-24. See also Wilhelm Schnee- 137. The role of the term “unhindered” at the end of Acts was first
melcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, 2nd ed., ed. and trans. R. McL. pointed out by Frank Stagg, The Book of Acts: The Early Struggle for an
Wilson (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 1:436. Unhindered Gospel (Nashville: Broadman, 1955).
REFLECTIONS
Jesus condemns the Pharisees and the lawyers for various reasons: false piety, attention to
minutia while neglecting vital matters, desire for praise from others, making the demands of
faithfulness a burden to others, rejecting God’s prophets, and possessing the knowledge of
God’s teachings but neither using it themselves nor helping others to do so. Two dangers lurk
here for modern interpreters. The first is to assume that nothing in these woes is relevant to
the contemporary church, and the second is to treat them in such a way that they are
understood as Jesus’ condemnation of Judaism or Jewish religious leaders. The woes are
included in the Gospel not merely because they explain Jesus’ opposition to the Pharisees and
lawyers but as a teaching to disciples and a warning to those who profess to follow him.
The key in interpreting such controversy sayings is to find modern counterparts in the life
of the church and the ways in which our own piety is blind to some of the practices and
concerns for which Jesus condemned the Pharisees and lawyers. The aphorism of the beam
in the eye should guide our reading of these woes. It is all too easy to be critical of others
249
when our own piety is open to criticism. This text is not a club with which to beat the failings
out of others but a mirror in which we can see the shortcomings of our own piety.
Another approach to this passage is to reflect on the positive directions that are implicit in
the condemnations. What would the passage look like if it were changed from woes to
beatitudes? As a blessing on the righteous Pharisees, it would be read: “Blessed are you
Pharisees! For you practice justice and the love of God while you pay a tithe on even your
smallest sources of income. Blessed are you Pharisees! For you love to give others the seats
of honor and greet the lonely and overlooked persons in the marketplace. Blessed are you!
For you are like unmarked springs; you bless others without realizing it.” Similarly, as blessings
on the devout lawyers, it might read: “Blessed also are you lawyers! For you ease the burdens
on others and help them carry their loads. Blessed are you! For you honor the prophets and
strive to heed their warnings. Because of you there is hope for this generation. Blessed are
you lawyers! For you have found the key to knowledge; you have entered yourselves, and
you have helped others to find the way also.” Now, what would it mean to structure one’s
life around such positive injunctions?
LUKE 12:1-13:9, READINESS FOR THE

COMING JUDGMENT
OVERVIEW
In Luke 12:1—13:9, Jesus instructs his disciples material prosperity that one gives no thought to
and the crowd to be ready for the coming judg- the security only God can provide. If anxiety over
ment. The section is composed of sayings and physical needs is what drives one to be preoccu-
parables that have been drawn together around pied with gathering material goods, then remem-
this theme and introduced by transitional and ber the instruction on prayer: Our Father knows
connective comments at various points through what we need (12:22-34). Like servants waiting
the discourse. The theme of judgment is intro- on the return of a householder, disciples should
duced in the opening verses: “Nothing [is] secret be ready for the Lord’s coming at an unexpected
that will not become known” (12:2). If the choice time (12:35-48). Discipleship inevitably causes di-
is between public confession that will lead to vision (12:49-53), but even the crowds should
persecution or refusal to confess the one who will interpret the times and settle their accounts
come as the Son of Man in judgment, then one (12:54-59). Two further parables warn the reader
should fear judgment rather than persecution about the need for repentance and fruitfulness
(12:4-12). The parable of the rich fool (12:13-21) (13:1-9).
exposes the folly of being so preoccupied with
Luke 12:1-12, Fear Judgment, Not Persecution

NIV NRSV
] Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thou- ] 2 Meanwhile, when the crowd gathered by
sands had gathered, so that they were tram- the thousands, so that they trampled on
pling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to one another, he began to speak first to his disci-
his disciples, saying: “Be on your guard against the ples, “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, that
LUKE 12:1-12
NIV NRSV
yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2There is, their hypocrisy. *Nothing is covered up that
is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that
hidden that will not be made known. ?What you will not become known. *Therefore whatever you
have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, have said in the dark will be heard in the light,
and what you have whispered in the ear in the and what you have whispered behind closed doors
inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs. will be proclaimed from the housetops.
““T tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of 4*"T tell you, my friends, do not fear those who
those who kill the body and after that can do no kill the body, and after that can do nothing more.
more. *But I will show you whom you should But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who,
fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, after he has killed, has authority? to cast into hell.?
has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, Yes, I tell you, fear him! °Are not five sparrows
fear him. °Are not five sparrows sold for two sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is
pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by
forgotten in God’s sight. 7But even the hairs of
God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all
your head are all counted. Do not be afraid; you
numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more are of more value than many sparrows.
than many sparrows.
8“And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges
®*T tell you, whoever acknowledges me before me before others, the Son of Man also will ac-
men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him knowledge before the angels of God; °but who-
before the angels of God. °But he who disowns ever denies me before others will be denied before
me before men will be disowned before the angels the angels of God. '°And everyone who speaks a
of God. '°And everyone who speaks a word word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but
against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will
anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit not be forgiven. ''When they bring you before the
will not be forgiven.
synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, do not
'“When you are brought before synagogues, worry about how‘ you are to defend yourselves
rulers and authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to say; '*for the Holy Spirit will
you will defend yourselves or what you will say, teach you at that very hour what you ought to
‘for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time say.”
what you should say.”
aOr power 5Gk Gehenna cOther ancient authorities add or
46 Greek two assaria what
(COMMENTARY
12:1-3. Verse 1 serves as a transition from the woes condemned the Pharisees for wearing a
woes against the Pharisees and lawyers to the mask of piety that concealed their inner corrup-
theme of the next section of the travel narrative. tion. While both Mark 8:15 and Matt 16:5-6
When a crowd gathered, apparently listening to contain versions of this saying, only Luke identi-
Jesus’ denunciations of the Pharisees and lawyers, fies the Pharisees’ yeast as hypocrisy, even though
Jesus spoke first to the disciples. The narrator’s Jesus does not call the Pharisees hypocrites in
comment points ahead, however, to the verses in Luke (see 6:42; 12:56; 13:15). The reference to
which Jesus will address the crowd also (12:13, hypocrisy easily recalls Jesus’ charge that the
41, 54). Pharisees wash the outside of the cup but inside
Jesus’. warning about the “yeast” of the Phari- are full of greed and wickedness, and that they
sees recalls the preceding woes. Here, however, the are like unmarked graves.
yeast is identified as their “hypocrisy” (utdKptois Those who love public acclaim and who prac-
hypokrisis). To be a hypocrite originally meant to tice their piety before others so that they will be
be an actor, to wear a mask or play a role. The praised for it are warned that in the coming
vas
judgment all secrets will be made public. Then, appear in the metaphorical sense of a fiery place
rather than gain acclaim, they will suffer public of torment for the wicked prior to the writing of
shame. Verse 2 contains two paired sayings: What the Gospels. Literally, the term means “the Valley
is covered will be uncovered, and what is secret of Hinnom.” The location, just south of Jerusalem,
will be known (see 8:17; Mark 4:22; Matt 10:26- had been the site of a pagan high place, the
27). The effect of these sayings is to remove the burning of children in child sacrifices, and later
possibility that the undeserving will be praised for the garbage heap of the city where fire burned
their feigned virtue. At the judgment everyone’s continually (see Jer 7:29-34; 19:4-13). When later
true character will be exposed. the Jewish views of judgment and torment after
Verse 3 continues the same line of exhortation, death developed to the point that the place of
dealing now with what is spoken in secret rather torment was thought of as a fiery abyss, the first
than what is hidden from sight. Privacy in the metaphorical references to Gehenna outside the
close quarters and simple dwellings of a Galilean NT appear in the Sibylline Oracles (1.100-103;
village was nearly impossible. The judgment will 2.283-312) and 4 Ezra (7:36).
leave no opportunity for one’s public statements Verses 4-5, therefore, contend that the disciples
to be different from one’s private pronounce- should not fear those who torment them because
ments. Darkness may give occasion for secrecy, _ the most that humans can do is kill the body.
pretension, or wrongdoing, whereas the light— Rather, they should reverence God because God
which is commonly associated with the good— can cast persons into eternal torment. Verses 6-7
exposes the deeds done in darkness. Mixing the turn then to assure disciples that there is no need
language of sight and sound, Jesus warns that to be afraid of God. One could buy five sparrows
what has been said in the dark will be heard in
(for food) for two copper coins worth only a
the light. Similarly, what one whispers into the
sixteenth of a denarius each—meaning that the
ear of another in privacy will be proclaimed from
value of a sparrow was only one fortieth of a
the housetops so that all may hear. The first
denarius! Nevertheless, God does not forget even
sayings on being ready for the judgment, there-
a sparrow (cf. Isa 49:15; Matt 10:29). Again, the
fore, warn that, because hypocrisy will be ex-
argument is from the lesser to the greater; if God
posed, integrity is expected.
does not forget a sparrow, certainly God’s provi-
12:4-7. The next complex of sayings (vv. 4-7)
is loosely bound together by the catchword fear. dence over those who follow Jesus will not
It explains who to fear (vv. 4-5) and who not to waiver. On the contrary, God’s attention to and
fear (vv. 6-7). The verb translated “to fear” care for the faithful are so constant that even the
(boBéopat phobeomai) is repeated four times in hairs of our heads are numbered. Therefore, we
vv. 4-5, setting up the admonition not to fear in should have no fear of God, no uncertainty re-
v. 7. The complex begins and ends with com-, garding God’s providence, and no doubt as to the
mands not to fear (vv. 4, 7). Do not fear those value of the individual human life in God’s sight.
who can kill but have no further power over you. 12:8-12. Luke extends the contrast between
Death should not be one’s ultimate fear. The fearing persecutors and fearing God by sketching
threat of the persecutor is greatly reduced when two courtroom scenes, one before human judges
seen from this perspective. Instead, fear the one and one before the Son of Man. The first two
who can not only kill but can cast you into sayings (vv. 8-9) in this cluster affirm that the
hell:—fear God. Only God can cast one into hell, disciple’s confession or denial of Jesus before oth-
so fear God alone. Here, fear is used in the OT ers will determine the Son of Man’s confession
sense of to respect, to reverence, or to obey (Deut or denial of the disciple before the heavenly court.
6:2; Josh 24:14; Prov 1:7). First Peter 2:17 seems Not only should one not fear possible persecution,
to grant “fear” a degree of allegiance even higher therefore, but also if one is intimidated by the
than “honor” (tisdw timao): “Honor everyone. threat of arrest or persecution—such as what the
Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the disciples experience in the book of Acts—then
emperor.” that person should remember that judgment is
The term gehenna (yéevva geenna) does not determined by whether he or she confesses or
252
denies Jesus now. Do not fear (vv. 4-7). Confess of the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy is distinguished from
Jesus without fear (vv. 8-9). merely “speaking a word against.”
Verse 10 is related to the preceding passage by In the face of persecution, one should not reject
catchword (“the Son of Man”) and by motif the Holy Spirit, but trust in the Spirit for strength
(speaking, forgiving), and it introduces the Holy and guidance in time of crisis (vv. 11-12; cf.
Spirit, thereby providing a link with v. 12. The 21:14-15; Matt 10:19-20; Mark 13:11). The
distinction between speaking against the Son of threat of being brought before Jewish and Gentile
Man and speaking against the Holy Spirit has long justice—“the synagogues, the rulers and the
puzzled interpreters. This saying regarding the authorities” —will be realized in the experiences
“unpardonable sin” has parallels in Mark 3:28-30 of the apostles, Stephen, and Paul in the book of
and Matt 12:31-32, but it is important to consider Acts. Luke warns believers that because persecu-
each version of this saying in its own narrative tion and trial may be expected, each believer
context. Because the theological language and should prepare for the crisis with the resolve to
legislative tone of the saying suggest that it is a confess Jesus openly and publicly and to trust in
post-Easter formulation, some commentators have the power of God through the Holy Spirit to teach
them what they should say in that moment. The
suggested that Luke is distinguishing between
defense speeches in Acts, therefore, should be
those who rejected Jesus during his earthly min-
viewed as examples of inspired utterances and mod-
istry and those who rejected the preaching of the
els for Luke’s readers to imitate (see Acts 4:8).
gospel by the early church. Alternatively, it has
In sum, the cumulative argument of these verses,
been suggested that the saying distinguishes be-
the first unit in an extended section on preparing
tween those who reject the gospel never having for the coming judgment, is that one should not fear
professed faith and those who, having embraced earthly judges but the eternal judge. Moreover, one
the gospel, later commit apostasy. More to the who confesses the Son of Man now will be con-
point is the view of those who distinguish here fessed by the Son of Man at the last judgment.
an impulsive, momentary rejection of Jesus, such Therefore, believers should be prepared to confess
as Peter’s denial of Jesus in the courtyard Jesus publicly, trusting in the leadership of the Holy
(Luke 22:54-62), from a persistent, obdurate re- Spirit. If the difficult saying in v. 10 is to be
jection of God’s saving grace through the work of interpreted as allowing forgiveness for those who
the Holy Spirit. The Lukan context of this saying fail to confess Jesus in such trials (as did even
suggests that it is concerned with those who deny Peter}, then v. 10 stands as not only a warning
Jesus when faced with persecution. Again, the against the unpardonable sin of persistently reject-
example of Peter indicates that such denial is ing the overtures of God’s Spirit but also as a
forgivable, and he is to be distinguished from word of grace for those who falter under the
those who resist and persistently reject the appeals threat of persecution.
REFLECTIONS
This collection of warnings concerning being prepared for eschatological judgment is hardly
one of the most popular sections of this Gospel. In all likelihood it has been avoided by many
preachers because of the difficulties it poses; few American Christians are persecuted in the
manner envisioned by these verses. Preaching warnings about the last judgment has fallen out
of fashion in many churches. And the warning about the unpardonable sin is difficult to
interpret and difficult to relate to the Gospel’s appeal for repentance and its promise of
forgiveness.
1. Overshadowed by these difficulties, however, are elements of these sayings that offer
appealing themes for meditation, reflection, and preaching. The first is the imperative of
be
integrity. There is no room for hypocrisy or role-playing in the Christian life. We should
as concerned with inner purity as with outward appearances. How might it change our daily
253
actions or our relationships to others if we lived by the code that, because nothing is secret
now that will not become known, the aim of the Ghristian is complete honesty .and
transparency? Integrity demands that there be no place for pretense or deception among
believers.
2. These verses contain one of the Bible’s most eloquent assurances of God’s care and
providence for every human being: “His eye is on the sparrow....” In an era in which there
is so much anxiety over the uncertainties of life, the Gospel assures us of God’s protective
care. In a time when rampant violence claims so many lives, the Gospel reminds us of the
infinite worth of every human life. God will not forget us; even the hairs of our heads are
numbered. When we are thrust beyond the range of our own strength, God will sustain us
and guide us through our most trying hours.
3. These exhortations to be prepared for judgment before the Son of Man teach ethical
responsibility in a period in which it is all too easy to shirk moral obligations and expect easy
pardons. We are accountable to God for the way we live, the way we treat others,.and the
way we handle both God’s teachings and God’s gifts. If we refuse God’s claim on our lives,
then we lose the promise of God’s grace toward us. Our actions and words have moral
consequences, and integrity demands consistency not only between the inner and the outer
person but also between our confessions of faith and our petitions for mercy.
4. The other side of the warning concerning the unpardonable sin is a word of grace that
even when we fail under pressure and deny the convictions that sustain us God forgives and
restores. Only those who persistently reject God’s grace put themselves beyond the reach of
God’s love and forgiveness.
Luke 12:13-21, Better a Poor Farmer Than a Rich Fool
NIV NRSV
‘Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, 13Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher,
tell my brother to divide the inheritance tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with
with me.” me.” ‘But he said to him, “Friend, who set me
‘Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a to be a judge or arbitrator over you?” !°And he
judge or an arbiter between you?” 'Then he said said to them, “Take care! Be on your guard against
to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one’s life does not consist
all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.” !*Then he told
in the abundance of his possessions.” them a parable: “The land of a rich man produced
'eAnd he told them this parable: “The ground abundantly. '7And he thought to himself, ‘What
of a certain rich man produced a good crop. !7He should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?”
thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no '8Then he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down
place to store my crops.’ my barns and build larger ones, and. there I will
'8“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear store all my grain and my goods. !°And I will say
down my barns and build bigger ones, and there to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up
I will store all my grain and my goods. !%And I’ll for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’ 2°But
say to myself, “You have plenty of good things God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your
laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink life is being demanded of you. And the things you
and be merry.”’ have prepared, whose will they be?’ 2'So it is with
“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very those who store up treasures for themselves but
night your life will be demanded from you. Then are not rich toward God.”
254
LUKE 12:13-21
NIV
who will get what you have prepared for
yourself?’
4I“This is how it will be with anyone who
stores up things for himself but is not rich toward
God.”
(COMMENTARY
Continuing the theme of this larger section, the seeking his inheritance provides the occasion for
next verses shift from confession of Jesus to for- the parable of the rich fool, which translates the
saking the security of material possessions. Those aphorism in Luke 9:25 into parable form. When
who confess Jesus look to God for their security, the parable is introduced as a story about a rich
not to their own ability to accumulate possessions man, a number of associations are triggered.
and lay up wealth for the future. Wealth may be a sign of God’s goodness and
12:13-15. The crowd was introduced at the blessing, but the wisdom tradition is full of warn-
beginning of the chapter (v. 1). Now, a man from ings about the prudent use of wealth. The psalmist
the crowd approaches Jesus with a request that sang the folly of riches:
he serve as the judge in the division of an inheri- Why should | fear in times of trouble,
tance. Apparently the man’s older brother refused when the iniquity of my persecutors surrounds
to give him what he felt he was due. The laws me,
of inheritance stipulated that the elder brother those who trust in their wealth
and boast of the abundance of their riches?
would receive a double portion of the inheritance (Ps 49:5-6 NRSV)
(Deut 21:17). If the father had no sons, his
possessions were to be divided among his daugh- Similarly, in the closest parallel to this parable,
ters (Num 27:1-11), but his daughters were then Sirach warns:
required to marry within their father’s tribe so
Good things and bad, life and death
that his possessions would not leave the tribe poverty and wealth, come from the Lord.
(Num 36:7-9). The Lord’s gift remains with the devout,
Jesus rejected the role of judge or divider of and his favor brings lasting success.
inheritances, even though Moses had handled a One becomes rich through diligence and
self-denial,
similar request (Exod 2:14; Num 27:1-11). Verse and the reward allotted to him is this:
15 serves as a conclusion to Jesus’ response to when he says, “I have found rest,
the man from the crowd and as a transition to and now I shall feast on my goods!”
the parable that follows. Perhaps for this reason he does not know how long it will be
until he leaves them to others and dies.
its syntax is difficult. Even so, the meaning is
(Sir 11:14-19 NRSV; cf. 31:5-11; / Enoch 97:8-10)
clear. Jesus rejects the man’s request because he
will not participate in satisfying the greed that he References earlier in the Gospel to the dangers of
senses had prompted it. Instead of helping the wealth and God’s reckoning with the rich (see
man to get his inheritance, he points the man to 1:51-53; 6:24; 8:14) have also prepared the reader
a different understanding of life. Life is not to be to expect a reversal of the rich man’s good for-
valued or measured in terms of wealth or posses- tune. If his fields have brought forth abundantly,
sions. One may gain the whole world and lose it is a blessing from God that demands both
one’s soul (see 9:25). On the other hand, true prudence and fidelity in making provisions for the
blessing comes to those who hear the Word of whole community. Abundance requires that one
God and ‘do it (8:21; 11:28). prepare for the famine that will surely follow. Here
12:16-21. Just as the lawyer’s question in the model of Joseph’s wise response to the seven
Luke 10 served as an introduction for the parable years of bountiful harvests resonates in the back-
of the good Samaritan, so also here the man ground (see Gen 41:35-36). Instead, the bounty that
Zo5
has come to the rich man pushes him into a treasuries” (J Enoch 97:9). The rich man’s
quandary and inner uncertainty. Like the rich man dream of eating, drinking, and being merry
in Sir 11:14-19, the rich man muses to himself echoes various references to hedonistic, profli-
about what he will do. Here the parable leads the gate, Epicurean living (Isa 22:12-14; Tob 7:10-11;
hearer into the man’s heart. By means of a solilo- 1Cor LotaZ).
quy, we overhear the man’s thoughts stripped of The man has shut out everyone else from his
pretense or polish for public consumption. The life and his thoughts. There is no one else in the
advantage of a soliloquy (a device that occurs story—just the man and his possessions—until
frequently in the Lukan parables: 12:45; 15:17; God speaks to him. No sooner has he envisioned
16:3-4; 18:4-5; 20:13) is that it offers direct and his future than God speaks to declare what the
convincing characterization. By exposing the rich future actually holds for him. The reversal could
man’s inner thoughts, Jesus also fulfills the earlier not be sharper. God addresses the man as “fool,”
warning that everything secret will become evoking the familiar reference from the Psalms:
known, whatever is said in private will be broad- “Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God’ ”
cast in public (12:2-3). Luke has also reminded (Ps 14:1). The last words in the man’s soliloquy are
the reader repeatedly that the secrets of one’s “be merry” (evpatvw euphraind); the first word
heart are not hidden from God (1:51; 2:35; 3:15; in God's speech marks the reversal by allitera-
O22; 9:47; 16:15; Acts 1:24), . tion: “fool” (a4dpwyv aphron). Moreover, God’s
“What will I do?” the man asks himself. announcement, “this night,” sharply contradicts
Undoubtedly he had prepared for the harvest, the rich man’s presumption of “many years.” The
but its bounty has exceeded his calculations, rich man had addressed himself (suyr psyche);
and he has no place to store it. The problem is now God announces that his “soul” (psyche) will
not really posed by the size of the harvest, be taken from him. Jesus’ earlier question rings
however, but by his insistence on gathering all dramatically: “What does it profit them if they
of it and storing it up for his own use—as the gain‘ the whole world, but lose or forfeit
repetition of “gather” in vv. 17-18 suggests. The themselves?” (9:25). The verb used here is
thought of giving to persons in need never literally a third-person plural: “they will demand”
crosses his mind. Instead, his reverie springs (atattovo.v apaitousin). The subject is unstated.
immediately to a solution. He will tear down Probably the verb should be understood as a plural
his barns and build bigger ones. Then he can used in place of a divine passive: God will demand
gather there all of his grain and his goods. His the man’s soul. But lurking as an alternative is
plans push confidently into the future tense: “I the possibility that the antecedent is none other
will do this: I will pull down my barns and [will] than the man’s goods themselves.'%® His posses-
build larger ones, and there I will store all my sions will take his life from him. Then whose
grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul. will they be? He presumed all along that he
...” At the same time, his presumption and could hoard the bounty of the harvest for him-
self-centeredness are reflected in the frequency self, but now whose will it be?
of the possessive pronoun in his thoughts: my Verse 21 draws a moral from the story. It is the
crops, my barns, my grain, my goods, and, picture of a man who lays up treasure for himself
finally, my soul. As we shall see, of course, it but is not rich in God’s favor. The implication, as
is not to be. in other references to the rich in Luke, is that the
As quickly as he moves to a solution, he also two pursuits, or the two conditions, are antithetical
projects the future he will enjoy: “And I will and mutually exclusive. Here there is no both/and.
say to my soul, ‘Soul, you have ample goods . Therefore, the story exposes our own inner commit:
laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be ments as clearly as it exposes the thoughts of the
merry.’” Again, his thoughts follow the familiar rich fool. It holds up a mirror before us and asks us
script of one corrupted by wealth: “I have found to take a good look at our own inner lives and listen
rest, and now I shall feast on my goods!” (Sir to our own inner voices.
11:19); “So now let us do whatever we like;
138. See Frank Stagg, Studies in Luke’s Gospel (Nashville: Conven-
for we have gathered silver, we have filled our tion, 1965) 90-91.
256
REFLECTIONS
As suggestive as this parable is, it does not specifically answer the crucial question: What
was the rich man’s folly? Actually, his follies are many and allow the parable to be viewed
from several angles of moral reflection.
1. Preoccupation with Possessions. Until the voice of God interrupts the fool’s reverie,
there is nothing in the story but the man and his possessions. His goods and prosperity have
become the sole pursuit of his life, until finally the poverty of his abundance is exposed. Thus
the parable plunges the hearer into a searching reflection on the meaning of life. We may
declare, “Whoever has the most toys when he dies wins,” but the parable exposes the emptiness
of such a materialistic life-style.
2. Security in Self-sufficiency. The parable sketches the figure of a man who does not need
anyone else. He can provide for himself, and his provisions will take care of him for many
years. He needs the security of the love of neither family nor faithful friends. He does not feel
the need of a community of support or the security of God’s love. In an extreme case, the
parable allows us to see the ultimate extension of the common, prideful inclination to think
that we can make it on our own and that we don’t need anyone else.
3. The Grasp of Greed. Greed is the moral antithesis of generosity. The thought of what
he might be able to do for those in need never enters the rich fool’s mind. His innermost
thoughts reveal that he has no sense of responsibility to use his abundance for the welfare of
persons less fortunate than he. Greed has eaten away any compassion he may once have had.
4. The Hollowness of Hedonism. The rich fool revels in his prosperity because he envisions
that because of it he can “eat, drink, and be merry.” His daydream is to spend his future
indulging his whims and desires. The greatest good he can imagine is a life of maximizing his
own pleasure. Leisure, recreation, freedom from the demands of work—the rich man’s vision
of the future sounds uncomfortably like one that most of us have for our retirement years.
Are we really planning prudently? What gives our life meaning now, and what will give it
meaning then?
5. Practical Atheism. This is Peter Rhea Jones’s provocative term for the rich fool’s approach
to life.” The rich fool may protest that he has always believed in God, but when it comes to
managing his life, dealing with possessions and planning for the future, he lives as though
there were no God. The parable, therefore, probes our basic commitments. What difference
should our faith in God make in the practical matters of life?
A televised interview with a man who had lost his house and all his possessions to a raging
brush fire driven by Santa Anna winds in California provides a striking contrast to the rich
fool. Recalling that his brother had recently mused that they should be careful not to allow
their possessions to possess them, this man who had just seen everything he owned but the
shirt on his back go up in smoke announced to the reporter with a note of unexpected triumph:
“I am a free man now!”
139. For two insightful treatments of this parable, see Peter Rhea Jones, The Teaching of the Parables (Nashville: Broadman, 1982) 127-41,
esp. 132-33; and Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 127-40.
2o7
LUKE 12:22-34
Luke 12:22-34, More Important Things About

Which to Be Anxious
NIV NRSV
22Then Jesus said to his disciples: “Therefore I 22He said to his disciples, “Therefore | tell you,
tell you, do not worry about your life, what you do not worry about your life, what you will eat,
will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. or about your body, what you will wear. *?For life
*3Life is more than food, and the body more than is more than food, and the body more than
clothes. *4Consider the ravens: They do not sow clothing. *4Consider the ravens: they neither sow
or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn,
feeds them. And how much more valuable you and yet God feeds them. Of how much more
are than birds! *°Who of you by worrying can add value are you than the birds! #?And can any of
a single hour to his life?? ?°Since you cannot do you by worrying add a single hour to your span
this very little thing, why do you worry about the of life?? 2°If then you are not able to do so small
rest? a thing as that, why do you worry about the rest?
27“Consider how the lilies grow. They do not . 27Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither
labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in toil nor spin;? yet I tell you, even Solomon in all
all his splendor was dressed like one of these. ?*If his glory was not clothed like one of these. But
that is how God clothes the grass of the field, if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is
which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven,
the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O how much more will he clothe you—you of little
you of little faith! ??And do not set your heart on faith! 2?And do not keep striving for what you are
what you will eat or drink; do not worry about to eat and what you are to drink, and do not keep
it. °°For the pagan world runs after all such things, worrying. °°For it is the nations of the world that
and your Father knows that you need them. °!But strive after all these things, and your Father knows
seek his kingdom, and these things will be given that you need them. “Instead, strive for his*
to you as well. kingdom, and these things will be given to you
32“To not be afraid, little flock, for your Father as well.
has been pleased to give you the kingdom. *°Sell 32“Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your
your possessions and give to the poor. Provide Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a 33Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make
treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an
where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes
34For where your treasure is, there your heart will near and no moth destroys. *4For where your
be also.” treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
a25 Or single cubit to his height 2Or add a cubit to your stature Other ancient authorities read
Consider the lilies; they neither spin nor weave cOther ancient
authorities read God’s
(COMMENTARY
The parable of the rich fool is followed by a 12:22-26. The general exhortation in v. 22
collection of sayings linked by the catchword sets the theme of this collection of sayings and
“worty” (jLeptivdw merimnao). These sayings is linked to the preceding parable both by the
drive home the lesson of the parable and offer causal “therefore” (Sia tovto dia touto) and by
further arguments regarding the futility of worry- the repetition of the key word “self” (sux7 psy-
ing over material goods. che), which played a pivotal role in the par-
258
able. Jesus speaks to the basic human anxiety for own will go a long way toward freeing us from
survival needs: food and clothing. Anxiety is like the grasp of anxiety.
an itch, however; simply deciding we are not The third reason is also just good common
going to think about something does not make it sense: Being anxious does not solve our problems
go away. These admonitions speak to the way we (vv. 25-26). Verse 25 can be understood in either
live, not just how we feel. The Greek verb for a spatial or a temporal sense. A cubit was a
“to be anxious” (merimnao) means also “to take standard measure, about eighteen inches, or the
anxious thought.” It may also mean “to put forth length of a man’s forearm. It could also be used
an effort” or “to strive after.” The prohibition figuratively as a measure of time. Who can add a
against anxiety may, therefore, be interpreted as cubit to his or her stature, or who can add a span
an encouragement to start making decisions that (a moment or an hour) to the length of life?
are not controlled by anxiety. Because the argument demands that one see such
Two concerns illustrate the command not to an extension as a small thing, most interpreters
be anxious. After introducing the two concerns, favor the temporal sense. An hour is just a small
this paragraph takes up each matter individually. fraction of the length of one’s life, but adding
Verses 24-26 deal with anxiety over food, and eighteen inches to one’s stature would make a
w. 27-28 treat anxiety over clothing. While these are considerable difference. Either way, the point is
clear: Worry all you will, but you cannot make
natural and legitimate concerns, real security does
yourself an inch taller or add a day to the span
not come by simply being concerned about the
of your life. Verse 26 clinches the argument. If
means of life.
we cannot do such a small thing by being anxious,
Following the general admonition stated in
why be anxious about other things? Anxiety is
vv. 22-23, Jesus offers three reasons why his
ineffective as a means of improving our lot in life.
disciples should not allow anxiety to control them.
12:27-32. The challenge to consider the ra-
The first is stated in v. 23: “Life is more than
vens is followed by a call to consider the lilies
food, and the body more than clothing.” These
(probably a general reference to the flowers that
words are not intended for persons who do not
grow wild). The birds do not worry about food,
have enough to eat. One cannot simply say to the and yet they eat. Similarly, the lilies do not worry
starving, “Life is more than food.” These words about clothes, but they are more splendid than
are addressed to persons who have food to eat even King Solomon.
and clothes to wear and yet spend their lives
Solomon’s wealth was legendary. First Kings 10:4,
trying to acquire more and more. Is life not more 6 reports that the Queen of Sheba was overwhelmed
than the things we spend our lives seeking? The by Solomon’s wisdom and wealth. Solomon’s wisdom
words of Jesus can free us from anxiety over what was cited in Luke 11:31; now attention is focused on
we have or do not have. They can also refocus his wealth (see 1 Kgs 10:4-5, 7, 14-29). The court
our energies on who we are rather than on what historian concludes: “Thus King Solomon excelled
we have and on what we are becoming rather all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom”
than on how we will. get ahead. (1 Kgs 10:23). Wealth greater than Solomon’s was
The second reason for not being anxious is unimaginable, yet his splendor was no match for the
given in v. 24: “Consider the ravens: they neither simple beauty of a lily.
sow nor reap,” but God takes care of them. This Verse 28 calls for the logic of faith. Reason
reminder calls for renewed trust in God’s provi- from the lesser to the greater. If the grass of the
dence. The argument calls for reasoning from the fields is splendidly clothed, yet is here today and
lesser to the greater. If God cares for the lesser gone tomorrow, will not God also take care of
creatures (birds), then will God not also care for those who trust God? The sages likened the
you? The passing comment that, unlike human brevity of human life to the flowering and with-
beings, the birds have neither storehouses nor ering of the grass (Pss 90:5-6; 102:11; 103:15).
barns subtly reminds the reader that the rich fool’s The expression “you of little faith,” which occurs
barns offered him no security at all (see v. 18). only here in Luke but frequently in Matthew
A vigorous trust in God’s ability to care for God’s (6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8), invites the reader to
259
look deeper into God’s providence. Trust in possess or control is to release our grasp of that
God’s faithfulness relieves one of anxiety over which we do.control. The exhortations develop
what one will eat or drink. more fully the thought sketched in v. 21. We can
Verse 30 pits the preoccupation of “the nations lay up treasure on earth or in heaven—but not
of the world” against the promise of God’s care of in both places. The choice must be either/or—
those who trust God as Father. Verses 30-31, 32 either our own advancement or the advancement
combine references to God as Father with references of the kingdom, either earthly goods or heavenly
to God’s kingdom. The combination evokes echoes treasures, either our own concerns or God’s.
of the model prayer and Jesus’ teachings on prayer Therefore, Jesus exhorts the disciples to sell their
(see 11:2, 11-13). Two further reasons why anxiety possessions and give alms (see 11:41). Earlier
cannot control the life of a disciple emerge from Jesus had instructed the disciples to carry no purse
these verses: (1) Anxiety reveals a lack of faith in (9:3; 10:4); now he points them to purses that
God as heavenly Father, and (2) one whose life is will not wear out and treasure that will not fail.
devoted to the pursuit of the kingdom will not be The concern of the rich fool was the preservation
anxious about other things. of his wealth, but the treasure one lays up in
Our Father, who provides for the birds and heaven through devotion to the kingdom is un-
the grass, knows what we need to sustain life. failing. No thief can steal it, and moths cannot
Freed from such mundane concerns, Jesus’ dis-
“destroy it (see Matt 6:20; 1 Pet 1:4). Thieves may
ciples are to be concerned, rather, with the
steal our goods, rust may eat away at metals and
things of God’s kingdom. On the one hand,
moths at precious cloth and clothing, but the
disciples should “strive” for the kingdom. On
person whose treasure is in heaven will not be
the other hand, they are assured that it is God’s
anxious about such things.
purpose to give us the kingdom (cf. vv. 31-32).
Verse 34 declares that there is a connection
The two verses neatly balance the indicative
and the imperative, promise and command. The
between one’s heart and one’s treasure. The apho-
disciples, therefore, are assured of both God’s rism can be interpreted in several ways: The way
care for their needs and the certainty that the we handle material goods (1) reveals where our
kingdom will finally declare God’s sovereignty. true commitments lie or (2) determines whether
The references to “God’s good pleasure” in we have earthly treasures or treasures in heaven;
Luke express important aspects of Luke’s un- also (3) where we invest our money determines
derstanding of God’s sovereign will and pur- where our heart will be. All three interpretations
poses isee2 VAG: 227) LOZhe 12:32) The expose facets of truth in this aphorism, but the
church is referred to as a “little flock” else- second fits its context best.
where in Paul’s address to the elders at Within the larger context of Luke 12:1-13:9,
Miletus (Acts 20:28-29) and in 1 Pet 5:2-3. which warns us to be ready for the judgment, the
12:33-34. These verses suggest the antidote cluster of sayings on anxiety and possessions in
to anxiety. What greater denial of a life controlled wv. 22-34 warns against trying to secure the future
by anxiety could there be than a devotion to by laying up earthly treasure and counsels instead
providing for the needs of others? If there are only of the wisdom of wholehearted devotion to God’s
two basic impulses, either to grasp or to give, then kingdom. True security is to be found not in
the alternative to anxiety over what we do not wealth but in God’s providence.
REFLECTIONS
Anxiety must be a by-product of human freedom. At least it seems to be a universal art,
cultivated by people in all generations and cultures. Those who do not have enough to live
on—to feed, shelter, or clothe themselves—naturally are anxious about how they will live.
Those who have opportunities to develop a better life than they now enjoy worry about how
they will get ahead. Those who have all they need and more are anxious about maintaining
and protecting their wealth. Having more, then, is no solution to anxiety.
Faith in Jesus Christ awakens our consciousness of the spiritual dimensions of life. By so
doing, faith allows and even forces us to see our lives from a new perspective. Then we can
see that some of the things we have been so concerned about are not all that important. We
may also see that we have not given enough attention to important things: family, friends, a
more just and peaceful society, or our own personal, intellectual, and spiritual development.
When the rat race of materialism threatens to control you, remember Jesus’ words; there is
more to life.
Followers of Jesus should be the freest persons—free from anxiety, free from the social
conventions of materialism, free with their generosity to others. The lives of Jesus’ disciples
count for more than the pursuit of material wealth. They are devoted to higher things. This
cluster of sayings offers both the challenge to center one’s life on promoting concerns related
to God’s kingdom and the extravagant promise of God’s providence for those who will do so.
What changes would we make if we were as concerned about God’s kingdom as we are
about the size of next month’s paycheck, the next harvest, or the next step up the career
ladder? What value would we give to reconciling broken relationships, sharing the gospel of
God’s love, and working for peace and justice for the oppressed?
One of Jesus’ most difficult words is this: “Sell your possessions, and give alms” (v. 33). As
in other parts of the Gospel, this saying contains a tension between two responses to the
dangers of wealth and materialism. The first is divestment: “Sell your possessions.” The second
is generosity in almsgiving. In our culture, the latter has always been easier to consider than
the first. Obviously, there are good reasons why divestment should not become the norm for
all Christians. On the other hand, this provocative call needs to be considered. Most of us
have possessions we do not need. Yet, we hold on to them while other persons are homeless
and hungry. Perhaps it is time for churches to hold “discipleship sales,” and call on all who
will to sell all the goods they do not need in order to give to charities and human services.
Such detachment from our materialism would also be a dramatic declaration of the values by
which we live.
Luke 12:35-48, Learning Watchfulness from Masters and Slaves
NIV NRSV
35“Be dressed ready for service and keep your 35“Be dressed for action and have your lamps
lamps burning, *like men waiting for their mas- lit; °be like those who are waiting for their master
ter to return from a wedding banquet, so that to return from the wedding banquet, so that they
when he comes and knocks they can immedi- may open the door for him as soon as he comes
ately open the door for him. °/It will be good and knocks. °’Blessed are those slaves whom the
for those servants whose master finds them master finds alert when he comes; truly | tell you,
watching when he comes. | tell you the truth, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to
he will dress himself to serve, will have them eat, and he will come and serve them. “*If he
recline at the table and will come and wait on comes during the middle of the night, or near
dawn, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves.
them. 3*It will be good for those servants whose
master finds them ready, even if he comes in 39“But know this: if the owner of the house
the second or third watch of the night. **But had known at what hour the thief was coming,
he? would not have let his house be broken into.
understand this: If the owner of the house had
49You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is
known at what hour the thief was coming, he
coming at an unexpected hour.”
would not have let his house be broken into.
40You also must be ready, because the Son of aQther ancient authorities add would have watched and
261
LUKE 12:35-48
NIV NRSV
Man will come at an hour when you do not A1Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable
expect him.” for us or for everyone?” “And the Lord said,
4\Peter asked, “Lord, are you telling this parable “Who then is the faithful and prudent manager
to us, or to everyone?” whom his master will put in charge of his slaves,
42The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful to give them their allowance of food at the proper
and wise manager, whom the master puts in time? “Blessed is that stave whom his master will
charge of his servants to give them their food find at work when he arrives. “Truly I tell you,
allowance at the proper time? “It will be good he will put that one in charge of all his posses-
for that servant whom the master finds doing so sions. “But if that slave says to himself, ‘My
when he returns. “I tell you the truth, he will master is delayed in coming,’ and if he begins to
put him in charge of all his possessions. *But beat the other slaves, men and women, and to
suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master eat and drink and get drunk, “the master of that
is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then slave will come on a day when he does not expect
begins to beat the menservants and maidservants him and at an hour that he does not know, and
and to eat and drink and get drunk. “The master will cut him in pieces,* and put him with the
of that servant will come on a day when he does unfaithful. *’7That slave who knew what his master
not expect him and at an hour he is not aware ‘wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what
of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a was wanted, will receive a-severe beating. “But
place with the unbelievers. the one who did not know and did what deserved
47“That servant who knows his master’s will a beating will receive a light beating. From every-
and does not get ready or does not do what his one to whom much has been given, much will
master wants will be beaten with many blows. be required; and from the one to whom much
48But the one who does not know and does things has ,been entrusted, even more will be de-
deserving punishment will be beaten with few manded.”
blows. From everyone who has been given much, aOr cut him off
much will be demanded; and from the one who
has been entrusted with much, much more will
be asked.”
(COMMENTARY
The sayings that follow move directly to the for watchfulness against the threat of thieves, and
theme of the larger unit, 12:1—13:9—watchful- v. 40 draws the lesson of the parables for the
ness. The sayings are linked not only by theme audience. When Peter asks to whom the sayings
but also by the common metaphor of masters and apply, Jesus responds with further warnings that
slaves. Although the sayings are parabolic, and contrast the rewards of faithful and disobedient
Peter refers to the preceding admonitions as “this slaves (vv. 42-48),
parable,” the allegorical use of the sayings has Verses 35-40 contain at least the rudiments of
diminished their parabolic quality to the point that two parables: (1) servants awaiting the bride-
it may be best to view the sayings of this section groom and (2) the householder. The first assures
as a series of related metaphors—lessons on ‘blessing on the faithful; the second warns of
watchfulness drawn from reflections on the roles judgment on the unprepared. To gird one’s loins
of masters and slaves. (which the NRSV translates as “Be dressed for
12:35-40. Verse 35 may be interpreted inde- action” and Fitzmyer renders “Keep your aprons
pendently of the sayings that follow. As it stands, on”)'4° means literally to draw up the long outer
it introduces the parable of the returning master
140. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X—XXIV), AB
in vv. 36-38. Verse 39 speaks of the master’s need 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 983.
262
garment and tuck it into the sash around one’s waist The second parable (v. 39) warns of the alterna-
or hips so as to be prepared for vigorous activity. As tive. For some the master’s coming will be like the
an exhortation to readiness it appears prominently approach of a thief in the night (see Mark 3:27;
in the instructions for the celebration of the first Gospel of Thomas 21). This image occurs elsewhere
Passover (Exod 12:11; cf. 1 Pet 1:13). The lamps in the NT in reference to the expectation of the
in the tabernacle were to be lit with pure oil so that parousia (Matt 24:43-44; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10;
they would burn steadily (Exod 27:20; Lev 24:2). Rev 3:3; 16:15). The apocalyptic imagery appropri-
The exhortation to keep your lamps burning and be ately yields to a reference to Jesus as the coming
ready for the master echoes the parable of the wise Son of Man. Jesus warns his audience, therefore, to
and foolish maidens in Matt 25:13, but the theme be ready. From instructions in earlier contexts, the
of readiness for the returning master also occurs in reader may assume that readiness means trust in
Mark 13:33-37. The situation assumed in v. 36 is God as a heavenly Father, putting away all hypoc-
that the master of the house has gone to his bride’s risy, handling one’s material possessions faithfully,
home to be married. His servants await his return obeying the ethic of the kingdom, and making life
so that they may open the door for him when he a matter of constant prayer.
knocks (see Rev 3:20), but they do not know when 12:41. Peter’s question regarding whether Jesus’
he will come. — “parable” was for the disciples or for everyone, while
Verse 37 is a beatitude announcing blessing on it does not receive a direct answer from Jesus, raises
those who are watchful. In the parable setting, the question of the extent to which Jesus’ answer
the danger is that the servants may fall asleep should be read allegorically in reference to church
(Mark 13:36). In Luke the disciples occasionally offices. Both the disciples and the crowd of thou-
sleep when they should be awake, watching and sands are introduced in 12:1. In 12:13-14 Jesus
praying (Luke 9:32; 22:45-46). Watchfulness is responds to a man from the crowd. The sayings
marked by prayer, while sleep indicates neglect introduced in v. 22 are directed to the disciples;
and unpreparedness. therefore, Peter’s question in v. 41 asks for clarifi-
The promise of the master’s generosity toward cation regarding the intended audience, but Jesus
his servants takes the form of a dramatic reversal of answers with another parable.
roles. Instead of serving the master, the servants will 12:42-48. These sayings may be read as either
find that he serves them. Now the master (rather another parable employing the imagery of masters
than the servants as in v. 35) will gird his loins and and slaves or an interpretation of the parable of
serve the servants (see Luke 17:7-10; John 13:1-17). the master returning from his wedding banquet
The master’s invitation to the servants to sit at table in vv. 36-38. Whether a parable or the interpre-
is an allusion to the great eschatological banquet (see tation of a parable, this passage addresses in more
Isa 25:6; Luke 13:29; 14:15-24). detail the possibilities for reward and punishment
Verse 38 reiterates the beatitudes but adds the that are presented to the servants by their master’s
need for watchfulness even late into the night. absence. The occasion of the master’s wedding
Jewish and Greek practice was to divide the night banquet drops from view, but still the serving of
into three watches, while the Romans marked the food is joined in yet another way to the master’s
passing of the hours from 6:00 p.m. until 6:00 am. return, perhaps as an allusion to the expected
with four watches (see Mark 13:35). Whichever messianic banquet (though it is much less ex-
system Luke assumes, the point is the same. If plicit here than in v. 37). Luke elevates the
the master finds his servants ready and watchful, position of those in question from slaves (see
even at a late hour, those servants will be blessed. 12:37; Matt 24:45) to managers, which may also
This exhortation clearly conveys an allegorical undergird the interpretation that this parable is
allusion to the expected parousia and promises addressed especially to church leaders, who are
that those who are ready at the Lord’s return will represented in the Gospel by Peter and the other
be blessed by their Lord. Less clear is the issue disciples. The parable opens with the question
of whether the mention of the late watches in that is its chief concern: “Who then is the faithful
the night should be understood as a reference to and prudent manager?” The opportunity for ad-
the delay of the parousia (see 2 Pet 3:3-4, 8-10). vancement that is held out in the parable is the
263
granting of responsibility for oversight of the regu- know.” The prophets spoke of the “day of the
lar distribution of food (lit., wheat) to the master’s Lord” (Joel 2:31; Mal 4:5) and NT references
servants. The distribution of food in the early speak of the day and hour of the Lord’s coming
church is of sufficient importance in Acts to raise (Mark 13:32; Matt 24:36; Rev. 3:3). The element
the question as to whether this parable should be of unexpectedness echoes the earlier reference in
read allegorically as a reference to the selection v. 40.
of someone to serve in a leadership position, like When the master comes, the faithless servant
that of the seven appointed to see to the daily who doubted in his heart will be punished se-
distribution of food in Acts 6. The phrase “at the verely. The first punishment is graphic in its
proper time” (€v katpw en kairo), however, re- violence: He will be cut in two. Fitzmyer com-
tains eschatological overtones, suggesting that al- ments: “One should not fail to notice, however,
legorically the appointment is to a position of how the punishment of the manager, if he abuses
oversight and responsibility at the eschatological his authority, corresponds to the double life that
banquet. he would be leading.”!4' The second punishment
Verse 43 reverts to the use of “the. term again employs theological language and speaks of
“slave” (SovAos doulos), which continues to ap-
God’s judgment on the faithless; he will be “put with
pear throughout the rest of this parable (see vv. 45-47).
. the unfaithful” (cf. “have no part [épos meros]”
As in the previous parable (v. 37), a beatitude
in 11:36; Jobe 13:6," 2 Gor 6715),
follows. Verse 37 pronounced a blessing on those
Verses 47-48 are composed of two pairs of
whom the master finds alert. This time the blessed
contrasting statements. The first two (vv. 47-484)
are those whom the master finds at work. The
may be understood as either a separate parable or
structural parallelism continues. In v. 37 Jesus
says, “Truly [ayunv amen] | tell you,” and in v. as related sayings appended to the preceding par-
44 he also follows the beatitude with an assurance able. Because the sayings relate to the issue of
“Truly [adAn§as alethos| | tell you.” This time, responsibility, they should be read as part of Jesus’
however, the servant’s reward is that he will be answer to Peter’s question in v. 41. The first two
put in charge of all the master’s possessions—an sayings state the application of the principle, while
even greater promotion than was offered in v. 42. the last two sayings state the principle itself.
Verse 45 turns to consider the punishment to Following on the description of the severe pun-
come for those who are not “faithful and prudent” ishment of the faithless servant in v. 46, v. 47
while the master is away. If the master’s absence declares that the slave who knew what his master
tempts the servant to say in his heart, “My master required and yet did not do it will receive a severe
is delayed in coming,” he will be punished se- beating, while the slave who did not know but
verely (though Luke has established repeatedly acted culpably will receive a light beating. The
that Jesus knows what is in a person’s heart—see distinction can be found in the OT references to
2:35; 5:22; )7739i; 9:47; 24:38; Acts 1:24)cThe sins committed “with a high hand” and sins of
reference again seems to be a thinly veiled allusion ignorance (Num 15:30; cf. Jam 4:17; 2 Pet 2:21).
to those who become faithless because of the The two sayings in vv. 47-48a differ in that v. 47
delay of the parousia (cf. 2 Pet 3:4; and the use concerns refusal to do what is required, while v.
of the verb for “delay” (xpovi€w chronizo) in 48a describes doing what is forbidden—but with-
Matt 25:5; Heb 10:37). The servant’s disobedi- out the knowledge of what is allowed and what
ence is described in terms appropriate to the is forbidden. The difficulty in relating the matter
narrative world of the parable: beating other - to the situation of a slave probably arises because
slaves, eating, drinking, and getting drunk. Get- the impetus for the parable is theological, and
ting drunk, however, is evidence of failure to be knowledge of what the master wanted is closely
ready for the Lord’s coming in 1 Thess 5:6-7.
associated with the Mosaic law, which one could
Language used by the church to describe the
violate in either of the ways described in vv.
suddenness of the Lord’s return reemerges in v.
47-48a. Both servants are punished because no
46; the master will come “on a day when he does
not expect him and at an hour that he does not 141. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), 986.
264
violation of the law can be overlooked, but the _ passive verb and the third-person plural verb both
severity of the punishment will vary. imply a divine subject—God will seek much from
The two statements in v. 480 enunciate the those to whom much has been given. Leaders to
principle of proportional responsibility (cf. 6:37- whom the church has given responsibility will,
38; Matt 13:12). The parable of the talents therefore, be held to a high standard of expecta-
makes a similar point (cf. 16:10-12; 19:26). The __ tions.
REFLECTIONS
The parables and sayings of this section once again confront the interpreter with material
that is foreign in both its images and its worldview. Our culture is unfamiliar with the
wedding practices that are assumed here and the conventions that defined the relationship
between masters and slaves, and the apocalyptic expectations of a coming judgment have
lost their immediacy and taken on the authority of orthodoxy in the intervening centuries.
Thus the question is how to interpret these sayings so that their exhortations are meaningful
without either getting bogged down in the historical situation or literalizing their apoca-
lyptic imagery.
The sayings, as we have seen, exhort the listeners to watchfulness, which means living in
such a consistently moral and obedient way that we would be ready to give an account to
God of how we have lived. There is more here, however. Servants need to be devoted to
their tasks, refusing to let distractions, fatigue, or delay divert them from their duties. They
must make the fulfillment of what their master has asked them to do their highest obligation
and their greatest concern. In this respect, they provide modern readers with a metaphorical
measure of complete devotion to Jesus and the kingdom tasks he has given his followers. Their
exhortation is to be as faithful to Jesus as devoted slaves were to their masters. Be as concerned
with the work of the kingdom as a servant left to watch the door of the master’s house until
he returns.
The warnings and promises about rewards and punishments remind us that the laws of
responsibility and reward apply in our relationship to God just as in other areas of life.
Those who are faithful will be given greater privileges and responsibilities, while persons
who neglect their responsibilities will have their privileges and responsibilities taken from
them. As these sayings are applied especially to Peter and the disciples, they have special
relevance for those to whom the church entrusts the responsibilities of leadership. More
will be expected from persons who handle sacred matters, interpret God’s Word, serve
priestly and prophetic functions, and set an example of faith and morality for both church
and society.
There is no inconsistency here among responsibility, mercy, and punishment. God’s mercy
makes allowances for those who do not know what is expected of them. But the most severe
punishment is reserved for persons who are entrusted with great responsibilities and who then
high-handedly and irresponsibly mistreat others and fail the trust given to them by their Lord.
In a time of permissiveness and daily reminders of the pervasiveness of immorality even within
the church, these parables can still serve to remind, exhort, and warn Christians of the
seriousness of their moral commitments. If much has changed since the first century, some
things have changed hardly at all.
265
LUKE 12:49-53
Luke 12:49-53, Division Caused by Decision

NIV NRSV
49“T have come to bring fire on the earth, and 49“I came to bring fire to the earth, and how
how I wish it were already kindled! *°But I have I wish it were already kindled! °° have a baptism
a baptism to undergo, and how distressed | am with which to be baptized, and what stress I am
until it is completed! *'Do you think I came to under until it is completed! °'Do you think that
bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I
°2From now on there will be five in one family ~ tell you, but rather division! **From now on five
divided against each other, three against two and in one household will be divided, three against
two against three. **They will be divided, father two and two against three; **they will be divided:
against son and son against father, mother against father against son
daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in- and son against father,
law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law mother against daughter
against mother-in-law.” and daughter against mother,
mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law
and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
(COMMENTARY
As this extended section of warnings related to A noncanonical saying relates fire to Jesus’ mis-
the coming judgment moves toward its climax siort: “Whoever is near me is near fire; whoever
and conclusion, Jesus turns from master-servant is distant from me is distant from the kingdom”
sayings to the terrible stress and division that will (Gospel of Thomas 82). With the coming of the
accompany the coming judgment. Irony and pa- Spirit, the work of the church, and the approach
thos run deep. Jesus has come to bring God’s of the kingdom, division and strife would be
peace, but the work of redemption inevitably intensified. Jesus said, “Let it start now!”
brings division also. These verses contain three Jesus himself would not be spared from the
pronouncements regarding the nature of Jesus’ hostility. His “baptism” may be an allusion to his
mission (v. 49, “I came”; v. 50, “I have a bap- death, as in Mark 10:38, or it may refer more
tism”; v. 51, “I have come”; cf. the “I” sayings generally to the conflict and distress in which he
in 4:43; 5:32). Although the kingdom of God is would be “immersed” as he approached Jerusa-
characterized by reconciliation and peace, the lem. The closing words of v. 50 can be read to
announcement of that kingdom is always divisive mean “how I am totally governed by this,”!*2
because it requires decision and commitment. “how distressed I am” (NIV), or “what stress I
Jesus claims first that he came “to cast fire upon am under” (NRSV). Jesus speaks of the completion
the earth” (see v. 49). The word order is emphatic of his mission again in 13:32; 18:31; 22:37 (cf.
and dramatic in Greek: “Fire I came to cast on Acts 13:29); in the Gospel of John, which has
the earth!” The announcement was foreshadowed interesting parallels to Luke, Jesus’ dying words
by Luke 3:16, where John claims that Jesus will _ are “It is finished” (19:30).
baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. In the Jesus would be the first casualty of the division
same context, fire is used as an image of God’s that necessarily attends the proclamation of God’s
judgment (3:9, 17; cf. 12:49; 17:29). Ironically, Word. Other families would later be divided by
when the fire comes upon the disciples in Acts, faith and unbelief (vv. 52-53), but Jesus would
it is not the consuming fire of judgment but the
142. Helmut Koester, ouvéEw in Theological Dictionary of the New
purifying fire of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, the
Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley
crisis of judgment is never far away (see Mal 3:2-3). (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 7:884-85.
266
suffer the brunt of the opposition and his own division in v. 53, assuming that either the mother
family would be pierced by its effects. Compare and mother-in-law or the daughter and daughter-in-
the words of Simeon: “This child is destined for law are the same person. Division between husband
the falling and the rising of many in Israel, and and wife is not considered in these Gospel sayings,
to be a sign that will be opposed so that the inner probably because of Jesus’ prohibitions against di-
thoughts of many will be revealed—and a sword vorce, but the church would face the problem of
will pierce your own soul too” (2:34-35). separations between believing and unbelieving part-
Division would, therefore, precede reconcili- ners soon enough (1 Cor 7:12-16).
ation. The announcement of the kingdom would These verses explore the other side of reve-
not bring peace—at least not immediately. It lation, commitment, and kingdom values. Wher-
would bring division and conflict. Those who ever the Word of God has been heard, division
commit themselves to Jesus must prepare for the has occurred among the people who heard it
Opposition they will face, sometimes even from (cf. John 7:43; 9:16; 10:19). Peace has a price,
their own families. The message “peace on earth” too. The absence of conflict is not a present
is not received without savage conflict (cf. 2:14; possibility. One can only choose the cause for
12:51; 19:42; 24:36). Paradoxically, reconciliation which to fight and the commitments that are
is the task of the messianic forerunner (Mal 4:5-6; worth holding. As E. Earle Ellis wrote, “The call
Luke 1:17), but the eschatological crisis will be for decision is a call for ‘division.’ ”!4°
marked by tragic divisions. Houses, families, and
generations will be divided against one another 143. E. Earle Ellis, 7he Gospel ofLuke, NCB (Greenwood, S.C.: Attic,
1966) 182.
(cf. Mic 7:6; Mark 10:29; 13:12). The number of
five in a family may be related to the litany of
REFLECTIONS
Repeatedly, the warnings about the coming judgment have forced us to examine the
implications of our commitments. It is all too easy to make commitments in one area of life
as though they did not affect other areas also. Jesus warned that those who make a commitment
to him will be persecuted, that a commitment of faith also means that our attitude toward
material possessions must change, and that moral responsibilities must be taken with even
greater seriousness. Now Jesus warns that persons who make a commitment to him will find
their relationships to others, even those closest to them, affected by that commitment. We
cannot make a commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord without its affecting the way we relate to
friends and to family members. Because our commitment to Christ shapes our values, priorities,
goals, and behavior, it also forces us to change old patterns of life, and these changes may
precipitate crises in significant relationships.
Some of the most unexpected crises we face come from the opposition of others when we
set out to do what we perceive to be the good, moral, and right thing to do. Jesus himself
knew how devastating such crises can be, and he warned his followers to be prepared to
encounter them also.
267
LUKE 12:54-59
Luke 12:54-59, Interpreting the Times and Settling Accounts
NIV NRSV
*4He said to the crowd: “When you see a cloud 54He also said to the crowds, “When you see
rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘It’s going a cloud rising in the west, you immediately say,
to rain,’ and it does. >And when the south wind ‘It is going to rain’; and so it happens. *>And when
blows, you say, ‘It’s going to be hot,’ and it is. you see the south wind blowing, you say, “There
Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the will be scorching heat’; and it happens. °°You
appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it hypocrites! You know how to interpret the ap-
that you don’t know how to interpret this present pearance of earth and sky, but why do you not
time? know how to interpret the present time?
°7“Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is 57“And why do you not judge for yourselves
right? °°As you are going with your adversary to what is right? °*Thus, when you go with your
the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him accuser before a magistrate, on the way make an
on the way, or he may drag you off to the judge, effort to settle the case,? or you may be dragged
and the judge turn you over to the officer, and before the judge, and the judge hand you over to
the officer throw you into prison. °’I tell you, you - the officer, and the officer throw you in prison.
will not get out until you have paid the last °*I tell you, you will never get out until you have
penny.” paid the very last penny.”
a59 Greek lepton aGk settle with him
COMMENTARY
The warnings about the coming judgment con- attention to the slightest sign of change in the
tinue. The closing paragraphs of chap. 12 contain weather—even a cloud on the western horizon
two brief clusters of sayings addressed to the or a puff of wind from the south—then should
crowds. The first charges the crowds with hypoc- they not pay even more attention to “the present
risy for not being as observant of the signs of the time” (Katpds Kairos) as a sign that the judgment
coming judgment as they are of the weather. The was at hand? (Cf. the textually uncertain saying
second warns the people to make every effort to in Matt 16:2-3.) “The present time” apparently
settle accounts so that they may be blameless refers to Jesus’ works and warnings as signs that
when they are brought to court. the kingdom was at hand and the end near (see
12:54-56. The weather in Judea, Samaria, and 1:22-208 AleZ Oy
Galilee is controlled by the Mediterranean Sea to 12:57-59. The warnings to the crowd con-
the west and the desert to the south and south- tinue without transition, thereby linking v. 57
west. When clouds appeared in the west, rain was with the preceding challenge to interpret the signs
coming. When the wind blew from the south or of “the present time.” A further parabolic or
southwest, they were in for scorching heat. The metaphorical warning follows. Their situation is
charge of hypocrisy in v. 56 interrupts the flow as desperate as that of one who is going to court
of thought sharply and unexpectedly. Although with his accuser. The situation is described first
the term hypocrite appears frequently in Mat- - in neutral terms (going with your accuser before
thew, Luke uses it elsewhere only in 6:42 and a magistrate), but then in ominously threatening
13:15. The reader will recall, however, that this terms (being dragged before the judge and thrown
collection of sayings about the coming judgment into prison). The implication is that their situation
began with a warning concerning the hypocrisy is more desperate than they realize. In the light
of the Pharisees (12:1). Again the argument is of the context, the point is that they should
from the lesser to the greater. If the crowds pay recognize the urgency of the moment and make
268
every effort to settle with their accuser. Because until he had paid the last penny of his debt. The
of exorbitant interest rates, defaults on loans were term rendered “penny” literally means the last lep-
common, and the situation described here was ton (ketT6v), the smallest copper coin (1/128th
unfortunately an everyday occurrence. Once at of a denarius) in use in Palestine in the first
the mercy of the legal system, a debtor had little century. The only prudent thing to do, therefore,
chance of escape. He would be dragged before was to settle with one’s accuser before the matter
the judge, handed over to the officer, and thrown came before the court—even if one was already
into prison, from which there was no chance of on the way to court.
escape. Once in prison, he would not be released
REFLECTIONS
To what do we pay close attention, and to what do we turn a blind eye? The images of
weather watching and being dragged to court by a creditor invite us to reflect on the contrast
between devoted attention and casual neglect in our own lives. What claims our closest
attention? Fluctuations in the stock market? Evidence of our social standing? Our grade point
average? Opportunities to look good before superiors at work? What things do we watch with
the same close attention that a Palestinian farmer paid to changes in the weather?
‘On the other hand, what areas of life have we so neglected that trouble in those areas may
have reached crisis proportions without our knowing it? Our marriage? The well-being of our
children or parents? Our own health? What has suffered as a result of our misplaced focus of
attention?
Jesus’ sayings challenge us to examine the inconsistencies between attention and neglect in
our own lives, but the underlying challenge is to consider whether these inconsistencies reveal
a pattern of prioritizing the insignificant while jeopardizing the things of greatest value and
importance. Have we given as much attention to the health of the church as we have to our
golf score? Have we given as much attention to the maintenance of our spiritual disciplines
as to the maintenance schedule for our car? Where in the scale of our attention to detail does
our devotion to the teachings of our Lord rank?
Luke 13:1-9, A Call for Repentance

NIV NRSV
1 Now there were some present at that time ] At that very time there were some present
who told Jesus about the Galileans whose who told him about the Galileans whose
blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. “Jesus blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. “He
answered, “Do you think that these Galileans asked them, “Do you think that because these
were worse sinners than all the other Galileans Galileans suffered in this way they were worse
because they suffered this way? °I tell you, no! sinners than all other Galileans? 3No, I tell you;
But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or but unless you repent, you will all perish as they
those eighteen who died when the tower in did. 4Or those eighteen who were killed when the
Siloam fell on them—do you think they were tower of Siloam fell on them—do you think that
more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? they were worse offenders than all the others
5] tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too living in Jerusalem? °No, I tell you; but unless you
will all perish.” repent, you will all perish just as they did.”
6Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig 6Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig
tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look tree planted in his vineyard; and he came looking
for fruit on it, but did not find any. ’So he said for fruit on it and found none. ’So he said to the
269
LUKE 13:1-9
NIV NRSV
to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For gardener, ‘See here! For three years I have come
three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit looking for fruit on this fig tree, and still I find
on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it none. Cut it down! Why should it be wasting the
down! Why should it use up the soil?’ soil?’ ®He replied, ‘Sir, let it alone for one more
8“ ‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one year, until I dig around it and put manure on it.
more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. lf it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if
°lf it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut not, you can cut it down.’”
it down.’”
(COMMENTARY
The warnings and admonitions regarding the that the coming judgment is inescapable. His
coming judgment that began with 12:1 reach their response consists of two parallel questions and an
conclusion with a sobering call for repentance. identical answer repeated after each question: “Do
Just as the debtor on the way to court in the you think that... they were worse sinners/of-
preceding saying is warned to make every effort | fenders than all the other Galileans/Jerusalemites?
at reconciliation, so also Jesus uses the sayings © No, | tell you; but unless you repent you will all
about calamity in 13:1-5 and the parable of the perish as/just as they did.” The questions set up
unproductive fig tree in 13:6-9 to make the same the refrain that serves as the punch line to Jesus’
point: Repent now, for the time is short. warnings concerning the coming judgment.
13:1-5. Verse 1 sets the stage for the sayings Jesus’ questions assume the popular notion that
that follow. The narrator reports that some of sin is the cause of calamity (Job 4:7; John 9:2).
those present, presumably some from the crowd If God is responsible for everything that happens,
(see 12:1, 13, 54), reported an incident in which and God is a just God, then calamities must be
Pilate slaughtered a group of Galileans with the the result of human sinfulness. The fallacy in such
result that their blood mingled with that of their logic is the notion that God is the immediate
sacrifices. No other ancient source reports an cause of all events, which leaves no room for
event that can be identified with this incident, human freedom or freedom in the created order,
but Josephus’s accounts of Pilate’s confrontations and therefore for events that God does not con-
with the Jews confirm that such bloodshed was trol. Consequently, Jesus’ question ignores the
not uncommon: Pilate’s troops killed a group of immediate causes and the particulars of the situ-
Samaritans climbing Mt. Gerizim;!** Pilate intro- ation. We might have expected Jesus to ask
duced Roman effigies into Jerusalem, causing a whether Pilate had killed these Galileans because
riot and a march on Caesarea;'* Pilate seized they were more zealous rebels than others. Such
Temple treasury funds in order to build an aque- particulars are irrelevant to Jesus’ concern, how-
duct.'*° The response of those who reported this ever. If they died, they must have been sinners
incident to Jesus is not given by the narrator. Did (according to the common assumptions). But were
they view Jesus’ previous exhortation to seek a they worse sinners than all the other Galileans
reconciliation with an accuser as a political state- who were not killed? Jesus exposes the fallacy of
ment? Did they think that because blood had been such reasoning while at the same time driving
shed the time for reconciliation had passed? home the point that life is uncertain, death is
Jesus adroitly seizes the teachable moment and ’ Capricious, and judgment is inevitable.
uses the interruption to drive home his warning No other ancient source reports the collapse of
144. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 18.86-87.
the Siloam tower. The Pool of Siloam lay in the
145. Josephus The Jewish War 2.169-174; Antiquities of the Jews southern part of Jerusalem, and presumably a
18.55-59. tower in the city wall had collapsed, killing eigh-
146. Josephus The Jewish War 2.175-177; Antiquities of the Jews
18.60-62. See also Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), teen persons. If the deaths of the Galileans was
1007. an atrocity, an act of political violence, then the
270
deaths of the Jerusalemites was sheer caprice, the warning of the urgency of repentance. The time
whim of fate. Were these eighteen worse sinners than until the judgment is extended for just a short time.
all the others who lived in Jerusalem at the time? The opening of the parable echoes the well-
Jesus answers both questions in the negative. known song of the vineyard in Isaiah 5, in which
Such a theology is always better in theory than it is a man planted a tree in his vineyard. For three years
in dealing with the tragedies and calamities of life. he looked for fruit—time enough for the tree to
Nevertheless, these deaths serve as a graphic warn- produce—but found none (cf. Mark 11:13-14). Land
ing of the coming judgment. Just as these Galileans was precious, so an unfruitful tree could not be
and Jerusalemites had perished suddenly, so also all allowed to use resources that could nourish a fruitful
of those who heard Jesus would also perish if they one. The man’s response is to order the gardener
did not repent. Jesus is not warning of physical to cut it down, but the gardener intercedes, offering
death, of course. Instead, he uses death as a meta- to dig around it and fertilize it. Then, if it did not
phor for the coming judgment. The image is shock- bear fruit in another year, he would cut it down.
ing: The need for repentance is urgent. Just as Jesus had asked the crowd to identify
13:6-9. The parable of the barren fig tree is with a debtor being hauled to court (12:57-59),
similar to the stories of unfruitful trees that appear so also now he asks them to identify with the
in ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature. The fig tree that is given one last chance. The point
late versions of Ahikar, for example, contain the is the same: The time is short; you have one
following story: last chance to put things right before the judg-
And I spake to Nathan thus: Son, thou hast been ment.
to me like a palm-tree which has grown with Christian interpreters have been quick to see
roots on the bank of the river. When the fruit
allegorical meanings in the parable. The fig tree
ripened, it fell into the river. The lord of the tree
came to cut it down, and the tree said: Leave and the vineyard represent Israel, the owner is
me in this place, that in the next year I may God, the gardener is Jesus, and the three years
bear fruit. The lord of the tree said: Up to this refer to the period of Jesus’ ministry. None of
day hast thou been to me useless, in the future these allusions is necessary, but the fig tree and
thou wilt not become useful.!47
the vineyard commonly represent Israel in the OT.
The differences between this story and Jesus’ The warning is clear even if the parable is taken
parable are substantial. In Ahikar, the lord of the as a metaphor rather than an allegory; you have
tree refuses to allow the tree another year in but a short time to prepare for the judgment (by
which to prove itself. In Jesus’ parable, the gar- heeding the teachings of Jesus throughout this
dener intercedes on behalf of the tree, pleading section of the Gospel). If you do not use the time
that it be given another year. Nevertheless, al- that remains, you will be thrown into prison like
though there is mercy in Jesus’ parable, it is still a the debtor, perish like the Galileans and Jeru-
salemites, and be cut down like the fig tree. No
147. Ahikar 8.25, Armenian, in R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseude-
pigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, LOWS), 2:7 Fos
more forceful series of warnings could be given.
REFLECTIONS
The parable of the fig tree takes us back to an earlier, more agrarian era, but modern
in
readers should not miss the theological payload of this closing section of the warnings
God’s judgment with promises of
Luke 12:1-13:9. Luke has balanced the warnings of
God’s mercy. Luke also dismisses the popular, but unworthy, theology of retribution
beings die
without offering any simplistic answers to atrocities and calamities. If human
not because God has arbitrarily
by the sword, by accident, or by natural disaster, it is
God would give even an
chosen to punish them for ,their sins while sparing others.
unfruitful fig tree another chance.
as a warning of
On the other hand, the sudden calamity that claims human lives can serve
or does it just seem
sudden judgment. Is life more precarious or fragile in modern societies,
; LUKE 13:1-9 REFLECTIONS
that way? Jesus’ warning strikes at our most vulnerable point. Try as we might, none of us
can protect ourselves or those we love from every danger: disease, traffic accidents, crime,
emotional disorders, or random violence. The bright side of the warnings in Luke 13:1-5 is
that Jesus affirms that these calamities are not God’s doing: On the other hand, they should
stand as graphic reminders that life is fragile, and any of us may stand before our Maker
without a moment’s notice.
The parable of the fig tree invites us to consider the gift of another year of life as an
act of God’s mercy. John the Baptist declared that the ax lay at ‘the root, poised to strike
(3:9). Any tree that did not bear fruit would be cut down. In Jesus’ parable, however, the
gardener pleads for and is granted one more year. The year that Jesus proclaimed, moreover,
“the year of the Lord’s favor” (4:19), would be a year of forgiveness, restoration, and
second chances.
What would you do if you had only a year left to live, only a short time in which to make
up for wrongs done and opportunities missed? How important that year might be! The lesson
of the fig tree is a challenge to live each day as a gift from God. Live each day in such a way
that you will have no fear of giving an account for how you have used God’s gift.
LUKE 13:10-35, UNEXPECTED-REVERSALS

BROUGHT BY THE KINGDOM OF GOD
OVERVIEW
The section that follows has a twin in 14:1-35. of teaching material on humility (14:7-14) and the
Just as 13:10-17 reports the healing of a crippled banquet of the kingdom (14:15-24) follow in Luke
woman on the sabbath, so also 14:1-6 relates 14. Finally, both chapters end with warnings
Jesus’ healing of a man with dropsy on the sab- about the fate of Jerusalem (13:31-35) and regard-
bath. Three parables of the kingdom follow in ing the cost of discipleship (14:25-35).
13:18-19, 20-21, and 22-30. Similarly, two units
Luke 13:10-17, The Stooped Woman
NIV NRSV
'On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the 10Now he was teaching in one of the syna-
synagogues, ''and a woman was there who had gogues on the sabbath. ''And just then there
been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was appeared a woman with a spirit that had crippled
bent over and could not straighten up at all. '2When her for eighteen years. She was bent over and
Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to was quite unable to stand up straight. '7When
her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.” . Jesus saw her, he called her over and said,
'SThen he put his hands on her, and immediately “Woman, you are set free from your ailment.”
she straightened up and praised God. 'SWhen he laid his hands on her, immediately she
'Indignant because Jesus had healed on the stood up straight and began praising God. 'But
Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, the leader of the synagogue, indignant because
“There are six days for work. So come and be Jesus had cured on the sabbath, kept saying to
healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.” the crowd, “There are six days on which work
22
LUKE 13:10-17
NIV NRSV
The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! ought to be done; come on those days and be
Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox cured, and not on the sabbath day.” 'But the
or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give Lord answered him and said, “You hypocrites!
it water? '°Then should not this woman, a daugh- Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox
ter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for or his donkey from the manger, and lead it away
eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath to give it water? '°And ought not this woman, a
day from what bound her?” daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for
When he said this, all his opponents were eighteen long years, be set free from this bondage
humiliated, but the people were delighted with on the sabbath day?” '7When he said this, all his
all the wonderful things he was doing. Opponents were put to shame; and the entire
crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things
that he was doing.
COMMENTARY
Luke often balances a scene involving a man 8:2; Acts 28:9). It is unclear, therefore, whether her
with a similar scene about a woman. The parallels condition is attributed to a demon or simply illness.
between the healing of the stooped woman Nevertheless, several features of the story suggest
(13:10-17) and the healing of the man with that the woman’s condition may be seen as indica-
dropsy (14:1-6) are evident—both occur on the tive of her diminished status as a woman; her
sabbath, both involve controversy with a leader condition is attributed to “a spirit of weakness,” this
of the synagogue or the Pharisees, both report a weakness has left her bent over and unable to stand
pronouncement as well as a healing, and in both straight, Jesus addresses her with the general term
Jesus invites his opponents to reason from what “Woman,” and Jesus answers the leader of the
they would do for an ox to what they should do synagogue by contrasting what one would do for an
for a fellow human being. animal with what he has done for the woman. In
For the last time in the Gospel, Jesus enters a the end, Jesus confers -on the woman a status of
synagogue. His teaching activity will continue in dignity: She is a “daughter of Abraham” (see 16:22-
later chapters, however (13:22, 26; 19:47; 20:1; 31; 19:9). Jesus is in the process of releasing the
21:37). Healings while Jesus was teaching in a captive, freeing the oppressed (4:18), and raising up
synagogue on the sabbath have been reported in children to Abraham (3:8). As in other scenes in
two previous scenes, Luke 4:31-37; 6:6-11. The Luke in which Jesus responds to the needs of a
first established Jesus’ authority over the unclean woman, this scene points to a new status for women
spirits; in the second, Jesus argued that it was in the kingdom of God.
right to do good and to save life on the sabbath. Jesus releases the woman from her ailment by
In the synagogue scene in chap. 13, Jesus teaches a pronouncement and the laying on of hands. The
that concern over the suffering of fellow human physical act again suggests a further significance.
beings takes precedence over obligations related The laying on of hands was normally accompanied
to keeping the sabbath. by prayer and served as an act of blessing. Jesus
The woman’s condition is attributed to “a spirit laid hands on the sick (4:40), but the laying on
of weakness.” For eighteen years she had been of hands was also used as a conferral of blessing
bent over, unable to stand up straight. The num- (Acts 0:0; 6:1 7-18. O12 175 .15:5;,19:0; 28:8).
ber eighteen has probably served as a catchword The proof of the woman’s restoration is imme-
linking this scene with the report of the eighteen diate. She is able to stand straight, and she praises
who perished when the tower of Siloam fell God—the only proper response to God’s redemp-
(13:4). The term translated “weakness” (ao8€veta tive power.
astheneia) can simply mean “illness” (see 5:15; A third character is introduced at this point,
273
and through the rest of the scene Jesus interacts had been bound by Satan for eighteen years.
with the leader of the synagogue rather than the Should she not be set free, even on the sabbath?
woman. The leader of the synagogue wants to Jesus directly opposed the rabbinic principle that
make the issue Jesus’ violation of the sabbath, but healing on the sabbath was allowed only in critical
Jesus returns the focus to the needs and dignity cases, not for chronic conditions.'4* The leader of
of the woman. Addressing the crowd (which has the synagogue had cited the necessity of keeping
not been mentioned but assumed), the leader of the sabbath, but Jesus counterposed the greater
the synagogue declares that there are six days in necessity of freeing a human being from whatever
which they may come to be healed, but not on crippled, bound, and diminished her.
the sabbath. His concern is for the sabbath law, The response is one of total victory for Jesus.
and he shows only indignation that the woman “All his opponents” have been put to shame (see
has been released from her condition. He con- Isa 45:16), and “the entire crowd” rejoiced at “all
strues his role as maintaining proper observance the wonderful things” Jesus was doing (see Exod
of the sabbath rather than celebrating the release 34:10). In the contest of honor and shame, Jesus
of the woman from her “weakness.” has been honored and his opponents shamed, but
Jesus answers the leader of the synagogue, but the greatest change has come in the status of the
like the leader he speaks to the crowd rather than woman. Because of her physical condition, the
directly to his opponent. Using a principle com- . woman carried shame, but by the end of the story
mon among the rabbis, Jesus challenges his oppo- she has been released from her shame and Jesus’
nents to reason from the lesser to the greater. opponents have been shamed. Hers is an honor-
Since the woman is a daughter of Abraham, able standing. Just as Zacchaeus will be called a
should they not do more for her than they would “son of Abraham” (19:9), so this woman is rec-
do for an animal? If an animal were bound, they ognized as a daughter of Abraham as well.
would untie it from the manger and lead it to
water on the sabbath. Yet here was a woman who 148. See m. Yoma 8.6.
REFLECTIONS
There is danger in both overreading and underreading. For generations this passage has
suffered from underreading. It was taken simply as another of Jesus’ healings. No particular
significance was attached to the fact that the recipient of Jesus’ redemptive healing was a
woman. At the risk of overcorrecting and overreading this passage, the preceding interpretation
has drawn attention to those features of the story that suggest that it is in fact paradigmatic
of Jesus’ mediation of the kingdom to women who are demeaned, denied their proper status,
and oppressed by religious and social restrictions. The story of the stooped woman is, in fact,
the story of many women.
The announcement of good news for women is also a challenge to the religious community,
especially its leaders, represented in the story by the leader of the synagogue. If their response
is like his, they too will be put to shame. The alternative is to show that one is receptive to
the work of the kingdom by joining the crowd in “rejoicing at all the wonderful things that
[Jesus] was doing.”
The announcement of good news is an invitation to celebration for all who will receive it.
But as Jesus’ pronouncements in the rest of this chapter and the next will make abundantly
clear, whoever does not respond to the invitation and rejoice in the kingdom will eventually
be excluded from it.
274
LUKE 13:18-21
Luke 13:18-21, The Mustard Seed and the Yeast
NIV NRSV
'’Then Jesus asked, “What is the kingdom of 18He said therefore, “What is the kingdom of
God like? What shall I compare it to? 'It is like God like? And to what should I compare it? !It
a mustard seed, which a man took and planted is like a mustard seed that someone took and
in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the sowed in the garden; it grew and became a tree,
birds of the air perched in its branches.” and the birds of the air made nests in its
0Again he asked, “What shall I compare the branches.”
kingdom of God to? It is like yeast that a woman 20And again he said, “To what should I com-
took and mixed into a large amount? of flour until pare the kingdom of God? ?'It is like yeast that a
it worked all through the dough.” woman took and mixed in with? three measures
421 Greek three satas (probably about 1/2 bushel or 22 liters) of flour until all of it was leavened.”
2Gk hid in
COMMENTARY
The next three parables speak of the kingdom make a gram, yet the mustard plant grows to a
of God (vv. 18, 20, 28-29). Again, the reference height of eight to nine feet.'4
to a “man” (dv@pwros anthropos) in the first Brief as the parable is, it reverberates with
parable (v. 19—unfortunately obscured by the echoes from the OT. The prophet found nothing
NRSV translation, “someone”) is balanced by a to which he could liken God: “To whom then
woman in the second (v. 21). will you liken God,/ or what likeness compare
13:18-19. The parable of the mustard seed with hime” (Isa 40:18). But Jesus likens the
kingdom to the mustard seed. It is organically
has parallels in Mark 4:30-32; Matt 13:31-32; and
present in Jesus’ ministry, although its manifes-
Gospel of Thomas 20. The parable of the leaven
tation may be as obscure as the mustard seed
is paired with this parable in Matthew, but not
is diminutive. Nevertheless, just as the seed
in Mark or Thomas, which suggests that it may certainly grows to a massive bush, so also the
have originally circulated independently. Each of kingdom will inevitably come in all its glory. In
the Gospels also differs in its description of where Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, he is represented as
the seed was planted (Mark—the ground; Mat- a great tree, and “the birds of the air nested
thew—a field; Luke—a garden; Gospel of in its branches” (Dan 4:12, 21; cf. Ezek 31:5-
Thomas—tilled soil). Actually, the Lukan form of 6). The most important background for the par-
the parable reflects little evidence of dependence able, however, is the oracle in Ezek 17:22-23.
on any of the parallel forms. Luke’s is also the The reference to the birds nesting in the branches
shortest of the canonical versions; it lacks the clearly connects the parable of the mustard seed
description of the mustard seed as the smallest of with these prophetic parables. There is a certain
seeds or the mature plant as the largest shrub. irony, however. Rather than describing the king-
The absence of these details is important because, dom as a great cedar, as did the OT kings and
prophets, Jesus describes it as a mustard—
although Luke has set the parable in a section that
hardly the noblest of plants by any reckoning!
describes the reversals brought by the kingdom of
Jesus’ emphasis is, therefore, not on the glory
God, if the parable of the mustard seed is a parable
of the future kingdom but on the present sign
of reversal rather than growth, the reversal is of its presence. The mustard seed is a parable
implied simply on the basis’of the proverbial of the kingdom’s beginnings, not its final manifes-
smallness of the mustard seed. It has been calcu-
lated that it takes 725 to 760 mustard seeds to 149. See Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, otvam., TDNT, 7:288-89.
275
tation.'5° The people expected a mighty cedar, but “yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod” (Mark
Jesus’ ministry—though accompanied by mighty 8:15 NIV; see Luke 12:1). Each year at the
deeds—was like a mustard seed, merely a promise Passover, moreover, Jewish families followed the
of the mature plant. Had his opponents read the prescriptions of Exod 12:15-16 by throwing out
Scriptures more closely, they might have recog- all of the leaven from their homes. Thus yeast
nized that they should have been looking for the was used as a metaphor for uncleanness or a
sprig God had promised to plant rather than a corrupting influence.'*
full-grown cedar.'*! Luke says that the woman “hid” (expubev
The coming of the birds to nest in the branches ekrypsen) rather than “mixed” the yeast in the
of the plant that represents the kingdom of God flour (cf. NIV and NRSV). The verb implies secrecy
has often been interpreted as a reference to the rather than a normal part of preparing bread for
inclusion of the Gentiles. In the OT parallels the baking. For whatever reason, the woman attempts
nesting birds simply underscore the tree’s capacity to hide the yeast in a great quantity of flour. The
to give peace and security. Nevertheless, Luke’s humor of the situation is readily apparent.
interest in the inclusion of the Gentiles, to which Interpreters have often seen a scriptural allu-
Acts will give attention, is indisputable. In addi- sion in the references to three measures of flour
tion, the third parable in this context issues the (Gen 18:6), but it may simply mean that the
warning that “people will come from east and . woman attempted to hide the yeast by putting it
west, from north and south, and will eat in the in a great quantity of flour—far more flour than
kingdom of God” (v. 29). A secondary allusion to one would ordinarily use in baking. The three
the inclusion of the Gentiles in this detail of the measures would be equivalent to nearly 50
Lukan parable should, therefore, not be ruled out. pounds of flour, enough to make bread for 150
13:20-21. The parable of the yeast (vv. 20-21) people! Many parables have an incongruous or
may have been joined to the parable of the exaggerated element. The large amount of flour
mustard seed, because both emphasize growth or accords well with the woman’s desire to conceal
the contrast between small beginnings and great it, but the result is an enormous amount of
results. The parable of the yeast must be allowed leavened dough. Desiring to hide the yeast, the
to stand on its own, however, because its point woman put it in flour, but now she has 50 pounds
is not exactly the same as that of the mustard of leavened dough.
seed. (Parallels appear in Matt 13:33; Gospel of The point of the parable is made in a humorous
Thomas 96.) The interpretation of the parable fashion. Like the yeast, the kingdom is powerful
hinges on three issues: (1) the connotations of and irrepressible. Its enemies may seek to conceal
yeast, (2) the verb “hid” (kpttTw krypto) and (3) it, but like the yeast it will eventually leaven the
the meaning of the “three measures” of flour. whole lump. While the parable of the mustard
Yeast is old, fermented dough that is added to seed dramatizes the presence of the kingdom in
a fresh lump of dough in order to start the its insignificant beginnings, the parable of the
leavening process in it. Twice Paul quotes or yeast reminds us that even small beginnings are
alludes to the proverb “A little yeast leavens the powerful and eventually change the character of
whole batch of dough” (Gal 5:9 NRSV; 1 Cor the whole. Can one dare to believe that what
5:7); in both instances it is a warning about the began with just a handful of followers in Galilee
permeating effect of evil in the Christian commu- will eventually change the whole world?
nity. Jesus also warned the disciples about the
152. See Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable (Minneapolis:
150. Ibid., 291. Fortress, 1989) 324-25.
151. See Peter Rhea Jones, The Teaching of the Parables (Nashville:
Broadman, 1982) 87.
REFLECTIONS
Let us tell the story of small beginnings. How could the poor and unschooled receive religious
training, especially when there was no public education and many worked six days a week?
276
In 1780 Robert Raikes started the first Sunday schools. What could God do with a shoemaker
in England whose imagination was fired by Captain James Cook’s discoveries in the Pacific?
William Carey founded the Baptist Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen in
1792 and then went to India as its first missionary. Who can calculate what great things have
come from these small beginnings? So what is the kingdom of God like? A mustard seed. Yeast.
Luke 13:22-30, The Narrow Door
NIV NRSV
#2Then Jesus went through the towns and vil- 22Jesus* went through one town and village
lages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. after another, teaching as he made his way to
*3Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few Jerusalem. Someone asked him, “Lord, will only
people going to be saved?” a few be saved?” He said to them, *““Strive to
He said to them, **“Make every effort to enter enter through the narrow door; for many, | tell
through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able. *When
you, will try to enter and will not be able to. once the owner of the house has got up and shut
°Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, and you begin to stand outside and to
the door, you will stand outside knocking and knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then
pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ in reply he will say to you, ‘I do not know where
“But he will answer, ‘I don’t Know you or you come from.’ *°Then you will begin to say,
where you come from.’ ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in
20“Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with our streets.’ ?7But he will say, ‘I do not know
you, and you taught in our streets.’ where you come from; go away from me, all you
27“But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or evildoers!’ #8There will be weeping and gnashing
where you come from. Away from me, all you of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and
evildoers!’ Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God,
28“There will be weeping there, and gnashing and you yourselves thrown out. ??Then people
of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will come from east and west, from north and
and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but south, and will eat in the kingdom of God. *°In-
you yourselves thrown out. People will come deed, some are last who will be first, and some
from east and west and north and south, and will are first who will be last.”
take their places at the feast in the kingdom of
God. 2°Indeed there are those who are last who se
will be first, and first who will be iast.”
(COMMENTARY
If the beginnings are small but the result is points Jesus’ response is parabolic, but by the
great, will many be saved or just a few? The concluding verses the parabolic guise is dropped.
answer is suitably paradoxical. The door is nar- Verse 22 reintroduces the journey motif. The
row. The owner of the house will turn away many reference to Jerusalem is the first since the
who assume they are invited, but in the end beginning of the journey was announced in
others will come from far and wide. The reader Luke 9:51. Many interpreters have taken the
of these verses catches echoes of various other references to Jerusalem as markers that provide
passages in the Gospels, giving the impression that a structure for the journey narrative: (1) 9:51-
the whole is constructed from bits and pieces of NS 2A) 1a 22 717210; (S\A7 1927 5Such
tradition drawn together by the evangelist. At a structure is of minimal help, however, in iden-
“Ba
tifying the themes and organization of the material Matt 7:23, where those outside claim to have
in these chapters. prophesied and cast out demons in Jesus’ name.)
An unidentified interlocutor raises the question In Luke the emphasis, appropriately, is on table
to which vv. 24-30 form an answer: “Lord, will fellowship rather than mighty works. The master’s
only a few be saved?” The answer progresses by response, “I do not know where you come from,”
means of catchwords. The image of the door is is repeated, but this time it is followed by the
introduced in v. 24, where it is “the narrow condemnation “Go away from me, all you evil-
door,” implicitly contrasted with the broad way doers” (Ps 6:8).
(see Matt 7:13-14). The two ways were a com- The image of the eschatological banquet now
mon trope in Jewish and early Christian ethical takes the place of the image of the door. Luke
teachings (Jer 21:8; Ps 1:6; 4 Ezra 7:1-9; Didache reverses the sequence of the saying in Matt 8:11-
1-6). Against this familiar background the warning 12, placing the emphasis on the result for those
follows: Keep on striving to enter the narrow who are turned away; there will be “weeping and
door. Jesus initially sidesteps the question, offering gnashing of teeth.” Although this phrase occurs
instead of a direct answer a traditional image that only here in Luke, it is a favorite of Matthew
implies that only few will find their way. Then (85025°1 3142508 2213) 2451925730). Ther ine
he moves immediately to the exhortation to of patriarchs is named frequently in the OT (cf.
strive—as an athlete strives to win a race (see »°. Acts 3:13; 7:32), but the phrase “all the prophets”
1 Tim 4:10; 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7). Whether one enters appears to be a Lukan flourish (see 11:50; 24:27;
depends in part at least on human freedom, one’s Acts 321624; 10:43}.
vigorous effort to reach salvation. Many will try, One of the unresolved issues regarding this
but few will succeed. passage is whether those who are gathered into
Verse 25 marks the first transition. The narrow the kingdom from all directions are the children
door becomes the closed door. The language of of Israel scattered abroad or the Gentiles. Al-
this verse evokes echoes of other stories: the thotigh the issue cannot be resolved with any
neighbor who has closed his door and cannot get certainty in the present context, it is clear that
up (11:5-7); the exhortation to knock and the Luke is vitally interested in Israel’s rejection of
door will be opened (11:9); the parable of the the gospel and the subsequent inclusion of Gen-
foolish virgins who cry, “Lord, open to us” tiles. The two foundational reversals of the king-
(Matt 25:10-12); and Jesus’ warning in the Ser- dom are, first, the crucifixion and resurrection of
mon on the Mount that many would say, “Lord, Jesus and, second, the rejection of Jesus by Israel
Lord,” but he would send them away (Matt and the subsequent inclusion of the Gentiles. (For
7:22-23). With all of these allusions in the air, references to the ingathering of the elect in the
the questioner (and the reader) is shocked to find kingdom, see Ps 107:3; Isa 43:5-6.) -
that he or she has been placed among those who The images of the eschatological banquet in
stand outside. This reversal is achieved by means Jewish and early Christian writings derive from
of the direct address “you” in v. 25. A further Isaiah’s account of God’s triumph and blessing:
shock follows when the master of the house On this mountain the Lorp of
responds, “I do not know where you come hosts wil! make for all peoples
from” (cf. Matt 25:12). Were those in the crowd a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines,
of rich food filled with marrow,
Galileans and Judeans? By the end of the story of well-aged wines strained clear.
others will come to take their place who did not And he will destroy on this mountain
live in the promised land (see v. 29; cf. 14:15-24). the shroud that is cast over all peoples,
The image of the door is dropped after v. 25, the sheet that is spread over all nations;
and as the exchange continues it becomes clear he will swallow up death forever. (Isa 25:6-7 NRSV)
that the master of the house is Jesus himself. Reflections on the eschatological banquet again lie
Those who stand outside (“you”) will then begin at the base of Jesus’ parable in Luke 14:15-24,
to identify themselves by means of their associa- which serves structurally as the sequel to the
tion with Jesus: “We ate and drank with you, and present passage.
you taught in our streets.” (Cf. the response in This unit of sayings that warn of the reversals
278
accompanying the coming kingdom ends with the — will enter through the narrow door, those who
free-floating logion “Some are last who will be presume to think they are invited to the banquet.
first, and some are first who will be last.” This When the kingdom comes, many will be sur-
saying appears in unrelated contexts in Mark prised. Take care that you are not among those
10:31; Matt 19:30; 20:16. Here it serves to warn who will be excluded.
those who think they are among the ones who
REFLECTIONS
Franz Kafka wrote eloquently of the human predicament. His parable “Before the Law” is
the story of a man from the country who seeks admission to the Law. When the doorkeeper
tells him he may not enter, he looks through the open door, but the doorkeeper warns him
that he is just the first of a series of doorkeepers, each one more terrible than the one before.
So the man waits for the doorkeeper’s permission to enter. For days and then years, the man
talks with the doorkeeper, answers his questions, and attempts to bribe him, but with no
success. The doorkeeper takes the man’s bribes, saying he is only doing so in order that the
man will not think he has neglected anything. As the man lies dying, he sees a radiance
streaming from the gateway to the Law. Thinking of one question he has not asked, he beckons
the doorkeeper and asks him why in all those years no one else has come to that gate. The
doorkeeper responds: “No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made
only for you. Now I am going to shut it.”’”
Jesus warned his followers that many of them would come to the narrow door seeking
admission, only to be turned away by the owner of the house. They would plead with the
owner that they had eaten with him and heard him teach, but he would send them away
and admit others in their place.
If the door to the Law in Kafka’s parable had been made just for that man, why was he
not admitted? Jesus’ parabolic sayings answer the question “Lord, will only a few be saved?”
Jesus answers, in effect, “No, many. But many of you who think you will be admitted will
be turned away.” Why will they be turned away? By themselves, these sayings do not provide
an answer. Jesus says merely, “Strive to enter through the narrow door.” Is there any other
door? None other is mentioned.
Wherein lies the failure of those who are turned away? It is not because they did not seek
to enter. Did they seek to enter by the wrong means? Did they come to the wrong door,
when they should have come to the narrow door? Even though they tried to enter, were they
unqualified for entry? Did they lack the faith or good works needed for entry? The owner
says only, “I do not know where you come from.” Yet, others will come from east, west,
north, and south—anywhere and everywhere. On the other hand, does the reason for their
rejection lie instead with the owner of the house? These questions lead to the heart of the
mystery of election and grace, free will and determinism.
Perhaps it is best to allow Jesus’ sayings to retain their mystery and ambiguity. Two points
remain clear, however: Jesus admonishes his followers to strive to enter by the narrow door,
and he warns them that in the end there will be many surprising reversals. Many who think
they will enter will not, and others (who are presumed to be excluded from God’s fellowship)
will take their place. Strive, therefore, as one who dares not presume on God’s grace. Strive
as though admission to the kingdom depended entirely on your own doing, but know that
ultimately it depends on God’s grace.
153. Franz Kafka: The Complete Stories, ed. Nahum N. Glatzer (New York: Schocken Books, 1983) 3-4; cf. Frank Kermode, The Genesis
of Secrecy; On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979) 27.
272
LUKE 13:31-35
Luke 13:31-35, Fateful Warnings for Jesus and Jerusalem
NIV NRSV
s1At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus 31At that very hour some Pharisees came and
and said to him, “Leave this place and go some- said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod
where else. Herod wants to kill you.” wants to kill you.” °*He said to them, “Go and
32He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out tell that fox for me,? ‘Listen, I am casting out
demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and demons and performing cures today and tomor-
on the third day | will reach my goal.’ In any row, and on the third day I finish my work. **Yet
case, | must keep going today and tomorrow and today, tomorrow, and the next day I must be on
the next day—for surely no prophet can die my way, because it is impossible for a prophet to
outside Jerusalem! be killed outside of Jerusalem.’ “Jerusalem, Jeru-
34“Q Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the salem, the city that kills the prophets and stones
prophets and stone those sent to you, how often those who are sent to it! How often have | desired
I have longed to gather your children together, as to gather your children together as a hen gathers
a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but her brood under her wings, and you were not
you were not willing! Look, your house is left : willing! See, your house is left to you. And I tell
to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me you, you will not see me until the time comes
again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in when? you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in
the name of the Lord.’2” the name of the Lord.’”
235 Psalm 118:26 aGklacks for me 6Other ancient authorities lack the time
comes when
(COMMENTARY
Following the reference to Jerusalem in v. 22, presents the Pharisees in a more positive light
these verses loom as omens of the fateful events than do the other Gospels. In references both
that lie ahead. Jesus’ pronouncements serve as earlier and later in the Gospel, the Pharisees are
oracles that prepare the reader to understand presented as religious leaders who oppose Jesus.
Jesus’ death and the fate of Jerusalem. Not sur- Luke often characterizes the Pharisees by the
prising, however, these verses also pose a number questions they raise:
of exegetical difficulties. Are the Pharisees pre-
Then the scribes and the Pharisees began to
sented in a positive or negative light? Are they question, “Who is this who is speaking blasphe-
sincerely warning Jesus about Herod’s intentions? mies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
And what is the meaning of Jesus’ declaration, (5:21)
“On the third day I finish my work”?
The Pharisees and their scribes were complaining
13:31-33. These verses contain a brief narra- to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and
tive followed by two pronouncements. The effect drink with tax collectors and sinners?” (5:30)
of these pronouncements is to confirm that Jesus But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you
will not die out of season, another of Herod’s doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?” (6:2;
cf. 6:7)
victims, but that he will finish his divinely ap-
pointed mission in Jerusalem. Jesus’ approach to The narrator in Luke has also characterized the
Jerusalem, delayed by the extended travel narra- Pharisees as those who “rejected God’s purpose
tive, therefore, takes on further suspense and for themselves” (7:30), and Jesus denounced the
significance for the reader. Pharisees in 11:37-44. As a result, the: Pharisees
The role of the Pharisees in these verses has began “lying in wait for him, to catch him in
served as the linchpin for arguments that Luke something he might say” (11:54). In the immedi-
280
ately preceding reference to the Pharisees, Jesus declarations of divine necessity sketch a profile of
warned the disciples, “Beware of the yeast of the God’s redemptive purposes:
Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy” (12:1). In short,
“Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s
nothing prepares the reader to expect that the house?” (2:49)
Pharisees were concerned about Jesus’ safety. On
“I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom
the other hand, nothing in the description of the of God to the other cities also; for I was sent
Pharisees’ act in v. 31 allows us to posit that they for this purpose.” (4:43)
were acting in concert with Herod or that they
“The Son of Man must undergo great suffering,
hoped to convince Jesus to leave Galilee so that and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and
they might more easily trap him in Jerusalem. scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be
Herod’s desire to kill Jesus, on the other hand, raised. (O:223itiy 17 :25;-24:7,920)}
while new information, is readily intelligible in “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down; for I must
the light of the characterization of Herod to this stay at your house today.” (19:5).
point in the Gospel. Mary foreshadows God’s
“For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in
works, saying, “He has brought down the power- me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’;
ful from their thrones,/ and lifted up the lowly” and indeed what is written about me is being
(1:52). Shortly later, Herod is introduced as the fulfilled.” (22:37)
tetrarch of Galilee (3:1). We may expect, there- Both Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem and his death
fore, that the story that is about to unfold will pit there will be controlled by his faithfulness to
God’s prophet against the wicked king.!°* Luke’s God’s redemptive purposes, not by Herod.
infancy narrative draws parallels between John the Jesus journeys to Jerusalem as a prophet obe-
Baptist and Jesus, and the story of John’s life does dient to God’s direction. His pronouncement that
indeed pit John against Herod. When John spoke it is not right that a prophet should die outside
against Herod, Herod imprisoned him (3:18-20). of Jerusalem foreshadows Stephen’s speech in Acts
Later, the reader abruptly learns of John’s fate 7 and his death as a Christian martyr. At the end
from Herod himself: “John I beheaded; but who of his defense, Stephen asks, “Which of the proph-
is this about whom I hear such things?” (9:9). ets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed
Ominously, Herod wanted to see Jesus (9:9). those who foretold the coming of the Righteous
In response, Jesus asserts that he has nothing One, and now you have become his betrayers and
to fear from Herod (cf. 23:6-12, 15). Vividly, Jesus murderers” (Acts 7:52). Among the prophets
characterizes Herod as “that fox” (13:32), a meta- killed in Jerusalem were Uriah (Jer 26:20-23),
phor that paints Herod as sly, cunning, and vora- Zechariah (2 Chr 24:20-22), those killed by
ciously destructive. Herod will not hinder Jesus Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:16; 24:4; cf. Josephus Antiq-
from completing his work, however. He casts out uities of the Jews 10.38), and, in later legends,
demons and heals the sick—public acts that dem- Isaiah.!°°
onstrate the power of the kingdom of God. The 13:34-35. These verses have a parallel in Matt
three days declare the continuation and comple- 23:37-39. Catchwords again link the succession
tion of Jesus’ work. In v. 33, the three days are of sayings. The last words of v. 33 become the
explicitly related to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. first words of v. 34: “Jerusalem” and “prophet.”
Jesus’ declaration that he will finish his work may, References to Jerusalem, therefore, mark the be-
therefore, refer to either the completion of his ginning (13:4), middle (13:22), and end of Luke
journey or his death in Jerusalem. 13. The Wisdom of God spoke of the killing of
Jesus must be on his way. Ironically, he does prophets and apostles in 11:49-51, and the pres-
not travel to Jerusalem in order to escape death ent verses continue in the same idiom. The re-
but in order to die there.'®> Luke’s series of Jesus’ peated address “Jerusalem, Jerusalem” is reminis-
cent of divine addresses in the OT (see Gen
154. See John A Darr, On Character Building: The Reader and the 22:11; Exod 3:4; 1 Sam 3:10; see also Acts 9:4).
Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke-Acts (Louisville: Westminster/John
Knox, 1992) 147-68.
155. See Robert C. Tannehill, Zhe Narrative Unity of Luke—Acts: A 156. See Mart. Isa 5:1-14. See also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 7he Gospel
Literary Interpretation, vol. 1: The Gospel According to Luke (Philadel- According to Luke (XXXIV), AB 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
phia: Fortress, 1986) 153. 1985) 1032.
Moses had commanded the stoning of false This allusion may be taken as a reference to the
prophets (Deut 13:10), but at times justice was Temple in Jerusalem, but it should probably be
perverted—as when Naboth (1 Kgs 21:8-14) read as a metaphor for Israel, as in Jeremiah’s
and Zechariah (2 Chr 24:20-22) were stoned to warning, “But if you will not heed these words,
death. The stage is set, therefore, not only for I swear by myself, says the Lorp, that this house
the death of Jesus but for the stoning of Stephen shall become a desolation” (Jer 22:5; cf. 12:7; 1
as well (Acts 7:52, 58). Kgs 9:7-8). The use of the present tense in the
One of the elements of this passage that is some- declaration of the verdict presents the future act
times seen as a difficulty is Jesus’ assertion that as already accomplished. Jerusalem would be de-
“often” or “many times” he had sought to gather stroyed, and by the time Luke wrote its destruc-
in the children of Jerusalem when, according to tion had fulfilled Jesus’ words.
Luke, he went there only once, at the end of his The end of this discourse is filled with irony. Jesus
life. Such a saying would fit better in the Gospel of declares that they will not see him until the time
John, in which Jesus travels to Jerusalem on several when they will declare, “Blessed is the one who
occasions. On the other hand, Jesus need not have comes in the name of the Lord” (v. 35). These
been in Jerusalem himself in order to have desired words are part of the processional psalm that was
to gather to him the children of Jerusalem. sung by pilgrims entering Jerusalem (Ps 118:26).
Jerusalemites had already come to Jesus and rejected Jesus looks ahead to his coming as Son of Man at
him earlier in the Gospel (5:17; 6:17). The metaphor the end time (cf. Acts 3:19-21). Then Jerusalem will
of Jerusalem as a mother and her inhabitants—or hail him as “the one who comes in the name of
all Israel—as children is rooted in the OT (Isa the Lord,” but the judgment will already be con-
54:1-8, 13; 62:4-5). The image of a bird mothering firmed. Ironically, when Jesus arrives in Jerusalem
her young also appears in various passages (Deut at the end of the Lukan travel narrative, the multi-
Sait. Rut? zilz2, DSS 17:0; 50:7; YEA. Isa 31:5), tude of disciples chant these words. The chant
Jesus, perhaps speaking as the Wisdom of God, has reminds the reader of who Jesus is and points ahead
repeatedly offered Israel, God’s people, his motherly to Jesus’ return as the Son of Man. The city of
love and protection, but they would not receive him Jerusalem, however, does not join the disciples in
(cf. John 1:11-12). welcoming Jesus as “the one who comes in the
The result is that Israel’s “house” is forsaken. name of the Lord” (cf. Luke 23:28-31).
REFLECTIONS
These are fateful words. They clarify in advance both Jesus’ fate and that of Jerusalem. Jesus
will not be killed by Herod; he will go on to Jerusalem, be killed there as the prophets had
been killed, and eventually come again as the Son of Man. Jerusalem will reject Jesus and kill
him. Its house, therefore, will be abandoned, and it will not see Jesus until he comes as the
Son of Man. The irony and pathos are heavy. Judgment hangs in the air.
Two animal images symbolize the alternatives. On the one side lurks the fox. The Bible
consistently depicts evil as dangerous and predatory, nothing one can flirt with without risking
one’s life. Satan is a serpent (Gen 3:1), and sin lurks at the door (Gen 4:7). The devil prowls
around like a lion, looking for someone to devour (1 Pet 5:8). The wolf snatches God’s sheep
(Matt 7:15; John 10:12). Evil is like a plague of locusts or scorpions from a bottomless pit
(Rev 9:1-11). The devil is like “a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns” that
seeks to devour God’s children (see Rev 12:3). As a representative of the powerful who oppress
God’s people, Herod is depicted as a devouring fox.
The danger to the community of God’s people is real and present. God is not only a
redeeming God but a protecting, nurturing God as well. To illustrate this facet of God’s nature,
the Bible turns to mothering images. Jesus likens his desire for Jerusalem, as God’s emissary,
to that of a mother hen who instinctively draws her young under her wing when danger
282
threatens. Her love is steadfast (Ps 36:7), and we are the apple of her eye (Ps 17:8). A woman
cannot forget her nursing child (Isa 49:15; cf. 1 Thess 2:7). How often has she wanted to
gather her young to herself? What more tender image could describe God’s love?
We live in a menagerie. In the symbolic world of these verses, evil threatens in the form of a
fox, and the mother hen laments because her young are exposed but will not accept her protection.
What more can the hen do but stand up to the fox and seek to shelter and protect her young?
Alas, what will become of the young if they do not accept the shelter of their mother’s wing?
LUKE 14:1-24, LESSONS IN KINGDOM ETIQUETTE
OVERVIEW
Someone has said that in Luke “Jesus is either section. The healing of the man with dropsy
going to a meal, at a meal, or coming from a corresponds to the healing of the stooped
meal.”'*’ The meal setting ties together the heal- woman (13:10-17), the sayings on humility and
ing of the man with dropsy (14:1-7), the sayings hospitality and the parable of the great banquet
on humility and hospitality (14:7-14), and the parallel the kingdom parables in 13:18-30, and
parable of the great banquet (14:15-24). As was the warnings regarding the cost of discipleship
noted in the introduction to 13:10-35, Luke 14 in 14:25-35 parallel the warnings at the end of
bears a structural resemblance to the previous chap. 13 (vv. 31-35).
157. Robert J. Karris, Luke: Artist and Theologian, Luke’s Passion

Account as Literature (New York: Paulist, 1985) 47.
Luke 14:1-6, The Man with Dropsy

NIV NRSV
| One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in | On one occasion when Jesus? was going to
the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was the house of a leader of the Pharisees to
being carefully watched. *There in front of him eat a meal on the sabbath, they were watching
was a man suffering from dropsy. 3Jesus asked the him closely. 7Just then, in front of him, there was
Pharisees and experts in the law, “Is it lawful to a man who had dropsy. *And Jesus asked the
heal on the Sabbath or not?” “But they remained lawyers and Pharisees, “Is it lawful to cure people
silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him on the sabbath, or not?” *But they were silent.
and sent him away. So Jesus? took him and healed him, and sent him
5Then he asked them, “If one of you has a son? away. “Then he said to them, “If one of you has
or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, a child? or an ox that has fallen into a well, will
will you not immediately pull him out?” °And you not immediately pull it out on a sabbath day?”
they had nothing to say. 6And they could not reply to this.
a5 Some manuscripts donkey aGk he © Other ancient authorities read a donkey
283
(COMMENTARY
The invitation to dine at the home of one of Pharisees already implies the end of the story; they
the leaders of the Pharisees evokes echoes of Luke could not answer Jesus.
5:29-39; 7:36-50; and 11:37-54. Moreover, this The healing is incidental to Jesus’ two questions
is the third scene describing a healing on the for the lawyers and Pharisees. Consequently, it is
sabbath (6:6-11; 13:10-17). This scene is distinc- reported with no fanfare and no response. Nor-
tive in that it takes place at a meal rather than mally, following a healing miracle, some response
in the synagogue. The issue, however, is still of awe or praise is reported, either on the part of
whether the man’s need takes precedence over the one healed (13:13) or on the part of others
sabbath observance. (5:26). When Jesus cast out an unclean spirit on
Eating was, of course, a significant social occa- the sabbath, the people were amazed and said,
sion. A guest was accepted as an equal, and Jesus “What kind of utterance is this?” (4:36). When
might understandably have been watched closely he healed the man with the withered hand, the
to see whether he would follow the prescribed scribes and Pharisees “were filled with fury and
norms of etiquette, which allowed both guest and discussed with one another what they might do
host to be honored. A meal with a distinguished _ to Jesus” (6:11). This time, there is no immediate
guest, such as a prophet or teacher, would also response. Jesus merely heals the man and sends
have been an occasion for conversation (as in the him away. All interest focuses on Jesus’ challenge
Hellenistic symposium) that might be serious or to the lawyers and Pharisees and their response
witty or both. The reference to eating a meal (lit., to Jesus.
“to eat bread” [bayeiv dptov phagein arton]) in Jesus poses a second question for them (v. 5).
v. 1 is repeated in v. 15. This question is clearly a version of the question
The encounter with the man with dropsy starts formulated in the healing of the stooped woman:
in exactly the same way as the scene with the “Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his
stooped woman (kai tdov kai idou, lit. “and be- ox or his donkey from the manger, and lead it
hold”; 13:11; 14:2). The narrator does not explain away to give it water?” (13:15). The difficulty in
whether the man is another guest or a bystander. the present instance is the textual uncertainty.
Dropsy, or edema—the abnormal accumulation of Although some manuscripts (including xX, K, L,
fluids in the body—is usually a symptom of seri- WY, £113) read “a donkey” here, $945, $975, (A), B,
ous physical problems. Perhaps because this is the and the majority of other manuscripts read “a
third healing on the sabbath in Luke, the scene son,” which is also preferred because it is consid-
is abridged. There is no dialogue with the man ered the more difficult reading. If “a son” is the
(as there was with the woman in 13:12) or reading adopted, the reasoning is altered from an
questioning by the Pharisees (as there was in 6:8; argument from the lesser to the greater, as in
13:14). Instead, Jesus poses the question of 13:15, to a reasoning from the urgency of the
whether one is allowed to heal on the sabbath situation of a child or animal that has fallen into
(cf. Mark 3:4; Matt 12:10; Luke 6:9). The lawyers a well to the need of the man with dropsy.
and Pharisees have been characterized by Luke as Various Jewish groups took different positions on
those who reject God’s purposes (7:30; cf. 10:25; whether one would be allowed to rescue an
11:45-54). The question here, the first of two animal from a ditch on the sabbath, but there was
questions Jesus will pose in this scene, is reduced apparently no such argument in the case of a
to its simplest, most direct form: “Is it lawful to ‘child. The Mosaic law stipulated that one should
cure people on the sabbath, or not?” Its simplicity help an animal in distress, but did not make clear
implies an affirmative answer for modern read- whether this duty should be carried out on the
ers—an implication that may not have been as- sabbath also (Exod 23:5; Deut 22:4). The Damas-
sumed by the Pharisees. For the legal prescriptions cus Document takes the more stringent view: “Let
regarding healing on the sabbath, see the Com- no beast be helped to give birth on the Sabbath
mentary on 6:6-11. The silence of the lawyers and day; and if it fell into a cistern or into a pit, let
284
it not be lifted out on the Sabbath.”'** On the The silence of Jesus’ opponents concedes to
other hand, the Mishnah, while it forbids deliver- him the victory. The point has been made deci-
ing the young of cattle on a festival day, allows sively. Human need takes precedence over sab-
one to help the dam and allows for summoning bath observance. Observance of the sabbath was
a midwife for a woman, delivering a baby, tying intended as a gift of rest and restoration. Jesus’
up the umbilical cord, and performing circumci- healings on the sabbath not only restore the
sion.!59 proper priority of meeting human need but also
underscore the true meaning of the sabbath itself.
158. A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran, trans.
G. Vermes (Cleveland: World, 1961) 153. The stooped woman could stand straight, and the
159. M. Sabb. 18.3. man with dropsy was cured.
REFLECTIONS
Trying to be good and to do the right thing is never an easy business. The most difficult choices
we face are not between right and wrong or good and bad but forced choices between two goods
or two bads. How do we determine which is better or worse than the alternative? If one paints
the Pharisees as hypocrites maliciously seeking to do away with Jesus, it is easy to side with Jesus
over against the Pharisees, but such a reading of this passage is neither true to who the Pharisees
were historically nor does it help us to translate this story into a current setting.
The Pharisees were devoutly committed to keeping God’s law in every area, to the smallest
details of life. Such obedience expressed their devotion to God and recognized God’s grace in
all of life. The sabbath was a special gift from God that was to be honored by careful observance.
Healing on the sabbath was not allowed unless life was in danger. Apparently the man with
dropsy was not in imminent danger. Jesus pushed the question of the obligation to meet the
needs of a fellow human being, whether critical or not, over the duty of sabbath observance,
or more broadly religious observances. The choice was between two goods, but Jesus’ act of
healing the man pointed to a different standard, and an entirely different vision of God’s order
for human society. In this story, religious duties are redefined to place priority on meeting the
physical needs of fellow human beings. In the next paragraph, by rejecting discriminatory social
practices, Jesus redefines the standards by which one gains honor.
Luke 14:7-14, Parables of Humility and Hospitality

NIV NRSV
7When he noticed how the guests picked the 7When he noticed how the guests chose the
places of honor at the table, he told them this places of honor, he told them a parable. **When
parable: “When someone invites you to a wed- you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet,
ding feast, do not take the place of honor, for do not sit down at the place of honor, in case
a person more distinguished than you may have someone more distinguished than you has been
been invited. °If so, the host who invited both invited by your host; and the host who invited
of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man both of you may come and say to you, ‘Give this
your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to person your place,’ and then in disgrace you
take the least important place. '°But when you would start to take the lowest place. '°But when
are invited, take the lowest place, so that when you are invited, go and sit down at the lowest
your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, place, so that when your host comes, he may say
move up to a better place.’ ,Then you will be to you, ‘Friend, move up higher’; then you will
honored in the presence of all your fellow be honored in the presence of all who sit at the
guests. ''For everyone who exalts himself will be table with you. !!For all who exalt themselves will
285
LUKE 14:7-14
NIV NRSV
humbled, and he who humbles himself will be be humbled, -and- those who humble themselves
exalted.” will be exalted.”
Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give 12He said also to the one who had invited him,
a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not
your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; invite your friends or your brothers or your rela-
if you do, they may invite you back and so you tives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite
will be repaid. 'sBut when you give a banquet, you in return, and you would be repaid. '’But
invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the
Mand you will be blessed. Although they cannot crippled, the lame, and the blind. '4And you will
repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for
of the righteous.” you will be repaid at the resurrection of the
righteous.”
(COMMENTARY
The meal setting introduced in 14:1 comes to and the second to the host (v. 12), but both follow
the fore in this section and the next. What follows a common pattern.
are parallel exhortations to the guests and to the I. To the guests (vv. 7-11)
host. Although the narrator says Jesus told them A. “When you are invited... do not sit...
a parable (v. 7), his words have the form of ethical este. wee
exhortations and sage advice. B. “But when you are invited... sit...
Meals were important social ceremonies. Little So that. 22”
was left to chance. As we can see from the Gospel C. “Then you will be honored”
of Luke itself, people noticed where one ate D. Eschatological application (v. 11)
(5:29), with whom one ate (5:30), whether one IL. To the host (vv. 12-14)
washed before eating (7:44-46; 11:38), and where A. “When you give a dinner... do not
one sat to eat. All of these matters determined Iivite IESE ene.
one’s social position. Pliny the Younger recorded
B. “But when you give a banquet...
a similar criticism of the discriminatory meal prac-
invite”
tices of his host in one of his letters:
C. “And you will be blessed”
Some very elegant dishes were served up to D. Eschatological application (v. 140)
himself and a few more of the company; while 14:7-11. Jesus is hardly the model guest.
those which were placed before the rest were
When he notes that they were watching him, he
cheap and paltry. He had apportioned in small
flagons three different sorts of wine; but you are confronts the lawyers and Pharisees (v. 3) and
not to suppose it was that the guests might take heals a man on the sabbath. When he notes how
their choice: on the contrary, that they might the guests choose for themselves the places of
not choose at all. One was for himself and me; honor (see 11:43; 20:46), he exposes their ma-
the next for his friends of lower order (for you
must know that he measures out his friendship
neuvering with direct words drawn from Prov
according to the degrees of quality); and the third 25:6-7. The ancient sage had counseled:
for his own freed-men and mine.!° Do not put yourself forward in the king’s
presence
The structure of vv. 7-14 provides a framework or stand in the place of the great;
for the interpretation of these twin “parables.” for it is better to be told, “Come up here,”
The first section is addressed to the guests (v. 7) than to be put lower in the presence of a
noble. (NRSV)
160. Pliny, the Younger Letters 2.6, in Pliny; Letters, trans. William
Melmoth; rev. W. M. L. Hutchinson, LCL (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard In wv. 8-10, Jesus appears to sanction the counsel
University Press, 1915) 109-11. given in Proverbs: Play the game, but play it more
286
shrewdly. Do not be like buffoons who set them- are no more free from the quest for recognition
selves up for embarrassment. There is a marked than are guests. The community and sharing of
contrast in tone between the two potential re- life and bread that takes places at table is too
sponses of the host. When the host asks the guest sacred to be perverted for our private advantage.
to move down from the place of honor, no term The word for “meal” in v. 12 (dptotov ariston)
of address, respect, or affection is used. He says designates both the noon meal (a luncheon) and
merely, “Give this person your place.” When the the heavier evening meal (a dinner). Jesus lists
host invites the guest to move up, however, he four groups one should not invite—precisely those
says, “Friend, move up higher.” To be acknow- groups most often invited: your friends, your
ledged as the friend of a powerful or wealthy brothers or sisters, your relatives, and your rich
person was itself a distinct honor (see John 19:12). neighbors (cf. the list of guests invited to Herod’s
The polarity is between shame (v. 9) and honor banquet in Mark 6:21). Balancing this list is
(v. 10). another list of four groups who should be invited:
Honor is not gained by seizing prominence; it the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.
must be given by others. But is Jesus merely Such persons were explicitly forbidden to serve
pointing the Pharisees and lawyers to more pru- as priests (Lev 21:17-23) and were barred from
dent and effective ways to gain honor? Two hints entry into the Qumran community:
are given that Jesus is not merely coaching the And let no person smitten with any human impu-
guests on how to play the game of gaining public rity whatever enter the Assembly of God. And
recognition. First, vv. 9-10 mention not a place every person smitten with these impurities, unfit
two or three steps below one’s station but “the to occupy a place in the midst of the Congregation,
and every (person) smitten in his flesh, paralysed
last place.” Christian readers will quickly remem-
in his feet or hands, lame or blind or deaf, or dumb
ber Jesus’ adage that the first will be last and the or smitten in his flesh with a blemish visible to the
last first (13:30). Second, the word for “honor” eye, or any aged person that totters and is unable
(8dEa doxa) is usually translated “glory,” and it to stand firm in the midst of the Congregation: let
points the hearers beyond the recognition they these persons not enter.!©!
may receive from the others present to the glory The contrast between such restrictions and the
that belongs to God—and that only God can give. spirit of Jesus’ teachings could hardly be more
The fact that these hints are significant indica- striking. Jesus does not merely prohibit inviting
tors that Jesus is not merely chiding the guests to those in a position to benefit us if our reason for
play the game more cleverly is confirmed by the inviting them is to curry their favor. He advises
eschatological application that follows: “For all not to invite the powerful or well-to-do because
who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those they might return the invitation. Instead, we
who humble themselves will be exalted” (v. 11). should invite those who have never had such a
The future tense points beyond the immediate meal, who could never return the favor, who will
situation to the reversal of values that is charac- never be our superiors. The promise “and you will
teristic of the economy of God’s kingdom. Humil- be blessed” corresponds to the earlier assurance,
ity is not to be feigned as a strategy for “then you will be honored.” This time, however,
recognition. On the contrary, humility is a quality it is clear that the matter of blessing and honor
of life open to persons who know that their worth has been lifted from the praise of others to praise
is not measured by recognition from their peers from God. God is ultimately the only one who
but by the certainty that God has accepted them. can bless us or whose praise matters.
14:12-14. Now Jesus’ words are directed to
the host, and they make a related point. Hosts 161. 10Sa 2:3-8.
REFLECTIONS
These are liberating words that can free us from the necessity of succeeding in our culture’s
contests of power and esteem. They free us from over-under relationships and the attitudes
and barriers they create, so that we may be free to create human community and enjoy the
security of God’s grace. 4
This commentary on ancient meal practices and social stratification makes two points. First,
one should cultivate and practice humility, if only becauseit is a prudent means of avoiding
embarrassment. The eschatological application at the end of each of the two sections drives
home a deeper meaning. Although the practice of humility is proper and prudent for disciples,
the kingdom of God will bring about an even more revolutionary reversal. The very standards
and practices of discrimination will be overthrown. The outcasts will be accepted as equals.
Those who live by kingdom standards and values now will not only bear witness to the
kingdom but also will be rewarded in “the resurrection of the righteous” (v. 14). Righteousness,
not social position or the esteem of others, should be our goal. God does not look on the
glitter of our guest list. Instead, God looks to see that we have practiced the generosity and
inclusiveness of the kingdom in our daily social relationships. One standard offers the reward
of social position, the other the reward of God’s favor.
The distinctiveness of Jesus’ vision of the kingdom was nowhere clearer than in his protest
against discriminatory meal practices. Jesus and the Pharisees ate differently. For Jesus, meals
were times of celebration and an inclusive fellowship that foreshadowed the inclusiveness of
God’s kingdom. The last supper, therefore, not only pointed ahead to the eschatological
banquet, but also it reflected on Jesus’ meals with the disciples, Pharisees, crowds, and outcasts
in Galilee. The greatest crisis the early church faced, moreover, was not the delay of the
parousia but the burning issue of whom one ate with (see Acts 10:9-16, 28; 15:19-20; Gal
2:11-14). Perhaps it is time we learned new table manners.
Luke 14:15-24, The Parable of the Great Banquet

NIV NRSV
‘When one of those at the table with him 15One of the dinner guests, on hearing this,
heard this, he said to Jesus, “Blessed is the man said to him, “Blessed is anyone who will eat bread
who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.” in the kingdom of God!” !°Then Jesus? said to
‘Jesus replied: “A certain man was preparing him, “Someone gave a great dinner and invited
a great banquet and invited many guests. '7At the many. '’At the time for the dinner he sent his
time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell slave to say to those who had been invited,
those who had been invited, ‘Come, for every-
‘Come; for everything is ready now.’ '®But they
thing is now ready.’
all alike began to make excuses. The first said to
'®“But they all alike began to make excuses.
him, ‘I have bought a piece of land, and I must
The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I
go out and see it; please accept my regrets.’
must go and see it. Please excuse me.’
"Another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen,
“Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke
of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. and I am going to try them out; please accept my
Please excuse me.’ regrets.’ “Another said, ‘I have just been married,
20“Still another said, ‘I just got married, so | and therefore I cannot come.’ 2'So the slave
can’t come.’ , Teturned and reported this to his master. Then
21“The servant came back and reported this the owner of the house became angry and said
to his master. Then the owner of the house to his slave, ‘Go out at once into the streets and
became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the
quickly into the streets and alleys of the town crippled, the blind, and the lame.’ 22And the slave
and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind said, ‘Sir, what you ordered has been done, and
and the lame.’ 2Gk he
288
LUKE 14:15-24
NIV NRSV
226 “Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has there is still room.’ “Then the master said to the
been done, but there is still room.’ slave, ‘Go out into the roads and lanes, and
*8“Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to compel people to come in, so that my house may
the roads and country lanes and make them come be filled. *4For I tell you,? none of those who were
in, so that my house will be full. ~4I tell you, not invited will taste my dinner.’”
one of those men who were invited will get a
aThe Greek word for you here is plural
taste of my banquet.’”
(COMMENTARY
The meal setting described in 14:1 is reintroduced concerns allowing one’s family to hinder one’s
in v. 15. Jesus has addressed his fellow guests in response (cf. 9:59-62; 12:52-53). First, the re-
wv. 7-11 and the host in vv. 12-14. Now he responds sponse of the third guest violates the standard
to one of those reclining with him. The fellow guest storyteller’s device of having the third character
has either sensed that Jesus is speaking of the in a sequence serve as a reversal of the pattern
eschatological banquet and joins him in affirming established by the first two. Jesus thereby under-
that those who feast at the Lord’s table are truly scores the complete rejection of the man’s effort
blessed, or else, feeling the embarrassment of the to host a banquet. (Cf. the sequence of priest,
moment, the fellow guest has voiced a common levite, and Samaritan in the parable of the good
platitude in an effort to ease the situation. Samaritan.) All of the excuses are pretenses. The
Jesus responds with a parable, one that again newlywed man’s pretense may be that he is in
features “a certain man” (cf. the parallels in the midst of his own celebration, that he needs
Matt 22:1-10; Gospel of Thomas 64). Following to spend time with his bride, or possibly that as
a practice in evidence elsewhere (Esth 5:8; 6:14), a result of the wedding he has taken on many
the man sent out invitations in advance and then social debts and cannot afford another at this
sent his servant around to call the guests when time. Some interpreters have seen in the third
everything was ready. excuse an allusion to the holy war legislation of
The parable assumes the customs and social strati- Deut 20:5-7, which allowed a soldier to be ex-
fication of the ancient city. The host is obviously a cused from battle if he had: built a house but not
wealthy person. He can afford to give a banquet, he dedicated it, planted a vineyard but not tasted its
invites persons who are buying land and oxen, and fruit, or if he was engaged to a woman but had
he has a servant. The practice of the double invita- not married her (cf. Deut 24:5). The situation is
tion allowed guests to verify that proper arrange- not exactly parallel, however, since the invited
ments were being made for the banquet and that guest will presumably survive the banquet,
the right people would be in attendance. If the right whereas he might not survive combat. Since the
people were not going to be there, then they could deuteronomic legislation concerns situations in
decline also. In this case, the man’s banquet is which one might be exempted from serving in a
snubbed. All the guests politely offer excuses, as if holy war, the point of contact might be situations
by common assent, claiming that they are unable to in which one could decline God’s call. Even so,
come. The first two excuses are absurd, but they the newlywed man is not being offered as a
serve the social function of declining the host’s legitimate excuse in contrast to the first two—the
invitation. No one would buy land without having host has been snubbed, and all the excuses are
inspected it first. Nor would anyone buy oxen sight mere pretenses. Whereas the first two asked to
unseen. Both of the first two excuses point to be excused, the third man flatly states that he
material possessions as hindering them from coming cannot come.
to the banquet (cf. 8:14; 12:13-21). When the servant reports these outrageous ex-
The third excuse can be read in various ways. It cuses to the owner of the house, the master is
289
justifiably angry. Having been rejected by his social voice, no place, and no social standing who in
peers, the owner of the house decides to reach out the end will dine with the master.
to the only other social groups available to him—the Here the point of the whole story comes to
poor and the crippled. By inviting such persons to light. This patable mirrors the warnings in
his banquet, the snubbed host would also be issuing 13:22-30 in the first half of this extended sec-
an insult to his family and friends. Their esteem and tion on the reversals that will accompany the
approval no longer matter to him. He thumbs his coming of the kingdom of God. Many of those
nose at the social standards that define their privi- who presume that they will be included will
leged social position. The list of those to whom the find themselves excluded, and their places will
servant should extend an invitation is identical to be taken by the outcasts. The future will not
the four groups Jesus had named earlier (14:13), be a continuation of the present but a reversal
except that the sequence of the last two is reversed. of its exclusionary and discriminatory social
Again, the exalted are being brought down and the codes. The lawyers and the Pharisees who had
lowly are being exalted (1:52-53; cf. 4:18-19; 6:20- been invited to the meal had jockeyed for po-
25). The servant is sent into the broad streets and sitions of honor. In Jesus’ parable those who are
the narrow lanes to bring in the outcast from all concerned about their honor will exclude them-
over the city. selves from the master’s banquet, and their
When there is still room, the master sends the * place will be taken by those who exclude no
servant out a second time. This second invitation one on the basis on their social standing.
matches the two invitations that had been ex- The other versions of the parable interpret it
tended to the original guest list. It may also differently. According to Matt 22:1-10, where the
foreshadow the preaching of the gospel first to the allegorical features are much more pronounced,
Jews and then to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 13:46). the banquet is given by a king, who then destroys
The homeless and landless lived outside the city the ¢ity that rejected him and invites both the
gates, which would have been closed in the good and the bad to his son’s wedding banquet.
evening to keep them away from the homes and In Thomas’s version {Gospel of Thomas 64), the
holdings of the well-to-do. Their social ostracism parable ends with the master’s announcement
was enforced, so the servant might well have had that “buyers and sellers shall not come into the
to “compel” them to “come in” where they were places of my Father.”
normally not allowed. T. W. Manson’s observation is worth repeating
The master is determined to fill his house so that once more. In the narrative world of this parable,
none of those who had been invited at first could entry into the kingdom depends on neither the
come later. The parable ends with the master’s master’s determination nor human initiative: “The
pronouncement. His servant has spoken (vv. 17, two essential points in His teaching are that no
22), the invited guests have spoken (vv. 18-20), man can enter the Kingdom without the invitation
and the master has spoken to the servant (vv. 21, of God, and that no man can remain outside it
23-24). Only persons who are poor, crippled, blind, but by his own deliberate choice.”!®
and lame, and those out in the roads and lanes
162. T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1957) 130,
remain without a voice. But it is those with no cited by Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X—XXIV), 1054.
REFLECTIONS
Lines from Vachel Lindsay’s “General William Booth Enters Heaven” say:
Walking lepers followed, rank on rank,

Lurching bravoes from the ditches dank,
Vermin-eaten saints with mouldy breath,
Unwashed legions from the ways of death.
290
Such as these would share the feast of which Jesus spoke. None of the guests is kept away
by something sinful; they just make excuses. Others would give anything to have the
Opportunity that these declined.
Excuses are deadly things. They poison the life of the Christian because they block the path
to confession and forgiveness and rob faith of its vitality. The most dangerous excuses are
those with which we fool ourselves. One of the unrecognized characteristics of excuses is that
they accuse as well as excuse because they reveal our true priorities. The excuses we offer
reveal the activities and commitments we hold to be of greater importance.
Only those who dare to put aside their excuses can ever know the joy of confession, the peace
of forgiveness, or the thrill of living by faith. The Lord is giving a party, and we are all invited!
LUKE 14:25-35, CONDITIONS FOR DISCIPLESHIP

NIV NRSV
Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and 25Now large crowds were traveling with him;
turning to them he said: 7°“If anyone comes to and he turned and said to them, *°“Whoever
me and does not hate his father and mother, his comes to me and does not hate father and mother,
wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and
even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. even life itself, cannot be my disciple. 77
Whoever
27And anyone who does not carry his cross and does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be
follow me cannot be my disciple. my disciple. @*For which of you, intending to build
28“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the
Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost cost, to see whether he has enough to complete
to see if he has enough money to complete it?
it? ??Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation
°For if he lays the foundation and is not able to
and is not able to finish, all who see it will begin
finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him,
to ridicule him, “saying, ‘This fellow began to
saying, ‘This fellow began to build and was not
build and was not able to finish.’ *'Or what king,
able to finish.’
going out to wage war against another king, will
31“Or suppose a king is about to go to war
not sit down first and consider whether he is able
against another king. Will he not first sit down
with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes
and consider whether he is able with ten thousand
against him with twenty thousand? “If he cannot,
men to oppose the one coming against him with
then, while the other is still far away, he sends a
twenty thousand? “If he is not able, he will send
a delegation while the other is still a long way off delegation and asks for the terms of peace. *°So
and will ask for terms of peace. *In the same therefore, none of you can become my disciple if
way, any of you who does not give up everything you do not give up all your possessions.
he has cannot be my disciple. 34“Salt is good; but if salt has lost its taste,
34“Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how how can its saltiness be restored?? *It is fit neither
can it be made salty again? “It is fit neither for for the soil nor for the manure pile; they throw
the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. it away. Let anyone with ears to hear listen!”
“He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” aOr how can it be used for seasoning?
(COMMENTARY
Structurally, these verses parallel Luke 13:31- respond to Jesus’ calls. The conclusion to Luke
35, which laments the failure of Jerusalem to 14:1-35 now contemplates the danger that many
would-be disciples will fail to meet the conditions 19:19-21). There is no duty higher than commit-
for true discipleship. Luke returns to the journey ment to Jesus and to being his disciple.
motif, leaving behind the meal setting. Because Jesus Second, this saying may have had a very prac-
faces martyrdom in Jerusalem, his followers must be tical function in the lives of the first Christians.
prepared to leave everything behind and make their In the Gospels we see the disciples as an itinerant
commitment to Jesus as complete and all-consuming band. It has been suggested that this portrait
as Jesus’ own devotion to his mission. reflects the situation of the earliest Christians.
These sayings are addressed to the large crowds Discipleship required a willingness to leave home
following Jesus. Their intent is to urge persons and family and travel with minimal provisions
who are seeking to be disciples to consider first from village to village in order to proclaim the
the demands of discipleship. Rather than trying to gospel (cf. 18:29; 10:1-12). Later, in Corinth, the
lure the unsuspecting into unconsidered commit- church faced the problems caused by pagan
ments, Jesus warns the crowd in advance that the spouses divorcing their believing partners {1 Cor
way of discipleship will not be easy. Several 7:15-16). The addition of “even life itself” at the
phrases recur in these verses, giving the section end of the list of one’s family members echoes
unity and underscoring its dominant emphasis: the sayings about forsaking one’s life in Mark
8:35-37. and Jobty 12:25;
“Whoever comes to me and does not... cannot
be my disciple” (v. 26) 14:27. This verse on cross bearing is a version
of the saying in Luke 9:23. The saying also evokes
“whoever does not... cannot be my disciple” again the rejection of Jesus and the suffering that
(v. 27) awaits him in Jerusalem. He warns the crowd,
therefore, that no one can follow him unless he
“So therefore, none of you can become my
or she is ready to suffer the same fate Jesus would
disciple if you do not...” (v. 33)
suffer. In this version of the saying, Jesus speaks
The three conditions laid down in this sequence not of “taking up” one’s cross but of bearing it.
of pronouncements concern renouncing family 14:28-32. The twin parables that follow might
ties that would prevent one from being a disciple, aptly be entitled “Fools at Work and at War.”
bearing one’s cross, and forsaking possessions. These parables have no parallel in the other Gos-
Between the second and third conditions, twin pels. Jesus draws attention to a simple observa-
parables illustrate the folly of failing to consider tion: A prudent person would not begin a project
the cost of an undertaking: the tower builder until being sure it can be finished. A man would
(vv. 28-30) and the king going to war (vv. 31-32). not lay the foundation for a tower unless he was
In both cases, the parable takes the form of a sure he could finish it. A king would not go to
question that expects the answer, “No one, of war unless he had enough soldiers to resist the
course” (er taes, 11 14:5: 154. 17:7); Vetseros opposing force. By the same token, God has not
states the conclusion: Discipleship requires the entered a redemptive process without being pre-
renunciation of all that we have. Finally, vv. 34-35 pared to complete it, and Jesus did not set his
warn of the consequences of unworthy disci- face for Jerusalem without being prepared to face
pleship; tasteless salt is not good for anything. the sacrifice that would be required of him there.
14:26. Because Jesus’ ethic of love makes it Thus no one should step forward, as a disciple
unthinkable that one should hate his or her own without being prepared to forsake everything for
family, v. 26 has always been a difficult saying (cf. the sake of following Jesus.
Matt 10:37). Two factors help put it into context. The two parables move from the lesser to the
First, it is a Semitic hyperbole that exaggerates a greater consequence. In the first, the threat is
contrast so that it can be seen more clearly. “Hate” merely that one may be embarrassed before one’s
(utcew miseo) does not mean anger or hostility. neighbors. In the second, the consequence may
It indicates that if there is a conflict, one’s re- be defeat at the hands of an enemy. The parable
sponse to the demands of discipleship must take does not advocate building stronger armies; it
precedence over even the most sacred of human illustrates the folly of embarking on a venture
relationships (cf. Exod 32:27-29; Deut 33:9; 1 Kgs without being sure one can see it through.
292
14:33. The parables lead to the third condition sayings on salt are more appropriate as warnings
(v. 33); they demand that one be ready to give to those who are already disciples. The value of
up everything to be a disciple. If you seek to salt lies in its salinity. If it loses its saltiness, it
follow Jesus, then understand first that what is cannot be restored. The point of the analogy is
required is all you have. that the disciple is defined by his or her relation-
Applying this principle in the area of one’s ship to Jesus. If one gives up that relationship,
material possessions, as Luke often does, v. 33 one is like salt that has lost its saltiness.
concludes with a return to the refrain found in Real salt cannot lose its flavor, but the complex
vv. 20-27: “None of you can become my disci- minerals found around the Dead Sea were not
ple if you do not give up all your possessions.” pure salt and could, therefore, become tasteless.
The verb translated “renounce” or “give up” The taste, once lost, could not be restored. Jesus
(amoTdooopat apotassomai) literally means “to observed that this tasteless salt was not even good
say farewell to” or “to take leave of.” The descrip- for fertilizing or killing weeds; “it is fit neither for
tions of the sharing of goods in the early church the soil nor for the manure pile” (14:35). The
in Acts 2:44; 4:32 probably illustrate what Luke point seems to be that salt that has lost its saltiness
understood this demand to mean. is not even good for menial, alternative uses.
14:34-35. Sayings on salt also appear in Matt The call for those who have ears to hear is a call
5:13 and Mark 9:49-50. Although Luke uses these to decision. The reversals of the coming kingdom
aphorisms as the conclusion to this section of have been dramatically illustrated, the conditions of
warnings, the sayings actually make a different discipleship have been set forth, and the conse-
point from the preceding sayings, which were quences of rejecting the call to discipleship have
directed to the crowd of would-be disciples. The been made clear. Now is the time for decision.
REFLECTIONS
Have you ever made a commitment to an organization or committee without first finding
out all that would be expected of you? Have you ever gotten caught by purchasing something
or joining a book club without first reading all the fine print? Jesus warned would-be followers
about the cost of discipleship. :
Some churches, preachers, and TV programs present the gospel as though they were selling a
used car. They make it sound as easy as possible, as though no real commitment were required.
Jesus’ call was far different. He was not looking for superficial commitment or a crowd of tagalongs.
Instead, he required his followers to be totally committed if they were going to follow at all.
The language of cross bearing has been corrupted by overuse. Bearing a cross has nothing
to do with chronic illness, painful physical conditions, or trying family relationships. It is instead
what we do voluntarily as a consequence of our commitment to Jesus Christ. Cross bearing
requires deliberate sacrifice and exposure to risk and ridicule in order to follow Jesus. This
commitment is not just to a way of life, however. It is a commitment to a person. A disciple
follows another person and learns a new way of life.
In a sense, no one can know whether he or she will be able to fulfill a commitment to
discipleship. Jesus was not asking for a guarantee of complete fidelity in advance, however. If
he had, no one would qualify to be a disciple. Through these parables, Jesus was simply calling
for each person who would be a disciple to consider in advance what that commitment requires.
Cultural accommodation of the Christian faith has progressed steadily in recent years. As a
result, many see no tension between the teachings of Jesus and the common aspirations of
middle-class Americans. On the contrary, a complete change of priorities, values, and pursuits
is required. Paul wrote that in Christ we become not just nice people but new creations (see
2 Cor 5:17). When Jesus turned and saw the crowd following him, he was not impressed by
his own success. He was not interested in the casual, easy acceptance the crowd offered.
295
The cost of discipleship is paid in. many different kinds of currency. For some persons a
redirection of time and energy is required, for others a change in personal relationships, a
change in vocation, or a commitment of financial resources; but for each person the call to
discipleship is all consuming. A complete change in priorities is required of all would-be
disciples. No part-time disciples are needed. No partial commitments are accepted.
LUKE 15:1-32, PARABLES OF THE JOY OF

RECOVERY AND RETURN
OVERVIEW
Following the unit of sayings on the reversals / joy in heaven/before the angels of God over one
of the kingdom in Luke 13:10-14:35, Luke pre- sinner who repents.
sents three parables that have a common. ‘theme: The common themes that link the parables are
“the joy offinding what pre
was lost. or
formenipnnrieNe
Tecovering ¢
one » evidenced in the repetition of the terms “lost”
/ who was estranged (the_ lostsheep, the lost coin, (amoAAvLL apollymi) and “found” (evptoKw heur-
\ and|thelost. son). These” parables follow easily isko) in the three parables:
esupon ‘the extended section on the reversals of the
\ kingdom because they respond to the Pharisees’ I. The lost sheep
|; grumbling over Jesus’ practice of eating with out- “and losing one of them” (v. 4)
\casts. “and go after the one that is lost until
f Although the three parables share a common he finds it?” (v. 4)
(theme, the first two are paired while the third, “When he has found it” (v. 5)
which is more elaborate, balances the first two. “T have found my sheep that was
The first two parables each begin with a question, lost” (v. 6)
“which one of you” (tis dvOpwtos €€ va tis Il. The lost coin
anthropos ex hymon,; v. 4), and “what woman” “if she loses one of them” (v. 8)
(Tis yuvy tis gyne; v. 8). The third parable tells the “and search carefully until she finds it”
story of “a certain man” (dvOpwmds Tis anthropos (v. 8)
rts, v. 11). The pairing of the first two parables is “When she has found it” (v. 9)
i\
evident not only in their common structure and “I have found the coin that I had
| theme but also in the link between them. Verse lost” (v. 9)
| 8 introduces the second parable with the term Ill. The lost son
| “or” (n é) which conveys the synonymity of the “he was lost and is found” (v. 24)
\two parables. “he was lost and has been found” (v. 32)
~ The two parables have the same structure: (1)
a question: What man? What woman? (2) a story In the parables, what was lost belonged to the
' Of losing and finding: if he/she lost/loses one, owner from the start, but in both stories the
_ does not go/seek... until he/she finds; (3) a owner expends diligent effort to recover the one
_ celebration with friends: and when he/she has lost possession.
_ found it, he/she calls together his/her friends and The theme of joy and celebration also recurs
neighbors, saying, “Rejoice with me, for I have in all three parables: (I) “rejoice/s” (vv. 5-6), “joy”
\found my sheep/the coin which was/I had lost”; (v. 7); (II) “rejoice” (v. 9), “joy” (v. 10); (III)
_ (4) the moral: Just so, I tell you, there will be/is “celebrate” (vv. 23-24, 29, 32), “rejoice” (v. 32).
294
LUKE 15:1-10
Luke 15:1-10, The Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin

NIV NRSV
] 5 Now the tax collectors and “sinners” were ] Now all the tax collectors and sinners were
all gathering around to hear him. *But the coming near to listen to him. *And the
Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and
“This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” saying, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats
‘Then Jesus told them this parable: ““Suppose with them.”
one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of 3So he told them this parable: “Which one of
them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of
open country and go after the lost sheep until he them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wil-
finds it? °And when he finds it, he joyfully puts derness and go after the one that is lost until he
it on his shoulders °and goes home. Then he calls finds ite? >When he has found it, he lays it on his
his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Re- shoulders and rejoices. “And when he comes
joice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ ’I tell home, he calls together his friends and neighbors,
you that in the same way there will be more saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found
rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents my sheep that was lost.’ “Just so, I tell you, there
than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who
not need to repent. repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons
8“Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins? and who need no repentance.
loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the 8“Or what woman having ten silver coins,? if
house and search carefully until she finds it? °And she loses one of them, does not light a lamp,
when she finds it, she calls her friends and neigh- sweep the house, and search carefully until she
bors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have finds it? °When she has found it, she calls together
found my lost coin.’ '!°In the same way, | tell you, her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with
there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’
God over one sinner who repents.” ‘Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence
48 Greek ten drachmas, each worth about a day’s wages of the angels of God over one sinner who re-
pents.” ;
aGk drachmas, each worth about a day’s wage for a laborer
(COMMENTARY
15:1-2. A new setting is introduced at the fellowship with these outcasts, see Commentary
beginning of the chapter. In the previous chapter, on 5:29-32. Those designated as “sinners” by the
Jesus had been invited to eat with a leader of the Pharisees would have included not only persons
Pharisees (14:1), and the sayings that followed who broke the moral laws but also those who did
grew out of that setting. Now the Pharisees and not maintain the ritual purity practiced by the
scribes “murmur” because Jesus eats with “tax Pharisees.
collectors and sinners.” The verb for “to murmur” The scandal was that Jesus received such out-
(StayoyylCw diagongyzo) has been used earlier casts, shared table fellowship with them, and even
in a similar context (5:30; cf. 19:7), but its more played host to them. The God who showed mercy
significant overtones arise from its use in the to the apostate Israelites in the wilderness rejoices
exodus narratives, where the Israelites “murmur” over the salvation of every lost person like a
against Moses (Exod 16:7-12). The sound of the shepherd who rejoices over the recovery of a lost
Greek verb diagongyzo suggests its meaning. For sheep or a woman who rejoices over the finding
clarification of the role of the “tax collectors” or of a lost coin. The question posed by the parables
toll collectors and the scandal of Jesus’ table is whether we will join in the celebration—but
295.
to celebrate with God one must also share in “sinners” by telling a story that casts God in the
God’s mercy. role of a shepherd.
15:3-7. In the first story, the shepherd leaves The conclusion to the parable of the lost sheep
the ninety-nine sheep to go and search for the reflects its Lukan setting. The calling together of
lost one. The Gospel of Thomas (107) adds two friends and neighbors to celebrate fits the setting
embellishments: The shepherd tired himself out of the woman who lost a coin better than it does
searching, but the sheep that went astray was the that of the shepherd (cf. v. 9).
largest of the sheep! Luke and Matthew might Verse 7 is not part of the parable. Rather, it is
aptly have said that the lost one was the smallest Jesus’ comment to the Pharisees and scribes re-
(cf. Matt 18:6, 10, 12-13), or “one of the least garding the meaning of the parable (cf. v. 10;
of these.” Matthew says that the sheep “went 14:24). The joy in heaven characterizes God’s
astray,” but Luke brings the story in line with the celebration at the repentance of a sinner—a note
other two parables in chap. 15 by reporting that that connects the conclusion to the reference to
the sheep was lost (cf. vv. 8-9, 24, 32). “sinners” in v. 2. By implication, Jesus’ actions in
The parable reflects a Palestinian life setting: accepting sinners and eating with them reflects
“Throughout the biblical period tending flocks, God’s gracious spirit toward those who were held
with agriculture, was in Palestine the basis of the in contempt by the Pharisees and scribes.
economy.”! In the OT, God is described as The contrast with the ninety-nine righteous
Israel’s shepherd: persons creates a tension that requires a reversal
in the position of Pharisees and scribes and the
He will feed his flock like a shepherd; tax collectors and sinners. On the one hand, the
he will gather the lambs in his arms,
Pharisees and scribes are likened to the ninety-
and carry them in his bosom,
and gently lead the mother sheep. (Isa 40:11 NRSV) nine who were not in jeopardy. On the other
hand, God takes more delight in the return of the
The image appears most frequently in the Psalms tax collectors and sinners than in the others, and
(e.g., 23:1-4; 28:9; °78:52; 80:15. 100;3) and in because they take offense at Jesus’ celebration
the post-exilic prophets (Jer 31:10; Ezek 34:11-22; with the tax collectors and sinners, they show
Zech 13:7). By contrast, God is never called a that their spirit is far from God’s. The parable
shepherd in the NT, and the image is limited to poses a double scandal for the Pharisees and
Jesus’ parables. Both in the OT and in Christian scribes; not only are they reminded of the biblical
literature, the shepherd served as an image of the image of God as a shepherd but also God takes
religious leaders of the people, leaders who at more delight in celebrating with a repentant sin-
times, like hirelings, did not serve the flock ner than with the scribes and Pharisees. Their
well (Jer 3:15;-23:4; Ezek 34:2, 7; John 10+1- “righteousness” did not make God rejoice. The
5; Eph 4:11; 1 Pet 5:2). As an image for Christ, celebration of the coming of the kingdom was
the shepherd, carrying or leading the sheep, ap- taking place in Jesus’ table fellowship with the
pears in catacomb art from the third century. outcasts, but because their righteousness had be-
In contrast to the positive image of the shep- come a barrier separating them from the outcasts,
herd in both the OT and NT writings, shepherds they were missing it.
had acquired a bad reputation by the first century 15:8-10. The parable of the lost coin is found
as shiftless, thieving, trespassing hirelings. Shep- only in Luke,_wheré: ittis-a-twin-of-the parable of
herding was listed among the despised trades by thelost. sheep. This time the parable features not
the rabbis, along with camel drivers, sailors, gam- a man with a hundred sheep but a poor woman
aie eeeerem
blers with dice, dyers, and tax collectors.'** The _ with ten coins. A drachma was a silver coin worth
Pharisees’ estimate of shepherds has a particular about a denarius, or a day’s wage. Hence, ten
force in this context, since Jesus responds to the drachmas would
ae
not have been a great sum “of
¢
criticism over his acceptance of tax collectors and money. The |point ofthe parable would have been
lost if the coin had been of great value. Who
163. Joachim Jeremias, to.npnv 7DNT, 6:486.
164. See Joachim Jeremias, /erusalem in the Time of Jesus, trans.
would not search for a lost fortune? But the
F. H. Cave and C. H. Cave (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 304. parable points tothe human reaction to
to,prizeWhat_
a
296
Figure 6: Parables in the Synoptic Gospels
Patches and wineskins! Luke 5:36-39 Matt 9:16-17 Mark 2:21-22
The blind leading the blind? Luke 6:39-40 Matt 15:146
The log in your own eye? Luke 6:41-42 Matt 7:3-4
Producing good fruit? Luke 6:43-45 Matt 7:16-20
The two builders / Luke 6:46-49 Matt 7:24-27
building on a solid foundation
The riddle of the children Luke 7:31-35 Matt 11:16-19
The two debtors Luke 7:41-43
The lamp Luke 8:16 Matt 5:14-1 Mark 4:21-22
Seed and the soil / the sower Luke 8:4-8 Matt 13:3-8 Mark 4:3-9
The good Samaritan Luke 10:30-35
The parable of a shameless neighbor Luke 11:5-8
The kingdom divided against itself® Luke 11:17a Matt 12:25a Mark 3:24
The house divided against itself? Luke 11:170 Matt 12:256 Mark 3:25
The return of the unclean spirit Luke 11:24-26 Matt 12:43-45
The rich fool Luke 12:16-21
The returning master Luke 12:36-38
The thief in the night/ the watchful owner Luke 12:39-40 Matt 24:43-44
The good and wicked servants Luke 12:42-46 Matt 24:45-51 [Mark 13:33-37]
Going before a judge Luke 12:58-59 Matt 5:25-26
The barren fig tree Luke 13:6-9 [Matt 21:20-22 Mark 11:20-25]
The mustard seed Luke 13:18-19 Matt 13:31-32 Mark 4:30-32
The yeast Luke 13:20-21 Matt 13:33
The narrow door Luke 13:24-30
The choice of places at table Luke 14:7-11
The great supper / great banquet Luke 14:16-24 Matt 22:1-14
The fool at work Luke 14:28-30
The fool at war Luke 14:31-32
The lost sheep Luke 15:3-7 Matt 18:12-14
The lost coin Luke 15:8-10
The prodigal son Luke 15:11-32
The dishonest steward Luke 16:1-9
The rich man and Lazarus Luke 16:19-31
The servant who serves without reward Luke 17:7-10
The unjust judge and the persistent widow Luke 18:1-8
The Pharisee and the tax collector Luke 18:9-14
The talents / the greedy and vengeful king Luke 19:11-27 Matt 25:14-30
The wicked tenants / the Lord’s vineyard Luke 20:9-18 Matt 21:33-44 Mark 12:1-11
given to others / vineyard tenants
The fig tree in bloom! Luke 21:29-31 Matt 24:32-35 Mark 13:28-29
The weeds Matt 13:24-30
The hidden treasure and the pearl Matt 13:44-46
The net Matt 13:47-48
The owner of a house Matt 13:52
What can defile* Matt 15:10-11 Mark 7:14-15
The unmerciful servant Matt 18:23-35
The laborers in the vineyard Matt 20:1-16
The two sons Matt 21:28-32
The bridesmaids Matt 25:1-13
The seed growing of itself Mark 4:26-29
The watchful servants Mark 13:33-37
‘Although treated as a saying in Matthew and Mark, this passage is described as a parable” by Luke.
2Although treated as a saying in Matthew, this passage is described as a parable” by Luke.
3Although treated as a saying in Matthew and Luke, this passage is described as “a parable” by Mark.
4Described as “a parable” by both Matthew (15:15) and Mark ara
297
_is.lost, even if it isof lesser value than what one still tion of the “righteous persons who need no re-
possesses. The woman with a small savings or dowry pentance” is no longer a concern. In this applica-
“willsearch tirelessly before accepting the loss of a tion they have lost their place entirely. The
single coin. Her house is typical of the time, with a emphasis is on the joy of recovery, not on_“the
dirtfloor, a small door,,.and no window. gine actions “nreed’for teperitance. “The latter is not denied, but
~
characterize her response: She lights a lamp, sweeps in this context emphasis on the need for repen-
the house, and searches carefully. When she finds the tance smacks more of the grudging spirit of the
‘Coin she rejoices and calls her (female) friends to Pharisees and scribes than of the joy of God at
celebrate with her. those who respond to God’s mercy.
Verse 10, the counterpart of v. 7, applies the In both parables, rejoicing calls for celebration,
parable to the setting described at the beginning and the note of celebration may be exaggerated to
of the chapter. The difference is that whereas emphasize the point. Neither sheep nor coins can
v. 7 makes reference to God indirectly by saying repent, but the parable aims not at calling the
“in heaven,” in v. 10 the indirection takes the “sinners” to repentance but at calling the “righ-
form of a reference to \‘the arigels “of God.” The teous” to join the celebration. Whether one will join
effect is the same in both cases. There is no the celebration is all-important because it reveals
contrast with the other nine coins in v. 10 as whether one’s relationships are based on merit or
there is with the ninety-nine in v. 7. The parable . mercy. Those who find God’s mercy offensive can-
focuses even more sharply, therefore, God’s joy not celebrate with the angels when a sinner repents.
at the recovery of what had been lost. The ques- Thus they exclude themselves from God’s grace.
REFLECTIONS
The parables that are Jesus’ response to the Pharisees’ murmuring still have the power to expose
the roots of bitterness that dig their way into us Whenever we feel that God is too good to others
and not good enough to us. Typically, we want mercy for ourselves and justice for others, but the
Lukan parables call for us to celebrate with God because God has been merciful not only to us
but to others also, even to those we would not otherwise have accepted into our fellowship.
A Jewish story tells of the good fortune of a hardworking farmer. The Lord appeared to this
farmer and granted him three wishes, but with the condition that whatever the Lord did for
the farmer would be given double to his neighbor. The farmer, scarcely believing his good
fortune, wished for a hundred cattle. Immediately he received a hundred cattle, and he was
overjoyed until he saw that his neighbor had two hundred. So he wished for a hundred acres
of land, and again he was filled with joy until he saw that his neighbor had two hundred
acres of land. Rather than celebrating God’s goodness, the farmer could not escape feeling
jealous and slighted because his neighbor had received more than he. Finally, he stated his
third wish: that God would strike him blind in one eye. And God wept.
The parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin expose the grudging spirit that prevents us
from receiving God’s mercy. Only those who can celebrate God’s grace to others can experience
that mercy themselves.
Luke 15:11-32, The Prodigal Son, the Waiting Father,

and the Elder Brother
NIV NRSV
"Jesus continued: “There was a man who 11Then Jesus? said, “There was a man who
had two sons. '?The younger one said to his had two sons. !*The younger of them said to his
aGk he
LUKE 15:11-32
NIV NRSV
father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ father, ‘Father, give me the share of the property
So he divided his property between them. that will belong to me.’ So he divided his property
'S*Not long after that, the younger son got between them. '%A few days later the younger son
together all he had, set off for a distant country gathered all he had and traveled to a distant
and there squandered his wealth in wild living. country, and there he squandered his property in
After he had spent everything, there was a dissolute living. ‘When he had spent everything,
severe famine in that whole country, and he a severe famine took place throughout that coun-
began to be in need. So he went and hired try, and he began to be in need. '°So he went
himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent and hired himself out to one of the citizens of
him to his fields to feed pigs. '°He longed to fill that country, who sent him to his fields to feed
his stomach with the pods that the pigs were the pigs. '"He would gladly have filled himself
eating, but no one gave him anything. with? the pods that the pigs were eating; and no
'7“When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How one gave him anything. '7But when he came to
many of my father’s hired men have food to spare, himself he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired
and here I am starving to death! '*I will set out hands have bread enough and to spare, but here
and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I am dying of hunger! '*I will get up and go to
I have sinned against heaven and against you. '°I my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have
am no longer worthy to be called your son; make sinned against heaven and before you; '°I am no
me like one of your hired men.’ 7°So he got up longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like
and went to his father. one of your hired hands.”’ 2°So he set off and
“But while he was still a long way off, his father went to his father. But while he was still far off,
saw him and was filled with compassion for him; his father saw him and was filled with compas-
he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and sion; he ran and put his arms around him and
kissed him. kissed him. ?!)Then the son said to him, ‘Father,
21“The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned I have sinned against heaven and before you; |
against heaven and against you. I am no longer am no longer worthy to be called your son.’? But
worthy to be called your son.’ the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly, bring out
22“But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! a robe—the best one—and put it on him; put a
Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And
on his finger and sandals on his feet. ?*Bring the get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and
fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate; 24for this son of mine was dead and is
alive again; he was lost and is found!’ And they
celebrate. “For this son of mine was dead and is
alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.
25“Now his elder son was in the field; and
began to celebrate.
when he came and approached the house, he
25“Meanwhile, the older son was in the field.
heard music and dancing. ?°He called one of the
When he came near the house, he heard music
slaves and asked what was.going on. *’He replied,
and dancing. 2°So he called one of the servants
‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed
and asked him what was going on. ?”Your brother
the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe
has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed
and sound.’ 28Then he became angry and refused
the fattened calf because he has him back safe
to go in. His father came out and began to plead
and sound.’
with him. 2?But he answered his father, ‘Listen!
28“The older brother became angry and refused For all these years I have been working like a
to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your
him. 2°But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these command; yet you have never given me even a
years I’ve been slaving for you and never dis- young goat so that I might celebrate with my
obeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even
a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.
aQther ancient authorities read filled his stomach with
Other ancient authorities add Treat me like one of your hired
a2 Some early manuscripts son. Make me like one of your hired men. servants
299
LUKE 15:11-32
NIV NRSV
3°But when this son of yours who has squandered friends. °°But when this son of yours came back,
your property with prostitutes comes home, you who has devoured your property with prostitutes,
kill the fattened calf for him!’ you killed the fatted calf for him!’ *'Then the
31“*Miy son,’ the father said, ‘you are always father? said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me,
with me, and everything I have is yours. °*But we and all that is mine is yours. **7But we had to
had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours
of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost was dead and has come to life; he was lost and
and is found.’” has been found.’”
@Gk he
(COMMENTARY
The name one gives to this parable already tele- introduce the parable of the lost coin. This parable
graphs an understanding of its structure and theme. is not just a third version of the first two in this
To call it “The Prodigal Son” is to emphasize the first - chapter. It complements and extends them. On the
half of the parable (vv. 11-24) to the neglect of the other hand, the force of this parable is more effec-
second half (vv. 25-32). “A Man Had Two Sons” tively related not only to the introduction in 15:1-2
focuses on the father’s relationship to the two sons but also to its relationship to the first two parables
and recognizes that this is “a two-peaked parable,” a than has often been recognized. The theme of the
parable with two stories.'© “The Compassionate Fa- restoration of what was lost but has been found is
ther and the Angry Brother” compares two ways of repeated at the end of both parts of this parable (vv.
receiving the lost.’ The virtue of the title “The 24, 32), but whereas this theme was stated by Jesus
Prodigal Son, the Waiting Father, and the Elder as an interpretation of the first two parables (vv. 7,
Brother” is that it recognizes the significant role of 10), in this parable it is voiced by the father.
each of the three characters and calls attention to the Moreover, whereas the first two parables merely
shifting point of view in the parable—from the prodi- allude to a call for celebration, in this parable the
gal son (vv. 12-204) to the waiting father (vv. 200-24) celebration takes place; the elder brother’s response
and to the elder brother (vv. 25-32). Alternatively, to the celebration is vital to the story line of the
one may regard the parable as having two parts: the second part of the parable.
father’s response to the younger son (wv. 12-24) and The introduction identifies the siblings as
the father’s response to the older son (vv. 25-32). “sons,” not as “brothers.” It focuses on their
If chap. 15 is the center of Luke’s gospel of relationship to the father, but leaves their rela-
Jesus Christ, then the parable of the prodigal son, tionship to each other open as an issue to be
the waiting father, and the elder brother is the dealt with later. The role of the mother or
“paragon of the parables.”'°” Drawn from the life sisters is not considered. The difficulties posed
experience of family dynamics, with which every- by the relationship between siblings and their
one can identify, it contrasts two responses to the father were rooted deep in Israelite tradition;
return of the younger brother. In both, the role e.g., Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac (cf. Gal
of the Father is featured. 4:21-30), paradigmatically Jacob and Esau, and
The opening line (v. 11) identifies the three , later Joseph and his elder brothers. The younger
characters in the story. Significantly, Jesus does son was favored in the stories of Israel’s heri-
tage. Malachi posed the problem succinctly: “Is
not begin this parable with the “or” used to
not Esau Jacob’s brother? says the Lorp. Yet |
165. Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable (Minneapolis: have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau; I have
Fortress, 1989) 99-100. made his hill country a desolation and his heri-
166. Peter Rhea Jones, The Teaching of the Parables (Nashville:
Broadman, 1982) 175. tage a desert for jackals” (Mal 1:2-3). The peo-
167. Ibid. ple of Israel were descendants of Jacob, the
300
younger brother. How would Jesus’ parable treat To son or wife, to brother or friend,
the conflict between older and younger? do not give power over yourself, as long
Moreover, Jesus does not introduce this par- as you live;
and do not give your property to another,
able with the question he used frequently in
in case you change your mind and must
other parables, “And which man [or father] ask for it.
among you?” (cf. 11:5, 11; 14:5, 28; 15:4). The While you are still alive and have breath in
audience will identify with the younger son. you,
Identification with the father is closed off at the do not let anyone take your place.
outset. At the time when you end the days of your
Another remarkable feature of this parable is life,
the preponderance of dialogue over narrative in in the hour of your death, distribute your
it. The first part includes three speeches by the inheritance. (Sir 33:20-21, 24 NRSV)
younger son: his request, an interior monologue, Rabbinic judgments protect the rights of the father
and his confession. The father speaks in both in the event that he agrees to make an early
parts, and his words form the climax of both distribution of his goods:
movements. In the second part, the story is car-
ried along by two conversations: the first between If a man assigned his goods to his sons he must
write, ‘From to-day and after my death.’ So
the elder son and a servant, and the second
R. Judah. R. Jose says: He need not do so. If a
between the elder son and the father. Peter Rhea man assigned his goods to his son to be his after
Jones diagrams the parable as follows: his death, the father cannot sell them since they
are assigned to his son, and the son cannot sell
Part 1 (15:11-24) them since they are in the father’s possession. If
Request of the Younger Son (v. 120) his father sold them, they are sold [only] until
Interior Monologue Within the Younger Son he dies; if the son sold them, the buyer has no
(vv. 170-19) claim on them until the father dies. The father
Confession of the Younger Son (v. 210) may pluck up [the crop of a field which he has
Directive of the Father (vv. 220-24) so assigned] and give to eat to whom he will.!©?
Part 2 (15:25-32)
Explanation of the Servant (v. 270) In the parable, the younger son is able to convert
Outburst of the Older Son (vv. 29630) his share to cash, but the father retains the ability
Explanation of the Father (vv. 310-32)!
to dispose of his ring, robe, shoes, and fatted calf.
15:11-24. With no further introduction, the According to the Mosaic law, which may have
younger son asks his father to give him the been designed to protect the rights of the elder
brother against favored younger brothers, the
share of the estate that will eventually come to
elder brother received a double portion of the
him. The laws regarding such a transaction are
inheritance (Deut 21:17).
not entirely clear, but it is clear enough that
the younger son’s demand was both disrespect- The younger son’s actions report his progressive
ful and irregular. The granting of the father’s estrangement from his family, mismanagement of
goods to a son might occur in case of marriage his inheritance, and descent into poverty and pri-
(Tob 8:21), but no such rationale is given here. vation. First, he collects his goods and travels to a
He was breaking the family ties and treating his “distant country’—a Gentile land! Second, he
father as though he were already dead. Appro- quickly squanders his inheritance, living fast and
priately, Jesus reports the father’s response thus, loose (cf. Prov 29:3). The noun form of “de-
literally, “So, he divided his life [Bios bios| bauched living” (aowtws asotos) occurs three
between them.” The younger son also gave places in the NT: Eph 5:18, where it is related to
up any further claim on his father’s estate, as drunkenness; Titus 1:6, where it is related to rebel-
he himself acknowledges in v. 19. Sirach, a liousness; and 1 Pet 4:3, where it sums up Gentile
debauchery: “licentiousness, passions, drunkenness,
Jewish sage (c. 190 sce), counseled against
revels, carousing, and lawless idolatry.” The famine
such premature distribution of one’s goods:
only hastened his impoverishment.
168. Ibid. 169. B. Bat. 8.7.
301
Finally, having renounced his family, he attaches he meets his father will consist of four parts: an
himself to a Gentile, who orders him to feed his address, “Father” (cf. v. 12); confession, “I have
pigs. Swine, of course, were an abomination to sinned” (cf. Exod 10:16); contrition, “I am no
Jesus’ Jewish audience (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8). The longer worthy”; and a petition: “treat me like one
rabbis declared: “None may raise swine any- of your hired hands.” For dramatic contrast, com-
where,”!”© and “Cursed be the man who would pare the interior monologue of the rich fool
breed swine, and cursed be the man who would (12:17-19). As with the parable of the rich fool,
teach his son Grecian Wisdom.”!7!. So complete was the interior monologue here allows the reader to
the younger son’s fall and so desperate was his need see directly into the heart of the character.
that he desired to be filled with the pods the swine Three steps are involved in the prodigal’s re-
were eating. Still, with neither family nor commu- turn. First, he comes to himself; second, he arises;
nity, no one gave him anything. Carob pods, com- and, third, he goes to his father. The journey of
mon in the Mediterranean area, were used primarily return begins with coming to himself and ends
as animal fodder, but human beings ate them in with going to his father. The prophets of Israel
times of famine. Later they came to be known as spoke of repentance as returning. Taking the son’s
“St. John’s bread” because of stories that John the act as a portrait of repentance, Joachim Jeremias
Baptist ate them in the wilderness. The younger commented, “Repentance means learning to say
son’s destitution was complete. He had reaped the . ‘Abba’ again, putting one’s whole trust in the
bitter fruit of his foolishness. heavenly Father, returning to the Father’s house
The prodigal’s return begins in the mire of the and the Father’s arms.”!72
swine pen. There he “came to himself.” This _ Verse 20 reports that the prodigal acts on his
pregnant phrase leaves much to the reader’s resolve: He gets up and returns to his father. Here
imagination. The younger son reclaims his iden- the point of view shifts from the returning son to
tity. No longer deserving to be called his father’s the waiting father. No other image has come
son, he nevertheless resolves to leave the far closer to describing the character of God than the
country and return to his own land and to his waiting father, peering down the road longing for
father, as Jacob long before had responded to the son’s return, then springing to his feet and
God’s call for him to “return to your country and running to meet him. In ancient Palestine it was
to your kindred” (Gen 32:9). The expression “he regarded as unbecoming—a loss of dignity—for a
came to himself” affirms the human capacity to grown man to run. Yet the father set aside all
renounce foolish error and reclaim one’s heritage concern for propriety and ran. He was moved by
and potential. The son realized that he no longer compassion, and his joy carried him down the
had any claim on his father’s goods, and morally road to his younger son. Perhaps significantly,
he no longer has the right to be called a son. But however, the father does exactly what the elder
if not a son, perhaps his father will allow him to brother does in the patriarchal narratives: “Esau
be a servant in his house (cf. John 8:35). That ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on
would be far better than the life that now enslaves his neck and kissed him” (Gen 33:4). The kiss
him. Even his father’s servants have more than expressed forgiveness, as when David kissed Ab-
enough bread to eat while he is dying of hunger. salom (2 Sam 14:33).
Verses 17-19 report the younger son’s interior The son immediately starts into his rehearsed
monologue and the speech he rehearses for his speech. He calls out “Father” and voices his
return. The essence of his return is that he will confession and contrition, now perhaps all the
return to his father (see vv. 18, 20). The report more necessary in the light of his father’s joy and
that the son has “come to himself” controls all ° embrace. But before the son can ask to be re-
that follows. He is not just seeking to improve his ceived back as a servant—the fourth part of his
circumstances; he realizes that he has sinned speech—the father interrupts him, giving instruc-
against both God and his father. His speech when tions to his servants. He calls for a robe—the first
170. See 6. B. Qam. 82b. 172. Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology; The Proclamation
171. See m. B. Qam. 7.7. See also Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then ofJesus, trans. John Bowden (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971)
the Parable (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 114.
302
one, the best one, or possibly the one the son had has spoken to his father he has always respectfully
worn originally. He calls for a ring—although not addressed him as “Father,” even in his soliloquy
his signet ring—for his son’s finger and calls for (vv. 12, 18, 21). The elder brother, however,
sandals for his feet. The father publicly receives the refuses to acknowledge his relationship either to
son back into his house. It is a sign to the rest of his father or to his brother. First, he abruptly says
the village that the boy is to be treated as his son “Listen!” rather than “Father.” Then he likens his
again (cf. Gen 41:42; 1 Macc 6:14-15). He is a freed role to that of a servant (which, ironically, is what
man, an honored guest, a son. The lavishness of the the younger son had been prepared to ask for on
father’s reception is signaled by the order to bring his return). Finally he refers to his brother as “this
the fatted calf and kill it (Gen 18:7). Meat was son of yours.” As grounds for injustice, he pleads
hot a part of the daily diet and was normally his merit and the younger son’s treachery. He has
reserved for special festivals. The son’s return, how- worked long (“all these years”; cf. the laborers’
ever, is an occasion for celebration. complaint in Matt 20:12) and like a slave. He has
The father’s words in v. 24 sum up the signifi- been obedient and never disobeyed—a plea remi-
cance of the first movement of the story: “This niscent of Paul’s boasts of his achievements as a
son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was Pharisee: “as to righteousness under the law,
lost and is found!” He was dead because he had blameless” (Phil 3:6). By contrast, he characterizes
broken his relationship with the family, dishon- his brother’s actions with a detail lacking in the
ored his father (treating him as though he were earlier report of the prodigal’s life in the far
dead), left his home, and left his land to live with country: He “devoured your property |“your life”
Gentiles. But his return reestablishes his place as (bion)| with prostitutes” (cf. v. 13; Prov 29:3).
his father’s son. Like the sheep and the coin, he Nevertheless, all the younger son has to do is
was lost but has been found (cf. 19:10). It was come home, and the father kills the fatted calf;
time to celebrate (vv. 23-24). but he has never given the older son so much as
15:25-32. The celebration serves as the impe- a young goat for a party with his friends.
tus for the story’s second movement. Verse 25 The effect of the father’s response is to restore all
introduces the elder son for the first time. Once of the family relationships, defend himself against
again the point of view shifts, this time to the the charge of injustice toward the elder son, and
elder son, coming in from the fields. As he ap- justify celebrating the younger son’s return. Al-
proaches, he hears the celebration, music and though the elder brother had not addressed him as
dancing. He calls one of the servant boys and asks “Father,” the father’s first word, “son,” predicates
him what is happening. Ingenuously, the boy all that follows on that relationship. A chiastic state-
answers, “Your brother has come.” His father has ment underscores the closeness of the relationship
killed the fatted calf and is celebrating because his between them: “You are always with me, and all
son has returned home safely. that is mine is yours.” Legally, because the younger
Angry, the elder brother refuses to enter the son had already received his inheritance, all that was
house. Again the plot is characterized by distance, left would come to the elder son. The father also
and physical separation signifies alienation. Just as reminds the elder son of his relationship to his
the younger son’s intentions were not immediately brother; “this brother of yours” echoes “this son of
apparent at the beginning of the story, so also now yours” in v. 30. If repentance for the prodigal son
the reason for the elder son’s anger is withheld for means learning to say “Father” again, then for the
dramatic effect. The parallelism continues as the elder son it means learning to say “brother” again
father once again leaves his house and goes out to (cf. again the reconciliation between Jacob and Esau
meet one of his sons. He does not plead with the in Gen 33:3-4).
younger son, but with the elder one. The celebration was necessary (cf. the affirma-
The conversation between the elder brother tion of divine necessity in 2:49; 4:43; 9:22; 17:25;
and the father forms the climax and focus of the 19:53) 21:9°022:37" 24:7, 26,844). I context,
entire parable. The elder brother speaks first, surely if one would celebrate the recovery of a
venting his anger (vv. 29-30). His emotion is sheep or a coin, one could hardly refuse to allow
signaled subtly. Every time the younger brother a father to celebrate the recovery of his son. The
303
father’s words not only echo vv. 7 and 10, the The three parables in this chapter make their
lesson drawn from the earlier parables, but also point effectively. The position of the Pharisees and
repeat his own words in v. 24. Both parts of the scribes who grumbled because Jesus ate with tax
parable, therefore, end with the note of celebra- collectors and sinners has been unmasked as the
tion, recalling the words of Zephaniah: self-serving indignation of the elder brother who
denied his relationship both to his father and to
The LorbD, your God, is in your midst his brother by his refusal to join in the celebration.
In the world of the parable, one cannot be a son
he willrejoice over you with gladness, without also being a brother.
he will renew you in his love;
he will exult over you with loud singing
as on a day of festival. (Zeph 3:17 NRSV)
REFLECTIONS
It is no hyperbole to say that this parable is a gem; all of its facets deserve to be considered.
It is no simple simile with a single point but a compressed slice of life with complexity and
texture. In the following paragraphs, we will take note of various of the parable’s facets, but
in preaching the interpreter should probably avoid such a “shotgun” approach and develop
only one or two themes for emphasis. Let the parable be one of those beloved texts that
always repays a return visit.
Much of the fascination of this parable lies in its ability to resonate with our life experiences:
adolescent rebellion; alienation from family; the appeal of the new and foreign; the conse-
quences of foolish living; the warmth of home remembered; the experience of self-encounter,
awakening, and repentance; the joy of reunion; the power of forgiveness; the dynamics of
“brotherly love” that leads to one brother’s departure and the other’s indignation; and the
contrast between relationships based on merit and relationships based on faithful love.
Unfortunately, we usually learn to demand our rights before we learn to value our
relationships. The younger son was acting within his rights, but he was destroying his closest
relationships in the process. How many times a week will a parent hear one child say to
another, “It’s mine. Give it to me”? Children quickly learn to demand their rights, but it often
takes much longer for them to learn how to maintain relationships. Governments and law
courts defend our civil rights, but how do we learn to defend our civil and familial relationships?
From a distance, the “far country” can be very appealing. Young people leave home for fast
living. Spouses move out to form liaisons with exciting new partners. The glow that surrounds
the far country is a mirage, however. Home never looks so good as when it is remembered
from the far country.
The journey home begins with coming to oneself. That means that the most difficult step
is the first one. The younger son had to face himself in the swine pen of his own making
before he faced his father on the road. Pride can keep us from admitting our mistakes;
self-esteem may require us to take decisive action to set right the things we have done wrong.
Although the opportunity to restore relationships and remedy wrongs begins. with coming
to oneself, it requires more. We must go to the person we have wronged. Was the younger
son just seeking to improve his situation, or was he seeking a reconciliation with his father?
The direct confession in his interior monologue confirms the sincerity of his intent. Neither
the younger son’s pride nor his shame mattered as much as his need to restore his relationship
to his father. He did not ask for his filial privileges to be restored. He did not even ask for
forgiveness. He merely stated his confession (cf. the attitude of the tax collector in 18:13).
Howard Thurman, who shared his struggles and pilgrimage of spirit as an African American
minister and educator in his autobiography, With Head and Heart, found that this parable
304
offered a new insight as he reflected on the meaning of the Christian faith in bringing us to
ourselves:
For I believe that Jesus reveals to a man the meaning of what he is in root and essence already.
When the prodigal son came to himself, he came to his father... .
My mind and spirit churned in a fermentation of doubt and hope. I was convinced there was
no more crucial problem for the believer than this—that a way be found by which his religious
faith could keep him related to the ground of his security as a person. Thus, to be a Christian, a
man would not be required to stretch himself out of shape to conform to the demands of his
religious faith; rather, his faith should make it possible for him to come to himself whole, in an
inclusive and integrated manner, one that would not be possible without this spiritual orientation.’”*
The temptation a parent faces is to allow the child’s separation to become reciprocal. If the
child separates from the parent, the parent may be tempted to respond in kind. The parable’s
model of parental love insists, however, that no matter what the son has done he is still the
father’s son. When no one else would even give the prodigal something to eat, the father runs
to him and accepts him back. Love requires no confession and no restitution. The joyful
celebration begins as soon as the father recognized the son’s profile on the horizon.
Insofar as we may see God’s love reflected in the response of the waiting father, the parable
reassures all who would confess, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you.” The
father runs to meet his son even before the son can voice his confession, and the father’s
response is far more receptive than the son had dared even to imagine. The father’s celebration
conveys the joy in heaven. The picture is one of sheer grace. No penance is required; it is
enough that the son has come home.
If this is the picture of God’s joy in receiving a sinner coming home, then it can also give
assurance of God’s love to those who face death wondering how God will receive them. In
the end we all return home as sinners, so Jesus’ parable invites us to trust that God’s goodness
and mercy will be at least as great as that of a loving human father.
The elder brother represents all of us who think we can make it on our own, all of us who
might be proud of the kind of lives we live. Here is the contrast between those who want to
live by justice and merit and those who must ask for grace. The parable shows that those who
would live by merit can never know the joy of grace. We cannot share in the Father’s grace
if we demand that he deal with us according to what we deserve. Sharing in God’s grace
requires that we join in the celebration when others are recipients of that grace also. Part of
the fellowship with Christ is receiving and rejoicing with others who do not deserve our
forgiveness or God’s grace. Each person is of such value to God, however, that none is excluded
from God’s grace. Neither should we withhold our forgiveness.
The parable leaves us with the question of whether the elder brother joined the celebration.
Did he go in and welcome his brother home, or did he stay outside pouting and feeling
wronged? The parable ends there because that is the decision each of us must make. If we
go in, we accept grace as the Father’s rule for life in the family.
Brace Jovanovich, 1979)
173. Howard Thurman, With Head and Heart: The Autobiography of Howard Thurman (San Diego: Harcourt
115, 120; italics added.
305
LUKE 16:1-31, RICH MEN AND

LOVERS OF MONEY
OVERVIEW
Luke 16 forms a discrete unit that begins and The warning that one’s wealth must be handled
ends with a parable—the dishonest steward and wisely has been a recurring theme in the travel
the rich man and Lazarus (vv. 1, 19)—each of narrative. At dinner Jesus denounced the greed of
which begins with the statement “There was a the Pharisees and challenged them to give alms
rich man.” Between the two is a collection of (11:39-41). The rich fool forfeited his soul (12:13-
sayings that the narrator says were addressed 21). The prudent steward was praised (12:42-48),
to “the Pharisees, who were lovers of money” and warnings are given all through chap. 12
(v. 14). The only anomaly in this neat thematic regarding how to prepare for the final accounting.
organization is that the sayings in vv. 16-18 deal The outcasts are called to the great banquet
with the enduring authority of the law and with (14:15:24), and the cost of discipleship is high:
divorce and remarriage. One explanation for the » No one can be Jesus’ disciple who will not give
placement of vv. 16-18 is that this section of up all possessions (14:33). The parable of the
Luke’s travel narrative has been patterned on dishonest steward is also directly linked to the
Deut 23:15-24:4, which combines sayings on preceding section, the parable of the prodigal son,
slaves, usury, vows, and restrictions on remar- in that the title character of both parables “squan-
riage. dered his property” (cf. 15:13; 16:1).
Luke 16:1-13, The Dishoricee Steward

NIV NRSV
] Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich ] Then Jesus? said to the disciples, “There
man whose manager was accused of wast- was a rich man who had a manager, and
ing his possessions. ?So he called him in and asked charges were brought to him that this man was
him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an squandering his property. So he summoned him
account of your management, because you cannot and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about
be manager any longer.’ you? Give me an accounting of your management,
3“The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do because you cannot be my manager any longer.’
now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not ‘Then the manager said to himself, ‘What will I
strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg— ‘I do, now that my master is taking the position
know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, away from me? I am not strong enough to dig,
people will welcome me into their houses.’ and I am ashamed to beg. 4] have decided what
°“So he called in each one of his master’s to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager,
debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you people may welcome me into their homes.’ °So,
owe my master?’ summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he
““Fight hundred gallons? of olive oil,’ he . asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my
replied. ; master?’ ‘He answered, ‘A hundred jugs of olive
“The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, sit down
down quickly, and make it four hundred.’ quickly, and make it fifty.’ 7Then he asked an-
™MThen he asked the second, ‘And how much other, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He replied,
do you owe?’ ‘A hundred containers of wheat.’ He said to him,
26 Greek one hundred batous (probably about 3 kiloliters) aGk he
306
LUKE 16:1-13
NIV NRSV
“‘A thousand bushels? of wheat,’ he replied. ‘Take your bill and make it eighty.’ ®And his
“He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight master commended the dishonest manager be-
hundred.’ cause he had acted shrewdly; for the children of
®“The master commended the dishonest man- this age are more shrewd in dealing with their
ager because he had acted shrewdly. For the own generation than are the children of light.
people of this world are more shrewd in dealing ’And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by
with their own kind than are the people of the means of dishonest wealth? so that when it is
light. °I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends gone, they may welcome you into the eternal
for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will homes.’
be welcomed into eternal dwellings. 10“Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful
'“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very
also be trusted with much, and whoever is dis- little is dishonest also in much. !If then you have
honest with very little will also be dishonest with not been faithful with the dishonest wealth,? who
much. ''So if you have not been trustworthy in will entrust to you the true riches? '2And if you
handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with have not been faithful with what belongs to
true riches? '*And if you have not been trustwor- another, who will give you what is your own?
thy with someone else’s property, who will give 'SNo slave can serve two masters; for a slave will
you property of your own? either hate the one and love the other, or be
'S“No servant can serve two masters. Either he devoted to the one and despise the other. You
will hate the one and love the other, or he will cannot serve God and wealth.”
be devoted to the one and despise the other. You aGk mammon 6Gk tents
cannot serve both God and Money.”
a7 Greek one hundred korous (probably about 35 kiloliters)
(COMMENTARY
The narrator signals a change of audience. The (kuptos kyrios; “master” in NRSV and NIV) pre-
following parable is addressed to Jesus’ disciples, pares for the recurrence of that term in v. 8, where
but the Pharisees do not fade from view for long its meaning has been debated. In distress, the stew-
(cf. 15:1-2; 16:14-15). The sayings that follow the ard considers his options: “To dig (manual labor)? I
parable in vv. 9-13 continue the interpretation of am not strong enough. To beg? I am too ashamed.”
the parable for disciples. Instead, his interior monologue tells us that he has
16:1-2. The story concerns two figures: a rich seized on an alternative that will make him welcome
man and his steward. The rich man may have in others’ homes after he has been dismissed by his
been an absentee landowner and the steward the master. That course of action is not explained,
manager of his property. The story begins when however, so the reader’s suspense and curiosity
charges are brought to the rich man that the build while the steward proceeds with his plans.
steward has been “squandering his property.” In 16:5-7. In response to his imminent crisis, the
the present narrative context, the charge echoes steward calls in the master’s debtors and summar-
the actions of the prodigal son (15:13). ily reduces the debt of each. In the situation
16:3-4. Just as the parable of the rich fool and presumed by the story, the master has apparently
the parable of the prodigal son feature interior let out his land to tenants, who have agreed to
monologues (12:17-19; 15:17-19; cf. 18:4-5), so pay him a fixed return in grain or oil. The size
also the steward’s interior speech is a significant of the reduction seems to reflect the arbitrariness
turning point in the parable.’ Like the rich fool of his actions. A debt of a hundred measures of
(12:17), he asks himself, “What will I do?” His oil is reduced to fifty; a debt of a hundred mea-
addressing the rich man as “my lord” in v. 3 sures of wheat is reduced to eighty.
307
The amounts in question underscore the rich the interest that had been imposed, thereby com-
man’s wealth. The first debtor owes one hundred plying with the scriptural prohibition of usury,
“baths” (Bdtos batos) of oil. Since a bath is even though such commercial deals were appar-
equivalent to nine gallons, this man owes nine ently common. They would praise the master,
hundred gallons of olive oil. The second debtor who then could not easily restore the full amount
owes one hundred “kors” (Képos koros) of grain. of the debts. The difficulty with the second alter-
Estimates of the size of a kor vary from 6.5 to native is that the 100 percent interest on the oil
10-12 bushels, and even Josephus gives inconsis- is excessive even by ancient Near Eastern stan-
tent reports as to its meaning.'”4 Nevertheless, a dards, and the difference between that rate of
hundred kors of grain would have been a large interest and the 25 percent interest on the wheat
amount. The rich man and his debtors were is curious. Interpretations vary, therefore, accord-
dealing in large commercial interests (cf. Ezra ing to one’s assessment of the economic conven-
7:22}, therefore, and not in household quantities. tions of the time.
By reducing the amounts of the debts while he The simplest solution, and the one that gives
is still in the service of the rich man, or at least the parable the greatest punch, is to take the first
while the debtors still assume that he is the rich alternative: The steward is dishonest, and he con-
man’s steward, he will gain their favor. The rich tinues to squander the master’s goods by arbi-
man will not be able to reverse his actions later . trarily slashing the amounts owed by his debtors.
without losing face with his debtors, and the Accordingly, there is no need to reconcile the
steward will have acquired a debt of honor and difference between the amount the debts are
gratitude from each debtor that will ensure their reduced, no need to explain what would amount
goodwill toward him in the future. to 100 percent interest on the oil, and no difficulty
The chief difficulty in interpreting the parable in working out the legalities of the steward’s
concerns the steward’s action in reducing the actions. If the steward was merely cutting out his
debts. Was he dishonestly falsifying the records in own commission on the loans, as proponents of
order to gain the favor of the debtors, or was he the third option advocate, then wherein did the
shrewdly sacrificing his own prospect of short- master stand to gain from these transactions?
term gains for long-term benefits? The alternatives The first alternative is to be preferred because the
are these: (1) The steward was cheating the master other two require information or assumptions not
by reducing the size of the debts; (2) the steward was provided in the parable regarding the amount of
acting righteously by excluding the interest that had interest added to the original debt. On this reading,
been figured into the debt, interest prohibited by the force of the parable is evident in v. 8a A
Deut 23:19-20; or (3) the steward reduced the debt dishonest steward—not just a shrewd manager—is
due by the amount of his own commission, which praised. Moreover, the master calls ‘the steward
had been included in the debt. “dishonest” (or “unrighteous” [a8.xia adikia]), an-
Uncertainties abound, cautioning against any other point that favors the first interpretation. The
confident claims. According to the first two op- steward did not just cancel his own commission or
tions, the steward’s actions cost the master; ac- the exorbitant interest charged by the master.
cording to the third, the steward sacrifices his own 16:8. This verse poses its own difficulties and
income. If the first option prevails, the steward’s has led to various proposals by interpreters who
actions are illegal and dishonest. He continues have sought to separate the “original” parable
“squandering” his master’s goods, as he has been from its present context. Did the parable end with
charged. According to the third option, his actions v. 7, v. 8a, or v. 8? The question hinges on
are entirely legal. ' whether one takes “the lord” (kyrios, “master” in
The second option is more complicated, and NRSV and NIV) in v. 8a as a reference to Jesus
the steward may be seen as showing goodness on or to the steward’s master (see v. 3). If one
behalf of the master to debtors who did not yet construes v. 8a as a comment on the parable, and
know that he had been dismissed. He was removing takes “master” as a reference to Jesus,. then the
parable has an abrupt ending. Taking v. 824 as the
174, Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 3.321; 15.314. conclusion gives the parable a more satisfactory
308
ending. “The lord” is the steward’s master, and accuser, even on the way to court (12:58-59). In
the parable has the characteristic unexpected context, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus,
twist. The master praises the steward for his which follows shortly, gives this warning renewed
foresighted, shrewd action, regardless of whether urgency.
his actions are dishonest or merely restore the 16:10-12. This is a collection of related say-
accounts to their proper amounts. Either way, he ings drawn together both by their relevance to
casts an aura of honesty and goodness on his the parable and by catchword linkage. Faithfulness
master and shrewdly provides for his own future. and honesty are not related to wealth and power.
The debtors are now bound by honor to recipro- One who is faithful over little will be faithful over
cate the steward’s benevolence. Through the par- a large amount. The contrast between little and
able, therefore, Jesus admonishes his hearers to much is then applied in two ways. First (v. 11),
cast caution aside, seize the moment of opportu- if one has not been faithful over worldly (“dishon-
nity, and make provisions for their future before est” [ad.kos adikos|) wealth, how can that person
God. The kingdom is at hand. . be trusted with true wealth? Second {v. 12), if
The fact that from the beginning interpreters you have not been faithful over what belongs to
have struggled to make sense of this parable is another (the worldly wealth God has entrusted to
evident irom the series of interpretations that you}, then who will give you your own treasure
follows in vv. 80-13. Verse 80 is an aside or in heaven?
comment on the parable: “For the children of this 16:13. This forms a conclusion to this unit of
age [see 20:34] are more shrewd in dealing with parables and related sayings. The verse is a com-
their own generation than are the children of pact unit, formed by (1) an opening assertion;
light.” The terminology is distinctly Semitic, espe- (2) two supporting observations, chiastically ar-
cially the reference to “children of light” (John ranged; and (3) the conclusion that follows from
12:36; Eph 5:8; 1 Thess 5:5), a term also found the argument.
frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here the sons (1) No slave can serve two masters.
of light are persons who have seen the kingdom (2) for a slave will either hate (a) the one and
dawning in Jesus’ works and in his calls for a love (b) the other, or be devoted (b) to the one
radical commitment to God’s power to deliver and despise (a) the other.
people from corruption and oppression. The com- (3) You cannot serve God and wealth.
ment is attached to the conclusion of the parable Wealth, which can serve as a means and oppor-
by catchword linkage, picking up the term tunity for securing one’s place in the kingdom if
“shrewd” from the preceding statement. used shrewdly for the sake of others, can also
16:9. This verse makes a new beginning with become a master. Materialism enslaves us, but
the expression “and I tell you,” and it clarifies the God requires exclusive loyalty. The Shema re-
meaning of the cryptic comment in v. 80 by minded Israel, “You shall love the Lorp your God
calling for disciples to be equally shrewd in using with all your heart” (Deut 6:5). Since one cannot
their material goods so that when their “un- serve two masters, one cannot be devoted both
righteous mammon” fails they will have an eternal to acquiring wealth and to serving God. More-
home. Understanding the admonition in this way over, the way we use what we have reveals who
and translating é« (ek) as “instrumental” (“by we serve. The choice of having no master is not
means of”) yields an interpretation that is consis- an option; we can only choose the Lord we will
tent with Luke’s view of material possessions serve.
throughout the Gospels. Disciples are not to make Christians are to be faithful whether we deal
friends “of unrighteous mammon” (KJV) but by in little things or vast resources. Whether we are
means of it (NIV; NRSV). The reference to “eter- as shrewd as a dishonest steward depends on
nal homes” allegorizes the reference to the debt- whether we use our material goods, great or
ors’ homes in v. 4. The admonition to make small, to help those in need. Then, when we
friends for yourself is reminiscent of the warning worship God rather than our wealth, we will find
Jesus gave earlier to be reconciled with your that we truly have “friends in high places.”
309
REFLECTIONS
1. The parable of the dishonest steward challenges its hearers to be as clever and prudent
as the steward in ensuring their future. Stories of clever tricksters and wise rogues were popular
in Jewish folklore. Jacob was the trickster patriarch who deceived his father, cheated his
brother, and then made off with most of his father-in-law’s flock. The character of the trickster
endures in folklore, as in the following story told by the rabbis:
A man once caught stealing was ordered by the king to be hanged. On the way to the gallows
he said to the governor that he knew a wonderful secret and it would be a pity to allow it to
die with him and he would like to disclose it to the king. He would put a seed of a pomegranate
in the ground and through the secret taught to him by his father he would make it grow and
bear fruit overnight. The thief was brought before the king and on the morrow the king,
accompanied by the high officers of state, came to the place where the thief was waiting for
them. There the thief dug a hole and said, “This seed must only be put in the ground by a man
who has never stolen or taken anything which did not belong to him. I being a thief cannot do
it.” So he turned to the Vizier who, frightened, said that in his younger days he had retained
something which did not belong to him. The treasurer said that dealing with such large sums,
he might have entered too much or too little and even the king owned that he had kept a
necklace of his father’s. The thief then said, “You are all mighty and powerful and want nothing
and yet you cannot plant the seed, whilst I who have stolen a little because I was starving am
to be hanged.” The king, pleased with the ruse of the thief, pardoned him.'”
In this story, as in the parable of the dishonest steward, the central character is accused of
stealing and by shrewd actions wins a pardon or commendation from the king/master. The
parable does not unmask the dishonesty of the master or expose him to ridicule. Instead, the
parable turns on the steward’s shrewd response to the urgency of his situation and invites
hearers to understand that they are likewise in the midst of a crisis that demands an urgent
decision if disaster is to be avoided. Faced with loss of his position, the dishonest steward
acted decisively to provide for his future. One who hears the gospel knows that just such a
decisive act is required of those who will stake their all on the coming kingdom of God.
2. The figure of the steward has had a significant influence on Christian reflections regarding
the believer’s relationship to God. A steward could be a chief slave who was put in charge
of the master’s household or property (cf. Gen 43:16, 19; 44:1, 4; Isa 22:15). Joseph was a
steward in Potiphar’s house (Gen 39:4-5). In the OT, the earth is the Lord’s house (Ps 24:1),
and Moses is his steward (Num 12:7; Heb 3:1-6).'” In Jesus’ parables, stewards are expected
to invest talents left in their keeping, and when they are faithful they are given even greater
responsibilities (Matt 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27). A steward was expected to be “faithful and
prudent” (12:42; the latter is the same term translated “shrewd” in 16:8).
It has been conjectured that Jesus’ use of the figure of the steward in his parables led to
its use in the early church to describe the duties of Christians and church leaders in particular.'”
Children are put under the care of a guardian or steward (Gal 4:2). The term was also adopted
to explain to the Corinthians the role of an apostle (1 Cor 4:1-2). As a steward is responsible
for the management of the master’s property, so the apostle is entrusted with “God’s mysteries”
(Matt 13:11; 1 Cor 4:1). Faithfulness is again a steward’s highest duty. A bishop is God’s
steward (Titus 1:7) and must consequently be blameless and above reproach. First Peter 4:10
democratizes the metaphor, regarding all believers as stewards: “Like good stewards of the
175. Moses Gaster, The Exempla of the Rabbis (London: Asia Publishing, 1924).
176. See Otto Michel, oikovéyos TDNT, 5:149.
177. Ibid., 151.
310
manifold grace of God, serve one another with whatever gift each of you has received.” It is not
surprising, therefore, that the term is used in the patristic writings as well. Ignatius admonished
the church under Polycarp’s care to “Labour with one another, struggle together, run together,
suffer together, rest together, rise up together as God’s stewards and assessors and servants. Be
pleasing to him in whose ranks you serve, from whom you receive your pay. 1178
The chief duty of a steward is to be faithful—even in small things. Fred Craddock vividly
catches the force of the interpretive saying in v. 0:
Most of us will not this week christen a ship, write a book, end a war, appoint a cabinet, dine
with a queen, convert a nation, or be burned at the stake. More likely the week will present no
more than a chance to give a cup of water, write a note, visit a nursing home, vote for a county
commissioner, teach a Sunday school class, share a meal, tell a child a story, go to choir practice,
and feed the neighbor’s cat. “Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much” (v. 10).'”
178. Ignatius Polycarp 6.1-2, in Kirsopp Lake, trans., The Apostolic Fathers, LCL (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1912)
U275:
179. Fred B. Craddock, Luke, Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990) 192.
Luke 16:14-18, Condemnations of the Corrupt at Heart

NIV NRSV
'4The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all 14The Pharisees, who were lovers of money,
this and were sneering at Jesus. ‘He said to them, heard all this, and they ridiculed him. So he said
“You are the ones who justify yourselves in the to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in
eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What the sight of others; but God knows your hearts;
is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s for what is prized by human beings is an abomi-
sight. nation in the sight of God.
16“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed 16“The law and the prophets were in effect
until John. Since that time, the good news of the until John came; since then the good news of the
kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries
is forcing his way into it. '7It is easier for heaven to enter it by force.? '7But it is easier for heaven
and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of
and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a
a pen to drop out of the Law.
letter in the law to be dropped.
18Anyone who divorces his wife and marries
18“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries
another woman commits adultery, and the man
another commits adultery, and whoever marries a
who marries a divorced woman commits
woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
adultery.”
aOr everyone is strongly urged to enter it
(COMMENTARY
Between the two parables in the first and last also reflects one dimension of the social situation
half of chap. 16, which feature rich men and of the church at the time the Gospel was written.
concern the handling of wealth, stand three brief The preceding sayings declare that one cannot
sayings addressed to “the Pharisees, who were serve two masters. The Pharisees are stereotyped
lovers of money” (v. 14). Since the parable of the as those who seek to serve both God and mam-
dishonest steward had been, addressed to the mon. Consequently, they are lovers of money.
disciples, the reintroduction of the Pharisees knits The three sayings in vv. 14-18 pose two prob-
this chapter to Luke 15:1-2. The vilification of the lems for the interpreter: (1) Why were they placed
Pharisees as lovers of money who ridiculed Jesus here, since they are not related to the theme of the
311
proper stewardship of possessions that runs but also in efforts to enter the kingdom by force
through the rest of chap. 16? (2) How should they (v. 16) and in divorce for the purpose of marrying
be understood in the light of other Gospel sayings again (v. 18). Taken together, these verses paint
on the subjects of the law and divorce and remar- a portrait of a person whose life is consumed by
riage? ereed and lust rather than the desire to serve God.
Two lines of interpretation have been proposed The ruin to which such a perversion of life inevi-
regarding the rationale for placing the sayings of tably leads is then vividly and dramatically etched
vv. 14-18 in this context. The first arises from the by the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
thesis that the whole of the Lukan travel narrative 16:14. The terminology used here is rare
is patterned on the book of Deuteronomy. This and without parallel in the other Gospels. “Lov-
section, it is proposed, is related to Deut 23:19- ers of money” occurs elsewhere in the NT only
24:4, which prohibits usury, sets limits on vows in 2 Tim 3:2, where it is included in a list of
and foraging, and restricts remarriage. Although the evils that will characterize the last days.
the material in Luke 16:14-18 clearly arises out The verb translated “ridiculed” (ExpuKtnpicw
of debates regarding matters addressed by the law, ekmykterizo) occurs elsewhere in the NT only in
the difficulties that face this view are the weak- Luke 23:35, where the leaders scoff at Jesus while
ness of the larger theory of the relationship be- he is being crucified. The corrupt at heart cannot
tween the travel narrative and Deuteronomy and tolerate Jesus and will eventually kill him.
the lack of any specific counterpart in this section 16:15. The first of the sayings (v. 15) points
of Deuteronomy to the sayings on God’s knowl- out the folly of seeking to justify oneself in the
edge of human hearts, or the continuing validity eyes of others. They have no power to acquit.
of the law and the prophets. The parallel would God, however, knows our hearts. The theme of
have been closer if Luke had also included sayings questioning in one’s heart and God as the knower
on vows (cf. Matt 5:33-37). of human hearts recurs frequently in Luke and
An attractive line of interpretation, proposed by Acts. The narrator reports that the people ques-
E. Earle Ellis, connects these verses with the parable tioned in their hearts whether John was the
of the rich man and Lazarus, which follows in vv. Messiah (3:15). Jesus later challenged the Phari-
19-31.'8° Ellis observed that vv. 14-15 introduce the sees to explain why they questioned in their
first part of the parable, which concerns the rich hearts (5:22; cf. 9:47). The purity of one’s heart
man’s neglect of the poor man; wv. 16-18 in turn determines how one lives and what one says
foreshadow the reference to the law and the proph- (6:45). One must, therefore, love God with all
ets in the second half of the parable. one’s heart (10:27). One serves either God or
Although a fully satisfactory explanation of the wealth (16:13), and where one’s treasure is de-
relationship between these verses and their con- termines where one’s heart will be (12:34). God
text may continue to elude us, some progress may is the one to whom all hearts are known
be made by taking note of their internal thematic (Acts 1:24), so Jesus warns the Pharisees of this
consistency. The verses challenge the Pharisees’ fact. There can be no pretense or hypocrisy before
presumption that they were righteous. The verb God; God knows the true values of each heart.
meaning “to justify” (Stkatdw dikaioo) in v. 15 This saying works by tensive contrasts. “In the
continues the chain of words from the same root that sight of others” is opposed to “in the sight of
occur in wv. 9-11 (“dishonest” |déixta adikia]; God,” and “what is prized” by one is “an abomi-
“unjust” [48.kos adikos]). Love of money, how- nation” to the other. One element, however, has
ever, is but one example of unrighteousness that _ no corresponding partner: “You justify your-
is an abomination to God. The law and the selves.” The implication toward which the saying
prophets have not been nullified, and the prohi- points is the folly of all efforts at self-justification
bition against divorce serves as an example of the and the necessity of God’s justification.
law’s continuing validity. Corruption at heart can
16:16. The requirement that one be justified
be seen not only in the love of money (v. 14),
before God leads to the next saying, which has
180. See E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, NCB (Grand Rapids: to do with the role of the law and the prophets.
Eerdmans, 1981) 201. The saying indicates that the ministry of John the
312
Baptist marks a transition from one era to another, The prohibitions of divorce in the NT reflect
from the period of the law and the prophets to various traditions that illustrate the efforts of
the period of the proclamation of the gospel of the early church to deal with the pastoral ap-
the kingdom. The last element of the saying is plication of an absolute prohibition. The Lukan
difficult and has been interpreted and translated form of the saying may be the most primitive
both in a middle and a passive sense. Matthew since it lacks the exceptions permitted by Paul
11:12 offers a parallel to the saying, but both the and by the Matthean parallels. In 1 Cor 7:10-
context and the meaning are quite different in 11, Paul cites Jesus’ prohibition of divorce as a
Matthew. Following a saying about the greatness traditional logion but turns it to the situation of
of John (Matt 11:11; cf. Luke 7:28), Jesus de- a wife separating from her husband, which
clares, “From the days of John the Baptist until probably reflects the setting in Corinth, where
now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, Christian women married to pagan husbands
and the violent take it by force” (NRSV). In Luke, may have been separating from their husbands.
by contrast, the subject is not the kingdom but Paul adds that if a wife does separate from her
“everyone” (mds pas, a term that Luke uses husband, she must remain unmarried or else be
frequently). Recent translations have preferred the reconciled to her husband. Similarly, the hus-
middle sense, “and everyone tries to enter it by band should not divorce his wife. On the other
force,” but following the declaration that the good hand, if the unbelieving partner demands the
news is being proclaimed, the passive sense, “and divorce, Paul counsels that it should be allowed.
everyone is pressed to enter it,” fits the context Matthew 5:32; 19:9 both contain the “except”
well and emphasizes the urgency of a positive clause: “except in case of topveta [porneia],”
response to Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom. which may be adultery, incest, marriage within
16:17. This verse affirms that the law contin- forbidden degrees of kinship, or polygamy (cf. Acts
ues in effect (cf. Matt 5:18). The announcement 15:20, 29, where the same word is used). Mark
of the kingdom by John the Baptist and Jesus 10:10-12 places the prohibition of divorce follow-
does not mean that the law has been nullified. ing a controversy dialogue in which Jesus rejects
From the birth narratives, Luke has taken pains the provision for divorce in Deut 24:1-4.'*! Moses
to show that the work of John and Jesus fulfilled allowed divorce and remarriage but forbade di-
the Scriptures. Luke emphasizes that Moses and vorced partners to remarry if the wife had married
the prophets spoke concerning Jesus (24:27) and another man after the divorce. Mark extends the
that all they said was fulfilled by Jesus (24:44). prohibition by forbidding the wife to divorce her
The law and the prophets, therefore, will endure husband (as in 1 Cor 7:10-11), a prerogative that
forever, pointing those who discern their mean- was allowed under Roman law but not in Jewish
society.
ing to strive to enter the kingdom. So long as
the creation endures (and the assumption here is By comparison with these other versions of the
that it will last forever) not one small part of one prohibition, the primitive nature of the Lukan
letter of the law will pass away—not a hook or
form is evident. (1) It lacks the “except” clause,
which appears to be a Matthean addition. (2) It
horn that distinguishes one letter from another.
takes no note of the plight of Christian women
The saying also serves as a fitting introduction to
married to pagan husbands (as in the mission
the latter part of the parable of the rich man and
situation in view in 1 Corinthians 7). (3) It has
Lazarus, where Abraham responds that if the rich
not been adapted to the provisions in Roman law
man’s brothers will not hear Moses and the
whereby a woman could divorce her husband (as
prophets, neither will they listen if one should
in Mark 10:10-12). Neither is it set in a contro-
rise from the dead (16:31).
versy dialogue.
16:18. The inclusion of the prohibition of
In Luke 16:18, only the husband’s violation of
divorce is difficult to explain. At best it may be
the marriage union is considered. The husband
understood as an illustration of the continuing
may not divorce his wife and marry another.
validity of the law. There has been no slackening
of law with the announcement of the kingdom— 181. Cf. the discussion of conditions in which the giving of a certificate
ie., divorce is still forbidden. of divorce was required in m. Ketuboth 7.1-10.
315
Neither may a man marry a divorced woman. The violating his property, as in the OT (Lev 18:20;
effect of this double prohibition is to forbid one from cf. however Mal 2:14-16).
divorcing in order to marry another. Strictly speak- In context, therefore, the sayings in vv. 14-18
ing, Luke 16:18 does not forbid divorce. It forbids progress from the epithet “lovers of money” to
divorcing one’s wife in order to marry another the affirmation that “God knows your hearts,” and
woman, and it forbids marriage to a divorced from the declaration that the law and prophets
woman (perhaps to forestall the possibility that a had not been set aside to the pronouncement that
woman may provoke a divorce from her husband a man who divorces and marries another—or
in order to marry another man). In any case, both marries a woman who divorces her husband—
parts of the saying declare that it is the man who thereby commits adultery. The God to whom all
commits adultery. Adultery was forbidden by the hearts are open requires fidelity in our relation-
Decalogue (Exod 20:14; Deut 5:18). Moreover, by ships to God and to our marriage partner. Both
marrying another woman, the man commits adul- greed and lust, so common in human hearts, are
tery against his wife—not against another man for an abomination to God.
REFLECTIONS
Does the love of God or the fear of punishment lead us to obey the law and the prophets?
These seemingly intrusive and unrelated sayings speak to the condition of the believer’s heart.
Devotion to God requires us to take a stance toward life that is diametrically opposed to the
self-serving of those who quest for more wealth or new sexual relationships.
Each parable that bracket these central verses of Luke 16 warns that we will have to give
an accounting of our lives before God. The parable of the dishonest steward commends the
steward for his forethought in making provision for his security. Similarly, the parable of the
rich man and Lazarus warns of the reversal of fortune that awaits the rich people who hoard
their wealth and give no thought to the beggar at their door. The theme of accountability runs
through this chapter.
Those who follow Jesus, therefore, are expected to be faithful before God in all aspects of
life. As 1 John 4:18 says, “Perfect love casts out fear.” Ultimately the motivation for fidelity
is not fear of punishment but love of God and love of others with whom we have meaningful
relationships (children, parents, friends). Let it be said of us, when it is our turn to give an
account before God, “You loved me more than money. Therefore, you did not try to serve
both ‘God and mammon.’ You did not seek to justify yourself before others. You did not use
the promise of grace as an opportunity for freedom from the law. Instead, your reverence for
God led you also to be faithful in your relationships to others. Your faithfulness to your marriage
vows kept you from succumbing to the illusory enticement of an illicit relationship.” God loves
a faithful person.
Luke 16:19-31, The Rich Man and Lazarus

NIV NRSV
'“There was a rich man who was dressed in 19“There was a rich man who was dressed in
purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptu-
day. 7°At his gate was laid a beggar named Laz- ously every day. ?°And at his gate lay a poor man
arus, covered with sores *!and longing to eat what named Lazarus, covered with sores, ‘who longed
fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich
and licked his sores. man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick
22“The time came when the beggar died and his sores. ??The poor man died and was carried
314
LUKE 16:19-31
NIV NRSV
the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich
man also died and was buried. **In hell, where man also died and was buried. **In Hades, where
he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abra- he was being tormented, he looked up and saw
ham far away, with Lazarus by his side. *4So he Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side.’ He
called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me,
and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in
water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony water and cool my tongue; for 1 am in agony in
in this fire.’ these flames.’ ?°But Abraham said, ‘Child, remem-
25“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that ber that during your lifetime you received your
in your lifetime you received your good things, good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil
while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is things; but now he is comforted here, and you
comforted here and you are in agony. ?°And are in agony. *°Besides all this, between you and
besides all this, between us and you a great chasm us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those
has been fixed, so that those who want to go who might want to pass from here to you cannot
from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’
over from there to us.’ 27He said, ‘Then, father, | beg you to send him
27“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send to my father’s house— ”*for | have five brothers—
Lazarus to my father’s house, **for I have five that he may warn them, so that they will not also
brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will come into this place of torment.’ ??Abraham replied,
not also come to this place of torment.’ ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they should
29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the listen to them.’ *°He said, ‘No, father Abraham; but
Prophets; let them listen to them.’ if someone goes to them from the dead, they will
30“ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if some- repent.’ *!He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to
one from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ Moses and the prophets, neither will they be con-
31“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to vinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Moses and the Prophets, they will not be con- aGk to Abraham’s bosom 6Gk in his bosom
vinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
223 Greek Hades
COMMENTARY
I have titled this chapter “Rich Men and Lovers in various respects it serves as the capstone of
of Money” in order to convey its thematic unity. Luke’s prophetic critique of wealth. Before the
“The Rich Man and Lazarus” pulls the curtain on birth of Jesus, Mary declared in her praise of God,
the fate of the rich man who serves mammon “He has brought down the powerful from their
rather than God (16:13). The first part of the thrones,/ and lifted up the lowly” (1:52). Laz-
parable develops the theme of judgment and re- arus’s exaltation to the bosom of Abraham vividly
versal stated in vv. 14-15, and the second part fulfills John the Baptist’s warning that “God is able
develops the affirmation of “the law and the from these stones to raise up children to Abra-
prophets” in vv. 16-18. What the rich man prized ham” (3:8), while the rich man’s torment fulfills
during his life is “an abomination in the sight of the warning that “the chaff he will burn with
God” (16:15). Yet, if his five brothers will not unquenchable fire” (3:17). The kingdom of God
belongs to the poor and the hungry, but woe to
hear “Moses and the prophets,” neither will they
listen if someone rose from the grave. those who are rich and who are full “now”
Not only does this parable cap off the chapter’s (6:20-26).
pronouncement of judgment on the rich, but also 16:19-21. 16:19. The parable of the rich
349
man and Lazarus can be seen as a drama in three covered with running sores. He is “thrown” be-
acts. In the first act, the rich appear to be rich, fore the rich man’s gate. He would gladly have
and the poor appear to be poor. The first act, been “filled” with the soiled bread from the rich
however, is a tableau. The characters are intro- man’s table. The verb for “to eat” (xoptdcw
duced, and their way of life is described, but chortazo) is commonly used for the feeding of
nothing happens. There is no interaction between animals rather than humans (Rev 19:21), but it is
the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man is not also used in Luke for the longings of the hungry
named, but the textual and exegetical tradition of (see 6:21; 9:17; 15:16). At a feast, bread was used
this parable preserves two different efforts to give to wipe the grease from one’s hands and then
him a name. Papyrus 75, the oldest Greek manu- was thrown under the table (cf. Mark 7:28). The
script of Luke, adds “by the name of Neues,” and depth of Lazarus’s deprivation is described with
later interpretation of the Vulgate misread the one final detail: The dogs (which probably ate the
Latin term for “rich” (dives) as a personal name, scraps from the rich man’s table) lick his sores as
Dives. The measure of the man’s wealth is illus- they pass by.
trated by his conspicuous consumption—his dress Lazarus dies of starvation and disease at the
and his diet. The rich man wears purple, which rich man’s gate. The first act ends after we have
may mean that he was a high-ranking official or met the two characters. It is a tableau; neither
a member of the royal family. The Romans had . character speaks to the other. Their lives seem to
set standards regarding who could wear purple be entirely separate, divided by a table and a gate.
and how much purple they could wear. The rich 16:22. In the second act, the rich become poor
man lived in a house with gates—for privacy or and the poor become rich. The structure is chiastic,
security, for separation from the riffraff of the city. hinting that the fates of these two who lived such
He dressed in fine linen and feasted sumptuously separate lives in reality intertwine. The rich man was
every day. He was “at ease in Zion”; he had introduced first, as one would expect, and then
everything a person could want. The words that Lazarus. Now Lazarus’s death, which comes as no
describe his feasting are polyvalent, double-sided. surprise, is reported first, then the death of the rich
They have kept bad company in Luke, but they can man. Dare we ask why Lazarus died? Did he die of
also describe heavenly events. The verb for “to starvation while a few feet away the rich man was
feast” or “to make merry” (evdpaivw euphraino) having one of his daily feasts? Lazarus’s death under-
was first used in the daydreams of the rich fool scores the urgency of Jesus’ challenge to the well-to-
(12:19), but in the parable of the prodigal son it do: When you give a feast, do not invite your friends
describes the celebration that reflects the joy in and rich neighbors. Instead, invite Lazarus—“the
heaven at the recovery of one who was lost poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind” (14:13;
(15:23-24, 29, 32). Similarly, the adverb trans- cf. 14:21, 23). Did Lazarus freeze to death one night
lated “sumptuously” (Aaptpas lampros) is related outside the house where the rich man slept on linen
to the adjective “splendid” (Aaympds lampros), sheets? Did he die of infected sores while the rich
which describes the robe the soldiers put on Jesus man was enjoying a hot bath and anointing himself
(23:11) and the splendor of the angel that ap- with the finest oils? Or did the dogs... ?
peared to Cornelius (Acts 10:30). The story will The parable does not dwell on Lazarus’s death.
quickly make clear, however, that the glitter of At his death, Lazarus is transported by angels to
the rich man’s life was superficial and transient. the bosom of Abraham, which may evoke a
It had nothing to do with the eternal glory that comparison with the bodily translations of
surrounds the Lord.
,Enoch (Gen 5:24), Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11), and,
16:20-21. The next verse introduces Lazarus,
according to Jewish legends, Moses.'® Nothing is
the only character in any of Jesus’ parables who
said of Lazarus’s burial. Again, our imaginations
is given a name. The name is part of the charac-
shrink back from attempting to fill the gap in the
terization, because it comes from Eleazar, which
story. Neglected by others, Lazarus is prized in
means “God helps,” and therefore foreshadows
the sight of God (cf. 16:15).
Lazarus’s fate. Tragically, no one else helps Laz-
arus. He is a crippled beggar whose body is 182. See Joachim Jeremias, Mwuofis TDNT, 4:854-55.
316
Unexpectedly, we are told that the rich man For the righteous there is a spring of water, which
has died also. Again, do we dare ask why? Did is always associated with paradise in the Jewish
he die of overeating while Lazarus starved? Did and Christian apocalypses. Regardless of whether
the excess food, which the rich man could have Lazarus was in Hades or not, Lazarus and Abra-
given to Lazarus, hasten his own death? ham were in sight of the rich man, who was
The contrast between the two characters is already experiencing the torment that awaited
again drawn with verb usage. While Lazarus is him. Being “in the bosom” of Abraham may imply
“carried away by angels,” the rich man is simply that Lazarus was the honored guest at the eschato-
“puried,” probably in the purple robes in which logical banquet, feasting while the rich man was
he had lived. in torment. How ironically the table has turned.
16:23-31. The third act is by far the longest To many who heard the parable, this turn of
and most developed. For the first time, narration events would have come as a surprise, for it was
gives way to dialogue, with three complete ex- believed that blessings in this life were a sign of
changes between the rich man and Abraham. The God’s favor, while illness, poverty, and hardship
third act, therefore, is the climax of the story, the were signs of God’s displeasure. A just God would
focal point of the parable. In the third act, the not do otherwise. How could a beggar go to
poor are rich and the rich are poor. heaven? We are not told that Lazarus was a
16:23. The bosom of Abraham was regarded righteous man or that he was a believer, but then
as the place of highest bliss. According to Jewish the beatitudes in Luke lack the qualifying phrases
legends of the martyrdom of the mother and her that Matthew attaches to them.
seven sons (2 Maccabees 7), the martyrs were 16:24. Three exchanges between the rich man
brought to the bosom of Abraham.!* Interpreters and Abraham follow. Lazarus, who never asked
are divided on the issue of whether both the rich for anything on earth, never says anything. Abra-
man and Lazarus were in Hades (following the ham now speaks for the beggar who has no voice.
older concept of Hades as the place of the dead, In the first exchange, the rich man asks “Father
both righteous and wicked) or whether only the Abraham” to send Lazarus to dip his finger in
rich man is in Hades while Lazarus is in paradise water to cool his tongue. The request is typical
(cf. 23:43). Hades was regarded as the place hyperbole. By addressing Abraham as “Father,” he
where the dead awaited the final judgment, and may imply that he should be recognized as a “son
by the first century it was thought to be divided of Abraham” also (see 13:16; 19:9). Because he
into various regions according to people’s moral knows Lazarus’s name, we may wish to assume
state: that the rich man had known of Lazarus’s plight
Rufael, one of the holy angels, who was with and had done nothing. But is that worse than if
me, responded to me; and he said to me, “These he had not even known of the suffering of the
beautiful corners (are here) in order that the beggar at his gate? Either way, the rich man still
spirits of the souls of the dead should assemble
regards Lazarus as being available to serve his
into them—they are created so that the souls of
the children of the people should gather here. personal needs—“Send Lazarus.”
They prepared these places in order to put them 16:25-26. Abraham responds, acknowledging
(i.e. the souls of the people) there until the day the rich man with the address “child.” Being a
of their judgment and the appointed time of the child of Abraham, therefore, is no guarantee that
great judgment upon them. .. . These three have
one will dwell with Abraham in paradise. The
been made in order that the spirits of the dead
might be separated. And in the manner in which chiastic sequence in Abraham’s response again
the souls of the righteous are separated (by) this serves to connect the lives and rewards of the
spring of water with light upon it, in like man- rich man and Lazarus: “Remember... you...
ner, the sinners are set apart when they die and good things, and Lazarus. . . evil things; but now
are buried in the earth and judgment has not he is comforted here, and you are in agony”
been executed upon them in their lifetime.”
(1 Enoch 22)'84 (v. 25). Remembering can either be part of one’s
’
torment, as here, or part of one’s salvation, as in
183. See Rudolf Meyer, Koos TDNT, 3:825. ; 24:6, 8. In life the beggar got only cast-off goods
184. James H. Charlesworth, ed., 7he Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983) 1:24-25. and was treated shamefully. Now the men’s fates
317
are reversed, fulfilling the beatitudes of Luke 6:20- Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of injustice,
26. “Now” (cf. the now of the beatitudes, 6:21,
to undo the thongs of the yoke,
25), the rich man is in torment and Lazarus is in to let the oppressed go free,
paradise. Clarence Jordan, who retold the parables and to break every yoke?
and other parts of the NT in the idiom of the Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
American Old South, interpreted Abraham’s an- and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover them,
swer insightfully: “Lazarus ain’t gonna run no mo’
and not to hide yourself from your own kin?
yo’ errands, rich man.” (Isa 58:6-7 NRSV)
The chasm that now separates the rich man
and Lazarus confirms the finality of the judgment The duty of the brothers is expressed with a Greek
on the rich man. A similar vision of the place of construction for which there is no English equivalent,
the dead is described in 4 Ezra 7:36: “Then the a third person imperative: “Let them hear them!”
pit of torment shall appear, and opposite it shall (akovodtwoav avtav akousatosan auton).
be the place of rest; and the furnace of Hell shall Abraham’s appeal to Moses and the prophets
be disclosed, and opposite it the paradise of de- as the hope for the rich man’s brothers carries the
light.” Once there was no chasm but indifference reader back to the verses that precede this parable.
and apathy. The rich man could have come to Verses 16-17, which are addressed to the “lovers
Lazarus at any time. Now, however, the chasm of money” (v. 14), affirm the continuing role of
that separates them prevents Lazarus from re- ‘the law and the prophets. The only other refer-
sponding to the rich man’s torment with compas- ences to Moses and the prophets are in the
sion and removes any possibility that the rich man resurrection appearances, where the risen Lord
might escape his torment. The rich man has shut interprets the Scriptures, insists that the Scriptures
himself off from Lazarus, and now no one can must be fulfilled, and then opens the disciples’
reach him. minds to understand the Scriptures (24:27, 44-45;
16:27-28. In the second exchange, the rich cf. the contrasting command to the disciples at
man asks that Abraham send Lazarus back to the transfiguration, 9:35).
warn the rich man’s five brothers. If there is no 16:30. This thematic continuity between the
hope for him, at least he may be able to intervene parable of the rich man and Lazarus and the end
and spare his brothers. The reference to his ex- of the Gospel adds an ironic force to the third
tended family as “my father’s house” contrasts and final exchange between the rich man and
with his earlier use of “Father Abraham.” Admi- Abraham. The rich man’s lament, “No, Father
rably, he thinks of someone other than himself Abraham,” conveys his despair that there is little
for the first time in the story, but he still assumes hope that his brothers will heed the Scriptures.
that Lazarus can be his errand boy. For the brothers, repentance requires a complete
The word for “torment” (Bdoavos basanos, reversal of their way of life and their regard for
v. 28) has an interesting history. It was originally the poor at their gates. His last hope for his
used to describe the testing of coins. The coin brothers is that if someone were to go to them
would be rubbed or scratched with a hard stone from the dead, they would repent.
to test its genuineness. Later, the word was ap- The call to repent has been lurking silently in
plied to torture or the rack by which the truth the background from the beginning of the chapter.
was extracted from prisoners. In Matthew and The parable of the prodigal son is’a story of
Luke it describes the torments of hell.!8 repentance. The wisdom of repentance is ironi-
16:29. Abraham’s response to the rich man’s cally affirmed in the parable of the dishonest
second request is that the brothers have Moses steward, who, though he does not repent of his
and the prophets. Did not Moses say, “Do not be dishonest dealings, gives thought to his own fu-
hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy ture. Verses 14-18 call the Pharisees, and all who
neighbor” (Deut 15:7 NRSV)? And are not the recognize that they too are lovers of money who
words of Isaiah clear enough? seek to serve two masters, to repent and obey the
law and the prophets. Now, in the last two verses
185. See Johannes Schneider, Bacavos TDNT, 1:561-63. of the chapter the issue of repentance is stated
318
explicitly. John the Baptist had preached repentance who refuse the needs of the wretched at their
(3:3, 8). Jesus declares that he too has come to call gate. If they will not hear the Scriptures and be
sinners to repentance (5:32). Jesus also pronounced merciful, they show that they have placed them-
woes on Chorazin and Bethsaida for their failure to selves beyond the reach of God’s mercy.
repent (10:13). The people of Nineveh repented, By the end of the parable, the hearer’s point
but even though one greater than Jonah had come of identification has become clear. The parable is
the people of “this generation” had not repented addressed to “lovers of money.” At the beginning,
(11:32). Jesus had warned the crowds that unless hearers or readers may assume that they are
they repented, they would perish like the Galileans expected to identify with the rich man or with
whom Pilate had slaughtered and the Jerusalemites Lazarus, but the parable is far more subtle. By the
on whom the tower had fallen (13:3, 5). But what end of the parable we realize that we stand in
joy there is in heaven when even one sinner repents the place of the brothers, and the question is
(15:7, 10). No wonder the rich man despaired that whether we will hear the Scriptures and repent.
his brothers would hear Moses and the prophets The parable of the rich man and Lazarus also
and repent. resonates in a peculiar way with the account of the
16:31. Abraham’s response, which concludes raising of Lazarus in John 11. The parable is the
the parable, adds finality to the urgency of hearing only one of Jesus’ parables to feature a named
Moses and the prophets. If the brothers will not character. Moreover, the common theme of raising
hear them, then they will not be convinced even a person from the dead and the failure of some to
if one should rise from the dead. The language repent even when Lazarus is raised invites specula-
echoes the early Christian kerygma, the proclamation about the relationship between the Lukan par-
tion of Jesus’ resurrection (18:33). Until this point, able and the Johannine sign. It is doubtful, however,
resurrection has not been mentioned. The rich whether either story has been created entirely from
man’s request may be understood as an appeal for the other, since several elements in each one are
Lazarus to appear to his brothers in a dream or a lacking in the other. There is no counterpart to the
vision (like the appearance of Moses and Elijah at rich man or Abraham in John, and Mary and Martha
the transfiguration). Abraham’s response, how- are not identified as Lazarus’s sisters in Luke (see
ever, foreshadows the resurrection of Jesus and 10:38-42),. If there is any direct relationship between
the mission of the church in Acts. How could it the two, it is more likely that a previously unnamed
be that one would rise from the dead, and still character in one of the stories has been given the
some would refuse to repent? name “Lazarus” in the other story as a result of the
There will be no special dispensation for those resonance between these two passages.
REFLECTIONS
Did the brothers ever get the message? We are not told, for that is the question the parable
leaves us to answer. Each of us will write our own ending to the story.
1. Archbishop Richard Trench, writing on this parable more than a century ago, compared
the diseases that afflicted the two characters:
The sin of Dives in its root is unbelief: hard-hearted contempt of the poor, luxurious squandering
on self, are only the forms which his sin assumes. The seat of the disease is within; these are but
the running sores which witness for the inward plague. He who believes not in an invisible world
of righteousness and truth and spiritual joy, must place his hope in things which he sees, which
he can handle, and taste, and smell. It is not of the essence of the matter, whether he hoards
{like the rich fool, 12:16-21] gr squanders [like the prodigal son, 15:11-32]: in either case he puts
his trust in the world.'*
Co., 1915) 457.

186. Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner, &
The rich man, therefore, characterizes the life of one who serves mammon because he has no
confidence in God (cf. 16:13).
2. At the end of the Gospel, we are told of two whose hearts were “strangely warmed”
when the Scriptures were interpreted to them. They were walking on the road to Emmaus.
A stranger joined them and began to explain the law and prophets. When evening came, the
two insisted that the weary stranger share their table with them. Then, as they shared their
bread with the stranger, they recognized their Lord in the stranger. Perhaps if the rich man
had tended Lazarus’s needs and invited him to share a meal with him, he too would have
understood the Scriptures and recognized in him the Lord who had always been a stranger
to him.
3. George Buttrick cautioned, however, that important as it is to share food, the parable
is about an even deeper and more pervasive attitude of neighborliness toward others: “The
story offers no support to the glib assumption that Dives would have fulfilled all duty had he
dressed Lazarus’ sores and fed his hunger. True charity is more than flinging a coin to a beggar;
it is not spasmodic or superficial. Ameliorations such as food and medicine are necessary, but
19187
there is a more fundamental neighborliness.
“Fundamental neighborliness,” therefore, is the barometer of the soul, an indication of the
attitude of one’s heart that is prized in the sight of God.
187. George A. Buttrick, 7he Parables of Jesus (New York: Harper and Bros., 1928) 143.
LUKE 17:1-10, THE DEMANDS OF

FORGIVENESS AND FAITH
NIV NRSV
] Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that ] Jesus? said to his disciples, “Occasions for
cause people to sin are bound to come, but stumbling are bound to come, but woe to
woe to that person through whom they come. It anyone by whom they come! 7It would be better
would be better for him to be thrown into the for you if a millstone were hung around your neck
sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for and you were thrown into the sea than for you to
him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3So cause one of these little ones to stumble. *Be on
watch yourselves.
your guard! If another disciple’ sins, you must
“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he
rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you
repents, forgive him. “If he sins against you seven
must forgive. “And if the same person sins against
times in a day, and seven times comes back to
you seven times a day, and turns back to you seven
you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”
The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive.”
faith!” SThe apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our
°He replied, “If you have faith as small as a faith!” “The Lord replied, “If you had faith the
mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, size of a° mustard seed, you could say to this
‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the
obey you. sea,’ and it would obey you.
’“Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or 7“Who among you would say to your slave
looking after the sheep. Would he say to the who has just come in from plowing or tending
servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come sheep in the field, ‘Come here at once and take
along now and sit down to eat’? ®Would he not aGk He 5Gk your brother Gk faith as a grain of
320
LUKE 17:1-10
NIV NRSV
rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready your place at the table’? Would you not rather
and wait on me while | eat and drink; after that say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, put on your
you may eat and drink’? °Would he thank the apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later
servant because he did what he was told to do? you may eat and drink’? °Do you thank the slave
'°So you also, when you have done everything for doing what was commanded? '°So you also,
you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unwor- when you have done all that you were ordered
thy servants; we have only done our duty.’” to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have
done only what we ought to have done!’”
COMMENTARY
This section draws together four units of say- funnel and the top stone was rotated over the
ings: a warning against causing others to stumble, lower one. Some of these basalt stones were three
a challenge to be forgiving, a call to exercise faith, or four feet high, so the image readily makes its
and a reminder of the duties of discipleship. The point. The large stones were rotated by harnessing
change of audience from the Pharisees (16:14-15) an ass to a beam of wood that was wedged into
back to the disciples in 17:1 (cf. 16:1) signals the a slot in the upper stone. Hence, Matthew and
beginning of a new section. The repetition of the Mark say literally “a mill turned by an ass.”!°°
phrase “into/in the sea” in vv. 2 and 6 helps to In order for a man to have a millstone “around
stitch these sayings together. It is also possible to his neck,” his head would have to stick through
see a continuity from the role of Lazarus in the the hole in the upper stone—a ludicrous and
preceding parable to the admonition concerning comic image if that is what is meant. Alterna-
the otherwise unidentified “little ones” in v. 2. tively, and less literally, the stone would have to
17:1. Contrary to the smoother NRSV and NIV be tied to one’s neck, as is apparently the meaning
translations, the Greek employs a double negative in Matthew. Either way, the analogy is graphic
in v. 1: literally, “it is impossible for scandals not and effective: There can be no escape from the
to come.” Here the sense of oxdvdadov (skan- consequences of blocking, discouraging, or hinder-
dalon) is an offense or cause of stumbling. In ing another person’s response to God’s call.
context it designates anything that causes another The “little ones” (\1txpds mikros) are not de-
to abandon his or her faith or turn away from fined in this context, but the term probably refers
allegiance to Jesus and his teachings. The inevita- to any person struggling to respond to Jesus’
bility of such offenses, however, does not diminish teachings who might be turned aside from this
their gravity. The woe is a cry of grief, literally, intent by the misguided example or words of a
“alas for the one by whom they come” (17:1). disciple. This pronouncement, therefore, drama-
17:2. The grotesque metaphor of comparison tizes the believer’s responsibility for the influence
in v. 2 has parallels in Mark 9:42 and Matt 18:6. of his or her actions and words on others, espe-
Millstones were common in Galilean towns and cially those weaker in faith or those who are
looking to the example of the believer as they
villages, and several examples of different sizes
consider their own response to Jesus. The change
have been discovered at Capernaum, on the shore
of address in v. 1, therefore, is required by the
of the Sea of Galilee. Once the grain had been
content of the saying that follows. This is a
separated from the chaff, it was ground between
warning that must be addressed to the disciples
millstones. The lower millstone was an inverted
rather than to the crowd or the Pharisees.
cone. The upper millstone, which fit over the
17:3. The next saying also addresses the Chris-
lower, had a funnel shaped opening in the top
and a hole through it so that the grain was ground 188. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X—XXIV),
between the stones when it was poured into the AB 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 1138.
321
tian community. If your brother or sister sins, of these aspects, Luke’s concept of faith is similar to
rebuke that one (cf. 1 John 5:16). Your fellow Paul’s, who writes of righteousness as being revealed
disciple’s sin may hurt someone else and thus “through faith for faith” (Rom 1:17) and declares
make the believer liable to the terrible conse- that we have been saved by grace through faith and
quences of which Jesus has just spoken. One’s that this is not of our own doing (Eph 2:8).
responsibility to fellow believers is twofold, how- 17:6. The reader may expect that Jesus would
ever. First, confront or rebuke the one who sins. warmly receive the disciples’ request for more faith.
Then, if the person asks for forgiveness, be ready Instead, his sharp-answer implies that they have not
to offer it wholeheartedly. really understood the nature of genuine faith. The
17:4. Just as the seriousness of becoming an saying is difficult both because of its grammatical
obstacle to another’s faith is dramatized by the image problems and because it seems to depend on an
of the millstone, so also the necessity of unstinting early form of this logion. In both syntax and imagery
forgiveness is driven home by the demand that the the saying is mixed or corrupt. Grammatically, the
disciple be prepared to forgive the same person for pronouncement begins like a first-class conditional
seven offenses in a single day if that fellow disciple sentence; the protasis, or “if’ clause, assumes the
asks for your forgiveness. The responsibility is reality of the condition: “Since you have faith....”
thereby placed not on the penitent person to dem- The apodosis, or “then” clause, however, is that of
onstrate that his or her repentance is genuine, but .a second-class condition, or a statement contrary to
on the disciple to demonstrate that he or she is fact: “you could say... and it would obey you [but
capable of following Jesus’ command to forgive one you cannot and it will not].” The assumptions con-
who repents. Jesus’ admonition is emphatic, a future veyed by the first part of the sentence, therefore,
tense used as an imperative: “You will forgive him” are denied by the latter part. The disciples say,
(v. 4). In Matthew the requirement of forgiveness “Increase our faith,” assuming that what they need
is extended by a further hyperbole: “Not seven is more faith, but Jesus’ answer declares that they
times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times” or sev- have misunderstood. They assumed that they had
enty times seven (Matt 18:21-22). faith but would need a greater faith in order to
17:5. The disciples respond to Jesus’ elevated measure up to Jesus’ challenge to confront and
admonitions to live by a kingdom ethic, repeatedly forgive those who have sinned. Jesus shatters their
confronting and forgiving those who sin, with a plea illusions about faith; they don’t even have faith
that conveys their surprise, dismay, and sense of comparable to a tiny mustard seed. If they did, they
inadequacy in the face of such a high standard: could command a sycamore tree—a large tree (up
“Increase our faith!” References to faith are clustered to 60 feet high) with deep roots—to be uprooted
unevenly in Luke. The term first occurs when Jesus and planted in the sea. The point is not that they
notes the faith of those who brought to him the need more faith; rather, they need to understand
paralytic (5:20). The recognition of different degrees that faith enables God to work in a person’s life in
or levels of faith emerges when Jesus comments that ways that defy ordinary human experience. The
the centurion’s faith exceeds any he has found in saying is not about being able to do miraculous
Israel (7:9). The repeated affirmation of deliverance works or spectacular tricks. On the contrary, Jesus
or salvation, “your faith has saved you” occurs in assures the disciples that with even a little faith they
7:50 (the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet); 8:48 can live by his teachings on discipleship.
(the woman with a hemorrhage); 17:19 (the grateful The imagery of the saying is also mixed. Mark
leper); and 18:42 (the blind beggar). During the and Matthew contain sayings that declare that if
storm at sea, Jesus had challenged the disciples, the disciples had faith in God they could com-
“Where is your faith?” (8:25; see also 18:8; 22:32). mand a mountain to be taken up and cast into
The disciples’ plea in this context conveys the the sea, which may be an allusion to the splitting
recognition that on the one hand faith is a dynamic of the Mount of Olives in Zech 14:4 or the
process and one can grow in faith. On the other plucking up and planting in Jer 1:10. A mountain
hand, the disciples ask that the Lord add to or may be cast into the sea, and a tree may be
strengthen their faith, thereby recognizing that faith planted, but the declaration that a tree would be
is not just a matter of their own strength. In both planted in the sea is apparently the result of a
322
mixing of images drawn from other versions of reverses the roles. Having accepted the premise
Jesus’ affirmation of the power of faith. that they might expect a slave to do what was
17:7-10. The parable of the servant who serves expected of him without commendation, the dis-
without reward concludes this section on the de- ciples are then challenged to see that they are
mands of faith. In the preceding verses Jesus chal- God’s servants and, therefore, even when they do
lenged the disciples to forgive without keeping count all that is required they have done nothing for
of offenses. When the disciples asked that they be which they might expect to be rewarded.
given greater faith, Jesus responded that if they had Disciples are thereby challenged to see them-
faith even like a mustard seed they could do won- selves as servants. Even when the demands seem
drous things. The parable that follows now affirms unrealistic, a servant is only doing what is re-
that regardless of how much we do, we cannot do quired and expected. If this is true when the
more than is expected of us. servant is told to prepare the master’s evening
The parable assumes the hearer’s familiarity meal after plowing and tending the sheep all day,
With the customs that controlled the lives of slaves then it is also true when the servant is told to
in the first century. Like many of Jesus’ parables forgive a brother seven times in a single day.
in Luke (11:5, 11; 12:25; 14:28; 15:4) this one The terminology of the parable, while meta-
begins with the question “Who among you... ?” phorical, is used by Paul to describe the role of
and expects a negative answer, “No one; it would an apostle and the work of a pastor (Rom 1:1;
be unthinkable.” The parable assumes a small Gal 1:10; Phil 1:1). Plowing (Luke 9:62; 1 Cor
farmer who has one slave who does both the field 9:10) and shepherding (John 21:16; Acts 20:28;
work and the household chores. The master 1 Cor 9:7; 1 Pet 5:2) are also used to describe
would never say to the slave, “Come here at once an apostle’s work.!®
and take your place at the table” (v. 7). Instead, Even when the servant has done all that is
the servant would be expected to start preparing required of him, he is still “worthless” or “unwor-
the master’s evening meal immediately after com- thy” (dxpetos achreios, see Matt 25:30). The
ing in from the fields. Only after he had served thought is similar to Eliphaz’s query of Job:
the master could the servant tend to his own
needs. The master would not even thank the “Can a mortal be of use to God?
servant for doing what was commanded. Can even the wisest be of service to him?
Part of the parable’s effect is achieved by a shift Is it any pleasure to- the
Almighty if you are righteous,
of point of view and identification from the place of or is it gain to him if you make
the master to that of the slave. The parable’s opening your ways blameless?”
question casts the reader in the role of the master: (Job 22:2-3 NRSV)
“Who among you would say to your slave... ?”
The parable says nothing about what the servant What then, if the servant has failed to do every-
might want or expect. It speaks instead of the thing that was expected?
master’s expectations. But v. 10, which applies the
parable to the disciples (v. 1), or apostles as) 189. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X—XXIV], 1145.
REFLECTIONS
us to
The parable of the worthless servant is probably no one’s favorite, yet it drives
is that while the
reexamine our assumptions about our relationship to God. The difficulty
it casts God in
parable makes a significant point about discipleship and humility before God,
making allowance s for the currency of the image
the unappealing role of a slave driver. Even
choose a different metaphor. Our inclination
in the first century, most of us probably would
we deserve some reward. Particular ly do
is to think that if we do what we are commanded,
for a disciple is so high.
we expect a reward since the standard required
God’s favor and blessing
Nevertheless, God owes us nothing for living good, Christian lives.
we assume that we can deal
are matters of grace—they cannot be earned. Therefore, when
with God on the basis of what God owes us, we have made a basic mistake. We have rejected
grace as the basis of our relationship to God and based that relationship on our own worth
and merit. Grace, by definition, is a free gift. .
When the parable is read in the context of the earlier verses in this chapter, the point
becomes clear. The disciple can do what God requires—through faith—but the disciple can
never do more than is required. The preceding verses confirm our need for faith. We cannot
meet even the basic demands of discipleship from our own goodness and strength. Only through
faith can we protect the little ones and rebuke and forgive as we ought.
These ten verses address three difficulties for disciples: (1) Do not be a hindrance to the
discipleship of others. (2) Rebuke those who sin, and forgive all who ask your forgiveness.
(3) When you have done all this, do not assume that you have done more than your duty. Faithfulness,
forgiveness, and humility are required of those who would be obedient to Jesus. But which is the
most difficult part of this teaching unit? Most of us probably will say the first part, the demand that
we give no offense, that we rebuke, and that we forgive unceasingly. Certainly, failure in this area is
easier to face than the admission that we cannot trust in God’s grace toward us.
Such lack of humility, however, is the more dangerous temptation. It prevents us from
experiencing the depth of God’s love for us. It may also lead us to develop just the kind of
self-righteousness and false spiritual superiority that will become an obstacle to the “little
one.” Spiritual health requires an awareness of both our own sinfulness and God’s unlimited
love for us.
As Walter Rauschenbush, the great proponent of the social gospel movement earlier in this
century, reminded us, sin is never a private matter. What we do or fail to do always has social
consequences. He would have applauded the words of John Donne, the Elizabethan poet who
penned the following words in his “Hymn to God the Father”:
Wilt thou forgive that sin, by which I’ve won

Others to sin, and made my sin their door?
Wilt thou forgive that sin which I did shun
A year or two, but wallowed in a score?
When thou hast done, thou hast not done,
For I have more.
Such a prayer of confession acknowledges the sin into which we have led others and the sin
that has so stained our lives that we can never be worthy of God’s grace.
LUKE 17:11-19, THE HEALING OF

THESE ENABEPERS
NIV NRSV
"'Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled 110n the way to Jerusalem Jesus? was going
along the border between Samaria and Galilee. through the region between Samaria and Galilee.
'2As he was going into a village, ten men who !2As he entered a village, ten lepers? approached
had leprosy? met him. They stood at a distance him. Keeping their distance, ‘they called out,
"and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!”
have pity on us!” '4When he saw them, he said to them, “Go and
412 The Greek word was used for various diseases affecting the
show yourselves to the priests.” And’as they
skin—not necessarily leprosy. aGk he ©The terms leper and leprosy can refer to several diseases
324
LUKE 17:11-19
NIV NRSV
4When he saw them, he said, “Go, show went, they were made clean. '*Then one of them,
yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they when he saw that he was healed, turned back,
were cleansed. praising God with a loud voice. '°He prostrated
'SOne of them, when he saw he was healed, himself at Jesus’? feet and thanked him. And he
came back, praising God in a loud voice. '*He was a Samaritan. '7Then Jesus asked, “Were not
threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him— ten made clean? But the other nine, where are
and he was a Samaritan. they? '’Was none of them found to return and
“Jesus asked, “Were not all ten cleansed? give praise to God except this foreigner?” !°Then
Where are the other nine? '8Was no one found he said to him, “Get up and go on your way;
to return and give praise to God except this your faith has made you well.”
foreigner?” '°Then he said to him, “Rise and go; aGk his
your faith has made you well.”
(COMMENTARY
A transitional geographical notice and the in- to certify that the person was clean before he or
troduction of new characters mark the beginning she could return to the community (Lev 14:23).
of a new unit. The disciples, to whom the pre- The healing of lepers functions in the Gospel as
ceding sayings were addressed, play no role in a sign of the power of God’s kingdom. Jesus’ pro-
this story. Similarly, while the preceding verses grammatic address at Nazareth recalls the healing of
emphasize the demands of discipleship, this story Naaman the Syrian (Luke 4:27; 2 Kgs 5:1-14). As
turns once again to the theme of God’s mercy in the story of Naaman, the lepers are instructed
and salvation. Verse 11 reintroduces the journey by “the man of God” to act on his command
motif that was established in 9:51; 13:31-35; and before there is any evidence that healing has
14:25 and looks ahead to Jesus’ entry into Jeru- occurred, and the Samaritan will return to offer
salem (19:28ff.). Verse 11 has also led commen- thanks just as Naaman did (see 2 Kgs 5:15). Jesus’
tators to observe that Luke seems to have only a healing of lepers is also reported in Luke 5:12-16,
and the connection with the prophets is again
vague grasp of Palestinian geography. Traveling
implicit in Jesus’ response to John in Luke 7:22.
from Galilee to Jerusalem, Jesus would have been
The present story is not a simple healing mir-
traveling from north to south. Strictly speaking,
acle. It blends elements of a healing miracle and
there was no “region between Samaria and Gali-
a pronouncement story and resonates with both
lee.” Since Galilee lay above Samaria, Jesus may
the healing of Naaman the Syrian and the parable
have traveled near the border between the two of the good Samaritan. The effect is to extend
regions as he made his way down to the Jordan Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’ announcement of the
to skirt around Samaria, as most Jewish travelers kingdom (from Luke 4:18-19). In the immediate
did. This geographical note, however vague it is, context, the lesson of gratitude complements the
serves to establish Jesus’ proximity to Samaria and parable of the unworthy servant in the preceding
hence a setting in which he might meet the verses. Discipleship requires doing one’s duty, but
Samaritan leper featured in the story. because of God’s mercy, God’s servants can never
Recollection of the journey setting is appropriate repay the grace they have experienced.
here because Jesus meets a group of lepers on the The opening phrase in v. 11 recalls the travel
road. According to the law, any person with a notice in 9:51 and in the Greek repeats some
leprous disease was required to live “outside the of the constructions found there. Although Jesus
camp” (Num 5:2-3) and cry out “Unclean, unclean” encounters the lepers as he enters a village,
whenever anyone approached (Lev 13:45-46). If a Luke is careful to note that they stood “at a
leper were fortunate enough to recover, a priest had distance.” As the NIV makes clear, Luke iden-
sO
tifies the ten not as lepers but as “men who had [that] as they were going they were made clean”
leprosy” just as earlier he referred to the man who (v. 14). The point of the story, however, is not
was paralyzed not as a paralytic but as “a man who the healing but the response of those who were
was paralyzed” (5:18) and called the Gerasene de- touched by God’s mercy. First we are told that
moniac “a man who had demons” (8:27). The one of them, “seeing that he was healed,” re-
difference is subtle but reflects a humanizing and turned glorifying God with a loud voice. It is
dignifying recognition of personhood. significant that initially he does not return to
The title “master” (Emtotatns epistates) oc- “thank” Jesus, but glorifies God. His action paral-
curs only in Luke, where it appears repeatedly, but lels that of Naaman, who “returned to the man
with this one exception always on the lips of Jesus’ of God” and said, “Now I know that there is no
disciples (5:5; 8:24, 45; 9:33, 45). The rich man God in all the earth except in Israel” (2 Kgs 5:15).
pleaded with Abraham for mercy in the parable of The leper’s action also conveys an implicit chris-
the rich man and Lazarus (16:24), and the blind tology. He recognizes that God has acted through
man by the road will address Jesus as “Son of David” Jesus, and he offers praise to God. Glorifying God
and ask for mercy (18:38-39). Literally, the text says is a common response to manifestations of God’s
that the ten lepers “raised a voice”; they called out saving. work in the Gospel of Luke (2:20; 5:25-26;
in unison. Later, their response to their healing will 7:16; 13:13; 18:43; 23:47). The next statement
stand in sharp contrast to their unison at this point. _ is an extension of this one; the leper fell at the
The call for mercy would ordinarily have been a feet of Jesus and thanked him. In earlier contexts,
request for alms, but although it has been some time those who have fallen at Jesus’ feet have done so
since Luke has reported the spread of news about to plead for his healing mercy (5:12; 8:41), so the
Jesus’ healings (see 4:37; 5:15; 7:17; 8:39), it is action here stands in contrast to mark the inten-
possible that the request for mercy should be un- sity of the leper’s gratitude.
derstood as a request for healing. Now comes the twist in the story: The leper
The report that Jesus “saw them” (v. 14) would wha returned to give thanks was a Samaritan
be superfluous if it did not carry the nuance of a (v. 16). See the discussion of social boundaries
further meaning. In the parable of the good Sa- and the relations between Jews and Samaritans in
maritan, the priest, the levite, and the Samaritan the commentary on the parable of the good Sa-
each “see” the man in the ditch, but only the maritan (10:29-37). Jesus then asks a series of
Samaritan stops to help him (see 10:31-33); this three questions that are not really addressed to
story follows immediately after Jesus’ blessing of the grateful Samaritan but underscore the point
the disciples for what their eyes see and their ears of the story. First, “Were not ten made clean?”
hear (10:24; cf. Mark 8:17-18). The reference to The question reminds us that the ten. were all
Jesus’ seeing the lepers also sets up the later healed, not just this one. Second, Jesus asks about
notice that “one of them, when he saw that he the other nine—something the reader may not
was healed, turned back” (v. 15). In both cases, have considered: “Where are they?” What does
seeing means more than just physical sight—it their failure to return praising God say about
means on the one hand perceiving the opportunity them? Were they so caught up in their good
to be merciful toward another, and on the other fortune that they failed to “see” God’s hand in
hand the recognition that God’s mercy has their healing? Two points are underscored by the
touched one’s life. third question: “Was none of them found to
Elisha’s response to Naaman was a command, return and give praise to God except this foreign-
“Go, wash in the Jordan seven times” (2 Kgs 5:10 er?” The response of giving glory to God is re-
NRSV). Similarly, Jesus tells the ten lepers, “Go - peated, and the gratitude of the Samaritan is
and show yourselves to the priests” (v. 14), echo- highlighted by referring to him as “this foreigner.”
ing Jesus’ command in the earlier story of healing The common disdain for Samaritans stands in
a leper (5:14). This time, however, there is no sharp contrast to the Samaritan’s response to God
mention of offering the proper sacrifices. in this healing narrative. In that sense, this story
The actual report of the healing is told with a is a companion piece to the parable of the good
storyteller’s flare—titerally, “and it happened Samaritan and the healing of Naaman, who was
326
also a foreigner. The proper response to God’s has saved you” (cf. 7:50; 8:48; 18:42). In this
saving mercy, therefore, is not presumption that case, the man’s faith was not expressed by his
it is something we deserve (cf. the servant in the request for help but by his gratitude and praise of
preceding parable, vv. 7-10) but untainted gratitude God. The other nine had been healed, but only
and pure praise of God for God’s saving mercy. this one received Jesus’ declaration of salvation.
This surprisingly subtle story ends with the They got what they wanted, but this one received
repetition of Jesus’ formula of blessing: “Your faith more than he had dreamed of asking for.
REFLECTIONS
The act of seeing plays a vital role in this story. First, Jesus sees the lepers. Then, the one leper
sees that he has been healed. Two factors lead us to look more closely at these references to
seeing. The first is the role of such references earlier in the Gospel, where Jesus blesses those who
see and hear (esp., 10:24). Second, both references to seeing in this story are, strictly speaking,
unnecessary to its telling and, therefore, seem to point to a further nuance. “When he saw” the
lepers, Jesus saw their need and responded to it, just as the good Samaritan had seen the need of
the man in the ditch and responded to it. The central event of the story is not the healing, however,
but the response of the one leper “when he saw that he was healed.” The repetition of the phrase
“when he saw” builds expectation regarding the action that will follow. In this case, “when he
saw” actually characterizes not only the recognition that he had been healed but also the recognition
that the healing was the work of God that had been effected through Jesus.
The two instances of seeing each represent challenges for the believer. What do we see,
and what do we do when we see? The first instance is the recognition of the need of others.
Sometimes persons in need simply do not catch our attention. An irritable coworker may be
facing a health problem or struggling with a difficult family situation. Who notices an
international student far from home and family, or the person separated from family during
the holidays? At other times, we simply pass by persons whose lives are a day-to-day struggle
for subsistence or for emotional stability. Who sees?
The leper’s seeing involved recognition of God’s deliverance and grace. Ten were healed,
but only one recognized the healing for what it was. Is healing simply the natural process of
nature or a sign of God’s love? In retrospect, are the opportunities and experiences that prepare
one for greater challenges simply chance or evidence of God’s providence? Who can fathom
the ways in which God works in human experience?
The second question goes to the heart of the story. What do you do when you see? Jesus saw
need and acted to meet it. When the leper saw healing, he did not just celebrate his good fortune;
he returned to praise God and fall on his face before Jesus. Gratitude may be the purest measure
of one’s character and spiritual condition. The absence of the ability to be grateful reveals
self-centeredness or the attitude that I deserve more than I ever get, so I do not need to be grateful.
Did it take a Samaritan—an outcast—to recognize grace for what it was? The grateful person
reveals a humility of spirit and a sensitivity to love expressed by others. The grateful person,
therefore, regards others’ acts of kindness and experiences of God’s grace with profound
gratitude. Life itself is a gift. Health is a precious gift—the friendship of others and the love
of family and special friends are an overwhelming grace to be treasured and guarded with
gratitude. What do you see? And what do you do?
This story also challenges us to regard gratitude as an expression of faith. At the end, Jesus
says to the Samaritan, “Your faith has made you well.” That faith was expressed not primarily
in the lepers’ collective cry for help but in the Samaritan’s individual act of recognition and
his cry of grateful praise. Only his “loud voice” of praise matched the lepers’ raised voices to
call out for help at the beginning of the story.
327
_ LUKE 17;11-19 REFLECTIONS
In what sense, then, is gratitude an expression of faith? Does not gratitude follow from
faith? Or is gratitude itself an expression of faith? If gratitude reveals humility of spirit and a
sensitivity to the grace of God in one’s life, then is there any better measure of faith than
wonder and thankfulness before what one perceives as unmerited expressions of love and
kindness from God and from others? Are we self-made individuals beholden to no one, or are
we blessed daily in ways we seldom perceive, cannot repay, and for which we often fail to
be grateful? Here is a barometer of spiritual health: If gratitude is not synonymous with faith,
neither response to God is separable from the other. Faith, like gratitude, is our response to
the grace of God as we have experienced it. For those who have become aware of God’s
grace, all of life is infused with a sense of gratitude, and each encounter becomes an opportunity
to see and to respond in the spirit of the grateful leper.
LUKE 17:20-37, THE KINGDOM AND ITS COMING

NIV NRSV
20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees 20Once Jesus? was asked by the Pharisees
when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming, and he
replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming
your careful observation, *!nor will people say, with things that can be observed; ?'nor will they
‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact,
of God is within? you.” the kingdom of God is among? you.”
22Then he said to his disciples, “The time is 22Then he said to the disciples, “The days are
coming when you will long to see one of the days coming when you will long to see one of the days
of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. Men of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. “They
will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do will say to you, ‘Look there!’ or ‘Look here!’ Do
not go running off after them. *4For the Son of not go, do not set off in pursuit. *4For as the
Man in his day? will be like the lightning, which lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one
flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in
other. **But first he must suffer many things and his day.° But first he must endure much suffering
be rejected by this generation. and be rejected by this generation. “Just as it was
20“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days
will it be in the days of the Son of Man. ?’People of the Son of Man. ?’7They were eating and
were eating, drinking, marrying and being given drinking, and marrying and being given in mar-
in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. riage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the
Then the flood came and destroyed them all. flood came and destroyed all of them. **Likewise,
8“Tt was the same in the days of Lot. People just as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating
were eating and drinking, buying and selling, and drinking, buying and selling, planting and
planting and building. ??But the day Lot left building, but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it
Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed
and destroyed them all. all of them *°—it will be like that on the day that
3°“Tt will be just like this on the day the Son the Son of Man is revealed. *'On that day, anyone
of Man is revealed. *'On that day no one who is ‘on the housetop who has belongings in the house
on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, must not come down to take them away; and
should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in likewise anyone in the field must not turn back.
the field should go back for anything. 3*Remember 32Remember Lot’s wife. *°>Those who try to make
Lot’s wife! Whoever tries to keep his life will their life secure will lose it, but those who lose
a2] Or among 624 Some manuscripts do not have in his day. aGk he Or within cOther ancient authorities lack in his day
328
LUKE 17:20-37
NIV NRSV
lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. their life will keep it. “I tell you, on that night
*] tell you, on that night two people will be in there will be two in one bed; one will be taken
one bed; one will be taken and the other left. and the other left. There will be two women
*Two women will be grinding grain together; one grinding meal together; one will be taken and the
will be taken and the other left.2” other left.”* "Then they asked him, “Where,
37“Where, Lord?” they asked. Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse is,
He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there there the vultures will gather.”
the vultures will gather.”
4Other ancient authorities add verse 36, “Jwo will be in the field;
235 Some manuscripts left. 36Two men will be in the field: one will one will be taken and the other left.”
be taken and the other left.
COMMENTARY
The preceding section dealt with forgiveness, sees have not understood the nature of the king-
faith, and gratitude—responses to the presence of dom. Apocalyptic prophets and writers purported
God in the midst of God’s people. The disciples to reveal the signs that would precede the cata-
asked that their faith be increased, and they were clysmic coming of God’s reign on earth and
told that they did not understand the nature of faith God’s vindication of the faithful Israelites. Jesus cut
(vv. 5-6). This section turns to the nature of the the ground from beneath any such speculations:
kingdom and warnings to the disciples as they await “The kingdom of God is not coming with things
its coming. The Pharisees ask Jesus about the coming that can be observed” (v. 20). The Greek term
of the kingdom, and Jesus responds that they do not Tapatnpnots (parateresis), translated by the last
understand the nature of the kingdom. five words of v. 20 in the NRSV, is used elsewhere
Parallels in structure and progression of theme to describe the empirical observation of astronomical
serve as a transition from the preceding section to this or physical phenomena—the movements of the plan-
one. The experience of the leper, seeing his healing ets and signs of illness or changes in the weather. The
and praising God, offers an apt illustration of the term occurs nowhere else in the NT, however. The
affirmation that the kingdom is “among you” (17:21). coming of the kingdom is discerned by faith, not by
17:20-21. For any reader of this part of Luke, empirical observation.
the challenge is to discern how the affirmation of To the Pharisees’ question, Jesus responds with
the presence of the kingdom in vv. 20-21 can one positive and two negative statements. Not only
make sense in the light of the attention given to will the coming of the kingdom not be preceded by
its future coming in vv. 22-37. The pronounce- observable signs, but also such phenomena will not
ment story in vv. 20-21 begins with a question even accompany the coming of the kingdom. So,
posed by the Pharisees: When will the kingdom when the kingdom does come, others will not say
of God come? The reintroduction of the Pharisees “Here it is” or “There it is.” Indeed, the kingdom
and the indefiniteness regarding the connection of is already “among you” (v. 21).
this scene with the previous one signal the begin- The koine Greek term evtos (entos), translated
ning of a new unit. “among” you in the NRSV, occurs elsewhere in
These sayings hold the tension between the pre- the NT only in Matt 23:26, where it designates
sent reality of the kingdom where Jesus is present the inside of a cup. Its meaning in its present
and the coming fulfillment of the kingdom when context is debated. Does it mean “within you”
the Son of Man comes. Just as Jesus responded (NIV)—that is, that the kingdom is an inner
sharply to the disciples earlier, declaring that they condition experienced only by the individual be-
did not understand the nature ,of faith (17:5-6), so liever? If so, how should one reconcile this af-
also now he rejects the Pharisees’ preoccupation firmation with other sayings that speak of the
with the timing of the kingdom’s coming. The Phari- kingdom as objective and coming (21:31; 22:16,
329
18)? Moreover, the pronoun for “you” (vpEts the repetition of “ ‘Look there!’ or ‘Look here!’ ”
hymeis) is plural—a group or collection of individu- in v. 23 (cf. v. 21) and the repetition of verbs for
als. Does it mean “in the midst of you”—that the “coming” in vv. 20 and 22 tie this new series of
kingdom is present among them because Jesus is in pronouncements to the preceding verses. The struc-
their midst? This meaning seems to fit better, but it tural links may mislead a casual reader, however.
still does not explain the choice of this unusual term Verses 22-37 shift from the theme of the presence of
or how the presence of the kingdom in Jesus is to be the kingdom in their midst to warnings about the
related to its future manifestation. Other nuances have suddenness of the coming of the Son of Man. The
been proposed: either that the future kingdom has coming of the Son of Man, however, is not to be
already arrived unobserved or that it is within their equated with the coming of the kingdom of God. The
grasp if they will only act to seize it. kingdom is already present.
17:22-37. In addition to the difficulty of choos- Neither are vv. 22-37 a miscellaneous collection
ing the best understanding of v. 21, one must also of sayings; rather, they form a carefully structured
arrive at some explanation for how Luke under- rhetorical unit that warns of the urgency of decisive
stands this assertion to be related to the verses that action in preparation for the coming of the Son of
follow. The next section is closely linked to wy. Man. The leitmotif of the unit is “the days] of the
20-21, but it contains admonitions for watchfulness Son of Man.” This leitmotif echoes the prophetic
because the Son of Man will come suddenly and warnings about the coming “day of the Lord” (Isa
unexpectedly. The shift of audience from the Phari- 13:6; Ezek 30:1-4; Joel 1:15; 2:1; Amos 5:18; Zeph
sees to the disciples signals the beginning of a new 1:14-16; Zech 14:1). The expectation of the coming
section in v. 22, but the catchword links formed by of the Son of Man makes more sense when it
I. Statement of the theme (vv. 22-25)

A. Warning of the distress that will precede the coming of the Son of Man (v. 22)
B. The nature of the Son of Man’s coming (vv. 23-24)
C. A passion prediction (v. 25)
II. Arguments from Scripture (vv. 26-30)
A. First analogy: The days of Noah (vv. 26-27)
1. Statement of the analogy: “Just as it was in the days of...” (v. 26)
2. Description of life proceeding normally until “the day” (v. 274)
3. Reference to the cataclysm: “the flood came” (v. 270)
4. Reminder of the totality of the destruction: “and destroyed all of them” (v. 27¢)
B. Second analogy: The days of Lot (vv. 28-29)
1. Statement of the analogy: “Just as it was in the days of...” (v. 28a)
2. Description of life proceeding normally until “the day” (vv. 280294)
3. Reference to the cataclysm: “it rained fire and sulfur from heaven” (v. 296)
4. Reminder of the totality of the destruction: “and destroyed all of them” (v. 29c)
C. The aptness of the analogies (v. 30)
III. Warnings that only decisive action will preserve one’s life (vv. 31-35)
A. “On that day” (vv. 31-33)
1. Two examples (v. 31):
a. “anyone on the housetop”
b. “anyone in the field”
2. A traditional warning: “Remember Lot’s wife” (v. 32)
3. A traditional saying on losing and keeping one’s life (v. 33)
B. “On that night” (vv. 34-35)
Two examples:
1. Two in a bed: one taken, one left
2. Two grinding meal: one taken, one left
IV. A concluding question and aphorism (v. 37)
330
is addressed to the disciples than to the Pharisees, “The Son of Man must endure much suffering
of course (see vv. 20, 22). and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and
scribes...” (9:22, author’s translation)
17:22. The discourse on the coming of the Son
of Man begins in v. 22 without any prompting “But first he must endure much suffering and be
question from the disciples. Jesus simply an- rejected by this generation.” (17:25, italics added)
nounces that the days are coming when they will
long for the coming of the Son of Man {v. 22). Rather, the concern here is to emphasize that the
The leitmotif “the days” is repeated twice already coming glorious Son of Man will be none other
in this opening statement. The plural “days” than the Son of Man who suffered and died on
(nuépat hemevrai) is used here to focus attention the cross. The divine imperative (“he must” [Sei
on the distress that Jesus’ followers will experi- dei|) underscores the fact that the passion also
ence. Singling out “one of the days of the Son of is part of the outworking of God’s redemptive
Man” is a way of heightening the disciples’ long- will. In Luke, the phrase “this generation” nor-
mally appears in warnings of judgment or in
ing for even a taste of deliverance. The force of
condemnations (7:31; 9:41; 11:29-32, 50-51;
the opening statement is to warn the disciples of
16:8; 21:32); “this generation,” therefore, is char-
the coming distress. Their suffering or persecution
acterized by its wickedness and its failure to
will be so severe that they will long for deliver-
respond to Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom.
ance, and yet their deliverance will not come.
In the end, however, the Son of Man will prevail
17:23-24. Some will mistakenly report that
over “this generation” (21:32).
the coming is taking place here or there, but the
17:26-29. The next section of the discourse
disciples should not be deceived by such apoca-
presents two analogies to the cataclysmic de-
lyptic hysteria (cf. Mark 13:5-6, 21-23). When the
struction that lies ahead. The examples of Noah
Son of Man comes, he will not appear in just one
and Lot are cited together in other Jewish and
locale, here or there; it will be like a flash of
early Christian writings (Wisd 10:4-8; 3 Macc
lightning that is visible everywhere. Luke returns
2:4-5; T. Naph 3:4-5; Philo, De Vita Mos. 2.10
to the theme of the signs and the manner of
52-56; 2 Pet 2:5-7).!°° Reminders of the flood and
the coming of the Son of Man in 21:25-36 and
the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had be-
in the account of Jesus’ ascension, where the
come traditional fare in the ethical exhortations of
disciples ask the Pharisees’ question, “Is this the the period. The principal points of comparison in
time?” (cf. Luke 17:20; Acts 1:6). The scene this discourse, however, are the sudden judgment
ends with the interpreting angels explaining to that brings the ordinary activities of life to an end
the disciples, “This Jesus, who has been taken and the impossibility of escaping God’s judgment.
up from you into heaven, will come in the same Verses 26-29 develop an argument from Scrip-
way as you saw him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11 ture that is based on a missing but assumed
NRSV). Later in Acts, Stephen “gazed into element. Verse 26 announces the first of the
heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus analogies by returning to the leitmotif of the
standing at the right hand of God” and declared, discourse, this time in the plural: “the days of
“T see the heavens opened and the Son of Man Noah... the days of the Son of Man.” A general
standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:55- comparison between the events is signaled, but
56 NRSV, italics added). the reader can only guess what the similarities
17:25. Before Jesus can return as the Son of will be. The two analogies entail three points of
Man, however, he must endure suffering and comparison. First, life will proceed normally prior
rejection. Verse 25, therefore, is an echo of the to the coming of the Son of Man, just as it did
passion predictions. It anchors this apocalyptic in the days of Noah and Lot (vv. 27a, 28a). Four
discourse in the context of Jesus’ journey to verbs describe the normal course of life in the
Jerusalem, where he will be arrested and killed days of Noah: eating, drinking, marrying, and
(see 9:21-22, 43-44; 18:31-33). In Greek this being given in marriage. Three pairs of verbs
statement is a verbatim repetition of the first part describe the procession of life in the days of Lot:
of 9:22, but there is no mention of the resurrec-
tion (cf. also 24:26). 190. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), 1165.
eating and drinking, buying and selling, and plant- flat-topped Palestinian house. Whether on the
ing and building. Eating and drinking—the physi- housetop or in the field, one should make no
cal sustenance of life—are common to both lists. effort to go into the house to rescue any belong:
The first list then turns to the perpetuation of ings. Repeatedly, Jesus has warned that having
families (marrying and being given in marriage), wealth and many possessions is a severe spiritual
while the second list turns to commerce (buying hindrance (1:53; 6:24; 12:13-21; 16:19-31).
and selling) and labor (planting and building). The The warning against turning back recalls the
lists describe ordinary activities and noticeably fate of Lot’s wife, who looked back and was
refrain from characterizing the wickedness of the turned into a pillar of salt (Gen 19:26; cf. Luke
antediluvian people or of Sodom and Gomorrah, 9:62). Just at this point, a traditional saying on
which is an essential part of each of these biblical saving and losing one’s life that occurs in other
stories (see Gen 6:5-7; 18:20-19:23). Second, contexts is repeated to underscore the moral of
Jesus briefly describes the cataclysm: “the flood this argument (cf. Matt 10:39; 16:25; Mark 8:35;
came” (v. 270), “it rained fire and sulfur from Luke 9:24; John 12:25). In this context, how-
heaven” (v. 290). In each case, the description is ever, the concern to sustain or preserve one’s life
preceded by the leitmotif: “until the day” (v. 270), should probably be understood as an allusion to
“but on the day” (v. 29a). Third, Jesus affirms the y. 31 and the impulse to return to one’s house
totality of the destruction: “and destroyed all of . to secure possessions. As in the case of the
them” (vv. 27c, 290). These pictures of judgment parable of the rich fool (12:13-21), concern for
stand in a series of such warnings in Luke (e.g., one’s possessions can lead to the loss of one’s
3:17;°0:24-26, 46-49°10:13-1S; 11:29:32; 1231-3, life. Even if the saying in v. 33 is related to v.
49-59; 13:1-9, 34-35). 31, the second part of it points to a more general
17:30. This verse draws the rhetorical conclu- sense. Persons who spend their lives seeking secu-
sion from these two biblical precedents: “It will rity will ultimately lose their lives, while those who
be like that on the day that the Son of Man is lose‘ their lives (metaphorically) in the pursuit of
revealed.” The reference to “this generation” at God’s kingdom, bringing release to the captives,
the conclusion of v. 25, just before the two sight to the blind, and freedom to the oppressed,
biblical precedents, and the assumed but unspo- will save their lives. Here is the irony of Jesus’
ken element of each—the wickedness of the peo- gospel for the poor and the outcast.
ple in each case—invite the hearer to recognize 17:34-35. These verses, along with wv. 32-33,
the sinfulness of the “days” in which they were return to the warnings that when the Son of Man
living. Life will proceed with apparent normality, comes there will be no time to secure one’s life.
but it will include terrible wickedness and rebel- The phrase “on that night” in v. 34 balances “on
lion against God. The person who recognizes that that day” at the beginning of v. 31. It may also echo
wickedness—the missing element in Jesus’ precis the warning that “the day of the Lord will come
of these biblical stories—will recognize that “the like a thief in the night” (1 Thess 5:2 NRSV). Just
day” of the Son of Man is imminent. as v. 31 offers two examples drawn from the
17:31-33. The imminence of the Son of Man’s | activities of ordinary life, such as those cited in wv.
coming and the absence of any hope of escape for 27 and 29, so also v. 34 offers two further examples:
those who are caught unprepared makes decisive two in a bed and two grinding meal. The examples
action imperative. Only those who seize the present in v. 31 emphasized that there will be time for
moment to embrace the kingdom will be spared nothing but decisive action to save one’s life. The
when the Son of Man comes. The urgency of the point of these examples, on the other hand, is to
moment is driven home by further similitudes of " illustrate the judgment that will accompany the
disaster that evoke elements of the preceding analo- coming of the Son of Man.
gies. As it was in the destruction of Sodom and The pronouns for the two in the bed are both
Gomorrah, when the cataclysm comes, there will masculine. T. W. Manson, however, argued that
not be time for any concern other than the preser- “it could not be otherwise if, as is probable,
vation of one’s life. Verse 31 draws two pictures husband and wife are meant. Two persons are
from ordinary life. The first assumes the common together (male and female): one (male or female)
332
will be taken, and the other (male or female) will eagle was known for its swiftness (Job 9:26;
be left. In each case the masculine gender is Hab 1:8). The image of the eagle, while drawn
inevitable.”!°' The two grinding meal (women’s from the prophetic and wisdom literature of the
work) are women. OT, may have taken on more specific and im-
In each case, one person is taken and one is mediate connotations in first-century Palestine,
left, but we are not told whether the ones taken since the image of the eagle was carried at the
are catried away for judgment or for deliverance. vanguard of every Roman legion; Josephus ex-
The analogies of the stories of Noah and Lot plains that “it is regarded by them as the symbol
imply, however, that those who are taken are of the empire.”!°?
spared the judgment that comes upon the rest. Interpretations of the proverb have varied as
17:37. This rhetorical unit on the coming of interpreters have searched for a nuance that fits the
the Son of Man concludes with a question and a context. The proverbial swiftness of the eagle leads
proverb, both of which are enigmatic. The disci- to the view that the proverb affirms the swiftness
- ples ask rather obliquely, “Where, Lord?” Appar- with which the judgment will come, but on this
ently the question asks where the Son of Man view the proverb would be a response to “When?”
will come, just as earlier the Pharisees asked when and not to “Where?” As a sign, the circling of the
the kingdom was coming (v. 20). The question vultures may carry a meaning similar to the simile
about place also serves to frame the discourse by of the lightning flash in v. 24. When the Son of
picking up one of the motifs from its beginning, Man comes, his arrival will be evident to everyone.
where Jesus warned the disciples that they should Alternatively, the proverb may point to the inevita-
not be misled by those who say “here” or “there,” bility of judgment. Just as the birds of prey gather
because the coming of the Son of Man will be a over a corpse, so also the judgment signaled by the
universal or cosmic event—like lightning that Son of Man will fall upon the wicked. If the latter
flashes across the whole sky (vv. 23-24). meaning is chosen, as it is by many interpreters,
The proverb, though again drawn from ordinary then Jesus deflects the question “Where?” just as
life, is grim. The saying in v. 37, which has a earlier he refuses to say “when” the kingdom will
parallel in Matt 24:28, is drawn from Job 39:26- come. The point is that we are to be ready for the
30, which concludes “and where the slain are, coming of the Son of Man because God’s judgment
there it [the eagle] is” (Job 39:30 NRSV). The will certainly be established.
191. T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1957) 146. 192. Josephus The Jewish War 3.123.
REFLECTIONS
As a potential text for preaching or personal reflection, this passage starts with two strikes against
it: (1) The notion that the kingdom is both present and future is difficult to grasp; and (2) the
Gospel’s words about the future have been.so abused and corrupted by persons who claim to
know that the end is coming in our time that they have been all but abandoned by many believers.
1. Jesus deflected questions regarding when the kingdom would come or where the Son
of Man would come. He gives the disciples no encouragement to attempt to calculate the
times. The pseudo-religious literature so popular today that offers explanations of the signs of
the end accomplishes little if anything of positive value. One result is to encourage persons to
become preoccupied with an understanding of eschatology that is not unlike a kind of religious
science fiction. Such preoccupation has nothing to do with the gospel or the Lord’s concern
for establishing peace and justice on the earth.
Again, Jesus’ refusal to provide us with signs of the end time means that we have no way of
gaining the security that predictability provides. The issue of signs, therefore, is quickly translated
into a matter of trust. The desire to control drives us to seek knowledge of the future, but the
gospel calls instead for trust in God’s grace to sustain us both now and in the times to come.
333
When we keep in balance the present and future aspects of the kingdom, we will not become
discouraged. Neither will we lose sight of the priorities and tasks that claim our energies now.
2. Deflecting curiosity about the time or signs of the coming of the kingdom, Jesus declared
that the kingdom was already present “among us.” Jesus may have deliberately chosen the
ambiguity of this way of describing the kingdom. To translate v. 21 as saying “within you”
risks overspiritualizing and personalizing the kingdom. The kingdom cannot be a private
experience. On the other hand, the kingdom is present among us insofar as the Spirit of Christ
is present and the work of redemption is continuing. By refusing to offer a timetable, Jesus
turned the disciples’ attention to the tasks that lay before them. His task and that of the
disciples was to respond with obedience to the call to fulfill their role in God’s redemptive
work. Before the Son of Man could come in glory, he would die in shame. Before reaching
the throne of God, he would endure the throes of death. Many today want to bypass the
cross for the glories of the kingdom, but the kingdom in our time will be seen only by those
who take the cross as the controlling power of their lives and live for the relief of human
suffering and the reconciliation of all persons to one another and to God.
3. From the presence of the kingdom, Jesus turns to the future fulfillment of God’s
redemptive work in the coming of the Son of Man. The urgency of Jesus’ warnings cannot
be stressed too strongly. Nothing matters more than the kingdom of God. It dominates the
message of Jesus. Thus we can neither push it off to the future nor reduce it to a matter of
private piety and experience. The reality of Christ’s kingdom claims the lives of his followers
totally. The kingdom sets the priorities and guides the decisions that Jesus’ disciples make.
4. Jesus’ teachings claim that the kingdom of God is already present among us but yet to
be fulfilled. Neither aspect can be minimized if we are to be true to his teachings, but how
can the two emphases be held in balance? Without the promise that the sovereignty of God
will someday be established over all the earth, we would not have the hope that faith requires.
Who could trust in the reconciling power of love and self-sacrifice without the promise of the
kingdom of God?
On the other hand, if the hope of the kingdom were entirely future, what difference would
it make to us now? The coming of the kingdom in the life of Jesus means that the power of
the kingdom is already at work among us. We have seen in the ministry of Jesus the beginning
of a new community, one that redeems and reconciles. Sin is forgiven and defeated. The
broken are made whole. Oppression of the deprived is forbidden, and the eee of this age
are challenged by the power at work in Jesus.
The presence of the kingdom, therefore, means that we can already begin to experience
the community of the new age in the fellowship of those who are committed to God’s reign
on earth. The hope of the coming kingdom gives us courage to lead changed lives in the
present, yet it will not let us become so heaven bound that we are of no earthly use.
LUKE 18:1—19:27, JESUS'.GOSPEL-TO THE. RICH

Joailedid besHevedlesledsRs
OVERVIEW
Luke 18 turns from Jesus’ teachings on the of chap. 17 to a series of scenes that provide depth
nature of the kingdom and its coming at the end _and contrast to Jesus’ teachings regarding the poor
334
LUKE 18:1—19:27 OVERVIEW
and the privileged. The first section contains two (18:31-34). The fourth section unites two scenes
parables, each of which contrasts two characters: that are located in Jericho: Jesus’ healing of the
the unjust judge and the persistent widow (18:1- blind beggar (18:35-43) and Jesus’ encounter with
8) and the Pharisee and the tax collector (18:9- Zacchaeus, the rich tax collector (19:1-10). This
14). The second section contrasts Jesus’ teachings extended unit concludes with the parable of the
regarding the little children and his instructions greedy and vengeful king (19:11-27). The con-
to the rich ruler (18:15-30). The third section of trasts between rich and poor in these two chapters
the chapter contains the third passion prediction are typically and quintessentially Lukan.
Luke 18:1-8, The Unjust Judge and the Persistent Widow

NIV NRSV
] Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to | Then Jesus? told them a parable about their
show them that they should always pray need to pray always and not to lose heart.
and not give up. ?He said: “In a certain town "He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who
there was a judge who neither feared God nor neither feared God nor had respect for people. “In
cared about men. “And there was a widow in that that city there was a widow who kept coming to
town who kept coming to him with the plea, him and saying, ‘Grant me justice against my
‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’ opponent.’ *For a while he refused; but later he
4“For some time he refused. But finally he said said to himself, ‘Though I have no fear of God
to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care and no respect for anyone, °yet because this
about men, *yet because this widow keeps both- widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her jus-
ering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that tice, so that she may not wear me out by con-
she won’t eventually wear me out with her tinually coming.’”’ °And the Lord said, “Listen to
coming!’” what the unjust judge says. 7And will not God
°And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him
judge says. 7And will not God bring about justice day and night? Will he delay long in helping
for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and them? *I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to
night? Will he keep putting them off? ®I tell you, them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will
he will see that they get justice, and quickly. he find faith on earth?”
However, when the Son of Man comes, will he aGk te 6Or so that she may not finally come and slap me in
find faith on the earth?” the face
(COMMENTARY
The parable of the judge and the widow serves Links with the material that follows the parable
as a transition between the discourse on the coming in its present context are also evident. The parable
of the Son of Man, which precedes it, and the of the Pharisee and the tax collector in wv. 9-14
parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, which concerns prayer and plays on the contrast between
follows it. In the preceding discourse, the references the status of the Pharisee and the tax collector, just
to the coming of the Son of Man in wv. 22, 24, and as the present parable turns on the disparity in
30 connect with the question at the end of the power between the judge and the widow.
present unit: “And yet, when the Son of Man The force of the parable heavily depends on the
comes, will he find faith on earth?” (18:8). The issue social status and religious duties involved in the roles
of faith, or readiness, is also implied by. the refer- of judges and widows. In ancient Israel, the duty of
ences to the days of Noah and Lot and the repeated a judge was to maintain harmonious relations and
examples of one taken and one left (vv. 34-35). adjudicate disputes between Israelites. Widows were
215)
deprived of the support of a husband, yet they declares that “religion that is pure and undefiled
could not inherit their husband’s estate, which before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans
passed on to the deceased man’s sons or brothers, and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself
so disputes involving widows and orphans were unstained by the world” (Jas 1:27 NRSV). The
common (Ps 82:3-4; Jer 5:28-29). Judges were Pastoral Epistles document the church’s effort to
charged with the responsibility of hearing com- care for its widows and characterize the widow
plaints fairly and impartially, a duty that was all as one whose piety leads her to continual prayer:
the more important because they adjudicated “The real widow, left alone, has set her hope on
cases without the benefit of a jury. Deuteronomy God and continues in supplications and prayers
reports Moses’ charge to judges: “Give the mem- night and day” (1 Tim 5:5 NRSV; cf. 5:3-16).
bers of your community a fair hearing, and judge In this light, the prominence of widows in Luke
rightly between one person and another, whether and Acts takes on added significance. Anna, the
citizen or resident alien. You must not be partial widow who blessed the infant Jesus, “never left
in judging: hear out the small and the great alike; the temple but worshiped there with fasting and
you shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the prayer night and day” (Luke 2:37). During his
judgment is God’s” (Deut 1:16-17 NRSV). The address at Nazareth at the outset of his ministry,
judge’s responsibility within the covenant commu- Jesus recalled Elijah’s ministry to the widow in
nity, therefore, was to declare God’s judgment _ Sidon (4:25-26). Elijah provided her with meal
and establish shalom among God’s people. Je- and oil and then revived her son and presented
hoshaphat’s charge to the judges of his day included him to her alive {1 Kgs 17:8-24). The commentary
a warning to “let the fear of the Lorp be upon you” on Jesus’ raising of the widow of Nain’s son in
(2 Chr 19:7). Those who felt wronged by a judge Luke 7:11-17 calls attention to the connections
often pleaded for God to intervene and vindicate between Luke’s account of that event and Elijah’s
them (Pss 6:6-10; 82:8). Moreover, Sirach praises resuscitation of the widow’s son.
divine justice in a passage that has notable parallels Later, Luke will record Jesus’ condemnation. of
with these verses in Luke: those who “devour widow’s houses” (20:47) and of
For the Lord is the judge, the widow who put two copper coins in the treasury
and with him there is no partiality. (21:1-3). On two occasions widows also feature
He will not show partiality to the poor; prominently in the book of Acts: the dispute over
but he will listen to the prayer the distribution of food to the widows of the Hel-
of one who is wronged.
He will not ignore the lenists (Acts 6:1-6) and the presence of the widows
supplication of the orphan, at the raising of Dorcas (Acts 9:39, 41).
or the widow when she pours out her In structure and theme, the parable of the
complaint. widow and the judge is a twin of the parable of
the neighbor in need (11:5-8). Both are used to
Indeed, the Lord will not delay,
and like a warrior will not be patient illustrate the importance of persistent prayer
until he crushes the loins of the unmerciful (11:1-4, 9-10; 18:1). Both parables feature a per-
and repays vengeance on the nations. son in need persistently pressing a request, and
(Sir 35:15-17, 22-23 NRSV) both parables call for reasoning from the lesser to
The expectation regarding the care of widows the greater: If a neighbor or an unjust judge will
was equally clear. Regard for those in need—among respond to an urgent or repeated request, then
whom the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner will not God also respond to those who call out
were classic examples—was grounded in God’s in need? Richard C. Trench, Bishop of Dublin,
mercy on the Israelites when they were in bondage . expressed the argument of these parables: “If
(Deut 24:17-18). God will vindicate the widows and churlish man may be won by mere importunity
the orphans. Therefore, those who abuse such pow- to give, and unjust man to do right, how much
erless persons will surely suffer God’s judgment more certainly shall the bountiful Lord bestow,
(Num 22:22-24; cf. Ps 68:5). and the righteous Lord do justice.”!%
Widows had a place of honor in the early
193. Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord, (London:
church also. Following the Hebrew Scriptures, James Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner, & Co., 1915) 326.
336
Verse 1 serves as an introduction to the parable surprise that the judge does not act as we have
and instructs the reader to interpret it as a lesson been led to expect.
on prayer. The parable itself is related in vv. 2-5. To fear God in this context may mean either
Verse 6 admonishes the hearer to consider the to reverence God or to live in fear of punishment
judge’s surprising response to the widow. Verse for violating his office as a judge. Luke and Acts
7 provides interpretation of the parable in different both emphasize fear of God in a sense consistent
directions by means of two leading questions, and with the sage’s words: “The fear of the Lorp is
v. 8 answers the second of the questions and leads the beginning of knowledge;/ fools despise wis-
the reader on to a third one that relates the dom and instruction” (Prov 1:7 NRSV). God’s
parable to the preceding discourse on the coming mercy comes to those who fear God (Luke 1:50);
of the Son of Man. the shepherds literally “feared a great fear” at the
18:1. Jesus’ practice of prayer and teachings on angelic announcement of Jesus’ birth (2:9). The
prayer form a recurring theme in Luke, and this disciples and others respond in fear to Jesus’
parable, which is introduced as a parable on prayer, power (8:25, 35; 9:34, 45), and Jesus instructs
is found only in this Gospel. Luke notes Jesus’ the disciples not to fear their persecutors but to
withdrawals for periods of prayer in 3:21; 5:16; fear God (12:4-5). Similarly, in Acts those who
6:12; 9:18, 28-29; 22:39-45; 23:34, 46, and he fear God, like Cornelius and his household (Acts
records Jesus’ teachings on prayer in 6:28; 11:1-13; 10:2; cf. 10:22, 35), form a special group. They
18:9-14; 19:46; 20:47; 22:40, 46. It is not surpris- are recognized for their devotion and their open-
ing, therefore, that Luke interprets this parable as a ness to the gospel. This judge, however, neither
call to persistent prayer. Taken by itself, however, fears God nor respects people.
the parable may call attention to God’s responsive- 18:3. This verse introduces the widow. Her
ness to the widow as an exemplar of the poor and grievance is not described, however, so it is usually
oppressed rather than to the widow’s persistence in assumed that she is calling upon the judge to make
pressing her case. The interpreter may focus on a third party give her what is owed to her—a matter
either the widow or the judge, and either focus can of money or property. Neither does the parable tell
foster fruitful reflections. us why the judge refuses to hear her case. Interpret-
18:2. The judge is introduced—a certain judge ers have conjectured that the judge may be waiting
in a certain city. This situation is either hypotheti- for a bribe, or that he may be responding to the
cal or deliberately non-specific. All attention is widow’s more powerful adversary, hoping to curry
focused on the characterization of this judge, his favor. In either case, the judge’s motive is
“who neither feared God nor had respect for unimportant; his refusal to hear the widow confirms
people.” In the light of the requirements and Jesus’ characterization of him as one who has no
expectations for judges, quoted above, the point fear of God or regard for others. We may assume
is obvious: This judge is completely unfit for his that the widow has a legitimate grievance. The judge
position. The reader can have no confidence that is her sole hope of securing justice, and persistence
the judge will execute justice or minister compas- is her only recourse.
sion. A storyteller may either tell the audience 18:4-5. Now the surprise comes in the
who a certain character is (direct characterization: judge’s soliloquy or interior monologue. Interior
e.g., Zechariah and Elizabeth “were righteous monologues are a favorite device in the pecu-
before God, living blamelessly according to all the liarly Lukan parables (see the rich fool, 12:17-
commandments and regulations of the Lord,” 1:6) 19; the prodigal son, 15:17-19; the dishonest
or simply show the characters in action and allow steward, 16:3-4). We are not actually told that
the audience to draw their own conclusions (in- the judge granted the widow’s request, only that
direct characterization: e.g., the rich man in the he decided to do so. The judge’s monologue
parable of Lazarus and the rich man “who was repeats Jesus’ characterization of him. It also ech-
dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted oes the words of the neighbor in the parallel
sumptuously every day” [16:19]). In this case, parable in Luke 11:5-8, “Do not bother me”
Jesus provides direct characterization of the judge, (\11) LOL KOTIOUS TIapEXE Mme moi kopous pareche,
and the tension in the parable is created by the 11:7; TO Tapeyetv Lot KOTIoV to parechein moi
337
kopon, 18:5). The judge will grant the widow’s (9:38) and the blind beggar (18:38). The concept
request for two reasons, but the statement of the of election surfaces in the expression “his chosen
second reason may be understood either literally or ones” (exreKtOs eklektos), which occurs only
metaphorically. The language is drawn from the once elsewhere in Luke, and there in reference
boxing arena. Literally, it means “so that in the end to Jesus (23:35). The widow now allegorically
she may not come and strike me under the eye”— represents God’s elect.
that is, slap him or strike him in the face. The The second of the questions that serve to
expression can also be understood metaphorically interpret the parable extends the allegorical inter-
to mean “so that she may not wear me out by pretation. The verb jaxpo8upeéw (makrothymeo),
continually coming.” The metaphorical sense is which usually means “to have patience” or “to
preferred in modern translations. be forbearing,” is difficult to interpret in this
18:6. The unjust judge, from whom one could context. The same verb occurs in Sir 35:19
hardly expect justice, finally does what is right—if (quoted above). The Septuagint version may be
only to keep from being badgered by the persistent translated, “and the Lord will not tarry, nor will
widow. The narrator marks a transition at this point he delay long over them.” The Lord has no
by inserting the tag line “and the Lord said.” This patience with injustice or oppression but will act
reference to “the Lord” seems clearly to be a refer- speedily ‘to vindicate those who cry out to God
ence to Jesus in contrast to the similar reference in in distress. The second question, therefore, sug-
16:8. The interpretation of the parable begins with gests the imminence of the Lord’s coming to
the admonition to consider what the unjust judge vindicate the elect against their oppressors.
says. But what is the meaning of this brief story? If 18:8. The first part of v. 8 assures the hearers
one focuses on the unjust judge, the point may be of a positive response to the two questions posed
the contrast between the unjust judge and the in v. 7. God will act quickly to vindicate the elect.
character of God, who in the texts cited above The third question, in v. 80, shifts the image from
serves as a just judge over Israel. If even an unjust the coming of God to vindicate the elect, which
judge will heed the widow and do what is right, was suggested by the judge’s decision to grant the
how much more so will God do justice for the poor widow her request, to the coming of the Son of
and oppressed? On the other hand, a lesson on Man: “And yet, when the Son of Man comes,
prayer emerges when one considers the widow’s will he find faith on earth?” The question recalls
persistence in coming to the judge. Here the em- the references to the coming of the Son of Man
phasis may fall either on the importance of praying in the discourse that precedes the parable (17:22,
persistently, earnestly, and without losing heart—the 24, 30). Thus the parable may function as the
point with which Luke introduces the parable conclusion to the previous section or as a transi-
(18:1)—or on the assurance that God will answer tion to the parable of the Pharisee and the tax
those who pray day and night. collector, which follows.
18:7. The latter interpretation is suggested by Earlier, the disciples had exclaimed, “Increase
the introduction (v. 1) and by the first of the two our faith!” (17:5), and Jesus had explained to
questions in v. 7: “And will not God grant justice them the power of faith the size of a mustard
to his chosen ones who cry to him day and seed (17:6). Then, Jesus found faith in the Samari-
night?” The question confidently assumes an af- tan leper, and Jesus assured him, “Your faith has
firmative answer. The phrase “day and night” not made you well [saved you]” (17:19). Implicitly the
only highlights the need for persistent prayer but warnings about the judgment at the coming of
also resonates with the description of Anna and the Son of Man contrast the vindication of those
the pious widows in the Pastoral Epistles who ‘who have faith with the judgment on those who
prayed “night and day” (Luke 2:37; 1 Tim 5:5). do not. Now the question is posed directly for the
The verb in the first question (Bodw boao) means hearer: Will the Son of Man find faith when he
“to call,” “to shout,” or “to cry out.” Two char- comes? From an assurance of God’s care for the
acters in Luke “cry out” to Jesus for help, fulfilling “little ones” (see 17:2), to a lesson on prayer, to
the assurance of the first question in v. 7; they an affirmation of God’s vindication of the elect,
are the father of the boy with an unclean spirit Luke turns this parable around and around until
338
he spins from it a question regarding faith. In order night and day. When the Son of Man comes, will
to answer affirmatively, the reader must be ready to —_—he find such faith among God’s elect (see 7:9)?
profess a faith like that of the persistent widow who Will he find faith like a mustard seed (see 17:6)?
demands justice and the pious widow who prays — Will he find that you have a widow’s faith?
REFLECTIONS
According to an old dictum, a parable has only one point, but Luke proves that this approach
is too restrictive. The parable of the unjust judge and the persistent widow offers opportunities
for reflection on the responsibility of the faithful to care for widows, orphans, and strangers
in their midst. It affords a striking challenge to any theology to tie God’s providence to God’s
compassion. It serves as a graphic lesson on the importance of prayer and patient endurance,
and finally it focuses on the quality and vitality of one’s faith.
1. The abstract often lures us to lose sight of the concrete, and specific concerns can fade
into pointless generalities. The interpreter should resist the seduction of the parable’s introduc-
tion (v. 1). Many find it far easier to worry over the health of their prayer life than to be
concerned for the well-being of widows. From early in the history of the Judeo-Christian
tradition, however, no expression of faithfulness to God is more deeply rooted than the duty
to care for widows, orphans, and strangers—the powerless and homeless in our midst. Where
had Jesus learned this lesson? Had he been taught it in the synagogue, or had Joseph died
when he was a boy, and had he seen his mother’s distress as, husbandless, she tried to care
for her children and sustain the family? Perhaps this parable was born not just from everyday
experience but from a specific childhood memory.
One response to this parable, then, may be to focus sustained attention on the needs of
widows within the church as the average age of the American population and of church
members rises with the advancing age of the baby-boom generation. What role did widows
have in the early church, and how did the church care for their needs? It is time for the
church to give renewed attention to this part of the record of the church’s faith and practice.
2. There are two characters in this parable, and the unjust judge’s failure to fear God or
be concerned about the needs of other people establishes him as the antithesis of God’s justice
and compassion for the oppressed. If even such an arrogant judge will eventually respond to
the widow, then how could one doubt that God will vindicate such “little ones” against those
who inflict hardship upon them or fail to do what is in their power to ease their plight? The
just God does not protect the property interests of the privileged but is compassionate and
looks out for those who have no power to leverage privileges from the powerful. The way of
the kingdom, therefore, calls for priorities based on compassion.
Once God’s compassionate nature has been clearly stated, then the call to pray and not lose
heart takes on a different tone. The God to whom we pray is compassionate, ready to respond
to the needs of the powerless and oppressed. How does such a God hear our prayers if they
are self-centered, concerned only with petty issues, or irrelevant to God’s redemptive purposes?
To those who are worn out, hard pressed, and lacking in hope, Jesus says to pray night and
day. Unlike an unjust judge, God cares about the plight of those who are regarded unimportant
by others. To those who have it in their power to relieve the distress of the widow, the
orphan, and the stranger but do not, the call to pray night and day is a command to let the
priorities of God’s compassion reorder the priorities of their lives.
The assurance that God will act to establish justice on earth and vindicate the needs of the
disadvantaged is a double-edged word. To the judge it calls for speedy action to turn from
339
false priorities while there is still time, and to the widow it speaks a word of hope. The time
is growing short; God will not tarry long.
To each, therefore, the parable of the unjust judge and the persistent widow calls for a
reexamination of our faith. Have we turned a deaf ear to those who cry out in need, or have
we given up hope that God will hear our calls for help? Faith requires different responses from
the widow and the judge. What does faith require of us? Have we the faith of a mustard seed,
the faith of a widow?
Luke 18:9-14, The Pharisee and the Tax Collector

NIV NRSV
°To some who were confident of their own 9He also told this parable to some who trusted
righteousness and looked down on everybody in themselves that they were righteous and re-
else, Jesus told this parable: '°“Two men went up garded others with contempt: '°“Two men went
to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the
other a tax collector. ''The Pharisee stood up and _ other a tax collector. ''The Pharisee, standing by
prayed about? himself: ‘God, I thank you that I ~ himself, was praying thus, “God, I thank you that
am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adul- I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adul-
terers—or even like this tax collector. 'I fast terers, or even like this tax collector. '7I fast twice
twice a week and give a tenth of all | get.’ a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’ But
'S“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He the tax collector, standing far off, would not even
would not even look up to heaven, but beat his look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and
breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ '4I tell
sinner.’ you, this man went down to his home justified
'4¢7 tell you that this man, rather than the rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves
other, went home justified before God. For every- will be humbled, but all who humble themselves
one who exalts himself will be humbled, and he will be exalted.”
who humbles himself will be exalted.”
a/] Or to
(COMMENTARY
The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector the kingdom in the previous chapter, then the parable
extends the theme of prayer, found in the previous of the Pharisee and the tax collector serves to intro-
parable. By reading these two parables together, the duce a new section of the Gospel (18:9-30). In these
reader is instructed to pray with the determination verses, parallels can be drawn between the figures of
of the widow and the humility of the tax collector. the Pharisee and the rich ruler (vv. 18-25) and
Peter Rhea Jones has characterized the complemen- between the humility of the tax collector and the little
tary themes of the two parables as “the promise of children (vv. 15-17).
persistent prayer” (18:1-8) and “the peril of pre- 18:9, 14. The parable is bracketed by inter-
sumptuous prayer” (vv. 9-14).!™ pretive references in vv. 9 and 14. Luke says that
If the preceding parable, with its reference to Jesus told the parable “to some who trusted in
the coming of the Son of Man (v. 8), is taken as themselves that they were righteous and regarded
the conclusion of the discourse on the coming of
others with contempt” (v. 9). Both facets of this
194. Peter Rhea Jones, The Teaching of the Parables (Nashville: description anticipate the characterization of the
Broadman, 1982) 198. Pharisee in the following verses. One may assume ~
340
that Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, as in subtlety and reduce its characters to traits or
15:1-2 (Where Pharisees and tax collectors are stereotypes.'%° The parable itself characterizes the
mentioned together); 16:14-15 (which echoes the Pharisee and the tax collector only indirectly; it
characterization of the Pharisee: “You are those does not tell us what to think of them. (On the
who justify yourselves in the sight of others; but role of tax collectors, see Commentary on 5:27.)
God knows your hearts”); and 17:20. While the The parabler leaves it to the hearer to decide why
parable may be intended as a rebuke of the one was justified and the other was not.
Pharisees in its present context, Luke does not 18:10. Whether coming from north, south, east,
say that Jesus addressed the Pharisees. Moreover, or west, people always “went up” to Jerusalem, and
a parable addressed to the Pharisees that placed the Temple was situated at the highest point in the
a Pharisee in an unfavorable light would hardly city, above the Kidron Valley to the east and the older
be subtle—thus the parable probably has a much city of David to the south. Praying at the Temple is
wider application. Disciples and believers are just an underlying motif that runs through Luke and into
as vulnerable to pride and self-righteousness as the Acts (see 1:8-10, Zechariah; 2:25-38, Simeon and
Pharisees. Thus, while those who do not recog- Anna; 24:53, the disciples; Acts 2:42-47, the first
nize their own tendency to play the role of the converts; Acts 3:1, Peter and John). Although by
Pharisee in this parable may assume that Jesus this point in the Gospel, the Pharisees are portrayed
was talking about others, specifically the Phari- in a negative light in various earlier passages (e.g.,
sees, by the end of the story readers will have to 9:21-22; 6:7; 7236-50; 1137-445 124 1572316: 14);
confront the attitude of the Pharisee in their own the reader is nevertheless expected to recognize the
hearts. The conclusion in v. 14 disallows the Pharisee as a devout person and the tax collector as
limitation of the parable to any one group: “All a Stereotypical sinner.
who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all 18:11. Both the position and the prayer of the
who humble themselves will be exalted.” Pharisee and then of the tax collector are re-
Trusting in oneself is obviously a posture of ported, and the reader learns who these two are
blindness to one’s position before God. Like the by the way they pray. The Pharisees separated
strong man who trusted in his armor (11:21-22), themselves from others to maintain their purity
the religious may trust in their righteousness. before God, so this Pharisee takes a position that
Luke takes pains, however, to identify the true reflects his identity—standing by himself. Alterna-
basis for righteousness and distinguish it from tively, the phrase may be interpreted as referring
misplaced pride in obedience to God’s command- to the Pharisee’s prayer rather than his position:
ments. Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous “concerning himself he prayed these things.” Both
(1:6). John’s role, likewise, was to turn the dis- prayers begin with a simple, direct address:
obedient to “the wisdom of the righteous” (1:17), “God.” The Pharisee’s prayer, however, continues
of whom Simeon was an appropriate model immediately in the first person. The narrator’s
(2:25). Alongside these models of piety were initial characterization of the Pharisee as regarding
others whose righteousness was superficial or in- others with contempt (v. 9) is confirmed by his
adequate. Jesus came, therefore, “to call not the own words. His prayer is one of thanksgiving, but
righteous but sinners to repentance” (5:32). The it is a self-serving prayer, thanking God that he is
ambivalence continues in other references. The not like other people.'° By “other people” he
righteous will be raised from the dead (14:14), means sinners: “thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even
but there is more joy in heaven over the repen- like this tax collector.” The last member of this list
tance of one sinner than in the ninety-nine righ- links the two characters of the parable. The Pharisee
teous (15:7). Later, Jesus’ accusers will feign righ- is aware of the presence of the tax collector in the
teousness (20:20), but the centurion at the cross Temple, but the only link between them is the
will pronounce Jesus righteous (23:47), and Pharisee’s contempt for the tax collector.
Joseph of Arimathea will be identified as a righ- 18:12. As the Pharisee’s prayer continues, so
teous man (23:50).
195. John Nolland, Luke 9:21—18:34, WBC 35B (Dallas: Word, 1989)
Valuable as the introduction and conclusion 878-79.
may be, they may rob the parable of much of its 196. For a contemporary parallel from Qumran, see 10H 7.34-35.
341
does his absorption in his own virtue. Fasting and or contrition before God. By contrast, the tax col-
tithing are the proofs of his piety that he offers lector stands “far off,” a position that anticipates his
to God. He fasts twice each week, a practice confession of unworthiness before God. The com-
attested here for the first time (cf. 5:33). The mon posture for prayer was not with head bowed
Didache (early second century) instructs Chris- and hands folded but looking up to God with hands
tians, “Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, raised (1 Tim 2:8). Indeed, later Christian prayer
for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but do practices reflect the influence of this parable. Beating
you fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.”'” (For the one’s breast was a sign of remorse or grief.'”
prescriptions for fasting in the OT, see Commen- Moreover, there are suggestive parallels between
tary on 5:33.) this parable and Luke’s description of the responses
Tithing has been referred to earlier also (11:42). of the centurion and the bystanders at the death of
Again, there is precedent in the Hebrew Scriptures Jesus, especially the pronouncement of righteousness
(e.g., Gen 14:20; Num 18:21-24; Deut 14:22-26; or innocence and the crowd’s response of beating
Mal 3:8-10) and prescriptions in the Rabbinic their breasts (see 23:48).
sources.!%8 Either to avoid any possibility of ne- 18:13. If the Pharisee asks nothing of God,
glect or as a work of supererogation, the Pharisee the tax collector boasts nothing before God. His
does not just offer a tithe on those foods or prayer echoes the opening words of Psalm 51:
animals for which a tithe is specifically required ’. “Have mercy on me, O God.” The crucial addition
but tithes a// of his income. to the words of Psalm 51, however, is the tax
The Pharisee asks nothing of God. He pre- collector’s self-designation: “a sinner.” Nothing
sumes, rather, that he is not a sinner and that his more is reported of the tax collector’s prayer. It
fasting and tithing are ample evidence of his piety. is complete as it stands, and nothing more needs
The Pharisee gives no evidence of either humility to be said of his character.
197. Did. 8.1, in Kirsopp Lake, trans., The Apostolic Fathers, LCL 199. See Joseph and Asenath 10:15.
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970) 1:321.
198. E.g., m. Maaseroth and m. Maaser Sheni.
REFLECTIONS
Luke has already educated the reader to know how to assess the contrast between the two
who went up to the Temple to pray. Early in his ministry, Jesus said, “I have come to call
not the righteous but sinners to repentance” (5:32). The parable now contrasts representatives
from each of these categories. Jesus’ opponents ridiculed him as “a friend of tax collectors and
sinners” (7:34), but Jesus responded that “there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner
who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (15:7).
Less evident is the reason why the Pharisee’s prayer is not accepted. Is it because he
presumes he is righteous but is not? Does his lack of humility or his confidence in his own
virtue exclude him from God’s grace?’ Does the fact that he has separated himself from others
signal that, although he may not realize it, he has separated himself from God as well?
The parable leaves it to the reader to consider the contrast between the two. Verse 14
affirms that the one who presumed he was righteous (v. 9) and not like the unrighteous (v.
11) was not made righteous, while the one who was so acutely aware of his unrighteousness
was made righteous. The parable, therefore; is not merely a study in contrasts but ends with
a dramatic reversal. The one who said, “I know my transgressions,/ and my sin is ever before
me” (Ps 51:3 NRSV) could now rejoice that his petition, “Create in me a clean heart, O God,/
and put a new and right spirit within me” (Ps 51:10 NRSV, italics added) had been heard.
The proud are brought down, and the lowly are exalted (see 1:52).
The second part of v. 14 moves the lesson of the parable from the particular to the feshnar
“all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.”
342
This pronouncement is a verbatim repetition of Luke 14:11. In the earlier context, the axiom
follows Jesus’ admonition to the guests at a banquet to take the lower seats rather than the
places of honor. The same scenario has now been played out in God’s house. The Pharisee
separated himself from the others and boasted of his virtue, while the tax collector stood far
off and declared his sinfulness. The Pharisee returned to his home without having been made
righteous, but the tax collector was accepted before God.
Both the reversal of the characters in the parable and its echo with the context of Luke
14:11 lead the reader to ponder the relationship between the two characterizations stated in
the opening verse (18:9; cf. the judge “who neither feared God nor had respect for people,”
18:2). Those who trust in their own righteousness will regard others with contempt, and those
who regard others with contempt cannot then bring themselves to rely on God’s grace.
Therefore, persons who exalt themselves over others and boast of their virtue before God will
discover that they have cut themselves off from both, and persons who are aware of their
need for grace and forgiveness will not be able to despise other people.
The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, contrary to some interpretations, is a two-sided
parable. To read it as simply a warning against pride, self-sufficiency, or a relationship with God
based on one’s own works is to miss the other side of the parable, which connects the Pharisee’s
posture before God with his contempt for the tax collector. To miss this connection would be
tantamount to emulating the Pharisee’s blindness to the implications of his attitude toward the tax
collector. The nature of grace is paradoxical: It can be received only by those who have learned
empathy for others. In that regard, grace partakes of the nature of mercy and forgiveness. Only
the merciful can receive mercy, and only those who forgive will be forgiven (6:36-38). The Pharisee
had enough religion to be virtuous, but not enough to be humble. As a result, his religion drove
200
him away from the tax collector rather than toward him.
200. See Nolland, Luke 9:21—18:34, 877.
Luke 18:15-30, The Little Children and the Rich Ruler

NIV NRSV
'SPeople were also bringing babies to Jesus to 15People were bringing even infants to him
have him touch them. When the disciples saw that he might touch them; and when the disciples
this, they rebuked them. '*But Jesus called the saw it, they sternly ordered them not to do it.
children to him and said, “Let the little children ‘But Jesus called for them and said, “Let the little
come to me, and do not hinder them, for the children come to me, and do not stop them; for
kingdom of God belongs to such as these. "I tell it is to such as these that the kingdom of God
you the truth, anyone who will not receive the belongs. !’Truly I tell you, whoever does not
kingdom of God like a little child will never receive the kingdom of God as a little child will
enter it.” never enter it.”
18A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, 18A certain ruler asked him, “Good Teacher,
what must I do to inherit eternal life?” what must I do to inherit eternal life?” '*Jesus
1*Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one
“No one is good—except God alone. *°You know is good but God alone. ?°You know the command-
the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do ments: ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall
not murder, do not steal, do not give false testi- not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear
mony, honor your father and mother.’*” false witness; Honor your father and mother.’”
21“At] these I have kept since I was a boy,” he 21He replied, “I have kept all these since my
said. youth.” ?2When Jesus heard this, he said to him,
220 Exodus 20:12-16; Deut. 5:16-20 “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you
343
LUKE 18:15-30
NIV NRSV
22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You own and distribute the money? to the poor, and
still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and you will have treasure in heaven; then come,
give to the poor, and you will have treasure in follow me.” #23But when he heard this, he became
heaven. Then come, follow me.” sad; for he was very rich. Jesus looked at him
23When he heard this, he became very sad, and said, “How hard it is for those who have
because he was a man of great wealth. *4Jesus wealth to enter the kingdom of God! **Indeed, it
looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
rich to enter the kingdom of God! *°Indeed, it is needle than for someone who is rich to enter the
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a kingdom of God.”
needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom 26Those who heard it said, “Then who can be
of God.” saved?” 27He replied, “What is impossible for
26Those who heard this asked, “Who then can mortals is possible for God.”
be saved?” 28Then Peter said, “Look, we have left our
27Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men homes and followed you.” 2°And he said to them,
is possible with God.” “Truly I ‘tell you, there is no one who has left
8Peter said to him, “We have left all we had
‘house or wife or brothers or parents or children,
to follow you!” for the sake of the kingdom of God, *°who will
297 tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no
not get back very much more in this age, and in
one who has left home or wife or brothers or
the age to come eternal life.”
parents or children for the sake of the kingdom
aGklacks the money
of God “will fail to receive many times as much
in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.”
(COMMENTARY
The two preceding sections have featured con- dren being brought to Jesus, Luke uses Bpédos
trasts between the persistent widow and the un- brephos), a term he uses elsewhere for infants
just judge and between the Pharisee and the tax (Luke 1:41, 44; 2:12, 16; Acts 7:19). We are not
collector. The little children and the rich ruler do told why the children were being brought to
not interact, but taken together they serve to Jesus. It has been estimated, however, that infant
illustrate what the kingdom of God requires. mortality rates ran as high as 30 percent; the
As the Lukan travel narrative nears its conclu- terrors of disease, famine, and war claimed 30
sion, Luke again returns to the Markan sequence: percent of those who survived by the age of six
Jesus blesses the children (Mark 10:13-16) and and 60 percent by the age of sixteen.7°! Presum-
calls the rich man (Mark 10:17-22). Throughout ably, people were bringing children to Jesus be-
this section the theme of the kingdom recurs, cause they had seen or heard that his touch had
focusing the reader’s attention on the kingdom’s healed others (6:19). The miracle-working teacher
reversals of conventional wisdom and the radical who exercised power over demons, they thought,
demands that Jesus makes on all who seek to might bless the children by his touch.
enter the kingdom or gain eternal life. Neither are we told why the disciples sought
18:15-17, The Little Children. 18:15. to stop people from bringing the children to Jesus.
Verses 15-17 are a pronouncement story that We may conjecture that they disregarded the
features two related sayings, each containing personhood of children, that they wanted to pro-
references to “children” (mat8ia paidia, v. 16; tect Jesus’ time for more important activities, or
trardtov paidion, v. 17) and the kingdom of God. that they were jealous of the children’s access to
Although both Mark 10:13 and the two sayings
201. Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, A Social-Science
that follow use the term paidia for the chil- Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 383.
344
Jesus. Whatever their motive, they acted out the experience of the kingdom, v. 17 looks to the
role of a famous person’s entourage, or a king’s prospect of entering the kingdom in the future.
court, by shielding Jesus from the people. By doing Verse 17 is a verbatim repetition of Mark
so, however, they demonstrate that they have again 10:15, but it is structurally similar to Matt 18:3
failed to understand the nature of the kingdom. (Cf. and the Johannine versions of the same saying:
Jesus’ response to the disciples regarding the “little
“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become
ones,” 17:1-2; the nature of faith, 17:5-6; and the
like children, you will never enter the kingdom
coming of the Son of Man, 17:22-37.) of heaven.” (Matt 18:3 NRSV)
18:16. Jesus’ attention turns directly to the
children. He does not say, “Let them bring the “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the
little children to me,” but “Let the little children kingdom of God without being born from
above.” (John 3:3 NRSV)
come to me.” By his words, he gives expression
to the gentle, nurturing side of God, which the “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the
psalmist sang of in Ps 131:2. Jesus’ rebuke, “Do kingdom of God without being born of water
not hinder them,” recalls the disciples’ misguided and Spirit.” john 3:5 NRSV)
censorship of the unauthorized exorcist (9:49-50) Each of these sayings is composed of four parts:
and the lawyers’ failed stewardship of the key of (1) “Amen” or “Amen, amen,” (2) “I say to you,”
knowledge (11:52). Whenever people in positions (3) a condition stated negatively, and (4) a warning
of power hinder others—the outcast, women, the of exclusion from the kingdom. In each case, the
poor, or children—from entering the kingdom condition involves a reference to children or to birth.
(again see 17:2), it is always a mistake. In the The saying in v. 17 also fits the profile of the
book of Acts, “hinder” (kwitw kolyo) will become nature of the kingdom that Luke sketches for the
a clue to the theme of the gospel’s defeat of all reader. The kingdom belongs to the poor (6:20), to
who would erect barriers to its being preached to women—such as the widow of Nain, the woman
Samaritans (Acts 8:4-8), a eunuch (Acts 8:36), or who anointed Jesus, the woman with the flow of
the Gentiles (Acts 10:47; 11:17; 28:31).?° blood, the stooped woman, Mary and Martha, the
The second half of the saying in v. 16 provides persistent widow, and the woman who gave all she
a twist that lifts the incident from being merely had—and to the tax collectors, the paralyzed, the
a glimpse into Jesus’ compassion for the children Samaritans, and the lepers. The children are now
to a lesson on the nature of the kingdom. The added to this unlikely list. The kingdom is for such
theological motive for receiving children is that neglected, forgotten, or despised persons. Because
“it is to such as these that the kingdom of God the kingdom is for such as these, one must become
belongs” (18:16). Again, the saying leaves the like a child in order to enter the kingdom. Here
reader to fill the gaps and understand what gives again, the saying invites the reader to consider what
children access to the kingdom: their innocence, he or she would have to do to “receive the kingdom
their powerlessness, their lack of credentialed vir- of God as a little child.”
tue such as the Pharisee boasted of in the preced- 18:18-30, The Rich Ruler. 18:18. Without
ing parable, or their readiness to receive God’s any notice of a change of time or place, Luke
love? Who else could be numbered among “such reports a certain ruler’s question to Jesus. Is there
as these”? a connection between the rich ruler and the
18:17. This is the third of six “Amen, I say preceding scene? Had the ruler heard Jesus’ pro-
to you” sayings in Luke (see 4:24; 12:37; 18:29; nouncement about the children? How should we
21:32; 23:43). “Amen” (aynv amen) was a dec- read his question, with an emphasis on “I,” mean-
laration of affirmation that usually followed a ing that if the kingdom belongs to “such as these,”
prayer or pronouncement. In the NT only Jesus what must a ruler do? Or does the emphasis fall
ever prefaces a saying with this unutterably sol- on “do” or “inherit” or “eternal life”? The ruler
emn formula. Whereas Vv. 16 describes the present again advances the question of the character of
righteousness. In the context of God’s covenant
202. Frank Stagg, The Book of Acts: The Early Struggle for an Unhin- with Israel, the question of what one must do to
dered Gospel (Nashville: Broadman, 1955); “The Unhindered Gospel,”
Review and Expositor, 71 (1974) 451-62. inherit eternal life implicitly raises the much-
345
debated question of the relationship among cove- Only Luke identifies this interlocutor as a ruler,
nant, righteousness, and resurrection. but Luke characterizes him neither as rich—a key
First-century Jews were divided on the hope of element in the exchange that follows but one that
an afterlife. Israelites of earlier centuries believed that is temporarily withheld from the reader—nor as
the dead went to Sheol, where there was no con- young (see Matt 19:20). The common designation
scious, individual existence. One lived on, therefore, “the rich young ruler,” therefore, represents a
through descendants and in memory. Consequently, popular conflation of the synoptic Gospels but is
childless persons had no one to care for them in found in none of them.
their old age or to remember them after their death. The ruler prefaces his question with the ad-
Job in his misery calls on God to “appoint me a set dress “Good teacher.” Both John and Jesus have
time, and remember me!” (see Job 14:10-14a). The been called “teacher” (8t6dcKahos didaskalos;
first explicit reference to a hope of resurrection from see 3:12; 7:40). The added attribute, “Good
the dead occurs at the end of Daniel in a passage teacher,” recognizes Jesus’ virtue and piety, and
that probably dates from the early second century hence his ability to speak to the question the ruler
BcE: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the has addressed to him. Jesus’ credentials did not
earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some consist in his discipleship to a great mentor but in
to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan 12:2 the transparent goodness of his own character. Un-
NRSV). Belief in the resurrection of the dead was, less the ruler used the address simply as a respectful
therefore, a relatively recent development. The Sad- greeting, it shows great insight on his part.
ducees rejected this belief because it was not found 18:19. Jesus turns the address back on the
in the Torah, but the Pharisees and apparently the ruler rather sharply. Instead of being flattered that
Essenes affirmed the hope of resurrection (see Acts a ruler would address him in such a way, Jesus
23:8). Still, the nature of the resurrection and the seizes the moment to make a theological point,
basis for eternal life were vigorously debated. Some just as he had seized the opportunity afforded by
inclined toward the Greek notion of the immortality the disciples’ effort to turn the children away from
of the soul; some thought of the resuscitation or him to make a point about the nature of the
reconstitution of the physical body; while others kingdom. The point of his first response to the
spiritualized the notion of resurrection. ruler is explained in the next sentence: “No one
The ruler addressed to Jesus a profoundly exis- is good but God alone.” Far from the church’s
tential and theological question: “What must I do impulse to venerate Jesus, these words deflect
to inherit eternal life?” The reference to eternal life attention from his person to God. God is the
in v. 30 forms a parenthesis with this question, source of all goodness, the only one worthy of
indicating that all the verses in between contribute worship. If a person is good (see 6:45), it is
to Jesus’ response to the ruler. On what basis might through God’s grace; implicitly, if Jesus is to be
one hope for eternal life? Was it sufficient to be worshiped, it is because of God’s vindication of
born into the covenant people or to be faithful to Jesus through the resurrection.
the requirements of that covenant? The ruler’s ques- 18:20. The ruler poses the same question that
tion assumes that the hope of eternal life depends the lawyer posed in Luke 10:25. To the lawyer
on what one does or may fail to do: “What must I Jesus responded, “What is written in the law?”
do?” On the other hand, the verb translated Here again, Jesus cites the commandments, four
“inherit” (kAnpovopéw kleronomeo) places the negative and one positive, in what we may des-
ruler’s hope in the context of God’s promise of ignate as his second response to the ruler because
an inheritance to the descendants of Abraham, an it moves to a new topic. Although the list of
inheritance that now included the hope of eternal commandments is found in all three synoptic
life as a part of God’s blessing. Gospels, each is different from the others. Luke
Jairus was identified earlier as a ruler of the reverses the Markan sequence of the first two
synagogue (8:41; cf. 14:1), but the rich ruler in commands and omits the fifth, “You shall not
this passage is probably a civil magistrate (see defraud” (Mark 10:19 NRSV). Matthew and Mark
12:58; 23:13, 35; 24:20). The language of his follow the sequence in which the commands are
question suggests that the ruler is a Jewish official. given in Exod 20:12-16 and Deut 5:16-20, but
346
Philo and the B manuscript of the Septuagint The term rendered “treasure” (8noaupds
contain lists of the commands in the same se- thésauros) occurs only once in Mark, in the Markan
quence as Luke.” In Exodus and Deuteronomy parallel to this verse (Mark 10:21), but four times
the command to honor one’s father and mother in Luke and nine times in Matthew. Luke 6:45 links
also precedes the other commands. good and evil treasure to the nature of a person’s
18:21. Now it is the ruler who rebuffs Jesus. heart. Luke 12:33, in the context of Jesus’ instruc-
The honor he conferred on Jesus by addressing the tions to his disciples, provides the basis for the
question to him and by his honorific address, “Good present text. In parallel to the present context, this
Teacher” had not elicited an equally honorific re- passage contains an exhortation to sell one’s posses-
sponse from Jesus. Instead, Jesus had shamed the sions and give alms; the phrase “treasure in heaven,”
ruler by questioning his attribution of goodness to which will result from giving what one has to the
Jesus. Moreover, Jesus’ answer hardly showed any poor; and the axiom that one’s heart will be where
greater wisdom than might have been expected one’s treasure is. What Jesus says to the ruler,
from a child in the synagogue. Who could not have therefore, is not a new or arbitrary demand imposed
quoted the commandments back to the ruler? The only on this man or members of his class; it is an
ruler, therefore, seizes the high ground by affirming expression of the basic axioms of the kingdom. The
that he has kept all of these commandments since children, the widows, the strangers, and the poor
his youth. Is Jesus able to offer nothing more? have a special place in God’s care (see 6:20), so
Jesus’ responses to the ruler have not been a those who would inherit the kingdom must also be
trap. Instead, his first response points to the ex- committed to their care. Moreover, our priorities
clusive sovereignty of God and his second re- and commitments cannot be divided; either we
sponse to the foundational importance of God’s serve God or we pursue wealth (cf. the parable of
covenant with Israel. Whatever Jesus might say the rich fool, 12:13-21, and 16:13, “You cannot
further on the issue of eternal life is based on the serve God and wealth”).
continuing validity of these premises. As Luke has 18:23. The characterization of the ruler as
repeatedly demonstrated from the first chapter of “rich” comes only now, at the end of the scene,
the Gospel, the new is not a departure from the where it serves to confirm the appropriateness and
old but an extension and completion of what God force of Jesus’ third response to him. In this
has already been doing in human history. exchange, Jesus and the ruler have each “heard”
18:22. “There is still one thing lacking.” Jesus’ the other (see vv. 22-23). The ruler has heard
third response to the ruler rivets the reader’s atten- Jesus, but his investment in his possessions pre-
tion. The other shoe is about to drop. The focal vents him from responding to Jesus’ imperatives.
pronouncement of this scene will follow. That pro- He will sacrifice his “treasure in heaven” (eternal
nouncement contains a rapid series of imperatives life, v. 18) for what he already has. He is a brother
without explanation or elaboration: (1) sed/ everything to the rich fool, and the reader knows that not
you have; (2) give it away to the poor (and you will only is he sacrificing eternal life, but he will
have treasure in heaven); (3) and come, (4) follow eventually lose his possessions also. He has heard
me. The fourth imperative clarifies the third, while the Word, but here is an example of the seed that
the third adds force to the fourth. The placement of is sown among the thorns (8:14). The resonances
the promise, “and you will have treasure in heaven,” between Jesus’ exchange with the rich ruler and
is also interesting in that it comes after the commands other Lukan passages add richness and texture to
to sell and give to the poor rather than after the the account. Hence, we understand when Luke
commands to come and follow Jesus. The choice of reports that “he became very sad.”
wording underscores the connection between the 18:24-25. Jesus’ fourth response to the rich
promise and the preceding commands, since it implies ruler is a lament followed by an aphorism, both
that the ruler’s treasure is now in his possessions of which feature references to the kingdom of
rather than in his desire to serve God and God’s poor. God. The phrase “becoming very sad” in v. 24 is
omitted from some of the early manuscripts and
203. See Philo On the Decalogue 12.51; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The may be a duplication of the phrase from v. 23.
Gospel According to Luke (X—XXIV) (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1992) 1199.
Without the phrase, however, the transition to
347
___ LUKE 18:15-30 COMMENTARY _
Jesus’ lament in v. 24 is flat and colorless. The 18:26-27. The undefined group to whom
lament is a verbatim repetition of Mark 10:24, Jesus spoke these words now responds in amaze-
but Luke omits the note that it was addressed to ment. If the rich who have means and power to
the disciples. gain for themselves whatever they want and who
The reference to possessions in v. 24 connects have apparently already been blessed by God
this pronouncement with Jesus’ other warnings cannot be saved, then who can? The question
about wealth (6:24; 12:13-21; 16:19-31; 18:18- misses the reversal to which Jesus’ lament and
23). God’s love reaches out prejudicially toward hyperbole point. One cannot infer about the rich
the poor because their poverty violates God’s and the poor according to traditional standards.
intention for human life. Similarly, the rich find The rich do not have more advantages than the
it difficult to experience God’s sovereignty be- poor but less. It is not a matter of human ability
cause their wealth turns them away from people but of divine power. Jesus’ response to their
in need and blinds them to their own need of amazement turns away from the difficulty the rich
salvation. Wealth easily becomes a pursuit that have in turning to God: God is able to bring
displaces the priority of serving God and thereby salvation to the most obdurate of sinners. Again
excludes the rich from the opportunity to experi- free will and divine sovereignty are juxtaposed
ence God’s grace. and equally affirmed without relieving the tension
Jesus’ lament is prefaced by his observation of the ‘between them. While God always calls for a
ruler’s sadness. Both Jesus and the ruler are sad— human response of repentance and faithfulness,
and for the same reason: Both realize that the ruler’s salvation is always an act of divine initiative and
wealth has hindered him from entering the king- grace. Shortly, the incredulous who ask who can
dom. The ruler cannot bring himself to surrender be saved will receive a further answer, when Jesus
his goods, and Jesus can neither overcome nor responds to the blind man by the road, “Your
ignore the ruler’s response. The price of free will is faith has saved you” (18:42). What the rich can-
that God cannot force the free to make the right not achieve for themselves apart from God, God
decisions in life. The poignancy of the moment is can accomplish even with a blind beggar.
that the ruler has the spiritual sensitivity to be 18:28-29. Peter responds to Jesus, speaking on
saddened, but Jesus can do nothing further for him. behalf of the disciples (cf. 9:20, 33; 12:41). There
The difficulty noted in the lament is heightened is a minor textual variant in v. 28. In the parallel
and illustrated by the hyperbole in v. 25: “It is easier in Mark 10:28, Peter says they have left “all” to
for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than follow Jesus, a reference that would echo Jesus’
for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of instruction for the ruler to sell “all” he had and
God.” Interpreters have sought to reduce the incon- follow Jesus (Luke 18:22), but Luke—who has a
gruity of the image by suggesting that the “eye of fondness for the term “all”—lacks the word in the
a needle” was a narrow gate in the city wall through preferred version of the text of this verse. The
which a camel could pass only if its load was emphatic position of the “we” in Peter’s claim
removed from it, but there is no evidence of such conveys the implication that, in contrast to the ruler,
a gate. Origen suggested that with the change of Peter and the others have followed Jesus’ command
one letter, the Greek word for “camel” (kdpndos and are therefore entitled to their reward. Peter’s
kameélos) would mean “rope” (kd\tAos kamilos).2%4 claim that they have followed Jesus echoes Jesus’
The hyperbole of this aphorism is similar, how- call for the ruler to follow him (vv. 22, 28).
ever, to Jesus’ warning that one should remove Earlier Jesus had warned that no one could be
the beam from one’s own eye before attempting his disciple who did not hate father, mother, wile,
to remove a speck from another’s eye (6:42), or ‘children, brothers and sisters, and even his or her
that the scribes and Pharisees “strain out a gnat own life (14:26). Now Jesus offers a promise of
but swallow a camel” (Matt 23:24 NRSV)—a reward to those who have left all to follow him.
saying that sets in contrast the smallest insect with The saying is one of six “amen, I say to you”
the largest animal in Palestine. sayings in Luke (4:24; 12:37; 18:17, 29; 21:32;
23:43). The conditions of discipleship consist here
204. Ibid., 1204. of a fivefold denial: home, wife, brothers, parents,
348
children. The fivefold denials must be held in changes the promise of a hundredfold to “very
context with the commandment to honor one’s much more” and does not specify the nature of
father and mother, which Jesus cited in v. 20. the present rewards that come to the disciples.
Mark has a sevenfold list: house, brothers, sisters, Instead, by comparison with Mark the emphasis
mother, father, children, fields (Mark 10:29), so is focused more tightly on the future reward:
Luke has added the reference to “wife,” combined eternal life.
“mother” and “father” as “parents,” and omitted The last words in this scene return to the
the reference to “fields,” which might have con- theme that was raised by the ruler’s question in
nected with the role Barnabas’s fields play in v. 18, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Acts 4:37. The motivation is also different in The answer is now complete. Eternal life is prom-
Luke: “for the sake of the kingdom of God” rather ised to those who keep the commandments of
than “for my sake and the sake of the good news” God’s covenant with Israel (vv. 19-20), sell what
(Mark 10:29). The repetition of the reference to they have, give to the poor (v. 22), and leave all
the kingdom continues the chain of references to follow Jesus (vv. 22, 28-29). Such a response
found in wv. 17, 24-25. is impossible for human beings, but entirely pos-
18:30. The rewards of discipleship are both sible for God (v. 27). Salvation, therefore, depends
present and future. The pronouncement in v. 30 on both God’s power and our response to God’s
(par. Mark 10:30) employs expressions that are invitation to faithfulness. Through God’s strength,
common in the rabbinic literature: “this age” and the faithful receive a bountiful reward—the expe-
“the age to come.” The age to come is the time rience of fellowship with God in the present and
of blessedness when God will vindicate the righ- eternal life in the future.
teous. In contrast to the Markan parallel, Luke
REFLECTIONS
In his book Tragic Sense of Life, Miguel de Unamuno says that he took up his pen to
distract his readers for a while from their distractions. The “tragic sense of life” arises from
the innate human need to know that there is more to life than this brief span of physical
existence on earth. Yearn as we may for such assurance, however, Unamuno contended that
we cannot know that there is more to life than our short years here. As a result of our anxiety
over our mortality, we spend our lives finding ways to distract ourselves from being preoccupied
with what we cannot know. Thus Unamuno wrote to distract us from our distractions and
focus our attention on the question of life after death. As an agnostic philosopher, he could
find no basis for confident hope of life beyond death. After wrestling with the question at
length, he makes a final admonition to the reader to live in such a way that if there is no life
after death it will be an injustice!”
The power of the story of Jesus’ encounter with the rich ruler is that it inevitably forces
the reader into the role of the ruler. Dancing in our mind’s eye are the vivid images of the
persistent widow and the unjust judge, the Pharisee and the tax collector. We would never
deny a widow her claim. We do not see ourselves in the figure of the judge with no reverence
for God or regard for others. That parable ends with a question rather than a command: “When
the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (18:8). The parable of the Pharisee and
the tax collector overturns notions of holiness based on separation and purity. In place of the
prevailing system of righteousness, this parable proclaims the imperative of righteousness based
on repentance and humility. It ends with a prophetic warning: “All who exalt themselves will
be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted” (18:14). The next scene illustrates
just this sort of reversal: Jesus rebukes the disciples and receives the children. The scene ends
with a warning of the necessity that one who would enter the kingdom must receive it “as
205. Miguel de Unamuno, Tragic Sense of Life, trans. J. E. Crawford Flitch (New York: Dover, 1954) 263, 330.
349
a little child” (18:17). The reader can predict that the ruler will not fare well in his exchange
with Jesus. The ruler will be no more attractive as a model for the reader’s response to Jesus
than is the unjust judge. The difficulty, at least for modern readers of the Gospel, is that we
cannot avoid repeating the ruler’s response to Jesus. Who will actually “sell all that you own
and distribute the money to the poor” (v. 22)? Like the ruler, the reader is forced to recognize
the importance we place on the security our possessions give us. The demand is so high that
we too are apt to turn away sad, feeling deep internal division, but, being unable to do what
Jesus commands. The text leaves us with no basis, therefore, for presumption regarding our
entitlement to a place in the kingdom of God or to eternal life.
As a result, in the narrative context we are driven to the posture of the tax collector who
cries out, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” (v. 13). Paradoxically, identification with the
ruler whose possessions keep him from the kingdom forces upon the reader the sense of
unworthiness that the tax collector expresses. The demand for humility, repentance, divestiture
of wealth and rival allegiances, care for the poor, and complete dependence on the mercy of
God is not compromised in the least. The hope of mercy is never an excuse for failure to
obey. Jesus’ words recognize that salvation depends on the power of God (v. 27).
If full obedience remains beyond our grasp, at least the mix is right: the call to care for the
poor; the models offered by the widow, the tax collector, and the children; and the twin
insistence that we call on God for mercy and remember that what is impossible for us is still
possible for God. In the creative blending of these emphases, Luke calls those who would
heed Jesus’ call not to live in such a way that if there is nothing beyond this life it will be
an injustice, but to live so that the widows will receive justice, the children blessing, and the
poor sustenance. If we can learn to humble ourselves so that the humble may be exalted,
then before God the camel may yet make it through the eye of the needle.
Luke 18:31-34, The Third Passion Prediction
NIV NRSV
‘Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, 31Then he took the twelve aside and said to
“We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and
that is written by the prophets about the Son of everything that is written about the Son of Man
Man will be fulfilled. °*He will be handed over by the prophets will be accomplished. **For he
to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, will be handed over to the Gentiles; and he will
spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third be mocked and insulted and spat upon. °%After
day he will rise again.” they have flogged him, they will kill him, and on
4The disciples did not understand any of this. the third day he will rise again.” *4But they
Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did understood nothing about all these things; in fact,
not know what he was talking about. what he said was hidden from ao and they
did not grasp what was said.
(COMMENTARY
After a long interval that is the result of Luke’s but the parallels to the first two Markan passion
extended travel narrative, Jesus voices the third of predictions (Mark 8:31; 9:31) occur in Luke 9:22,
the passion predictions regarding his fate as the Son and 44-45. This third prediction is by far the most
of Man. Other allusions to what awaits him in detailed, anticipating and foreshadowing the pas-
Jerusalem appear in 12:50; 13:32-34; and 17:25, sion narrative, which will soon unfold.
350
18:31. Not to be missed in the discussion of passion predictions (9:22, 44; see the discussion
the passion prediction is the way in which Luke of this title in Commentary on 5:24).
makes this pronouncement a scene to prepare the 18:32-33. Mark’s version of the passion pre-
reader for the lack of understanding on the part diction says that the Son of Man will be handed
of the Twelve. The opening of their minds to over “to the chief priests and the scribes, and they
understand the death and resurrection of Jesus will condemn him to death” (Mark 10:33 NRSV),
will be an important feature of the last chapter of but Luke says nothing here about the role of the
the Gospel (see 24:45-46). Luke omits Mark’s Jewish religious leaders in the death of Jesus.
scene-setting comment that they were on the road Instead, Luke moves directly to the role of the
going up to Jerusalem because it merely repeats Gentiles, who will mock, beat, and kill Jesus. The
the first part of the pronouncement in v. 31. By details of the prediction set it up as a foreshad-
reporting that Jesus took the Twelve aside, Luke owing of coming events. Even the first-time reader
alerts the reader to the importance of the pro- now knows what is coming and participates help-
nouncement that will follow. This is private in- lessly as the narrative moves inexorably toward
struction to the Twelve. Jesus’ death. The table below reveals the correla-
Jesus reasserts that Jerusalem is the goal of their tion among these verses, the third passion predic-
fourneya(sees 9:51 , 533) 13:22, 33-34;.117:113.0n tion in Mark, and the coming action. References
“going up,” see Commentary on 18:10). The in which there is a corresponding action but no
passion prediction in Luke 18:31 may be pat- verbal parallel appear in parentheses. Judas hands
terned after the Markan prediction in Mark 10:32- Jesus over to the authorities. The Jewish leaders
34, but it includes some features not found in the then take Jesus to Pilate, who hands him over to
Markan account and omits others that are found be crucified. Several themes run through the
there. Specifically, Luke adds the emphasis on the references to the Gentiles in Luke. Jesus will fulfill
fulfillment of Scripture, which will feature promi- the prophecy of “light for revelation to the Gen-
nently in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus tiles” (2:32), but “Jerusalem will be trampled on
(see 22:37; 24:44, 46). Jesus’ allusion to Scrip- by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles
ture’s being “completed” or “finished” picks up are fulfilled” (21:24). Disciples will not lord it over
his earlier veiled reference, “and on the third day one another as the rulers of the Gentiles do
I finish my work” (13:32), and both of these (22:25). Instead, Jesus commissions the disciples
pronouncements will later find an echo when to preach repentance to all nations (24:47).
Jesus says that “this scripture must be fulfilled [lit., While this third passion prediction anticipates
finished] in me” (22:37). Luke does not specify the mockery of Jesus, which is repeated three
which passages or which prophets he has in mind. times, other terms are used to describe the insult-
It is enough to affirm that all that happened to ing or reviling of Jesus, and there is no mention
Jesus was a fulfillment of the prophets. Jesus refers of spitting in the Lukan passion narrative. Simi-
to himself here with the cryptic self-designation larly, Pilate proposes to have Jesus beaten and
“Son of Man,” just as he does in the earlier released (23:22), but the flogging is not recorded
Luke 18:32-33 Mark 10:33-34 Lukan Passion Narrative

handed over Mark 10:33 Abn O24. 22a Oe2o7aos
24:7, 20
to Gentiles Mark 10:33 (2asls 25)
mocked Mark 10:34 22:03%.239) 1,230
insulted (CATS eae
spat upon Mark 10:34 only in Matthew and Mark
flogged Mark 10:34 only in John 19:1; cf. Luke 23:22
-killed Mark 10:34 see 20:14-15; Acts 3:15
the third day Mark 10:34 DE PANES:
rise again Mark 10:34 24:1; 40
in Luke (cf. Matt 27:26; Mark 15:15, where day (24:21), and the risen Lord’s own allusions
“scourge” |bpayeddkow phragelloo| occurs; and in 24:26, 44-46.
John 19:1, which has the only other occurrence 18:34. Like the parents of the twelve-year-old
of “scourge” |vaotiyow mastigoo|). Striking, in- Jesus in the Temple, the disciples do not under-
sulting, and spitting all occur in the words of the stand what Jesus has just said to them (see 2:50).
servant of the Lord in Isa 50:6, which very likely Similarly, “the things that make for peace” were
accounts for their presence in the passion predic- hidden from those in Jerusalem (19:42). Earlier
tions. Elements of traditional accounts of the cruci- Jesus warned—but perhaps there is a promise
fixion, therefore, are mixed in the passion here too—that nothing is now hidden that will
predictions and in the passion narratives themselves not come to light (8:17), and in the next scene,
so that the various elements of this passion predic- as though a metaphorical fulfillment of this prom-
tion are not all fulfilled in the action that follows. ise, Jesus will give sight to a blind man (18:35-43).
Luke changes Mark’s “after three days” (Mark The plot functions of these scenes will become
10:34) to “on the third day,” but retains the evident to the reader in the last chapter of the
intransitive use of the term used to translate “he Gospel, when the meaning of these events is
will rise again” (dviotnut anistemi). The fulfill- revealed to the disciples: “Then their eyes were
ment of Jesus’ words is underscored not only by opened” (24:31), and “Then he opened their
the repetition of some of these specific verbs but ‘minds to understand the scriptures” (24:45).
also by the angelic reminder of the passion pre- Sometimes truth has a time lock. Even new wine
dictions in 24:7, the ironic statement by the two cannot be drunk before its time!
on the road to Emmaus that it was now the third
REFLECTIONS
The third passion prediction is a painful passage. It is loaded with the language of violence:
mocking, insulting, spitting, flogging, killing. Each verb is a station for meditation on the Via
Dolorosa. The way of the cross in Luke illustrates Jesus’ superhuman ability to absorb hostility.
The hostility toward God’s redemptive work in Jesus was prophesied in the infancy narrative
and began with the arrest of John the Baptist and the attempted stoning of Jesus at Nazareth.
Soon it will erupt in an orgy of violence that will leave Jesus beaten and hanged until dead.
The capacity to absorb hostility, however, is one of the secrets of God’s redemptive work.
Violence always breeds more violence. Insult is met with insult, spit with spit, blows with blows,
and killing with more killing. When those called of God to be his people absorb insult, hostility,
and violence without returning it, three things happen: They grow spiritually, the level of violence
is reduced, and the violent are transformed by the witness of love. The overcoming of hostility is
never easy, however. The provision of forgiveness through the death of Jesus was achieved at
infinite cost, and those who pray “Thy kingdom come” must be ready to bear the cost of being
a child of the kingdom. Otherwise, how shall God’s kingdom come? The pain of the work of the
kingdom is not God’s arbitrary choice. We cannot blame God of capriciously making it so difficult
for good to triumph. Suffering is necessary, and Jesus suffered not because God chose to make it
that way but because suffering love and obedience to the call of the kingdom are the only effective
means for ending the spiral of violence that grips the violent.
The passion prediction’s language of violence, therefore, is not only a call to meditation on
the cost of the suffering that Jesus bore for us, but it is also a sobering reminder that when
we return violence we add to that suffering. Our calling, on the other hand, is to “take up
the cross daily” (9:23) and follow Jesus. When angry persons hurl insults and when those who
have been hurt seek to hurt others, who will be for them a witness to the love of the crucified
Christ? The church meets to worship the Christ, to bind up wounds, to encourage one another
to keep the faith, and to go back into the places where otherwise hostility would destroy
352
human life unchallenged. The experience of the church is that the experience of Christ is our
experience also. From this perspective, the passion prediction could just as well be plural rather
than singular. All who seek to follow Jesus will find that they are called to absorb hostility in
his name. They will be betrayed, insulted, beaten, and at times even killed. But the violence
will not triumph. The resurrection of Jesus is God’s affirmation that violence will not have the
last word. In the end, God’s redemptive love will prevail. That is the gospel.
Luke 18:35-43, The Blind Beggar
NIV NRSV
35As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was 35As he approached Jericho, a blind man was
sitting by the roadside begging. °°When he heard sitting by the roadside begging. °°When he heard
the crowd going by, he asked what was happen- a crowd going by, he asked what was happening.
ing. °’They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is pass- 3/They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth? is passing
ing by.” by.” Then he shouted, “Jesus, Son of David,
38He called out, “Jesus, Son of David, have have mercy on me!” Those who were in front
mercy on me!” sternly ordered him to be quiet; but he shouted
3°Those who led the way rebuked him and told even more loudly, “Son of David, have mercy on
him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, me!” “Jesus stood still and ordered the man to
“Son of David, have mercy on me!” be brought to him; and when he came near, he
4Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be asked him, “!“What do you want me to do for
brought to him. When he came near, Jesus asked you?” He said, “Lord, let me see again.” “Jesus
him, “!“What do you want me to do for you?” said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has
“Lord, | want to see,” he replied. saved you.” “Immediately he regained his sight
42Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your and followed him, glorifying God; and all the
faith has healed you.” “Immediately he received people, when they saw it, praised God.
his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When aGk the Nazorean
all the people saw it, they also praised God.
(COMMENTARY
Jericho and Bethany are the staging areas for accounts of the healings of two blind men (Matt
Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. The events that occur 9:27-31; 20:29-34). In Mark, the healing accounts
in these places set the context and the themes for seem to function metaphorically to demonstrate
his arrival in the holy city. In Jericho, Jesus heals Jesus’ ability to bring understanding to the disci-
the blind man who acclaims him as the son of ples just as he brings sight to the blind (see Mark
David. He continues his ministry to the tax collectors 8:22-26; 10:46-52). The first of the Markan heal-
by bringing salvation to a chief tax collector, Zac- ing stories precedes the confession of Peter at
chaeus, and tells the parable of the “talents” (uvd Caesarea Philippi, and the second follows the
mna). Then he sends two of the disciples to request of James and John for places of honor in
secure a colt for his entry into Jerusalem. These the kingdom. Luke omits that scene (Mark 10:35-
scenes prepare the reader for Jesus’ arrival and 35) and moves instead directly from the third
the disciples’ shouts of “Blessed is the king who passion prediction to the healing of the blind man.
comes in the name of the Lord!” (19:38). Significant linkages still connect the scene with
Luke’s account of the healing of the blind man the foregoing material in Luke, however. Al-
follows Mark’s account (10:46-52) closely and has though Luke regularly portrays the disciples in a
only a few points of contact with Matthew’s two more positive light than does Mark, Luke adds
353
the explanation of the disciples’ inability to un- their way to Jerusalem. The beaten man had been
derstand (see 18:34). This explanation may well on his way to Jericho (10:30). Now Jesus—on his
be Luke’s substitute for the longer demonstration way to Jerusalem—stops for a man beside the road
of the disciples’ obduracy in Mark 10:35-45. Sig- in Jericho. Earlier Jesus had told the parable of the
nificantly, Luke states that these things were “hid- man who ordered his servant to go out into the
den from them.” Now he relates Jesus’ ability to streets and lanes and bring in “the poor, the crip-
enable even a blind man to see. pled, the blind, and the.lame” (14:21). Now Jesus
Other linkages with the foregoing material can be will order his followers to bring the blind man to
seen in the parallel between the disciples’ act of him. The dishonest steward was too ashamed to beg
preventing the children from coming to Jesus (18:15) (see 16:3), but the blind man had no choice.
and the response of “those who were in front” (which 18:36-37. Luke omits Mark’s report that the
may be a reference to the disciples) who ordered the blind man was named Bartimaeus and revises
blind beggar to be silent. In both contexts, the verb Mark’s account to introduce the crowd in v. 36.
is the same; they “sternly ordered” (€tmTLWdw epi- The effect of Luke’s editing is to concentrate more
timao; cf. 18:15, 39), and in both cases they act to attention on the designation of Jesus .as “the
stop powerless, marginalized persons from coming to Nazorean” (0 NaCwpatos ho Nazoraios,; v. 37).
Jesus. In the end, the blind man follows Jesus, some- “Nazarene” (NaCapnvds Nazarénos) occurs in
thing the rich ruler was unable to do, but then, as » Mark 1:24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6 and elsewhere in
John Nolland has observed, the blind man had noth- Luke (4:34; 24:19), and the more Semitic “Na-
ing to leave behind (cf. 18:22, 28, 43).?°° The blind zorean” appears in Matthew (2:23; 26:71), in this
beggar, therefore, is an antitype of both the disciples passage in Luke, in John (18:5, 7; 19:19), and
and the rich ruler. He gains his sight (which the several times in Acts. Both forms of the word refer
disciples will not do until after the resurrection; see to a person from Nazareth, but it has often been
24:31: “Then their eyes were opened”) and follows suspected that here and elsewhere (e.g., Matt 2:23)
Jesus (which the rich ruler was unable to do). the term has a further connotation. The Hebrew
Jesus’ healing of the blind man also fulfills part word for “Nazirite” (7°11 nazir), one who had taken
of the program for his ministry, drawn from Isaiah a vow of consecration, is similar. The use of the term
and announced at Nazareth: in Luke, especially, may evoke echoes of the parallels
“He has sent me to proclaim
that Luke draws between the births of Jesus and
release to the captives Samuel, the Nazirite (see 1 Sam 2:1-10, 26; Luke
and recovery of sight to the blind, 1:46-55; 2:52).2°” More distant is the association with
to let the oppressed go free.” (4:18) Isa 11:1, which promises a “shoot” (7x1 neser
“from the stump of Jesse.”
Although Luke 7:21-22 alludes to other healings, 18:38-39. Why did the blind man call Jesus
this is the only account of the healing of a blind
“son of David”? Did he see what the sighted
man in Luke. The stage has been carefully set,
persons around him could not see? Was the
therefore, by preceding references so that the
association communicated by the title “Na-
reader may hear the overtones of Luke’s account
zorean”? Was a healer understood to be a son of
of the healing of this blind beggar.
David, or is the term purely political? In its literary
18:35. This verse sets the stage and introduces
context, which furnishes the most plausible expla-
a new character. Whereas Mark relates the event
nation, Luke’s use of the word resonates with his
as Jesus is leaving Jericho, in Luke, Jesus is just
notice that Joseph was from the house of David
arriving at Jericho, a change that Luke may have
(1:27; cf. 1:69; 3:31) and the promise at Jesus’
made in order to place the healing of the blind
birth that “the Lord God will give to him the
man before Jesus’ meeting with Zacchaeus in throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over
Jericho (see 19:1). Earlier Jesus had told a parable
the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom
about a priest and a Levite who would not stop
there will be no end” (1:32-33). The blind man’s
for a man beside the road because they were on
207. Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary
206. John Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53, WBC 35B (Dallas: Word, on the Infancy Narrative in Matthew and Luke (New York: Doubleday,
1989) 901-2. 1977) 210-11.
354
use of this title also prepares the reader for the forth at the outset of his ministry (4:18), and in
royal overtones of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and the immediate context demonstrates the power of
the debate over the designation “Son of David” God to save those who call out for mercy—like
in 20:41-44. the tax collector who prayed, “God, be merciful
At the beginning of Luke 18, Jesus promised to me, a sinner!” (18:13). Jesus then responds:
that God will “grant justice to his chosen ones “Your faith has saved you” (cf. 7:50; 8:48; 17:19).
who cry to him day and night” (18:7; cf. 9:38). What is impossible for human beings is possible
Now the blind beggar cries out to Jesus, “Have for God (18:27). Just as Jesus’ response to his
mercy on me!” It is the same as the desperate pleas for help was twofold, sight and salvation, so
plea of the rich man to Abraham (16:24) and the also Luke’s report of the effect of Jesus’ words is
ten lepers (17:13). Just as the disciples had sought twofold. Immediately, the man regained his sight
to stop those who were bringing the children to and began to follow Jesus. By following Jesus, the
Jesus, so also those who went before Jesus or- beggar has joined the company of Jesus’ disciples
dered the beggar to be silent. Their efforts only on the way to Jerusalem. Others left everything
provoked the man to “cry out” more insistently. to follow Jesus (see 5:11, 28); this man gained
The verb that Luke uses here (kpd¢w krazo) was what he wanted most.
used earlier to describe the deranged cries of the 18:43. Calling others to follow him was not the
demon possessed (see 4:41; 9:39). In a reversal ultimate purpose of Jesus’ ministry, however. That
of the action of this scene, when the Pharisees purpose is signaled by Luke’s further description of
later challenge Jesus to order his disciples to be the blind beggar’s response. He followed Jesus,
silent, he uses this same verb when he replies “I “glorifying God,” and all the people “praised God.”
tell you, if these were silent, the stones would Both notices contribute to the doxological theme in
shout out” (19:40). Luke. Jesus healed by the power of God; the Spirit
18:40-42. At Jesus’ command, the blind beg- of the Lord was upon him (4:18), and “the power
gar is brought to him. Jesus’ question, “What do of the Lord was with him to heal” (5:17). Therefore,
you want me to do for you?” ironically is verbatim the response of the beggar and the crowd, like that
the question with which Jesus responds to James of the Samaritan leper who praised God (17:15),
and John in the Markan scene that Luke has not only recognizes that Jesus acted by the power
omitted (see Mark 10:36, 51). The man’s re- of God but also fulfills his mission to announce God’s
sponse is that of a beggar, literally, “Lord, that I kingship on earth. The pattern of all the people’s
may see again” (18:41). Jesus’ response is equally praising God because of healing through the mercy
direct: “See again!” There is no indication of of Jesus is itself a vision of the nature of the
touching, washing, or any other means of healing. kingdom. How different this response is from that
Neither is there any indication that Jesus violated of the scribes and Pharisees, who were filled with
the sabbath by performing this healing. Instead, fury when Jesus healed the man with the withered
its thematic value lies in another direction. This hand (6:11). They discussed what they might do to
scene and the next conclude Jesus’ ministry to Jesus; the reader has just been reminded (18:31-34)
the outcasts, the oppressed, and the overlooked that the response of the crowd in Jerusalem will be
on his journey to Jerusalem. The giving of sight tragically different from the response of this praising
also marks Jesus’ fulfillment of the program he set crowd.
REFLECTIONS
Miracle stories pose a challenge to readers who harbor doubts about even Jesus’ ability to
give sight to a blind man simply by commanding him to see again. Some might suggest that
persons cured of paralysis (see 5:24-25) actually suffered from psychosomatic disorders, but
such a suggestion not only becomes less plausible in the case of blindness but misses the point
of the story entirely as well. The healing of the blind man carries important theological freight.
It affirms that Jesus acted by the power of God. It declares God’s mercy on those who have
been damaged or incapacitated by life and by human society and evokes again Jesus’ identity as
the Son of David. It illustrates the power of pleas for God’s mercy and assures us of God’s
readiness to respond to us when we cry out for mercy. Finally, both the recovery of sight and the
people’s response of praise to God give us a glimpse of the nature of the kingdom Jesus announced.
The Gospel accounts of the healing of blind men generally play on the recovery of sight as
symbolic of Jesus’ ability to grant insight and faith sufficient for any challenge. When the blind
man in Mark 8 sees but not clearly—just before Peter confesses Jesus’ messiahship but fails
to understand the suffering that lies ahead—Jesus touches the man’s eyes a second time, and
he sees clearly. The blind Bartimaeus of Mark 10 gains his sight and follows Jesus on the road
to his suffering in Jerusalem. Similarly, the blind man in John 9 comes to faith, while the
Pharisees who can see have their blindness exposed.
Luke 19:1-10, Zacchaeus, a Son of Abraham

NIV NRSV
] Jesus entered Jericho and was passing
through. 2A man was there by the name
of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and
19 He entered Jericho and was passing
through it. 7A man was there named Zac-
- chaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was rich.
was wealthy. “He wanted to see who Jesus was, 3He was trying to see who Jesus was, but on
but being a short man he could not, because of account of the crowd he could not, because he
the crowd. “So he ran ahead and climbed a was short in stature. So he ran ahead and climbed
sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was a sycamore tree to see him, because he was going
coming that way. to pass that way. °When Jesus came to the place,
>When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, hurry
and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down imme- and ¢ome down; for | must stay at your house
diately. I must stay at your house today.” °So he today.” °So he hurried down and was happy to
came down at once and welcomed him gladly. welcome him. 7All who saw it began to grumble
7All the people saw this and began to mutter, and said, “He has gone to be the guest of one
“He has gone to be the guest of a ‘sinner.’” who is a sinner.” °Zacchaeus stood there and said
®But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, to the Lord, “Look, half of my possessions, Lord,
“Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded
possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as
anybody out of anything, | will pay back four much.” °Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation
times the amount.” . has come to this house, because he too is a son
Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come of Abraham. '°For the Son of Man came to seek
to this house, because this man, too, is a son of out and to save the lost.”
Abraham. '°For the Son of Man came to seek and
to save what was lost.”
(COMMENTARY
Luke’s account of Jesus entering the house of tracted with local entrepreneurs to collect the
Zacchaeus stands fittingly as the last of Jesus’ ‘prescribed indirect taxes, tolls, tariffs, and customs
encounters with outcasts before his entry into fees in a given area. These entrepreneurs, the
Jerusalem. Earlier, Jesus was mocked as “a friend “chief tax collectors,” were required to pay the
of tax collectors and sinners” (7:34; see also contract in advance. They would then employ
5:27-32; 7:29; 15:1-2; 18:9-14). In Luke, the tax others to collect the taxes with the hope that the
collectors function as the prototypical outcasts— amount collected would yield a profit. The sys-
those whom Jesus befriends. Roman officials contem, not surprising, was open to abuse, and Jews
356
who collected taxes for the Romans were assumed and required his soul of him. The rich man went
to be dishonest and were hated by other Jews for to Hades while Lazarus went to the bosom of
their complicity with the Gentile oppressors. Abraham (16:19-31), and Jesus observed how
Jesus’ meeting with Zacchaeus artfully picks hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of
up threads of the narrative in the previous God (18:23, 25). The reader may, therefore, in-
chapter. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax itially expect that Jesus is about to meet a person
collector (18:9-14) turns on the question of on whom he will pronounce a severe judgment
righteousness. Jesus declared that “all who or one whose dishonesty will be dramatically
humble themselves will be exalted” (18:14), exposed.
and Zacchaeus cast aside all regard for his own 19:3-4. On the contrary, this rich man plays
dignity by climbing a tree in order to see Jesus. the role of the blind man in the previous scene.
Jesus challenged the rich ruler to sell all he had He desires to see Jesus, but cannot because of the
and give it to the poor (18:22), but he went crowd. Zacchaeus was small of stature, so he
away sad. Joyfully, Zacchaeus responds to Jesus’ could neither push his way through the crowd
declaration that he would stay at Zacchaeus’s nor see over those in front. Clever and with
house by promising to sell half of his possessions singular purpose, Zacchaeus ran ahead and
and give the proceeds to the poor. The differ- climbed a sycamore tree. In doing so, however,
ence between half and all is not the issue. he exposed himself to ridicule on two counts. It
Rather, it is Zacchaeus’s eagerness to do what was considered undignified for a grown man to
is right for the poor. Thus the salvation of run, and a man of his importance would certainly
Zacchaeus is told in the form of a miracle story. not climb a tree. The reader who is attuned to
Jesus demonstrated the power of God at work the social codes of the day can imagine the glee
in the announcement of the kingdom: “How of the crowd at seeing the little tax collector
hard it is for those who have wealth to enter running and climbing a tree because he could not
the kingdom of God!” (18:24). Finally, the story get through the crowd.
of Zacchaeus is coupled with the healing of the A sycamore (or sycomore, Ficus sycomorus)
blind beggar—both occur as Jesus is passing was a large evergreen tree with large, low
through Jericho; the blind man wanted to see, branches that would have been ideal for Zac-
and Zacchaeus wanted to see Jesus; in both chaeus’s purposes. The sycamore produced an
stories the crowd serves as an impediment to inferior type of fig that was consumed by the poor
the one who desires to see; in both the verb (see Amos 7:14).208
for “stood” (iotnt istemé) marks a dramatic turn 19:5-6. The sense of movement is conveyed
in the story (18:40; 19:8); joy or the praise of repeatedly in the two Jericho stories, with recur-
God accompanies the “healing” (18:43; 19:6); ring references to approaching, going by, passing
and in both the effect is immediate (“immedi- by, following, entering, passing through, and pass-
ately,” 18:43; “today,” 19:9). In the first story, ing that way. Jesus moves with an entourage of
Jesus is called “Son of David” (18:39); in the latter disciples and onlookers around him as he makes
he refers to himself as “the Son of Man” (19:10). his way with intensifying urgency toward Jerusa-
19:1-2. Whereas the healing of the blind man lem and the fate that awaits him there. Zac-
occurred as Jesus approached Jericho (18:35; cf. chaeus’s excitement over Jesus’ coming is
Mark 10:46), the encounter with Zacchaeus takes conveyed by his running. Jesus signals the urgency
place while Jesus is passing through the town. of the kingdom proclamation by commanding Zac-
chaeus to hurry and come down from the tree.
Zacchaeus’s name is introduced by means of an
Then, Zacchaeus’s receptiveness to Jesus is again
idiom also found in Luke 1:5; 10:38; 16:20;
conveyed by the report that he “hurried down”
23:50; and 24:18, and the new character is in-
and welcomed Jesus, “rejoicing” (xalpwv chairon,
troduced in stages: a man, named Zacchaeus, a
cf. the less satisfactory translations in the NRSV
chief tax collector—rich. The emphasis falls heav-
and the NIV).
ily on the last word. The rich’ have not fared well
in Luke. Jesus pronounced woes on the rich 208. See BruceJ.Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, A Social-Science
(6:24). God called the rich farmer a fool (12:16, 20) Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 386.
Sa7
In this scene Jesus fulfills the pattern of household give to the poor, and if he has wronged any, he
evangelism to which he commissioned the disciples will repay them four times over. More recently,
earlier (10:5-6). The declarative nature of Jesus’ several interpreters have read this vow as Zac-
pronouncement is signaled both by the emphatic, chaeus’s protest:of the injustice of the crowd’s
initial position of “today’—“Today I must stay in assumption that he is a sinner; he regularly sells
your house” (author’s trans.) and by the verb for half of his goods and gives the proceeds to the
“must” (Set dei), which can be used as a divine poor, and if he has wronged anyone he repays
imperative—“I must stay at your house.” them four times over.7°° The verbs used here are
By staying at Zacchaeus’s house, Jesus was present tense as in the RSV, not future as in the
again crossing the barrier of ritual purity. A tax NRSV. Nor are the NIV’s “here and now” in the
collector would regularly be rendered unclean by Greek text. The choice between the two interpre-
entering houses and inspecting goods. By entering tations is difficult, however. There is no other
Zacchaeus’s house, Jesus was also acknowledging indication of Zacchaeus’s repentance. Moreover,
the chief tax collector’s dignity and standing in although the verbs in question are clearly present
the community. Jesus, who was being followed tense, they may report either Zacchaeus’s custom-
by the crowds, would have brought honor to ary actions or his resolve henceforth to rectify his
whatever house he entered. Therefore, he con- past injustices. Nevertheless, the latter part of v.
ferred a special honor on Zacchaeus by offering .8 tips the interpreter’s scales in favor of the
to receive hospitality from him. Today, inviting traditional reading. Zacchaeus is not protesting his
oneself to someone else’s home would be a vio- customary action to the disbelieving crowd. In-
lation of etiquette even for a celebrity. In this case, stead, he is freely declaring his resolve to make
however, Jesus offered Zacchaeus, who merely amends for his past wrongs as a result of the
wanted to see Jesus, an opportunity to be recog- honor that Jesus has bestowed on him. Zacchaeus
nized prominently before the whole community. does not envision the possibility of defrauding
Jesus was exalting a man who had “stooped” to others in the future, nor does he regularly defraud
running and climbing a tree. others and repay them. Rather, Zacchaeus vows
19:7. The reactions of both Zacchaeus and the to repay all those whom he has defrauded in the
crowd echo the theme of the parables in Luke 15. past (and by implication to take care not to
In Luke 15:1-2, the Pharisees and the scribes were defraud anyone else in the future).
“grumbling” (Stayoyyttw diagongyzo) and say- Zacchaeus’s pledge conforms to both OT laws
ing, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with of restitution and the standard advanced by John
them.” Jesus responded by telling parables that the Baptist. Old Testament laws varied, so Zac-
emphasize the rejoicing that occurs when one that chaeus offered to follow the most stringent stan-
was lost is found (15:5-7, 9-10, 23-24, 32). Here, dards. According to Lev 6:5, “you shall repay the
all who saw what had happened grumbled, while principal amount and shall add one-fifth to it. You
Zacchaeus rejoiced. The blind man had desired to shall pay it to its owner when you realize your
see (18:41), and Zacchaeus had desired to see Jesus guilt” ( NRSV; cf. Num 5:7). If a stolen animal
(19:3). Now the crowd sees Jesus doing the work was found alive in the thief’s possession, the thief
of the kingdom, and they grumble. Jesus had de- was required to pay double (Exod 22:4). If the
clared, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see!” stolen animal was slaughtered or sold, the thief
(10:23), but here are eyes that see but do not see was required to pay fivefold for an ox and fourfold
(8:10). All they can see is their predetermined for a sheep (Exod 22:1; 2 Sam 12:6). On the
judgment that Zacchaeus is a sinner (19:7). other hand, according to later rabbinic interpreta-
19:8. The interpretive crux of this story ap- tion, if a man confessed his guilt, he was not
pears in Zacchaeus’s declaration in v. 8. The
pronouncement is introduced by the report that 209. The former interpretation is favored by I. Howard Marshall, The
Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 697-98; John
Zacchaeus “stood up” (isttemi; cf. 18:40). Tradi-
Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53, WBC 35C (Dallas: Word, 1993) 906. For the
tionally, this verse has been read as an indication latter interpretation, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to
of the genuineness of Zacchaeus’s repentance. Luke (X-XXIV}, AB 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 1220-22;
Malina and Rohrbaugh, A Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic
Henceforth, he will sell half his possessions and Gospels, 387.
358
required to pay double, fourfold, or fivefold resti- strayed” (NRSV). Again Luke reminds his readers
tution.?!° Zacchaeus, by contrast, volunteered to that Jesus fulfills Moses and the prophets (see
repay fourfold.?!! 24:27, 44). The pattern of his ministry among the
Similarly, Zacchaeus’s pledge conforms to the lost points to his true identity.
standards set by John the Baptist: “Whoever has The saying in Luke 19:10 stands midway
two coats must share with anyone who has none” along the trajectory of related sayings in the NT.
(3:11)—half of his possessions. Tax collectors In Mark 2:17 and Matt 9:13 Jesus says, “I have
should collect no more than the amount pre- come to call not the righteous but sinners.”
scribed for them (3:13), and soldiers were not to Luke 5:32 adds a further phrase: “I have come
extort money from anyone by threat or false to call not the righteous but sinners to repen-
accusation (3:14). tance.” Luke 19:10 adds the title “Son of Man,”
19:9. Jesus responds, confirming Zacchaeus’s and gives evidence of reflection on Ezek 34:16
status as a “son of Abraham,” just-as he had with its use of “seek,” the doubling of the verb
pronounced the woman freed from her stooped “to seek and save,” and by dropping the tensive
condition a “daughter of Abraham” (13:16). John “not the righteous but....” The allusion to this
the Baptist had warned the crowds to bear fruits saying in 1 Tim 1:15 reflects the complete trans-
worthy of repentance and not even to consider formation of the saying from its original tensive
saying “we have Abraham as our ancestor” (3:8). form to that of a traditional christological axiom:
Zacchaeus, however, bore fruits worthy of repen- “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sin-
tance, and Jesus declared that he was a true son ners.” Here there is no rejection of the “right-
of Abraham. Again, it is more likely that Jesus is eous,” who might be understood as Christians
confirming the change that has occurred in Zac- rather than Pharisees, and Paul (at least the Paul
chaeus than that he is defending Zacchaeus as an of the Pastoral Epistles) hastens to add, “And I
exemplary rich man. A camel could not pass am the foremost of sinners.”
through the eye of a needle, but God could lead The story of Zacchaeus is a tale of unexpected
a rich man into the kingdom of God (see 18:25- twists and reversals. A chief tax collector em-
26), and God could raise up children of Abraham barrasses himself by running and climbing a
from stones (3:8)—or even from among tax col- tree, but Jesus’ ministry to the outcast and
lectors. Zechariah’s prophecy has been fulfilled by despised reaches the rich as well as the poor,
John, but even more by Jesus; Jesus has become tax collectors as well as harlots. Jesus has
a “horn of salvation” (see 1:69), and he has given sought out and saved one who was lost. In
“knowledge of salvation to his people” (1:77). response to Jesus’ bestowal of favor, unexpected
19:10. The hero of the story is Jesus, not and unmerited, the rich tax collector joyfully
Zacchaeus. The last line appropriately returns to pledged to bear “fruits worthy of repentance”
the issue of what this scene has revealed about (3:8). Zacchaeus thought he was seeking to see
Jesus: “the Son of Man came to seek out and to Jesus (19:3), but in reality Jesus was seeking
save the lost.” In Ezek 34:16, the Lord declares, Zacchaeus (19:10). Thus salvation can come
“T will seek the lost, and I will bring back the even to the house of tax collector. Zacchaeus
just wanted to see Jesus, but like Simeon, by
210. See m. Kethub. 3.9. the end of the story he could say to God, “My
211. See Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke (New York: Crossroad,
1982) 176. eyes have seen your salvation” (2:30).
REFLECTIONS
1. In an era of overwhelming problems, the believing community can read the story of
Zacchaeus as a potent antidote to pessimism. What do you say to those who live under the
burden of deadening defeat and deflated dreams? “We can’t do anything about it.” “Some
people will never change.” “Nothing exciting ever happens to me.”
The Gospel of Mark uses the word for “today” (arepov sémeron) only one time (Mark
14:30). Luke uses the term eleven times, often emphatically. The angelic chorus announces
gladly, “To you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord”
(2:11, italics added). In Nazareth, Jesus explains, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in
your hearing” (4:21). When Jesus heals the paralytic, the onlookers glorify God, “We have
seen strange things today” (5:26). And to the thief on the cross, Jesus promises, “Truly I tell
you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (23:43). The good news Luke declares is the
proclamation that God is doing a great thing today! This is the time of deliverance and
redemption. This is the time to open our eyes and see what God is doing all around us. When
even one person is offered forgiveness, hears a word of affirmation, clings to hope that life
can be different, or resolves to live by a new set of values in the future, there the kingdom
of God is at work.
2. Another of the impediments to the progress of the kingdom is the enslaving prejudice
that we know who people are and that they cannot change. In the wisdom of his years, a
sophomore writes off a person who has disappointed him and let him down, a pastor gives
up on a “dead” congregation, a coach assumes a player cannot make the team in spite of her
desire to play, or an employer pigeonholes an employee on their first meeting. Over and over
again, we hear the whisper of the crowd: “He’s a rich tax collector.”
Yet Jesus stopped for a single person. “Today” came for Zacchaeus because he wanted to
see so badly that he ran and climbed a sycamore. Today can be filled with joy because God
is still at work bringing the kingdom and because words of grace can still be spoken and
forgiveness can still be experienced. What outrageous good news—a camel passed through the
eye of a needle!
Luke 19:11-27, The Parable of the Greedy and Vengeful King

NIV NRSV
"While they were listening to this, he went on 11As they were listening to this, he went on
to tell them a parable, because he was near to tell a parable, because he was near Jerusalem,
Jerusalem and the people thought that the king- and because they supposed that the kingdom of
dom of God was going to appear at once. !*He God was to appear immediately. '?So he said, “A
said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant nobleman went to a distant country to get royal
country to have himself appointed king and then power for himself and then return. 'SHe sum-
to return. '°So he called ten of his servants and moned ten of his slaves, and gave them ten
gave them ten minas.? ‘Put this money to work,’ pounds,? and said to them, ‘Do business with
he said, ‘until I come back.’ these until I come back.’ 'But the citizens of his
“But his subjects hated him and sent a dele- country hated him and sent a delegation after him,
gation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man saying, ‘We do not want this man to rule over
to be our king.’ us.’ '°When he returned, having received royal
'S“He was made king, however, and returned . power, he ordered these slaves, to whom he had
home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he given the money, to be summoned so that he
had given the money, in order to find out what might find out what they had gained by trading.
they had gained with it. ‘The first came forward and said, ‘Lord, your
'o“The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina . pound has made ten more pounds.’ '’He said to
has earned ten more.’ him, ‘Well done, good slave! Because you have
been trustworthy in a very small thing, take
Well done, my good servant!’ his master
charge of ten cities.’ '*Then the second came,
replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a
saying, ‘Lord, your pound has made five pounds.’
very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’
2The mina, rendered here by pound, was about three months’
2/3 A mina was about three months’ wages. wages for a laborer
360
LUKE19; 11227
NIV NRSV
'8*The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina 'He said to him, ‘And you, rule over five cities.’
has earned five more.’ °Then the other came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your
“His master answered, ‘You take charge of pound. | wrapped it up in a piece of cloth, 'for
five cities.’ I was afraid of you, because you are a harsh man;
20“Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, you take what you did not deposit, and reap what
here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a you did not sow.’ *?He said to him, ‘I will judge
piece of cloth. *!I was afraid of you, because you you by your own words, you wicked slave! You
are a hard man. You take out what you did not knew, did you, that I was a harsh man, taking
put in and reap what you did not sow.’ what | did not deposit and reaping what I did not
22“His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your sow? 73Why then did you not put my money into
own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did the bank? Then when I returned, I could have
you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did collected it with interest.’ **He said to the by-
not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 7?>Why standers, ‘Take the pound from him and give it
then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that to the one who has ten pounds.’ *°(And they said
when I came back, I could have collected it with to him, ‘Lord, he has ten pounds!’) ?¢‘T tell you,
interest?’ to all those who have, more will be given; but
4“Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his from those who have nothing, even what they
mina away from him and give it to the one who have will be taken away. ?7But as for these ene-
has ten minas.’ mies of mine who did not want me to be king
2s« ‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’ over them—bring them here and slaughter them
20“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who in my presence.’”
has, more will be given, but as for the one who
has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.
27But those enemies of mine who did not want
me to be king over them—bring them here and
kill them in front of me.’”
(COMMENTARY
Although this parable is related to the parable denarii, or at a denarius a day, for 300 days a
of the talents in Matt 25:14-30, its distinctive year, 20 years’ income for a common laborer. The
features and its. context in Luke make it an first two servants double the amount entrusted to
entirely different story. The Matthean parable is them; the last buries his talent in the ground.
about the stewardship of what is entrusted to a When the master returns and calls the servants
disciple. The Lukan parable, however, contrasts to give an account, the first two are praised while
the coming of the kingdom of God with the the last is called a “wicked and lazy slave” (Matt
typical pattern of the establishment of a political 25:26). Because he did not at least invest it with
kingdom. Thus the greedy and vengeful king of bankers, the talent is taken from him and given
this parable serves as an antitype for Jesus as he to the one with ten talents. In Matthew the
enters Jerusalem as “the king who comes in the parable follows immediately after Jesus’ warning,
name of the Lord” (19:38). “Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the
In the Matthean parable of the talents, the day nor the hour” (Matt 25:13 NRSV) and is in
master is not a king, nor is the reason for his turn followed by the parable of the sheep and the
journey explained. He entrusts his property to goats in Matt 25:31-46. In this context, therefore,
three servants, giving them five talents, two tal- the parable of the talents serves as a warning for
ents, and one talent respectively. A talent was a disciples to work diligently because they will be
great deal of money, the equivalent of 6,000 called to give an account of what has been given
361
to them—and they do not know when the judg- jobs for others. First-century Mediterranean cul-
ment may come. ture, in contrast, functioned with an economics
In Luke, the parable follows Jesus’ declaration of limited goods. There was only so much wealth
to Zacchaeus that “today salvation has come...” or property to go around, so if anyone acquired
(19:9) and comes just before Jesus’ entry into more property, others lost it. This king was greedy
Jerusalem. It contributes to the kingship motif of and acquisitive, seeking power and taking prop-
this section of the Gospel (cf. 21:12; 22:25; 23:2- erty. A peasant audience would identify with the
3, 37-38). Jesus has been hailed as “son of David” fear of the third servant and the bystanders’ pro-
(18:38) and will be greeted as a king when he test of this redistribution of wealth. The protest
enters Jerusalem (19:38). The parable features not only leads the king to call for the fulfillment of
just a master but also one who went on a journey the common proverb that “the rich get richer and
to be appointed king. “A certain man” (a favorite the poor get poorer.” If a chief tax collector was
Lukan expression) travels to a “distant country” hated and condemned as a sinner, how much
(19:12), and the Lukan reader knows that nothing more this greedy king!
good happens in a “distant country” (cf. 15:13). The parable, consequently, employs what we
The man summons ten servants and gives each may call a cultural type scene.?!? A type scene
of them one pound—one mina. A mina was only incorporates such familiar elements that the audi-
one sixtieth of a talent, worth 100 denarii—a very _ ence recognizes the pattern and anticipates the
small amount for a king, but a lot for a servant. outcome. The storyteller’s art, therefore, is evi-
The citizens of his country send a delegation to dent in the subtle variations and departures from
protest his appointment as king. Upon his return, the pattern. The cultural type scene employed by
the king settles matters with his servants. One this parable consists of three elements, all of
servant has made ten pounds, and the king gives which are distinctive to the Lukan parable form:
him ten cities. The second had made five pounds, (1) A throne claimant travels to a distant country
so the king gives him five cities. The third returns to secure the title “king”; (2) the citizens of his
the pound he had wrapped in a piece of cloth, country send a delegation to oppose the conferral
saying he knew the king to be a harsh man. The of royal power on him; and (3) when the throne
king replies that the man has judged himself by claimant returns, he rewards those who have
his own words, takes the pound from him, and served him well and slaughters his enemies.
gives it to the servant who had ten pounds. When The currency of this cultural type scene is
the bystanders protest, the king replies that more clearly documented by Josephus. At various times
will be given to those who have and that from a ruler had traveled to Rome to seek the title
those who have nothing, even the little they have “king.” First, following the death of his brother
will be taken away. As a final act of vengeance, Phasel, Herod traveled to Alexandria, where he
the king commands that those who had opposed was received by Cleopatra. From there he sailed
him be brought and slaughtered before him. to Rome to seek aid from Antony. Earlier, a
This parable cannot have the same meaning as delegation of Jews had brought accusations against
the Matthean parable of the talents. It features Phasel and Herod.?'? Because of his gratitude for
not a lesson on responsibility and stewardship but the hospitality of Antipater (Herod’s father), aver-
a portrait of greed and vengeance. The king is sion to Antigonus (Herod’s opponent), and con-
acquisitive. He seeks a royal title and expects cern to repulse the Parthians, Antony led the
others to multiply his property five and tenfold. Roman senate to declare Herod King of Judea in
Readers in an entrepreneurial society will not 40 sce, although he did not gain control of the
immediately recognize the social codes invoked . region until 37 sce.?!4 Herod proceeded to estab-
by this parable. Our society functions with an
212. The term cultural type scene was suggested to me by my colleague
economics of unlimited goods. The American Mikeal Parsons. For the use of type scenes in biblical literature, see Robert
dream affirms that anyone who is sufficiently Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981) 47-62.
In this instance, the type scene does not draw from a common literary
ambitious, industrious, clever, or fortunate can pattern but a pattern created by recurring events in the contemporary
start from nothing and become fabulously cultural context.
213. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 14.302.
wealthy. In the process, he or she may even create 214. Josephus The Jewish War 1.279-85.
362
lish his control over his unruly kingdom by putting to oppose Antipas’s petition. As a result, instead of
his adversaries to the sword. When the followers extending Antipas’s powers, the emperor deposed
of Antigonus sought refuge in the caves of Galilee, him and banished both Antipas and Herodias to
Herod lowered men in baskets over the side of Lyons in Gaul.”2! These examples confirm that a
the cliff and burned the rebels out.2!5 Josephus story of an ambitious ruler’s departing to seek the
sums up Herod’s reprisals in Jerusalem as follows: title king, opposition by his countrymen, and then
“King Herod, discriminating between the two brutal reprisals against his enemies would have been
classes of the city population, by the award of readily understood by both the crowds in Jericho
honours attached more closely to himself those and by Luke’s first readers.
who had espoused his cause, while he extermi- The parable’s use of this cultural type scene rules
nated the partisans of Antigonus.”2!° out any possibility of interpreting the parable as an
A generation later Archelaus and Antipas, allegory in which the king represents either God or
Herod’s sons, each sought control over Judea. The Jesus. On the contrary, placed just before Jesus’ entry
events that followed parallel the action of the into Jerusalem, the parable establishes the common
parable so closely that they probably inspired this pattern of kingship so that the distinctive features of
version of the parable. Archelaus and Antipas each Jesus’ kingship (and the kingdom of God) can stand
traveled to Rome to appeal to Caesar. After in relief against the common pattern of kingship. In
Archelaus departed from Judea, the Jews re- scenes following Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem, he will
volted—“the whole nation became unruly.”2!” A warn his disciples that they will be brought before
Jewish delegation opposed Archelaus because of kings and governors (21:12), but they should not
his ruthless cruelty and greed: “He had indeed be afraid. The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them,
reduced the entire nation to helpless poverty after and those in authority are called benefactors, but it
taking it over in as flourishing a condition as few shall not be so among Jesus’ followers (22:25-26).
ever know, and he was wont to kill members of A delegation brought Jesus to Pilate and accused
the nobility upon absurd pretexts and then take their him of perverting the nation (23:1-3), and Jesus died
property for himself.”2!* Among other atrocities, under the inscription, “This is the King of the Jews”
Archelaus had slaughtered 3,000 of his countrymen (23:38). Thus the greedy and vengeful king in the
in the Temple precinct. After hearing both sides, parable, who conforms to the contemporary pattern
Caesar appointed Archelaus tetrarch of Judea and of kingship, serves as the antitype for Jesus’ kingship.
Idumea and split the remainder of Herod the Great’s The parable underscores not the similarity be-
kingdom between Archelaus’s brothers, Antipas and tween the king’s servants and the followers of Jesus
Philip.?'? Eventually, the Romans deposed Archelaus but the contrast between such a king and the
kingdom of God. The king condemns the third
because of his excessive cruelty.
servant as wicked (19:22), but Luke introduced the
Some years later, after Jesus’ death but before
Gospel with a reference to “King Herod of Judea”
the Gospel was written, Agrippa was made king
(1:5) and alluded to the wicked things Herod had
of part of Herod’s kingdom. Herodias prompted
done (3:19). The reversal is subtle but unmistakable.
Herod Antipas to request the title of king also,
When the wicked king rewards servants for their
saying, “Come, let us go to Rome; let us spare
acquisition of property and condemns the third
neither pains nor expense of silver and gold, since
servant as wicked, the reader knows that the servant
there is no better use for which we might hoard
and the bystanders who protest his punishment are
them than to expend them on the acquisition of
not wicked but righteous.
a kingdom.”2° Agrippa, however, sent emissaries
On the other hand, Jesus too has been on a
215. Josephus The Jewish War 1.307-16; Antiquities of the Jews journey, and he is on his way to Jerusalem where
14.423-33. he will be hailed as a king. He will confront the
216. Josephus 7he Jewish War 1.358.
217. Josephus The Jewish War 2.15, 18; Antiquities of the Jews
authorities in the Temple and condemn the
17.224, 250. scribes who “devour widows’ houses” (20:47). He
218. Josephus The Jewish War 2.80; Antiquities of the Jews 17.299, will praise the widow who gives two copper coins
304, 307. ’
219. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 17.237, 313, 317-18; The
Jewish War 2.89, 93-94. 221. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 18.240-56; The Jewish War
220. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 18.244. 2.181-83.
363
_* LUKE 19:11-27 COMMENTARY
(21:1-4) and announce the imminent destruction of Herods, but in God’s kingdom the greedy will be
the city (21:20-24). driven out.of the Temple and the generous will
The parable, therefore, invites reflection on be rewarded. If we can learn a lesson from a
what it means to claim Jesus as “the king who dishonest steward (see 16:1-8), then we can also
comes in the name of the Lord” (19:38). The learn from the story of a vengeful and greedy king.
norm of royal retribution applies: Every king re- The parable of the vengeful king graphically re-
wards those who serve him well and punishes his minds the crowds in Jericho that the kingdom has
enemies. But in Jesus’ kingdom the standards for not yet come (see 19:11). The protest of the by-
reward and punishment are reversed. The ene- standers is a call for justice, an encouragement for
mies of the kingdom of God will be punished no those who are committed to God’s kingdom to join
less severely than if they had opposed one of the the bystanders in opposing the wicked king.
REFLECTIONS
This is a difficult parable and is made more difficult because we are accustomed: to reading
it as having the same sense as the parable of the talents in Matthew. Luke’s parable contains
elements of both the parable of the talents and the story of a king’s vengeance on those who
oppose him. It will not do to disregard either story as a corruption of an earlier parable or as
a later redaction. The interpreter must deal with the text at hand and understand it in its
present literary context.
The parable creates dissonance because it invites reflection on Jesus’ role as a king, when
kings were uniformly corrupt, greedy, and violent. Jesus’ disciples can neither follow such a
king nor understand their role as that of stewards or slaves of such a king. The value system
of Jesus’ kingdom is diametrically opposed to that of the kingdom in this parable. On the other
hand, the law of retribution still applies, for those who serve God faithfully will be rewarded,
and those who resist God’s kingly rule will perish.
The kingdom will not appear immediately (19:11). Disciples, therefore, are called to be
trustworthy while they wait for the coming of the king. They are to advance the king’s interests,
but rather than contributing to greed and the oppression of the poor by adding to the wealth
of the wealthy, they will find it necessary to echo the protest of the bystanders. Read in this
way, the parable calls for faithful allegiance to a king whose kingdom is opposed to the quests
of earthly kings for vengeance and profit at the expense of the poor.
What should we say, for example, when those who have access to medical care protest the
expense of providing medical care for those who have none? “Lord, they already have.... ”?
What should we say when municipalities channel funds for road repair, police protection, or
school equipment to well-to-do neighborhoods while neglecting the needs in other areas? “Lord,
they already have....”? What should we say when regressive taxes are proposed that protect
the assets of the wealthy at the expense of the poor? “Lord. :.”?
364
LUKE 19:28-21:38
JESUS’ MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM
OVERVIEW
_ he next major section of the Gospel fea- 44), his denunciation of the scribes (20:45-47),
~~ tures Jesus teaching in the Temple. It opens and his commendation of the widow (21:1-4), his
with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (19:28-40) and teaching turns toward coming events. Jesus fore-
his weeping over the city (19:41-44) and cleansing tells the destruction of the Temple, the persecu-
the Temple so that it may serve as the site for tion of his followers, the destruction of Jerusalem,
his messianic teaching (19:45-47). Luke distin- and the coming of the Son of Man in 21:5-36. A
guishes the people, who hear Jesus gladly, from Lukan summary statement (21:37-38) regarding
their leaders, who seek to trap him with their Jesus’ teaching in the Temple balances a similar
questions in 20:1-40. Following Jesus’ explanation statement in 19:45-47 and provides a sense of
about the Davidic sonship of the Messiah (20:41- closure for this section of the Gospel.
LUKE 19:28-40, THE ENTRANCE PROCESSION

OF THE KING
NIV NRSV
28After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, 28After he had said this, he went on ahead,
going up to Jerusalem. As he approached going up to Jerusalem.
Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the 29When he had come near Bethphage and
Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, Bethany, at the place called the Mount of Olives,
saying to them, *°“Go to the village ahead of you, he sent two of the disciples, °°saying, “Go into
and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, the village ahead of you, and as you enter it you
which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring will find tied there a colt that has never been
it here. “If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you ridden. Untie it and bring it here. *'If anyone asks
untying it?’ tell him, ‘The Lord needs it.’” you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ just say this, “The
32Those who were sent ahead went and found Lord needs it.’” 3*So those who were sent de-
it just as he had told them. *°As they were untying parted and found it as he had told them. **As they
the colt, its owners asked them, “Why are you were untying the colt, its owners asked them,
untying the colt?” “Why are you untying the colt?” “They said,
34They replied, “The Lord needs it.” “The Lord needs it.” *Then they brought it to
35They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks Jesus; and after throwing their cloaks on the colt,
on the colt and put Jesus on it. *°As he went they set Jesus on it. %°As he rode along, people
along, people spread their cloaks on the road. kept spreading their cloaks on the road. *”As he
was now approaching the path down from the
37When he came near the place where the
Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the
road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole
crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud
365
LUKE 19:28-40
NIV NRSV
in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen: voice for all, the deeds of power that they had
seen, *saying,
38“Blessed is the king who comes in the name of “Blessed is the king
the Lord!”? who comes in the name of the Lord!
“Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” Peace in heaven,
and glory in the highest heaven!”
3°Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to 39Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him,
Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!” “Teacher, order your disciples to stop.” *°He an-
401 tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, swered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the stones
the stones will cry out.” would shout out.”
238 Psalm 118:26
(COMMENTARY
The announcement of Jesus’ arrival in the vi- queror/ ruler is escorted into the city by the citizenry
or the army of the conqueror. (2) The procession is
cinity of Jerusalem brings Luke’s long travel nar-
accompanied by hymns and/or acclamations. (3)
rative (9:51-19:27) to a close. Jesus’ approach to The Roman triumph has shown us that various
Jerusalem was signaled by the third passion pre- elements in the procession... symbolically depict
diction (18:31-34), two scenes in Jericho (18:35- the authority of the ruler. (4) The entrance is
43; 19:1-10), and the parable of the greedy and followed by a ritual of appropriation, such as sacri-
fice, which takes place in the temple, whereby the
vengeful king (19:11-27). Jesus told the parable
ruler symbolically appropriates the city.?2
“because he was near Jerusalem, and because they
supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear As examples of this pattern, Duff cites Josephus’s
immediately” (19:11), and 19:28 again reports his account of Alexander the Great’s entrance into
movement toward Jerusalem. Whereas the story Jerusalem and Plutarch’s description of Antony’s
of Jesus’ encounter with Lazarus and the parable entry into Ephesus:
that follows it have been inserted in the Markan
Then all the Jews together greeted Alexander
outline, Luke takes up Mark again at this point, with one voice and surrounded him... [then]
adapting Mark’s account for his own purposes. he gave his hand to the high priest and, with
The theme of Jesus’ kingship has also been estab- the Jews running beside him, entered the city.
lished by use of the title “Son of David” (18:38-39) Then he went up to the temple where he
sacrificed to God under the direction of the high
and by the use of the cultural type scene of a throne
priest.225
claimant in the parable of the greedy and vengeful
king. Luke’s account of Jesus’ entry into the city When Antony made his entrance into Ephesus,
continues the theme of royalty. At its high point, women arrayed like Baccanals, and men and
Jesus is hailed “king,” a title that Luke adds to the boys like satyrs and Pans, led the way before
him, and the city was full of ivy and thyrsus-
quotation of Ps 118:26. wands and harps and pipes and flutes, the people
Entrance processions were a familiar ceremony in hailing him as Dionysius Giver of Joy and Be-
the first century. Numerous kings and conquering neficent. For he was such undoubtedly, to
generals had entered Jerusalem over the years. Al- some.?24
though the welcoming ceremony of a conqueror and,
222. Paul Brooks Duff, “The March of the Divine Warrior and the
the celebration of the return of a victorious general Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into
can be distinguished from each other, they share similar Jerusalem,” /BL 111 (1992) 66. A similar pattern has been observed by
David R. Catchpole, “The ‘Triumphal’ Entry,” in Jesus and the Politics of
features. Paul Brooks Duff has summarized the char- His Day, ed. Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge
acteristic pattern of an entrance procession as follows: University Press, 1984) 319-21.
223. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 11.332-36, trans. Ralph Mar-
cus, LCL (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1937) 475, 477.
In such Greco-Roman entrance processions we 224, Plutarch, Antonius, 24.3-4, trans. Bernadotte Perrin, LCL (Cam-
have seen the following elements: (1) The con- bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1920) 187-89.
366
In significant respects, Luke’s account of Jesus’ He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
entry into Jerusalem conforms to the pattern iden- and the war horse from Jerusalem;
and the battle bow shall be cut off,
tified above. (1) Jesus is escorted into Jerusalem
and he shall command peace to the nations;
by people who spread their cloaks on the road his dominion shall be from sea to sea,
(v. 36) and by “the whole multitude of the and from the River to the ends of the earth.
disciples” (v. 37). (2) The procession is accompa-
nied by hymns of acclamation, in this case a verse
Matthew 21:5 quotes Zech 9:9, but even without
from the Hallel psalms (Ps 118:26). (3) Various the quotation, it is clear that reflection on this
elements of the procession depict the authority of verse has colored this account. Both passages
Jesus; Jesus’ divine knowledge is illustrated by his identify the animal as “a young donkey” (1d)os
commanding the disciples to bring the colt, the polos). Balancing Jesus’ burial in a new tomb at the
spreading of cloaks on the road, praise of God for end of the passion narrative (Luke 23:53) is the
Jesus’ “deeds of power,” and praise of Jesus as report that Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey on
the bringer of peace and glory in heaven. (4) Jesus’ which no one has previously sat—another detail that
appropriation of the city is accomplished by his links the reported action with this OT reference.
prophetic act of weeping over the city, his oracle The choice of a donkey rather than a horse probably
of destruction, his entry into the Temple as God’s signals Jesus’ humility. In contrast to a typical pro-
emissary, and the act of driving out the merchants cessional entrance, Jesus rides a donkey rather than
from the Temple area. Like the parable of the a war horse. He will also be hailed as the bringer
greedy and vengeful king, therefore, Luke’s ac- of peace. More tenuously, early in Acts Jesus com-
count of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem makes use of missions the disciples to be his witnesses “to the
a well-established type scene. Once more, the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8 NRSV; cf. Isa 49:6; Acts
nuances of Luke’s account will be found in the 13:47. The Greek of Zech 9:10 LXX, however, is
details and distinctive elements of the story. different from the Greek phrase in these verses).
Jesus’ approach to the city is emphasized by The carefully orchestrated securing of the don-
the repeated use of the verb for “to draw near” key is probably meant to convey Jesus’ foreknowledge
(EyytCw engizo) in this part of the narrative (see of these events. Rationalizing explanations sug-
19:11, 29, 37, 41). Bethphage and Bethany were gesting that Jesus had previously arranged for the use
villages on the Mount of Olives. Bethphage means of the donkey might explain Jesus’ ability to tell
“house of unripe figs,” but Bethany may mean the disciples where the donkey would be tied, but
“House of Ananiah,” “house of the poor,” or “house hardly do justice to the instruction he gives the
of dates.” The specification that Jesus and his fol- disciples regarding what they are to say when they
lowers were on the Mount of Olives may connect are challenged by its owners. Again, the detail and
with the reference to the Mount of Olives in the repetition of the declaration “The Lord needs it”
Zechariah: “On that day his feet shall stand on the suggest that these words convey a christological af-
Mount of Olives, which lies before Jerusalem on the firmation. The events are unfolding according to
east... . Then the Lorp my God will come, and all God’s foreordained redemptive purposes—as will all
the holy ones with him” (Zech 14:4-5 NRSV). that follows. They fulfill the Scriptures, and they point
to Jesus’ messianic identity—the donkey is tied as in
Jesus’ preparation for the entrance procession—
Gen 49:11, which follows the declaration that “the
sending two disciples to bring a donkey on which
scepter shall not depart from Judah,/ nor the
he can ride—is reported in unusual detail in six
ruler’s staff from between his feet,/ until tribute
verses. The meaning of this event lies in what it
comes to him;/ and the obedience of the peoples is
contributes to the characterization of Jesus, which
his” (Gen 49:10 NRSV); and Jesus rides on a donkey,
is conveyed in part by reflection on Zech 9:9-10
just as Solomon did before he was crowned king (see
(NRSV):
1 Kgs 1:33-37). The spreading of garments before
Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Jesus’ path was another sign of acclamation (2 Kgs
Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!
Lo, your king comes to you; »
9:13),24° but Luke omits the reference to gathering
triumphant and victorious is he, leafy branches from the fields (see Mark 11:8).
humble and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey. 225. See also Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 9.111.
367
rkig fp
aye£2»... ie
G29"
Ve E |
Se
any
WE
construction by Dr. Leen Ritmeyer
1. Pool of Bethesda 12. Palaces 23. Mariamne Tower

2. Pool of Israel 13. The Tower That Lieth Out 24. Phasael Tower
3. Pool of Struthion 14. Kidron Valley 25. Hippicus Tower
4. Antonia Fortress 15. Mount of Olives 26. Herod’s Palace
5. The Temple Mount 16. Hasmonean Tower 27. Dwelling <
6. Damascus Gate 17. First Wall 28. Pool of Siloam _
7. Second Wall 18. Hasmonean Palace 29. Dam
8. Golgotha (?) 19, Palatial Mansion 30. House of Caiaphas
9. Council House 20. Quarry 31. Serpents Pool
10. Xystus 21. Gennath Gate 32. Hinnom Valley
11. Ophel 22. Pool of Amygdalon 33. Essene Gate
Figure 7: Jerusalem at the Time of Jesus
368
The presence of the multitude of disciples “Alas for you who get evil gain for your houses,
evokes echoes of the “multitude of the heavenly setting your nest on high
to be safe from the reach of harm!”
host” at the birth of Jesus (2:13), the multitude
You have devised shame for your house
of the people Jesus taught in Galilee (6:17), the by cutting off many peoples;
multitude from the region of Gerasa (8:37), and you have forfeited your life.
the multitude that will take Jesus to Pilate and The very stones will cry out from the wall,
follow him to the place of crucifixion (23:1, 27). and the plaster will respond from the woodwork.”
(Hab 2:9-11 NRSV)
Joy and the praise of God often accompany the
great events of God’s salvation in Luke. The Jesus’ response also echoes John the Baptist’s warn- °
multitude of the heavenly host and then the ing that “God is able from these stones to raise up
shepherds praised God at the birth of Jesus (2:13, children to Abraham” (3:8) and prepares the reader
20), and the disciples’ praise in this context serves for the full import of Jesus’ announcement that “they
as an antiphonal response to the heavenly chorus. will not leave within you one stone upon another;
The crowd following Jesus through Jericho had because you did not recognize the time of your
responded with praise to Jesus’ healing of the visitation from God” (19:44). This ominous warning
blind man (18:43), and the Gospel will end with is all the more devastating because this is the last
the disciples praising God in the Temple (24:53). reference to the Pharisees in Luke. They have con-
Praise is, therefore, the natural response of grati- sistently opposed Jesus. Now they are silenced and
tude and awe from those who have witnessed pass from the scene. If the people did not cry out
God’s redemptive power at work. Unlike Mark, in praise, God could raise up another people to fulfill
however, the crowd does not hail Jesus’ arrival God’s purposes—even from the stones.
with “Hosannas” (cf. Mark 11:9-10). Old Testament allusions inform each section of
The kingship motif that is implicit in the details this narrative.
of the processional entrance to this point becomes
explicit in the praise of the multitude:
The Place the Mount of
“Blessed is the king Olives Zech 14:4
who comes in the name of the Lord!
The Preparation securing the
Peace in heaven,
and glory in the highest heaven!” (Luke 19:38) donkey Gen 49:10-11
The Procession riding on the Zech 9:9-10
The verse is drawn from one of the Hallel psalms
donkey 1 Kgs 1:33-37
(Ps 118:26), which was used to welcome pilgrims
garments 2 Kgs 9:13
coming to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage festivals.
strewn
Luke, however, has added both the royal title “the
The Proclamation the Hallel Ps 118:26
king” and the last couplet. The insertion of the
title contributes significantly to the kingship motif The Pharisees’ the stones Hab 2:11
developed by the acclamation of Jesus as the “Son Response
of David” in Jericho (18:38-39), the parable of the
greedy and vengeful king (19:11-27), and by the Part of Luke’s art as an evangelist and storyteller
overtones of the entrance procession. The last is evident in his use of OT allusions and quota-
couplet echoes the words of the heavenly host at tions as commentary on the significance of the
Jesus’ birth (2:14). Now, Jesus is hailed as the events being narrated. Why was Jesus’ entrance
bringer of “peace in heaven” and “glory in the procession different from that of other pilgrims
highest heaven.” Jesus’ reign as king will bring arriving in Jerusalem for the Passover? His en-
shalom on the earth and glory to God. trance followed the pattern of the ceremony for
The first sign of opposition to Jesus in Jerusalem welcoming a conquering king, but the allusions
arises in the response of the Pharisees to the to Scripture confirm that Jesus comes to bring
spectacle of Jesus’ approach to the city. They order peace. Like the parable of the greedy and vengeful
Jesus to rebuke his disciples—and thereby reject king (19:11-27), therefore, Jesus’ entry into Jeru-
their accolades. Jesus, however, responds with an salem serves to confirm his kingship while setting
allusion to Habakkuk’s words of judgment: Jesus apart from any earthly king.
369
REFLECTIONS
For many of us, the excitement of a parade is a secondhand, vicarious experience. We go
to parades to watch others, especially children, enjoying the parade, but Jesus’ entry into
Jerusalem stirs emotions that should not be denied. It was a moment filled with possibility.
The thought of what might be exhilarated all who followed Jesus. Might this be the king who
would deliver them from the Romans? Might this be the Messiah’ who would usher in the
blessing of the age to come and the return of all the children of God who had been scattered
abroad? This was the moment on which the wheel of history would turn. Either God’s kingdom
would be established on earth, or the people’s hope would be forever shattered.
Entrance processions were a familiar ceremony in the first century. Many anointed kings
and conquering generals had entered Jerusalem over the years, but never had they seen a king
like this one. The triumphal entry, staged on a donkey, is a prophetic sign, an acted-out parable.
In the Gospels, something is always out of place—the rich fool dies; the neighbor is a Samaritan;
the publican goes down from the Temple justified—and now the king enters the city riding
on a borrowed donkey.
Jesus was a king, but no ordinary one—the king of fishermen, tax collectors, Samaritans,
harlots, blind men, demoniacs, and cripples. Those who followed Jesus were a ragtag bunch,
pathetically unfit for the grand hopes that danced in their imaginations: There were women
who now leaped with joy, a Samaritan leper with a heart full of gratitude, a crippled woman
who had been unable to stand straight with dignity for eighteen years, and a blind man who
had followed Jesus all the way from Jericho.
The cloaks thrown on the road that day were not expensive garments but tattered shawls
and dusty, sweat-stained rags. Jesus was the king of the oppressed and suffering. He shared
their hardships, relieved their suffering, accepted them when others deemed them unacceptable,
gave them hope, and embodied God’s love for them. Now they came to march with him into
the holy city. Only a few days later, on their way home, they would say to one another, “But
we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel” (24:21).
Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem was a moment filled with fragile possibility. Their last hope was
riding on that borrowed donkey. Oh, what might have been! Everything was just right—if
only Jesus had seized the moment; if only the people of Jerusalem had responded as they
should have; if only God had fulfilled the dreams of those who followed Jesus. Life is filled
with moments of what might have been—moments when everything seems right, but then it
just doesn’t work out as we had hoped. It can be so hard to go on believing in God when
life doesn’t give us what matters so dearly to us, but there is always a danger when we attempt
to chart the course for what God will do. God was about to do something powerful and
wonderful—but that day the disciples were not looking for a different kind of king. Their
imaginations anticipated a far more limited kind of kingdom, but God had a different way.
It is so easy to project false images of the Lord we worship, to make for ourselves a king
whom we can worship rather than to worship the Christ as our king. We construct cults to
the god who is always on our side and looks after our interests rather than -those of our
adversaries and enemies. We desire a God who promises health and prosperity, and so we
join the train of those whose worship is false because they do not know that the kingdom of
God belongs to a different kind of king.
Lord John Culpepper was witness to a dramatic turn of events in English history. He was
a member of the privy council of King Charles I, who was executed in 1649, apparently
contrary to the law and the will of the Parliament. John Culpepper was entrusted with the
safety of Charles II and accompanied him into exile during twelve years of Oliver Cromwell’s
reforms, experiments, excesses, and bloodshed. Then, in 1660, six weeks before John
370
LUKE 19:28-40 REFLECTIONS vs
Culpepper’s death, Charles II returned from exile. The cry “Habemus rei! We have a king!”
rose from the people. Sir Winston Churchill wrote in his History of the English Speaking
Peoples: “It was most plainly the wish of the people that the King should ‘enjoy his own
again.’ This simple phrase sprung from the heart of the common folk....It was carried...
on the wings of a joyous melody from village to village and manor to manor.” On May 25,
1660, Charles II landed at Dover and was escorted in triumphal procession to London. Churchill
described the scene: “All classes crowded to welcome the King home to his own. They cheered
and wept in uncontrollable emotion. They felt themselves delivered from a nightmare. They
now dreamed they had entered a Golden Age... .It was England’s supreme day of joy.”””
Do we yearn, deep in our souls, for a king—for a different kind of king? The king of sinners
and outcasts, the poor and the oppressed, calls us to join the worship of the one who “has
brought down the powerful from their thrones,/ and lifted up the lowly... filled the hungry
with good things,/ and sent the rich away empty” (1:52-53), the God who “has looked
favorably on his people and redeemed them” (1:68), the God who gives “light to those who
sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,” the God who will “guide our feet into the way
of peace” (1:79).
Do we long for the day when “the King enjoys his own again”? Here is the Messiah who
gives hope to all who serve him, no matter how lowly. This is a parade at which all of us
should cheer and weep. No secondhand joy here! The Messiah is coming! Don’t let the parade
pass you by. Cast your cloaks before him and let him who has no other hope and no other
Lord cast the first cloak!
226. Winston S. Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples, vol. 2, The New World (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1956) 325-28.
LUKE 19:41-46, JESUS WEEPS OVER

THE CITY AND DRIVES THE
MERCHANTS FROM THE TEMPLE
NIV NRSV
41As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, AlAs he came near and saw the city, he wept
he wept over it “and said, “If you, even you, had over it, “saying, “If you, even you, had only recog-
only known on this day what would bring you nized on this day the things that make for peace!
peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. But now they are hidden from your eyes. “Indeed,
43The days will come upon you when your ene- the days will come upon you, when your enemies
mies will build an embankment against you and will set up ramparts around you and surround you,
encircle you and hem you in on every side. “They and hem you in on every side. “They will crush
will dash you to the ground, you and the children you to the ground, you and your children within
within your walls. They will not leave one stone you, and they will not leave within you one stone
upon another; because you did not recognize the
on another, because you did not recognize the
time of your visitation from God.”#
time of God’s coming to you.”
A45Then he entered the temple and began to
4SThen he entered the temple area and began
drive out those who were selling things there;
driving out those who were selling. *“It is writ-
4and he said, “It is written,
ten,” he said to them, “ ‘My house will be a house
‘My house shall be a house of prayer’;
of prayer’ but you have made it ‘a den of
robbers.’°” but you have made it a den of robbers.”
a46 |saiah 56:7 646 Jer. 7:11 aGklacks from God
(COMMENTARY
Following the pattern of ancient accounts of lament ended, “And I tell you, you will not see me
entrance processions cited above, the entrance until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is the
procession typically culminated with the distin- one who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”—the
guished personage entering the Temple and offer- words chanted as Jesus approached the city. Later,
ing a sacrifice, thereby declaring his appropriation Jesus will admonish thé “daughters of Jerusalem”
of the city. Once again, the Gospel account of not to weep for him but to weep for themselves
Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem follows the common and their children (23:28-31)—a warning that
pattern but also departs from it in significant ways. echoes the dire prediction in the present context
First, Jesus stops and pronounces an oracle over that “they will crush you to the ground, you and
the city, then he enters the Temple, drives out your children within you” (19:44). Jesus’ lament
the merchants, and declares that Scripture has over Jerusalem, therefore, is part of the theme of
been fulfilled. Both pronouncements declare lament over Israel’s failure that runs through Luke
God’s sovereignty over the city of Jerusalem and and Acts (cf. Luke’s use of the Isaianic judgment
its Temple, and both point ahead to the destruc- oracle in Acts 28:24-28). The wonder and joy of
tion of the city during the war of 66-70 cz. In _ God’s redemptive work are also accompanied by
order to grasp the nuances of Luke’s account of lament for those who will not respond to God’s
these events, one must read it with multiple declaration of salvation.
horizons in focus: the ancient pattern of entrance The word Jerusalem contains a reference to
processions, the OT pronouncements of judgment “peace” (eipnvn eiréene), but the city failed to
on Jerusalem and the Temple, and the accounts recognize the things that make for peace.??” The
in Josephus of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 psalmist had exhorted, “Pray for the peace of
ce. Luke marshaled all of these resources, and Jerusalem” (Ps 122:6 NRSV), but the people of
each is reflected in his account of these events. Jerusalem did not recognize the things that made
19:41-44, Jesus Weeps over Jerusalem. for peace. Jeremiah was the weeping prophet
Seeing and perceiving are significant motifs in this (Jer 9:1; 13:17; 14:17), remembered for his la-
Gospel. At Jesus’ approach to the city, the crowd ments over Jerusalem (Jer 11:18-20:18), and
of disciples praised God, “for all the deeds of these too are echoed by Jesus’ lament. Jeremiah
power that they had seen” (19:37). Now Jesus warned that the Lord would punish Jerusalem
weeps because they have not recognized the because its brokenness was not healed by leaders
things that make for peace (v. 42). The oracle who glibly promised, “ ‘Peace, peace,’ when there
begins and ends with references to “knowing” or is mo peace” (Jer O:14> NESV; "cE evor5). Phe
“recognition” (ywwuoKkw ginosko; 19:42, 44). Ech- dashing of children against the rocks is an allusion
oes of Luke’s emphasis on “today” as the time of to Ps 137:9; Nah 3:10; and Hos 13:16—but the
fulfillment (see Commentary on Luke 19:5, 9) vengeance Israel had looked forward to reaping
may be overheard in the emphatic references to on Babylon, Nineveh, and Samaria will be suffered
“this day,” “but now,” and “the time of your by Jerusalem instead. The prophets had warned
visitation from God.” Because Jerusalem did not of sieges against Jerusalem at various times in the
respond to Jesus’ declaration of the kingdom and past (Isa 29:3; Ezek 4:1-3) and had foreseen its
God’s work of salvation in that city, it would soon destruction (Jer 26:18; Mic 3:12). .
be destroyed. The events of “the days [that] will Against this backdrop, Josephus’s account of the
come upon you” are directly related to what they - destruction of Jerusalem resonates with a fascinat-
failed to recognize on “this day.” ing horror. When the Romans constructed earth-
Jesus’ weeping over the city also evokes echoes works and walls around the city to choke it off,
of his earlier lament in Luke 13:34-35. There the famine became so severe people seized food
Jesus declared that he had often desired to gather even from their own family, and “children were
the people as a hen gathers her brood under her
227. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV),
wings, but the people were not willing. The AB 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 1256.
372
actually lifted up with the fragments to which the tables, selling doves, and forbidding anyone
they clung and dashed to the ground.”222 An to carry anything through the Temple. Moreover,
incident of infant cannibalism horrified the dying in Luke there is no withdrawal from the city or
city.” Later, after the city had fallen, Titus, the the Temple: “Every day he was teaching in the
Roman general, marveled at the strength of its temple” (19:47). The differences also point to a
fortifications and said, “God indeed has been with difference in the significance of Jesus’ action in
us in the war. God it was who brought down the the Temple. In Mark the false witnesses at Jesus’
Jews from these strongholds.”*°° Finally, the city’s trial report that he had said he would destroy the
destruction was complete; the city was leveled— Temple and build another not made with hands
“they will not leave within you one stone upon (Mark 14:58). The mockers at the cross taunt
another” (Luke 19:44). Josephus describes the Jesus with these words (Mark 15:29), but the
scene as follows: saying never appears in Luke. The cumulative
Caesar ordered the whole city and the temple effect of these differences is that while Jesus’
to be razed to the ground, leaving only the action in Mark is part of his prophetic an-
loftiest of the towers, Phasael, Hippicus, and nouncement of the destruction of the Temple,
Mariamne, and the portion of the wall enclosing Luke has muted this emphasis. Instead, the cleans-
the city on the west: the latter as an encamp-
ment for the garrison that was to remain, and
ing of the Temple in Luke prepares his “father’s
the towers to indicate to posterity the nature of house” (2:49) to serve as the site for Jesus’ teach-
the city and of the strong defences which had ing in the following section (19:47—21:38).
yet yielded to Roman prowess. All the rest of Still, Luke knows of the coming destruction of
the wall encompassing the city was so com- the Temple. When Jesus wept over the city in the
pletely levelled to the ground as to leave future
visitors to the spot no ground for believing that preceding verses, he warned of its destruction
it had ever been inhabited.??! (19:41-44; cf. 21:5-6, 20-24). At Jesus’ death,
Luke retains the report of the rending of the veil
The savagery and destruction that lay ahead, in the Temple (23:45), and later Stephen declares
therefore, lent an overwhelming pathos to Jesus’ that “the Most High does not dwell in houses
entry into the city. He had been hailed as their made with human hands” (Acts 7:48 NRSV).
king, but they had not recognized “the things that In spite of the differences between Mark and
make for peace” (19:42). Luke, what remains of the account follows the
19:45-46, The Cleansing of the Temple. Markan text closely. In keeping with the pattern of
The distinctiveness of Luke’s account of the ancient entrance processions (see Commentary on
cleansing of the Temple stands out more clearly 19:28-40), Jesus goes directly to the Temple. There,
when it is compared with Mark. In Mark’s ache does not offer a sacrifice as his means of appro-
count, Jesus enters the city and the Temple, then priating the city but protests the corruption of the
withdraws for the night to Bethany. The next day Temple by driving out the merchants (thereby ful-
he curses the fig tree, then drives the merchants filling Zech 14:21) and by quoting two phrases from
and money changers out of the Temple. As a Scripture. Luke’s abridgment of Jesus’ action in the
result of Jesus’ action in the Temple, the authori- Temple thereby turns it into a pronouncement story,
ties look for a way to kill him, but they are afraid focusing attention on his words in the Temple and
of the crowd. In the evening, Jesus again with- the fulfillment of Scripture.
draws from the city, and the next morning the Luke 19:46 cites memorable phrases from two
fig tree is found withered away. significant passages from the prophets: “ ‘My
In contrast, Luke has Jesus proceed directly to house shall be a house of prayer [cf. Isa 56:7]’;
the Temple (cf. Mal 3:1). The cleansing of the but you have made it a den of robbers [cf. Jer
Temple is greatly abbreviated, omitting Mark’s 7:11].” The latter has probably been associated
references to those who were buying, overturning with the former because it too refers to what the
Temple will be called: “Has this house, which is
228. Josephus The Jewish War 5.433. °
229. Ibid., 6.205-13. called by my name, become a den of robbers in
230. Ibid., 6.411. your sight?” (Jer 7:11 NRSV). In each case, more-
231. Josephus, The Jewish War, 7.14, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1928) 505. over, the context of the quoted phrase suggests
373
_LUKE 19:41-46 COMMENTARY
important nuances of Jesus’ action in the Temple. other gods and then sought refuge in the Temple,
One of the puzzling aspects of Luke’s handling of like bandits ‘hiding out in caves while planning
this tradition is the omission of the phrase “for all their next crimes. They had made the Temple “a
peoples” (Isa 56:7; Mark 11:17). Luke no less den of robbers” (Jer 7:11). As a result, the prophet
than Mark has the Gentile mission in view, but warned the people that God would destroy their
in Acts the gospel spreads from Jerusalem to the Temple and cast them out (see Jer 7:12).
ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). People from all The phrases from the, prophets neatly evoke the
nations are drawn to the Temple at Pentecost (see significance of Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple. It
Acts 2:9-11), but the Temple is displaced follow- was an act that in the Lukan context has several
ing Stephen’s speech, and believers meet in implications. Jesus was continuing in Jerusalem
homes. The work of gathering outcasts from Israel his declaration of the coming of the kingdom, just
and from the Gentiles will continue, however, just as he had in Galilee—gathering the outcasts. He
as Isaiah had foreseen (see Isa 56:8). challenged the people and the Temple authorities
Similarly, the context of the phrase “den of with corrupting the Temple and not bearing “the
robbers” in Jeremiah’s famous sermon in the Tem- fruits worthy of repentance” (Luke 3:8). There-
ple furnishes significant commentary on Jesus’ fore, the Temple would be displaced and de-
action in the Temple. The God of Israel appeals stroyed.' Jesus’ act in the Temple was a prophetic
to the people, “Amend your ways and your do- ’ warning, but the prophetic warnings had gone
ings, and let me dwell with you in this place” unheeded in the past. The cleansing of the Tem-
Jer 7:3 NRSV). But the prophet warned them not ple, as a result, declared Jesus’ appropriation of
to trust the claim “This is the temple of the Lorp” his.Father’s house and signaled the continuation
Ver 7:4 NRSV), with the implication that they of his ministry to outcasts and the coming con-
were safe in the Temple. God would dwell among frontation with the religious leaders in Jerusalem.
them only if they amended their ways (see Jer It foreshadowed both Jesus’ claim on the Temple
7:5-6). On the contrary, the people committed and the people of God and the eventual displace-
violence against one another and idolatry with ment and destruction of the Temple.
REFLECTIONS
The related scenes of Jesus weeping over the city and driving out the merchants from the
Temple speak poignantly of God’s judgment on human sinfulness. These are passages heavy with
pathos and tragedy. Jesus weeps, laments, and sounds warnings that fall on deaf ears. The air of
hopefulness that surrounded the entrance procession quickly fades in these two scenes.
The messianic lament over Jerusalem starkly juxtaposes the imperative of recognizing “the
things that make for peace” and the consequences of war—women and children dashed to
the ground and total destruction of the city, not one stone left upon another. The scope of
war is even more terrible now than then, and graphic reminders of tragic and devastating
violence bombard our senses on daily news casts. How must the Messiah weep at Buchenwald
and Nagasaki, the killing fields of Cambodia, and the devastation of Rwanda: “If you, even
you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace!” (19:41).
What are “the things that make for peace”? In the narrative world of the Gospel, the redemptive
God of Israel sends prophets and God’s Son “to guide our feet into the way of peace” (1:79) and
to bring peace on earth (2:14). The bringing of peace begins with a call for repentance, for sharing
coats, for making taxation just, and for ending military oppression (3:10-14). The coming of God’s
kingdom on earth means good news for the poor, a place at the table for the outcasts, sight for
the blind, an end to the subjugation of women, the responsible handling of wealth and property,
and a reevaluation of what constitutes piety and holiness.
The vision of such a community on earth should beckon us as strongly as the specter of
the consequences of neglecting the things that make for peace horrifies and repels us. Here,
374
in two short scenes the two ways are set before us: repentance and peace on one side, and
disobedience and destruction on the other. If we can read these scenes and be unmoved,
cynical about the possibility of peace on the one hand or complacent in the face of destruction
on the other, it should challenge us to ask whether we have given up hope in the power of
God to bring wholeness to our humanity and our human community, or whether we have
forgotten the lessons of Israel’s suffering, exile, and destruction in the past. Only an impotent
theology affirms a God of love who cannot bring peace and will not punish disobedience.
Whatever we make of God’s justice and retribution, experience should teach us the tragic
consequences of our sinfulness. Go to Shiloh, to Bataan or Guadalcanal, to Hiroshima or
Coventry, to Anzio or Gettysburg, Omaha Beach or the nameless sites of the Tet offensive.
The Messiah’s lament echoes in each of these places and hundreds and hundreds more: “If
you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace!”
LUKE 19:47-21:38, JESUS’ TEACHINGS

INS TEE TEMPLE
OVERVIEW
The next two chapters of the Gospel contain In the first six scenes (20:1-8, 9-19, 20-26,
an extended section devoted to Jesus’ teachings 27-40, 41-44, 45-47) Jesus confronts the
in the Temple. Luke 19:47-48 functions as an authorities, answering their questions, correct-
introduction to this section, just as the summary ing their teachings, and denouncing their cor-
verses in Luke 4:14-15 introduced Jesus’ ministry rupt leadership of the people. Jesus’ praise of
in Galilee. The earlier summary ends with the the widow’s offering (21:1-4) is also set in the
statement that “he began to teach in their syna- Temple context, following the condemnation of
gogues and was praised by everyone” (4:15). the scribes for “devouring widows’ houses”
Here, in contrast, “he was teaching in the (20:47). The last three sections (21:5-19, 20-24,
temple ...and the leaders of the people kept 25-36) warn the disciples of coming events: wars
looking for a way to kill him” (19:47). Luke and persecutions, the destruction of Jerusalem,
20:1-21:38 is devoted to Jesus’ teachings in the and the coming of the Son of Man. Luke 21:37-38
Temple. Throughout this section Luke follows then concludes this section of confrontations and
Mark, omitting only Mark 12:28-34, which teachings in the Temple by restating many of the
Luke used earlier (10:25-28). elements of its introduction.
Luke 19:47-48, The Beginning of Jesus’ Teaching in the Temple

NIV NRSV
47Every day he was teaching at the temple. But 47Every day he was teaching in the temple.
the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the The chief priests, the scribes, and the leaders of
leaders among the people were trying to kill him. the people kept looking for a way to kill him;
48Yet they could not find any way to do it, because 48but they did not find anything they could do,
all the people hung on his words. for all the people were spellbound by what they
heard.
.
375
COMMENTARY
The ministry in Jerusalem, as the repeated The chief priests appear repeatedly in the next
passion predictions have made clear, will end in four chapters of Luke.
Jesus’ death. Appropriately, therefore, this ex- In the exchanges that follow, various groups of
tended section of teachings in the Temple con- authorities confront Jesus in the Temple: (1) the
cludes with the statement that “every day he was chief priests, the scribes, and the elders (20:1);
teaching in the temple....And all the people (2) the scribes and chief priests (20:19); (3) some
would get up early in the morning to listen to Sadducees (20:27); (4) the scribes (20:46). Vari-
him in the temple” (21:37-38). In the very next ous groups of religious leaders are also named in
paragraph, Luke tells us that the “chief priests and the arrest and trial of Jesus (22:2, 52, 66; 23:10,
the scribes were looking for a way to put Jesus 13, 35; 24:20). Interestingly enough, the Phari-
to death, for they were afraid of the people” sees are not named in any of these lists, having
(2202). made their last appearance in the Gospel in 19:39,
Both at the beginning and at the end of this and the phrase “the leaders of the people” occurs
section, therefore, Luke specifies the setting (the only in 19:47. This phrase is both inclusive of the
Temple), Jesus’ activity (teaching), its duration . various groups of leaders and explicitly sets the
(every day), and the fate that lay ahead (his leaders in opposition to the people, who early in
death). Both introduction and conclusion also dis- the Gospel are named as the object of God’s
tinguish the leaders of the people, who are intent redemptive intent (e.g., 1:68, 77). After relatively
on killing Jesus, from the people, who “were
frequent references to “the people” (0 Aads ho
laos) early in the Gospel, there are only two such
spellbound by what they heard” (19:48). The
references during the travel narrative (11:53;
introduction includes a list that occurs nowhere
18:43), and the last already anticipates the role
else in the Gospel: “the chief priests, the scribes,
of the people in the Jerusalem ministry and the
and the leaders of the people.” This list, however,
passion narrative. Jesus teaches the people (20:1,
is reminiscent of the authorities named in the
9, 45; 21:38; 23:5), and the leaders hesitate to
passion prediction in Luke 9:22, “the elders, chief
seize Jesus because of their fear of the people
priests, and scribes.”
(20:6, 19, 26; 22:2). Only in Luke 23:13, where
The high priest exercised leadership over the
Pilate calls together the leaders and the people,
Sanhedrin and officiated in the Temple on certain
do the two groups appear together, and there
occasions. In particular, he presided over the sin
Jesus is charged with “perverting the people”
offerings on the Day of Atonement, when he
(23:14). Finally, the people will follow Jesus to
entered into the Holy of Holies to secure atone-
the place of crucifixion (23:27) and watch as the
ment for the people of Israel. The plural “chief leaders mock him (23:35). In Luke, however, the
priests” occurs frequently in the Gospels and Acts chief priests and leaders (24:20) hand Jesus over
and twice in Hebrews. This title seems to refer to be crucified—not the people. The introduction
to priests who had prominent positions of respon- to Jesus’ teachings in the Temple, therefore, sets
sibility over other priests. Some historians contend up the opposition between these two groups in
that it designates the high priests, former high Jerusalem and prepares the reader to see that the
priests, and members of the aristocratic families onus of Jesus’ death lay primarily with the leaders
from which the high priests were selected (e.g., of the people.
Acts 4:6). Priests from such families were no Earlier predictions of Jesus’ death and reports
doubt given positions of influence. The captain of of the leaders’ desire to kill him have been re-
the Temple, who was responsible for oversight of ported in Luke 6:11; 9:22, 44; 11:53-54; 12:50;
the temple ceremonies, was the head of the chief 13:32-34; 17:25; and 18:31-33. From this point
priests, who included leaders of the weekly and on, the action builds to the fulfillment of their
daily courses of priests and the temple treasurers. violent intentions.
376
LUKE 20:1-8
Luke 20:1-8, The Question of Jesus’ Authority
NIV NRSV
> One day as he was teaching the people in 2 One day, as he was teaching the people in
the temple courts and preaching the gos- the temple and telling the good news, the
pel, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, chief priests and the scribes came with the elders
together with the elders, came up to him. 2“Tell Zand said to him, “Tell us, by what authority are
us by what authority you are doing these things,” you doing these things? Who is it who gave you
they said. “Who gave you this authority?”
this authority?” *He answered them, “I will also
3He replied, “I will also ask you a question.
ask you a question, and you tell me: “Did the
Tell me, “John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or
baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of
from men?”
human origin?” °They discussed it with one an-
They discussed it among themselves and said,
“If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why other, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will
didn’t you believe him?’ °But if we say, ‘From say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ °But if we
men,’ all the people will stone us, because they say, ‘Of human origin,’ all the people will stone
are persuaded that John was a prophet.” us; for they are convinced that John was a
7So they answered, “We don’t know where it prophet.” ’So they answered that they did not
was from.” know where it came from. *Then Jesus said to
Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority
authority I am doing these things.” I am doing these things.”
(COMMENTARY
The first group to confront Jesus is composed concerns Jesus’ authority to teach. One of the
of the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders (cf. places Luke has redacted the Markan account
9:22). The chief priests and the scribes were the of this scene most heavily is the introduction,
first two groups named in 19:47. Priests were where Luke has added references to Jesus’
divided into twenty-four groups that served in the teaching and preaching the good news. For
Temple on a rotating basis. The chief priests Luke’s use of the latter (evayyeAtCeo8at euan-
supervised the Temple activities. Together with gelizesthai), see 1:19; 2:10; 3:18; 4:18, 43; 7:22;
the scribes, they assigned duties and instructed 8:1; 9:6; and 16:16.
the priests in the performance of their tasks. The The authority of the chief priests was heredi-
scribes were trained in the law and in legal tary, the scribes’ authority lay in their education
matters. The elders were the heads of the leading and expertise, and the elders’ was social and
families of Jerusalem. Representatives from each economic. The authority of these groups was
of these groups composed the Sanhedrin, and clear. What was Jesus’ authority? Early in the first
together the chief priests, scribes, and elders were century, rabbis may not yet have been formally
the guardians of tradition.?°? ordained or authorized to teach, but it would have
20:1-2. The setting for the confrontation is been common for one to establish his authority
Jesus’ teaching and preaching in the Temple, and by citing the tradition of his teachers. Paul, for
the first question challenges his authority to “do example, could say that he was “brought up in
these things.” The reference could be broadly this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated strictly
construed to include his entry into Jerusalem and according to our ancestral law” (Acts 22:3 NRSV;
driving out the merchants, but following the ref- cf. Phil 3:4-6). In Acts, the authorities challenge
erences to teaching in 19:47 and 20:1, it probably the apostles: “By what power or by what name
did you do this?” (Acts 4:7 NRSV).
232. See further Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus,
trans. F. H. and C. H. Cave (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 160-82, 222-45.
Those whose authority is clear have challenged
377
someone who has acted with authority but whose The question places the authorities over against
source of authority is not clear. The question, there- Jesus and the people. If they answer “from
fore, is a challenge to the basis of Jesus’ entire heaven,” then they leave themselves open to the
message and ministry. If he cannot state his author- charge of rejecting God’s prophet. If they say “of
ity, he will lose credibility and expose himself to the human origin,” they risk violent opposition from
judgment of the authorities. The question constitutes those who were convinced that John was a
a serious challenge to Jesus’ honor, but one that prophet. The question, therefore, aligns Jesus with
involves little risk to the authorities. the people in its implicit acceptance of John’s
20:3-4. When Jesus responds to the authorities’ divine authority and exposes the authorities’ op-
question with one of his own, he turns the challenge position to God’s prophets. As a result, the reader
into a contest of wits. Jesus was baptized by John may hear echoes of Jesus’ lament, “Jerusalem,
the Baptist, and the reader knows of Jesus’ connec- Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and
tion with John from even before their births. Hence, stones those who are sent to it!” (13:34).
the question of John’s authority is relevant to the The authorities attempt to cut their losses by
issue. Jesus frames the question in terms of human refusing to answer the question. Their refusal to
or divine authority: “Did the baptism of John come answer, however, is an admission that they have
from heaven, or was it of human origin?” The lost the contest of wits. They have lost face and
emphasis on tradition implicit in the question has incurred shame, but that was preferable to either
also been altered to a question of origin—which of the alternatives allowed by the question. They
again has an additional nuance for readers, who are say that they do not know, but their admission
familiar with the birth accounts. of ignorance incurs shame—a loss of honor. For
20:5-7. The authorities are hung on the horns the reader of Luke, who has been privy to the
of the alternatives posed by Jesus’ question. The deliberations of the authorities, their response
basis for their dilemma is John’s following among serves to discredit the leaders as religious authori-
“the people” (0 \ads ho laosj—a term added to ties. Who could hope for truth or justice from
the account by Luke, and one that has particular those who did not recognize God’s prophets but
importance in this Gospel (see Commentary on chose rather the path of expediency?
19:47-48). Thus this scene serves to clarify further 20:8. Jesus interprets their answer as a refusal
the division between the people (Israel, God’s peo- to give an answer. Consequently, he can refuse
ple) and their leaders. John’s following was estab- to answer the authorities. Because they would not
lished at various points earlier in the narrative (1:14; answer his question, he was relieved of any obli-
3:15, 21; 7:24). We recall that the angel messenger gation to answer theirs. The last line of the scene
had declared that John would “turn many of the takes us back to the authorities’ question. Jesus’
people of Israel to the Lord their God” (1:16). The response leaves the clear implication that he, in
reader may also recall Luke’s comment that “by fact, has authority. Moreover, the alternatives he
refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and poses to the authorities imply that his teaching is
the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves” “from heaven”—it carries God’s authority.
(7:30). The people, on the other hand, held John
to be a prophet (cf. 1:76; 7:26).
REFLECTIONS
The function of the question of Jesus’ authority is both christological and polemical. It serves to
undergird Jesus’ divine authority while exposing the opposition of the leaders of the people to those
who were authorized by God. Therefore, the question focuses the issue of the authority of Jesus’
announcement of the kingdom and the teachings in this immediate context: the parable of the greedy
and vengeful king, Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem, and his pronouncements regarding the Temple.
The question of religious authority is one of the burning issues of our time. How does one
resolve theological or ethical issues? What relative weight have Scripture, tradition, reason,
and experience? Denominations split over such issues. Moreover, in a society marked by
increasing religious pluralism, by what authority does one maintain religious convictions in the
face of civil pressure, secularism, or the convictions of persons of other religious traditions?
Before we jump too quickly to identify with Jesus in his conflict with the religious authorities
of his day, perhaps we should note that the leaders were only doing their duty. Jesus had
come into the Temple hailed by his followers as a king, disrupted normal activities in the
Temple, and announced its destruction. For the security of the people and the Temple if for
no other reason, the religious authorities had a responsibility to investigate Jesus.
What are the leaders of Christian denominations to do when preachers or evangelists with
questionable credentials, background, and theology create excitement and gather a following
outside the established programs of the church? What are religious leaders to do when
government authorities either sponsor unjust legislation or block programs that would contribute
to justice, peace, and the well-being of those who cannot fend for themselves? Such issues are
seldom simple.
Religious leaders carry a double responsibility, twin tasks that may at times come in conflict.
Those who are ordained or minister in a given tradition represent both God and their respective
confessions. They are responsible both for maintaining the distinctive teachings and practices
of that tradition and for correcting them when they fail to advance God’s redemptive work.
But what does one do when the teachings or traditions of the church fail to conform to the
minister’s convictions regarding God’s purposes? How does one know where one’s responsibility
lies? Again, such issues are seldom simple or one sided.
The failure of the religious leaders who confronted Jesus was not in raising the question of
Jesus’ authority but in being more concerned about their position and honor than about
discerning what distinguished those who were doing God’s redemptive work among the people.
Beyond the issue of authority is the call to respond to the promptings of God’s Spirit to
recognize and commit oneself to the work of the kingdom wherever and in whatever form
one meets it.
Luke 20:9-19, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants
NIV NRSV
°He went on to tell the people this parable: “A QHe began to tell the people this parable: “A
man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers man planted a vineyard, and leased it to tenants,
and went away for a long time. '°At harvest time and went to another country for a long time.
he sent a servant to the tenants so they would l0When the season came, he sent a slave to the
give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But tenants in order that they might give him his share
the tenants beat him and sent him away empty- of the produce of the vineyard; but the tenants
handed. ''He sent another servant, but that one beat him and sent him away empty-handed.
also they beat and treated shamefully and sent ‘Next he sent another slave; that one also they
away empty-handed. 'He sent still a third, and beat and insulted and sent away empty-handed.
they wounded him and threw him out. 12And he sent still a third; this one also they
13“Then the owner of the vineyard said, “What wounded and threw out. ‘Then the owner of the
shall I do? I will send my son, whom | love; vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my
perhaps they will respect him.’ beloved son; perhaps they will respect him.’ But
14“But when the tenants saw him, they talked when the tenants saw him, they discussed it
the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s among themselves and said, ‘This is the heir; let
kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So us kill him so that the inheritance may be ours.’
they threw him out of the vineyard and killed 15So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed
him. him. What then will the owner of the vineyard
379
LUKE 20:9-19
NIV NRSV
“What then will the owner of the vineyard do do to them?’ !°He will come and destroy those
to them? '°He will come and kill those tenants tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When
and give the vineyard to others.” they heard this, they said, “Heaven forbid!” '”7But
When the people heard this, they said, “May he looked at them and said, “What then does this
this never be!” text mean:
'7Jesus looked directly at them and asked, “Then ‘The stone that the’ builders rejected
what is the meaning of that which is written: has become the cornerstone’??
'8Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken
“The stone the builders rejected to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it
has become the capstone?’?? falls.” '°When the scribes and chief priests realized
that he had told this parable against them, they
'8Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken wanted to lay hands on him at that very hour,
to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.” but they feared the people.
'°The teachers of the law and the chief priests Or keystone
looked for a way to arrest him immediately, ;
because they knew he had spoken this parable
against them. But they were afraid of the people.
217 Or cornerstone 617 Psalm 118:22
CCOMMENTARY
According to Luke, Jesus told the parable of Mark 12 Isaiah 5
the wicked tenants to the people (20:9), but he
told the parable “against” the scribes and the A man planted a He dug it and cleared it
chief priests (20:19). Interestingly, in both vineyard, put a fence of stones, and planted it
verses the same preposition is used, and the around it, dug a with choice vines; he
phrase is very nearly the same. Luke thereby pit for the wine built a watchtower in the
uses the parable to intensify the opposition press, and built a midst of it, and hewed
watchtower; out a wine vat in it;
between the people—who are mentioned both
in Luke’s introduction to the parable and in his Luke retains only the statement “A man planted a
concluding comment (20:9, 19)—and their vineyard,” but even this brief statement repeats the
leaders. The parable also augments the negative words “planted a vineyard” (EdvTevoev aytredAGva
characterization of the leaders of the people. In ephyteusen ampelona) verbatim from Isa 5:2 LXX
this way, the parable serves as commentary on and is sufficient to evoke echoes of this familiar
the characters and plot of the unfolding narra- text. In the song of the vineyard, the vineyard
tive of Jesus’ death. It is possible that the serves as a symbol for Israel, as it does in other
parable originated in a non-allegorical form, per- scriptural contexts (Ps 80:8-13; Isa 27:2-6; Jer
haps closer to that found in the Gospel of Thomas 2:21; Hos 10:1; Ezek 19:10-14).
65, but that early version has long since been The practice of absentee landlords’ leasing vine-
overlaid by allegorical interpretation that relates _ yards or olive groves to tenants dates back at least
the story of the wicked tenants to the authori- to the period of the Ptolemies (3rd cent. pce) and
ties’ role in Jesus’ death. continued through the Roman period. In Luke,
20:9. Luke depends on Mark (12:1-2) but the story of a certain man who went on a journey
retells the parable, adding, deleting, and revis- resonates with the parable of the greedy and
ing phrases. In Mark the parable begins with vengeful king in the previous chapter (19:11-27).
clear echoes of the song of the vineyard in In this story, however, it is the tenants who are
Isaiah 5: greedy and vengeful. Luke adds the note that the
380
owner was gone “for a long time” (20:9)—long in Jerusalem. The vineyard owner hopes that
enough for the tenants to grow rebellious and the tenants will respect his son, but the unjust
desire to keep all the produce of the vineyard for judge neither feared God nor had respect for
themselves. According to levitical law, the owner people (18:2, 4).
was forbidden from making a profit on the vine- 20:14. On the story level, the tenants see an
yard for five years (Lev 19:23-25). opportunity to secure the vineyard for themselves.
20:10-12. According to the version of the If the owner died with no heir, they as the tenants
parable in Thomas, the owner sends two servants might have a claim to the vineyard. Just as the
and then his son. In Mark he sends three servants, chief priests, scribes, and elders debated among
then many others (12:5; cf. Matt 21:36), and then themselves regarding how they should answer
his son. In Luke, however, the owner sends three Jesus’ question about the authority of John’s bap-
servants (20:12) before sending his son. The first tism (20:5), so also the wicked tenants now
they beat and send away empty-handed; the sec- debate among themselves regarding what they
ond they beat and insult and send away empty- should do with the vineyard owner’s son (20:14).
handed; and the third they wound and throw out. The real significance of their debate over what to
The verb for “to beat” (8€pw dero) will recur in do, however, lies in the importance of inheritance
Luke’s account of the abuse of Jesus (cf. 22:63). in the language of the Scriptures. That context is
Luke employed the storyteller’s sequence of threes evoked early in Luke, when at the annunciation
in the parable of the good Samaritan (10:29-37), the angel declares that Jesus “will be called the
but here the turning point comes after the third Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give
servant has been rejected. to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will
20:13. The actions of the owner are interpreted reign over the house of Jacob forever” (1:32-33).
in Thomas, where the owner responds to the rejec- Isaac was the child of the covenant, Abraham’s
tion of the first servant by saying, “Perhaps he did beloved son, his heir (Gen 22:2; cf. Gen 12:1-3).
not know them.”*3 The canonical Gospels offer no Israel itself was God’s beloved son (Isa 42:1; Jer
such explanation or justification of the owner’s 31:20), but the NT writers show that there was
actions. Luke, however, gives the reader an inside considerable reflection in the early church on the
view by reporting the vineyard owner’s soliloquy shifts that had occurred in the Christian under-
after the rejection of the third servant: “Then the standing of the church’s role as the heirs of God’s
owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will promises to Israel (see Rom 8:14-17; Gal 3:29-
send my beloved son; perhaps they will respect Ae] Epps) bs S26} inthis» context,. one
him’ ” (20:13). Soliloquies are common in the dis- receives the inheritance not by killing the son but
tinctively Lukan parables (see 12:17, 45; 15:17; by having faith in God’s Son.
16:3-4; 18:4-5; 20:13), but this soliloquy also echoes 20:15-16a. The misguided plot of the wicked
the song of the vineyard, where the owner says, tenants leads to violence and then to the loss of
“what yet will I do?” (ti Toijow; ti poieso, Isa the vineyard. Foreshadowing the crucifixion of
5:4-5 LXX). Like the rich fool and the dishonest steward, Jesus, the antagonists of the parable cast the son
the vineyard owner asks, “What will I do?” (cf. 12:17; out of the vineyard and kill him. Later, Pilate will
16:3-4) and then decides on a course of action. hand Jesus over to the chief priests, the leaders,
The vineyard owner’s decision to send _ his and the people, and they will lead Jesus out of
“beloved son” echoes the references to Jesus as the city, to the place set aside for crucifixions (see
the “beloved son” at Jesus’ baptism (3:22) and esp. 23:26, 32-33). Through the parable, there-
“chosen son” at the transfiguration (9:35, where fore, Jesus’ death is set in the twin contexts of
“beloved” is a textual variant). The reader cannot the deaths of the prophets before him and the
escape the meaning of this allusion. The prophets redemptive hope of God, represented by the im-
of God were stoned and killed (13:34). John was age of the vineyard owner, who says, “Perhaps
the greatest of the prophets (7:28), but he too they will respect him” (20:13).
was rejected and killed, and now Jesus faces death The wicked tenants do not determine the out-
come of the story, contrary to what they had
233. A. Guillaumont et al., trans., Zhe Gospel According to Thomas
(New York: Harper & Row, 1959) 39. assumed. They cannot secure the vineyard for
381
themselves by killing the heir. The vineyard still heard it responded with a forceful exclamation,
belongs to the owner, and he will determine what \L?) yévorto me genoito (“Heaven forbid!” NRSV;
will become of it—not the wicked tenants. Ear- “May this never be!” NIV). Paul uses this prohi-
lier, the owner had pondered, “What shall I do?” bition frequently (e.g., Rom 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2, 15;
(v. 13). Now the narrator of the parable poses a 7:7, 13), but it occurs only here in the Gospels
more pointed question to the audience: “What and Acts. The reference to those who heard the
then will the owner of the vineyard do to them?” parable recalls the introductory statement that
The owner had a decision to make: He sent his Jesus told the parable to “the people” (v. 9).
beloved son. The tenants had a decision to make: Responding to the people, Jesus provides his
They killed him. Now the audience is drawn into own comment on the parable in the form of a
the parable: What will the vineyard owner do in question about the meaning of Ps 118:22, a verse
response to the murder of his beloved son? from one of the Hallel (praise or festival) psalms.
Polemically, the question reminds the audience The verse poses an allegorical riddle for the hear-
that the owner still holds the initiative for deter- ers. What is the meaning of the irony that “The
mining the ending of the story. Historically con- stone that the builders rejected has become the
sidered, Jesus invites the audience, which includes cornerstone”? Because the verse appears in other
the scribes and chief priests, to consider what God NT contexts, it is clear that it was used by the
will do with them for their failed stewardship over early church as a scriptural proof of the crucified
Israel. Theologically, the question invites the Christ (cf. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet~2:7). A cornerstone
reader to consider what God might have done in set the angle of two walls and bore the weight
response to the crucifixion, and thereby to see of both walls at the corner. In its NT usage it
more clearly the depth of God’s commitment to may also have a temporal significance. The church
the redemption of his vineyard. would be built on the cornerstone that was set
The narrator of the parable supplies the three- for it (see Isa 28:16; Matt 16:18; 1 Cor 3:11;
fold answer with future tense verbs. Here the 10:4; Eph 2:20; 1 Pet 2:6). Luke has prepared
narrative future of the parable coincides with the the reader for this riddle by using the verb “re-
future of the story world of the Gospel (what will jected” (dtoSokiudCw apodokimazo) in two ear-
become of the scribes and chief priests). The lier contexts, which warn that the Son of Man
reader, however, may consider the parable from must be rejected by “the elders, chief priests and
the vantage point of a later time, when what the scribes” (9:22) and by “this generation” (17:25).
owner resolves has already begun to occur. The Verse 18 extends the stone metaphor to en-
owner (1) will come, (2) will destroy the wicked compass the judgment that the parable pictured
tenants, and (3) will give the vineyard to others. as taking the vineyard away from the tenants and
The coming of the owner resonates with OT giving it to others. Irony gives way to paradox. If
prophecies of the Lord’s coming (e.g., Mal 3:1; one strikes the stone, one will be shattered; if the
4:1-6), Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem and entry into stone falls on any, they will be crushed. Both parts
the Temple, and the church’s expectation of the of this verse echo scriptural references (cf. Isa
coming of the risen Lord and the Son of Man in 8:13-14). The prophetic words of Simeon are
the near future (see 21:25-36). being fulfilled: “This child is destined for the
The destruction of the wicked tenants and the falling and the rising of many in Israel” (2:34).
giving of the vineyard to others symbolically but Once again the inhabitants of Jerusalem encounter
graphically predicts the destruction of Jerusalem and the Lord’s work as a stumbling stone.
the Temple and the passing of the mantle of lead- The last half of Luke 20:18 alludes to Daniel’s
ership from Israel’s religious leaders to the leaders interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. A stone
of the church—which in Acts begins with the cut from the mountain, not by human hands, struck
apostles and progresses to the seven Hellenists, Paul, the great statue and broke it in pieces (Dan 2:34).
and then the elders of the Gentile churches. The dream, Daniel said, was a portent of the king-
20:16b-19. The focus of attention now dom that would crush all other kingdoms (Dan
shifts from the parable to two responses. First, 2:44). By joining allusions to a vineyard, a corner-
the Gospel narrator reports that those who stone, a stumbling stone, and a crushing stone,
382
Luke’s successive references construct a powerful “Heaven forbid!” The response of the religious
allegorical interpretation of Jesus’ confrontation leaders is a desire to seize Jesus “that very hour,”
with the authorities in Jerusalem. but they are prevented from doing so because
The allusions to rejection and judgment are fol- “they feared the people” (v. 19; cf. 22:2). Both
lowed by the reappearance of the scribes and chief of these motifs, the hour and fear, have distinctive
priests, who were introduced at the beginning of though different roles in the Gospel of John. In
this section (19:47; 20:1). Their reappearance at this that Gospel, Jesus cannot be seized until his hour
point forms a neat inclusio—the end of the section has come (see John 2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:27; 13:1).
returns to its beginning. Again, they oppose both Similarly, the authorities would not confess Jesus
Jesus and “the people.” The meaning of the parable “for fear that they would be put out of the
is confirmed for the reader by means of the narra- synagogue” (John 12:42 NRSV), while others hide
tor’s comment that “the scribes and chief priests from “fear of the Jews” (John 7:13; 19:38;
realized that he had told this parable against them” 20:19—and in these instances “the Jews” seems
(v. 19). The response of the people had been to refer to the religious authorities in Jerusalem).
REFLECTIONS
Although the parable of the wicked tenants is cast in the context of the chief priests’ and
scribes’ rejection of Jesus, it resonates with Isaiah’s song of the vineyard and hauntingly depicts
self-serving rebellion against God’s sovereignty. The essence of sin is humanity’s failure to take
its place in covenant with God. Human beings alternately overreach and underachieve what
God intends them to be. In this story, the tenants who have been given charge of the vineyard
reject the owner’s authority and plot to take it from him.
Like most biblical texts, this one can be read in various ways. | propose that we read it in
four ways: (a) historically, within the context of the whole biblical story; (b) narratively, within
the context of the Gospel story; (c) theologically, within the context of God’s self-revelation;
and (d) existentially, within the context of our own experience.
1. This is a parable with a long memory. It remembers where it has been, what God has
done through the centuries, and how God’s people have responded. Consequently, it sets
Jesus’ ministry in the context of the history of Israel and the rejection of the prophets. As we
read this part of the Gospel, therefore, we see Jesus’ ministry against the dramatic backdrop
of centuries of God’s efforts to call, reform, and renew Israel. The life of Jesus is not adequately
understood in isolation; it is the culmination of God’s redemptive efforts toward those who
have rejected the messengers of judgment and grace in the past.
2. The story of the vineyard is not merely an allegory about the history of Israel, however.
It is also a mirror in which we can see our own repeated rejections of God’s grace. How
often, by word or circumstance, have we been called to respond to God’s claim on our lives
and responded instead with calculations spawned by our own ambitions? The parable, therefore,
calls us to identify not with the owner or his son but with the wicked tenants. It requires a
double sense of identification, however. First, we identify with “the others” to whom the
vineyard will be entrusted. Then, we hear the implicit warning that the new tenants not
become as wicked as the first tenants. The parable’s effect, therefore, is double-sided: (1) It
reminds us of our stewardship of the vineyard God has given us, and (2) it conveys a prophetic
warning that we not follow other false leaders by seeking selfish ends rather than rendering
to God the fruit of the vineyard entrusted to us.
The sinful impulse is insidiously dynamic. The tenants did not start out to take the vineyard from
its owner; they only wanted to keep its produce for themselves. They did not set out to commit
murder; the first servant they only beat and sent away empty-handed. Once committed to this path,
383
‘LUKE 20:9-19 REFLECTIONS
however, they were led to its consequences. Wanting to keep all the produce for themselves,
they ended up losing the vineyard. Sin is not only dynamic,, but it is also inherently destructive.
Greed leads to rebellion, which is expressed in violence, which escalates to murder, which
results in loss of the vineyard. James said it in more theological language: “But one is tempted by
one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth
to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death” (Jas 1:14:15 NRSV).
3. Privilege and responsibility, grace and stewardship are inescapably joined. The link
between the tenants and the religious leaders was their special role and the responsibilities it
carried with it. God never demands responsibility without conferring privilege, but to desire
privilege without its accompanying responsibilities is a sign of immaturity and self-centeredness.
When the tissue that binds responsibility and privilege is torn, the whole fabric of community
will soon be destroyed. What does the parable have to say to a society in which greed is often
given free reign with no consideration for its consequences in the lives of others?
4. The parable also graphically portrays the consequences of greed, rebellion, and irrespon-
sibility. The vineyard is taken away from the tenants and given to others. Does the flame of
spiritual response in the Third World and the decline of Christianity in Europe signal the
passing of the vineyard to others once again?*”
5. Also there is the paradoxical image that the stone that can serve-as a cornerstone can
also be a stumbling block. What was rejected can be chosen, and what can build can also
destroy. The rejected Christ was then risen. Grace rejected becomes condemnation.
6. Similarly, the parable clarifies that God is sovereign and God will prevail, not human
sinfulness. The tenants thought they could determine the course of events and seize the
vineyard, but the owner retained the prerogative to give the vineyard to others. God’s purposes
will not be defeated.
Hear, then, the parable. We are the tenants, and we are the others to whom the vineyard has
been given. We have received as a free gift the vineyard that others would have killed for. By
God’s grace, the vineyard is twice given. So let us not close the story by calling it “the parable of
the wicked tenants.” Let’s leave it open by calling it “the parable of the twice-given vineyard.”
Because we know the gospel story and have experienced it in our own lives, we know God’s love
and God’s boundless grace. But now come the final questions: If we are the others to whom the
vineyard has been given, what will we do with ite? Will we be any more responsive to God’s
purposes than the first tenants were? If so, what does obedience require of us?
234. Fred B. Craddock, Luke, Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990) 234.
Luke 20:20-26, The Question About Paying Taxes

NRSV \
"Keeping a close watch on him, they sent 20So they watched him and sent spies who
spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped , pretended to be honest, in order to trap him by
to catch Jesus in something he said so that they what he said, so as to hand him over to the
might hand him over to the power and authority jurisdiction and authority of the governor. 2'So
of the governor. 7'So the spies questioned him: they asked him, “Teacher, we know that you are
“Teacher, we know that you speak and teach right in what you say and teach, and you show
what is right, and that you do not show partiality deference to no one, but teach the way of God
but teach the way of God in accordance with the in accordance with truth. Is it lawful for us to
384
LUKE 20:20-26
NIV NRSV
truth. "Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” *But he
note” . perceived their craftiness and said to them,
*SHe saw through their duplicity and said to 24"Show me a denarius. Whose head and whose
them, **“Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and title does it bear?” They said, “The emperor’s.”
inscription are on it?” *°He said to them, “Then give to the emperor the
25“Caesar’s,” they replied. things that are the emperor’s, and to God the
He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is things that are God’s.” #°And they were not able
Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” in the presence of the people to trap him by what
2°They were unable to trap him in what he had he said; and being amazed by his answer, they
said there in public. And astonished by his answer, became silent.
they became silent.
(COMMENTARY
The authorities’ efforts to trap Jesus continue. 20:20-21. The narrator informs the reader of
Deceptively, they send spies to try to get Jesus to the scribes’ and chief priests’ deception: (1) They
make a pronouncement on a politically sensitive sent spies; (2) the spies pretended to be honest (see
issue so that they can report him to the governor. 16:15); (3) their real purpose was “to trap him by
The religious leaders will charge Jesus with “for- what he said”; and (4) their ultimate plan was “to
bidding us to pay taxes to the emperor” (23:2), hand him over to the jurisdiction and authority
but the present passage alerts the reader that it is of the governor.” The reader, then, is immedi-
a false charge. Ancient sources contain several ately able to see through the spies’ malicious
versions of this story, but none of the non-canoni- flattery. Ironically, though, what they say about
cal accounts is earlier than Luke.?% ; Jesus is true, while what they say about themselves
Luke continues to follow Mark, but alters the is false or they condemn themselves with their own
introduction to this controversy story by omitting words. If they know that Jesus is right in what
Mark’s reference to the Pharisees and Herodians, he says and teaches, they should accept “his
which would be extraneous in Luke. The result is teachings. Jesus’ answer to their trapping question
that Jesus deals with emissaries who are sent to him will confirm that he shows deference to no one.
and responds to a question of what should be given Literally, the idiom says that Jesus does not “re-
to Caesar. Both the sending and the issue of giving ceive faces” (ov \apBdavets TpdGwTOV OU lam-
what is due link this exchange with the preceding baneis prosopon); he makes no distinction
parable. The question of paying taxes exposes the between persons (cf. Acts 10:34; Jas 2:1). The
underlying question regarding one’s obligations to empty praise of the spies is not only true but also
the Roman authorities. In the volatile environment resonates powerfully with the Hebrew Scriptures.
of first-century Judea, any answer Jesus might give Had not Moses said: “So now, O Israel, what does
would be scrutinized for evidence of either capitu-
the Lorp your God require of you? Only to fear
lation to the Romans or rebellion against them. On
the Lorp your God, to walk in all his ways” (Deut
the one hand, Jesus might lose the support of the
10:12 NRSV).
people; on the other hand, he might expose himself
20:22. Perhaps hoping that “pride goeth be-
to charges of insurrection. Jesus’ answer, however,
fore ...a fall” (Prov 16:18 KJV), the spies spring
unlike the authorities’ earlier response to his ques-
their trap immediately after their words of praise.
tion about John’s baptism, shows that he is not
Their question already places the issue of taxation
guided by political expediency.
in a religious context: “Is it lawful... ?” For all
235. See Egerton Papyrus 2, frg. 2r; Gospel of Thomas 100; and Justin its political bristles, the question is at base a
Martyr Apology 1.17.2. For the evidence that none of these accounts is religious one, a matter of interpretation of the law.
earlier than Luke, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke
(X-XXIV), AB 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 1290-91. The lure entices Jesus to appeal to the authority
385
of the Law of Moses to decree that paying taxes belongs to Caesar, so give it to Caesar. But give
was illegal. In its present context, the question to God whatever belongs to God. If what belongs
invites Jesus to counsel the people to act as the to Caesar bears his image, then whatever belongs
wicked tenants of the preceding parable and refuse to God bears God’s image as well. Human beings,
to give the emperor his due (cf. 20:10, 22; both made in the image and likeness of God, belong
contain the verb “to give” [StSwyt didomi]). Luke exclusively to God. Pay taxes to Caesar, but give
chooses a general word for “taxes” or “tribute” your highest loyalty to God. Jesus’ answer cleverly
(bdpos phoros) rather than the Latin loan word avoids the spies’ trap while calling the people to
“census” or “head tax” (kivaos kensos) found in be faithful to God in all things. By affirming that
Mark 12:14. Significantly, it is the same word that the people should pay taxes, Jesus refuses to
will be used in the false charge against Jesus in 23:2. support violent rebellion against Rome. On the
20:23-24. Jesus catches the wise in their crafti- other hand, the effect of his response is not to
ness and deceitful scheming (cf. 1 Cor 3:19; Eph create an arena of life that is exempt from God’s
4:14). His trap is even more sly. He asks for a authority but to reserve for God a level of fidelity
denarius, a common coin, a laborer’s daily wage. that supersedes any other obligation.
The silver denarius bore the image of Tiberius and 20:26. This verse provides closure for the scene.
the inscription “Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine The spies acting for the religious authorities had set
Augustus, Augustus.”2°° Evidently, Jesus’ opponents out to trap Jesus in his words, but they have failed
themselves carried Roman coins. Jesus further forces to do so (cf. 20:20, 26, the beginning and end of
his interrogators into an uncomfortable position by the scene). They fail “in the presence of the people”
asking whose image and inscription were on the (see Commentary on 19:47-48 and 20:1 regarding
coin. Not only are they forced to answer a question
the opposition between the leaders and the people).
that any child could answer, but the spies are also
Thus later the people should be able to recognize
forced to pronounce the name “Caesar.”
that the charge against Jesus is false (23:1-2). The
20:25. From their simple and obviously cor-
spies’ amazement at Jesus’ answer reminds the
rect answer, Jesus forms his response—with the
reader of earlier reports of amazement at Jesus’
implication that it should be equally simple and
mighty works (8:25; 9:43; 11:14) and at his teach-
obvious. If the coin bears Caesar’s image, then it
ings (4:22). Failing to trap Jesus in his words, his
236. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X—XXIV}, 1296. Opponents are reduced to silence.
REFLECTIONS
Jesus’ pronouncement to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and:to God the
things that are God’s” is a response to a trap question about paying taxes. While affirming the
payment of taxes, Jesus holds out the further, more encompassing imperative of serving God.
The pronouncement is not a nuanced treatise on church-state relations or on the civil duties
of the Christian. Rather, it is an aphorism that teases the mind to remember that one’s duty
to God exceeds all other duties. The determination of what should be given to Caesar and
what should be reserved for God must be worked out in every particular situation.
Nevertheless, given the tensive and open-ended character of the aphorism and the paucity
of other pronouncements from Jesus on the subject, this statement has often served as the
authority for various political views. Its primary force, however, is to warn against rendering
to Caesar what one should rightfully give’ only to God. This means that patriotism should
never assume the fervor, or make the absolute claims of, religion. Then as now, however, the
lines between the two were often blurred. Both demanded loyalty, both made laws that
regulated life, both had festivals, both had their heroes, and both were supported by a cult.
The power of civil religion is evident today especially in times of international conflict, when
political leaders proclaim that our cause is God’s cause. God is on our side. The United States
Constitution is given the authority of scripture by Americans. The monuments in Washington,
386
D.C.—the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, and the Jefferson Memorial—serve
as the cult’s shrines, embodying its sacred history, and the Congress and president assume
priestly roles. Whereas Jesus held forth the kingdom of God as the highest ideal for human
society, the American ideal is democracy and the Union of the States: “One nation, under
God, with liberty and justice for all.”
Noble as national ideals may be, there is the danger of rendering the things of God to
Caesar or expecting God to look after Caesar’s affairs. What message do we send when Christian
churches celebrate the Fourth of July with flag and color guard in the sanctuary? What is the
difference between the roles of the church and the state in educating or legislating morality,
enhancing the quality of life, and attaining Christian ideals and values? Jesus’ pronouncement
affirms at a minimum that while the state has a rightful place, God’s claims surpass one’s
obligations to the state (see Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-17). Christians, therefore, are not to
confuse the two or misplace their ultimate trust and commitments.
Luke 20:27-40, The Question About the Resurrection
NIV NRSV
27Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no 27Some Sadducees, those who say there is no
resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. resurrection, came to him *8and asked him a
28“Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that question, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a
if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children,
children, the man must marry the widow and the man? shall marry the widow and raise up
have children for his brother. ?7Now there were children for his brother. 27Now there were seven
seven brothers. The first one married a woman brothers; the first married, and died childless;
and died childless. °°The second *!and then the °then the second “!and the third married her, and
third married her, and in the same way the seven so in the same way all seven died childless.
died, leaving no children. **Finally, the woman ~ Finally the woman. also died. “In the resurrec-
died too. **Now then, at the resurrection whose tion, therefore, whose wife will the woman be?
wife will she be, since the seven were married to For the seven had married her.”
her?” 34Jesus said to them, “Those who belong to
34Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry this age marry and are given in marriage; *but
and are given in marriage. *But those who are those who are considered worthy of a place in
considered worthy of taking part in that age and that age and in the resurrection from the dead
in the resurrection from the dead will neither neither marry nor are given in marriage. *°*Indeed
marry nor be given in marriage, *Cand they can they cannot die anymore, because they are like
no longer die; for they are like the angels. They angels and are children of God, being children of
are God’s children, since they are children of the the resurrection. *”And the fact that the dead are
resurrection. °7But in the account of the bush, raised Moses himself showed, in the story about
even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he the bush, where he speaks of the Lord as the God
calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’? *He is not the Jacob. **Now he is God not of the dead, but of
the living; for to him all of them are alive.” °°Then
God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all
some of the scribes answered, “Teacher, you have
are alive.”
spoken well.” *°For they no longer dared to ask
39Some of the teachers of the law responded,
him another question.
“Well said, teacher!” *°And no one dared to ask
aGk his brother
him any more questions.
437 Exodus 3:6
387
COMMENTARY - !
The Sadducees’ challenge to Jesus is unusual descendants and in their memory. Hence, if a man
for several reasons. This is the only place where died without children, his brother was obligated to
the Sadducees appear in the Gospel of Luke, there take his wife and have children by her. The provi-
is no explicit reference to an attempt to trap Jesus, sion of children in this way also ensured the per-
and their question does not concern Jesus but an petuation of property within the immediate family
issue on which the Sadducees and the Pharisees and security for the brother’s widow. Levirate mar-
disagreed. Once again, however, Jesus’ wit and riage, a term that derives from the Latin, Jevir,
insight silence the interlocutors. “brother-in-law,” is attested in Ugarit, Middle
20:27-33. The Sadducees were a Jewish Assyrian, and Hittite law codes.* Deuteronomy
group that was closely aligned with the aristocratic 25:5-10 provides that the widow shall not marry a
and priestly classes. Because they left no writings, stranger. Rather, the deceased’s brother “shall go in
little is known about them; our only knowledge to her, taking her in marriage, and performing the
of the Sadducees comes from references in duty of a husband’s brother to her” (Deut 25:5
Josephus,?*” in the NT (esp. Matthew and Acts), NRSV; cf. Gen 38:8; Lev 18:16; Ruth 3:9, 12-13).
and later rabbinic writings. The name goes back . If the man refuses to take his brother’s widow, she
to Zadok, the high priest at the time of David and shall summon the elders, pull his sandal off his foot,
Solomon. Nevertheless, the earliest reference to and spit in his face (Deut 25:9), thereby demonstrat-
the Sadducees in Josephus describes their activity ing that she is free from any further obligation to
during the time of John Hyrcanus (135-104 sce). her husband’s family. Thereafter, his house would
In contrast to the Pharisees, the Sadducees re- be known as “the house of him whose sandal was
jected the authority of oral tradition, denied the pulled off” (Deut 25:10 NRSV).
belief in resurrection and angels, and emphasized The summary of Deut 25:5 in Luke 20:28 follows
free will over determinism. Their views on the Mark 12:19 (with editorial changes) but only para-
authority of the prophetic writings, their openness phrases the OT text. The last clause, “and raise up
to Hellenism, and the nature of their relationship children for his brother,” comes from Gen 38:8. The
to the priests are all debated. Sadducees extend the situation to the point of
The Sadducees appear in Luke as a group ridicule. What if there were seven brothers and each
aligned with the chief priests, scribes, and leaders in turn died and took the woman as wife, but none
of the people. Luke introduces the Sadducees to could give her children? In the resurrection whose
his readers as a group who say there is no resur- wife would she be?
rection, presumably because Gentile Christians 20:34-36. Luke eliminates Jesus’ rebuke of the
would not have known of this group. The one Sadducees, found in Mark 12:24. Instead, Jesus
piece of information that Luke supplies enables begins immediately to teach the Sadducees. The role
the reader to see that their question is designed of marriage and childbearing for Christians was a
to reduce belief in resurrection to the point of matter of dispute in some circles (see Luke 2:36-37;
absurdity. The first clear reference to belief in the LoCor 721-16; 1 lim 2:13:05;3°10)) am Likes
resurrection of the dead appears in Dan 12:2. By account of Jesus’ exchange with the Sadducees
the first century, the resurrection was affirmed by may have been influenced by these debates. The
the Pharisees and apparently also the Essenes. In dictum that “those who belong to this age marry
some Jewish writings the Hellenistic belief in the and are given in marriage; but those who are
immortality of the soul also appears (Wis 3:4; * considered worthy of a place in that age and in
O:t3; 15:3; 4 Macc 14:5). the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor
The Sadducees’ question assumes the practice are given in marriage” (Luke 20:34-35) is an
of levirate marriage. Prior to belief in resurrection, extension of Mark 12:25a: “For when they rise
the Israelites believed that one lived on in one’s from the dead, they neither marry nor are given
237. See Josephus The Jewish War 2.165-66; Antiquities of the Jews 238. See Victor P. Hamilton, “Marriage,” Anchor Bible Dictionary
13.293, 297-98; 18.16-17 (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 4:567.
388
in marriage” (NRSV). In Luke the point of equality Macc 7:19 (or a similar tradition), which appears
with the angels is not that those who are raised in an encomium to Eleazar, the faithful priest who
do not marry but that they do not die (cf. Mark 12:25; chose death rather than compromise his faith (2
Luke 20:36). The logic may be that since those Macc 6:18-31): “They believe that they, like our
who are raised do not die, neither is there any
patriarchs Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, do not
need to marry and raise up children. Because they
die to God, but live to God” (4 Macc 7:19 NRSV).
are “sons of the resurrection” (a Semitic construc-
Even if Luke 20:38 alludes to this reference, the
tion), they are also “sons of God.” In the Hebrew
emphasis in Luke is clearly on resurrection, not
Scriptures angels are called “sons of God” (see esp. Gen
immortality. In both 4 Maccabees and Luke, God
6:1-4, where the “sons of God” have children by human
remains the source of life for the faithful.
women, and as a result God decrees, “My spirit shall
20:39-40. Luke adds a fitting conclusion to
not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh.”).
this exchange, omitting Jesus’ rebuke “you are
20:37-38. Having dismissed the basis for the
quite wrong” (Mark 12:27). Instead, some of the
Sadducees’ question by explaining that life in the
scribes (who presumably affirmed the resurrec-
resurrection will not simply be a continuation of life
tion) declare, “Teacher, you have spoken well”
as we now know it, Jesus turns to the root of their
question: the doctrine of the resurrection of the (Luke 20:39). The title of respect, “teacher,”
dead. By means of midrashic argument, Jesus recalls the Sadducees’ address to Jesus as teacher
grounds the teaching of resurrection in the writings at the beginning of the scene (v. 28) and contin-
accepted by the Sadducees themselves—the Law of ues the emphasis on Jesus’ role as teacher in the
Moses. He calls their attention to the familiar Temple (see 19°47--2071, 21,28).
story of the burning bush. Rather than quoting The scene concludes with the narrator’s report
the words of the Lord (as Mark does), Luke cites that “they” no longer dared to ask Jesus anything.
Moses’ report of the words: “He speaks of the The pronoun is ambiguous, probably referring to
Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the Sadducees—who disappear from the narrative
and the God of Jacob” (v. 37). The logic of the at this point—but the immediate antecedent
argument hinges on the axiom that God is “God would be the scribes. Regardless, Jesus has once
not of the dead, but of the living”; therefore, the again turned away a group of leaders of the
patriarchs must be in some sense alive to God or in people, bested them in a contest of wits, and
God. The verse may be a deliberate allusion to 4 declared the faithfulness of God.
REFLECTIONS
Jesus’ words on the nature of life after death are at once intriguing, reassuring, and disturbing.
The question is as old and as timeless as the struggles of Job, who asked, “If mortals die, will
they live again?” (Job 14:14 NRSV). Recall the Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno’s
quest to know whether there is life beyond death (see Reflections above). It is the question
we cannot dismiss but cannot answer from reason or experience alone. Is there life beyond
death, and if so what will it be like?
Because Jesus said so little about the subject—a parable about Lazarus and the rich man, a
word to the thief on the cross—this pronouncement is all the more important. Critical questions
remain. To what extent have the words attributed to Jesus been shaped or altered by early
Christian debates about marriage, sex, and childbearing? At the least, Luke differs from Matthew
and Mark in his account of the words of Jesus (Luke 20:34-36). Luke has evidently introduced
deliberate changes from Mark at this point, and his editing heightens the contrast between
the place of marriage in this life and in the resurrection.
For those who have lived through violent, abusive marriages, the pronouncement that in
the resurrection we will neither marry nor be given in marriage may come as liberating good
news. On the other hand, those who have enjoyed lifelong intimacy and companionship in
marriage may well object that God has invested so much in establishing faithful, loving, and fulfilling
389
relationships in this life that it is unthinkable that such relationships would be terminated in
the resurrection. One approach to interpreting this saying is to recognize that it is set in a time
when marriage was viewed primarily as an arrangement of a man’s rights to a woman and a
woman’s right to male support. In heaven there will be no need for such arrangements. Leaving
aside the physical side of love and marriage (which belongs to the flesh), there will be no need
to restrict love, intimacy, or companionship to a monogamous relationship.”
Sometimes it is best to recognize the mystery of the unknown and the limitations of our
understanding. A child cannot grasp either the complexities or the pleasures of adulthood. What
child finds a quiet evening on the back porch talking and watching the sun set more enjoyable
than running to catch fireflies or playing hide and seek in the dusk? “When I became an adult, I
put an end to childish ways. For now we see in a mirror, dimly” (1 Cor 13:11-12 NRSV).
Jesus’ words can thus be approached from a positive side. The God who created human
life, including the institution of marriage, has also provided for life after death for those who
have cultivated the capacity to respond to God’s love. The biblical teaching is that life comes
from God. There is nothing in or of the human being that is naturally or inherently immortal.
If there is life beyond death, it is God’s gift to those who have accepted God’s love and entered
into relationship with God in this life: They “are children of God, being children of the
resurrection” (20:36).
239. See John Nolland, Luke /8:35-24:53, WBC 35C (Dallas: Word, 1993) 968.
Luke 20:41-44, The Question About David’s Son

NIV NRSV
41Then Jesus said to them, “How is it that they 41Then he said to them, “How can they say
say the Christ? is the Son of David? **David that the Messiah? is David’s son? “2For David
himself declares in the Book of Psalms: himself says in the book of Psalms,
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
““The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand,
“Sit at my right hand 43 until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
‘Suntil I make your enemies “4David thus calls him Lord; so how can he be
a footstool for your feet.” ’? his son?”
aOr the Christ
“Tavid calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his
son?”
a4] Or Messiah 643 Psalm 110:1
(COMMENTARY
Luke omits the question about the greatest and his confrontations with the chief priests,
commandment (Mark 12:28-34) because this peri- : scribes, and leaders of the people. Since they will
cope has been used in Luke 10:25-28. Luke also not ask him any further questions (see 20:26, 40),
omits any reference here to the setting of Jesus’ he puts a question to them.
question about David’s son (Mark 12:35) or the The unit consists of (1) a question: “How
group to whom he addressed the question (Matt can they say that the Messiah is David’s son?”;
22:41). Instead, Luke allows the unit to nestle in (2) the basis for the question, stated in the form
the larger context of Jesus’ teaching in the Temple of a quotation from Scripture (Ps 110:1); (3) a
conclusion drawn from the quotation: “David thus nificance (see Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5; 30:9;
calls him Lord”; and (4) a restatement of the Ps Sol 17:21; 10S 9:11). The Davidic king would
question: “So how can he be his son?” The whole reestablish the kingdom of David and drive the
unit is constructed to undermine either the argu- Gentiles out of Israel (see Ps Sol 17; cf. Acts 1:6).
ment that the Messiah is the son of David or the Jesus’ fulfillment of expectations for the Davidic
assumptions about the role of the Messiah that Messiah is developed in Acts 2:25-36. On the
accompany that designation. The middle parts of other hand, there is no evidence that Psalm 110
the unit, the quotation and the conclusion drawn was related to expectations of a Davidic Messiah
from it, undermine any implication that the Mes- in pre-Christian Judaism.2°
siah is only David’s son. Just as Jesus had appealed to Moses (the Torah)
The Davidic sonship of Jesus is well established for evidence of the resurrection (see 20:37), so
in the NT. An early confession embedded in the also now he appeals to David (to whom the
opening of Paul’s Letter to the Romans declares Psalms were attributed) for proof that the Messiah
that Jesus “was descended from David according is greater than David; David himself addresses this
to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God one as “my lord.” The argument from Scripture
with power according to the spirit of holiness by thereby makes the point that the Messiah is not
resurrection from the dead” (Rom 1:3-4 NRSV). merely David’s son, with the implication that the
Accordingly, the genealogies and birth narratives role of the Messiah should not be narrowly un-
in both Matthew (1:1, 6, 17, 20) and Luke (1:27, derstood as that of a nationalist liberator or one
32, 69; 2:4, 11; 3:31) emphasize Jesus’ claim to who would reestablish the kingdom of David.
descent from David through Joseph. The Gospel Whether “son of David” is used here in a titular
of John also reflects awareness of the same tradi-
sense or is associated with authority to heal or to
tion (John 7:42).
exorcise is uncertain.
Luke preserves the tradition because of its chris-
In its current Lukan context, this unit repre-
tological significance, but it is difficult to deter-
sents a further clarification of Jesus’ kingship,
mine whether the questions are directed at critics
following his entry into Jerusalem (see 18:38,
who denied Jesus’ physical lineage or at those
where Jesus is addressed as “Son of David”; and
who drew erroneous conclusions from it by at-
19:28-40). Jesus is the expected son of David, but
taching certain messianic expectations to “the son
he is more, just as earlier Luke shows that he is
of David.” As with other controversy stories,
more than a prophet. As son of David, however,
Jesus’ answer may have functioned differently in
he will sit at the right hand of God—and in
different settings (Jesus’ ministry, early Christian
context his enemies can only be those who are
tradition, or the Lukan setting). In the birth nar-
seeking to trap him and kill him, as the earlier
ratives, Luke alludes to the Davidic covenant in
passion predictions have made clear.
2 Sam 7:8-16 (see Luke 1:32-33). Other refer-
ences confirm that the expectation of a future 240. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X—XXIV), AB
Davidic king was eventually given messianic sig- 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 1311.
REFLECTIONS
Interpretation of this unit is all the more difficult because it appears to be an argument
without a context, a pronouncement whose original setting has been lost. Nevertheless, enough
remains for us to see that it is a warning not to limit Jesus’ role to traditional categories.
Eduard Schweizer has summarized the NT’s interpretation of Jesus under the rubric “the man
who fits no formula.” A whole array of titles and messianic references is used of Jesus: the
Word, the lamb of God, the Son of God, the Son of Man, King of Israel, the prophet like
Moses, and high priest after the order of Melchizedek, to name but a few. As the early
Christians sought to explain Jesus’ identity and role, they turned to one after another of the
traditional terms and expectations. They mined their Scriptures for the light they might shed
on the risen Lord and found a wealth of references, each of which clarifies aspects of who
‘LUKE 20:41-44 REFLECTIONS
Jesus was and what he did, but no one of the titles fully encompasses his identity. In each
case, he is that and more. Schweizer, therefore, contends: “By his very act of avoiding all
common labels, Jesus keeps free the heart of the man who encounters him. He wants to enter
into this heart himself, in all the reality of what he does and says, not as an image already
formed before he himself has a chance to encounter the person.”
If no formula, title, or creed can fully or finally describe Jesus, then the church must
continually guard against absolutizing its creeds or limiting Jesus to traditional categories.
Creeds should be seen. as minimal and provisional statements: Jesus is the Lord who
transcended the traditional and continues to do so in each generation. Just as every believer
learns to be open to new ways of experiencing and expressing Jesus’ lordship, so also the
church is most faithful to the faith received when it is continually searching for new
understandings of the one who opposed those who would limit him to one traditional role.
This is christology by addition, not subtraction. He was both David’s son and the one
whom David called “my Lord.”
241, Eduard Schweizer, /esus, trans. David E. Green (Richmond: John Knox, 1971) 22.
Luke 20:45-47, The Benicar of the Scribes
NIV NRSV
“While all the people were listening, Jesus said 45In the hearing of all the people he said to the?
to his disciples, “°“Beware of the teachers of the disciples, “°“Beware of the scribes, who like to walk
law. They like to walk around in flowing robes around in long robes, and love to be greeted with
and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best
have the most important seats in the synagogues seats in the synagogues and places of honor at
and the places of honor at banquets. *”7They de- banquets. *”They devour widows’ houses and for
vour widows’ houses and for a show make the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will
lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most receive the greater condemnation.”
severely.” aQOther ancient authorities read his
(COMMENTARY
Jesus’ teaching in the Temple continues but Jesus’ disciples, who have not appeared in the
now takes the form of a condemnation of the narrative since 19:39. Those who would follow
scribes that is reminiscent of the sharp and cate- Jesus should guard against the temptation to be
gorical condemnations leveled by the prophets. like the scribes.
Earlier in this chapter Jesus answered the scribes’ One of the difficulties of this passage is that it
questions about his authority (20:1-8) and likened appears to pronounce a blanket condemnation on
them to the wicked tenants (20:9-19). Once the scribes when Luke has previously portrayed
again, Luke takes care to maintain the distinction them in a positive light (20:39). The scribes first
between the people and the religious leaders. He ‘ enter the narrative in references where they are
does so here by reporting that he addressed his associated with the Pharisees as those who con-
condemnation of the scribes to his disciples “in the demn Jesus as a blasphemer (5:21), complain that
hearing of all the people” (20:45). Thus he omits he eats with tax collectors and sinners (5:30,
Mark’s reference to “a large crowd” (Mark 12:37), “their scribes”), and watch to see whether Jesus
introducing in its place the typically Lukan “all will heal on the sabbath (6:7). The first reference
the people.” The condemnation is addressed to to the scribes apart from the Pharisees forecasts
392
their role in the death of Jesus; in 9:22 they are The reference to the scribes’ conduct at dinners
named with the elders and chief priests. The next leads to the metaphorical reference to eating.
two references again link the scribes with the They covet the seats of honor at a dinner, but
Pharisees and note their hostility toward Jesus they eat up widows’ houses. Jesus may have had
(11:53; 15:2). Once Jesus reaches Jerusalem, in mind a variety of means of extortion or deceit.
there are no further references to the Pharisees Fitzmyer lists six possibilities: (1) Scribes accepted
(the last occurrence is in 19:39). Hereafter, the payment for legal aid to widows, even though
scribes are listed with the chief priests as leaders such payment was forbidden. (2) Scribes cheated
of the people’ (19:47;°20:1 °193:22:2 "66; 23:10). widows of what was rightly theirs. (3) Scribes
They appear alone only in 20:39, 46, so 20:39 is sponged off the hospitality of these women of
the only place in Luke where the scribes do not limited means. (4) Scribes mismanaged the prop-
appear in a negative light, and there they simply erty of widows, like Anna, who had dedicated
commend Jesus’ rebuttal of the Sadducees. There themselves to the service of the Temple. (5) Scribes
is no need, then, to attempt to ameliorate Jesus’ took large sums of money from credulous old
blanket condemnation of the scribes in the present women as a reward from prolonged prayer that
context. Reading the Greek as a restricted clause they professed to make on the women’s behalf.
forces the syntax unnecessarily. The NRSV and (6) Scribes took the houses as pledges for debts
NIV translations are, therefore, preferable to Nol- that could not be paid.2*
land’s rendering: “Beware of those scribes who The various suggestions at least confirm that
want to walk about in fine garb.”?42 the scribes had a number of ways in which they
Jesus condemns the scribes on three counts: could defraud widows of their livelihood. No
their desire for public recognition, their exploita- specific means of deceit is indicated, however.
tion of widows, and their pretense of piety while The point is that the scribes misused their position
praying. Jesus also gives three examples of their and prestige to prey upon the very members of
desire for public recognition: They like to walk society they were charged with protecting. For
around in long, ornate robes that convey their the social position of widows and the special
social position; they seek the deferential greetings consideration that is extended to widows in the
by which others recognize their superior learning Hebrew Scriptures, see Commentary on 18:1-8.
and the authority it gives them; and they enjoy The third charge makes their hypocrisy sacri-
having the best seats in the synagogues and at lege. Not only are the-scribes pretentious, and not
dinners. Social custom accorded them all of these only do they take advantage of those they are
privileges. It is not clear that Jesus condemns the charged with protecting, but also they do not even
privileges given to the scribes, though that is a quail at using prayer as a pretense for. piety.
question worth pondering. Instead, he condemns Perhaps to the chagrin of some, Jesus is not
the love of privilege that makes that privilege the condemning long prayers (though see Matt 6:5,
object of the scribes’ life-style. Rather than seeking 7-8); he is condemning any prayer that is offered
to reverence God in all that they do—“to do to influence others rather than as a sincere and
justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly humble petition for God’s mercy (cf. 18:9-14).
with your God?” (Mic 6:8)—the scribes seek the The closing statement of this unit is chillingly direct:
public recognition of others. Jesus has previously “They will receive the greater condemnation” (20:47).
castigated the guests at a banquet for seeking the A sliding scale of rewards and punishments was
places of honor (14:7-14), and he denounced the suggested earlier (see 12:48). Having found the scribes
Pharisees because they loved “to have the seat of guilty of using their privileged position merely for their
honor in the synagogues and to be greeted with own gain and violating the trust placed in them, Jesus
respect in the marketplaces” (11:43 NRSV). In the warns of the severity of the sentence. Because they
synagogue, the best seats were in the front, facing are among the privileged who have received much,
the assembly, seats normally reserved for the held great trust, and been given great opportunities,
elders and those with the greatest learning. “they will receive the greater condemnation.”
243. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X—XXIV], AB

242. John Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53, WBC 35C (Dallas: Word,
1993) 975. 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 1318.
393
REFLECTIONS
Jesus’ warning to the disciples speaks especially to temptations facing the clergy, but it
also warns of dangers of hypocrisy and pretentiousness to which none are immune. In T.
S. Eliot’s classic drama about the death of Thomas a Becket, Murder in the Cathedral, the
fourth tempter coaxes Thomas to remain steadfast in his resistance to the king and accept
his martyrdom, knowing that it will lead to a far greater glory than even a king could
hope for. He would be remembered as a saint and dwell forever in the presence of God.
In the end, however, Eliot’s Becket responds, “The last temptation is the greatest treason:
To do the right deed for the wrong reason.” The scribes went further, taking advantage
of widows. So Jesus exposes two dangers in the quest of virtue: (1) doing good out of
ulterior motives, and (2) doing wrong with the power or privilege accorded to those
appointed to do good.
1. Televangelists and media ministers are the most easily recognizable contemporary
counterparts to the scribes who pray on widows’ houses. With their weekly appeals for generous
support so that their programs can continue, religious charlatans have defrauded many widows
of their limited means. Others, too, must guard against the same treachery. The elderly may
welcome opportunities to ensure that their means will continue to be used for good purposes
after they are gone, but development officers for universities, hospitals, and charities, and even
family members, must be especially careful that they are not guilty of taking advantage of such
goodwill for the wrong reasons and the wrong ends.
2. Jesus’ warning about those who take advantage of widows applies even more broadly,
however. The role of a priest, minister, or Christian friend carries with it opportunities for intimate
relationships with persons needing help at moments when they are particularly vulnerable. A caring
relationship or a caring profession should never become the occasion for meeting one’s own needs
or satisfying one’s lusts in the pretense that it is helping the other person.
3. The devouring of widows’ houses is a repulsive violation of trust, but loving to wear
the long robes and have the seats of honor is the more insidious failing that leads the virtuous
Christian or the religious professional to believe that he or she really is better, more important,
or less vulnerable to temptation than others. Day to day, we may not be tempted to steal from
widows in the ruse that their means are needed for a worthy cause, but who does not enjoy
being recognized by others for the good that we do? How easy it is to develop a need for
that recognition once we have tasted it and to begin to calculate and to act in ways that will
attract the approval and applause of others.
Public prayer is difficult for precisely this reason. When is a person talking to God, and
when is the prayer a performance before others? Prayer should be considered, thoughtful, and
at times eloquent—the issue here is one’s motive and the object of prayer, not the form of
the prayer. Moreover, public prayer is not just baring one’s soul before God in public, but
leading others in prayer, so one needs to give thought to how the prayer will assist others to
join in confession, thanksgiving, and petition to God. The issue here is not whether one who
leads in public prayer will give thought to how others will hear the prayer. Again, the issue
is motive. :
Virtue, piety, and doing good should not become guilt-ridden odysseys of second-guessing
and self-condemnation in case one has erred. On the contrary, they should be the spontaneous
and joyful expression of one’s truest self. Jesus’ warning, therefore, should not cause us to
doubt and question the motive of our every action. Rather, it declares that those who pervert
piety and do not care about the consequences of their hypocrisy and injustice will surely be
punished. Those who are the purest in heart are persons who give no thought to the good they
394
are doing or to any recognition they might receive from it. They do good for its own sake
because they would not consider doing anything else, and it is so natural to them that they keep
no account of the good they have done: “Blessed are the pure in heart” (Matt 5:8 NRSV).
Luke 21:1-4, The Widow’s Offering

NIV NRSV
2 ] As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting » He looked up and saw rich people putting
their gifts into the temple treasury. 2He also their gifts into the treasury; *he also saw a
saw a poor widow put in two very small copper poor widow put in two small copper coins. *He
coins.? “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
widow has put in more than all the others. 4All in more than all of them; “for all of them have
these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; contributed out of their abundance, but she out
but she out of her poverty put in all she had to of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.”
live on.”
a2 Greek two lepta
COMMENTARY
Jesus’ comment on the widow’s offering fol- Josephus reports that the treasury was located
lows immediately after his condemnation of the in the court of the women.” There were thirteen
scribes: “they devour widow’s houses” (20:45). receptacles or Shofar-chests in the Temple, prob-
The device of catchword linkage, by which origi- ably so called because they were trumpet
nally independent units are connected because shaped.”*° Each of the chests was labeled for a
they share a prominent term, is a memory device different type of offering.
found commonly in oral materials and in various Luke describes the widow as needy in v. 2 and
NT passages (see, e.g., Mark 9:47-50; Jas 1:1-8). poor in v. 3. By this point, the reader understands
The question is whether this linking of the two that Luke has a special regard for widows, in
sayings makes any difference in the meaning of keeping with the OT instructions to care for
Jesus’ comment on the widow’s offering. Does widows and consistent with the early church’s
Jesus praise the widow for her generosity or support of widows (see Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim 5:3-16).
lament that in giving all she had she has become For earlier references to widows in Luke, see the
a victim of the Temple system? comments on Anna (2:36-38), the widow at Zare-
There is only a minimal shift between Jesus’ phath (4:25-26), the widow at Nain (7:11-17), the
denunciation of the scribes and his comment on parable of the widow and the unjust judge (18:1-
the widow’s offering. Luke omits most of 8), and the widows on whom the scribes preyed
Mark’s introduction to the latter (see Mark (20:47). The reader understands that the widow
12:41). The report that Jesus “looked up and is cast in a positive light, either as one of simple,
saw” shifts the reader’s attention to a new set genuine piety or as one for whom the righteous
of characters without separating the two scenes should have special care.
Whereas the size or amount of the gifts of the
geographically or temporally. Two new sets of
rich is not specified, the narrator reports that the
characters are introduced: the rich contributors
widow put in two lepta, the smallest copper coins
and a poor widow. Both engage in the same
then in use (see 12:59). Calculating that a lepta was
action—putting their gifts into the treasury—so
the contrast between them is not apparent at 244. See Josephus The Jewish War 5.200; cf. John 8:20.
the outset. 245. See m. Shekalim 6.5.
395
worth one-half a Roman quadrans, it would have He rejoice; from them He requires no sacrifice,
or should they offer any, however modest, more
taken 128 lepta to make a denarius, a day’s wage.?”°
gladly does He welcome this homage from pov-
Two lepta were nearly worthless—an inconsequen- erty than that of the wealthiest.?4”
tial gift by any ordinary standard. (See Fig. 5, “Coins
in the Gospels,” 171.) We return, therefore, to the problem posed
In a twist reminiscent of Jesus’ parables, Jesus by the narrative context of this scene. How
declares that the poor widow had put in more could Jesus praise the act of a widow who put
than any of the rich people. Verse 1 introduced all that she had to: live on into the Temple
the rich, v. 2 the poor widow, and Jesus’ pro- treasury after having just pronounced judgment
nouncement in v. 3 characterizes the one in terms on the scribes for devouring widows’ houses?
of the other. How could two lepta be more than On the other hand, the surprising twist in v. 3
any of the other gifts? Verse 4 supplies the ratio-
is characteristic of Jesus and gives every appear-
nale for the surprising and seemingly ridiculous
ance of holding up the widow for her exemplary
statement in v. 3.
piety. Moreover, the contrast between God’s
Verse 4 characterizes first the gift of the rich:
favor on the gifts of the pure of heart, however
They contributed “out of their abundance.” Then it
characterizes the widow’s gift in contrast: “but she
small the gifts, is clearly established by
out of her poverty.” But there is a second contrast Josephus. For this reason, while Jesus’ comment
(more clearly seen in the Greek and the NIV than: on the widow’s offering has traditionally been
in the NRSV): The rich put in “gifts,” but the widow interpreted as praise, some interpreters have
put in “all she had to live on.” This brief unit, recently concluded that it is a lament.?*8 The
therefore, contrasts the widow and the rich three Temple system, no less than the scribes, has
times: first in the introduction of the characters (vv. rendered the widow destitute.
1-2), then in Jesus’ comparison of their gifts (v. 3), The best solution is probably to honor Luke’s
and finally in his explanation (v. 4). characterization of widows as pious, to recognize
Jesus’ praise of the widow’s small gift over the that there is no condemnation of the Temple
larger gifts of the rich is not unique; it has system explicit or implicit in 21:1-4, to recognize
parallels in Greek and Jewish literature. Josephus, also that v. 3 is the heart of the unit rather than
for example, interprets Samuel’s rebuke to Saul v. 4, and to accept Jesus’ words as praise rather
in 1 Sam 15:22 as follows: than lament. Interpreting the scene in this way
And from such as submit not nor offer the true reinforces the treachery of the scribes who prey
worship that alone is acceptable to God, even upon such widows. The scribes take even the
though they sacrifice many fat victims, even widows’ houses, but the widows give even their
though they present to Him sumptuous offerings
last two lepta to the Lord.
wrought of silver and gold, yet does He not
receive these gifts graciously, but rejects them Jesus by no means condones any religious ap-
and regards them as tokens of iniquity rather peal that renders widows destitute. But neither
than as piety. But they who are mindful of this does he lament the widow’s selfless giving.
one thing alone, to wit what God has spoken
and commanded, and who choose rather to die 247. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 6:148-49, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray
than to transgress aught thereof, in them does and Ralph Marcus, LCL (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1934) 241.
246. See John W. Betlyon, “Coinage,” Anchor Bible Dictionary (New 248. See A. G. Wright, “The Widow’s Mites: Praise or Lament?-—A
York: Doubleday, 1992) 1:1086; Helmut Koester, /ntroduction to the Matter of Context,” CBQ 44 (1982) 256-65, followed by Fitzmyer, The
New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 1:90. Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), 1321. ‘
REFLECTIONS
Jesus’ praise of the widow issues a challenge for those who would be his disciples (see
20:45). The most obvious challenge is to give with the complete devotion and selflessness that
marked the widow’s gift. Seek first the kingdom and do not be anxious (cf. 12:22-31). Beyond
the obvious, however, Jesus’ example teaches his disciples that part of seeking the kingdom
requires vindicating the poor, the widows, and the orphans. Jesus recognized their inherent
worth and called on the community to care for the weakest and neediest in their midst. He
recognized that those who were often sustained by the gifts of others could themselves give
gifts of great value. Without knowing it, the widow gave others a timeless example of selfless
devotion to God.
This brief scene exposes for self-examination the private side of all our acts of religious
devotion. Why do we do what we do for others and for God? By what measures do we
calculate our actions? By what standards do we judge ourselves and others?
Small gifts are easily overlooked. Who stops to notice the secretary who puts out mints on
the desk for those who pass through the office? Who appreciates the thoughtfulness of a
coworker who sends colleagues notes on their birthdays? Does it matter that some adults
regularly work in the nursery so that others can participate in the worship service? Does it
make any difference that some teachers stay after school to work with children who are having
difficulty in class? The first observation that might be made about this scene is that Jesus
noticed one of the neglected. He recognized the importance of the small gift that might so
easily be overlooked.
By singling out the widow as exemplary, Jesus also rejected the insidious presumption that
those who gave the great gifts were more important or better than the one whose gift was
small because her means were limited. In a society in which wealth is the measure of success
and happiness, the wealthy are esteemed and given special treatment, while the poor are
judged as failures who could have done better if they had tried. A person’s value or worth as
a human being is, therefore, measured by the evidence of his or her prosperity. Just as in the
parables, Jesus’ pronouncement reverses the norms and standards by which we are accustomed
to living. He turns our world’s standards on their head. A widow or a homeless person’s gift
to God or to others may be more important than the gifts of the wealthy.
Luke 21:5-19, The Coming Wars and Persecutions
NIV NRSV
5Some of his disciples were remarking about 5When some were speaking about the temple,
how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones how it was adorned with beautiful stones and gifts
and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, dedicated to God, he said, °“As for these things
6“As for what you see here, the time will come that you see, the days will come when not one
when not one stone will be left on another; every stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown
one of them will be thrown down.” down.”
7™Teacher,” they asked, “when will these 7They asked him, “Teacher, when will this be,
things happen? And what will be the sign that and what will be the sign that this is about to
they are about to take place?” take place?” ®And he said, “Beware that you are
8He replied: “Watch out that you are not not led astray; for many will come in my name
deceived. For many will come in my name, and say, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is near!’? Do
claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not go after them.
not follow them. When you hear of wars and 9“When you hear of wars and insurrections,
revolutions, do not be frightened. These things do not be terrified; for these things must take
must happen first, but the end will not come place first, but the end will not follow immedi-
right away.”
ately.” “Then he said to them, “Nation will rise
Then he said to them: “Nation will rise
against nation, and kingdom against kingdom;
against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
There will be great earthquakes, famines and aGk / am 6Or at hand
O97
LUKE 21:5-19
NIV NRSV
pestilences in various places, and fearful events “there will be great earthquakes, and in various
and great signs from heaven. places famines and plagues; and there will be
2But before all this, they will lay hands on dreadful portents ‘and great signs from heaven.
you and persecute you. They will deliver you to 12“But before all this occurs, they will arrest you
synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought and persecute you; they will hand you over to
before kings and governors, and all on account of synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought
my name. !°This will result in your being wit- before kings and governors because of my name.
nesses to them. '*But make up your mind not to '3This will give you an opportunity to testify. '“So
worry beforehand how you will defend your- make up your minds not to prepare your defense
selves. '°For I will give you words and wisdom in advance; 'for I will give you words? and a
that none of your adversaries will be able to resist wisdom that none of your opponents will be able
or contradict. '°You will be betrayed even by to withstand or contradict. '°You will be betrayed
parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they even by parents and brothers, by relatives and
will put some of you to death. !’All men will hate friends; and they will put some of you to. death.
you because of me. '®But not a hair of your head '7You will be hated by all because of my name.
will perish. '°By standing firm you will gain life. '8But not a hair of your head will perish. '°By your
endurance you will gain your souls.
aGk a mouth
(COMMENTARY
Jesus’ confrontation with the authorities in the (6) Luke omits Mark’s declaration that “the good
Temple (which began back at 19:47) now shifts to news must first be proclaimed to all nations”
the future tense. The second half of the extended (Mark 13:10 NRSV); (7) Luke omits the reference
section 19:47—21:38 concerns the coming persecu- to the Holy Spirit in Mark 13:11—Jesus himself
tions and the destruction of the Temple (21:5-19), will give them what they are to say; and (8) Luke
the destruction of Jerusalem (21:20-24), and the adds the proverbial assurance that not a hair will
coming of the Son of Man (21:25-36). be lost from their heads (21:18; cf. 12:7).
Jesus’ warning of wars and persecutions seems 21:5. In contrast to Mark, where the disciples
to be drawn from Mark 13:1-13, but if so, Luke are mentioned and then named, Luke does not
has exercised more freedom than usual in recast- identify Jesus’ interlocutors. The most recent ref-
ing, editing, and paraphrasing his source. Among erence to the disciples was in 19:45, and whereas
the most significant differences between Mark and Mark says that Jesus went out of the Temple
Luke in this section are that (1) Luke has omitted the (Mark 13:1), Luke omits the reference, leaving
reference to the disciples in Mark 13:1 and the list Jesus in the Temple while he tells of its destruc-
of four disciples in Mark 13:3; (2) Luke structures a tion (see 21:1, 37). The unidentified “some,”
series of three imperatives in vv. 8-9: “do not be led Luke says, were speaking “about the Temple,”
astray” (un TAavNn—ATe me planethete), “do not admiring its beautiful stones and adornments.
go” (ui topevéte me poreuthete), and “do Josephus is even more lavish in his descriptions
not be terrified” (un mTonOfTe me ptoethete); of the beauty of the Temple:
(3) Luke changes Mark’s “but the end is still to The sacred edifice itself, the holy temple, in the
come” (Mark 13:7) to “but the end will not follow central position, was approached by a flight of
immediately” (21:9); (4) the list of signs in v. 11 twelve steps. The facade was of equal height and
is expanded so that it anticipates the apocalyptic breadth, each being a hundred cubits; but the
building behind was narrower by forty cubits,
signs of the coming of the Son of Man in 21:25-
for in front it had as it were shoulders extending
36; (5) the reference to prisons in 21:12 foreshad- twenty cubits on either side. The first gate was
ows the imprisonments of Peter and Paul in Acts; seventy cubits high and twenty-five broad and
398
had no doors, displaying unexcluded the void
expanse of heaven; the entire face was covered
Isa 7:11-16). Earlier Jesus had said that no sign
with gold, and through it the first edifice was would be given except the sign of Jonah (11:29),
visible to a spectator without in all its grandeur but later he will indeed enumerate signs preceding
and the surroundings of the inner gate all gleam- the coming of the Son of Man (21:11, 25).
ing with gold fell beneath his eye. ... Josephus reports that preceding the destruction
The exterior of the building wanted nothing that of the Temple, there were various signs to warn
could astound either mind or eye. For, being
the people of its destruction, but they chose
covered on all sides with massive plates of gold,
the sun was no sooner up than it radiated so fiery instead to trust in the false prophets who reas-
a flash that persons straining to look at it were sured them: “Thus it was that the wretched
compelled to avert their eyes, as from the solar people were deluded at that time by charlatans
rays.24? and pretended messengers of the deity; while they
Even the outer walls of the Temple were con- neither heeded nor believed in the manifest por-
structed with large stones, carefully squared off and tents that foretold the coming destruction... .
finished with a border around each exposed edge.?5° Reflecting on these things one will find that God
The votive offerings included lavish gifts of ornate has a care for men, and by all kinds of premoni-
adornments and sacred vessels (cf. 2 Macc 9:16). tory signs shows His people the way of salva-
tion.”2°! Among Josephus’s accounts of the signs
21:6. Jesus quickly reminds those who are so
that he claims occurred at this time, one finds the
taken by the grandeur of the Temple that “not
following: A star resembling a sword stood over
one stone will be left upon another” (21:6). The
the city; a comet continued for a year; a light as
phrase echoes his earlier warning of the destruc-
bright as day shone around the altar for half an
tion of the Temple (19:44). The statement now
hour; a cow gave birth to a lamb in the Temple;
serves as the controlling theme or keynote for the
the great brass gate of the inner court swung open
rest of the discourse. The introductory expression,
of its own accord; chariots appeared in the air and
“the days will come,” prompts the question re-
armed battalions hurtled through the clouds; and
garding when these things will be (21:7) and the
one Jesus, son of Ananias, stood up in the Temple
various temporal references that follow: e.g.,
and pronounced woes on Jerusalem.?°?
“when you hear” (v. 9), “but before all this 21:8-9. Rather than describe the signs that
occurs” (21:12), and “when you see” (21:20). would precede and confirm the destruction he
21:7. The anonymous interlocutors address foresaw, Jesus issued a series of three warnings.
Jesus as “teacher.” This is the eleventh and last Explanations follow the first and third warnings (“for
time Jesus is so addressed in Luke, and in none .”), while the second warning grows out of
of the previous ten occurrences of this title is it the first explanation:
used by the disciples. Luke reserves it exclusively
“Beware that you are not led astray [un
for non-disciples; Pharisees, lawyers, persons from
tTAavnoAte me planethete|;for many will come
the crowd, the rich ruler, Sadducees, and scribes in my name and say, ‘I am hel’ [éyu) cit ego
all call Jesus “teacher,” but the disciples never do. eimi| and, ‘The time is near!’ Do not go after
Hence, the assumption may be warranted that them | topevéATe me poreuthete|. When
whereas in Mark Jesus responds to his disciples, you hear of wars and insurrections, do not be
terrified [un mronOfite me ptoethete|; for these
Luke portrays his interlocutors as the scribes
things must take place first, but the end will not
(20:39) or “the people” (20:45) in the Temple. follow immediately.” (21:8)
Jesus has said nothing about a “sign” of the
approach of the Temple’s destruction, but his This is the only occurrence of the verb “to lead
interlocutors assume there must be one. The OT astray” (tAavdw planao) in Luke and Acts, but it
prophets had identified signs that would signal occurs eight times in Matthew and four times in
Mark. Its meaning encompasses being led to sin,
that the destruction or deliverance of Jerusalem
was imminent (2 Kgs 19:29-31/Isa 37:30-32; being taught false teachings, and being deceived
regarding apocalyptic events (John 7:12, 47; 1 Cor
249. Josephus, The Jewish War, 5:207-208, 222, trans. H. St. J.
Thackeray, LCL (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1928) 263, 251. Josephus, The Jewish War, 6.288, 310, trans. H. St.J.Thackeray,
269. LCL (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1928) 459-61, 467.
250. See Josephus The Jewish War5.174-175. 252. Ibid., 6.289-309.
399
6:9; 15:33; Gal 6:7). Often in the NT deception they are also reminiscent of Josephus’s description
is characterized as the work of false prophets of the signs and portents that accompanied the
(Matt 24:11 -*Mark: 13:22: cf, dl Jobn 2:26;53:75 destruction of Jerusalem (see above).
4:1). The claim “I am he!” is couched in the 21:12-19. These verses represent a parenthe-
revelatory formula ego eimi, which appears in the sis in this eschatological discourse that speaks
Gospel of John on the lips of Jesus at least four directly to the fate of the disciples. As such, it
times in the absolute sense John 8:24, 28, 58; foreshadows the arrests and trials that will be
13:19) and as many as five other times (John 4:26; reported in the book of Acts. The main point of
6:20; 18:5, 6, 8) with echoes of this sense (see the paragraph is to prepare the disciples for these
also Mark 13:6; 14:62). In this context it probably trials by exhorting them to regard trials as occa-
represents a messianic claim, “I am the Christ” sions for bearing witness.
(cf. Matt 24:5). The references to various false The initial phrase of v. 12, “But before all this
prophets at this time confirm the necessity of occurs,” serves to separate the trials of the disci-
Jesus’ warning (cf. Acts 5:36-37).2°3 ples from the destruction of Jerusalem, pushing
The warning not to go out to the false prophets the apocalyptic events further into the future. The
is a doublet of Luke 17:23. The other claim of succession of verbs that follows lends the exhor-
the false prophets will be that “the time is near” tation something of the character of a covenant.
(cf. Matt 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9, 11; First, it speaks of what “they” will do (v. 12),
19:11; Rev 1:3). The announcement may be an then what “you” should do (vv. 13-14), and then
allusion to Dan 7:22. Wars and uprisings were what “I” will do (v. 15). Verses 16-19 append a
always times of terror. Consequently, they are series of traditional exhortations regarding betrayal
often mentioned as signs of apocalyptic events by family members, persecution on account of
(Dan 11:25, 44; Rev 6:1-8; 9:7-11). Jesus instructs Jesus’ name, God’s providence over the faithful,
his followers not to be terrified by these develop- and the need for endurance.
ments. In God’s providence they are necessary, The:four verbs in v. 12 outline the fear-
and moreover they do not signal that the end is some persecution that will engulf the disci-
near. In this context “the end” refers primarily to ples: “arrest” (€mtBdddkw epiballo {literally, “lay
the time of the destruction of the Temple (see hands on you”), “persecute” (Stwkw dioko), “hand
21:6-7), but the Lukan eschatological discourse (Tapadstdw paradidomi) you over,” and “bring
does not distinguish very clearly the relation of (atdayw apago) you before kings and governors.”
the destruction of Jerusalem from the time of the The first two are finite verbs; the latter two are
coming of the Son of Man (see 21:25). participles. The English verb “arrest” is really a
21:10-11. This develops further the warning translation of the idiom “to lay hands on,” which
of coming wars and insurrections, “nation will rise also occurs in Luke 20:19 in reference to the
against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (cf. arrest of Jesus and repeatedly in Acts in references
2 Chr 15:6; Isa 19:2). Earthquakes (Ezek 38:19; to the arrests of the disciples (4:3; 5:18; 12:1;
Math 2/:54;926:2; SReve 0: 12655521 et oo Oe 21:27). Similarly, the reference to persecution
16:18), famines (Luke 4:25; Acts 11:28; Rom foreshadows one of the leading motifs of the plot
8:35; Rev 6:8; 18:8), and plagues also appear as of Acts (8:3; 12:4), where Saul is chief persecutor
typical signs of apocalyptic events. The phrase of the church (see Acts 7:52; 9:4-5; 22:4, 7-8:
“famines and plagues” is pleasantly alliterative in 26:11, 14-15). Luke adds “and prisons” to Mark’s
Greek (AtpLol Kal Aotwot limoi kai loimoi) and oc- warning that the disciples would be handed over
curs in various non-biblical sources.?°* The allu- to synagogues, perhaps signaling that the disciples
sion to “dreadful portents and great signs from would experience persecution from both Jewish
heaven” in v. 11 prepares the reader for the and Gentile officials. Accounts of persecution and
detailed description of these events in vv. 25-26, exclusion from the synagogues are found so fre-
at the time of the coming of the Son of Man, but quently in Acts that it is another of the book’s
major motifs (Acts 6:9; 9:2; 13:44-51; 17:1-5,
253. See also Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 20.97-99; 20.169-172;
The Jewish War 6.285-288. 10-13; 18:4-7; 19:8-9; 22:19; 26:11). As the place
254, See Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X--XXIV), 1337. where the apostles preach, the synagogue also
400
becomes the site of opposition and rejection. John 12). The fulfillment in Acts of Jesus’ promise that
the Baptist was locked in prison (Luke 3:20), and he will give his disciples the words they should
Peter vows that he is ready to go with Jesus to speak is particularly striking in the following wv.:
prison (Luke 22:33), but the time of his imprison-
ments comes later (Acts 5:18-19, 22, 25; 12:4-11, One night the Lord said to Paul in a vision, “Do
not be afraid, but speak and do not be silent;
17). Similarly, Paul and Silas are imprisoned (Acts for | am with you, and no one will lay a hand
16:23-40), as are those whom Saul persecuted on you to harm you, for there are many in this
(Acts: 8:33 22:4; 26:10). city who are my people.” (Acts 18:9-10 NRSV)
The pattern of providing a program for Acts That night the Lord stood near him and said,
through Jesus’ predictions continues in the refer- “Keep up your courage! For just as you have
ences to kings (Herod, Acts 12:1; Agrippa, Act n testified for me in Jerusalem, so you must bear
25:13-14, 24, 26; 26:2, 27) and governors (Felix, witness also in Rome.” (Acts 23:11 NRSV)
Acts 23:24, 26, 33; 24:1, 10; and Festus, Acts
Likewise, Jesus promises that they will have a
26:30). Jesus has already warned his followers wisdom that none of their opponents can resist,
that they will be reviled and persecuted (6:22; but in Acts explicit references to wisdom are
12:4-12), using some of the same language that limited to the descriptions of the Seven (6:3),
appears in the present context. In 6:22, the warn- Joseph (7:10), Moses (7:22), and Stephen, of
ing is that they will be persecuted “on account of whom the narrator reports, “They could not with-
the Son of Man”; here the persecution will arise stand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he
“because of my name” (21:12). In the early chap- spoke” (6:10 NRSV). The magician Elymas tried
ters of the book of Acts, the disciples do a variety to withstand Paul, but Elymas’s magic was quickly
of wonderful things “in the name of Jesus”: bap- defeated (Acts 13:8-12). The preaching of Jesus
tize (2:38), heal (3:6; 4:10), teach (4:18; 5:28), prevails, therefore, in spite of those who speak
and do signs and wonders (4:30). They are also against it (see Acts 13:45; 28:19, 22).
charged not to teach in Jesus’ name (4:18; 5:28), As we have seen, virtually every detail of
and they are flogged and suffer dishonor on ac- vv. 12-15 foreshadows the work of the disciples
count of Jesus’ name (5:40-41; 9:16). in the book of Acts. Jesus’ prophecy first sets up
The arrests and persecution of the disciples will expectations for the reader and opens gaps to be
become occasions for them to give testimony.?° filled in the narrative. Then the fulfillment of these
Luke omits the Markan language of Mark 13:10, predictions serves to confirm both Jesus’ sovereign
“and the good news must first be proclaimed to authority and the divine necessity of the persecu-
all nations,” but the pattern of fulfillment of these tions experienced by the early Christians.
predictions in Acts continues. Peter and John are Verses 16-19 add predictions and assurances that
arrested and bear witness to the council (4:8-12, appear to be drawn from common tradition. Parts
19-20), then Peter and the apostles (5:29-32), of these verses appear elsewhere in Luke, but they
Stephen (7:2-53), Paul, and Silas (16:25-39), and are not as closely related to the program for Acts as
on various other occasions Paul is arrested and the preceding verses are. The prediction of betrayal
testifies (22:1-21; 23:1-6; 24:10-21; 26:2-29). by family members echoes the earlier warnings
The persecution of the disciples, however, does of 12:53, which drew from Mic 7:6 (see also
not exceed what Jesus himself experiences. He, Luke 18:29). In this context, however, the connec-
too, is about to be arrested and brought before tion with the OT is muted. Jesus himself will be
Pilate and Herod. Luke further strengthens the betrayed by a friend—Judas—and put to death, so
connection between Jesus and the persecution of again he experiences the full measure of the trials
the disciples by substituting the promise that Jesus that are about to fall upon his followers.
himself will give the disciples what they are to Betrayals by family members and friends are
say for the Markan assurance that the Holy Spirit notably absent from the ordeals of the disciples
will speak for them (Mark 13:11; cf. Luke 12:11- described in Acts, but the prediction that some
will be put to death (21:16) is fulfilled in the
255. Regarding the theme of witness in Luke and Acts, see Marion L. martyrdoms of Stephen (7:54-60), James the son
Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994) 192-200. of Zebedee (12:1-2), and, we may presume, Paul
401
(Acts-20:24-25;.:293) 21z1 ls 3)eeVerse 17; ‘the exhorts early Christians to face trials with joy, know-
prediction that the disciples will be hated by all ing that “the testing of your faith produces endur-
because of Jesus’ name, repeats Mark 13:13 ver- ance... let endurance have its full effect, so that
batim, whereas Luke has consistently rewritten you may be mature and complete, lacking in noth-
the material from Mark 13:9-13 in this paragraph. ing” (Jas 1:3-4 NRSV). Similarly, the good soil bears
The verb for “hate” (ptcéw miseo) does not fruit “with patient endurance” (8:15), but endurance
appear in Acts, but parallels to the present verse does not mean passive waiting; it is more akin to
do appear earlier in Luke (1:71; 6:22, 27). perseverance than to patience.
Verse 18, “But not a hair of your head will The paragraph concludes with Luke’s last lesson
perish,” is an assurance of divine protection that on how to save one’s life. Those who seek to save
occurs in various places in the OT (1 Sam 14:45; their lives will lose them, but saving one’s life
2 Sam T45t 1 Res te52)48in this content, vit comes from losing it for Jesus’ sake (9:24; 17:33).
extends the earlier assurance, “But even the hairs Consequently, one must love God with all one’s
of your head are all counted” (12:7), and in Acts life (10:27). The rich fool reassured his soul that
it is the assurance that Paul gives to the soldiers: he had all he could possibly need, but God
“for none of you will lose a hair from your heads” intervened, saying, “This very night your life is
(Acts 27:34 NRSV). being demanded of you” (12:20). On the contrary,
The predictions of this paragraph all have a di- Jesus assured his disciples, “Do not worry about
dactic or hortatory purpose. The reason for warning your life... . For life is more than food, and the
the disciples about the coming trials is so that they body more than clothing” (12:22-23). But one
may be prepared to endure them faithfully. James cannot value even life itself above following Jesus
(14:26). Such discipleship will require endurance,
256. SeeJoseph A. Fitzmyer, 7he Gospel According to Luke (X—XXIV),
AB 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 1341. but the result is that one gains life.
REFLECTIONS
The first section of Jesus’ response to the questions regarding the destruction of the Temple
contains both a warning of the wars, earthquakes, famines, and plagues that will come and a
warning to the disciples of the persecutions they must endure. Jesus’ words about the future
command a special fascination for those in every generation who seek signs of the end times. In
times of great danger, stress, and hardship it is natural for persons and communities of faith to
turn to God and to the future for hope, for the promise of deliverance. The power and pathos of
the great spirituals are born of suffering and oppression. But for those who have the means to
relieve suffering and oppression, idle preoccupation with prophecies of the end of time is surely a
perversion of the gospel. The force of Jesus’ warning in vv. 7-11 is that the disciples should not
be misled by the false prophets who will come claiming a messianic authority and saying that the
time is near. Such claims are the words of charlatans who prey upon the gullible.
In our day, too, there is a plague of pseudo-religious prophets claiming that the end is at
hand. Pastors and teachers will need to distinguish biblical teachings and sound biblical
interpretation from the sensational claims carried by the media and popular religious best-sellers.
Jesus did not call his disciples to be prophets but to disregard the false prophets; do not be
led astray, and do not go after them (see v. 8).
The gospel offers not a way of predicting the end of the world but the spiritual resources
to cope with adversity and hardship. In times of distress, “do not be terrified” (v. 9). On the
other hand, following Jesus always exposes the faithful to opposition from the authorities. If
in every generation there are those whose religion is simply a form of escapism into the fantasy
of futurism, every generation has also had its courageous and prophetic visionaries who devoted
themselves completely to Jesus’ call to create community, oppose injustice, work for peace,
and make a place for the excluded. Every generation, therefore, is called back to the teachings
402
of Jesus by the examples of those who have suffered persecution and hardship because they dared
to strive to live out Jesus’ call for a community that transcends social barriers, that cares for its
least privileged, and that confronts abuses of power and wealth. These verses allow us to examine
two visions of what it means to follow Jesus. One is focused on prophecies of the future and
makes no difference in how one lives in the here and now. The other calls for such a commitment
of life that those who dare to embrace it will find themselves persecuted by authorities.
As a parenthesis within the discourse on the destruction of the Temple and the destruction
of Jerusalem, vv. 12-19 both warn the disciples of the ordeals that lie ahead and offer assurances.
They will be arrested, persecuted, and brought to trial, but Jesus himself will give them the
words they are to speak and a wisdom that their opponents cannot withstand. Therefore, they
are not to prepare their defense in advance (v. 14) but endure the coming trials (v. 19).
The severity of the persecution is balanced by the certainty of God’s protection in a
paradoxical fashion: “They will put some of you to death” (v. 16), “but not a hair of your
head will perish” (v. 18). In Acts, the deaths of the martyrs confirm the wickedness of those
who oppose the apostles, but God’s faithfulness remains beyond question. It is demonstrated
repeatedly through the empowerment of the disciples’ witness, wondrous deliverances, and
repeated triumphs over those who oppose their message. Nevertheless, the dangers and
hardships for the faithful are real indeed. Truth is tested and faith is confirmed not in idle
speculation but in the crucible of adversity. Those who wish to find a more vibrant religious
experience, therefore, should look not for signs of the future but for signals that it is time to
live by Jesus’ call for obedience here and now.
Luke 21:20-24, The Destruction of Jerusalem Foretold

NIV NRSV
20“When you see Jerusalem being surrounded 20“When you see Jerusalem surrounded by
by armies, you will know that its desolation is armies, then know that its desolation has come
near. *'Then let those who are in Judea flee to near.? ?!/Then those in Judea must flee to the
the mountains, let those in the city get out, and mountains, and those inside the city must leave
let those in the country not enter the city. ?For it, and those out in the country must not enter
this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all it; *?for these are days of vengeance, as a fulfill-
that has been written. **How dreadful it will be ment of all that is written. *Woe to those who
in those days for pregnant women and nursing are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants
mothers! There will be great distress in the land in those days! For there will be great distress on
and wrath against this people. “They will fall by the earth and wrath against this people; ~4they
the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all will fall by the edge of the sword and be taken
the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the away as captives among all nations; and Jerusalem
Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are will be trampled on by the Gentiles, until the
fulfilled.” times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”
aOr is at hand
(COMMENTARY
After the parenthesis in vv. 12-19 on the per- hand. Verse 9 warned that the disciples would
secution of the disciples, the discourse returns to hear of wars and insurrections, but they would
the signs that the destruction of Jerusalem is at not be a sign of the end. Verse 20, by contrast,
says that when they see Jerusalem surrounded by wrong; the armies would confirm that the deso-
armies, they will know that the time of its de- lation of Jerusalem was at hand (cf. 21:8, 20). On
struction has come. Verses 20-24, therefore, re- the other hand,ifthey did not distinguish the end
sume the answer to the questions raised in v. 7 of time from the destruction of the Temple, their
and relate directly to vv. 9-11. warnings were premature and ill-founded.
The interpreter of these verses must work con- 21:21-22. Once the city was surrounded, the
tinually in four contexts: (1) allusions and oracles Judeans should flee to the mountains, and its inhabi-
concerning the fate of Jerusalem that Luke has tants should make every’ effort to flee before the
placed earlier in the Gospel in preparation for this final assault. As it happened, the attack on the city
discourse; (2) Mark 13:14-20, which served as a was delayed by news of the death of Nero.? The
source for Luke, but that Luke has extensively call to come out of the city echoes the words of
rewritten; (3) warnings from the writings of the OT Jeremiah: “See, I am setting before you the way of
prophets of the destruction of Jerusalem, which Luke life and the way of death. Those who stay in this
has mined for their biblical language; and (4) city shall die by the sword, by famine, and by
Josephus’s accounts of the siege of Jerusalem, which pestilence; but those who go out and surrender
Luke would not have read but that may tell us the to the Chaldeans who are besieging you shall live”
kinds of things Luke may have known about these Jer 21:8-9 NRSV; cf. 51:45; Rev 18:4).
events. The following interpretation is informed by The expression “the days of vengeance” occurs
all four of these perspectives. in Hos 9:7, but it may be derived more immedi-
21:20. The first phrase echoes v. 9, “When ately from Jer 51:6.7°° Again, we may compare
you hear.” The same phrase is found at the the vision of the fall of Babylon in Revelation 18,
beginning of Mark 13:14, which is similar in which draws on Jeremiah, confirming that the
content, but Luke has omitted Mark’s reference passage was known by Christian writers. More
to “the abomination of desolation” (cf. Dan 9:27; proximately, Jesus assured his followers that God
12:11), retaining only the word “desolation” would’ avenge those who cried out for justice
(Epniwots eremosis), which occurs elsewhere in (18:7-8). Paradoxically, Luke uses the phrase “all
the NT only in the Matthean and Markan parallels that is written” to refer to the fulfillment of the
where one finds this phrase from Daniel. The Scriptures in reference to both Jesus’ death and
word translated “armies” (otpatétedov stratope- the destruction of Jerusalem (see 18:31; 21:22;
don) literally means “camps,” and Josephus uses
24:44). Jesus had lamented the fate of Jerusalem
the same term repeatedly in his description of the
(13:34-35; 19:41-44), but “the time of [her] visi-
advance on Jerusalem and the siege of the city.
tation” would pass (19:44), and the “days of
First, Vespasian placed camps at Jericho and at
vengeance” (21:22) were coming.
Adida, surrounding the city “on all sides” so that
21:23. Mark’s warning (13:15-16) that those on
“all egress from Jerusalem was cut off’ by “the
the rooftops should not come down and those in
army which hemmed in the city from every
the fields should not turn back to retrieve their
side.”*°” Later, he describes how Titus placed
belongings is omitted, probably because it was used
three camps comprising four Roman legions
earlier in Luke 17:31. Expectant and nursing moth-
around the city.?°° Earlier, when Jesus wept over
Jerusalem, he warned that “the days will come
ers will be especially vulnerable (cf. 23:28-29). Alas
upon you, when your enemies will set up ram- for them! Josephus records the grim story of a
parts around you and surround you, and hem you mother so wracked by famine that she tore her child
in on every side” (19:43). The city surrounded from her breast and roasted it for food:26!
would be the sign of its “desolation,” a term that Luke also omits Mark’s call to pray that the
Jeremiah also used to describe the destruction of end of siege might not be in winter (Mark 13:18).
Jerusalem (Jer 44:6, 22). Her house would be Actually, the assault on the city lasted from April
abandoned (Luke 13:35). If the false prophets until August, but even assuming that Luke knew
claimed that the end of time was near, they were 259. Ibid., 4.491, 497-98, 502.
260. See John Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53, WBC 35C (Dallas: Word,
257. Josephus The Jewish War 4.486-490. 1993) 1001.
258. Ibid., 5:67-70. 261. Josephus The Jewish War 6.201-13.
404
this his reasons for omitting Mark 13:18 are not the Gentiles can also be found in the Scriptures
self-evident.? (Tob 14:5; Dan 12:7; Rom 11:25), so it has been
Perhaps again separating the destruction of Jeru- suggested that the phrase refers to the time when
salem from “the end” or the coming of the Son of God’s judgment upon the Gentiles is fulfilled.2°
Man, Luke alters Mark 13:19 with its reference to The former interpretation best fits the description
Dan 12:1. “The earth” () yf he ge) might better of utter defeat that is painted here. Jerusalem will
be rendered “the land” here, since the reference be destroyed with great shame and suffering, just
seems to be to Judea rather than to the whole earth, as the prophets warned.
as in v. 25. God’s wrath is here expressed against The events of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 ce were
“this people” because they do not receive the sal- no less catastrophic. Elderly and infirm persons were
vation that God has prepared for them (cf. 2:34). slain; the rest taken captive, and many of those who
21:24. Verse 24 echoes the warnings of proph- wished to plunder the city were repelled by the
ets through the centuries as it forecasts the com- stench of the bodies.?°* The emperor then ordered
plete destruction of Jerusalem. The manifestations that the whole city be razed, leaving only the towers
of defeat and destruction are described. (1) They of Herod’s palace to remind visitors of the city’s
will fall by the sword. The phrase “the edge of the former strength and glory. Even Titus himself, the
sword” occurs in Jer 21:7; Sir 28:18. (2) They will general who had commanded the assault, lamented
be taken away as captives (Deut 28:64; Ezra 9:7; the fate of the city: “On his way he visited Jerusa-
Ezek 32:9). (3) They will be trampled on by lem, and contrasting the sorry scene of desolation
the Gentiles (Dan 8:13; Zech 12:3 LXX; Rev before his eyes with the former splendour of the
11:2). The last phrase of v. 24, “until the times city, and calling to mind the grandeur of its ruined
of the Gentiles are fulfilled,” means until the buildings and their pristine beauty, he commiserated
Gentiles have exercised their complete domina- its destruction.”
tion or until the period allotted to them for the
punishment of Israel is complete. God’s promise 263. Ibid., 1002-4.
264. Josephus The Jewish War 6.415, 431.
of a limit to the period of Israel’s oppression by 265. Ibid., 7.1-4.
266. Josephus, The Jewish War, 7.112, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL
262. Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53, 1002. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1928) 539.
REFLECTIONS
Biblical forecasts of destruction, suffering, and the loss of human life have only one purpose:
to call God’s people to repentance. In the case of Jesus’ prophetic lament over the destruction
of Jerusalem, the overlay of temporal perspectives adds to its rhetorical force. In all likelihood,
Luke and his readers knew that the destruction of the city had already occurred, just as Jesus
said it would. Luke’s rendition of Jesus’ prophetic words draws on the words of Israel’s prophets
and reflects the events that actually occurred. Echoes of familiar warnings and flashes of scenes
from the assault on the city underscore the fateful warning. It would and did happen just as
Jesus and the prophets had said it would.
The fulfillment of Jesus’ warning so recently and so fully serves also to drive home Luke’s
description of Jesus as one greater than a prophet who fulfilled the prophets and “all that is written”
(v. 22). Jesus’ words are devoid of any joy of triumph or vindication. Consistently, Jesus laments
the fate toward which the city is rushing headlong (cf. 13:34; 19:41-44). There is no place here
for anti-Jewish sentiment, no place for the triumphalism that so often cheapens and perverts
Christian teachings regarding the future. Even the Roman general lamented the tragedy of
Jerusalem’s destruction. Can a Christian do less when warnings of judgment come to pass?
“When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come
near” (v. 20). When nations unleash their military might against other nations, the result is
inevitable: desolation and horrors that repulse the human mind. Jesus counsels the disciples
to join neither the Romans nor the resistance but to flee. They have no place in this conflict.
405
Alas for the mothers and their infants. Civilian casualties—now spoken of as “collateral
losses”—often outnumber those of the enemy forces.
The danger of reading Jesus’ words as a warning about an isolated event in antiquity or
merely as a forecast of the deserved fate of Jerusalem robs the text of meaning or relevance
for today’s readers. On the contrary, Jesus laments the fate of those who have consistently
rejected God’s prophets and God’s call for repentance from a way of life that leads to a
breakdown of justice, order, and peace. Jesus’ confrontations with the leaders of the people
in Luke 20 are directly connected with his forecast of the city’s destruction. The leaders were
like the stewards who wanted to keep the produce of the vineyard for themselves; they killed
the owner’s son and eventually lost the vineyard (20:9-19). Give Caesar his due—maintain
civil order—but live all of life as befits those made in God’s image (20:20-26). Otherwise,
oppression and anarchy will beget violence with all its savage consequences. Let us calculate
the times and the seasons, but let us look to the rising incidence of violence, especially in
areas of deprivation and poverty—neighborhoods surrounded by armed gangs. What sort of
response do these signs of the times call forth from the Christian community? Movies about
what life will be like in the future in metropolitan areas regularly depict a society overcome
by violence and polarized between warring factions. In its own way, this secular vision of the
future serves as a prophetic warning, but unlike the Hollywood script, the biblical vision offers
no hope that violence can be redemptive. There is no salvation at the hands of a violent hero
of superhuman strength and ability in combat. The only hope that Jesus offers is the call to
repent, the call of obedience to his gospel for the poor and the outcast, and his assurance that
“py your endurance you will gain your souls” (v. 19).
Luke 21:25-36, The Coming of the Son of Man Foretold

NIV NRSV
“There will be signs in the sun, moon and 25“There will be signs in the sun, the moon,
stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and and the stars, and on the earth distress among
perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. nations confused by the roaring of the sea and
Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what the waves. ?°People will faint from fear and fore-
is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies boding of what is coming upon the world, for the
will be shaken. ?”At that time they will see the powers of the heavens will be shaken. ?”Then they
Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and will see ‘the Son of Man coming in a cloud’ with
great glory. When these things begin to take power and great glory. "*Now when these things
place, stand up and lift up your heads, because begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads,
your redemption is drawing near.” because your redemption is drawing near.”
°He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree 29Then he told them a parable: “Look at the
and all the trees. °’When they sprout leaves, you fig tree and all the trees; °°as soon as they sprout
can see for yourselves and know that summer is leaves you can see for yourselves and know that
near. *'Even so, when you see these things happen- summer is already near. *'So also, when you see
ing, you know that the kingdom of God is near. these things taking place, you know that the
“T tell you the truth, this generation? will kingdom of God is near. **Truly I tell you, this
certainly not pass away until all these things have generation will not pass away until all things have
happened. **Heaven and earth will pass away, but taken place. **Heaven and earth will pass away,
my words will never pass away. but my words will not pass away.
*“Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed 34“Be on guard so that your hearts are not
down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxi- weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness
232 Or race and the worries of this life, and that day does not
406
LUKE 21:25-36
NIV NRSV
eties of life, and that day will close on you catch you unexpectedly, “like a trap. For it will
unexpectedly like a trap. *For it will come upon come upon all who live on the face of the whole
all those who live on the face of the whole earth. earth. °°Be alert at all times, praying that you may
*°Be always on the watch, and pray that you may have the strength to escape all these things that
be able to escape all that is about to happen, and will take place, and to stand before the Son of
that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”
Man.”
COMMENTARY
21:25. Although the apocalyptic discourse in The signs that will precede the coming of the Son
Luke generally follows the order of the dis- of Man, therefore, are not only unmistakable, cosmic
course in Mark 13, Luke has omitted the signs but signs that fulfill the Scriptures as well. The
Markan assurance that the Lord has cut short reference to “the nations” (To €8vos to ethnos), a
the days (Mark 13:20), and the repetition of the term that does not appear in this selection of verses
warning about the false prophets (Mark 13:21-23; most closely related to the signs in Luke 21:25, ties
cf. Luke 21:8). Instead, the reference to the ful- the warning of the signs of the coming of the Son
fillment of “the times of the Gentiles” (v. 24) of Man to the references to “the nations” in
leads directly to the forecast of the signs that will the preceding verses (see wv. 10, 24).
mark the coming of the Son of Man. Here we 21:26-27. Verse 26a has no parallel in Mark.
may detect an escalation of the signs that precede Neither is it drawn from an OT reference. The
earlier events (cf. vv. 10-11). No longer is it a description of people fainting from fear and fore-
question of the meaning of wars, earthquakes, fam- boding serves effectively, however, to heighten
ines, or persecutions. The “great signs from heaven” suspense and curiosity while the reader waits to
(v. 11) are now specified. Note the repetition of the hear what is coming. To what are these terrible
word for “signs” (onyeta semeia) in vv. 11 and portents a prelude? What is “coming upon the
25, which links these turning points in the dis- world” (v. 26)? The final clause of v. 26, “the
course with the initial question in v. 7, where the powers of the heavens will be shaken,” reflects
singular “sign” occurs (onxelov semeion). the language of Hag 2:6, 21 and Isa 34:4.
These cosmic signs will be unmistakable: “signs in Once all of these signs have come to pass,
the sun, the moon, and the stars” and distress among signaling “the end” that is at hand (cf. v. 9), then
the nations on earth (v. 25). Luke omits Mark’s those who have been terrified, fainting “from fear
introductory phrase, “But in those days, after that and foreboding” (v. 26) will see “the Son of Man
suffering” (Mark 13:24 NRSV), but it is not clear that coming in a cloud” (v. 27). This description of
by doing so he is distinguishing or separating the time the coming of the Son of Man is drawn from
of the coming of the Son of Man from the destruction Dan 7:13: “I looked, and there before me was
of Jerusalem.?°’ One follows after the other. one like a son of man, coming with the clouds
The cosmic signs that will precede the coming of heaven” (NIV). Jesus has referred earlier to the
future, coming Son of Man, but this is the first
of the Son of Man echo and fulfill the oracles of
time that the Son of Man has been described in
the prophets (see Isa 13:10; Ezek 32:7; Joel 2:30-
the language of Daniel, “in a cloud.”2°? The ref-
31). Similarly, the terrors on land and sea were
erence to the cloud also sets up the link between
described by the prophets (see Ps 46:2-3; Hag 2:6;
the ascension of the risen Lord and the coming
Wis 5:22; cf. Isa 24:19 LXX, where the term “dis-
of the Son of Man (Acts 1:9-11). References to
tress” [atopta aporia| occurs, as in Luke 21:25).
the coming of the Son of Man earlier in Luke
267. Contra Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV),
1348. 269. See John Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53, WBC 35C (Dallas: Word,
268. Translation by Fitzmyer, ibid., 1349. 1993) 1006.
407
have warned that he will be ashamed of those who Although Luke follows Mark’s wording for
are ashamed of Jesus now (9:26), but will confess most of the parable, three differences are signifi-
those who confess him now (12:8). The Son of Man cant. First, Luke introduces the phrase “and all
will come at an unexpected hour (12:40). His the trees” (v. 29); then he rewrites the beginning
coming is compared to flashes of lightning that light of the parable, adding “you can see for yourselves”
up the whole sky (17:24), and there will be cata- (v. 30), and later adds the reference to the king-
clysmic destruction, as in the days of Noah and Lot dom of God (v. 31). The first change, which is
(17:26-30), but will he find faith on earth (18:8)? often overlooked, is significant because it estab-
21:28. While others faint with fear and foreboding lishes the verb sequence “see and know” followed
at the coming of the Son of Man, the disciples are by “near” (v. 30). The same sequence occurs in
instructed to “stand up and raise your heads, because v. 20, “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by
your redemption is drawing near.” Luke omits Mark’s armies, then know that its desolation has come
description of the angels gathering the elect (Mark near.” Similarly, when you see the trees sprouting
13:27). The focus remains on the significance of the leaves, “know that summer is already near”
coming of the Son of Man and the way the disciples (v. 30). This pattern underlies the whole dis-
are to receive him. For the disciples, his coming means course, which begins, “As for these things that
an end to the persecutions and terrors that have been you see” in v. 6. Jesus has interpreted what they
described earlier. Whereas the Son of Man will come will see and what the signs will mean.
to judge the wicked, his coming means deliverance One of the peculiarities of this parable is that
for the faithful. The term “redemption” the coming of the end and the judgment of the
(atoAUTpwots apolytrosis}) occurs only here in Son of Man more naturally evoke the time of
Luke and Acts, but seven times in the Pauline harvest rather than summer. Why, then, does the
writings and twice in Hebrews. parable say that summer is already near? As an
21:29-33. The “drawing near” of their redemp- explanation, interpreters have turned to the riddle
tion leads to a lesson on the approach of the of the ‘basket of summer fruit in Amos 8:1-2. The
kingdom (21:31; cf. the conjunction of “drawing Lord asks, “Amos, what do you see?” Amos
near” and the kingdom in Luke 10:9, 11). Not to answers, “a basket of summer fruit [yp gayis],”
be missed in this context is the connection between and the Lord says, “The end [yp ges] has come
heavenly portents and the fig tree in Isa 34:4, whose upon my people Israel.” The parable of the trees
influence was noted in the formation of wv. 25-26. in Luke makes the same point: The end is near;
Verse 29 introduces Jesus’ last parable. The parable see the signs and know their meaning.
reproduces Mark 13:28-31 closely, but Luke omits Mark’s parallel to v. 31 is at best ambiguous
Mark 13:32, Jesus’ claim that he did not know the since it lacks a noun or pronoun to specify who
time of the end. The parable itself is given in vv. 29-30. or what is near (see Mark 13:29). Luke fills the
Verse 31 explains the meaning of the parable in this gap and removes the ambiguity by inserting a
context, and vv. 32-33 append related sayings that reference to the kingdom of God. One might have
have been attracted and attached by catchword linkage expected a reference to the Son of Man, as in
(“taking place,” vv. 31-32; “pass away,” vv. 32-33). vv. 27 and 36, but instead the coming of the Son
The fig tree is often used as a metaphor for the of Man and the coming of the kingdom of God
peace and prosperity of Israel in the OT (Deut 8:7-8; are brought into juxtaposition by this reference.
Hos 9:10; Mic 4:4). It has been suggested, therefore, “These things” in v. 31 must include the coming
that the reference to the fig tree “and all the trees” of the Son of Man, forecast in vv. 27-28. The
in this context, immediately after the discussion of
coming of the Son of Man, therefore, will itself
the destruction of Jerusalem and the fate of the
be a sign that God’s kingdom is at hand (cf. the
nations (esp. 21:24-26), is not a stray detail that
claims of the false prophets in v. 8). Those who
diffuses the parable but a reference signaling that
had supposed that the kingdom of God would
the fig tree and all the trees should be understood
come immediately (19:11) were mistaken.
in reference to Israel and all the nations.?”°
Two sayings are appended to the parable and
270. See ibid., 1008-9, where Nolland credits G. W. H. Lampe for this its interpretation, and together they distinguish
suggestion. that which is passing away from that which will
408
hot pass away. The first saying begins with the logical events that have just been forecast. Verse
revelatory formula “Truly [aprv amén| I say to 35 supplies a rationale for the warning, and v. 36
you,...” which occurs six times in Luke (4:24; offers both a general exhortation (“Be alert”) and
12:37; 18:17, 29; 21:32; 23:43). This generation a specific one (“Pray”).
will not pass away until all things come to pass The language of this unit is drawn from both
(v. 32). Because the natural and literal sense of OT and early Christian ethical exhortations. Jesus
this verse has been contradicted by history, inter- has warned the disciples to be on their guard on
preters have often sought for other meanings of three other occasions (12:1; 17:3; 20:46), but the
either “this generation” (Israel, the wicked, hu- warning “Be on guard” (tpooéyete prosechete}
manity, or the generation of the end times) or “all occurs in Luke only where Jesus is addressing his
things” (the persecutions and the destruction of disciples. Here they are warned not to let their hearts
Jerusalem), but none of the alternatives carries be “weighed down.” The only other occurrence of
any conviction or arises out of the natural sense this term in Luke is in 9:32, the account of the
of the text. Like the prophets, both Jesus and Luke transfiguration, where Peter and the others are
probably expected the end to come before the end “weighed down with sleep.” Nevertheless, because
of their generation, but the continuation of history they remained awake, they witnessed Jesus’ glory.
does nothing to invalidate the warning of the judg- Here Jesus warns the disciples to be on guard against
ment of the wicked or the assurance of the redemp- (1) dissipation, (2) drunkenness, and (3) the worries
tion of the faithful. of this life. The term “dissipation” (kpattadn krai-
The signs that precede the coming of the Son pale) occurs only here in the NT. Robertson discov-
of Man will involve cataclysmic events in the ered that it is “a rather late word, common in
heavens and on earth (see v. 25). Jesus now medical writers for the nausea that follows a de-
assures the disciples that although “heaven and bauch.”?”! Although there are various injunctions
earth will pass away,” his words will not pass against drunkenness in the NT (Eph 5:18), the term
away (v. 33). The pronouncement is an assurance. used here occurs elsewhere only in Rom 13:13 and
The crowd at Nazareth was amazed at Jesus’ Gal 5:21. The servant who gets drunk, however,
words (4:22), and in Capernaum they were as- will be surprised by the return of his or her master
tounded because he spoke with authority (4:32). (12:45-46). The warning about “the worries of this
On various occasions, Luke has reported that Jesus life” reminds the reader of the earlier warnings about
spoke “the word of God” (5:1), and Jesus has worry and anxiety (10:41; 12:22-31), especially the
warned them of the consequences of hearing the interpretation of the parable of the sower, in which
Word and failing to do it (6:47-49). Now the Jesus warns that seed that falls among the thorns is
words of Jesus are given a status reminiscent of “choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of
that claimed for the Word of the Lord by the OT life” (8:14). In both of these contexts, the warning
prophets: “The grass withers, the flower fades;/ against the cares of life is that they may prevent one
from obeying Jesus’ word (cf. the reference to Jesus’
but the word of our God will stand forever” (Isa
40:8 NRSV; cf. Ps 119:89, 160). Indeed, earlier words in 21:33).
in Luke, Jesus declared the enduring authority of The warning is further related to the eschato-
the law in similar terms: “It is easier for heaven logical context by the reference to “that day,”
and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a which refers to the day of the coming of the Son
of Man (21:27). Luke has used similar construc-
letter in the law to be dropped” (16:17).
tions with an eschatological sense previously: “on
21:34-36. At the conclusion of the eschato-
that day” (10:12; 17:31; cf. 12:46); “in those
logical discourse, Luke omits the simile of the man
days” (5:35; 21:23); and “the days are coming”
going on a journey (Mark 13:33-37), perhaps
(17:22; 21:6). The danger is that if the disciples
because elements of it have already been used in
allow their hearts to be weighed down by
Luke 12:42-47 and 19:11-27. In its place Luke
worldly distractions, the coming of the day will
composes an exhortation that emphasizes watch- catch them the way a trap catches an animal
fulness and prayer and that warns against drunk-
enness and dissipation. The unit begins with a 271. A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol 2: The
warning (v. 34) that is then related to the eschato- Gospel According to Luke (New York: Richard R. Smith, 1930) 262.
409
unawares (Isa 24:17; 1 Tim 3:7; 6:9; 2 Tim 2:26; favorite, occurring eight times in Luke, seven
cf. Jas 1:14). The claim that the day will come times in Acts, and only seven times in the rest of
suddenly echoes the exhortation found in 1 Thess the NT. :
5:2-3. Verse 35 was probably formulated as a Verse 36 provides an apt conclusion for the
result of reflection on Isa 24:17, which contains eschatological discourse by enjoining the disciples to
references to both “the trap” and the inhabitants pray at all times so that they might have the strength
of the earth (cf. Jer 25:29; Acts 17:26, which to escape “all these things,” a phrase that evokes
contain only the latter). The adjective for “all” the opening question of the discourse, “What will
(tas pas), a Lukan favorite, here emphasizes the be the sign that this lit. “these things”| is about to
universal scope of God’s sovereignty. take place?” (21:7) and v. 12, “Before all this
Verse 36 introduces a positive exhortation. The occurs. ...” By the end of the discourse, “all these
opposite of sleep and dissipation is vigilance and things” includes the errors of the false prophets (vv.
prayer. Note the contrast between these two 8-11), the persecution and trials the disciples will
both at the transfiguration (9:32) and at Geth- experience (vv. 12-19), the terrors of the destruction
semane (22:40, 45-46). Indeed, the disciples’ of Jerusalem (vv. 20-24), and the cataclysm of the
experience at Gethsemane appears to be a par- coming of the Son of Man (vv. 25-28). The only
able of the consequences of failure to heed this way to escape these events and be ready to stand
exhortation. They sleep because they cannot before the Son of Man (cf. vv. 27, 36) is to be
“watch and pray” in the hour of trial. The verb strengthened by constant prayer.
used here for “pray” (S€ouat deomai) is a Lukan
REFLECTIONS
Preaching on the Second Coming, the coming of, the Son of Man, has fallen into disrepute
in many churches. It is one of those themes that has been given over to churches that advertise
their emphasis on Bible prophecy. Yet, the coming of the Son of Man is one of the important
themes of Jesus’ teaching. A whole category of “Son of Man” sayings deals with this subject, each
of the synoptic Gospels features an eschatological discourse parallel to Luke 21 (Mark 13; Matthew
24), and it is one of the few subjects of Jesus’ teachings that also occupies a significant place
in the Pauline epistles (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15; 1 Thessalonians 4; 2 Thessalonians); the Petrine
epistles (2 Peter 3), and Revelation (19)
1. One of the inescapable facts of life is that every life comes to an end, and the end of
life lends urgency and significance to each new day. For those who have no faith and no
knowledge of God, death stands as a final denial of life. All that we may attempt or do is
eventually swept away by time. Wisdom of Solomon’s description of life as the ungodly see
it is particularly haunting:
Short and sorrowful is our life,

and there is no remedy when a life comes to its end,
and no one has been known to return from Hades.
For we were born by mere chance,
and hereafter we shall be as though we had never been,
for the breath in our nostrils is smoke,
and reason is a spark kindled by the beating of our hearts;
when it is extinguished, the body will turn to ashes,
and the spirit will dissolve like empty air.
Our name will be forgotten in time,
and no one will remember our works;
our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud,
and be scattered like mist
that is chased by the rays of the sun
410
and overcome by its heat.
For our alloted time is the passing of a shadow,
and there is no return from our death,
because it is sealed up and no one turns back.
(Wis 2:1-5 NRSV)
The ungodly, therefore, resolve to make the most of every moment with no respect for others.
On the other hand, the Gospel teaches that beyond the end of time stands the Lord, who
has come among us in the person of Jesus. Those whose lives are lived under Jesus’ Lordship
can live expectantly, filling each day with activity that is meaningful because of its divine
mandate and its contribution to the fulfillment of God’s purposes for human life. Similarly, the
end of time or the end of life holds no terror for those who know God’s love because they
know the one who determines the reality that lies beyond what we can know here and now.
Thus those who know Christ as the Son of God can approach the end with heads raised high,
knowing that their redemption is near (21:28).
2. These verses also provide encouragement for the faithful when the very foundation of life
seems to be shaken. What do you do when others grow faint “from fear and foreboding” and “the
powers of the heavens” are shaken (21:26)? These cosmological terms can aptly evoke the distress
that we feel during the most anxious, trying, and dangerous experiences of life. What gives you
direction when tornadoes strike, loved ones are imperiled, your livelihood is jeopardized, and the
future is dark? Reading Jesus’ words on the coming of the Son of Man as a reflection of the God-ordered
world in which we live, the reader finds the assurance that in the worst of times the Son of Man is
near at hand, coming “with power and great glory” (21:27). The message of the eschatological
discourse, therefore, needs to be proclaimed in every time because it is one of hope: “Your
redemption is drawing near” (21:28). God’s Word will never pass away (21:33). The other side
of this assurance is the exhortation not to debase life through dissipation or worry but to pray,
depending on God for strength to meet life’s challenges.
Luke 21:37-38, The Conclusion of Jesus’

Teaching in the Temple
NIV NRSV
37Bach day Jesus was teaching at the temple, 37Every day he was teaching in the temple,
and each evening he went out to spend the night and at night he would go out and spend the night
on the hill called the Mount of Olives, *8and all on the Mount of Olives, as it was called. **And
the people came early in the morning to hear him all the people would get up early in the morning
at the temple. to listen to him in the temple.
(COMMENTARY
At the end of this section Luke appends a he was teaching in the temple” (19:47; cf. 20:1;
summary statement that recalls his summary state- 21:37). The key elements are repeated: activity—
ments elsewhere in the Gospel (2:40, 52; 4:14- teaching; location—the temple; audience—the
15, 31-32, 44; 6:17-19) and in Acts (2:42-47; people; response—listening. The eagerness of the
4:32-37; 5:12-16; 6:7). This concluding summary people, which is here characterized by the report
balances the summary statement at the beginning that they “would get up early in the morning to
of Jesus’ teachings in the Temple (19:47-48), listen to him” balances the earlier statement that
repeating the opening almost verbatim, “every day “all the people were spellbound by what they
All
LUKE ’21:37-38 COMMENTARY
heard” (19:48). Noticeable by their absence from found lodging for the night. In favor of the former,
the summary are Jesus’ opponents, the authorities one may cite the reports of the number of pilgrims
who were silenced by his wisdom but who will to Jerusalem, and at Gethsemane Jesus and the
return in the next section (see 22:2-6). disciples have retreated to an open place (see “the
The added details in the summary statement place,” 22:40) for the night, “as was his custom”
include a description of his spending the night on (22:39).2”2 The summary concludes by reiterating
the Mount of Olives. The location was introduced its primary theme: The “people” (Aads /aos) were
for the first time at Jesus’ approach. to Jerusalem listening to Jesus in the Temple.
(19:29, 37) and will play a significant role later
272. See Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, trans.
as the site of Gethsemane (22:39) and the ascen- F. H. and C. H. Cave (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 61. Because he
sion (Acts 1:12). The verb used in “to spend the harmonizes Luke with the other Gospels, Jeremias concludes that
“Luke was ignorant of the local geography, and has mistaken the place
night” (avAtCopat aulizomai) may mean either where Jesus was arrested, i.e. Gethsemane, for the usual nightly lodging
that he spent the night in the open or that he place.”
412
LUKE 22:1-24:53
THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION
NARRATIVES
OVERVIEW
he last section of the Gospel chronicles its to take stock of what the reader has already been
- climactic events. In each scene the Gospel told about the coming events. At the birth of
continues to proclaim and interpret the identity Jesus, Gabriel announced that Jesus would “reign
of Jesus and his fulfillment of God’s redemptive over the house of Jacob forever” (1:33), but a
purposes. Luke’s skill as a literary artist and his darker allusion appears in the words of Simeon,
grasp of the theological significance of these spoken to Mary: “and a sword will pierce your
events are evident throughout. Some of the most own soul too” (2:35). After the temptation of
moving and memorable scenes in the Gospel Jesus, the devil “departed from him until an
appear in the following sections: Jesus at the table opportune time” (4:13). In later references, the
with the disciples, Jesus praying on the Mount of devil snatches some of the seed that is sown
Olives, Peter’s denials, Jesus’ words from the (8:12), but Jesus’ victory over Satan is also re-
cross, the death of Jesus, and the story of the two ported (10:18; 11:18; 13:16). With the beginning
disciples on the road to Emmaus. Each is a work of the passion narrative, Satan’s assault on Jesus
of art, a Gospel in miniature. intensifies (see 22:3, 31).
At the outset of the passion narrative, it is good
LUKE 22:1-13, PREPARATIONS FOR PASSOVER
NRSV
Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called a Now the festival of Unleavened Bread,
22 the Passover, was approaching, ?and the which is called the Passover, was near.
chief priests and the teachers of the law were 2The chief priests and the scribes were looking for
looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for a way to put Jesus? to death, for they were afraid
they were afraid of the people. *Then Satan of the people.
entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the 3Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot,
Twelve. “And Judas went to the chief priests who was one of the twelve; *he went away and
and the officers of the temple guard and dis- conferred with the chief priests and officers of the
cussed with them how he might betray Jesus. temple police about how he might betray him to
them. °They were greatly pleased and agreed to give
SThey were delighted and agreed to give him
him money. °So he consented and began to look
money. °He consented, and watched for an
for an opportunity to betray him to them when
opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when
no crowd was present.
no crowd was present.
7Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on
7Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on
which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. aGk him
413
LUKE 22:1-13
NIV NRSV
8Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. ®So
preparations for us to eat the Passover.” Jesus? sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare
Where do you want us to prepare for it?” the Passover meal for us that we may eat it.” "They
they asked. asked him, “Where do you want us to make prepa-
‘OHe replied, “As you enter the city, a man rations for it?” !“Listen,” he said to them, “when
carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of
to the house that he enters, ''and say to the water will meet you; follow him into the house he
owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is enters '!and say to the owner of the house, “The
the guest room, where I may eat the Passover teacher asks you, “Where is the guest room, where
with my disciples?’ '*He will show you a large I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’ '7He will
upper room, all furnished. Make preparations show you a large room upstairs, already furnished.
there.” Make preparations for us there.” '°So they went and
'SThey left and found things just as Jesus had found everything as he had told them; and they
told them. So they prepared the Passover. prepared the Passover meal. ‘
6Gk he ‘
(COMMENTARY
The passion predictions and references to the bondage in Egypt: the Festival of Unleavened
fate that awaits Jesus in Jerusalem have made it Bread and the Passover (22:1). All leaven was
clear that Jesus will be killed by the authorities ceremonially removed from the house, and the
and rise again (see 9:22, 44; 12:50; 13:33-34; Passover lamb was slaughtered on Nisan 14 and
17:25; 18:31-33). Jesus, as the Son of Man, will eaten that evening (Exod 12:6-8). That evening
be “betrayed” (lit., “handed over” [mapadtdwyt also marked the beginning of the festival of Un-
paradidomi|, 9:44)—a foreshadowing of Judas’s leavened Bread (Exod 12:18; Lev 23:5-6; Num
role in the plot to kill Jesus. The first passion 28:16-17; Deut 16:1-8). For the next seven days,
prediction specified that Jesus would be rejected by the Israelites ate unleavened bread (Exod 13:6-7).
“the elders, chief priests, and scribes” (9:22), and Verse 2 reintroduces Jesus’ opponents, the chief
the most recent prediction indicated that Jesus priests and scribes who were characterized in the
would be handed over to “the Gentiles” (18:32). earlier section (19:47; 20:1, 19, 46-47). Their
The opposition of “the chief priests, the scribes, and intent is now made clear; they were “looking for
the leaders of the people” was noted at the begin- a way to put Jesus to death.” The last part of the
ning and at various points throughout the section verse states the complication that will be resolved
devoted to Jesus’ teaching in the Temple (19:47-48; by the complicity of Judas in the plot against Jesus:
20:1, 19). Conspicuously, Jesus’ opponents were not “They were afraid of the people.” The “people”
mentioned in the summary at the conclusion of this (\ads laos) praised God at Jesus’ entry into Jeru-
section (see 21:37-38). salem (18:43). They were “spellbound” by Jesus’
Earlier, in the list of the Twelve, Judas was teachings and rose early each day to hear him
introduced as the one “who became a traitor” (19:48; 21:38) as he taught them in the Temple
(6:16). The reintroduction of Jesus’ opponents, (20:1, 9). The chief priests and scribes refused to
the reappearance of Satan in the narrative, and claim that John’s authority was of human origin
the reintroduction of Judas confirm for the reader for fear that the people would stone them (20:6).
that the plot leading to Jesus’ death will move Jesus was openly critical of the scribes “in the
swiftly from this point on. hearing of all the people” (20:45). Now, the report
22:1-2. The time is set in the introductory that the chief priests and scribes feared the people
phrase by a reference that links two Jewish festi- echoes the narrator’s assessment of the situation at
vals that celebrate God’s deliverance of Israel from the end of the parable of the wicked tenants (cf.
414
20:19; 22:2). Luke has carefully developed the him silver, but Luke does not specify thirty pieces
difficulty faced by the authorities. They could not of silver (see Matt 26:15; cf. Zech 11:12). In
simply arrest Jesus while he was teaching in the exchange, Judas agrees to seek a time when he
Temple. They had to find some way of seizing can deliver Jesus into their hands away from the
him when “the people” were not present. crowd. By reporting Judas’s deal with the authori-
22:3-6. Luke omits the account of the anoint- ties at this point, Luke adds suspense to the
ing of Jesus that Mark places between the begin- passion narrative. Even for those who know the
ning of the passion narrative and Judas’s story, tension mounts as Jesus moves toward his
agreement to betray Jesus. The omission is usually arrest and then on to the trial and the cross.
explained as consistent with Luke’s effort to avoid 22:7-13. The sending of two disciples to make
duplicate scenes (cf. Luke 7:36-50; Mark 14:3-9). preparations for the Passover meal is reminiscent
The report that Satan entered Judas signals an of the sending of two disciples to make prepara-
ominous escalation in the plot against Jesus. He tions for Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem in 19:29-35.
had silenced the authorities who confronted him In this context the preparation provides a transi-
in the Temple, but now Satan reappears for the tion from the announcement of the time for the
first time since the temptation scene (cf. 10:18; Passover celebration (22:1, 7) and the last supper.
11:18; 13:16). Verse 2 echoes John 13:27 almost Luke’s reference to “the day of Unleavened
verbatim, though Luke is distinctive in reporting Bread” is not as accurate technically as Mark’s
Satan’s entry into Judas prior to the last supper. “the first day of Unleavened bread” (Mark 14:12
Judas is identified in various ways in the Gos- NRSV), since it was a weeklong festival (see 22:1).
pels. “Judas the Iscariot” (Matt 10:4; John 12:4); On Nisan 14 all of the leavened bread was re-
“Judas Iscariot” (Matt 26:14); “Judas of Iscariot” moved from the house in preparation for the start
(Mark 3:19; 14:10; Luke 6:16); “Judas, the one of the celebration that evening, the beginning of
called Iscariot” (Luke 22:3); “Judas, son of Simon Nisan 15. The Passover lamb was slaughtered on
of Iscariot” John 6:71; 13:26); and “Judas, son Nisan 14. In the first century, the Passover lambs
of Simon the Iscariot” (John 13:2). “Iscariot” were slaughtered in the Temple forecourt and
probably derives from the Hebrew construction then roasted and eaten in private homes. Accord-
that means “man of Kerioth,” a town in southern ing to the chronology followed by the synoptic
Judea. Although the second identifying phrase, Gospels, therefore, the institution of the Lord’s
“one of the Twelve,” appears only here in the supper coincided with the Passover meal. Accord-
NT, the numbers of groups and crowds are cited ing to John, however, the Jewish authorities had
Onten. in Acts (4:4° 5:30; 6:73 11:21; 10:5). not yet eaten the Passover meal at the time of
The result of Satan’s entry into Judas is mani- Jesus’ trial (John 18:28), so the death of Jesus
fested immediately as Judas goes to speak with coincides with the time of the slaughter of the
Jesus’ opponents, the chief priests and officers of Passover lambs (John 19:31; cf. Exod 12:5-9).
the Temple. The latter appear only here and in Both accounts agree that Jesus’ death took place
22:52 in Luke, but frequently in Acts (4:1; 5:24- during the Passover observances, and both chro-
26; 16:20-22, 35-38). Their duties are not de- nologies serve theological interests, the one link-
scribed, but apparently they were responsible for ing the Lord’s Supper to the Passover meal and
order and oversight of Temple activities. The act the other identifying Jesus as the Passover lamb.
of handing Jesus over to the authorities has been Luke follows Mark 14:12-17 closely through
alluded to earlier in the passion predictions (9:44; most of this scene. The major difference between
18:32; 20:20), but it will now become the single Luke and his source is that Luke identifies the
act that characterizes Judas (see 22:6, 21-22, 48). two unnamed disciples in Mark as the two disci-
Hereafter, Judas will be known as “the betrayer,” ples who will emerge as the leading apostles in
or more literally, “the one who is handing me the early chapters of Acts (1:13; 3:1-4; 4:13, 19;
over” (22:21). Judas conspires with the authori- 8:14). Peter and John appear together with James
ties. Satan leads him to them; they do not come in scenes drawn from Mark (Jairus’s daughter,
to Judas. Nevertheless, Judas’s motives are never Luke 8:51; the transfiguration, Luke 9:28), but
explored in Luke. The authorities agree to give “the inner three” are not featured in any distinc-
415
tively Lukan material, and this is the only place aura of secrecy and the previous disclosure of the
where only Peter and John are named.’ One plot to arrest Jesus may serve as a rationale for
may also observe that in the Gospel of John, Peter why Jesus wotild make arrangements that were
and the Beloved Disciple (who is not identified as kept from the disciples.
John in the Gospel but has been so identified by The disciples will meet two different people.
later tradition) appear together frequently in the First, they will be met by a person carrying a jar
passion narrative (John 13:23-24; 20:2-10; 21:2, of water. The “person” (dvOpwios anthropos)
7, 20). At a minimum, it appears that the naming may have been either male or female, but pre-
of the disciples in this context foreshadows their sumably Jesus is speaking of a man. Carrying
role as leaders among the apostles. Significantly, water was normally women’s work (John 4), so
it also portrays them as “waiting tables’—an being met by a man carrying water would have
activity that will emerge as an issue of controversy been unusual. The man will lead them to a house
in Acts 6. The question of greatness will emerge where they are to say to the owner, “The teacher
explicitly in 22:24-27. asks you, ‘Where is the guest room, where I may
Luke’s editing of the scene also allows Jesus to eat the Passover with my disciples?’ ” (22:11).
initiate the action. Rather than being asked about
The guest room was a large upstairs room. Again,
preparations for the Passover meal (as in Mark),
the request may be explained either as an allusion
Jesus sends the two and then they ask where they
to the prearranged plans or as a request to one
are to prepare the meal. The question of where
of Jesus’ followers in Jerusalem. The making of
this is to take place dominates the rest of this
the arrangements is more important to the narra-
unit. Luke leaves unresolved the ambiguity in
Mark regarding whether Jesus had made arrange- tive, however, than is the issue of Jesus’ fore-
ments for the location privately or whether the knowledge or previous arrangements. Either way,
mission of the disciples confirms Jesus’ foreknowl- Jesus maintains complete control of the events.
edge as it unfolds. Whereas the argument for He will eat the Passover meal with his disciples
Jesus’ foreknowledge is stronger in relation to the without interference from those who seek to
preparation for the entry into Jerusalem, here the arrest him. When the disciples go into the city,
they find everything as Jesus had told them, and
273. On the references to Peter and John in the Synoptics and Acts, they make preparations for the Passover meal,
see R. Alan Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend
(Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1994) 28-51. presumably by securing a lamb and roasting it.
REFLECTIONS
This section of the Gospel is deeply troubling because it presumes a worldview that is foreign
to most modern readers. Is the devil a force or a being that can enter into persons and take
control of their actions? Does that mean that Judas was not really responsible for betraying
Jesus? Could Jesus have known the movements of a stranger carrying water and the availability
of a room in a house he had never visited? If so, in what sense was he really human? The
story line itself creates difficulties for the credibility of the story—at least for modern readers.
At an even further level this section is disturbing because it portrays a vision of life in which human
beings are mere pawns of spiritual forces they can neither control nor understand. Judas is controlled
by the devil, the man carrying water and the owner of the house are presumably playing roles in a
great spiritual drama without any awareness of. the significance of what they are doing, and the
disciples, doing as they were instructed, find things just as Jesus said they would be.
Disturbing as such reflections may be, they raise ultimate issues. Is freedom an illusion? The
modern assumption is that human beings are totally free to act as they choose within the
matrix of their genetics, social conditioning, historical context, and strength of will. We are
far from sharing the ancient notions of determinism or the Essene notion of the allotment of
shares of the spirits of good and evil to each individual. We do not explain our actions as the
416
result of conflict of the yeser hara’ (pnn ny’ “the evil inclination”) and the yéser hattdéb
(awn 73° “the good inclination”) within us. But does our assumption of free will also carry
with it a denial of the potency of spiritual beings? We have dismissed angels and demons to
the fringes of piety and experience. Have we also diminished God and Satan to the roles of
spectators or aloof powers rather than principals and participants in the contest between good
and evil in human experience?
One of the reasons why these verses are disturbing is that the roles of the characters resonate
with our own occasional sense of being pawns in something greater than that part of life that we
can understand or control. We are aware of our finitude, the limitations of our powers and our
years. Life often appears as though it is controlled by powers beyond our realm of comprehension.
Is it possible that in these events at the fulcrum of human history we see the contest between the
forces of good and evil exposed more clearly than we do in the ordinary course of life? Or is this
part of the gospel story merely an expression of the ancient superstitious worldview?
We will no doubt continue to wrestle with the intellectual issues. As it resonates with our
own sense of finitude, however, this passage also calls us to wonder and have awe at God’s
determination not to abandon humanity to the forces of evil but to carry out a plan for the
salvation of all who place their hope in God. These verses are just one small part of a much
larger story, of course, but that story offers to all the assurance that if we do not control the
forces whose power we experience, we can live in the faith and hope that God’s power is
greater and that God’s love is revealed in the dark events that unfolded at Jesus’ death.
|LOSS Fe 09 OP oy
8 eBid Nf BBA
NIV NRSV
4When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles 14When the hour came, he took his place at
reclined at the table. ‘And he said to them, “I the table, and the apostles with him. !He said to
have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover
before I suffer. !°For I tell you, I will not eat it with you before I suffer; '°for I tell you, I will not
again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of eat it? until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
God.” '7Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he
said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves;
‘7 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said,
18for | tell you that from now on I will not drink
“Take this and divide it among you. '*For I tell
of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God
you | will not drink again of the fruit of the vine
comes.” '°Then he took a loaf of bread, and when
until the kingdom of God comes.”
he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, them, saying, “This is my body, which is given
and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And
given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, .
20In the same way, after the supper he took the “This cup that is poured out for you is the new
cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my covenant in my blood.”?
blood, which is poured out for you.” aOther ancient authorities read never eat it again ®Other
ancient authorities lack, in whole or in part, verses 19b-20 (which is
given... in my blood)
(COMMENTARY
Because of its differences from Matthew and notorious difficulties for the interpreter. Foremost
Mark, Luke’s account of the last supper presents among the peculiarities of Luke’s account is the
giving of the cup before the bread (v. 17), and then Preliminary dish, consisting among other
the giving of a second cup after the bread (v. 20). things of green herbs, bitter herbs and a sauce
Verses 15-17, which include the account of the first made of fruit purée.
cup, have no parallel in the other Gospels. Luke also The meal proper is served but not yet eaten;
moves Jesus’ declaration that he will not drink again the second cup is mixed and put in its place
of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God but not yet drunk.
comes, placing it before the giving of the bread and . Passover Liturgy:
the cup rather than after, as in Mark 14:25. Upon Passover haggadah by the paterfamilias (in
close examination, it is also evident that the words Aramaic): Here the son asks, “Why is this night
of institution in Luke parallel the tradition known different from other nights?” and the father
to Paul (1 Cor 11:24-25) more closely than the explains, beginning with “A wandering Ara-
Markan tradition (Mark 14:22-24). mean was my father... .”
Not surprisingly, the early scribes noticed these First part of the passover Hallel (Psalms
difficulties and sought to alleviate them by altering 113-118), to the end of Psalm 113 or the end
the text. Even after certain texts (such as Luke) were of Psalm 114.
regarded as sacred, the form of the text remained Drinking of the second cup (haggadah cup).
somewhat fluid and open to emendation. Then, after . Main Meal:
the form of the text was fixed, difficulties had to be Grace spoken by the paterfamilias over the
resolved by interpretation. The short version, pre- unleavened bread.
served in D and some manuscripts of the Old Latin Meal, consisting of passover lamb, unleavened
version, contains only vv. 17-19a, through “this is bread, bitter herbs, with fruit purée and wine.
my body.” The long version (preserved in 9)”, Grace over the third cup (cup of blessing).
X%, A, B, and other important manuscripts and D. Conclusion:
ancient versions) contains all of vv. 17-20. Al- Second part of the passover Hallel (in Hebrew).
though the short text was championed by West- Praise over the fourth cup27
cott and Hort as one of the Western non- This reconstruction of the Passover meal has im-
interpolations, the long text has subsequently portant implications for Luke’s account of the last
regained its standing in critical editions of the Supper because it helps us to make sense of the
Greek text. Nevertheless, it remains a difficult two cups.
and debated textual problem. 22:14. The hour for the eating of the Passover
According to the synoptic Gospels, the last meal was set at sundown on Nisan 14. In the Gospel
supper was a Passover meal. Luke, for exam- of John (cf. Luke 22:53) “the hour” is an allusion
ple, has said that Jesus gave explicit instruc- to the time of Jesus’ death, but in 22:14 it lacks
tions to prepare the Passover (22:7-8, 11, 13). such overtones, setting only the time for the cere-
By contrast, the Gospel of John has the last monial meal. Jesus and his disciples reclined rather
supper twenty-four hours earlier (see John than sat for the meal, which Jeremias argued further
18:28; 19:31). Thus the Passover setting may confirms that it was a special occasion.?7
hold some clues to Luke’s distinctive account 22:15-18. The meaning of v. 15 is debated.
of the giving of two cups. According to the The question is whether Jesus ate the Passover
earliest prescriptions regarding the Passover meal with his disciples or whether he abstained,
meal, it required four cups of wine.?”4 Joachim vowing that he would not eat again until the
Jeremias has reconstructed the ceremony as kingdom of God was fulfilled. Jeremias-argued for
follows: the latter, but most commentators have under-
stood the verse as a statement of how intensely
A. Preliminary Course: Jesus looked forward to eating this meal with his
Word of dedication (blessing of the feast day disciples. Jesus makes a vow in vv. 16 and 18.
and of the cup) spoken by the paterfamilias While it is true that the word “again” (implying
over the first cup.
275. Adapted from Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words ofJesus,
trans. Norman Perrin (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966) 85-86.
274. See m. Pesahim 10.1-9. 276. Ibid., 48-49.
418
that Jesus was eating with his disciples) does not correlated with what is known of the Passover
appear in v. 16, nevertheless, it is probably to be meal.
read as looking to the future: “Henceforth I will The succession of verbal forms is typical of
not eat....” The phrase “from now on” in v. 18 eucharistic language: “having received .. . having
is omitted from some manuscripts, but again blessed [he said] take and divide.” The formula of
should probably be retained. The pronouncement blessing and distributing is followed by another
retains a strongly Semitic idiom, literally “with vow that underscores the eschatological signifi-
desire I have desired.” cance of the observance. The meal that had been
When Jesus says, “... before I suffer,” the a celebration of God’s deliverance of Israel in the
words are a veiled reference to his death. The past will henceforth point toward the fulfillment
Greek verb for “to suffer” (mdacyw pascho) is of God’s redemptive work in the kingdom. Verse
nearly the same as the word for “Passover” 18, therefore, closely parallels v. 16. The expres-
(tTaoxa pascha). Moreover, in early Christian sion “the fruit of the vine” is used in a traditional
usage, Jesus himself became the Passover: “For blessing over wine.?”
our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed” (1 The short text, which omits the second cup (v.
Cor 5:7). The pronouncement also resounds with 20), results in placing the cup before the bread,
echoes of the earlier passion predictions in which the reverse of the sequence found in Matthew
Jesus spoke of what he was about to “suffer” and Mark. The cup precedes the bread, however,
(9:22; 17:25). Later, the risen Lord will admonish in 1 Cor 10:16 and in Did. 9.2-4. On the other
the disciples, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah hand, the long text preserves the traditional se-
is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third quence (the bread then the cup) in vv. 19-20.
day” (24:46; cf. 24:26). The result may be the product of combining two
Codex Bezae (D) and several other ancient early eucharistic traditions: the paschal lamb then
manuscripts read “never again” in v. 16, which the cup; the bread then the cup.?”
seems to be the proper sense even if it is not the The phrase “from now on” is omitted from
earliest text. Jesus’ vow speaks of the Passover some manuscripts, but on balance the evidence
lamb, pointing to its metaphorical meaning (his favors retaining it. The meaning of Jesus’ second
own death): “I will not eat it [again] until it is vow is similar to that of the previous one (v. 16),
fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” In their own but different from it. Both verses link the elements
way, these words transform the meaning of the of the Passover meal with the kingdom of God,
supper just as forcefully as the traditional words but whereas v. 16 speaks of fulfillment of the
of institution. The Passover lamb foreshadowed paschal lamb in the kingdom, v. 18 looks ahead
Jesus’ own sacrificial death for the deliverance of to coming of the kingdom of God. The irony is
the people of God. His death, therefore, would be that the kingdom of God will not come soon, but
a fulfillment of the Passover. The expected eschato- Jesus will not drink wine again before he dies (cf.
logical banquet will celebrate this fulfillment. 23:36).
The cup in v. 17 must be one of the early cups 22:19-20. Whereas vv. 16-18 offer Jesus’ pro-
of the Passover meal, since a second cup, “after nouncements over the lamb and the cup, vv.
the meal,” will be interpreted in v. 20. Because 19-20 contain his blessing of the bread and the
Jesus’ words about eating the Passover may imply cup. In the sequence of the bread then the cup,
that the meal has already been served, the cup in Luke agrees with Mark, but the language of the
v. 17 fits into the order best if it is the second blessings is much closer to the tradition preserved
cup. The uncertainties regarding the practice of by Paul in 1 Cor 11:24-25.
the Passover celebration, its interpretation in early
Christian tradition, and Luke’s knowledge of these 277. See m. Berakoth 6.1. The phrase also appears in the OT (Deut
22:9 LXX; Isa 32:12; cf. Mark 14:25).
matters prevent us from doing more than noting 278. John Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53, WBC 35C (Dallas: Word,
how Luke’s: account of the last supper might be 1993) 1051.
419
Luke 22:19-207”° Mark 14:22-24 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

Then he took a loaf of bread, While they were eating, “The Lord Jesus on the night
and when he had given thanks, he took a loaf of bread, when he was betrayed took a
he broke it and gave it to them, and after blessing it he broke loaf of bread, and when he had
saying, “This is my body, which it, gave it to them, and said, given thanks, he broke it and
is given for you. Do this in “Take; this is my body.” Then said, “This is my body that is
remembrance of me.” And he did he took a cup, and after giving for you. Do this in remembrance
the same with the cup after thanks he gave it to them, and of me.” In the same way he took
supper, saying, “This cup that is all of them drank from it. He the cup also, after supper, saying,
poured out for you is the new said to them, “This is my blood “This cup is the new covenant
covenant in my blood.” of the covenant, which is poured in my blood. Do this, as often
out for many.” as you drink it, in remembrance
of me.”
279. Scripture quotations are from the NRSV; italics added.
John has no words of institution, and Matthew servance of the Lord’s supper is consequently a
follows Mark closely but not verbatim. What commemorative meal, a meal of remembrance of
emerges from this survey, therefore, is that no Jesus’ death and expectation of its fulfillment in
two of the four canonical versions of the words the kingdom of God. As a communal observance,
of institution agree exactly. The tradition was it links the church in any generation with both
flexible. Luke agrees with Mark in preserving the its origins and the fulfillment of God’s promise of
sequence of four verbs (including “gave” [St5wt redemption. Just as the Passover was observed “so
didomi]) at the beginning, and the concluding that all the days of your life you may remember
clause of the blessing over the cup, “that is poured the day of your departure from the land of Egypt”
out for you/many.” On the other hand, Luke (Deut 16:3 NRSV), so also the Lord’s supper
agrees with Paul in the verb for “to bless” would be observed “in remembrance of me.” The
(evxaptotéw eucharisteo), the additional clause, farewell commissioning contained in these words
“which is [given] for you”; the exhortation “do is greatly expanded in a different form in John’s
this in remembrance of me” (though Paul repeats farewell discourse John 13-17).
the injunction after the cup also); the adverbial The observance of “the blood of the covenant”
phrase “in the same way”; the temporal phrase goes back to the ceremony described in Exod 24:8.
“after the supper”; and with minor variations the An allusion to this ceremony also appears in the
blessing over the cup, including the specification opening of 1 Peter, which describes the believers as
“new covenant.” “chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified
The use of the term for “bread” (dptos artos) by the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be
does not contribute significantly to the debate sprinkled with his blood” (1 Pet 1:2 NRSV). By
over whether the last supper was the Passover designating the cup as “the new covenant in my
meal because the term is also used in the Sep- blood,” Jesus was also evoking the prophetic promise
tuagint for “unleavened bread,” which was eaten of a new covenant. Jeremiah wrote, “The days are
at Passover (Exod 29:2; Lev 2:4; 8:26; Num surely coming, says the Lorp, when | will make a
6:19). Just as the head of the family interpreted new covenant with the house of Israel and the house
the bread by reference to “the bread of affliction” of Judah. ...1 will put my law within them, and I
(Deut 16:3),78° so also Jesus interpreted the bread
will write it on their hearts” (Jer 31:31, 33 NRSV).
he gave to his disciples, but this time identifying
The author of Hebrews interprets at length the sig-
the bread with himself—his suffering for them.
nificance of both the new covenant (Heb 8:6-13) and
Jesus’ blessing over the bread, therefore, affirms the fact that it was constituted with Jesus’ own blood
that his death will have a vicarious, sacrificial
(Heb 9:13-14, 18-22).
significance. He gives himself for them. The ob-
The concluding affirmation of the vicarious sig-
280. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X—XXIV], AB nificance of the cup in v. 20 balances the earlier
28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 1399. statement after the bread; the bread is the body
420
“which is given for you” (v. 19), and the cup is the repeated clauses, using the second person
the new covenant in his blood “that is poured plural “you” in both.
out for you” (v. 20). The parallel to Luke 22:19 The pouring out of blood in the OT is often an
in 1 Cor 11:24 lacks the participle “given,” and allusion to death (Gen 9:6; Isa 59:7; Ezek 18:10;
there is no parallel in 1 Corinthians to the latter cf. Luke 11:50). The reference to pouring out may
clause. Mark lacks the former but contains a also be an echo of Isa 53:12, but if so the echo
broader version of the latter: “which is poured is stronger in Mark than in Luke, because Mark
out for many” (Mark 14:24). Thus Luke has couples the reference to pouring out with “many,”
apparently constructed the balanced parallelism of as in Isa 53:12 (cf. Mark 10:45).
REFLECTIONS
No other ceremony or act of worship has moved the church through the centuries as much
as following Jesus’ command to eat the bread and drink the cup of the new covenant. Again
we stand in the presence of mystery and wonder. One approach to the observance’s surplus
of meaning is to consider the ways in which it creates community—with the outcast, with
the Jewish people, with other believers, and with the Lord.
The act of eating together cemented Jesus’ fellowship with his disciples, the crowds, and
the outcasts in Galilee on various occasions, and Luke more than any other Gospel emphasizes
the meal scenes of Jesus’ ministry. By eating with the outcasts, Jesus had tangibly demonstrated
his solidarity with them. He had received from them and given to them, he had publicly
crossed the social barriers that divided the righteous from the outcasts, and he had physically
embodied the love of God for the despised.
Instituted at the time of the Passover meal, the Lord’s Supper also embraces and fulfills the
celebration of God’s act in delivering the Israelites from Egypt. When we eat the bread and
drink the cup, we declare that the Lord whom we worship is also the God committed to the
deliverance of the people of Israel from oppression by non-Israelites. Fulfillment in Christ of
the ancient deliverance at the exodus should, therefore, never be taken to diminish the
Christian church’s common heritage with the Jewish people. ‘
Because of the significance of meals in Jesus’ ministry and the experience of the early church,
fasting has never been as significant a part of the Christian experience as eating together has
been. At first, the Lord’s Supper was observed in connection with a fellowship meal. The risen
Lord becomes known to the early disciples in the breaking of bread (24:30-31). The early
Christians broke bread at home (Acts 2:46), and problems arose when the meal did not express
the oneness and fellowship of the church (1 Cor 11:17-22). Following the supper in Luke,
Jesus reminds the disciples that they are to serve one another. The supper further binds the
disciples together because it is an assurance of God’s providence in times of testing. Whenever
the church is persecuted, it can remember that it was born out of the steadfastness of God’s
love in a time of desperate trial.
The supper, therefore, relates the community of believers physically and spiritually to the
Lord, who laid down his life that they might live. It is a commemoration of the life and death
of Jesus, a celebration of his real and spiritual presence now, and an affirmation of the hope
that we shall eat and drink with him in the kingdom of God.
The experience of the supper, therefore, spans the breadth of God’s love; the depth of Jesus’
sufferings; and the past, present, and future of God’s mighty acts. The challenge for the believer
is not that we grasp the full potential of its meaning but that we open ourselves to the full
extent of its power to change us and create intimacy among the worshiper and outcasts, our
, the Lord whom we worship. What, then, shall we do
Jewish heritage, other believersand
after we eat together?
421
LUKE 22:21-38, THE LUKAN FAREWELL

DISCOURSE. >:
OVERVIEW
Luke alone among the Synoptics reports a dis- (22:24-30); (3) Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial
course at the table following the meal. This Lukan of him (22:31-34); and (4) Jesus’ call for purse,
discourse is a compilation of four units: (1) Jesus’ bag, and sword (22:35-38). The material for this
announcement of his betrayal (22:21-23); (2) Jesus’ discourse is drawn variously from Mark, Q, and
response to the disciples’ debate over greatness L, but the result is clearly Luke’s own.
Luke 22:21-23, Jesus’ Announcement of His Betrayal

NIV NRSV!
21But the hand of him who is going to betray me But see, the one who betrays me is with me,
is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will and his hand is on the table. *For the Son of
go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man Man is going as it has been determined, but woe
who betrays him.” “They began to question to that one by whom he is betrayed!” *°Then they
among themselves which of them it might be who began to ask one another which one of them it
would do this. could be who would do this.
(COMMENTARY
Breaking the intimate mood of Jesus’ pledge to Verse 22 addresses the paradox of divine fore-
give his body and blood for his disciples, Jesus knowledge and human freedom. Jesus’ death is a
declares that he will be betrayed by one who has part of God’s redemptive plan, and Judas’s be-
eaten with him. The announcement transposes the trayal has a place in that plan. Nevertheless, God
material from Mark 14:18-21 from before the giving is not responsible for Judas’s act, nor does its
of the bread and the cup until after the meal. The redemptive result lessen Judas’s culpability. Here
effect is a dramatic refocusing of the plot to kill divine intent and human freedom cooperate inde-
Jesus. At the beginning of the chapter the reader pendently. Jesus is betrayed by a trusted disciple.
was told that the chief priests and scribes were Jesus’ use of the explicative “but” (mAnv plen,
looking for a way to put Jesus to death, and then a more intensive adversative particle than d¢€ de)
that Satan entered Judas, who made a pact with in vv. 21-22 signals the intensity of the moment.
the authorities. Therefore, while Jesus does not The closest parallel between the Markan and Lukan
identify Judas by name, the readers know of accounts of this unit occurs in v. 22, which repro-
whom he is speaking. duces words and phrases from Mark 14:21. Luke’s
Betrayal has been an element of Jesus’ passion hand is still visible in the editing, however. Both
predictions (9:44; 18:32; 20:20), and we have Mark and Luke use the circumlocution “the Son of
been told that Judas was seeking an opportune Man,” but in Luke the verb for “going” (Topevopat
time to betray Jesus (22:4, 6). The nearness of poreuomat) is different, and the cause is different.
the betrayer (at the table) and Jesus’ use of the Luke ties Jesus’ death to God’s redemptive plan (“as
present participle in “the one who betrays me” it has been determined”) rather than to the fulfill-
both suggest that the time of the fulfillment of ment of Scripture (“as it is written of him”) as in
Jesus’ warnings is at hand. Mark 14:21. Luke appeals again to God’s redemp-
422
tive plan, abridging the woe pronounced over the it comes earlier. The disciples are grieved and ask
betrayer and omitting the second reference to the one by one, “Is it I?” (see Mark 14:19). In
Son of Man and the statement that it would have Matthew, Judas says, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” (Matt
been better if he had not been born. The force | 26:25 NRSV). John reports that the disciples
of the woe remains, however. looked at one another (John 13:22). According to
While the readers know that Jesus was speaking Luke, the disciples ask one another which one of
of Judas, the disciples do not know. Each Gospel them could do this.
handles the disciples’ response differently. In Mark
REFLECTIONS
Judas’s betrayal of Jesus has been fertile ground for theological reflection on human sinfulness,
free will and determinism, and the recognition that each of us is capable of betraying ourselves
and others in ways we would hardly believe. The setting of Jesus’ announcement thrusts the
issue into the heart of the church’s observance of the Lord’s supper. We cannot partake of
the bread and cup in smugness that we would never betray Jesus as Judas did. Again, Jesus’
announcement that “his hand is on the table” reminds his followers that participation in the
supper does not protect one from sin or treachery in some magical way.
Love makes betrayal all the more devastating. Jesus was not delivered to his enemies by
one of the chief priests, or even by one of the people who has come to the Temple to hear
him teach. He was betrayed by a friend to whom he had just pledged his body and blood.
Judas’s betrayal, then, is as tragic as any scene in Greek drama.
So powerful is its effect that each of the evangelists telegraphs a response his readers
might imitate by reporting how the disciples received Jesus’ announcement. The differences
in the accounts provide a telling reflection of human nature. Do we respond by assuming
that we could not do such a thing, so it must be one of the others (John 13:22), or by
recognizing that each of us is capable of betraying those who have loved and trusted us
(Mark 14:19)?
Luke categorically declares that Judas’s action cannot be excused by appeal to God’s
foreknowledge or plan for redemption. Judas is not passively playing out a role assigned to
him. On the contrary, God has taken Judas’s treachery and all the other events that led up
to Jesus’ death and brought from them a positive and redemptive effect. We may speculate
that had Judas’s and Jesus’ enemies made other decisions, the course of events might have
been different, but the redemptive effect would have been the same.
Judas may not have had a chance to see the treachery of his act played out before him and
to reconsider it, but everyone who reads the Gospel and everyone who sits at Jesus’ table and
hears the story while receiving the bread and cup has the chance to recognize his or her own
capacity for sin in Judas’s treachery and to choose faithfulness instead. Our response, therefore,
should be to hear the story again and recognize that we, too, are capable of betrayal. We,
too, assume that we are superior to others or that whatever others might do we would not
deny Jesus. Luke’s account of Jesus’ discourse at the table is not for those who are afraid to
confront their own capacity to sin, but it does speak redemptively to all who are ready to
acknowledge their sinfulness and make a new covenant with God.
423
LUKE 22:24-30
Luke 22:24-30, The Disciples’ Debate over Greatness

NIV NRSV
4Also a dispute arose among them as to which 24A dispute also arose among them as to which
of them was considered to be greatest. -Jesus said one of them was to be regarded as the greatest.
to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over 5But he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles
them; and those who exercise authority over them lord it over them; and those in authority over
call themselves Benefactors. ?°But you are not to them are called benefactors. *°But not so with you;
be like that. Instead, the greatest among you rather the greatest among you must become like
should be like the youngest, and the one who the youngest, and the leader like one who serves.
rules like the one who serves. ?”7For who is 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table
greater, the one who is at the table or the one or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the
who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? table? But I am among you as one who serves.
But | am among you as one who serves. 78You 28“You are those who have stood by me in my
are those who have stood by me in my trials. trials; ??and I confer on you, just as my Father has
2°And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my conferred on me, a kingdom, *°so that you may
Father conferred one on me, *°so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and
eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes
on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” of Israel.”
COMMENTARY
The Lukan discourse at the table continues greater than the greatness they imagine for them-
with Jesus’ response to the disciples’ debate over selves (vv. 28-30). True greatness is to be found
greatness. The announcement that one of them in faithfulness to Jesus, not in trying to exalt
will betray Jesus spurs a debate among the disci- oneself over others.
ples regarding their rank in relation to one an- 22:25-27. Jesus begins his response with an
other. The accusing attitude implied by v. 23, appeal to the exercise of authority by Gentile
which reports that they began to ask one another kings. As members of an occupied and oppressed
which of them could do such a thing, is the other country, the disciples would have an immediate
side of the concern over status and greatness. antipathy for the Gentiles’ oppressive exercise of
Those who are out of touch with their capacity power. They established their own position by
to betray close relationships may also be out of subjugating and subordinating others. Gentile
touch with their status in relation to others. Both Kings and princes were called “Benefactor” by
the denial that one could betray and the presump- their subordinates. The title evokes the contem-
tion that one is greater than others reflect a lack porary system of patronage with its clear class
of awareness of one’s own identity and place in distinctions and the hoarding of wealth among the
community. The term for “dispute” in v. 24 powerful. In this context, there is a tinge of irony
(birovetkta philoneikia) literally means “love of to the term. Literally, a benefactor was a worker
strife.” or doer of good. The Gentile lords were called
Jesus’ response to the disciples in vv. 25-30 good, when the harsh experience of those they
establishes their place in the kingdom both in the oppressed showed that they were not. Gifts, bene-
present and in the future. Their identity and their factions, and benevolences mean little to the op-
relationship to one another are determined by two pressed who desire nothing so much as freedom
new realities: the standards of the kingdom and from their oppression. Worse, they are often a
Jesus’ own example (vv. 25-27). Similarly, their charade in which the oppressed are forced to
faithfulness now will guarantee a reward that is praise the generosity of their oppressors. It shall
424
not be so, Jesus declared, in the community of the later church, particularly as it gathered to
the kingdom. observe the Lord’s supper.
On the contrary, in the kingdom the standards Verse 27 moves the argument a step further by
of the Gentiles are turned on their head. The great introducing the example of Jesus’ own life—a
among them should take the position of a youth, fitting comment in a farewell discourse. Common
and the leader should become like a servant. The sense dictates that one who reclines at table is
logic of Jesus’ argument is delightful but almost greater than the one who serves, yet Jesus points
devious. The disciples who wanted to establish to his own life: He is in the midst of them as one
their superiority over their fellow disciples are who serves. As the leader, Jesus’ superiority was
now challenged to abandon the ways of the Gen- assumed, but his pattern of life did not exploit
tile overlords whom they detested. To do so, the privileges he could have expected. Again, the
however, they also had to give up their quest to disciples are presented with a forced choice: either
establish their greatness over others. deny Jesus’ greatness or accept his example of
Commentators have called attention to the hints what constitutes true greatness.
of ecclesiastical language in this passage. While it These verses have a parallel in Mark 10:42-45,
records Jesus’ words to his disciples following the but source critics debate whether Luke has derived
last supper, Luke also intends for it to be overheard this unit from Mark or from another source. The
by believers and church leaders in his own time. only verbal parallels are between vv. 25-26a and
Mark 10:42-43. There is no parallel in Mark to Luke
Verse 26 uses three terms that have connections
22:27, nor is there a parallel to Mark 10:45 in Luke,
with the emerging structure of church offices: “the
but similarities between the two verses have been
younger” (0 vewtepos ho neoteros), “the leader”
noted and the possibility of a common origin cannot
(0 nyovpevos ho hegoumenos)}, and “the one
be discounted. The parallel between Jesus’ reference
who serves” (6 StaKxovav ho diakonon). The only
to himself as one who serves in Luke and Jesus’
other place “the younger” appears in Luke is in example of service in the Johannine foot washing
reference to the prodigal son (15:12-13), but in should also be noted.
Acts 5:6 it designates those in the church who
Earlier, Jesus’ parable of the master who finds his
come to remove the body of Ananias. There it servants alert and ready promises that he will serve
is used interchangeably with “the young men” them. The allusion is to the promise of the great
(ol veavioxot hoi neaniskoi, Acts 5:10), which eschatological banquet (see also 13:28-29; 14:15-24;
also appears in other significant contexts (Mark 16:19, 23-24; 22:16, 18). The connection between
14:51; 16:5; Acts 2:17; 23:18, 22; 1 John 2:13-14). the language of v. 27 and earlier references to the
“Younger men” (vewTepot neoteroi) occurs in eschatological banquet prepare the reader for the
some of the later epistles that deal explicitly with more explicit eschatological references in vv. 28-30.
rank and offices in the church (1 Tim 5:1; Titus 2:6, If the first reason to abandon self-serving quests
1 Pet 5:5). Acts (15:22; cf. 7:10; 14:12) and He- for status through power is that such striving is
brews (13:7, 17, 24) both refer to the role of church contrary to the example of Jesus’ own life and the
“leaders” (yyoupwevor hegoumenoi), and the verb way power will be used in the kingdom of God,
for “to serve” (Staxovéw diakoneo) and the noun the second reason is that those who are faithful
for “servant” (6idKovos diakonos) evolved, refer- to Jesus now will receive a reward that is greater
ring originally to any serving, then to ministry in than what they now seek.
the church, and then to the role of ministers or 22:28-30. These verses have no parallel in
deacons (see, e.g., Luke 10:40; John 12:2, 26; Acts Mark, and only the latter part of v. 30 resembles
6:2; Rom 16:1; 1 Cor 3:5; 1 Tim 3:8, 12; 1 Pet Matt 16:28. Having chided the disciples about
4:10-11). A survey of the NT passages in which their quarreling over greatness, Jesus now praises
these terms appear confirms that they carried over- them as those who have stood by him in his trials.
tones of roles within the Christian communities. Luke has characterized Jesus’ temptations as “tri-
Jesus’ words to the disciples in which these terms als” (Tetpaoyds peirasmos; 4:13). The disciples’
are used as metaphors inevitably created connections faith in Luke—in contrast to the portrayal of the
between the gospel story and the life situation of disciples in Mark, one might argue—is not like
425
that of the seed that falls on the rocky ground and together fourteen times. Jesus “eats and drinks” with
then withers “in a time of testing [i.e. trial]” (8:13). tax collectors and sinners (5:30). Whereas John’s
The disciples are to pray that God may not lead disciples fasted, Jesus’ disciples ate and drank (5:33;
them into temptation (trials, 11:4), and they are to cf. 7:33-34). Eating and drinking also characterize
pray so that they may not experience trials (22:40, the hospitality the disciples experience as they follow
46). The disciples have stood by Jesus in his trials, Jesus’ commission (10:7). Earlier, Jesus told them
Luke mutes the defection of the disciples recorded not to worry about what they would eat and drink
in Mark, and the disciples will again stand faithful (12:29); now they are told that they will eat and
during the trials recorded in the book of Acts. drink at his table. Eating and drinking with Jesus,
Jesus, therefore, confers on them a kingdom. however, are no guarantee of future rewards
Entry into this kingdom, however, comes through (13:26)—that promise is based on faithfulness to
faithfulness in the midst of opposition, strife, and Jesus in times of trial. Whereas others may eat and
temptation. The reward promised for the disciples drink now, unaware of the urgency of faithfulness
is based on the Father’s vindication of Jesus. The (12:19, 45; 17:27-28), the disciples will endure trials
argument echoes a typically Johannine formula- now knowing that they will again share in Jesus’
tion: “As the Father...me, so I... you” (see table because of their faithful endurance. This hope
John 15:95, 17:215.20:21)., The first part. of the of sharing in the great eschatological banquet is, of
formula occurs in various other places in John, course, grounded in the ancient lore of Israel (Isa
and adaptations of it also occur in the Johannine 25:6; Rev 19:9).
Epistles. The Johannine Jesus promises that the The promise that the disciples will sit on
disciples will be hated and persecuted, just as
thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel has
Jesus was persecuted (John 15:18-16:4)—much
a parallel in Matt 19:28. The promise does not
as in Luke Jesus has warned the disciples of the
express judgment against Israel or the Jews. On
trials that await them (21:12-19).
the contrary, it looks ahead to the fulfillment of
At the annunciation of Jesus’ birth, the angel
Israel’s hopes in a reconstituted Israel (cf. Ps
revealed that “the Lord God will give to him the
122:4-5). The verb for “to judge” (kpivw krino)
throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over
here carries the sense of “ruling.”2*' The election
the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom
there will be no end” (1:32-33). The motif of of Matthias (Acts 1:15-26) may, therefore, have
Jesus’ kingship resurfaces later, in the account of been necessary as a sign of the restoration of all
his entry into Jerusalem. Now, Jesus promises to twelve tribes of Israel. Such positive indications
confer a kingdom on his disciples. of the role of Israel should not be overlooked in
In fulfillment of this promise, they will “eat and the midst of the litany of references in Luke and
drink” at his table in his kingdom, and they will Acts to Israel’s failure to recognize the Christ and
“sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” his disciples. God’s purposes will yet be fulfilled.
(v. 30). The combination of eating and drinking
281. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), AB
is characteristic of Luke; the two verbs occur 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 1419.
REFLECTIONS
In this context, Luke gives a lesson on humility and serving others, similar to John’s
recounting of the foot washing at this point. The story also tells a tale of two betrayals. Judas
and Peter are examples of the first form of betrayal. Judas, of course, made a pact to deliver
Jesus to his enemies. Peter’s betrayal was more subtle—therefore, more of an example for
other would-be followers. When the chips were down, he denied that he was one of Jesus’
disciples. The second form of betrayal is represented by those who were debating which of
them would be greatest in the kingdom. Seeking our own advantage and status over the
interests of others is a rejection of the ways of the kingdom and a return to the ways of “the
Gentiles,” who seek status and power over others. The kingdom overturns the assumptions of
the Gentiles, those who hold and wield power in this world, and Jesus calls for faithfulness
to a new vision of community in which the least are exalted and the greatest are
those who
serve others.
In a time of crisis or stress, however, there is always the temptation to deny the ways
of
the kingdom and return to the familiar patterns of the exercise of power. When there is
dissension in the community, when there is threat from an external source, or when there
are problems in meeting the budget, how do we operate: on the basis of authority or out of
servanthood?
Perhaps it is important that the story leaves us no good role models, no characters with
whom to identify—only the promise of true greatness if we remain faithful to Jesus and to
his kingdom, even when the chips are down.
Luke 22:31-34, Jesus’ Prediction of Peter’s Denial

NIV NRSV
*I“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you? 31“Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded?
as wheat. *But I have prayed for you, Simon, that to sift all of you like wheat, **but I have prayed
your faith may not fail. And when you have for you that your own faith may not fail; and you,
turned back, strengthen your brothers.” when once you have turned back, strengthen your
*3But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with brothers.” “And he said to him, “Lord, I am ready
you to prison and to death.” to go with you to prison and to death!” *4Jesus?®
*4Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the said, “I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow
rooster crows today, you will deny three times this day, until you have denied three times that
that you know me.” you know me.”
231 The Greek is plural. 4Or has obtained permission 6GCk He
(COMMENTARY
Our sense of the intensity of the conflict con- to discipleship (4:38; 5:3-5, 10). At Simon’s call,
tinues to grow with Jesus’ warning that Peter, Jesus gives him the name “Peter” (5:8; 6:14), and
too, will deny him. This warning follows naturally Luke uses the name consistently up to this point
the promise of reward for all who stand with Jesus (8:45, 51; 9:20, 28, 32-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8).
during his trials (v. 28). The series of warnings Here Luke breaks the pattern, and in Jesus’ only
given in this chapter is relentless. The authorities addresses to Peter he calls him “Simon, Simon”
plot Jesus’ death (v. 2); Satan enters Judas, and in v. 31 and “Peter” in v. 34. The repetition of
he makes a pact with the authorities (vv. 3-4). the name is reminiscent of the voice to Saul on
Then Jesus speaks of the new covenant in his the road to Damascus (Acts 9:4). The name “Si-
blood (v. 20) and warns the disciples that one of mon” will again be used in the report that the
them will betray him (v. 21). They ask which of Lord had risen and appeared to “Simon” (24:34).
them could do such a thing, but Jesus points out Satan’s seeking to sift Simon is consistent with
that by seeking greatness they have already taken the story of Satan’s request to test Job’s faith (Job
the side of the kings and those in authority (v. 1-2). The implication is that Satan has requested
25). There are other forms of betrayal, however, or demanded of God permission to test Peter’s
and now Satan is seeking to test Simon Peter. steadfastness. Judas has failed; now will Peter fare
22:31. Luke follows a fairly regular pattern in any better? The image of sifting is drawn from
his use of the names “Simon” and “Peter.” The daily life. Flour was poured onto a screen or mesh,
narrator uses the name Simon up to the call of Peter which was then shaken vigorously. The fine flour
427
sifted through, while the impurities were trapped The Gospel of John makes explicit that Peter will
and exposed on the mesh (cf. Amos 9:9). Peter will indeed be arrested and put to death, but not yet
be shaken by the events that are about to unfold, (John 13:36-38; 21:18). As in the Gospel of John,
but these events involved more than ordinary hu- the scene occurs in the room where they have
man failings. They are Satan’s attack on Jesus, the eaten, not on the Mount of Olives, and Peter does
work of the kingdom, and the resolve of Jesus’ not assert that he will not deny Jesus even if all
followers. In this paradigmatic moment, we see the others fall away. Instead, he affirms his readi-
Satan’s work clearly for what it is (see 2 Cor 2:11). ness for the trials about’ which Jesus has warned
22:32. Jesus will not yield Peter to Satan, how- them (see 21:12-19; 22:28). Peter understands
ever. Jesus has prayed for him. If we ask why Jesus that Jesus is about to be arrested and put to death,
did not do the same for Judas (a question that is but he overestimates his own ability to be faithful
extraneous to the text), a partial answer may be in the face of the coming events.
constructed from Jesus’ claim that he has prayed 22:34. Jesus’ second statement to Peter in this
“that your own faith may not fail” (v. 32). The
paragraph is devastating: The cock will not crow
outcome is a result of both the strength of Peter’s
before Peter has denied three times that he knows
faith and the effectiveness of Jesus’ prayer. In a
Jesus. Jesus says “today,” even though it is the
sense, Luke reports a trial scene or a contest over
evening before, because the day was counted from
Peter. Satan and Jesus have both asked for him.
.sunset to sunset. Before that night was over and the
Satan stands as the prosecuting attorney, the tester,
sun dawned again, Peter, who claimed to be ready
while Jesus serves as Peter’s advocate and defense
(cf. Jesus’ promise of the Paraclete in John).?* to die with Jesus, would deny that he even knew
Jesus’ initial prediction slides over the moment him, Luke departs from Mark here by dropping the
of Peter’s denials and looks to his return and his reference to the cock’s crowing a second time (Mark
role in strengthening his “brothers.” Jesus’ con- 14:30), by adding the specification that Peter would
cern for Peter will be borne out further in an deny knowing Jesus, and by allowing Jesus to have
appearance to Peter (24:34), and in Acts Peter the ldst word, not Peter (see Mark 14:31). Later
will emerge as the leader of the disciples, who on Jewish tradition prohibited the raising of chickens in
various occasions exhorts and encourages “the Jerusalem,” but it is not clear that this prohibition
bretiread (Actset: 15-10:(2:29; S117) ile 12157). was in force early in the first century.
22:33. Jesus’ initial silence about Peter’s actual The coming crisis will not leave any of the
denials serves as an opening for Peter to assert disciples untouched. Judas will betray Jesus, all
his readiness to follow Jesus to prison or even to will be tested, and Peter—who will emerge as
death. Acts records Peter’s later imprisonments the leader of the apostles—will deny that he
and the threat of death (Acts 4:3; 5:18; 12:3-17). knows Jesus.
282. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X—XXIV), 1425. 283. See m. Bab. Qam. 7.7.
REFLECTIONS
The experience of Peter provides hope for all who feel inadequate for the trials they face.
If fidelity to Christ were a matter of one’s own strength, virtue would be a matter of the
success of the fittest. No such Darwinian principle is operative here. Again, the way of the
kingdom is not like that of natural processes. Jesus intercedes for Peter, and though Peter
denies Jesus, ultimately his faith does not fail. Repentance and seeking forgiveness, even for a
grievous failure, are themselves signs of faith.
Not to be missed is the future that Jesus charts for one who has failed. As in the Gospel
of John, where Jesus three times charges Peter to “feed my sheep” or some variation thereof,
in Luke 22:32 Jesus instructs Peter to “strengthen your brothers.” There will be no restoration
scene in Luke (cf. 24:34). In a sense none is needed, because this verse looks ahead to Peter’s
restoration and future service. In the kingdom (and the church) the requirement is not that
one never have failed but that one has “turned back”; “ once you have turned
back, strengthen
your brothers.”
As Jesus predicts Peter’s denials, he affirms that his role has been to pray
that Peter’s faith
May not fail. Peter’s role will be to turn back and having turned back to strengthe
n the others
who will face similar trials. As a model for Christian discipleship, this passage
assumes that
we will not always prove faithful. We will fail despite our best intentions and
the Lord’s
intercession, but the passage is open ended. The end of the story has yet to be
written. What
do we do with our failures? Do we let them stand as the final verdict on us, or do
we turn
back from them and use them to strengthen our resolve in the future and help those
who
face trials that we now know from the inside out? Peter is the model disciple, not because
he never failed, but because he turned back.
Luke 22:35-38, Jesus’ Call for Purse, Bag, and Sword

NIV NRSV
*Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you 35He said to them, “When I sent you out
without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack
anything?” anything?” They said, “No, not a thing.” °°He said
“Nothing,” they answered. to them, “But now, the one who has a purse must
¢He said to them, “But now if you have a take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has
purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. °’For
have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. ?/It is I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me,
written: ‘And he was numbered with the trans- ‘And he was counted among the lawless’; and
gressors’* and I tell you that this must be fulfilled indeed what is written about me is being ful-
in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching filled.” °°They said, “Lord, look, here are two
its fulfillment.” swords.” He replied, “It is enough.”
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two
swords.”
“That is enough,” he replied.
437 Isaiah 53:12
(COMMENTARY
The fourth and final exchange of Luke’s farewell Jesus reminds the disciples of their experience
discourse is the most enigmatic. Although it has no when he sent them out on mission. Jesus’ ques-
parallel in the other Gospels, this unit follows natu- tion actually refers more precisely to the instruc-
rally after Jesus’ warnings that one of the disciples tion he gave to the seventy(-two) in Luke 10:4
would betray him, that greatness will come to those than to the commissioning of the Twelve in Luke
who stand by him in his trials, and that even Peter 9:3. In the former place, Jesus told those who
will deny him. So severe will be the “sifting” that were being sent out to “carry no purse, no bag,
is coming upon the disciples that the previous as- no sandals.” Did they lack anything? No, the
surances of God’s protection can no longer be disciples recall, “not a thing.” Jesus had assured
assumed. Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion will usher in them of providential protection. and benevolent
a new period in which the disciples will face similar hospitality, and even journeying without provi-
persecution. Verses 35-38 serve, therefore, as a sions or protection they had lacked nothing.
warning to the disciples (and the early church) to Verse 36 signals a radical change: “But now....”
be prepared for the dangers they will face. Satan’s renewed attacks on Jesus and his disciples,
429
the intensified opposition of the chief priests and death,/ and was numbered with the transgres-
scribes, and the coming destruction of Jerusalem sors” (Isa 53:12 NRSV, italics added). Jesus is
and persecution of the followers of Jesus (21:7-24) talking about the persecution that comes upon
will all follow. Now they will need to provide for those who choose the way of self-sacrifice, not
themselves. The syntax of v. 36 allows it to be the provisions of those who plot to take the lives
translated in various ways. Rather than taking “the of others. Throughout the Gospel, Luke has re-
one who has” and “the one who has not” in an turned to the theme of the fulfillment of Scripture
absolute sense as references to the “haves” and in the events of Jesus’ life (see 2:23; 7:27; 18:31;
the “have nots,” it is better to translate the verse 19:46; 20:17; 21:22; 24:44, 46). Isaiah 53:12 will
as the NRSV, the NIV, and most other translations be graphically fulfilled when Jesus is crucified
do. Anyone who has a purse or a bag should take between two criminals (23:32). The principle un-
it. Nothing is said about sandals. Instead, a new derlying Jesus’ point is stated elsewhere: The
third element is introduced. Anyone who does disciple will be like the teacher (6:40), so “you
not have a sword should sell his or her cloak and will be hated by all because of my name” (21:17).
buy one; the sword was evidently standard equip- Jesus warns the disciples to be ready for persecu-
ment for a traveler. tion, not revolution. |
The instruction to buy a sword has prompted The end of v. 37 can again be read variously
a great deal of discussion among commentators. _as “what is written about me is being fulfilled”
As a basic principle, interpreters should take care “(NRSV), or “all that concerns me comes now to
not to pile up assumptions or take an obscure its end.”*°4 The latter reproduces the Greek liter-
reference as evidence for something that is not ally; the former picks up on the preceding quota-
supported by other references in the Gospel. The tionof Scripture.
immediate context is a change in instructions for Just as earlier the disciples showed that they
the disciples as they carry out their mission. Just did not understand about true greatness (vv.
as they will need a purse, bag, or sandals, so also 24-27), so also now they show that they do not
they will need a sword. Jesus is not preparing to understand Jesus’ call for redemptive self-sacri-
launch an armed revolt, however; there is no fice. They hear not his appeal to the suffering
evidence of Zealot sentiment in his teachings. servant passage but his call to buy a sword. Two
Neither is Jesus instructing the disciples to take of them apparently already have swords. Jesus’
arms to prevent his arrest. The sword carried by reply is ironic and dismissive: “It is enough.” The
a traveler was for self-defense. disciples have not understood, and perhaps could
Readers have often made the same mistake that not then understand. Jesus would not try further
the disciples make in the story. They have thought to prepare them for the coming crisis. His com-
that Jesus was condoning their instinct to fight, ment is not only a reply to their eager production
to advance the cause of the kingdom by taking of two swords, but it also brings the discourse to
up arms. Jesus explains his instructions by appeal- a close and prepares for the change of scene in
ing not to the holy war commands of the OT but the next verse.
instead to a phrase from the suffering servant texts
in Isaiah: “because he poured out himself to 284. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X—XXIV), 1428.
REFLECTIONS
Verse 36 presents a command from the Lord, but there is no evidence that the early church
ever followed it. If the disciples originally took literally Jesus’ command to buy a sword, his
final comment, “It is enough,” discouraged them from ever seeking to arm themselves. There
is no mention anywhere in Acts that the disciples ever took swords with them when they
traveled, even when they traveled in dangerous areas.
The sword is the weapon of the Gentiles (21:24); it is the weapon of the minions of Satan,
“the power of darkness” that comes out to arrest Jesus (22:52-53). When his disciples wield
the sword, Jesus says, “No more of this,” and heals the one who was struck (22:50-51). For
further reflections on the role of the sword in the NT, we may note that James the brother
of John was killed with a sword (Acts 12:2), and the horseman who takes peace from the
earth carries a sword (Rev 6:4). According to the Gospel of John, Jesus himself was pierced
with a spear (19:34), so when the Lamb of God appears in Revelation riding on a white horse,
his robe has been dipped in blood, apparently his own (Rev 19:13), and his sword is the word
that comes from his mouth (Rev 19:15). The Lord would not take the sword by its handle;
instead he was pierced by its point. It was not his weapon but that of Satan, and one who
chooses to fight with Satan’s weapons has already lost:
If you kill with the sword,
with the sword you must be killed.
Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.
(Rev 13:10 NRSV)
LUKE 22:39-46, PRAYING FOR SFRENGTH AND

DELIVERANCE
NIV NRSV
Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of 39He came out and went, as was his custom,
Olives, and his disciples followed him. *°On reach- to the Mount of Olives; and the disciples followed
ing the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will him. ““When he reached the place, he said to
not fall into temptation.” 4!'He withdrew about a them, “Pray that you may not come into the time
stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and of trial.” 4'Then he withdrew from them about
prayed, *?“Father, if you are willing, take this cup a stone’s throw, knelt down, and prayed, *“Fa-
from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” ther, if you are willing, remove this cup from me;
“An angel from heaven appeared to him and yet, not my will but yours be done.” [[*?Then an
strengthened him. “And being in anguish, he angel from heaven appeared to him and gave him
prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like strength. “In his anguish he prayed more ear-
drops of blood falling to the ground.? nestly, and his sweat became like great drops of
45When he rose from prayer and went back to blood falling down on the ground.|? “When he
the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted got up from prayer, he came to the disciples and
from sorrow. *°“Why are you sleeping?” he asked found them sleeping because of grief, “°and he said
them. “Get up and pray so that you will not fall to them, “Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray
into temptation.” that you may not come into the time of trial.”°
a44 Some early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44. aOr into temptation >Other ancient authorities lack verses 43
and 44 cOr into temptation
(COMMENTARY
After the discourse around the table, Jesus leads Gospel of John, however, Jesus does not pray in
the disciples out to the Mount of Olives. This unit the garden, and no NT document reports that
challenges us to read Luke without introducing Jesus went to the Garden of Gethsemane. Mat-
motifs from the other Gospel accounts. It also offers thew and Mark say he went to Gethsemane, and
an interesting example of the way in which struc- John says he went to a garden; hence, tradition
ture, plot, and textual criticism are interrelated. speaks of “the Garden of Gethsemane.” But Luke
All who know the gospel story are familiar with has neither a garden nor Gethsemane—Jesus
Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. In the went out to the Mount of Olives, “as was his
431
custom” (cf. 21:37). This difference alone alerts and the Father). Both develop significant plot lines
the reader to respect the distinctiveness of Luke’s in the larger structure of the Gospel.
version of this part of the story. Upon examination of the chiastic structure,
Part of that distinctiveness is conveyed by the another clue to the plot of the story becomes
relationship between the plot and the structure of evident. Nothing in the first part corresponds to
this unit. Various interpreters have noted that the the references to sleep in the second part. Jesus
story employs a chiastic structure:?® warns the disciples to pray that they might be
delivered, but they fall asleep. Therefore, the unit
A He said to them, “Pray that you may not contains two related plots that take place “a
come into the time of trial” (NRSV; “into stone’s throw” apart: Jesus prays for deliverance,
temptation,” NIV) if it be the Father’s will; and Jesus instructs the
B Then he withdrew from them disciples to pray that they may be delivered. Both
C knelt down, and prayed petitions fail. It will not be the Father’s will to
D “Father, if you are willing, remove remove the cup of suffering from Jesus, and the
this cup from me; yet, not my will disciples fall asleep—they will not be spared
but yours be done” either.
Luke’s report that Jesus went out to the Mount of
C’ When he got up from prayer
Olives “as was his custom” picks up the reference to
B’ he came to the disciples and found them
‘the Mount of Olives in 21:37 and explains how Judas
sleeping because of grief
knew where they would be. Luke omits Mark
A’ and he said to them, “Why are you sleep-
14:26-31, which contains the forecast of Peter’s
ing? Get up and pray that you may not
denial, because that prediction is placed back in the
come into the time of trial.” (NRSV; “into
discourse at the table (vv. 31-34). Mark uses the
temptation,” NIV)
Gethsemane scene to reveal the final failure of the
disciples to follow Jesus. Mark also features the “inner
As this scheme illustrates, after the introductory
three” (Peter, James, and John), who are named as a
verse (39-40a), the rest of the story follows a group at the raising of Jairus’s daughter and the trans-
chiastic structure if the textual variant (vv. 43-44) figuration in Luke (8:51; 9:28), but not here. Three times
is left out. Structure alone is not a sufficient basis Jesus tells the disciples to watch and pray in Mark; then
for deciding the merits of the textual variant, but three times he finds them asleep. When Jesus is arrested,
in this case it is one factor in the argument. they flee. Luke softens the failure of the disciples by
Clearly, Jesus’ admonition to the disciples, “Pray having Jesus return to find them sleeping only once
that you may not enter into the time of trial rather than three times and by adding the. peculiar
[temptation],” forms an inclusio, marking the be- explanatory phrase “because of grief,” in v. 45. Corre-
ginning and end of the unit. When we compare spondingly, Luke also adds the statement that “the
Luke with Mark, we find that Jesus’ admonition disciples followed him” (v. 39), just as they had been
to the disciples appears only once in Mark, at the called to do (see 5:11, 27-28; 9:23, 57, 59, 61; 18:22,
end but not at the beginning of the story. Luke, 28, 43).
therefore, or the pre-Lukan tradition, has created The importance of prayer is another prevalent
the chiasm and the inclusio, part of which is theme in the Gospel of Luke. Jesus has prayed at
constructed by repeating this echo of the model many of the key moments of his ministry: his
prayer, “that you may not come into the time of baptism (3:21), early in his ministry (5:16), before
trial.” The words of Jesus’ prayer (v. 42) stand at appointing the disciples (6:12), before Peter’s con-
the center of the structure. Accordingly, one may fession (9:18), on the mount of transfiguration
either emphasize the beginning and end of the (9:28-29), before teaching his disciples about
unit (Jesus and the disciples) or the center (Jesus prayer (11:1-2), and while teaching the disciples
(18:1). Jesus also declared that the Temple should
285. John Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53, WBC 35C (Dallas: Word,
1993) 1081, cites Ehrman and Plunkett, Galizzi, and Stanley. Raymond
be “a house of prayer” (19:46). In the end, Jesus
E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1994) dies praying (23:34, 46), and as the risen Lord,
1:182-83, however, dismisses the chiastic structure as incidental. he is recognized when he prays (24:30-31). It is
432
entirely appropriate in Luke, therefore, that Jesus other ancient manuscripts, including apparently
should withdraw from the disciples to pray before sp. In addition, the insertion of these verses
facing the events that lead to his death. disrupts the chiastic structure sketched earlier
In Luke’s account, as we have seen, Jesus twice and injects an emphasis on Jesus’ emotion that
exhorts the disciples to pray “that you may not has been distinctly absent from the scene. It
come into the time of trial.” The phrase is subject appears, therefore, that these verses are an early
to two differing interpretations because the word gloss on the text that heightens Jesus’ agony
TELPAOLLOS (peirasmos) can mean either “trial” (contrary to the softening noted above) and
or “temptation.” Accordingly, Jesus may instruct emphasizes the immediate efficacy of prayer for
them to pray that they would be delivered from strength in a time of crisis.
the trial that lay ahead or from the temptation to Some of the language of this insertion, how-
succumb to evil in the midst of adversity. The ever, is at home in Luke. The expression “an
phrase itself echoes the closing petition of Luke’s angel appeared to him” is also found in 1:11,
form of the model prayer (11:4). and the phrase “from heaven” in 17:29 and
The primary subject of this scene is Jesus’ 21:11. The verb for “to strengthen” (evioxvw
prayer as he prepares for his impending death. enischyo) is found elsewhere in the NT only in
Jesus’ prayers here and on the cross in Luke Acts 9:19, and “to pray earnestly” (exTeveotepov
establish Jesus as the model for the Christian Tpooevéouat ektenesteron proseuchomai) has a
martyr. The prayer also demonstrates that Jesus close parallel in Acts 12:5. The phrase “in an-
did not seek or will his death. His desire to avoid guish” (Ev aywvia en agonia) does not occur
death indirectly underscores Jesus’ real humanity. elsewhere in Luke or Acts, and “sweat” (tdpus
He would choose some other course were it not hidros) and “drops” (8pdpBot thromboi) do not
for his greater devotion to the Father’s redemptive occur elsewhere in the NT.*°’ The latter phrase
does not mean that Jesus sweated blood, but that
purpose for his life.
his perspiration was as heavy as drops of blood.
The idiom for “kneeling” (Seis ta yovata theis
Justin Martyr (c. 150), the earliest source to cite
ta gonata), literally “placing the knees,” that is
this tradition, understands it in this way: “For in
used here is also found in Acts 7:60; 9:40; 20:36;
the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His
21:5. Luke omits the distinctive Aramaic term
apostles and those who followed them, [it is
‘Abba’, which is found in Mark 14:36, using
recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of
instead the vocative of “Father” (mdtep pater).
blood while he was praying and saying, ‘If it be
Moreover, whereas in Mark Jesus petitions, “For
possible, let this cup pass.’ ”28° The elements of
you all things are possible; remove this cup from these two verses have parallels in the OT and the
me,” Luke omits the first statement and prefaces Apocrypha: angelic strengthening of the faithful
the petition with the concession “If you will.” Just (Dan 10:13, 18) and the blood and sweat of a
as Jesus’ conflict with the disciples is softened in righteous sufferer (Eleazar in 4 Macc 6:6, 11;
Luke, so also is his petition to the Father. Almost 7:8).
as in John, the Lukan Jesus is completely devoted The subplot of this story revolves around Jesus’
to doing what the Father has given him to do. instruction to the disciples to pray and their failure
“The cup” (motyp.ov poterion) is a metaphorical to do so. As our analysis of the structure of the
reference to the suffering that lies ahead for him. passage revealed, the references to sleep have no
In the OT “the cup” is often associated with God’s parallel in the corresponding verses in the first
wrath (Ps 75:8; Isa 51:17, 22; Jer 25:15; 49:12; half of the chiasm. Luke softens the judgment on
Lam 4:21). In the Martyrdom of Polycarp (14.2) the disciples by commenting that they were sleep-
and the Martyrdom of Isaiah (5:13) the cup is a ing “because of grief,” but commentators have
metaphor for martyrdom. In the latter reference, generally noted that the explanation seems
the prophet says, “Only for me has God mixed
tiis.eup.-°° 287. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (XXXIV), AB
28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 1444.
Verses 43-44 are omitted in p7, x! A,B, and 288. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 103.5, in Alexander Roberts
and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1985) 1:251.
286. See Brown, The Death of the Messiah , 1:169.
433
strained. Again, Jesus repeats his command, “Get Jesus’ prayer is followed by a heavenly apparition
up and pray that you may not come into the time (see 1:8-12; 3:21-22; 9:28-32). Likewise, as at the
of trial.” The rhetorical effect is to exhort readers transfiguration; the disciples are overcome by
to imitate the example of Jesus rather than the sleep while Jesus prays. In this context, Jesus’
example of the disciples. In the end, Jesus has earlier words of exhortation to the disciples take
fortified himself through prayer for the suffering on added meaning: “Be alert at all times, praying
that lies before him, assuring himself that it is the that you may have the strength to escape all these
Father’s will, whereas the disciples have failed to things that will take place, and to stand before
do so. Their sleep is evidence of their failure to the Son of Man” (21:36). Thus Jesus’ example
be vigilant and pray in a time of trial. and the failure of the disciples on the Mount of
As at the annunciation of John the Baptist’s Olives serve as specific illustrations for the church
birth, Jesus’ baptism, and the transfiguration, of the importance of faithfulness and prayer in
therefore, at least with the inclusion of vv. 43-44, times of crisis.
REFLECTIONS
Prayer and devotion at times of physical and spiritual crisis have left a long trail of powerful
effects in Christian history. The death of a friend, a narrow escape from lightning, and anxiety
over his soul’s salvation led the young Martin Luther to feverish prayer and a driven search
for assurance of his salvation. On May 24, 1738, John Wesley heard Luther’s preface to his
Commentary on Romans read at the meeting of an Anglican society in Aldersgate Street,
London, and later reported, “I felt my heart strangely warmed.””
The book of Acts itself records the disciples’ experience of the power of the Spirit at
Pentecost after they followed Jesus’ instructions and devoted themselves to prayer (Acts
1:14). At the hour of prayer, Peter and John healed the lame man in the Temple (Acts
3:1). After the arrest and release of these two disciples, the church again prayed and was
filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the Word of God boldly (Acts 4:31). And so on many
other occasions in Acts.
However, prayer in times of crisis or need is hollow unless it is an extension of a reverence
for God in which we express thanks daily for God’s providence in our lives, open ourselves
to God’s presence, and intercede for others. Apart from the daily practice of prayer, the
injunction to pray for help in times of distress reduces prayer to another kind of insurance
policy—in time of need, or when there is no other resource, pray. .
Prayer is a matter of neither desperation nor luck. It is one of the ways in which believers
respond to the presence of God each day and seek direction from God. In truth, the injunction
to pray that we might be delivered from temptation or trial is part of the larger tapestry of
devotion to God. A balanced interpretation of the injunction would not deny the efficacy of
“fox hole” prayer but might say, “Pray without ceasing so that you may be open to God’s
power and sensitive to God’s Spirit in times of crisis.” Jesus’ instructions to the disciples on
the Mount of Olives not only echo the Lord’s Prayer, then—he assumes its regular practice.
289. Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, rev. ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959) 459. .
LUKE 22:47-53, THE ARREST OF JESUS

NIV NRSV
“"While he was still speaking a crowd came up, 47While he was still speaking, suddenly a
and the man who was called Judas, one of the crowd came, and the one called Judas, one of the
434
LUKE 22:47-53
NIV NRSV
Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus
to kiss him, **but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are to kiss him; “but Jesus said to him, “Judas, is it
you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” with a kiss that you are betraying the Son of
“When Jesus’ followers saw what was going Man?” “When those who were around him saw
to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with what was coming, they asked, “Lord, should we
our swords?” °°And one of them struck the ser- strike with the sword?” °°Then one of them struck
vant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. the slave of the high priest and cut off his right
‘But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And ear. *'But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he
he touched the man’s ear and healed him. touched his ear and healed him. °?Then Jesus said
Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the offi- to the chief priests, the officers of the temple
cers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had police, and the elders who had come for him,
come for him, “Am leading a rebellion, that you “Have you come out with swords and clubs as if
have come with swords and clubs? °Every day I I were a bandit? **When I was with you day after
was with you in the temple courts, and you did day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me.
not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour— But this is your hour, and the power of darkness!”
when darkness reigns.”
(COMMENTARY
“The time of trial” (v. 46) begins while Jesus was not recorded earlier, but must be conjectured.
is still speaking. The arrest of Jesus in Luke The naming of Judas here recalls Luke 22:3-6,
unfolds in an abridged version of the story in where Judas was introduced as one of the Twelve,
Mark, but one with several Johannine parallels. and where under the influence of Satan he made
Luke omits Mark’s description of the weapons, a pact with the chief priests and officers of the
the initial description of the crowd, the report of Temple. The attentive reader, therefore, already
the agreed upon sign, and Judas’s words to his has clues that Judas’is about to “betray him to
co-conspirators (Mark 14:43-44). Mark also omits them” (see 22:6).
Judas’s words to Jesus and the report that he 22:48. When Judas came near to Jesus to kiss
kissed Jesus (Mark 14:45), defers the capture of him, Jesus rebuffed him: “Judas, is it with a kiss that
Jesus to the end of the scene (cf. Mark 14:46), you are betraying the Son of Mane” (v. 48). The
and omits the flight of the disciples (Mark 14:50). question is found only in Luke among the Gospels,
In spite of the brevity of his account, Luke adds and its language recalls earlier references: a kiss as
details that have Johannine parallels: Jesus is in a greeting (7:45, but see Prov 27:6), the Son of Man
control of the entire scene; the disciple cuts off (see esp. 9:22, 44; 18:31-32; 22:22), and “betray”
the servant’s right ear (John 18:10); Jesus speaks (9:44; 18:32; 22:4, 6, 21-22). The event that Jesus
of the significance of the “hour” and “the power has predicted repeatedly is now coming to pass.
of darkness” (Luke 22:53); and in John there is Luke does not indicate that the kiss was a prear-
no flight of the disciples.?°° ranged signal, and it need not have been. Judas’s
22:47. Luke’s streamlined account of Jesus’ approach to Jesus would have been self-evident to
arrest emphasizes Jesus’ response to Judas, his his co-conspirators. Neither is it clear whether Judas
response to violence perpetrated by his followers, actually kissed Jesus. All attention is focused on the
and his response to the “trial” that has overtaken fulfillment of Judas’s role as the betrayer.
him. Luke makes note first of the arrival of the 22:49-51. Earlier, the disciples had taken Je-
crowd, then the presence of Judas leading them. sus’ instructions to buy a sword literally, and Jesus
The departure of Judas from the group of disciples had responded with resignation, “It is enough”
(22:38). Now, “those who were around him”—
1993) 1086.
presumably the disciples—ask whether they
435
should wield the sword. Again, the question is both the beginning and the end of this unit we
peculiar to Luke. One of them, here unnamed (cf. were told that “every day he was teaching in the
John 18:10), strikes the servant of the high priest temple.” Why had they not seized him then? It
and cuts off his right ear; only Luke and John was not because he was a /estes (\noTHs), a
specify that it was the right ear. Striking the “prigand,” a “bandit,” or a “violent man.” It was
servant of the high priest would have been an because they feared the people (19:48; 20:19;
affront to the high priest himself. Jesus’ response 22:2). They could not trap Jesus with an incrimi-
is immediate: “No more of this!” The kingdom is nating answer in the presence of the people
not advanced by violence, so the sword has no (20:26), so they had arranged an opportunity to
place in the church’s arsenal (cf. Eph 6:17; Rev seize him “when there was no crowd present”
13:10). Healing was characteristic of Jesus’ min- (22:6). The crowd that night was on their side
istry, especially in Luke, where the verb “to heal” (see 22:47). Their weapons were unnecessary.
(\dowat faomai) is used more frequently than in Jesus had rebuked the disciple who had thought
any other book of the NT (11 times). Luke
that armed resistance was the answer.
reports that “the power of the Lord was with
Judas had sought to kiss Jesus while betraying
him to heal” (5:17), and Jesus had sent the
him. Jesus had touched the servant of the high
disciples out “to proclaim the kingdom of God
priest to heal him. Now the authorities sought to
and to heal” (9:2). Touching is associated with
‘lay their hands on Jesus to arrest him (cf. 20:19;
healing in 5:13 and 8:43-48, and with blessing
22:53). How many different intentions can be
in 18:15. Even in the midst of his “trial,” there-
fore, Jesus continues to carry out his redemptive
conveyed by a touch!
mission, teaching the disciples and healing a man 22:53b. The time of Jesus’ “trial” had begun.
whom they had injured. It was their time, their “hour, and the power of
22:52-53a. Having addressed Judas and then darkness” (v. 53). Luke uses references to the
his disciples, Jesus turns to the three groups hour to characterize various events or periods in
represented in the arresting party: the chief Jesus’ ministry: the hour of incense offering
priests, the officers of the Temple, and the elders. (1:10), the time when Jesus healed many (7:21),
The listing of these groups recalls the groups of a time when Jesus rejoiced (10:21), the hour of
the authorities who opposed Jesus in the Temple the disciples’ trials (12:12), the hour when the
(19:47; 20:1, 19) and who were looking for an thief comes or the Son of Man comes (12:39-40,
opportunity to kill him (19:47; 22:2). Here the 46), the hour when the Pharisees warned Jesus
scribes have been dropped from the list and the about Herod (13:31), the time when the authori-
officers of the Temple have been added (as in ties desired to arrest him (20:19), and then the
22:4). Jesus’ question to the authorities is drawn hour of the Passover meal (22:14). Darkness has
from Mark 14:48-49 (cf. John 18:3). It underlines been used metaphorically in 1:79 and 11:35 (cf.
the incongruity of the situation. Were the chief 23:44). Likewise, the power of darkness can be
priests and elders carrying swords and clubs, as contrasted with the “power” (e€Eovoia exousia)
were the officers of the Temple? Did they really that Jesus claimed (4:32, 36; 5:24; 9:1; 10:19;
think that Jesus would respond with armed resis- 20:8). Brown observes, regarding the hour and
tance? By their own actions, paradoxically, they authority of Jesus and the hour and authority of
themselves were fulfilling the words of Isa 53:12: the devil: “The devil, who after testing Jesus at
“And [he] was numbered with the transgressors.” the beginning of the ministry [4:13] left him until
Perhaps they feared his followers, one of whom
‘an opportune time [katpds kairos],’ has at last
did indeed draw his sword. The reference to
nis hour?"
Jesus’ teaching in the Temple recalls the period
of teaching reported in 19:47-21:38, where at 291. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 293.
436
REFLECTIONS
1. The didactic overtones of this scene are not as strong as those of the previous one. The
clearest concern is again to reject violence as the means of accomplishing God’s purposes. The
foil for Jesus is the disciple who in the face of immediate threat and the treachery of Judas
unsheathes his sword to defend his master. Jesus’ last instruction to his disciples before his
arrest, therefore, is “No more of this!” No more retaliation, no more bloodshed, no more rule
by might, no more victimization of others. Even if the immediate goal is achieved by taking
the sword, the ultimate goal is lost. The disciples’ first compromise is to resist Satan’s minions
by fighting with Satan’s weapons. But when they do so they have already betrayed their cause.
2. More broadly, the betrayal and arrest of Jesus point to the failure of the disciples. The
steadfastness of Jesus and the impulsive act of the disciple (following the question of the others
in v. 49), paint a picture of clear contrasts. Even when those closest to him fail him in the
hour of his greatest trial, Jesus is firm in his conviction and purpose. Even when all about him
are losing their heads, Jesus never waivers.
Lest we be too hard on the disciples, however, we should also recognize their frustration.
Not only Jesus but they too had been betrayed by one of their own. Jesus knew of Judas’s
treachery in advance, but the disciples were caught by surprise. Their intent was to defend
Jesus, but there was really no way they could do so. The alliance of civil and religious authorities
controlled the situation. What do we do when our intent is good but there are no good means
at hand by which we can accomplish it? The disciples failed because they allowed frustration
and fear to lead them to violence. Jesus met the crisis with the recognition that this was the
hour of the power of darkness. There would be other hours, when the power of good would’
be victorious—Easter Sunday was coming. In this instance, faithfulness called for surrender
and self-sacrifice in the steadfast confidence that the end of the story has not yet been reached.
3. Ata deeper level, the story presents us with the paradox of human intention and divine
purpose. The disciples were frustrated and failed because they were not able to deliver Jesus
from his adversaries. The implication of Jesus’ passion predictions and his prayer in the previous
scene, however, is that God did not will for Jesus to be delivered from those who were seeking
his life. Hence, to have defended Jesus successfully would have meant that God’s will for these
events would not have been realized. Deliverance is achieved by failure, victory by dying rather
than killing, redemption by self-sacrifice rather than by conquest, life through death. Conse-
quently, the events at Jesus’ arrest are part and parcel of the paradox of the Christian gospel:
that the lost are saved by the death of Jesus.
LUKE 22:54-62, DENIALS IN THE COURTYARD

NIV NRSV
Then seizing him, they led him away and took 54Then they seized him and led him away,
him into the house of the high priest. Peter followed bringing him into the high priest’s house. But
at a distance. But when they had kindled a fire in Peter was following at a distance. **When they
the middle of the courtyard and had sat down had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard
together, Peter sat down with them. *°A servant girl and sat down together, Peter sat among them.
saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked 56Then a servant-girl, seeing him in the firelight,
closely at him and said, “This man was with him.” stared at him and said, “This man also was with
437
LUKE 22:54-62
NIV NRSV
s7But he denied it. “Woman, I don’t know him.” 5’But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do
him,” he said. not know him.” °*A little later someone else, on
58A little later someone else saw him and said, seeing him, said, “You also are one of them.” But
“You also are one of them.” Peter said, “Man, I am not!” °’Then about an
“Man, I am not!” Peter replied. hour later still another kept insisting, “Surely this
5°About an hour later another asserted, “Cer- man also was with him; for he is a Galilean.”
tainly this fellow was with him, for he is a “But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you
Galilean.” are talking about!” At that moment, while he was
Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what still speaking, the cock crowed. °'The Lord turned
you’re talking about!” Just as he was speaking, and looked at Peter. Then Peter remembered the
the rooster crowed. °'The Lord turned and looked word of the Lord, how he had said to him,
straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the “Before the cock crows today, you will deny me
word the Lord had spoken to him: “Before the three times.” “And he went out and wept bitterly.
rooster crows today, you will disown me three
times.” °*And he went outside and wept bitterly. :
(COMMENTARY
The arrest of Jesus introduces three related scenes: people (the servant girl and two men), and the
Peter’s denials of Jesus (vv. 54-62); the mocking of cock crows only once, not twice.
Jesus (vv. 63-65); and the trial before the religious The hour and the power of darkness (v. 53)
authorities (vv. 66-71). The story of Peter in the overtake Peter also. Jesus warned Peter that Satan
courtyard denying Jesus three times is distinctive had demanded to sift him like wheat (22:31). Peter
because for eight verses of the passion narrative the follows Jesus, as he had pledged he would (see
Gospel focuses not on Jesus but on Peter. Three times 22:33, 54), but in the end he denies Jesus, just as
Peter denies that he knows Jesus, then the cock Jesus had predicted as well. The events take place
crows, and Peter remembers that Jesus had told him in darkness, before the trial. Jesus is led to the house
that he would deny Jesus (22:31-34). of the high priest, where Jesus is evidently held in
Although all four Gospels record the story of the courtyard until daybreak (v. 66). Peter’s move-
Peter’s denials, Luke’s account is unique in the ments foreshadow his denials: He follows Jesus, but
following respects: (1) sequence: the three denials at a distance, and when the captors build a fire,
take place immediately after Peter enters the Peter sits with them. The servant girl sees Peter in
courtyard and before the mocking and interroga- the firelight and peers at him closely. Presumably
tion of Jesus by the authorities; (2) structure: Luke she had seen Peter with Jesus either at the arrest
does not use a sandwiching technique as do the or earlier in the Temple. The accusations are that
other Gospels, (a) introducing Peter, (b) reporting Peter was with Jesus or that he was “one of
the trial, and (a’) relating Peter’s denials; (3) style: them”—guilt by association. The third time an
Luke writes freely—the only verbal parallels are added reason for suspicion is leveled against Peter:
those that might be expected in any retelling of Either his dress or his accent gives him away as a
the story; and (4) detail: the servant girl is seated Galilean. Each time, Peter denies that he knows
at the fire (where she can see Peter clearly); Peter Jesus: “Woman, I do not know him” (v. 57); “Man,
prefaces each denial with an address, “woman” I am not” {v. 58); “Man, I do not know what you
the first time and “man” the second and third are talking about!” (v. 60).
times; about an hour elapses between the second Following the threefold denials, Luke records a
and third denials; and when the cock crows, Jesus double dénouement. First, the cock crows, and
turns and makes eye contact with Peter. Unlike then Jesus looks at Peter. The end of the story
Mark, in Luke Peter is accused by three different comes as suddenly as a trap closing around its
438
victim. Luke here uses the term “suddenly” repeatedly taken the edge off of Mark’s portrayal
(Tapaxphya parachrema; NRSV, “at that mo- of their failure to understand or follow Jesus, it is
ment”). The same term is used nine other times not surprising that this story should end with
in the Gospel and six times in Acts (elsewhere in Peter’s bitter remorse. Peter’s tears indicate that
the NT it occurs only twice in Matthew). Luke Jesus’ prayers have been answered. Not only did
has also used the clause “while he was still Peter deny Jesus, as he had said Peter would, but
speaking” earlier to mark sudden developments also Peter’s turning was announced earlier
(8:49; 22:47). The use of the aorist participle of (22:32). At Jesus’ calling of Peter to discipleship,
the verb “to turn” (otpédw strepho) is another Peter had warned Jesus that he was “a sinful
typically Lukan narrative device (7:9, 44; 9:55; man” (5:8), but Jesus’ commission for Peter over-
G2 2-23; 14:25; 22:61; 23:28). rode Peter’s confession: “From now on you will
Three verbs characterize Peter’s response: be catching people” (5:10). Peter, therefore, fulfills
he “remembered” (utroptpvpjoKw Aypomimnesko), both his own self-assessment and Jesus’ calling for
he “went” out (€€épxopat exerchomai), and he him. At this point in Luke-Acts, the first has been
“wept” (kAaiw klaio) bitterly. Although Jesus’ fulfilled, and evidence of the eventual fulfillment of
words in v. 61 are recalled as a direct quotation, the second has been provided in the mission ac-
they reproduce only the substance of 22:34 rather counts in Luke 9-10. The one who failed will fish
than repeating it verbatim. In Luke it is the again. Readers familiar with the Gospel of John will
combination of the cockcrow and the Lord’s look remember that the story of the miraculous catch of
that causes Peter to remember. Verse 62 is a fish, which in Luke marks the calling of Peter to
verbatim parallel to Matt 26:75, which has sug- discipleship, occurs in John 21 as a post-resurrection
gested to some interpreters that Luke had a sec- appearance scene in which Peter is restored to
ond account of the event. Because Luke has discipleship and commissioned to “feed my sheep.”
REFLECTIONS
Failure comes in many forms, but we never fail our Lord without failing ourselves, and
when we fail ourselves in some sense we always fail our Lord, because God calls us to be
our best selves and reach our highest personal and spiritual potential. Peter succumbed to one
of the most basic of human instincts—self-preservation. On our scale of needs, survival, physical
safety, and security rank as the most basic. Self-esteem, loyalty to others, and faithfulness to
our commitments come much later. The call to faith, as Peter learned from painful experience,
can at times call us to reverse the natural order of our hierarchy of needs and attend to higher
callings rather than to instinctual impulses.
Failure can come in many guises. Judas plotted to betray Jesus and then shamelessly
approached him to kiss him. Whatever Judas’s motivation, his act was calculated and
premeditated. He planned his act of betrayal. Peter, by contrast, was trying to follow Jesus
(see v. 54). Although repeated three times, his act was not premeditated but spontaneous.
Like the disciple who lashed out with his sword to prevent Jesus’ arrest (identified as Peter
in John 18:10), Peter’s response to the moment was unplanned. Had he given more thought
to what his commitments and intentions would have meant for him in that moment, he might
have acted differently. But who can anticipate such eventualities?
Peter feared exposure. His life may have been at stake. Guilt by association may have been
guilt enough. He would either be guilty in the eyes of the authorities or guilty in the eyes of
his Lord. His actions showed that his fear of the authorities dominated, but his failure and
remorse stand as a lesson for others who face trials as real and dangerous as Peter’s. In Luke’s
hands, therefore, the story of Peter’s denials is a lesson in discipleship: Be prepared for the
hour of testing so that you may not fail as Peter did. Peter, who was ready to go with Jesus
to prison and to death (22:33), fails before the trial begins.
439
Until the end of the story, nothing is reported of the characters’ inner feelings. Even then,
nothing is said about Jesus’ response. We are simply told that he looked at Peter. What is
conveyed in a look? Criticism, condemnation, or compassion? Jesus could take no pleasure in
the fulfillment of his warning to Peter, and even if Jesus’ look conveyed compassion rather
than judgment, it could scarcely have been much comfort to Peter at that moment.
The reader’s position is clear. In this story anyone who has any degree of self-understanding
will see himself or herself in Peter’s failure. How easy it is to slip, to fail our best intentions and
our truest commitments. How quickly we can betray and hurt the persons we love. In such
situations we can do no better than follow Peter’s response. He recognized that he had failed and
made his way down the road of remorse and repentance, which would lead to his restoration.
LUKE 22:63-65, THE CHALLENGE TO PROPHESY

NIV NRSV
‘The men who were guarding Jesus began 63Now the men who were holding Jesus began
mocking and beating him. *They blindfolded him to mock him and beat him; “they also blindfolded
and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” °And him and kept asking him, “Prophesy! Who is it
they said many other insulting things to him. that struck you?” They kept heaping many other
insults on him.
(COMMENTARY
Ironically, immediately after the fulfillment of had counted the cost, and still he was mocked
Jesus’ prophecy that Peter would deny him three (cf. 14:29).
times, his captors begin to mock and torment him Luke uses the verb “to beat” (S€pw dero) five
by challenging him to prophesy. In contrast to the times, more often than any other book of the NT.
order in Mark, in Luke this mockery of Jesus Two of the other references occur in the parable
occurs after Peter’s denials and before the trial, of the wicked tenants who beat the servants sent
which occurs in the morning rather than during by the owner of the vineyard (20:10-11; cf. 12:47-
the night. Those involved are identified only 48). The scribes and chief priests realized that
obliquely as “the men who were holding Jesus.” Jesus had told this parable about them, but now
Luke may intend that they were servants or they have begun to enact their part without
soldiers or that they were a group of the authori- realizing it.
ties listed in v. 52. The vicious game of blind man’s buff continues
The verbs used in this brief scene tie it to the with the men blindfolding Jesus and taunting him,
passion predictions and other significant contexts “Prophesy!” The taunt is a bitter irony. Luke has
in the Gospel. First, the men’s cruel game is established Jesus as one greater than a prophet.
characterized as mockery. In one of the passion At the annunciations, the angel promised that
predictions, Jesus had warned that he would be John would fulfill the role of Elijah (1:17), but
handed over to Gentiles, mocked, insulted, and Jesus would be greater. Concentrated attention is
spat upon (18:32). The present scene is the first given to clarifying the relationship between Jesus
of three occasions in the Lukan passion narrative and John in Luke 7, and again Jesus is hailed as
in which this prediction will be fulfilled. Jesus is one greater than a prophet (7:18-35). Jesus had
mocked before the Jewish trial (22:63), before given repeated predictions of the events of his
Herod and his soldiers (23:11), and before the passion, and they were unfolding as he had said
soldiers at the cross (23:36). Here was a king who they would. Jerusalem was about to kill another
440
prophet (13:34; cf. 24:19). Jesus had told his ing at all. He is deprived even of his voice in this
disciples that one of them would betray him and scene. Earlier, Jesus had warned that those who
that Peter would deny him, and Luke has just blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will not be
related the fulfillment of those predictions; even forgiven (12:10). Now Luke characterizes the acts
the men’s act of mockery had been predicted. of those who mock Jesus and the taunt of the
The final verb of note in these verses is the criminal on the cross (23:39) as blasphemy. At its
one Luke uses in v. 65 to characterize the whole root, blasphemy is the act of scorning the sacred.
scene of the mockery: for him it is blasphemy. Who would dare to taunt God or challenge the
Moreover, while they blaspheme, Jesus says noth- Lord to prophesy?
REFLECTIONS
The story of Jesus blindfolded in a dark courtyard surrounded by his captors, who make
sport of him, is as hard for us to relate to as are the accounts of senseless violence that are
reported daily. Parents abuse their children, children kill other children, gang members live
and die by violence, and deranged gunmen Kill indiscriminately. Who can understand such
violence? Yet, the Gospel affirms that Jesus himself suffered from the impulse of fallen humanity
to take advantage of the powerless and to exploit the victim.
Jesus died a redemptive death. His solution to the problem of violence was not to attempt
to overcome it with more violence but to absorb it in suffering love. Perhaps only one who
is divine can redeem the violent in this way, but from time to time spiritual leaders have
succeeded in following Jesus’ example in the exercise of redemptive non-violence. Jesus not
only suffered for us but he also suffered to teach us how to overcome the violent and corruptive
impulses within us and within our society. This, too, was a part of Jesus’ proclamation of the
coming of kingdom.
LUKE 22:66-71, JESUS BEFORETHE SANHEDRIN

NIV NRSV
6°At daybreak the council of the elders of the 66When day came, the assembly of the elders
people, both the chief priests and teachers of the of the people, both chief priests and scribes,
law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. gathered together, and they brought him to their
97“If you are the Christ,” they said, “tell us.” council. °’They said, “If you are the Messiah,’ tell
Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not us.” He replied, “If I tell you, you will not believe;
believe me, “and if I asked you, you would not 68and if I question you, you will not answer. But
answer. °But from now on, the Son of Man will from now on the Son of Man will be seated at
be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” the right hand of the power of God.” °All of them
asked, “Are you, then, the Son of God?” He said
70They all asked, “Are you then the Son of
to them, “You say that I am.” 7'Then they said,
God?”
“What further testimony do we need? We have
He replied, “You are right in saying I am.”
heard it ourselves from his own lips!”
Then they said, “Why do we need any more
testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.” aOr the Christ
467 Or Messiah -
441
(COMMENTARY
In Luke’s arrangement, Jesus’ appearance be- Christ (9:20), but Jesus had ordered the disciples
fore the Sanhedrin comes third in the sequence not to tell anyone. The royal overtones of the title
of scenes, following the denials by Peter and the are again evident in the questions regarding the
mockery in the courtyard. The proceedings have relationship of the Christ to David (20:41-44).
less of the air of a formal trial in Luke than in 22:67b-68. Jesus’ answer is evasive and non-
Mark. There are no other witnesses, no recitation committal. In that context, he can neither affirm nor
of the saying about the destruction of the Temple, deny the title. Instead, he points to the obduracy of
and no formal verdict. It appears, therefore, to be the council. They have put the question to him, but
a hearing to prepare charges against Jesus for the they would not accept his answer if he were to
Roman court rather than a formal trial. After the respond forthrightly. Neither would they answer
council is assembled and Jesus is brought to it, him if he questioned them—as he had done when
they ask Jesus two christological questions, the they confronted him in the Temple and they refused
first involving the title “Christ” (Messiah), and the to answer (see 20:5-8, 26, 40).
second “the Son of God.” Both titles are important 22:69, Jesus himself introduces a third title, just
in the other Gospels. At least, according to some as earlier he had deflected Peter’s confession that
manuscripts, Mark opens with the line, “The Jesus was the Christ by teaching them about the
beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of Man (see 9:20-22). Now what he had said
Son of God” (Mark 1:1 NRSV), and John 20 about the Son of Man was in the process of coming
concludes with a statement of the Gospel’s pur- to pass—he was being rejected by the elders, the
pose that again uses the two titles: “But these are chief priests, and the scribes—the same three groups
written so that you may come to believe that Jesus of whom he had spoken on that occasion (cf. 9:22;
is the Messiah, the Son of God” (John 20:31 22:06}. As Jesus looks ahead, he affirms that the
NRSV; cf. 11:27), Son of Man will be seated “at the right hand of the
22:66. In Luke and Acts, the council convenes power of God.” This declaration evokes the well-
early in the morning (see Acts 4:3; 5:21-22). The known references in Dan 7:13, “one like a son of
assembled group is composed of the elders, chief man” (NIV) coming to “the Ancient One,” and Ps
priests, and scribes. Luke has recorded the ma- 110:1, seated at the “right hand.”
neuverings of the chief priests and scribes in 22:70. From this affirmation, the council
several earlier passages (19:47; 20:1, 19; 22:2). draws the conclusion that Jesus is claiming to be
The elders have appeared earlier in 20:1 and the Son of God. Again, they seek incriminating
22:52, but here it is the council or assembly of words from Jesus by challenging him to, claim this
the elders (cf. Acts 22:5). Jesus is not interrogated title. The title “Son of God” is not used frequently
by the chief priest (as in Mark 14:61) but by the in Luke and has not appeared in the text since
indefinite “they.” chap. 9. This reference, however, is the climactic
22:67a. The stratagem of the council seems one that demonstrates why the title could not be
to be to goad Jesus into incriminating himself. used openly. At the annunciation, Jesus was des-
Luke’s interests, of course, are christological, so ignated the Son of God (1:35), and his identity
both questions involve titles that have already was confirmed by the voice from heaven at his
been clearly established for the reader. First, they baptism (3:22) and at the transfiguration (9:35).
challenge Jesus to tell them if he is the Messiah. Although the devil tempted Jesus to prove his
In popular expectations, the Messiah would have power as the Son of God (4:3, 9) and the demons
been a royal figure who would deliver Israel from proclaimed his identity (4:41; 8:28), no one con-
foreign oppressors. Such a confession, then, might fesses Jesus as the Son of God in Luke. Ironically,
have been useful before the Roman court. At his the council infers correctly that what Jesus has
birth, Jesus was announced as the Christ (2:11, said about the Son of Man means that he is—or
26), and the demons knew that he was the Christ at least understands that he is—the Son of God,
(4:41). Later, Peter confessed that Jesus was the but they will not accept their own conclusion.
442
Jesus offers an equivocal response: “You say 22:71. The conclusion of the hearing before the
that I am.” He neither denies their deduction nor council underscores the weakness of their case
openly affirms it. The formula “I am” (éyci eiut against Jesus. All they have is Jesus’ equivocal ac-
ego eimi) is used in the Gospel of John in an ceptance of their unbelieving confession that he is
absolute sense that echoes the divine name revealed the Son of God. They said that they did not need
to Moses at the burning bush (Exod 3:14). The any other testimony (cf. the false witnesses in Mark
Lukan use of “I am” does not have such overtones 14:57-59)}. Instead, the disciples would be the wit-
(21:8; 24:39). Nevertheless, when Jesus replies, nesses “of these things” (24:48; Acts 1:8).
“You say that I am,” the reader may recall that Peter
denied Jesus, saying, “I am not” (22:58).
REFLECTIONS
Once again, these verses declare who Jesus is. Three titles are used: the Messiah, the Son
of Man, and the Son of God. Yet, even though the authorities heard Jesus’ testimony from
his own lips, they would not believe. Later, we will hear that at least one member of the
council was receptive (Joseph of Arimathea, 23:50-51), but the opposition to Jesus forces on
us the question of why some reject God’s self-disclosure. Here is the “heart of darkness,” the
irredeemable refusal to respond to God’s mercy and God’s unwavering commitment to human
freedom. God grants us freedom even to reject God’s own love and mercy. The Son of God
would lay down his life to redeem those who opposed him, but God would not refuse them
the freedom to oppose him. What love is this that will neither cease to love nor overrule our
freedom to reject that love?
The one who was mocked and beaten, moreover, is also the one who will sit “at the right
hand of the power of God” (v. 69). The paradox of love and freedom is matched by that of
humiliation and exaltation. The sovereign Lord is also the one who was blindfolded and beaten.
The juxtaposition of the mocking of Jesus and the questioning of his messiahship foreshadows
that Jesus will, indeed, triumph in spite of those who sought to kill him. The Lord we worship
has identified with the rejected and despised.
LUKE? 311225, JESUSATRIAL BEFORE: PIDADE

NIV NRSV
Then the whole assembly rose and led him US the assembly rose as a body and
y off to Pilate. And they began to accuse brought Jesus? before Pilate. 7They began
him, saying, “We have found this man subverting to accuse him, saying, “We found this man per-
our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Cae- verting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to
sar and claims to be Christ,* a king.” the emperor, and saying that he himself is the
3$o Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Messiah, a king.”° °Then Pilate asked him, “Are
Jews?” you the king of the Jews?” He answered, “You
“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. say so.” “Then Pilate said to the chief priests and
4Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the the crowds, “I find no basis for an accusation
crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.” against this man.” °But they were insistent and
SBut they insisted, “He stirs up the people all said, “He stirs up the people by teaching through-
over Judea? by his teaching. He started in Galilee out all Judea, from Galilee where he began even
and has come all the way here.” to this place.”
5 Or over the land of the Jews aGk him 6Or is an anointed king
a2 Or Messiah; also in verses 35 and 39
443
“BLOKE 23:45
NRSV
°On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was 6When Pilate heard this, he asked whether the
a Galilean. 7When he learned that Jesus was under man was a Galilean. 7And when he learned that
Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who he was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him
was also in Jerusalem at that time. off to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at
8When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly that time. °When Herod saw Jesus, he was very
pleased, because for a long time he had been glad, for he had been wanting to see him for a
wanting to see him. From what he had heard long time, because he had heard about him and
about him, he hoped to see him perform some was hoping to see him perform some sign. ’He
miracle. °He plied him with many questions, but questioned him at some length, but Jesus? gave
Jesus gave him no answer. '°The chief priests and him no answer. !°The chief priests and the scribes
the teachers of the law were standing there, stood by, vehemently accusing him. ''Even. Herod
vehemently accusing him. ''Then Herod and his with his soldiers treated him with contempt and
soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him mocked him; then he put an elegant robe on him,
in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. and sent him back to Pilate. '*That same day
"That day Herod and Pilate became friends—be- Herod and Pilate became friends with each other;
fore this they had been enemies. before this they had been enemies.
'SPilate called together the chief priests, the 13Pilate then called together the chief priests,
rulers and the people, ‘and said to them, “You the leaders, and the people, '4and said to them,
brought me this man as one who was inciting the “You brought me this man as one who was
people to rebellion. | have examined him in your perverting the people; and here I have examined
presence and have found no basis for your charges him in your presence and have not found this
against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him man guilty of any of your charges against him.
back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing 'SNeither has Herod, for he sent him back to us.
to deserve death. '°Therefore, I will punish him Indeed, he has done nothing to deserve death. I
and then release him.2” will therefore have him flogged and release him.”°
'8With one voice they cried out, “Away with 18Then they all shouted out together, “Away
this man! Release Barabbas to us!” '°(Barabbas had with this fellow! Release Barabbas for us!” !%(This
been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the Was a man who had been put in prison for an
city, and for murder.) insurrection that had taken place in the city, and
2°Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to for murder.) 7°Pilate, wanting to release Jesus,
them again. ?'But they kept shouting, “Crucify addressed them again; ?'but they kept shouting,
him! Crucify him!” “Crucify, crucify him!” 22A third time he said to
22For the third time he spoke to them: “Why? them, “Why, what evil has he done? I have found
What crime has this man committed? I have in him no ground for the sentence of death; I will
found in him no grounds for the death penalty. therefore have him flogged and then release him.”
Therefore | will have him punished and then But they kept urgently demanding with loud
release him.” shouts that he should be crucified; and their
*3But with loud shouts they insistently de- voices prevailed. *4So Pilate gave his verdict that
manded that he be crucified, and their shouts their demand should be granted. *°He released the
prevailed. *4So Pilate decided to grant their de- man they asked for, the one who had been put
mand. *°He released the man who had been in prison for insurrection and murder, and he
thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, handed Jesus over as they wished.
the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to aCk he Here, or after verse 19, other ancient authorities add
their will. verse 17, Now he was obliged to release someone for them at the
festival
216 Some manuscripts him.” /7Now he was obliged to release one
man to them at the Feast.
444
LUKE 23:1-25 COMMENTARY “
COMMENTARY
The maneuverings of the religious authorities to had been looking for “the consolation of Israel”
put Jesus to death now move to a second stage as (2:25), recognized that Jesus was the one sent to
they deliver Jesus to Pilate and press Pilate for a fulfill the promise of “glory to your people Israel”
guilty verdict. The drama takes place in five scenes: (2:32). Even at the last supper, Jesus had promised
(1) Pilate’s first declaration of Jesus’ innocence (23:1- the disciples that they would “sit on thrones
5); (2) Jesus’ appearance before Herod (23:6-12); (3) judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (22:30). Jesus’
Pilate’s second declaration of Jesus’ innocence accusers were right in seeing that Jesus’ work had
(23:13-16); (4) Pilate’s third declaration of Jesus’ implications for the nation of Israel, but what was
innocence (23:18-22); and (5) Pilate’s capitulation in fact redemption they saw as perversion.
to the crowd (23:23-25). Jesus has been “rejected Moreover, Luke has also prepared the reader
by the elders, chief priests, and scribes” (9:22) and to see that the two substantiating charges are false.
is now handed over to “human hands” (9:44), When the scribes and chief priests had asked Jesus
indeed “to the Gentiles” (18:32). The effect of this whether they should pay taxes, he had affirmed that
five-part episode is to show that Jesus was innocent they should do so (20:25). The relationship be-
of the political charges brought against him. Less tween the terms “Messiah” (yptotd6s christos)
explicit but no less important is the sub-theme that and “king” (Bao.rets basileus) at the end of v.
God’s redemptive purposes are being accomplished 2 is sufficiently ambiguous that various transla-
in spite of the travesty of Jesus’ trial. The events of tions are possible: “the Messiah, a king” (NRSV),
Jesus’ betrayal and death are unfolding just as Jesus “Christ, a king” (NIV), or “an anointed king”
had predicted. (Fitzmyer). At his birth, Jesus was announced by
23:1-5, Pilate’s First Declaration of Jesus’ the heavenly chorus as “a Savior, who is the
Innocence. The first verse marks the transition Messiah, the Lord” (2:11; cf. 2:26; 4:41). The title
from the previous scene to the trial before Pilate. “king” is not ascribed to Jesus until he approaches
Notable is Luke’s comment that the whole San- Jerusalem. Then, he tells a story about a grasping,
worldly king (19:11-27), following which his disci-
hedrin, acting as a body, delivered Jesus to Pilate.
ples hail him, corresponding to the angelic chorus
Luke has noted on earlier occasions that the
at his birth with the words:
scribes and Pharisees were looking for charges
they could bring against Jesus (6:7; 11:54); now “Blessed is the king
they accuse him of sedition. Whereas the interro- who comes in the name of the Lord!
gation before the Sanhedrin had primarily con- Peace in heaven,
and glory in the highest heaven!” (19:38)
cerned religious matters, specifically Jesus’
messiahship, the charges reported to Pilate are Thereafter, Jesus responds to the political over-
political. Although v. 2 may be read as containing tones of the expectation of a messiah who would
three separate charges (perverting the nation, for- be “David’s son” (cf. 1:32-33) by citing Ps 110:1
bidding the payment of taxes, and proclaiming (see 20:41-44). To his disciples he had explicitly
himself to be a king), the latter two charges renounced the ways of “the kings of the Gentiles”
probably define and substantiate the first. Jesus is, (22:25-27). Unlike such kings, Jesus worked
therefore, accused of sedition, the proof of which among them “as one who serves” (22:27). As
is his teaching regarding the payment of taxes and Luke tells it, when the Sanhedrin interrogated
his statements regarding his messiahship. Jesus about his messiahship (22:67), therefore,
From the beginning of the Gospel, Luke inter- they were looking for grounds to charge him with
preted God’s work in John the Baptist and Jesus treason. They had failed to see that Jesus was the
as fulfillment of the divine purposes for Israel. promised “savior,” not a political schemer.
John was sent to “turn many of the people of Roman justice had no trial by jury, and since
Israel to the Lord their God” (1:16), and in Jesus Jesus was not a Roman citizen, Pilate was free to
the God of Israel had raised up a mighty savior handle the proceedings in any way he wished.
in the house of David (1:68-69). Simeon, who There was no attorney for the defense; the judge
445
interrogated the accused, the accuser, and the wit- show deference to Herod and thereby repair the
nesses and then determined guilt or innocence and breach in their relationship, reported in v. 12;
mandated any punishment he deemed appropriate. but it is more likely that Pilate simply hoped that
Picking up the charge brought by the religious Herod would act on the matter and thereby
authorities, Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of relieve Pilate of any responsibility for the case.
the Jews?” (23:3), echoing Mark 15:2. Jesus’ answer The temporal references in vv. 7 and 12 (“at
is as equivocal as his answer to the Sanhedrin had that time”; “that same day”) not only balance one
been (cf. 22:70): “You say so” (v. 3). Still, it should another, but also underscore the historic signifi-
probably not be read as a question.’ Immediately, cance of the events that were happening, of which
Pilate announces to the chief priests (i.e., the San- neither Pilate nor Herod had any awareness. For
hedrin) and the crowd that he finds Jesus innocent Luke it was more than merely the time of the
of any crime (cf. John 18:38). Passover festival.
The response of the chief priests (and evidently Although Luke does not say so, one may con-
the crowd) is to repeat the general charge against jecture that Pilate was staying in the Antonian
Jesus in such a way that it summarizes Luke’s Fortress and Herod nearby in the residence built
account of Jesus’ ministry: He has stirred up the by his father, Herod the Great. The narrator again
people by his teaching. Jesus has taught in Galilee informs us of Herod’s great joy at seeing Jesus and
(A> 31s asd, e175. 0:0)~ ine the, villages JL 2h: the reason for it: Herod had long wanted to meet
13:10, 22}y.and in the, lemple j1O:az: 20:1 Jesus and see him do a “sign” (onyctov semeion,
21:37). Luke uses the term /udea here in the here used in the sense of a mighty act, something
general sense found earlier in 4:44; throughout wondrous). Reports of Jesus’ healings and exor-
all the lands of the Jews, from Galilee to Jerusa- cisms had spread around Galilee (4:14, 37; 5:17;
lem, Jesus has been spreading his teaching and 7:17), and when Herod heard the reports of what
arousing “the people” (0 kads ho laos). Again, Jesus and his disciples were doing, he desired to
the people stand in a more positive light than see Jesus (9:7-9). His desire to see a sign was not
do the chief priests and their associates. The a request that Jesus do something to confirm the
role of the crowd at the trial before Pilate, truth of his teachings (cf. 11:16, 29). He was
therefore, is uncertain. merely curious about the rumors he had heard
23:6-12, Jesus’ Appearance Before and hoped that he might see something spectacu-
Herod. Luke is the only Gospel to report this lar. Although Herod questioned Jesus at length,
scene. When the chief priests inform Pilate that Jesus remained silent, thereby fulfilling Isa 53:7
Jesus is from Galilee, Pilate seizes an opportunity (cf. Matt 27:12; Mark 14:61; 15:5). The scribes
to refer the case to Herod, who was in Jerusalem and Pharisees who led Jesus to Pilate apparently
for the Passover (some see here an allusion to Ps followed him to Herod, where they continued to
2:1-2). Herod hopes to see Jesus do a sign, but accuse Jesus (cf. 22:66; 23:2, 4).
in the end sends Jesus back to Pilate for judgment. Jesus’ silence is an affront to Herod, which he
Verses 6-7 describe the transfer of Jesus to answers by allowing his soldiers to make sport of
Herod. The reference to “Galilean” in v. 6 picks Jesus. Their mockery is directly related to the
up the allusion to Galilee in the previous verse. charges brought by the chief priests and scribes—
Peter and the other disciples are identified else- namely, that Jesus makes himself a king (cf. 23:2-3).
where in Luke and Acts as Galileans (Luke 22:59; Thus Herod and his soldiers dress Jesus in an elegant
Acts 1:11; 2:7). Verse 7 is actually an “inside robe and taunt him. Luke reports their derision with
view,” the narrator’s description of Pilate’s mental three participles: treated him with contempt,
process. Even though the complaint was brought mocked him, and put a robe on him. Once again,
in Jerusalem, Pilate sends Jesus to Herod because the actions of Jesus’ adversaries fulfill his own
Jesus is from his jurisdiction. Pilate may have prophecies (cf. 9:22; 18:32; 22:63; 23:36).
decided upon this course of action in an effort to Three aspects of Luke’s narration bring closure
to the scene. First, Herod sends Jesus back to
292. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (XXXIV), AB
28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 1475; contra John Nolland, Pilate (v. 11); compare the nearly identical lan-
Luke 18:35—24:53, WBC 35C (Dallas: Word, 1993) 1118. guage in v. 7, where Pilate sends Jesus to Herod.
446
Second, Luke comments on the day(s) in which leaders use the more political designation “our
these events occurred (v. 12); compare the phrase nation” (TO €Ovos hudv to ethnos hemon) when
“at that time” in v. 7. Third, Luke reports that speaking to Pilate, he uses the more religious term
Herod and Pilate, who had previously been ad- laos (i.e. “people of God”), when addressing the
versaries, became friends as a result of these chief priests. Calling together the people along
events. Fitzmyer calls v. 12 “one more of Luke’s with the leaders allows for the possibility that the
inconsequential explicative notes” and cites Luke people may now either controvert or confirm the
1:665 .2:50;! 3:15; 8:29; 9:14; 12:1;.16:14; and charge that the chief priests have brought against
20:20 to illustrate the pattern.2°° Even in this list, Jesus. Will they defend Jesus as the chief priests
however, v. 12 is distinctive in that it introduces had feared earlier (see 22:2), or will they confirm
peripheral historical data that is not found else- the allegations against him? When the people join
where. Ironically, the events leading to Jesus’ the leaders in crying out “Away with this fellow!”
death already signal its reconciling effect, but (v. 18), it becomes clear that the chief priests, in
Herod and Pilate are reconciled to each other, not fact, are the ones who have “perverted the peo-
to God (cf. Acts 4:27). Their reconciliation, there- ple.”2%
fore, is as hollow as Herod’s worship of Jesus as Pilate continues to review the proceedings to
king had been. this point. He has already examined Jesus and
23:13-16, Pilate’s Second Declaration of pronounced him innocent (no further interroga-
Jesus’ Innocence. When Herod sends Jesus tion is necessary, therefore—see v. 4). Moreover,
back to Pilate, Pilate assembles the leaders and he had sent Jesus to Herod, who has returned
the people, pronounces Jesus innocent for a sec- Jesus to him—an action that means that Herod
ond time, and then resolves to flog Jesus and did not find Jesus guilty either. Consequently,
release him. Jesus has been tried by two judges independently,
The scene unfolds with greater subtlety than is and each has declared that he is innocent, fulfill-
at first apparent. The division of the larger unit ing the law of two witnesses (Deut 19:15). Pilate
into these smaller sub-units (vv. 13-16, 18-22) repeats his verdict: “He has done nothing to
neatly separates Pilate’s second and third pro- deserve death.”
nouncements of Jesus’ innocence, but the story is The emphasis on Jesus’ innocence in this scene
all of one piece. The first hint of subtlety appears needs to be placed in its larger context. First, it is
with the designation of those whom Pilate sum- an important part of Luke’s passion narrative. Luke’s
mons: the chief priests, the leaders, and the peo- report of the charge against Jesus in 23:2 and the
ple. The chief priests have been active throughout earlier account of Jesus’ teaching on the payment of
the arrest and trial of Jesus (22:52, 66; 23:4, 10). taxes prepares the reader to see immediately that
The “leaders” have been mentioned previously the charges against Jesus are false. Then, Jesus is
only in 14:1 (cf. 18:18; 23:35; 24:20). The men- declared innocent by both Pilate and, at least by
tion of “the people” is what attracts our attention, implication, Herod. Later, the thief on the cross will
however. Previously, the people have supported defend Jesus’ innocence (23:41), and the centurion
Jesus (see 19:47-48; 20:1, 6, 19; 21:38). More- will confirm, “Certainly this man was innocent”
over, when the assembly of the leaders brought (23:47). Later, the innocence of the apostles and
Jesus to Pilate, they had accused him of “pervert- Paul will be emphasized repeatedly in Acts (4:15-22;
ing our nation” (23:2) and then of stirring up “the 18:12-17; 19:37-40; 24:22-23; 25:25;:.20:31-32),
people” (23:5). Now, when Pilate recalls their demonstrating that Luke is concerned from begin-
charge against Jesus, he says, “You brought me this ning to end to demonstrate that the early Christians
man as one who was perverting the people” (v. 14, are innocent under Roman law. Whether Luke
italics added). Verses 2 and 14 use different verbs intends for his record to be used to convince Roman
(Staotpédw diastrepho, V. 2; aTOOTPEdW aPOS- authorities of the innocence of Christians or to
trepho, v. 14), but the meaning, is synonymous assure believers that they have nothing to fear
(“perverting”). Therefore, whereas the religious from the Roman authorities is less clear.
293. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X—XXIV), 1482. 294. See Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53, 1128.
447
Verse 16 is puzzling, but it is probably the first tion of Jesus’ innocence, his hope to release Jesus,
indication that Pilate will eventually accede to the and the crowd’s call for the release of Barabbas?
desires of the chief priests and leaders of the The question of the textual uncertainty of v. 17
people. Flogging was a severe punishment, not a aside, does Luke presume the practice of releasing
mild chastisement. Pilate’s words, as reported by a prisoner at the Passover? If so, does Pilate hope
Luke, contain an appalling euphemism. When to release Jesus because he is innocent or because
read with the meaning that the verb tratdevw by doing so Pilate can avoid releasing Barabbas,
(paideuo) has in other contexts, Pilate resolves who was guilty of insurrection and murder?
that he will “instruct,” or “discipline” Jesus (cf. Having introduced the people in v. 13, Luke
Heb 5:8). Flogging was a severe penalty exacted does not further explain their sudden collusion
after the condemnation of one who was guilty. with the chief priests and leaders in calling for
Nevertheless, Pilate, having declared Jesus inno- the death of Jesus (v. 18), as does Mark (15:11),
cent, now decides to have him flogged. We may who explicitly blames the chief priests for inciting
surmise that the flogging was an effort to appease the crowd. Nevertheless, it is clear that the chief
Jesus’ accusers (as apparently also in John 19:1). priests have played a leading role in the process
Luke never reports that the flogging was carried of discrediting Jesus. It is they, in the end, who
out, however.?% have “perverted the nation.”
23:17. Verse 17 is omitted in most modern Further ironies reside in the people’s call for
critical editions and translations. The manuscript the release of Barabbas. Luke comments in v. 19
evidence is divided, and the verse appears to be that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection. The
a later effort to smooth out the text by alluding council had brought Jesus to Pilate on political
to the practice of releasing a prisoner at Passover charges, but they end up calling for the release
(thereby harmonizing Luke with Mark 15:6; Matt of one who was guilty of the very crime they had
27:15; and John 18:39). Verse 17 is not necessary attempted to pin on Jesus. Once again, Luke
to the flow of the story, but it does explain the demonstrates Jesus’ innocence by the way he tells
crowd’s call for the release of Barabbas in v. 18. the story. Moreover, in rejecting Jesus, the true
While v. 17 is textually dubious, and there is no “son of the Father,” the crowd calls for the release
reference to the practice outside of the Gospels, of one whose name means “son of the father”
the contention that the crowd could appeal for (sas72 Bar’abba’) but whose actions reflect a
the release of a prisoner during a festival is cred- very different character. Anyone who remembers
ible in this context.?°° Luke’s references to Jesus as the Son of God
23:18-22, Pilate’s Third Declaration of (1:32; 353 3:22; 4:41;.9:35> 4022),-and<lesus;
Jesus’ Innocence. When the assembled crowd prayers to God as “Father” (2:49; 11:2; 22:42; cf.
cries out in unison against Pilate’s plan and calls 23:34, 46) will not miss the irony here.
for the release of Barabbas, Pilate addresses them Earlier Jesus had predicted his death, and Luke
for the third time (see vv. 4, 13-14) and for the reported that the authorities were looking for a
third time affirms Jesus’ innocence. This scene way to put Jesus to death (22:2), but crucifixion
reproduces many of the details of Mark 15:6-14, appears for the first time in the Gospel in v. 21,
but both the order and the language of Luke’s in the crowd’s insistent cry, “Crucify, crucify
account differ from Mark. Luke’s account is also him!” Crucifixion was a gruesome form of execu-
briefer than Mark’s, omitting, for example, Mark’s tion, favored by the Romans and known to have
claim that the chief priests stirred up the crowd been practiced also by the Hasmonean rulers in
to call for Barabbas rather than Jesus. Palestine during the previous century. Josephus,
The main difficulties posed for the interpreter for example, reports that Alexander Jannaeus cru-
of this section involve the release of Barabbas. cified 800 persons.?9”
What is the relationship between Pilate’s declara- For the third time, as Luke reminds us (v. 22),
Pilate declares Jesus innocent (vv. 4, 14-15, 22).
295. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV),
1484. 297. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 13.380; The Jewish War 1.97.
296. See Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53, 1130; Brown, The Death of the For a full account of the references to crucifixion in antiquity, see Martin
Messiah, 1:814-20. Hengel, Crucifixion, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).
448
Three times Pilate addresses the crowd, three outcome of Jesus’ trial. The crowd kept pressing
times he proclaims Jesus’ innocence, and three Pilate with loud cries to crucify Jesus (v. 23). Thus
times Luke reports Pilate’s intention to release Pilate capitulated to their demand {(v. 24) and
Jesus (vv. 16, 20, 22). In the end, however, he handed Jesus over “as they wished” (v. 25). Each
will release another man and allow Jesus to be of these three verses underscores the crowd’s
put to death. Pilate’s second declaration that he
responsibility for reversing Pilate’s initial decision
will have Jesus flogged uses the same euphemism (cf. Acts 3:13-15). After three times vowing to
(“disciplined”) as the first (see v. 16). Pilate’s last release Jesus, Pilate releases Barabbas instead.
words in the Gospel are his hollow declaration Luke’s final words in this scene, however, con-
that he will release Jesus.
cern not Pilate (as in Mark 15:15), but the crowd.
23:23-25. Pilate’s Capitulation to the
Pilate merely did “as they wished” (v. 25).2%8
Crowd. Verses 23-25 contain no direct discourse.
They are instead the narrator’s report ‘of the 298. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), 1492.
REFLECTIONS
Reading of the arrest and trial of Jesus is like watching film footage of John F. Kennedy’s
motorcade winding its way through Dallas toward the fateful moments that are seared into
the memories of all Americans who were touched by the events of that day in 1963. Or it is
like watching film footage of the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle in 1986. We know
what is coming, but suspense, dread, and awe build as we rehearse the events we have no
power to undo.
1. From the beginning, efforts have been made to pin the blame for the death of Jesus on
the Jewish leaders rather than the Romans. Luke, as we have seen, repeatedly emphasizes that
Pilate declared Jesus innocent. It may have been important for the life and witness of the
church late in the first century to clarify that Jesus and those who followed him were innocent
under Roman law. During the Middle Ages and in more recent memory, however, assigning
blame for the death of Jesus to the Jewish leaders has led to terrible atrocities against Jews.
How bitterly ironic that a Gospel that emphasizes Jesus’ inclusive love should be used as a
weapon against persons of another religious tradition. Christian teachers and preachers have a
moral responsibility, therefore, to prevent further distortions of the gospel. To read or teach
the Gospel accounts of the death of Jesus without making it clear that they can easily mislead
some readers into transferring hostility from the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus’ day to
individuals and groups today is to run the risk of perverting the gospel and allowing it to be
used in a way that would be directly antithetical to Jesus’ teachings. The response that these
accounts should elicit is not hostility toward others but reflection that any one of us might
have done the same thing had we been there. The disciples, Jesus’ closest followers, did
nothing to stop the events. Judas collaborated with the authorities. Peter denied Jesus, and
before the end of the trial there is no longer any distinction between the leaders and the
people—all are shouting, “Crucify him!”
2. On a more personal level, much of the drama of the trial narrative arises from our
awareness that in this scene both Jesus and Pilate are facing the ultimate test of their
convictions. Each will be marked for the duration of human memory by how he responds to
this test of character. Throughout the trial, Jesus maintains composure before his accusers,
while Pilate tries one ploy and then another to extricate himself from the situation: Pilate
pronounces Jesus innocent, but he cannot make his verdict stick; he sends Jesus to Herod,
but Herod will not resolve the crisis for him; he has Jesus beaten, but the crowd is not satisfied;
he offers to release a prisoner, but they call for the release of Barabbas instead. Jesus has
449
entered into his trial (see 22:28) confident in God’s purpose, steeled by prayer, and sustained
by the Spirit.
The Gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus, ironically, show that while Jesus was at cross purposes
with Pilate, others are on trial in a deeper sense. Who is guilty of perverting the people? Will the
people follow their misguided leaders? Will Pilate allow himself to be maneuvered into condemning
an innocent man? And where are Jesus’ disciples during the trial?
The trial has a way of exposing the forces, commitments, and loyalties that we hold most
dear. When the chips are down, can Jesus count on us, or will we move instead to secure
our dreams of power, our cherished social positions, our desire to fulfill our personal plans
untroubled by Jesus’ call to kingdom purposes? It is not a question of whether we will follow
Jesus when the going is easy. The trial of Jesus forces the uncomfortable question: Can Jesus
count on me? How willing are you to follow when following becomes costly?
LUKE 73:26-5.0, Jenin CRUGLA TOM «Io Alea

AND, BURJABLOFPJESUS
OVERVIEW
Luke’s account of the events surrounding the noon until three in the afternoon there was dark-
death of Jesus unfolds in a series of five scenes. ness, but when the centurion heard Jesus’ dying
Simon of Cyrene is compelled to carry Jesus’ prayer, he too affirmed Jesus’ innocence while the
cross, and Jesus warns the “daughters of Jerusa- crowds beat their breasts (vv. 44-49). Verses 50-
lem” about the terrors that are to come (vv. 56 conclude the series of scenes with an account
26-31). The actual crucifixion is reported with of Joseph of Arimathea’s role in the burial of Jesus
attention to the place, to the two who were and the women’s preparations for the anointing
crucified with Jesus, to the dividing of his gar- of his body. As we will see below, the details of
ments, to the mockery of Jesus, and to the in- each of these scenes provide important insights
scription over him (vv. 32-38). Verses 39-43 relate into Luke’s interpretation of the meaning of Jesus’
Jesus’ conversation with the penitent thief. From death.
Luke 23:26-32, Simon of Cyrene and the

“Daughters of Jerusalem”
NIV NRSV
20As they led him away, they seized Simon from 26As they led him away, they seized a man,
Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the
and put the cross on him and made him carry it country, and they laid the cross on him, and made
behind Jesus. ?”A large number of people followed him carry it behind Jesus. ?”A great number of
him, including women who mourned and wailed the people followed him, and among them were
for him. "Jesus turned and said to them, “Daugh- women who were beating their breasts and wail-
ters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for ing for him. 8But Jesus turned to them and said,
yourselves and for your children. ?°For the time “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but
will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the weep for yourselves and for your children. 2°For
barren women, the wombs that never bore and the days are surely coming when they will say,
the breasts that never nursed!’ *°Then ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never
450
LUKE 23:26-32
NIV NRSV
““they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’ °°Then
and to the hills, “Cover us!”’# they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on
us’; and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ °'For if they do
s'For if men do these things when the tree is this when the wood is green, what will happen
green, what will happen when it is dry?” when it is dry?”
Two other men, both criminals, were also led 32Two others also, who were criminals, were
out with him to be executed. led away to be put to death with him.
430 Hosea 10:8
(COMMENTARY
Verses 26-32 describe the events that occurred forced to carry the crossbeam to the place of
on the way to the place of crucifixion. The unit execution. Consequently, interpreters often con-
begins and ends with references to Jesus and the jecture that Jesus must have been so weakened
two criminals being led away (vv. 26, 32). The by the beating (which Luke does not describe)
scene features three figures or groups who are that he was unable to carry the cross. The soldiers,
sympathetic to Jesus (Simon of Cyrene; a great therefore, conscripted a passerby, Simon, to carry
number of the people, including women from Jesus’ cross. There is no evidence that Simon was
Jerusalem; and finally the two criminals crucified a disciple, but by bearing the cross he enacts the
with Jesus), just as the verses following Jesus’ role of a disciple (see 9:23; 14:27). Luke does not
death also feature three groups: the centurion, the explain why Simon was “coming from the coun-
crowds, and Jesus’ acquaintances, including the try”; the reference may either mean that he was
women from Galilee.?”” Mark records the role of a traveler coming into Jerusalem or that he had
Simon of Cyrene (Mark 15:21), but the rest of the been working in the field. Why he would have
scene is unique to Luke. In its Lukan context, it been working in the field on the Passover (accord-
serves to characterize further the role of the people ing to the chronology of the synoptic Gospels) is
and the coming judgment upon the people in the not explained, but neither is it certain that Simon
destruction of Jerusalem. was a Jew. Cyrene was the capital of Cyrenaica,
23:26. Those who led Jesus away are identified which lay on the coast of North Africa, where
only by the third person plural form of the verb today Libya is located. The population of Cyrene
(i.e, “they”). Technically, the execution took place was mixed, but included Jews.°° Presumably,
under Roman authority, but Luke allows this verse therefore, Simon was a Jew from the diaspora.
to follow directly after the note that Pilate handed 23:27-31. Using one of his favorite construc-
Jesus over to “their will,” thereby emphasizing tions, Luke records that “a great number of the
once more the role of the chief priests, the lead- people,” among them women, were following
ers, and the people (v. 13). Crucifixions normally Jesus. The women exemplify the response of the
took place outside the city but near a major road people, who will appear again in v. 35, at the
leading into it so that passersby could witness the cross. “The people” who had recently joined in
punishment of the criminals. Since Herod Agrippa calling for Jesus’ crucifixion (vv. 18, 21) now
built the third wall on the north side of the city, begin to lament the tragedy of his death. Acting
however, the traditional site of the crucifixion has out traditional expressions of lament, the women
been inside the city. were beating their breasts and wailing (cf. Zech
Simon of Cyrene is not mentioned in any other T2210; Jer 9: 19)-e
scene in the Gospels, nor elsewhere in the New The wailing of the women serves as the setting
Testament. Normally, the condemned man was for Jesus’ last lament over the city of Jerusalem.
299. Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (New York: 300. See Josephus Against Apion 2.44.
Doubleday, 1994) 905, 918. 301. See also Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 6.377.
451
It is composed of four sayings: (1) “Weep for judgment to the greater, as in 1 Pet 4:17: “If it
yourselves and for your children” (v. 28); (2) begins with us, what will be the end for those
“Blessed are the barren” (v. 29); (3) “Then they who do not obey the gospel of God?” (NRSV).
will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us’ ” The image of green wood and dry wood occurs
(v. 30); (4) “For if they do this when the wood in Ezek 17:24; 20:47, where it is connected with
is green...” (v. 31). Each saying must be exam- burning. In Luke, the saying is open to various
ined individually, but as a unit they form Jesus’ interpretations, depending on whether one under-
last words concerning the fate of Jerusalem. stands the agent of the destruction to be God, the
Earlier Jesus had spoken of Jerusalem’s role Romans, or human beings in general. In Jesus’
in killing the prophets (11:49-50; 13:34-35). earlier warnings about the fate of Jerusalem, it is
Jesus had wept over Jerusalem (19:41-44); now clear that the Romans will be the agents of de-
the “Daughters of Jerusalem” (Cant 2:7; 5:16) struction (19:41-44; 21:20-24). The destruction,
weep over the coming judgment upon the city. however, is to be understood as God’s judgment
In his earlier warnings of the coming destruc- on the city for its role in killing the prophets and
tion of Jerusalem, Jesus had lamented in par- rejecting their appeals for repentance. In the pres-
ticular the suffering of the women and children ent context, therefore, the same connection be-
(see 19:41-44; 21:20-24), which is again the tween the Romans and God’s judgment may be
focus of his lament. Gospel of Thomas 79 assumed. As terrible as are the events over which
contains a close parallel to this saying, which the daughters of Jerusalem lament now (the green
places it in the context of the saying preserved wood, Jesus’ death), the days to come (the dry
in Luke 11:27-28. wood, the destruction of Jerusalem) will be far
A woman from the multitude said to Him: worse. Jesus’ death, ironically, is a sign of the
Blessed is the womb which bore Thee and the coming destruction of the city, which so shortly
breasts which nourished Thee. He said to [her]: before had hailed his arrival with shouts of
Blessed are those who have heard the word of
“Blessed is the king who comes in the name of
the Father (and) have kept it in truth. For there
will be days when you will say: Blessed is the the Lord!” (19:38).
womb which has not conceived and the breasts 23:32. Luke draws this scene to a close by
which have not suckled.3° reporting that they also led two others out to be
crucified. Mark (15:27) does not introduce the
It is difficult to determine, however, whether
Thomas preserves a unit of tradition that Luke
two crucified with Jesus until after Jesus has been
has divided or unites sayings that were similar but crucified. On the one hand, the introduction of
originally separate, as in Luke. Regardless, the the two at this point may serve to underscore the
force of the saying is clear: The coming judgment fulfillment of 22:37, “and he was counted among
will be so terrible that childless persons (a great the lawless [avopos anomos]|” (see Isa 53:12),
misfortune; see 1:7) will be considered fortunate. but the designation used here is different, “crimi-
The thought is the same as Jesus’ lament in 21:23: nal” |kakotpyos kakourgos|. On the other hand,
“Woe to those who are pregnant and to those the introduction of the two at this point prepares
who are nursing infants in those days!” the reader for the expanded role they will play in
Apocalyptic imagery appears again in v. 30 to Luke’s crucifixion scene (vv. 39-43). Some of the
describe how terrible it will be for those on whom early manuscripts alter the word order so that one
God’s judgment will fall in the coming days. Luke could not read v. 32 to mean “two other crimi-
has adapted the image from Hosea 10:8, but it nals” and infer that Jesus was a wrongdoer (con-
appears also in Revelation 6:16. trary to the repeated pronouncements of his
Jesus’ fourth statement to the daughters of innocence).° One of the Old Latin manuscripts
Jerusalem invites them to reason from the lesser supplies names for the two crucified with Jesus:
Joathas and Maggatras.
302. A. Guillaumont et al., trans., The Gospel According to Thomas
(New York: Harper & Row, 1959) 43-45. 303. On these matters, see Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 927-28.
452
REFLECTIONS
No one likes to be reminded of his or her worst moments—times when they hurt someone
else, stole something, denied everything they believe, or betrayed a friend. The passion narrative
is filled with such painful memories. It continually confronts us with the underside of human
sinfulness and its awful consequences. The innocent suffer (Jesus, the women, and their children),
and terrible as were the events of the day of Jesus’ crucifixion, greater suffering lay ahead.
The lament over tragic violence and suffering is an important element of Luke’s passion narrative.
God could not spare Jesus from the cross, and Jesus could not spare Jerusalem the destruction that
lay ahead. Instead, Jesus joined with the women who were wailing for him, lamenting their
suffering. Here is a moving aspect of the meaning of Jesus’ death. Jesus had warned the crowds
and his disciples of what was coming—both for him and for Jerusalem. He had called for repentance
and wept for the city. When his pleas were not heeded, however, he joined himself to the plight
of those who suffer the ravages of violence, dying with criminals on a cross.
We may rail against God for the tragedy, suffering, and loss that we experience, but God
did not turn away from our plight or miraculously deliver Jesus from his suffering. Knowing
that he could not stop the judgment that Israel (indeed, humanity) had brought upon itself,
Jesus went to the cross lamenting that although he was about to die he could not deliver
Jerusalem from its fate.
The lament, like the passion narrative itself, is a call for us to see that our only hope is to
trust in God’s faithfulness. Apart from repentance and commitment to the kingdom of God
there is no hope for an end to violence and suffering. The suffering of the innocent—the death
of Jesus and the suffering of the women and the children—is an indictment of the institutions
and means of human vindictiveness and a call to turn from our sinful inclinations and accept
the new order of God’s mercy. Otherwise, “if they do this when the wood is green, what
will happen when it is dry?” (v. 31).
Luke 23:33-38, The Crucifixion and Mocking of Jesus

NIV NRSV
33When they came to the place called the Skull, 33When they came to the place that is called The
there they crucified him, along with the crimi- Skull, they crucified Jesus? there with the crimi-
nals—one on his right, the other on his left. nals, one on his right and one on his left. |[°*Then
34Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they do not
know what they are doing.”* And they divided know what they are doing.”||° And they cast lots
up his clothes by casting lots. to divide his clothing. **And the people stood by,
5The people stood watching, and the rulers watching; but the leaders scoffed at him, saying,
even sneered at him. They said, “He saved others; “He saved others; let him save himself if he is the
let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, Messiah¢ of God, his chosen one!” °°The soldiers
the Chosen One.” also mocked him, coming up and offering him
36The soldiers also came up and mocked him. sour wine, °’and saying, “If you are the King of
They offered him wine vinegar *’and said, “If you — the Jews, save yourself!” °°There was also an
are the king of the Jews, save yourself.” inscription over him,? “This is the King of the
38There was a written notice above him, which
Jews.”
read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
aGk him oOther ancient authorities lack the sentence Zhen
234 Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence. Jesus... what they are doing cOr the Christ @Other an-
cient authorities add written in Greek and Latin and Hebrew (that
is, Aramaic)
453
(COMMENTARY
Because crucifixion was a common and shameful tion on the ways in which the death of Jesus
form of execution, the challenge facing the Gospel fulfilled the Scriptures of Israel.
writers was to make clear to the readers the distinc- Luke’s handling of this scene is further high-
tive significance of Jesus’ crucifixion. Because Luke lighted when one notes the features of the
is not composing an essay but “an orderly account” Markan account that Luke has omitted and con-
(1:3), the details of the narrative itself must convey trasts them with the elements that he has added
Luke’s understanding of Jesus’ death. For this pur- that do not appear in Mark. Luke omits the
pose, he makes full use of the roles of the various Aramaic name “Golgotha” (Mark 15:22), the in-
characters in the story, the structure of three mock- itial offer of wine mixed with myrrh (15:23),
ings, repeated allusions to the Scriptures, selected Mark’s note that it was the third hour (15:25),
christological titles, the mysterious phenomena that the description of the passersby shaking their
accompany the death of Jesus, the ironic truth of heads (15:29; cf. Ps 22:7), the accusation that
the taunts hurled at Jesus, and Jesus’ three pro- Jesus said he would destroy the Temple (15:29),
nouncements from the cross. and the mocked confession of Jesus as “the King
This section properly extends through v. 43, of Israel” (15:32). On the other hand, the follow-
but it is so full of significant details that Jesus’ ing items are distinctively Lukan: the description
conversation with the penitent thief is best treated of the other two as criminals, Jesus’ prayer for his
separately. In the previous scene (vv. 26-32), on the tormentors (if v. 34a is authentic; see Commen-
way to the place of crucifixion, Luke describes the tary below), the title “his chosen one,” and the
roles of Simon of Cyrene, the women, and the two distinction between “the people” and those who
wrongdoers crucified with Jesus. Following the mocked Jesus.°
crucifixion and Jesus’ prayer for his tormentors, 23:33. Luke departs from the other Gospels
Luke records the taunting of Jesus by three groups in calling the place where Jesus was crucified
using three different verbs: the leaders “scoffed” simply “The Skull” (not Golgotha, as in Mark
(v. 35, expuKTnpicw ekmykterizo), the soldiers 15:22, or “the Place of the Skull,” as in John
“mocked” (v. 35, €umaiCw empaizo), and one of 19:17). The name probably reflects the shape or
the criminals “derided” him (v. 39, BAaodnyéw other features of the hill on which Jesus and the
blasphemeo). All three taunts focus on the saving others were crucified. Luke, like the other Gospel
significance of Jesus’ death: “He saved others; let writers, is remarkably brief in his description of
him save himself” (v. 35), “save yourself” (v. 37), the crucifixion, providing no details regarding the
and “save yourself and us” (v. 39). The chris- shape of the cross, its size, or the manner in
tological significance of the scene becomes appar- which Jesus was affixed on it.%° Although cruci-
ent in Luke’s use of the titles for Jesus: “the fixion was widespread in antiquity, there are few
Messiah [of God]” (vv. 35, 39), “the Chosen One” detailed descriptions of it. In one account, Seneca
(v. 35), and “the King of the Jews” (vv. 37, 38). wrote, “I see crosses there, not just of one kind
Further reflections on the significance of the but made in many different ways: some have their
events surrounding Jesus’ death come to the fore victims with head down to the ground; some
when one notes the number of allusions to the impale their private parts; others stretch out their
OT that occur in these verses. Psalm 22:18 is arms on the gibbet.”5°° Luke does not record the
quoted, describing the casting of lots for Jesus’ stripping of the fine garments that were put on
garments (v. 34). The reference to the people’s Jesus during the earlier mockery or the restoration
looking on and the mocking of Jesus may be a of his own garments. When Jesus was crucified,
tribute to reflection on Ps 22:7. The title “the
304. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (XXXIV),
Chosen One” comes from Isa 42:1, and Luke uses
AB 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 1500.
the same term as Ps 69:21 (68:22 LXX) for the 305. For a full discussion of these matters, see Brown, The Death of
“sour wine” (6€os oxos, v. 36). Taken together, the Messiah, 945-52. ;
306. Seneca, Dialogue 6 (De consolatione ad Marciam) 20.3; quoted
these allusions suggest early and intensive reflec- by Hengel, Crucifixion, 25.
454
however, the soldiers stripped him of his garments alone it would favor regarding the prayer as a later
and cast lots to see who would take them. gloss. The prayer is found in &*, &2, A, C, and
Whether Jesus was crucified naked or with a loin D?, among others, but it is omitted in $7, X!,
cloth out of deference to Jewish sensitivities is B, D*, W, and ©, among others. The omission
debated. Again, nothing is said of the charges of Jesus’ prayer for forgiveness in these manu-
against the two crucified with Jesus, their names, scripts raises the question of why anyone would
or their garments. Jesus’ conversation with the omit the prayer if it were originally part of the
penitent thief, however, will be one of the dis- Gospel. Although the evidence does not permit
tinctive features of Luke’s account of the events us to say that any scribe did omit the verse for
at the cross. one of the following reasons, several plausible
23:34a. In Luke’s account, the first thing the reasons have been suggested. (1) Tension be-
crucified Jesus does is pray for those who have tween Christians and Jews led Christian scribes
crucified him. Several difficult issues surround v. to delete Jesus’ prayer for forgiveness of the
34a. Who was Jesus praying for? Was the verse Jewish leaders. (2) Scribes may have deleted the
composed by Luke or inserted by a later scribe? prayer after the destruction of Jerusalem so that
If composed by Luke, why was it omitted in many it would not appear that his prayer had not been
early manuscripts? answered. (3) Scribes may have found the
Although the presence of v. 34a makes the prayer (with its presumption of ignorance) mor-
change of subject to the soldiers in the latter part ally unjustifiable. In sum, therefore, the evi-
of the verse rough, it fits well following the report dence favors accepting the prayer as authentic;
of the crucifixion in the previous verse. The while the manuscript evidence is divided (and
setting raises the question of who Jesus was pray- inclines toward its omission), the prayer fits
ing for: the Romans, the Jewish leaders, or both? Luke’s style, the Lukan emphasis on forgive-
The immediate context of the prayer requires that ness, and Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ death as
Jesus was praying for the soldiers who carried out a model for Christian martyrs; and plausible
the execution—they are the easiest to fit under reasons can be advanced for the omission of the
the category of ignorance of what they were prayer by later scribes.°°”
doing. Throughout, however, Luke has empha- 23:34b. In Luke, the division of Jesus’ gar-
sized the role of the Jewish leaders (22:1-6, 52, ments provides a counterpoint to his prayer for
66; 23:4, 10, 13), and in the end the people are forgiveness. The soldiers go about their grim busi-
swayed to join in calling for Jesus’ death (23:18). ness unaware of what was actually transpiring,
Moreover, through the speeches in Acts, Luke but nevertheless fulfilling the Scriptures (Ps
repeatedly maintains that the Jewish leaders acted 22:18). Earlier, a woman in the crowd had desired
out of ignorance (e.g., Acts 3:17; cf. 13:27). Thus to touch even the hem of Jesus’ garment (8:44),
Jesus’ prayer should be understood as asking for- and when he entered Jerusalem, his followers had
giveness for all who were involved in his death. thrown their garments on the colt and on the
The prayer is consistent with both Luke’s char- road for him (19:35-36). Now, the soldiers take
acterization of Jesus and Luke’s style. Jesus has his last earthly possessions.
prayed to God as “Father” repeatedly in Luke 23:35-38. The people, who appear here for
(10:21; 11:2; 22:42; 23:46), and Jesus has taught the last time (cf. 24:19), stand by watching.
his followers to forgive (5:20-24; 6:27-29; 7:47- Contrary to Mark (15:29), Luke does not say that
49. 17:3-4). Indeed, Jesus’ prayer here echoes the the passersby took part in the mocking of Jesus,
petition for forgiveness in the model prayer (11:4). and “the people” do not join their leaders in
It is more likely that Jesus died a model death, taunting Jesus. Instead, the threefold scene of
praying for those who were killing him—and this mockery is carried out by the leaders (v. 35), the
motif was repeated in the death of Stephen (Acts soldiers (vv. 36-37), and one of the criminals
7:60), the first Christian martyr—than that a crucified with Jesus (v. 39). The leaders ridiculed
scribe later composed the prayer for Jesus imitat- Jesus (lit. the verb ekmykterizo means something
ing Luke’s style and theme.
The manuscript evidence is divided, but taken 307. See Brown, Zhe Death of the Messiah, 971-81.
455
like “looked down their noses” or “thumbed their transfiguration (9:35; cf. 18:7). He is also “the
noses” at Jesus); the soldiers “mocked” Jesus king of the Jews” (vv. 37-38). The title occurs
(enpaizo; Robertson suggests “acted like boys”),3°8 both in the soldiers’ taunt and in the inscription
and escalating the seriousness of the offense the over Jesus. Again, Luke has prepared the reader
criminal “blasphemed.” In each instance, they to understand its significance. At the annunciation
mock Jesus as the Savior (see vv. 35, 37, 39). the angel declared that Jesus would receive “the
Through the irony of these taunts, Luke under- throne of his ancestor David... and of his king-
scores both Jesus’ real identity and the true mean- dom there will be no end” (1:32-33). Then, when
ing of his death. Jesus was hailed as the Savior at Jesus entered Jerusalem, the multitude chanted,
his birth (2:11); as the Son of Man, he had come “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of
to seek and to save the lost (19:10). But just as the Lord!” (19:38), but the title of praise had
he had taught that those who lost their lives for
become a charge of treason (23:2-3) and finally a
his sake would save them (9:24), so now he must
term of derision (vv. 37-38). In Luke’s hands, the
lose his life so that they might be saved. Jesus’
mockery of the title is underscored by linking it
death did not contradict the christological claims;
with the soldiers’ taunts and by adding “this one”
it confirmed them. For him to have saved himself
would have been a denial of his salvific role in
to the inscription: “This is the King of the Jews”
the purposes of God. In addition to references to (v. 38). The soldiers’ derision echoes the devil’s
saving, the taunts evoke titles for Jesus that Luke challenge to Jesus at the beginning of his ministry:
has already certified earlier in the Gospel. He is “If you are the Son of God...” (see 4:3, 9). The
the Messiah or Christ (vv. 35, 39). The title irony and pathos of Jesus’ death are that those
“Christ” (or “Messiah”) is coupled with the title who mock him declare his messianic identity and
“Savior” at Jesus’ birth (2:11). Simeon recognized the salvific significance of his death but do not
the Christ child (2:26), the people questioned grasp the truth they speak.
whether John the Baptist might be the Messiah In addition to the verbal taunt, the mockery by
(3:15), but the demons knew that he was the the soldiers includes offering Jesus sour wine to
Messiah (4:41). Later, Peter confessed that Jesus drink—perhaps a burlesque of offering a king the
was “the Messiah of God” (9:20), while Jesus’ best wine. Again, the action, unknown to them,
accusers questioned and then condemned him as fulfills Scripture (Ps 69:21), as each of the evan-
MCC MUST 20ers 07 jd 33> er. ay AO), gelists makes clear in one form or another. Both
He is God’s “chosen one” (v. 35;-cf. Isa 42:1). what is said and what is done at the cross,
This title appearsin a related form earlier at the therefore, confirm the truth of Luke’s claims about
308. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 2:
the one who is crucified: He is the Christ, the
The Gospel According to Luke (New York: Richard R. Smith, 1930) 285. king of the Jews, the Savior.
REFLECTIONS
By breaking the unit at v. 38, the reader is able to end this section with the christological
confession articulated in the inscription above Jesus: “This is the king of the Jews.” So filled
with pathos is the death of Jesus that one must respond with either derision or confession.
Luke’s account of the crucifixion itself contains no meaningless details. Every element of the
story serves to declare Jesus’ identity as the Messiah, the significance of his death for the
salvation of the world, or the fulfillment .of Scripture in the events of this scene. The
christological focus of the passion narratives is as inherently right as it is restrained. We are
spared graphic accounts of Jesus’ agony and the details of his appearance. Instead, the passion
narratives make the point that the death of Jesus is salvifically important not because of how
much he suffered but because of who he was and how his death was connected to both his
life and the redemptive acts of God in the history of Israel. For this reason, the allusions to
Scripture and to scenes earlier in the Gospel convey the themes by which we can make sense
456
of the event. W. J. Ong observed, “Without themes, there would be no way to deal with
event.””” We can scarcely do better when interpreting the crucifixion of Jesus in Luke,
therefore, than to follow Luke’s lead in portraying Jesus as the Christ, God’s chosen one,
whose death fulfilled the Scriptures and brought salvation to the lost.
With bitter irony, the Lukan Jesus is one who brings good news to the poor, but at his death the
people watch, the soldiers mock, and one of the criminals beside him blasphemes. God’s vindication
of Jesus through the resurrection will mean God’s validation of Jesus’ message. In the interim, however,
Jesus is “numbered with the transgressors” and bears “the sin of many” (Isa 53:12).
Luke does not defend any particular theory of the atonement. The traditional theories
generally fall into one of the following categories: sacrifice, ransom, or moral influence. Luke
never calls Jesus “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29 NRSV;
cf. John 1:36; Acts 8:32). Neither does the Lukan Jesus say “the Son of Man came... to give
his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45 NRSV). At most, the two on the road to Emmaus
report, “We had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel” (24:21; cf. 1:68; 2:38). No
proof text suffices in these matters, but the absence of even such references as one finds in
the other Gospels underscores the extent to which Luke relies on the account of Jesus’ death
to carry the message of its significance. How one chooses to explain it, after all, is quite
secondary to the confession that Jesus is the Christ, our Savior.
309. Walter J. Ong, Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University
Press, 1977) 74.
Luke 23:39-43, The Assurance of Salvation

NIV NRSV ;
39One of the criminals who hung there hurled 39One of the criminals who were hanged there
insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save your- kept deriding? him and saying, “Are you not the
self and us!” Messiah?® Save yourself and us!” “But the other
40But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since
you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the you are under the same sentence of condemna-
same sentence? “!We are punished justly, for we tion? “'And we indeed have been condemned
are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our
has done nothing wrong.” deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.”
4Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you 42Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you
come into your kingdom.” come into® your kingdom.” “He replied, “Truly |
4Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
today you will be with me in paradise.” aOr blaspheming bOr the Christ eOther ancient authorities
242 Some manuscripts come with your kingly power read in
(COMMENTARY
When one of the criminals crucified with Jesus conversation among the three dying men. Mark
joins in the mocking, the other criminal rebukes
15:32 says only that those who were crucified
him, maintaining that Jesus has done nothing with Jesus taunted him also. Whatever the origin
wrong. Jesus responds, assuring the “penitent of this tradition, it contributes to prominent Lukan
thief” that he would be with Jesus in paradise. themes. The taunt in v. 39 is the third in the
Luke’s is the only Gospel to record the words series and again derides Jesus as the Savior (see
of the men crucified with Jesus or to report a Commentary on vv. 35-38). This scene further
457
pictures Jesus dying among the outcasts, with whom and requested, “Remember me when it is well
he spent much of his ministry. In his rebuke of the with you” (Gen 40:14 NRSV). Hannah prayed to
other, the criminal adds his own affirmation of Jesus’ God, “Remember me” (1 Sam 1:11), as did Ne-
innocence. Earlier, Pilate and Herod had pronounced hemiah (5:19; 13:31), Job (14:13), the psalmist
Jesus innocent, and later the centurion will echo the (25:7; 106:4), and Jeremiah (15:15). The crimi-
same judgment. Jesus’ defender asks to be remem- nal’s request is not that Jesus remember him
bered when Jesus comes into his kingdom, a request when he comes in the parousia (“in his kingdom”)
that may have arisen solely from the inscription over but when he is delivered from his suffering and
Jesus, but it also effectively reminds the reader of comes “into his kingdom” (cf. 24:26).
Jesus’ earlier declarations of the coming of the king- 23:43. Jesus replied, granting the man more than
dom of God. Fittingly, as he is dying, Jesus extends he had asked for. The pronouncement is the sixth
mercy to one of the wretched, whose fate he shares. of the “Amen, I say to you” sayings in Luke, and
23:39. This introduces the taunt from “one of the only one addressed to one person (cf. 4:24;
the criminals who were hanged there.” The verb 12:37; 18:17, 29; 21:32). It is also the last of the
recurs in Acts in descriptions of the death of Jesus, emphatic “today” pronouncements in Luke (e.g.,
“whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree” 4:21; 19:9). Like the poor, the crippled, the blind,
(Acts 5:30 NRSV; see also 10:39). This one derided and the lame in Jesus’ parable of the great banquet
(lit. “blasphemed” [BAaodnyéew blasphemeo)) Je- (14:21), the criminal would feast with Jesus that day
sus. Both criminals ask for salvation, the first in in paradise. Like the wretched Lazarus who died at
mocking sarcasm, the second in an understated the rich man’s gate (16:19-31), he would experience
echo of Semitic voices from the past: “Remember the blessing of God’s mercy.
me.” The one is heard, while the other dies in “Paradise” (tapddevtcos paradeisos) originally
bitter cynicism a few feet from the Savior, who meant a garden, then in the Septuagint it is used of
could have extended him mercy. the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:8). In later Jewish
23:40-41. “The penitent thief” is a term of apocalyptic literature, where the end is often a
convenience that is more specific than Luke’s de- return to the beginning, it designates the place of
scription of him. His crime is never specified, and the blessed, which for those who lived in a hot, arid
his penitence is conveyed only by his acknowl- climate is often represented as a place with a stream
edgment of their guilt and Jesus’ innocence and by and lush vegetation (see Rev 2:7).°!° Paul wrote that
his request that Jesus remember him. The verb for he knew a person “who fourteen years ago was
“to rebuke” (emtTidw epitimao) occurs twelve caught up to the third heaven... into Paradise and
times in Luke, and usually it is Jesus who does heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal
the rebuking (cf. 18:15, 39). Nevertheless, the is permitted to repeat” (2 Cor 12:2, 4 NRSV). One
penitent thief’s words fulfill Jesus’ instructions to of the later apocalypses, 2 Enoch, lacking Paul’s
his disciples: “If your brother sins, rebuke him, restraint, contains the following description of Para-
and if he repents, forgive him” (17:3). His rebuke dise: “They brought me up to the third heaven. And
reminds the other criminal that he, too, has been they placed me in the midst of Paradise. And that
condemned to die and will soon be facing God’s place has an appearance of pleasantness that has
judgment (cf. 12:5). They were getting what they never been seen. Every tree was in full flower. Every
deserved, but Jesus had done nothing wrong (lit., fruit was ripe, every food was in yield profusely;
nothing “out of place” [dtottos atopos]). They every fragrance was pleasant. And the four rivers
had been judged “rightly” (Stkatws dikaios, v. were flowing past with gentle movement, and with
41), but Jesus was “righteous” (Sixatos dikaios, every kind of garden producing every kind of good
v. 47). food. And the tree of life is in that place, under
23:42. The criminal addresses Jesus by name. which the Lorp takes a rest when the Lorp takes a
His request that Jesus remember him echoes the walk in Paradise. And that tree is indescribable for
plaintive cries of those in need and those dying pleasantness of fragrance.”3!!
in centuries past. Interpreting the dream of the
Pharaoh’s chief cupbearer, Joseph predicted that 310. See also 7. Levi 18:10-11; Ps Sol 14:3; and 7 Enoch61:12.
311. 2 Enoch 8:1-3, in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testa-
his fellow prisoner would be released in three days ment Pseudepigrapha (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983) 1:115.
458
REFLECTIONS
Paul wrote: “If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be
pitied” (1 Cor 15:19 NRSV). The Gospels reflect keen theological acumen, therefore, in
connecting Jesus’ death with the promise of life to those who trust in him. Matthew inserts
the legendary story that “the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who
had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered
the holy city and appeared to many” (Matt 27:52-53 NRSV). The Gospel of John, which
emphasizes the present fulfillment of future hopes, records that before his death Jesus
approached the tomb of Lazarus and called him back to life (John 11:38-44), doing for one
he loved a sign of what he would do for all “his own.” The promise to the dying criminal,
therefore, is Luke’s way of making the same point. Others taunted Jesus, mocking him with
challenges to save himself and others, so with fitting irony his last words to another human
being are an assurance of salvation. Jesus began his ministry proclaiming “good news to the
poor” and “release to the captives” (4:18), and he ends it extending an assurance of blessing
to one of the wretched.
Here is good news not just for the “sweet by and by,” or even for “the year of the Lord’s
favor” (4:19), but for “today” (23:43). The second of the words from the cross in Luke should
move every reader to recognize that we, too, stand in need of God’s mercy (“Do you not fear
Gode”) and ask that God might remember us. As with so many other scenes from the Gospel,
this one is a Gospel in miniature: Jesus, the dying Savior among the wretched; one who taunts
him cynically and thereby rejects his mercy; and one who receives salvation because he looks
forward to the kingdom of God. Thus the story invites the same response as the Gospel as a
whole: Turn to the Lord for mercy and then spread the good news of God’s kingdom among
the poor by doing for them as Jesus did during his ministry.
In what do you trust? The rich fool thought he had provided for himself for years to come,
but God said, “This night...” (12:20). The dying criminal knew that he had no one else to
whom he could appeal, and Jesus said to him, “Today....”
Luke 23:44-49, The Events Surrounding Tess Death

NIV NRSV
441t was now about the sixth hour, and dark- AAlt was now about noon, and darkness came
ness came over the whole land until the ninth over the whole land? until three in the afternoon,
hour, “for the sun stopped shining. And the 4Swhile the sun’s light failed;’ and the curtain of the
curtain of the temple was torn in two. “Jesus temple was torn in two. “Then Jesus, crying with
called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I com-
hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said mend my spirit.” Having said this, he breathed his
this, he breathed his last. last. 47When the centurion saw what had taken
47The centurion, seeing what had happened, place, he praised God and said, “Certainly this man
praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous was innocent.”* “And when all the crowds who
man.” “When all the people who had gathered had gathered there for this spectacle saw what had
to witness this sight saw what took place, they taken place, they returned home, beating their
beat their breasts and went away. *’But all those breasts. “°But all his acquaintances, including the
who knew him, including the women who had women who had followed him from Galilee, stood
followed him from Galilee, stoodat a distance, at a distance, watching these things.
watching these things. aOr earth Or the sun was eclipsed. Other ancient authorities
read the sun was darkened cOr righteous
459
COMMENTARY —
These verses are in many respects the heart of when, after Caesar sank from sight, he veiled his
shining face in:dusky gloom, and a godless age
the Gospel. They are both chronologically and
feared everlasting night.>!S
thematically the culmination of Jesus’ life. To
interpret the significance of Jesus’ death, Luke Josephus, moreover, records that the battles follow-
reports a series of numinous events (vv. 44-45), ing the death of Julius Caesar were the struggles of
then Jesus’ last words (v. 46), and then the “mankind in common” against “unlawful acts
response of those who witnessed Jesus’ death (vv. against the gods, from which we believe the very
47-49). Luke seems to be following Mark’s ac- sun turned away.”?!4 In the Lukan context still other
count at this point, but rearranges, alters, and adds meanings are possible. Jesus had said at his arrest
elements to convey his own understanding. Each that it was the hour “and the power of darkness”
element of Luke’s account, therefore, merits close (22:53). The coming of the Son of Man, however,
study. would also be foreshadowed by “signs in the sun,
23:44-45. Following Mark 15:33, Luke re- the moon, and the stars” (21:25).
ports that there was darkness over “the whole Luke further describes the darkness as covering
land” from noon until three in the afternoon. Luke “the whole land,” just as the birth of Jesus had
has omitted Mark’s first temporal reference, the occurred when Emperor Augustus had decreed
crucifixion of Jesus at the “third hour” (9:00 am; that “all the world” should-be registered (2:1).
Mark 15:25), thereby leaving undefined the Later, the witnesses to Jesus’ death and resurrec-
length of time between the crucifixion and Jesus’ tion would carry the gospel “to the ends of the
death but conveying the impression of a shorter earth” (Acts 1:8). The darkness over the land in
period than in Mark. Luke, therefore, may be understood as a cosmic
Luke’s statement that the sun’s light “failed” sign of the significance of Jesus’ death for all the
(ekrettw ekleipo; v. 45) has at times led to the world, an omen of God’s judgment on the leaders
speculation that there was a solar eclipse, but an of Israel, and a tribute to the death of “the king
eclipse would have been impossible at Passover, of the Jews.”
when there was a full moon. Thus some com-
Luke brings forward the rending of the veil in
mentators have attributed the darkness to a dust
the Temple (which Mark reports only after Jesus’
storm or, more plausibly, suggested that Luke has
death), thereby linking it with the darkness. Luke
linked Jesus’ death with the memory of an eclipse
also says that the veil was (literally) torn “in the
at about that time in history.°!* Beyond a possible
middle” (uécos mesos) rather than “from top to
explanation of the darkness, one has to ask what
bottom” (Mark 15:38). The use of the passive
it might have meant to Luke. In the OT the
voice may imply that this was God’s action. The
darkening of the sun was a sign of judgment
reader of the Gospel will understand that God has
associated with “the day of the Lord” (Isa 13:9-10;
vindicated Jesus’ judgment on the Temple (see
30:2-3; Jer 15:69; Lam 3:1-2;+ Ames. 5:18, 20;
19:45-46; 21:5-6). It has been argued that Luke
Joel 2:2, 10, 31; 3:15; Zeph 1:15). Darkness will
has deliberately linked the rending of the veil to
come upon the false prophets and rulers of Israel
Jesus’ commending his spirit into the hands of
(Mic 3:6). The closest parallel to the darkness in
God so that the reader can imagine(that the veil
the passion narratives, however, is Amos 8:9.
is rent in order for Jesus to make his “exodus” to
Gentile readers would also understand the dark-
the Father, but this interpretation is overly subtle.
ness as a cosmic sign that often accompanied the
Nevertheless, the rending of the veil probably
death of great men and kings:
carries a more positive sense than in Mark. Argu-
The Sun will give you signs. Who dare say the ments over a symbolism that is based on identi-
Sun false? Nay, he oft warns us that dark upris-
ings threaten, that treachery and hidden wars 313. Virgil, Georgics, 1.463-64, in Virgil, trans. H. Rushton Fairclough,
are upswelling. Nay, he had pity on Rome, LCL (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978) 1:113.
314. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 14.309, in Josephus, trans.
pee Marcus, LCL (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1943)
312. See Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1041-42. FOL3.
460
fying the location of the veil either in the forecourt sympathetic witnesses before Jesus’ death (Simon of
or in the sanctuary finally prove unconvincing, be- Cyrene, a large number of the people, and the two
cause none of the evangelists specifies the location criminals), so also following Jesus’ death there are
of the veil or gives any indication that he knows of three sympathetic witnesses (the centurion, “all the
more than one (see 1:9). Gentile readers could crowds,” and “all his acquaintances”).3!5 Luke’s
certainly not be expected to grasp such nuances. craftsmanship, always subtle, is clearly evident.
The rending of the veil in Luke, however, may In Mark’s account, the confession of the cen-
well be a divine validation of Jesus’ act of cleans- turion (15:39) is the christological high point of
ing the Temple so that it could serve as the place the Gospel. As a result of Mark’s treatment of the
for his teaching (see 19:45-48). Accordingly, the theme of “the messianic secret,” no one around
rending of the veil may mean that all now have Jesus knows his true identity except the demons,
access to the presence of God, or as the author and no one confesses that Jesus is the Son of God
of Ephesians put it, “the dividing wall of hostility” until Jesus has died. The reader is told in the
(see Eph 2:14-15) has been torn down so that all opening line of Mark that Jesus is “the Christ, the
may now approach God on an equal basis through Son of God” (Mark 1:1, though the last phrase is
the death of Jesus. The death of Jesus, with the missing in some mss). The voice from heaven
rending of the veil in the Temple, therefore, identifies Jesus as the beloved son (Mark 1:11; 9:7),
prepares the way for the gospel to be preached and the demons attempt to make him known (Mark
“openly and unhindered” (see Acts 28:31). 1:24; 3:11; 5:7), but no one confesses that Jesus is
23:46. Luke also changes the inarticulate the Son of God until after his death (cf. Mark 14:62).
“loud cry” in Mark 15:37 into a prayer of conse- The climax of the first half of the Gospel occurs
cration: “Father, into your hands I commend my with Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ (Mark
spirit.” The prayer is a quotation of Ps 31:5. 8:29), and the climax of the second half occurs
Handed over “into the hands of men” (9:44), when the centurion confesses that he is the Son of
Jesus now commends himself to the hands of God God (Mark 15:39).
(cf. 1:71, 74). Fittingly, in Luke Jesus does not Luke has other designs in mind, however. The
die with a cry of abandonment but with full key word of the centurion’s response (SiKatos
confidence in the One whom he addressed as dikaios) may be translated either “innocent”
“ieathions uiciid.0:21e225 0.112256 1336123302325 (NRSV) or “just” (NIV, “a righteous man”). The
22:42; 23:34). Prayer has been the leitmotif of term comes from a legal context and can certainly
Jesus’ ministry, most recently on the Mount of mean “innocent,” but its meaning elsewhere in
Olives the night before he died (22:42) and in his Luke (see, e.g., 2:25, “righteous and devout,” or
prayer for forgiveness for those who “do not know 23:50, “good and righteous”) and Acts (where it is
what they are doing” (23:34). And what Jesus also used as a title: “the Holy and Righteous One,”
said in the darkness would be proclaimed from 3:14; cf. 7:52) is not limited to innocence. It also
the housetops (see 12:3). Jesus’ serenity in the conveys a positive sense: “just,” “righteous.”
face of death becomes a model for Stephen, the The confession of the centurion is not the
first Christian martyr, who at his death also prays, christological climax of the Gospel but the last in
“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59 NIV). the series of pronouncements of Jesus’ innocence.
Luke records Jesus’ death simply: “He breathed Pilate pronounces Jesus innocent three times
his last” (éxmvéw ekpneo). Whereas Mark pref- (23:4, 14, 22), Pilate reports that Herod also
aces this statement with a loud cry, Luke has found him innocent (23:15), and the criminal on
moved the reference to the “loud voice” so that the cross affirms his innocence (23:41). Now the
it introduces Jesus’ dying prayer. In this way the centurion, having witnessed the manner of Jesus’
death of Jesus in Luke is more peaceful; there is death—and perhaps the darkness, Jesus’ prayers,
no hint of a loud cry of anguish as he dies, only and Jesus’ conversation with the criminal—also
his complete trust in the Father, into whose hands affirms Jesus’ innocence. But more, he affirms that
he commits his spirit. é the one who died praying to God was “just.”
23:47-49. Just as Luke has constructed the
narrative of the crucifixion so that there are three 315. See Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2:1160.
461
Luke prefaces the centurion’s response by saying the identity of Jesus is recognized, then the people
that he “praised God” (So€a¢w doxazo). Through- respond in an act of contrition or a plea for mercy.
out the Gospel, Luke has characterized the result of What else caf sinners do when they recognize
Jesus’ life as leading others to glorify God. At Bethle- the meaning of Jesus’ death but humble them-
hem the shepherds responded to the birth of Jesus by selves before God and ask for mercy?
glorifying God (2:20). When Jesus taught in the The third response comes from “all his acquain-
synagogues in Galilee, the people glorified God (4:15). tances, including the women who had followed him
Then it was the paralyzed man whom Jesus healed from Galilee” (v. 49). The reference to “all” is a
and those who witnessed the healing (5:25-26), those Lukan signature, as we have noted throughout Luke
who witnessed his raising of the widow at Nain’s son (cf. v. 48). The acquaintances are not further iden-
(7:16), the crippled woman (13:13), the Samaritan tified. They may have included the eleven disciples,
leper (17:15), and the blind man in Jericho (18:43). but Luke does not say so. More likely, it is intended
So significant in Luke is the response of praising God as a general reference to relatives and/or to the
for wondrous deeds of redemption that the Gospel larger group of disciples and followers, such as the
itself will end with this response (24:53, though with seventy(-two) from 10:1ff. and those who would
the verb “to bless” (eVAoyéw eulogeo). The centu- soon be numbered among the 120 in Acts 1:15.
rion is but the first of many—Jews (4:21; 11:18; They stood “at a distance” (cf. 18:13). The group
21:20) and Gentiles (Acts 13:48)—who will re- included the women who had followed him from
spond to the gospel by glorifying God. ‘Galilee (some of whom were named in 8:2-3).
The second response Luke describes is that of Perhaps because they are named there, Luke does
“all the crowds” who were standing by. The not name them here (cf. Mark 15:40-41; Luke
crowds here continue the response of the people 23:55; 24:10). They, too, were “watching these
(see 23:5, 13, 27, 35). This is the last reference things”’—which qualifies them as witnesses (cf.
to the crowds in Luke. They have been “watch- 24:46-48; Acts 1:22). The responses of the three
ing” the spectacle of the crucifixion (as in v. 35). sympathetic observers occur in diminishing order:
Luke’s phrase “what had taken place” (v. 48) The centurion sees and speaks; the crowds see and
echoes the similar reference in v. 47. The crowds beat their breasts; and the acquaintances see—nei-
also had seen what the centurion saw. Their ther their words nor their actions are recorded,
response is one of mourning and self-condemna- perhaps because no further description of the sym-
tion. The response of “beating their breasts” ech- pathetic or confessing responses is needed. The
oes the posture of the tax collector in the parable spectacle of Jesus’ death is over, but the events at
of the Pharisee and the tax collector. The tax the cross have clearly revealed his identity as the
collector “standing far off” would not look to Savior and the meaning of his death. Moreover, the
heaven, but “beat his breast,” saying, “God, be story will not end at the cross. First, we may recall
merciful to me, a sinner!” (18:13). The crowd that only the first part of the passion predictions has
says nothing, but their actions speak for them. been fulfilled. And, second, there were persons
The sequence of the responses to Jesus’ death in standing there who had seen these things. Their
Luke is instructive—and profoundly right. First, story, too, would have to be told.
REFLECTIONS
Sometime during the seventh or ninth century, St. Angus came to Balquidder, a beautiful
valley surrounded by forested hills in the Scottish highlands. Moved by its beauty, he said it
was “a thin place”—a place where the separation between heaven and earth was very thin—so
he built a church there that has survived to this day.
The death of Jesus is “a thin place.” Indeed, the heavens become dark, and on earth the
veil in the Temple is rent. So thin is the separation that Jesus talks to God from the cross,
and those who hear his prayers are moved to confession and contrition. The one who was
hailed by a chorus of angels at his birth and was designated by an angel visitant as the Son
of God commits his spirit to God as he dies. The holy one dies a common criminal’s death
and speaks of Paradise to the criminal beside him.
Each of the Gospels presents the death of Jesus in a different way, as is evident from the
observation that only the cry of dereliction appears in two Gospels (Matthew and Mark). Six
“words” of Jesus from the cross appear in the other three Gospels, and none in more than
one Gospel. Mark depicts Jesus dying in agony and abandonment. In Mark we see the depth
of Jesus’ suffering. Matthew follows Mark closely but adds a description of the opening of the
tombs and the resurrection of the saints. In Matthew we see that the death of Jesus leads to
life for all who trust in God. John portrays the cross as ironic exaltation. Jesus is “lifted up”
in mock coronation as the King of the Jews as he returns to the Father. The giver of living
water thirsts as he dies. In John we see the Logos completing his mission of revelation and
the lamb of God taking away the sin of the world.
The divergent colors that the evangelists use to paint the crucifixion scene call us to read
each one individually and appreciatively. In Luke we stand with the crowd of the people
watching while Jesus is crucified by those who taunt him with mocked pleas that he save
himself and others. Jesus’ death, therefore, confirms who he has been throughout his ministry.
The authorities pronounce him innocent. The taunts derisively hail him as the Messiah, God’s
chosen one, and the King of the Jews, but Jesus prays for forgiveness for those who have
rejected and crucified him. He assures the penitent criminal of blessing in Paradise and dies
with the prayer of one who trusts God even in death. Jesus has faithfully undertaken the work
of redemption—iifting up the lowly (1:52) and preaching good news to the poor (4:18)—and
it has cost him his life. Ironically, though, his death also signals the inevitability of the
completion of the other side of the redemption of the humble—judgment upon the proud and
bringing down “the powerful from their thrones” (1:52).
The people leave “The Skull” beating their breasts. How terrible that God has sent “the
Savior,” and we rejected him and crucified him on a hill outside the city. At his death, even
a hardened soldier was moved to confess that he was just. If we have rejected the Savior,
God’s only son, what hope is there? “What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them?”
(20:15). Perhaps it is good not to dispel the darkness of the death of Jesus too quickly. We
naturally move on to wonder at the love of God revealed in the death of Jesus or to translate
its meaning into sacrificial terms (which are not clearly invoked in Luke) or to press on to the
next chapter—to the resurrection. But part of the power of the gospel is that it calls us to
tarry at the cross and then return home beating our breasts with those whose hopes seemed
to have died there. Only by witnessing the darkness of his death and the despair of the loss
of hope can we fully appreciate the joy of the resurrection. God’s purposes for Jesus, the Savior,
however, will not be defeated by the power of darkness. Jesus came “to give light to those
who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death” (1:79). So those who see the light in the
darkness can join those at the cross who confessed Jesus, beat their breasts in grief and
contrition, and then went away to serve as witnesses that they had been at the “thin place”
where the design of the God of the heavens was revealed on earth.
Through the centuries, human beings have looked for “thin places” in many ways. Some
have climbed mountaintops; others have meticulously observed cultic rituals; some have
searched religious lores; and others have looked within through prayer and meditation. Where
is God to be found in human experience? Where can we see God revealed through the veil
that surrounds us? Who would have thought that “The Skull” would be the “thin place”? At
such a place we can only confess our wretched unworthiness of such love as this.
463
LUKE 23:50-56
Luke 23:50-56, The Burial of Jesus
NIV NRSV
5°Now there was a man named Joseph, a mem- 50Now there was a good and righteous man
ber of the Council, a good and upright man, °!who named Joseph, who, though a member of the
had not consented to their decision and action. council, *'had not agreed to their plan and action.
He came from the Judean town of Arimathea and He came from the Jewish town of Arimathea, and
he was waiting for the kingdom of God. Going he was waiting expectantly for the kingdom of
to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body. °*Then he took God. °*This man went to Pilate and asked for the
it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it body of Jesus. Then he took it down, wrapped
in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one it in a linen cloth, and laid it in a rock-hewn tomb
had yet been laid. It was Preparation Day, and where no one had ever been laid. “It was the
the Sabbath was about to begin. day of Preparation, and the sabbath was begin-
The women who had come with Jesus from ning. “The women who had come with him
Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and
how his body was laid in it. °°Then they went how his body was laid. *°Then they returned, and
home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they ‘prepared spices and ointments.
rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the On the sabbath they rested according to the
commandment. commandment. ,
aGk was dawning
COMMENTARY
The burial of Jesus provides closure to the people, therefore, pious representatives of the
account of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus and heritage of Israel receive Jesus at his birth and
serves as a transition to the resurrection of Jesus care for his body at his death.
in the next chapter. Brief as it is—and Luke has 23:51. In order to make the point that Joseph
abridged Mark’s account—the report of the burial was a just man, however, Luke clarifies that, al-
of Jesus is not without significance or artistry. though he had said earlier that “the assembly rose
23:50. The introduction of Joseph of Ari- as a body and brought Jesus before Pilate” (23:1)
mathea reminds the reader of the devout Jews and later that “they all shouted together, ‘Away with
who played prominent roles in the infancy narra- this fellow!’ ” (23:18), Joseph had not joined in their
tive. Using a formula reminiscent of the Septua- plan or supported the crucifixion. Instead, the man
gint, Luke introduces “a good and righteous man from Arimathea was looking for the kingdom of
named Joseph.” Luke extols the character of God, just as Simeon was “looking forward to the
Joseph rather than his social position—fittingly, redemption of Jerusalem” (see 2:25; cf. 2:38). Joseph
since Luke has typically portrayed the difficulties was from (literally) “a city of the Jews” (v. 51).
the rich have in receiving the kingdom. Although Except in the references to “the kingof the Jews,”
Joseph is a member of the Sanhedrin, he is a the term “Jews” (lovdatos Joudaios) does not
“good man,” who will bring forth good things out appear elsewhere in Luke except in 7:3, in a
of his treasure (6:45); he is good soil in which reference to elders of the Jews.
the kingdom of God may grow (8:8, 15). The 23:52. Luke, who is fond of symmetry and
term for “just,” which was used by the centurion balanced pairs, records that at Jesus’ burial there
of Jesus (v. 47) is now used of Joseph. Zechariah, was a man from a city of the Jews and women
Elizabeth (1:6), and Simeon (2:25) were described from Galilee. Earlier, Luke has featured the roles
as “just” or “righteous.” In contrast to the hostile of Zechariah and Elizabeth, Joseph and Mary,
response of the chief priests and leaders of the Simeon and Anna, the centurion and the widow at
464
Nain, Simon the Pharisee and the woman of the confirms that the burial was completed before
city, the man with dropsy and the bent woman, sundown (cf. Deut 21:22-23), and in that case
and other male-female pairs. Joseph and the before the beginning of the sabbath.?!”
women have significant roles. Joseph secures from 23:55-56. The women who had followed Jesus
Pilate permission to bury the body of Jesus; the from Galilee were witnesses to these events. The
necessity of securing permission from Pilate con- women, who were mentioned at the cross (23:49),
firms that the Romans were in charge of the will return to anoint the body on the first day of
execution. The Romans did not usually allow the week (24:1). Unlike Mark, who includes lists
executed persons to be taken by their family or of names of the women at the cross, the burial of
supporters for a decent burial. In this case, how- Jesus, and the empty tomb (Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1),
ever, the request came not from Jesus’ family or Luke lists the names only once, in 24:10. The
his disciples, but from a member of the council specific report that the women saw the tomb and
that had brought Jesus to Pilate, who himself had the way Jesus was laid in it may have served as
never been convinced of Jesus’ guilt. There was an apologetic motif, confirming that the burial
little reason to think that the people would make occurred and that the women did not later go to
a martyr of this one.3'¢ the wrong tomb (cf. Matt 27:61-66; Mark 15:47;
23:53-54. According to Luke, Joseph took 1 Cor 15:4). They apparently also saw that Joseph
Jesus’ body down from the cross himself (cf. Matt did not anoint the body, perhaps because of the
27:58 where Pilate orders the body taken down) lateness of the hour. Having provided for Jesus
and wrapped it in fine linen. Luke omits Mark’s during his life (8:2-3), the women now return to
reference to Joseph’s purchasing the linen cloth. prepare spices, probably scented oils, for anointing
Joseph then places the body in a tomb hewn out his body in death. Luke underscores, nevertheless,
of the rock (cf. John 19:41). Having entered that the women rested on the sabbath, keeping the
Jerusalem on a donkey on which no one had ever law. Given the situation, therefore, everything about
sat (19:30), he is buried in a tomb in which no Jesus’ burial was done properly: A good and righteous
one has ever been laid (cf. John 19:41). Nothing man, a member of the Sanhedrin, secured permission
is said about spices or anointing the body, perhaps from Pilate and buried the body; it was wrapped in
because the approach of the sabbath left little time linen and laid in a new tomb hewn from the rock;
for the burial. Luke defers the reference to the the burial was witnessed by the women, who then
time from the beginning of the burial report (as prepared to anoint it; the burial was completed before
it is in Mark 15:42) to the end of it, where it sundown; and the women rested on the sabbath. It
was a burial fit for a just man.
316. Fora full discussion of the factors involved in the release ofJesus’
body, see John Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53, WBC 35C (Dallas: Word,
1993) 1164. 317. See also m. Sanh 6.5. Cf. m. Sabb. 23.4-5.
_ REFLECTIONS
Although funerals are part of the ministry of the church, and burials perhaps are the most ancient
of religious ceremonies, the NT is surprisingly silent about the ritual of burial. John the Baptist’s
disciples took his body and buried it (Mark 6:29), and “devout men buried Stephen and made
loud lamentation over him” (Acts 8:2 NRSV). But who buried James the brother of John (Acts
12:2)? We know much more about Jesus’ burial than about the burial of anyone else in the NT.
Moreover, although the burial is recorded only briefly, the taking down of the body from
the cross is one of the scenes that dominates Christian art. Joseph of Arimathea, therefore,
has had a disproportionately large place in Christian art. Why do we find this interlude between
the crucifixion and the discovery of the empty tomb so fascinating?
Joseph of Arimathea is a minor character in the Gospels, but one whose name will be
remembered throughout history for one decent act. Was he moved by a raging sense of injustice
(John
at the death of Jesus (23:51), by devotion to the Lord he had feared to confess openly
19:38)? Or was he simply moved to do a decent and compassionate thing? We may never
465
know, but how could he have ever known that, even though he was a man of some distinction
in his own time, he would be remembered for all time for this one compassionate act? It
would not be a bad thing to be remembered as one who did something good and decent.
Jesus was not buried in the manner of “the kings of the Gentiles” (cf. 22:25). In the kingdom
of God, a state funeral is a much simpler affair. But Jesus was buried by a good and righteous
man, and things were done properly. For one who lived and died among the outcasts, it was
appropriate. If the NT does not offer much guidance regarding how a funeral should be conducted,
therefore, what guidance the account of Jesus’ burial offers goes to the heart of the matter. Jesus’
funeral fittingly reflected his life, and those who buried him acted with compassion, caring for the
body, cherishing the memory of his life, and honoring God in the process.
LUKE 24:1-53, THE RESURRECTION NARRATIVES
OVERVIEW
The final section of the Gospel contains the _to the disciples. Mark contains no appearances but
discovery of the empty tomb (24:1-12), the appear- forecasts an appearance in Galilee, which Mat-
ance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus thew then reports. Luke and Acts contain appear-
(24:13-35), and the appearance to the eleven back ances to the disciples in and around Jerusalem.
in Jerusalem (24:36-53). The latter ends with the Only John contains appearances both in Jerusalem
departure of Jesus (24:50-53). This chapter fulfills (John 20) and in Galilee John 21), and it has
some vital functions. Most obviously, it proclaims often been proposed that John 21 was added to
the resurrection of Jesus. Beyond the obvious, how- the Gospel at one of the later stages of its com-
ever, it also relates the resurrection to the procla- position. If that is the case, then one of the
mation of the church, declares that the events of notable parallels between Luke and John is that,
the crucifixion and resurrection fulfilled the Scrip- in contrast to the tradition known to Mark and
tures, establishes that the presence of the risen Lord Matthew, they report appearances to the disciples
will be found in the study of Scripture and the in Jerusalem. The traditions of the discovery of
sharing of bread, commissions the disciples for their the empty tomb by the women probably derived
mission in the book of Acts, and brings closure to from Jerusalem, whereas the appearances to the
the Gospel through the report of Jesus’ departure. disciples represent various local traditions. The
The resurrection narratives pose some of the empty tomb and appearance traditions were prob-
most difficult problems for historical reconstruction. ably originally separate, but the Gospels reflect
The earliest references to the resurrection occur in efforts to link them together. Matthew and John
confessional passages in Paul’s letters (Rom 1:3-4; 1 report appearances to the women at the tomb
Cor 15:3-5; Phil 2:6-11; Col 1:15-20) and in the (Matt 28:9-10; John 20:14-18), and Luke reports
core of the early kerygma (Acts 2:23-24; cf. 2:32; that Peter (24:12) and others (24:24) sub-
3:15; 4:10; 10:40; 13:30, 37). In the Gospels, Acts, sequently went to the tomb to confirm the
and Paul’s letters we find brief reports of appear- women’s report. Peter’s visit to the’ tomb is also
ances: to Peter and then to the Twelve (1 Cor reported by John, who adds that the Beloved
15:3-5; cf. Mark 16:7), to Peter (Luke 24:34), to Disciple ran with Peter (John 20:3-10; see Com-
the apostles (Acts 1:3), to those chosen to be wit- .mentary on v. 12). Although it is difficult to trace
nesses (Acts 10:40-41), and to those who came with the growth of the tradition in detail, an extended
Jesus from Galilee (Acts 13:31). In the Gospels we process of development is nevertheless evident.
also find accounts of the discovery of the empty Luke’s distinctive treatment of these traditions
tomb by the women, and accounts of appearances will emerge in the commentary that follows.
466
LUKE 24:1-12
Luke 24:1-12, The Discovery of the Empty Tomb

NIV NRSV
I On the first day of the week, very early in WiA But on the first day of the week, at early
the morning, the women took the spices dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the
they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2They spices that they had prepared. ?They found the
found the stone rolled away from the tomb, “but stone rolled away from the tomb, “but when they
when they entered, they did not find the body of went in, they did not find the body.? “While they
the Lord Jesus. “While they were wondering about were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in
this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed dazzling clothes stood beside them. °The women?
like lightning stood beside them. °In their fright were terrified and bowed their faces to the
the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men‘¢ said to them, “Why do you
ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not
look for the living among the dead? °He is not here, but has risen.? “Remember how he told you,
here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7that the Son of Man
while he was still with you in Galilee: “The Son must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified,
of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful and on the third day rise again.” ®°Then they
men, be crucified and on the third day be raised remembered his words, °and returning from the
again.’” ®Then they remembered his words. tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all
°When they came back from the tomb, they the rest. '"Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna,
told all these things to the Eleven and to all the Mary the mother of James, and the other women
others. ‘lt was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary with them who told this to the apostles. ''But
the mother of James, and the others with them these words seemed to them an idle tale, and
who told this to the apostles. ''But they did not they did not believe them. '*But Peter got*up and
believe the women, because their words seemed ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw
to them like nonsense. '*Peter, however, got up the linen cloths by themselves; then he went
and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the home, amazed at what had happened.°®
strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went
aOther ancient authorities add of the Lord Jesus oGk They
away, wondering to himself what had happened. cGk but they dOther ancient authorities lack He is not here,
but has risen eOther ancient authorities lack verse 12
(COMMENTARY
All four Gospels report the discovery of the ciple ran to the tomb, the Beloved Disciple “saw
empty tomb, so there is much greater accord and believed” (John 20:8), so the angelic appear-
regarding the empty tomb tradition than regarding ance at the tomb is deferred until later in the
the various appearances. Nevertheless, each Gos- account (20:11-13) and altered in form. Luke’s
pel’s account of the discovery of the empty tomb account, as we shall see, is distinctive primarily
contains features unique to that Gospel. In Mark in the angelic announcement (vv. 5-7) and in
the women tell no one. Matthew continues the Peter’s role in confirming the women’s report {v.
heightening of the miraculous that was evident in 12). .
his account of the phenomena that accompanied 24:1-3. Luke moves from the burial of Jesus
Jesus’ death by reporting that the women wit- to the discovery of the empty tomb with scarcely
nessed the opening of the tomb and that later a break. The first verse is transitional, a coming
Jesus appeared to the women as they left the to the tomb corresponding to the returning from
tomb. John relates that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb in 23:56a. Like the other Gospels, Luke
the tomb alone and reported what she had seen reports that the women went to the tomb early
to the disciples. When Peter and the Beloved Dis- on the first day of the week but adds that the
467
women brought the spices they had prepared (9:30; Acts 1:10). The messengers from the heav-
earlier (cf. v. 2; 23:56). The women are not enly realm will report that Jesus has been raised
named (in contrast to Mark 16:1). Indeed, they from the dead:
are referred to only by the third person plural 24:5-6. The appearance of the angels follows
verb, which connects the beginning of this scene a pattern similar to that of the angelophanies and
even more closely with the previous one. theophanies in the OT (Judg 6:12-24; 13:2-23; cf.
The women’s intent is to anoint the body, pre- 2 Macc 3:26-28) or the appearances of Gabriel in
sumably because Joseph of Arimathea had not done Luke 1 (vv. 13-20, 36-38). The women are terti-
so and the beginning of the sabbath had precluded fied (cf. 1:12; 24:37) and turn their faces to the
them from completing a proper burial without vio- ground, but in this instance no reassurance is
lating the sabbath. Verses 2-3 report what they given. The angels proceed to deliver the Easter
found—and what they did not find. They found the announcement, which is the center. of the empty
stone rolled away from the tomb, but they did not tomb tradition. In Mark 16:6-7 the angelic an-
find the body. Luke’s work in abbreviating. Mark’s nouncement that interprets the meaning of the
account is evident in that Luke has not previously empty tomb follows closely the pattern of the
mentioned the stone, whereas Mark related that the early kerygma in 1 Cor 15:3-5. 5
tomb was sealed with a stone and that the women The early confession in 1 Corinthians 15 fol-
had worried about how they would roll it away (see .lows a fourfold pattern: died, buried, raised, ap-
Mark 15:46; 16:3). Similarly, whereas Luke abbre- peared. Accordingly, Mark sets the action on the
viates, Matthew embroiders at this point: “And third day after Jesus’ death. The “young man” at
suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel the tomb calls attention to the place where they
of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and laid Jesus’ body (perhaps preserving part of an
rolled back the stone and sat on it” (Matt 28:2 ancient liturgy at the tomb), announces that he
NRSV). Matthew, therefore, takes a half step toward has been raised, and promises that Jesus will
reporting the actual resurrection and the departure appear to Peter and the Twelve in Galilee. The
of Jesus from the tomb, such as we find in the angelic announcement, therefore, relates the early
Gospel of Peter 35-42. Matthew continues by re- kerygma in a narrative form.
porting the effect of these events on the guards at Luke has modified the Markan angelic an-
the tomb—another secondary feature found only in nouncement by omitting the words of reassurance
Matthew. The title “Lord Jesus” is a confessional (“Do not be alarmed”), changing the object of the
reference that does not appear elsewhere in Luke, women’s search from “Jesus of Nazareth” to “the
but occurs frequently in Acts and the Epistles. living among the dead,” dropping the reference to
24:4. In Matthew the angel appeared and rolled the crucifixion and the invitation to see the place
back the stone while the women were outside. In where he was laid, and substituting a reminder of
Mark the women see a young man when they enter the passion predictions for the promise of an appear-
the tomb, but in Luke they enter the tomb and find ance to Peter and the Twelve in Galilee. The
the body missing before the angel appears (as in common core of the announcements in Mark and
John). The appearance of the two men “in dazzling Luke is simply the declaration “he is not here but
clothes” occurs in Luke as a response to the has risen” (v. 5); this declaration is omitted in D
women’s lack of understanding regarding what they (see the discussion of the Western non-interpolations
were seeing. Again as in John, there are two angelic below at v. 12). The verb for “to rise” (nyépen
figures, apparently to fulfill the requirement of two egerthe) should probably be read as a passive, “He
witnesses (Deut 19:15). Luke does not call the has been raised,” so that it preserves the sense that
figures angels, but conveys their identity by describ- ‘God raised Jesus from the dead, as in the early
ing their apparel as “radiant,” “dazzling,” or “gleam- preaching (Acts 3:15; 4:10). The invitation to see
ing’—a term that Luke uses to describe lightning the place where Jesus was laid has been omitted
in 17:24 (cf. Acts 10:30). The appearance of the because Luke reported earlier that the women en-
two heavenly figures at the empty tomb in Luke tered the tomb but did not find the body (v. 3).
links the scene to the other scenes at which two 24:7-8. In place of the simple reference to the
figures appear: the transfiguration and the ascension crucifixion in Mark, Luke repeats the passion
468
predictions. The reference to Galilee assumes a two variable elements in 24:8 is probably signifi-
new focus. Rather than the place of the coming cant. Jesus is crucified by sinners. The verb “to
appearance of the risen Lord, it is the place where crucify” (otavpdw stauroo) did not occur in any
Jesus foretold his death. The explanation for this of the passion predictions. Indeed, it does not
change may be that Luke has no place in his occur in Luke prior to the crowd’s cry of “Crucify,
geographical scheme for appearances in Galilee. crucify him!” (23:21). Moreover, in retrospect,
Instead, Jesus journeys from Galilee to Jerusalem, the claim that Jesus was crucified by sinners links
where he is crucified and raised. After he ascends, his death, which was accompanied by taunts of
the disciples remain in Jerusalem until they are Jesus as the Savior, with Jesus’ claim that he had
empowered by the Holy Spirit for their work as come to call sinners to repentance (5:32) and to
witnesses “in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, seek and to save the lost (19:10).
and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8 NRSV). The phrase “on the third day” occurs not only
Luke, therefore, reports no appearances in Galilee, in the passion predictions but also in 1 Cor 15:4.
and the angel at the tomb, instead of commission- In each instance, it is related to the resurrection
ing the women to go and tell the disciples to go rather than to the discovery of the empty tomb
to Galilee, merely reminds them of what Jesus or the first appearance. At best we can count only
had told them while they were in Galilee. It is one full day and parts of two others, which leads
even possible that Luke has taken the story of the us to question whether “the third day” had some
miraculous catch of fish and used it as Peter’s call meaning beyond merely historical recollection.
to discipleship (Luke 5:1-10) rather than as an Various OT passages speak of significant events
appearance story, as it is in John 21:1-14, in order on the third day: Earth was created on the third
to avoid having an appearance in Galilee. day (Gen 1:9-13); the Lord appeared to the people
The passion prediction recalled in v. 7 is not at Sinai to make a covenant with Israel on the
exactly like any other in the Gospel but reproduces third day (Exod 19:11, 16-25); Jonah was deliv-
elements of the previous passion predictions. ered from the belly of the fish on the third day
“The Son of Man must be handed over to (jonah 1:17); and Hos 6:2 says: “After two days
sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day he will revive us;/ on the third day he will raise
rise again.” (24:7, italics added) us up,/ that we may live before him” (NRSV).
“The Son of Man must undergo great suffering, Significant as these OT references are, however,
and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and it is unlikely that they generated the tradition of
scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be the resurrection on the third day. It is much more
raised.” (9:22, italics added) likely that, given the report that the tomb was
“The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into discovered empty on the third day, the early
human hands.” (9:44, italics added) Christians found good reason to declare that this too
had been “according to the scriptures” (1 Cor 15:4).
“For he /the Son of Man/ will be handed over
to the Gentiles; and he will be mocked and 24:9. Whereas in Mark the women go and tell
insulted and spat upon. After they have flogged no one because they were afraid, even though
him, they will kill him, and on the third day he they were instructed to tell the disciples and
will rise again.” (18:32-33, italics added) Peter, in Luke the women are not told to go and
tell the disciples, but they do so. Luke has used
All four formulations employ the title “the Son of
the verb “to return” (UTootpédo) Aypostrepho)
Man.” Luke 24:7 parallels 9:22 in that it uses the
imperative of divine necessity, “must.” The verb for earlier in 23:48, 56, and it will recur in 24:33, 52.
“to be handed over” or “betrayed” (Tmapadtdwt The women tell the eleven (the Twelve minus
Judas), and “all the rest,” “all these things” (v. 9).
paradido mi) occurs in 9:44; 18:32-33; and 24:7,
but each reports the group(s) to whom Jesus is In these phrases we see both Luke’s fondness for
betrayed differently. There is also great variation
the generalizing “all” and his understanding that
from the beginning more persons than just the
in the description of the torment, and death of
Twelve followed Jesus (see 8:1-3; 10:1, 17; 19:37;
Jesus, but with the exception of 9:44 each of the
other three predictions forecasts the resurrection 23:49; Acts 1:15, 21-22).
of Jesus on the third day. The formulation of these 24:10-11. The women, whose names were
469
not reported at the crucifixion or at the beginning Markan lists, but since they vary Luke has ac-
of the empty tomb story, are now listed. As Fig. knowledged that there were others besides those
8 shows, Luke’s list owes something to the whom he has listed.
Figure 8: Women at the Crucifixion or the Tomb of Jesus
At the crucifixion
Matt 27:55 Mark 15:40 Luke 23:49 John 19:25
many women Mary Magdalene the women who had the mother of Jesus
Mary Magdalene Mary the mother of followed Jesus Jesus’ mother’s sister
Mary the mother of James and Joses from Galilee Mary the wife of Clopas
James and Joseph Salome Mary Magdalene
the mother of the many other women
sons of Zebedee
At the burial of Jesus

Matt 27:61 Mark 15:47 ‘Luke 23:55
Mary Magdalene Mary Magdalene the women who had

the other Mary Mary the mother of followed Jesus
Joses from Galilee
At the tomb on Sunday morning

Matt 28:1 Mark 16:1 Luke‘24:10 John 20:1
Mary Magdalene Mary Magdalene -Mary Magdalene Mary Magdalene

the other Mary Mary the mother of Joanna
James Mary the mother of
Salome James
the other women
Mary Magdalene and Joanna were both listed to believe sets up the plot of how they will come
among the women who followed Jesus in Galilee to accept the Easter news.
(see 8:2-3). The women’s report should have been 24:12. This verse is not part of the text in D
credible because (1) they were relating events of and some of the Old Latin manuscripts. Since D
which they had firsthand experience, (2) there is a leading exemplar-of the Western manuscript
tradition that often includes words and phrases
were several witnesses, and (3) their character has
not found in other manuscripts, the omission of
been established by the reports of their selfless
this verse represents an anomaly over which tex-
service to Jesus and his disciples (8:2-3; 23:49). tual criticism is divided. Westcott and Hort
Nevertheless, the others do not accept their tes- grouped v. 12 with eight other passages that they
timony. That testimony would have included not ‘called “Western non-interpolations” rather than con-
only the report that the tomb was empty (as in cede that there are interpolations in the so-called
John 20:2) but also the angelic announcement of neutral textual tradition.2!* The Western non-inter-
the resurrection. The motif of doubt is one that polations are found in Matt 27:49 and Luke 22:19620;
recurs in each of the resurrection accounts (Matt 24:3, 6, 12, 36, 40, and 51-52. Although Westcott
28:17; John 20:24-29; and the longer ending of
318. B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The Greek New Testament in
Mark, 16:9-20). The report of the disciples’ refusal the Original Greek, 1881.
470
and Hort omitted the words, phrases, or verses in issues: (1) whether one is more disposed toward
question in these nine passages preferring the shorter the strength of $)”, X, B, and the other manu-
text, the discovery of 3)”°, which dates from 175-225 scripts that include the verse, or the principle that
ce and includes the Western non-interpolations, has generally favors the shorter reading on the grounds
led the editorial boards of the critical editions of the that it is easier to explain an addition to the text
Greek NT and translation committees (including the than an omission; and (2) whether one is more
NRSV and the NIV) to include the Western non- disposed to see v. 12 as another instance of Lukan
interpolations as part of the text, though usually with material that draws from tradition also known to
a note indicating that they are missing from some John or to regard it as a later gloss added by a scribe
ancient manuscripts. The Western non-interpolations familiar with John. Similar considerations apply,
are also now usually evaluated individually on their however, to the presence of the Beloved Disciple in
own merits rather than as a group. The three Western John 20:3-10 and the absence of that disciple from
non-interpolations in the account of the discovery of Luke 24:12—it is easier to assume that John has
the empty tomb are the words “of the Lord Jesus” in inserted the Beloved Disciple into tradition that did
v. 3, “he is not here, but has risen” in v. 6, and all not originally mention him than to assume that a
of v. 12. To these might be added “sinful” in v. 7 and scribe who added v. 12 to Luke 24 omitted the
“from the tomb” in v. 9, which are also omitted in D Beloved Disciple in the process. The Beloved Disci-
and the Old Italian manuscripts. In each case, the ple and Peter are often found together in the latter
addition of the variant readings is easier to explain than chapters of John, and it has often been observed
their omission, even though the weight of the manu- that John has apparently inserted the Beloved Dis-
script tradition is clearly on the side of their inclusion. ciple into traditions that did not originally contain
In the case of v. 12, the issue is further references to that disciple. Following the majority of
complicated by two factors: (1) the report that recent critical editions and translations, we will treat
Peter ran to the tomb, looked in, and saw the v. 12 as part of the text but recognize that its
grave cloths has a parallel in John 20:3-10, where authenticity is far from certain.
Peter and the Beloved Disciple run to the tomb; Even if v. 12 is authentic, the similarity be-
and (2) v. 24, which is present in all manuscripts, tween it and John 20:3-10 is such that some
says that some of the disciples ran to the tomb. interchange between the two passages in the
Much of the weight of a decision over the textual tradition was inevitable. Given the best
authenticity of v. 12, therefore, rests on two attested readings of v. 12, the parallels are:
Luke 24:12 John 20:3-10
But Peter got up Then Peter

and the other disciple set out
and ran to the tomb; and went toward the tomb
.... He {the Beloved Disciple}
stooping and looking in, bent down to look in
he saw the linen cloths and saw the linen wrappings
[Tapaktbas BhéetreL TA OBOVLA frapaktypas BréTreL . . . TA OBOVLA
parakypsas blepei ta othonia| parakypsas blepei ta othonia|
by themselves; lying there... and the cloth
that had been on Jesus’ head,
...folled up in a place by itself.
then he went home, Then the disciples returned to
their homes.
amazed at what had happened.
From these parallels, it appears that John has had been wrapped in a linen cloth, or perhaps
embellished a tradition known to Luke by placing several linen cloths, and laid in the tomb. Peter
the Beloved Disciple with Peter at the empty tomb saw only the cloth(s)—no body.
and attributing to the Beloved Disciple the honor In Luke, Peter’s amazement at the empty tomb
of being the first to believe in the resurrection of serves to heighten the suspense. The tomb is
Jesus (John 20:8). empty, but the disciples do not believe the
The word used for the linen cloth(s) in v. 12 women’s report. How, then, would they believe
is 606vn (othoneé), whereas in 23:53 Luke used in the resurrection? Verse 12 makes it clear that
the term ov (sindon). The difference is curi- the empty tomb alone did not lead to the Easter
ous but probably not significant. The wrapping of faith. Instead, faith was based on the post-resur-
bodies in strips of cloth, mummy style, was not rection appearances—personal encounters with
practiced in Palestine in the first century, so in the risen Lord, such as those that follow in the
both verses the evident meaning is that the body rest of the chapter.
REFLECTIONS
1. Repeatedly, we have seen how Luke represents the gospel in each episode or scene in the
Gospel. If the whole is too big to wrap our minds around, Luke serves up miniatures, bite-sized
chunks. It is no exaggeration, however, to claim that the discovery of the empty tomb is the heart
of the matter for the Christian faith. Paul’s words echo somewhere on the edge of our consciousness:
“If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in
vain... we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:14, 19 NRSV). The NT never suggests
that the death of Jesus would have been adequate for salvation apart from Jesus’ resurrection. The
two are fused so that neither can be considered apart from the other. It is not just that
someone was raised from the dead but that God raised Jesus from the dead, and it is not
just that someone was crucified but that the one who was crucified had proclaimed the
kingdom and that his death was redemptive. The resurrection of Jesus is God’s response to
Jesus’ death, God’s vindication of Jesus, and God’s validation of Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom
to the poor, the outcast, and the penitent. In Luke, the matter is expressed not just in twelve
verses, but in five words in Greek: “He is not here; he is risen.”
2. How often do we spend Easter looking for Jesus in the wrong places? The religious
establishment shunted Jesus aside and thought it was safe to go on with religion as usual—services,
sacrifices, debates over the law, and alms for the poor. No longer would they have to contend
with those who looked forward to the coming of a kingdom whose rules for admission and the
boundaries of whose fellowship they did not control. No longer would they have to debate what
to do about a prophet who ate with tax collectors and rebuked those who gave fine dinners for
their respectable friends. Jesus can never be confined to the traditional, the safe, and the predictable,
however. Inherent in the expectation of a kingdom that has not yet come is the continual discovery
of new aspects of what Jesus requires of those who follow him. The women were dutifully serving
Jesus in the best way they knew. They had prepared spices to anoint his body and had gone to
the tomb early to finish the burial, only to be met with the challenge, “Why do you look for the
living among the dead?” In what ways do we continue to look for the living Lord among the
dead? Jesus was not in the tomb. He would be found instead out among the grieving, among his
disciples, and later in a Samaritan village and the households of a Gentile centurion and a Philippian
jailer. “Why do you look for the living among the dead?”
3. Part of understanding the Easter event requires an enlightenment of memory: “Remember
how he told you....” In the crises of life, and whenever we lay a loved one in the grave,
the loss can obliterate all the rest of life from our awareness and sever the connections between
472
us and the past. Remembering God’s presence in the past, therefore, can give us resources for
dealing with the present. God had vindicated Jesus—remember Galilee. Remember what Jesus
had done and what he had taught. Remember the meals in Jesus’ fellowship, his healings and
his parables, the bent woman and the ten lepers. Would you understand the meaning of the
empty tomb? Remember Galilee.
4. In the midst of tending to the necessary chores, especially the things that need to be
done in the hard times, the women were met by the unexpected experience of God’s grace.
Sometimes faith means going on and tending to the necessary chores. Prepare the spices, go
to the tomb, tell the others, even when they think it an idle tale. Be faithful in the tasks that
are ours and do the necessary tasks, for in them we, too, may be bearers of the good news
of the day: “He is not here, but has risen!”
5. The defining conviction of the Christian hope is that because Jesus was raised from the
dead the grave is not the final reality of human experience. The age-old question of the
philosophers, “If a man dies, will he live again?” (Job 14:14 NIV), has now been answered.
The tomb is empty. It is not surprising, therefore, that the empty-tomb account has often been
the touchstone of debate over the validity of the Christian gospel. Rationalist interpretations
were rejected from the very beginning: Jesus was really dead—he did not “swoon”; the women
saw where he was laid—they did not go to the wrong tomb; in Matthew, a guard was posted
at the tomb—no one moved the body; and in Luke and John some of the disciples confirmed
the women’s report.
Such apologetics raise the question, “Does our faith rest ultimately on the location of a
stone or the position of a linen cloth?” The question is closely tied to the meaning of
resurrection. When Jesus was raised, he did not return to normal human life. He did not live
another thirty years and die again. He appeared and disappeared at will, moving in and out
of human perception of his presence. Through the resurrection, Jesus moved into the existence
of eternity, the life of the future, from which he would bring the kingdom to fulfillment and
come again. What, then, are the tangible evidences of resurrection in our present experience?
Do they consist in the physical remains of the tomb, or in Jesus’ continuing presence in the
lives of those who hope for his kingdom? F
One way to reflect on the nature of the resurrection and the meaning of the empty tomb is to
ask what we might see if Jesus’ tomb had been equipped with a twentieth-century bank surveillance
camera that weekend. Would the tape show Jesus waking up, taking off the wrappings, folding
them and laying them to one side, pushing back the stone, and walking out of the tomb? Or
would the image on the film have been obliterated by a flash of light from a great energy source,
and then reveal the grave wrappings lying there limp and empty? Or perhaps there would be no
blinding light, simply the disappearance of the body in a moment of time. If so, how and why
was the stone moved aside? Was it to let Jesus out or to let the women in?
While the Gospels all affirm that the tomb was empty, they point beyond it to the
post-resurrection appearances. For all the importance of the historical data, the Gospels ground
our faith not on the stone and the linen cloths but on the presence of the risen Lord in human
experience. Typically, it is not the persuasive power of the empty tomb but a personal encounter
with the risen Lord that leads to faith. It was that way for Peter and Thomas and the other
disciples and for Paul, and it is still that way. We make a pilgrimage in search of the empty
tomb—whether literally or in memory—not in order to run a conclusive laboratory test on
the evidence for the resurrection but because we have found it to be so in our own experience.
As we reflect:on the meaning of the empty tomb, therefore, we can hardly do better than to
explore the meaning of the Easter declaration of the interpreting angels: “Why do you look
for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember. ...”
473
LUKE 24:13-35
: Luke 24:13-35, The Appearance on the Road to Emmaus
NIV NRSV
'3Now that same day two of them were going 13Now on that same day two of them were
to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles? going to a village called Emmaus, about seven
from Jerusalem. '‘They were talking with each miles? from Jerusalem, “and talking with each
other about everything that had happened. !°As other about all these things that had happened.
they talked and discussed these things with each SWhile they were talking and discussing, Jesus
other, Jesus himself came up and walked along himself came near and went with them, ‘but
with them; '°but they were kept from recognizing their eyes were kept from recognizing him. !7And
him. he said to them, “What are you discussing with
He asked them, “What are you discussing each other while you walk along?” They stood
together as you walk along?” still, looking sad.’ '*Then one of them, whose
They stood still, their faces downcast. '’One of name was Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the
them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you only only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know
a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things the things that have taken place there in these
that have happened there in these days?” ‘days?” '°He asked them, “What things?” They
'“What things?” he asked. replied, “The things about Jesus of Nazareth,° who
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet mighty in deed and word before
was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God-and all the people, #°and how our chief
God and all the people. *°The chief priests and priests and leaders handed him over to be con-
our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to demned to death and crucified him. ?!But we had
death, and they crucified him; ?!but we had hoped hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel.? Yes,
that he was the one who was going to redeem and besides all this, it is now the third day since
Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since these things took place. ?*Moreover, some women
all this took place. ?7In addition, some of our of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb
women amazed us. They went to the tomb early early this morning, *?and when they did not find
this morning **but didn’t find his body. They came his body there, they came back and told us that
and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said
who said he was alive. **Then some of our com-
that he was alive. “Some of those who were with
panions went to the tomb and found it just as the
us went to the tomb and found it just as the
women had said, but him they did not see.”
women had said; but they did not see him.”
2°He said to them, “How foolish you are, and
Then he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you
how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets
are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the
have spoken! *°Did not the Christ? have to suffer
prophets have declared! *°Was it not necessary
these things and then enter his glory?” ?7And
that the Messiah? should suffer these things and
beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he
then enter into his glory?” ?”Then beginning with
explained to them what was said in all the Scrip-
Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to
tures concerning himself.
them the things about himself in all the scriptures.
28As they approached the village to which they
were going, Jesus acted as if he were going
28As they came near the village to which they
farther. *’But they urged him strongly, “Stay with were going, he walked ahead as if he were going
us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” on. **But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay
So he went in to stay with them. with us, because it is almost evening and the day
3°When he was at the table with them, he took is now nearly over.” So he went in to stay with
bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it them. *°When he was at the table with them, he
to them. °'Then their eyes were opened and they aGk sixty stadia; other ancient authorities read a hundred sixty stadia
®Other ancient authorities read walk along, looking sad?”:
2/3 Greek sixty stadia (about 11 kilometers) 626 Or Messiah; also cOther ancient authorities read Jesus the Nazorean dOr to set
in verse 46 Israel free eOr the Christ
474
LUKE 24:13-35
NIV NRSV
recognized him, and he disappeared from their took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to
sight. **They asked each other, “Were not our them. *'Then their eyes were opened, and they
hearts burning within us while he talked with us recognized him; and he vanished from their sight.
on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” They said to each other, “Were not our hearts
They got up and returned at once to Jerusa- burning within us? while he was talking to us on
lem. There they found the Eleven and those with the road, while he was opening the scriptures to
them, assembled together *“and saying, “It is true! use” *8That same hour they got up and returned
The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their
*®Then the two told what had happened on the companions gathered together. *‘They were say-
way, and how Jesus was recognized by them ing, “The Lord has risen indeed, and he has
when he broke the bread. appeared to Simon!” *Then they told what had
happened on the road, and how he had been
made known to them in the breaking of the bread.
2Other ancient authorities lack within us
(COMMENTARY
The story of the appearance to the two disciples A stadium was 600 Roman feet, so sixty stadia
on the road to Emmaus is arguably the most devel- would be about 7.5 miles. Other manuscripts read
oped and the most beautiful of the appearance 160 stadia, or 19.5 miles. The longer distance
stories. Its plot revolves around the failure of the accords with the erroneous tradition of the pil-
two disciples to recognize their fellow traveler. The grims from the fourth century that identified the
suspense builds until the moment when the two site as Emmaus-Nicopolis. Three alternative sites
recognize the risen Lord and he disappears from lie closer to Jerusalem (el-Qubeibeh, favored by
their presence. The origins of the story are debated the Crusaders, but there is no evidence that it
and difficult to reconstruct, but the raw materials existed in the first century; Abu Ghosh; and
are easier to identify: (1) early tradition, such as may Qaloniyeh), but there is no consensus as to which
lie behind Mark 16:12-13, unless the longer ending if any of these was the site of Emmaus.?!”
of Mark draws upon Luke: “After this he appeared Both the Greco-Roman literature and the OT
in another form to two of them, as they were contain stories of appearances to heroes, angels,
walking into the country. And they went back and or gods, sometimes incognito and sometimes to
told the rest, but they did not believe them” (NRSV; travelers. The tradition of entertaining “angels
other indicators of early tradition have been found unawares” (Heb 13:2) derives from the experi-
in the names “Emmaus” and “Cleopas”); (2} the ence of Abraham in Genesis 18, when the Lord
development of the kerygma (e.g., 1 Cor 15:3-5) visited him at the oaks of Mamre in the form of
into narrative: died, buried, raised, and appeared, three travelers. In Exodus 3 the Lord speaks to
“according to the scriptures”; (3) the story form of Moses from a burning bush, but at first Moses
the OT theophanies and angelophanies, in which does not know who is speaking to him. The form
humans occasionally “entertained angels unawares” is more developed in Judges, where the angel of
(Heb 13:2 RSV); (4) Lukan interests: Jesus as prophet, the Lord appears to Gideon (Judg 6:11-24), com-
hope for the redemption of Israel, the fulfillment of missions Gideon, and Gideon brings food, which
Scripture, and the importance of table fellowship; and is then consumed by fire. When Gideon realizes
(5) a central theme: how people who have not seen that he has seen an angel, he is afraid that he will
the risen Lord can come to know him.
Three sites are candidates for the location of 319. James F. Strange, “Emmaus,” Anchor Bible Dictionary (New
York: Doubleday, 1992) 2:497-98; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 7he Gospel Ac-
Emmaus. The best manuscript tradition says that cording to Luke (X-XXIV), AB 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985)
Emmaus was located sixty stadia from Jerusalem. 1561-62.
475
die, but the angel reassures him. In Judges 13 the view of the ascension that he will report, can later
angel of the Lord appears to Manoah and an- believers experience the presence of the risen Lord?
nounces the birth of Samson. Manoah and his Would it not have been far better to have been
wife offer to kill a kid and prepare a feast, but among the first witnesses who actually saw him?
they are told to offer a sacrifice. When they do The Emmaus story responds by showing that the
so, the angel ascends in the flame. Like Gideon, presence of the Lord is known in experiences that
Manoah fears that he will die when he realizes transcend the events of the resurrection appear-
that he has seen an angel. In the book of Tobit, ances. Fitzmyer divides the story into four parts: (1)
Raphael appears to Tobias and accompanies him the meeting (vv. 13-16), (2) the conversation in
on his journey. In the end, Raphael identifies route (vv. 17-27), (3) the Emmaus meal (vv. 28-32),
himself and tells Tobit and Tobias that all this and (4) the return to Jerusalem (vv. 33-35).3
time they were just seeing a vision; Raphael 24:13-16, The Meeting. The opening words
reminds them that they had not seen him eat shift the scene from Peter, who had gone home
anything (Tob 12:19). Raphael then announces amazed at what he had seen, to two others, who
that he is ascending, and when they look up he were apparently also returning home after having
is gone. In each of these stories, an angel appears. traveled to Jerusalem for Passover. Verses 13-16 are
Often the angel is not recognized immediately, a all initial exposition by the narrator, setting the time
promise or commissioning is given, sometimes -and place and introducing the characters and the
eating and drinking are mentioned or are con- plot complication. The dialogue does not begin until
spicuously absent, and when the identity of the v. 17. Luke reports that it is “the same day.” Indeed,
one who has appeared is known, the humans all of Luke 24 takes place on the same day, the first
express fear, awe, or reverence. day of the week, even though it stretches the limits
Similarly, in Greco-Roman accounts appearances of credulity by having the two disciples travel to
of supernatural beings occasionally involve travelers. Emmaus and back (certainly not 20 miles each way!),
Plutarch records that a colonist from Alba, Julius and then experience another appearance and meal
Proculus, swore that “as he was travelling on the road, scene with the risen Lord before going out to the
he had seen Romulus coming to meet him, fair and Mount of Olives (at night?), where the Lord departs
stately to the eye as never before,” and that Romulus from them, and the disciples return to Jerusalem. The
told him that the gods had allowed him to return to two are not identified in v. 13 beyond the connection
found “a city destined to be the greatest on earth for of the pronoun in the phrase “of them” with the
empire and glory” and then to return to heaven. reference to the apostles in v. 10. Later we will learn
Plutarch comments that the story is similar to the that one of them is named Cleopas (v. 18) and that
fables the Greeks tell about Aristeas, for after his death they knew “the eleven and their companions” (v. 33).
“certain travellers returning from abroad said they had We may presume, therefore, that the two were
met Aristeas journeying towards Croton.”°”° Diogenes among the extended group of Jesus’ followers in
Laertius tells the story of how Empedocles disappeared Jerusalem (cf. Luke 23:49; Acts 1:15, 21-22).
after a feast, and someone said they had heard a voice The proposed sites for Emmaus lie along a road
from heaven calling Empedocles and then saw a light that runs generally northwest from Jerusalem. As
in the heavens.**! Gentile Christians who knew both they walked, they were discussing “all these
the Scriptures and the legends of their cultures, there- things that had happened” (v. 14). With this
fore, would readily recognize the genre and repertoire phrase Luke recalls the events of the passion
of the Emmaus story. narrative to this point. The plot complication is
When the Lord appears to Thomas in the introduced in vv. 15-16 along with a hint of irony.
Gospel of John, he pronounces a final beatitude Not only are the eyes of the two kept from
on all who would believe without having seen. recognizing Jesus (prevented by God, as may be
Luke addresses a similar issue: How, especially in suggested by the passive voice?}, but also they are
discussing the things that had happened to Jesus
320. Plutarch, Romulus, 28.1-4, in Bernadotte Perrin, trans., Plu-
tarch’s Lives, LCL (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914) when Jesus himself approaches them. The report
1:177-79.
321. Diogenes Laertuis Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.67-68. 322. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (XXXIV), 1559.
476
that they do not recognize him raises the question 24:19-24. Jesus’ short response (which is only
of when and how the disciples will recognize one word in Greek) is followed by a response that
Jesus (cf. Tob 5:4). It also establishes the basis for stretches across six verses (112 words in Greek) that
the irony in the ensuing conversation because now summarize the events that have transpired and
the reader knows something that the two travelers reveal that the two disciples do not understand what
do not know. The verb translated “to recognize” or has occurred. Just as Luke’s account of the trial and
“to perceive” (EmuytvwoKw epigindsko) is one death of Jesus was tightly focused on christological
Lukesuses frequently (1:4,.22:.5:22:°7:375 23:7), issues, so also is Cleopas’s summary of these events.
and its use here will be balanced by the report in In effect, he responds with a christological confession
v. 31 that the disciples’ eyes were opened and and a summary of the Lukan passion narrative, each
they recognized him. element of which is revealing. Cleopas calls Jesus
24:17-27, The Conversation En Route. “the Nazarene” (as in 4:34), which is usually trans-
Jesus initiates the conversation by asking the two lated “of Nazareth.” He was (literally) “a man, a
What they have been talking about as they prophet mighty in work and word.” Jesus’ identity
walked. The question is a picturesque one: liter- as a prophet, but one greater than the prophets, was
ally, “What are these words that you have been the theme of much of Luke 7. The confession of
pitching back and forth to each other?” Jesus’ Jesus as prophet also evokes earlier confessions
question stops them in their tracks, and they stand (7:16; 9:8, 19) and self-references (4:24; 13:33). For
looking sad, downcast, or gloomy (the same term Luke the confession “prophet” is correct but not as
is used in Matt 6:16 [oxu8pwtds skythro pos]). high a confession as Christ, Lord, Son of Man, or
24:18. The narrator provides further information Son of God. Moses was “powerful in his words and
by reporting that one of the disciples was named deeds” (Acts 7:22), and Apollos was (literally) “pow-
Cleopas. Providing the name adds authority and erful in the scriptures” (Acts 18:24). The preposition
credibility to the story. The name is close to the “before” or “in the presence of” (Evavtiov enan-
Clopas of John 19:25, but there is no basis for tion) appears three times in the Gospel: Zechariah
identifying the two as the same person. Cleopas and Elizabeth were “righteous [Sixatou dikaioi|
responds with a question that can be read variously: before God” (1:6), the scribes and chief priests
“Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who were not able to trap Jesus in his words “in the
does not know...?” (NRSV) presence of the people” (20:26), and now Jesus
“Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not is confessed as mighty in‘deed and word “before
know... ?” (NIV) God and all the people.”
Verse 19 is the last reference to “the people”
“Are you sojourning alone in Jerusalem and have
(0 Aads Ao laos) in Luke. Overlooking their tem-
not learned... ?”%3
porary complicity in calling for Jesus’ crucifixion
The reference to the things that have taken place (23:18-21), Cleopas’s summary of the preceding
again recalls the events of the passion narrative events characterizes the response of “the people”
(cf. “all these things that had happened” in v. 14). as a positive one in contrast to the role of “the
The irony is that whereas the question as- chief priests and leaders” who handed Jesus over
sumes Jesus is the only one who does not know to be crucified. Luke has ensured that Cleopas’s
of these earth-shattering events, he is the only report of the events accurately summarizes the
one who does know the meaning of all that has passion narrative. The role of the chief priests in
happened. In classical irony the ignorance of the the death of Jesus is forecast in Luke 9:22 and
“know it all” character (ddaCuv alazon) is exposed detailed in Luke 19:47; 20:1, 19; 22:2, 4, 50, 52,
by the character who feigns ignorance (elpwv 54, 66; 23:4, 10, 13. Similarly, the leaders are
eiron).>24 The two disciples assume they know associated with the chief priests in 23:13 and
much more about what has happened than does distinguished from the people in 23:35 (cf. 19:47;
the stranger who has joined them. Jesus plays the 20:1). Along with the chief priests, Luke has men-
eiron. “What things?” (rota; poia?). tioned the scribes, the elders, and the “first ones.”
Here “the leaders” is an inclusive reference to the
323. Fitzmyer suggests this as a literal translation. See ibid., 2:1564.
324. Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 4.7. groups named earlier. Their role was to hand Jesus
477
over (cf. v. 7) to Pilate and press him for Jesus’ report.525 Cleopas concludes his report with an
condemnation (see 23:1-2, 13-25). Although, emphatic statement, “But him they did not see.”
strictly speaking, the Romans crucified Jesus, Luke The failure to see the risen Lord created confusion
has Cleopas lay the blame for it at the feet of the regarding the meaning of the empty tomb. Again
chief priests and leaders (see 23:25-26). there is irony: The two were confused because
Verse 20 completes the report of Jesus’ trial and Peter had not seen Jesus, but now they have seen
death. Cleopas turns next to the response of the the risen Lord and still they do not understand.
disciples and the report of the women. Jesus had 24:25-27. Jesus brings the sad irony to an end
kindled hope in the disciples. At the birth of John and begins the process of revealing himself and
the Baptist, Zechariah prophesied that the Lord God the meaning of the resurrection to the disciples.
of Israel had “looked favorably on his people and The revelation of the Easter reality begins with
redeemed them” (1:68). Simeon had spent his life the fulfillment of the Scriptures, just as the Gos-
“looking forward to the consolation of Israel” (2:25), pel opened with emphasis on this theme in the
and Anna was a witness “to all who were looking first chapter. Those who do not see this fulfill-
for the redemption ofJerusalem” (2:38). By speaking ment are “foolish” and “slow of heart to believe”
of Jesus as the hoped-for Redeemer of Israel, Cleopas (v. 25). Luke’s fondness for the encompassing
echoes the words of Isaiah (41:14; 43:14). They had “all” is evident again in “all that the prophets
hoped that the promises of the Scriptures were about have declared” (v. 25) and “all the prophets” (v.
to be fulfilled (a point that will be important in vv. 21s OVOP i320)
26-27, 32, 44-47). Again, Cleopas is a victim of The suffering of the Messiah was necessary in
irony; they had hoped that Jesus would fulfill the God’s providential plan for the redemption of
Scriptures, but they saw his death—which was Israel and the salvation of sinners. It was necessary
indeed the fulfillment—as only the frustration of that Jesus be about his Father’s business (2:49),
their hope. The reference to “the third day” reso- and for the kingdom of God to be preached
nates with the passion predictions in 9:22; 18:33; (4:43)! It was necessary to set the crippled woman
and 24:7 (cf. 24:46). No Christian reader would free from her bondage (13:16) and for Jesus to
miss the irony of Cleopas’s lament that it was now stay with Zacchaeus (19:5). Above all, it was
“the third day”’—the day that Christians would necessary for Jesus to go to Jerusalem (13:33) and
forever celebrate with joy. there to suffer and die (9:22; 17:25). It was
Cleopas summarizes the discovery of the empty necessary that the Scriptures be fulfilled in Jesus
tomb (vv. 1-2) in vv. 22-24. “Some women” appro- (22:37; 24:44). The fulfillment, however, con-
priately refers to the women in the open-ended sisted not only in Jesus’ suffering but also in his
list in v. 10. The time of their visit to the tomb entering “into his glory” (v. 26). One may under-
corresponds with the temporal reference in v. 1 stand either the resurrection or the ascension as
(dp8pou Badéws orthrou batheds, v. 1; dpOpivat Jesus’ entry into his glory. The other evangelists
orthrinai, v. 22). The report that they did not find did not separate the two. John treats the cross as
the body repeats the account of v. 3 verbatim. already part of Jesus’ exaltation (but see John
The appearance of the interpreting angels, how- 20:17). Luke separates the ascension from the res-
ever, is recast as an item of lesser credibility. In urrection, but the ascension may simply make clear
accord with the earlier report that the women’s and visible what is already implicit in the resurrec-
words “seemed to them an idle tale” (v. 11), tion of Jesus. The language of entering into his glory
instead of saying that the women did not find the is anticipated by earlier references to Jesus’ “exodus”
body but saw two angels who told them that Jesus (9:31), the revelation of Jesus’ glory in the trans-
had been raised, Cleopas reports that the women figuration (9:32), and the penitent thief’s antici-
came back and said that they had seen a vision
of angels who said that he was alive. Earlier the 325. Ifv. 12 is accepted (see Commentary on v. 12), v. 24 summarizes
Peter’s visit to the tomb. If v. 12 is not authentic, then v. 24 is the only
word “vision” (o1tTacta optasia) had not been part of Cleopas’s story that has no antecedent earlier in Luke. This point
used (see v. 4), nor were the two explicitly called alone would argue for the inclusion of v. 12. The only difference is that v.
“angels.” Verse 24 reports that some of the disci- 24 is plural and anonymous, whereas v. 12 names Peter as the one who
ran to the tomb. Interestingly, John reports that two of the disciples went
ples had gone to the tomb to verify the women’s to the tomb (Peter and the Beloved Disciple).
478
pation of Jesus’ entry into his kingdom (23:42). The glory Aristotle would have been pleased with the rec-
of the Lord shone at Jesus’ birth (2:9, 14). The Son of ognition scene of the Emmaus story.
Man will come in glory (9:26; 21:27). The disciples had Narration dominates. Having summarized the
chanted “glory in the highest” while Jesus rode into risen Lord’s discourse in vv. 25-27, the narrator
Jerusalem (19:38). Now, their hopes were being fulfilled guides the reader through this scene, yielding the
even beyond what they knew to hope for. floor to the characters only in vv. 29 and 32. In
Just as Luke introduced the conversation on the these verses the two disciples speak, but no fur-
road to Emmaus with a summary reference to the ther words of the risen Lord are reported. At most,
conversation between the two disciples before Jesus we are told that he blessed the bread. The scene
joined them, so also he brings it to a close by shifting is almost a mime, therefore, in which the un-
from dialogue to a summary of the rest of the known fellow traveler is recognized by his actions.
conversation. The summary continues the emphasis 24:28. Jesus’ first action is probably significant
on the importance of the fulfillment of Scripture in both thematically and theologically. He “walked
all that had happened. “Moses and all the prophets” ahead as if he were going on.” On the surface it
(cf. 16:29, 31) designates the Scriptures at that time is a gesture of social deference and polish. It
without entering into debate about which books implies that Jesus was not really going further but
were scriptural and which were not. In v. 44 the that he would not impose on the disciples to offer
psalms are included. At the transfiguration, Moses him hospitality. In Near Eastern customs, the
and Elijah (the prophet) appeared to Jesus in his guest was obligated to turn down such an invita-
glory (9:30) and spoke of his departure; now the tion until it was vigorously repeated (see Gen
risen Lord appears and explains how his suffering 19:2-3). Theologically, Jesus’ action demonstrates
and entry into glory fulfilled Moses and the prophets that he never forces himself upon others. Faith
must always be a spontaneous, voluntary response
(cf. Acts 17:2-3). The suffering servant passages in
to God’s grace. Thematically, the action is sugges-
Isaiah (e.g., 52:13-53:12) were mined repeatedly
tive, because all the way through the Gospel Jesus
by the church for scriptural warrant for the suffering
has been going further. When the people at Naz-
of Jesus. The christological interpretation of the OT,
areth rejected him, Jesus “passed through the
as practiced by the early church, therefore, is author-
midst of them and went on his way” (4:30). When
ized by the risen Lord himself. Those who do not the crowds wanted to prevent Jesus from leaving
accept the proclamation of the gospel, consequently, them, he responded, “I must proclaim the good
are foolish and “slow of heart to believe.” Christ is news of the kingdom of God to the other cities
the fulfillment to which all Scripture points. also” (4:43). He preached in synagogues and with-
24:28-32, The Meal at Emmaus. The meal drew to desert places to pray (4:44; 5:16). In
scene at Emmaus is one of the most evocative of Galilee he was constantly on the move, and from
the Gospel scenes. It is the anagnorisis—the Luke 9:51 until 19:44 he is on the way to
recognition scene in classical drama. The anag- Jerusalem. The Lukan Jesus, therefore, was always
norisis often involves recognition of someone to going further, and in the book of Acts the gospel
whose identity one was previously blind. Aris- of Jesus will spread “to the ends of the earth.”
totle—whose works are the foundation for poet- 24:29. It is evening by the time they reach their
ics, rhetoric, and literary theory—wrote that destination, so the two urge Jesus to stay with them
“recognition is, as its name indicates, a change (cf. Judg 19:9). Thus Jesus was modeling the kind
from ignorance to knowledge, tending either to of ministry to a household in which he had in-
affection or to enmity; it determines in the direc- structed his disciples (see 10:7, “Remain in the same
tion of good or ill fortune the fates of the people house, eating and drinking whatever they provide”;
involved.” Recognition may be based on visible cf. 9:4). Just as earlier Jesus had received hospitality
signs, memory, or reasoning, but the best kind is from Zacchaeus, so also now he accepts the hospi-
“that which arises from the actions alone.”°° tality of the two with whom he had traveled; the
Savior had come to another house (cf. 19:5, 9).
326. Aristotle Poetics 1452a, 1454b-55a, in D. A. Russell and 24:30-32. Immediately the scene shifts to the
M, Winterbottom, eds., Ancient Literary Criticism: The Principal Texts in
New Translations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972).
table for the evening meal. Christian readers may
479
be reminded of Rev 3:20, “Listen! I am standing open” (Stavol yw dianoigo). Jesus opened the Scrip-
at the door, knocking; if you hear my voice and tures (vv. 27, 32; cf. Acts 17:3), he opened their
open the door, I will come in to you and eat with eyes (v. 31), and later he will open their minds
you, and you with me.” The meal is not men- (v. 45). This is the heart of Luke’s hermeneutics:
tioned in Mark 16:12-13, but Mark 16:14 reports “After investigating everything carefully from the
an appearance to the eleven “as they were sitting very first” (1:3), Luke has found that he recog-
at the table,” which may be a conflation of the nizes “the truth concerning the things about
Emmaus meal and the subsequent appearance to which you have been instructed” when memory
the eleven (cf. Luke 24:33, 36, 41-43). In the of the actions and teachings of Jesus’ ministry is
later scene in Luke, Jesus’ eating has an apologetic enlightened by the Scriptures and reenacted in the
purpose, but at Emmaus Jesus’ actions recall the hospitality and table fellowship of the community
pattern of earlier meal scenes. The guest becomes of believers. Although Luke never formulates his
the host. Jesus takes the bread, blesses it, breaks hermeneutic as clearly as John does, the two are
it, and gives it to them. The four verbs are Jesus’ again strikingly similar:
signature, which the disciples (or at least the
“After he was raised from the dead, his disciples
readers) may remember from the feeding of the remembered that he had said this; and they
five thousand (9:16) and the last supper (22:19). believed the scripture and the word that Jesus
The liturgical language reports the action by had spoken.” (John 2:22 NRSV)
which the anagnorisis occurred; it does not mean
“His disciples did not understand these things at
that Jesus celebrated the eucharist in Emmaus but first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they
that every meal has the potential of being an event remembered that these things had been written
in which hospitality and table fellowship can become of him and had been done to him.” (John 12:16
sacred occasions. The eucharistic language further NRSV; cf. 20:9)
implies that the church experiences the continuing
No sooner do the disciples recognize the Lord
presence of the risen Lord when it gathers at the
than he vanishes from them (cf. Judg 6:21; 2
Lord’s table. The two had not recognized the risen
Macc 3:34; Tob 12:21; Acts 1:9; 8:39). The scene
Lord when he appeared to them, but at the table
ends with the disciples recalling how their hearts
they saw who he was. Later believers may not have
“burned” within them while Jesus was talking
the opportunity to experience an appearance, but
with them and interpreting the Scriptures to
they can see him clearly in Moses and the prophets
them. The Emmaus story, therefore, sets before
and know that he is present when they share their
the reader two sorts of responses: One may either
bread with a stranger or gather for the Lord’s supper.
be “slow of heart to believe” (v. 25) or know the
The appearance experience, therefore, is no spiritual
joy of those whose hearts burn within them. The
Camelot locked in the past but a sign of the ways
burning hearts were the result of both Jesus’
in which the risen Lord continues to be present with
words and the interpretation of Scripture (see v.
his disciples.°27
32). Earlier, Jesus had said that he had come to
The anagnorisis is reported as the opening of
bring fire to the earth (12:49-50); now the fire
the two disciples’ eyes. This motif is also present
has been kindled (cf. Jer 20:9; Acts 2:3).
in the OT, where the Lord opens the eyes of
24:33-35, The Return to Jerusalem. The
Elisha’s servant to see the horses and chariots
final movement of the Emmaus story returns the
surrounding the prophet (2 Kgs 6:17, 20). Earlier
two disciples to Jerusalem and serves as a transi-
Luke said that “their eyes were kept from recog-
tion to the appearance there. Jerusalem is the
nizing him” (v. 16). Now, “their eyes were
focus of Luke’s geographical scheme throughout
opened, and they recognized him” (v. 31), resolv-
[uke and Acts. The Gospel begins and ends in
ing the plot and closing the gap opened by the
Jerusalem, and the journey to Jerusalem domi-
narrator in v. 16. Immediately, Jesus vanishes
nates the record of Jesus’ ministry. In Acts the
from their sight. Luke plays on the verbs “to
mission of the church begins in Jerusalem, and
interpret” (Steppnvetw diermeneud) and “to
Paul returns there at regular intervals.
327. See Fred B. Craddock, Luke, Interpretation (Louisville: Westmin- The disciples set out immediately, that very
ster/John Knox, 1990) 287. hour, even though by Luke’s reckoning the day
480
was nearly over when they arrived in Emmaus this appearance. The closest thing to an account
(see v. 29). By means of this temporal notice, all of an appearance to Peter is the Johannine account
of the appearances recorded in Luke 24 will occur of the miraculous catch of fish and the reconcili-
on the first day of the week—the day early ation and commissioning of Peter, which followed
Christians met for worship. The noting of depar- (John 21:1-19). Luke either knew of no such
tures and returns is part of Luke’s “orderly ac- account or has transposed it into the call of Peter
count” (cf. 23:48, 56; 24:9, 52). Whereas Luke to discipleship in Luke 5:1-10—possibly because
devotes vv. 13-28 to the journey to Emmaus, the the appearance took place in Galilee (following
return journey is reported in half a verse. Mark, Matthew, and John 21), and Luke has no
When the two arrive in Jerusalem, they find “the place in his geographical scheme for an appear-
eleven and their companions” (cf. v. 9) gathered ance in Galilee. The report of the appearance to
together. Before they can relate the appearance on Peter also authorizes his role as the leader of the
the road to Emmaus, however, the others tell them, apostles early in Acts and prepares for the appear-
“The Lord has risen [jyép8n egerthe] indeed, and ance to the eleven that follows (cf. Matt 28:16-20;
he has appeared [un ophthe| to Simon” (v. John 20:19-29; 1 Cor 15:4-5).
34). The language is formal and liturgical, echoing Only after they hear of the appearance to Peter
1 Cor 15:4, “and that he was raised féyryeptat do the two get a chance to share their experience
egeégertai| on the third day in accordance with of “what happened on the road” (i.e., the opening
the scriptures, and that he appeared [ophthé] to of the Scriptures; vv. 27, 32) and “how he had
Cephas, then to the twelve” (NRSV). The parallel been made known to them in the breaking of the
is further evidence of the influence of the early bread.” The latter phrase comes to designate the
kerygma in the formation of the appearance nar- church’s fellowship meal and the observance of
ratives. “Cephas” never occurs in Luke or Acts. the Lord’s Supper in Acts 2:42. The Lord’s Supper
Luke has used the name “Simon” earlier in 4:38; was probably originally celebrated in the context
5:1-10; 6:14; and 22:31. Its use here is usually of a fellowship meal, as 1 Cor 11:17-26 implies.
attributed to pre-Lukan tradition. By means of the Verse 35, therefore, neatly provides closure by
device of having the eleven report the appearance recapping the two main parts of the Emmaus story
to Simon Peter before the two tell of their expe- (the conversation and the meal) and reiterating its
rience, Luke preserves the tradition that the first main theme: The risen Lord was made known to
appearance was to Peter (cf. Mark 16:7; 1 Cor them in the interpretation of Scripture and “the
15:5). However, the NT contains no account of breaking of the bread.”
REFLECTIONS
The Emmaus story is so full of wonderful material for theological reflection, preaching, and
discussion that the natural temptation is to try to deal with too much at one time. By a strange
axiom of perception, one fresh insight well developed always seems more significant than a
list of ten or twelve possible meanings, however perceptive or relevant they may be. The
Emmaus story, therefore, is a rich mine to which one should return again and again, bringing
out one cartload of ore at a time.
Although this text should not be read only at Easter each year, it is obviously relevant to
that season. Each year at Easter we face the same question: how to approach the meaning of
the Easter experience. It is at once more than we can comprehend and so familiar that we
constantly search for a new angle of vision. We may well find ourselves in the position of the
travelers at the opening of the story, discussing these things as we walk, trying to discern the
meaning of what has happened in the Gospel story and in our own experience. Is there any
persuasive reason to believe that Jesus really was raised from the dead or that God is present
in the turbulence of our lives?
1. Emmaus was a little-noted town. Luke doesn’t say why the two disciples were going there.
481
They may have been going home, going there on business, or just going there to get away from
the terrible things they had witnessed in Jerusalem. Frederick Buechner interprets Emmaus as
the place we go to in order to escape—a bar, a movie, wherever it is we throw up our hands
and say, “Let the whole damned thing go hang. It makes no difference anyway.” .. . Emmaus
may be buying a new suit or a new car or smoking more cigarettes than you really want, or
reading a second-rate novel or even writing one. Emmaus may be going to church on Sunday.
Emmaus is whatever we do or wherever we go to make ourselves forget that the world holds
nothing sacred: that even the wisest and bravest and loveliest decay and die; that even the noblest
ideas that men have had—ideas about love and freedom and justice—have always in time been
twisted out of shape by selfish men for selfish ends.”
The risen Lord meets us on the road to our Emmauses, in the ordinary places and experiences of
our lives, and in the places to which we retreat when life is too much for us. The story warns
us, however, that the Lord may come to us in unfamiliar guises, when we least expect him.
2. Cleopas and his companion discovered at the table that their traveling companion was
the Lord himself. They had not planned it as a sacred moment, but in the act of sharing their
bread with a stranger they recognized the risen Lord in the fellow traveler. In a fascinating
way, the Emmaus story is the counterpart to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. In that
parable, the rich man feasts daily but never notices the beggar at his gate or shares his bread
with him. From Hades he pleads with Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn his brothers,
but Abraham responds, “They have Moses and the prophets,” and when the rich man persists,
Abraham’s final word is, “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they
be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (16:31). Here again is a story that involves
Moses and the prophets and resurrection from the dead, and a story that pivots at the table.
The difference between them is what happens at the table. Cleopas and his companion share
their table with a stranger and discover that they have been in the presence of the Lord. The
rich man took no notice of the beggar until he was in torment in Hades. Fantasize for a
moment. What might the rich man have discovered if he had shared his bread with Lazarus?”
3. One of the tantalizing elements of the story is the report that as soon as the two disciples
recognized the risen Lord he disappeared from their sight. God’s presence is always elusive,
fleeting, dancing at the edge of our awareness and perception. If we are honest, we must
confess that it is never constant, steady, or predictable. The nuns in 7he Sound of Music sing,
“How can you catch a moonbeam in your hand, how do you hold a wave upon the sand?”
The mystery of transcendence is always transitory. God’s faithful perceive God’s presence in
fleeting moments, and then the mundane closes in again.
For this reason, we learn to treasure religious experiences in retrospect. The two in Emmaus
exclaim, “Did not our hearts burn within us?” Like Moses, we usually see only the back side of God
as God passes by us (Exod 33:23). With Job we confess, “Look, he passes by me, and I do not see
him;/ he moves on, but I do not perceive him” (Job 9:11 NRSV). One of the secrets of a vigorous
spirituality and a confident faith, therefore, is learning to appreciate the importance of meeting God
in the past as well as in the present. Luke guides us in this spiritual discipline: “Remember how he
told you, while he was still in Galilee. . . Then they remembered his words” (24:6, 8).
4. The experience of the presence of God is not a private gift. It is never for us alone.
Neither in the discovery of the empty tomb nor in the discovery of the identity of the fellow
traveler is there the familiar command to go and tell that is typical of other resurrection
appearance scenes. Nevertheless, in both the recipients of the revelation immediately and
328. Frederick Buechner, The Magnificent Defeat (New York: Seabury, 1966) 85-86.
329. This line of interpretation derives from Eugene S. Wehrli, “Luke 16:19-31,” /nt. 31 (1977) 280.
482
spontaneously return from the liminal tomb and table to share their experience joyfully with
others: “He is risen” (v. 5); “He is alive” (v. 23); “The Lord has risen indeed” (vv. 34-35).
These words may seem an idle tale to others, but to those who have witnessed God’s
transcendent presence in their lives at a tomb, on a lonely road, or in hospitality extended to
a fellow traveler, they are a transforming reality.
5. Easter is not over at sundown Easter Sunday. It stretches into the rest of our lives. The
women could not call back the angels, and the two disciples might never meet the stranger
again, but it would not matter. Life would never again be the same. Luke’s Gospel sparkles
with theological insight when it stretches Easter day into the series of experiences that happened
thereafter. All the rest of the story will be an extension of the Easter reality: The Lord is risen’
and he comes back to meet us on the road to Emmaus. Through the study of Scripture, we
find our hearts “strangely warmed,”*” and we recognize him in “the breaking of the bread.”
How can we not go and tell?
330. The phrase comes from John Wesley’s account of his conversion while he listened to a reading of Luther’s preface to the Commentary
on Romans. See Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, rev. ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959) 459.
Luke 24:36-53, The Appearance to the Eleven, Commissioning

of the Disciples, and Jesus’ Departure
NIV NRSV
3°While they were still talking about this, Jesus 36While they were talking about this, Jesus
himself stood among them and said to them, himself stood among them and said to them,
“Peace be with you.” “Peace be with you.” °’They were startled and
37/They were startled and frightened, thinking terrified, and thought that they were seeing a
they saw a ghost. **He said to them, “Why are ghost. **He said to them, “Why are you fright-
you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your ened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
minds? *°Look at my hands and my feet. It is I 39Look at my hands and’ my feet; see that it is I
myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not
flesh and bones, as you see I have.” have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
49When he had said this, he showed them his 40And when he had said this, he showed them
hands and feet. *!And while they still did not his hands and his feet.° *'While in their joy they
believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to
them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” “*They them, “Have you anything here to eat?” “They
gave him a piece of broiled fish, *and he took it gave him a piece of broiled fish, “and he took
and ate it in their presence. it and ate in their presence.
44He said to them, “This is what I told you 4AThen he said to them, “These are my words
while I was still with you: Everything must be that I spoke to you while I was still with you—
fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of that everything written about me in the law of
Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be
4SThen he opened their minds so they could fulfilled.” ““Then he opened their minds to under-
understand the Scriptures. “*He told them, “This stand the scriptures, “and he said to them, “Thus
is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise it is written, that the Messiah¢ is to suffer and to
from the dead on the third day, *”and repentance rise from the dead on the third day, *”and that
and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be pro-
name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. “*You claimed in his name to all nations, beginning from
are witnesses of these things. 47] am going to send aOther ancient authorities lack and said to them, “Peace be with
you what my Father has promised; but stay you,” Other ancient authorities lack verse 40 cOr the Christ
483
LUKE 24:36-53
NIV NRSV
in the city until you have been clothed with Jerusalem. ““You are witnesses? of these things.
power from on high.” And see, 1am sending upon you what my Father
5°When he had led them out to the vicinity of promised; so stay here in the city until you have
Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. been clothed with power from on high.”
5!While he was blessing them, he left them and 50Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and,
was taken up into heaven. °*Then they worshiped lifting up his hands, he blessed them. °'While he
him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was
33And they stayed continually at the temple, prais- carried up into heaven.° **And they worshiped him,
ing God.
and° returned to Jerusalem with great joy; °°and they
were continually in the temple blessing God.?
aQOr nations. Beginning from Jerusalem 48 you are witnesses
+Other ancient authorities lack and was carried up into heaven
cOther ancient authorities lack worshiped him, and
dOther ancient authorities add Amen
(COMMENTARY
Just as the kerygmatic tradition known to Paul 24:36-43, Proofs of the Resurrection. The
reported an appearance to Peter followed by an plot complication for the story of the appearance to
appearance to the eleven, so also Luke follows the the two on the road to Emmaus was given in v. 16:
report of the appearance to Simon Peter (v. 34) “put their eyes were kept from recognizing him.” The
with an appearance to the whole group of the plot complication for the appearance to the eleven, in
disciples (see v. 33). The account of this appear- contrast, is the doubt and fear reported in vv. 37-38.
ance falls easily into three parts: (1) proofs of the The issue, therefore, is how the disciples will be led
resurrection (vv. 36-43); (2) interpretation of from fear and doubt to worship. The developments
Scripture and the commissioning of the disciples in the appearance story resolve this complication
(vv. 44-49); and (3) the departure of Jesus (vv. satisfactorily, while leaving the story open for its sequel
50-53). Verses 36-53 form a unit, however, in in the book of Acts.
that they record an appearance with its own plot A number of parallels between Luke 24:36-43
and resolution, from appearance to departure. and John 20:19-29 (and also John 21:1-14) suggest
Appearances to the eleven are forecast in Mark that both evangelists are independently developing
material drawn from common early tradition.
16:7 and reported in Matt 28:16-20 and John
Among these parallels we may cite the following:
20:19-29. As we shall note, Luke’s account, while
not found elsewhere, has distinct parallels with Jesus “stood among them” and said “Peace be
these other accounts, especially John 20:19-29. with you” (Luke 24:36; John 20:19);
Jesus showed them his hands and feet (Luke) or
The repetition of motifs found earlier in the his hands and side (John) and invited them
Emmaus story invites close comparisons. Both (Luke) or Thomas (John) to touch him;
stories feature an appearance in which there is the disciples (Luke) or Thomas (John) doubted;
a failure to recognize or believe, the interpreta- Jesus asked if they had anything to eat (Luke
24:41; John 21:5) and then ate fish (Luke 24:42;
tion of Scripture, eating, the opening of eyes or "John 21:9, 12,, 15):
minds, and the departure of Jesus and return of Jesus commissioned the disciples; and
the disciples. Distinctive in the appearance to Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into them (John)
the eleven are (1) the apologetic development or promised that they would be “clothed with
power from on high” (Luke).
of the doubt motif, (2) the physical proofs of the
resurrection, (3) the commissioning of the disci- Two of the parallels occur in Western non-inter-
ples, and (4) the ascension of Jesus. polations (24:360, 40), but even if these were
484
omitted (following D) the remaining parallels are be interpreted as visions or appearances of the
sufficient to establish some relationship between heavenly Lord. The appearances in John are more
these appearance accounts. As numerous as these physical; he tells Mary not to hold him and
parallels are, however, each evangelist develops Thomas to touch him, then walks and eats with
the appearance stories for his own purposes in the the disciples in John 21. The proofs in these
context of his own Gospel, and the redactional verses, however, insist on the reality of the physi-
elements of each are missing in the other, pointing cal body of the risen Lord in a way not found in
to the conclusion that they have both used early the other appearances, and perhaps for this reason
tradition rather than that one Gospel depends Luke also includes the account of the ascension
directly on the other. after a period of forty days of appearances (not
24:36. The report that Jesus “stood” among found elsewhere in the NT) in order to remove
them echoes the language of OT angelophanies the risen Lord and distinguish the appearances
peonet 6:2 -wleGhr21: tel6 7 Dan8:15; 42:5; from the later experiences of the church in Acts.
Tob 5:4; cf. Num 22:22-24; Luke 1:11; Acts The first proof is the invitation to examine his
10:30).33! Similarly, Jesus’ greeting “Peace be hands and feet. John 20:20, 25, and 27 speak of
with you,” while it was the common Semitic Jesus’ hands and side, no doubt because John
greeting (n>>y mbw s.além ‘alékem), also follows records the piercing of Jesus’ side with a spear
the pattern of Jesus’ instruction to speak “Peace” (John 19:34). There is no mention in Luke of the
to whatever house one enters (10:5-6). nail prints, as in John 20, and the account of the
24:37-38. The disciples react in the manner crucifixion in Luke 23 makes no mention of nails.
typical of angelophanies: They were “startled and One may either assume that nail prints are meant
terrified” (cf. v. 5). Luke adds that they thought or understand that the risen Lord was inviting the
they were seeing a ghost or a spirit (cf. 1 Sam disciples to examine those parts of his body that
28:13-14). By thinking that the risen Lord was a were not covered by his clothing, to verify that
spirit, the disciples may have either misunderstood he was solid flesh and not an apparition.**? The
the nature of the resurrection or thought that a invitation to touch him recalls the invitation to
spirit (not Jesus) was deceiving them. Either way, Thomas (John 20:27) and 1 John 1:1, but neither
the complication sets up the need to clarify the here nor in John 20 does anyone touch him. Nev-
nature of the resurrection and confirm its reality. ertheless, a spirit would not be substantial and
The disciples say nothing. The first part of Jesus’ tangible; it is not “flesh and bones” (v. 39). In 1
response further characterizes their reaction as
Corinthians 15, by contrast, Paul carefully avoids
fear and doubt. Like Zechariah, they were “fright- speaking of the “flesh” (odpE sarx) when describ-
ened” (cf. 1:12). More important for the plot of
ing the resurrected body (cf. 1 Cor 15:44).
the story, the question “Why do doubts arise in
Verse 40, although it is a Western non-interpo-
your hearts?” characterizes the response of unbe-
lation, merely completes the thought of the pre-
lief elsewhere in Luke (5:22; cf. 2:35; 3:15; 9:47).
ceding verses. It adds nothing new. The first proof
24:39-43. The doubt motif recurs in various is not sufficient. Even when Jesus showed them
appearance stories. Matthew says, “When they his hands and feet, “they still did not believe it
saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted”
because of joy and amazement” {(v. 41). The
(28:17 NRSV). John allows Thomas to charac-
narrator’s comment here is reminiscent of the -
terize the response of doubt (20:24-29), and the
earlier comment that the disciples were “sleeping
longer ending of Mark develops the motif (Mark because of grief” (22:45).
16:11, 13-14). In the ensuing verses in Luke, The second proof is the confirmation that Jesus
Jesus offers two proofs: first, his hands and feet, is not a spirit because he eats in front of them.
and then he eats in front of them. Both actions The OT angelophanies record that Abraham ate
verify that he is not an apparition but that he has with the angel of the Lord (Gen 18:8; 19:3). In
indeed risen. from the grave. The appearance in
Judges when food is presented to the angel it is
Matthew and the appearance to Paul in Acts may
consumed in fire and the angel disappears in the
1993) 1212. 332. See ibid., 1213.
485
fire judg 6:19-21; 13:19-20), and in Tobit the fact and 32. Now, in his last words to the disciples in
that Tobias never sees Raguel eat or drink is offered the Gospel, Jesus returns to this central theme.
as proof that what they had seen was a vision (Tob Whereas v. 26 emphasized the necessity of Jesus’
12:19). Accordingly, the risen Lord’s act of eating death and resurrection, and v. 32 the power of
broiled fish is offered here as proof that he is not a Scripture to set hearts on fire, vv. 44-46 introduce
spirit (v. 37). The reference to fish, especially fol- a new set of perspectives on Scripture. First, the
lowing the reference to bread at the table in Em- risen Lord reminds the disciples that he had told
maus, recalls the loaves and the fish. at the feeding them these things while he was still with them.
of the five thousand (9:10-17; cf. John 21:9). The Note that this retrospective reference gives to the
meal here, however, serves an apologetic purpose, resurrection appearance an air of liminality; he has
whereas earlier it had eucharistic overtones. In Luke appeared to them, but he is no longer with them.
8:55, when Jesus raises the daughter of Jairus, he The reader recalls the passion predictions (9:22, 44;
instructs her parents to give her something to eat. 13:33; 17:25; 18:31-33). Of particular importance
are Jesus’ words in 18:31, “Everything that is writ-
The verb used in Acts 1:4 means literally to “take
ten about the Son of Man by the prophets will be
salt with” or “to eat with,” and Acts 10:41 distin-
accomplished,” and 22:37, “This scripture must be
guishes the eyewitnesses to the resurrection as those
fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the
who “ate and drank with him after he rose from
_lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is
the dead.” So significant is the apologetic interest of
being fulfilled.” In these references, the passion
this scene that whereas in other accounts it is the
predictions are related to the fulfillment of Scripture.
appearance of the Lord that leads to faith, here it is
Luke uses the encompassing “all” that he is so fond
the proofs that lead the disciples to believe.**° Pre-
of (“everything written about me”) and lists not only
sumably, the proofs are intended to contribute further
Moses and the prophets (as in 16:29, 31; and
to the reader’s “certainty of the things you have been 24:27), but also the Psalms, anticipating the three-
taught” (1:4), but there is no report at this point that part canon of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Torah, the
the disciples believed or worshiped him (see v. 52). Prophets, and the Writings). It was necessary, in
24:44-49, Interpretation of Scripture and God’s providence, that the Scriptures be fulfilled in
the Commissioning of the Disciples. The this way (see 24:7, 26). Indeed, Luke has devoted
second part of the appearance to the eleven and the entire Gospel to “the things that have been
the others looks both backward and forward. It fulfilled among us” (1:1).
serves both to bring closure by recapping major Earlier Luke reported that the risen Lord had
themes of the Gospel and to set the stage for the “opened” the eyes of the two disciples in Emmaus
coming of the Spirit and the work of the disciples (v. 31) and “opened” the Scriptures to them (v.
as witnesses in the book of Acts. Verses 44-46 32}. Now he uses the same verb (8tavolyw di-
return to the theme of the necessity of Jesus’ anoigo) in v. 45: “Then he opened their minds
death and the fulfillment of Scripture, while in to understand the scriptures.” The message of the
vv. 47-49 Jesus commissions the disciples, prom- Scriptures is not self-evident; one’s mind must be
ises their empowerment from on high, and out- opened to it, and they are rightly understood only
lines the mission that lies ahead. in the light of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
The fulfillment of Scripture is tied to the resurrec- In vv. 46-47, Luke gathers under the authority
tion in the early kerygma (1 Cor 15:3-5), John’s of Scripture not only the death and resurrection
account of the discovery of the empty tomb (John of Jesus (as in vv. 25-27) but also the mission to
20:9), and less explicitly in the allusions to Daniel 7 all nations. Luke does not cite specific passages
and the Emmanuel theme in the Great Commission for each item in these verses. If prooftexts are
at the end of Matthew. Luke, however, empha- sought, one could cite the suffering servant passages
sizes the fulfillment of Scripture in the resurrec- in Isaiah for confirmation that the Messiah had to
tion appearances more than does any other NT suffer (Isa 52:13-53:12), Hos 6:2 for the resurrec-
writer. The theme has already surfaced in vv. 25-27 tion on the third day (see Commentary on 24:7),
and Isa 49:6 for the preaching of repentance to all
333. See further Ignatius Smyrnaeans 3.1-3. nations (cf. Luke 2:31-32; Acts 13:47). Beyond
486
specific texts, however, the point is that all of synagogues (4:44; 8:1) and sent the disciples to
these events should be understood as fulfilling do the same (9:2). Earlier in Luke, Jesus commis-
Scripture—the record of God’s redemptive acts. sioned the disciples to act in the power of his
The new element in this list is the preaching name (9:48-49; 10:17; 21:8, 12, 17). Accordingly,
of repentance in Jesus’ name to all the nations. A in the book of Acts the apostles baptize “in the
commissioning is a regular feature of the appear- name of Jesus” (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5), heal
ance accounts, and each evangelist has tailored (3:6; 4:10), teach (4:18; 5:28, 40), do signs and
the words of the commissioning to reflect the wonders (4:30), and suffer because of his name
themes of his Gospel.*34 Paul related his call to (5:41). In a distinct echo of Luke 24:47, Philip
be an “apostle to the Gentiles” to the Lord’s proclaims the good news of the kingdom of God
appearance to him on the road to Damascus (Acts in Jesus’ name to the Samaritans (Acts 8:12). In
22:21; 26:22-23; Gal 1:15-16). The commission- the Gospel, Jesus continued John the Baptist’s
ings in the various appearance scenes can easily preaching of repentance and the forgiveness of sin
be compared in the following list of passages. (1:77; 3:3, 8; 5:32), and the disciples will con-
tinue this work in Acts (2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 11:18;
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and
13:38; 20:21; 26:18-20).
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching The mission will begin in Jerusalem and extend
them to obey everything that I have commanded to all nations (v. 47). Jerusalem has been the
you.” (Matt 28:19-20 NRSV) center and focus of the Gospel from its beginning.
“As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” The annunciation of the birth of John occurred in
John 20:21 NRSV) Jerusalem, as did the presentation of Jesus in the
Temple. Jesus tarried in Jerusalem while his family
“Go into all the world and proclaim the good news
to the whole creation.” (Mark 16:15 NRSV) returned to Nazareth (2:41-51). Some of the
crowds that followed Jesus came from Jerusalem
“But you will receive power when the Holy (5:17; 6:17), and from the time that Jesus “sets
Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my his face” to go to Jerusalem (9:51, 53) it is the
witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, focus of his ministry to Israel, his cleansing of the
and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:8 NRSV)
Temple, and his death, resurrection, and appear-
ances. A prophet could not perish outside of
To these one might add the commissions given Jerusalem (13:34-34), and‘Jesus wept over the city
to Mary Magdalene (John 20:17) and to Peter when he saw it (19:41-44). The commission given
(John 21:15-17; cf. Luke 5:10 and Matt 16:18- the disciples in Acts 1:8 repeats the mandate that
19, which some interpreters relate to the appear- the mission begin in Jerusalem. There they will
ance scenes). Matthew emphasizes making receive the power of the Spirit (Acts 2:1-12), and
disciples and keeping Jesus’ teachings. The longer they remain there until they have filled the city
ending of Mark picks up the emphasis on preach- with their teaching (Acts 5:28). In the faithfulness
ing “the gospel” in Mark 1:15 and 13:10, and of God, the forgiveness of sins will be preached
John uses the distinctive Johannine idiom of the to Israel first, then to the Gentiles. At Pentecost,
Father sending the Son. however, the disciples will preach to “devout Jews
The mission of the church in Acts is tied to the from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5
fulfillment of Scripture, and it is a continuation of NRSV). Paul was chosen to “bring my name
the same divine necessity that guided Jesus through before Gentiles and kings and before the people
his death and resurrection. John the Baptist had of Israel” (Acts 9:15 NRSV). One of the great
preached a baptism of repentance for the forgive- breakthroughs in the mission of the church comes
ness of sins (3:3), and Jesus had preached good when Peter understands that “God shows no
news to the captives (4:18) and the coming of partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears
the acceptable year of the Lord (4:19). He had him and does what is right is acceptable to him”
preached the coming of the kingdom in their (Acts 10:34-35 NRSV). The Holy Spirit is con-
ferred even upon Gentiles (Acts 10:45), so the
334. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X—XXIV),
AB 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985) 1578-79.
rest of the book of Acts records the mission to
487
the Gentiles until the gospel is preached “openly The metaphor of being clothed was used in
and unhindered” in Rome, the center of the early baptismal contexts (Gal 3:27; cf. 1 Cor
Gentile world (cf. Acts 28:28, 31). 15:53-54; Eph’ 4:24; 6:11, 14; Col 3:10-12).
The concept of “witness” develops in the “Power” (Svvayts dynamis) has attended Jesus’
course of the NT writings from the role of an work throughout the Gospel (1:35; 4:14, 36;
eyewitness, to one who can testify to the gospel, 5:17; 6:19; 8:46; 19:37). The Son of Man will
to one who dies for the sake of the gospel (a be seated “at the right hand of the power of God”
“martyr” |udptus martys]). Luke 24:48 links the (22:69) and come again’ with power and glory
first two senses. The disciples “are fitted because (21:27), but now the risen Lord promises to
from experience they can bear witness to the confer that power on the disciples (cf. 9:1). Simi-
factuality of the suffering and resurrection of Jesus, larly, the reference to “on high” echoes language
and also because they have grasped in faith the from the beginning of the Gospel (1:35), “the
significance of Jesus, and can thus attest it. They dawn from on high will break upon us” (1:78),
discharge the task by proclaiming both the facts and “Glory to God in the highest heaven” (2:14;
and their significance as they have grasped this in cf. 19:38). The conferring of the Spirit from on
faith.”°>> By the time we come to Paul (Acts high will also fulfill the Scriptures (see Isa 32:15;
22:15), the sense has already shifted from the Joel 2:28). There will be plenty of work for the
eyewitness role to the role of one who can testify disciples to do, but for now their instructions are
to the significance of Jesus. Paul can bear a to stay in Jerusalem (“sit still”) and wait for the
confessing witness, but he was not an eyewitness fulfillment of the Lord’s promises.
to the events of Jesus’ ministry (Acts 1:22). The 24:50-53, The Departure of Jesus. In the
special Lukan use of “witness,” which combines third part of Jesus’ appearance to the eleven, Jesus
both senses, can also be found in Acts, where it leads the disciples out to Bethany, and as he blesses
is applied to the work of the apostles (Acts 1:8, them he is carried into heaven. The disciples return
DE 2323/05) 3052, 10-39-41 i331); to Jerusalem and praise God in the Temple.
Jesus’ last statement to the disciples is an assur- Luke’s is the only Gospel that chronicles the
ance that he will send “what my Father promised” departure of Jesus. Matthew could hardly end
upon them and that they will be “clothed with with the ascension, since the last words of the
power from on high” (v. 49). The assurance is Gospel are “And remember, I am with you al-
notable for its ambiguity; it does not explicitly refer ways, to the end of the age” (Matt 28:20 NRSV).
to the Holy Spirit. This part of the commission to Paul writes of the exaltation of Jesus (Phil 2:9; cf.
the disciples will be repeated almost verbatim in 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:22), but Mark and Matthew
Acts 1:4, but there it is followed by a clarifying may not have distinguished the resurrection from
comment: “You will be baptized with the Holy Spirit the exaltation. While John does not record an
not many days from now” (Acts 1:5 NRSV). ascension, and indeed speaks of the crucifixion as
The language of sending recurs frequently in Jesus’ being “lifted up” (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32),
Luke, almost in a Johannine sense. Jesus himself in John 20:17 Jesus says to Mary Magdalene, “Do
was sent (4:18, 43; 9:48; 10:16), and he sent the not hold on to me, because I have not yet
disciples (9:2, 52; 10:1, 3; 22:35). Now he prom- ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers
ises to send what the Father promised (cf. John and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father
14:16, 26; 15:26). There is no previous reference and your Father’ ” (NRSV).
to “what my Father promised” in Luke, but vari- Luke records not one but two ascensions, one
ous references to the Spirit, especially at the on Easter day (24:51; Acts 1:1-2) and one after
beginning of the Gospel (cf. 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25-26; forty days (Acts 1:9-11). The ascension both closes
3:16, 22; 4:1; 10:21). The closest antecedent to Jesus’ the period of Jesus’ ministry and opens the period
assurance in v. 49 is the earlier assurance, “How of the church’s mission, so both accounts are appro-
much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy priate. Perhaps in an effort to relieve an apparent
Spirit to those who ask him!” (11:13). inconsistency between the ending of Luke and the
beginning of Acts, however, D omits “and was
335. H. Strathmann, udptus TDNT, 4:492-93. carried up into heaven” (v. 51) and the response
488
“they worshiped him” (v. 52). Most recent trans- toward Jerusalem “when the days drew near for
lations and critical editions of the NT favor the him to be taken up” (9:51). The “departure,
longer reading on the basis of both internal con- which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem,”
siderations and the manuscript evidence.**° and toward which the Gospel has been moving
Following the pattern of other biblical departure since 9:31, is here accomplished. The people who
scenes (Genesis 49-50; Deuteronomy 33-34), Luke waited in the Temple early in the Gospel
concludes both the appearance to the eleven and (Zechariah, serving before God, 1:8; the assembly
the Gospel with (1) a blessing, (2) the departure, of the people, 1:10; Simeon, who “praised God”
(3) a response from the witnesses, and (4) an act of in the Temple, 2:25; and Anna, who “never left
obedience.°9” Jesus, like Enoch (Gen 5:24) and Elijah the Temple,” 2:37) are replaced at the conclusion
(2 Kgs 2:11), and according to apocryphal tradition by the disciples. Blessing is a recurring motif in
Ezra (2 Esdr 14:9) and Moses (As. Mos. 10:12), is Luke, especially in the first two chapters and the last
taken up into heaven.*** The ascent of heroes and chapter (1:28, 42, 64; 2:28, 34; 24:30, 50-51, 53).
immortals into heaven is also found in Greco-Roman The appearance to the eleven began with the
literature: e.g., the nobles exhort the people to note that the disciples were terrified and thought
revere Romulus, “since he had been caught up into they were seeing a ghost. Now, after the two
heaven, and was to be a benevolent god for them proofs, the instruction from Scripture, the com-
instead of a good king.”%° mission, Jesus’ parting blessing, and his ascension,
The closest parallels to Luke’s account of the the disciples worship him (cf. Matt 28:17). The
blessing are found in Lev 9:22 and Sir 50:20-21. report that they worshiped him, therefore, brings
Aaron “lifted his hands toward the people and resolution and closure to this second appearance
blessed them” (Lev 9:22 NRSV). In Sir 50:20-21, scene. It also points the reader to the only appro-
at the conclusion of a section on the heroes of priate response to the reading of the Gospel.
faith, Simon the high priest The movement of the Gospel is characterized
raised his hands by turning and returning (e.g., 1:56; 2:20, 43, 45;
over the whole congregation of Israelites, 24:9, 33), so appropriately Luke marks the final
to pronounce the blessing of the
return in the closing verses when the disciples
Lord with his lips,
and to glory in his name; return to Jerusalem, where they will remain
and they bowed down in worship a second time, throughout the early chapters of Acts. By return. .
to receive the blessing from the Most High. (NRSV) ing to Jerusalem, the disciples demonstrate their
Similarly, Jesus raises his hands, blesses the disci- obedience to Jesus’ command in v. 49.
ples, and they worship him. The joy that was announced at the births of
The ascension of Jesus also provides closure for John and Jesus (1:14; 2:10) and anticipated in the
the Gospel. The Gospel ends where it began, in
ministry of Jesus (8:13; 10:17; 15:7, 10) is now
the Temple, and Jesus supplies the blessing finally fulfilled (cf. 24:41). Blessing is the presiding
motif of the close of the Gospel. Those who have
Zechariah could not pronounce (1:22). Midway
through the Gospel, Jesus leaves Galilee and turns been blessed can scarcely do anything other than
return the blessing (the verb used in vv. 50-51 is
336, Fora full discussion of the issues, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual repeated in v. 53). God has provided a savior, and
Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible
Societies, 1971) 189-90 (in favor of the longer text); and Mikeal G
those who are not “slow of heart to believe”
Parsons, The Departure ofJesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives (24:25) but whose eyes and minds have been
in Context, JSNTSup 21 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987) 29-52
(in favor of the shorter text).
opened by the resurrection of Jesus and the inter-
337. See Parsons, The Departure ofJesus, 56-57. pretation of Scripture will follow the lead of the
338. See Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), 1588.
339, Plutarch Lives 1:177.17; Romulus 27.8. disciples and praise God continually.
REFLECTIONS
in
Literary theorists speak of a “primacy effect,” the influence of the opening of a story
end of the story
shaping the reader’s expectations, and a “recency effect,” the impact of the
on the reader’s memory and perception of the whole. The end of the Gospel exerts a powerful
influence on our understanding of Luke’s themes and theology. The appearance to the eleven
guides the reader in a meditation with three movements: the proofs of the resurrection, Jesus’
commission to his disciples, and the parting blessing.
As proofs of the resurrection, Jesus shows the disciples his hands and feet and eats in front
of them. Simple as these proofs may be, the preaching of the resurrection reaches back to the
word and experience of eyewitnesses. Once there were those who could say, “We saw him.”
The preaching of the gospel does not rest on fiction or fantasy but on the experience of the
apostles. Ultimately, it is their story and the story of the women who went to the tomb.
Again, however, we may ask what place have “proofs” of the resurrection. The witness of
the NT makes the proclamation of the resurrection credible. Something changed the disciples
and sustained them through the trials they experienced. Their preaching, moreover, centered
not on the teachings of Jesus but on his death and resurrection. Nevertheless, the resurrection
is not a datum subject to empirical proof or rational verification. The experience of the presence
of the risen Lord led the disciples to see that he had been raised, and the experience of the
individual believer and the community of believers is still the foundation of faith. Where the
Lord’s physical hands and feet are no longer present, the ministry of the hands of countless
saints in simple and sincere ministries continues to bear witness to the Lord’s living presence.
Although he may not appear in our midst to eat broiled fish, his presence is tangible in soup
kitchens, around the kitchen table, and around the altar table. We see him “in the breaking
of bread.” As in the first century so now the most convincing proof of the resurrection is the
daily testimony of the faithful that the Christ still lives and the work of his kingdom continues.
For this reason, the movement from proofs to commissioning is natural. In a surprising way, the
appearances of the risen Lord in the Gospels and Acts authorize much that is integral to the life of
the church: the preaching of the gospel, the interpretation of Scripture, the teachings of Jesus, the
Lord’s Supper, responses to doubt, the presence of the Lord with gathered believers on the first day
of the week, baptism in Jesus’ name, and (in Matthew) even the doctrine of the Trinity. At their
core, the appearances report the manifestation of the risen Lord to believers and their sense that he
had sent them to share the good news of the resurrection of the one who had preached the coming
of the kingdom among us. The believer who affirms that the Lord is risen, therefore, should consider
next what it is that the Lord has sent him or her to do. The uniqueness of the Easter message is
that it invariably changes the lives of those who find themselves touched by it.
Jesus blessed the disciples he had sent out on mission. The Gospel, therefore, ends by elevating
three of the most characteristic of God’s actions. God has been experienced by the community of
faith as the One who saves, sends, and blesses. God is our redeemer, and God has blessed us.
There are no more ancient or fundamental confessions in the Jewish and Christian traditions. And
those who have been saved and blessed know themselves to be sent to save and bless others in
God’s name. Unfortunately, in some traditions so much attention has been given to the importance
of redemption and salvation that attention to God’s work in blessing has been overlooked or given
over to groups that sometimes focus too narrowly and superficially on this aspect of the community’s
experience of God. A healthy and biblical spirituality and worship require an appropriate balance
among the preaching of God as Redeemer and Savior, the experience of God’s blessing, and
obedience to the commission to proclaim God’s name to all the nations.
The final words of the Gospel lead us to an, appropriate response to the gospel of the one who
saves, sends, and blesses us. The disciples received Jesus’ blessing with great joy, they worshiped
him and praised God, and they began immediately to do what he had instructed them to do.
Here, then, is the completion of the gospel drama, the narration of what God has done for us,
the challenge of Jesus’ teachings, and the model of those who made a faithful and joyful response.
Joy is the natural by-product of blessing. May it always be God’s gift to those who study
God’s Word and seek God’s kingdom.
490
(ae sOSeEA@r|OEN
INTRODUCTION, COMMENTARY, AND REFLECTIONS
BY
GAIL R. O’DAY
hs Soteten
ot with
Later
Scr
a ahve
Tae ge
Serio tt te — 2
; at. waagile pe tag DCO .o es! rom
i ; wg! Ldsand ab hye “Hatiples bs ‘basiis.
ee ae
Ci
T JO CS, ii a. Po at sie :- seurrintiba ciathinl via
mS " ; ° Le “— ee Dike wha mht ‘Saye =" Oe

4 Ue g Wess (o'er Saettaa i
«Al & : Lf ft mo , an ‘ iis we oe
o oe >
pals ~ G i 6st VF, cee aie ae “ 34 ‘Ty " ey ing? = = th
tS oe *¢ Y fochertens ie. “nrg a5 Aes

> ‘ =~? ’ o a? a ® ~
' q = c — A” « i (AR ay ad
9 gus P Jord as n ig i ihewiz yy,
! ’ : rl i! ~ "ae! =) #, 24)5) Lae Las cy” matt ) oe
al a F 3 tne to Re oY He hat EN Se pe dy. ang rise orgs
nt MiG ee { Try heey Ores ts of Tins meer apes

fePee _ » PY « ehh ee
j
iv
ay ‘
'
. i «
" ar
: t
i
st ‘ vos
a3 bg 7
wel ae rS ‘ Parr Fru De . : or i ays a

‘ tik ws.
—
p r€ oe +55 th ee zie
akaenan * Geni
t2 ¥ or eG 4 m <r
, at |
ws
ur — ba
tLWithr cetera ptisners = M

bid i Sian. i ae
“ to eters aad th
bes Man D's witw Di arhe
{ te hiagees seen 1
‘ iat
We wi ew ox Ate etc nf urs ws, Cozi: Si ne nyse

Deh BS tae oe ey) Sores. sete ng, hhecons eal BS oy rede
sae
}
py Oaa Pin)
digi. os
OA tas Pe
, 1
oP
pened
ee
heared
Cone eas toe Pereine ad
be ‘, 2 ari4, aia ional
(fap 4 aC-2Te u i ecctelat

user
mY? 2h BF Tell SE, RS Ms FT ine mtvec Sees
epiegnee.o Kank, A ewhyvend ible necinias wivahip pass ¢
msccume tie (ax? r x ): Sa Roan 4 ‘Sania, Ke. oxperteric 4 .
Pet us one ctw stming 6 ~ wae Coty hee Jo Yesein
Gt Oi Wits Te ke pen eo os. & tiki ae vs paiatt att
Wes SiS ot jose ot he deeply secs teins. thecal ey
hy) ot. 1 ant hey he tart -ehay iw tte ‘witeh fiets
“i 4 fa a eta 2 ke sae! iatch, ae. Turton 8
; rete
Usain.
' \ .
sadA the
eh ‘
aed a!sti: wee tae|
pesyes) ikaw adits 4 BAous
An phy Sie od 44) DA act he LP ONVaMtE. & ai ae
‘ (ot te a
L oe Rigel a
;
vores ley 0
y a ~~
oe ~Saq
THE GOSPEL OF
JOHN
INTRODUCTION
n even the most cursory reading of the four Gospels, it is apparent that the story of
Jesus in the Gospel of John differs from that found in the other three Gospels in
significant ways. In the synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ ministry is a one-year Galilean ministry;
he leaves Galilee to go to Judea and Jerusalem only once, in the final journey that culminates
in his death. John recounts a three-year ministry; three different Passover feasts are
celebrated in the course ofJesus’ ministry (2:13; 6:4; 11:55), as opposed to the one Passover
celebrated during Jesus’ final days in the Synoptics. Moreover, in John, Jesus’ ministry
alternates between Galilee and Jerusalem. He makes three trips from Galilee to Jerusalem
in the course of his ministry (2:13; 5:1; 7:10), and, indeed, most of his ministry is
concentrated in Judea and Jerusalem. The chronology of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion is also
different in John. All the Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on a Friday, but in the
synoptic Gospels that Friday is the first day of Passover and in John it is the Day of
Preparation for the Passover (18:28; 19:14).
The Johannine Jesus uses some short parables and proverbs (e.g., 4:36-37; 8:35; 10:1-5;
12:24; 16:21), but there are no parables that begin, “The kingdom of God is like .. .” in
John. There are few compact narrative units that make up much of the story of Jesus in
the Synoptics, ' and little of the ethical teaching material found in the other Gospels.
Instead, the Gospel of John is characterized by a literary style that interweaves narrative,
dialogue, and discourse to create lengthy drama-like scenes (e.g., 4:4-42; 6:1-09; 9:1—-10:21;
1. See Robert C. Tannehill, “The Gospels and Narrative Literature,” in 7he New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1995) 8:56-70.
493
11:1-44). The centerpiece of Jesus’ teaching inJohn is the Farewell Discourse and Prayer (John
14-17), a speech of unparalleled length compared with any in the other Gospels. The common
scholarly nomenclature through which the Gospels are identified underscores the distinctive-
ness of John—Matthew, Mark, and Luke are grouped together as the synoptic (literally, “seen
together”) Gospels, whereas John is isolated as the “Fourth Gospel.”
The liturgical life of the church heightens the sense of a divide between John and the
Synoptics. Within the church’s three-year lectionary cycle, each of the synoptic Gospels
has its own year—Matthew (Year A), Mark (Year B), Luke (Year C)—but there is no year
for John. The lectionary thus seems to reinforce for clergy and laity alike that John is
somehow both different from the other Gospels and perhaps not as essential to the church’s
reflection on Jesus. Because John is not heard as often in the preaching of the church, John
remains a strange and less familiar voice.
Yet if one studies the lectionary cycle carefully, looking not simply at the broad strokes of
the three-year cycle but at the texts assigned to particular liturgical seasons, a different picture
of the distinctiveness of the Johannine voice emerges. In each of the lectionary cycles, texts
from John areread during the Christmas, Lenten, and Easter seasons. For example, the Christmas
Day Gospel in each of the three lectionaries is John. 1:1-18. Readings from John 3, 4, 9, and
11 form the heart of the Lenten lectionary in Year A, and the Gospel lessons during the Sundays
of Easter in each of the three years are drawn from John. The fact that the church turns to
readings from John to guide it through each of the critical turning points in its liturgical life—the
celebration of the birth of Jesus, the preparation for Jesus’ death, and the joy of Easter—highlights
another distinctive quality of the Gospel of John.
Story and theological interpretation are inseparably intertwined in John. The “I am”
sayings that are a trait of Jesus’ speech in John; the Gospel’s rich metaphors and images;
the poetic language of the Prologue; the theological reflections of the Farewell Discourse;
Jesus’ repeated statements about his unity with the One who sent him into the world, the
One who loves him; the repeated identification of God as Jesus’ Father—all ask the reader
to ponder who Jesus is and who God is. |
The Gospel’s various literary techniques have a common theological goal: to open up
the world of the Gospel story to the world of the reader’s own experience. Because the
questions Jesus asks his conversation partners become questions for the reader, the Gospel’s
dialogues and conversations seem to draw the reader into the stories as a participant. The
Gospel makes frequent use of irony and symbolism, literary devices that ask the reader to
discover the deeper meaning of an expression. At times, the Gospel narrator comments
directly on a story to ensure that the reader is grasping its significance (e.g., 7:39; 8:27;
11:51-52; 12:33; 18:32; 19:35). The confessional language of the Prologue, which affirms,
“We have beheld his glory” (1:14), blurs the line between storyteller and reader, as it
invites the reader to join in its affirmation. The Gospel of John opens up the story of Jesus
to the reading community’s own experience so that readers can discover the presence of
God in Jesus for themselves.
494
JOHN-INTRODUCTION
This commentary combines attention to the social and historical world of John with attention
to its narrative and theological world. In this regard, this commentary takes its cues from the
Gospel of John itself, because John draws no lines between history and interpretation, story
and theology. To try to separate what happened in the life of Jesus from its meaning is a false
pursuit for this Gospel. That claim does not minimize or dismiss the possible historical value
of the account of Jesus’ life and ministry inJohn, but instead recognizes that, for John, the value
of the events of Jesus’ life and ministry lies in their theological significance—what they reveal
about God—and not in the events in and of themselves. In order to understand what John
says about Jesus and God, then, one must attend carefully to howhe tells his story. The literary
style of this Gospel works in partnership with its theology to invite the reader into a new world
shaped by the revelation of God in Jesus.
This commentary, therefore, pays close attention to both the details of the Gospel’s
literary style and form and the particulars of its theological claims. The goal of the
commentary is to enable the Johannine voice to be heard on its own terms, to enable its
portrait of Jesus, God, and the life of faith to emerge more fully for the reader. The Johannine
theological vision often differs from what many Christians assume to be normative for
Christian faith. For example, the Johannine treatment of the eucharist, lodged in the
metaphorical discourse of John 6, is radically different from the accounts of the last supper
in the Synoptics (Mark 14:22-25 and par.) or the words of institution recorded in 1 Cor
11:23-26. The Johannine understanding of sin (see Reflections on John 9) and the death
of Jesus (see Reflections on John 12:20-36; 19:16-42) also brings an important alternative
voice to conversations about sin, salvation, and atonement.
THE THEOLOGICAL WORLD OF JOHN
To understand the theological world of John, one must begin by recognizing the
centrality of the incarnation to the Gospel. The theological significance of the incarnation
is cogently expressed in two lines from the Prologue: “In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God and the Word was God” (1:1) and “the Word became flesh
and lived among us” (1:14). These two claims are the foundation on which the rest of the
Gospel is built: Jesus is the incarnate Word of God. That is, as 1:18 makes clear, Jesus
provides access to God in ways never before possible, because Jesus’ revelation of God
derives from the most intimate relation with God. Jesus provides unique and unprecedented
access to God because Jesus shares in God’s character and identity; that is what 1:1 draws
to the reader’s attention. Yet, it is as the Word made flesh that Jesus brings God fully to
the world (1:14). Jesus’ revelation of God is thus not simply that Jesus speaks God’s words
and does God’s works, although thatis part ofit (e.g., 5:19-20, 30; 10:25, 37-38; 12:48-49).
It is, rather, that Jesus is God’s Word. No line can be drawn between what Jesus says and
what he does, between his identity and mission in the world. Jesus’ words and works, his
life and death, form an indissoluble whole that provides full and fresh access to God.
495
Theology and Christology. The pivotal role of the incarnation in John helps to clarify
the relationship between theology and christology in the Gospel. The ultimate concern of
this Gospel is with God. The good news is the revelation of God in Jesus. To focus
exclusively on Jesus, as is often the case when verses from John are taken out of context
in the contemporary church, is to miss the Gospel’s central claim. What Jesus reveals about
God comes through what Jesus reveals about himself. Christology redefines theology—that
is, Jesus decisively changes how one talks about and knows God—but christology does
not replace theology.
The interrelationship of theology and christology in John is clearly seen in the way to
which God is referred. God is referred to as “the one who sent me [Jesus]” (e.g., 4:34;
5:38; 8:29) and as “the Father” (e.g., 5:17; 6:45; 14:16). Both of these ways of speaking
of God highlight God’s relationship with Jesus. “The one who sent Jesus” identifies God
as the one from whom Jesus’ mission in the world originates (e.g., 3:17). This identification
of God points to the union of God’s and Jesus’ work in the world. By speaking of God as
Father and Jesus as Son, John calls attention’to the love and familial intimacy between
them. Indeed, this familial intimacy is one of the central theological metaphors of the
Gospel. At 1:12-13, for example, the Gospel notes that all who receive Jesus and believe
in him become “children of God.”
The use of father language for God is a painful issue for many women in the contemporary
church because of the burden of patriarchy it frequently carries. Many women rightly note that
an exclusive use of father language for God both flattens the richness of biblical images for God
that sends disturbing messages about systems of power and authority. Yet the Gospel of John
is an acute reminder that the elimination of father language is not the solution to this issue.
“Father” is an essential name for God in John, and it is impossible to eliminate or even change
the Father/Son language of this Gospel without seriously altering the Gospel’s theological
vision. The church’s task, therefore, is to move beyond the assumption that Fatheris a generic
synonym for “God.” The Fourth Gospel itself argues against that claim, since God is identified
as “the one who sends” with the same frequency as God is identified as “Father.” The theological
and pastoral task is to discover what the particulars of Father/Son language in John contribute
to a fuller understanding of God, Jesus, and the Christian life. John does not use Father/Son
language to reinforce the claims of patriarchy. Rather, he ee it to highlight the theological
possibilities of intimacy and love that rest at the heart of God?
Eccesiology. All of the Gospel’s other theological concerns derive from its thaotdee of
the incarnation. For example, its eccesiology—its understanding of the life of the faith
community—is expressed succinctly in Jesus’ commandmentof John 13:34-35: “Just as
I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you.
are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” The full expression of Jesus’ love is the gift
of his life (see 10:11, 14, 17-18; 15:12-15), the crowning moment of the incarnation (19:30).
2. See Gail R. O’Day, “John,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992) 303-4.
496
JOHN-INTRODUCTION
For us to love one another as Jesus loves, then, is to live out the love of the incarnation, to
show in one’s own life the fullness of love that unites God and Jesus. The commandment to
love asJesus loves takes on added urgencyina community for which persecution and martyrdom
were a social reality (cf. 16:2-3). John’s image of the faith community, then, derives from his
understanding of the relationship between God and Jesus.
Pneumatology. John’s pneumatology, his understanding of the Spirit, also derives
from his understanding of the relationship between God and Jesus. Jesus’ death marked
the end of the incarnation. If the revelation of God is lodged decisively in the incarnation,
what happens after Jesus has died? Is the revelation of God so temporally bound that it is
available only to those who knew the historical Jesus? The Paraclete is the Fourth
Evangelist’s solution to this theological dilemma. “Paraclete” is the transliteration of the
Greek noun tapdKAntos (paraklétos), the noun the Fourth Evangelist uses to speak of the
Spirit. This noun has many meanings—for example, “the one who exhorts,” “the one who
comforts,” “the one who helps”—all of which the Gospel seems to employ in its discussion of
the identity and function of the Spirit in the life of the faith community (see Commentary on
John 14-16). The Spirit/Paraclete will remain in the community after Jesus’ death and return
to God (“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, to be with you
forever” [14:16; see also 14:26]). The Spirit/Paraclete will continue the revelation of God begun
in the incarnation, “He will glorify me because he will take what is mine and declare it to you”
(16:14; see also 14:26; 16:13, 15). The Spirit thus makes it possible for succeeding generations
of believers to come to know the God revealed in Jesus.
Eschatology. John’s eschatology is also shaped by his understanding of the incarnation.
Because God is fully revealed in Jesus, Jesus’ advent into the world brings the world to a
moment of crisis and decision (e.g., 3:16-21). One does not have to wait for a future
revealing of the fullness of God’s glory and God’s will for the world or for eternal life to
be bestowed. Both are available now in Jesus: “Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears
my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment,
but has passed from death to life” (5:24); “And this is eternal life, that they may know
you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth by
finishing the work that you gave me to do” (17:3-4). In Jesus’ death, resurrection, and
ascension, his “hour,” the world is judged. Jesus’ death, the full expression of his love,
judges the world because it reveals the character of God (e.g., 14:31; 1 7:24). Jesus’ victory
over death judges the world because it reveals the impotence of the ruler of the world
(e.g., 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). Jesus’ ascension judges the world because when he is reunited
with God “with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed” (17:5),
his work is completed (e.g., 16:10).
The theological intensity of this Gospel can be discouraging to many readers. In the
middle of yet another complex theological statement in the Farewell Discourse, one may
long for one of the short, pithy narratives of the synoptic Gospels. Yet the theological
intensity of this Gospel is its genius. The Fourth Evangelist held his faith deeply, and he
497
clearly wanted his readers to share his passion for life shaped by the incarnation. He weaves
together narrative and theology in an attempt to open up the wonder and mystery of the
incarnation as fully as possible, so that the Gospel readers can know themselves to be the
recipients ofJesus’ gifts. The Fourth Evangelist loved God and Jesus deeply, and he invites
his readers to share that love.
As a preliminary step in orienting the reader to the distinctive Johannine narrative and
theological voice, it is important to review issues that illumine the inaskoritt setting of this
document within first-century Judaism and the later life of the church.°
AUTHORSHIP
Like all the other Gospels, John is an anonymously written document; its traditional title,
“The Gospel According to John,” first appears as the heading of second-century CE manuscripts.
The “John” of this title is presumably John, the son of Zebedee, thus according apostolic
authorship to the Gospel. The authorship of the Fourth Gospel was a subject of much debate
in the second and third centuries. Christian Gnostics (e.g., Valentinus and Heracleon) who
were drawn to the Fourth Gospel claimed apostolic authorship as a way of giving apostolic
grounding to their faith perspectives. The opponents of Gnosticism, especially Irenaeus, the
bishop of Lyons (c. 130-200 CE), claimed apostolic authorship as a way of refuting gnostic
claims. Christian Gnostics drew on a wide spectrum: of early Christian documents as sources
and expressions of their theology and christology (for example, the Gospel of Thomas) A Tn
Against Heresies, Irenaeus points to the apostolic authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John and insists on the authority of these four Gospels alone in his attempt to delegitimate the
gnostic Gospels and other writings. This apologetic setting must always be kept in mind when
one weighs the issue of apostolic authorship.
Beginning in the mid-second century, church theologians identified John, the son of
Zebedee, with “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” as this quotation from Irenaeus shows:
“Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, himself
published his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.”° Despite Irenaeus’s
identification, there is no clear internal Fourth Gospel evidence to support linking John,
the son of Zebedee, with the beloved disciple; the tradition of the apostolic authorship of
the Gospel began to erode in the nineteenth century. The “disciple whom Jesus loved” is
always identified by his relationship with Jesus, never by name. There is one passing
reference to “the sons of Zebedee” at 21:2, the introduction to a scene in which the
beloved disciple appears, but this verse also contains a reference to “two others of his
disciples,” so that no clear identification is possible.
The identification of John, the son of Zebedee, with the beloved disciple can be
3. For a thorough overview of the historical and religious setting of the Gospel of John, see D. Moody Smith, The
Theology of the Gospel ofJohn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 1-74.
4. See JamesM. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 3rd ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988).
5. Irenaeus Against Heresies IIL,Ws
498
JOHN-INTRODUCTION
conjecture at best and is based largely on the desire to ascribe apostolic authorship to this
Gospel. Yet this very understanding of apostolic authority runs counter to the Fourth
Gospel’s understanding of discipleship. The Twelve have a very minimal role in this Gospel
(they are mentioned explicitly only at 6:69, 71; 20:24). Therefore, it is not necessary to
postulate that the beloved disciple was one of the Twelve in order for him to have had
authority within his community.
In addition to the Gospel, four other NT books are associated with the name “John”:
1, 2, and 3 John, and the Revelation to John. Like the Gospel, the three epistles are
anonymous documents; their attribution to John the apostle derives from the manuscript
tradition of the early church. The author of Revelation, by contrast, identifies himself as
“John” at Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8.
Although the tradition labeled the epistles and the Gospel as having been written by
the same author, the internal evidence does not support that conclusion. The three epistles
(particularly 1 John; 2 and 3 John are too brief to enable much comparison) do share some
pivotal theological language and concepts with the Gospel of John (e.g., the commandment
to love one another; the image of the faith community as children; light; life), but there
are also many important differences. For example, the role of the Spirit/Paraclete, so pivotal
to the picture of the life of the community in John (e.g., 16:8-11), has no similar role in
1 John, which is singularly concerned with community life. The understanding of sin and
atonement (e.g., 1 John 1:7; 2:2; 4:10) is also quite different from that found in the Gospel.
Most important, the situations addressed by the Gospel and 1 John are quite different.
Whereas the Gospel is oriented toward the community’s conflict with synagogal Judaism
(see below), the epistle is primarily concerned with intra-Christian conflicts. The opponents
with whom the author of 1 John debates are members of the Christian community (or
have been).
It is, therefore, widely held that the epistles originated within the same faith community
that produced the Gospel, but not from the same author at the same time. Much of the conflict
to which 1 John is addressed seems to be generated by disagreement over the interpretation
of the theology contained in the Gospel (e.g., the reality of the incarnation, 1 John 4:2-3; 5:6).
This suggests that the epistles came from a later stage in the community’s life.°
It is unlikely that the “John” of Revelation is the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, or
the author of the Gospel or the Johannine epistles. He does not claim that identity for
himself, but records that he was persecuted and imprisoned on Patmos for his faith (1:9;
note also his reference to the “twelve apostles of the Lamb” at 21:14). The differences
between the Gospel and Revelation are quite striking, beginning with the thoroughgoing
apocalypticism that shapes Revelation. Yet behind these striking differences, the two books
nonetheless contain some distinctive theological and imagistic echoes; Rev 19:3, like John
1:1, refers to Jesus as the Word of God; Jesus’ gift of living water appears in both (John
6. For the view that the epistles precede the Gospel, see Charles Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological
Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles (New York: Crossroad, 1992).
499
4:13-14; 7:37-38; cf. 6:35; Rev 22:17). The invective toward “those who say that they
are Jews” in Rev 2:9 is very similar to the language of John 8:44-47. These echoes suggest
that the Gospel and Revelation may have originated within communities that shared some
traditions about Jesus.
The key to any discussion of authorship of the Gospel is the Gospel’s own evidence
about the relationship between the beloved disciple and the author-of the Fourth Gospel.
The “disciple whom Jesus loved” first appears at 13:23 and plays a prominent role in the
last chapters of the Gospel (19:26-27; 20:3-10; 21:1-14, 20-24; see also 19:35). It is
difficult to imagine that the author of the Gospel, who is so insistent on maintaining the
anonymity of the disciple, would nonetheless refer to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus
loved.” More important, there are two verses that explicitly distinguish the witness of the
beloved disciple from the work of the author. Both 19:35 and 21:24 use a third-person
pronoun to refer to the beloved disciple and his testimony and stress that this testimony
is true. John 21:24 is especially important in this regard, “This is the disciple who is
testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.”
The author of the Gospel thus claims eyewitness authority for the accounts in the Gospel,
but points to another, the beloved disciple, as the source of that witness. The beloved
disciple, therefore, is not the author of the Gospel, but is presented as the authorizing
voice of the traditions that are recounted in the Gaspel.
The identity of the beloved disciple was probably known to the first readers of the
Gospel. Thatis, he is nota fictional creation,’ but a historical figure who played an important
role as an eyewitness link to Jesus for the community out of which the Gospel arose (note
the concern about his death in 21:20-24). That identity is no longer recoverable for
contemporary readers, who must rest content with the information the Gospel supplies
about this disciple. Yet the beloved disciple’s significance is not limited to his role as
eyewitness. Because he is never named and is instead always portrayed as the recipient
of Jesus’ love, this disciple also emerges as a symbolic figure who embodies the ideal
relationship with Jesus that the Gospel hopes to make available to all its readers.
Thus the name of the author of this Gospel is unknown; however, the traditional
designations of “John” for both the Gospel and its author will be used in this commentary,
as well as the corresponding pronoun “he” to refer to the Evangelist. What isknown about
the author of this Gospel, is that he understood himself to be connected to the traditions
about Jesus through the eyewitness testimony of the beloved disciple, that he held the
beloved disciple’s testimony to be true, and that he regarded the transmission of that
testimony to be an act of faith (“He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe”
[19:35]).
7. Bultmann is the important exception to this view. He maintained that the beloved disciple was only a.symbolic
figure. See Rudolph Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoarse, and
J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 484.
500
JOHN-INTRODUCTION
JOHN’S USE OF SOURCES AND TRADITIONS

How is the reader to weigh the value and relative importance of source and
composition theories for the interpretation of John? It is indisputable that the Fourth
Evangelist drew on earlier traditions in the composition of his Gospel; he did not
create the Gospel from whole cloth. It is critical, therefore, that the contemporary
reader not be naive about the transmission of traditions in the first decades of the
church, or about the composition process. Source and composition theories help the
contemporary reader to recognize and remember that the development of NT literature
did not move in one step from the time of Jesus to the written Gospels, but that there
were many intermediate steps. It is the pivotal assumption of form criticism and all
discussions of oral traditions that stories and teachings circulated in oral form to meet
community needs—teaching, preaching, mission, worship, and probably also the
entertainment value of telling good stories.
Such theories also stand as a caution to contemporary readers who may be tempted to
perceive the faith traditions of the first decades of the church as monolithic or simplistic.
Different communities had access to different streams of tradition. The Fourth Gospel, for
example, draws explicit attention to the traditions that came to it through the distinctive
witness of the beloved disciple. In addition, individual traditions were regarded as more
helpful or essential toa community’s life, depending on its social and religious setting and
needs, much as in the preaching and teaching of the church today.
The most important source question is whether John knew and drew on the synoptic
Gospels. A quotation from Clement of Alexandria offers the classic view of Johannine
dependence on the Synoptics: “Last of all John, perceiving that the external facts had been
made plain in the gospel, being urged by his friends and inspired by the Spirit, composed
a spiritual gospel.”° Clement recognized that the Gospel of John posed a decisive
question about the interrelationship of history, theology, and interpretation. The
solution that Clement proposed, and that remained the dominant view into the
nineteenth century, was to assume Johannine use of the Synoptics. This solution
confirmed the other canonical Gospels as the historical norm for the story ofJesus
and rendered the differences between John and the Synoptics less problematic.
John is simply exercising theological or “spiritual” freedom in his use of the other
Gospels.
The most influential work to question the view that John depended on the other Gospels
was that of Percival Gardner-Smith.” He carefully compared scenes held in common by
John and the synoptic Gospels, and these comparisons led him to conclude that the
interrelationship of the Gospels was best explained by the assumption that John used
independent Jesus traditions that often resembled those in the Synoptics, not that
John intentionally altered the synoptic Gospels.
aint
8. Quoted in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History V1.xiv.7.
e: Cambridg e Universit y Press, 1938).
9. Percival Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridg
50%
The work that was begun in Gardner-Smith’s brief study was completed by C. H. Dodd in
Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Dodd does a careful analysis of all of the Johannine
passages that have any synoptic parallels and concludes that “behind the Fourth Gospel there
lies an ancient tradition independent of the other gospels, and meriting serious consideration
as a contribution to our knowledge of the historical facts concerning Jesus Christ.”!° Both
Gardner-Smith and Dodd gave a prominent position to oral traditions about Jesus rather than
explaining all overlaps among the Gospels in terms of dependence on written documents. The
work of Gardner-Smith and Dodd thus made it possible to examine and interpret the Johannine
traditions about Jesus on their own terms, not as being derivative of the Synoptics. They also
pointed to John as an independent resource for information about Jesus.
Johannine independence from the synoptic Gospels has become the majority position
in Johannine scholarship. Of the major twentieth-century commentaries on John written
after Dodd (see Bibliography), only C. K. Barrett’s work argues for Johannine dependence
on Mark.'! Johannine dependence on the Synoptics, especially Mark, has recently emerged
as a fresh topic of debate, !? but the exegetical evidence amassed by Dodd is difficult to
overcome. It is the perspective of this commentary that John makes use of a stream of oral
tradition that often overlaps with, but is nonetheless independent from, the traditions on
which Mark and the other Gospels drew.
Another approach to source questions is to explain the distinctiveness of the Johannine
traditions by appealing to other written sources. The classic lines of this approach to John
were drawn by Rudolf Bultmann.'? Bultmann understood the Fourth Evangelist to be a
master literary craftsman who drew together three major sources in the composition of
the Gospel: a passion-narrative source; a revelation-discourse source; and a signs source.
The revelation-discourse source is Bultmann’s most controversial proposal. It is the key to
Bultmann’s contention that a gnostic revealer-redeemer myth lies behind the Fourth
Gospel’s christology; the Prologue is the linchpin for this source. Bultmann maintained
that John found this myth in the revelation-discourse source and rewrote it by making
Jesus the redeemer. Bultmann’s thesis of gnostic influence was very influential on German
scholarship on John, although the suggestion of a revelation-discourse source has been
largely rejected.
Bultmann’s suggestion of a signs source as the source of the miracles recounted in John
has received wider acceptance. The key elements in isolating this source are the occurrence
of the noun “sign” (onpetov sémeion) in the Gospel (e.g., 2:11; 4:54; 20:30), the
enumeration of the two Cana miracles (2:11; 4:54), and the purported tension between
10. C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953) 423.
11. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978).
12. See especially the work of Frans Neirynck, “John and the Synoptics,” in L’Evangile de Jean: Sources, redaction,
theology, ed. M. de Jonge, (Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1977) 73-106; and “John and the Synoptics: 1975-1990,”
in John and the Synoptics, ed. A. Deneaux (Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1992). For a judicious review of the
aan aN5Moody Smith, John Among the Gospels: The Relationship in Twentieth Century Research (Minneapolis:
ortress, :
13. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K.
Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971).
502
JOHN-INTRODUCTION
the positive valuation of miracles in the source and the seemingly negative view of miracles
in the Gospel (e.g., 4:48, but see Commentary on this verse). Robert Fortna, for example,
following Bultmann’s suggestions, has worked diligently for several decades to reconstruct
“the Gospel of signs.” /4
The signs-source hypothesis, however, runs counter to the insights about the role and
diversity of oral traditions proposed by Dodd and also overemphasizes the differences
between the Johannine and Synoptic miracles. When one identifies the miracles in
John—the wine miracle at the Cana wedding (2:1-11); the healing of the royal official’s
son (4:46-54); the healing of a lame man (5:1-18); the feeding of the five thousand (6:1-14);
Jesus’ walking on water (6:16-21); the healing of a blind man (9:1-41); the raising of
Lazarus (11:1-44), and the miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14), one notices that with the
single exception of the wine miracle at Cana, each of these miracles has some analogue
in the synoptic tradition. Therefore, it seems more credible to postulate the common oral
traditions about Jesus as the source of these stories than a fully formed signs source. That
is, it seems more likely that John had access to an oral tradition that grouped together a
series of miracle stories about Jesus than that he drew on a written signs collection. In
addition, the signs-source hypothesis plays down the interrelationship of miracle and
discourse throughout the Gospel (see, e.g., Commentary on chaps. 5; 6; and 9). Johannine
scholars are divided on the hypothesis of a written signs source; some express skepticism
about the viability of this hypothesis, '° while others use the source as an exegetical
tool in their commentary work. :
There was a final piece to Bultmann’s source theory: an ecclesiastical redactor respon-
sible for the final form of the Gospel. To this editor Bultmann attributed all sections of the
Gospel that reflect later ecclesiastical issues, for example, the eucharistic section in 6:51-58.
Although it is impossible to accept Bultmann’s characterization of this editor and his
concerns, because as the commentary below will argue, “ecclesiastical” concerns are not
foreign to the theology of John, the thesis of a final editor or editors of the Gospel is shared
by many Fourth Gospel scholars.
Raymond Brown, for example, proposes five distinct stages in the composition of John. {
The stages are (stage 1) a body of traditional material; (stage 2) its development in the
teaching and preaching of the Johannine community; (stage 3) its organization of this
material into a Gospel narrative by the “evangelist” (perhaps the preacher of stage 2)
(stage 4) a secondary edition by the evangelist; and (stage 5) a final editing by the redactor.
Brown’s theory has in its favor that it highlights the liveliness and fluidity of traditions
Fourth Gospel
14. Robert T. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs:AReconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the
Source
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); and The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor: From Narrative
to Present Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).
According to John
15. E.g., Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 18, 77; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel
ray, John, WBC
(I-IX), AB 29 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) xxxi; (but see also 1:195); George R. Beasley-Mur We
36 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987) xl. ,
rev. ed. (Louisville:
16. Schnackenburg, vol. 1, 67; Kysar, John 12-13. See also Kysar, John the Maverick Gospel,
Westminster/John Knox, 1993). ;
17. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XTI), XXXiV-XXXIX.
503
about Jesus in early Christian communities and emphasizes the intersection of the
formation of the Gospel with the developing religious and pastoral needs of a
particular community. Yet the precision with which he classifies the stages; the
distinctions he makes among stages 3, 4, and 5; and his attempts in his commentary
to distinguish which parts of the Gospel belong to which stage of composition
cannot be supported adequately by the evidence of the Gospel text.
Source and composition theories place their emphasis on moving behind the text, that is,
on the history of the text. These theories are thus valuable tools in reconstructing early Christian
history, and they will be engaged in this commentary where appropriate; but tracking the
composition history of John is not a priority of this commentary’s interpretive work.
DATE OF COMPOSITION AND SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS SETTING

y° 4 an Egyptian papyrus fragment that dates from the early second century, contains the
text of John 18:31-33, 37-38, suggesting that the Gospel was known in Egypt by 100 CE. In
addition, John appears to have been in wide circulation by the middle of the second century
CE. Heracleon wrote the first commentary on John around 150 CE (excerpts from this
commentary are preserved in Origen’s commentary on John).'® Among the second-century
church fathers, Irenaeus (180 CE) and Melito of Sardis (175 CE), both in Asia Minor, show
indisputable knowledge of the Fourth Gospel, as do Bishop Polycrates (190) and the Muratorian
Canon (180-200) from Rome. Tatian’s Diatesseron, a Gospel harmony composed circa 175
CE, draws on texts from John and treats it with the same authority as he treats the synoptic
Gospels. Moreover, Ignatius of Antioch may have had knowledge of John as early as the
beginning of the second century. The manuscript evidence and the evidence of early church
tradition thus suggest that the Gospel was completed no later than 100 CE.
In addition to this external evidence, the Gospel points to the crisis that may have
precipitated its composition and hence provides additional assistance in arriving at a date.
At three places in the Gospel, the expression “put out of the synagogue” occurs (9:22;
12:42; 16:2). In a highly influential study, J. Louis Martyn proposed that this phrase refers
to a practice of excommunicating perceived heretics from the synagogue. This practice
was formalized in the Benediction Against Heretics (Birkath ha-Minim), a benediction
introduced into the synagogue liturgy sometime after the destruction of the Jerusalem
Temple in 70 CE and probably between 85 and 95 cE,l?
There is considerable scholarly debate about the precise contours and dating of this
benediction (for the text of the benediction and a more detailed discussion ofits implications
for Fourth Gospel study, see Excursus “John 9:22 and the Benediction Against
Heretics,” 657-58). Nonetheless, this benediction offers an important example of the
religious conflicts within first-century Judaism. The destruction of the Jerusalem
18. See Elaine Pagels, 7he Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon’s Commentary on John (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1972).
19. See J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979).
504
JOHN-INTRODUCTION
Temple in 70 CE, the cultic center, meant a radical reorientation of Jewish religious life.
Pharisees, priests, and Jewish Christians (or perhaps less anachronistically, Christian Jews),
among others, struggled over religious identity and power. The benediction was the attempt
of the pharisaical/rabbinic branch of Judaism to assert its control in the face of alternative
forms of Judaism. This branch of post-70 CE Judaism ultimately did assert its control,
emerging from these struggles as the dominant religious group within later Judaism.7°
The religious turmoil within emergent Judaism after 70 CE is critical to the dating of the
Fourth Gospel. In the Gospel’s intense rhetoric about “the Jews” (see below and Reflections
on John 8) and its predictions of expulsion, persecution, and martyrdom for believers, this
intra-Jewish conflict is visible. The Fourth Evangelist and those for whom he wrote understood
themselves to be a persecuted religious minority, expelled from the synagogue, their religious
home, because of their faith in Jesus.7! The pain of this intra-Jewish struggle is fresh and real
for the Fourth Evangelist; many of Jesus’ words in the Farewell Discourse can be read as
intended to uphold this community in its struggles (see 15:18-16:3).
The publication of the benediction c. 90 CE marked the formalization of an
intra-religious struggle that had been going on in many local communities prior to this
date. The Gospel of John may stem from one such community, in which the practice of
expulsion from the synagogue began almost immediately after the destruction of the
Jerusalem Temple. The intensity of the conflict with the Jewish leadership, and the
pivotal role it plays in shaping the religious and social identity of the community that
read this Gospel, suggests 75-80 CE as the earliest possible date of composition; the
external evidence, as noted above, makes a date much later than 100 CE unlikely. Thus
the Gospel of John is roughly contemporaneous with Matthew, which was written in
response to the same intra-Jewish struggles.
John thus belongs to and derives from the complex and multi-faceted cultural and intellectual
milieu of first-century Judaism. The influence of this diversity of Jewish traditions on the Fourth
Evangelist is evident throughout the Gospel. From beginning to end, the Gospel is shaped by
the language and images of the OT. The opening words of the Gospel (“In the beginning . . a
are clearly intended to echo Gen 1:1. What is most striking about John’s use of the OT is
that the references to it are uniformly positive. For example, Jesus’ description of his gifts are
couched in the language of Scripture (cf., e.g., 6:32-33; Ps 78:24). Jesus’ self-designation as Al
AM” echoes the use of the divine name in the LXX of Second Isaiah (e.g., Isa 43:25; 51:12;
52:6). Indeed, the Scriptures are pointed to as bearing witness to Jesus (e.g., 5:39, 46). John’s
animosity to the Jewish religious authorities thus does not extend to Jewish religious traditions.
He is thoroughly saturated in and shaped by the Jewish Scriptures.
Jewish wisdom traditions in particular pay a prominent role inJohn. These traditions, found
of
in both canonical and extra-canonical Jewish documents (e.g., Proverbs, Sirach, Wisdom
Solomon), personify Wisdom as the presence of God’s Word in the world (e.g., Prov 8:22,
Westminster, 1987).
20. See Shaye D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia:
Faith and Liberating Communit y (Philadelp hia: Westminster, 1988).
21. See David Rensberger, Johannine
505
34; Wis 7:22-26) and draw attention to God’s Word as a source of nourishment and
life (e.g., Prov 9:5; Sir 15:3; 24:21). One hears echoes of the idioms of the wisdom
traditions in the Prologue (1:1-18) and throughout Jesus’ discourses in John (e.g.,
67939/237238),
The discovery of the Qumran material has contributed to a broader understanding of
the diversity of early and mid-first-century Judaism. The sharp dualistic language in
John—light/darkness; good/evil—has counterparts in the documents of the Qumran
sectarians. While it remains unclear how far one can postulate direct influence, at the very
least the similarities between John and Qumran solidly locate the Gospel within the
religious diversity of first-century Judaism.
In the first-century Mediterranean world, it was impossible to draw a rigid line between
Judaism and Hellenism. The most important example of the rich conversation between
Jewish and Greek thought is in the work of Philo of Alexandria, an early first-century Jew
who wrote in Greek and was equally at home in Greek philosophy and Jewish Scripture.
Philo has important similarities with John.?? For example, “word” (k0yos logos) and
“light” (b@s phos) figure prominently in the thought worlds of both Philo and John, and
both were concerned with reinterpreting the Jewish scriptural traditions in the light of the
circumstances in which they lived. Again, while direct influence of Philo on John cannot
be demonstrated, Philo broadens our understanding of first-century Judaism and helps us
to see John more clearly in its variegated Jewish context.
The question of gnostic influence on John needs to be examined in the light of the
diversity of first-century Mediterranean Judaism. Just as one cannot draw a sharp line
between Judaism and Hellenism in the first century, so also one cannot draw a sharp
line between Judaism and Gnosticism. Much of what emerged as definitional for later
Gnosticism—dualistic language, the pivotal role of light/dark imagery, the emphasis
on knowledge—is found already in less developed forms in Jewish wisdom literature,
Qumran, and Philo.”° The proto-Gnostic tendencies in the Jewish traditions closest
to the Fourth Gospel, as well as in the Fourth Gospel itself, may account in part for
the important role John played in the theology of later Christian Gnostics (e.g.,
Valentinus and Heracleon).
The Gospel of John was thus written by a Jewish Christian for and in a Jewish Christian
community that was in conflict with the synagogue authorities of its day (represented in
the Gospel as “the Pharisees” or “the Jews”). The traditional identification of Ephesus as
the place of the Gospel’s composition fits this description, because Ephesus had a large
and active Jewish community (see Acts 18-19), but nothing tells singularly in its favor
either. Antioch and Alexandria, two Mediterranean cities with large Jewish populations,
have also been proposed as the location of the Fourth Gospel. Nor is it possible to rule out
22. See, e.g., C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953)
54-73; and Peder Borgen, “Philo,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 5:333-42.
23. See CraigA.Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background ofJohn’s Prologue, JSNTSup
(Sheffield: JSOT, 1993).
506
JOHN-INTRODUCTION
a location in Palestine for the Fourth Evangelist and his community.“ The place of the
Gospel’s origin, like its author, must remain unnamed; what is critical to the interpretation
of John is the recognition of its origins in the religious life of first-century Judaism.
The preceding review articulates the historical-critical presuppositions of this commen-
tary. Such historical-critical work is essential to the interpretation of John, as it is of any
biblical book, because each book was written in a particular social and historical context.
John reflects and arises out of the struggles and celebrations of an actual faith community.
To ignore the first-century social, religious, and historical environment opens up the danger
of interpreting John as if it were spoken directly to twentieth-century Christians, when it
is not. It was written for first-century Jewish Christians whose world was in crisis because
of their faith in Jesus as the decisive revelation of God. The good news of John for
twentieth-century Christians is always mediated through this first community of readers.
The contemporary reader, therefore, must be willing to engage in acts of theological and
historical imagination when reading John; the reader must be willing to envision the
experience of the first readers and the meaning of the Gospel for them.
A crucial illustration of this is John’s language about “the Jews.” As indicated already,
and as will be discussed more fully in the Commentary on John 8, this language arises
from conflicts between two different groups of first-century Jews: the community of the
Fourth Gospel (Christian Jews) and the synagogue authorities. The intense enmity of this
language is forged in the struggle for religious and community identity. And, most
important, it is language spoken by one group of Jews to another, not by Gentile Christians
about Jews. To recognize this social context is not to whitewash the problematic nature
of much of this language. Rather, recognition of the socially determined nature and function
of this language is essential for any responsible conversation about this language in a
contemporary context. To appropriate this language into the modern situation of Jewish-
Christian relations without attending to the inseparability of this language from the social
world of Johannine Christians is unethical at best, tragic at worst. Awareness of the social,
historical, and cultural contexts out of which John emerged, therefore, is essential not
only for understanding what texts meant “then” but also for determining what texts mean
ac
now.”
THE STRUCTURE OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

It is conventional in Johannine scholarship to divide the Gospel of John into two parts:
chaps. 1-12, commonly referred to as “the Book of Signs,” and chaps. 13-20, commonly
referred to as “the Book of Glory.” John 21 is most often treated as an appendix or second
ending to the Gospel. The reference to the arrival of Jesus’ hour in John 13:1 thus serves
as the dividing line between the two major sections, “Now before the festival of the
Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the
24. See J. Louis Martyn, “Glimpses into the History of the Johananine Community,” in L‘Evangile de Jean, Sources,
redaction, theologie, ed. M. de Jonge (Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1977) 149-75.
507
Father.” There is no question that John 13:1 marks a major turn in the Gospel narrative,
because it initiates the enactment of the events of Jesus’ hour, but this conventional division
oversimplifies the contents of John 1-12 and the interrelationship of the events of Jesus’
ministry and his “hour.” Thus this commentary proposes an alternative structure for John.
The exegetical rationale for this proposal is given in greater detail in the commentary itself;
this introduction provides a general structural overview. ¢
John 1:1-51, The Prelude to Jesus’ Ministry. This section consists of two parts:
a hymnic prologue (1:1-18) and a narrative prologue (1:19-51). Both of these sections
function like the overture to an orchestral piece: They introduce a theme that will be
developed throughout the remainder of the Gospel. Both sections have stylized structures
that underscore their function as overture. John 1:1-18 begins the Gospel with a poetic
celebration of Jesus’ origin with God and his coming into the world. John 1:19-51, which
narrates the witness of John the Baptist to Jesus (vv. 19-34) and the gathering of the first
disciples (vv. 35-51), is composed as a series of four days that lay the groundwork for the
unfolding of Jesus’ ministry.
John 2:1-5:47, “The Greater Things”: Jesus’ Words and Works. Jesus’ public
ministry is narrated in two cycles: John 2:1—5:47 andJohn 6:1-1 0:42.° These chapters contain
miracles and discourses by Jesus that point to the authority of Jesus’ words and works—the
wine miracle at Cana (2:1-11); the cleansing of the Temple (2:13-22); two healing miracles
(4:46-54; 5:1-9); Jesus’ conversations with Nicodemus (3:1-21) and the Samaritan woman
(4:4-42)—and so fulfill his promise to his disciples that they would see “greater things” (1:50).
Yet this cycle also contains the first story of Jesus’ conflict with the Jewish authorities (5:9-47),
a conflict that includes the decision to kill Jesus (5:18). This first cycle establishes the themes
and tensions that characterize Jesus’ public ministry in John—from the manifestation ofJesus’
glory (2:1-11) to the rejection of that glory (5:9-47).
John 6:1-10:42, Jesus’ Words and Works: Conflict and Opposition Grow.
The second cycle of Jesus’ public ministry follows the same pattern as the first—it begins
with a miracle in Galilee, the feeding of the five thousand (6:1-15), and concludes with
hostility to Jesus and renewed intention to kill him (10:31-39). The second cycle poses
the same basic question as the first: Will people receive the revelation of God in Jesus?
The difference between the two cycles is that the urgency of that question is highlighted
as the hostility to Jesus increases.
John 11:1-12:50, The Prelude to Jesus’ Hour. In most commentaries, John 11-12
is identified as the conclusion of Jesus’ public ministry. This commentary. proposes,
however, that these two chapters form a unit in their own right in John. To read them
simply as the conclusion of Jesus’ ministry is to miss their narrative and theological
significance in the overall development of the Gospel. Their primary function is to provide
a bridge between the story of Jesus’ ministry and that of his death (John 13-19). Just as
25. Most commentaries identify John 2:1—4:54 as a distinct unit in Jesus’ ministry, because it begins and ends with
a “sign” at Cana. This commentary proposes that the Cana miracles are not a unit in themselves, but only part of the
first narrative cycle of Jesus’ ministry. See also Kysar, John, 22-23, who identifies 2:1-5:47 as a unit.
508
JOHN-INTRODUCTION
John 1:1-51 stands as a prelude to Jesus’ ministry, so also John 1 1-12 stands as the prelude
to Jesus’ hour. Many of the themes that will be developed fully in the narrative of Jesus’
hour are anticipated here.
John 13:1-17:26, The Farewell Meal and Words ofJesus. John 13:1 signals a new
orientation in the Gospel narrative; Jesus’ hour, the time of his death, resurrection, and
ascension, has arrived. From this point, the Gospel’s focus will not waver from depicting
and interpreting the events of Jesus’ hour. John 13:1-17:26—which narrates the foot
washing (13:1-20), Jesus’ Farewell Discourse (14:1-16:33) and prayer (17:1-26}—pro-
vides the theological framework for interpreting the remainder of the Gospel.
John 18:1-19:42, “The Hour Has Come”: Jesus’ Arrest, Trial and Death.
John 18-19 is the theological and narrative heart of the Gospel’s depiction of Jesus’ “hour.”
These chapters present the reader with the consummate portrait of Jesus as the one who
willingly lays down his life for those he loves.
John 20:1-31, The First Resurrection Appearances. Jesus’ hour consists of his
death, resurrection, and ascension. John 20—Jesus’ resurrection appearances, the gift of
the Spirit, the ascension (alluded to, but not actually reported)—thus belongs to the
narrative of Jesus’ hour. Itis not until Jesus’ return to God (20:17) that his hour is completed.
John 21:1-25, Jesus’ Resurrection Appearance at the Sea of Tiberius. This
commentary proposes that John 21 be read as an integral part of the Gospel narrative (see
Overview to John 21), rather than as an appendix or second ending. John 21:1-25 points
toward the future life of the believing community and its continuing witness to Jesus.
JOHANNINE STUDY TODAY

The two most important figures in Fourth Gospel scholarship in the early and middle decades of
the twentieth century were Rudolf Bultmann and C. H. Dodd. The contributions of Bultmann’s
work lay in the areas of source criticism and the literary history of the Fourth Gospel, history of
religions (gnostic influence), and Johannine theology. As noted above, Dodd’s major contribution
was hisinvestigation ofthe role of oral tradition in the shaping of the Gospel and his careful comparisons
of John and the Synoptics. In addition to Dodd’s demonstration of Johannine independence from
the synoptic Gospels, Dodd was also a perceptive reader ofJohannine literary and narrative technique,
as the last third of The /nterpretation of the Fourth Gospel demonstrates.”°
In the decades since Bultmann and Dodd, the single most important work inJohannine studies
is probably J. Louis Martyn’s monograph History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel?’ While
others before Martyn had pursued the relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the synagogue, none
had argued with such exegetical and methodological clarity. Nor had anyone so intentionally
addressed the interaction between community and tradition in the formation of the Gospel. The
task that Martyn sets for himself in the introduction to History and Theology makes this clear:
26. See C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953).
27. J. Louisi Martyn, History
h ille: Abingdon,
and Theology ini the Fourth Gospel (Nashville: Abi 1968; ‘ 2nd ed., 1979). See
the comment by John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 107.
509
Our first task . . . is to say something as specific as possible about the actual circumstances in
which John wrote his gospel. How are we to picture daily life in John’s church? Have elements
of the peculiar daily experience left their stamp on the gospel penned by one of its members?
May one sense even in the exalted cadences the voice of a Christian theologian who writes in
response to contemporary events and issues which concern, or should concern, all members
of the Christian community in which he lives?
To meet his task, Martyn combines exegetical and historical analysis to conclude that
many of the Gospel’s dialogues and narratives are to be understood on two levels: (1)a
witness to the time of Jesus and (2) a witness to the rearticulation of the tradition in
response to events in the life of the Johannine community. As noted in the discussion
above, the decisive event for this second level is the conflict of the Johannine community
with the synagogue, perhaps in conjunction with the Benediction Against Heretics. In the
preface to History and Theology, Martyn expressed his surprise that his research had led
him away from previous convictions about links with Mandaean literature to the Jewish
context he proposed.” When questions were asked about the everyday events with which
the Gospel community was faced, the pivotal place of relations with Judaism reemerged.
Martyn’s work decisively altered the landscape of Johannine studies in two ways. First,
his analysis of the Jewish context out of which the Fourth Gospel developed remains the
governing view of Johannine studies. Second, as a result of Martyn’s work, and that of
Raymond Brown in his commentary and subsequent monograph on the Johannine
community,” the term “Johannine community” has become a commonplace in discus-
sions of the Fourth Gospel. One need only survey dissertations of the 1970s and 1980s
to see the prominence of studies that focus on the Johannine community.
In the decades since Martyn’s and Brown’s generative work about the Johannine
community and its relationship to Judaism and early Christianity, two new areas of
Johannine study have developed. One development was the move toward literary studies
of the Gospel. In Zhe Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, the pioneer work in this field of
Johannine scholarship, R. Alan Culpepper studies the literary characteristics of the Fourth
Gospel and the narrative world created by them.°! Literary-critical analysis asserts that
the form and rhetorical devices of any given text must be taken with utmost seriousness
and not regarded as incidental or extraneous. Studies of John’s narrative structure,
symbolism, irony, and imagery have enriched the encounter with the distinctive voice of
the Fourth Gospel and have brought renewed vitality to exegetical work.”
A second important development in recent Johannine studies is the attention given
28. Ibid., 18.
29. Ibid., 11-12.
30. Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1979).
31. R. Alan Culpepper, 7he Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
32. See, e.g., Paul D. Duke, /rony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985); Gail R. O’Day, Revelation in
the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); Jeff Staley, The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation,of the
Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel, SBLDS 82 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); Mark W. G. Stibbe, Jonn’s Gospel
(New York: Routledge, 1994).
4)
JOHN-INTRODUCTION
to the social world of the Gospel. This approach to John builds directly from the
community history approach of Brown and Martyn, but does so with a concern for the
dynamics of social and cultural factors that Shaped the life of the community out of
which the Gospel grew, rather than for the reconstruction of the community’s history.
David Rensberger’s work Johannine Faith and Liberating Community is an important
example of this approach.°°
The student of the Gospel of John has at his or her disposal an embarrassment of riches.
The Bibliography offers a sampling of the works on John to which readers of this
commentary may turn for futher study.
33. See also Jerome Neyrey, An Ideology ofRevolt: John’s Christology in Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988); and Norman R. Petersen, 7he Gospel of John and the Sociology of Light (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity
International, 1993).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Commentaries
Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. A careful
commentary on the Greek text of John that attends to textual, historical, and theological issues. Advocates
Johannine dependence on Mark and Luke.
Beasley-Murray, George R. John. WBC 36. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987. A critical commentary on the English
text of John that combines attention to major scholarly work on John with the author’s own historical
and theological interests. Excellent bibliographies at the beginning of each chapter.
Brown, Raymond E. 7he Gospel According to John. AB 29 and 29A. New York: Doubleday, 1966, 1970.
The definitive reference commentary on John that provides detailed coverage of introductory, textual,
philological, historical, and theological issues. Also valuable for its reviews of the interpretation of John
within the ancient and the modern church.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. This monumental
commentary remains the touchstone of Johannine interpretation. Despite its major problems—
Bultmann’s reconstruction of the “original” order of John and his hypothesis of Gnostic
influence—this commentary is brilliant in both its exegesis and its articulation of the heart of
Johannine theology.
Haenchen, Ernst. John. Hermeneia. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. This critical commentary on
John was incomplete at the time of Haenchen’s death and was edited into its final form by Ulrich
Busse.
Hoskyns, E. C. The Fourth Gospel. Edited by F. N. Davey. London: Faber and Faber, 1947. This commentary
was completed by F. N. Davey after Hoskyns’s death in 1937. The introduction contains an invaluable
essay on the interrelationship of history, theology, and interpretation in John. Hoskyns, like Bultmann
after him, recognized the inseparability of exegesis and theology in the creation and interpretation of
John.
Kysar, Robert. John. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986. A
commentary especially directed to preachers and teachers.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to St. John. 3 vols. New York: Seabury, 1982. The most
sweeping of all the commentaries on John, its particular areas of interest and strength are tradition-history,
stylistic features, and theology. Like the work of Brown, this commentary is concerned with the history
of composition and the place of John in the history of the church.
511
Studies on John
Bultmann, Rudolf. Zhe Theology of the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1955. This book’s detailed
treatment of Johannine theology establishes the contours of Johannine theology and remains the classic
treatment of the subject.
Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel:AStudy in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
This book studies the literary characteristics of John—plot, character, symbolism—in order to help the
reader arrive at a clearer sense of how the Fourth Gospel tells its story. -
Dodd, C. H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. This
book is a comprehensive treatment of all of the passages in John that have any parallels in the synoptic
tradition. Dodd’s exegesis leads him to conclude that John does not depend on the Synoptics, but preserves
an independent ancient tradition about Jesus.
. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. The first third
of this book reviews the religious and cultural background of John, and the second third reviews Johannine
thought against that background. The book’s final third offers a theologically and literarily insightful reading
of John. Dodd is concerned with the structure and argument ofJohn in its received form.
Kasemann, Ernst. The Testament ofJesus:A Study of the Gospel ofJohn in the Light of Chapter 17. London:
SCM, 1968. This important and much-debated study reads John through the lens of John 17. Kasemann
sees the incarnation as a means of showing Jesus’ glory and thus concludes that one finds in John evidence
of “naive docetism.”
Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. Nashville: Abingdon, 1968; 2nd ed., 1979.
This is one of the most important books in Johannine studies. Its central thesis, that the Gospel of John
is shaped by the Johannine community’s struggles with the synagogue, is the governing view of the Gospel
in contemporary scholarship. A very readable and exegetically insightful book.
Rensberger, David. Johannine Faith and Liberating Community. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. This book
combines literary and sociological concerns in an attempt to interpret Johannine theology in the light of
its struggles with the synagogue. Its emphasis is on the communal dimensions of Johannine faith.
Sloyan, Gerard S. What Are They Saying About John? New York: Paulist, 1991. This book offers the general
reader a good introduction to Johannine scholarship. It begins with the commentaries of Hoskyns and
Bultmann and surveys both commentaries and important monographs.
Smith, D. Moody. The Theology of the Gospel ofJohn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. This
book treats the theology of John in its historical and cultural context. An excellent introduction to
Johannine theology.
OUTLINE OF JOHN
I. John 1:1-51, The Prelude to Jesus’ Ministry
A. 1:1-18, The Prologue
B. 1:19-34, John’s Testimony
C.1:35-51; The First Disciples
Il. John 2:1—-5:47, The “Greater Things”: Jesus’ Words and Works
A. 2:1-12, The Wedding at Cana
512
JOHN-INTRODUCTION
B. 2:13-3:21, Jesus in Jerusalem

2:13-22, The Cleansing of the Temple
2:23-25, Interlude in Jerusalem
3:1-21, Jesus and Nicodemus
C. 3:22-4:3, John’s Final Testimony
D. 4:4-42, Jesus in Samaria
E. 4:43-54, The Healing of the Royal Official’s Son
F. 5:1-47, A Sabbath Healing Miracle and Discourse
5:1-18, The Miracle and Its Aftermath
5:19-47, The Discourse
Ill. John 6:1-10:42, Jesus’ Words and Works: Conflict and Opposition Grow
A. 6:1-71, The Bread of Life
6:1-15, The Feeding of the Five Thousand
6:16-24, Jesus Walks on Water
6:25-71, Dialogue and Discourse on the Bread of Life
6:25-34, Dialogue Between Jesus and the Crowd
6:35-42, Jesus’ First Discourse and the Crowd’s Response
6:43-52, Jesus’ Second Discourse and the Crowd’s Response
6:53-59, Jesus’ Third Discourse
6:60-71, Conclusion: Jesus and His Disciples
B. 7:1-8:59, Conflict in Jerusalem
JAAS; Jesus Goes to Jerusalem
744: 36, Words of Conflict: Jesus’ Teaching and Recitien
7:37-52, Words of Conflict: Jesus’ Teaching and Response
Pesee 1, A Narrative of Conflict|
8:12-30, Words of Conflict: Jesus’ Teaching and Response
8:31-59, Debate Between Jesus and His Jewish Opponents
8:31-38, Freedom for the Descendants of Abraham
8:39-47, Children of Abraham/Children of God
8:48-59, Abraham and Jesus
C. 9:1-10:21, The Healing of the Blind Man (Miracle and Discourse)
9:1-12, The Healing Miracle
9:13-41, Dialogue and Interrogation
10:1-21, The Shepherd Discourse
D. 10:22-42, Jesus at the Feast of Dedication
IV. John 11:1—12:50, The Prelude to Jesus’ Hour

A. 11:1-12:11, Jesus’ Hour Prefigured
11:1-44, The Raising of Lazarus
513
11:45-54, The Decision to Kill Jesus
11:55-12:11, Jesus’ Anointing at Bethany
B. 12:12-19, Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem
C. 12:20-36, Jesus Interprets His Death
D. 12:37-50, The Epilogue to Jesus’ Ministry
V. John 13:1-17:26, The Farewell Meal and Discourse

A. 13:1-38, The Farewell Meal
13:1-11, The Foot Washing
13:12-20, Discourse by Jesus on Communal Service
13:21-30, Jesus Prophesies His Betrayal
13:31-38, The Love Commandment and Prophecy of Peter’s Denial
B. 14:1-16:33, The Farewell Discourse
14:1-31, “I Will Not Leave You Orphaned”
14:1-11, “I Am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life”
14:12-24, “If You Love Me, You Will Keep My Commandments”
14:25-31, “Rise, Let Us Be on Our Way”
15:1-17, “Abide in My Love”
15:18-16:44, “I Have Chosen You Out of the World”
16:40:33, “It Is to Your Advantage That I Go Away”
C. 17:1-26, Jesus’ Farewell Prayer
VI. John 18:1-19:42, “The Hour Has Come”: Jesus’ Arrest, Trial, and Death
. 18:1-12, The Arrest
18:13-27, The Interrogation by Annas
. 18:28-19:164 The Trial Before Pilate
ek
So . 19:16037, The Crucifixion
E. 19:38-42, The Burial
VII. John 20:1-31, The First Resurrection Appearances

A. 20:1-18, The Empty Tomb and the Appearance to Mary Magdalene
B. 20:19-23, Jesus’ First Appearance to the Gathered Disciples
C. 20:24-31, Jesus’ Appearance to Thomas
VIII. John 21:1-25, Jesus’ Resurrection Appearance at the Sea of Tiberius
A. 21:1-14, Jesus Appears to the Gathered Disciples
B. 21:15-25, Jesus, Peter, and the Beloved Disciple
514
JOHN 1:1-51
‘THE PRELUDE TO JESUS’ MINISTRY
OVERVIEW
- ohn 1:1-51 forms a three-part introduction four successive days is a literary device through
- to Jesus’ ministry. John 1:1-18, traditionally which the Fourth Evangelist underscores the in-
known as the Prologue, begins the Fourth Gospel terrelatedness of these opening events. The three
with a hymnic celebration of Jesus’ origin and his parts of John 1 together introduce themes that are
coming into the world. John 1:19-34 narrates the decisive for interpreting John’s story of Jesus’
initial witness of John the Baptist to Jesus, and origin (1:1-5) and identity (1:14, 18, 29-34, 43-
John 1:35-51 narrates the gathering of Jesus’ first 51); Jesus’ relationship to God (1:1-2, 14, 18, 34,
disciples. The second and third parts of the intro- 35, 49, 51); Jesus’ relationship to humankind
duction are structured as a series of four consecu- (1:9-14, 16); the importance of witness to Jesus
tive days, as the repeated expression “the next (1:7-8, 15, 19-28, 32-34); and the meaning of
day” indicates (1:29, 35, 43). This division into faith and discipleship (1:7, 12, 35-51).
JOHN I:t-13,.THE PROLOGUE

NIV NRSV
| In the beginning was the Word, and the | In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was Word was with God, and the Word was
God. *He was with God in the beginning. God. 7He was in the beginning with God. °All
things came into being through him, and without
3Through him all things were made; without
him not one thing came into being. What has
him nothing was made that has been made. “In
come into being *in him was life,? and the life
him was life, and that life was the light of men.
was the light of all people. *The light shines in
>The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness
the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome
has not understood? it.
it.
6There came a man who was sent from God; 6There was a man sent from God, whose name
his name was John. 7He came as a witness to was John. 7He came as a witness to testify to the
testify concerning that light, so that through him light, so that all might believe through him. *He
all men might believe. *He himself was not the himself was not the light, but he came to testify
light; he came only as a witness to the light. °The to the light. °The true light, which enlightens
true light that gives light to every man was everyone, was coming into the world.’
coming into the world.’ 10He was in the world, and the world came
\0He was in the world, and though the world into being through him; yet the world did not
was made through him, the world did not recog: know him. ''He came to what was his own,‘ and
nize him. ''He came to that which was his own, 2Or3through him. And without him not one thing came into being
69 Or This that has come into being. 4In him was life © Or He was the
a5 Or darkness, and the darkness has not overcome true light that enlightens everyone coming into the world
was the true light that gives light to every man who comes into the
cOr to his own home
world
S15
JOHN 1:1-18
NIV NRSV
but his own did not receive him. !7Yet to all who his own people'did not accept him. '*But to all
received him, to those who believed in his name, who received him, who believed in his name, he
he gave the right to become children of God— gave power to become children of God, '’who
\3children born not of natural descent,? nor of were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh
human decision or a husband’s will, but born of or of the will of man, but of God.
God. 14And the Word became flesh and lived among
'4The Word became flesh and made his dwell- us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a
ing among us. We have seen his glory, the glory father’s only son,? full of grace and truth. (John
of the One and Only,’ who came from the Father, testified to him and cried out, “This was he of
full of grace and truth. whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks
‘John testifies concerning him. He cries out, ahead of me because he was before me.’”) '°From
saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who his fullness we have all received, grace upon
comes after me has surpassed me because he was grace. '’The law indeed was given through Moses;
before me.’” !°*From the fullness of his grace we grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. '’No
have all received one blessing after another. '7For one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son,?
the law was given through Moses; grace and truth who is close to the Father’s heart,“ who has made
came through Jesus Christ. '8No one has ever seen him known.
God, but God the One and Only, * who is at the aOr the Father's only Son © Other ancient authorities read /t is
Father’s side, has made him known. an only Son, God, or It is the only Son ¢ Gk bosom
a13 Greek of bloods 614 Or the Only Begotten c18 Some

manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son
COMMENTARY
The Gospel of John opens with one of the most eternal Word is the Light and Life of Creation;
challenging texts in the NT. The scope of John (2) 1:6-8, John the Baptist witnesses to the Light;
1:1-18 is challenging, because the Fourth Evan- (3) 1:9-13, The Light, or Word, came into the
gelist begins the Gospel with the cosmic pre-ex- World; and (4) 1:14-18, The Word became flesh
istence of the Word and the Word’s relationship and dwells among us.*
to the world rather than with stories of Jesus’ As these four divisions suggest, the Prologue is
birth (Matt 1:1-2:23; Luke 1:1-2:52) or with the concerned with two different spheres, of God’s
proclamation of John the Baptist (Mark 1:1-8; cf. presence: (1) the eternal, the sphere of the cosmic
John 1:6-8, 15). The form of John 1:1-18 also Word of God, and (2) the temporal, the sphere
presents an interpretive challenge, because at of John the Baptist, the world, and the incarnate
many points the Prologue seems to have more in Word. The interaction between these two spheres
common with the cadences of early Christian is at the heart of the Prologue.
hymns (e.g., Phil 2:5-11; Col 1:15-20) than with Three interrelated critical issues determine how
the prose of Gospel narratives. The reader of John one views the relationship among the parts of the
1:1-18 must grapple, therefore, with a wide range Prologue: (1) the composition history of John
of issues, from the nature of its theological lan- 1:1-18; (2) the relationship of verses about John
guage, to its relationship to the rest of the Gospel the Baptist (vv. 6, 8, 15) to the rest of the
of John, to its composition history, and relation Prologue; and (3) the point at which the Prologue
to other Jewish and early Christian literature. speaks of the incarnate Word.
It is helpful for the reader of John 1:1-18 to The debate about the composition history of
have a picture of the overall movement of the
34. This division is the same as that proposed by C. K. Barrett, The
Prologue as the first step in its interpretation. The
Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978)
Prologue consists of four parts: (1) 1:1-5, The 149-50,
516
JOHN 1:1-18 COMMENTARY
John 1:1-18 focuses on whether parts of the vides scholars. There are three main scholarly hy-
Prologue derive from an independent hymn that potheses. First, in the early part of the twentieth
was modified to form the introduction to the century, Rudolf Bultmann argued that the Prologue
Fourth Gospel, and on the provenance of the is a revision of a Jogos hymn that originated in a
language and ideas of the Prologue. The poetic Gnostic community that traced its origins back to
structure of some verses, especially vv. 1-5, and John the Baptist (the Mandaeans).3* This Gnostic
the distinctive theological vocabulary of 1:1-18 are hypothesis exerted tremendous influence on the
cited as evidence of the incorporation of an earlier study of the Prologue, even though the Odes of
hymn. For example, “Word” (Adyos logos) is used Solomon and the Mandaean literature that Bultmann
as a christological term only in the Prologue (1:1, cited postdated the Gospel of John. The publication
14) and “grace” (xdpts charis) also occurs only of documents from Nag Hammadi stimulated re-
in these opening verses of the Gospel (vv. 1, 14, newed interest in the relationship between the Pro-
16-17); logue and Gnosticism, although the Nag Hammadi
Fourth Gospel scholarship is marked by a variety documents, too, postdate the Fourth Gospel.%?
of reconstructions of the “original hymn.” The cri- Second, many scholars maintain that theories of
teria that govern these reconstructions range from a a Gnostic provenance are unnecessary, because the
strict definition of poetic style to the commentator’s Prologue can more helpfully be read against the
assumptions about the theological intent of the Evan- backdrop of Judaism. C. H. Dodd, for example,
gelist.° There is virtually total agreement that vv. while not actively engaging Bultmann’s thesis, was
1-5 belong to the “original hymn,” and that vv. 6-8, one of the main proponents of an alternative prove-
15 are prose interpolations, but as far as the status nance from which the Prologue grew: the Jewish
of the remainder of the Prologue, what some schol- wisdom tradition, including Philo’s use of the term
ars read as poetry, others read as the Evangelist’s logos.® A Jewish provenance for the language and
additions. The variety of reconstructions should cau- ideas of the Prologue has in its favor that the wisdom
tion the interpreter against basing a reading of the traditions predate the Fourth Gospel and that much
Prologue exclusively on any one reconstruction of of the Fourth Gospel is steeped in Jewish traditions
the “original hymn.” Moreover, as Barrett has wisely (see the Introduction). Indeed, the Jewish wisdom
noted, scholars’ lack of ability to arrive at a clear tradition, both biblical and extra-biblical, has
understanding of what is poetry or prose in the emerged as the governing view of the provenance
Prologue also suggests that it does not follow any of the language of the Prologue.*!
strict definition of poetry. Indeed, rhythmic prose
38. See Rudolf Bultmann, “The History of Religions Background of the
may be a better description of the style of the Prologue to the Gospel of John,” in John Ashton, ed., 7he /nterpretation
Prologue.*° Interestingly, one finds a comparable of John (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). This article was first published in
1923 in Eucharisterion: Festschrift fiir Hermann Gunkel II. Bultmann
variety of proposals about the structure of the Pro- published a second, more detailed, article advocating this thesis, “Die
logue from scholars who eschew source-critical ques- Bedeutung der neuerschlossen mandaischen und mandaischen Quellen
fiir das Versténdnis des Johannesevangeliums,” ZVW24 (1925) 100-146.
tions and investigate the Prologue with literary 39. For the contemporary discussion of Gnostic influence, see J. M.
methods.°” Robinson, “The Johannine Trajectory,” inJ. M. Robinson and H. Koester,
ed., Trajectories in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971)
The provenance of the “original hymn” also di- 232-68; Kurt Rudolf, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983) 149, 382n. 48; G. Robinson, “The
35. See, for example, Rudolf Schnackenburg, 7he Gospel According Trimorphic Protennonia and the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel,” in J. E.
to St. John, 3 vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982) 1:225-26. For his full Goehring et al., eds. Gnosticism and the Early Christian World, J. M.
treatment of the poetry of the Prologue, see his “Logos-Hymnus und Robinson Festschrift (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1990) 37-50.
johanneischer Prolog,” BZ 1 (1957) 69-109. See also Rudolf Bultmann, 40. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:
The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. Cambridge University Press, 1953) 272-85.
N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 16-18. 41. Forareview ofthis development, see Robert Kysar, 7he Fourth Evangelist
Brown provides a representative sampling of these efforts in The Gospel and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship (Minneapolis:
According to John (I-XII), AB 29 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) Augsburg, 1975). For more recent studies, see Peder Borgen, “The Prologue ofJohn
Oe: as Exposition of the OT,” in Borgen, Philo, John, and Paul: New Perspectives on
36. See Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 151; Ernst Judaism and Early Christianity, BJS 131 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 75-102;
Haenchen, John, Hermenia, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 1:124; Craig R. Koester, 7he Dwelling of God: The Tabemacle in the Old Testament,
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Intertestmental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament, CBQMS 22 (Wash-
1991) 112. ington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1990); T. H. Tobin, “The Prologue of
37. E.g., R. Alan Culpepper, “The Pivot of John’s Prologue,” N7S 27 John and the Hellenistic Jewish Speculation,” CBQ.52 (1990) 253-69; Craig A.
(1980) 1-31; Jeffrey Staley, “The Structure of John’s Prologue: Its Implica- Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of
tions for the Gospel’s Narrative Structure,” CBQ 48 (1986) 241-64. John’s Prologue, JSNTSup 89 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).
B17
Third, many scholars who accept a Jewish This commentary agrees with C. K. Barrett and
provenance for much of the language and ideas others that John 1:1-18 was specially composed
of the Prologue see the origin of the hymn itself by the Evangelist as the beginning of the Fourth
within the Johannine community. For example, Gospel. It is highly likely that the Prologue does
Haenchen, Brown, and Kysar argue that the writer incorporate phrases from a pre-existent hymn,
of the Fourth Gospel has incorporated a hymn since all NT writers made use of earlier materials.
composed by a member of his community.” Those phrases are no longer reclaimable in verse
It is also important to note that some scholars form, however. In John 1:1-18, the Fourth Evan-
question the very notion of an “original hymn.” gelist has created something new out of two
Barrett and Carson argue that John 1:1-18 was strands of early Christian tradition, both of which ~
specially written by the Evangelist himself to in- were probably familiar to his readers: a hymn that
troduce the Fourth Gospel.’ celebrated the cosmic origins and pre-existence of
Interpreters who read John 1:1-18 as an original Jesus the Word, and the John the Baptist material,
hymn with prose interpolations give secondary the traditional beginning point for the story of
status to the verses about John the Baptist (vv. Jesus’ ministry. The beginnings of Matthew and
6-8, 15). It is suggested that these verses belonged Luke employ a related technique, because also in
originally with 1:19 and were displaced to accom- those Gospels the evangelists affixed birth tradi-
modate the hymn. The presence of vv. 6-8, 15 is tions to the John the Baptist material (Matt 1:1—-
sometimes even cited as evidence of the Fourth 3:17; Luke 1:1-3:20). The Fourth Evangelist has
Evangelist’s misunderstanding of the “original not simply affixed a tradition about Jesus’ origin
hymn.”“* By contrast, scholars who question the to the John the Baptist tradition, however, but
notion of an “original hymn” view the John the has woven the two traditions together. It is incor-
Baptist verses as being essential to the under- rect to view the John the Baptist material as
standing of the purpose of the Prologue.*° interpolations into an “original hymn,” because
The way one interprets the place of the John the Evangelist fuses the two traditions together in
the Baptist verses directly influences one’s answer order to orient his story to the theologically nec-
to the third critical question: At what point does essary beginning point of Jesus’ ministry: Jesus’
the Prologue begin to speak about the historical beginning beyond time and history in conjunction
Jesus (the incarnate Word)? The options are at v. with his beginning in time and history. For the
5, v. 10, or v. 14. It is clear that the most explicit writer of John, the two belong together. The iden-
statement of the incarnation occurs at v. 14, but tification of possible phrases from an earlier hymn
is it the first? If one removes the John the Baptist can be important if it helps to clarify the two strands
verses, then it is possible to argue that vv. 1-5 of traditions the Evangelist brings together to create
focus on the cosmic Word; vv. 9-13 on the drama his distinctive Gospel beginning, but it works against
of God’s Word with Israel; and that the historical a theologically coherent reading of the Prologue to
Jesus becomes the subject of the Prologue only at insist on labeling part of the Prologue as hymnic and
v. 14.4° If one includes the John the Baptist verses part as interpolation. The Fourth Evangelist’s com-
as being essential to the Prologue, however, then bination of the hymn tradition with the John the
from v. 5 onward the Prologue must be read as Baptist tradition is a deliberate strategy to establish
pointing to the historical Jesus. the theological framework out of which the whole
42. Ernst Haenchen, John, Hermenia, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress,
Gospel develops.
1984) 1:101, 125; Brown, 7he Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 20-23; 1:1-5. 1:1. The cosmic, transtemporal dimen-
Robert Kysar, John, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (Min-
neapolis: Augsburg, 1986) 28.
sion of the Prologue receives its fullest expres-
43. See Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 151; Carson, The sion in 1:1-5. John 1:1 contains three short
Gospel According to John, 111-12.
44. Haenchen, John, 1:128. phrases whose vocabulary and contents overlap.
45. Morna Hooker, “John the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue,” Each new phrase builds from the end of the
NTS 16 (1969-70) 354-58. See also Barrett, The Gospel According to St.
John, 151; Carson, The Gospel According to John, 113. preceding phrase in stairstep parallelism: “in the
46. See Kysar, John, 28-29; Haenchen, John, 1:113-15, 119. See also beginning was the Word, and the Word was
the important discussion of Ernst Késemann, “The Structure and Purpose
of the Prologue to John’s Gospel,” in New Testament Questions of Today with God, and the Word was God.” (The word
(London: SCM, 1969) 138-52. order of the Greek text of v. lc makes the
518
Stairstep parallelism even more apparent: Kai 0<d¢ the Word of God in the OT. The creation accounts
Tw 0 \byos [kai theos én ho logos}.) in Genesis are governed by God’s spoken word;
What is the origin of the term logos, “the God spoke through the law at Sinai and through
Word”? In answering this question, it is impor- the prophets. The Word encompasses both word
tant to remember that during the first century and deed, and that fits well with the image of
cE, the boundaries between different religions, logos in the Prologue. The Word also brings with
philosophies, and cultures were fluid. One cannot it associations from the Jewish wisdom tradition.
draw a sharp line between Hellenism and Juda- In Prov 8:22-31, for example, Wisdom has been
ism, for example, because the two were in con- God’s companion “before the beginning of the
stant contact with each other in the eastern earth,” working alongside God to accomplish
Mediterranean world. One should not be sur- God’s plan for humanity. In later Jewish wisdom
prised, therefore, that /ogos appears in a variety traditions more directly influenced by Greek
of religions and philosophies with which the thought, “Wisdom” (codta sophia) becomes in-
writer of John may have been familiar. creasingly “a personal being standing by the side
The most disputed claim is that the origins of of God over against, but not unconcerned with,
the Fourth Evangelist’s use of logos are to be the created world.”4? The Fourth Evangelist
found in Gnosticism.*” As noted earlier, one can makes an important shift in wisdom terminology,
cite no Gnostic document in which Jogos appears however. Wisdom (sophia) is a feminine noun in
that predates the Fourth Gospel, and so the argu- Greek, and indeed, is often clearly depicted as a
ment for Gnostic influence is difficult to support. female character in the wisdom literature (e.g.,
In fact, the line of influence from the Prologue to Prov 9:1-6; Sir 24:1-2, 28-29). By employing the
second-century Gnostic documents is much easier term Jogos, a masculine noun, instead of sophia,
to substantiate. the Fourth Evangelist reshapes the wisdom tradi-
Logos figures prominently in early Stoicism as tion to reflect the historical reality of the incarna-
the term for the rational principle of the universe, tion?
and that cosmological sense of Jogos is evident In the use of Jogos, then, John has chosen a
in John’s Prologue. It is likely, however, that the term familiar to both Jews and Greeks, but has
Fourth Evangelist’s reading of Jogos was more used it in a new context with fresh meanings.
influenced by Jewish and early Christian interpre- John draws on the rich symbolism associated with
tations of Stoicism than by Stoic philosophy di- logos and uses it as the lens through which he
views the coming of Jesus into the world. The
rectly.
varieties of religious speculations that receive ex-
The most fertile place to look for the back-
pression in Jogos in the Hellenistic world are
ground of /ogos is within Judaism. Philo is an
subsumed by John into the revelation of God in
excellent example of a Jewish contemporary of
Jesus.
the Fourth Evangelist who melded Greek philoso-
John 1:1 stresses the eternal existence of the
phy, particularly Stoicism and Platonism, with
Word with God, an existence outside the bounds
Jewish thought about God. In Philo, /ogos figures
of time and history. The opening words of John
prominently as a way of speaking about the crea-
1:1, “in the beginning... ,” recall the first words
tive plan of God that governs the world.** Yet the
of Gen 1:1 (the Greek is identical with Gen 1:1
Fourth Evangelist’s use of /ogos to speak about
in the LXX), but they point to a time before the
Jesus does not seem to be directly derivative from
creation of the world. Creation is not spoken of
Philo, but is a christocentric reading of the mean-
until v. 3. As the Prologue unfolds, the eternal
ing of “the Word” in Judaism by someone steeped Word will not stay outside time and history, but
in the same Hellenistic culture. will enter into the time-bound world. The contrast
The Prologue’s picture of the role of the Word between the eternal and the temporal is seen in the
in creation and in human history thus draws on
49. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 153. See also Wis 7:22,
47. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G. 27; Sirach 24.
R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: 50. For a discussion of gender questions and the role of sophia in the
Westminster, 1971), 25-31. Fourth Gospel, see Sophia and the Johannine Jesus, JSNTSup 71 (Shef-
48. E.g., Philo Op. Mund. 17-24. field: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).
519
Prologue in the contrast of the verb “to be” with Word in v. 3 (“without him nothing was made that
the verb “to become” or “to come into being.”>! has been made”) is similar stylistically to the descrip-
There is a stairstep progression of thought as well tion of the Wordin vv. 1-2. Moreover, the opening
as from among the three phrases of John 1:1. They of v. 4, “In him [the Word] was life,” introduces
move from the existence of the Word (v. 14) to the one of the Fourth Gospel’s central claims about Jesus
relationship of the Word with God (v. 10) to the (e.g., 5:26; 6:35; 11:25; 14:6).
identity of the Word as God (v. 1c). Verse 1c is the Verse 3 thus contains two statements about
most difficult of the three phrases because of its creation through the Word, one positive and one
affirmation “the Word was God.” With these words, negative. The positive statement affirms that
John affirms that the Word is fully God, just as Paul everything came into being through the Word (v.
affirms in Phil 2:6 that Jesus “was in the form of 3a). The second statement maintains that nothing
God” and was equal to God. Through this phrase, was created without the Word (v. 30). This: posi-
John states that the Word is what God is and the tive/negative construction, an example of anti-
Word does what God does. The Word thus “repre- thetical parallelism, underscores the role of the
sents the self-expression of God,” anticipating one Word in all creation and hence the unity of all
of the central emphases of the Fourth Gospel.°? creation.
When he says “the Word was God,” John affirms In vv. 4-5, the focus shifts from the created
the oneness of the Word and God (cf. John 10:30), order in general to human beings. By affirming
not that the Word is a second God. that “in him was life,” the Prologue moves from
Verse 1 thus provides the ontological underpin- the role of the Word in the one moment of
nings of the Fourth Gospel’s central claim that when creation to the ongoing, life-giving character of
one sees Jesus, one sees God; when one hears Jesus, the Word. This ability to give and sustain life is
one hears God (e.g., 5:37-38; 8:19; 14:9-11). The symbolized by the light (cf. 8:12; 9:5; 11:9). The
oneness of the Word and God means that the verb tenses that describe the interaction of light
revelation spoken and enacted by the Word is and darkness warrant attention. The light
indeed the revelation of God (cf. 1:18). “shines,” present tense, but the activity of dark-
1:2. This verse recapitulates the three phrases ness is narrated in the past tense. The verb tenses
of v. | and expresses them as one thought. This recall the initial moment when the light came into
summary prepares the reader to move from the the world (past tense), yet also acknowledge the
pre-existence and identity of the Word to the role continuation of that light into the present (present
of the Word in creation (v. 3) and the effect of tense).
the Word on what was created (vv. 4-5). The verb that describes the action of the dark-
1:3-5. There is a punctuation problem at vv. ness in v. 5 (katakapBavw katalambano) can be
3-4, At issue is whether the phrase “what has translated several ways. One translation renders
come into being” (NRSV) belongs with the de- the verb as “overcome” (NRSV) and thus denotes
scription of creation in v. 3 (NIV, NRSV alt.) or a struggle in which the light is victorious. A
with the description of life in v. 4 (NRSV). The second translation renders the verb as “under-
manuscript evidence and interpretations of the stood” (NIV) and denotes inability to recognize
early church are divided on which punctuation is and understand what the light offers. Either trans-
to be preferred, as is modern scholarship.*° This lation is consonant with the rest of the Prologue.
commentary accepts the punctuation used in the 1:6-8. Verse 6 introduces an actor from the
NIV translation as the preferred reading. The repe- human drama into the Prologue: John. John has
tition in the description of creation through the a slightly different function in the Fourth Gospel
than in the other Gospels. He is never identified
51. Fora fuller discussion of “being” and “becoming” in John 1:1-18,
see Karl Barth, Witness to the Word (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), and
as “the Baptist,” nor is he ever called the fore-
Frank Kermode, “St. John as Poet,” JSN728 (1986) 3-16. runner of Jesus. Instead, John has one function in
52. Kysar, John, 29.
53. Brown (7he Gospel According to John I-XII, 6) agrees with the
this Gospel: to witness to Jesus (v. 8).
punctuation reflected in the NRSV, whereas Barrett (7he Gospel Accora- The witness of John to the light is full of
ing to St. John, 156-57), Haenchen (John, 1:113-14), and Schnackenburg
(The Gospel According to St. John, 1:239-40) argue for the punctuation promise, because it contains the seeds of faith (v.
reflected in the NIV. 7). The description of John also contains a polemi-
520
cal note, however. Verse 8 states quite clearly that serves two purposes. First, it opposes the dualistic
John was not the light. The Fourth Evangelist thus view of creation held by Gnosticism; even the
removes any grounds for overvaluing the person human world belongs to the goodness and unity
of John by subordinating him to the “true light” of creation. Second, it makes even more painful
(v. 9) (cf. 5:35). John was not a messianic figure, the rejection of the Word by the world in v. 10c.
but a witness (see Commentary on 1:19-34),. The world owes its very existence to the Word,
As noted earlier, scholars debate whether v. 5 but it did not know him. “To know” and its
is a reference to the coming of Christ into the related term “to see” are key concepts in the
world. Some maintain that v. 5 is part of the Gospel of John. As the Gospel unfolds, whether
“original” wisdom hymn and, therefore, refers people believe in Jesus will hinge on what they
only to the light of wisdom. The mention of John are able to know or to see.
in vv. 6-8, however, indicates that whatever v. 5 1:11-13. These verses expand on v. 10c. Their
may have meant in a hypothetical original hymn, focus moves from the Word to the fate of the
the Fourth Evangelist wanted his readers to hear Word in the world. Verse 11 narrates the drama
it as an allusion to the incarnation. The witness of rejection. “His own” (idtos idios) is used in
of John belongs to the story of Jesus. As the light two forms. It is used first in the neuter plural
enters the world, the focus shifts from the eternal (“his own things”), which probably refers in gen-
Word to the historical. The transtemporal is wed- eral to the place of his own, the world he created;
ded to concrete human experience through the it is used, secondly, in the masculine plural to
person and witness of John. refer more specifically to “his own people”—
1:9-13. 1:9. The NIV and the NRSV include either Israel and the Jewish people or more
v. 9 in the same paragraph with vv. 6-8. While broadly the very humanity who came into being
the reference to the “true light” strengthens the through the Word but nonetheless “did not re-
refutation of John as the light (v. 8), v. 9 is best ceive him.”
understood as introducing a new section of the Verse 12 and its amplification in v. 13 ex-
Prologue. It carries forward from vv. 4-5 the press the salvific purpose of Jesus’ ministry.
notion that the light enlightens all people, but also When one believes in the name of Jesus, one
explicitly states that the light was “coming into is given power (NRSV; “right,” NIV) to become
the world.” Verse 9 thus contains a fresh allusion a child of God. In graphic images, v. 13 con-
to the incarnation. trasts the birth of a child of God with more
1:10. The text moves almost imperceptibly conventional understandings of conception and
from the light as subject (neuter, v. 9) to the Word birth. A child of God will not be born of blood
as subject (masculine, v. 10). This shift reflects or of sexual desire (“the will of the flesh,”
the flexibility and fluidity of terminology used in NRSV; “human decision,” NIV). The expression
the Prologue to speak of the Word. Life and light, “the will of man” refers to the role of sperm in
the subjects of vv. 4-5, and 9, are two ways the conception, because the male was understood
Word expresses itself in the world. This is the to be the carrier of new life. This section of the
first use of “world” (kédopos kosmos) in the Prologue contains many themes that will feature
Gospel, a noun that will appear frequently prominently in the rest of the Gospel: light, life,
throughout the Fourth Gospel. It is not a synonym knowledge, acceptance and rejection, the
for creation in general, but is used to refer spe- world, belief in Jesus, and new birth. It also
cifically to humanity and its domain. heightens the interaction between the eternal
At first glance, v. 106 seems to be a reprise of and the temporal in two ways. First, the world’s
v. 3, stressing both the temporality of creation response to the Word is explicitly recounted as
(“came into being”) and the role of the Word in a drama of rejection and acceptance. Second,
creation. Verse 100 uses the language of v. 3, human beings, who belong to the temporal
however, to make a fresh point. Its focus is on realm (“came into being,” v. 10), are given a
humanity, not creation in general, and it empha- chance for life that depends on faith, not on
sizes that even the human domain was created temporal constraints. Despite the rejection in v.
through the agency of the Word. This emphasis 11, vv. 9-13 end on a note of hope and promise.
521
1:14-18. 1:14. Logos appears in v. 14 for the differently than Bultmann weighs it. The point of
first time since v. 1, as the Evangelist draws the incarnation is not that “the revealer is nothing
together all the threads of the hymn as it moves but a man.”5? Rather, the use of logos in v. 14
to its conclusion. Verse 14 states boldly what the draws the reader back to the first uses of logos
reader of the Gospel has been assuming all along: in v. 1, and the juxtaposition of the two verses
the incarnation. Every word of v. 14 is important. holds the key to the Fourth Evangelist’s theology
It begins by announcing that the Jogos, the eternal of incarnation. “The Word was God” is now
Word, “became flesh.” This is the first time the “The Word became flesh”; yet both statements
verb “to become” (yivoyat ginomai) has been remain valid. The Revealer, Jesus, is not a mere
used of the Word; prior to v. 14, only the verb man, but is the Word of God made flesh, become
“to be” has been used. The verb changes in v. human. The two statements of vv. 1 and 14
14 in order to show that the Word has decisively provide the theological basis for the whole Gospel
moved from the eternal to the temporal. The (see Reflections).
historical Jesus is explicitly in the purview of the Verse 140 also should be read alongside v. 1.
Prologue. “The Word was with God” is now “the Word
The meaning of “flesh” (odp& sarx) in v. 14a ...made his dwelling among us” (NIV). The
is an important point of discussion in Fourth Word who dwelt with God now dwells with “us,”
Gospel scholarship. The range of interpretations is -human beings like himself.°! The introduction of
best represented in the contrasting views of Bult- the first-person plural pronoun in v. 14 is impor-
mann and Kaésemann. Bultmann saw in v. 14a an tant. With its appearance, the perspective of the
affirmation of the full humanity of Jesus, under- Prologue shifts from observation to confession:
standing sarx as “the sphere of the human and The Word lived among us, not simply in the
the worldly as opposed to the divine.”*4 It is in world. The Prologue now claims the Word for the
Jesus’ “sheer humanity that he is the Revealer.”°° believing community. The note of confession con-
The core paradox of the incarnation, for Bult- tinues in v. 14c, “we have seen his glory.” The
mann, is that the “glory” (86€a doxa) can only “we” does not refer to eyewitnesses but to the
be seen in the “flesh” (sarx).°° Kaésemann, by confessing community.
contrast, gave very little weight to the words of “To make one’s dwelling” (oknvow skenoo, Vv.
v. 14a because he felt that the Fourth Gospel did 140) is a verb rich with OT associations, because
not portray Jesus as a believable human being; it recalls God’s promise to dwell with God’s
rather, he was “God striding across the earth.”°7 people (Ezek 37:27 LXX). It comes from the same
The fact that the Word became flesh only means root as the noun for “tabernacle” or “tent”
that the Word “entered the world of createdness” (oxfvos skénos), the place where God spoke to
and took on flesh, not that he became fully Moses (Exod 33:9) and where God’s glory was
human. Because Kasemann accented v. 14c (“and seen (Exod 40:34).° This verb is the first in a
we have seen his glory”), he labeled the Fourth series of images recalling Israel’s Sinai experience
Gospel’s christology “naive docetism.”** (Exodus 19-40) that figure in the concluding
Bultmann’s interpretation of v. 14a comes verses of the Prologue (“glory,” v. 14c; “law,” v.
closer to the significance of the incarnation for the 17; Moses, v. 17).
Fourth Gospel. At the heart of the incarnation for “Glory” (doxa, v. 14c) and “to glorify” (S0—d¢w
John is the reality that the glory is indeed revealed doxazo) figure prominently in the Fourth Gospel.
in Jesus’ flesh (cf. 2:11). But v. 14a is weighted John picks up the OT sense of “glory” as the
manifest presence of God and confesses that this
54. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn: A Commentary, trans. G.
R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: ‘presence is now visible in Jesus. Yet, as noted
Westminster, 1971) 62.
55. Ibid., 63. 59. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 62.
56. Ibid. 60. Marianne Meye Thompson, The Humanity ofJesus in the Fourth
57. Ernst Kasemann, The Testament ofJesus: A Study of the Gospel Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 40.
ofJohn in the Light of Chapter 17 (London: SCM, 1968) 73. 61. Ibid.
58. Ernst Kasemman, “The Structure of John’s Prologue,” in New 62. Craig Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old
Testament Questions of Today (London: SCM, 1969) 148; The Testa- Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament
ment ofJesus, 45, 66. (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1989).
522
above, it is glory visible only in the humanity of in a specific historical context. The gift of the law
the incarnate Word, the historical Jesus. As the through Moses (Exod, 20:34) is placed next to a
Fourth Gospel’s narrative unfolds, it will become new gift: the grace and truth that came through
clear that for the Fourth Evangelist, the fullest Jesus Christ. Verse 17 does not disparage the
expression of Jesus’ glory is found in his death, previous gift, but points to the gift now available
resurrection, and ascension (7:39; 12:16, 23, 28; through Jesus Christ as something wondrously
13:31). “The Father’s only Son” is a characteristic new.
Johannine way of speaking of the relationship Jesus Christ is named for the first time in the
between God and Jesus. It emphasizes Jesus’ Gospel in v. 17. This ending of the Prologue
unique (“One and Only,” NIV) relationship with recalls the hymn in Philippians where Jesus also
God. “Full of grace and truth” echoes the Hebrew is not named until the end of the hymn (Phil
word pair “steadfast love” and “truth” (ton hesed 2:10-11). The final note of celebration, and the
and max ‘emet; e.g., Exod 34:6) that speaks of most explicit statement of the community’s em-
God’s covenantal love and faithfulness. The con- brace of the Word, includes the name of the one
centration of OT language and imagery intensifies celebrated and praised.
as the focus of the Prologue turns from the eternal 1:18. This verse concludes the Prologue, but
Word to the incarnation. it also serves as an introduction to the Gospel
1:15-17. These verses expand on the confes- narrative. It is central to understanding the Fourth
sional note of v. 14c. John is the first witness to Gospel, because it states explicitly John’s under-
Jesus, and, therefore, it is appropriate that John’s standing of Jesus’ ministry and saving work: to
testimony be given as evidence of what “we have make God known. The verb “to make known”
seen.” The validity of John’s witness is conveyed (eEnyeéouat exegeomai) shares the same Greek
by the present tense verbs that introduce it (“John root as the noun for “exegesis,” so this verse states
testifies ...and cries out, saying... ”). His wit- that Jesus will bring out or interpret God.
ness is not locked in the past, but continues into This bold assertion is supported by three
the present. The two realms with which the phrases that establish the uniqueness of the reve-
Prologue is concerned, the eternal and the tem- lation of God in Jesus. First, John reminds the
poral, come together in v. 15. John, whose ap- reader of an assumption well-known from the OT:
pearance in v. 6 introduced a concrete historical No one has ever seen God. Second, John identifies
referent, bears witness in v. 15 to the pre-exist- Jesus as “God the only Son” (“the One and Only,”
ence of Jesus (“he was before me”). John thus NIV). This phrase has engendered controversy
witnesses to the truth of v. 14, because he rec- among even its earliest interpreters, because it is
ognizes the pre-existent Word in the person of sometimes read as claiming that the Son is a
Jesus. Interestingly, John’s witness in the synoptic second God. Interpreted in this way, this phrase
Gospels only refers to Jesus as “the one who threatens the monotheistic basis of Judaism and
comes after me” (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke Christianity. Indeed, some manuscripts substitute
3:16); it contains no allusion to pre-existence. “Son” for “God” to temper the claim of this
Verses 16-17 return to the confession of the phrase (these substitutions are reflected in the
believing community. The community receives a variants in the NRSV footnotes). Such tempering
share in the fullness of the Word. The grace and both misreads and weakens v. 18. This verse does
truth of the Word (vv. 14, 17) become the “grace not claim that the Son is a second God but that
upon grace” of the community’s life. The double the only Son shares in the fullness of God, is fully
use of “grace” (xdpts charis) underscores the God. This is the same claim made in v. lc, “the
superabundance of gifts available to the believer Word was God.” Third, v. 18 says that Jesus “is
through the incarnate Word. Charis occurs only in the bosom of the Father.” This phrase speaks
four times in the Fourth Gospel, all in the Pro- of the intimate relationship between Father and
logue. John establishes the theme of grace in the Son. It, too, recalls an earlier verse of the Pro-
Prologue and then will illustrate it throughout the logue, “the Word was with God” (v. 10). In this
Gospel without naming it again. last verse, then, the Prologue returns to its initial
Verse 17 places the gift of “grace upon grace” themes, but restates them in the concrete lan-
523
guage of the Son and the Father instead of the ages introduced in the Prologue will recur
Word and God. The reader of the Prologue has throughout the Gospel-—e.g., life (v. 4), light and
moved from the eternal Word to the grace and darkness (v. 5), witness (v. 7), truth (v. 9, 17),
truth of the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, and is world (v. 9), knowledge (v. 10), acceptance and
now ready to enter the Gospel narrative. rejection (vv. 11-12), children of God (v. 13),
The Gospel of John contains two overarching glory (v. 14), Father and Son (v. 18). John 1:1-18
themes: Jesus’ identity and the believer’s identity introduces the reader to the life and ministry of
in relationship to Jesus. Both of these themes are Jesus, yet also encompasses the totality of that life.
established in the Prologue. Vocabulary and im-
REFLECTIONS
As noted in the Commentary, in John 1:1-18, the Fourth Evangelist has fused a variety
of traditional materials—a hymnic tradition about the pre-existent Word, John the Baptist
traditions, as well as many traditional images drawn from the OT—to orient his story of
Jesus. Much of the content of the Prologue had familiar resonances for the Gospel’s first
readers, then, but none of it would have been familiar in this form. It is not enough for
readers to recognize individual words or phrases of the Prologue; we must interpret them
in the new context created by the Fourth Evangelist. And we can understand what that
context is only when we have worked through the whole Prologue—and the whole Gospel!
The interpreter thus discovers how to read and interpret the Prologue only by reading and
interpreting it.
This reformulation of familiar material is seen most powerfully in the closing verses of the
Prologue {1:14-18), in which the language about Ged and Word (1:1) is transformed to language
about Father and Son (1:18). The Word became flesh (1:14) and the Word’s name is Jesus Christ
(1:17). The story of the Word is thus the story of Jesus; the story of Jesus is thus the story of the
Word. This sweeping claim expresses the ontological reality out of which the Fourth Evangelist
operates and against which every word of the Prologue is to be read. The Word becoming flesh
is the decisive event in human history—indeed, in the history of creation—because the incarnation
changes God’s relationship to humanity and humanity’s relationship to God. The incarnation means
that human beings can see, hear, and know God in ways never before possible. The Father-Son
relationship of God and Jesus is the key to this changed relationship. God’s Son, because he is the
incarnate Word, derives his identity from God (1:1, 18). The relationship between divine and
human is transformed, because in the incarnation human beings are given intimate, palpable,
corporeal access to the cosmic reality of God.
The newness wrought by God in Jesus is so dramatic that a conventional narrative of
origins is insufficient. That is because the story of Jesus is not ultimately a story about
Jesus; it is, in fact, the story of God. The Word’s incarnation in Jesus redefines life, creation,
and salvation, and in John 1:1-18 the Fourth Evangelist gives the Gospel reader the
theological road map of God’s self-revelation in Jesus. John 1:1-18 does not allow readers
to distance themselves from that revelation, but instead draws the reader into the
theological claims of the text.
Given the world-making significance of the incarnation for John, it is no wonder that he
begins his Gospel with the words “in the beginning.” As noted above, these words are
intentionally evocative of the opening of Genesis 1. The priestly writers of the creation story
in Genesis 1 took Israel back to the time before the created order, to the moment before God
spoke creation into existence, and John does the same thing with his readers. “In the beginning”
there was God and the Word, and the rest of the story unfolds from that relationship. John
1:3, like Genesis 1, views creation as belonging to God’s Word. In the newly created order,
524
JOHN 1:1-18 REFLECTIONS _
life and light (v. 4) are the ways in which the Word, God’s self-expression, is effective. John
1:1-4 evokes the wonder of creation, the gift of life, the power of the Word, and celebrates
the mystery of revelation that transcends conventional limits of time and space. The resilience
of the light that shines in the darkness (v. 5) is confirmation of the power of life available in
the Word.
John reads the story of creation and God’s Word through the lens of the incarnation, not
simply OT traditions, however, so the story of creation gives way quickly to another story.
The cosmological imagery of vv. 1-5 is wedded to concrete historical experience through the
person and witness of John (vv. 6-8). The story of the Word, of God’s self-expression, does
hot remain outside human experience but belongs to that experience. Moreover, the story of
John the Baptist introduces faith and human response to the light into the story of the Word
(v. 7).
In vv. 9-13, the joyous celebration of the Word and the light and life the Word offers gives
way to the complex reality of human response. What does it mean not to accept the Word?
In the context of the Prologue, it means not to see God in the Word, to deny that the Word
is God’s self-expression in the world. More specifically, in the context of vv. 6-8, it means not
to accept that Jesus, to whom John the Baptist bears witness, is God’s self-expression, that
Jesus is the Word, the source of life and light for all people (vv. 4-5).
The rejection of the Word by Jesus’ own people is restricted neither to the time of Jesus
nor to that of the Fourth Gospel. The specific referent of “his own” is never explicitly
identified in the Fourth Gospel (cf. 4:44). It stands as a figure for those on whom Jesus has
some prior claim but who nonetheless reject him. In Jesus’ time (and the time of the Fourth
Evangelist) those on whom that prior claim had been made were the Jewish people, to whom
the Word of God had been spoken before (cf. Heb 1:1), who had shared in God’s story from
“the beginning” (Gen 1:1). For contemporary Christians, however, the identification of Jesus’
“own people,” those on whom Jesus has prior claim, requires more interpretive work. The
rejection of Jesus by those who have shared in the story of the incarnation from “the
beginning” (John 1:1) is the true tragedy, and the church may sometimes find itself in the
role of Jesus’ rejecting “own.”
Verses 12-13 highlight the tragedy of rejection by describing the fresh possibilities
offered to those who believe. In these verses, the people who did receive Jesus are
identified as those who “believed in his name.” At this point in the Prologue, the name
of the Word is Jesus, and those who receive Jesus thus believe that God is available
in Jesus. This belief is the beginning of a new relationship with God, because those
who believe are now children of God (1:12). Verses 12-13 thus express both the
anthropological and the soteriological dimensions of the incarnation for the Fourth
Evangelist; those who receive the incarnate Word become new people and enter into
a new life with God (cf. 3:3-8).
The drama of rejection and acceptance of vv. 9-13 thus places a vivid choice before the
reader: to either accept the Word and participate in a new relationship with God or reject the
Word and receive nothing of the life and light the Word offers.
At v. 14, the Fourth Evangelist reveals where he stands in the drama of rejection and
acceptance; he has received the Word. The Fourth Evangelist claims for himself and his
community the wonder and mystery of the incarnation. The concluding section of the Prologue
is neither neutral nor objective, but confesses, “We have seen his glory.”
With the words “the Word became flesh and lived among us,” the community recognized
the bond that had been established between them and God as revealed in Jesus. God did not
stay distant from them, remote and isolated; rather, in Jesus, God chose to live with humanity
in the midst of human weakness, confusion, and pain. This bond holds for the contemporary
Christian community as well. To become flesh is to know joy, pain, suffering, and loss. It is
525
E ___ JOHN 1:1-18 REFLECTIONS
to love, to grieve, and someday to die. The incarnation binds Jesus to the “everydayness” of
human experience. When the believing community confesses along with the Fourth Evangelist
that the Word “lived among us,” it affirms the link between the incarnation and its own
humanness.
The reader is thus drawn into the confessions of v. 14c (“we have seen his glory”) and v.
16 (“we have all received, grace upon grace”). This confessional language offers its vision of
glory and its gifts of grace to each successive community that appropriates this text. In the
Prologue, the first-century community rejoices in these gifts and opens up that joy to any others
who wish to share their confessions. The joyous witness of the Prologue is spoken by those
whose own experience has been decisively marked by the incarnation. John 1:14-18 is not
theological speculation about the character of the incarnate Word, but the testimony of those
whose lives have been changed by the incarnation.
John 1:1-18 appears in the church’s lectionaries during the Christmas season. The lectionary
thus asks the church to regard Jesus’ coming into the world from the perspective of this text.
This text contains none of the conventional elements of the Christmas story. Instead of manger,
angels, and magi, John 1:1-18 presents the church with its explicit theological vision’ of the
difference the incarnation makes in the life of the warld.
JOHN 1:19-34, JOHN’S TESTIMONY

NIV NRSV
"Now this was John’s testimony when the 19Fhis is the testimony given by John when the
Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask
him who he was. ?°He did not fail to confess, but him, “Who are you?” *°He confessed and did not
confessed freely, “I am not the Christ.2” deny it, but confessed, “I am not the Messiah.”#
2IThey asked him, “Then who are you? Are 21And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?”
you Elijahe” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the prophet?” He
He said, “I am not.” answered, “No.” Then they said to him, “Who are
“Are you the Prophet?” you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us.
He answered, “No.” What do you say about yourself?” He said,
2Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an “I am the voice of one crying out in the
answer to take back to those who sent us. What wilderness,
do you say about yourself?” ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’”
3John replied in the words of Isaiah the as the prophet Isaiah said.
prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the
24Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.
desert, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’ ”®
*They asked him, “Why then are you baptizing
74Now some Pharisees who had been sent if you are neither the Messiah,® nor Elijah, nor
*Squestioned him, “Why then do you baptize if the prophet?” John answered them, “I baptize
you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the with water. Among you stands one whom you do
Prophet?”
not know, *’the one who is coming after me; I
2“T baptize with® water,” John replied, “but am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandal.”
among you stands one you do not know. 27He is This took place in Bethany across the Jordan
the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose where John was baptizing.
sandals | am not worthy to untie.” 29The next day he saw Jesus coming toward
420 Or Messiah. “The Christ” (Greek) and “the Messiah” (Hebrew) him and declared, “Here is the Lamb.of God
both mean “the Anointed One”; also in verse 25. 623 Isaiah 40:3
26 Or in; also in verses 31 and 33 aQOr the Christ
526
JOHN 1:19-34
NIV NRSV
**This all happened at Bethany on the other who takes away the sin of the world! *°This is he
side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing. of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks
“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward ahead of me because he was before me.’ 3!I myself
him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes did not know him; but I came baptizing with
away the sin of the world! °°This is the one I water for this reason, that he might be revealed
meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me to Israel.” **And John testified, “I saw the Spirit
has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 3!] descending from heaven like a dove, and it re-
myself did not know him, but the reason I came mained on him. 81 myself did not know him, but
baptizing with water was that he might be re- the one who sent me to baptize with water said
vealed to Israel.” to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend
Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy
Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and Spirit.’ “And I myself have seen and have testified
remain on him. *I would not have known him, that this is the Son of God.”
except that the one who sent me to baptize with
2 Other ancient authorities read is God’s chosen one
water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the
Spirit come down and remain is he who will
baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ “I have seen and I
testify that this is the Son of God.”
(COMMENTARY
1:19-28. John appeared as the first witness to and revolves around the question “Who are you?”
Jesus in the Prologue (1:6-8, 15), and his witness (v. 19). The issue of John’s identity must be
begins the Gospel proper. On the first day (vv. resolved before the central question of the Gospel,
19-28), John testifies that he is not the light Jesus’ identity, can be addressed. The formal,
(1:84); on the second day (vv. 29-34), John testi- emphatic beginning of v..20 (“He confessed and
fies to the light (1:80).°° did not deny it, but confessed”) communicates
John 1:19 announces the theme of vv. 19-28: the solemnity of John’s response. John confesses,
“This is the testimony given by John.” “Testi- “I am not the Christ,” even though he was not
mony” or “witness” (uaptupta martyria) has re- asked whether he was the Messiah. The Greek
ligious and juridical dimensions, and both figure of John’s denial (Eya) otk city ego ouk eimi, “I
prominently in the Fourth Gospel. John’s testi- am not”) provides a pointed contrast with the
mony to Jesus will lead others to faith, but it is language Jesus uses to speak about his identity in
also offered as evidence in a trial. John’s interro- John (Ey eipt ego eimi, “I am”). The rhetoric
gators in this passage are not curious passersby, of John’s denial thus reinforces its content; he is
but are a delegation sent by official Judaism (vv. not the Christ.
19, 22). The expression “the Jews” (ot ‘lovdatot Unlike the delegation’s first question, the sec-
hoi loudaioi, v. 19) occurs repeatedly in the ond and third supply predicates, “Are you Eli-
Fourth Gospel and has a wide range of meanings jah?”; “Are you the prophet?” (v. 21). Elijah and
(see Introduction and Reflections on John 5:1-18 the prophet were both figures upon whom some
and John 8). Its most common usage, as in 1:19, of the messianic expectations of Judaism came to
is as a synonym for the Jewish religious estab- rest. Elijah was transported into heaven without
lishment, which is the source of most of the dying (2 Kgs 2:11), and many Jews expected his
opposition to Jesus’ ministry in John. return as the harbinger of the messianic age (e.g.,
The interrogation of 1:19-28 has a formal cast Mal 4:5). “The prophet” derives from the prophet-
like-Moses of Deut 18:15. In the Qumran com-
63. C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel(Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1963) 240. munity, this prophet was seen as a messianic
527
figure, and similar expectations may lie behind Gospel readers to hear John’s witness for them-
the delegation’s question.” selves. In 1:23, John identified himself as the
John’s denials become increasingly terse. His voice of witness, and in 1:29-34 the reader hears
denial that he is Elijah points to a major difference that voice. Jesus first appears in the Fourth Gospel
between the portrayal of John in the Fourth Gos- in v. 29, but in this scene he will stay on the
pel and the Synoptics. In Matthew (11:14; 17:10- sidelines and say nothing. The focus is on John’s
13) and Mark (9:13), Jesus identifies John as witness. :
Elijah; in Luke the angel announces to Zechariah John identifies Jesus as “the Lamb of God who
that his son will be like Elijah (Luke 1:17). John takes away the sin of the world” (v. 29). The
is a witness to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, how- singular of “sin” (a4uaptia hamartia) in v. 29
ever, and not a messianic figure. His response to emphasizes the world’s collective brokenness, not
the repeated question about his identity (v. 22) is individual human sins. “Lamb of God” is rooted
to apply Isa 40:3 to himself (v. 23). In the synoptic in OT imagery, but scholars are divided about its
Gospels, by contrast, Isa 40:3 is spoken about precise referents. In the mouth of John the Baptist,
John (Matt 3:3; Mark 1:2-3; Luke 3:4). In the “lamb of God” might have referred to the con-
Fourth Gospel, John thus identifies himself as the quering lamb found in post-biblical Jewish apoca-
voice who announces and gives witness. lyptic (fot a Christian adaptation of the symbolism,
Verse 24 begins a second stage of interrogation. ‘see Rev 17:14). The expression more likely
In Jesus’ time, the Pharisees were one among recalls the servant songs of Second Isaiah (particu-
many groups of Jewish religious leaders, but by larly Isa 53:7) or the Passover lamb, the cultic
the time of the Fourth Evangelist, the Pharisees’ and liturgical symbol of Israel’s deliverance (Exod
successors, the rabbis, were the dominant group 12:1-13).° In Judaism, the Passover lamb was not
in Judaism. John draws attention to the Pharisaic viewed as a Sacrifice for sin, but the early church
presence in v. 24 in order to imply continuity quickly reinterpreted Passover symbolism in the
between the authorities who opposed Jesus during light Of the eucharist (e.g., 1 Cor 5:7-8). Indeed,
his lifetime and the Jewish authorities who oppose in the Fourth Gospel Jesus’ crucifixion is linked
the Johannine community (cf. the role of the to the slaughter of the paschal lamb. For example,
Pharisees in John 9). the Fourth Evangelist links Jesus’ unbroken legs
The question in v. 25 focuses on John’s author- at the crucifixion (19:33) with the Exod 12:46
ity and his reasons for baptizing. John’s answer teaching about the Passover lamb (19:36). Brown
shifts the focus away from baptism to Jesus (vv. and Schnackenburg rightly suggest that the meta-
phor “lamb of God” cannot be explained by either
26-27). Verse 27 emphasizes the secondary posi-
the servant songs or the Passover lamb alone, but
tion of the one who witnesses in relation to the
evokes them both.° John’s title for Jesus in v. 29
one witnessed; not even slaves were required to
(the first in a series of titles for Jesus in chap. 1)
undo their master’s sandals. The Bethany of v. 28
thus draws on a rich heritage of symbols to
should not be confused with the Bethany near
identify Jesus as the redeemer for the world’s sin.
Jerusalem (11:1).
John testifies to Jesus’ pre-existence, but his
1:29-34. In 1:19-28, John was unfraid to
words sound more like a riddle than direct an-
speak the truth about his identity and his ministry
nouncement. This verse echoes the testimony
to officials from the religious establishment. In
attributed to John in the Prologue (1:15) and
these verses, John boldy announces the truth to
express the christological claims of the early
any who will hear. John 1:29-34 is structured to
church, more than the testimony of a first-century
highlight John’s testimony. First, the passage is
‘Jewish prophet. John is thus confirmed as a valid
dominated by verbs of witness: “see” (vv. 29,
32-34), “witness” (vv. 32, 34), “say” (vv. 29-30, 65. C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:
32, 34). Second, this passage consists almost en- Cambridge University Press, 1953) 230-38.
66. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadel-
tirely of direct discourse. The Fourth Evangelist phia: Westminster, 1978) 175-77.
does not talk about John’s witness, but allows the 67. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XII), AB 29
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 60-63; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The
eel aes to St. John, 3 vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982) 1:298-
64. See, e.g., 10S 9:11,
528
and reliable witness because he testifies to the witness thus continues into the present. John
truth of the claims of the church. recognizes Jesus as the “Son of God.” To do so
Verse 31 provides John’s full answer to the is to acknowledge Jesus’ unique relationship with
question of v. 25: Why does he baptize? There is God and hence his ability to reveal God in ways
no notion of John’s baptism of repentance (cf. never before available (cf. 1:14, 18).
Matt 3:1-12), because John’s baptism belongs The words of John the Baptist in 1:29-34 offer
solely to his witness. This becomes even clearer a rich witness to Jesus: He is the Lamb of God,
in the account of Jesus’ baptism in vv. 32-34. John the one who takes away the world’s sin (v. 29),
is not depicted as an actor in Jesus’ baptism; the pre-existent one (v. 30), the bearer of the Holy
John’s only role is to allude to it, for the text does Spirit (v. 33), the Son of God (v. 34). The Fourth
not actually say that John baptized Jesus. God and Evangelist’s focus on John’s role as witness con-
the Spirit are the actors. Indeed, as vv. 31a and tains an important theological affirmation, because
33 make clear, John “knew” Jesus only because witnessing is one beginning point of faith in this
John had been told by God how to interpret the Gospel (e.g., 3:11, 32-36; 4:39). Yet this focus
descent of the dove {v. 32). may also have a polemical edge. At the time of
John 1:29-34 ends with a formal statement the Fourth Evangelist, there were persons who
of witness by John (v. 34). The verbs in v. held to John the Baptist’s teaching and baptism
34, “see” (Opdw horao) and “witness” (uapTupéw instead of Jesus’ (Acts 18:25; 19:1-5). The Fourth
martyreo), are in the perfect tense. The Greek Evangelist’s insistence on John’s role as witness
perfect tense denotes a completed past action and not messianic forerunner can be read in the
whose effect continues into the present. John’s light of this rivalry.
JOHN 1:35-51, THE FIRST DISCIPLES

NIV NRSV
The next day John was there again with two 35The next day John again was standing with
of his disciples. °When he saw Jesus passing by, two of his disciples, *°and as he watched Jesus
he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” walk by, he exclaimed, “Look, here is the Lamb
-37When the two disciples heard him say this, of God!” °’The two disciples heard him say this,
they followed Jesus. **Turning around, Jesus saw and they followed Jesus. “When Jesus turned and
them following and asked, “What do you want?” saw them following, he said to them, “What are
you looking for?” They said to him, “Rabbi”
They said, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher),
(which translated means Teacher), “where are
“where are you staying?”
you staying?” *°He said to them, “Come and see.”
3%%Come,” he replied, “and you will see.” They came and saw where he was staying, and
So they went and saw where he was staying, and they remained with him that day. It was about
spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour. four o’clock in the afternoon. *°One of the two
40Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of who heard John speak and followed him was
the two who heard what John had said and who Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. “'He first found
had followed Jesus. “'The first thing Andrew did his brother Simon and said to him, “We have
was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We found the Messiah” (which is translated Anoint-
have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). ed’). “He brought Simon? to Jesus, who looked
42And he brought him to Jesus. at him and said, “You are Simon son of John.
Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon You are to be called Cephas” (which is translated
son of John. You will be called Gephas” (which, Peter‘.
when translated, is Peter?). a Or Christ 6 Gk him c From the word for rock in Aramaic
(kepha) and Greek (petra), respectively
a42 Both Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) mean rock.
529
JOHN 1:35-51
NIV NRSV
“The next day Jesus decided to leave for Gali- 43The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee.
lee. Finding Philip, he said to him, “Follow me.” He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.”
“4Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the “4Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of
town of Bethsaida. “Philip found Nathanael and Andrew and Peter. *Philip found Nathanael and
told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote said to him, “We have found him about whom
about in the Law, and about whom. the prophets Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote,
also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.” *°Nathanael
4o“Nazareth! Can anything good come from said to him, “Can anything good come out of
there?” Nathanael asked. Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.”
“Come and see,” said Philip. 47When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him,
47WWhen Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he he said of him, “Here is truly an Israelite in whom
said of him, “Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is no deceit!” “*Nathanael asked him,
there is nothing false.” “Where did you get to know me?” Jesus an-
48“How do you know me?” Nathanael asked. swered, “I saw you under the fig tree before Philip
Jesus answered, “I saw you while you were called you.” 4°Nathanael replied, “Rabbi, you are
still under the fig tree before Philip called you.” the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
““Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the ‘Jesus answered, “Do you believe because I told
Son of God; you are the King of Israel.” you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will
Jesus said, “You believe? because I told you I see greater things than these.” °!And he said to
saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater him, “Very truly, I tell you,? you will see heaven
things than that.” °'He then added, “I tell you? opened and the angels of God ascending and
the truth, you? shall see heaven open, and the descending upon the Son of Man.”
angels of God ascending and descending on the
Son of Man.” a Both instances of the Greek word for you in this verse are plural
450 Or Do you believe ...? 651 The Greek is plural.
(COMMENTARY
1:35-42. John 1:35-51 (the third and fourth the scene. He is accorded no formal exit (cf.
days), in which John’s disciples follow Jesus, enact Nicodemus’s disappearance from the text after
1:7 (“He came as a witness to testify to the light, 3:10). John has performed his function in the
so that all might believe through him.”). John’s story, and, therefore, the story is finished with
words to his disciples are not new (vv. 35-36); him. This will be true also at 3:24; John disap-
he previously identified Jesus as the lamb of God pears from the Gospel narrative with no mention
(v. 29). The significance of his witness is that the of his death. He has led others to Jesus, and his
two disciples follow Jesus as a direct result of witness will now be replaced by his disciples’ own
John’s witness (v. 37). In the synoptic Gospels,
experience of Jesus.
the first disciples give up their work as fishermen
1:37-39. The verb “to follow” (dxodovdéw
to follow Jesus (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20;
akoloutheo, v. 37) operates on two levels. It has
Luke 5:1-11), but in the Fourth Gospel they give
‘a literal meaning in the story line, but it also
up a previous religious commitment as disciples
serves as a metaphor for discipleship (see 8:12;
of John.®* Verses 35-37 probably reflect the his-
10:4, 27; 12:26; 13:36). Words with meanings
torical reality that disciples of John were among
the first to follow Jesus. that make sense on both a literal and a symbolic
After his testimony, John simply disappears from level occur frequently in the Fourth Gospel and
are a distinctive trait of the Johannine literary
68. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 179. style. Indeed, the entire dialogue between Jesus
530
and his first two disciples in vv. 38-39 is sugges- disciples is broader. There is, for example, no
tive of two levels of meaning. formal catalogue of the twelve disciples in John.
Jesus initiates the conversation with the two 1:40-42. The story of the two new disciples
disciples (v. 38a). His words make sense in the
is incomplete until their witness brings others to
Story line, but they also convey one of the central
Jesus (vv. 40-42). Andrew is named as one of the
questions of this Gospel: What do people seek disciples in v. 40 in order to provide a link to the
when they follow Jesus? Jesus’ first words in the block of Petrine tradition preserved in vv. 41-42.
Gospel of John thus address the reader as well as Andrew’s witness to Peter contains a new title,
the characters in the story. The disciples address “Messiah.” The Hebrew word “Messiah” (mvin’
Jesus as “Rabbi” (v. 380). This transliteration of masiah) occurs transliterated only here and 4:25
the Hebrew term occurs rarely in the NT (four in the entire NT. As with “rabbi,” the Greek form
times each in Matthew and Mark, eight times in of the word (“Christ” [Xptotés Christos]) would
John, never in Luke). Its use here evokes the be more familiar to John’s readers.
actual speech patterns of the disciples. John trans- The Fourth Evangelist places the tradition of
lates the term because its Greek form (6v- Jesus’ renaming Simon early in the Gospel narra-
SdoKahos didaskalos, “teacher”) would have been tive (v. 42; cf. Matt 16:17-19) in order to high-
more familiar to readers who spoke Greek, and light Jesus’ insight into Peter’s future role in the
not Hebrew (or Aramaic). church. In Matthew, the focus of the tradition is
The two disciples ask Jesus a question that on Peter, but in John, Jesus’ words are as much
' works on the level of the story line (they want a revelation about Jesus’ knowledge as they are
to know where Jesus stays), but the Greek word about Peter’s role. Jesus’ omniscience will be
for “stay” (wévw meno) is also used in the Fourth highlighted at other points in the Fourth Gospel,
Gospel to assert that the relationship of God, most immediately in 1:47-49.
Jesus, and the Spirit with one another and with 1:43-51. The fourth day (“the next day,” v.
believers: (e:ossnbs32, 33> 8:31, 353914:10).1,7;,45) 43) continues the call of Jesus’ disciples. Jesus
is permanent, not sporadic. This question, too, has finds Philip and invites him to discipleship (“Fol-
theological overtones. Jesus does not answer the low me”). The identification of Philip by name
disciples’ question directly, but issues an invitation and place (v. 44) provides a link to the passage
that will allow them to find the answer for them- about Andrew and Peter. (vv. 40-42). The names
selves (v. 39). The Johannine Jesus will often of these three disciples are among the Twelve in
answer questions with indirection in order to all three synoptic lists (Mark 3:16-19 and par.).
allow those whom he encounters to discover the
1:45. Philip finds Nathanael and bears witness
truth about Jesus for themselves (e.g., 4:9-10;
to Jesus, just as Andrew did with Peter in v. 40.
6:28-29; 18:35-38). The invitation to “come and
Nathanael does not appear in any of the other
see” is an offer to see Jesus with the eyes of faith
Gospels and is absent from their lists of the
(e.g., 1:46; 6:36; 9:35-41; 14:9). In v. 398, the Twelve. As noted earlier, John does not define
disciples respond precisely to Jesus’ invitation; discipleship in terms of the formal company of the
they come and see. Their vocation as disciples of Twelve. Philip’s witness is in two parts. First, he
Jesus begins. The reference to the “tenth hour” identifies Jesus as the fulfillment of all Scripture
may be included as a point of demarcation to (cf. Luke 24:27). Second, he identifies Jesus in
indicate a decisive beginning point for the dis- the way one commonly distinguished one man
ciples’ new life.°° from another: by naming his father, “Jesus, son
Significantly, the first two disciples are not of Joseph of Nazareth.” This second identification
given names in this call narrative. Their anonym- articulates Jesus’ putative human origins, but the
ity is reflective of the Johannine understanding of truth of Jesus’ origins was revealed in the Pro-
discipleship. The Fourth Gospel has a much less logue: Jesus comes from God (1:1-2, 14, 18). The
rigid and hierarchical understanding of disciple- eyes of faith know that Joseph is not Jesus’ father;
ship than the synoptic Gospels do. Its circle of God is (1:14, 18, 34). Philip’s double identifica-
tion of Jesus in v. 45 introduces a tension that
69. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols.
(New York: Seabury, 1982) 1:309. will run throughout the Fourth Gospel: whether
531
those who see Jesus will recognize the divine Jesus’ words to Nathanael in v. 50 are not a
origins of this human being or think that knowl- rebuke but a promise. These words, too, recall
edge of his human origins is the whole story (e.g., the story of Thomas (20:29). Jesus does not criti-
6:42; 7:42). cize the grounds of Nathanael’s faith, but suggests
1:46. For the first time in chap. 1, testimony that Nathanael is only at the beginning point of
to Jesus is met with resistance (v. 464). his faith in Jesus. The “greater things” Nathanael
Nathanael’s resistance highlights the tension in- will see will be occasions for deepening faith.
herent in Philip’s witness. Philip does not argue 1:51. “Very truly I say...” translates the
with Nathanael. Instead, he extends the same Greek expression (47 dun AEyw amen, amen,
invitation to Nathanael (“come and see,” v. 460) lego...). A single amén introduces some sayings
that Jesus extended to his first disciples (v. 390). of Jesus in the other Gospels (e.g., Matt 5:18;
Philip invites Nathanael to see for himself that the Mark 9:41; Luke 4:24), but the double amen
fulfillment of Scripture is indeed occurring in this occurs only in John. Indeed, it is one of the
human (son of Joseph) from Nazareth. distinctive marks of the speech patterns of the
1:47-50. These verses comprise the longest Johannine Jesus, occurring twenty-five times. Its
conversation between Jesus and a disciple in chap. solemn tones draw attention to the saying that
1. Jesus reveals the most about himself to the one follows. It is used to introduce a new thought
who expressed skepticism and doubt (cf. the {e.g., 5:24-25) or to mark the transition from
Thomas story, 20:24-29). Jesus hails Nathanael as dialogue to monologue (e.g., 3:11). The “you” to
an “Israelite.” The term /sraelite occurs only in whom Jesus speaks in v. 51 is second-person plural,
v. 47 in John and is used to convey Nathanael’s indicating that Jesus is speaking to a wider audience
model faithfulness. Jesus may praise Nathanael than Nathanael—i.e., also to the readers.
because he accepted Philip’s invitation even The plural pronoun may also suggest that the
though he had questions. “Israelite” has none of Son of Man saying originally circulated inde-
the ambiguities and shades of meaning that “Jew” pendently of this setting. In its present location,
carries with it in this Gospel. Jesus’ words in v. however, John 1:51 forms an appropriate conclu-
47 recall Ps 32:2 and its description of the right- sion to chap 1. John and his disciples have borne
eous believer. witness to Jesus, but v. 51 offers Jesus’ own
Jesus reveals more insight into Nathanael in v. powerful promise of self-revelation. He identifies
48. The precise meaning of his words is unclear. himself as the Son of Man. In the synoptic Gos-
Scholars have speculated about the significance of pels, this title is associated with Jesus’ suffering
the fig tree, but such speculation is tangential to and death (e.g., Matt 20:18; Mark 8:31; Luke
John’s emphasis here.”° The focus of the story is 9:22), lowliness (e.g., Mark 10:45), and future
on the fact of Jesus’ superhuman knowledge and coming (e.g., Matt 24:30; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26),
its effect on Nathanael. Nathanael correctly per- but v. 51 suggests that for John the Son of Man
ceives Jesus’ knowledge as an act of self-revelation is the one who bridges the distance between
and so comes to faith (vv. 49-50). heaven and earth (cf. 3:13; 6:62). This title thus
Nathanael’s response to Jesus is more than continues the Fourth Evangelist’s focus on the
witness (“this is...”); it is a confession (“You cruciality of the incarnation as the way in which
are... ”). “Rabbi” links his response to the words God is made known to God’s people.
of the first disciples (v. 38). “Son of God” (cf.1:34) Verse 51 is not a direct citation of any OT text,
is the central expression of Jesus’ identity in the but is rich with allusions that the Fourth Evangel-
Fourth Gospel, because it recognizes Jesus’ true ist reshapes. The verse combines images from the
origins. “King of Israel” is used as a term of descent of the Son of Man in Dan 7:13 and
mockery and derision in the passion narratives of Jacob’s dream ladder in Gen 28:12. Much of the
Matthew (27:42) and Mark (15:32) but in John
power of this use of the OT arises precisely
it is a positive term, expressing Jesus’ significance
because it defies a simple point-for-point corre-
for the people of God (see also 12:13).
spondence with any one text. John’s images thus
70. See Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XI), AB stay constantly fresh and alive. The ladder of Gen
29 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 83. 28:12 is replaced by the Son of Man, so that the
332.
Son of Man becomes the locus of God’s activity where the earthly and the heavenly, divine and
on earth. The Son of Man becomes the place human, temporal and eternal meet.
REFLECTIONS
John 1:19-51 focuses on two interrelated themes: the identity of Jesus and the meaning of
discipleship. Both John the Baptist and Jesus’ first disciples witness to Jesus’ identity. The
purpose of John’s witness is to reveal Jesus, who is the source of redemption for the world
(1:29-31). John first identifies Jesus with a traditional image, Lamb of God (1:29), but he
complements that witness with the central claim of the Fourth Gospel: Jesus is the Son of
God. The hope of redemption lies in recognizing Jesus as the Son of God. In many ways,
then, John’s witness makes the same move the Prologue does, claiming Jesus’ relationship with
God as the decisive category for understanding who Jesus is (cf. 1:18).
Yet “Son of God” is not the only christological title in John 1. The verses of John 1 overflow
with such titles. If we move through chap. 1 in sequence, we find the following litany of
titles:
Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (v. 29)
Son of God (v. 34)
Lamb of God (v. 36)
“Rabbi” (which translated means Teacher) (v. 38)
“Messiah” (which is translated Anointed) (v. 41)
Him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote (v. 45)
Son of Joseph from Nazareth (v. 45)
Rabbi (v. 49)
Son of God (v. 49)
King of Israel (v. 49)
Son of Man {(v. 51)
Why are there so many names for Jesus? Each disciple sees something different in Jesus
and bears witness in his own way. Each disciple came to Jesus with differing expectations and
needs—one needed a teacher, another the Messiah, another the fulfillment of Scripture—and
each of these needs was met. Yet v. 51, Jesus’ words about himself, suggests that none of
these titles ultimately answers the question, Who is Jesus? The disciples’ testimonies are only
the beginning; they will see “greater things.” The imagery of v. 51 suggests that the reality
of God in Jesus outruns traditional categories and titles.
All the titles in John 1 must be read through the lens of the Prologue and, hence, through
the lens of the incarnation. As the Gospel narrative progresses, the titles from chap. 1 will be
replaced, expanded, transformed, or redefined by Jesus’ words and works and ultimately by
his death and resurrection. The rich variety of testimonies in chap. 1 is both cautionary and
celebratory. It cautions the reader not to limit Jesus to preconceived categories and expectations
but to keep one’s eyes open for a surprising revelation of God. The church needs to attend
to this caution, because it sometimes acts as if it has answered the last question about Jesus’
identity and arrived at the definitive title for him. For example, when new images or metaphors
for understanding Jesus and his relationship to the faith community arise in the church, they
are often met with suspicion if not outright hostility for not being “orthodox” or being contrary
to “tradition.” Such absoluteness precludes fresh and vital calls to discipleship. The panoply of
titles for Jesus in John 1 suggests that to insist on one name for Jesus is to miss the fullness
of his identity.
533
JOHN 1:35-51 REFLECTIONS
Yet the sequence of succeeding witnesses in chap. 1 also celebrates the boundlessness of
God’s grace in Jesus. The litany of titles demonstrates the ,“fullness” from which the church
is invited to receive “grace upon grace” (1:16). The christological richness of John 1:19-51
suggests that the list of titles for Jesus is open-ended. Just as each successive disciple in the
narrative of John 1 had his needs and expectations met when he encountered Jesus, so also
this text suggests that when the members of the contemporary faith community bring their
new needs and expectations to Jesus, those needs will be met. As will be seen in the
commentary below, the “I am” sayings (e.g., “I am the light of the world”) point to a similar
richness and boundlessness of God’s grace in Jesus.
The christological focus of John 1:19-51 reveals much about the Fourth Evangelist’s
understanding of discipleship. The decision to be a disciple is inseparable from the decision
one makes about Jesus’ identity. John’s entire ministry of baptism served the revelation of Jesus
to Israel (1:31); what John does is determined by who Jesus is. As each new disciple comes
to Jesus, the decision to follow Jesus is made in response to a statement about Jesus’ identity
(1:41, 45). Unlike the synoptic call narratives, where Jesus promises the disciples a change in
their own lives (Matt 4:19; Mark 1:17; Luke 5:10), the focus of the call narratives in John is
unwaveringly christological. The call narratives begin with the identity of Jesus, and any change
for the disciples begins with recognizing and claiming Jesus. It is essential, therefore, that the
Johannine call narratives be allowed to speak in their own voice and not be forced into the
mold of the more familiar call narratives of the synoptic Gospels.
These stories remind the church that discipleship is an active engagement with Jesus. John
1:19-51 consists almost entirely of dialogue, so that the readers themselves become participants
in the drama of discipleship. The reader becomes the audience for John’s testimony. The reader
is able to hear Jesus’ initial question to the first disciples, “What are you looking for?” (v. 38),
as a question addressed to the reader as well. Oné hears the variety of witnesses given by the
disciples and can ponder Jesus’ invitation to “Come and see.” John does not report stories
about discipleship but invites the reader to share in the call to discipleship. Moreover, these
stories are dominated by verbs: follow, see, seek, stay, find. These verbs, too, emphasize that
discipleship is active and involves interacting with Jesus.
In the last discipleship story of John 1, Nathanael moves from skepticism (v. 46) to bold
christological confession (v. 49). What marks Nathanael as a disciple is that he knows who
Jesus is, that he sees that the man from Nazareth is in fact the Son of God. Nathanael’s
declaration places him in the company of those who share in the confession “We have seen
his glory” (1:14). One’s identity as a disciple is grounded in the identity of Jesus..
534
JOHN 2:1-5:47
THE “GREATER THINGS”: JESUS’
WORDS AND WORKS
OVERVIEW
_ ohn 2:1-5:47 is the first realization of the ters contain the full spectrum of responses to
“greater things” promised by Jesus (1:51). Jesus, from the faith of the disciples (2:11) to
The events of this unit—the two “signs” (2:1-11; Jesus’ rejection by the Jews (5:16-18). These chap-
4:46-54), the cleansing of the Temple (2:13-22), ters establish the central themes and tensions of
Jesus’ conversations with Nicodemus (3:1-21) and the entire Gospel: the possibilities of new life and
the Samaritan woman (4:4-42), the renewed wit- faith made available through the words and works
ness of John (3:22-36), the healing of the man of Jesus, and the decisions individuals are called
beside the pool (5:1-9)—all demonstrate the to in the face of those possibilities. John 2:1—-5:47
authority of Jesus’ words and works. Jews and thus contains the drama of the Gospel of John in
non-Jews, men and women all see and hear the miniature and forms an appropriate beginning to
“greater things” Jesus says and does. These chap- the story of Jesus’ ministry.
JOHN 2:1-12, THE WEDDING AT CANA
NIV NRSV
y On the third day a wedding took place at » On the third day there was a wedding in
Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus
?and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited was there. “Jesus and his disciples had also been
to the wedding. °When the wine was gone, Jesus’ invited to the wedding. *When the wine gave out,
mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no
“Tear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus wine.” “And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what
replied. “My time has not yet come.” concern is that to you and to me? My hour has
SHis mother said to the servants, “Do whatever not yet come.” °His mother said to the servants,
he tells you.” “Do whatever he tells you.” “Now standing there
°Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind were six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of
used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.
holding from twenty to thirty gallons. 7Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.”
7Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with And they filled them up to the brim. °He said to
water”; so they filled them to the brim. them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the
8Then he told them, “Now draw some out and chief steward.” So they took it. °>When the stew-
take it to the master of the banquet.” ard tasted the water that had become wine, and
They did so, °and the master of the banquet did not know where it came from (though the
tasted the water that had been turned into wine. servants who had drawn the water knew), the
a6 Greek two to three metretes (probably about 75 to 115 liters) steward called the bridegroom '°and said to him,
339
JOHN 2:1-12
NIV NRSV
He did not realize where it had come from, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then
though the servants who had drawn the water the inferior wine after the guests have become
knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside '°and drunk. But you have kept the good wine until
said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first now.” ''Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in
and then the cheaper wine after the guests have Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his
had too much to drink; but you have saved the disciples believed in him.
best till now.” 12After this he went down to Capernaum with
"This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus his mother, his brothers, and his disciples; and
performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed they remained there a few days.
his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.
'2After this he went down to Capernaum with
his mother and brothers and his disciples. There
they stayed for a few days.
(COMMENTARY
The story of the wedding at Cana follows the the reader to see that “the promise made by Jesus
standard form of a miracle story: vv. 1-2, Setting; in 1:50 or 51 was fulfilled very soon.””! Specula-
vv. 3-5, Preparation for the Miracle; vv. 6-8, The tion on what lies behind the details of the setting
Miracle; vv. 9-11, Conclusion. Verse 12 is a (Why is Jesus’ mother there? Who invited Jesus?)
transition unit that links the Cana story to what runs counter to the Evangelist’s purpose in telling
follows. the story. Everything is subordinated to the heart
Within this traditional form, the Fourth Evan- of the story: the miraculous transformation of
gelist has planted hints that the story is to be read water into wine.
as more than a typical miracle story. The reference 2:3-5. The preparation for the miracle estab-
to Jesus’ hour in v. 4, for example, and to glory, lishes the problem that will evoke the miracle:
signs, and faith in v. 11 point beyond the particu- The wine has run out. The lack of wine is
lars of this story to themes of theological significance communicated to Jesus by his mother (v. 3).
for the whole Gospel. Moreover, the Evangelist’s (Mary is never referred to by name in John, but
placement of this miracle at the beginning of is always called “the mother of Jesus”: 2:1, 3, 5,
Jesus’ ministry gives this story added significance. 12; 19:25). Jesus’ mother asks nothing explicit of
The miracle at Cana is the inaugural event of him in v. 3, but his response in v. 4 makes clear
that her words carried an implied request. Jesus’
Jesus’ ministry (cf. the Nazareth “inaugural sermon,”
mother assumed her son would somehow attend
Luke 4:16-30). Jesus inaugurates his ministry with
to the problem.
a vivid enactment of the gift he has to offer.
Jesus’ words to his mother in v. 4a sound harsh
2:1-2. The setting of the story is narrated
to the modern ear, but they are neither rude nor
leanly. The Fourth Evangelist provides the reader
hostile. Jesus frequently addresses women with
with only essential details: when (on the third
the greeting “Woman” (e.g., Matt 15:28; Luke
day), where (Cana of Galilee), who (the mother
22:57; John 4:21). The use of that form of address
of Jesus, Jesus, his disciples), why (a wedding
to speak to one’s own mother is unusual, how-
feast). The reference to “the third day” locates
ever. It creates a distance between Jesus and his
the Cana story in the sequence of days begun in
mother by playing down their familial relation. It
John 1 (vv. 29, 35, 43); the wedding should be
recalls Jesus’ words in Mark 3:33, “Who are my
understood as occurring three days after the day
mother and my brothers?” (NRSV). Attempts to
referred to at 1:43. The explicit linkage of the
see in the word “woman” (yuvn gyné) an allusion
Cana miracle with the opening days of Jesus’
ministry suggests that the Fourth Evangelist wants 71. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 1:325.
536
tification. Mary’s concerns (v. 3)
Around the must be placed in the larger context
Sea of Galilee
of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
City of the Decapolis
Verse 4 thus points the reader be-
yond this particular story to a
broader theological context by as-
serting Jesus’ freedom from all hu-
man control. Not even his mother
has a privileged claim on him. Jesus’
actions will be governed by the hour
set by God, not by anyone else’s
time or will. Verse 4 also points
beyond the immediate context by
alluding to Jesus’ passion. Any act of
self-revelation by Jesus during his
ministry is of a piece with Jesus’
self-revelation at his “hour.”
The preparation for the miracle
concludes with the words of Jesus’
mother to the servants, “Do what-
ever he tells you” (v. 5). Her words
echo Pharaoh’s words about Joseph
in Gen 41:55, in which Pharaoh
expresses unconditional confidence
in Joseph’s ability to resolve the situ-
Oe 00 4 6 B= 40
Miles ne ation of scarcity; they also give full
Scythopolis
69224 6810 © authority to Joseph. The words of
Kilometers Jesus’ mother do the same thing.
She has not been dissuaded from her
to Jesus’ mother as the second Eve place more initial position that Jesus‘can do something about
symbolic weight on this one word than the text the lack of wine (v. 3), but in the light of Jesus’
can bear.’* The expression translated “what con- words in v. 4 she cedes the initiative for acting
cern is that to you and me?” like “Woman,” is a to Jesus. She continues to trust in Jesus’ ability
formula of disengagement, not rudeness. It may to act, but will not curtail his freedom.
have been a common expression in the Semitic -2:6-8. The miracle itself begins with a descrip-
world (ch-2"Kes 3:133°2- Cnr 35:21)! tion of the water jars. For the first time in this
The reference to Jesus’ hour in v. 40 explains Gospel, the Fourth Evangelist provides copious
why Jesus adopts a posture of disengagement detail—the number of jars, their composition,
toward his mother. While “hour” (djpa hora) is their purpose, and their size. Stone jars, in con-
used in the Fourth Gospel to indicate the passing trast to earthen jars, are free from the possibility
of time (e.g., 1:39), it also is used metaphorically of levitical impurity (Lev 11:33). The “rites of
to refer to the time of eschatological fulfillment Jewish purification” probably refers to the ritual
(ecu) 23. 9-20,020) end, most -charac- cleansing of hands at meals (cf. John 3:25). Even
teristically, to refer to the hour of Jesus’ glorifica- taking into account the possibility of a large gath-
tion—i.e., his death, resurrection, and ascension ering at the wedding, the quantity of stone jars
(see: 7230s 0:20; 12:23; 13:1;°17:1). Jesus” reter- and their capacity is unusual. Everything about v.
6 is overdrawn, from the description of the jars
ence to his hour thus establishes, a link between
to the amount of narrative space the Evangelist
what Jesus does during his ministry and his glo-
devotes to the description. The narrative tech-
72. E.g., Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 108-9. nique mirrors the size of the jars in order to
537
emphasize the extravagance of the miracle that is of Jesus’ gifts is a step toward the knowledge of
about to take place. where Jesus himself comes from. Throughout the
The Fourth Evangelist narrates the moments Fourth Gospel, John contrasts Jesus’ knowledge
before (v. 7) and after (v. 8) the transformation that he is from. God with the ignorance and
of water into wine, but not the precise moment erroneous certitudes about his origins held by
when the miracle occurs. New wine is created in those whom Jesus encounters (7:27-28; 8:14;
the “old” vessels of the Jewish purification rites, 9:29-30).
symbolizing that the old forms are given new Second, v. 10 attests’ to the goodness of the
content (cf. Mark 2:21-22). It is inaccurate to gift of wine. The steward’s initial words to the
describe this miracle as Jesus’ rejection of the bridegroom sound like a hospitality maxim, al-
waters of purification and hence a symbol of Jesus’ though no exact parallel has been found in other
rejection of Judaism.”* Rather, jars stood empty, documents from the period. His final words, “you
Waiting to be filled. Jewish vessels are filled with have kept the good wine until now,” have a
a wondrous new gift (cf. 1:17). This miracle is double meaning. They work on the level of the
thus neither a rejection nor a replacement of the story line, but the steward’s words also inadver-
old, but the creation of something new in the tently witness to the deeper truth. He attributes
midst of Judaism. the good wine to the beneficence of the bride-
The jars from which the new wine is drawn groom whose wedding is being celebrated, when
(v. 8) were filled to the brim (v. 7). Since each ‘in fact the wine derives from the beneficence of
jar had a large capacity (NIV, 20 to 30 gallons; Jesus, the true bridegroom (3:29).
NRSV, 20 or 30 gallons), Jesus turned an In the OT, an abundance of good wine is an
astonishing quantity of water into wine. It works eschatological symbol, a sign of the joyous arrival
against the story to try to explain away the mag- of God’s new age (Amos 9:13; Joel 3:18). This
nitude of the transformation (by saying, for exam- eschatological symbolism suggests that John 2:1-
ple, that only the water that was drawn out of 11 can be read as more than the first act in Jesus’
the jars in v. 8 became wine), because its extrava- ministry. It also stands as the fulfillment of OT
gance is at the heart of the miracle. The extrava- eschatological hopes, as the inaugural act of God’s
gant proportions here anticipate the extravagant promised salvation.
proportions of the feeding of the five thousand A miraculous supply of wine as a sign of the
(John 6:1-4). In both instances, the reader is presence of a god is a common motif in Greek
shown the superabundance of gifts available folklore.” It seems unlikely, however, that the
through Jesus (cf. 1:16). Fourth Evangelist has adopted a pagan legend and
2:9-11. These verses form the conclusion to the ascribed it to Jesus.”? John 2:1-11 has too many
miracle and offer public attestation to it. The steward distinctive Johannine traits and important theologi-
of the feast indirectly verifies the miracle. The at- cal overlaps with the miracle of the feeding of the
testation to the miracle is in two parts. First, v. 9 five thousand in 6:1-15.
attests to the source of the miracle. The expression One must finally ask whether the gift of abun-
“water that had become wine” is the first direct dant good wine has eucharistic overtones. The
statement in the narrative of the miraculous trans- story of John 2:1-11 is fully comprehensible with-
formation. Until this point, the transformation has out the eucharistic referent, but a eucharistic
been assumed but not stated. The reader of the story interpretation is consonant with the theme of the
knows more than the steward, because the steward Cana miracle, the gift of grace that is available
does not know the source of the wine. The servants through Jesus. Moreover, it seems more than
do know the source of the wine, and in v. 9 they coincidental that two miracles whose central im-
function as witnesses to the transformation (cf. the ages are wine (John 2:1-11) and bread (6:1-15)
role of the neighbors in John 9:8-12). The question are positioned so prominently in the structure of
of where Jesus’ gifts come from is pivotal in the
Fourth Gospel (4:11; 6:5). Knowledge of the source 74. See C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 224-25.
75. So Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans.
73. C.K. Barrett, Zhe Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadel- G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia:
phia: Westminster, 1978) 189. Westminster, 1971) 118.
538
JOHN2:1-12 COMMENTARY
the Gospel (see Introduction). Eucharistic symbol- act of the miracle itself, but in that to which the
ism, therefore, seems possible as one level of miracle points. That is, the deed reveals the doer
meaning in John 2:1-11, but this symbolism must and points to the significance of the deed as an
be read through the Johannine sacramental lens act of eschatological salvation and God’s abun-
and not assessed according to the treatment of dance. The sign at Cana is identified as the “first”
the eucharist in the synoptic Gospels or Paul’s because it begins Jesus’ self-revelation and models
writings. (See Reflections at 6:25-71). what is still to come. The Greek word for “first”
The steward’s worus in v. 10, while apt, still in 2:11 (apxy arché) means “beginning,” rather
reside on the surface level of the miracle. The than simply “the first in a sequence” (prdté).
steward focuses on the wine, but the Evangelist Verse 11 makes specific that the miracle at the
wants the reader to see the transformation of wedding in Cana points to Jesus’ glory. In the
water into wine for what it really is: a manifes- OT, the manifestation of God’s glory involves both
tation of Jesus’ glory (v. 11). The Fourth Evan- a manifestation of God’s power and a glimpse of
gelist calls this miracle a “sign” (onyetov the visible radiance of God (Exod 24:15-18;
semeion) and further identifies it as Jesus’ first 34:29-35; 40:34-38). In the synoptic Gospels, the
sign. This designation, along with other occur- revelation of God’s glory in Jesus is embodied in
rences of the word sign throughout the Fourth the story of the transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8 and
Gospel (e.g., 4:48, 54; 20:30), have led scholars par.). In the Fourth Gospel, however, there is no
to speculate about a possible sign-source upon story of the transfiguration. God’s glory is contin-
which the Fourth Evangelist drew in the compo- ually manifested in Jesus’ life and ministry (1:14;
sition of his Gospel (see Introduction). 11:4; 40; .12:475)17:22,-24), The ultimate mo-
The first sign at Cana is a portent of things to ment of glorification occurs at Jesus’ death, resur-
come, because it points ahead to Jesus’ “hour” rection, and ascension (13:31; 17:5). Jesus’ glory
(wpa hora, v. 4), as well as to other signs (e.g., and his death are held in a dialectical relationship
4:54). The first sign at Cana is also a visible in the Fourth Gospel. This dialectic has already
indicator of Jesus’ authority because through it his received expression in the tensions between the
glory is revealed. John uses the term sign to refer eternal and the historical, the human and the
to Jesus’ miracles, because for John the signifi- divine, that are at the heart of the Prologue.
cance of the miracle does not rest solely in the
REFLECTIONS
The central act in the story of the wedding at Cana is the miraculous transformation of water
into wine. The contemporary reader, living in a rational, scientifically oriented age, may find this
miracle puzzling at best, embarrassing and offensive at worst. Interpreters, therefore, often are
tempted to talk around the miracle by focusing on other aspects of the text or to explain away
the miracle by focusing on the differences between the biblical worldview and the modern
worldview. In preaching this text, however, the preacher should not get caught up in an explanation
or apology (just as the preacher should never succumb to the temptation to explain the resurrection).
The essence of any miracle is that it shatters conventional explanations and expectations, and this
miracle is no exception. It is incumbent upon the preacher not to diminish the extraordinariness
of this story in any way. The christological revelation of this story must not be reduced to a
discussion about the facticity of the miracle. Contemporary hearers of this story must be allowed
to struggle with what this miracle says about Jesus.
The contrast between the responses of the steward and the disciples can help the contem-
porary Christian interpret and appropriate this text. Modern Christians distort and oversimplify
when they assume that first-century people would have more immediately embraced the
miraculous. The steward is perplexed by the sudden appearance of wine of such qua lity. He
summons the bridegroom, the host of the party, because he assumes that the wine can be
539
ie JOHN 2:1-12 REFLECTIONS
explained by conventional reasoning. He attributes the wine to the unprecedented hospitality
of this man, but this miracle cannot be explained by an irregularity in etiquette. Rational
explanations miss the mark. Jesus’ disciples, by contrast, see in the miraculous abundance of
good wine a sign of God’s presence among them. They recognize the revelation of God in
the prodigious flow of wine, and they recognize Jesus as the one who brought God to them.
The miracle of the wine shatters the boundaries of their conventional world, and the disciples
are willing to entertain the possibility that this boundary breaking marks the inbreaking of
God. The steward tried to reshape the miracle to fit his former categories, while the disciples
allowed their categories to be reshaped by this extraordinary transformation of water into wine,
and so they “believed in him” (2:11) as the revealer of God.
John 2:1-11 poses hard questions for the interpreter, because the miracle challenges
conventional assumptions about order and control, about what is possible, about where God
is found and how God is known. Indeed, the impact of the miracle is lost if one does not
entertain these and similar questions, because the force of the miracle derives precisely from
its extraordinariness, from the dissonance it creates. If the contemporary reader does not
experience a sense of dissonance when faced with this miracle, then the wonder of the miracle
cannot be experienced either. To define one’s response to this miracle in terms of whether
one believes in miracles or in terms of the canons of modern science begs the question. Such
interpretive moves are attempts to domesticate the miracle by making it adhere to conventional
rules and definitions, whether those rules are the rules of science or of piety.
In the miracle in John 2:1-11, Jesus works an unprecedented act, the transformation of
many gallons of water into good, ich wine. It is a miracle of abundance, of extravagance, of
transformation and new possibilities. The grace the miracle offers and the glimpse of Jesus’
glory it provides (2:11) run outside conventional expectations and place the reader at odds
with how he or she thought the world was orderéd. The interpretive task is not to put this
miracle in a framework in which it “makes sense” (like the attempts of the steward in 2:9-10),
but to free the faith community to receive the extraordinary gifts this miracle offers.
This story offers the interpreter a superabundance of theological themes and symbols. The
challenge for the preacher is to navigate through these symbols without getting lost (or losing
the text) in them. The symbolic richness creates the background and the foreground of this
story, but is not its center. Its center is Jesus, his gift and his glory.
In the ancient lectionaries of the church, John 2:1-11 was read on Epiphany, a practice
carried over into the Eastern church. In the Revised Common and Catholic lectionaries, this
text is read at the beginning of the Epiphany season (Second Sunday After Epiphany, Year C).
These liturgical placements of the text accurately reflect the christological focus of the story.
The transformation of water into wine is significant because, in showing forth the unprece-
dented grace of Jesus, it reveals the glory of Jesus and anticipates his ultimate moment of
glorification, his death, resurrection, and ascension.
The extravagance of Jesus’ act, the superabundance of the wine, suggests the unlimited
gifts that Jesus makes available. Jesus’ ministry begins with an extraordinary act of grace, a
first glimpse of the “greater things” to come (1:50). This story invites the readerto share in
the wonder of this miracle, to enter into the joyous celebration made possible by Jesus’ gift.
The story invites the reader to see what the disciples see, that in the abundance and
graciousness of Jesus’ gift, one catches a glimpse of the identity and character of God. It is
no wonder that the early Christian community confessed “from his fullness we have all
received, grace upon grace” (1:16).
540
JOHN 2:13-3:21 OVERVIEW
JOHN 2:13-3:21, JESUS IN JERUSALEM.
OVERVIEW
At John 2:13, the scene shifts dramatically from temple cult. In 3:1-21, the Fourth Evangelist con-
the intimate setting of John 2:1-12, where Jesus trasts Jesus’ teaching with the teaching of the
is surrounded by family and friends, to the public Pharisees, personified in the teacher Nicodemus.
arena: Jerusalem and the Temple. In John 2:13- This section thus places Jesus in direct contact
3:21, Jesus comes “to his own” (1:11) in Jerusa- with establishment Judaism, disclosing the per-
lem, the geographical and spiritual center of the spectives and assumptions that will lead to ever
Jewish faith. In 2:13-22, the Fourth Evangelist deepening conflict.
contrasts Jesus’ authority with the authority of the
John 2:13-22, The Cleansing of the Temple

NIV NRSV
'3When it was almost time for the Jewish 13The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus
Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. '4In the went up to Jerusalem. '4In the temple he found
temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the
and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money changers seated at their tables. "Making
money. 'SSo he made a whip out of cords, and a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the
drove all from the temple area, both sheep and temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also
cattle; he scattered the coins of the money chang- poured out the coins of the money changers and
ers and overturned their tables. '°To those who overturned their tables. !°He told those who were
sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How selling the doves, “Take these things out of here!
dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!” Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!”
‘7His disciples remembered that it was written,
\7His disciples remembered that it is written:
“Zeal for your house will consume me.” !®The
“Zeal for your house will consume me.”?
Jews then said to him, “What sign can you show
18Then the Jews demanded of him, “What us for doing this?” 'Jesus answered them, “De-
miraculous sign can you show us to prove your stroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it
authority to do all this?” up.” 2°The Jews then said, “This temple has been
1Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, under construction for forty-six years, and will you
and I will raise it again in three days.” raise it up in three days?” ?'But he was speaking
20The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years of the temple of his body. ??After he was raised
to build this temple, and you are going to raise it from the dead, his disciples remembered that he
in three days?” 2!But the temple he had spoken had said this; and they believed the scripture and
of was his body. 22After he was raised from the the word that Jesus had spoken.
dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then
they believed the Scripture and the words that
Jesus had spoken.
a17 Psalm 69:9
541
Figure 9: Jewish Religious Festivals in John*
The festivals were times for “remembering”—that is, to liturgically recall and relive past events—as well as
for feasting and celebrating. During all the pilgrimage festivals (Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles), huge
crowds of pilgrims would congregate in Jerusalem (Josephus estimates as many as 2,700,000). Large numbers
of animals were required, especially at Passover.
Sabbath
John 5:1-47; 7:14-24; 9:1-41
Celebrated from the earliest times of Israel’s history, the sabbath is a visible sign ef God’s covenant with
Israel and is listed among the religious festivals in Lev 23:1-3. The Old Testament associates the sabbath
with both humanitarian and theological purposes.
“Keeping the sabbath holy” according to the Old Testament, meant no that work could be done: no food
could be baked or broiled (Exod 16:23), no plowing or harvesting could be done (Exod 34:21), no firewood
could be gathered (Num 15:32) or fires lit (Exod 25:3), no business dealings could be enacted (Amos 8:5;
Neh 10:31; 13:15-18), and no burdens could be carried (Jer 17:21-22). The rabbis eventually distinguished
thirty-nine classes of work forbidden on the sabbath. But at the same time, certain situations and types of
work were exempt: cultic duties (e.g., circumcision, priestly duties), defensive warfare, and the saving of
life among them. The rabbis also taught that God remained active on the sabbath for the physical and moral
governance of the universe.
Passover-Unleavened Bread, 14-21 Nisan (March/April) :
John 2:13-25; 6:1-71; 13:1-19:42
By New Testament times, the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread had been combined into a single,
eight-day ceremony. On 14 Nisan, the Day of Preparation, the paschal lambs were slaughtered from 3:00
P.M. until 5:00 P.M. in the Temple. The Passover meal began at sundown (the beginning of the new day
[15 Nisan]). The ritual consisted of eating the meal, recounting the story of the exodus and its meaning for
the meal’s participants, and singing songs of praise (drawn from the psalter). On the 16th of Nisan, the
offering of first-fruits was made. During the festival, no leaven could be kept in a Jewish house, and only
unleavened bread could be eaten.
The Passover feast commemorated Israel’s liberation from Egypt, the fundamental event in its history. In
addition, Passover was associated with the giving of manna and water in the wilderness, events symbolic
of the giving of God’s law (see Neh 9:13-15).
Feast of Tabernacles, 15-22 Tishri (September/October)
John 7:1-8:59
The Festival of Tabernacles (or Booths) originally celebrated the completion of the harvest, but eventually
also came to commemorate God’s protection of Israel during the time in the wilderness. In New Testament
times, the festival had grown to an eight-day celebration centered at the Temple. The temple court and the
streets of Jerusalem would be filled with temporary shelters. The first day of the festival was a day of solemn
rest and worship. At the end of the day, four large lampstands, which lit the entire city of Jerusalem, were
set up in the Court of Women; these lights symbolized the light of God. On days two through six (unless
the day was a sabbath), there were daily sacrifices and at least three ritual processions. One involved the
singing of the Hallel (Psalms 113-118), with the people carrying a citron in their left hands to symbolize
the harvest, and a lulab (comprising three myrtle, two willow, and one palm branch tied in a bunch) in
their right hands; these were waved during the singing of the first, the twenty-fifth, and the twenty-ninth
verses of Psalm 118. During a second procession, called the Simhat Bet ha-Sho’evah (“The rejoicing of the
place of water drawing”), the priests processed from the Temple to the pool of Siloam to draw water,
returning through the Water Gate to pour the water on the altar as a libation; the marching was accompanied
by singing, flute playing, dancing, and waving of branches. During the third procession, which was also
accompanied by great revelry, the priests would light the giant lamps, after which the celebrating would
continue far into the night. The seventh day, or “Great Day,” included a procession during which people
waved branches, marched around the altar seven times, and prayed for a good harvest in the coming
year. Following the festival was a day of solemn worship on the eighth day.
The Feast of Dedication, 25 Kislev-1 Tevet (November/December)
John 10:22-49
The Feast of Dedication (or Hanukkah) commemorated God’s deliverance of Israel from the oppression
of Antiochus Epiphanes and the rededication of the altar and the cleansing of the Temple by the Maccabees.
It is the only major festival without precedent in Jewish biblical tradition. It is thought that during New
Testament times the celebration closely resembled that of the Feast of Tabernacles.
*See also Gale A. Yee, Jewish Feasts and the Gospel of John (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1989)
542
(COMMENTARY
The cleansing of the temple narrative is found in buy animals in Jerusalem in order to participate
all four Gospels (cf. Matt 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-19; in temple worship. Similarly, the temple tax could
Luke 19:45-48). The Gospel of John places the not be paid in Greek or Roman coinage because
temple cleansing near the beginning of Jesus’ min- of the human image (the emperor’s head) on these
istry, whereas the synoptic Gospels associate it with coins (cf. Matt 22:15-22), and foreign coinage had
his passion. It is unlikely that Jesus performed this to be changed into the legal Tyrian currency in
bold act twice, so the two traditions probably narrate Jerusalem. Therefore, the sale of animals and the
the same event. The synoptic chronology is the more changing of money were necessary if the worship
historically reliable, because it is difficult to see how of the cult was to proceed.
the Jewish religious authorities would have: tolerated Christian interpretations that see this story prin-
such a confrontational act at the beginning of Jesus’ cipally as an illustration of the extortionist prac-
ministry. John moves the temple scene to the be- tices of the Jewish temple authorities disregard
ginning of his Gospel because it serves a symbolic these realities of temple worship in Jesus’ day.
function for him. The temple cleansing in John There were inevitable abuses of the temple sys-
completes the inaugural event begun with the Cana tem, but in vv. 14-16 Jesus confronts the system
miracle. John 2:1-11 revealed the grace and glory itself, not simply its abuses. This is apparent in
of Jesus and the abundant new life Jesus offers. John the words he speaks to the dove sellers (v. 16).
2:13-22 highlights the challenge and threat that new In the synoptic Gospels, Jesus quotes Isa 56:7 and
life poses to the existing order (cf. John 5:1-18). Jer 7:11 (see Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke
The temple narrative in John consists of two 10:46), verses that focus on the distortion of a
parts: Jesus’ actions in the Temple (vv. 14-17) place of worship into a “den of robbers.” These
and Jesus’ saying about the destruction of the OT verses are absent from John, however, and
Temple (vv. 18-22). The temple narrative is set Jesus may allude instead to Zech 14:21 (“And
at Passover (v. 13); the expression “the Passover there shall no longer be traders in the house of
of the Jews” distances the Fourth Evangelist and the Lorp of hosts on that day” [NRSV]). In a play
his community from the religious observances of on the word for “house” (oikos oikos), Jesus
the Jewish community. complains that his Father’s house has become a
2:14-17. Jesus’ actions in the Temple are “house of trade.” Since this trade was necessary
narrated in one long complex sentence in the to maintain the cultic system of sacrifice and
Greek text (vv. 14-16), which creates a mood of tithes, Jesus’ charge is a much more radical accu-
urgency and haste, thereby underscoring the in- sation in John than in the Synoptics. Jesus issues
tensity of Jesus’ actions. Just as Jesus never hesi- a powerful challenge to the very authority of the
tates as he moves through the Temple, so, too, Temple and its worship (cf. 4:23-24).
vv. 14-16 never hesitate. John alone among the In v. 17, the focus shifts to the disciples. They
Gospels mentions sheep and cattle and the detail have no active role in this story, but function as
of Jesus’ whip. John’s picture of Jesus in the interpretive witnesses (see v. 22). Psalsm 69:10
Temple is large and dramatic, as Jesus herds (English translation, Ps 69:9) serves as the lens
animals and people out of the temple court, pour- through which the Fourth Evangelist wants the
ing out money and overturning tables as he goes. reader (like the disciples) to interpret Jesus’ ac-
It is important to place the scene in the Temple tions in the Temple. Verse 17 alters Ps 69:10
in its proper religious and historical context. Cat- slightly, however, and that alteration is theologi-
tle, sheep, and doves were required for burnt cally significant. In the MT and most recensions
offerings in the Temple (see Leviticus 1 and SI. of the LXX of Ps 69:10, the verb “consume” refers
Since Passover was a pilgrimage feast, many of to past events, but in the disciples’ recollection of
those coming to worship in the Temple would the verse, the verb is translated as a future tense
have journeyed a great distance and would not (“will consume me”). Psalm 69:10 thus functions
have brought animals with them. They needed to as a prophecy of the time when Jesus will be
543
consumed—that is, his crucifixion. Jesus’ passion is the locus of God’s presence on earth, v. 21
was read in the light of Psalm 69 by many NT suggests that Jesus’ body is now the locus of God.
writers (e.g., Matt 27:34, 48; Mark 15:23, 36; Verse 21 recalls 1:51 where the Son of Man
John 19:28; Rom 15:3). This use of Ps 69:10 gives replaces Jacob’s ladder as the locus of God’s
the temple cleansing a christological emphasis. In interaction with the world.
the synoptic Gospels, the OT quotations draw The Evangelist’s commentary in v. 21 thus inter-
attention to the Temple, but Ps 69:9 fixes the prets the dialogue between Jesus and the Jews for
reader’s attention on Jesus. John’s temple story is the reader, so that the reader can discern the full
ultimately about Jesus’ fate, not the Temple’s. meaning of Jesus’ words and the nature of the
2:18-22. This christological focus is expanded misunderstanding between Jesus and the Jews. The
in vv. 18-22. The Jews’ demand for a sign (v. 18; Fourth Evangelist frequently interjects his own voice
cf. Mark 8:12; 1 Cor 1:22) is in reality a question into the narrative of the Fourth Gospel to provide
about Jesus’ authority. They use “sign” (onetov the reader with insight and information the charac-
semeion) in the sense of a warrant, not in the ters in the stories do not have (e.g., 6:6; 11:13,
Johannine sense of a revelatory act. “The Jews” 51-52; 12:6, 33). Verse 21 enables the reader to
here represent those who question Jesus and do see the sign the “Jews” miss: Jesus has the authority
not know him. Jesus responds to their request to challenge the temple system because he is the
with the saying about the destruction and rebuild- locus of God’s presence on earth.
ing of the Temple (v. 19), which is not found on Verse 22, like v. 17, focuses on the interpretive
Jesus’ lips in the synoptic Gospels, but is instead
witness of the disciples; but unlike v. 17, it
reported indirectly through the testimony of false
explicitly locates their witness after Jesus’ resur-
witnesses at Jesus’ trial (Matt 26:61; Mark 14:58)
rection. It recounts what the disciples “remem-
and in the taunting of Jesus on the cross (Matt
bered.” In John 14:26, Jesus promises that the
27:40; Mark 15:29; cf. Acts 6:14).
Holy Spirit “will teach you all things and will
The Jews respond to Jesus’ words about the
remind you of everything I have said to you.” In
Temple with disdain {v. 20). The rebuilding of
John, remembrance is active reflection on the past
the Temple was begun in approximately 19 BcE
in the light of the resurrection with the aid of the
during the reign of Herod the Great. The refer-
ence to forty-six years of construction would sug- Spirit. Such reflection leads to faith and deepened
gest a date of 27 ce for this exchange between understanding (see 12:16). In 2:22, remembering
Jesus and the Jews. That date is historically plau- the past with the aid of the Spirit reveals the truth
sible, since in John the temple incident occurs at of Scripture and Jesus’ word in new ways. The
the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and Jesus’ minis- combination of Scripture and Jesus’ word in v. 22
try lasts approximately three years. shows that the early church began to grant Jesus’
Verses 18-20 are an example of the Johannine word the same authority it had already granted
narrative technique of misunderstanding. The Scripture.
Jews respond to Jesus’ words about the destruc- Verse 22 makes explicit the post-resurrection
tion and raising of the Temple with a very prag- perspective from which the Gospel was written.
matic protest (v. 20) that reveals that they Each of the Gospels is written from a post-resur-
understand only the surface meaning of Jesus’ rection perspective, but in John that perspective
words (cf. Nicodemus, 3:3-5). The verb Jesus uses is intentionally integrated into the Gospel narra-
to speak of the raising of the Temple (éyeipw tive. The distance between the disciples of Jesus
egeiro) points to a second, more symbolic level in the Gospel stories and the disciples who read
of meaning, however, because that verb is also the Gospel stories is bridged by v. 22, because
used to speak of resurrection (John 2:22; 5:21; this verse points to a time beyond the end of the
12a Oo ale 2s), Fourth Gospel narrative, to a story that gets un-
Verse 21 makes the second level of meaning derway as the Fourth Gospel story draws to a
of Jesus’ words is now made explicit. The Evan- Close. Verse 22 points to the interpretive activity
gelist tells the reader that Jesus speaks of “the of believers as they remember and claim the
temple of his body.” Since for Judaism the Temple stories and sayings of Jesus as their own.
544
REFLECTIONS
John 2:13-22 is popularly interpreted as an example of Jesus’ anger and hence his humanity.
Jesus’ actions of taking the whip, herding out the animals, and overturning the tables are
pointed to as evidence that Jesus could get angry. Such attempts to amass evidence to prove
Jesus’ humanity actually undercut the power of the incarnation, however. To focus on isolated
attributes or emotions as proof of Jesus’ humanity is in effect to seek after signs, to base one’s
faith on the surface evidence without perceiving the deeper reality. The underlying reality of
the Fourth Gospel narrative is that “the Word became flesh” (1:14). Jesus’ humanity thus
pervades everything he says and does in his ministry. The scandal of John 2:13-22 is not Jesus’
anger as proof of his humanity, but the authority this human being claims for himself through
his words and actions.
Jesus, a complete outsider to the power structure of the Temple, issues a challenge to the
authority of the Temple that quite literally shakes its foundations. Jesus throws the mechanics
of temple worship into chaos, disrupting the temple system during one of the most significant
feasts of the year so that neither sacrifices nor tithes could be offered that day. It is no wonder
that the Jews who were gathered at the Temple asked for a sign to warrant his actions (2:18).
Jesus was a human being just as they were; who was he to derail their worship?
Jesus explains his actions in the Temple by pointing to his death and resurrection (2:19-21).
Jesus has the authority to challenge the authority of the Temple because his whole life bears
testimony to the power of God in the world. John 2:13-22 is not about how Jesus’ anger
makes him like other people; instead, Jesus’ bold, prophetic act in the Temple reinforces what
1:19-51 and 2:1-11 have already shown: There will be nothing hidden about Jesus’ identity
in John. Jesus is the locus of God’s presence on earth, and God as known in Jesus, not the
Temple, should be the focal point of cultic activity.
The far-reaching implications of Jesus’ complaint and his actions in the Temple should caution
the interpreter against advocating a one-dimensional theory of the superiority of Christianity
over Judaism when expositing this text. Jesus is not against Judaism per se. John presents Jesus
as an observant Jewish male who travels to Jerusalem at the pilgrimage feasts (2:13; 5:1; 7:10;
12:2). Jesus’ challenge to the authority of the dominant religious institution in Judaism is not
anti-Jewish, because it is in line with the institutional challenges of prophets like Amos and
Jeremiah. Jesus challenges a religious system so embedded in its own rules and practices that
it is no longer open to a fresh revelation from God, a temptation that exists for contemporary
Christianity as well as for the Judaism of Jesus’ day.
Jesus’ dramatic actions in 2:13-16, through which he issued a radical challenge to the
authority of the religious institutions of his day, issue a similar challenge to the institutionalism
of the contemporary church. Christian faith communities must be willing to ask where and
when the status quo of religious practices and institutions has been absolutized and, therefore,
closed to the possibility of reformation, change, and renewal. The great danger is that the
contemporary church, like the leaders of the religious establishment in the Gospel of John,
of
will fall into the trap of equating the authority of its own institutions with the presence
God. All religious institutional embeddednes s—whether in the form of temple worship, unjust
social systems, or repressive religious practices—is challenged by the revelation of God in the
life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
545
JOHN 2:23-25
| John 2:23-25, Interlude in Jerusalem
NIV NRSV
23Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Pass- 23When he was in Jerusalem during the Pass-
over Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs over festival, many believed in his name because
he was doing and believed in his name.? “But they saw the signs that he was doing. “But Jesus
Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he on his part would not entrust himself to them,
knew all men. 2°He did not need man’s testimony because he knew all people #°and needed no one
about man, for he knew what was in a man. to testify about anyone; for he himself knew what
423 Or and believed in him was in everyone.
(COMMENTARY
John 2:23-25 provides the transition from the Jesus’ all-encompassing knowledge is the source
temple narrative to the Nicodemus story. In these of his distrust (vv. 246, 250). Jesus’ knowledge
verses, the Fourth Evangelist contrasts the peo- of human nature was first highlighted in the call
ple’s response to Jesus with Jesus’ response to the narratives of chap. 1 (Peter, 1:41-42; Nathanael,
people, thereby enabling the reader to see the 1:47-50). The contrast between Jesus’ Knowledge
people in Jerusalem through Jesus’ eyes. and the knowledge of those around him is a
Many people in Jerusalem believed in Jesus on central theme in the Fourth Gospel. Throughout
the basis of the signs he performed (v. 23). The the Fourth Gospel, people approach Jesus confi-
Fourth Evangelist uses “signs” (onpeta semeia) dent in their Knowledge of themselves and of
here as a general designation for Jesus’ works in Jesus fsee 3:2) and the encounter with Jesus
Jerusalem. It is important to contrast 2:23 with challenges those certitudes (3:3-10). The only
2:11. In 2:11, the miracle at Cana is called a sign, person whose knowledge is unchallenged in the
but the Evangelist also notes that Jesus manifested Fourth Gospel narrative is Jesus. His knowledge
his glory in this sign. It is the manifestation of of “what was in everyone,” of his identity, and
glory, not simply the sign itself, that leads to the of God sets the standard by which all other
disciples’ faith. In 2:23 there is no indication that knowledge is measured. Because of Jesus’ knowl-
the people see the glory to which Jesus’ signs edge, no one needs to testify to him (v. 25a), but
point. other people, whose “knowledge” often blinds
Verses 24-25 point out the inadequacy of faith them to the truth (e.g., 9:24-34, 39-41), need
based on signs as wondrous deeds alone; Jesus witnesses to bring them to faith.
would not entrust himself to the people. The This interlude alerts the reader to some of the
contrast between the people’s faith (v. 23) and theological categories through which one is to
Jesus’ response (vv. 24-25) is even sharper in the read the Nicodemus story: the nature of faith and
Greek text, because “believe” and “entrust” trans- human response to Jesus, the relationship be-
late the same Greek verb (tiotetw pisteuo). In tween faith and knowledge, and Jesus’ ability to
other words, Jesus does not believe the people’s discern the adequacy of human response.
belief.
John 3:1-21, Jesus and Nicodemus

NIV NRSV
Now there was a man of the Pharisees Now there was a Pharisee named Nicode-
named Nicodemus, a member of the Jew- mus, a leader of the Jews. He came to-
JOHN 3:1-21
NIV NRSV
ish ruling council. 7He came to Jesus at night and Jesus? by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know
said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has that you are a teacher who has come from God;
come from God. For no one could perform the for no one can do these signs that you do apart
miraculous signs you are doing if God were not from the presence of God.” “Jesus answered him,
with him.” “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the king-
3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, dom of God without being born from above.”°
no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is 4Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be
born again.?” born after having grown old? Can one enter a
4“How can a man be born when he is old?” second time into the mother’s womb and be
Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a sec- born?” %Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you,
ond time into his mother’s womb to be born!” no one can enter the kingdom of God without
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one being born of water and Spirit. “What is born of
can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit
of water and the Spirit. °Flesh gives birth to flesh, is spirit.© 7Do not be astonished that I said to you,
but the Spirit? gives birth to spirit. 7You should ‘You’ must be born from above.’® ®’The wind
not be surprised at my saying, ‘YouS must be born blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound
again.’ °The wind blows wherever it pleases. You of it, but you do not know where it comes from
hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is
from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” °Nicodemus said to him, “How
born of the Spirit.” can these things be?” !Jesus answered him, “Are
*“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not
'0“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do understand these things?
you not understand these things? !'I tell you the 11“Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we
truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify know and testify to what we have seen; yet you’
to what we have seen, but still you people do not do not receive our testimony. "If I have told you
accept our testimony. !7I have spoken to you of about earthly things and you do not believe, how
earthly things and you do not believe; how then can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?
will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ascended into heaven except the
13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of
one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.¢ Man. '4And just as Moses lifted up the serpent
'4Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be
so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 'that lifted up, !*that whoever believes in him may have
everyone who believes in him may have eternal eternal life.”
life.¢ 16“For God so loved the world that he gave
16“For God so loved the world that he gave his his only Son, so that everyone who believes in
one and only Son,’ that whoever believes in him him may not perish but may have eternal life.
shall not perish but have eternal life. '7For God 17“Indeed, God did not send the Son into the
did not send his Son into the world to condemn world to condemn the world, but in order that
the world, but to save the world through him. the world might be saved through him. '*Those
18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but who believe in him are not condemned; but those
whoever does not believe stands condemned al- who do not believe are condemned already, be-
ready because he has not believed in the name cause they have not believed in the name of the
of God’s one and only Son.’ !°This is the verdict: only Son of God. !’And this is the judgment, that
Light has come into the world, but men loved the light has come into the world, and people
darkness instead of light because their deeds were aGk him 6Or born anew cThesame Greek word means
*
40 Or but spirit c7 The both wind and spirit dThe Greek word for you here is plural
a3 Or born from above; also in verse 7 e Or anew fThe Greek word for you here and in verse 12 is
Greek is plural. 413 Some manuscripts Man, who is in heaven
f16 Or his only plural g Other ancient authorities add who is in heaven
e15 Or believes may have eternal life in him
hSome interpreters hold that the quotation concludes with verse 15
begotten Son g18 Or God’s only begotten Son
JOHN 3:1-21
NIV NRSV
evil. "Everyone who does evil hates the light, loved darkness rather than light because their deeds
and will not come into the light for fear that his were evil. 2°For all who do evil hate the light and
deeds will be exposed. ?'But whoever lives by the do not come to the light, so that their deeds may
truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen not be exposed. ?!But those who do what is true
plainly that what he has done has been done come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen
through God.”? that their deeds have been done in God.”?
+21 Some interpreters end the quotation after verse 15. aSome interpreters hold that the quotation concludes with verse 15
(COMMENTARY
In John 3:1-21, the focus shifts from the public voices of the Johannine Jesus and the Fourth
arena to Jesus’ interaction with an individual, Evangelist overlap. Similar expressions and themes
Nicodemus. John 3:1-21 divides into two parts: appear in,the mouth of Jesus and in the Evangel-
vv. 1-10, the dialogue between Jesus and Nicode- ist’s commentary (e.g., 6:41 and 43; 9:22 and
mus; and vv. 11-21, a discourse by Jesus. This 16:2).”? This similarity of voice derives from the
text is the first instance of a common Johannine Fourth Evangelist’s understanding of himself as a
pattern of a central event, in this case a dialogue, faithful interpreter of Jesus’ words and person.
followed by a discourse that draws general theo- Everything in the Gospel bears the interpretive
logical themes out of the particular event. stamp of the Fourth Evangelist. As the narrator of
Scholars debate whether 3:16-21 should be Jesus’ story, the Fourth Evangelist represents Je-
read as words of the Johannine Jesus”° or as a sus’ words to a new generation of believers. As
commentary by the Fourth Evangelist.’” The an- such, the Evangelist shares in one of the functions
cient manuscripts contained no quotation marks. of the Paraclete, to keep Jesus’ words alive for
The NRSV and the NIV both punctuate the verses new and changing situations and communities of
as the words of Jesus and indicate the alternative faith (cf. 16:12-13).
interpretation in a footnote. The reasons given for 3:1-10. 3:1-2a. These verses present both
interpreting these verses as the Evangelist’s com- positive and negative images of Nicodemus. On
mentary include the use of third-person pronouns the positive side, Nicodemus, a Jewish leader (v.
to speak of Jesus and the presence of so many 1), seeks out Jesus. To seek Jesus, as noted earlier
distinctly Johannine themes and expressions.’® (1:38), is one of the first acts of discipleship in
These arguments are not compelling for two rea- John. On the negative side, however, Nicodemus
sons. First, Jesus cannot be eliminated as the hides his seeking under the cloak of night (cf. the
speaker of these verses simply on the basis of night visit of King Zedekiah and Jeremiah, Jer
pronoun use. There are many other instances in 37:16-21). This reference to the time of Nicode-
the Fourth Gospel in which Jesus speaks of him- mus’s visit is neither an incidental detail nor an
self in the third person, particularly in the context attempt at historical verisimilitude. Rather, it pro-
of Son of Man sayings (e.g., 1:51; 3:13-15; 8:28). vides a clue to the significance of this story for
Second, and more theologically significant, the the Fourth Evangelist. “Night” (vvE nux) is used
arguments against the Johannine Jesus as the metaphorically in the Fourth Gospel to represent
speaker of these verses misread the theological separation from the presence of God (9:4; 11:10;
intent and literary strategy of the Fourth Evangel- 13:30). The symbolic significance of this night
ist. At many points in the Gospel, the narrative visit is confirmed by 3:19-21, which condemns
those who prefer darkness to light.®°
76. E.g., Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-Xil),
AB 29 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 149. 79. R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in
77. E.g,,RudolfSchnackenburg, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols. Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 34-43.
(New York: Seabury, 1982) 1:361. 80. Jouette M. Bassler, “Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth
78. Ibid., 1:381-82. Gospel,” JBL 108 (1989) 638.
548
3:2b. The dialogue is initiated by Nicodemus’s The Greek word anothen means both “from
pronouncement about Jesus’ identity in v. 20, but above” and “again,” or “anew.” This double
Jesus’ response in v. 3 shifts the initiative away _meaning is possible only in Greek; there is no
from Nicodemus. As the dialogue unfolds, Nicode- Hebrew or Aramaic word with a similar double
mus’s speech is reduced to questions (vv. 4, 9), meaning. The Johannine Jesus’ words to Nicode-
while Jesus’ speeches become progressively mus in v. 3 are unavoidably and intentionally
longer, leading finally to the discourse that begins ambiguous because of the inherent double mean-
tvecl ls ing of anothen. This double meaning causes prob-
Nicodemus’s opening words to Jesus in v. 26 lems for translators of the Greek text, because
contain three positive acknowledgments of Jesus’ there is no equivalent word with this double
identity. First, Nicodemus calls Jesus “Rabbi,” an meaning in English. Thus the ambiguity of mean-
address that acknowledges Jesus as a teacher (cf. ing is lost in English translations because they
1:38, 49). Second, Nicodemus acknowledges that privilege one meaning of anothen in the text
Jesus is a “teacher come from God.” Although (“from above,” NRSV; “again,” NIV) and relegate
“from God” is a traditional way of speaking of the second meaning to a footnote. This translation
religious figures as God’s emissaries (e.g., John the strategy communicates to the reader that the
Baptist in 1:6), that Jesus’ origin is from God is footnoted translation is a secondary definition, not
also a crucial christological affirmation in the an inherent meaning of the word. The translators
Fourth Gospel (e.g., 1:1, 18; 3:31; 6:38; 7:28-29). thus decide for the reader that one reading is
Nicodemus’s words here are like Caiaphas’s words primary and the other secondary, when the
in 11:50: The full truth is unwittingly told. Third, Fourth Evangelist intends both to be heard simul-
Nicodemus speaks to Jesus in the first-person taneously. Jesus’ expression “to be born anothen,
plural (“we know”). Nicodemus does not speak to be born from above/again” challenges Nicode-
to Jesus simply as an individual, but as a leader mus to move beyond surface meanings to a deeper
of his community. The first-person plural implies meaning. When English translations resolve the
that Nicodemus’s community shares in his posi- tension in Jesus’ words by reducing anothen to
tive acknowledgment of Jesus. one of its meanings, the challenge to Nicodemus
Nicodemus’s words are not unambiguously (and to the reader) is lost. The intentional double
positive, however, because his insights into Jesus meaning of anothen must be kept in mind when
are based on Jesus’ signs (v. 20). From 2:23-25, reading this verse in order to discern Jesus’ full
the reader knows that Jesus will not entrust meaning and the nature of Nicodemus’s misun-
himself to those whose faith is based on signs. derstanding.
Nicodemus’s confident assertion of who Jesus is “To be born anothen” speaks both of a time
(“we know ...”) is thus immediately called into of birth (“again”) and the place from which this
question by the warrants he offers for that knowl- new birth is generated (“from above”). “Kingdom
edge: Jesus’ signs. Moreover, Nicodemus assumes of God” also has both temporal and spatial dimen-
that he can explain what Jesus does through his sions. The “kingdom of God” evokes both the
preconceived categories of the possible (“no one time of God’s reign and the place of God’s realm.
is able...” v. 2). This certitude about what is “Kingdom of God” is a frequent metaphor of
and is not possible with God will be challenged eschatological newness in the synoptic Gospels
as the dialogue with Jesus unfolds. (e.g., Mark 1:15; 4:26; Luke 4:43; 13:18), but in
3:3. Jesus does not respond directly to Nicode- John it occurs only in the Nicodemus story (3:3,
mus’s acknowledgment of him. Instead, he chal- 5). The juxtaposition of “to be born anothen”
lenges Nicodemus with a teaching. Each of Jesus’ with the more traditional “kingdom of God” sug-
teachings in John 3:1-11 begins with the intro- gests that the new birth of which Jesus speaks is
ductory formula “Very truly, I tell you...” (apm also an eschatological category. The new birth of
dip éyw amen, amen lego; see wv. e Shae which Jesus speaks gives new access to God (cf.
Jesus’ teaching in v. 3 combines the traditional (Gor 16:50):
image of the kingdom of God with a new meta- 3:4. Nicodemus is oblivious to the two levels
phor, “to be born dvw8ev” (anothen). of meaning in anothen. He focuses on one mean-
549
ing of “born anothen” (“again”) and protests that sacramental enactment of Jesus’ promise of new
what Jesus calls for is physiologically impossible (v. birth. A baptismal reading of 3:5-6 thus expands
4). As in v. 2, Nicodemus’s categories of what is on the images of birth and new life already
possible intrude into the conversation. On the level contained in the text. Indeed, the Fourth Evan-
that Nicodemus understands Jesus’ words, Nicode- gelist was surely aware of the baptismal overtones
mus’s protest is correct. It is impossible for a grown for the church of the imagery in these verses.®
man to reenter his mother’s womb and be born a In v. 7, Jesus returns to his initial metaphor,
second time. Nicodemus’s protest is ironic, however, “you must be born anothen” The “you” is a
because his words are correct and incontestable on second-person plural pronoun in the Greek, so
one level, but that level stands in conflict and that Jesus’ requirement of fresh birth is now
tension with what Jesus intends by the expression addressed to the “we” of Nicodemus’s words in
“to be born anothen.” Jesus’ words speak of a vy. 2. Nicodemus resisted Jesus’ words about new
radical new birth, generated from above, but birth the first time Jesus spoke them (vv. 3-4) and,
Nicodemus’s language and imagination do not in v. 7a Jesus warns him against repeating that
stretch enough to include that offer. response.
3:5-8. Here Jesus provides a fresh set of images In v. 8, Jesus uses the image of the wind to
to move Nicodemus out of his misunderstanding. explain the birth of which he speaks. The Greek
The expression “born of water and Spirit” (v. 5) word for “wind” (tvevjia pneuma), like anothen,
interprets the phrase “to be born anothen.” For has two inherent meanings; it means both “wind”
the reader of this Gospel in the Christian commu- and “spirit” (as does the Hebrew word [nin rdah]).
nity, the reference to water and the Spirit carries Once again Jesus describes the new birth with a
with it images of baptism. The narrative also word that cannot be held to a single meaning.
includes a listener, Nicodemus, who hears these The word pneuma perfectly captures the essence
words independent of any knowledge of Christian of Jesus’ message: the wind/spirit blows where it
baptism, however. wills; human beings can detect its presence but
Jesus’ words about birth from water and Spirit cannot chart its precise movements. Jesus’ offer
are comprehensible without a baptismal referent of new birth is like the wind/spirit: a mystery
if one attends carefully to the verb for “born” (the beyond human knowledge and control.
passive of yevvdw gennao). In 3:4, Nicodemus 3:9. Nicodemus responds to Jesus’ words ex-
drew Jesus’ attention to the birthing process with actly as Jesus warned him not to, in amazement.
his words about his mother’s womb. The birth Nicodemus’s question in v. 9 is literally, “How is
that Nicodemus envisions, the exit from the it possible for these things to happen?” Once again
mother’s womb, is quite literally a birth out of his preconceptions of what is possible intrude on
water. The breaking of the waters of birth an- the conversation (cf. 3:2, 4) and prevent him from
nounces the imminent delivery of a child. In v. embracing Jesus’ words. One hears in Nicode-
5 Jesus plays on Nicodemus’s womb imagery to mus’s incredulous question an echo of Sarah’s
say that entrance into the kingdom of God will laugh in Gen 18:12. Nicodemus’s words of resis-
require a double birth: physical birth (“water”) tance are the last words he speaks in this story,
and spiritual rebirth (“Spirit”).! New life will be although he will appear twice more in John (7:50-
born from water and Spirit, no longer only from 52; 19:39-40).
water. Yet the spiritual rebirth also does not void 3:10. Jesus responds to Nicodemus’s resistance
the physical birth. Spirit and flesh are held to- with a quick and penetrating irony that charac-
gether; this is not a docetic understanding of terizes much of the dialogue in the Fourth Gospel
human existence before God (see Commentary on (v. 10). In 3:26, Nicodemus confidently asserted
6:63 also). Verse 6 supports this interpretation of his knowledge of Jesus and God (“we know... ”),
v. 5, because its terms more directly underscore and in 3:10 Jesus turns that confident assertion
the two births of v. 5.
The early church understood baptism to be the 82. See Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 1:369;
Ernst Haenchen, John, Hermenia, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984)
1:200; Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 138-39, took the words “water
81. Sandra M. Schneiders, “Born Anew [Jn 3:1-15],” TToday44 (1987) and” as evidence of an “ecclesiastical redaction,” because for Bultmann,
191-94. John has no interest in the sacraments.
550
back on Nicodemus. Neither Nicodemus’s creden- 3:12. Jesus uses the expressions “earthly
tials (Pharisee, ruler of the Jews, teacher of Israel) things” and “heavenly things” to summarize
nor his self-professed knowledge have brought the witness that has already been given and
him closer to understanding Jesus. the witness still to come (v. 12). “Earthly
3:11-21. At v. 11, the text shifts from a things” (ta é€tiyeta ta epigeia) can be understood
dialogue to a monologue. As noted earlier, the as referring to things about human beings, specifi-
phrase “very truly, | tell you” regularly introduces cally the discussion of new birth in 3:3-8, whereas
a new teaching by Jesus in John (e.g., 1:51; 3:3, “heavenly things” (ta émoupdvia ta epourania)
5; 5:24-25; 6:26) and often marks the shift from refers to things about God and Jesus to which
dialogue to monologue.*? The dialogue between Jesus has privileged access (1:18; 3:13) and that
Jesus and Nicodemus alternated between Jesus’ have not yet been revealed to Nicodemus and his
offer of new birth (vv. 3, 5-8) and Nicodemus’s community.
resistance (vv. 4, 9). The shift to the monologue 3:13. This verse establishes Jesus’ authority as
allows Jesus’ voice to silence the voice of resis- the source of “heavenly things”: “No one has
tance. Jesus’ discourse runs through v. 21 and ascended into heaven except the one who de-
divides into two parts. Verses 11-15 interpret scended from heaven, the Son of Man.” This is
Jesus’ offer of new birth through his death, res- the second time Jesus has spoken of himself as
urrection, and ascension, and vv. 16-21 focus on the “Son of Man” (see also 1:51) and both uses
the theme of judgment. of the term are associated with language of heav-
3:11-15. 3:71. Jesus begins the discourse by enly ascent and descent. The Son of Man’s privi-
speaking in the first-person plural. English trans- leged access to God is expressed in spatial terms:
lations of v. 11 mask the Greek word order. The The Son of Man moves between heaven and earth
translation “we speak of what we know” is and brings the two together.®* The emphasis in
smooth English, but the sentence literally reads, this verse is on Jesus’ descent. Jesus knows heav-
“what we know we say” (olSayev Aahodpev oida- enly things because he has descended; this con-
men laloumen). This word order is important trasts Jesus with other figures who were believed
because it means that the beginning of Jesus’ to have ascended and through their ascents re-
discourse and Nicodemus’s opening words to Je- ceived heavenly knowledge. For example, Moses
sus (v. 3) are the same: “we know....” It is went up the mountain and then descended with
possible to read Jesus’ words as a continuation of God’s Word. The writings of Philo make clear that
the irony of v. 10; Jesus parodies Nicodemus’s some Jews believed that Moses’ ascent gave him
assertion of his knowledge. special status before God.® Verse 13 underscores
The first-person plural of v. 11 has another that Jesus first descended, then ascended.
function. Jesus’ words in v. 11 are all words of Verse 13 refers to Jesus’ ascension in the past
witness: we know; we see; we speak; we testify. tense. This verse thus presupposes an event that
In its immediate context, Jesus’ “we” speaks for has not yet occurred in the Gospel narrative but
John the Baptist and the first disciples who have is a reality for the post-resurrection church. This
already borne witness to what they have seen. use of the past tense, like the disciples’ remem-
Jesus speaks for all those who have testified to bering in 2:22, makes explicit the post-resurrec-
this point in the Gospel narrative. In a broader tion perspective from which the Gospel is written.
context, however, Jesus’ “we” speaks for the By having Jesus bear witness to the ascension, the
witness of the early church. This “we” stands in Fourth Evangelist places the witness of the early
contrast to the “we” for whom Nicodemus speaks: church in the mouth of Jesus and thus accords
the synagogue. The church’s witness is contrasted that witness greater authority and continuity.
with the non-responsiveness of the synagogue 3:14. The significance of the ascension of the
(note the second-person plural “you” in v. 119).
Nicodemus and his community are representative 84. Wayne A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarian-
ism,” JBL 91 (1972) 44-72; see also Godfrey C. Nicholson, Death as
of all who do not receive the church’s witness. Departure: The Johannine Descent-Ascent Schema (Chico, Calif.: Schol-
ars Press, 1983).
83. C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: 85. E.g., Philo Life of Moses 1.150; See Peder Borgen, “Philo of
Cambridge University Press, 1953) 328. Alexandria,” in ABD 5:340.
551
Son of Man is elaborated through an OT example offer of his life through being lifted up on the
(Num 21:8-9). The key to interpreting this analogy cross makes “eternal life” (Cwnv aiuviov zoen
between Moses’ lifting up of the serpent in the aionion )possible for those who believe. “Eternal
wilderness and the ascension of the Son of Man life” is one of the dominant metaphors in the
is the verb (ixs6w Aypsoo), meaning both “lift up” Fourth Gospel to describe the change in human
and “exalt.” (The Hebrew verb xwi [nasa’| has a existence wrought by faith in Jesus (e.g., 3:36;
similar double meaning; see the pun based on this 4:14; 5:24; 6:27; 17:4). To have eternal life is to
verb in Gen 40:9-23.) Once again the Fourth live life no longer defined by blood or by the will
Evangelist asks the reader to hold two meanings of the flesh or by human will, but by God (cf.
together simultaneously (see also 3:3, 7-8). As the 1:13). “Eternal” does not mean mere endless
serpent was lifted up in the wilderness, so the duration of human existence, but is a way of
Son of Man must be lifted up on the cross. The describing life as lived in the unending presence
double meaning of hupsoo implies, however, that of God. To have eternal life is to be given life as
the physical act of lifting up is also a moment of a child of God. To speak of the newness available
exaltation. That is, it is in the crucifixion that to the believer as “eternal life” shifts eschatologi-
Jesus is exalted. John 3:14 is one of three state- cal expectations to the present. Eternal life is not
ments about the “lifting up” of the Son of Man something held in abeyance until the believer’s
in John (see also 8:28; 12:32-34). These three future, but begins in the believer’s present. The
sayings are the Johannine analogue to the three focus on the crucifixion in 3:13-15 provides the
passion predictions in the synoptic Gospels (Mark key to interpreting Jesus’ earlier metaphors of new
8:399:31e410:33-34s-and par:}. birth and the kingdom of God. The offer of new
The overlap of crucifixion and exaltation con- life, “to be born anothen,” has only one source—
veyed by v. 14 is crucial to Johannine soteriology, Jesus’ offer of his own life. The cross thus makes
because the Fourth Evangelist understands Jesus’ sense of the double meaning of anothen: To be
crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension as one born from above is to be born again through the
continuous event. Verse 14 also contains a key to lifting up of Jesus on the cross.
the theological grounding of the Evangelist’s at- 3:16-21. Verse 16 provides the link between
traction to irony; the cross as humiliation is actu- the two parts of the discourse. It sums up vv.
ally exaltation. This will become especially clear 14-15 by reiterating the salvific dimensions of
in the crucifixion narrative of John 18-19. The Jesus’ death, but moves the argument forward
Fourth Gospel is often criticized for having an with its reference to God’s love. God gave Jesus
inadequate theology of the cross, but such criti- to the world because God loves the world.
cism misconstrues the Johannine treatment of the The verb translated “give” (8SiSwp didomi) is
crucifixion. As v. 14 makes clear, there is no regularly used in the Fourth Gospel to describe
exaltation apart from the crucifixion for John. God as the source of what Jesus offers the world
The overlap of crucifixion/exaltation also pro- (3:35; 5:22, 26, 36). John 3:16 is the only place
vides the context for interpreting the role of the in the Fourth Gospel that says God “gave” his
ascent/descent language in v. 13 (and 1:51) and Son to the world; the more common expression
the Fourth Evangelist’s use of the title “Son of Man.” is that God “sent” Jesus, as in 3:17. (Two Greek
The Fourth Evangelist appropriates the traditional verbs meaning “to send” [méumw pempo] and
apocalyptic figure of the Son of Man (cf. Dan. 7:13) [atooT€Aw apostello| are used interchangeably;
and invests it with his christological perspective. see 3:17; 4:34; 5:23-24, 30; 36-37; 6:38.) To
Ascent/descent language thus speaks of Jesus’ rela- “send” Jesus is more clearly associated with God’s
tionship to God and to the world. The Son of Man’s will for the world, whereas didomi seems to be
ascent to heaven is salvific, because he is the one used in 3:16 to underscore that the incarnation
who has descended from heaven, the very one derives from God’s love for the world as well as
whom the Prologue celebrates. from God’s will.
3:15. This verse makes explicit the salvific dimen- “World” (kéoj0s kosmos) in John refers most
sion of the crucifixion. (The lifting up of the serpent often to those human beings who are at odds with
in Num 21:8-9 also has a salvific dimension.) Jesus’ Jesus and God (1:10; 7:7; 15:18-19). The use of
gaz
the term here suggests that God gives Jesus in sion of faith or unbelief it becomes apparent what
love to all people, but only believers accept the [a person] really is and... always was. But it is
gift. Verse 16 also reiterates the theme of eternal revealed in such a way that the decision is made
life from v. 15, but advances the argument by only now.”®” Christology and anthropology are thus
naming the alternative to eternal life: to perish. inseparably linked in the Fourth Gospel. Who people
This verse makes clear that there is no middle are is determined by their response to Jesus. These
ground in the Johannine vision. God’s gift of Jesus, verses provide a telling conclusion to the Nicodemus
which culminates in Jesus’ death, resurrection, narrative. Nicodemus did not believe (3:12); there-
and ascension, decisively alters the options avail- fore, he remains in the darkness. He came to Jesus
able to the world. If one believes, one’s present at night and will stay in the night.
is altered by the gift of eternal life; if one does The Fourth Gospel does include traditional
not believe, one perishes. understandings of eschatology and the final
God’s gift of Jesus to the world begins the judgment judgment (5:28-29), but judgment and eternal
of the world. Verses 17-21 explain this judgment and life as present tense are at the theological heart
exemplify what is known as John’s “realized escha- of this Gospel. It is crucial for the Fourth Evan-
tology.” To speak of realized eschatology means that gelist that God’s judgment of the world arises
God’s judgment of the world is not a cosmic future precisely out of God’s love for the world. When
event but is underway in the present, initiated by
God sent Jesus into the world, God presented
Jesus’ coming into the world. God sends the Son into
the world with a critical moment of decision.
the world in love in order to save the world, not
God sent Jesus to save the world, but each
condemn it (v. 17). Yet the very presence of Jesus as
person must decide whether to accept that offer
incarnate Word in the world confronts the world with
of salvation. The world will thereby judge itself
a decision, to believe or not to believe, and making
in its response to Jesus. Decision and self-judg-
that decision is the moment of judgment. If one
ment define Johannine eschatology. As Bult-
believes, one is saved; if one does not believe, one
mann has written eloquently, the Fourth Gospel
condemns oneself unwittingly (v. 18).
expresses “a radical understanding of Jesus’ ap-
Verses 19-21 portray this intricate balance be-
pearance as the eschatological event. This event
tween judgment and decision in the metaphorical
puts an end to the old course of the world. As
language of light and darkness. This language
from now on there are- only believers and un-
recalls the language and imagery of the Prologue
believers, so that there are also now only saved
(1:5, 9-10). To love darkness more than light is
the same as not believing, and it results in judg- and lost, those who have life and those who
ment (v. 19). The way a person acts in the are in death. This is because the event is
presence of the light is the defining mark of a grounded in the love of God, that love which
person’s identity. Whether someone is good or gives life to faith, but which must become
evil is revealed solely by the decision he or she judgment in the face of unbelief.”°°
makes in the encounter with Jesus (vv. 20-21);°° 87. Rudolf Bultmann, Zhe Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G.
it is not predetermined in advance. “In the deci- R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1971) 159.
86. See Haenchen, John, 1:205. 88. Ibid., 155.
REFLECTIONS
John 3:1-21 is a rich text, characterized by word play, misunderstanding, and irony in the
dialogue of vv. 2-10 and by explicit theological reflection in the discourse of vv. 11-21. The
very richness of the text complicates the task of the interpreter. There is a temptation to pare
(a Jewish
down John 3:1-21 to its “basic” elements—that is, either to summarize its story line
faith and
religious authority comes to question Jesus) or its lesson (Jesus teaches about
of
judgment). Such summaries are easier to handle than the intricate dialogue and discourse
present for the preacher who is asked to present this
the text. This temptation is especially
rich text to a congregation in a limited amount of time. The interpreter needs to resist the
temptation to distill this text to its essence or paraphrase its substance, however, because to
do so does violence to the Johannine way of storytelling and risks losing the text’s proclamation
of the good news.
One of the distinctive characteristics of the Fourth Gospel narratives is that they forbid
reduction. In these stories, in which action, dialogue, and discourse are closely intertwined,
no one element stands in isolation. Rather, each element contributes to the narrative dynamic.
This narrative dynamic involves the reader in an active process of reading and interpreting, as
the reader is drawn into the conversations Jesus has with Gospel characters and tries to discover
the meaning of Jesus’ words. These narratives are constructed so that readers are led to their
own encounters with Jesus through the words of the Gospel text (cf. 20:30-31). How John
tells his story is thus an inseparable part of what he tells, because the narrative enables the
reader to experience Jesus.”
In interpreting John 3:1-21, then, it is not enough to say on the basis of the discourse in
vv. 11-21, for example, that this text is about faith, decision, and judgment, because that way
of interpreting diminishes the full impact of the text. One needs the preceding dialogue, with
Nicodemus’s misunderstanding and Jesus’ repeated offer of new images, to understand what
the words of vv. 11-21 are really saying. The interpreter must attend to how John tells this
story of Jesus and Nicodemus, how he moves the reader through the give and take between
the two characters and thus affords the reader the chance to understand what Nicodemus can
only misunderstand. Because the reader has participated in the dialogue between Jesus and
Nicodemus, the words in vv. 11-21 are heard with more immediacy. Moreover, the reader
has read the Prologue and attended to the witness of John, so that he or she has a wider
theological context in which to place those words..
The interpreter, therefore, must allow the narrative dynamics of John 3:1-21 to shape an
interpretation of the text. This mode of interpretation runs counter to some conventional
appropriations of biblical texts and can be unsettling to the interpreter, because the interpreter
must allow himself or herself to be reshaped by what the text says and does rather than
reshaping the text to fit the interpreter’s needs or preconceptions. This unsettling, however,
mirrors what Jesus asks of Nicodemus in the story, because Jesus asks Nicodemus to let go of
what he knows (3:24) in order to be reborn through what Jesus has to offer (3:3, 5-8).
The use of the phrase “born again” in contemporary North American Christianity is
instructive in this regard. This expression, which derives from Jesus’ use of dvw0ev andthen
in 3:3 and 7, has become a slogan and rallying cry for an entire segment of contemporary
Christian experience.” Indeed, the validity of a person’s faith is frequently judged by whether
one has been “born again.” Born-again Christianity also exerts significant influence on
discussions of politics and religion in North American culture. Yet this use of the expression
occurs in isolation from its context in John 3 and with no attention to the complexities of the
word anothen. Rather, anothen is flattened to have only one meaning, roughly equivalent to
an individual’s private moment of conversion.
Such contemporary Christians thus repeat the same mistake Nicodemus made: understanding
the word anothen on only one level. Nicodemus misunderstood the double dimensions of “born
again” and “born from above” and so focused on physical rebirth. The priority given to “born again”
in contemporary usage of John 3:3 and 7 also misunderstands the interrelationship of “born again”
and “born from above” in Jesus’ words. To interpret ano then as describing spiritual rebirth through
personal conversion can disregard the decisive christological dimension of anothen: birth from
89. See Gail R. O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986);:7he Word
Disclosed: John’s Story and Narrative Preaching (St. Louis: CBP, 1987) 16-28.
90. See Eric Gritsch, Born Againism: Perspectives on a Movement (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); Gail R. O’Day, “New Birth as a New
People: Spirituality and Community in the Fourth Gospel,” Word and World VIII (1988) 53-61.
554
above through the lifting up of Jesus on the cross (3:15). Contemporary usage of “born again”
privileges anthropology over christology. That is, it emphasizes personal change more than the
external source of that change: the cross. In Jesus’ words in chap. 3, anthropology and
christology are held in a delicate balance. That is, one cannot know the meaning of human
life without grounding it in the reality of Jesus’ life and the corporate dimension of that life.
The irony of Nicodemus’s response to Jesus’ words is unwittingly operative whenever the
church operates out of a single-level interpretation of anothen.
By codifying the expression “born again” and turning it into a slogan, interpreters risk losing
the powerful offer of new life contained in Jesus’ words. Nicodemus and the reader are intended
to struggle with the expression “born anothen” in order to discern what kind of new birth is
at the same time birth from above. In that struggle of interpretation, the reader is called to
listen to all of Jesus’ words in this text, not just a few of them. As the reader moves with
Nicodemus and Jesus through this dialogue and into the discourse, a fresh and fuller
understanding of “born anothen” emerges. “Born anothen” is complicated to interpret because
its language and its promise transcend conventional categories. It envisions a new mode of life
for which there are no precedents, life born of water and the Spirit, life regenerated through
the cross of Jesus. If interpreters turn “born again” into a slogan, they domesticate the radical
newness of Jesus’ words and diminish the good news.
The challenge to interpreters of John 3:1-21, then, is to approach this text openly, not
convinced that they already know what the text is about and what its words mean. If
interpreters approach the Jesus of this text as Nicodemus approached him, confidently asserting
what “we know...” (3:2), they may find, as Nicodemus did, that their certitudes and
assumptions stand in the way of the full experience of Jesus this text offers. The Fourth
Evangelist invites interpreters to allow the words of this text to play on them. This is a
demanding invitation, because if accepted, it means that the interpreter must be willing to be
changed by this text, to welcome new life on the terms offered by Jesus in this text. Belief
in Jesus (3:16, 18) changes one’s life so that one can, indeed, speak of being “born again,”
not because of an intrinsic change in human nature, but because of the new beginning that
comes with a recognition of the full character of God that is revealed in Jesus. To believe in
Jesus is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that God loved the world so much that
God gave the Son as a gift. The God revealed in Jesus is a God whose love knows no bounds
and who asks only that one receive the gift. If one receives the gift, one receives eternal life,
because one’s life is reshaped and redefined by the love of God in Jesus. The words about
judgment with which the text concludes (3:17-21) underscore the seriousness of God’s offer.
The seriousness of this text’s invitation was grasped by African American slaves. Nicodemus’s
nighttime visit to Jesus offered an important biblical precedent for their own worship gatherings.
Slaves were allowed to participate in formal Christian worship only at their masters’ discretion,
they were not allowed to have their own worship and rarely were allowed access to the Bible.
Therefore, they held clandestine religious gatherings at night, a practice that continued after
emancipation. The slaves saw in Nicodemus’s night visit proof that it was possible to come to
Jesus even when those in power forbade it.’ Nicodemus was a model, someone who was
willing to act on his own against the will of the authorities. The slaves’ faith surpassed that
of Nicodemus. Nicodemus’s night visit was only exploratory, and in this story in John 3, he
does not understand the invitation Jesus extends to him. The slaves, by contrast, understood
and embraced what Jesus had to offer. They were willing to risk their safety and their very
lives to come to Jesus. The slaves are a powerful example of those who “come to the light,
so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God” (3:21).
J
i i
i of the importance i
of Nicodemus i
for African i
American religion introductory essay and
i Henry Ossawa Tanner, introdu
igion in
91. See the discussion
by Dewey F. Mosby; catalogue entries by Dewey F. Mosby and Darrell Sewell (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Art Museum,
catalogue chapters Jesus (1899).
Nicodemus Visiting
1991) 168-71. Henry O. Tanner painted a work that depicts the night visit between Jesus and Nicodemus,
$55
JOHN 3:22-4:3
JOHN 3:22-4:3, JOHN’S FINAL TESTIMONY
NIV NRSV
“2After this, Jesus and his disciples went out 22After this Jesus and his disciples went into
into the Judean countryside, where he spent some the Judean countryside, and he spent some time
time with them, and baptized. **Now John also there with them and baptized. John also was
was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there baptizing at Aenon near Salim because water was
was plenty of water, and people were constantly abundant there; and people kept coming and were
coming to be baptized. (This was before John being baptized **—John, of course, had not yet
was put in prison.) *An argument developed been thrown into prison.
between some:of John’s disciples and a certain 25Now a discussion about purification arose
Jew? over the matter of ceremonial washing. between John’s disciples and a Jew.? They came
2eThey came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that to John and said to him, “Rabbi, the one who
man who was with you on the other side of the was with you across the Jordan, to whom you
Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is testified, here he is baptizing, and all are going to
baptizing, and everyone is going to him.” him.” ”7John answered, “No one can receive any-
27To this John replied, “A man can receive only ‘thing except what has been given from heaven.
what is given him from heaven. *8You yourselves 78You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, ‘I
can testify that I said, ‘Il am not the Christ’ but am not the Messiah,’ but I have been sent ahead
am sent ahead of him.’ °The bride belongs to the of him.’ ??He who has the bride is the bridegroom.
bridegroom. The friend who attends the bride-
The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and
groom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy
hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s
when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy
voice. For this reason my joy has been fulfilled.
is mine, and it is now complete. *°He must
He must increase, but I must decrease.”°
become greater; I must become less.
31The one who comes from above is above all;
31“The one who comes from above is above all;
the one who is of the earth belongs to the earth
the one who is from the earth belongs to the
and speaks about earthly things. The one who
earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one
comes from heaven is above all. °*He testifies to
who comes from heaven is above all. *?He testifies
to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts what he has seen and heard, yet no one accepts
his testimony. “The man who has accepted it has his testimony. **Whoever has accepted his testi-
certified that God is truthful. **For the one whom mony has certified? this, that God is true. *4He
God has sent speaks the words of God, for God¢ whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for
gives the Spirit without limit. The Father loves he gives the Spirit without measure. **The Father
the Son and has placed everything in his hands. loves the Son and has placed all things in his
s°Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but hands. °°Whoever believes in the Son has eternal
whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life,
wrath remains on him.”¢ but must endure God’s wrath.
The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining A Now when Jesus? learned that the Pharisees
and baptizing more disciples than John, had heard, “Jesus is making and baptizing
7although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, more disciples than John” *— although it was not
but his disciples. “When the Lord learned of this, Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized— *he
he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee. left Judea and started back to Galilee.
425 Some manuscripts and certain Jews 28 Or Messiah 34 Greek @QOther ancient authorities read the Jews 6Or the Christ
he 436 Some interpreters end the quotation after verse 30. Some interpreters hold that the quotation continues through verse
36 4Gk set a seal to e Other ancient authorities read the
Lord
556
JOHN 3:22—4:3 COMMENTARY
COMMENTARY
In John 3:22-4:3, John the Baptist makes his but that interpretation, too, reads in more than
final appearance in the Fourth Gospel. After John’s the text supplies. The most that can be said
initial testimony (1:19-34), Jesus’ ministry among confidently about this problematic verse is that it
“his own” (1:11) began. He called his first disci- provides the pretext for the disciples’ complaint
ples (1:35-51), performed his first miracle (2:1- nav, 26,
11), and had his first confrontations with official 3:26. John’s disciples’ address, “Rabbi,” indi-
Judaism (2:13-3:21). At 3:22, Jesus withdraws cates their respect for him as a teacher. Their
into the Judean countryside and will move next words to John fall into two parts. First, they
to the boundaries of Judaism (the Samaritan remind John of his earlier witness (v. 26a; see
woman, 4:4-42). Before Jesus’ ministry expands, 1:19-34). Moreover, the disciples’ recollection of
however, John the Baptist will give his final wit- John’s testimony reminds the reader of 1:35-37,
ness. Jesus’ first ministry among “his own” is thus in which John witnesses to Jesus in the presence
framed by the witness of John (1:19-34; 3:22-36). of his disciples. Second, the disciples’ complaint
3:22-30. 3:22-24. In this passage, John to John about the success of Jesus’ ministry (v.
claims that the ministries of Jesus and John over- 260) points to a rivalry between the followers of
lapped. The narrator’s aside in v. 24 about John’s the two men, a rivalry that may have continued
arrest makes certain that the reader sees that the into the Evangelist’s time (see Acts 19:1-7).
ministries of John and Jesus take place concur- 3:27-30. John employs three different strate-
rently. These parallel ministries provide the con- gies in answering his disciples’ complaint. First,
text for the complaint of John’s disciples (v. 26) he uses an aphorism (v. 27) to correct their
and John’s renewed witness (vv. 27-30). reading of the situation. This aphorism is another
3:25. A disagreement between a “Jew” and instance of words with a double meaning. As is
John’s disciples about purification precedes their typical of proverbial language, John’s words offer
complaint about Jesus. Verse 25 is awkward, a general truth rather than a truth specific to his
because both its meaning and its relationship to disciples’ complaint. That general truth is that a
the rest of the story are unclear. The substance person can receive only what God gives to him
of the disagreement about purification is never or her. Yet this general truth also contains a truth
specified, nor is it even alluded to in the disciples’ specific to Jesus. A central theme throughout the
complaint to John (v. 26). Since “purification” can Fourth Gospel is that those who come to Jesus
refer to Jewish ceremonial washing (cf. 2:6; note are given him by God (6:39; 10:29; 17:9, 24),
the NIV translation), the disagreement may have that what Jesus has is a gift from God (3:35; 17:2,
been triggered by the baptisms of Jesus and John, 11).
but the text does not make that clear. Nor does Second, John turns the disciples’ mention of his
the text make clear the identity of the “Jew.” testimony back on them (v. 28); John himself
Some manuscripts read “the Jews” here (see the testified that he was secondary to the Messiah.
NIV and NRSV footnotes), perhaps in an attempt John’s words in v. 28 are not a verbatim repeti-
to harmonize with John’s use of “the Jews” else- tion, but a composite of many of his words in
where in the Gospel, but that emendation does chap. 1 (1:20, 30, 36; cf. 1:6). John thus reminds
not clarify the verse. The awkwardness of the his disciples that his own witness has anticipated
expression “the Jew” has led to the suggestion the success of Jesus’ ministry. Moreover, the
that “Jew” is a textual corruption of “Jesus,” and reader too is put in the position of a witness;
while that suggestion makes the best sense of the recalling the earlier words of John, one can testify
verse, there is no manuscript support for it.°? The that what John now says about himself and his
“Jew” may be a follower of Jesus, since John’s earlier witness is true.
disciples complain about Jesus and his followers, Third, John tells his disciples a parable (v. 29),
thereby confirming his role as “rabbi.” The parable
92. See the discussion in C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St.
John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 221. of the bridegroom and his friend illustrates how
So?
one person can rejoice at someone else’s joy. The orientation of these verses have led scholars to
friend of the bridegroom occupies an important debate whose voice is speaking. Some interpret
position at a Jewish wedding; he takes care of all vv. 31-36 as the final witness of John the Baptist,”?
the nuptial arrangements. Yet despite his promi- but other scholars maintain that these verses are
nence, the friend is always a secondary figure, either a displaced discourse of Jesus’ or the
because it is the bridegroom who is getting mar- Evangelist’s commentary.” The NRSV presents
ried, not the friend. It is not clear to what the this section as the Evangelist’s commentary and
parable refers when it speaks of the friend’s hear- thus does not place vv. 31-36 in quotation marks,
ing the bridegroom’s voice; perhaps it means that whereas the NIV punctuates vv. 31-36 as the
the friend rejoices when he hears the bridegroom words of John the Baptist.
speak with the bride. The NIV attempts to clarify Verses 31-36 may have originated as an inde-
the meaning of the parable by supplying the verb pendent piece of theological reflection, but they
“wait,” for which there is no equivalent in the are positioned in the narrative to serve as John’s
Greek text. In v. 296, John draws an explicit final witness. As was noted in the discussion of
lesson from the parable; like the friend, he is 3:16-21, the characters in the Fourth Gospel and
delighted with the greater response to Jesus. the Evangelist’s commentaries often share acom-
While the primary purpose of the parable in v. mon voice. In chap. 1, John the Baptist’s witness
29 is to provide an illustration of shared joy, the sounds more like the early church’s witness (e.g.,
parable also works on a second, symbolic level. 1:15, 30) than the words of a first-century Jewish
In the OT, Israel is presented as the bride of God itinerant prophet and reflects the Fourth Evangel-
(Isa 61:10; Jer 2:2; Hosea 1-2); the use of bridal ist’s understanding of the function of John the
imagery here has potential christological implica- Baptist. John is the model witness, the unfailing
tions as well. The parable can be read as raising herald of the truth about Jesus, and John’s witness
the possibility of Jesus as the bridegroom of God’s stretches from his own time to the church’s time.
people. It is critical, therefore, to the portrait of John
In v. 30, John the Baptist builds on the three the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel that vv. 31-36
strategies of vv. 27-29 and offers his definitive be read as his final witness. John’s purpose is to
response to the disciples’ complaint: “He must bear witness to the light (1:7), and before he
increase, but I must decrease” (cf. Matt 11:11; disappears from the narrative completely, he is
Luke 7:28). What the disciples complain about given one final witness to speak. This witness
is in reality part of God’s plan (“must” [8et dei]). draws out the theological implications of all that
From the very beginning John has testified that John has said in 1:19-34 and 3:27-30, but it also
Jesus is greater than he is (1:27, 30), that John’s offers theological reflection on the early events of
ministry of baptism was for the purpose of reveal- Jesus’ ministry. It is appropriate that John should
ing Jesus to Israel (1:31). The overlapping minis- be the voice (1:23) of this theological witness,
tries of Jesus and John (3:22-24, 26) provide a since he has been the principal interpreter of Jesus
concrete example of the truth to which John has to this point in the Gospel narrative. John ap-
testified from the beginning: John is not the light; peared on the scene, proclaiming Jesus as the
Jesus is the light (1:8-9). Jesus’ success is not an redeemer of the world’s sin (1:29), and he will
occasion for complaint but a reason for joy (v. exit proclaiming Jesus as the source of eternal life
29a), because the ascendancy of Jesus’ ministry (3:36).
marks the completion of John’s work (v. 290). 3:31-32. John’s witness in vv. 31-36 contains
3:31-36. Verse 30 has another function: It also two major subjects. First, vv. 31-32 continue the
serves as the introduction to John’s final witness ‘comparison of Jesus and John begun in 3:26-30.
to Jesus in vv. 31-36. Verses 31-36 resonate with
93. Ernst Haenchen, John, Hermenia, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress,
Johannine subjects and characteristic expressions: 1984) 210; and Barrett, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 219.
Jesus’ heavenly origins, the relationship between 94. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), AB 29
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 159-60; Rudolf Schnackenburg,
Jesus and God, faith and eternal life. As in vv. The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982)
16-21 (see Commentary above}, the distinctive 1:361, 380-92; Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 160.
95. See M. J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Jean (Paris: Gabalda,
Johannine flavor and more general theological 1948); theories also involve displacement.
558
Their relationship is presented in spatial catego- at issue in faith in Jesus is the very character of
ries: The one who comes “from above” is Jesus; God. In 1:18, the Fourth Evangelist identified
the one who is “from the earth” is John (v. 31). Jesus as the one who makes God known, and v.
In the Fourth Gospel, “earth” and “world” are 33 suggests that whoever accepts Jesus’ testimony
not synonymous. “World” (K6opos kosmos) usu- shares in that affirmation.
ally depicts the sphere of human enmity to God 3:34-35. These verses provide three reasons
(e.g., 15:18-19), and “earth” (yA ge) is used as a why the character of God is revealed in Jesus’
spatial contrast to heaven. John the Baptist cites testimony. First (v. 34a), Jesus reveals the truth
Jesus’ heavenly origin as proof of Jesus’ superiority about God because he is sent by God (cf. 4:34;
over him. Recognition of Jesus’ heavenly origin is 5:24, 30; 12:45) and speaks God’s words (cf.
a central theme in the Fourth Gospel (3:13; 14:10, 24; 17:8, 14). Second (v. 346), Jesus has
16:28). Unless one knows that Jesus is from God, received the full gift of the Spirit of God. The
one cannot fully grasp Jesus’ identity (see 8:14; subject of v. 340 is ambiguous in the Greek text,
9:29-31). The spatial categories in v. 31 recall the so that one could read either God or Jesus as the
Nicodemus discourse (3:12), as does the use of giver of the Spirit.” Ancient scribes attempted to
“from above” (avw8ev anothen; see also 3:3, 7). resolve the ambiguity by supplying “God” as the
The spatial categories make clear that anothen is subject in some manuscripts, and the context of
used in v. 31 to mean “from above.” Jesus’ v. 340 supports the scribes’ interpretation. Verses
superiority over John is also evident in their 34-35 focus on what God has given Jesus, not on
words. John can only speak of earthly things (v. what Jesus gives. Moreover, God’s gift of the
31), but Jesus, who is from heaven, testifies to Spirit to Jesus was confirmed in John the Baptist’s
everything he has seen and heard (v. 32a cf. account of the descent of the Spirit at Jesus’
3:11-13). Jesus’ heavenly origin is the source and baptism (1:33). Third (v. 35), Jesus’ relationship
guarantee of all that he says. with God guarantees the validity of his witness
In v. 320, John’s witness shifts to its second about God (cf. 3:27; 13:3). Verse 35 is the first
subject: the acceptance or rejection of Jesus’ tes- mention of the Father’s love of the Son. This love
timony. Verse 325 makes the sweeping statement, will receive more attention as the Gospel proceeds
“no one accepts his testimony,” directly contra- (Exe oe 20. LO: D/ val oa |.
dicting v. 26 (“all are going to him”). Verses 26 3:36. John concludes his witness with an
and 325 must be understood as serving quite explicit statement of the consequences of
distinct purposes.*° Verse 26 stresses Jesus’ popu- believing or not believing (see also vv. 15-
larity in order to anticipate his increase and John’s 16). The polarity of “believe”/“disobey”
decrease. Verse 320 stresses Jesus’ rejection in (mioTevw pisteud/aTe.béw apeitheo) is unusual
order to illustrate the Christian faith community’s (cf. 3:18, where the alternatives are “believe” or
struggle with those who do not accept Jesus’ “not believe”). This is the only occurrence of
witness (cf. 1:10-11). This struggle received nar- “disobey” in John, the Synoptics, or the Johannine
rative embodiment in the story of Nicodemus epistles. Its usage here suggests that unbelief is an
(3:1-21). Verse 326 overstates the rejection in act of will, of refusing Jesus’ claims, a concept in
order to emphasize the seriousness of the struggle. keeping with the language of acceptance of vv.
3:33. This verse confirms that the absolute 32-33. The NIV translates apeitheo as “reject,”
negative of v. 320 is hyperbole, because this verse and while that rendering may accurately capture
assumes that someone accepts Jesus. The language the sense of the word here, it strains the Greek.
of v. 33 communicates the importance of accept- The alternative to “eternal life” in v. 36 is also
ing Jesus’ testimony. First, the verb “has certified” (lit., unusual: “God’s wrath” (j dpyn Tov 8eov he orge
“to set one’s seal to” [odpayiCw sphragizo|) sug tou theou). This expression, like “disobey,” occurs
gests the formal, binding dimension of accepting only here in John and is rare in the Synoptics.
Jesus. Second, when one accepts Jesus’ testi- 97. For God as the giver of the Spirit, see Barrett, The Gospel
mony, one certifies that “God is true.” What is According to St. John, 226; Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 164; for
Jesus as the giver of the Spirit, see Brown, The Gospel According to
96. Haenchen, John, 1:211. John (I-X11), 161-62.
559
It serves as an analogue to the language of “per- in the Gospel. It disrupts the grammar of wv. |
ish” and “condemnation” in John 3:16-18. Inter- and 3 (which are one sentence in the Greek) and
estingly, in three out of its five Gospel directly contradicts the substance of 3:22, 26; 4:1.
occurrences, “God’s wrath” is found in the mouth The NIV attempts to circumvent the awkwardness
of John the Baptist (Matt 3:7; Luke 3:7; John of v. 2 by rearranging the syntax of 4:1-3 (cf. the
3:36). John the Baptist’s final words in the Fourth NRSV, which reflects the syntax of the Greek text),
Gospel reflect distinctive Johannine theological but such a rearrangement conceals the parentheti-
concerns, but they also convey a note of judgment cal nature of v. 2. Brown sees v. 2 as indisputable
that is consistent with the portrait of John the proof that several hands were responsible for the
Baptist found elsewhere in the NT. final form of the Fourth Gospel;?® indeed, C. H.
4:1-3. These verses provide a postscript to Dodd writes that v. 2 “ruins the sentence, and
John’s final witness. Verse | reiterates that Jesus’ perhaps has better claim to be regarded as an
ministry is more successful than John’s (cf. 3:26), ‘editorial note’ by a ‘redactor’ than anything else
but this success now implies conflict and tension in the gospel except the colophon xxi.24-25.””
with the Pharisees (cf. the Pharisees’ careful in- The presence of v. 2 in the text can be explained
terrogation of John the Baptist in 1:24-27). The only as the correction of a later editor who feared
specific danger posed by the Pharisees’ knowledge that the evidence that Jesus himself baptized dis-
of Jesus’ success is not named, nor is it clear how ciples would support claims that Jesus was an
a change in location removes Jesus from that imitator of John the Baptist (see 1:29-34).
danger (v. 3). Nonetheless, vv. 1 and 3 do antici-
pate the intensifying conflict and tension between 98. Brown, Zhe Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 164.
99: C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:
Jesus and the Jewish religious establishment. Cambridge University Press, 1953) 311.
John 4:2 is perhaps the most awkward verse
REFLECTIONS
John the Baptist’s joy at Jesus’ success (3:29), even though that success marks the completion
of John’s work, reminds the reader that the success of the gospel takes precedence over the
acclamation and acknowledgment of one’s own ministry. The attitude of John’s disciples
(3:25-26) reflects the ministerial competition and turf battles that are commonplace in
contemporary life, both in and out of the church. When others begin to contribute to effective
ministries, it is often of overwhelming importance to those who first envisioned the particular
ministry to remind “latecomers” of the program’s roots and to continue to exercise control.
Political leaders from the local to the global level jockey for position to receive credit for
successful initiatives. John’s disciples wanted him to reclaim his rightful spot, to disclaim Jesus
as an interloper into his ministry of baptism, but John would have none of it. John did not
need the credit; he did not want continuing acclamation; and he did not want to compete
with Jesus. John’s joy was complete because his ministry had revealed God’s chosen one to
Israel (1:31).
John’s ministry thus ends on an odd note of triumph, a triumph marked by John’s decrease
and superfluity (3:30). John functioned as a midwife to Jesus’ ministry, bearing witness to who
Jesus was, opening people’s eyes to Jesus’ presence in their midst. Once Jesus’ ‘ministry had
been born, John had no function. His witness was replaced by Jesus’ own witness (3:32), and
John rejoiced. It is often difficult for those who are engaged in the church’s ministries to do
what John did, to allow their witness to have a life of its own, to celebrate the success of
their witness as a sign of the success of the gospel, not of their own success (cf. 1 Cor 9:15-18).
John is a model disciple, because he was able to let go of his ministry for the sake of the
gospel.
John is also a model disciple for the Fourth Evangelist because the content of his witness
560
JOHN 3:22-4:3 REFLECTIONS
looks beyond itself to the witness of Jesus. John 3:31-36 marks a shift in emphasis in John’s
preaching from witness proclaimed to witness received. As John departs the scene, he confronts
those who hear him with the responsibility of making their own decisions. John and Jesus
have borne witness, but neither can guarantee that his witness will be accepted. Acceptance
cannot be coerced, but each person who hears Jesus must decide whether to believe. In 3:36,
John the Baptist delineated the consequences of this choice: eternal life or the enduring wrath
of God. As in 3:15-21, there is no room for equivocation; the life of faith is all or nothing in
the Fourth Gospel. When one accepts Jesus’ testimony, one enters unqualifiedly into eternal
life. When one disobeys, one endures God’s wrath.
The absolute language of 3:36 conveys the seriousness of the faith decision—everything is
at issue; everything is at stake. While these absolutes may at first glance seem oppressive, in
reality they are ultimately liberating. Once one declares acceptance of Jesus’ testimony and
hence reveals who one is (cf. 3:20-21), then one is set free to live one’s life reconstituted
(“reborn,” 3:3, 7) through the grace of God in Jesus. When one certifies that God is truth
(3:33), the possibilities for life are limitless.
John’s final witness bears the marks of his joyous celebration (3:29) as he proclaims the
gifts of God available in Jesus (3:34-35) and the promise of new life Jesus offers to all
(3:36). There is nothing subtle about John’s final witness, but there was no subtlety to his
earlier testimony either. John preaches with an urgency that recognizes the importance of
accepting Jesus now, of making the decision that will lead to new life. The urgency of
John’s witness has not diminished over time; the moment of decision is as critical for
modern Christians as it was for those who came to John in the wilderness. From first (1:9)
to last (3:36), John is the voice of witness, calling those who hear to recognize Jesus and
accept his testimony.
JOHN 4:4-42, JESUS IN SAMARIA

NIV NRSV
4Now he had to go through Samaria. °So he 4But he had to go through Samaria. °So he came
came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near to a Samaritan city called Sychar, near the plot of
the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph.
Joseph. ‘Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired out by
as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. his journey, was sitting by the well. It was about
It was about the sixth hour. noon.
7A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and
7When a Samaritan woman came to draw
Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.” °(His disci-
water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a
ples had gone to the city to buy food.) °The
drink?” ®(His disciples had gone into the town to
Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that
buy food.)
you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of
°The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are Samaria?” (Jews do not share things in common
a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can with Samaritans.)? ‘Jesus answered her, “If you
you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying
associate with Samaritans.*) to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked
10Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of him, and he would have given you living water.”
God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you The woman said to him, “Sir, you have no bucket,
aQOther ancient authorities lack this sentence

29 Or do not use dishes Samaritans have used
561
__JOHN 4:4-42
NRSV
would have asked him and he would have given and the well is deep. Where do you get that living
you living water.” water? '2Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob,
“Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to who gave us the well, and with his sons and his
draw with and the well is deep. Where can you flocks drank from it?” 'Jesus said to her, “Everyone
get this living water? '*Are you greater than our who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but
father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank those who drink of the water that I will give them
from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will
and herds?” become in them a spring of water gushing up to
'SJesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this eternal life.” ‘The woman said to him, “Sir, give
water will be thirsty again, ‘but whoever drinks me this water, so that I may never be thirsty or
the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the have to keep coming here to draw water.”
water I give him will become in him a spring of l6Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband,
water welling up to eternal life.” and come back.” !7The woman answered him, “I
'SThe woman said to him, “Sir, give me this have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are
water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; '*for you
coming here to draw water.” have had five husbands, and the one you have
'oHe told her, “Go, call your husband and come now is not your husband. What you have said is
back.” true!” !°9The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that
'7“7 have no husband,” she replied. you are a prophet. ?°Our ancestors worshiped on
Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say this mountain, but you? say that the place where
you have no husband. '*The fact is, you have had people must worship is in Jerusalem.” 7'Jesus said
five husbands, and the man you now have is not to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming
your husband. What you have just said is quite when: you will worship the Father neither on this
trues” mountain nor in Jerusalem. ??You worship what
lo“Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you you do not know; we worship what we know,
are a prophet. ?°Our fathers worshiped on this for salvation is from the Jews. ?*But the hour is
mountain, but you Jews claim that the place coming, and is now here, when the true worship-
where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” ers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for
\Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time the Father seeks such as these to worship him.
is coming when you will worship the Father 4God is spirit, and those who worship him must
neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. ??You worship in spirit and truth.” The woman said to
Samaritans worship what you do not know; we him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is
worship what we do know, for salvation is from called Christ). “When he comes, he will proclaim
the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now all things to us.” Jesus said to her, “I am he,?
come when the true worshipers will worship the the one who is speaking to you.”
Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind 27Just then his disciples came. They were
of worshipers the Father seeks. 74God is spirit, and astonished that he was speaking with a woman,
his worshipers must worship in spirit and in but no one said, “What do you want?” or, “Why
truth.” are you speaking with her?” Then the woman
The woman said, “I know that Messiah” left her water jar and went back to the city. She
(called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he said to the people, ?°“Come and see a man who
will explain everything to us.” told me everything I have ever done! He cannot
2°Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you be the Messiah,° can he?” *°They left the city and
am he.” were on their way to him.
"Just then his disciples returned and were 31Meanwhile the disciples were urging him,
surprised to find him talking with a woman. But “Rabbi, eat something.” °*But he said to them, “I
no one asked, “What do you want?” or “Why are
aThe Greek word for you here and in verses 21 and 22 is plural
you talking with her?” 6GkI am ¢Or the Christ
562
JOHN 4:4-42
NIV NRSV
8Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went have food to eat that you do not know about.”
back to the town and said to the people, 2°“Come, %°So the disciples said to one another, “Surely no
see a man who told me everything | ever did. one has brought him something to eat?” “Jesus
Could this be the Christ??” *°They came out of said to them, “My food is to do the will of him
the town and made their way toward him. who sent me and to complete his work. **Do you
!Meanwhile his disciples urged him, “Rabbi, not say, ‘Four months more, then comes the
eat something.” harvest’? But I tell you, look around you, and see
But he said to them, “I have food to eat that how the fields are ripe for harvesting. °°The reaper
you know nothing about.” is already receiving? wages and is gathering fruit
33Then his disciples said to each other, “Could for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may
someone have brought him food?” rejoice together. °’For here the saying holds true,
‘One sows and another reaps.’ 3*I sent you to reap
34“My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of
that for which you did not labor. Others have
him who sent me and to finish his work. Do
labored, and you have entered into their labor.”
you not say, ‘Four months more and then the
39Many Samaritans from that city believed in
harvest’? I tell you, open your eyes and look at
him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told
the fields! They are ripe for harvest. *°Even now
me everything I have ever done.” 4°So when the
the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests
Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay
the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and
with them; and he stayed there two days. 4!And
the reaper may be glad together. °’Thus the saying
many more believed because of his word. “They
‘One sows and another reaps’ is true. **I sent you
said to the woman, “It is no longer because of
to reap what you have not worked for. Others
what you said that we believe, for we have heard
have done the hard work, and you have reaped
for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the
the benefits of their labor.”
Savior of the world.”
Many of the Samaritans from that town be-
aOr35,.. the fields are already ripe for harvesting. 36The reaper is
lieved in him because of the woman’s testimony, receiving
“He told me everything I ever did.” *°So when
the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to
stay with them, and he stayed two days. *!And
because of his words many more became
believers.
42They said to the woman, “We no longer
believe just because of what you said; now we
have heard for ourselves, and we know that this
man really is the Savior of the world.”
229 Or Messiah
(COMMENTARY
In John 4:4-42, Jesus’ ministry enters a new tween Jews and Samaritans was a dispute about
stage. He leaves the confines of traditional Ju- the correct location of the cultic center (cf. John
daism and turns to those whom his Jewish 4:20). The Samaritans built a shrine on Mt. Ger-
contemporaries reckoned as outsiders and ene- izim during the Persian period and claimed
mies: the Samaritans. The breach between Jews that this shrine, not the Jerusalem Temple,
and Samaritans can be traced to the Assyrian was the proper place of worship. The shrine
occupation of northern Palestine’ (721 BcE; see at Mt. Gerizim was destroyed by Jewish
2 Kings 17), but the most intense rivalry began troops in 128 BcE, but the schism between
about 200 sce. The source of the enmity be- Jews and Samaritans continued (cf. John 4:9).
When Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at the 6:1-71; 9:1-41; 11:1-44). This long passage con-
well, he thus meets someone who stands in sists of two main blocks of conversation (vv. 7-26,
marked contrast to all that has preceded in the Jesus and the Samaritan woman, and vv. 31-38,
Gospel. For example, when Jesus spoke with Jesus and his disciples) surrounded by their nar-
Nicodemus in 3:1-21, he spoke with a named rative frames. The structure of the text can be
male of the Jewish religious establishment. outlined as follows:
When he speaks with the Samaritan woman, he
speaks with an unnamed female of an enemy 4:4-6 Introduction: Jesus’ arrival at the well
people. 4:7-26 Conversation between Jesus and the Sa-
John 4:4-42 is an important example of the maritan woman
complex interweaving of dialogue and narrative 4:27-30 Transition: Arrival of the disciples and
that characterizes much of the Fourth Gospel (see departure of the woman
Jesus’ Journey
Through Samaria
——» Jesus’ journey on ° Sepphoris
Nazareth®
il
Fs DECAPOLIS
| Scythopolis
| e
su
e
Sebaste *~, ~. Sychar Gerasa
Ah
Mt. Gerizim® ©
SAMARIA
Philadelphia,
oe ( Jericho,
\ Bethphage
Jerusalem” * “Bethany
JUDEA
rT
ae
r
o..
Kilometers
4:31-38 Conversation between Jesus and his dis- Samaritan woman consists of thirteen exchanges,
ciples one of the longest dialogues in the Gospel. It
4:39-42 Conclusion: Jesus and the Samaritan divides into two sections, each section introduced
townspeople by a request/command by Jesus: (1) vv. 7-15
(“Give me a drink”); (2) vv. 16-26 (“Go, call your
Some of these sections may have originated as husband”).
separate stories (e.g., the conversation with the 4:7. This verse begins with the arrival of the
disciples), but the Fourth Evangelist has carefully Samaritan woman at the well to draw water. Like
molded them together into one story. Each section vw. 5-64, v. 7 is redolent with OT images that
either leads to what follows or builds on what figure prominently in the rest of the narrative.
precedes. First, Jesus’ request for water recalls the story of
4:4-6. The introduction provides thesetting Elijah and the widow of Sidon (1 Kgs 17:10-11).
for the narrative. Verse 4 links the Samaritan text In both stories a man interrupts a woman engaged
to vv. 1-3; in order to get from Judea to Galilee in household work to request a gesture of hospi-
(4:3), Jesus “had to go through Samaria.” Scholars tality. The parallels between Elijah and Jesus sug-
are fairly evenly divided on whether the necessity gest the image of Jesus as prophet, a theme that
of this Samaritan journey is strictly geographical!°° will occupy a pivotal place in Jesus’ conversation
or has theological overtones.'°! The geographical with the woman (4:19).
necessity of the trip is supported by Josephus who Second, the scene of a man and a woman at a
notes that the most expedient route from Judea well recalls the betrothal stories of Isaac (Gen 24:10-
to Galilee during the first century was through 61), Jacob (Gen 29:1-20), and Moses (Exod 2:156-
Samaria.!°? The word translated as “had to” (edet 21). John 4:4-42 evokes these betrothal stories in
edei), however, usually is associated in the Fourth order to rework their imagery, however. The story
Gospel with God’s plan (e.g., 3:14, 30; 9:4). It of the wedding feast (2:1-11) and John the Baptist’s
seems best, therefore, to read the necessity of the parable (3:29) have already introduced wedding
journey through Samaria as both geographical and imagery into the Fourth Gospel as images of eschato-
theological. Jesus’ itinerary may have been gov- logical joy and fulfillment. John 4:4-42 also raises
erned by geographical expediency, but his stay in the issues of eschatological fulfillment (vv. 21-26),
Samaria was governed by the theological necessity but it transforms the messianic/bridal symbolism. In
of offering himself to those whom social conven- John 4:4-42, the Messiah comes not only to Israel,
tion deemed unacceptable. but also to those whom Israel marginalizes and
Verses 5-6 provide a detailed description of the despises. Unlike the OT well scenes, Jesus does not
location of Jesus’ conversation with the woman. come to the well looking for a woman to be his
This description is important because of the OT bride, but for a witness who will recognize the
imagery in which the geography is couched. The Messiah and bring the despised people to him (vv.
references to Jacob and his well introduce the 34-38). What is most astonishing about John 4:4-42
patriarchal traditions that will figure prominently is the fact that a Samaritan woman becomes that
in the conversation between Jesus and the Samari- witness (vv. 28-30, 39-42).
tan woman (vv. 11-14). The description of Jesus’ 4:9. The Samaritan woman responds to Jesus’
arrival at the well (v. 60) also establishes the request with amazement because it violates two
conditions of his request for water in v. 7. Jesus societal conventions. First, a Jewish man did not
was tired from his journey, and he arrived at the initiate conversation with an unknown woman.
well in the heat of the day (“about noon,” NRSV; Moreover, a Jewish teacher did not engage in
“about the sixth hour,” NIV). public conversation with a woman (“Hence the
4:7-26. The dialogue between Jesus and the sages have said: He that talks much with woman-
kind brings evil upon himself and neglects the
100. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Phila-
delphia: Westminster, 1978) 230. - study of the law and at the last will inherit
101. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), AB Gehenna.”)! Second, Jews did not invite contact
29 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 1:169.
102. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 20.118; The Jewish War 2:232;
Life 269.
103. See p. Abot 1:5; cf. 4:27.
565
with Samaritans. The Fourth Evangelist’s aside in “You are not greater than Jacob, are you?” (cf.
v. 9c underscores the seriousness of the breach 8:53). Since Jesus. has no visible means with
between Jews and Samaritans. A fear of ritual which to draw water, the woman’s question
contamination (note the alternate translation of v. seems to imply that only a miracle similar to the
9c in the NIV) developed into a prohibition of all one tradition attributed to Jacob at Haran could
social intercourse. produce the water.'°° The woman responds to
4:10. Instead of answering the woman’s ques- Jesus by challenging his.ability to match the gift
tion directly, Jesus invites her to answer her of one of the great forebears of the faith.
question herself (“If you knew... ”). If the woman 4:13-14. Jesus responds to the woman’s chal-
could recognize the identity of the person with lenge by focusing on the permanent effect of the
whom she speaks, a dramatic role reversal will take two waters on thirst. Jacob’s gift may have been
place. The woman would be the one who requests miraculous and its abundance legendary (v. 120),
water. “Living water” (U8wp Cav hydor zon) has but it could not assuage thirst permanently (v.
two possible meanings. It can mean fresh, running 13). Jesus’ gift of living water will, however (v.
water (spring water as opposed to water from a 14). The contrast between the two waters recalls
cistern), or it can mean life-giving water. Once Isa 55:1-2 (“Ho, everyone who thirsts,/ come to
again, the Fourth Evangelist intentionally uses a the waters” [NRSV]). Jesus’ description of his gift
word with a double meaning (cf. 3:3, 7 and the of water in v. 14 clarifies the meaning of the
expression “born again”/“from above” |dvw0ev expression “living water”: Jesus offers water that
anothen]). gives life. Those who drink from Jesus’ water “will
4:11-12. The Samaritan woman hears only never thirst” (lit., “will not be thirsty forever”),
the meaning “running water” in Jesus’ words because his water will become “in them a spring
and so responds to his offer of living water with of water gushing up to eternal life” (v. 14). In
protests of logical and material impossibility (cf. John 7:37-39 Jesus’ gift of living water is associ-
Nicodemus, 3:4). It is not credible to her that ated with the gift of the Spirit, and it is possible
a man who has just asked her for water because to see that connection in v. 14 as well.
he was unable to acquire any for himself should 4:15. The Samaritan woman responds enthu-
now offer her fresh running water (v. 11a). Her siastically to Jesus’ words (v. 15a), but her enthu-
protest leads to a question, “Where do you get siasm misses the point. The motivation for her
that living water?” (v. 110). This question, like request—that she would no longer have to come
other questions about the origins of Jesus’ gifts back to the well (v. 156)—shows that she has
(1:29; 2:9; 3:8; 6:5), is ironically charged. The not yet grasped the radical nature of Jesus’ gifts.
question operates on two levels simultane- She continues to see Jesus through her categories
ously—it makes sense to ask a man with no of physical thirst and miraculous springs, and so
bucket where he will get water, but the ques- she does not understand the meaning of his “liv-
tion can also be asked of Jesus’ gift of living ing water.” Her request is ironic to the reader,
water. The irony arises because the reader because it is the right request for the wrong
knows the appropriateness of the question on reasons (cf. 6:34).
both levels, but the woman is aware only of the
On the one hand, then, v. 15 sounds a note
first, literal level of meaning.
of failure. Although by her request for water the
The woman’s question in v. 12 is a universally Samaritan woman is ostensibly doing what Jesus
recognized instance of Johannine irony.'* The had earlier said she should do (v. 10), she does
immediate source of its irony is clear: For the hot know for what she is asking or of whom
Fourth Evangelist and most of his readers, Jesus she is asking it. She thinks that Jesus is a miracle
is greater than Jacob, while the woman falsely worker who can provide her with extraordinary
assumes the opposite. (The question is introduced water. Her misperception is the source of the
by the interrogative jy (me) in the Greek text, a irony of her response for the reader, because the
construction that anticipates a negative reply:
105. José Ramon Diaz, “Palestinian Targum and New Testament,”
104. E.g., Barrett, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 234; Brown, The NovT 6 (1963) 76-77; Jerome Neyrey, “Jacob Traditions and the Interpre-
Gospel According to John (I-XIl}, 170. tation of John 4:10-26,” CBQ41 (1979) 419-37.
566
conversation has led the reader to see that some- the woman’s words at their face value, but Jesus
thing more is at stake in these verses. penetrates beyond the surface level of her words
On the other hand, v. 15 sounds a note of to arrive at the truth about her life. It is not until
hope, however nascent. The woman has gained Jesus indicates why the woman’s words are true
considerable ground in this conversation. She has that the reader, too, knows the truth.
moved from seeing Jesus as a thirsty Jew who The conversation in vv. 16-19 is also a moment
knowingly violates social convention to seeing of revelation for the woman. Jesus’ insight into
him as someone whose gifts she needs. At the her words and life leads her to declare him to be
beginning of the conversation, Jesus’ words about a prophet (v. 19). Her response recalls the re-
living water seemed preposterous to her, empty sponse of Nathanael in 1:47-49. With both
boasts by a man without a bucket (v. 11), but in Nathanael and the Samaritan woman, a demon-
v. 15, she believes that Jesus can give water that stration of perception and insight on Jesus’ part
will assuage her thirst. The woman’s openness to leads to a christological confession.
Jesus and her willingness to engage him in con- 4:20. In the light of her recognition of Jesus
versation stand in marked contrast to Nicodemus, as a prophet, the woman puts before him the most
who only greeted Jesus with amazement and pressing theological problem that stands between
resistance (3:4, 9). The Samaritan woman recog- Jews and Samaritans: What is the right worship
nizes neither Jesus’ true identity nor the fullness site, this mountain (Gerizim) or Jerusalem (v. 20)?
of his gifts, but in v. 15, she is willing to receive The introduction of this topic is not, as commen-
what she thinks he is offering and hence to tators frequently argue, a psychological ploy, a
acknowledge her need of him. classical evasion to turn the subject away from
4:16-19. Jesus introduces a new topic in v. the embarrassing truth about her morals.'°” Nor
16 in order to provide a fresh angle on his is this theological topic and Jesus’ response too
identity. In vv. 7-15, his invitation to the woman difficult for the woman to understand.'® By ask-
was couched in the metaphor of living water; in ing Jesus about the proper place of worship, the
vv. 16-18, Jesus’ invitation will be grounded in woman is not disengaging from Jesus. Rather, her
the woman’s own life. inquiry about worship is an act of deepening
Verses 16-19 have been consistently misinter- engagement with Jesus, because she anticipates
preted, resulting in the popular portrait of this that the prophet Jesus will be able to speak an
woman as a sinner. The text is not, as interpreters authoritative word on the subject.
almost unanimously assume,’ evidence of the 4:21-24. The woman’s words in v. 20 evoke
woman’s immorality. Jesus does not judge her; any a lengthy response from Jesus. The woman’s com-
moral judgments are imported into the text by ment reflects the present reality of Samaritan/Jew-
interpreters. There are many possible reasons for her ish relations, but in v. 21, Jesus directs her
marital history other than her moral laxity. Perhaps attention away from the present to the future.
“The hour is coming” refers to the time of es-
the woman, like Tamar in Genesis 38, is trapped in
chatological fulfillment (cf. 5:25, 28). In the es-
the custom of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-10; see
chatological age, the woman’s categories will be
also Luke 20:27-33), and the last male in the family
obsolete, because neither the Samaritan (“this
line has refused to marry her. Significantly, the
mountain”) nor the Jewish site (“Jerusalem”) will
reasons for the woman’s marital history intrigue
be the place of worship—both will be replaced in
commentators but do not concern Jesus.
the eschatological age. Jesus’ words in v. 21 also
One needs to read this story on its own terms.
remind the woman of the object of worship: “the
The conversation provides another example of Father.” The Samaritan/Jewish conflict so domi-
Jesus’ ability to see and know all things (cf. nates the woman’s perspective that her words to
1:48-50; 2:24). The woman’s response to Jesus’ Jesus (v. 20) contain no reference to who is being
request seems straightforward enough (v. 17a), worshiped.
but his reply (vv. 170-18) causes the reader to
reassess the woman’s words. The reader accepts 107. Ibid., 177; Robert Kysar, John, Augsburg Commentary of the New
Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986) 66.
108. Brown, 7he Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 170.
106. E.g., Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XTl), 171.
567
In v. 22, Jesus identifies himself with the Jews. (“the hour is coming”) into the moment of in-
The “you” of v. 22a is second-person plural, and breaking (“and,is now here”).
the “you”/“we” contrast in that verse refers to 4:25. The woman’s response indicates that she
Samaritans and Jews (cf. vv. 9, 20; the NIV has heard the eschatological promise of Jesus’
translation, “you Samaritans,” is an expansion, see words, but not the fulfillment. Jesus has spoken
also “you Jews” in 4:20). The Samaritans accepted of the coming hour, the woman responds by
only the Pentateuch as Scripture, and so from the speaking of the coming One. The Samaritans, like
Jewish perspective they had an incomplete picture the Jews, expected a Messiah. The Samaritans
of God (“You worship what you do not know”). called their Messiah 7a’heb (“the one who re-
In v. 220, “salvation is from the Jews,” Jesus turns”).!°° The Samaritans thought of the 7a’heb
affirms the positive role of the Jews in salvation as a teacher, which may explain the statement
history. The noun “Jew” is used positively here “he will proclaim [explain] all things to us” (v.
because it refers to the Jewish people as a whole 25). The critical difference between Jesus’ words
(cf. 11:19, 45), not the Jewish religious authori- and the woman’s response, however, is that she
ties (1:19; 9:18, 22; see Reflections at 5:1-18 and does not grasp the eschatological immediacy of
chap. 8). Jesus reminds the woman of Israel’s what Jesus says. To Jesus’ vision of the inbreaking
place as God’s chosen people in order to caution of the eschatological age, the Samaritan woman
her that by rejecting the Jews, she risks rejecting ‘responds with traditional eschatological expecta-
God’s offer of salvation. This positive appraisal of tions of the future Messiah (cf. 11:23-26, where
the Jews has an ironic undertone when read in Martha voices similar expectations).
the context of the whole Gospel, because it 4:26. Jesus’ response to the Samaritan woman’s
points to one of the Gospel’s central paradoxes. traditional eschatological affirmations is simple and
Salvation does originate from God’s own people, bold: “I am, the one who is speaking to you” (v.
the Jews, but some Jews do not receive that offer 26; author’s trans.). The NRSV and the NIV trans-
of salvation in Jesus. For example, the offer of lations play down the boldness of Jesus’ remarks by
salvation made by Jesus (a Jew) has been rejected supplying a predicate (“he”) for the “I am” saying
by the Jew Nicodemus but will be accepted by that is not present in the Greek. When the predicate
the Samaritans (4:42). is supplied, the meaning of Jesus’ words becomes,
The “but” with which v. 23 begins (NIV = “T am the Messiah you expect.” The “I am” of v.
“yet”) marks a decisive turning point in Jesus’ 26, however, is not simply Jesus’ messianic self-iden-
speech. In v. 21, the hour when conventional tification. When Jesus speaks the “I am” in v. 26,
understandings of worship would change is com- these words make explicit connections with the
ing; in v. 23, that hour is no longer merely divine name of Exod 3:14. Jesus thus speaks an
anticipated but has arrived. The ordinary present absolute “I am” here, with no predicate (6:20; 8:24,
has been transformed into the eschatological pre- 28, 58; 13:19; 18:6), in order to identify himself as
sent. In the eschatological present, true worship the one in whom God is known (1:18). The absolute
is no longer defined by place, but as worship “in “I am” confirms the words of the Prologue, “the
spirit and truth” (vv. 23-24). Worship of God in Word was with God, and the Word was God” (1:1).
spirit and truth does not point to an internal, Jesus thus fulfills the Samaritan woman’s messianic
spiritualized worship but to a form of worship expectations at the same time as he transcends
that reflects and is shaped by the character of them.
God. That is, the historical problem of Jewish vs. 4:27-30. This passage provides a bridge be-
Samaritan worship is transformed into the es- tween Jesus’ conversations with the woman and
chatological encounter with the presence of God. with his disciples (vv. 31-38). The disciples’ reac-
“God is spirit” (v. 24), not bound to any place tion to Jesus is similar to the woman’s initial
or people, and those who worship God share in response to him (v. 9}: shock that Jesus would
the spirit. Jesus’ presence in the world initiates violate social conventions. Unlike the woman,
this transformation of worship, because Jesus’
109. See Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and
presence changes the moment of anticipation the Johannine Christology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967) 216-57.
568
however, the disciples keep their questions to 31-33; cf. the misunderstanding about “living
themselves. water” in vv. 10-15). This dialogue is followed by
4:28. The woman makes no response to Jesus’ a longer speech by Jesus (vv. 34-38; cf. vv. 21-24)
bold self-revelation, perhaps because of the dis- in which he offers a new way of thinking to his
ciples’ return. She departs from the well, leaving conversation partners. Both of these final speeches
her water jar behind. Like much narrative detail by Jesus have an eschatological orientation.
in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., 1:37-39), the detail 4:31-34. The disciples ask Jesus to eat the food
about the jar works on two levels simultaneously. that they have brought from town (v. 31; cf. v.
On the level of the plot line, the abandoned water 8), but Jesus does not accede to their request (v.
jar provides a link between the two conversations 32). The disciples are confused by Jesus’ words
at the well. The woman’s jar will stand before and assume that he must be referring to food that
Jesus and his disciples as they speak. Yet the detail someone else had brought him (v. 33; cf. vv.
also has meaning on a more theological level. The 11-12). In v. 34, Jesus makes clear that the food
abandoned jar suggests that the woman’s concern that sustains him is his vocation: to do the will
of v. 15, the desire for miraculous water, has been of the one who sent him and complete God’s
superseded by the revelation of Jesus’ identity. work. God is frequently described in the Fourth
4:29. In response to her conversation with Gospel as the one who sent Jesus (e.g., 5:23-24,
Jesus, the woman goes into town and bears wit- 30) and Jesus’ mission is often characterized as
ness to what she has heard. Her witness is three- doing the will and the work of God (5:30, 36;
fold. First, she invites her fellow townspeople to 6:38; 10:37-38). Jesus’ description of his food is
“come and see.” This invitation is crucial in the thus a crystallization of Johannine christology;
Fourth Gospel (cf. 1:37-39, 46). It is an invitation food is the metaphor for Jesus’ divine commission
to participate in the life of faith, to experience and the enactment of the relationship between
Jesus for oneself. Second, the woman offers her Jesus and God. Verse 34 underscores that any
own experience as the basis of her witness, which discussion of Jesus’ identity is meaningless apart
here may build on the Samaritan expectation of from a discussion of his vocation. The necessity
a teaching Messiah (cf. v. 25). Third, she broaches of Jesus’ Samaritan sojourn (4:4) and his conver-
the question of whether Jesus might be the Mes- sation with the woman (4:7-26) can be under-
siah. The NRSV accurately captures the tenta- stood as examples of Jesus’ “food,” of doing the
tiveness of the woman’s words. (The question will and work of God, which sustains him.
begins with the negative particle [ytimeti] in 4:35-38. The focus of Jesus’ words now shifts
the Greek, a construction that anticipates a nega- slightly. Jesus has just spoken of his role in com-
tive or contradicting response.) She cannot quite pleting the work of the one who sent him; he
believe that Jesus is the Messiah, since he chal- then turns to a traditional biblical image of com-
lenges her conventional messianic expectations pletion—the harvest (e.g., Isa 27:12; Joel 3:13).
(vv. 23-25), but her lack of certitude does not Harvest imagery is also found in the synoptic
stand in the way of her witness. The woman’s tradition (e.g., Matt 13:30, 39; Mark 4:29). Verses
behavior stands in marked contrast to many char- 35-38 are structured around two agricultural prov-
acters in the Fourth Gospel who will insist on erbs (vv. 354, 37).
their own certitudes (e.g., Nicodemus, 3:9; the In v. 35a, Jesus draws his disciples’ attention
crowds, 6:25-34; the Pharisees, 9:24-34) and to a common agricultural saying (“Do you not
hence close themselves to what Jesus offers. The say...”). This proverb has not been attested
woman’s witness brings the townspeople to Jesus outside the Fourth Gospel, but it reflects agricul-
(v. 30). Their movement toward him provides the tural life in ancient Palestine; there is a waiting
backdrop for Jesus’ conversation with his disciples. period between seedtime and harvest. In v. 358,
4:31-38. Jesus’ conversation with his disciples Jesus informs his disciples that the waiting is over.
follows a similar pattern to his conversation with Twice in v. 350, Jesus exhorts his disciples to look
the woman, albeit abbreviated. It opens with a around them: “Open your eyes and look at the
dialogue that revolves around a misunderstanding fields.” Jesus asks his disciples to attend carefully
about the meaning of “food” (Bpdots brosis, vv. to the situation in which they find themselves, to
569
read the data of their own experience instead of 38 illustrates this reality from the disciples’ own
trusting in conventional wisdom (cf. 9:28-33, experience. The disciples share in a harvest of
where the blind man’s trust in his own experience which they are not the primary workers. Verse
is superior to conventional teachings). In their 38 seems to point to the disciples’ future, when
immediate context, Jesus’ words draw the disci- they will be “sent” (amootéd\\w apostello) by
ples’ attention to the Samaritans who are coming Jesus to continue his work (e.g., 17:18; 20:21).
to him (v. 30). The “crop” of Samaritan believers The immediate context, of v. 38 suggests the
is proof that the harvest is ready. Samaritan woman as one example of the “others”
Jesus’ words in v. 350 are a metaphorical equiva- from whose work the disciples benefit.
lent of what he said earlier to the Samaritan woman: In vv. 35-38, Jesus draws on traditional OT
“The hour is coming, and is now here” (v. 23). The imagery of eschatological fulfillment, the harvest,
conventional understanding is that one must wait and relates that harvest to the Samaritan mission.
for the Messiah/harvest (vv. 25, 35a). In reality, In 12:20-24, the beginning of the Gentile mission
they are here now. Jesus’ presence and his doing is also imbued with eschatological significance and
the will and work of the one who sent him makes illustrated with agricultural imagery. In John, un-
the harvest of eschatological fulfillment a present like the Synoptics, the mission to outsiders does
reality (cf. the discussion of vv. 21-24). not wait until after Jesus’ death. It is part of Jesus’
Verse 36 continues the imagery of the imme- ‘own ministry. The Samaritan mission thus serves
diacy of the harvest. The reaper is already at work, as a concrete example of Johannine realized es-
receiving wages, gathering fruit. Sower and reaper chatology. John 4 is the only NT evidence of a
now share in the joy of the harvest (cf. Psalm Samaritan mission during Jesus’ ministry, although
126; Isa 9:3). Interpreters are tempted to read v. Acts corroborates the Samaritan mission of the
36 allegorically—that is, to establish the identity early church (Acts 8:4-24).
of the sower and the reaper. While such allegori- 4:39-42. John brings the Samaria narrative to
cal interpretations are often suggestive (e.g., God a close by focusing on the success of the Samaritan
is the sower, Jesus the reaper),!'° all of them find mission. Verse 39 notes the faith in Jesus of many
the real meaning of v. 36 outside the context Samaritans and explicitly attributes the people’s
of the Samaria narrative. Instead of reading v. faith to the woman’s “testimony” (aptupta mar-
36 as allegory, it is more helpful to read it tyria). She, like John the Baptist, is a witness who
parabolically.'!! That is, v. 36 does not point to brings people to faith in Jesus. Also like John the
specific sower and reaper figures outside the Baptist (3:30), the woman’s witness diminishes in
text, but offers a narrative illustration of the importance when the Samaritans have their own
realized eschatology of which Jesus speaks in v. experience of Jesus (vv. 40-42). The Samaritans
356. John the Baptist told the parable of the invite Jesus to stay with them, and he stays for
bridegroom and his friend to illustrate joy two days (v. 40). The use of the verb for “stay”
(3:29); Jesus now tells the parable of the sower (eve meno) recalls 1:38 and Jesus’ meeting with
and the reaper to illustrate the arrival of the his first disciples. To stay with Jesus is to enter
eschatological present. into relationship with him (cf. 15:4, 7). Many
The second agricultural proverb occurs in v. more persons come to faith in Jesus as a result of
37. As with v. 36, interpreters get into difficulty this stay (v. 41), and in v. 42 those who believe
when they try to establish the identities of the acknowledge that their own encounter with Jesus
sower and the reaper. It is in the very nature of supplants the woman’s word. This is the model
proverbial language to be suggestive of many of witness and faith in the Fourth Gospel: The
applications. The primary function of v. 37, then, witness that leads to Jesus is replaced by one’s
is also parabolic, not allegorical. The eschatological own experience of Jesus.
immediacy of the harvest does not mean an end The Samaritans’ acclamation of Jesus as the
to the distinct roles of sower and reaper. Verse savior of the world (v. 42) is the most sweeping
christological confession yet encountered in the
110. So Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3
vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982) 1:447. Gospel. Salvation may be from the Jews (v.
111. Barrett, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 242. 226), but it is not limited to the Jews. Ethnic
570
and religious distinctions that figured promi- when neither this mountain nor Jerusalem will
nently in this text (vv. 9, 20-22) are dissolved define the worship of God.!!
in this recognition of the universality of salva-
tion available in exe: : id 112. See Gail R. O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative
‘ ; Jcus (cf 3 17) The Samanh Made and Theological Claim (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), for a more
tans’ confession evidences the truth of Jesus detailed discussion of John 4:4-42.
words in vv. 21-24; the hour has indeed come
REFLECTIONS
John 4:4-42 presents the interpreter with a text that from beginning to end transforms
conventional expectations and challenges the status quo. The setting of this narrative in Samaria
is a scandal that may have lost its force for modern readers, but would have been noted by
first-century readers. Jesus openly challenges and breaks open two boundaries in this text: the
boundary between “chosen people” and “rejected people,” between male and female.
Verses 4-42 can be read helpfully alongside the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37).
In the Lukan text, the scandal is that the despised Samaritan is the neighbor, the agent of mercy
(Luke 10:37). The Samaritan traveler touches the injured man’s wounds as he nurses him (Luke
10:34), an obvious violation of the restriction against contact between Jews and Samaritans (John
4:9c). In Luke, Jesus holds up the Samaritan traveler as an example (10:370), suggesting to his
listeners that acts of mercy should be governed by need and compassion (10:33), not by societal
conventions and fears. This passage conveys a similar challenge but in a more radical form, because
it is not a character in a parable who upsets social conventions but Jesus himself. Jesus initiates
contact with a Samaritan, asking her to attend to his need (v. 7). He then offers the Samaritan
woman the gift of God (v. 10) and reveals his identity to her (v. 26). He treats the Samaritan
woman—and later the Samaritan villagers—as a full human being, a worthy recipient of the grace
of God, not as the despised enemy from whom to fear contamination.
The preoccupation with protecting boundaries between the chosen and the despised peoples
is not limited to the Samaritan/Jewish conflict of the first century. Throughout human history,
people and nations have defined themselves over against other groups. The history of race
relations in the United States, the notion of racial purity that was at the ideological heart of
Hitler’s Germany, the ethnic wars that wax and wane across the Middle East, Africa, Asia,
and Europe all have their roots in the same fears that divided Jews from Samaritans: the fear
of contamination (4:9c), the fear of sharing one’s gift and privileged call (4:20) with others.
John 4:4-42 summons the church to stop shaping its life according to societal definitions of
who is acceptable and to show the same openness to those who are different that Jesus did
when he traveled in Samaria. The church is asked to cross boundaries as Jesus does instead
of constructing them. It does no good to cling to notions of a privileged people or a privileged
place, because Jesus has already ushered in a time when “you will worship the Father neither
on this mountain nor in Jerusalem” (4:21).
John 4:4-42 also challenges boundaries constructed on the basis of gender. The disciples’
astonishment in v. 27 does not derive from ethnic considerations but because Jesus speaks
with a woman. Jesus will not be governed by those fears and prejudices, either, and thus he
treats the woman as fully human.
The Commentary on John 4:4-42 highlights ways in which the woman’s role in this text
has been misinterpreted because of imported assumptions about women’s sexuality, intellect,
and interests. The interpreter must be very careful to return to the text and discover what
the Fourth Evangelist says about ‘the woman, rather than pass on what one has always heard
about this text. The Samaritan woman is never judged as a sinner. On the contrary, she is
portrayed as a model of growing faith. As vv. 4-42 unfold, the reader sees the woman’s faith
571
grow as she comes to entertain the possibility that Jesus might be the Messiah (4:29). Of even
greater significance, however, the woman is portrayed as a witness (4:39). She invited her
fellow townspeople to come and see Jesus.
The Samaritan woman’s successful evangelization of her. town belies the myth of the
privileged position of men as witnesses and disciples. Because of her witness, the number of
persons who believe in Jesus grows. Jesus treats her as a serious conversation partner, the first
person in the Gospel to whom he makes a bold statement of self-revelation (v. 26). The
Samaritan woman’s story summons churches to reexamine the boundaries they set around
women’s witness and work.
Jesus’ actions in John 4:4-42, as he embraces both Samaritans and women, are one example of
the way this text challenges the status quo. Jesus’ actions model alternatives for the faith community
and show how human interrelationships are transformed in the eschatological present. Jesus’ words
in this passage also challenge the status quo. They do not attack it directly, but, like his actions,
suggest what is possible in the new reality ushered in by his presence.
Jesus’ words overflow with metaphor: living water, the hour, food, harvest. Each of these
metaphors attempts to open reality in fresh ways for his conversation partners. Jesus wants to open
the eyes of the Samaritan woman and his disciples so that they can see what is being offered to
them in the present instead of continuing to view everything through the lens of old realities. Jesus
wants the Samaritan woman to see who is speaking with her at this moment and the gifts that
he offers (4:10). He wants her to see that the present moment is the time of eschatological -
fulfillment (4:23-24). Jesus wants his disciples to see that the harvest is ready now, contrary to
popular understandings (4:35). In both conversations (4:7-26, 31-38), Jesus takes familiar images
and fills them with new meaning in order to open up for his listeners the possibilities of a life
defined by God’s gifts. The metaphors of these verses keep the terms of the conversations always
fresh, always suggestive, always open to new meanings in changing circumstances.
Everything is to be newly defined by the arrival of the hour, by the impingement of the
eschatological future on the present. God’s salvation is available now, to all who will receive
it (cf. 2 Cor 6:2). Salvation will be offered on God’s own terms, however, not necessarily in
the form that those who wait on it have determined in advance. The Samaritans’ acclamation
of Jesus as savior of the world reminds the reader of that. The savior in whom they put their
faith does not conform to their prior expectations. The reality of God’s presence in Jesus
redefines their previous categories.
The woman, the disciples, and the Samaritan villagers all received more from Jesus than their
conventions and assumptions had led them to expect. One could say that once again Jesus
transformed ordinary water into wine. An incredulous Samaritan woman becomes a witness to the
gospel, Jesus’ questioning disciples become co-workers in the harvest, the despised Samaritans spend
two days with the “savior of the world.” John 4:4-42 is a text of promise, of expectations overturned
and surpassed. This text suggests that the life of faith and discipleship will be refreshed and
reanimated by attending to Jesus’ vision of transformed reality and, most important, to Jesus himself.
Jesus’ metaphors of living water and worship in spirit and truth invite the church to a new
relationship to its God and to one another through his incarnate presence.
A final word needs to be said about the ways in which John 4:4-42 draws the reader into
its story. The give and take of the dialogues, the play of irony and misunderstanding, and the
tich metaphors invite the reader to take an active role in reading this text. The text does not
position the reader as observer, nor does it simply present propositions to which the reader is
to give assent. Rather, the narrative techniques of John 4:4-42 draw the reader into participation
in the text. The invitation to discover Jesus’ identity that Jesus extends to the woman (4:10)
is extended to the reader also. The reader, like the Samaritan woman, experiences the shock
of Jesus’ insight into the woman’s history (4:17-18). The reader hears the “I am” of v. 26 as
572
spoken directly to him or her. In effect, by the end of the text, the reader has “stayed” with
Jesus just as the Samaritan villagers do.
The active role John 4:4-42 gives the reader of this text should not be flattened in the
appropriation of this text. That is, in interpreting this text, one needs to be careful not to rush
too quickly to the resolution of the story—for example, by focusing too quickly on Jesus’
self-revelation in v. 26 or the Samaritans’ confession in v. 42. If the rich textures of the text
are reduced to bare kernels, then the invitation it offers will be diminished.
The closing words of the Samaritan villagers hold the key to understanding the narrative
techniques of this text. The Samaritans no longer need the secondary witness of the woman’s
word because “we have heard for ourselves” (v. 42). Effective witness does not replace the
immediate experience of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel; it leads to that experience. John 4:4-42
is narrated so that the readers, too, can sense that they have heard Jesus for themselves. As
a result of reading this text, one may come to recognize oneself as a “Samaritan”—one to
whom the good news has come in unexpected places at unexpected times.
JOHN 4:43-54, THE HEALING OF THE ROYAL

OFFIGTALIS SON
NIV NRSV
43 After the two days he left for Galilee. “(Now 43When the two days were over, he went from
Jesus himself had pointed out that a prophet has that place to Galilee “(for Jesus himself had tes-
no honor in his own country.) “When he arrived tified that a prophet has no honor in the prophet’s
in Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him. They had own country). “When he came to Galilee, the
seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the Galileans welcomed him, since they had seen all
Passover Feast, for they also had been there. that he had done in Jerusalem at the festival; for
46Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where they too had gone to the festival.
he had turned the water into wine. And there 46Then he came again to Cana in Galilee
was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at where he had changed the water into wine. Now
Capernaum. “7When this man heard that Jesus there was a royal official whose son lay ill in
had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him Capernaum. “7When he heard that Jesus had
and begged him to come and heal his son, who come from Judea to Galilee, he went and begged
was close to death. him to come down and heal his son, for he was
48“[Jnless you people see miraculous signs and at the point of death. “*Then Jesus said to him,
wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never “Unless you? see signs and wonders you will not
believe.” believe.” “The official said to him, “Sir, come
4°The royal official said, “Sir, come down before down before my little boy dies.” Jesus said to
my child dies.” him, “Go; your son will live.” The man believed
SJesus replied, “You may go. Your son will the word that Jesus spoke to him and started on
live.” his way. *!As he was going down, his slaves met
him and told him that his child was alive. °’So
The man took Jesus at his word and departed,
he asked them the hour when he began to re-
51While he was still on the way, his servants met
cover, and they said to him, “Yesterday at one in
him with the news that his boy was living.
the afternoon the fever left him.” °°The father
52When he inquired as to the time when his son
realized that this was the hour when Jesus had
got better, they said to him, “The fever left him
said to him, “Your son will live.” So he himself
yesterday at the seventh hour.”
Both instances of the Greek word for you in this verse are plural
53Then the father realized that this was the
573
JOHN 4:43-54
NIV NRSV
exact time at which Jesus had said to him, “Your believed, along with his whole household. “Now
son will live.” So he and all his household this was the second sign that Jesus did after
believed. coming from Judea to Galilee.
‘4This was the second miraculous sign that Jesus
performed, having come from Judea to Galilee.
(COMMENTARY
4:43-45. These verses provide an interlude be- adjective recalls 1:11, “He came to what was his
tween the Samaria narrative and the story of the own [rasta ta idia], and his own people [ot
royal official (vv. 46-54). Verse 43 serves two func- isto. hoi idioi| did not accept him.” John 1:11
tions: It recalls Jesus’ stay in Samaria (“after two and 4:44 say the same thing.''* Jesus’ “own
days”; cf. v. 40), and it returns the focus to Galilee country” does not refer to his native land, but
(cf. vv. 1-3). Verse 44 contains a proverb that seems to the place that is his own in God’s plan of
to have been found in several strands of oral tradi- salvation: Judea and Jerusalem (cf. 4:22, “salva-
tion. Mark 6:4 and Matt 13:57 preserve one form tion is from the Jews”). Judea is Jesus’ “own,”
of the proverb, while Luke 4:24 and John 4:44 each but “his own people” reject him. He thus goes
preserves its own variants of the saying. (The prov- to others who do receive him (1:12): Samaritans
erb is also found in Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1 and the (4:4-42) and Galileans (4:45-54). The importance
Gospel of Thomas 31). The meaning of the proverb of Jesus’ movement away from Judea to Galilee
is the same in all of the versions: A prophet is is underscored by the repeated geographical ref-
without honor among his own. erences in the story of the royal official’s son
But what is Jesus’ “own country” (v. 44)? (4:46-47, 54). The Galileans’ welcome in v. 45
Ancient and modern interpreters debate whether is tied to Jesus’ visit to Jerusalem (2:13-25) in
it should be understood as Galilee or Judea.!!* order to underscore the contrast with the re-
The Fourth Gospel names Galilee as Jesus’ native sponse of the Jerusalem Jews (2:23-25).
land (7:41, 52), but the conjunction “for” with 4:46-54. This passage follows the standard
which v. 44 begins suggests that Jesus’ journey to form of a miracle story. After an introductory
Galilee demonstrates the truth of the proverb, and verse (v. 46), the story falls into two parts: (1)
Jesus is welcomed in Galilee (vv. 45-54; see also vv. 47-50, the heart of the story, in which Jesus
1:46-49; 2:1-11). Moreover, 4:1 implies that Jesus performs the miracle; and (2) vv. 51-53, the
travels to Galilee to flee the Judean Pharisees. The attestation of the miracle. John 4:46-54 is a story
context of v. 44 thus supports reading Judea as of healing at a distance. There are two stories of
Jesus’ “own country” here. healing at a distance in the Synoptics as well: the
A careful reading of the proverb provides addi- centurion and his son (Matt 8:5-13; Luke 7:2-10)
tional support. The Johannine version of the prov- and the Syrophoenician (Canaanite) woman and
erb is the only one of the four Gospel versions to her daughter (Matt 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30). The
modify “country” (tatpis patris) with the adjec- Johannine story shares elements with both of
tive “one’s own” (idtos idios). The use of this these stories (cf. v. 47; Mark 7:26). The similari-
ties suggest that the Johannine story is neither the
113. Among ancient interpreters, Chrysostom maintained that Jesus’
“own country” was Galilee, while Origen argued it was to be understood creation of the Evangelist nor dependent on the
as Judea. For modern interpreters who argue for Galilee, see Raymond E. Synoptic stories, but rather preserves a similar, but
Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), AB 29 (Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1966) 187; Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel of John: ACom- independent, piece of the Jesus tradition.!!5
mentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 204; for those who argue for Judea, see 114. Wayne A. Meeks, “Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel,” /B
E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel(London: Faber & Faber, 1947) 260-61; 85 (1966) 164-65. j
and C. K. Barrett, 7he Gospel Accordingto St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: 115. C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cam-
Westminster, 1978) 246. bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 188-95.
574
4:46. Verse 46a establishes the setting (Cana) by Jesus’ response. Like Jesus’ mother at Cana
and links the story to Jesus’ earlier miracle in (2:5; cf. Mark 7:28), he holds firm (v. 49). He is
Cana. Verse 460 introduces a character unique to motivated by compassion for his son and the
this story (a royal official) and describes the situ- urgency of this situation. Jesus’ response to the
ation of need. The juxtaposition of the reference man’s renewed request is terse and to the point,
to the Cana miracle and the new situation of need “Go; your son will live” (v. 50a). The verb “live”
leads the reader to anticipate another miracle. (Cdw Zao) has a double meaning in this context;
Scholars debate whether the royal official was a it is used to mean “recover from illness,” and it
Gentile or a Jew.'!© His occupation and place of also carries with it associations of Jesus’ gift of
residence (Capernaum, a border town) allow for life. Jesus does not accompany the royal official
the possibility that he was a Gentile. to see his son; the boy’s recovery derives only
4:47. The miracle story proper begins in v. 47. from Jesus’ word and promise.
The man’s request for Jesus to “come down” 4:50b-53. The man’s belief in Jesus’ word is
(kataBaivw katabaino) reflects the topography of demonstrated in the man’s obedience. Jesus tells
the journey from Cana to Capernaum (see also him to go (v. 50a), and he does. His departure
vv. 49, 51). The Gospel narrative does not docu- for Capernaum begins the second part of the story,
ment any healing by Jesus prior to this story, but the attestation of the miracle. The servants pro-
it has suggested that Jesus is the giver of life (e.g., vide evidence of the healing (vv. 51-52). Their
vv. 13-14). The man’s request thus provides the words that “his child was alive” repeat Jesus’
first occasion in the Fourth Gospel for Jesus to words of v. 50 and hence prove the power of
save life. In this way, vv. 46-54 anticipate the Jesus’ word to the father and the reader; what
raising of Lazarus in chap. 11. In that story, Jesus Jesus promised has, indeed, taken place. Jesus has
will give life to someone not simply at the point given life. In v. 53a, the refrain “the son/child
of death but already dead. lives” is repeated for the third time in the story
4:48. Jesus’ response in v. 48 is not directed (see also vv. 50-51). The repetition of this phrase
exclusively to the royal official, because the “you” leaves no doubt that the focus of this story is on
is a second-person plural. The combination “signs Jesus’ promise and gift of life.
and wonders” (onpeta kai Tépata semeia kai The man’s realization that his son’s healing did
terata) is unique to John, although it is a tradi- indeed result from Jesus’ word (v. 534) leads him
tional pairing found in the OT (e.g., Exod 7:3). and his whole household to faith (v. 530). The
It also occurs regularly in Acts (e.g., Acts 2:43; phrase “he and his household” is unusual for John,
5:12; 7:36). Scholars frequently assert that Jesus’ but is reminiscent of the descriptions of Gentile
words are a rebuke to those who base their faith conversions in Acts (Acts 10:2; 11:14; 18:8). The
on signs,!!” but Jesus’ words have a more subtle use of the expression here is probably influenced by
purpose than that. If his words are simply a the experience of the Christian community at the
rebuke, then one would expect Jesus to refuse time of the Evangelist. The object of faith is not
the man’s request (cf. Matt 15:26; Mark 7:27), supplied in v. 530, but when v. 530 is read in the
but he does not. Verse 48 may thus be helpfully light of v. 50, it becomes clear that now the man
read as astute observation on Jesus’ part (cf. believes in Jesus, not only in Jesus’ word.
1:47-49; 2:23-25; 4:16-19) and should be inter- 4:54. The second Cana “sign” (v. 54), like the
preted in the same vein as 2:3-4 in the first Cana first one, results in the faith of those who wit-
miracle. Jesus will act, but his actions will not nessed it (v. 53; cf. 2:11; see the Introduction for
meet the expectations of “signs and wonders.” a discussion of the “Signs Source”). Yet the story
His actions will be governed by his will (v. 34), of the second miracle also contains a caution
not by human expectations and demand (see also about faith based on “signs and wonders” (v. 48).
7:1-10). How are these two perspectives to be reconciled?
4:49-50a. The royal official is not intimidated John 2:11 holds the interpretive key. Jesus’ dis-
ciples saw him turn water into wine at Cana, but
116. Gentile: Barrett, Zhe Gospel According to St. John, 245; Jew: it was not the miracle in and of itself that led to
Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 192.
117. E.g., Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XT1), 195. their faith. Rather, they saw Jesus’ glory in that
O15
sign, and it was in Jesus, not the miracle, that those who witness them are able to see the
they believed. In a similar way, the royal official revelation of Jesus’ identity in and through the
moves beyond a preliminary faith in the miracu- miracle. The first Cana sign revealed Jesus’ glory;
lous power of Jesus’ word (v. 50) to complete the second reveals his ability to give life.
faith (v. 53). The two Cana signs are alike in that
REFLECTIONS
The outcome of John 4:46-54 suggests that attention to the scandalous call of this text can have
surprising results. The royal official approached Jesus with only one thing on his minds his son was
at the point of death, and Jesus might be the one to heal him. His reasons for seeking Jesus were
desperation and basic need. Yet he ended up receiving much more than he could have hoped for
and, indeed, much more than he knew he needed: the gift of his son’s life and the gift of faith
in Jesus. The royal official’s faith was evoked by the care with which his needs were met, by the
evidence of God’s life-giving love in Jesus’ act of physical healing.
This story raises the question of the relationship between signs and faith for the interpreter.
This relationship rests at the theological heart of the Fourth Gospel. For the Fourth Evangelist,
the fullness of a miraculous act is both in and beyond the miracle itself. That is, the person
who interprets a miracle solely as a miraculous act will remain transfixed by and limited to
the act itself—water turned into wine, a deathly ill boy revived, a miraculous feeding with
bread (John 6). Jesus could be revered, perhaps even believed in on account of that act, but
only as a miracle worker. What one would proclaim about Jesus from that perspective is,
“Look what Jesus can do.” When a miraculous act is fully understood as a sign, however,
what one would proclaim about Jesus is, “Look at who Jesus is.” He is the giver of abundant
gifts (John 2:1-11); the giver of life (John 4:46-54). As the giver of abundance and life (cf.
10:10), Jesus points to (is a sign of) who God is, and this is the ground for faith.
It is thus the sight of God’s presence in Jesus’ acts that transforms them from miracles to
signs. As such, the Johannine understanding of signs belongs to the Gospel’s understanding of
the incarnation. Signs hold together the physical and the spiritual, the immanent and the
transcendent in the same way the incarnate Word does. In the flesh and blood of the
incarnation, the fullness of God is available to humanity, but only if one is able to see the
visible as pointing to the invisible (1:18). In the healing of a sick boy, the fullness of God is
also available. The physical healing provides a glimpse of the character of God in Jesus.
Signs provide the opening to faith, then, when one recognizes that through them God is
present and available in the tangible and corporeal realm of human life. It is not the miracle
per se, but the glimpse of the presence of God at work with and in human experience that
can lead to faith. To see God in Jesus’ act of healing is to recognize the truth of the confession
of 1:14, “The Word became flesh and lived among us.”
JOHN 5:1-47, A SABBATH HEALING

MIRACLE AND-DISCOURSE
OVERVIEW
John 5:1-47 consists of two basic parts: (1) vv. (vv. 90-18); and (2) wv. 19-47, a discourse by
1-18, a healing story (vv. 1-94) and its aftermath Jesus. This text thus follows a Johannine narrative
576
JOHN 5:1-47 OVERVIEW _
pattern noted before (3:1-21), in which an event categories through which to interpret the story of
is followed by a discourse that draws out the Jesus. In the case of John 5, those theological
theological implications of that event. By con- categories involve the introduction of the contro-
structing the Gospel in this way, the Fourth Evan- versy between Jesus and the Jewish authorities.
gelist provides the reader with the theological
John 5:1-18, The Miracle and Its Aftermath

NIV NRSV
5 Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem After this there was a festival of the Jews,
for a feast of the Jews. Now there is in and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in 2Now in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate there is
Aramaic is called Bethesda? and which is sur- a pool, called in Hebrew? Beth-zatha,’ which has
rounded by five covered colonnades. *Here a five porticoes. “In these lay many invalids—blind,
great number of disabled people used to lie—the lame, and paralyzed.° °One man was there who
blind, the lame, the paralyzed.’ “One who was had been ill for thirty-eight years. “When Jesus
there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. saw him lying there and knew that he had been
“When Jesus saw him lying there and learned there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want
that he had been in this condition for a long to be made well?” ’The sick man answered him,
time, he asked him, “Do you want to get well?” “Sir, | have no one to put me into the pool when
“Sir,” the invalid replied, “I have no one to the water is stirred up; and while | am making
help me into the pool when the water is stirred. my way, someone else steps down ahead of me.”
While I am trying to get in, someone else goes SJesus said to him, “Stand up, take your mat and
down ahead of me.” walk.” °At once the man was made well, and he
8Then Jesus said to him, “Get up! Pick up your took up his mat and began to walk.
mat and walk.” °At once the man was cured; he Now that day was a sabbath. '!°So the Jews said
picked up his mat and walked. to the man who had been cured, “It is the
The day on which this took place was a Sab- sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your
bath, !°and so the Jews said to the man who had mat.” ''But he answered them, “The man who
been healed, “It is the Sabbath; the law forbids made me well said to me, ‘Take up your mat and
you to carry your mat.” walk.’” '*They asked him, “Who is the man who
"But he replied, “The man who made said to you, ‘Take it up and walk’?” '°Now the
me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and man who had been healed did not know who it
walk.’” was, for Jesus had disappeared in? the crowd that
'2S0 they asked him, “Who is this fellow who was there. '4Later Jesus found him in the temple
told you to pick it up and walk?” and said to him, “See, you have been made well!
Do not sin any more, so that nothing worse
'3The man who was healed had no idea who it
happens to you.” '°The man went away and told
was, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd
the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him
that was there. —
well. '“Therefore the Jews started persecuting Je-
14] ater Jesus found him at the temple and said
sus, because he was doing such things on the
to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or
sabbath. !7But Jesus answered them, “My Father
something worse may happen to you.” !°The man is still working, and I also am working.” '*For this
went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus
aThat is, Aramaic >Other ancient authorities read Bethesda, oth-
who had made him well. ers Bethsaida ceOther ancient authorities add, wholly or in part,
a2 Some manuscripts Bethzatha; other manuscripts Bethsaida waiting for the stirring of the water, 4for an angel of the Lord
went down at certain seasons into the pool, and stirred up the
©3 Some less important manuscripts paralyzed—and they waited for the
water; whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was
moving of the waters. 4From time to time an angel of the Lord would
made well from whatever disease that person had. a Or had left
come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each
such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease he had. because of
S77
JOHN 5:1-18
NIV NRSV
'6So, because Jesus was doing these things on reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill
the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. '’Jesus said him, because he was not only breaking the sab-
to them, “My Father is always at his work to this bath, but was also calling God his own Father,
very day, and I, too, am working.” '°For this thereby making himself equal to God.
reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him;
not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was
even calling God his own Father, making himself
equal with God.
(COMMENTARY
The healing story of John 5:1-18 follows the Jerusalem visited by a wide variety of invalids (v.
conventions of the miracle story form—vv. 1-5 3.a).118
prepare for the miracle; vv. 6-9a narrate the Verse 5 introduces the central character of the
miracle. External attestation of the miracle is healing story (other than Jesus): a man who had
provided indirectly by the controversy of vv. been sick for thirty-eight years. The verse does
96-18, because it is the “Jews’” encounter not specify the man’s illness. The figure “thirty-
with the healed man who is carrying his bed eight years” is mentioned to indicate the seeming
around on the sabbath that incites them permanence of the man’s affliction (cf. Mark 5:35;
against Jesus. Luke 13:11).
5:1-5. Verse 1 provides the temporal and 5:6-9a. The healing miracle is initiated by Jesus
geographical location for the story: in Jerusalem (v. 6; cf. 9:6-7). His insight into the man’s condition
during one of the Jewish festivals. The text resembles his insight into Nathanael (1:47-48), the
gives no clues as to which of the three pilgrim- crowd in Jerusalem (2:23-25), and the Samaritan
age festivals (Passover, Pentecost, or Taberna- woman (4:16-18). (The NIV translation, “learned
cles) it might be (see Fig. 9, “Jewish Religious that,” masks the text’s emphasis on Jesus’ insight
Festivals in John,” 542). Verses 2-3a provide a by wrongly suggesting that he was informed of the
detailed description of the setting in Jerusalem man’s condition.) Jesus asks the man if he wants to
(cf. 4:4-5). These two verses have suffered in be “made well” (vyijs yevéobat; hygies genes-
transmission of the text and are rife with textual thai?). This expression will function as a refrain
variants. The difference in the place names for throughout the rest of the story (vv. 9, 11, 14-15;
the pool in the NRSV (Bethzatha) and NIV cf. the use of “your son will live,” 4:50-51, 53).
(Bethsaida) is a result of variants in the textual The man responds to Jesus’ question the same
tradition. The most significant textual variant way Nicodemus responded to Jesus’ offer to be
occurs between vv. 3a and 5. Some later manu- “porn anothen” (“from above”/“again”; 3:3-4)—
scripts added the description of the angel stir- with protests that Jesus’ suggestion is impossible.
ring the waters (vv. 30-4), but the oldest and The man interprets Jesus’ question through his
most reliable witnesses do not contain these own presuppositions about how healing can be
verses. As a result, vv. 30-4 are printed only in accomplished and, therefore, can only bemoan his
the textual notes in both the NRSV and the predicament (v. 7). Jesus responds to the man’s
NIV. Verses 30-4 were probably added at a later complaint with three imperatives: rise, take up
date in order to explain v. 7 (“when the water your bed, walk (v. 8), the same three imperatives
is stirred”) and reflected popular beliefs that in Mark 2:9. Although there are similarities between
spirits were responsible for the otherwise inex-
plicable bubbling of some pools of water. When 118. Archaeologists have excavated a pool inJerusalem with five porticoes
at St. Anne’s Church that fits John’s description (5:2). See Joachim Jeremias,
the textual variants of vv. 2-3(4) are sorted
The Rediscovery of Bethesda (Louisville: Southern Baptist Seminary,
through, what emerges is a picture of a pool in 1966).
578
this Johannine story and the story in Mark (cf. the blame for sabbath violation from himself to
Mark 2:9-10; John 5:14), there are also significant Jesus,'?' but nothing in the man’s words necessi-
differences. For example, the miracle in Mark 2 is tates that judgment. He simply gives a straight-
enacted in response to the faith of the friends (2:5), forward account of what happened to him and
whereas in John 5 there is no demonstration of how he came to be carrying his bed (cf. 9:11,
faith. As with John 4:46-54, the Fourth Evangelist 15). Moreover, his words present the Jews (and
probably draws on a similar Jesus tradition, but his the reader) with the two competing foci of this
story is independent of Mark. story: that he was “made well” and that healing
Verse 9a demonstrates the effectiveness of Jesus’ is linked to a sabbath violation.
healing words. The man was “made well” (cf. v. 6) The Jews focus on only one of the two, the
and does exactly what Jesus commanded him. The sabbath violation. They are concerned only to
miracle story proper thus ends on a note of triumph. identify the person who instructed the man to
5:9b-18. Here John focuses on the aftermath pick up his bed and walk (v. 12). The Fourth
of the miracle. Verse 96 introduces an element Evangelist reminds the reader of both dimensions
of which the reader had previously been un- of the story, however, by repeating the epithet
aware: The healing took place on the sabbath. “the man who had been healed” (v. 13). The man
This notation shifts the focus of the story from can give no answer to the Jews’ question, because
a Straight miracle story to a conflict story. The he knows only that he was healed, not who was
concern with sabbath violation reflects an issue responsible. The question of Jesus’ identity (v. 12),
current in Jesus’ time and in John’s time. First- one of the key questions of the Gospel (e.g., 6:42;
century Judaism defined community identity 7:28; 8:25), hangs unanswered.
around three practices: circumcision, food laws, Jesus, reentering the story in v. 14, takes the
and sabbath observance. In Jesus’ time, a chal- initiative and finds the man in the Temple (cf.
lenge to the sabbath meant a challenge to the 9:35). Jesus’ words to the man are in two parts.
definition of covenant membership. This issue First, Jesus confirms the reality of the healing,
of community identity became even more “you have been made well” (v. 14a). Second,
sharply joined in the last quarter of the first Jesus speaks to the man about sin. In John, the
century, because with the destruction of the verb “to sin” (aaptdvw hamartano) occurs else-
Jerusalem Temple (70 ce) and the rise of early where only in 9:2-3.!2? In. Mark 2:5-10, Jesus links
Christianity, Jews and Christians found them- his healing of the paralytic man with the forgive-
selves increasingly in conflict over religious sys- ness of sins, yet in John 5:1-9a the healing does
tems and structures (see Reflections below).!’° not seem to involve forgiveness of sins; so it seems
A shift in characters also occurs at this juncture. wrong to read Jesus’ words in v. 14 as embracing
Verse 10 introduces “the Jews” into the story, the traditional linkage of sin and illness (e.g., Job
and Jesus disappears until v. 14. The use of the Oo JAN} Moll ocros of Cor “1229-30-71. “yon
phrase “the Jews” (ot ‘lovSaio. hoi loudaioi) in 9:2-3, where Jesus explicitly rejects that linkage).
this passage is a banner example of the distinctive That is, v. 14 does not address the man’s pre-
Johannine use of this term. It cannot refer to the healing condition. Jesus does not speak of what
Jewish people in general, since the man Jesus was required for healing but of the response to
heals is certainly a Jew himself. Therefore, it refers the healing already received; he urges that the
to the Jewish authorities who oppose Jesus (see man’s healing should be more than physical. The
Reflections below). man needs to be spiritually healthy also, as the
The “Jews” accuse the man who has been expression “be made well” suggests. In chap. 9,
healed of violating sabbath law; carrying a pallet physical blindness and sight will be played off
constituted work.!2° It is commonly assumed that against spiritual blindness and sight (9:39-41),
the man’s response in v. 11 is intended to shift and that dynamic is prefigured here.
121. E.g., Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 255; R. Alan
119. See Jerome H. Neyrey, An /deology of Revolt: John’s Christology in
Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design
Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 11; and Herold
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 138.
Weiss, “The Sabbath in the Fourth Gospel,” /BZ 110 (1991) 311-21.
122. The verb hamartano is also used at 8:11 in the non-Johannine
120. See m. Sabb. 7.2: “The main classes of work are forty save
story of 7:53-8:11.
one: .. . taking out aught from one domain into another.”
5/9
Verse 15 is commonly read as an indication of been taking place simultaneously. The Jews have
the healed man’s ingratitude; he responds to Je- been doggedly pursuing a conversation about sab-
sus’ healing by “turning him in” to the Jews.'2 bath violation (vv. 10, 12, 16), while the healed
Such a reading, however, judges the man’s words man and Jesus have been discussing healing and
by their consequences, not by the words them- being made well (vv. 11, 14-15). Jesus’ words in
selves. A careful study of v. 15 suggests a different v. 17 address both conversations. He addresses
interpretation of the man’s actions.'4 The verb the issue of work, the pivot of the Jews’ concern
used to describe the man’s speech is “to an- about sabbath violation, but he does so to speak
nounce” (avayyéA\w anangello). (The NIV and about his relationship with God, not to teach
the NRSV both flatten this verb to the more about the sabbath. If God continues to work on
general verb “to tell.”) This verb occurs only four the sabbath, giving and sustaining life, so does
other times in the Fourth Gospel, and all four uses Jesus. Jesus’ response to the sabbath controversy
are positive. It is used once of the Messiah (4:25) is thus quite different in John than in the Synop-
and three times to describe the activity of the tics. It provides an occasion for Jesus’ self-revela-
Paraclete (16:13-15). It is possible, then, to read tion, not for teaching about the law (cf. Mark
the man’s words as a positive announcement to 2:27-28).
the Jews. The Jews wanted to know who told the Jesus’ words in v. 17 escalate the Jews’ oppo-
man to carry his bed around—that is, who en- “sition from persecution to a decision to kill Jesus
couraged him to violate sabbath law—but that is (v. 18). To Jesus’ sabbath violation has been added
not what the man announces to them. Rather, he the ultimate blasphemy: Jesus has made himself
tells the “Jews” that “it was Jesus who had made equal to God. The Jews have heard rightly the
him well.” The man does not turn Jesus in for content of Jesus’ words; he does speak of his
violating the sabbath law, but announces him as unique relationship to God (“my father,” v. 17;
the man who has made him well. “his own [iStov idion] father,” v. 18) and does
The Jews remain uninterested in the healing, equate his work with God’s work (cf. 4:34). They
however. Although life-saving healing would be per-
wrongly interpret those words, however, to be
missible on the sabbath, the healing of a disease that
Jesus’ assertion of his independence from God, of
had lasted thirty-eight years could surely wait until
himself as another God, when Jesus means the
sundown. Their sole concern remains the violation
exact opposite. His words in v. 17 stress his
of sabbath law (v. 16). The man’s announcement
dependence on God.!#
gives the Jews the evidence they need (“because of
The claim Jesus makes for himself in 5:17 mirrors
this”) to persecute Jesus, but the man is not respon-
the christological confessions that led Johannine
sible for that outcome. At the very worst, the man
Christians into conflict with the synagogues. Also,
is an unwitting pawn, unable to assess. what the real
Johannine Christians who confessed Jesus to be the
issues are for the Jews (this is consistent with his
incarnate Word, sharing fully in God’s identity and
attitude toward his healing in v. 7). Yet the man’s
actions in v. 15 may be an attempt to enact Jesus’ work, were met with charges of blasphemy. Jesus’
words of v. 14—to live a whole life. assertion of his identity with God in 5:17, even in
In vv. 10-16, then, two conversations have the face of death threats, provided support to the
Johannine community in their struggles.!6
123. So Robert Kysar, John, Augsburg Commentary on the New
Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986) 78; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel 125, Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G.
According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 255. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia:
124. See Jeffery L. Staley, “Stumbling in the Dark, Reaching for the Westminster, 1971) 245.
Light: Reading Character in John 5 and 9,” Semeia 53 (1991) 58-64. 126. Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt, 35.
REFLECTIONS
John 5:1-18 presents the reader with the first example of overt rejection of Jesus in the
Fourth Gospel. The Gospel narrative has anticipated this rejection (1:11; 4:44), but its
suddenness and intensity in this story are nonetheless surprising. Concern over violation of
sabbath law escalates almost immediately into a resolve to kill Jesus. The Fourth Evangelist
calls those who oppose Jesus in this story “the Jews,” and interpreters must attend carefully
to what John means by this expression lest they fall into a careless anti-Semitism. The interpreter
must be careful to treat the “Jews” as characters in the story, not as an ethnic group. The
“Jews” in this story are not Jesus’ enemies because they are Jewish (cf. Jesus’ assertion,
“salvation is from the Jews,” 4:22), but because they reject Jesus. That is, their Jewishness is
not the issue; their response to Jesus is.
The “Jews” in John 5:1-18 make Jesus their enemy because he threatens their power,
authority, indeed, their very perception of reality. The defense of the sabbath law is the defense
of an entire system of ordering life and religious practice. It is the defense of a particular
understanding of God and how God belongs in human experience, and of membership in a
religious community. The “Jews” have too much to lose (and, therefore, much to defend) if
Jesus is allowed to redefine God’s presence in the world, so they choose to eliminate Jesus as
a threat. The “Jews,” the religious authorities with the power, close ranks rather than admit
the possibility of a new way.
The rejection of Jesus in this story, then, is a rejection of the possibility of new and unprecedented
ways of knowing God and ordering the life of faith. It is no accident that the Fourth Evangelist
uses a healing story as the catalyst for this rejection (see also John 9), because a healing miracle
simultaneously challenges conventional understandings of how the world is ordered and gives
concrete embodiment to the new possibilities. The double foci of the dialogue of 5:96-18 reinforces
the double aspect of the miracle. The “Jews” focus on the challenge to the conventional order,
whereas the healed man and Jesus focus on the new possibilities, the man’s new life.
The contemporary analogue for the “Jews’ ” rejection is not found by looking for the rejection
of Jesus by those outside the church, because in the Fourth Gospel, the “Jews” are Jesus’ own
people. The contemporary analogue is found instead by looking inside the church. The
contemporary reader is thus invited by this text to examine when and by whom in contem-
porary church life the knowledge of God brought by Jesus is rejected because it is too
challenging to existing religious systems and structures.
This is a delicate interpretive situation, because to engage in a battle of conflicting orthodoxies
by pitting one “right” understanding of the good news against another is in reality a rejection
of Jesus. Much damage and hurt have been done in the church by laity and clergy alike in
the defense of the “right” position. Jesus’ challenge, which the Jewish authorities rightly sensed
and reacted against swiftly and intensely (5:18), is to the hegemony of any one group or
position. Jesus brings God into human experience in ways that transcend and transform human
definitions and categories.
John 5:1-18 illustrates this fact. Sabbath law, the specifics of which were defined and
promulgated by human beings within the religious establishment, does not have the ultimate
say about Jesus’ activity in the world. If God is working, Jesus will keep working. In the
contemporary church, issues of ordination, church governance, and baptismal and eucharistic
practices often function as sabbath law functions for the “Jews” in this story: as the principal
defining issues for membership in religious community and one’s relationship to God. The
reality of the incarnation of God’s availability and presence in Jesus is the defining mark of
the believing community for John, not the defense of particular practices.
There is no way to soften the rejection of Jesus in John 5:1-18. It is so powerful that even
The
those not directly involved are drawn into its wake (e.g., the healed man in vv. 15-16).
question for the interpreter is whether to confront this rejection head-on and recognize where
this dynamic plays itself out among Jesus’ “own” today—that is, within the church itself.
581
JOHN 5:19-47
John 5:19-47, The Discourse
NIV NRSV
‘Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the 19Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you,
truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can the Son can do nothing on his own, but only
do only what he sees his Father doing, because what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the
whatever the Father does the Son also does. ?°For Father? does, the Son does likewise. ?°The Father
the Father loves the Son and shows him all he loves the Son and shows him all that he himself
does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him is doing; and he will show him greater works than
even greater things than these. *'For just as the these, so that you will be astonished. ?'Indeed,
Father raises the dead and gives them life, even just as the Father raises the dead and gives them
so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he
give it. ?*Moreover, the Father judges no one, but wishes. ??The Father judges no one but has given
has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all all judgment to the Son, 7%so that all may honor
may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone
He who does not honor the Son does not honor who does not honor the Son does not honor the
the Father, who sent him. Father who sent him. “Very truly, | tell you,
24“7 tell you the truth, whoever hears my word anyone who hears my word and believes him who
and believes him who sent me has eternal life sent me has eternal life, and does not come under
and will not be condemned; he has crossed over judgment, but has passed from death to life.
from death to life. *I tell you the truth, a time 25“Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming,
is coming and has now come when the dead will and is now here, when the dead will hear the
hear the voice of the Son of God and those who voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will
hear will live. ?°For as the Father has life in live. 76For just as the Father has life in himself,
himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in
so he has granted the Son also to have life in
himself. ?7And he has given him authority to judge
himself; ?”and he has given him authority to
because he is the Son of Man.
execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.
28“Tyo not be amazed at this, for a time is
78Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is
coming when all who are in their graves will hear
coming when all who are in their graves will hear
his voice ??and come out—those who have done
his voice ?°and will come out—those who have
good will rise to live, and those who have done
done good, to the resurrection of life, and those
evil will rise to be condemned. °°By myself I can
who have done evil, to the resurrection of con-
do nothing; I judge only as | hear, and my
demnation. ;
judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself
but him who sent me. 30“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, |
3'“If I testify about myself, my testimony is judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek to
not valid. °**There is another who testifies in my do not my own will but the will of him who sent
favor, and I know that his testimony about me is me.
valid. 31“If I testify about myself, my testimony is
33“You have sent to John and he has testified not true. There is another who testifies on my
to the truth. **Not that I accept human testimony; behalf, and I know that his testimony to me is
but I mention it that you may be saved. *John true. “You sent messengers to John, and he
was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you testified to the truth. “Not that I accept such
chose for a time to enjoy his light. human testimony, but I say these things so that
3°“T have testimony weightier than that of John. you may be saved. *-He was a burning and shining
For the very work that the Father has given me lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while
to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the in his light. *°But I have a testimony greater than
Father has sent me. °’And the Father who sent John’s. The works that the Father has given me
me has himself testified concerning me. You have aGk that one
582
JOHN 5:19-47
NIV NRSV
never heard his voice nor seen his form, “8nor to complete, the very works that I am doing,
does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me.
the one he sent. %°You diligently study? the Scrip- 37And the Father who sent me has himself testified
tures because you think that by them you possess on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or
eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify seen his form, **and you do not have his word
about me, ““yet you refuse to come to me to have abiding in you, because you do not believe him
life. whom he has sent.
411 do not accept praise from men, “but | 39“You search the scriptures because you think
know you. I know that you do not have the love that in them you have eternal life; and it is they
of God in your hearts. “I have come in my that testify on my behalf. “°"Yet you refuse to come
Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if to me to have life. *'I do not accept glory from
someone else comes in his own name, you will human beings. 4*But I know that you do not have
accept him. “How can you believe if you accept the love of God in? you. “I have come in my
praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if
the praise that comes from the only God?? another comes in his own name, you will accept
45“But do not think I will accuse you before him. “How can you believe when you accept
the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your glory from one another and do not seek the glory
hopes are set. *°If you believed Moses, you would that comes from the one who alone is God? *Do
believe me, for he wrote about me. “But since not think that I will accuse you before the Father;
you do not believe what he wrote, how are you your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set
going to believe what | say?” your hope. “If you believed Moses, you would
439 Or Study diligently (the imperative) 644 Some early believe me, for he wrote about me. “But if you
manuscripts the Only One
do not believe what he wrote, how will you
believe what I say?”
aOr among
(COMMENTARY
John 5:19-47 is the first fully developed dis- moves forward and backward simultaneously.
course by Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. The dis- That is, the Fourth Evangelist advances the argu-
course divides into two parts: (1) Verses 19-30 ment by placing what has been said before in a
expand on v. 17 and elucidate the Father/Son new context. It may be most helpful to think of
relationship, and (2) vv. 31-47 focus on witnesses John 5:19-30 as a web of closely interrelated
to Jesus. (This division of material differs from the themes. The Fourth Evangelist uses a similar tech-
NRSV, which divides at v. 29.) nique of interwoven themes and motifs in the
5:19-30. This passage is an excellent example Prologue, the Farewell Discourse (chaps. 13-17),
of the distinctive Johannine discourse style. It is and most of the discourses in the Gospel (e.g.,
built on a lean vocabulary base, the same few 6:35-59; 10:1-18).
words occurring repeatedly—e.g., “father” 5:19-20. The opening words of v. 19 ("Jesus
(matnp patér, vv. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26), “son” gave them this answer”) position the words that
(vids Auios, vv. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27), follow as an answer to the Jews’ outrage in v. 18.
“judge” and “judgment” (kpivw krino and Kptots Their concern is twofold: Jesus was breaking the
krisis, vv. 22, 24, 27, 29, 30), and nouns and verbs sabbath and making himself equal to God (v. 18).
from the root “life” (Cdw zao and Cwn Z0e; wy. Verses 19-20 address these concerns head-on by
21, 24, 25, 26, 29). The repetitiveness of vocabu- placing Jesus’ work in the context of his complete
lary and theme makes it difficult to outline vv. dependence on God. Verses 19-204 depict the Son
19-30, because in many respects the discourse as incapable of doing anything apart from the
583
model of the Father’s own work. It is possible v. 21 has already been demonstrated by the
that vv. 19-20a are a parable that illustrates the healing in 5:1-9. It was Jesus’ wish to heal that
apprentice relationship of father and son common led to the healing, not the man’s request to be
to the Near Eastern culture of Jesus’ time.'?” Jesus healed (5:6).
may be using this parable to introduce the general In v. 22, another activity traditionally associated
categories of father-son relationship, which the with God is described as an activity of the Son:
discourse will develop specifically about Jesus and judgment (e.g., Pss 43:1; 109). Verse 22 declares
God. Elsewhere in John, Jesus uses parabolic or that the Father has given the exercise of judgment
proverbial language in this way to establish appro- to the Son. The truth of this claim was also dem-
priate interpretive categories (e.g., 4:35-38). The onstrated in the preceding healing story. When Jesus
parable of vv. 19-20a suggests that “the Jews” told the man to sin no more (5:14), Jesus was
were partially correct, Jesus’ relationship to God exercising his power of judgment. John 5:21-22 thus
is that of a son to his “own father” (v. 18). They specifies how Jesus was working the works of God
wrongly perceive Jesus’ relationship with God as on the sabbath (cf. 5:17), while at the same time
being of his own making, however. Like Phil 2:6 moving the conversation to a broader christological
(“who, though he was in the form of God,/ did concern.
not regard equality with God/ as something to be 5:23. This verse articulates the purpose of the
exploited” [NRSV]}, John 5:19-20 claims that Je- co-working of Father and Son. They share the
sus’ oneness with God is intrinsic to the identity same work so that they can be honored together.
he has shared with God from “the beginning” The radical claim here is that Jesus is to be
(1:1) and is of God’s making, not Jesus’. honored as God is honored. Verse 23 thus pro-
The promise that God will show the Son vides further commentary on 5:1-18, because in
greater works (v. 200) recalls Jesus’ promise of 1:50 the Jews’ resolve to persecute and kill Jesus (5:16,
(“You will see greater things”). There “greater 18), they actually dishonor the very God they
things” is linked to the Cana miracle; in 5:20 claim ‘to defend. In the ancient Mediterranean
“greater works” is linked to the healing of 5:2-18. world, to dishonor the one sent is the same as
In both cases, the implication is that what Jesus does dishonoring the sender (see also 8:49).!2°
would be impossible apart from the workings of 5:24-25. These verses move from a description
God. of the interrelationship of Father and Son to the
5:21-22. These verses name the “greater soteriological significance of that relationship. Both
works” that God will show Jesus. Verse 21 focuses verses begin with “Very truly, I say to you...”
on the work of giving life, v. 22 on the work of a rhetorical device that signals the introduction of
judgment. These two activities are works of God an important new saying (see discussion of form in
that Jewish tradition understood as continuing Commentary on 1:51). Verse 24 presents the pos-
even on the sabbath.!?° God’s ability to give life is sibility of eternal life in terms reminiscent of 3:18-21,
at the center of OT faith (e.g., 1 Sam 2:6; 2 Kgs 31-36. To hear Jesus’ word and believe in God, like
5:7; Ezek 39:3-12}. To give life to the dead has a believing and doing what is true in 3:18-21 and
double meaning, for “dead” can mean both physi- accepting Jesus’ testimony in 3:33, opens the gift of
cally and spiritually dead in John. Both meanings eternal life. The alternative is judgment (cf. 3:16,
will figure in 5:19-30. Verse 21 makes clear that 19, 36). “Death” (6avatos thanatos) and “life”
the Son now shares in the life-giving work of the (zoe) are used metaphorically in v. 24 to refer to
Father (“for just as... so...”). Moreover, the spiritual life and death, so that v. 24 focuses on
Son has complete freedom in the enactment of the present effects of belief in God. Verse 25
that work (“for whom he wishes”). The truth of restates v. 24 in the idiom of realized eschatology.
Like v. 24, its focus is on the present life of the
127. See C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 386n. 2; and “Une believer. The language of the hour in v. 25 recalls
parabole caché dans le quatriéme Evangile,” Revue d'Histoire et de
Philosophie Religieuses 2-3 (1962) 107-15. 129. Fora discussion of honor and shame in the ancient Mediterranean
128. For a discussion of Jewish debate about the meaning of God’s world, see Bruce Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from
sabbath rest (Gen 2:3), see Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cultural Anthropology, rev. ed. (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox,
321-22, and Neyrey, An /deology of Revolt, 25-29. 1993) 28-40.
584
v. 23; traditional eschatological hopes are depicted as who wanted to correct John’s eschatology with
being fulfilled by the experience of Jesus in the present. more traditional eschatological expectations.!3! Re-
5:26-27. These verses provide further grounds course to source theories to explain the relation-
for the soteriological claims of vv. 24-25. They ship between the two eschatologies obscures the
return the focus to the relationship of the Father theological issues, however. As noted, the visions
and the Son and away from the listener’s faith of v. 25 and wv. 28-29 have in common that both
experience. Verse 26 begins with the same the eschatologically charged present and the an-
grammatical construction as v. 21 (“for just as... so ticipated future are presided over and determined
...”) and maintains that the Son has life because by the presence of Jesus. As Neyrey helpfully
the Father saw to it that that be the case. Verse 26 suggests, in vv. 21-29, the Fourth Evangelist col-
focuses on the theme of life, v. 27 on the theme of lected “a variety of old and new, Johannine and
judgment. These are the same themes found in vv. traditional eschatological statements” to show that
21-22, but they are nuanced differently. Verses Jesus has “God’s full eschatological power.” The
20-27 focus more intensely on the identity of the combination of eschatological traditions is thus
Son, whereas vv. 21-22 focus on the activity of the essential to the claims the Fourth Evangelist
Son. The Son’s identity is given to him by the Father; makes about Jesus.'%? One’s life in the present is
he has life in himself because God gave it to him transformed from death to life when one hears
(v. 26); he is the Son of Man (cf. Dan 7:13) because the voice of Jesus (vv. 24-25). The future judgment
God gave him authority to judge (v. 27). is inaugurated by the voice of Jesus. Judgment is
5:28-29. It is difficult to determine whether the evoked by one’s response to Jesus (cf. 3:18-21).
potential source of amazement in v. 28 (“Do not Verse 29 is a reminder that one’s decisions in the
be astonished at this”) is what has just preceded present also have future consequences.
(that Jesus is the Son of Man, the eschatological The Fourth Evangelist never insists on the
figure, in the present) or what follows (the descrip- transformation of the present at the expense of
tion of the final resurrection). This ambiguity may the future.'%° The juxtaposition of vv. 24-25 and
be intentional. Verses 28-29 draw on the language vv. 28-29 reminds the reader that past, present,
and imagery of future eschatology to describe the and future all are given fresh meaning because
resurrection and the final judgment. The language of Jesus’ presence in human experience. Tra-
appears to be deliberately contrasted with that of v. ditional distinctions between present and fu-
25, in which the eschatological fulfillment is present, ture are insufficient to describe the new age
“the hour is coming, and is now here.” In v. 28, the inaugurated by Jesus. The Fourth Evangelist’s
same language is used to point to future hopes, “the eschatological vision pushes at the boundaries
hour is coming” (cf. 4:21, 23). The spiritually dead of conventional theological categories in the
of v. 25 become quite clearly the physically dead in same way that it pushes at conventional lan-
v. 28 (“all who are in their graves”). The Son of God’s guage (e.g., his use of words with inherent
voice in v. 25 becomes the Son of Man’s voice in v. double meanings). The wonder of Johannine
28. Point for point, the pictures of realized eschatology eschatology is that it is able to hold present
in v. 25 and future eschatology in v. 28 mirror one and future together in a shared vision. Jesus
another. Importantly, the decisive event in both esis the fulfillment of traditional eschatological
chatological scenarios is the same: hearing the voice expectations, but the Gospel writer fulfills
of Jesus. The promise of both v. 25 and v. 28 them in such a way that they are redefined
anticipates the raising of Lazarus, when the power of by the present reality of Jesus. Jesus is at the.
Jesus’ voice to transform death into life will be center of the believer’s present and will be at the
demonstrated (11:43-44). center of the believer’s future also.
The contrasting eschatological visions of vv. 25 5:30. This verse provides a reprise of the
and 28-29 have led commentators to propose that central theme of 5:19-29: Jesus’ dependence on God
vv. 28-29 are a doublet of v. 25 from a separate
stage of tradition!*° or the addition of a redactor 131. Bultmann, Zhe Gospel ofJohn, 261.
132. Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt, 31-33.
130. Raymond E. Brown, 7he Gospel According to John (I-X1l), AB
29 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 219-21. delphia: Westminster, 1978) 68-70.
585
for his work. Verse 30 returns to v. 19: Jesus can Jesus is appealing to God’s witness here. The
do nothing without God. The expression “as I hear, commonality of work and purpose shared by the
I judge” addresses the Johannine theme of the Father and the Son described in vv. 19-30
relationship between the believer’s decision and suggests a similar interrelationship of God’s wit-
Jesus’ judgment (see Commentary on 3:18-21). ness and Jesus’ witness. The “Jews” objected to
Jesus’ judgment, whether in the present (vv. 24-25) Jesus’ description of his relationship with God
or the future (vv. 28-29), is just because it derives (5:17-18), and Jesus must be prepared to
from his enactment of God’s will (cf. 4:34). counter similar objections to his claim to God’s
5:31-47. John 5:31 introduces the second part witness here. Jesus thus presents the witnesses
of the discourse (vv. 31-47) and shifts the focus who have testified to him during his ministry.
to the grounds on which Jesus’ claims of vv. 19-30 He begins with John the Baptist (vv. 33-35),
rest. John 5:31-47 divides into two parts: (1) vv. then reminds his listeners of his works (v. 36).
31-40, which cite the witnesses who support He then reflects on God’s witness in the light
Jesus’ claims, and (2) vv. 41-47, which address of the events of his ministry (vv. 37-38). He
the situation of unbelief into which those wit- concludes by pointing to the witness of the
nesses are offered. Scriptures (vv. 39-40).
5:31-40. 5:3/-32. As mentioned in the discus- 5:33-35. Jesus turns from God’s witness (v. 32)
sion of John 1:19-28, “witness” (waptupia mar- to the witness of John the Baptist first because
tyria) has both religious and juridical dimensions that is the witness the “Jews” themselves sought
in the Fourth Gospel. John 5:31-47 highlights the first. They sent messengers to John to test the
juridical dimensions and is thus an explicit re- truth of his witness (v. 33; 1:19-28). Jesus makes
minder of the trial motif that runs throughout a claim for the truth of John’s witness (cf. 5:31-
the Fourth Gospel.'*4 Jesus’ acceptance or rejec- 32), but since in Johannine theology Jesus is the
tion by the world is frequently cast in juridical “truth” (14:6), his words may also mean that John
metaphors by the Fourth Evangelist. The trial witnesses to Jesus when he witnesses to the truth.
motif will culminate in the sophisticated trial Verse 34 is a disclaimer about the value of John’s
narrative of chaps. 18-19. testimony for Jesus himself. Jesus does not need
the testimony of John the Baptist, because Jesus
The charges of the “Jews” in 5:18 and their
knows the truth of God’s witness (v. 32); but his
resolve to kill Jesus effectively place Jesus on trial.
listeners, who do not accept God’s witness to
In vv. 19-30, Jesus spoke on his own behalf, but
Jesus, may be swayed by John’s testimony (cf.
Jewish law holds that no man can bear witness
on his own behalf.'° In v. 31, therefore, Jesus related disclaimers at 11:42; 12:30). Verse 35
provides a summary of the ministry of John the
explicitly states that he does not offer independent
Baptist. The description of John as a “lamp”
witness concerning himself, because that witness
would not be true. The NIV’s “valid” highlights
(kbxvos lychnos) reinforces the claim of the Pro-
logue that John was not the “light” (bas phos,
the juridical intent of Jesus’ words (his testimony
1:8). As a lamp, John shone and gave off light,
to himself would not count as valid evidence).
but his was a derivative brightness. Verse 356
Additional witnesses are required. In vv. 33-40,
may refer to the popularity of John’s ministry,
Jesus will speak as his own defense attorney,
but that allusion also contains an implicit criti-
presenting the witnesses who testify on his be-
cism of the “Jews.”!3” They rejoiced for a while
half.'°¢ The verb “witness” (martyreo) occurs
in John’s presence, but they did not accept his
seven times in 5:31-40 (vv. 31, 32 [twice], 33,
testimony.
36, 37, 39); the noun form of the word (martyria)
5:36. The second witness to which Jesus refers
occurs four times (vv. 31, 32, 34, 36).
is his works (v. 36). Jesus’ “works” (Epya erga)
Jesus links his testimony with that of “another”
can be understood in a limited sense as referring
in v. 32. The thrust of vv. 19-30 suggests that
to his miracles,'°* but the expression is used more
134. A. E. Harvey, Jesus on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel generally in the Fourth Gospel to refer to all of
(Atlanta: John Knox, 1977); Neyrey, /deology, 10-24.
135. See m. Ketub. 2:9; cf. Deut 9:15. 137. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.116-19.
136. Kysar, John, 85. 138. See Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 224.
586
Jesus’ ministry (4:34).!99 Jesus’ works bear wit- In the first century, one dividing line between
ness to his relationship to the Father and to his Jews and Christians was drawn over the proper
vocation as the one whom God has sent, because interpretation of Scripture. Christians claimed that
God gave him the works to do. Verse 36 thus God’s revelation in Jesus was continuous with
restates the themes of vv. 19-30. Jesus does what and, indeed, the crowning point of God’s revela-
God has given him to do; Jesus completes God’s tion in Scripture, while the Jewish community
own works (cf. 17:4, 23). denied that claim. Jesus’ “defense” in 5:31-40 has
5:37-38. At v. 37, Jesus returns to God’s wit- the tone of the formal apologetic used in later
ness (5:32), but he does so to criticize his listen- disputes with the Jewish community and perhaps
ers. The “Jews” have solicited the witness of John even in the formal defense of the Christian position
the Baptist (1:19-28) and have seen Jesus’ works (see, e.g., 15:26-27; 16:1-2, 8-11). The life situation
(2:23-25), yet they still “have never heard [God’s| of early Christians probably influenced the Fourth
voice or seen [God’s] form” (v. 37). No one has Evangelist’s shaping of Jesus’ words here.
seen God except “God the only Son, who is close 5:41-47. At v. 41, the tone of Jesus’ speech
to the Father’s heart, who has made him known” shifts. If Jesus is on trial in vv. 31-40, presenting
(1:18). The works of John the Baptist and Jesus witnesses as evidence in his defense, then the
have offered the “Jews” access to God through “Jews” are on trial in vv. 41-47. Jesus switches from
Jesus, but the “Jews” have rejected the very defense attorney to prosecutor, citing the evidence
testimony that would lead them to Jesus and of the “Jews’” unbelief against them. This shift is
hence give them a glimpse of God. Verse 37 may anticipated by the prevalence of second-person plural
contain an ironic allusion to the Sinai theophany pronouns throughout vv. 31-40. Jesus’ defense in
(see Exod 19:9-11). Verse 38 makes Jesus’ cri- 5:31-40 simultaneously presented his witnesses and
tique of his listeners’ experience of God even looked toward his listeners’ refusal to receive the
more explicit and gives expression to the hall- testimonies offered. This is especially true of vv.
marks of Johannine theology: faith in Jesus as the 39-40, which have a dual function. In addition to
access to God (cf. 14:6-9) and the abiding pres- completing the list of witnesses, these verses begin
ence of God and God’s word (Adyos logos) with Jesus’ frontal assault on his accusers. In vv. 41-47,
those who believe (cf. 15:1-11). It is possible that the indictment of the listeners moves exclusively to
logos has a double meaning here: God’s Word the fore. :
and Jesus as God’s Word. Verses 41-44 seem to develop from the claim
5:39-40. Jesus addresses the precipitating cause of 5:34, which states that Jesus is not concerned
of the early church’s crisis with the Jews: how to with human acclaim, but cites the witnesses for
interpret Scripture. These verses also look forward the sake of the salvation of his listeners. The
to forthcoming conflicts between Jesus and “the witnesses’ reception remains an open question in
Jews” (e.g., 7:21-24; 8:17-20). The expression 5:34, but in vv. 41-44, the Jews’ rejection of the
“you search the scriptures” may be a technical witnesses is assumed. Jesus once again renounces
term to describe rabbinic scriptural study. Verses any interest in human praise (v. 41) and then
39-40 are an excellent example of the sophisti- turns to the Jews’ behavior. The “Jews” do not
cated use of irony in John. The irony revolves love God (v. 42), a fact (“I know”) demonstrated
around the interpretation of “eternal life” and the by their rejection of Jesus, who comes in God’s
role of Scripture. The “Jews” search the Scriptures name (v. 43a; cf. 1:11). The reference in v. 436
because they think they are the source of “eternal to the Jews’ acceptance of “another” does not
life” (v. 39). The Scriptures bear witness to Jesus, point to a specific messianic figure, but is cited as
but the “Jews” ignore their witness and choose a general illustration of the Jews’ blindness;'°
not to come to Jesus “to have life” (v. 40). Since they are unable to discriminate truth from false-
to the Johannine community Jesus is the source hood (cf. 3:21; 8:31-32, 42-47). Verse 44 returns
of eternal life, these verses depict the “Jews’” to the theme of human praise, introduced in v.
refusing the very thing for which they search. 41, and explicitly contrasts Jesus’ attitude and that
140. Kysar, John, 87.

139. See Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 265-66.
587
of his listeners. His listeners’ desire for human though they claim to defend Moses’ words, they
praise and approbation has taken precedence over actually reject them because they do not see that
seeking God’s glory (cf. 12:43). Scripture testifies to Jesus.
The discourse ends with a surprising twist. In When the guarantor of the Jews’ scriptural tradi-
wv. 41-44, Jesus has played the role of prosecutor, tion is placed in the position of accuser, the intensity
listing the charges against his listeners, but in v. of the conflict between Jesus and the “Jews” is made
45, he declares that he will not be their accuser clear. As chaps. 6-10 will show, there is no middle
before God. Jesus cedes the role of accuser to ground in this conflict, because entire belief systems
Moses. Verses 45-47 are replete with irony. First, and social constructs are at stake. By placing Moses
Moses, the author of the Torah (v. 47), the on Jesus’ side, the Fourth Evangelist denies the Jews
authority to which the Jewish leaders appeal in their court of appeal. To be a disciple of Moses, the
their adjudication of sabbath law, is in reality Fourth Gospel maintains, one must be a disciple of
another witness to Jesus. Verses 46-47 reiterate Jesus as well (cf. 9:28-29).
the claim of vv. 39-40: The writings of Moses As the acrimony between Jesus and the “Jews”
testify to Jesus, but the “Jews” do not accept this intensifies in the remainder of the Gospel, it is
testimony. Second, and the source of an even important to remember the historical setting out
more poignant irony, Moses has the role of the of which the Fourth Gospel emerged and the
advocate for the people in the Jewish tradition; . intense conflicts between the synagogue and the
he is the one who stands in the breach between Johannine community (see Introduction). The ac-
the people and God (see Exod 17:1-7; 32:30-34; rimony is not directed to the Jewish people, but
Ps 106:23). According to the Johannine Jesus, to those Jewish leaders who rejected Jesus and
however, the people’s advocate, their hope (v. subsequently forced his followers out of the Jew-
45), will be their accuser instead, because al- ish community.
REFLECTIONS
The Johannine discourses have their own distinctive place in the Fourth Gospel. They have
few of the playful nuances of the Gospel narratives, none of the give and take found in
conversations between Jesus and other characters. Instead, only one voice is heard in these
discourses, the voice of Jesus, and his voice must guide the interpreter’s handling of the
discourse. The voice of Jesus explicitly declares the Gospel’s theological and christological
assumptions. The role given to Jesus in the discourses reveals a critical literary and theological
strategy of the Fourth Evangelist: The character of Jesus within the Gospel narrative provides
the warrants for the Evangelist’s own theological perspective. The Johannine Jesus is cast as
the interpreter of his own life and ministry. The job of the contemporary interpreter is to
enable the voice of the Johannine Jesus to be heard in a fresh context.
In 5:19-47, the interpretive voice of the Johannine Jesus focuses on three overarching themes
to which the interpreter should attend: the relationship of the Father and the Son; witnesses
to Jesus; and resistance to the witnesses, which results in unbelief. In each of these three
themes, the interpreter can note the interplay of two essential questions: Who is Jesus? and
Who are human beings in the light of Jesus? The balance between these two. questions is
crucial for understanding the Fourth Gospel. From the perspective of the Fourth Gospel, Who
is Jesus? must be addressed before the second question about human identity can even be
asked. The discourse of 5:19-47 helpfully illustrates the interplay between these two questions.
In 5:19-30, the central concern is the relationship between God and Jesus. Eight of the
twelve verses (5:19-23, 26-27, 30) focus on that relationship and hence on Jesus’ identity.
Who Jesus is can be answered by coming to a clearer understanding of Jesus’ relationship to
God. Jesus has received the gifts of life and judgment from God (5:21-22, 26-27); Jesus seeks
to do the will of God (5:30). Sandwiched between these christological declarations are verses
588
that focus on human response to Jesus (vv. 24-25, 28-29), on who people become in the light
of Jesus. In vv. 24-25, for example, a person passes from spiritual death to life because of his
or her response to Jesus. Those who hear Jesus receive new life (vv. 24-25, 28-29); those who
deny Jesus, who do “evil” (5:29; cf. 3:20), are denied that life. If a person knows who Jesus
is—tecognizes him as sent by God (5:24)—that person receives a new identity. Jesus’ identity
and human identity are thus tightly intertwined, but the beginning point for the Fourth Gospel
is always Jesus’ identity.
A similar interplay of Jesus’ identity and human identity is apparent in 5:31-47. In those
verses, the presentation of the witnesses to Jesus (vv. 31-40) precedes discussion of the “Jews’ ”
response to those witnesses (vv. 41-47). Each of the witnesses points to who Jesus is and
provides a new occasion for response to Jesus and hence a transformed human identity. For
example, Jesus recalls John the Baptist’s witness in order that his listeners “may be saved” (v.
34). The Scriptures witness to Jesus and afford the “Jews” the chance for life (vv. 39-40).
Verses 41-47 explore the ways in which the “Jews’” resistance to Jesus determines their
identity. The witnesses should lead them to faith in Jesus, but they do not receive Jesus (v.
42). Their identities are shaped by the desire for human praise (vv. 41, 44) instead of by the
love of God {(v. 42).
The trial motif that dominates 5:19-47 highlights this interplay between Jesus’ identity and
human identity because it underscores the fact that a person is judged by the judgment he or
she makes about Jesus. John 5:19-47 presents the evidence necessary to come to faith in Jesus
and to be “reborn” into the life offered by God in Jesus. If one rejects the evidence, one loses
the life. From the perspective of the Fourth Gospel, then, it is impossible to speak about human
existence as a neutral, intellectual category. Human existence is completely defined and shaped
by an individual’s response to Jesus.
It is important that the interpreter of John 5:19-47 attend to the interplay of Jesus’ identity
and human identity in this text and honor the Fourth Gospel’s presentation of this interrela-
tionship. For this Gospel, one cannot understand human existence without first understanding
who Jesus is. The discourse of 5:19-47 is an excellent example of the way in which christology
pervades every aspect of the Fourth Gospel. Everything points to Jesus, who in turn points to
God (1:18). The absolute centrality of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel often has the effect of
distancing contemporary Christians who operate out of a lower christology than this Gospel.
To questions like Who are we? or What are we to do? (cf. Luke 3:10), time and again the
Fourth Gospel asks back, Who is Jesus? The Fourth Gospel does not catalogue specific actions
to be renounced or embraced in the life of faith as, for example, Matthew and Luke do. The
Fourth Gospel insists on one truth: “I have come in my Father’s name” (5:43). The case for
the life of faith rises or falls on that truth: “Very truly, | tell you, anyone who hears my word
and believes in him who sent me has eternal life” (5:24).
John 5:19-47 speaks an important alternative to a church that sometimes thinks the words
of the Bible are obsolete unless one can immediately identify their “relevance,” unless those
words can be-turned into instructions for or illustrations of contemporary living. The testimony
of this text resists such reduction because it is first and foremost a christological text. It holds
up the extraordinary presence of Jesus to the community of faith and asks it to accept Jesus,
to accept these witnesses that point to Jesus, and believe. The church needs texts like John
5:19-47 as part of its language of faith, texts that make the case for Jesus. The church needs
texts—and moments of proclamation and teaching grounded in those texts—that announce
who Jesus is, what Jesus does, what Jesus offers. John 5:19-47 reminds the church of the
theological and christological grounds of its identity.
The Fourth Gospel’s insistent witness to Jesus does not exist in isolation from the church.
It is located in a canon that includes three other Gospel portraits of Jesus and epistolary
reflections on the meaning of Jesus. In each of the books of the NT, the balance between the
589
two questions Who is Jesus? and Who are human beings in response to Jesus? is different.
The church must train its ears to listen to the distinctive voice and contribution of each of
these NT witnesses. The Fourth Gospel, as exemplified in’5:19-47, puts the most weight on
the first question, but the second question always follows. The Fourth Gospel is built around
a high christology, but it is not a high christology devoid of human accountability. Rather, it
is a high christology that demands human accountability.
John 5:19-47 is another example of the coalescing of literary form and theological function
in the Fourth Gospel. This text about witness is itself a witness. It offers testimony to the
intimate relationship of God and Jesus. It witnesses to the “great cloud of witnesses” that
made Jesus known to the first generation of believers and prepared the way for witnesses to
come. It witnesses to the cost of rejecting those witnesses, of the loss of spiritual rebirth. John
5:19-47 is not an easy text because of the absolute language of acceptance and rejection it
employs and the directness of its christological reflections. The absolute language, however,
reflects the earnestness of the Fourth Evangelist’s witness. Because human identity is so
dependent on Jesus’ identity, everything is at stake in the recognition of Jesus as the sent one
of God. By placing this witness in the mouth of Jesus, the Fourth Evangelist makes the
acceptance or rejection of the witness more intense, because if one rejects the witness of these
verses, one does indeed reject Jesus. The reader thus faces the same choices about Jesus that
the characters in the story do. The interpreter’s role is to enable the faith community who
meets Jesus through this text to hear the witness and recognize the choices.
590
JOHN 6:1-10:42
JESUS’ WORDS AND WORKS:
CONFLICT AND OPPOSITION GROW
OVERVIEW
_ ohn 6 marks the beginning of a new section 47; 10:1-42). Many details of the healing stories
-in the Fourth Gospel narrative. John 5 are similar: the healed man’s inability to identify
marked the completion of the first cycle of Jesus’ Jesus (5:13; 9:12), his questioning by the Jews
ministry, from the manifestation of Jesus’ glory to (5:10-13; 9:13-17, 24), his focus on his own
the rejection of that glory, and in John 6 the cycle experience of being healed rather than on the
begins anew. John 2:1-5:47 and 6:1-10:42 con- Jews’ theological concerns (5:15; 9:25), Jesus’
tain two often analogous portraits of Jesus’ minis- finding the healed man at the end of the story
try. In many ways, no new theological themes are (5:15; 9:35). In 5:18, the precise source of “the
introduced in 6:1—10:42; instead, the theological Jews’ ” rejection of Jesus is articulated: his rela-
themes from 2:1—5:47 are replayed in a new con- tionship with the Father. In 10:30, that point is
text: Jesus’ authority and relationship to God, Jesus’ repeated, but the rejection of Jesus has intensified,
ability to give life and judge, the consequences of “The Jews took up stones again to stone him”
faith or unbelief. The hostility and opposition to Jesus (10:31). The decision to kill Jesus (5:18) has
in response to these themes intensifies in chaps. evolved into action against him. The discourse of
6-10, however, as the stakes climb. John 5 ends with a recital of witnesses to Jesus
This second major section in the Gospel, like (John the Baptist, Jesus’ works, God, Scripture),
the first, begins with a miracle in Galilee. To be and those same witnesses are named in 10:31-42.
more precise, chap. 6 begins with two Galilean Many Johannine scholars propose that chaps. 5
miracles, the feeding of the five thousand (6:1-15) and 6 should be reversed. Many commentaries even
and Jesus walking on water (6:16-21). These two follow that transposed order in their analysis of
miracles inaugurate the second cycle just as the John.'*' There are no manuscripts in which these
Cana miracle (2:1-11) inaugurated the first. In the chapters are transposed, however, so the transpo-
Cana wine miracle and the feeding miracle, Jesus sition has to be posited for a stage before the final
turns the ordinary into the extraordinary. In both editing of the Gospel. The strongest arguments for
miracles, Jesus provides a superabundance of gifts. transposition derive from geographical considera-
The Cana miracle also revealed Jesus’ glory to his tions: At the end of chap. 4, Jesus is in Galilee,
disciples (2:11), and the theophany of 6:16-21 has in chap. 5 in Jerusalem; in chap. 6, he is back in
that function in the second cycle. The two narra- Galilee with no mention of a journey from
tive cycles thus begin with miracles that show the Jerusalem. If chaps. 5 and 6 are reversed, then
grace and glory of Jesus. It is probably no accident Jesus’ Galilean activities are concentrated in
chaps. 4 and 6. Yet even those commentators
that the two inaugural miracles involve wine and
who advocate transposition acknowledge that the
bread, the sacramental symbols of God’s grace in
move creates new difficulties while solving others.
Jesus (see Reflections at 6:35-71).
For example, the request of Jesus’ brothers that
The two narrative cycles of Jesus’ ministry also
conclude analogously. A healing miracle (5:1-9a; 141. E.g., Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans.
9:1-7) evokes conversation and controversy about G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1971) 209-62; Rudolf Schnackenburg, 7he Gospel According
Jesus’ identity (5:6-18; 9:8-41), and the contro- to St. John, 3 vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982) 2:10-135; Gerard Sloyan, John
versy concludes with a discourse by Jesus (5:19- (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988) 61-84.
591
he go to Jerusalem and show himself (7:3) loses be read in the sequence that is preserved in the
much of its force if it follows the story of Jesus manuscript traditions. The Fourth Evangelist was
in Jerusalem in chap. 5.!*2 not recording an itinerary of Jesus’ activity. Theo-
The structure of the Fourth Gospel proposed in logical concerns, not geographical realism, deter-
this commentary assumes that the Gospel should mine the structure of the Fourth Gospel.
142. So Schnackenburg, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 2:7.
JOHN 6:12710 TOE BREATT ORIG.
OVERVIEW
John 6 is a carefully crafted chapter, charac- speaks in the presence of the crowd and the
terized by a tight interweaving of narrative and disciples, but in 6:60-71 he speaks to his disciples
discourse. It follows the same basic pattern noted alone.
in chap. 5: miracle/dialogue/discourse. This pat- John 6 can be outlined as follows:
tern is more intricate in chap. 6, however, be-
cause the chapter narrates Jesus’ self-revelation to 6:1-15 Miracle (with crowd)
two groups: the crowd and his disciples. Chapter 6:16-21 Miracle (with disciples alone)
6, therefore, contains two miracles: one _per- 6:22-24 Transition
formed in front of the crowd and the disciples 6:25-34 Dialogue (crowd)
(6:1-15) and one performed in front of the dis- 6:35:59 Discourse (crowd and disciples)
ciples alone (6:16-21). This dual focus is reflected 6:60-71 Conclusion (disciples alone)
in the discourse material as well. In 6:35-59, Jesus
John 6:1-15, The Feeding of the Five Thousand

NIV NRSV
Some time after this, Jesus crossed to the After this Jesus went to the other side of
6 far shore of the Sea of Galilee (that is, the the Sea of Galilee, also called the Sea of
Sea of Tiberias), and a great crowd of people Tiberias. A large crowd kept following him,
followed him because they saw the miraculous because they saw the signs that he was doing for
signs he had performed on the sick. °Then Jesus the sick. 9Jesus went up the mountain and sat
went up on a mountainside and sat down with down there with his disciples. “Now the Passover,
his disciples. “The Jewish Passover Feast was near. the festival of the Jews, was near. °When he
°When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd looked up and saw a large crowd coming toward
coming toward him, he said to Philip, “Where him, Jesus said to Philip, “Where are we to buy
shall we buy bread for these people to eat?” °He bread for these people to eat?” °He said this to
‘ test him, for he himself knew what he was going
asked this only to test him, for he already had in
to do. “Philip answered him, “Six months’ wages?
mind what he was going to do.
would not buy enough bread for each of them to
’Philip answered him, “Eight months’ wages?
get a little.” °One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon
would not buy enough bread for each one to have
Peter’s brother, said to him, “There is a boy here
a bite!”
2 Gk of Galilee of Tiberias ’ Gk Two hundred denarif. the denar-
a7 Greek two hundred denarii ius was the usual day’s wage for a laborer
JOHN 6:1-15
NIV NRSV
Another of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Pe- who has five barley loaves and two fish. But what
ter’s brother, spoke up, °“Here is a boy with five are they among so many people?” !Jesus said,
small barley loaves and two small fish, but how “Make the people sit down.” Now there was a
far will they go among so many?” great deal of grass in the place; so they? sat down,
‘Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” There about five thousand in all. ''Then Jesus took the
was plenty of grass in that place, and the men sat loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distrib-
down, about five thousand of them. 'Jesus then uted them to those who were seated; so also the
took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to fish, as much as they wanted. '?When they were
those who were seated as much as they wanted. satisfied, he told his disciples, “Gather up the
He did the same with the fish. fragments left over, so that nothing may be lost.”
'2When they had all had enough to eat, he said '3So they gathered them up, and from the frag-
to his disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left ments of the five barley loaves, left by those who
over. Let nothing be wasted.” '%So they gathered had eaten, they filled twelve baskets. '‘When the
them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of people saw the sign that he had done, they began
the five barley loaves left over by those who had to say, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come
eaten. into the world.”
'4After the people saw the miraculous sign that 15When Jesus realized that they were about to
Jesus did, they began to say, “Surely this is the come and take him by force to make him king,
Prophet who is to come into the world.” 'Jesus,
he withdrew again to the mountain by himself.
knowing that they intended to come and make
2Gk the men
him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain
by himself.
(COMMENTARY
The story of the miraculous feeding occupied John 6. The traditional eucharistic elements that
a central place in the oral tradition about Jesus. feature in the synoptic tellings of the story (e.g.,
It is the only miracle story that occurs in all four the traditional liturgical formula, Jesus took the
Gospels, and Matthew and Mark even tell the loaves, blessed, broke, gave; Matt 14:19; 15:36;
story twice (Matt 14:13-21; 15:32-39; Mark 6:30- Mark 6:41; 8:6; Luke 9:16) are played down or
44; 8:1-10; Luke 9:10-17). The pivotal place of are absent in John. The theological significance of
this story in the traditions about Jesus means that Jesus’ gift of himself in the bread is heightened,
it is not necessary to assume Johannine depen- however (see Reflections at 6:60-71).
dence on the synoptic Gospels, particularly Mark, 6:1-4. John 6:1-15 divides into two parts: (1)
here.! The Johannine version contains enough vv. 1-4, introduction, and vv. 5-15, the miracle
individual details that are essential to the story story. Verses 1-4 serve as the introduction to the
(e.g., the boy in v. 9) that it seems more likely whole chapter and show evidence of having been
that John drew on one of several versions of this constructed for the purpose of linking chap. 6 to
story that circulated among the early Christians.'"* the preceding narrative. The transition from v. 4
The story of the miraculous feeding was popu- to v. 5 is rough, as is the relationship between
lar in the early church because of the eucharistic vv. 3 and 15. Nonetheless, as strained as the
interpretation to which it lent itself. The eucharis- composition of these verses seems, each verse of
tic interpretation receives a distinctive touch in the introduction contributes something significant
to the narrative that follows. Verse 1 establishes
143. As C.K. Barrett does, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed.
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 271.
the location at the Sea of Galilee. Verse 2 intro-
144, For a full discussion of the history of the oral traditions of the duces the theme of seeing signs, which will figure
miraculous feeding, see Raymond E. Brown, 7he Gospel According to
John (I-XIl), AB 29 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 236-50.
prominently in the rest of the chapter (see vv. 14,
393
26, 30). This verse also points back to the crowd’s includes women and children in the count, the
response in 2:23-25 and to the healing in 5:1-9. crowd is larger than five thousand persons (cf.
Jesus’ retreat to the mountain with his disciples Matt 14:21, which makes this explicit).
in v. 3 sets up the contrast between Jesus’ self- The miracle itself is narrated in v. 11. Jesus’
revelation to his disciples and to the crowd, actions do not reflect the more liturgically stylized
which, as noted, determines the structure of much actions of the synoptic accounts (e.g., Mark 6:41;
of chap. 6. The reference to Passover in v. 4 Luke 9:16), but rather reflect the actions of a host
introduces the exodus theme; exodus imagery at a Jewish meal. Jesus takes the food, gives
figures prominently in wv. 5-59 (e.g., vv. 12, thanks over it, and gives it to his “guests.” Im-
31-32, 49, 58). portantly, the Fourth Evangelist narrates Jesus’
6:5-15. The miracle story proper contains ele- distributing the bread and fish himself, in contrast
ments standard in the miracle story form: an to the synoptic accounts, where the disciples
introduction (vv. 5-9), the miracle itself (vv. 10- distribute the food (e.g., Matt 14:19; Mark 6:41;
11), the aftermath and results of the miracle (vv. Luke 9:16). Jesus’ distribution of the food en-
12-15). The miracle is initiated by Jesus (v. 5). hances the christological focus of this miracle: The
Just as Jesus initiated contact with the Samaritan gift of food comes from Jesus himself. —
woman (4:9) and initiated the healing of the man The gathering of twelve baskets full of fragments
by the pool (5:6), so also here he anticipates the . (v. 13) is standard in the tradition (Matt 14:20; Mark
hunger of the crowd. His question, “Where are 6:43; Luke 9:17) and serves to emphasize the
we to buy food?” is asked to test Philip (v. 6). prodigiousness of the miracle; not only did the
Jesus knows the answer to the question—he people eat their fill, but there were leftovers as well
knows what he is going to do—and he wants to (cf. 2:6; 4:13-14). (Seven baskets of fragments are
discover whether Philip does. As noted earlier, collected in Matt 15:37 and Mark 8:8). Jesus’ words
the whence of Jesus’ gifts is an important chris- in v. 12 are unique to the Johannine version of the
tological question in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., 2:9; miracle and make an important connection between
4:11); if one knows the source of Jesus’ gifts, one this story and the manna story of Exodus 16. In
comes close to recognizing Jesus’ identity (cf. Exod 16:19, Moses asked that the people not leave
4:10). Neither Philip (v. 7) nor Andrew (vv. 8-9) any extra manna around, but the people disobeyed
is able to answer Jesus’ question, however. In- Moses and the leftover manna “bred worms and
stead of seeing that Jesus’ question is about him- became foul” (Exod 16:20 NRSV). Jesus’ words in
self, the two disciples interpret the question on 6:12 seem to caution against a repetition of Exodus
the most conventional level and so give conven- 16. The connection between the feeding miracle
tional answers: There is neither money nor food and the manna story, so pivotal to 6:25-59, is thus
enough to feed so many people. introduced early on.
This exchange between Jesus and his disciples Verses 14 and 15 narrate the results of the
prepares for the miracle in several ways. Philip’s and miracle. The Fourth Gospel narrative has taught
Andrew’s responses communicate how daunting the the reader to suspect any response to Jesus that
size of the crowd is and hence the huge quantity is based on a surface reaction to signs (2:23-25;
of food that would be required to feed them. More 4:48). The people’s confession of Jesus as “the
important, the disciples’ answers show how tradi- prophet who is to come into the world” (v. 14;
tional categories cannot comprehend in advance cf. 4:25) is, therefore, ambiguous, because while
what Jesus has to give. Conventional expectations it is an appropriate confession (cf. 4:19; 9:17), it
offer no solutions to the crowd’s needs; Jesus alone rests on the evidence of signs. The people’s con-
knows how to meet those needs. ’ fession continues the exodus imagery of the mir-
The miracle is narrated succinctly in vv. 10-11. acle, because it recalls the promise of a prophet
Verse 10 narrates an element standard to all of the like Moses of Deut 18:15.
accounts of the feeding: the order for the crowd to In v. 15 Jesus displays his omniscience (cf.
sit down (Matt 14:19; 15:35; Mark 6:39; 8:6; Luke 1:48; 2:23-25; 4:16-18) by knowing in advance
9:14). The size of the crowd was calculated by the crowd’s intent. The people’s desire to make
counting the number of men present. When one Jesus king by force resolves the ambiguity of v.
594
14 and confirms that the people’s response cannot but he will be king according to his definition of
be trusted. The kingship of Jesus is an important kingship (18:36-38), not forced to fit the world’s
theme in the Fourth Gospel, first introduced in definition. The kingship theme reaches its resolu-
1:49. Israel’s desire for a king is part of its tion in the crucifixion narrative of John 18-19.
messianic expectations, the hope for a second (See Reflections at 6:16-24.)
David. Jesus will be “king” in the Fourth Gospel,
John 6:16-24, Jesus Walks on Water

NIV NRSV
‘oWhen evening came, his disciples went down 16When evening came, his disciples went
to the lake, '’where they got into a boat and set down to the sea, !’got into a boat, and started
off across the lake for Capernaum. By now it was across the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark,
dark, and Jesus had not yet joined them. '8A and Jesus had not yet come to them. !’The sea
strong wind was blowing and the waters grew became rough because a strong wind was blow-
rough. ''When they had rowed three or three and ing. ‘When they had rowed about three or four
a half miles, they saw Jesus approaching the boat, miles,? they saw Jesus walking on the sea and
walking on the water; and they were terrified. coming near the boat, and they were terrified.
“But he said to them, “It is I; don’t be afraid.” °But he said to them, “It is I;? do not be afraid.”
21Then they were willing to take him into the “Then they wanted to take him into the boat,
boat, and immediately the boat reached the shore and immediately the boat reached the land toward
where they were heading. which they were going.
22The next day the crowd that had stayed on 22The next day the crowd that had stayed on
the opposite shore of the lake realized that only the other side of the sea saw that there had been
one boat had been there, and that Jesus had not only one boat there. They also saw that Jesus had
entered it with his disciples, but that they had not got into the boat with his disciples, but that
gone away alone. *?Then some boats from Tiberias his disciples had gone away alone. *Then some
landed near the place where the people had eaten boats from Tiberias came -near the place where
the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 74Once they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given
the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his thanks.© 24So when the crowd saw that neither
disciples were there, they got into the boats and Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves
went to Capernaum in search of Jesus. got into the boats and went to Capernaum looking
for Jesus.
a19 Greek rowed twenty-five or thirty stadia (about 5 or 6 kilometers)
aGk about twenty-five or thirty stadia 6Gk/ am
¢ Other ancient authorities lack after the Lord had given thanks
(COMMENTARY
6:16-21. The story of Jesus walking on water dent on Mark but rather preserves an independent
appears in Matthew (14:22-32), Mark (6:45-51), variation of this core tradition.
and John, and in each case it follows the story of Even in its lean narration, John 6:16-21 still
the feeding miracle. This suggests that the two contains the standard elements of a miracle story:
stories were linked in oral tradition as a pair of vv. 16-18, introduction and preparation for the
Galilean miracles. John’s account of the miracle miracle; vv. 19-20, the miracle; v. 21, the after-
is the shortest and the most simply constructed math of the miracle. Verses 16-18 establish the
and cleanly narrated of the three versions. As is nighttime setting for the miracle (cf. Matt 14:23;
the case with 6:1-15, John does not seem depen- Mark 6:47). In Matt 14:22 and Mark 6:45, Jesus
595
orders the disciples to cross the lake, but in John of theophanies (e.g., Gen 15:1; Matt 28:5; Luke
the disciples go on their own initiative. In Mat- 2:10). Jesus’ words in v. 20 confirm that his walking
thew and Mark, Jesus watches the disciples’ boat on water is a theophany and that this “manifestation
cross the rough sea (Matt 14:24; Mark 6:48), of the divine” is the source of the disciples’ fear.
whereas in John the journey is narrated from the The story comes to an end quickly in v. 21
disciples’ perspective. In John, therefore, the focus with the sudden arrival of the boat at the shore.
of the story is on the disciples’ experience, and This sudden sea crossing is a second miracle: Jesus
the story offers the reader a chance. to share in provided safe passage for ‘his disciples. This mir-
that experience. Verse 17 anticipates the miracle acle, too, is theophanic, because it recalls the safe
that is about to occur (“and Jesus had not yet passage God provides those in distress (e.g., Ps
come to them”). Such proleptic statements are 107:30). The Fourth Gospel does not narrate the
characteristic of the Johannine narrative style stilling of the storm (cf. Matt 14:32; Mark 6:51)
few ages LIsZ). because John 6:16-21 is not a nature miracle, a
The miracle, like the introduction, is narrated demonstration of Jesus’ power over the forces of
from the disciples’ perspective. There is no ad- nature. It is a miracle of theophany, of the reve-
vance notice that Jesus is walking across the sea lation of the divine in Jesus.
until the disciples see him (v. 19; cf. Matt 14:25; The theophanic focus of this narrative is con-
Mark 6:48). The Fourth Evangelist does not ex- firmed by the density of OT allusions and images
plain their fear (v. 196) by saying that they in this passage. In addition to the echoes of
thought they saw a ghost (so Matt 14:26; Mark Second Isaiah in v. 20, the story builds on a
6:49). Rather, as v. 20 will confirm, the disciples variety of OT texts that describe God as the one
are afraid because they “are awe-struck by the who walks upon the water (Job 9:8 LXX) and
miracle of the manifestation of the divine.”!*° who makes a path through the sea (Isa 43:2, 16;
Jesus’ words in v. 20 are the key to under- Pss 77:19; 107:23-32). God’s dominion over the
standing the miracle of 6:16-21. The words “I am waters ‘of chaos is a symbol in the OT of God’s
ley eit ego eimi]; do not be afraid” are found sovereignty and care, and in John 6:16-21 that
in all three accounts (Matt 14:27; Mark 6:50) and symbolism is applied to Jesus. This story thus
hence belong to the common fund of oral tradi- illustrates the truth of John 5:19-20: Jesus shares
tion, but they have a particular meaning in the in God’s work and identity. Many of the sea
christological context of the Fourth Gospel. A allusions in the OT texts that form the background
good case can be made that ego eimi should not of vv. 16-21 also contain allusions to Israel’s safe
be translated as a simple identification formula (“It crossing of the Reed Sea at the exodus (e.g., Isa
is I,” NIV and NRSV), but should be translated as 43:2), and those exodus allusions are appropriate
an absolute ego eimi saying, “I am” (see Fig. 10, for the setting of this miracle in John 6.
“The ‘I AM’ Sayings in John,” 602). As Jesus
6:22-24, These verses form a transition narrative
walks across the water, he identifies himself to that serves several purposes. First, in terms of the
his disciples with the divine name, “I AM.” The mechanics of the story line, these verses narrate the
background for this use of the divine name can movement of the crowd across the sea to Caper-
be found in the LXX of Second Isaiah (Isa 43:25; naum (v. 24) and set the stage for the dialogue and
51:12; 52:6). The Fourth Evangelist portrays Jesus discourse that follow (vv. 25-59). Second, the de-
as speaking the way Yahweh speaks in Second
tailed discussion of boats in vv. 22-24 and the
Isaiah.'4° This reading of ego eimi is supported by crowd’s confusion about Jesus’ sea crossing provide
Jesus’ second words to his disciples, “Do not be
indirect attestation to the miracle of wv. 16-21.
afraid.” These words, too, are spoken by Yahweh
Third, v. 23, with its reference to “the place where
in Second Isaiah. They are the words of the
they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given
salvation oracle, words of comfort spoken to end
thanks,” links the two miracles in vv. 1-15 and
the distress of God’s people (e.g., Isa 43:1; 44:2,
16-21 as part of one larger narrative. Finally, the
8). “Do not be afraid” is also a standard element
crowd’s ignorance about Jesus’ whereabouts under-
145. Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 215. scores that the theophany of vv. 16-21 was expe-
146. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-X1l), 537. rienced only by the disciples.
596
_ JOHN 6:16-24 REFLECTIONS
REFLECTIONS
The two miracles of John 6:1-15 and 16-21 present the interpreter with two vivid enactments
of the revelation of God’s grace and glory in Jesus. On the one hand, this grace and glory are
revealed outside conventional human experience and expectations—in the miraculous feeding
of over five thousand people with five loaves and two fish; in Jesus’ miraculous walking on
water. On the other hand, the occasions where Jesus’ grace is offered and his glory revealed
are familiar occasions of human need—the need for food, the need for safety and rescue from
danger. The fears and needs that Jesus’ miracles meet belong to the common fund of human
experience.
As in the healing of 4:46-54, Jesus’ grace is not revealed in a “spiritual” gift, but in a
tangible, physical gift. A hungry crowd sat on the grass and ate bread and fish. Their spiritual
needs were not the presenting problem for Jesus; their physical needs were (6:5). The
interpreter, therefore, needs to be careful lest he or she adopt a purely symbolic interpretation
of John 6:1-15 and cast its corporeality aside. The miraculous feeding dramatically demonstrates
that Jesus has gifts and resources to meet the full range of human needs. He supplies the daily
bread that people need to sustain life (cf. Matt 6:11; Luke 11:3). The feeding of the crowd
thus confirms that Jesus is the source of life (cf. 6:33, 35, 58).
Jesus’ feeding miracle so impresses the crowd that they declare him to be a prophet (6:14)
and intend to make him king (6:15). The crowd’s reaction shows how difficult it is to receive
Jesus’ gifts on his terms without translating them immediately into one’s own categories. Jesus’
gift of food, the offer of his grace, provided the crowd with a glimpse of his identity, but they
immediately tried to twist that identity to serve their own purposes. To make Jesus king is to
take his grace and twist it to conform to pre-existent systems of power and authority. To make
Jesus king is to judge him according to human glory (5:44) rather than to see in him God’s
glory. When Jesus withdrew from the crowd (6:15), he showed that he would offer his gift
of grace without claiming worldly power. In that moment his glory was revealed, because true
glory has nothing to do with worldly power. In John 6:1-15, Jesus’ gift of grace thus becomes
the vehicle for the revelation of his glory.
In John 6:16-21, by contrast, the revelation of Jesus’ glory is the vehicle for his gift of grace.
If the crowd’s intention to make Jesus king distorts Jesus’ glory, then Jesus’ walking on water
and his words to his disciples (“I am; do not fear”) counterbalance that distortion with a true
picture of his glory. In 6:16-21, Jesus reveals himself to his disciples as one with God, sharing
in God’s actions (e.g., Job 9:8; Isa 43:2), identifying himself with God’s name (e.g., Isa 43:25),
speaking God’s words. Yet this manifestation of the divine in Jesus is not bravura, not a moment
of glory for the sake of glory, but a moment of glory for the sake of grace. Jesus reveals himself
to his disciples in order to allay their fears, to ensure their safe passage, to remind them that
God has been, is, and will be their rescue. Jesus’ glory is not revealed for power, but for
grace-filled pastoral care.
These two miracle stories raise important questions about the balance between grace and
glory. In 6:1-15, the heart of the story is Jesus’ grace, Jesus’ extraordinary, unprecedented gift.
Yet the crowd is intrigued by the possibilities of glory, and they want to force Jesus to be
king. John 6:16-21 narrates the most dramatic self-revelation of Jesus to this point in the
Gospel; yet it occurs in the solitude of his disciples’ fears. Jesus will not allow his grace to be
controlled by the crowd’s desire for glory, and so he hides himself. But he will not hold back
his glory from those in need, because this is his mission: to make God known (1:18). How
believers hold the grace and glory of Jesus in balance is critical to the life of faith. The grace
is destroyed if one tries to harness it for false power and authority, and the glory is lost if one
does not recognize its presence in the quiet places of Jesus’ grace. Both the grace and the
597,
JOHN 6:16-24 REFLECTIONS |
glory are essential to God’s revelation in Jesus: “and we have seen his glory, the glory as of
a father’s only son, full of grace and truth” (1:14).
John 6:25-71, Dialogue and Discourse on the Bread of Life
OVERVIEW
As noted above, John 6:25-59 consists of a 6:53-59 Jesus’ third discourse
dialogue between Jesus and the crowd (vv. 25-34) 6:60-71 Dialogue between Jesus and disciples
and a three-part discourse by Jesus (vv. 35-59).
John 6 concludes with a conversation between Since each of Jesus’ three discourses is spoken in
Jesus and his disciples. This lengthy section can answer to “the Jews’ ” protests, vv. 35-59 acquire
be outlined as follows: a dialogical cast. In that respect, these verses resem-
ble the Farewell Discourse of John 14-16, which
6:25-34 Dialogue between Jesus and crowd also incorporates the responses of Jesus’ conversation
6:35-42 Jesus’ first discourse and “the Jews’ ” partners into the discourse, more than they resemble
response the discourses of 3:11-21 or 5:19-47.
6:43-52 Jesus’ second discourse and “the Jews 77
response
John 6:25-34, Dialogue Between Jesus and the Crowd

NIV NRSV *
25When they found him on the other side of 25When they found him on the other side of
the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you
get here?” come here?” 2°Jesus answered them, “Very truly,
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, you are I tell you, you are looking for me, not because
looking for me, not because you saw miraculous you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of
signs but because you ate the loaves and had your the loaves. ?7Do not work for the food that
fill. 27Do not work for food that spoils, but for perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal
food that endures to eternal life, which the Son life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it
of Man will give you. On him God the Father has is on him that God the Father has set his seal.”
placed his seal of approval.” 8Then they said to him, “What must we do to
8Then they asked him, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” 2%Jesus answered
do the works God requires?” them, “This is the work of God, that you believe
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to in him whom he has sent.” °°So they said to him,
believe in the one he has sent.” “What sign are you going to give us then, so that
3°So they asked him, “What miraculous sign we may see it and believe you? What work are
then will you give that we may see it and believe you performing? °'Our ancestors ate the manna
you? What will you do? *'Our forefathers ate the in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them
manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave bread from heaven to eat.’” °Then Jesus said to
them bread from heaven to eat.’2” them, “Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is
not Moses who has given you the bread from my Father who gives you the true bread from
heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the heaven. **For the bread of God is that which?
231 Exodus 16:4; Neh. 9:15; Psalm 78:24, 25 2Or he who
598
JOHN 6:25-34
NIV NRSV
true bread from heaven. **For the bread of God comes down from heaven and gives life to the
is he who comes down from heaven and gives world.” ““They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread
life to the world.” always.”
s«Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this
bread.”
(COMMENTARY
6:25-26. The crowd’s question to Jesus at (EpydCouat ergazomai) a new meaning. Jesus’
Capernaum (v. 25) reminds the reader that the admonition about laboring to receive a gift of im-
crowd is ignorant of the miracle of vv. 16-21 (cf. perishable food is transformed by the crowd into a
vv. 22-24). The disciples (and the reader) know question about their performance of works. The
something about Jesus that the crowd does not. grace in Jesus’ words disappears. In v. 29, Jesus
Jesus does not answer the crowd’s question but attempts to return to his original use of “work” by
instead redirects the conversation to the crowd’s defining it as faith in “him whom God has sent.”
motive in seeking him (v. 26). Jesus’ use of the Throughout vv. 27-31, Jesus and the crowd use
noun “sign” (onyetov semeion) invites compari- the same words but with very different meanings,
son with the two Cana signs (2:1-11; 4:46-54). another instance of the Johannine literary tech-
The disciples saw the transformation of water into nique of misunderstanding. The crowd’s questions
wine as a sign of Jesus’ glory; the royal official in v. 30 repeat key words from wv. 26-29: “sign”
saw the healing of his son as a sign of Jesus’ ability (sémeion, v. 26), “do” (movéw poied, v. 28),
to give life, and as a result they all believed in “see” (eldete eidete, v. 26, iSwyev idomen, v.
Jesus (2:11; 4:53). This crowd, Jesus says, can 30), “believe” (tiotevw pisteuo, v. 29), “work”
respond to the miracle only in terms of their full (ergazomai, vv. 27-28). They shift the burden of
stomachs; they do not see it as a sign (cf. 6:30). who is to work from themselves (vv. 27-29) to
6:27. Jesus contrasts the crowd’s work for food Jesus (v. 30). The crowd’s questions imply a
that perishes (they seek him because they ate their contingency: They will do God’s work only if
fill) with work for food that “endures for eternal Jesus does God’s work first and performs a sign.
life” (cf. Isa 55:2). The reference to food that The crowd’s request for a sign from Jesus is
perishes links this verse with Jesus’ earlier admo- jarring. How can they make such a request im-
nition about the leftover bread fragments (6:12; mediately after the feeding miracle in which they
“verish” and “be lost” translate the same Greek verb, shared (6:14, 26)? Jesus’ words in v. 26 are
atoddut [apollymi]) and the perishable manna of confirmed: The crowd does not recognize the sign
Exod 16:18-21. The food that endures to eternal that has already been enacted before them. The
life, much like the living water of 4:14, comes only crowd fleshes out its demands in v. 31 by appeal-
from the Son of Man. The Son of Man is described ing to their ancestors’ experience in the wilder-
as the one on whom “God the Father has set his ness. Their appeal is couched in the language of
seal.” “To set one’s seal” on something is to bestow Scripture, although it is not an exact citation of
a formal mark of identification, and v. 27 thus any one text (cf. Ps 78:24; Exod 16:4, 15). The
suggests that God marks the Son of Man as God’s fact that the crowd, like their ancestors, have
own. The father language of 6:27 recalls the same already been fed with miraculous bread under-
type of language in chap. 5 (e.g., 5:20-24, 26). The scores the irony of their demand.
reference to the Son of Man as the giver of the 6:32. At vv. 12 and 27, Jesus implicitly linked
imperishable food anticipates the themes of 6:35-59 the feeding miracle with the manna story of
because it places the gift of bread in an explicit Exodus 16; in v. 32, he does so explicitly. Jesus
christological context. reworks four essential elements of v. 31: (1) the
6:28-31. In v. 28, the crowd gives “work” donor of the bread is God (“my Father”), not
599
_JOHN 6:25-34 COMMENTARY
Moses; (2) the gift of bread occurs in the present repeat what has already been said about Jesus
(“gives”), not the past; (3) the bread of which in the Fourth Gospel. In 3:13, for example, the
Jesus speaks is the “true bread from heaven”; and language of descent from heaven describes the
(4) Jesus tells the crowd that they, not their activity of the Son of Man (cf. 3:31). In 5:21,
ancestors, are the recipients of God’s gift of the Jesus is spoken of as the one who gives life (cf.
true bread from heaven (“gives you”). Jesus an- 5:25-26). The description of the bread of God
swers the crowd’s demand for a sign (v. 30) by thus enables the Gospel, reader (but not the
showing them that they have already received crowd) to recognize that Jesus is the real subject
one. The contrasting gifts of v. 32, the exodus of the conversation, not the feeding miracle
gift of manna and the present gift of the “true alone. The conversation of 6:25-34, like that of
bread from heaven,” recall the contrasting gifts of 4:9-15, operates on two levels of meaning si-
1:17: “The law indeed was given through Moses; multaneously and contains two understandings
grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” of the bread that comes down from heaven and
In a classic study of John 6, Peder Borgen gives life.
demonstrated how Jesus’ reinterpretation of the 6:34. The crowd’s request for bread in this
crowd’s quotation of Scripture (6:31) can be most verse reveals that they understand only one level
helpfully understood as midrash, a Jewish form of the conversation. The similarity between the
of scriptural interpretation. According to Borgen, crowd’s request for bread and the Samaritan
Jesus’ words in v. 32 (and throughout the bread woman’s request for water in 4:15 is unmistakable
of life discourse, esp. also vv. 49-51, 58) are a and universally recognized.'#* Like the. Samaritan
deliberate exegesis of Ps 78:24. Borgen’s work woman, the crowd of John 6 has understood one
has become the definitive starting point for un- part of Jesus’ words—that the bread of which he
derstanding the role of exodus imagery in the
speaks is better than the bread given to their
bread of life discourse.'*”
ancestors—but does not grasp why it is better. The
6:33. Jesus describes the “bread of God” with
bread of which Jesus speaks is not given “always,”
two predicates: “comes down from heaven” and
but is given once and for all in the very person of
“sives life to the world.” These two predicates
Jesus. (See Reflections at John 6:60-71.)
147. Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the
Concept of Manna in the Gospel ofJohn and the Writings of Philo, NovT 148. E.g., Barrett, Zhe Gospel According to St. John, 291; Brown, The
10 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965). Borgen sees the role of midrash in John 6 as Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 267; Schnackenburg, The Gospel
the key to the structure of the bread of life discourse. According to St. John, 2:43.
John 6:35-42, Jesus’ First Discourse and the Crowd’s Response

NIV NRSV
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. 35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life.
He who comes to me will never go hungry, and Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and
he who believes in me will never be thirsty. °°But whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. *°But
as I told you, you have seen me and still you do I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not
not believe. °7All that the Father gives me will believe. *’Everything that the Father gives me will
come to me, and whoever comes to me | will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will
never drive away. **For I have come down from never drive away; **for I have come down from
heaven not to do my will but to do the will of heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him
him who sent me. °°And this is the will of him _ who sent me. °*?And this is the will of him who sent
who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has
has given me, but raise them up at the last day. given me, but raise it up on the last day. *°This
4°For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see
to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal the Son and believe in him may have eternal life;
life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” and I will raise them up on the last day.”
600
JOHN 6:35-42
NIV: NRSV
“IAt this the Jews began to grumble about him 41Then the Jews began to complain about him
because he said, “I am the bread that came down because he said, “I am the bread that came down
from heaven.” “They said, “Is this not Jesus, the from heaven.” “They were saying, “Is not this
son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother
How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come
down from heaven’?”
(COMMENTARY
6:35. Jesus’ first discourse opens with his exodus imagery, already evoked in 6:31-32, be-
bold self-revelation: “I am the bread of life.” cause in the Israelites’ wandering in the wilder-
The bread the crowd requested is already before ness God provided for their hunger and thirst
them and, Jesus proclaims, is the very person of through the gifts of manna (Exodus 16) and water
whom they made their request. Verse 35 is the from the rock (Num 20:9-13).!°° The images also
first occurrence of “I am” (€yu cit ego eimi) can be read through the lens of the Jewish wis-
followed by a predicate nominative in the dom traditions, where God’s revelation is often
Fourth Gospel. The “I am” sayings form the represented as Israel’s food and drink (Prov 9:5;
distinctive core of Jesus’ language of self-revela- Sir 24:21). Through that lens, the bread of life
tion in the Fourth Gospel (6:35, 48, 51; 8:12; refers to Jesus’ teaching and revelation.'>! Finally,
DOO el Went A 1254-601 531 SS sisee. Fig: the imagery of eating and drinking will become
10, “The ‘I AM’ Sayings in John,” 602). In explicitly eucharistic in vv. 51-58, and it is possi-
these “I am” sayings, Jesus identifies himself ble to see eucharistic symbolism anticipated
with symbols that come from the common fund here.!52 The core meaning of the hunger/thirst
of ancient Near Eastern religious and human imagery remains constant across the range of
experience----for example, bread (6:35, 48, 51), possible symbolisms: What people need for life is
life (11:14), light (8:12), truth (14:16). Through available in Jesus.
these common symbols, Jesus declares that peo- 6:36-40. This passage expands on what it
ple’s religious needs and human longings are met means to come to Jesus and believe. Xavier Leon-
in him. These symbols also provide an alternative Dufour has shown that these five verses follow
to the more traditional christological titles used an ABCB’A’ pattern (a chiasm):
to identify Jesus (e.g., the litany of titles in John
1), and suggest that no one title or tradition can A v. 36 seeing and not believing'*?
contain the totality of Jesus’ identity.'*° B v. 37 Jesus will not drive away
Verse 350 expands on the claim of the “I am” those who come to him
saying. To come to Jesus and to believe in him
C v. 38 I have come down
are synonymous here (cf. 7:37), and v. 350 thus
from heaven
depicts in metaphorical language the results of faith
B’ v. 39 Jesus will lose nothing of all
in Jesus. Like the wine at Cana (2:1-11), the images
of hunger and thirst in v. 356 have many symbolic that God gives him
overtones. They can be read in the context of the A’ v. 40 seeing and believing
149. For a form-critical classification of the variety of “I am” sayings in 150. Schnackenburg, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 2:44.
151. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 272-74.
John, see the lengthy footnote in Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 225-26n.
152. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 293.
3. For ways in which the Fourth Gospel pushes at traditional christological
153. Xavier Leon-Dufour, “Trois chiasmes johanninques,” NTS 7
titles, see George W. MacRae, “The Fourth Gospel and Religions-
geschichte,” CBQ.32 (1970) 13-14. (1960--61) 251-53.
*
601
Figure 10: The “I AM” Sayings in John
Absolute “I AM” sayings without a predicate nominative:

4:26 Jesus said to her, “I AM, the one who is speaking to you.”
6:20 But he said to them, “I AM; do not be afraid.”
8:24 “I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins
unless you believe that I AM.”
8:28 “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that | AM,
and I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father
instructed me.”
8:58 “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
13:19 “T tell you this now, before it occurs, so that when it does occur, you may
believe that | AM.”
itche wey) Jesus replied, “I AM.” When he said to them, “I am,” they stepped back
and fell to the ground.
“I AM” sayings with a predicate nominative:

6:35 “T am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and
whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats. of this
bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the
world is my flesh.”
“T am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in
darkness but will have the light of life.”
“T am the light of the world.”
“Very truly, I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep.”
“T am the good shepherd. ”
“T am the resurrection and the life.”
“T am the way, and the truth, and the life.”
“T am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower.”
The frame of the chiasm is the verbs “seeing” day”). As in 5:24-25, 28-29, it is wrong to limit
and “believing” (vv. 36, 40). The linkage of seeing the Fourth Gospel to one view of eschatology,
and believing is at the heart of the Johannine because at the heart of this Gospel’s eschatology
understanding of faith (e.g., 4:48; 6:30; 20:25, is the belief that faith in Jesus is determinative for
29). For the Fourth Evangelist, to see rightly is to the believer’s present and future.
believe. Verse 36 is a negative judgment on the Verses 37 and 39 both announce that God’s
crowd; their demand for a sign (v. 30) demon- redemptive purpose and will is to bring people to
strates that they see without truly seeing and, Jesus and all that he offers. These two verses
therefore, do not believe. (The expression “I said restate a theme encountered earlier in the Gospel
to you” in 6:36 does not point to any particular (3:27)—those who come to Jesus are given to
words of Jesus, but functions as a general allusion him by God—and further develop that theme by
to themes of Jesus’ teachings; see also 6:65.) Verse adding that Jesus will neither drive away (v. 37)
AO concludes the passage with a counterbalancing nor lose (v. 39) anything that God gives him (cf.
positive statement of what one gains when one 10:28; 17:12). The word “all” (or “everything”
sees and believes: eternal life and resurrection on [tas pas|) in vv. 37 and 39 underscores that
the last day. John 6:40 combines elements of God’s will for human salvation is inclusive in
realized eschatology (“eternal life”) and more tra- intent, not exclusive. God’s salvific will also has
ditional eschatological expectations (“on the last eschatological dimensions, because Jesus’ care of
602
JOHN 6:35-42 COMMENTARY _
all whom God gives him extends to the resurrec- 14:2, 27; Ps 105:24-25; cf. 1 Cor 10:10). Verse
tion “on the last day” (v. 39). Al is another instance of exodus imagery at work
John 6:36-37, and 39-40 present the delicate in John 6; the crowd demonstrates the same
balance between the human faith response (vv. recalcitrance as their forebears. The focus of the
36, 40) and God’s initiative in “giving” (8(8wyt crowd’s grumbling is Jesus’ claim that he is the
didomi) people to Jesus (vv. 37, 39). The key to bread that has come down from heaven (v. 42).
maintaining the balance is expressed in v. 38: Jesus John 6 has the heaviest concentration of lan-
has come down from heaven (cf. 3:13) to make guage about Jesus’ heavenly descent anywhere in
God’s will visible and accessible to humankind. Faith the Fourth Gospel (6:33, 38, 41-42, 50-51, 58).
in Jesus is impossible without God’s initiating will Moreover, this descent language does not recur
for the world, but human beings retain responsibility after this chapter. Descent language, introduced
for the decision they make in response to. God’s in 3:13, seems to be used in chap. 6 to solidify
initiative (cf. 3:16-21). In vv. 36-40, that decision is the connection between the manna miracle and
expressed in terms of either seeing and not believing Jesus’ revelation of himself as the bread of life.
(v. 36) or seeing and believing (v. 40). The manna of Exodus 16 was bread that came
6:41-42. The crowd’s response to Jesus’ words down from heaven, but Jesus’ claims of his own
is one of unbelief. For the first time in chap. 6, heavenly descent, coupled with the “I am” state-
the crowd is identified as “the Jews.” As Schnack- ment of v. 35, show him to be the true bread
enburg rightly notes, this shift in nomenclature from heaven. Jesus, not the manna, is God’s
indicates neither a textual seam nor a change of life-giving gift to the world (cf. 3:16; 6:32).
audience within the story.!°* Rather, the Fourth The “Jews” protest Jesus’ claim and self-identi-
Evangelist intentionally uses the noun “Jews” to sym- fication on the grounds that they know his par-
bolize the crowd’s resistance to Jesus. This crowd is entage (v. 42). Although the Fourth Gospel
of a piece with those who resisted Jesus in chap. 5. contains no infancy narrative and makes no direct
The verb “grumble” (yoyyt@w gongyZo, “com- reference to the birth story traditions, it seems
plain,” NRSV) is carefully chosen by the Fourth likely that 6:42 is an ironic allusion to those
Evangelist. It is used in the LXX to describe the traditions (see also 7:41-42). Jesus is the son of
Israelites’ grumbling and complaints in the wilder- God (1:17); his earthly family holds no key to his
ness (e.g., Exod 15:24; 16:2, 7, 12; Num 11:1; identity. The “Jews’” misplaced certitude about
Jesus’ origins blinds them to his true origins. (See
(New York: Seabury, 1982) 2:49. Reflections at 6:60-71.)
John 6:43-52, Jesus’ Second Discourse

and the Crowd’s Response
NIV NRSV
43Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus 4Jesus answered them, “Do not complain among
yourselves. “4No one can come to me unless
answered. ““No one can come to me unless the
drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise
Father who sent me draws him, and | will raise him
that person up on the last day. “It is written in
up at the last day. “It is written in the Prophets: “They the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by
will all be taught by God.’? Everyone who listens to God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from
the Father and learns from him comes to me. ““No the Father comes to me. “°Not that anyone has
one has seen the Father except the one who is from seen the Father except the one who is from God;
God; only he has seen the Father. “’I tell you the truth, he has seen the Father. *’Very truly, | tell you,
he who believes has everlasting life. 4°] am whoever believes has eternal life. #7] am the bread
45 Isaiah 54:13
of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the
JOHN 6:43-52
NIV NRSV
the bread of life. “"Your forefathers ate the manna wilderness, and they died. *°This is the bread that
in the desert, yet they died. *°But here is the bread comes down from heaven, so that one may eat
that comes down from heaven, which a man may of it and not die. °'I am the living bread that came
eat and not die. °'I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread
down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I will give
will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which | will for the life of the world is.my flesh.”
give for the life of the world.” 52The Jews then disputed among themselves,
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to
themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
eat?”
(COMMENTARY
6:43. Jesus now addresses the crowd for a second In 6:45, Jesus alludes to another theme of
time. The Evangelist described the crowd’s protests 6:36-40: the faith response. “Hearing” (axovw
in v. 41 as “grumbling” (yoyyv¢w gongyzo), and akouo) and “learning” (uavOdve, manthano) in
Jesus refers to them with the same verb in v. 43. v. 456 function analogously to “seeing” and “be-
This repetition of the verb gonguzo establishes lieving” in vv. 36 and 40; they are metaphors for
continuity between the perspective of the Evangelist human receptivity to what God offers. Verse 45a
and the Johannine Jesus by showing that they both states that God’s teaching is offered to all, but v.
see the crowd the same way.'° This is another 45 6 suggests that only those who hear and learn
example of the overlap in the Fourth Gospel be- what God teaches will come to Jesus. As in
tween the narrative voice of the Fourth Evangelist 6:36-40, God’s initiative toward humanity is held
and Jesus (see Commentary on 3:16-21). in tension with human decision and response. The
6:44-45. As is the habit of the Johannine emphasis on teaching, hearing, and learning in vv.
Jesus (cf. 3:4-8), he does not directly address 44-45 suggests that the reason for the crowd’s
the subject of the crowd’s grumbling. Instead, grumbling lies in their perception, not in Jesus’
Jesus restates the central theological themes of claims. God has taught them (v. 44), but they do
the preceding discourse: God’s initiative in not hear and learn (cf. 5:37).
drawing people to Jesus and the promise of res- 6:46. Yet even those who learn from the Father
urrection on the last day (6:44; cf. 6:37, 39-40). do not see the Father. Verse 46 reasserts Jesus’
In 6:45a, Jesus gives those themes scriptural
unique relationship to God, recalling the conclusion
support by appealing to “the prophets.” The OT
of the Prologue (1:18). For the Fourth Evangelist, it
verse cited in v. 45a seems to be a paraphrase
is through Logos-Jesus alone that the believer has
of the LXX of Isa 54:13, although its content
access to God the Father (5:23, 38, 42-43; 14:6-9).
also recalls Jer 31:33. The citation underscores
6:47-48. The expression “very truly I tell you”
God’s initiative in making faith possible and the
(v. 47) signals the beginning of a new section in
universality of God’s actions (“they shall al/ be
the discourse (cf. 5:19, 24-25; 6:32). Yet this
taught...”). The emphasis on God’s role and
section opens with a reprise of familiar Johannine
the appeal to Scripture build on the list of
witnesses developed in 5:31-40: Because Jesus’ themes: The believer receives eternal life (6:27,
claims are grounded in God’s work and 40); Jesus is the bread of life (6:35). These themes
identity, they cannot simply be dismissed as provide the theological grounding for what fol-
personal idiosyncrasy.!%° lows. As in 5:19-30, here the Fourth Evangelist
advances Jesus’ argument by placing what Jesus
155. R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in has said previously in a new context. The inter-
Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 41.
156. C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: weaving and overlapping of theological themes
Cambridge University Press, 1953) 340. evident here and throughout Jesus’ discourses
604
help to create a cohesiveness of theological per- In v. 51, Jesus takes his interpretation of the
spective throughout the Fourth Gospel. verb “to eat” one step further. He begins by
6:49. Jesus returns to the crowd’s challenge of repeating his self-identification as the bread from
6:31 (“Your ancestors ate the manna in the wil- heaven (v. 51a). “Living bread” (a synonym for
derness”). Jesus repeats the crowd’s words verba- “pread of life”), like the “living water” of 4:10-14,
tim, with the important exception that “our is life-giving. To underscore this, Jesus then re-
ancestors” in v. 31, becomes “your ancestors” in peats that eating this bread will give eternal life
v. 49. This change in pronouns distances Jesus (v. 516; cf. v. 50). He concludes his words with
from the crowd and their history. In v. 31, the a dramatic twist, however: “The bread that I will
crowd focused on the gift of the manna, but in give for the life of the world is my flesh” (v. 51).
v. 49 Jesus looks to the end of the exodus story. What does it mean for Jesus to speak of the gift of
The very ancestors who ate the manna died as a his flesh for the life of the world? First, the language
result of their grumbling and unbelief (Num of v. 51c recalls both 1:14 (“and the Word became
14:21-23; Deut 1:35). flesh’) and 3:16 (“God so loved the world that he
6:50-51. Jesus completes the comparison be- gave his only Son”). Verse 51c thus evokes the
tween the bread of heaven of which the crowd incarnation, the gift of Jesus’ life out of God’s love for
speaks and the bread of heaven of which he the world. Second, it is possible to see an allusion to
speaks. As noted already, Jesus’ words in 6:32-33 Jesus’ death in the language of v. 51c: Jesus will give
can be seen as his reinterpretation of the OT up his life, his flesh, as an expression of the same love
scripture cited by the crowd in 6:31. In vv. 50-51, manifest in the incarnation (10:17-19; 15:13). Finally,
Jesus continues to interpret that citation, this time any Christian reader of v. 51, from the Fourth Gos-
focusing on the verb “to eat” (€0@{w esthio).'°’ pel’s first audience to the contemporary church,
The manna eaten by the ancestors in the wilder- would hear eucharistic connotations in these words.
ness met the Israelites’ immediate needs for suste- The eucharistic imagery is not yet fully explicit (that
nance, but did not satisfy ultimate human needs; will occur in wv. 52-58), but the direction of the
the ancestors died (v. 49). The bread from heaven imagery for the Christian reader is clear.
of which Jesus speaks, however, does satisfy ulti- 6:52. The “Jews” themselves make the first
mate human need. Those who eat the true bread direct statement about eating Jesus’ flesh, as they
from heaven (cf. 6:32) receive the gift of eternal combine Jesus’ words in vv. 516 and Sic into
life. The promise that no one will die (v. 50) is one statement. What shocks the crowd is that
analogous to the promise that no one will hunger — until Jesus’ words in v. 51, Jesus’ language has
or thirst again (6:35).!° focused on the metaphor of the bread of life, but
with v. 51 the metaphor shifts. The content of
157. See Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of
the Concept of Manna in the Gospel ofJohn and the Writings of Philo, the crowd’s protest in v. 52 makes clear that the
NovT10 (Leiden: @.J. Brill, 1965). sticking point is the language about flesh—
158. See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed.
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 296. namely, its use to refer to Jesus himself.
K2 2,
“%, “~~ “~~ “
EXCURSUS: JOHN 6:51c-58 IN

CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP
The language about “flesh” in v. 51c (and its development in wv. 53-58) is also a sticking
point for Johannine scholarship and has made wv. 51-58 the most controversial and hotly
debated verses in the Fourth Gospel. Bultmann, for example, maintains that the eucharistic
references in these verses were imported into the text of the Fourth Gospel by a later editor
in order to correct the anti-sacramental tendencies of the Fourth Evangelist. ' This view of
Hoare, and J. K. Riches
159, Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N.
Westminster, 1971) 138, 218-20. He makes the same claims for the references to water in John 3:5 (138).
(Philadelphia:
605
EXCURSUS: JOHN 6:51¢-58 IN CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP
the Fourth Gospel and sacramental theology is adhered to by other German Protestants.
Haenchen, for example, maintains that any inclusion of the sacraments contradicts “the heart
of [the Evangelist’s] proclamation.”'"” In contrast, D. A. Carson, a’ North American evangelical
scholar, rejects the anti-sacramental reading, because he does not view vv. 51-58 as “profoundly
sacramentarian at all.” Lagrange, a French Catholic scholar, maintains that the allusion to the
eucharist is evident in v. 51 and “could not be missed by anyone, except for Protestants who
misconstrue the terms.”’°’ Raymond Brown adopts a middle-of-the-road position. He claims that
vv. 51-58 are the sacramental double of the more teaching-revelation oriented bread of life
discourse of vv. 35-50.'” Both vv. 35-50 and vv. 51-58 preserve authentic Johannine traditions,
but stem from different periods in the life of the Johannine community. Brown maintains that
the two versions of the bread of life discourse complement each other along the lines of word
and sacrament in the liturgy of the mass.'”
The scholarly debate over John 6:51-58 is important to the reader of the Gospel of John
because it reveals the presuppositions and assumptions out of which every interpreter works
and how those assumptions affect interpretation. Sloyan, a Catholic scholar, has wisely observed
about this discussion: “Some applaud the move to the sacramental plateau, others deplore
it—but both seem to do so more on the basis of a Catholic or Reformation heritage than of
hard data provided by the Fourth Gospel.” Schnackenburg, Barrett, and Beasley-Murray are
noteworthy as scholars whose interpretation of these verses are guided by the “hard data” of
the Fourth Gospel text.'” A full discussion of Johannine eucharistic theology will follow in the
Reflections at John 6:60-71, but a few comments are appropriate here with regard to the place
of vv. 51-58 in the overall picture of chap. 6.
First, in order to have a clear vantage point from which to assess the divergent views of
6:51-58, it is important to look again at vv. 51-52 in their full narrative context. The crowd
set the topic for Jesus’ dialogue and discourse with its evocation of the manna miracle (6:31).
In response, Jesus repeatedly stated that the manna was not the true bread from heaven; he
is (6:35, 41, 48, 51a). The true bread from heaven gives life to the world, and as early as
6:35, Jesus suggested that eating the bread was the way to receive its gift of life (see also
6:49-50). In v. 51, then, Jesus takes the replacement of the manna with himself to its ultimate
conclusion by equating his flesh with the bread of heaven. The “Jews’” protest in v. 52
indicates that they have followed the logic of the discourse, that they understand that Jesus
himself now stands in place of the manna their ancestors ate.
It appears, then, that v. 51 does not mark a dramatic break from what preceded, but that
the language and imagery of v. 51 are consistent with his preceding words and have been
carefully prepared for. Readings that insist on a “faith-alone” or “sacrament-alone” outlook
disregard the care with which themes and images overlap throughout the discourse of chap.
6.’ This is particularly true for vv. 53-58. Key words and themes from 6:25-51 form the heart
of this passage (see Commentary). On literary grounds, there is no compelling case for labeling
these verses as secondary or even complementary to the “main” discourse of 6:35-51.'” Rather,
the language and style of vv. 53-58 suggest that those verses are an integral part of one
continuous discourse.
Second, the scholarly debate about vv. 51-58 largely ignores the narrative structure of chap.
160. Ernst Haenchen, /ohn, Hermenia, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 1:299.
161. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 277; M.-J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Jean (Paris:
Gabalda, 1948) 183.
Ve ere E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XII), AB 29 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 285-91.
. Ibid., 290.
164. Gerard Sloyan, John (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988) 72.
165. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 2:58-60; Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 284; George
R.
Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987) 94-96.
166. Sloyan, John, 72.
167. See Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 234-37, labels them as secondary. Brown, The Gospel According to John
(I-X1I), 286-87, regards
them as complementary.
606
EXCURSUS: JOHN 6:51¢-58 IN CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP
6. Verse 51 does not mark the beginning of a new section; it is the conclusion of the
second section of the bread of life discourse and is tightly linked to the “Jews’ ” protest
in v. 52. As noted already, the “Jews’” protests serve as the pivot for each of the
subsections of the discourse (6:35-42, 43-52, 53-59). Each section concludes with a
statement by Jesus and the protest that it evokes from the Jews, so that the next section
of the discourse builds on both the claim and the protest.'” John 6:51-58 is no exception.
Jesus’ words in v. 51 evoke the “Jews’” protest (6:52), and beginning in v. 53 Jesus
addresses the heart of their protest. John 6:51-52 thus prepare for the eucharistic
language of 6:53-58. When vv. 51-58 are discussed as if they were an independent
theological treatise on the eucharist, the narrative integrity of chap. 6 is destroyed, and
an interpreter’s sense of what constitutes theological coherence leads to explanations
that appeal to independent traditions.
Third, there is a circular logic to questioning (or even rejecting) the eucharistic imagery of
vv. 53-58 on the grounds that the Fourth Gospel contains no account of the institution of the
eucharist comparable to that found in the Synoptics (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke
22:14-23). It is possible that vv. 53-58 are the “institution text” in John, but presented in
Johannine, not synoptic, categories. (See Commentary on 6:53-59 and Reflections at 6:60-71.)
7
“~~ 2 ®,
John 6:53-59, Jesus’ Third Discourse

NIV NRSV
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless 3S0 Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you,
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and
blood, you have no life in you. **Whoever eats drink his blood, you have no life in you. **Those
my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal
I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh life, and I will raise them up on the last day; >°for
my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.
is real food and my blood is real drink. °°Whoever
S°Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood
eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me,
abide in me, and I in them. °’Just as the living
and I in him. °’Just as the living Father sent me Father sent me, and I live because of the Father,
and I live because of the Father, so the one who so whoever eats me will live because of me. °*This
feeds on me will live because of me. **This is the is the bread that came down from heaven, not
bread that came down from heaven. Your forefa- like that which your ancestors ate, and they died.
thers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”
this bread will live forever.” °°He said this while °He said these things while he was teaching in
teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. the synagogue at Capernaum.
(COMMENTARY
6:53. The words “very truly I tell you” in v. 53 before. “Eat of this bread” becomes the more
again mark the beginning of a new section. As in explicit “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink
the earlier sections of the discourse (6:35-42, 43-51), his blood” in v. 53, and the emphasis of v. 53 is
this new section builds on what Jesus has said on what happens if one does not eat (“You have
__ JOHN 6:53-59 COMMENTARY
no life in you”). In Hebrew, the double formula “flesh score Jesus’ gift of his whole self, which is enacted
and blood” emphasizes the corporeality of human in the eucharist (cf. 6:51).
existence,!®? and its use here is thus an affirmation 6:54-55. Verse 54 is a positive statement of
of the incarnation of the Son of Man. For the the condition expressed negatively in v. 53. The
Christian reader, however, the double formula has third-person Son of Man language gives way to
unmistakable eucharistic associations. first-person pronouns. Eating the flesh and blood
Verse 53 also builds on another ofJesus’ earlier of Jesus leads to the gift of eternal life and the
statements. It can be read as the fulfillment of the promise of resurrection on the last day, comple-
promise made in 6:27. The flesh and blood of the mentary eschatological promises that run through-
Son of Man are the food that endures for eternal out the bread of life discourse (6:39-40, 44,
life. The Son of Man is the one who has descend- 50-51). A comparison of vv. 40 and 54 shows
ed from heaven to give his life for the salvation that eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood
of the world (3:13, 16). The gift of his flesh and parallels seeing the Son and believing in him.
blood belongs to that saving work; it is the food Participation in the eucharist and the faith deci-
that gives eternal life. sion are parallel in the Fourth Gospel, not
The syntax of v. 53 (“unless....”) makes clear either/or acts. Verse 55 states succinctly why
that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Jesus’ flesh and blood are the source of life. Jesus’
Son of Man is a condition for receiving the gift of flesh and blood thus fulfill the promise in 6:35 of
life. That Jesus’ words focus on life should not food and drink that will end hunger and thirst.
surprise the reader; Jesus as the source of life has 6:56-57. These verses provide important clues
been a central theme of the first six chapters of the to the distinctive Johannine eucharistic theology.
Gospel. What is new is the explicit linkage of Participation in the eucharist draws the believer
participation in the eucharist to this gift of life. The into a relationship with Jesus. At the heart of v.
strong emphasis on the eucharist reflects a shift in 56 is the verb “to abide” (uévw meno). This verb
the primary audience to whom the Fourth Evangelist expresses the interrelationship of Jesus and the
understands these words of Jesus to be addressed. believer that is the source of the believer’s life (cf.
The primary audience is no longer the audience in 15.4). Yet the interrelationship of Jesus and the
the story (the Jewish crowd), but the readers in believer is actually an extension of the inter-
John’s own time. Such a shift is a regular part of relationship of God and Jesus (6:57). Verse 57a
the literary strategy of Fourth Evangelist (3:31-36; builds on the claims of 5:21, 26-27: God shares
6:60-71; 9:18-23). The Fourth Gospel narrative fre- God’s life with Jesus. The one who eats Jesus
quently plays itself out on a “two-level stage,” so (note the substitution in v. 570 of “me” for flesh
that the events in Jesus’ life and the events in the and blood) receives life because that person shares
life of the Evangelist’s community are presented in the life-giving relationship of God and Jesus (cf.
simultaneously.!”° 1:4). Johannine eucharistic theology is one of
The insistence in v. 53 on both the fullness of relationship and presence (see Reflections).
the incarnation and the participation in the eucha- 6:58. This verse serves as the conclusion to
rist may be the Evangelist’s attempt to counter the whole bread of life discourse, tying together
developing docetic or gnostic tendencies within themes that have run throughout the discourse
his community that wanted to deny the bodily (e.g., 6:31, 37, 49-516) with its final restatement
aspects of Christ and of Christian experience. In of the life one receives from eating the bread from
that regard, it is noteworthy that nowhere in vv. heaven. Verse 59 provides the Evangelist’s formal
53-59 are the eucharistic elements of bread and note of conclusion. The reference to Capernaum
wine mentioned. The Fourth Evangelist’s focus corresponds to 6:24, although the synagogue was
remains on the flesh and blood of Jesus, not their not referred to earlier. Jesus spoke the bread of
sacramental representations, in order to under- life discourse, a christocentric reinterpretation of
the manna story, in the traditional Jewish site of
169. Ibid., 299. teaching and learning (cf. 6:45), the synagogue,
170. The clearest presentation of this Johannine characteristic is pro-
vided by J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel the locus of “his own.” (See Reflections at 6:60-
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1968; 2nd ed., 1979). oie)
608
JOHN 6:60-71
John 6:60-71, Conclusion: Jesus and His Disciples
NIV NRSV
On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This 60When many of his disciples heard it, they
is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept
°!Aware that his disciples were grumbling about it?” “But Jesus, being aware that his disciples
this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? were complaining about it, said to them, “Does
What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where this offend you? Then what if you were to see
he was before! “The Spirit gives life; the flesh the Son of Man ascending to where he was
counts for nothing. The words | have spoken to before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is
you are spirit? and they are life. “Yet there are useless. The words that I have spoken to you are
some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had spirit and life. “But among you there are some
known from the beginning which of them did not who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the
believe and who would betray him. “He went on first who were the ones that did not believe, and
to say, “This is why I told you that no one can who was the one that would betray him. °And
come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” he said, “For this reason I have told you that no
From this time many of his disciples turned one can come to me unless it is granted by the
back and no longer followed him. Father.”
°7“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus 66Because of this many of his disciples turned
asked the Twelve. back and no longer went about with him. °7So
68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go
shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to
ooWe believe and know that you are the Holy One whom can we go? You have the words of eternal
of God.” life. We have come to believe and know that
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, you are the Holy One of God.”? Jesus answered
the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 7!(He them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one
meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, of you is a devil.” 7'He was speaking of Judas son
though one of the Twelve, was later to betray of Simon Iscariot,’ for-he, though one of the
him.) twelve, was going to betray him.
263 Or Spirit a Other ancient authorities read the Christ, the Son of the living God
6 Other ancient authorities read Judas Iscariot son of Simon; others,
Judas son of Simon from Karyot (Kerioth)
(COMMENTARY
John 6:60-71 follows the same pattern as 6:25- of Jesus’ most explicit and far-reaching offer of
59: The disciples protest (6:60; cf. 6:41-42, 52), himself and the gift of life to those who believe,
and Jesus responds. Verses 60-71 can be sub- even many among his followers turn away.
divided into two units: (1) vv. 60-65, which focus 6:60-62. The similarity between his disciples’
on doubt and rejection among Jesus’ disciples, and protest and those of the crowd is established by
(2) vv. 66-71, which focus more narrowly on the the repetition of the verb “to grumble” (yoyyvcw
faith response of the Twelve. The central theme gongyzo; Vv. 61). Jesus’ awareness of the disciples’
of John 6:60-71 is the range of responses to Jesus grumbling is another example of his insight into
among his followers: “grumbling” (v. 61), disbelief human nature (cf. 1:47-48; 2:23-25). He issues a
(v. 64), rejection (v. 66), confession of faith (vv. challenge to the disciples’ doubt and resistance
68-69), and betrayal (vv. 64, 71). These verses (vv. 610-62). Jesus states the condition in v. 62
form a poignant conclusion to chap. 6. In the face (“What if...?”) without giving its conclusion.
609
Will the ascension of the Son of Man increase (6:51-56).!72 Why would Jesus correct a misper-
the offense of Jesus’ teachings or make sense of ception about the significance of “flesh” if he had
what offends the disciples now? Language about not taught about flesh previously? Therefore, it
the ascent of the Son of Man is synonymous seems more probable that the teaching to which
with language about Jesus’ return to God (e.g., many of the disciples take offense (vv. 60-614),
3:13; 20:17) and thus points to the entire Easter and which Jesus addresses in v. 63, is indeed the
event: death, resurrection, and ascension. Verse teaching about eating Jesus’ flesh.
62 also evokes the preexistence of the Son of The protesting disciples (like the “Jews” of v.
Man (cf. 1:1-2, 18; 8:58) and Jesus’ heavenly 52) do not rightly perceive the flesh of which
descent (3:13; 6:38, 51). Verse 62 thus suggests Jesus speaks. They see only Jesus’ flesh; they do
that the offense of Jesus’ teaching must be not see “the Word become flesh” (1:14). Jesus’
contextualized in the sweep of his life, from words in v. 63 expose this misperception. The
incarnation to crucifixion and resurrection. The flesh as flesh is useless; only the Spirit gives life
challenge of v. 62 is intentionally open-ended, to the flesh, and the Spirit dwells in the Son of
because each person will make his or her own Man (cf. 1:33) and in the words that Jesus
decision about the significance of this constella- speaks.'73 Verse 63 recalls 1:13 and 3:4-8. A new
tion of events. life born of flesh and spirit is possible to those
John 1:51 offers a helpful analogue to 6:62. In who believe, but if one limits one’s understanding
both verses, the ascent of the Son of Man becomes of life to one’s preconceptions of what is possible
the proving ground for the disciples’ faith. In both in the flesh, one will receive nothing. Spirit and
verses, Jesus moves the disciples’ immediate re- flesh must be held together; this is the heart of
sponse, whether faith (1:50) or doubt (6:60), into a the incarnation.
broader sphere. The ascent of the Son of Man—his John 6:63 thus continues the Johannine inter-
death, resurrection, and ascension—transcends any- pretation of the eucharist, begun in 6:51-58. Just
thing the disciples have yet experienced. as vv. 53-58 emphasize Jesus’ flesh and blood in
6:63. Jesus offers a new teaching. The contrast order to counteract developing docetic tendencies,
between spirit and flesh in this verse is taken by so also v. 63 can be seen as counteracting another
many scholars as the key to interpreting vv. 60-71 growing misperception in the Christian commu-
and the relationship of those verses to the rest of nity: It counters the notion that the eucharist as
the chapter. Scholars who see the eucharistic a rite in and of itself has almost magical qualities,
language of vv. 51-58 as a secondary part of the that the eucharistic elements themselves contain
discourse use the words of v. 63 (“the flesh is the key to eternal life. (Such an understanding of
useless”) to buttress their position.'!7! (See Excur- the eucharist may lie behind Ignatius’s words:
sus “John 6:51¢-58 in Critical Scholarship,” 605- “breaking one loaf, which is the medicine of immor-
7.) How, they argue, could Jesus advocate giving tality, the antidote which results not in dying but
and eating his flesh in vv. 51-58 and reject the in living forever in Jesus Christ.”)!74 John 6:63
value of flesh here? Verses 51-58 thus cannot affirms that the flesh has salvific power only because
belong to the core of Jesus’ teaching in chap. 6, it is inseparably bound to: the life-giving, Spirit-filled
and the disciples in 6:60-71 can only be under- words of Jesus. Jesus is not asking his disciples to
stood as protesting Jesus’ words in 6:35-50, not eat flesh and drink blood; he is asking them to eat
those in 6:51-58. the Spirit-filled flesh and blood of the Son of Man
Such a reading of the spirit/flesh contrast in v. (cf. 6:27).
63, however, seems to misread both v. 63 and 6:64-65. Jesus knows that his words will not
the eucharistic language of vv. 51-58. As Barrett bé believed by all of his disciples (v. 64). The
correctly points out, Jesus’ words about flesh in foreknowledge of unbelief and betrayal leads Jesus
v. 63 make little sense if one rejects vv. 51c-58 to address again a theological theme that has run
as secondary, because the word “flesh” (adp& throughout chap. 6: the tension between divine
Sarx) appears only in that section of the discourse
171. E.g., Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 287; Brown, The Gospel 173. Beasley-Murray, John, 96.
According to John (I-XII), 302-3. 174. E.g., Ignatius Ephesians 20.2.
610
initiative and human choice (v. 65). Verse 65 6:68-69. Simon Peter, given the role of
reiterates the claim of 6:37, 39, 44: Access to spokesman for the Twelve, chooses to accept
Jesus is impossible without God’s initiating act. what is offered in Jesus (vv. 68-69). His words in
6:66-67. In v. 66, the rejection that Jesus v. 68 acknowledge that he has heard and learned
foresaw takes place. That desertion is the direct (cf. 6:45) from the bread of life discourse, because
catalyst for Jesus’ question to the Twelve in v. 67 he knows that Jesus has “words of eternal life”
(“So Jesus asked....” The NIV mutes this im- (cf. 6:63; see also 6:40, 47, 51, 54, 58). Verse
portant connection). Verse 66 thus has a double 69 has the form of a confession of faith: “We have
function: to conclude the challenge to the dis- come to believe and know. ...” “Believe” (mus tevw
ciples in vv. 60-65 and to introduce a new chal- pisteuo) and “know” (y.vioKw ginosko) function
lenge for the Twelve. In v. 67, Jesus presents the as synonyms here, as they do in many places in
Twelve with a choice. The relationship between the Fourth Gospel (e.g., 10:38; 14:7; 16:30). The
divine initiative and human choice again comes use of both verbs intensifies Peter’s confession.
to the fore (cf. v. 65). The Twelve must choose The christological title “the Holy One of God”
whether to accept or reject the offer God has occurs only here in the Fourth Gospel. John 10:36
made to them in Jesus.!”° speaks of Jesus as “the one whom the Father has
Verse 67 is the first time the expression “the sanctified” (“made holy” [nytacev hegiasen|) and
twelve” (ot SWdexa hoi dodeka) occurs in the describes God’s act of setting Jesus apart as God’s
Fourth Gospel. That expression occurs infre- emissary. Peter’s confession of Jesus here shares that
quently in John—only in this passage (vv. 67, meaning (cf. 3:34; 4:34; 5:24, 30, 36, 38; 6:38).
70-71) and in one of the resurrection stories 6:70-71. Instead of embracing Peter’s confes-
(20:24). The Fourth Evangelist has narrated no sion (cf. Mark 8:30, 33), Jesus raises again the
call of the Twelve (see 1:35-51), and he intro- question of election and choice. This time it is
duces the expression with no explanation. It Jesus’ act of election, not God’s, on which Jesus
seems likely that he assumes the expression’s focuses (v. 70). The verb “to elect” (Exreyouat
familiarity to his readers from other traditions eklegomai) refers exclusively to Jesus’ selection of
about Jesus. Indeed, the reference to the Twelve his followers in John (6:70; 13:18; 15:16, 19).
and the prominent role of Peter in John 6:66-71 Even election into the select group of the Twelve
suggest that the Fourth Evangelist draws on tra- is no guarantee of a faith response, because one
ditions similar to those drawn on by the synoptic member of the Twelve is a devil. To speak of
Gospels. John 6:67-71 is frequently referred to by Judas (v. 71) as a devil (cf. 13:2, 27) means that
scholars as the Johannine version of Peter’s con- Judas is drawn more to evil than to God (3:19-21).
fession at Caesarea Philippi (Matt 16:13-20; Mark By alluding to the devil among the Twelve, Jesus
8:27-33; cf. the related confession at Luke 9:18- warns Peter (and the reader) that a confession of
20). The Fourth Evangelist’s use of this tradition faith will always be tested and, therefore, is always
here can be compared to his use of Petrine tradi- in jeopardy. Even among the Twelve, those who
tions in 1:42-44, share in Peter’s confession of v. 69 (“we believe”),
the drama of belief and unbelief is acted out.
175. Robert Kysar, John, Augsburg Commentary of the New Testament
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986) 112. Election is no substitute for the decision of faith.
REFLECTIONS
A basic theological tenet of the Fourth Gospel is that a sign alone is not an adequate ground
for faith; the believer must come to understand the theological and christological truths revealed
in that sign. (See Reflections on 4:46-54.) The structure of John 6 is governed by that theological
conviction; the two miracles of 6:1-21 are followed by a dialogue and discourse (6:25-71) that
give guidance in the proper interpretation of the “sign” (6:26, 30). The interpreter of John
6:25-71 thus does well to take his or her first interpretive clue from the Fourth Evangelist
himself and read the dialogue and the bread of life discourse as a continuation of and
commentary on the miracles of 6:1-21.
The length of John 6 makes handling this chapter as a totality a challenge. For example,
vv. 1-69 spread over five Sundays in Year B in the Revised Common Lectionary (Propers
12-16). The preacher’s task is to remember that each of the five lessons is only a piece of the
whole, not an individual unit with a self-contained meaning.
The narrative strategy of the Fourth Evangelist works to remind the reader how tightly
wedded the discourse of John 6 is to its narrative setting. For example, the crowd, so pivotal
in vv. 25-34, does not disappear once the discourse begins, but twice interrupts Jesus’ words
(vv. 41-42, 52). These interruptions and Jesus’ responses to them remind the reader that Jesus
does not speak in a vacuum. His words belong to a particular occasion. He speaks to the same
people who ate his miraculous gift of bread and fish, and his words offer them an interpretation
of that miracle. “Bread” is thus not a disembodied concept in John 6, but is a concrete metaphor
that springs from the miraculous feeding of 6:1-15 and the manna miracle of Exodus 16.
This interdependence of form and content in John 6 reflects the teachings that are at the heart
of the discourse: Flesh and spirit belong together, and only when they are held together is life
possible. On the one hand, without the Spirit, “the flesh is useless” (6:63), and the miraculous
feeding of the five thousand will end the same way the manna miracle ended—with the death of
those who ate the bread (6:49, 59a). The miraculous feeding is only that—a miraculous
feeding—without the life-giving words of Jesus (6:63, 68). Those words enable people who eat
the bread to see and believe (6:40) and hence live (6:51, 57-58). On the other hand, if the
life-giving words of Jesus are separated from the fleshly reality of the miracle that preceded them,
there is also no life. One must eat the bread, not simply respond to the teachings, in order to live
(6:53, 580). The miraculous gift of bread, both in the feeding of the five thousand and in Jesus’
gift of his flesh for the life of the world, is as essential to John 6 as the teachings contained in it.
The union between miracle and discourse, between sign and word is the narrative representation
of the union of human and divine, flesh and spirit in the incarnation.
Nowhere is the maintenance of this union more critical (and, to many interpreters, more
problematic) than in the interpretation of the eucharistic images and theology in John 6. As noted
in the Commentary and Excursus sections above, many commentators find the presence of
eucharistic images in John 6 at best tangential to the heart of the bread of life discourse, at worst
antithetical to it. If, however, John 6:25-71 is read first of all as an essential part of the narrative
that begins in 6:1-21 and not as an independent piece of theological reflection, then the eucharistic
images concentrated in 6:51-58 can find their place in the full sweep of the bread of life discourse.
The interpreter must begin with the miraculous feeding and Jesus’ revelation of himself as the
bread of heaven, not with the synoptic Gospels and an imported notion of normative eucharistic
theology and practice in the early church. If interpreters of John 6 can free themselves from
preconceptions about how a Gospel writer “should” present the eucharist, they will enjoy a fuller
understanding of the bread of life discourse and of the eucharist.
To this end, it is essential that the interpreter honor the many levels of meaning in the bread
metaphor in John 6. As noted throughout the Commentary on 6:25-71, the phrase “bread from
heaven” is intentionally evocative of another bread from heaven: the manna with which the
wandering Israelites were fed in the wilderness. The feeding miracle itself contains hints of this
association (e.g., 6:12), and the dialogue and discourse make the association explicit (6:32-33,
48-50, 58). One level of meaning of the bread metaphor, then, links the bread of life discourse
with the events of the exodus, both God’s faithfulness in feeding Israel and the Israelites’ recalcitrant
grumbling. A second level of meaning builds on the language and images of Second Isaiah (e.g,
Isa 50:10-11; 55:1-2). The bread from heaven represents the Word of God, which gives and sustains
life (6:35, 63). In typical Johannine fashion, the very expression “from heaven” suggests these two
levels of meaning, because it can mean both “come down from heaven” and “from God.” The
bread from heaven metaphor thus evokes two different gifts from God: the miraculous gift of
actual food and the gift of God’s Word.
612
When Jesus says, “I am the bread of life,” these images of bread drawn from the scriptural
tradition are transformed. The traditional metaphors are redefined by the very person of Jesus.
Metaphors that pointed to God in the OT now point to God through Jesus. This focusing of
the rich OT symbols on the person of Jesus is the context in which the eucharistic images are
to be read and, indeed, out of which they grow.
For the Fourth Evangelist, the eucharistic images of 6:51-58 are the final stage in a progression
of images that began with the manna in the wilderness. When Jesus says that his flesh is the
“living bread that came down from heaven” (6:51), he is saying that he himself is the food that
gives life, not the manna or the multiplied loaves. And it is through eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking
his blood, through the eucharist, that the believer partakes of this food.
To say that the bread metaphor in John 6 comes finally to represent Jesus’ flesh and hence
the eucharist does not mean that the exodus symbolism or the Word of God symbolism is
voided. On the contrary, the whole range of symbolisms for bread remains in play throughout
John 6. Jesus is the bread that people must eat to have life (6:53-56), and Jesus is also the
bread to whom people must listen in order to have life (6:45, 63, 68). As has been noted
repeatedly in this commentary, the Fourth Gospel is characterized by a linguistic richness and
depth that defies reduction to a single meaning. The symbolic richness of the wine at Cana
(2:1-11), Jesus’ offer of new life to Nicodemus (3:1-15), and the living water (4:10-15)
demonstrates that the Fourth Evangelist intends to expand, not restrict, the possibilities of life
offered by Jesus. Jesus is the definitive point of access to God for the Fourth Evangelist (14:6),
but there is no single approach to Jesus. Jesus can be met as the Holy One of God (6:69) and
as the bread of life (6:35); as the presence of God who walks upon the water (6:20) and as
the only one who has ever seen God (6:46).
The richness of the bread metaphor in John 6, then, is essential to the presentation of the
eucharist. The manna in the wilderness, the Word of God that gives life, the multiplication of
the loaves are all present when the believer eats Jesus’ flesh and drinks his blood. One does
not have to choose among the symbols and images, because all are at play in the eucharist
for the Fourth Evangelist. The symbolic richness of the eucharist is one of the reasons why
the eucharistic images are found in John 6 and not in the passion narrative (cf. Matt 26:26-29;
Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23). The eucharist does not belong exclusively to Jesus’ death for
the Fourth Evangelist; but belongs to all of Jesus’ life. Verse 51c does carry the association
with Jesus’ death, but the believer’s participation in the eucharist marks more than Jesus’ gift
of his life in death. It marks the believer’s full participation in all of Jesus’ life and gifts. (See
Commentary on John 13:1-20).
The sense of participation is conveyed in 6:56-57. When the believer eats Jesus’ flesh and
drinks his blood, the believer and Jesus abide together. Participation in the eucharist places
the believer in relationship with Jesus, and the believer receives life through Jesus’ abiding
presence. The Fourth Evangelist does not draw a line of demarcation between participation in
the eucharist and the faith response that many commentators, both Catholic and Protestant,
seem to insist that he draw. Rather, what is definitional for faith in the Fourth Gospel is also
definitional for the eucharist: the centrality of Jesus in the believer’s life and the believer’s
relationship with Jesus.
Johannine eucharistic theology presents several challenges to the eucharistic theology and
practices of many churches today. It challenges those Protestant churches that understand the
eucharist primarily as a commemoration of Jesus’ death or a meal of community fellowship.
For the Fourth Evangelist, the eucharist is a meal of Jesus’ presence, not primarily—if at all—a
meal of remembrance. The eucharist is feeding on and being fed by Jesus. The “fellowship”
derives first from the mutual indwelling of Jesus and the believer, and community is formed
from those who share in Jesus’ presence.
Johannine eucharistic theology also poses a challenge to those churches, Catholic and some
613
Protestant, that elevate the role of the person who presides at the eucharist. By placing his
eucharistic theology in the context of the bread of life discourse rather than an institution
narrative as found in the Synoptics, the Fourth Evangelist emphasizes the personal dimension
of the sacrament rather than the institutionalization and institutional control of the sacrament.
The eucharist is not Jesus’ gift to an elite group of twelve who then mediate that gift to others;
the eucharist is Jesus’ direct gift to those who believe. The believer’s participation in the
eucharist thus revolves around Jesus’ gift and the believer’s relationship to Jesus, not on the
mediation of the church. ;
The immediacy of Jesus’ gift of the eucharist is anticipated in the feeding miracle (6:1-15).
In 6:11, Jesus, not his disciples, distributes the bread and fish to the multitudes. In each of
the Synoptic accounts, the disciples are responsible for the distribution of the food (Matt 14:19;
Mark 6:41; Luke 9:16). The Johannine version thus places the emphasis on Jesus’ own feeding
of those who are hungry.
Everything in the Fourth Gospel, including the eucharist, is subsumed in the person of Jesus.
This Gospel contains no traditional institution narrative, because such a narrative runs counter
to the Fourth Evangelist’s eucharistic theology. The Fourth Evangelist is not anti-sacramental.
What he is against, it seems, is institutionalization of the sacraments, and commentators confuse
that with an anti-sacramental attitude. The Fourth Evangelist places great theological value on
the eucharist; it belongs to Jesus’ gift of life (6:54-55). The eucharist, however, belongs to the
believer, not to the church. It is for Jesus alone to give. All of Jesus’ life is given to the believer
when he or she eats Jesus’ flesh and drinks his blood.
What does Johannine eucharistic theology offer the contemporary church? First, it provides
a fresh perspective on ecumenical debates about who is welcome at the table. No church body
can claim exclusive rights to Jesus’ flesh and blood, because they are Jesus’ alone to give.
Second, the Johannine emphasis on the relationship between Jesus and the believer in the
eucharist calls the church to ponder the role of the ordained clergy with respect to the eucharist.
Johannine eucharistic theology seems to suggest that no one other than Jesus can control access
to the eucharistic meal. Clergy may be given responsibility to ensure that believers are provided
with opportunities to participate in the eucharist, but it is Jesus’ presence, not clergy privilege,
that governs the eucharist. Johannine eucharistic theology may provide a healthy vantage point
from which to ask questions-about power and access in the eucharistic life of many churches.
Finally, the Fourth Evangelist’s eucharistic theology may reinvigorate static divisions between
word and sacrament in the life of the church. For the Fourth Evangelist, the eucharist belongs
to and is inseparable from the revelation of God in Jesus. At the heart of both word and
sacrament is the urgency for people to see God in Jesus and believe.
JOHN 7:1-8:59, CONFLICT IN JERUSALEM
OVERVIEW
John 7-8 take place in Jerusalem at the Feast and his opponents. John 7-8 can be outlined
of Tabernacles. These two chapters do not have loosely as follows:
the literary cohesiveness of some other Johannine —7-4-13 Jesus Goes to Jerusalem
texts (€.g., John 9:1-41) because they are com- 7:14.36 —Words of Conflict: Jesus’ Teaching
posed of fragments of Jesus traditions that the and Response
Fourth Evangelist has brought together to create 7:37-52. Words of Conflict: Jesus’ Teaching and
a picture of the increasing conflict between Jesus Response
614
[7:53-8:11 A Narrative of Conflict] 42-43, 47); and (4) the increasing threat to Jesus’
8:12-30 Words of Conflict: Jesus’ Teaching and Wie (7ohrios 1925530932, 44° 8:37." 40,° 59).
Response The relationship of 7:53-8:11 to John 7 and 8
8:31-59 Debate Between Jesus and His Jewish warrants special mention. This passage does not ap-
Opponents pear in the earliest Greek manuscripts of John, sug-
gesting that the story did not belong originally to this
In 7:1-52, the conflict between Jesus and his Gospel. The origins of the Jesus tradition preserved in
Jewish opponents is played out in a sequence of this passage are unclear, as is how it ended up in the
short scenes in which Jesus presses his case with Gospel of John. Given the uncertainty about the
the crowds at center stage (e.g., 7:25-31), while history of John 7:53-8:11, both the NIV and the
the Jewish leadership plots against him in the NRSV print this text in brackets and inform the reader
wings (7:32, 45-52).'7° In chap. 8, the mini- of its complicated textual history. To some extent,
dramas eventually converge into one drama, as Jesus these verses disrupt the movement of John 7-8; the
and his opponents engage in direct accusations and pattern of Jesus’ teaching intermingled with the
recriminations (8:31-59). The action in these chap- crowd’s response recurs in 8:12 after the interruption
ters revolves around four central themes: (1) Jesus’ of 7:53-8:11 (see the outline above). Yet one can also
identity as the one sent from God (7:16, 28-29, 33; identify a logic to this particular placement of the
8:16, 18, 29, 42); (2) faithful interpretation of Jewish tradition. John 7:53-8:11 contains a story that illus-
tradition (7:22-23, 47-52; 8:39-41, 52-58); (3) the trates the confrontation and conflict between Jesus
faith decision Jesus’ presence in the world demands and the Jewish authorities that is at the heart of John
and the division it causes (7:31, 40-44; 8:30-33, 7-8, and this thematic connection may have led a
later scribe to add the story after John 7:52 (see
176. C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1953) 347. Commentary on this text below).
John 7:1-13, Jesus Goes to Jerusalem
NIV NRSV
After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, After this Jesus went about in Galilee.
purposely staying away from Judea be- He did not wish? to go about in Judea
cause the Jews there were waiting to take his because the Jews were looking for an opportunity
life. 7But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles to kill him. 7Now the Jewish festival of Booths?
was near, 3Jesus’ brothers said to him, “You was near. *So his brothers said to him, “Leave
ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your here and go to Judea so that your disciples also
disciples may see the miracles you do. “No one may see the works you are doing; “for no one
who wants‘ to be widely known acts in secret. If
who wants to become a public figure acts in
you do these things, show yourself to the world.”
secret. Since you are doing these things, show
5(For not even his brothers believed in him.) ‘Jesus
yourself to the world.” °For even his own broth-
said to them, “My time has not yet come, but
ers did not believe in him.
your time is always here. “The world cannot hate
Therefore Jesus told them, “The right time for
you, but it hates me because | testify against it
me has not yet come; for you any time is right.
that its works are evil. "Go to the festival your-
7The world cannot hate you, but it hates me selves. I am not? going to this festival, for my time
because I testify that what it does is evil. "You go has not yet fully come.” °After saying this, he
to the Feast. I am not yet? going up to this Feast, remained in Galilee.
because for me the right time has not yet come.” 6 Or Taberna-
aOther ancient authorities read was not at liberty
°Having said this, he stayed in Galilee. cles cOther ancient authorities read wants it d Other an-
cient authorities add yet
a8 Some early manuscripts do not have yet.
615
JOHN 7:1-13
NIV NRSV
'OHowever, after his brothers had left for the 10But after his brothers had gone to the festi-
Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. val, then he also went, not publicly but as it were?
Now at the Feast the Jews were watching for in secret. ''The Jews were looking for him at the
him and asking, “Where is that man?” festival and saying, “Where is he?” '*And there
’2Among the crowds there was widespread was considerable complaining about him among
whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good the crowds. While some were saying, “He is a
man.” good man,” others were saying, “No, he is de-
Others replied, “No, he deceives the people.” ceiving the crowd.” '%Yet no one would speak
'3But no one would say anything publicly about openly about him for fear of the Jews.
him for fear of the Jews. aQOther ancient authorities lack as it were
(COMMENTARY
John 7:1-13 can be subdivided into two sec- clude water libation and torch-lit processions.'””
tions: (1) vv. 1-10, Jesus and his brothers; and (2) The images of water and light will figure in Jesus’
vv. 11-13, initial response to Jesus in Jerusalem. teaching at Tabernacles (7:37-38; 8:12).
7:1-10. 7:1. John 7:1 links chap. 7 with 7:3-5. Tabernacles was one of three pilgrim-
chaps. 5—6. Verse 1a locates Jesus in Galilee, the age feasts observed during NT times {the other
site of John 6, and v. 10 points back to John 5 two were Passover and Pentecost), which partly
by reminding the reader why Judea is an inhos- explains the demand by Jesus’ brothers that he
pitable and dangerous place for Jesus. The verbal go to Judea. Jesus’ brothers (cf. 2:12) speak to
similarity between 7:1 and 5:18 is taken by some him in, imperatives (“leave here,” “go,” v. 3;
as evidence of the displacement of chaps. 5-6 “show yourself,” v. 4) and propose that he regain
(see the Overview to John 6), but displacement his position with his disciples (cf. 6:66) through
theories seem unnecessary here. One of the a public performance of works in Judea. The
themes of this central section of the Fourth brothers’ clamoring for works recalls the crowd’s
Gospel (chaps. 5-10) is the increasing hostility demand for a sign in 6:30. The brothers’ insis-
to Jesus. John 7:1 reminds the reader of the tence that Jesus act publicly also shows that they
threat to Jesus’ life that surfaced after Jesus’ do not understand how Jesus makes himself
healing miracle in John 5. That threat provides known. The determining factor in Jesus’ self-reve-
the backdrop for the exchanges between Jesus lation is not whether it occurs in public or
and the “Jews” in chaps. 7-8. private, but whether those who see Jesus will
7:2. The Feast of Tabernacles (Festival of understand and receive what he offers (e.g., 5:24,
Booths, NRSV) was originally a fall harvest festival 40; 12:44-50). The Fourth Evangelist makes ex-
that received theological significance in ancient plicit the brothers’ lack of faith in his comment
Israel by its identification with the wilderness in v. 5 (cf. Mark 3:21, 31-35).
journey after the exodus (Lev 23:43, See Fig. 9, 7:6-9. Jesus’ response to his brothers is framed
“Jewish Religious Festivals in John,” 542). Taber- by references to “his time” (vv. 6, 8). The noun
nacles was a joyous festival; the people built “time” (katpds kairos) occurs only in 7:6, 8 in
booths in which they lived for seven days to the Fourth Gospel and is a synonym for the more
celebrate the harvest and God’s graciousness to common “hour” (eip., 2:45 7:30> 8:20;" 12:23:
them (see Deut 16:13-15; Lev 23:39-43). Levi- 13:1). “My time” refers to the time of Jesus’
ticus 23:39 adds an eighth day of rest to the
glorification—his death, resurrection, and ascen-
festival following the celebrations. The setting of
sion. It is a time set for him by God, not by his
John 7-8 at Tabernacles continues the exodus
brothers and their notions of time and expediency
backdrop of John 6. Moreover, the Mishnah re-
cords that the liturgical rites of Tabernacles in- 177. See m. Sukk. 4:9-5:4.
616
(v. 60). Jesus’ self-revelation at any given moment 7:10. Jesus’ actions in v. 10 do not contradict
belongs to the larger framework of the time of his words in vv. 6-8. Rather, they confirm his
glorification, and that framework is not subject to independence from the dictates of his brothers.
his brothers’ demands (cf. 2:4). The symbolic Jesus’ brothers demanded that he go to Judea
significance of Jesus’ “time” is confirmed by the publicly and not in secret (vv. 3-4), but when he
language of his refusal in v. 8. The verb “to go goes, he goes up “not publicly, but in secret.”
up” (avaBatvu anabaino) is customarily used to 7:11-13. This passage is framed by references
describe the journey to Jerusalem (2:13; 5:1; 7:10; to Jesus’ Jewish opponents (“the Jews,” vv. 11,
11:55), but it also describes Jesus’ ascension in 13), reminding the reader of the ever-present
John (3:13; 6:62; 20:17). The phrase “fully come” threat to Jesus. The “Jews” is not an ethnic
(tANpdw pleroo) is used to speak of the time of designation in these verses, since the crowd of
eschatological fulfillment (3:29; 15:11; 16:24). vv. 11-13 is itself Jewish, but is a symbol for Jesus’
The root of Jesus’ brothers’ lack of understanding opponents. The crowd is divided in their response
is that they do not understand his relationship to to Jesus (v. 12), and similar division will charac-
the world (vv. 4, 7). They think Jesus is someone terize the crowd’s response throughout John 7
who will impress the world with his works and (e.g., 7:25, 31, 40-44). The Fourth Evangelist
thus cause the world to embrace him, but they describes the crowd’s comments as “complaining”
are wrong. Jesus brings the world to the moment (yoyyugw gongyszo), and this word choice re-
of judgment by testifying to the nature of the peats the description of the crowd and Jesus’
world’s works (cf. 3:19-21).'78 As a result of Jesus’ disciples in chap. 6 (vv. 41, 43, 61). The use of
testimony, the world hates him. The difference in this noun suggests that the complaining is a sign
of doubt and recalcitrance, and even affirmations
the world’s response to Jesus’ brothers (v. 74)
of Jesus (v. 12a) are untrustworthy.
reinforces the brothers’ distance from Jesus (cf. v.
The complaint brought against Jesus in v. 120
5). This is the first explicit mention of the world’s
provides another glimpse of the two levels on
hatred of Jesus (cf. 15:18-25), but the “world”
which the Fourth Gospel unfolds. The charge of
(kooyL0s Kosmos) has been portrayed as a sphere
deceiving the people was a formal Jewish charge
of enmity (1:10). The witness role Jesus claims
against Jesus in the late first and early second
for himself in v. 7 is the same role given to the
centuries ce.!”? In the use of “deceive” (Travaw
Paraclete in 16:8-11. Jesus’ work of bringing planao) here, the Fourth Evangelist seems to be
the world to judgment will continue in the depicting events in Jesus’ life in terms drawn from
activity of the Spirit within the post-resurrection his and his community’s experience (see also
community. 9:22; 12:42; 16:2; Matt 27:63). (See Reflections
178. Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G.
at 7:37-52.)
R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1971) 293. 179. See Justin Dialogue with Trypho 69; m. Sanh. 43a.
John 7:14-36, Words of Conflict: Jesus’ Teaching and Response

NIV NRSV
4Not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus 14About the middle of the festival Jesus went
go up to the temple courts and begin to teach. up into the temple and began to teach. '*The Jews
'SThe Jews were amazed and asked, “How did were astonished at it, saying, “How does this man
this man get such learning without having have such learning,? when he has never been
studied?” taught?” '°Then Jesus answered them, “My teach-
‘Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own.
ing is not mine but his who sent me. '7Anyone
It comes from him who sent ‘me. 'If anyone
chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether aQOr this man know his letters
617
JOHN 7:14-36 _
NIV NRSV
my teaching comes from God or whether I speak who resolves to do the will of God will know
on my own. '*He who speaks on his own does whether the teaching is from God or whether I
so to gain honor for himself, but he who works am speaking on my own. 'Those who speak on
for the honor of the one who sent him is a man their own seek their own glory; but the one who
of truth; there is nothing false about him. '?Has seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and
not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you there is nothing false in him.
keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?” 19“Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none
20“You are demon-possessed,” the crowd an- of you keeps the law. Why are you looking for
swered. “Who is trying to kill you?” an opportunity to kill me?” *°The crowd an-
21Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and swered, “You have a demon! Who is trying to kill
you are all astonished. “Yet, because Moses gave you?” 2'Jesus answered them, “I performed one
you circumcision (though actually it did not come work, and all of you are astonished. ?*Moses gave
from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circum- you circumcision (it is, of course, not from Moses,
cise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can but from the patriarchs), and you circumcise a
be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of man on the sabbath. “If a man receives circum-
Moses may not be broken, why are you angry cision on ‘the sabbath in order that the law of
with me for healing the whole man on the Sab- Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me
bath? 24Stop judging by mere appearances, and because I healed a man’s whole body on the
make a right judgment.” sabbath? 24Do not judge by appearances, but judge
5At that point some of the people of Jerusalem with right judgment.”
began to ask, “Isn’t this the man they are trying 25Now some of the people of Jerusalem were
to kill? 2°Here he is, speaking publicly, and they saying, “Is not this the man whom they are trying
are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities to kill? 2°And here he is, speaking openly, but they
really concluded that he is the Christ?? ?”7But we say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities
know where this man is from; when the Christ really know that this is the Messiah?? ?7Yet we
comes, no one will know where he is from.” know where this man is from; but when the
8Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, Messiah? comes, no one will know where he is
cried out, “Yes, you know me, and you know from.” **Then Jesus cried out as he was teaching
where I am from. | am not here on my own, but in the temple, “You know me, and you know
he who sent me is true. You do not know him, where I am from. I have not come on my own. But
2°hut I know him because I am from him and he the one who sent me is true, and you do not know
sent me.” him. 2°I know him, because I am from him, and he
S°At this they tried to seize him, but no one sent me.” °°Then they tried to arrest him, but no
laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet one laid hands on him, because his hour had not
come. *!Still, many in the crowd put their faith yet come. *'Yet many in the crowd believed in him
in him. They said, “When the Christ comes, will and were saying, “When the Messiah¢ comes, will
he do more miraculous signs than this man?” he do more signs than this man has done?”?
3The Pharisees heard the crowd whispering 32The Pharisees heard the crowd muttering
such things about him. Then the chief priests and such things about him, and the chief priests and
the Pharisees sent temple guards to arrest him. Pharisees sent temple police to arrest him. *3Jesus
Jesus said, “I am with you for only a short then said, “I will be with you a little while longer,
time, and then I go to the one who sent me. and then I am going to him who sent me. *“You
+4You will look for me, but you will not find me; will search for me, but you will not find me; and
and where I am, you cannot come.” where I am, you cannot come.” *°The Jews said
The Jews said to one another, “Where does to one another, “Where does this man intend to
this man intend to go that we cannot find him? go that we will not find him? Does he intend to
Will he go where our people live scattered among go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach
a26 Or Messiah; also in verses 27, 31, 41 and 42 aOr the Christ 6 Other ancient authorities read is doing
618
JOHN 7:14-36
NIV NRSV
the Greeks, and teach the Greeks? °°What did he the Greeks? *°What does he mean by saying, ‘You
mean when he said, ‘You will look for me, but will search for me and you will not find me’ and
you will not find me,’ and ‘Where I am, you ‘Where I am, you cannot come’?”
cannot come’?”
(COMMENTARY
John 7:14-52 can be divided into two parts on which the Tabernacles crowd is faced: Will they
the basis of the time references in vv. 14 and 37. recognize God’s teaching in Jesus’ words (7:17;
Verses 14-36 take place “about the middle of the cf. 5:37-39)? Will they act in accordance with
festival” (v. 14)—that is, on the third or fourth their own law, Moses’ gift to them (7:19; cf. 1:17,
day. Verses 37-52 take place “on the last day of 5:45-47)? In v. 20, the crowd questions the truth-
the festival” (v. 37). fulness of Jesus’ words and hence his authority to
7:14-15. Jesus thus begins to teach at Taber- teach them about the law. In John, the noun
nacles in the middle of the festival, when the “demon” (Satpoviov daimonion) occurs only in
crowds are largest, and in the Temple, Judaism’s accusations against Jesus (7:20; 8:48-49, 52;
most sacred place. The designation of the crowd 10:20-21). Jesus does not exorcise demons in John
as “the Jews” seems more to be a reminder of as he does in the synoptic Gospels (e.g., Matt
the distance between Jesus and the crowd (cf. 8:16, 28-34; Mark 1:34, 39; 7:24-30; Luke 4:41).
7:2, “the Jewish festival of Booths”) than an For the Fourth Evangelist, the world’s evil is
indication of hostility at this point. The crowd revealed by its works and rejection of Jesus (e.g.,
questions how Jesus could “have such learning” 3:19-21; 7:7) rather than personified in demon
when he has no formal training (cf. Mark 1:22). possession (but note the description of Judas in
7:16-20. Jesus’ response shows that the O:70 13:29 27}.
crowd’s question is really a christological question, 7:21-24. Jesus’ teaching in 7:21-24, ‘like vv.
because what Jesus says is inseparable from who 16-19, replays themes from John 5. The “one work”
Jesus is. Verses 16-18 echo the themes of the to which Jesus refers in v. 21 is the healing of
discourses in John 5: Jesus is the one sent from 5:1-18. This healing is not the only work Jesus has
performed to this point in his ministry (cf. 4:46-54),
God.(7:105,18;%chi5:24, 30, 30-38);,God-is. the
but it is the one work the Fourth Gospel records
source of what Jesus says and does (7:16-17; cf.
Jesus performing in Jerusalem, and it is a Jerusalem
5:19-22, 26-27); Jesus seeks God’s glory, not his
crowd to which Jesus now speaks (cf. 7:25).
own (7:18; cf. 5:41-44).
In John 5, the healing precipitated a contro-
Some scholars take the thematic overlap be-
versy about the sabbath law (5:10, 16, 18), and
tween John 5 and John 7:14-24 as evidence that
wy. 22-24 reflect on the same controversy. Jesus
Jesus’ words in John 7 were originally part of the
frames his argument around Jewish circumcision
John 5 discourse.'®° This source-critical verdict
practice. Circumcision is mandated by Mosaic law
seems both unnecessary and a misreading of the
(the aside about the patriarchs in v. 22 acknow-
function of repetition in the Fourth Gospel. A core
ledges that circumcision first appears in the patri-
repertoire of themes is replayed throughout Jesus’ archal stories of Genesis [Gen 17:9-14], not the
teaching, and verbal similarity between different stories about Moses). To circumcise a Jewish male
discourses does not automatically indicate source was to mark his membership in the covenant
displacement or reduplication. Rather, each re- community, and he was considered incomplete
statement builds on what preceded. without circumcision.!*! The male baby had to be
John 7:17 and 19 highlight the decision with circumcised on the eighth day of his life. If that
day fell on the sabbath, then the need for circum-
180. Gerard Sloyan, John (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988) 86-87; Rudolf
Schnackenburg, Zhe Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols. (New York:
Seabury, 1982) 2:130-31. 181. See m. Ned. 3:11.
619
cision overrode the prohibitions against work on themselves by raising the issue of what the
the sabbath, and the baby was circumcised.'® authorities know. Verse 26 also seems to drive a
In v. 23, Jesus employs a common rabbinic form wedge between “some of the people” and “the
of argumentation to argue from the lesser (circum- authorities” (cf. the authorities’ attitude toward
cision) to the greater (healing); if one part of the the crowd in 7:49). The theme of who knows
body can be tended to on the sabbath in order to what and who can claim certitude for their knowl-
ensure a man’s wholeness, why should the healing edge recurs throughout the discussion of Jesus’
of the whole body not be possible? Verse 23 makes identity in chaps. 7-8 (e.g., 7:26-29; 8:52-55) and
clear that Jesus’ sabbath healing was not performed is an illustration of the theme of right judgment
in order to overturn or break the sabbath law (cf. introduced in 7:24.
5:18), but “to accomplish the redemptive purpose The debate about Jesus’ messianic identity in
towards which the Law had pointed.”!® vv. 26-27 (see also 7:31, 41-42) must be under-
Jesus concludes his argument with one of the stood in the historical context of the first century.
central challenges of his ministry in the Fourth In the period immediately following the destruc-
Gospel: to judge with “right judgment” (thy tion of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 cz, both Jews
Sikatav Kptow ten dikaian krisin), not by appear- and Christians engaged in intense debates over
ances (v. 24). To the Jewish authorities, Jesus’ the meaning of messianic symbolism and how to
healing appeared to be a violation of sabbath law, recognize the Messiah.'** The Johannine discus-
but in reality, when viewed with right judgment, sion of Jesus as Messiah is thus another example
it was a deepening fulfillment of the sabbath. Jesus of the way in which the Fourth Gospel simulta-
challenges the crowd to judge with discrimination, neously addresses two historical periods. It pre-
to look carefully at what one sees and not judge sents the messianic debate as occurring among
according to what one expects to find or assumes Jesus’ contemporaries but shades the debate to
one sees. reflect the messianic controversies in the Evangel-
Verse 24 provides the interpretive key to the ist’s own time period (see 7:12). The Fourth
exchanges between Jesus and the crowd and Evangelist’s interpretation of Jesus as Messiah—
authorities in chaps. 7-8, because most of the that Jesus is the sent one of God, God’s emissary,
conflict and hostility from 7:25 arise from a mis- Son, and Word—interprets messianic symbolism
perception of Jesus’ identity, from faulty judgment in ways that differed from both Jewish and other
based on appearance (e.g., 7:25-27, 41-42; 8:15, Christian (e.g., the synoptic Gospels) interpreta-
48, 53, 57). In addition, in the broader Gospel tions of the Messiah.!*
context, when one sees a sign simply as a miracle, The messianic debate in v. 27 reflects a belief
one judges by appearance, and when one sees the that the Messiah was in hiding somewhere and
sign as revealing the presence and identity of God, would reveal himself only in the last days.!®° Jesus
one judges with right judgment (cf. 2:11; 4:48; could not really be the Messiah because the crowd
6120;-9:3; 11:4); knows his place of origin. In v. 28, however, Jesus
7:25-36. The focus of the narrative alternates boldly challenges (“Jesus cried out”) the crowd’s
between Jesus’ teaching and the response of the presumption of knowledge. The “whence” of Je-
crowd and the authorities to Jesus. His public teach- sus is another example of the two levels of mean-
ing in the Temple (“openly” [mappnoia parresial; ing operative in John. The crowd thinks it knows
cf. 7:4, 13) in the face of the authorities’ death where Jesus is from because it knows his native
threat (cf. 7:2, 11, 19-20) leads the crowd to land, but Jesus’ native land has littleto do with
wonder whether Jesus might indeed be the Mes- his real place of origin. Jesus’ place of origin is
siah (vv. 25-26; “the Christ,” NIV). The wording from God (e.g., 1:1; 3:16-17, 31}, and one will
of the Jerusalemites’ question in v. 26 puts the never understand who Jesus is (or what it means to
onus of messianic identification on the authorities speak of the Messiah) until one recognizes Jesus as
182. “And they may perform on the Sabbath all things that are needful 184. See Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and
for circumcision” (77. Sabb. 18:3). See also m. Sabb. 19:2. the Johannine Christology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967).
183. C. K. Barrett, Zhe Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Phila- 185. Gerard Sloyan, John (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988) 88.
delphia: Westminster, 1978) 371. 186. See Eth. Enoch 69:29; 2 Esdr 7:28; 13:32.
620
having been sent by God (vv. 28-29). The key to gency of coming to faith in Jesus. As Bultmann
deciphering Jesus’ identity is clear: Know what Jesus has eloquently expressed it, “It is the historical
knows, that he is sent by God (v. 29). contingency of the revelation which throws this
As earlier in chap. 7 (vv. 12-14), the response terrible weight of responsibility on the hearer of
to Jesus’ words is mixed, and once again the the word. For the revelation is not generally
Fourth Evangelist uses the verb yoyyi¢w (gongyz0; available, but presents itself to [people] only at a
translated in v. 32 as “mutter” or “whisper” certain limited time of its own choosing.”!®” The
rather than “complain”) to describe the reaction urgency of making the faith decision is linked to
(cf. 6:41, 43, 61; 7:12). “Many in the crowd” the question of Jesus’ identity, because Jesus is
believed in Jesus (v. 31), but their faith is based “going to him who sent me.” Jesus will be inac-
on what Jesus does (“signs”), not on what he says cessible (v. 34) to those who do not recognize
or a clear recognition of his relationship to God. the relationship between Jesus and God and who
Verse 31 again focuses on how to recognize the cling to distorted notions of Jesus’ origins.
Messiah (cf. 7:27, 40-42). Jewish literature does The fact that the “Jews” are among those who
not state explicitly that the Messiah will be a cling to distorted notions is evidenced by their ironic
miracle worker, but this verse may reflect the questions in vv. 35-36. The “Jews” repeat Jesus’
popular belief that the Messiah would perform words to one another, explicitly admitting that they
miracles in the way Moses or Elijah did. The do not understand his meaning. The irony of their
threat to Jesus’ life (vv. 30, 32) is a constant questions has two sources. First, they cling to a
element in the opening verses of chap. 7 (vv. 1, geographical definition of origin and place and,
11, 19, 25, 44-45), but this threat is balanced by therefore, assume that Jesus is leaving them for
the reminder that it is Jesus’ hour, the time set another locale. The “Dispersion” (v. 35) refers to
for him by God, that governs his life, not human Jews who live outside of Palestine (note the NIV
plans (v. 30). paraphrase). Second, and with a more profound
John 7:33-36 contains another vignette of irony for the reader of the Gospel, the interpretation
Jesus’ teaching and the response it evokes. Je- that the “Jews” give to Jesus’ words—that he is
sus’ words in vv. 33-34 anticipate one of the going to live among the Greeks and teach them—is
central motifs of the Farewell Discourse: Jesus an unconscious prophecy of the future of the Chris-
will be present to the world only for a little tian movement (cf. Caiaphas’s unconscious proph-
while (13:33; 14:19; 16:16-19). This motif, ecy, 11:49-52). (See Reflections at 7:37-52.)
whether spoken to the Jewish crowd or to
Jesus’ closest followers, underscores the ur- 187. Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 307.

NIV NRSV
37On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus 370n the last day of the festival, the great day,
stood and said in a loud voice, “If anyone is while Jesus was standing there, he cried out, “Let
thirsty, let him come to me and drink. **Whoever anyone who is thirsty come to me, *®and let the
one who believes in me drink. As? the scripture
believes in me, as? the Scripture has said, streams
has said, ‘Out of the believer’s heart? shall flow
of living water will flow from within him.” *°By
rivers of living water.’” °’Now he said this about
this he meant the Spirit, whom those who be- the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive;
lieved in him were later to receive. Up to that for as yet there was no Spirit,“ because Jesus was
time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus not yet glorified.
had not yet been glorified. ‘
aQr come to me and drink. 38The one who believes in me, as
237,38 Or / If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me. / And let him ’Gk out of his belly ¢ Other ancient authorities read for as yet
drink, 38who believes in me. / As the Spirit (others, Holy Spirit) had not been given
621
TuUgOHN 737-325.
NIV NRSV
4°On hearing his words, some of the people said, 40When they heard these words, some in the
“Surely this man is the Prophet.” crowd said, “This is really the prophet.” “Others
41Others said, “He is the Christ.” said, “This is the Messiah.”* But some asked,
Still others asked, “How can the Christ come “Surely the Messiah? does not come from Galilee,
from Galilee? “Does not the Scripture say that does he? “?Has not the scripture said that the
the Christ will come from David’s family? and Messiah? is descended from David and comes
from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?”
4Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 43So there was a division in the crowd because of
44Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a him. “4Some of them wanted to arrest him, but
hand on him. no one laid hands on him.
4Finally the temple guards went back to the 45Then the temple police went back to the
chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them,
“Why didn’t you bring him in?” “Why did you not arrest him?” “The police
4o“Nio one ever spoke the way this man does,” answered, “Never has anyone spoken like this!”
47Then the Pharisees replied, “Surely you have not
the guards declared.
been deceived too, have you? “Has any one of
47“You mean he has deceived you also?” the
the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him?
Pharisees retorted. **“Has any of the rulers or of
“But this crowd, which does not know the law—
the Pharisees believed in him? 4°No! But this mob
they are accursed.” °°Nicodemus, who had gone
that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse
to Jesus’ before, and who was one of them, asked,
on them.”
“Our law does not judge people without first
*°Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier
giving them a hearing to find out what they are
and who was one of their own number, asked,
doing, does it?” **They replied, “Surely you are
*!“Does our law condemn anyone without first
not also from Galilee, are you? Search and you
hearing him to find out what he is doing?”
will see that no prophet is to arise from Galilee.”
They replied, “Are you from Galilee, too?
2Or the Christ ’ Gk him
Look into it, and you will find that a prophet?
does not come out of Galilee.”
242 Greek seed ©52 Two early manuscripts the Prophet
(COMMENTARY
7:37-38. The reference to “the last day of the on the day after it has just been concluded.
festival” marks the start of a new section. As noted, Jesus’ words in vv. 37-38 have the same signifi-
one of the central rites of the Tabernacles cele- cance, regardless of the day on which they are
bration was the water-libation, during which the priest set.'®° Like the water turned into wine in the
circles the altar with freshly drawn water (see Fig. Jewish purification jars of 2:8-11, the cultic setting
9, “Jewish Religious Festivals in John,” 542). The of 7:37-38 suggests that old rites acquire new
libations ended on the seventh day, but the Mish- meaning because of the Word’s incarnate pres-
nah provides for an eighth day of rest and cele- ence in the world. Jesus’ words in vv. 37-38, not
bration as a final honoring of the Tabernacles the Jewish rites, are the culmination of the
feast.!®° The Mishnah gives no indication that Tabernacles feast for the Fourth Evangelist.
the eighth day of the feast was any less important The interpretation of Jesus’ words in vv. 37-38
than the seventh. When Jesus speaks on “the last is complicated by two problems. First, it is unclear
day,” he may be speaking either on the seventh how Jesus’ words are to be punctuated. The
day as the water-libation is being performed, or
189. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Phila-
188. See m. Sukk. 4:8-9; see also Lev 23:39. delphia: Westminster, 1978) 326.
622
central question is where to place a full stop: (a) content of Johannine theology to give clarity to these
after the word “drink” (muvétw pineto, as in the verses. Even that data is somewhat ambiguous. John
NIV translation); or (b) after the phrase “come to 4:14 refers to living water becoming a spring within
me” (Epx€o8w Tpds pe erchestho pros me, as in the believer, and thus could be read as supporting
the NIV variant provided in a footnote). The punctuation (a). Yet John 4:10 speaks of Jesus as
decision about punctuation affects the meaning of the giver of the living water, and John 6:35 speaks
Jesus’ words, because option (a) seems to position of Jesus as the quencher of thirst, providing support
the believer as the source of living water in the for reading Jesus as the source of living water in
quotation of v. 38, whereas punctuation (b) positions 7:38. Moreover, a careful comparison of 4:14 and
Jesus as the source of living water. (The NRSV opts 7:37-38 shows that they make slightly different
to resolve the punctuation problem by adding words claims. John 4:14 does not speak of the believer as
to the Greek text. The phrase “the one who be- the source of living water for others. The weight of
lieves” occurs once in the Greek but twice in the the Fourth Gospel evidence, then, seems to fall on
NRSV of v. 38 [“the one who believes in me,” v. the side of the second alternative, which sees Jesus
38a; “out of the believer’s heart,” v. 380]. The as the source of living water. The Fourth Evangelist’s
NRSV variant provided in a footnote is a more commentary about the Spirit in v. 39 gives additional
literal translation and is the same as the NIV. In support to the christological reading of vv. 37-38,
both the main translation and the variant, the because in the Fourth Gospel the gift of the Spirit
NRSV adheres to the meaning of option [a], and, originates not with the believer, but with Jesus—
indeed, in the main translation that decision about or God (14:16, 26; 16:17; 20:20).
meaning determined the translation of vv. 37-38.) Schnackenburg has proposed a reading of wv.
A review of the history of interpretation of 37-38 that suggests that too much has been made
these verses shows that their punctuation has of the punctuation problem with these verses. He
always vexed interpreters. The earliest manu- demonstrates that the christological interpretation
scripts that include punctuation marks are divided of vv. 37-38 is valid regardless of the way the
in their readings (for example, $°° follows punc- verses are punctuated. Even if a full stop is placed
tuation [a], and Codex d and e follow punctuation after the word “drink,” that does not mean that
[b]). The early church fathers, too, were divided. the believer is the source of living water in v. 38.
Origen, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, and Rather, that punctuation places the believer at the
Augustine punctuated the verses so that the be- beginning of the next phrase for emphasis. As
liever was the source of living water; Justin and Schnackenburg translates, “If anyone believes in
Hippolytus followed the second punctuation and me, for him—as the Scripture says—tivers of
identified Jesus as the source of living water. living water will flow from [Jesus’] heart.”'?! The
Modern interpreters continue to be divided on the advantage of Schnackenburg’s proposal is that it
punctuation of these verses.!% returns the interpretive focus to the substance of
The punctuation decision is complicated further Jesus’ invitation and promise in wv. 37-38. In
by the second interpretive problem of vv. 37-38: these verses, Jesus reiterates a promise that has
The words identified as Scripture in v. 38 appear resounded throughout the Gospel: Whoever be-
nowhere in the OT. The quotation in v. 38 appears lieves in Jesus will receive new life (3:15-16; 5:24;
to be a composite of a variety of OT texts that refer 6:35, 40, 47).
to life-giving water, wisdom, or the Spirit (e.g., Prov 7:39. Verse 39 gives an explicit statement of
18:4. “sand 2:3; "43:19:20; 44:3;"Jet 2:13;917:13; the Fourth Evangelist’s understanding of the rela-
Ezekiel 47; Zech 14:8) rather than one particular tionship between the gift of the Spirit and Jesus’
text. The words quoted in v. 38 are thus as am- “slorification.” The gift of the Spirit becomes a
biguous as the punctuation of the verses. reality in the believer’s life only after Jesus’ death,
Because neither textual witnesses nor church resurrection, and ascension (20:22). The bold
fathers can resolve the ambiguity of vv. 37-38, wording of v. 39 (“for as yet there was no Spirit”)
the interpreter must rely on the context and gave rise to a textual variant that attempted to
190. For example, Barrett (ibid., 326-27) follows punctuation a; Bult- 191. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols.
mann (Zhe Gospel ofJohn, 303), punctuation 6. (New York: Seabury, 1982) 2:154.
623
soften its claim (“for the Spirit had not yet been dramatic illustration in the renewed desire of
given”). That variant misconstrues the Fourth some (but not all) to arrest Jesus (v. 44). Once
Evangelist’s pneumatology, however. The Fourth again, however, the arrest attempt is ineffectual
Evangelist is not denying the Spirit of God present (cf. 7:30). .
in the OT. Indeed, the Spirit of God descended 7:45-52. The narrative focus shifts from the
on Jesus at his baptism (1:34). The Fourth Evan- crowd to the Jewish leaders. The return of the
gelist is saying that the Spirit as it is known in temple police empty-handed (v. 45) is further
the life of the church did not yet exist, because confirmation of the ineffectuality of their plans to
the Spirit of God is redefined in the light of Jesus’ arrest Jesus. The reason the police give for their
death, resurrection, and ascension. failure (v. 46) echoes the crowd’s response to
7:40-44. Jesus’ words engender another de- Jesus’ words in 7:15. The police thus witness to
bate over his identity. Some in the crowd claim Jesus. The Pharisees’ response to the police failure
Jesus as the prophet—that is, the messianic is to deride both the temple police and the crowd
prophet like Moses (v. 40; cf. 1:21, 25)—while (7:47-49), deepening the split between themselves
others explicitly call him Messiah (v. 41a). Yet and the people (cf. 7:26). Their words repeat
others in the crowd question whether Jesus could vocabulary and themes from the opening sections
be the Messiah (vv. 410-42). The crowd’s doubt of John 7: “deceived” (v. 47; cf. 7:12), “know
is based on the popular belief that the Messiah the law” (v. 49; cf. 7:19, 23).
would come from Bethlehem (Mic 5:2; Matt -. The exchange with Nicodemus (7:50-52) pro-
1:18-2:12). Interestingly, this belief contradicts vides ironic commentary on the Pharisees’ words.
the expectations alluded to in 7:27, that the Nicodemus, “who was one of them” (v. 50),
Messiah’s origins will be a mystery. Both beliefs raises a question about the law (v. 51), pointing
were current in the first century, and the Fourth out to his fellow Pharisees what their law actually
Evangelist may include both in the same story in teaches. His question suggests that it is the Phari-
order to highlight the inadequacy of all pre-exis- sees’ knowledge of the law that is a matter of
tent definitions of the Messiah when applied to doubt, not the crowd’s (v. 49). Since Nicodemus
Jesus. Traditional messianic categories are inade- “had gone to Jesus before” (v. 50), he alone
quate because they rely on prior assumptions and among the Pharisees has given Jesus the hearing
expectations rather than judging Jesus on the basis the law requires.
of what he reveals about himself: that he is the The Pharisees respond to Nicodemus the same
one sent from God. way they responded to the temple police: by
The debate about Galilee and Bethlehem in wv. deriding him and asserting their superior knowl-
416-42 takes on an additional significance when edge of Scripture and the law (v. 52). Their appeal
placed in the context of the traditions about Jesus’ to Scripture (“search” [Epavvdw eraunad]) ironi-
birth. Although the Fourth Evangelist narrates no cally echoes Jesus’ words to the Jewish leaders in
birth stories, these two verses (see also 6:42) seem 5:39. The claim that Scripture shows that no
to allude to those traditions and serve ironically prophet will arise from Galilee is problematic,
to undercut the crowd’s claims. Not only does because 2 Kgs 14:25, for example, makes explicit
the crowd misconstrue the question of Jesus’ mention of the Galilean origins of the prophet
origins (that his place of origin is from God, not Jonah. The Pharisees’ words are thus best under-
from a city), but even when the question is framed stood as an allusion to the messianic expectations
in their terms, they get Jesus’ place of origin adduced in 7:41-42 and hence as evidence of their
wrong. misperception of Jesus’ origins. Far from being
The division that has characterized the crowd’s Superior to the crowd, the Pharisees are subject
response throughout chap. 7 (vv. 12, 25, 31, to the same faulty judgment based on appearances
40-41) is explicitly named in v. 43. It receives a (7:24);
624
REFLECTIONS
Independent fragments of tradition are brought together in John 7 (and 8) to form a coherent
narrative of misunderstanding, resistance, and conflict. This conflict is key to the development
of the Gospel story (note the repeated references to the threat to Jesus.in John.7:1, 13, 19,
25, 30, 32, 44), but it also is key to the development of the Fourth Gospel’s theology. All of
the conversations in John 7 center on Jesus’ identity and people’s reaction to Jesus. Through
the stories of conflict and opposition, through the various questions asked and divergent
opinions expressed about Jesus (7:10-12, 15, 25, 35-36, 40-43, 45-52), the Fourth Evangelist
emphasizes once more the cruciality of the decision one makes about Jesus.
The Fourth Evangelist’s motives in combining the traditions he uses in John 7 (and that
continue into John 8), then, are neither chronological (to chronicle Jesus’ itinerary) nor
psychological (to document the psychological motivation of Jesus’ opponents) nor even purely
literary (to tell a good story). His motive is primarily theological. That is, the narrative of John
7:1-52 (and 8:12-59) is shaped by the Fourth Evangelist’s theological convictions. This is
different from saying that the story of John 7-8 reflects the Fourth Evangelist’s theological
concerns, because in these chapters there is a complete absorption of story and theology.
Each conversation in John 7 underscores the contrast between the reality embodied in
Jesus—that he is sent from God (7:16, 28, 33)—and the crowd’s and the authorities’ perception
of that reality. Instead of allowing what they see in Jesus to redefine their understanding of
God in the world, those who resist Jesus judge him according to pre-existent systems and
structures that both cause and provide justification for their misperception. Jesus is measured
against professed knowledge of who the Messiah will be (7:26-27, 41-42), of what Scripture
says (7:48-52); the rigid certitude with which those expectations are held determines the
judgment reached about Jesus. John 7:1-52 thus is configured to highlight the truth of 7:24,
“Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”
Jesus’ call for right judgment touches at the heart of the faith decision for the Fourth
Evangelist. Jesus’ coming into the world as the incarnate Word of God requires that one
perceive reality differently. “The Word became flesh” (1:14); if one judges by appearances
only, one risks stopping at the flesh and never recognizing God, who is present and available
in that flesh. Judgment based on appearances risks reducing Jesus to fit who or what we think
he should be rather than allowing his fullness, incarnate Word, to work its way on our systems
and structures of perception.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Fourth Gospel is characterized by the use of irony,
symbol, and metaphor. The Fourth Evangelist uses literary devices that make it difficult for
the reader to settle on surface meanings. Each use of irony, for example, creates incongruities
and tensions between two levels of meaning. Irony asks the reader to make judgments and
decisions about the relative value of stated and intended meaning in order to discover what
is really being said. This invites reader participation in the Fourth Gospel’s revelation of the
truth about Jesus and God. Metaphor and symbol also involve two levels of meaning. The
move from one level of meaning involves less tension than it does with irony, because a
metaphor points in the direction of its meaning (see the discussion of the bread metaphor in
the Commentary and Reflections on John 6). Nonetheless, the reader is asked to move from
one level of meaning to a second level to which the metaphor or symbol points.” In all three
uses of figurative language, the reader is an active participant in the text; in order to discover
what is being revealed, he or she must “judge with right judgment.” In this way, the experience
of the Gospel reader parallels the, experience of the characters in the Gospel story.
192. See R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); Gail R. O'Day,
Revelation in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).
625
The centrality of “right judgment” also explains why there is so much repetition in Jesus’
teaching in John. For the Fourth Evangelist, Jesus does not have fresh content to impart in
each new revelation that the listener must learn and appropriate. Rather, the central chris-
tological and soteriological issue for the Fourth Evangelist is one’s response to Jesus, his words
and deeds. The core of Jesus’ revelation is thus repeated over and over again throughout the
Gospel: his identity as the sent one of God and the ways in which Jesus makes God visible
and accessible to the world. The crux for faith is whether those who encounter Jesus and his
words perceive and embrace this decisive truth about his identity.
Rudolf Bultmann overstated the case when he insisted that there is no content to Jesus’
revelation in the Fourth Gospel and, therefore, the fact of Jesus’ presence in the world alone
is determinative of faith. Bultmann maintained that John “presents only the fact (das Dass) of
the Revelation without describing its content (inr Was).”’” Jesus’ statements about his identity
and his relationship to God do provide content to his revelation, because they reveal something
new about God and humanity’s relationship to God. Bultmann was correct, however, to see
the critical Johannine issue as a person’s faith response, a person’s decision for or against Jesus.
The dividing line for the Fourth Evangelist is whether those who encounter Jesus recognize
that God is decisively present in him.
John 7:1-52 is no exception to the repetitive character of Jesus’ teaching in John. Much of
what Jesus says in John 7 he has said before (cf. 7:16-18 and 5:19-22, 41-44) and will say
again (cf. 7:33-34 and 13:33; 14:19). Again and again the reader meets the expression “the
one who sent me” (7:16, 18, 28-29, 33), and again and again characters in the story do not
perceive what this phrase means for Jesus’ identity (7:27, 35-36). The result of misperception
is not simply misunderstanding and miscommunication, however. Rather, misperception of
Jesus’ identity is a matter of life and death. It is a matter of life and death for Jesus, because
the authorities’ faulty perception leads to an intensification of the threat to Jesus’ life (7:32).
It is also a matter of life and death for those who encounter Jesus, characters in the Gospel
and Gospel readers alike, because faulty perception of Jesus’ identity removes one from Jesus’
offer of salvation.
Embedded in the controversy dialogues and narratives of 7:1-52 is Jesus’ offer of drink to
everyone who believes, his promise of living water to everyone who thirsts (7:37-38). These
verses focus on the link between salvation (living water) and coming to Jesus, on the
relationship between the gift of the Spirit and belief in Jesus (7:38-39). The issue of right
judgment thus points to the relationship between christology and soteriology in the Fourth
Gospel. That is, when one judges with right judgment and recognizes who Jesus is, Jesus’ gift
of life becomes available (cf. 4:10; 6:35). Without right judgment, one will not receive new
life.
The disagreements between Jesus and his opponents will become increasingly vitriolic as
the Tabernacles scene continues into chap. 8. In John 7, the dividing line is drawn: Does one
perceive that Jesus is sent from God or not? For the Fourth Evangelist there is no more crucial
decision than the answer one gives to this question. The Fourth Evangelist’s singular focus on
this question may strike contemporary interpreters as odd or even offensive, because contem-
porary Christians are preoccupied with a broader array of questions about the life of faith. The
Fourth Evangelist, however, wrote out of the conviction that if one could not decide about
that question, there were no grounds for engaging other questions. For the Fourth Evangelist,
everything hinged on right judgment, on seeing that God was decisively and newly available
in the one whom God sent, Jesus.
193. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955) 2:63-66, 83, 605.
626
JOHN 7:53-8:11
[John 7:53-8:11, A Narrative of Donflieel
NIV NRSV
[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient [?°Then each of them went home,
Witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11] 8 ‘while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
“Early in the morning he came again to the
Then each went to his own home. temple. All the people came to him and he sat
8 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At down and began to teach them. °The scribes and
dawn he appeared again in the temple the Pharisees brought a woman who had been
courts, where all the people gathered around him, caught in adultery; and making her stand before
and he sat down to teach them. °The teachers of all of them, “they said to him, “Teacher, this
the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman Woman was caught in the very act of committing
caught in adultery. They made her stand before adultery. °Now in the law Moses commanded us
the group ‘and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this to stone such women. Now what do you say?”
woman was caught in the act of adultery. ‘In the °They said this to test him, so that they might
Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent
Now what do you say?” ‘They were using this down and wrote with his finger on the ground.
question as a trap, in order to have a basis for ”When they kept on questioning him, he straight-
accusing him. ened up and said to them, “Let anyone among
But Jesus bent down and started to write on you who is without sin be the first to throw a
the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on stone at her.” °And once again he bent down and
questioning him, he straightened up and said to wrote on the ground.* "When they heard it, they
them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him went away, one by one, beginning with the eld-
be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he ers; and Jesus was left alone with the woman
stooped down and wrote on the ground. standing before him. 'Jesus straightened up and
°At this, those who heard began to go away said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no
one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus one condemned you?” !'She said, “No one, sir.”°
was left, with the woman still standing there. And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go
‘Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, your way, and from now on do not sin again.”]|°
where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 2 Other ancient authorities add the sins of each of them
"“No one, sir,” she said. 6 Or Lord c The most ancient authorities lack 7.53—8.11; other
authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus de- Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubt-
clared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” ful.
(COMMENTARY
John 7:53-8:11 did not belong originally to the suggests that the story’s origins are non-Johannine.
Gospel of John (see Overview to John 7:1-8:59), For example, John 8:3 is the only occurrence of
but found its way into some manuscripts of the the noun “scribes” (ypaypatets grammateis) in
Gospel at a later date.'* The complicated textual the Fourth Gospel, although this noun is common
history of this passage presents the reader with in the other Gospels (Matt 5:20; 12:38; 23:2;
two preliminary interpretive decisions. Marko 2? 167: loo; (Luke 3:21305 11:53). The
First, the Gospel reader should try to locate setting and form of the story, a controversy with
John 7:53-8:11 within the history of tradition. Jewish leaders in the Temple, has more in com-
The literary evidence (style, syntax, vocabulary) mon with the synoptic temple controversy stories
(Matt #21:23-27%022:15-22-335) (Markeld:27-33;
194. For a review of the text-critical question, see Bruce Metzger, A 12:13-17-27; Luke 21:1-8, 20-40) than the long
Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United
Bible Societies, 1975) 219-20. and involved debates between Jesus and the Jew-
627
JOHNN 7:53-8:11 COMMENTARY
ish authorities in John (e.g., 5:19-47; 8:12-58). the Fourth Gospel. John 8:4 is also the only
Yet the literary evidence does not indicate con- time in which Jesus is addressed as “Teacher”
clusively that the synoptic tradition is the original (SuS8doKare didaskale) in the Fourth Gospel (but
home of this story either (although there is a long note the translation of the Hebrew term “Rabbi”
history of attributing this story to Luke).!% The in 1:38; 20:16). “Teacher” is a common form of
unknown origin of this story implies that even address for Jesus in the Synoptics (e.g., Matt 8:19;
though some of its themes may be in keeping 12:38;°1 9:16; ‘22:1,6;) Mark 9:17, 38; 10:17, 20;
with Johannine theology (as will be discussed 35; -12:)45.492 Lake Sal: of240: (40:25; 200215
below), John 7:53-8:11 cannot be used judi- 28, 39). The address has an ironic tone here,
ciously to interpret Johannine thought. because the Pharisees hope to undermine Jesus’
Second, given the non-Johannine origins of teaching (8:2) with their question (cf. 8:6).
7:53-8:11, the interpreter must decide how seri- There are several irregularities in the scribes’
ously to attend to the canonical location of this and Pharisees’ presentation of their legal case.
story. Commentators on John decide that question First, they provide no witnesses to sustain the case
in a variety of ways. Bultmann ignores the story that the woman was caught in the “very act” of
altogether; Barrett treats it in an appendix; Brown adultery (cf. Deut. 17:6; 19:15). Jesus thus is not
and Schnackenburg treat it in its canonical loca- provided with the information necessary to adju-
tion; Beasley-Murray treats it at the end of his dicate the law properly. Second, the scribes and
discussion of John 7—8.!% This commentary treats Pharisees speak as if Mosaic law requires the
it in its canonical location, because its canonical death penalty for adulterous women only (“such
Johannine context provides a useful interpretive women,” v. 5) and completely ignore the fate of
framework for this otherwise contextless story. her male sexual partner. Mosaic law, however,
7:53-8:1. These transition verses underscore makes explicit that both the man and the woman
the artificial placement of the story that follows. involved stand under the death penalty (Lev
First, the identity of the group to which the phrase 20:10;, Deut 22:22). In fact, the fundamental
“each of them” refers is not clear. Second, 8:1 is concern of Mosaic adultery laws is the protection
the only reference to the Mount of Olives in the and stability of men’s property (i.e., their wives
Fourth Gospel, whereas in the Synoptic tradition and their offspring), and the law is worded to
the Mount of Olives is a frequent resting spot for focus primarily on men (“If a man commits adul-
Jesus when he is near Jerusalem (Matt 21:1; 24:3; tery...” [Lev 20:10 NRSV]; “If a man is caught
26:30; Mark 11:1; 13:3; 14:26; see esp. Luke lying with the wife of another man...” [Deut
21:37; 22:39) 22:22 NRSV). (Note also that the Mishnah ex-
8:2-6a. The story proper begins in v. 2 and plicitly mentions only the man’s punishment by
consists of two parts: (1) vv. 2-6a, which establish stoning for adultery).!%7
the central conflict of the story, and (2) vv. 60-11, Verse 6a makes explicit what the legal irregu-
which provide the resolution. The setting of this larities of vv. 4-5 suggest: The scribes and Phari-
story in the Temple may have influenced its canoni- sees are not interested in Jesus’ interpretation of
cal location, because the Temple is the site of Jesus’ ‘Mosaic law but want only to entrap him. Both
teaching in John 7-8 (7:14, 28; 8:20, 59). the law and the woman are merely foils for this
The scribes and Pharisees initiate the story’s primary goal of entrapment. The situation and
central conflict by bringing the “woman who had language of testing and entrapment in v. 6a have
been caught in adultery” to Jesus (8:3). As noted more in common with the Synoptic traditions
earlier, this is the only occurrence of “scribes” in than with the rest of the Fourth Gospel (e.g., Matt
19:3; 22:18; Mark 10:2; 12:15).
195. For a recent study of John 7:53-8:11 that advocates Lukan 8:6b-11. Jesus’ response to the test is narrated
authorship, see Michel Gourges, “ ‘Moi non plus je ne condemne pas’: Les
mots et la theologie de Luc en Jean 8, 1-11,” SR19 (1990) 305-18. in two remarkably balanced parts (vv. 60-7, 8-1 as
196. See Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 589-92; Raymond
E. Brown, 7he Gospel According to John (I-XIl), AB 29 (Garden City, 197. See m. Sanh. 7:4, 9. See also Judith Wegner, “Leviticus,” in The
N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 1:335-38; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe
According to St. John, 3 vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982) 2:162-71; (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992) 41; and Chattel or Persons?
George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987) esie of Women in the Mishnah (New York: Oxford University Press,
143-47. 1 ;
628
JOHN 7:53-8:11 COMMENTARY
In both parts, Jesus makes a nonverbal response out in this verse to highlight the fact that not even
(bending down to write on the ground, wv. 68, the most senior and revered members of the
8) and a verbal response (straightening up to community are without sin.
speak, vv. 7, 10-11). Jesus straightens up to address the woman (v.
8:6b-7. Jesus’ writing on the ground in v. 6b 10) just as he did with the scribes and Pharisees
indicates his refusal to engage the question of wv. in v. 7. His questions and the woman’s response
4-5 as the scribes and Pharisees have posed it. confirm what the reader knows from v. 9: There
The story gives no information about the content
is no one left to condemn her. Jesus’ words in v.
of what Jesus writes, because it is the act of 10 are the first time the woman has been directly
writing itself that is important. Interpretations that
addressed in the story. Prior to this verse, she has
attempt to supply the content of what Jesus writes
been only an object for the scribes and Pharisees
miss the significance of Jesus’ nonverbal response.
to use in their entrapment of Jesus.
In the Mediterranean world of Jesus’ time, such
Jesus’ words to the woman in v. 11 are a
an act of writing would have been recognized as
counterpoint to his words to the scribes and
an act of refusal and. disengagement.!%
Pharisees in v. 7, where his words focused on
The scribes’ and Pharisees’ continued pressing of
how the scribes’ and Pharisees’ past (their sin)
their question (v. 7a) shows that they recognize Jesus’
should inform their present actions. In v. 11,
writing as an act of refusal, not as offering an answer.
When Jesus finally straightens up and addresses them Jesus’ words move beyond a focus on the rela-
directly (v. 76), he does not answer their legal ques- tionship of past and present actions to the future
tion, but moves beyond the legal argument to the (v. 110). Jesus’ words to the woman, “Do not sin
more encompassing issue of sin. The noun translated again,” also appear in 5:14 and seem to have the
“the one without sin” (avay.aptntos anamarté tos) same meaning in both places. Jesus does not speak
occurs only here in the NT, and the notion of sin of what is required for acquittal (healing in 5:14)
that it conveys—that sin is linked to actions—is but urges that the acquittal that is freely given
unusual for the Fourth Gospel. The more tradi- become the beginning point for a new life.
tional Johannine understanding of sin is to link it There are several possible reasons why John
with a person’s refusal to recognize Jesus as the 7:53-8:11 received its canonical location. First, as
Logos (eg470:24-.15:22-24). ln: 8:7,. Jesus ‘calls noted in the Overview above, it provides a nar-
the scribes and Pharisees to accountability for rative illustration of the conflict that animates the
their past actions and hence their own relationship dialogues of John 7—8. Second, one of the specific
to the law, which they had been willing to distort conflicts in John 7 is the proper interpretation of
to press their case against Jesus. the law (7:19-24, 48-49), the conflict around
8:8-11. Jesus’ resumption of writing on the which this particular story is built. Third, one can
ground in v. 8 indicates that he is finished with read this story as an illustration of 7:24: the
the scribes and Pharisees. (The textual variant difference between judging by appearance (the
supplied in the NRSV footnotes is one example of judgment of the scribes and Pharisees) or by right
early scribal efforts to supply content to Jesus’ act judgment (the judgment of Jesus). The theme of
of writing.) The actions of the scribes and Phari- judgment continues into John 8 (e.g., 8:15-16).
sees (and the rest of the crowd) in v. 9 answer Its Johannine context thus suggests that John
the challenge Jesus posed to them; none of them 7:53-8:11 is most effectively read as a story about
is sinless. The elders’ departure may be singled Jesus’ relationship to the law and the religious
establishment rather than as a morality tale, as is
198. See Gail R. O’Day, “John 7:53-8:11: A StudyinMisreading,” /BL
111 (1992) 632, 635-36. frequently the case (see Reflections).
REFLECTIONS
John 7:53-8:11 is a vivid, powerful story whose hold on the imagination of its readers is
not diminished by its complicated canonical history. Indeed, it is probably one of the most
JOHN 7:53-8:11 REFLECTIONS
popular NT stories. Jesus’ words in v. 7 about casting the first stone are repeated in an endless
variety of contexts inside and outside the church, and they have achieved the status of a
cultural adage rivaling any of Bartlett’s quotations. They are used popularly as a check on
moral self-righteousness. Popular interpretation also equates the substance of this story with
its conventional title, “The Woman Caught in Adultery,” and so reads the story in terms of
Jesus’ attitude toward sexuality.'”
Yet do the popular appropriations of this story do it theological justice, or do they lead the
interpreter into the trap of relying on what is said and remembered about a biblical story instead
of attending to the story itself? When John 7:53-8:11 is read either as a cautionary tale against
self-righteous judgment or as a story about Jesus’ leniency toward adulterous women, the radical
claim of this story and its christological focus are diminished or completely lost.
What is striking about John 7:53-8:11 is the way in which Jesus negotiates the scribes’ and
Pharisees’ test. As the Commentary has noted, Jesus’ writing on the ground signaled his
unwillingness to engage their categories and hence his unwillingness to allow them to exercise
any control in the situation. When Jesus does speak, he speaks to the situation of the scribes and
Pharisees as well as to the woman. The scribes and Pharisees brought the woman to Jesus as an
object to-be-manipulated for their own ends, but Jesus treats the woman and the scribes and
Pharisees as theological equals, each as human beings to whom words about sin can be addressed
(vv. 7, 10-11). Jesus offers all his conversation partners in this story the opportunity to break with
oldways, where the power of condemnation and death are determinative, and to enter a world
marked by freedom and acquittal. The woman is invited to embrace a new future that will allow
her to live as a free woman, not a condemned_woman. The scribes and Pharisees are invited to
. give up the categories according to which they had defined and attempted to control life, because
’ their presumed control leads only to the distortions of vv. 4-6.
"John 7:53-8:11 is thus a radical story in which Jesus puts his authority up against the claims
‘of the Jewish religious establishment. It is a story of Jesus’ grace and mercy, as the dominant thread
of Christian interpretation has held since Augustine,” but Jesus offers this grace in a very particular
social and religious context. His words to both the scribes and Pharisees and the woman have a
/ political and theological, rather than a predominantly moral, dimension. By his very presence, Jesus
challenges the law and the power of those who claim the authority to interpret the law. Jesus’
identity calls the scribes’ and Pharisees’ social position and theological authority into-question. Jesus
\, brings the promise of freedom to all—scribes, Pharisees, the woman—but that freedom demands
Rey a renunciation of old ways and-former claims.
In interpreting John 7:53-8:11, then, it is important for the reader to move beyond popular
appropriations of this story to its christological core. This story is about neither the scribes’
and Pharisees’ “sin” of self-righteousness nor the woman’s sexual sin; rather, it is about the
challenge to embedded religious authority that Jesus brings and the possibilities of new life
that arise from that challenge. Jesus places his authority to lorgive and to offer freedom over
199. A recent comment by John Updike illustrates this popular interpretive bent: “The Bible is actually rather soft on lust. Jesus’ plea for
the adulterous woman and his fondness for female company, low and high, give a genial tinge to his ministry” (“Even the Bible Is Soft on
Sex,” New York Times Book Review XCVIII, no. 25 [June 20, 1993}).
200. Augustine, Homily XXXIII, in Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John (London: F. & J. Rivington, 1848) 1.477.

NIV NRSV
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he 12Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the
said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever _light of the world. Whoever follows me will never
630
JOHN 8:12-30
NIV NRSV
follows me will never walk in darkness, but will walk in darkness but will have the light of life.”
have the light of life.” 'Then the Pharisees said to him, “You are testi-
'SThe Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, fying on your own behalf; your testimony is not
appearing as your own witness; your testimony is valid.” ‘Jesus answered, “Even if | testify on my
not valid.” own behalf, my testimony is valid because I know
'4Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own where I have come from and where I am going,
behalf, my testimony is valid, for 1 know where but you do not know where I come from or
I came from and where I am going. But you have where I am going. You judge by human stand-
no idea where I come from or where I am going. ards;? I judge no one. '°Yet even if I do judge,
You judge by human standards; I pass judgment my judgment is valid; for it is not I alone who
on no one. '*But if I do judge, my decisions are judge, but I and the Father? who sent me. !7In
right, because I am not alone. I stand with the your law it is written that the testimony of two
Father, who sent me. '’In your own Law it is witnesses is valid. '®I testify on my own behalf,
written that the testimony of two men is valid. and the Father who sent me testifies on my
'8] am one who testifies for myself; my other behalf.” '°Then they said to him, “Where is your
witness is the Father, who sent me.” Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me
‘Then they asked him, “Where is your father?” nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know
“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus my Father also.” ?°-He spoke these words while
replied. “If you knew me, you would know my he was teaching in the treasury of the temple, but
Father also.” ?°He spoke these words while teach- no one arrested him, because his hour had not
ing in the temple area near the place where the yet come.
offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, be- 21Again he said to them, “I am going away,
cause his time had not yet come. and you will search for me, but you will die in
21Once more Jesus said to them, “I am going your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.”
away, and you will look for me, and you will die 22Then the Jews said, “Is he going to kill himself?
in your sin. Where | go, you cannot come.” Is that what he means by saying, ‘Where I am
22This made the Jews ask, “Will he kill himself? Is going, you cannot come’?” *He said to them,
that why he says, ‘Where I go, you cannot come’?” “You are from below, I am from above; you are
3But he continued, “You are from below; I am of this world, I am not of this world. *4I told you
from above. You are of this world; I am not of that you would die in your sins, for you will die
this world. *4I told you that you would die in your in your sins unless you believe that I am he.”°
sins; if you do not believe that I am the one / “They said to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to
claim to be,? you will indeed die in your sins.” them, “Why do I speak to you at all?? 7° have
25“Who are you?” they asked. much to say about you and much to condemn;
“Just what I have been claiming all along,” but the one who sent me is true, and I declare
Jesus replied. *““I have much to say in judgment to the world what I have heard from him.” ?”They
of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what did not understand that he was speaking to them
I have heard from him | tell the world.” about the Father. 2°So Jesus said, “When you have
27They did not understand that he was telling lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize
them about his Father. *8So Jesus said, “When that I am he,° and that I do nothing on my own,
you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will but I speak these things as the Father instructed
know that I am the one J claim to be and that I me. 2°And the one who sent me is with me; he
do nothing on my own but speak just what the has not left me alone, for I always do what is
Father has taught me. 2?The one who sent me is pleasing to him.” °°As he was saying these things,
with me; he has not left me alone, for I always many believed in him.
do what pleases him.” °°Even as he spoke, many a Gk according to the flesh 6 Other ancient authorities read he
put their faith in him. eGkI am dOr What I have told you from the beginning
631
(COMMENTARY
The pattern evident in John 7:1-52 continues in NRSV; see also Ps 105:39; Wis 18:3). The associations
8:12-30: short scenes in which Jesus’ teaching places of light with the exodus (see also God’s self-revelation
him in conflict with his Jewish conversation part- to Moses in the burning bush) provide continuity
ners. Like the mini-dramas in chap. 7 (see Over- between 8:12 and the exodus traditions evoked in
view), in 8:12-30 the Fourth Evangelist once again John 6. Light is also a frequent OT symbol of theo-
combines a variety of Jesus traditions to create a phany (e.g., Gen 15:17; Exod 19:18; Ps 104:2; Ezek
narrative that is shaped by theological intentions. 1:4). In the wisdom tradition, light is a symbol for
John 8:12-30 can be subdivided into two smaller the law or the Word of God (Ps 119:105; Prov 6:23;
units: vv. 12-20 and vv. 21-30. Each of the subdi- Wis 18:4) and for Wisdom itself (Prov 8:22).
visions begins in a similar way (“again,” vv. 12, 21), Light also figured as a symbol of God or God’s
and each ends with the Evangelist’s report on the Word in Hellenistic Judaism, especially Philo,
response to Jesus’ teaching (the inability to arrest Qumran, and Gnosticism.”°° “Light” as a religious
Jesus, v. 20; the faith of “many,” v. 30). symbol thus had broad currency in the Mediter-
8:12-20. 8:12. The “I am” saying with which ranean world,” but the Fourth Evangelist gives
Jesus begins his teaching in v. 12 is one in a series that symbol new meaning by identifying it with
of “I am” sayings in the Fourth Gospel (see Fig. the revelation of God in Jesus (cf. discussion of
10, “The ‘I AM’ Sayings in John,” 602). As noted logos in Commentary on 1:1-18).
above (see 7:2), light was an important element The use of light symbolism in the Fourth Gos-
in the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles. The pel provides the final context within which to
Mishnah describes the lighting of four large lamp- place Jesus’ words in 8:12a. In 1:4-10, light is the
stands in the Temple Court of the Women at the central image for the presence of the Word in the
close of the first festival day.?°! These lampstands world., “Light” (6s phos) and “life” (Cw zoe;
produced so much light that “there was not a see 8:120) are identified in 1:4 as two ways in
courtyard in Jerusalem that did not reflect the which the Word expresses itself in the world.
light of the Beth ha-She’ubah.”*° Celebrants at Light and life are signs of the Word’s relationship
Tabernacles danced before those candlesticks with to the world; they are the ways in which human-
“burning torches,”2° adding even more light to ity experiences the incarnate Word. “World”
their joyous celebration. As with the words about (kdop0os kosmos) is used neutrally in 8:12a (cf.
water in 7:37-38, here Jesus is declaring himself to 1:19); it is not the sphere of enmity and conflict
be the true fulfillment of Tabernacles joy when he (1:10; 7:7), but the place where God’s offer of
declares himself to be the light of the world.2 Old life in Jesus is available (3:16-17). Jesus’ own
rites are once again transformed by Jesus’ incarnate words in 8:12a thus confirm the christological and
presence (cf. 2:6-11). The Tabernacles light illumi- soteriological claims of the prologue.
nated all of Jerusalem, but Jesus is the light of the John 8:126 makes explicit the soteriological
world.2° dimensions of Jesus as the light. The presence of
Light is a frequent image in the OT. Light was Jesus as the light of the world presents the world with
God’s first creation (Gen 1:3-4). In the exodus two choices: to follow Jesus and have “the light of
tradition (which forms part of the background of life” or to walk in darkness (cf. 3:19-21; 11:9;
the Tabernacles festival; see Commentary on 7:2), 12:35-36). “Follow” (dkodov8éw akoloutheo) is
God went before Israel in the wilderness as a pillar the language of discipleship (1:37-38, 40, 43),
of fire at night “to give them light” (Exod 13:21 which in John involves recognition of and response
to Jesus’ offer of life (10:27-28; see also 10:4-5).
201. See m. Sukk. 5.2,
202. Ibid., 5.3. 206. Bultmann claimed Gnosticism was the decisive influence on John,
203. Ibid., 5.4 but as with his claims about logos, could cite no Gnostic documents in
204. Charles H. Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological which “light of the world” appeared. See Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel
Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles (New ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and
York: Crossroad, 1992) 143-53. J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 342n. 5.
205. Rudolf Schnackenburg, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols. 207. See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed.
(New York: Seabury, 1982) 2:189. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 335-37.
632
8:13-18. The Pharisees respond to Jesus’ in- is further underscored by the difference in their
vitation by questioning the validity of Jesus’ self- approach to judgment (vv. 15-16). To judge “by
witness (cf. 7:32, 45-52). Their- words recall Jesus’ human standards” is literally to judge “according
own words about self-witness in 5:31. As noted to the flesh” (kata Thv odpKka kata ten sarka).?!2
at 5:31, Jewish law held that a man’s witness on It is because Jesus’ opponents judge solely by what
his own behalf is not legally admissible evidence; is visible that they do not recognize his divine
he must have the witness of two other men.?% origins (cf. 7:24). Jesus’ statement that he judges
In 5:31-40, therefore, Jesus presented other wit- no one (v. 150) seems to contradict his earlier
nesses on his behalf. This time Jesus responds to statements (5:30). His words in v. 16 further
the Pharisees’ complaint with a strategy that at heighten the contradiction: Does he judge or not?
first glance contradicts his earlier words. It is a The answer, as happens frequently in the Fourth
misreading of the contradiction to explain it by Gospel, is both/and, not either/or. Jesus was sent
different layers of tradition, however.?” In 5:31- by God for salvation, not judgment (3:16), but
40, Jesus conducted his self-defense according to Jesus’ witness has an intrinsic eschatological di-
the juridical categories of his opponents; he ceded mension, because it evokes decision and judgment
them their interpretation of the law and their (3:17-21).2!5 When a moment of judgment occurs,
definition of witness. In the present text, Jesus Jesus’ judgment, like the witness out of which it
distances himself from his opponents’ categories arises, is valid, because he judges at one with the
(“your law,” v. 17) and counters with his juridical God who sent him (5:22, 27), the same God who
categories. The “even if...” with which wv. 14 sent him for salvation. Once again, the validity
and 16 begin draws attention to the conflicting (truth) of what Jesus does derives from his rela-
juridical perspectives.?'° The heavy concentration tionship with God (cf. 7:17-18).
of the adjective “valid” in this section (adn@ys Verses 17-18 end Jesus’ argument with an ironic
aléthées, 8:13-14, 17; and ddnéiwos_ alethinos, twist. He meets the Pharisees’ demand for two
8:16, are used interchangeably here) points to witnesses by offering himself and God. He returns
the heart of the juridical debate: Only one per- to the categories of 5:32ff., but now includes his
spective can be “valid” or true. This juridical self-witness. The irony arises because Jesus gives the
debate reflects the church/synagogue debates at Pharisees what they ask for, but in terms they can
the time of the Fourth Evangelist about the neither recognize nor receive because they judge
validity of Jesus’ claims (cf. 5:31-40; 7:12); “according to the flesh” (cf. 5:40-44).
15:26:27; 1621-2,.8-1)}. 8:19. For the Gospel reader, the Pharisees’
Jesus’ knowledge of his origin and his destina- question in v. 19 is also an instance of irony. They
tion (v. 14) validates his self-witness, because it ask about the location of Jesus’ father, so that he
derives from his relationship to God and his whole can present himself as a witness, but their ques-
career as the Word. The Greek verb translated tion reveals a more profound ignorance about the
“going” (Umdyw Aypago) regularly speaks of Jesus’ identity of God and the relationship of God and
departure from this world through his death, Jesus. Jesus’ response confirms the Pharisees’ real
resurrection, and ascension (7:33; 8:21; 13:3, 33, ignorance. Verse 196 contains the key to Johan-
36; 14:28; 16:5, 10). Jesus’ words, therefore, are nine christology and theology: To know Jesus is
not self-interested witness. Rather, Jesus is the to know God (cf. 14:6-7).
only one who can bear witness “on his behalf,” 8:20. The unit concludes with an echo of 7:30.
because he is the only one who has seen God It is the time set for Jesus by God that governs
and can make God known (1:18).7!! Because his Jesus’ life, not human intentions. The reference
opponents do not share Jesus’ knowledge (v. 140), to the temple treasury as the place where Jesus
they cannot recognize the validity of his witness. teaches provides an additional connection to the
The distance between Jesus and his opponents
212. John 8:15 is the only non-Pauline usage of the expression “accord-
ing to the flesh” in the NT. Paul regularly uses this expression, but without
208. See m. Ketub. 2.9; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; cf, John 8:17.
the definite article before sarx(e.g., Rom 1:3; 4:1; 1 Cor 1:26, 2 Cor 1:17;
209. So Jerome H. Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt: John’s Christology
Gal 4:23).
in Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 52, 58.
210. Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 278. 213. See George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.:
Word, 1987) 129.
211. Cf. ibid., 279.
633
Feast of Tabernacles, because the Temple treasury mus in 3:3, 7. To enter the kingdom of God (3:3)
was located next to the Court of the Women, the or not to die in sin (8:22), one must be from
site of the Feast’s light celebration. above, not below,not of this world (cf. 1:12-13).
8:21-30. When Jesus resumes speaking The “Jews” are thus distinguished from Jesus’
(“again” [mddwv palin), v. 21), his words replay disciples who do not belong to the world (15:19;
the theme of his departure from 8:14. In 8:12-20 17:6,: 14, 16):
the validity of Jesus’ witness was the lens through 8:24. Jesus reiterates his words of 8:21 (“I told
which to view his identity; in vv. 21-30, Jesus’ you”). The plural “sins” (ayaptiat hamartiai) is
departure—that is, his death, resurrection, and not a significant change from v. 21; it reminds the
ascension—now becomes the lens (8:21-22, 28). “Jews” that the one central sin underscored earlier
8:21. Jesus’ words echo 7:33-34. His emphasis can nonetheless be manifested in individual actions
on the consequence of his departure for the (cf. 3:19-21). The only alternative to dying in sin is
“Jews” (“you will die in your sin”) conveys the to believe that “I am” (v. 246). The NRSV supplies
limits of Jesus’ availability and offer of salvation a pronoun as a predicate (“I am he”) and the NIV
(cf. 16:33-34). “To die in your sin” is synonymous offers a paraphrase (“I am the one I claim to be”),
with the darkness of v. 120. The use of “sin” in but these translations ignore or alter the use of an
the singular suggests that sin is not measured by absolute eri eit (ego eimi) saying in the Greek
individual actions, but is instead the central and (cf. 4:26; 6:20; see also Fig. 10, “The ‘I AM’ Sayings
decisive sin of not recognizing God in Jesus (cf. in John,” 602). Jesus makes a bold claim for himself
1:29; 8:24; 9:41; 15:22-24; 16:9).2!4 Brown help- here, and he sets very high stakes for faith. He
fully relates this understanding of sin to the un- identifies himself with the divine name (see Exod
forgivable sin of not receiving the Holy Spirit in 13:14; Isa 43:25; 51:12; 52:6 LXX) to testify that
the Synoptics (Mark 3:29). he and God are one (1:1; 10:30). To move from
8:22. As in 7:35-36, the “Jews” misunder- death to life, the Jews must recognize Jesus as the
stand Jesus’ words about his departure. Their incarnate Logos of God (cf. 8:19).
questions have a harder edge than in chap. 7, 8:25a. The Jews’ question here may be the most
however, because suicide was a serious offense ironically charged of all the questions in John 7-8
in Judaism. The person who had committed sui- (cf. 7:35, 42; 8:19). It shows a complete misunder-
cide was forbidden regular burial rites and “the standing of the ego eimi saying. They think Jesus
souls...go to darkest Hades, and God, their has merely omitted the predicate in an identification
father, will visit the sins of the evil-doers on their saying and grasp none of the theological overtones.
descendants.”*!5 The “Jews’” questions (as in The irony is profound, because in their ignorance
7:35-36) also are ironic, because they are an they ask the critical christological question of the
unwitting prophecy of the theological truth of Gospel: Who is Jesus? .
Jesus’ death in John. Jesus will indeed lay down 8:25b. There is no consensus for the translation
his life of his own accord (10:17-18; 15:13). of this verse (note the disparity between the NIV
8:23. Jesus explains the source of the “Jews’ ” and the NRSV). Two translation difficulties render
lack of comprehension: They are defined by their the meaning of this sentence obscure. First, it is not
place of origin just as Jesus is defined by his, and Clear whether the Greek word 6tt (Aoti) is used
the two stand in opposition to one another (cf. as an interrogative and thus introduces a question
8:14). The expression “from below” (€x Tv KdTu (NRSV), or whether it should be read as a relative
ek ton kato) may be a play on the Jews’ allusion pronoun (6 tt Ao ti) and hence simply translated
to suicide in v. 22. Jesus will not be relegated to as “that” or “what.” Second, it is not clear how
below (Hades) because he is from above. The the adverbial expression tiv dpxyv (ten archén)
spatial dualism of v. 23a recalls 3:31 (see also is to be translated (e.g., “at all,” NRSV; “all
19:11, 23), as well as Jesus’ invitation to Nicode- along,” NIV; or “from the beginning,” NRSV alt.).
This translation ambiguity means that Jesus’ words
214. See Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), can be read as an affirmation (NIV) or a rebuke
AB 29 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 350.
215. Josephus The Jewish War 3.375; Schnackenburg, The Gospel (NRSV). Against the NRSV translation is the fact
According to St. John, 2:198. that v. 256 introduces a new section of Jesus’
634
speech, and the NRSV rendering seems more what Jesus has been saying all along: He does
appropriate to the end of a conversation. A trans- nothing on his own (5:19, 30) and speaks what
lation with a meaning similar to that of the NIV God has taught him (7:16).
is favored by most recent commentators.?!° The Scholars debate whether v. 28 should be read
solution may lie with the reading found in one of as a prophecy of judgment (i.e., it will be too late
the oldest manuscripts, °°, which contains words for the Jews)!° or a promise (i.e., the Jews will
missing in other manuscript traditions, “What I realize the truth).?2° Yet an either/or reading of
told you from the beginning I am also telling v. 28 seems to overlook the nature of decision in
you.”2!” This translation provides a smooth tran- the Fourth Gospel, which always holds together
sition to v. 26 and contains a suggestive echo of the two dimensions of salvation and judgment.22!
the Prologue (1:1). The significance of Jesus’ words in v. 28 is that
8:26-27. Verse 26 restates themes from earlier they point to a time after his lifting up, when the
discourses, particularly Jesus as the one sent by truth will be revealed to the Jews (note the future
God (5:37-38; 6:29, 39, 57) and God as the tense, “you will know” [yvuioe8e gnosethe]). The
source of Jesus’ words (3:34; 7:16). These themes knowledge gained through the lifting up thus
underscore Jesus’ relationship with God as the “falls in the age of the Spirit-Paraclete.”22? Verse
decisive factor in who Jesus is and what he does, 28 looks beyond the Gospel narrative to the
but Jesus’ audience does not grasp this central future experience of Christians and Jews. The
theological reality (v. 27). lifting up, therefore, is not simply the culmina-
8:28. Jesus’ departure is depicted in v. 28 in tion of Jesus’ self-revelation, but is the begin-
the distinctly Johannine idiom for Jesus’ death, ning of the witness of the community with the
resurrection, and ascension: “lifted up” (wbsdw aid of the Paraclete. Many of the verbs used to
hypsoo). As noted at 3:14, hypsoo means both describe Jesus’ activity in 8:12-20 will also be
“lift up” and “exalt.” This is the second of three used to describe the work of the Paraclete
statements about the lifting up of the Son of Man (13:20; ToT @t3)
in John (see 3:14; 12:32-34), analogous to the 8:29. The lifting up also will show the con-
three passion predictions in the Synoptic tradition stancy of God’s presence with Jesus (v. 29). This
(Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; and par.). constancy distinguishes God’s relationship to Jesus
The title “Son of Man” draws attention to Jesus from humanity’s relationship to Jesus during his
as an eschatological figure (cf. 5:28), and v. 28 lifetime. Jesus’ disciples will leave him “alone”
highlights this element of judgment in two ways. (udvos monos) at the cross, but God will not (cf.
First, Jesus places responsibility for his lifting up on 16:32). Jesus’ “pleasing actions” (Ta dpeota ta
his audience (“When you have lifted up... ”). In aresta) are not a prerequisite for God’s presence;
contrast, in 3:14 and 12:32-34 “lifted up” is in the rather, they are an inevitable outcome of their rela-
passive voice, suggesting God’s agency.?!® There is tionship of God and Jesus. Because God and Jesus are
an ironic dimension to this responsibility, because united by love (3:35; 15:9), Jesus is intrinsically
in lifting up Jesus to kill him, his opponents partici- pleasing to God. The love commandment of the
pate in his exaltation. Second, the lifting up of the Farewell Discourse (13:34; 15:12) opens this aspect
Son of Man is a moment of judgment because it of God and Jesus’ relationship to include the disciples.
confronts the Jews with the truth of Jesus’ identity. When the disciples act in and out of this love, they,
Verse 28 gives the crucifixion/resurrection/ascen- too, share in “pleasing actions” (cf. 1 John 3:22).
sion an explicit revelatory significance, “You will 8:30. The conclusion to the unit (“many
realize that I am” (author’s trans.; once again the believed” [troddol Etta tevoav polloi episteusan))
NIV and the NRSV mute the Greek use of an stands in marked contrast to the reference to
absolute ego eimi). The lifting up will also confirm
219. Bultmann, 7he Gospel of John, 349-50; Brown, 7he Gospel
216. Beasley-Murray, John, 125-26; Brown, The Gospel According to According to John (I-XII), 351; Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John,
John (I-XIl), 347-48; but see Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 344,
343, who plays down the translation difficulty afid favors a third option: 220. E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel(London: Faber& Faber, 1947)
“T am from the beginning what Itell you.” 336-37.
217. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 348. 221. Schnackenburg, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 2:202-3.
218. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 2:202. 222. Beasley-Murray, John, 132.
635
Jesus’ arrest that concluded vv. 12-20. The juxta- divided response among those who hear Jesus (cf.
position of the two conclusions highlights the 7:43).
John 8:31-59, Debate Between Jesus and His Jewish Opponents
OVERVIEW
John 8:31-59 has been called the locus classicus to the development of the debate.?*° The refer-
of Johannine theology.””° In these verses, the Fourth ences to Abraham cluster around two distinct but
Evangelist lays bare what he perceives to be the interrelated themes: Abraham’s relationship to Je-
fundamental lines of debate and disagreement be- sus’ interlocutors (vv. 31-38) and to Jesus (vv.
tween Judaism and Christianity. The disagreement 48-59). The debate will show that one’s relation-
between Jesus and the Jews is no longer depicted ship to Abraham is ultimately determined by one’s
in terms of response to a particular event—for relationship to God (vv. 39-47). Like the midrash
example, a healing (John 5) or the feeding miracle on Moses and manna in John 6:25-51 (see Com-
(John 6)—but the basic theological differences them- mentary above), vv. 31-59 can be read as a
selves become the presenting issue. midrash on the Abraham tradition and the mean-
The dialogue of 8:31-59 is virtually seamless, ing of being an heir to Abraham.
each verse building on what precedes to convey The references to Abraham suggest the follow-
the intensification of the theological debate.
ing subunits within the debate:
Neyrey identifies the forensic quality of this uni-
fied debate, noting that 8:31-59 reads as a trial
8:31-38 Freedom for the Descendants of
of Jewish objections to Jesus.?#4 At issue is the
Abraham
truth of Jesus’ testimony (8:32, 40, 45-46, 55)
8:39-47, Children of Abraham/Children of God
and the falsehood of those who oppose him (8:44-
45). The repeated references to Abraham (8:33, 8:48-59 Abraham and Jesus
37, 39-40, 52-53, 56, 58) are the only such 225. See Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 330; Hora-
references in the Fourth Gospel and provide a key cio E. Lona, Abraham in Johannes 8: Ein Beitrag zur Methodenfrage
(Bern: Lang, 1976); Jeffrey S. Siker, Disinheriting the Jews: The Use of
223. C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cam- Abraham in Early Christian Controversy with Judaism from Paul Through
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 330. Justin Martyr (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1989).
224. See Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt, 43-48.
John 8:31-38, Freedom for the Descendants of Abraham

NIV NRSV
31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, 31Then Jesus said to the Jews who had be-
“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my lieved in him, “If you continue in my word, you
disciples. **Then you will know the truth, and the are truly my disciples; *2and you will know the
truth will set you free.” truth, and the truth will make you free.” “They
They answered him, “We are Abraham’s answered him, “We are descendants of Abraham
descendants? and have never been slaves of any- and have never been slaves to anyone. What do
one. How can you say that we shall be set free?” you mean by saying, ‘You will be made free’?”
“Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone 34Jesus answered them, “Very truly, I tell you,
who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The
permanent place in the family, but a son belongs slave does not have a permanent place in the
to it forever. °°So if the Son sets you free, you household; the son has a place there forever. °°So
433 Greek seed; also in verse 37 if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
636
JOHN 8:31-38
NIV NRSV
will be free indeed. *7I know you are Abraham’s I know that you are descendants of Abraham;
descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because yet you look for an opportunity to kill me, because
you have no room for my word. *8I am telling there is no place in you for my word. °8I declare
you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, what I have seen in the Father’s presence; as for
and you do what you have heard from your you, you should do what you have heard from
father.2” the Father.”?
36 Or presence. Therefore do what you have heard from the Father. 4Other ancient authorities read you do what you have heard from
your father
(COMMENTARY
8:31-32. These verses identify Jesus’ audience ing, to show how the Christian claims could stand
as “the Jews who believed in him.” The harsh up to Jewish counterarguments.”2?
nature of the debate that follows raises questions Verses 31-32 contain an “if” clause (v. 31a)
about this identification. Many commentators pro- followed by three apodoses (vv. 310, 32a, 320)
pose that the expression is a gloss by a later editor that introduce the promises that motivate the
to link 8:31ff. with the conclusion of v. 30 (“many debate. The condition (“if”) is expressed with two
believed”).22° A more helpful suggestion is to see distinctive Johannine terms, pévw (meno “con-
the expression as another glimpse of the two levels tinue in,” NRSV) and ddyos (logos “word”). The
on which the Gospel unfolds (see also 5:31-40; centrality of Jesus’ word is highlighted in several
9:1-41), pointing beyond the narrative setting to the ways in vv. 31-59: The frequent use of logos (vv.
Evangelist’s own time. Yet even when this assump- 31, 37, 43, 51-52, 55); three occurrences of “very
tion is made, the identification remains problematic. truly, I say to you” (vv. 34, 51, 58); and Jesus’
Some scholars take the reference to believing Jews repeated references to his speaking (vv. 38, 43,
as a polemic against Jews within the Evangelist’s 45-46, 55). Meno denotes a permanent relation-
time who believed in Jesus but remained advocates ship between Jesus’ listeners and his word (cf. the
of Jewish religious practices.?2” Other scholars main-
use of meno in 15:4, 7, 10). All that Jesus
tain that the faith to which vv. 30-31 refer is
promises in v. 32 depends on the listener’s con-
inadequate and that the purpose of the ensuing
tinuing relationship to Jesus’ word.
debate is to test it and show its inadequacy.”
The three promises are each built around the
Such readings, however, tend to overlook the
root “truth” (adnGeva aletheia) and are inextri-
relationship of 8:31-59 to the rest of chaps. 7-8.
cably intertwined. The liberating power of the truth
These verses are the theological climax of all that
is unknowable apart from being Jesus’ disciple,
has preceded. The identification of Jesus’ audience
which in turn depends on one’s relationship to Jesus’
here as “the Jews who believed in him” does not
point to a specific historical audience either in the word. The truth and freedom that Jesus promises
Gospel or in the Evangelist’s time, but serves to are not abstract principles, but like light and life
highlight the intensity of the theological debate (e.g., 1:4-5, 9; 8:12), are bound to the Word. The
between Jews and Jewish Christians. Jews who truth is the presence of God in Jesus (e.g., 8:14-19,
professed faith in Jesus in the Fourth Evangelist’s 27-28). Freedom can be interpreted in a variety of
time encountered theological arguments like those contexts in Jewish tradition, as v. 33 will show, but
voiced by Jesus’ opponents in these verses. The its root context is the exodus to freedom out of
debate is given full rein here, with Jesus prevail- slavery in Egypt. The introduction of “freedom”
(Ekev8epdw eleutheroo) in v. 32 thus suggests a
226. E.g., Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 354-55. reinterpretation of the exodus tradition through
227. C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 379.
228. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 336-37; Bultmann, The Gospel of 229. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols.
John, 433. (New York: Sebury, 1982) 2:204-5; Beasley-Murray, John, 103.
637
the lens of the truth of God in Jesus (see also the 11:9-10). The images in this short parable belong to
reinterpretation of exodus imagery in John 6). the common stock of Jesus’ parables: slave, house-
8:33. Jesus’ reinterpretation of freedom evokes hold, son (cf. Matt 21:33-46; 22:1-14),?%* but they
resistance in his listeners. They rebut his words seem also to have more specific associations in
by appealing to their heritage as descendants their use here. The images of son and slave in
(oTéppa sperma) of Abraham (cf. Matt 3:9; Luke this verse recall the story of Ishmael and Isaac
3:8). This appeal will develop into the central (Gen 16:15; 21:9-21) and the struggle over in-
paradox of the debate: Is it possible to claim heritance (cf. Gal 4:21-31). The use of “forever”
Abraham while rejecting Jesus (e.g., vv. 37, 39- (cis TOv aidva eis ton aiona) points to the es-
40, 47, 53, 57)? The Jews’ rebuttal of Jesus’ chatological dimension of freedom and links the
words is another instance of Johannine use of promise of freedom with the other eschatological
misunderstanding. Jesus spoke of freedom as the gifts Jesus promises (e.g., 6:35).
result of knowing the truth, but when the Jews The christological focus of Jesus’ words about
repeat Jesus’ words in v. 330, they misquote him, freedom and slavery moves to the foreground in v.
leaving out the reference to truth. Instead, they 36. Jesus repeats the promise of freedom from v.
interpret Jesus’ words as if they themselves were 32, substituting “Son” for “truth,” and thus makes
a misreading of Jewish heritage. The Jews’ words explicit the link between truth and Jesus’ identity.
can be read on two levels. First, they can be read If one recognizes the truth of Jesus’ identity, that
as a statement that the Jews’ descent from Abra- he is the Son (cf. 1:18; 3:16, 35-36; 5:23; 6:40;
ham already guarantees their spiritual freedom, so 8:28), then freedom is possible. The shift in imagery
that they have no need of what Jesus offers.2° from Abraham’s son in the parable of v. 35 to God’s
Second, their words can be read as a reflection on Son in v. 36 anticipates the argument of vv. 39-47.
Jewish history.**' In this reading, the hyperbole of In vv. 37-38, Jesus directly engages the Jews’
the Jews’ denial heightens the poignant irony of their protest of v. 33 (“descendants [sperma] of Abra-
words: Israel’s history is characterized by periods of ham”). He grants them their claim (v. 37a}, but
slavery and captivity, and the situation in which the contrasts the claim with their behavior (v. 370). The
Jews currently find themselves, as subjects of the desire to kill Jesus has been a constant part of the
Roman Empire, is yet one more situation of slavery. fabric of chaps. 7-8 (7:1, 25, 30, 44-45; 8:20), and
In their desire to distance themselves from Jesus, Jesus now identifies that desire with the absence of
they have already begun the process of distancing any relationship to his word (cf. v. 31a). The claim
themselves from their own history (cf. 19:15). to relationship with Abraham must be measured
8:34-38. Jesus addresses the two prongs of the against the relationship with Jesus.
Jews’ protest (and misunderstanding): freedom and Verse 38 compares the respective relationships
their descent from Abraham. Jesus first corrects his of Jesus and his listeners to the “Father.” This
listeners’ misunderstanding of freedom and slavery. verse presents two translation problems. First, the
The solemn formula with which v. 34 begins (“Very verse has several important textual variants. In v.
truly, I tell you”) marks the introduction of a new 38a Jesus repeats a claim made many times in the
teaching (cf. 5:24-25). Freedom is a gift; one cannot Gospel, that he speaks what he has seen with the
Father (1:18; 3:32; 8:26). In order to heighten
lay claim to freedom by virtue of one’s heritage;
the contrast between Jesus and his listeners, some
one’s identity as slave or free is determined by what
ancient manuscripts add a personal pronoun here
one does, not by who one claims to be (cf. 3:19-21).
(“my Father”), but the oldest manuscripts (99°75)
“Slave to sin” is thus synonymous with “die in your
omit the pronoun. The most significant textual
sin(s)” (8:21, 24).
variant occurs in v. 380. As in v. 38a, some
The short parable of v. 35 illustrates the rela-
manuscripts add a personal pronoun before “Fa-
tionship among status, inheritance, and freedom
ther” (“your father,” NIV), in order to heighten
(for other short parables in John, see 3:29; 5:19;
the contrast. Again the oldest manuscripts ($)%”5)
230. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Phila- do not contain the personal pronoun, and the
delphia: Westminster, 1978) 345.
231. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XII), 355; Beasley-Mur- 232. See Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 380; Brown,
ray, John, 133. The Gospel According to John (I-XII), 355.
638
reading without the pronoun should thus be ac- is whether the Jews will embrace their inheritance
cepted as the preferred reading (NRSV). Second, one as descendants of Abraham: and recognize the
has to decide whether to translate the verb “do” Father whom they share with Jesus. The addition
(movette poieite) in v. 380 as an indicative (“you
of personal pronouns forecloses this possibility,
do,” NIV) or an imperative (“you should do,” NRSV).
because the pronouns explicitly identify distinct
When the verb is translated as an indicative, it
fathers for Jesus and the Jews. As the debate
becomes an indictment of the Jews’ behavior, whereas
progresses in vv. 39-47, the difference in fathers
when it is translated as an imperative, it continues
the challenge Jesus posed to his listeners in v. 31. will be unambiguously announced, but in vv.
The best reading of v. 38 is without personal 31-38 the possibility of obedience remains open.
pronouns and with poieite translated as an impera- (See Reflections at 8:48-59.)
tive (“do”).”3 At this point in the debate, the issue
233. So Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XII), 356.
John 8:39-47, Children of Abraham/Children of God

NIV NRSV
3*“Abraham is our father,” they answered. 39They answered him, “Abraham is our fa-
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, ther.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s
“then you would? do the things Abraham did. 4°As children, you would be doing? what Abraham did,
it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who “but now you are trying to kill me, a man who
has told you the truth that I heard from God. has told you the truth that I heard from God. This
Abraham did not do such things. 4'You are doing is not what Abraham did. “'You are indeed doing
the things your own father does.” what your father does.” They said to him, “We
“We are not illegitimate children,” they pro- are not illegitimate children; we have one father,
tested. “The only Father we have is God himself.” God himself.” *2Jesus said to them, “If God were
42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, your Father, you would love me, for I came from
you would love me, for I came from God and God and now I am here. I did not come on my
now am here. I have not come on my own; but own, but he sent me. “Why do you not under-
he sent me. “Why is my language not clear to stand what I say? It is because you cannot accept
you? Because you are unable to hear what | say. my word. “You are from your father the devil,
“You belong to your father, the devil, and you and you choose to do your father’s desires. He
want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a was a murderer from the beginning and does not
murderer from the beginning, not holding to the stand in the truth, because there is no truth in
truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, him. When he lies, he speaks according to his
he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
the father of lies. “Yet because I tell the truth, 45But because I tell the truth, you do not believe
you do not believe me! *°Can any of you prove me. “Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell
me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why the truth, why do you not believe me? *7Whoever
don’t you believe me? *”7He who belongs to God is from God hears the words of God. The reason
hears what God says. The reason you do not hear you do not hear them is that you are not from
is that you do not belong to God.” God.”
439 Some early manuscripts “/fyou are Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, aQOther ancient authorities read /f you are Abraham’s children, then
“then do
639
_ JOHN 8:39-47 COMMENTARY
(COMMENTARY
8:39a. This verse functions as a transition from Jesus no longer tells the Jews what to do (v. 38);
the first to the second unit of the debate. The he now observes what they neglect to do.
Jews’ appeal to Abraham shifts the focus from the The shift from “descendants” of Abraham
Jews as descendants of Abraham (vv. 33, 37) to (omépya sperma) to “children” of Abraham (téKva
Abraham as father. The noun “father” (tatyp tekna) in v. 39, introduces a new theological
patér) occurs frequently in vv. 39-47 (vv. 39, 41, metaphor into the debate. “Children” is used only
42, 44 [3x]), and significantly is always used in twice in the Fourth Gospel apart from this verse,
relationship to the question of the Jews’ father, and in both instances it refers to “children of God”
never Jesus’.24 This is highly unusual for the (1:12; 11:52). Its use here suggests that the ulti-
Fourth Gospel, where the subject of Jesus’ identity mate focus of the conversation is on relationship
as God’s Son is a crucial theological theme. Verses to God, not to Abraham.
39-47 will go on to show that the Jews’ appeal In v. 40, the Jews’ attempt to kill Jesus is
to Father Abraham without appealing to Jesus’ measured against two standards. First, it is meas-
Father calls the Jews’ inheritance into question. ured against God’s truth, which Jesus speaks.
8:39b-41a. Jesus rebuts the Jews’ appeal to Verse 40 thus returns to the theme with which
Abraham by focusing on their actions. His words the debate began in v. 31, remaining in Jesus’
in v. 396 are reminiscent of the teaching of John word and knowing the truth, and it shows once
the Baptist in Matt 3:9 (see Luke 3:8 also). In again that the Jews do not meet the conditions
both instances, a claim to Abrahamic paternity is Jesus set for them (cf. v. 37). Second, it is meas-
held up to the standards of one’s works, with the ured against the model of Abraham himself. The
clear implication that the inheritance is condi- reference to Abraham’s actions recalls the faithfulness
tional (cf. Rom 9:6-8). The Mishnah provides of Abraham to the truth of God (Gen 12:1-9; 15:1-6;
additional evidence of the importance of Abraham cf. Rom 4:16-25), but it may also intend a more
as a measure of discipleship: “A good eye and a specific contrast between the murderous actions of
humble spirit and a lowly soul—{they in who are the Jews and the hospitality for which Abraham was
these] are the disciples of Abraham our father.”2% renowned (Gen 18:1-15; cf. Heb 13:2).79”
The condition in v. 390 is difficult to translate Verse 41a marks an important shift in Jesus’
because it is a mixed condition in the Greek; the words to the Jews from invitation to act (v. 38) to
verb in the protasis (“if” clause) is in the present observation of actions (vv. 39-40) to indictment (v.
tense (“are”; see the NIV variant), while the verb 41a). This shift mirrors the shift to greater antago-
in the second clause is in the past tense. The NIV nism between the conversation partners. The ambi-
and the NRSV resolve the translation difficulty by guity in the use of “father” also moves one step
accepting the readings of variant manuscripts and closer to resolution here, because v. 41 a makes clear
placing both verbs in the past tense. This transla- that Jesus is distinguishing the Jews’ father from
tion decision mutes the intensity of the condition, Father Abraham and, it seems, from his Father.
however. Some manuscripts try to resolve the 8:41b. The Jews recognize Jesus’ indictment
grammar of this verse by turning the second verb and intensify their defense of their heritage by
into an imperative (NRSV alt.). This, too, changes turning their appeal from Father Abraham (vv. 33,
the meaning of the text, because it makes it 39) to Father God (v. 41). In the OT, “fornica-
roughly synonymous with v. 38, rather than an
tion” (Greek, topveta porneia) was a symbol for
advance in the debate. The Greek would be more
idolatry (e.g, Hos 1:2; 2:4-5; 4:13-14) and so the
accurately translated, “If you really are children
Jews’ claim to legitimacy is a claim about their
of Abraham, then you would be doing... . "256
relationship to the one God.?38 Some scholars read
234. Gilbert L. Bartholomew, An Early Christian Sermon-Drama: John the words “we are not illegitimate children” as an
8:31-59 (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1974) 19-20.
235. m.’Abot. 5:19. AVES SO) Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XII), 357. *
236. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New 238. See Beasley-Murray, John, 135; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel
Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975) 225. According to St. John, 2:212.
640
attack on Jesus for the rumors about his birth,2*° but a disciple of Jesus is to stay in his word—and
this seems unlikely given that the Jews remain on asserts “the Jews’ ” failure to meet that challenge.
the defensive (cf. v. 48, where the Jews go on the The Jews’ failure to understand Jesus’ “language”
Offensive). They respond to Jesus’ indictment by (\advd Jalia) has been demonstrated by the many
defending their relationship to God. Therefore, it instances of their misunderstanding in this debate
seems that for the first time in the debate, the Jews (vv. 33, 39, 41) and is here attributed by Jesus
come close to understanding Jesus’ words. to their inability to hear his word (Adyos logos)
8:42-47. Three times the Jews have appealed (efs5338 a"
to their paternity, and three times Jesus has re- 8:44. The discussion of paternity reaches its
butted them: painful conclusion in vv. 44-47; the Jews are
neither Abraham’s nor God’s children, but are
A. Appeal (v. 33) we are descendants of children of the devil. The sharp contrast between
Abraham . children of God and children of the devil in this
Rebuttal (v. 37) I know that you are verse is shocking to the contemporary Gospel
descendants of reader, but it was not without precedent in intra-
Abraham, but... Jewish debates at the time of both Jesus and the
B. Appeal (v. 394) Abraham is our father Fourth Evangelist.
Rebuttal (v. 39) /f you were children of The following passage from m. ’Abot 5:19,
Abraham ... quoted in part at v. 39, needs to be cited in full
C. Appeal (v. 410) We have one father, here in order to show the intensity of debate
God himself within Judaism around the meaning of faithful
Rebuttal (v. 42) If God were your discipleship:
father...
He in whom are these three things is of the
disciples of Abraham our father; but [he in whom
are] three other things is of the disciples of
Just as the Jews’ inheritance from Abraham is Balaam the wicked. A good eye and a humble
conditional on their actions (vv. 396-40), so also spirit and a lowly soul—{they in whom are these|
are of the disciples of Abraham our father. An
Jesus’ final rebuttal (vv. 42-47) asserts that their evil eye, a haughty spirit, and a proud soul—
inheritance from God is, too. [they in whom are these] are of the disciples of
8:42. The parallelism between vv. 396-40 and Balaam the wicked. How do the disciples of
vy. 42 shows that to do the works of Abraham is Abraham our father differ from the disciples of
Balaam the wicked? The disciples of Abraham
to love Jesus (cf. vv. 56-58), and one’s status as our father enjoy the world and inherit the world
a child of God depends on that love (cf. 1:13). to come, as it is written, 7hat | may cause those
One’s relationship to Jesus is the measure of one’s that love me to inherit substance and that I may
relationship to God because of Jesus’ relationship fill their treasuries. The disciples of Balaam the
wicked inherit Gehenna and go down to the pit
to God. Verse 420 returns to theological motifs
of destruction, as it is written, But thou, O God
that have resounded throughout the earlier dia- shalt bring them down into the pit of destruc-
logues of chaps. 5, 7, and 8: Jesus comes from tion; bloodthirsty and deceitful men shall not
God (e.g., 5:43; 7:28); Jesus is sent by God (e.g., live out half their days.
5:24, 30; 7:16, 29, 33; 8:16, 18, 29). The phrase
“now I am here” translates the Greek verb jKw While this Mishnah passage does not explicitly
(héko). This verb was used to speak of the arrival contrast disciples of Abraham with children of the
of a divine figure into the world and may have devil, it does use very harsh language to describe
those connotations here (cf. 1 John 5:20).”“° those who do not do the works of Abraham,
8:43. This verse returns to the opening chal- language that includes the promise of eternal
lenge of the debate (v. 31)—the only way to be damnation and identifies those who do not do
Abraham’s works with wickedness.
239. See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd
ed. Qumran texts provide the most useful ana-
Gospel
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 348; Raymond E. Brown, The
1966)
According to John (I-XIl), AB 29 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
241. Cf. Jerome H. Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt: John’s Christology
357.
in Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 44.
240. E.g., Origen Contra Celsum VII9.
641
logues to the intensity of rhetoric in 8:44.” First, Evangelist’s own time. The intensity of the rheto-
they provide a glimpse of the religious diversity ric reflects the intensity of the theological and
of late Second Temple Judaism (150 BcE—70 ce) social struggle. (See Introduction and Reflections
and hence flesh out the picture of the Judaism at 8:48-59.)
of Jesus’ day. Second, and most germane for The harsh language of Jesus’ charge in v. 44
John 8, these documents show the harsh lan- builds on the distinction he already made in 8:23:
guage used by a Jewish sectarian group to ex- Jesus and the Jews have different origins. The
press its relationship to others within Judaism reference to the devil as the enemy here is the
who opposed its beliefs and practices. For ex- first mention of the devil as the ultimate enemy,?*°
ample, the Habakkuk Commentary sets the a perspective that will be emphasized more in the
Teacher of Righteousness and his followers in Farewell Discourse (13:2, 27; 14:30; 16:11; see
opposition to those who have deserted the com- also 121347215).
munity to follow the Wicked Priest.?4° This The beginning of v. 44 is notoriously difficult
enemy of the community is said to have defiled to translate. A literal translation would read, “You
God’s temple and is repeatedly called “the Liar” are from the father of the devil,” because the
and “the Spouter of Lies.” A passage in one of definite article appears before both “father” and
the Thanksgiving Hymns illustrates the intensity “devil” in the Greek. This literal translation does
of the rhetoric well: not fit the Fourth Evangelist’s argument, however.
And they, teachers of lies and seers of falsehood, As the rest of the verse makes clear, Jesus is not
have schemed against me a devilish scheme, concerned with speculation about the devil’s ori-
to exchange the Law engraved on my heart by gins, but with the devil himself as the Jews’
Thee
for the smooth things (which they speak) to Thy
father.2“ The Fourth Evangelist seems to include
people... the extra definite article in order to highlight the
But Thou, O God, word father and thus make clear that the play on
dost despise all Satan’s designs; that word has reached its conclusion. The only
it is Thy purpose that shall be done
father to whom the Jews can make an appeal is the
‘and the design of Thy heart that shall be estab-
lished for ever. devil.
Earlier statements about the Jews’ actions (e.g.,
As for them, they dissemble, 8:34, 38, 40-41) culminate in the statement that
they plan devilish schemes. “you choose to do [motéw poieo] your father’s
They seek Thee with a double heart
and are not confirmed in the truth. desires.” This accusation must be placed in the
A root bearing poisoned and bitter fruit context of earlier discussions about the work of
is in their designs.2“4 God in John. In 6:29, Jesus states that the work
of God is to “believe in him whom he has sent.”
These examples from Jewish literature set the
The Jews’ unbelief means that they do not do
polemic of v. 44 in its cultural context. The
God’s work. By framing the argument in terms of
Fourth Evangelist, like the Qumran community,
the work of God and the work of the devil, the
understood his community to be engaged in a
Fourth Evangelist reminds the reader that the
struggle over the proper interpretation of Jewish
decision to believe in Jesus is an eschatological
tradition. This cultural context does not diminish
decision that reveals one’s ultimate relationship to
the harshness of the attack but enables the con-
temporary reader to hear it in a context closer to God and God’s judgment (cf. 3:17-21).
that in which the earliest Gospel readers heard it. The description of the devil in v. 44 draws
This language, like other debates between Jesus heavily on Jewish scriptural traditions. The lan-
and the “Jews” in the Fourth Gospel, provides a guage about the devil as a murderer from the
glimpse into the theological debates of the Fourth beginning probably alludes to the temptation story
(Genesis 3), when as a result of the serpent’s
242. See Gerard Sloyan, John (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988) 102.
243. See 1OpHab. 245. See Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 364.
244. 1QH IV, 7. Sloyan cites part of this hymn text in his own 246. Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G.
translation. This translation is from G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia:
English, 3rd ed. (London: Penguin, 1987) 175. Westminster, 1971) 318-20. See BDF, 268.
642
activity, death was introduced and humans lost phrase “for he is a liar and the father of lies” implicitly
the gift of immortality. Wisdom 2:23-24 (NRSV) contrasts God as the Father of truth and the devil as
shares this view of the creation story: the father of lies.
for God created us for incorruption, 8:45-47. This passage links truth and false-
and made us in the image of his own eternity, hood to belief and unbelief. Like the devil, “the
but through the devil’s envy death entered the Jews” do not recognize the truth; indeed, it is Jesus’
world,
very truthfulness that precludes the Jews’ access to
and those who belong to his company experience it.
him (vv. 45-46). The Jews’ inability to hear the
There may also be an allusion here to the Cain words of God in Jesus reveals their distance from
story (Gen 4:8-16), the Bible’s first murder,?4” but the truth and hence from God (v. 47). This is not
such an allusion seems secondary to a primary a new theme in the Gospel of John (cf. 3:17-21;
reference to the introduction of death into human 5:38, 42; 6:45; 7:17-18, 28; 8:19), but it is stated
experience. The “Jews’” desire to kill Jesus (v. here in its most absolute form. The proving ground
37) thus mirrors the desires of the first murderer, of one’s identity and relationship to God is one’s
their father the devil. The phrase “from the be- acceptance of Jesus as God’s Word (1:12-13), as
ginning” recalls John 1:1 (“in the beginning”) and God’s Son (3:16, 18, 36; 5:23-24; 6:40, 46; 8:19),
heightens the contrast between Jesus and the as the one whom God has sent (5:24, 36-37; 6:29;
devil. Jesus is the Logos from the beginning; the 7:28-29). The “Jews” reject the truth of God that
devil, a murderer.?“* Jesus offers them, and in the theological world of
The language used to describe the devil’s rela- the Fourth Evangelist, this means that they reveal
tionship to the truth continues this contrast. The that they are not God’s children.
verb phrase “does not stand” (ovK €otnkev ouk This middle section of the debate (vv. 39-47)
esteken) functions as the opposite of “remain” (évw thus ends with Jesus’ assertion that the “Jews”
meno; cf. v. 31)—that is, unlike Jesus and his
have failed the challenge of v. 31 and hence are
disciples, the devil has no relationship to the truth.
outside of its promises. This debate can be read
To say that the truth is not in the devil further
as an extended illustration of 3:19-21: “And this
emphasizes the devil’s distance from God and Jesus,
is the judgment, that the light has come into the
because Jesus is God’s truth (8:31; 14:6). The
world, and people loved darkness rather than light
reference to the devil’s lies may be another allusion
because their deeds were evil.” (See Reflections
to Genesis 3 and the serpent’s lying words. The
at 8:48-59.)
247. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 358.
248. See Barrett, Zhe Gospel According to St. John, 349. 249. See Beasley-Murray, John, 142.
John 8:48-59, Abraham and Jesus
NIV NRSV
48The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right A8The Jews answered him, “Are we not right
in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon- in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a
possessed?” demon?” “Jesus answered, “I do not have a
49“T am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, demon; but I honor my Father, and you dishonor
“put I honor my Father and you dishonor me. *°l me. Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is
am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one one who seeks it and he is the judge. °!Very truly,
who seeks it, and he is the judge. °'I tell you the I tell you, whoever keeps my word will never see
truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 52The Jews said to him, “Now we know
death.” that you have a demon. Abraham died, and so
S2At this the Jews exclaimed, “Now we know did the prophets; yet you say, ‘Whoever keeps my
that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and word will never taste death.’ °*Are you greater
643
JOHN 8:48-59
NIV NRSV
so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets
keeps your word, he will never taste death. °2Are also died. Who do you claim to be?” Jesus
you greater than our father Abraham? He died, answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing.
and so did the prophets. Who do you think you It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you
are?” say, ‘He is our God,’ though you do not know
Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory him. But I know him; if,I would say that I do
means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I
your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though do know him and I keep his word. *°Your ancestor
you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he
not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know saw it and was glad.” °’Then the Jews said to
him and keep his word. °°Your father Abraham him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have
rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw you seen Abraham?”? **Jesus said to them, “Very
it and was glad.” truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” °°So
7“You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus
said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” hid himself and went out of the temple.
°8“T tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before 2Other ancient authorities read has Abraham seen you?
Abraham was born, I am!” °°At this, they picked
up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself,
slipping away from the temple grounds.
COMMENTARY
Verses 48-59 have more of a dialogic cast than do “mutual name calling” in the “Jews’” accusa-
the earlier parts of the debate—there are six changes tions,*° the specific content of the rejection of
of speaker in this unit (vv. 48, 49, 52, 54, 57, 58) Jesus’ Jewish heritage is important. By labeling
in contrast to three in vv. 31-38 (vv. 31, 33, 34) and Jesus a Samaritan, the “Jews” link him with a
four in vv. 39-47 (vv. 39a, 390, 410, 42). Jesus’ social group perceived by establishment Judaism
listeners are identified as “the Jews” in v. 48 for the as covenant outsiders.**' Yet the Samaritans un-
first time since their identification as “the Jews who derstood themselves as true inheritors of the
had believed in him” in v. 31. The repeated references promises of Abraham, whose claims to that inheri-
to the “Jews” in the remainder of the debate (vv. 52, tance were rejected and denied by Jerusalem
57) reinforce that the debate is now between un- Judaism. The accusation that Jesus has a demon
masked antagonists. Verse 48 thus signals a new turn occurs elsewhere in the Gospel traditions (Matt
in the debate. In wv. 31-47, Jesus’ listeners responded 9:34; 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15; John
to Jesus’ words by defending themselves and their 10:20), but this is the only place where Jesus is
heritage (vv. 33, 39, 41); in v. 48 they go on the accused of being a Samaritan.
offensive and turn their words against Jesus. The focus 8:49a. Although Jesus rebuts the charge of
will stay on Jesus until the end of the debate. having a demon, he ignores the charge of being
8:48. The “Jews” attack Jesus with the same a Samaritan.?° The Samaritans have a much more
visible and positive role in the Fourth Gospel than
charges that he earlier used against them. Just as
in the other Gospels (e.g., John 4). While this is
Jesus denied their claims to be children of Abra-
often taken as evidence of interest by Johannine
ham (v. 39) and called them children of the devil
Christians in a Samaritan mission,?°3 it may reflect
(v. 44), so also the Jews now deny Jesus’ place
as a child of Abraham by calling him a Samaritan 250. Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt, 46.
and identifying him with the “demonic” (8a{pwv 251. Ibid., 47.
252. See Sloyan, John, 104.
daimon; cf. 7:20). In addition to this turn to 253. E.g,, ibid.
644
the identification of Johannine Jewish Christians Jesus’ word removes death from human experi-
with the Samaritans’ relationship to Jerusalem ence (cf. 5:24:25; 6:40):47, 58; 11:25:26).
Judaism. The Johannine Christians, like the Sa- 8:52-53. The “Jews” continue on the offen-
maritans, understood themselves to be the inheri- sive in vv. 52-53. In vv. 33 and 39, the Jews
tors of the promises of Abraham and Moses appealed to Abraham to defend their own identity,
(5:46-47; 6:32, 49-50, 58; 7:22-24; 8:39, 56; and here they appeal to Abraham to attack Jesus’
9:28), but were denied those claims by estab- identity. The Jews interpret Jesus’ words about
lishment Judaism (in Fourth Gospel parlance, the death as foolish words about immortality, which
“Jews”). The labeling of Jesus as a Samaritan here can easily be disproved by appeal to the deaths
may be another glimpse into the two levels of the of Abraham and the prophets. Such an appeal to
Gospel. Jesus himself is labeled a covenant out- refute Jesus is ironic in the light of v. 44, since
sider by those within the covenant community in the very deaths to which the Jews make appeal
order to portray him as sharing the social experi- can be traced to the devil’s introduction of death.
ence of the Fourth Evangelist and his community. They thus align themselves with the devil’s work
8:49b-51. Jesus repudiates the charge of de- in order to prove that Jesus has a demon. The
mon possession by appealing to his relationship Jews’ question in v. 53a is also ironic. It is
with God. The language of “honoring” (tindw introduced by an interrogative particle that as-
timao) in v. 496 needs to be read alongside 5:23. sumes a negative response (19 me; cf. the Samari-
This argument rests on the notion of “honor” in tan woman’s question about Jacob in 4:12): “You
the ancient Mediterranean world, and the as- are not greater than our father Abraham, who died,
sumption that the one sent is the same as the are you?” But for the Fourth Evangelist and most
sender. The treatment one gives the emissary is of his readers, the question can only be answered
thus equal to one’s treatment of the Sender.*** positively. In attempting to refute Jesus, the Jews
By dishonoring Jesus, the “Jews” dishonor God inadvertently underscore the truth about him.
and prove the truth of Jesus’ accusations in v. The Jews’ final question to Jesus in v. 530
47; they are not from God. The language about reveals another misunderstanding. The Jews re-
seeking his own glory (v. 50a) recalls arguments spond to Jesus’ words as if they were an instance
against seeking one’s own glory in chaps. 5 and of self-aggrandizement. A literal translation of their
7 (5:41, 44; 7:18). Because Jesus’ glory comes question would read, “What do you make your-
from God (v. 500) and thus is not of his own self?” The NIV and NRSV translations of this
making (cf. 1:14; 17:5, 22, 24), an attack on question render the brusqueness of the Greek into
Jesus is also an attack on God. smooth English, but they mask its connection
The reference to God as judge (v. 500) high- with larger Johannine themes about Jesus’ identity
lights the eschatological dimension of the Jews’ by eliminating the reflexive pronoun. The occa-
lack of true relationship with God. Life and death sion for the discourse in John 5 was the Jews’
reside with the One who seeks Jesus’ glory, and misperception that Jesus was “making himself
in the Jews’ dishonoring of Jesus, they risk God’s equal to God” (5:18); the opening dialogue in
condemnation (cf. 3:17-18; 5:22; 8:16; 12:47-48). chap. 8 addressed the question of Jesus’ bearing
The “very truly” saying (aut ary amen, amen) witness to himself. In both cases, Jesus’ response
was to show that he does nothing on his own,
of v. 51 makes this eschatological dimension even
that God, not Jesus, “makes” something of Jesus
more explicit. The condition, “whoever keeps my
(5:19,9303%; 8:17-18s.ch. 7:26-29).
word,” recalls the opening condition of v. 31 (“if
8:54-57. Jesus once again disputes the Jews’
you continue in my word”) and suggests that
interpretation of his words by dismissing language
truth, freedom, and the end of death belong
of self-glorification (v. 54; cf. 5:41, 44; 12:43) and
together as Jesus’ eschatological gifts. Just as once
repeating the claim of v. 50, that God is the one
the devil introduced death (v. 44), so also now
who glorifies him. Jesus’ ironic identification of
254. Foradiscussion of honor and shame in the ancient Mediterranean the God who glorifies him as the God to whom
world, see Bruce Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from the Jews earlier made appeal (v. 41) sets the stage
Cultural Anthropology, rev. ed. (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox,
1993) 28-40.
for his renewed critique of the Jews in v. 55.
645
The fullest indictment of the Jews in v. 55 is age, but is meant to show the ludicrousness of
Jesus’ identification of them as liars. In v. 44, the Jesus’ words. The manuscript evidence is divided
devil was identified as a liar and his words as lies; on whether the.end of the verse should be read
the use of “liar” in v. 550 makes clear that the “and have you seen Abraham” or “has Abraham
Jews share fully in the devil’s nature (vv. 44 and seen you” (see the NRSV footnote). The preferred
55 are the only occurrences of the noun wevoTns reading accentuates the Jews’ misunderstanding,
[pseustés, “liar”] in the Fourth Gospel). The link because it focuses on the impossibility of a life
between the devil and the “Jews” is complete. span overlap between Abraham and Jesus.
Jesus’ truthfulness comes from his knowledge of 8:58. Jesus’ response to the Jews makes clear
God (v. 55a), “the Jews’ ” lies from their knowl- that the deciding issue is not one of overlapping
edge of the devil and distance from God. life spans. Rather, Jesus is making a significant
Jesus’ appeal to Abraham in v. 56 is an impor- claim about his relationship with God. The
tant turn in the debate, because it is the first time “very truly” (amen, amen) with which Jesus’
in 8:31-59 that Jesus himself appeals to Father words begin mark them as introducing a new
(“ancestor,” NRSV) Abraham. Prior to this verse, the teaching. In this case, it is the culminating teach-
Jews have appealed to Abraham to prove the truth ing of the whole debate. The core of -Jesus’
of their claims (8:33, 39, 53), but now Jesus uses pronouncement resides in the absolute “I am”
Abraham as a witness against the Jews to prove the (Eyod €i pt “eg0 eimi) saying (i.e., with no predi-
truth of his claims.*°> Note that Abraham is identified cate nominative supplied), which is used in two
as your father Abraham, the second-person plural ways in this verse.
pronoun further emphasizing the distance between First, the contrast between “was”- and “am”
Jesus and the Jews (cf. 8:53). recalls the opening verses of the Prologue and
Verse 56 seems to build on two Jewish tradi- their claims for the pre-existence of the Word
tions. First, the references to Abraham’s happiness (1:1-3). As in the Prologue, the pivot of the verb
(“rejoiced,” “was glad”) recall the play on the use is the contrast between the time-bound and
name of Isaac (which means “he laughs”; see Gen the eternal. The verb translated “was” in v. 58 is
17:17-19; 18:9-15; 21:6) and later Jewish tradi- the Greek verb yevéo@at (genesthai), and could
tions that interpreted Abraham’s laughter about be translated literally as “became” or “came into
Isaac’s birth as a sign of his joy.2°° Second, the being.” As in the Prologue (cf. 1:3, 6, 14), the
reference to Abraham’s foreknowledge of Jesus verb relates to the created order, to that which is
builds on midrashic traditions that the future was limited by time. Abraham’s time was finite and
revealed to Abraham by God.”” Paul may build time-bound. When Jesus says, “Before Abraham
on a similar tradition when he writes of Abraham, was, I am,” therefore, he is pointing to his pre-
“And the scripture... declared the gospel before- existence with God beyond the bounds of time.
hand to Abraham” (Gal 3:8 NRSV). Second, the use of the absolute ego eimi
The past tense “he saw” (eidev eiden, v. 560) echoes 4:20; 6:20; and 8:24, 28 (see Fig. 10,
is ambiguous. Does it refer to Abraham’s lifetime “The ‘I AM’ Sayings in John,” 602). As in those
or to a revelation by God to Abraham after his verses, the absolute ego eimi here is to be
lifetime? The “Jews” clearly understand Jesus’ understood as Jesus’ identifying himself with the
words as referring to Abraham’s lifetime and treat divine name, “I AM” (see Commentary on 8:24).
them with disdain. Their rebuke of Jesus in v. 57 These words express Jesus’ unity with God and
recalls 2:19-21, where the “Jews” also misinter- restate another claim of the Prologue (1:1). Jesus’
pret a christological saying of Jesus by hearing it words thus prove the ironic truth of the Jews’
only through a chronological filter. The reference words in 8:53: Jesus is greater than Abraham
to “fifty years” is not a statement of Jesus’ exact because Jesus is one with God.
8:59. As in 5:18, where Jesus’ claims about
255. Horacio E. Lona, Abraham in Johannes 8: Ein Beitrag zur Me-
todenjfrage (Bern: Lang, 1976) 418. his relationship with God intensified the Jews’
256. Cf. Jub. 14:21; 15:17; 16:19-20; Philo Mut. Nom. 154-69. intention to kill him, here, too, Jesus’ claim to
257. E.g., Gen. Rab. 44:25; Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John,
351-52; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols. oneness with God leads to an attempt on his life
(New York: Seabury, 1982) 2:221-22. (v. 59). Execution by stoning was the punishment
646
prescribed for blasphemy in the OT (Lev 24:13- be taken as a stylized observation intended to
16; cf. John 10:31). The description of Jesus’ reinforce his comments in 7:30 and 8:20 that
escape in v. 596 strains credulity; how could he —_ Jesus can neither be arrested nor killed because
hide safely among his adversaries in the Temple? “his hour had not yet come.”
This comment by the Fourth Evangelist needs to
REFLECTIONS
John 8 presents the reader of the Gospel of John with some of the Gospel’s most difficult
interpretive issues. The Jesus who emerges from these verses speaks with staggeringly sharp
invective to his opponents and holds nothing back in his attack on his theological adversaries.
It is very difficult to harmonize this picture of Jesus with the images of him that shape our
theological imaginations: Jesus as the one who eats with outcasts and sinners, who cares for
the lost sheep, who is the model of how we are to love. Complicating this picture of Jesus is
the fact that he speaks this scathing language to a group John identifies as the “Jews,” so that
Jesus’ words in this chapter have become a pivotal text in discussions of Christian anti-Semitism.
Because this text has played such a controversial role in shaping Jewish-Christian relation-
ships, it is the interpreter’s moral responsibility to look the language of this chapter and the
image of Jesus squarely in the face.” It does no good simply to whitewash the intensity of
the invective, nor does it do any good to continue to treat the anti-“Jews” language in this
text as if it were license for anti-Semitism. The interpreter is called to ask hard questions of
this text in order to discover what it is saying and what it is not saying. The interpreter must
work diligently and carefully to understand the text in its original social and historical context
in order to avoid making simplistic and destructive extrapolations to contemporary church
settings. The commentary has attempted to provide the interpreter with some of the historical,
social, and cultural contexts necessary to begin this work. This Reflections section will begin
by reviewing the historical and social data as they pertain directly to the appropriation of this
text and then, on the basis of this review, to examine the critical issues with which this text
confronts the interpreter. ;
Two historical/social issues bear directly on the appropriation of John 8: the relationship of
the Johannine community to establishment Judaism and the role of invective in first-century
intra-Jewish debates. As has been noted many times in this commentary, the relationship
between Johannine Jewish Christians and Judaism is one of the decisive issues for the shape
and perspective of the Fourth Gospel. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus’ antagonists are regularly
identified as the “Jews.” The work of J. Louis Martyn and others has helped us to see that a
rupture(s) with the synagogue occurred sometime in the last quarter of the first century that
decisively changed the fabric of Johannine Christians’ religious lives.”
Prior to the decisive break, Johannine Christians were able to hold together their participation
in the liturgical and cultural world of Judaism and their faith in Jesus. (It is important to note
that this joint identity was not unique to Johannine Christians. For example, in Acts 2, Luke
depicts the developing Christian community as participating in temple worship as well as
conducting their own worship services.) The exact course of events that led to the break
cannot be charted, but the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 ce was one of the pivotal
factors.”
Interpretation:
258. For a discussion of the ethics of biblical interpretation, see Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, “The Ethics of Biblical
ing Bibli arship,” JBL 107 (1988) 3-17.
Faith and
Sg er eaanren Rieeva fe Fourth Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968); David Rensberger, Johnannine
7he Interpretation of the
Liberating Community (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988); see a review of Martyn’s influence in John Ashton,
a <r
Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
century (see, e.g., Acts 18
260. Jewish-Christian status under Roman rule also had an effect on Jewish-Christian relations in the late first
concerns are pivotal.
and the reference to the expulsion of Jews from Rome), but for the Fourth Gospel, intra-Jewish
647
Without the Temple, Judaism was forced to reconstitute itself around a different center, and
the Jewish Scriptures became that center. The synagogues, therefore, took on more importance,
because they were the sites where Scripture was taught and:preached. Moreover, those Jews
who professed faith in Jesus also took the Scriptures to be of the utmost importance, because
they understood Jesus to be the fulfillment of God’s promises as made known to God’s people
through Scripture. The conflict was joined, therefore, around the question of who could lay
claim to God’s promises and to the status of God’s people. This conflict is apparent in the
adversarial language of Matthew 23, for example, but the group of Christians who seemed to
have experienced this conflict and struggle most intensely in their day-to-day lives was the
community of Christians for whom the Fourth Gospel was written. The Fourth Gospel makes
repeated reference to Christians’ being cast out of the synagogue (9:22; 12:42; 16:2) and the
fear and danger this produced in the community’s life.
The Johannine Christians thus understood themselves to be outcasts, people whom the
Jewish establishment no longer considered to be Jews, a community forcibly removed from its
roots and the symbols that formed its identity. Their self-identity was as a marginalized
community that stood powerless in the face of the power of the dominant religious group, the
Jews. The Gospel of John contains many attempts by the Fourth Evangelist to reclaim his
community’s relationship to its Jewish roots. The Fourth Evangelist makes repeated references
to Jewish feasts and demonstrates the ways in which Jesus is the true fulfillment of those feasts
(e.g., 7:37-38; 8:12). Most of the Fourth Evangelist’s primary metaphors and images are drawn
from the language of the Jewish Scriptures, and John 4, 6, and 8 revolve around comparisons
between Jesus and Jacob, Moses, and Abraham, respectively. The wealth and depth of Jewish
scriptural allusions in the Fourth Gospel show that the Fourth Evangelist is not antagonistic
to Jewish traditions. Rather, he is antagonistic to the Jewish power structures and political
forces that have attempted to cut his community off from these traditions.
The virulent language of chap. 8 must be read against this backdrop of being cast out of
the synagogue, of being excluded from the religious centers that had once helped to define
one’s religious and communal identity. The language of this chapter is the language of the
minority group spoken in protest to the majority culture. The Johannine Jewish Christians had
no way to back up this language—that is, they had no power to take any actions comparable
to their own exclusion from the synagogue. They were outnumbered by the Jewish community
and had no political resources at their disposal. Their only “power” rested in the force of their
rhetoric, in their ability to denounce those who had excluded them.
In the Commentary on 8:44-47, Qumran texts were cited in order to place the invective
of these verses in their full cultural context. The Qumran community, too, used very strong
language to speak against other Jews whom they sensed were depriving them of their religious
heritage and polluting God’s promises to God’s people. One important difference between the
Qumran sectarians and the Johannine community is that the Qumran sectarians initially chose
to exclude themselves from the Jerusalem community, whereas the Johannine community was
forcibly excluded. The persecution that the Qumran community endured after their separation,
however, was not of its choosing and positioned them as a community oppressed by
establishment Judaism, like the community for which the Fourth Evangelist wrote. The Qumran
analogue is important, because it helps the interpreter to see how the language about the Jews
in chap. 8 functions as intra-Jewish invective in its own cultural and historical setting.””
What is the significance of this historical context for the contemporary interpreter of John
8? First, it reminds the interpreter that one must attend to the specific situation of a biblical
text in order to make the move to potential contemporary appropriations. The issues in John
8 have a very specific cultural context, and the only way that this text can have a place in
261. Cf. Luke T. Johnson, “The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic,” JBL 108 (1989) 419-41.
648
the life of the church is if the specificity of that original context is honored. One must
understand the originating context and then look for modern analogues to that context. That
is especially critical with a text, like this one, that has had such a disturbing place in the
history of interpretation.
Second, attention to the historical and social contexts of John 8 compels the interpreter to
work more carefully at assessing the function of the negative language for the original readers
and thus assists the interpreter in distinguishing among the many painful issues with which
this text confronts the modern reader. It helps the interpreter to see that simple condemnations
of Johannine anti-Semitism, for example, do not begin to touch the complexity of this text. In
order to honor the complexity of this text, the interpreter must begin to think separately about
two distinct issues that are often treated as one issue in contemporary conversations about this
text: (1) the relation of John 8 to Christian anti-Semitism; and (2) the social function of religious
invective. It is to the contemporary dimensions of these two issues for the life of Christian
faith that we now turn.
1. As the historical review made clear, the Fourth Evangelist understood his community to
be persecuted by the power and theological politics of the Jewish establishment. Moreover,
this community was itself without power in the face of what it understood to be its oppressors.
The harshly negative language about the Jews in this chapter, then, needs to be taken first
and foremost as the language of a group without the means—economic, political, military (note
the references to the police sent by the Pharisees in 7:32, 45; cf. also 18:3)—to act out its
virulence. It is the language of a Jewish-rooted minority that is no longer allowed to claim its
Judaism, speaking against those who have denied them their heritage.
When the words of John 8 become the weapons contemporary Christians use in a crusade
against Judaism, this critical social fabric is overlooked and, indeed, distorted. First, contem-
porary Christians have come a long way from the intimate ties with Judaism that shaped the
Johannine community. The majority of Christians today are Gentile by heritage, not Jewish,
and so the language of John 8 belongs to a context foreign to contemporary Christian
experience. When Jesus speaks about the Jews the way he does in John 8, giving voice to the
Johannine community’s needs and anger, it is intra-family language. Contemporary Gentile
Christians who use this language against Jews are not members of the family and hence their
language carries a different weight. Contemporary Christians have not been hurt by the Jewish
religious establishment the way the Johannine Christians perceived thernselves to be, rejected
by those they took to be their brothers and sisters in faith, so that the pathos that drove this
language in its own context is missing in ours.
Second, and more crucially, Christians, particularly in North America and Europe, are no
longer the minority group, rejected by the Jewish religious establishment because of their
beliefs, but are the majority group whose religious practices and values dominate contemporary
culture. The balance of power between Christians and Jews is the exact opposite of the situation
to
in which the Fourth Evangelist lived and wrote, and for contemporary Christians to point
John 8 as justification for their attitude toward Judaism is a false and dangerous appropriation
of the biblical text.
The danger of the misappropriation of the Fourth Gospel’s type of invective in a situation
evident
where the power relationships between Christians and Jews are reversed was tragically
in the actions of the Third Reich toward Europe’s Jewish population. In that situation, the
Germans had the military, economic, and political power to act out the language of hate. It
was no longer a question of a minority group’s using strong language to defend its right to
a
exist and worship as it chose, but the majority culture’s exercising its might to exterminate
less powerful group it found offensive and falsely perceived as a threat.
al battle, in
For the Fourth Evangelist, the situation was one of a spiritual and theologic
the Johannin e Christians’
which the Jewish religious authorities were dictating the shape of
649
faith lives. No such situation holds today; Christianity is not at risk because of Judaism, and
for contemporary Christians to overlook this critical social distinction is to do misservice to
the gifts and promises of God that Jews and Christians share. The Fourth Evangelist experienced
his community as being on the verge of losing access to those gifts, and so the Johannine Jesus
speaks with intensity about the Christians’ claim to those gifts and promises as distinct from
Jewish claims. Jewish-Christian relations are completely different today, however, and the
Fourth Gospel’s invective against the Jews has no meaning in a world where Christian claims
and practices rest secure.
2. When the questions of anti-Semitism and religious invective are distinguished from one
another, it becomes possible to look at the social and theological function of the language of
John 8 as an issue in its own right. One then can ask how this language serves the needs of
this religious community. What does this language accomplish? What are its implications for
contemporary Christian communities?
As noted earlier, the primary theological function of the invective in John 8 is to defend
the Christian community’s claims against the perceived assault of the Jewish religious estab-
lishment. Its closely related social function is to establish the identity of this faith community
over against those who deny the community’s right to exist. The absolute character of this
language and the sharp lines it draws between those who share the community’s beliefs and
those who do not are frequently pointed to by scholars as evidence of the sectarian quality
of Johannine faith.” That is, the Johannine community understood itself as a minority religious
group at odds with the dominant religious culture. If Johannine sectarianism is perceived as a
primarily intra-Christian phenomenon, then the description is not altogether apt, because
Johannine christology and theology are not wholly distinct from other early Christian traditions.
If, however, Johannine sectarianism is perceived as Jewish sectarianism, as the above discussion
would suggest, then the designation is both apt and helpful in clarifying the social function of
the invective in John 8. The way in which the minority, religiously oppressed community of
the Fourth Gospel grounded its identity was to reject those who had rejected them first and
so establish the boundaries of their community.
The social intent that drives the invective of John 8 is not an isolated phenomenon. On the
contrary, the rigidity of community identification it reflects and the language of hate that often
accompanies it is evident across the globe in racial, ethnic, and religious conflicts. The divisions
between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland is an excellent example of the odd mix of religion,
power politics, and community identity that fuels the invective of John 8.
The invective of John 8 confronts the interpreter with very disturbing questions—questions
whose answers may be even more difficult to determine than the questions about John 8 and
the “Jews.” The primary question is this: Is it necessary to exclude others so absolutely and
hatefully in order to establish community identity? This may have been the only avenue that
presented itself to the Fourth Evangelist and his community, but is it the only avenue available
to us? The NT contains a variety of models of community formation. Paul, for example, who
also struggled earnestly with the relation of the developing Christian community and Judaism,
developed a model of community formation that attempted to break down barriers rather than
to strengthen them (e.g., Gal 3:28). Contemporary Christians, therefore, have a rich set of
options as they think about their identity as a faith community, options that move beyond the
strident language of John 8. ;
For an oppressed community like that for whom the Fourth Evangelist wrote, the language
of John 8 may have restored a sense of their own power and dignity in the face of persecution.
It may be that for communities in similar situations, this language still presents a viable model
262. For a general discussion of Johannine sectarianism, see Wayne A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” /BL
91 (1972) 44-72. For a discussion of Johannine sectarianism with particular attention to its relationship to Judaism, see David Rensberger,
Johannine Faith and Liberating Community (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988) 27-29, 135-44.
650
of community. Yet even when the language is contextualized that Way, one still feels a sense
of pain and regret at the damage that language like that found in John 8 can cause. The
invective found in John 8, and the misuse that later generations of Christians made of ite
may bear its most powerful witness as a cautionary tale for present and future Christian
communities.
JOHN 9:1-10:21, THE HEALING OF THE BLIND

MAN (MIRACLE AND DISCOURSE)
OVERVIEW
John 9:1-10:21 contains two well-known blocks John 10:19-21 supports linking 10:1-18 with
of the Fourth Gospel that are frequently handled as John 9, because these verses narrate the response
two discrete units: the healing of the man born blind of the “Jews” to Jesus’ words in 10:1-18 (v. 19)
(9:1-41) and the “good shepherd” discourse (10:1- and to the healing miracle (v. 21). John 9:39-41
21). The division of this material into two discrete functions as a bridge section; these verses can be
units owes more to adherence to the external (and read as concluding the dialogue section, but they
secondary) markers of chapter division than it does also serve as the introduction to the discourse of
to the text of the Fourth Gospel itself, because the 10:1-18 (cf. the relationship of 5:17-18 to 5:19-
Fourth Gospel text makes no break whatsoever 30).
between 9:41 and 10:1; both belong to the same John 9:1-10:21 has several distinguishing lit-
speech of Jesus. This absence of a clear break erary features. First, after the blind man receives
suggests that Jesus’ words in 10:1-18 should be his sight in 9:6, Jesus is absent from the story
read as a discourse to the Pharisees of 9:40.2° until 9:35. This is Jesus’ longest absence in the
When John 9 and 10 are read together, they Fourth Gospel narrative. Through Jesus’ ab-
can be seen as following the common Johannine sence, the Fourth Evangelist moves the healed
pattern of event, dialogue, and discourse (cf. the
man and his witness into narrative prominence
use of this pattern in John 3 and 6) and more
and turns the focus of the story to people’s
particularly, as paralleling the pattern of healing,
response to Jesus. Second, 9:1-40 seems to be
dialogue, and discourse used in John 5:74
shaped by the law of twos from classical Greek
drama: No more than two characters (or char-
JOHN 5 = JOHN 9-10
acter groups) speak on stage at the same time.?®
Healing miracle oil9 9:1-12
The use of this technique heightens the sense
Dialogue 5:10-18 9:13-41
of drama as the events of the chapter unfold.
Discourse by Jesus 5:19-47 10:1-18
Theology, 26-27. 1 propose this division because it seems to honor the
263. C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: function of these verses as attestation to the miracle. Moreover, the seven
Cambridge University Press, 1953) 356; E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel
scenes can only be maintained if one overlooks the links between the end
(London: Faber & Faber, 1947) 366; George R. Beasley-Murray, John,
of chap. 9 and the beginning of chap. 10.
WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987) 148.
264. This grouping of wv. 8-12 with the miracle story differs from those 265. J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel
treatments of John 9:1-41 that divide the text into seven scenes (vv. 1-7, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968; 2nd ed., 1979) 26; George MacRae, /nvita-
8-12, 13-17, 18-23, 24-34, 35-38, 39-41. See, e.g., Martyn, History and tion to John (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1978) 125.
651
JOHN 9:1-12
joni 9:1- 12, The Healing Miracle
NIV NRSV
As he went along, he saw a man blind As he walked along, he saw a man blind
from birth. ?His disciples asked him, from birth. 2His disciples asked him,
“Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that
he was born blind?” he was born blind?” ‘Jesus answered, “Neither
3“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind
Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God so that God’s works might be revealed in him.
might be displayed in his life. “As long as it is 4We? must work the works of him who sent me?
day, we must do the work of him who sent me. while it is day; night is coming when no one can
Night is coming, when no one can work. °While work. °As long as I am in the world, | am the
I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” light of the world.” “When he had said this, he
Having said this, he spit on the ground, made spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva
some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s and spread the mud on the man’s eyes, “saying
eyes. ”“Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which
Siloam” (this word means Sent). So the man went means Sent). Then he went and washed and came
and washed, and came home seeing. back able to see. ®The neighbors and those who
8His neighbors and those who had formerly seen had seen him before as a beggar began to ask, “Is
him begging asked, “Isn’t this the same man who this not the man who used to sit and beg?” "Some
used to sit and beg?” °Some claimed that he was. were saying, “It is he.” Others were saying, “No,
Others said, “No, he only looks like him.” but it is someone like him.” He kept saying, “I
But he himself insisted, “I am the man.” am the man.” 'But they kept asking him, “Then
10“How then were your eyes opened?” they how were your eyes opened?” ''He answered,
demanded. “The man called Jesus made mud, spread it on
'\He replied, “The man they call Jesus made my eyes, and said to me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’
some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to Then I went and washed and received my sight.”
go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, “They said to him, “Where is he?” He said, “I
and then I could see.” do not know.”
12“Where is this man?” they asked him. aOther ancient authorities read / © Other ancient authorities
“I don’t know,” he said. read us
pay
oe ny
(COMMENTARY
Stories of Jesus’ giving sight to a blind man are ments of a miracle story: the situation of need
found in all of the Gospels (cf. Matt. 9:27-31; 20:29- (vv. 1-5), the miracle (vv. 6-7), and the attestation
34; Mark 8:22-26; 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-42), and the to the miracle (vv. 8-12). The first and third
story in John 9 shares elements with many of these elements are greatly expanded from the conven-
other stories. These common elements include the tional miracle story form in order to serve the
man’s being a beggar (cf. Mark 10:46-52), the use of Fourth Evangelist’s dramatic and theological pur-
spittle (cf. Mark 8:22-26), and Jesus’ touching the poses in this story.
man’s eyes (cf. Matt 12:22-37). As with the healing 9:1-5. The opening phrase of 9:1, “as he walked
stories of John 4:46-54 and 5:1-9a, however, John along,” is vague, providing no concrete time or
does not seem to be directly dependent on any of the location for the story that is about to unfold, sug-
synoptic traditions but uses an independent story from gesting that the Fourth Evangelist intends the story
a fund of Jesus traditions. In the telling of this miracle of the blind man to be read in continuity with the
story, the Fourth Evangelist includes the formal ele- preceding chapters. Jesus’ claim to be the light of
652
the world (8:12) is repeated in 9:5, and the is an occasion with revelatory significance. The
healing miracle in chap. 9 stands as a demonstra- “need” that evokes the miracle, then, is not the
tion of this claim. In addition, the Mishnah iden- man’s blindness, but the need for God’s works to
tifies Siloam, the water in which the blind man be made manifest. It is interesting to compare
bathes (v. 7), as the source of the water for the Jesus’ words in v. 3 with the framing of the Cana
water libations of the Tabernacles feast.2° Finally, miracle story in 2:1-11. In that story, the revelatory
chaps. 9-10 build on Jesus’ denunciation of the dimension of the miracle is brought out explicitly
“Jews” in chap. 8. The intense conflict between the at the end (2:11), but here the reader is told what
healed man and the Pharisees (esp. 9:24-34) drama- to look for before the miracle occurs.
tizes the theological arguments of the earlier debate. “Works” (Epya erga) has two ranges of mean-
Verses 1-5 narrate the situation of need that ing in the Fourth Gospel, both of which occur in
evokes the miracle, but they provide an interesting - wv. 3-4. First, as in v. 3, “works” describes what
twist on the traditional miracle story form. The Jesus does as the one through whom God’s works
man’s blindness is stated as a fact in v. 1, but he is are -accomplished -(cf. 4:34:10:25, 37; 14:10;
not an active character in the story until v. 7. He 17:4). Second, the Fourth Evangelist also defines
makes no request of Jesus to be healed (cf. 4:46-54), God’s work as belief in Jesus (6:28-29; 14:12; cf.
nor does Jesus engage in any conversation with him 8:39-42), and this is the usage in v. 4. The
about his healing (cf. 5:1-9a). Rather, the blind manuscript evidence is divided on whether v. 4a
man’s initial narrative function is as the catalyst for should read “We must work” or “I must work,”
the conversation between Jesus and his disciples in and this may reflect a confusion over which meaning
wy. 2-5. (This is the first appearance of Jesus’ disci- of “works” is intended here. The oldest manuscripts
ples in the Gospel since 6:60-71 and their first support “we” instead of “I” and thus confirm the
mention since 7:3. The disciples would have been turn toward the disciples’ work in v. 4. Some
a superfluous presence in chaps. 7-8, where the manuscripts correct “the one who sent me” to read
focus was on establishing the lines of conflict be- “the one who sent us” in order to make the two
tween Jesus and the Jewish religious authorities.) pronouns in v. 4a agree, but “me” is the preferred
The disciples’ question in v. 2 reflects tradi- reading. “The one who sent me” is Jesus’ most
tional Jewish speculation on the relationship of frequent way of speaking about God in the Fourth
illness and sin (cf. 5:14). The notion that a par- Gospel (cf. 5:24, 30, 37; 7:16; 8:16), and its use
ent’s sins are visited on the children was common here affirms the disciples’ share in God’s work.
in Jewish reflections on the causes of suffering. The metaphorical use of “day” and “night” in v.
Because he was blind from birth, however, any 4b signals the contingency of Jesus’ presence as the
sin the man himself might have committed would Logos. Day will come to an end with the arrival
need to have been committed before he was born. of Jesus’ hour (see the use of “night” in 13:30). Day
This line of reasoning was also not unknown in and night are paired in 11:9-10 with a similar
first-century Judaism, because the enmity of Jacob metaphorical meaning. Verse 5 makes the metaphor
and Esau in the womb had given rise to midrashic and its contingency (“as long as”) explicit: Jesus’
speculation on the possibility of sin before birth.*°” presence in the “world” (kéajLos kosmos} is the
Jesus’ words in vv. 3-5 turn the conversation light that makes God’s work possible (cf. 8:12).
away from the disciples’ conventional theodicy 9:6-7. The opening phrase of v. 6 links Jesus’
concerns. In the Fourth Gospel, “sin” is not a words with the actions that follow, making clear
moral category about behavior, but is a theological that Jesus’ words in vv. 2-5 are intended as the
category about one’s response to the revelation of prologue to the miracle. The miracle itself is
God in Jesus (8:21, 24; cf. 9:39-41; 16:9; see narrated leanly. The healing power of clay made
Reflections). The man’s blindness, therefore, is not with spittle (v. 6) was a popular element in
an occasion for reflection on sin and causality, but healing stories in the Greco-Roman world.” Only
266. See m. Sukk. 4:10. J 268. Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans.
267. See Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia:
Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash (Miinchen: Beck, 1924) Westminster, 1971) 332.
2:527-29. 269. E.g, Tacitus History, 4.18.
653
_ JOHN 9:1-12 COMMENTARY
Mark has Jesus use spit and clay in healings (7:33; serve his narrative purposes. These verses employ
8:23); Matthew and Luke avoid that detail in their the traditional motif of witnesses to a miracle,?”°
healing stories, probably because of its popular asso- but while the neighbors of the blind man attest
ciations with magic. Jesus’ making of clay takes on to the man’s healing and hence conclude the
an additional significance in this story, because miracle story, their questions about the healing
kneading was one of the thirty-nine categories of also anticipate and, indeed, set the stage for the
work explicitly forbidden on the sabbath (v. 14; cf. next section of the narrative:?”' the interrogation
m. Sabb. 7.2). of the blind man by the Pharisees.
The Fourth Evangelist’s translation of the He- The neighbors’ disagreement about the blind
brew word “Siloam” links the healing waters of man’s identity and his healing (vv. 8-9) positions
Siloam with Jesus himself. Throughout the Fourth the healed man to serve as his own witness and
Gospel, Jesus is referred to as the one who is sent to provide his own attestation to the miracle. In
by God (e.g., 7:28-29; 10:36; 12:45). Since v. 96, the man is depicted as repeatedly identi-
Siloam was the source of the water used during fying himself (“kept saying” [ekeyev elegen]; the
the Tabernacles feast, the translation of the pool’s verb is in the imperfect tense) as the former blind
name here seems to underscore the point made man; in v. 11, he gives a full accounting: of the
in 7:37-39: Jesus is the source of Tabernacles miracle. Even though he was silent in vv. 1-7, the
fulfillment, not the traditional Jewish rites (see man’s words in vv. 96-11 show that he was fully
Commentary on 7:37-39). The healing does not attentive to what was happening to him. Moreover,
occur in Jesus’ presence; like the healing of 4:46- unlike the man in chap. 5, the blind man knows
54, it is a healing at a distance. There is no further the identity of the man who healed him (v. 11; cf.
contact between Jesus and the blind man until 5:13). His ignorance of Jesus’ whereabouts (v. 12)
oS) draws the reader’s attention to Jesus’ absence from
9:8-12. These verses complete the third ele- the narrative. (See Reflections at 9:13-41.)
ment of the miracle story form, the attestation to
the miracle. As with vv. 1-5, the Fourth Evangelist 270. Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 2nd ed.
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1968) 225.
takes great liberties within this formal element to 271. Cf. Bultmann, 7he Gospel of John, 333.
John 9:13-41, Dialogue and Interrogation
NIV NRSV
‘They brought to the Pharisees the man who 13They brought to the Pharisees the man who
had been blind. '*Now the day on which Jesus had formerly been blind. '‘Now it was a sabbath
had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes day when Jesus made the mud and opened his
was a Sabbath. ‘Therefore the Pharisees also eyes. '°Then the Pharisees also began to ask him
asked him how he had received his sight. “He how he had received his sight. He said to them,
put mud on my eyes,” the man replied, “and I “He put mud on my eyes. Then I washed, and
washed, and now I see.” now I see.” ‘Some of the Pharisees said, “This
‘Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not man is not from God, for he does not observe the
from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” sabbath.” But others said, “How can a man who
But others asked, “How can a sinner do such is a sinner perform such signs?” And they were
miraculous signs?” So they were divided. divided. '’So they said again to the blind man,
‘Finally they turned again to the blind man, “What do you say about him? It was your eyes
“What have you to say about him? It was your he opened.” He said, “He is a prophet.”
eyes he opened.” 18The Jews did not believe that he had been
The man replied, “He is a prophet.” blind and had received his sight until they called
'8The Jews still did not believe that he had the parents of the man who had received his sight
been blind and had received his sight until they "and asked them, “Is this your son, who you say
654
JOHN 9:13-41
NIV NRSV
sent for the man’s parents. !°“Is this your son?” was born blind? How then does he now see?”
they asked. “Is this the one you say was born 0His parents answered, “We know that this is
blind? How is it that now he can see?” our son, and that he was born blind; 2'but we do
20“We know he is our son,” the parents not know how it is that now he sees, nor do we
answered, “and we know he was born blind. know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of
1But how he can see now, or who opened his age. He will speak for himself.” ?*His parents said
eyes, we don’t know. Ask him. He is of age; he this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the
will speak for himself.” ??His parents said this Jews had already agreed that anyone who con-
because they were afraid of the Jews, for already fessed Jesus? to be the Messiah’ would be put out
the Jews had decided that anyone who acknow- of the synagogue. **Therefore his parents said,
ledged that Jesus was the Christ? would be put ~ “He is of age; ask him.”
out of the synagogue. ??That was why his parents 24So for the second time they called the man
said, “He is of age; ask him.” who had been blind, and they said to him, “Give
4A second time they summoned the man who glory to God! We know that this man is a sinner.”
had been blind. “Give glory to God,®” they said. *5He answered, “I do not know whether he is a
“We know this man is a sinner.” sinner. One thing I do know, that though I was
*°He replied, “Whether he is a sinner or not, I blind, now I see.” 2°They said to him, “What did
don’t know. One thing I do know. | was blind he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” ?”He
but now I see!” answered them, “I have told you already, and you
26Then they asked him, “What did he do to would not listen. Why do you want to hear it
you? How did he open your eyes?” again? Do you also want to become his disciples?”
-27He answered, “I have told you already and *8Then they reviled him, saying, “You are his
you did not listen. Why do you want to hear disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. ??We
it again? Do you want to become his disciples, know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for
too?” this man, we do not know where he comes from.”
3°The man answered, “Here is an astonishing
8Then they hurled insults at him and said,
thing! You do not know where he comes from,
“You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples
and yet he opened my eyes. 3!We know that God
of Moses! 2?We know that God spoke to Moses,
does not listen to sinners, but he does listen to
but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where
one who worships him and obeys his will. **Never
he comes from.”
since the world began has it been heard that
30The man answered, “Now that is remark-
anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind.
able! You don’t know where he comes from,
33]f this man were not from God, he could do
yet he opened my eyes. *!We know that God
nothing.” *“‘They answered him, “You were born
does not listen to sinners. He listens to the
entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?”
godly man who does his will. **Nobody has ever
And they drove him out.
heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind.
35Jesus heard that they had driven him out,
331f this man were not from God, he could do
and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe
nothing.” in the Son of Man?”* *°He answered, “And who
34To this they replied, “You were steeped in is he, sir?? Tell me, so that I may believe in him.”
sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they 37Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and the
threw him out. one speaking with you is he.” **He said, “Lord,°
35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, I believe.” And he worshiped him. °%Jesus said,
and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe “T came into this world for judgment so that those
in the Son of Man?” who do not see may see, and those who do see
36“Who is he, sir?” the man asked. “Tell me may become blind.” “Some of the Pharisees near
so that I may believe in him.” a Gk him 6Or the Christ cOther ancient authorities read the
422 Or Messiah 624 A solemn charge to tell the truth (see Joshua Son of God da Sir and Lord translate the same Greek word
e Sir and Lord translate the same Greek word
7:19)
655
JOHN 9:13-41
NIV NRSV
37Jesus said, “You have now seen him; in fact, him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are
he is the one speaking with you.” not blind, are we?” “Jesus said to them, “If you
38Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he were blind, you would not have sin. But now that
worshiped him. you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.”
Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into
this world, so that the blind will see and those
who see will become blind.”
40Some Pharisees who were with him heard him
say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”
41Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not
be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can
see, your guilt remains.”
(COMMENTARY
John 9:13-41 divides into five scenes: (1) vv. “sions” [onueia semeid, v. 160; cf. the words
13-17, the “blind” man and the Pharisees; of Nicodemus the Pharisee in 3:2). This schism
(2) vv. 18-23, the “Jews” and the man’s parents; among the Pharisees (v. 16c} echoes the divided
(3) vv. 24-34, the man and the Pharisees/“Jews”; response of the blind man’s neighbors (vv. 8-9;
(4) vv. 35-38, Jesus and the man; (5) wy. 39-41, cf. 7:12, 25-27, 31, 40-43).
Jesus and the Pharisees. This five-scene structure shows Like the preceding scene with the neighbors
that this central dialogue section consists of two types (vv. 8-12), the Pharisees’ interrogation of the man
of dialogue scenes: scenes in which the Pharisees/Jews provides an opportunity for the blind man to bear
have the lead role in the dialogue (vv. 13-34) and witness to his healing (v. 15). There is a progres-
scenes in which Jesus has that role (vv. 35-41). sion in the man’s witness; in v. 11, he identified
9:13-17. The three scenes in which the Jewish his healer simply as “the man called Jesus,” but
authorities have the lead role are scenes of interro- in this scene he identifies Jesus as a prophet (v.
gation. The first of these, vv. 13-17, is the Pharisees’ 17; cf. 4:19). The man’s growing awareness of
initial interrogation of the blind man. This interro- the truth of Jesus’ identity (see vv. 30-33, 36, 38)
gation scene introduces the conflict over sabbath underscores one of the story’s central theological
violation (vv. 14, 16). Kneading was an activity themes: Blindness is not determined simply by
explicitly forbidden on the sabbath (see Commentary seeing or not seeing, but by recognizing the reve-
on v. 6).2” As in 5:1-18, the concern with sabbath lation of the works of God in Jesus (cf. v. 3, 41).
violation reflects an issue current in Jesus’ time. To 9:18-23. In the second interrogation scene,
violate the sabbath law was to challenge the laws the authorities turn their attention to the man’s
that bound the Jewish covenant community together parents. The authorities are identified as the
and the Pharisees’ authority as interpreters of those “Jews” in this scene (v. 18), not Pharisees (cf. vv.
laws (see Commentary on 5:96-18). Jesus’ violation 13, 15-16). This change in nomenclature ties John
of a sabbath prohibition is thus seen by some of the 9 into the debates of John 8 (cf. 8:48, 57) and
Pharisees as evidence of Jesus’ distance from God highlights the formal nature of the inquiry. The
(v. 16a). This conclusion resounds with irony (as authorities question both the man’s identity and
the blind man will point out in v. 33), because the his healing (vv. 18-19), because if they can show
correct interpretation of the healing is as the reve- that he was never blind, then the whole question
lation of God’s works (v. 3). Some of the Pharisees, of the miracle can be dismissed.?”° The parents
however, link this healing with other miraculous confirm that their son was indeed born blind (v.
acts Jesus has performed (note the use of the plural 20) and that they know nothing about the
272. See m. Sabb. 7:2. 273. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 335.
656
manner in which he received his sight (v. 21a). which translates the Greek word dtoouvaywyos
In v. 216, the parents disclaim any knowledge of (aposynagogos).
who opened their son’s eyes, even though the The most important work done on this passage is
authorities had not explicitly mentioned any healer that of J. Louis Martyn, whose investigations into John
in their questions. The parents’ third answer thus 9 changed the shape and scope of Johannine scholar-
points to the motivation behind the authorities’ ship.2”4 Through a careful and detailed exegetical
questions; their fundamental concern is with Jesus, analysis of 9:22, Martyn proposed that the agreement
not with the identity of the blind man. to put out of the synagogue those who confessed Jesus
The parents terminate the interrogation by sug- as the Messiah refers to the Benediction Against
gesting that the authorities ask the man himself Heretics that was introduced into the synagogue
about the healing (vv. 21c-d). In 9:22-23, the liturgy sometime after 70 ce and probably between
Fourth Evangelist inserts two verses of commen- _
85 and 95 cz (see Introduction). On the basis of this
tary that interpret the parents’ response to the
benediction, Martyn concluded that the Fourth Gospel
reader. The parents’ words are attributed to
was written at the end of the first century ce in and
their fear of “the Jews.” “Jews” is clearly used
to a community that was being expelled from the
here in its specialized sense as “Jewish authori-
synagogue, and that this conflict with the synagogue
ties,” since the parents must be Jews themselves
decisively shaped the Johannine story of Jesus. To
or they would not be members of the syna-
gogue. In three other places in John (7:13; support this view of the role of the synagogue, Martyn
19:38; 20:19), “fear of the Jews” is mentioned points to the two other uses of “put out of the
as the cause of people’s silence and secrecy synagogue” in John (12:42; 16:2). This is the only
about Jesus. The Evangelist’s commentary in occurrence of this word anywhere in the NT or in
9:22 offers more than a generalized allusion to Jewish and Christian writers of the period.
the parents’ fear of the Jewish authorities, how- Martyn’s exegesis of 9:22 also led to his critical
ever. The Evangelist specifies the source of this insight that the conflict with the authorities in
fear: “for the Jews had already agreed that John 9 provides the banner example of the two
anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah levels on which the Fourth Evangelist was writing
would be put out of the synagogue.” This ex- the Gospel. The Evangelist frames vv. 18-23 so
planation introduces data that seems to point that the community for whom the Gospel was
explicitly beyond the confines of the story line written can see its own experience reflected in
to the life of the Johannine community. the experience of the characters in the story. On
Verse 22 contains many elements that have one level, the story portrays a conflict with the
drawn the attention of scholars interested in recon- religious authorities in Jesus’ own day, but it is
structing the social context in which the Fourth told in idioms (e.g., “afraid of the Jews,” “be put
Gospel was written: the formal tone to the word out of the synagogue”) that also communicate
“aoreed” (cuvTiOenar syntithemai); the formal directly on the level of the community’s own
language of confession (ojohoyéw homologeo) experience of conflict and persecution.
that focuses on the confessing of Jesus as the
Christ; and the expression “put out of synagogue,” 274, See Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel.
>, >, o,
~~ ~,
“~ ~
EXCURSUS: JOHN 9:22 AND THE BENEDICTION

AGAINST HERETICS.
The Benediction Against Heretics:can be found as the twelfth in a list of nineteen
book was
benedictions in the contemporary Jewish prayer book, but because the prayer
heavily censored in the Middle Ages, this version is not a reliable version of the one
is difficult
introduced by the first-century rabbis. A more reliable text, although its exact age
657
EXCURSUS: JOHN 9:22 AND THE BENEDICTION AGAINST HERETICS
to determine, is a version of the Benediction found in the Cairo Genizah in 1896: “For the
apostates let there be no hope and let the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our
days. Let the Nazarenes [Christians] and the Minim [heretics] be destroyed in a moment and
let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not be inscribed together with the righteous.
Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humblest the proud!””
Martyn’s precise linkage of 9:22 with the benediction against heretics has been questioned on
a number of points. The questions cluster largely around issues of the dating of the twelfth
benediction and the reliability of the reference to Christians in the Cairo version of the benediction.
Scholars have pointed out that the words of the benediction were not fixed by the late first century
and that the prayer must be read in the context of the changes within late first-century Judaism
itself. Prior to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by the Romans in 70 cz, Judaism had many
avenues of expression, which included Pharisaic/rabbinic, Sadducean, apocalyptic, nationalistic
(Zealot), and Christian.”° After the destruction of the Temple, however, the Pharisaic/rabbinic
branch moved into ascendancy and began to establish standards of Jewish orthodoxy along its lines.
The original form of the prayer was probably directed against heretics in general—that is, all Jews
who do not adhere to the Pharisaic/rabbinic line, rather than exclusively against Christians, with
the explicit reference to Christians added after the first century.”
This does not mean, of course, that the community for which the Fourth Evangelist wrote
could not have experienced the general malediction against heretics as directed specifically
against them. What it does mean, however, is that one must be careful about how closely
one links the social setting of the Fourth Gospel to one particular interpretation of the
benediction. While the shape of the conflict between the Johannine community and the
synagogue might not be explained point for point for correspondence between John 9:22 and
the wording of the Benediction Against Heretics, Martyn’s basic understanding of the social
circumstances that gave rise to the Fourth Gospel holds true: This community experienced
expulsion from the synagogue as a fact of its religious life, and it laid the responsibility for
that expulsion on the Jewish authorities—i.e., the Pharisees (see Reflections on John 8).””
275. The first published translation of this text was in S. Schecter, “Genizah Specimens,” /OR old series 10 (1898) 197-206, 654-59. This
translation is the one quoted by Martyn, History and Theology, 58.
276. Daniel J. Harrington, “The Problem of ‘the Jews’ in John’s Gospel,” Explorations 8, 1 (1994) 3-4.
277. Steven T. Katz, “Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity After 70 CE: A Reconsideration,” /BL 103 (1984) 69-74.
278. David Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988) 22-29.
¢ >,“Se
"s
SS
~~ ,
~~
9:24-34. In the third and final interrogation Jewish authorities gives this interrogation scene a
scene, the authorities are identified only with the markedly different cast from the preceding two
pronoun “they.” They are clearly the same group (vv. 13-17, 18-23). The authorities try to intimi-
identified as the Pharisees who interrogated the man date the man with their status and knowledge,
in vv. 13-17, but the motivation for the second but he will not be intimidated.
interrogation is also clearly linked to the parents’ 9:24-25. “Give glory to God” (v. 24) is a
words to the “Jews” in v. 21 (“so” [ovv oun, v. traditional oath formula, through which a person
24). The authorities thus have the dual identity is enjoined to tell the truth (e.g., Josh 7:19) or
of Pharisees/“Jews” in this scene, underscoring confess one’s sin (e.g., 1 Sam 6:5; Jer 13:16) as
the fluidity of levels in the telling of this story. evidence of one’s worship of God. The Jewish
Twice in this interrogation scene the authori- authorities’ appeal to these words in this context
ties hold their knowledge up to the man and resounds with irony, however, since, from the
expect him to accept their positions (vv. 24, 29). Johannine perspective, this is exactly what the
Each time, however, the man counters with his man will do in the course of this conversation
own knowledge (vv. 25, 30-33). The fact that with the authorities. He will acknowledge God’s
the man holds his ground in the face of the glory in the healing work of Jesus (vv. 30-33; cf.
658
1:14; 2:11; 11:4), while the authorities will turn 9:28-29. The use of the verb “revile” (\ot-
their backs on this manifestation of God’s glory. dopew loidoreo) in v. 28 to describe the authori-
The “we know” with which the Jewish authorities’ response marks the end of any pretense of
ties express their certitude that Jesus is a sinner objective inquiry on their part. This is the only
recalls Nicodemus’s assertion of his knowledge occurrence of this verb in any of the Gospels; its
about Jesus in 3:2. In both places, the expression three other NT occurrences convey the sense of
carties the weight of official Pharisaic authority. serious insult (Acts 23:4) and suggest situations of
The grounds for calling Jesus a sinner is his persecution and abuse (1 Cor 4:12; 1 Pet 2:23).
violation of the sabbath law (cf. v. 16). In Jewish literature, “disciple of Moses” occa-
The man does not engage the Jewish authorities sionally appears as a designation for the rabbis.2®°
in the category of their expertise (what constitutes By using this designation of themselves here, the
sin according to the law; v. 25a), but instead . Jewish authorities stress their faithfulness to the
contrasts their claim with the reality of his expe- Mosaic law. The disdain with which the authori-
rience and hence his knowledge (v. 250). His ties contrast the man’s status as a disciple of Jesus
refusal to bend to their knowledge is in itself a (v. 28, lit., “you are a disciple of that one”) with
challenge to their authority, as is the content of their own status makes clear that to them, one
his words. The man’s insistence on what he can be either a disciple of Moses or a disciple of
knows confronts the Jewish authorities with a Jesus, but not both. From the perspective of the
contradiction inherent in their definition of sin; Fourth Gospel, however, in order to be fully
their focus on the violation of the law precludes faithful to Moses and the promises of God to
a focus on the healing (cf. 5:10-15; 7:21-24). Moses, one must be a disciple of Jesus. Disci-
9:26-27. The Jewish authorities’ renewed inter- pleship of Jesus as the true enactment of Mosaic
rogation about what occurred in the healing (v. 26; discipleship was suggested in 5:45-47, where
cf. vv. 15, 19) could be seen as a fulfillment of their Moses was shown to be a witness to the revela-
responsibility to gather as much evidence as possible tion of God in Jesus. For the Fourth Gospel,
in order to decide a case (cf. Nicodemus’s request faithfulness to the grace and truth available in
that Jesus be granted a full hearing in accordance with Jesus, not faithfulness to the law, is the decisive
the law, 7:51), but their opening words in v. 24 make mark of true discipleship (1:17; see also 7:21-24).
clear that their minds are made up. In reality, the The authorities continue their rebuke of the man
renewed questioning serves only to uncover potential by pointing to the superiority of Moses’ relationship
inconsistencies in the man’s testimony and gather to God (v. 29). That God spoke to Moses is a
additional evidence against Jesus.?” mainstay of the Pentateuchal narrative (e.g., Exod
Verse 27 reveals that the man has not been fooled 33:11; Num 12:2, 8). This assertion by the authori-
into believing that the authorities’ repeated questions ties becomes an ironic claim for the reader of the
have anything to do with a judicious search for Gospel, however, because while God may indeed
information. The mock earnestness of the man’s have spoken to Moses, Jesus is the Word of God
response in v. 27 is a consummate example of made flesh (1:14). The authorities’ self-professed
Johannine ironic understatement, as he cleverly ignorance of Jesus’ origins continues a theme that
turns the authorities’ inquiries against them. For the was prominent in John 7-8 (e.g., 7:28, 41-42; 8:23).
first time in this series of interrogations, the Jewish They assume Jesus’ origin is simply a matter of
authorities become the interrogates, rather than the geography and do not perceive the theological di-
interrogators (v. 27b-c). The staged guilelessness of mension of Jesus’ origins, that he comes from God
the man’s final question in v. 27c is calculated to (cf. 8:14). Through their assertion of their knowl-
taunt the authorities. One can imagine the pleasure edge in v. 29 (cf. v. 24), the authorities in reality
with which the audacity of the man’s question would reveal more about their ignorance than they intend.
be read by a community who saw its own story being Interestingly, one of the most vivid depictions of
played out in these verses. Jesus’ origins occurs in the reworking of the Mosaic
279. See Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 336; Rudolf Schnackenburg, 280. See texts cited in Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kom-
The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982) mentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash (Miinchen:
Zo. Beck, 1924) 2:535.
659
traditions in John 6, in which Jesus is identified as more limited sense that they expelled him from their
the true bread from heaven (6:32-35, 49-51, 58). presence as a way of bringing the conversation to a
9:30-33. The man’s opening words in v. 30 close. In the light of v. 22, however, the authorities’
show that he is not governed by the fear that action should be seen as the enactment of the
shaped his parents’ response to the authorities (vv. agreement referred to there. The interrogation
21-23). Instead, he goes on the offensive in vv. scenes close with an action that dramatizes the
30-33, once again confronting the authorities with breach in relationship between the Jewish authori-
the contradictions in their own positions (cf. v. ties and Jews who align themselves with Jesus.
25). First, he turns the authorities’ assertion of 9:35-38. In the fourth dialogue scene, the
their lack of knowledge of Jesus’ origins (“you do focus shifts to Jesus. Verse 35 sets up an explicit
not know,” v. 30; “we know,” v. 31) back on contrast between Jesus’ initiative in finding the
them by reminding them of one of the conven- man (cf. 5:14) and the authorities’ action in
tional theological beliefs of Judaism: that God does driving him out. Jesus’ action underscores his
not listen to sinners but to the righteous (v. 31; words of 6:37: “anyone who comes to me I will
cf. Job 35:13; Ps 66:18; Prov 15:29; Isa 1:15). never drive away [ekballo]” (see also 10:4). This
The description in v. 31 of those to whom God contrast between the authorities and Jesus intro-
listens is noteworthy, because it combines a tra- duces a theme that will be developed further in
ditional Hellenistic description of piety (“one who the discourse of 10:1-21.
worships God” [SeoceBys theosebes|) with a tra- Jesus’ question in v. 35 contains an emphatic
ditional Jewish description (“obeys his will”).2°! Sec- use of the pronoun “you” in-Greek (ov su), thus
ond, the man confronts the authorities with the scale intentionally contrasting the beliefs of the man with
of the miracle. His completely unprecedented heal- the beliefs of the authorities. In Jewish usage, the
ing (v. 32) makes sense only if God is the source Son of Man refers to a future figure whose coming
of the healing (v. 33; cf. 3:2). The traditional teach- will mark the beginning of God’s final judgment
ings of Judaism should thus lead one to recognize (e.g., Enoch 49:4; 61:9; 69:27). The Fourth Gospel
the works of God revealed in this healing (9:3). has transformed that traditional eschatological usage,
9:34. The Jewish authorities correctly charac- however, so that Jesus is the Son of Man whose
terize the man’s words to them as teaching; he eschatological judgment is already underway in the
has indeed taken over their role as teacher of the present (e.g., 3:14-15; 5:27). Just as the Samaritan
faith. The authorities reject his teaching on the woman was confronted by Jesus with the possibility
same grounds that they attempted to dismiss Je- of the anticipated Messiah’s being already present
sus’ healing: The man is a sinner. In the case of (4:25-26), so also the healed man is confronted by
the man, however, the case for his sin is not built Jesus with the possibility that the future judge is
around sabbath violation, but around the tradi- already present. To this point in John 9, the theme
tional linkage of sin and illness (cf. 9:2). Jesus had of the judgment evoked by the light of the world
dismissed this linkage as the appropriate category (9:5; cf. 3:17-21; 12:31-36) has largely been implicit.
through which to interpret the man’s blindness Jesus’ question makes this theme explicit as he asks
(9:3-5), and the authorities’ continued adherence the man whether he recognizes in his healer “the
to this category is further proof of their distance eschatological bringer of salvation.”2°5 The man’s
from the revelation of God in Jesus. The expedi-
response in v. 36 suggests that once the Son of
ency that drives the authorities is also exposed in
Man is pointed out to him, he is ready to accept
this charge, because while earlier they rejected
the transformation of eschatological categories that
his blindness as a way of dismissing the miracle
Jesus proposes.
(vv. 18-19), now they accept his blindness as a
* Jesus’ words of self-identification in v. 37 (cf.
way of dismissing the man as a sinner.?°?
4:26) lead to the man’s confession of faith (v. 38).
The notice that the authorities “drove out”
This confession is the culmination of the man’s
(exBdAAw ekballo) the man can be read in the
progression in faith that has run throughout chap.
281. See Bultmann, The Gospel of/ohn, 337; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel 9. He first acknowledged Jesus simply as the man
According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 364.
282. Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 337. 283. Ibid., 338.
660
who had healed him (v. 11), then identified him This reference to judgment here confirms Jesus’
as a prophet (v. 17), then as a miracle worker identification as the Son of Man in vv. 35-38. It
from God (vv. 30-33). This progression marks a is as the light that Jesus initiates the judgment
deepening of the man’s gift of sight, from the gift that characterizes the Son of Man. Sight and
of physical sight to spiritual and theological sight. blindness are not defined by one’s physical sight,
He now knows who and what he sees in but by one’s openness to the revelation of God
Jesus. “Worship” (tpooxuvew proskyneo) is used in Jesus. The metaphorical use of sight and blind-
in John to speak of the worship of God (4:20-24;, ness to refer to spiritual openness was well known
12:20). When the man worships Jesus, then, he is in OT literature, particularly in Isaiah (see esp. Isa
acknowledging the presence of God in Jesus and 6:10; 42:18-25; cf. also Wis 2:21; Mark 4:12).
thus ironically fulfills the authorities’ demand that The NRSV translation of v. 40 perfectly cap-
he give glory to God (v. 24). With this act of . tures the tone of the Pharisees’ question in re-
worship, the man’s role in the story is completed sponse to Jesus’ pronouncement. In the Greek,
and he disappears from the narrative (cf. the “exits” the question is introduced by the interrogative
of Nicodemus and John the Baptist at 3:9, 36). particle wn (me) to indicate that the Pharisees are
Like the rest of chap. 9, vv. 35-38 work on anticipating a negative response to their question.
two levels simultaneously. When Jesus finds the That is, they expect Jesus to affirm that they are
expelled man and leads him to a christological exempt from the judgment he describes in v. 39.
confession, the story points through the actions of Jesus’ answer in v. 41 completely undercuts the
the characters to the lives of the readers and Pharisees’ position. He inverts their definition of sin
suggests that if believers are cast out of the by explicitly discounting any link between physical
synagogue because of their allegiance to Jesus, blindness and sin (v. 414), and then labeling them
they will not be left to fend for themselves. Their with the category that they have attempted to place
confession of Jesus will secure them in community on him and the blind man throughout John 9,
with him at the same time as it excludes them sinner. Sin is defined by neither the presence of an
from their former religious home. illness (9:2, 34) nor the violation of the law (9:16,
9:39-41. In the final dialogue scene (vv. 39- 24) but by one’s resistance to Jesus. Throughout the
41), the focus shifts from the healing miracle itself preceding dialogue, the Jewish authorities, who have
to the purpose of Jesus’ ministry as revealed in their physical sight, repeatedly insisted on their
that miracle. As noted in the Overview, this scene knowledge about who Jesus could and could not be
has a double function. The direct conversation (vv. 16, 24, 29) and by so doing showed themselves
between Jesus and the Jewish authorities con- to be closed to Jesus as the light of the world and
cludes the controversy over the healing that domi- hence blind. By contrast, the man who had been
nated 9:13-38, but the new focus also introduces born blind received his physical sight, but his true
the discourse that follows in 10:1-18. In v. 39, sight came as he moved through his ignorance (vv.
Jesus defines the eschatological purpose of his 12, 25) to recognize Jesus as the Son of Man, as
incarnation (“I came into this world for judgment the light of the world. In their immovable insistence
so that... ”). As in 3:18-21, Jesus’ coming into on their own rectitude, shown once again in their
the world as the light (9:5; cf. 1:9; 12:46) is the question of v. 40, the Pharisees demonstrate their own
moment of judgment, the moment of division. blindness and hence judge themselves (cf. 3:19-20).
REFLECTIONS
the
As noted in the Introduction, one of the distinctive traits of the Fourth Gospel is
of the story of Jesus. For
indissoluble union of story and theological interpretation in its telling
means
the Fourth Evangelist, to tell the story of Jesus is also always to tell what that story
the Johannine
for the reader. As noted in the Commentary and Reflections on John 5 and 6,
in which
technique of accompanying stories of Jesus with an interpretive discourse is one way
l interpreta tion is evident in the Gospel narrative.
the union of story and theologica
John 9:1-10:21 contains such an interpretive discourse (10:1-18), which will be discussed
below. On other occasions, however, the Fourth Evangelist embeds the interpretation directly into
the telling of the story itself. The Commentary and Reflections on John 4 noted the ways in which
the form of that story was inseparable from and in direct service of the content of the story. There
was no accompanying discourse because narrative and theology were interwoven in the dramatically
constructed scenes between Jesus and the Samaritan woman and Jesus and his disciples.
In John 9:1-41, narrative and theology are more seamlessly interwoven than in any of the other
Johannine texts. John 9:1-41 is the most accomplished example of the Fourth Evangelist’s use of
drama to meld story and interpretation. The Fourth Evangelist structured the story around a succession
of short scenes that give John 9 the feel of a drama, facilitating the development of the story and
highlighting the tension between characters. The entire story unfolds within the bounds of this drama.
The readers are positioned as the audience at a play; none of the characters ever speaks words that
address the readers’ situation directly. Instead, readers are invited to see their experience within the
drama that is being enacted before their eyes. Even the Evangelist’s interpretive commentary in 9:22-23
does not speak directly to the links between the parent’s situation and the reader’s situation but is
intended to ensure that the reader will make the connection.
As noted in the Commentary, Martyn has seen in the dramatic structure and style of John
9:1-41 the clues to the two historical levels on which the Gospel is written. The Fourth
Evangelist tells a story that is about a situation and characters at the time of Jesus, but the
story is told in such a way that it is also about a situation and characters at the time of the
Evangelist. For example, the role of Jesus in 9:35-38 can be read as a model for the role of
the Christian preacher in the time of the Fourth Evangelist.”
One can move Martyn’s seminal observation in a slightly different direction by looking at the
dramatic style of the two levels of John 9 from the perspective of preaching. By inviting the readers
to see their experience in the drama being enacted before their eyes, the Fourth Evangelist employs
an indirect method of proclaiming the good news of Jesus and his significance for his readers that
is common in narrative preaching. Indeed, several scholars, most especially Raymond Brown and
Barnabas Lindars, have proposed that homilies preached in the Johannine community may lie
behind many of the texts in the Gospel, and John 9 lends considerable support to that view. When
one thinks of John 9 as a sermon, one notes that John 9 adheres to one of the central tenets of
narrative preaching: It shows what it wants to tell”
By letting the drama of John 9 show how the story of Jesus narrated there speaks to the reader’s
own experience, instead of breaking out of the story and explaining its significance to and for the
reader more directly, the Fourth Evangelist is creating a situation in which the Gospel can be
“overheard” by the reader.” Fred Craddock has identified the two key elements in overhearing
as “distance (I am an anonymous listener, reader, viewer, unrelated to the event) and participation
(I am drawn in by identification with persons and conditions within the event).””” Both of these
elements are at work in John 9, and it is possible to interpret the two levels that Martyn has
identified so clearly as the Fourth Evangelist’s strategy for overhearing. The element of distance is
seen in the completeness of the story that unfolds in the drama of John 9; the story makes sense
as a story of Jesus that has no relation to those who read or listen to the story. The element of
participation is present in the clues that the Fourth Evangelist embeds in the story to guide the
listeners to recognize that they are also overhearing their own story. For example, when the
authorities are called “the Jews” instead of “Pharisees” (v. 18), the Evangelist points beyond Jesus’
story to the readers’ story, as do his comments in vv. 22-23. But, as is critical for overhearing,
those clues leave the reader the freedom to translate the story of John 9 into their own experience.
284. J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968; 2nd ed., 1979).
285. See, for example, Barbara Brown Taylor, “Preaching the Body,” in Listening to the Word: Essays in Honor ofFred B. Craddock, ed.
Gail R. O’Day and Thomas G. Long (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993).
a came as an approach to preaching is developed by Fred B. Craddock, Overhearing the Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978)
- Ibid, 115. ard
662
It is interesting to reflect on the Fourth Evangelist’s selection of this strategy to address a
situation so vital and painful to the life of his community. One function of the drama of John
9 is clearly to offer comfort, encouragement, and hope to the community in its struggles with
the synagogue, but this comfort must be found within the story itself (e.g., the audacity of
the man in vv. 24-34 and the “happy ending” of vv. 35-38). The Gospel offers no direct words
of encouragement; even Jesus’ pronouncement in v. 41 is completely clothed in metaphor
with no specific referents. Later in the Gospel, Jesus will say words about exclusion from the
synagogue that are more directly addressed to the reader’s situation (16:2-3), but here, the
good news is available to the reader only through overhearing.
This example of overhearing has much to offer contemporary interpreters of this text. The
drama, the dialogues, the tension in the Fourth Evangelist’s depiction of the conflict with the
Jewish authorities cannot be flattened in the interpreter’s appropriation of this text, because
to flatten the narrative dynamics of John 9 is to destroy the overhearing that is at the heart
of the story. This text thus challenges the interpreter to find strategies of indirect communication
similar to the Fourth Evangelist’s own, so that contemporary readers or listeners, like those in
the Johannine community, are invited to find their own experiences in the story of John 9.
1. What good news can be overheard in the drama of John 9? In crucial ways, vv. 1-41
are a dramatization of John 3:16-21. In those verses, the Fourth Evangelist lays out the heart
of his eschatology, describing how the incarnation has decisively altered eschatological expec-
tations. God’s judgment is no longer reserved for a future age, because the presence of Jesus
in the world brings the world to the critical moment of decision. The offer of God’s love,
available to the world in the presence of Jesus, God’s Son, is the eschatological moment. Good
and evil are defined solely by people’s response to Jesus; the good are those who come to the
light, the evil those who scorn the light.
The healing miracle of John 9:1-41, then, is not simply a story that shows the revelation
of the works of God in Jesus’ gift of sight (v. 3). Rather, the Fourth Evangelist uses this healing
story to portray the eschatological truth of Jesus’ incarnation palpably and poignantly. Light
and darkness are no longer merely concepts, but are embodied in the characters of John 9.
In the blind man’s journey from physical blindness to spiritual sight, the reader is able to watch
as someone comes to the light and is given new life. In the Jewish authorities’ journey from
physical sight to spiritual blindness, the reader is able to watch as they close themselves to
the light and place themselves under judgment. Through the drama of John 9, the reader is
able to share in the eschatological reality of Jesus’ presence.
2. The dramatic structure of John 9 intensifies what may be the most profound theological
irony of this text: The authorities, who positioned themselves as judges of others, finally bring
themselves under judgment as sinners. Throughout John 9, the Jewish authorities insist on
their right to judge both the healed man and Jesus as sinners (9:16, 24, 34). When the healed
man confesses his faith in Jesus as the Son of Man, he acknowledges Jesus as the eschatological
judge, whose judgment renders the authorities’ judgment impotent. Because of the obvious
focus of John 9 on sight and blindness, knowledge and ignorance, its focus on sin is often
to
overlooked. This is a serious omission, because the presentation of sin in John 9 is pivotal
any interpretation of sin in John.
attempt
The theme of sin is introduced in the opening verses of John 9, when the disciples
to link the man’s blindness to sin (see also v. 34). The theme of sin reappears in the Pharisees’
the sabbath
opening conversation about Jesus’ miracle. To many of them, Jesus’ violation of
and the Pharisees,
marks him as a sinner (9:16; see also vv. 24, 31). To both the disciples
sin is a moral category, primarily’defined in relation to actions.
moral, category.
John 9:1-41 redefines sin by showing that it is exclusively a theological, not
’ assertion of their
The key to this redefinition is found in Jesus’ words in v. 41. The Pharisees
663
own sight is the basis for Jesus’ judgment of them as sinners. The Pharisees do have physical
sight; the sight they lack is the ability to see God revealed in Jesus (cf. 9:3), and their refusal to
acknowledge this “blindness” on their part proves that they are sinners. Why? Because in the
Fourth Gospel, sin is defined not by what one does, but almost exclusively by one’s relationship
to Jesus, and more specifically, by whether one believes that God is present in Jesus.
Jesus “takes away the sin of the world” (1:29) by the fact of his coming into the world.
By giving the world access to the light and love of God, Jesus takes away the world’s sin
because he makes it possible for the world to redefine its relationship with God. For this
reason, “sin” occurs almost exclusively in the singular in John (see Commentary on John 8:21).
The world’s sin is its refusal to believe in Jesus (16:9). There is a circular logic to the Johannine
notions of sin and salvation that John 15:22 and 24 articulate explicitly: “If I had not come
and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. . . . If
I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sin.”
The Johannine notion of sin is thus intimately tied to its understanding of judgment and
eschatology as expressed in 3:18-21. Sin only occurs in response to Jesus. If the Pharisees of
John 9 had not been given the opportunity to see, then they would not be blind. But because
they had seen Jesus’ works and still refused to receive God’s revelation in Jesus, they remain
in sin. They have turned down Jesus’ offer of salvation and so bring themselves under judgment.
Johannine soteriology cannot be understood unless interpreters of John allow “sin” to be
heard in Johannine terms without automatically subsuming it into other NT definitions of sin.
The Johannine understanding of sin and salvation contributes an important voice to Christian
theology, because it provides an alternative to what is often posited as normative in discussions
of salvation. In those discussions, sin is used primarily as a moral category to refer to people’s
actions that are opposed to the will of God, and Jesus redeems people from their sins through
the expiation of his death. The Johannine understanding of sin opens up to a very different
understanding of the salvific function of Jesus’ death. Salvation from sin is primarily a result
of Jesus’ life, not his death, because it is the very life of Jesus as God’s Son and incarnate
Word that makes it possible for people to move from sin to eternal life.
This Johannine view of sin and salvation can be a difficult one for contemporary Christians
to grasp, because the expiatory view of sin and the exclusive linkage of salvation with Jesus’
death so dominate conversations within the church. Yet the church loses a powerful witness
if it ignores or silences this Johannine voice. First, the Gospel of John invites Christians to
reevaluate the criteria by which one defines sin and by which people are judged. The Fourth
Gospel, as dramatized in John 9, reduces sin to its christological, and hence theological, essence.
Sin is fundamentally about one’s relationship with God, and for the Fourth Evangelist, the
decisive measure of one’s relationship with God is one’s faith in Jesus. This flies in the face
of views that want to define sin in relation to right actions and thereby establish the norms
for judgment. To the Fourth Evangelist, these norms for judgment are very lean: Believe in
the revelation of God in Jesus. Judgment is therefore based not on what people do, as the
disciples and the Pharisees in John 9 assumed, but on people’s embrace of God in Jesus. The
only way to be excluded from Jesus’ offer of salvation is to turn one’s back on that offer. This
is a radical and liberating notion of sin and salvation, one that not surprisingly makes many
people uncomfortable, because it removes the establishment of norms of behavior from the
category of sin. From the Johannine perspective, it is not the Christian community’s responsi-
bility, just as it was not the Pharisees’, to judge anyone’s sins, because the determination of
sin rests with God and Jesus, and the individual and is determined by faith, not actions. The
Johannine Gospel is thus the most radical example of salvation by grace anywhere in the NT.
Second, the Johannine understanding of sin and judgment invites the Christian community
to reexamine its understanding of salvation and redemption. The Fourth Gospel quite explicitly
relocates the offer of salvation to Jesus’ life and moves away from a narrow focus on Jesus’
664
death. The Gospel is unequivocally clear: Jesus’ incarnation, not the expiation of his death,
brings salvation from sin. This, too, can be discomfiting to people who think that an expiatory
understanding of salvation is the “only” Christian view. Yet again, to overlook the Johannine
view is to miss a powerful witness and resource for the life of faith. The Gospel of John invites
Christians to recognize the transformative power of the love of God made manifest in the
incarnation and to shape their lives accordingly. This is why Johannine eschatology puts its
primary emphasis on Jesus’ coming into the world. To reject Jesus is to reject the love of God
in Jesus and so to pass from the possibility of salvation to judgment (cf. 3:16-17). Therefore,
the Pharisees’ announcement of their sight, when in fact they have not seen God in Jesus,
marks their sin and the “blind” man’s embrace of Jesus as the Son of Man marks his salvation.
Judgment and salvation are not lodged with Jesus’ death; they belong to Jesus’ life. (For more
on the significance of the death of Jesus in John, see Reflections on 12:20-36.)
The story of the blind man has been used as a symbol of faith and new life throughout the
history of the church. The healing of the blind man appears as a baptismal symbol in
second-century frescoes in the catacombs in Rome (as do the stories of the Samaritan woman
and the healing of the man in John 5). These same stories were used in Lenten baptismal
liturgies dating at least as far back as the fourth and fifth centuries. The blind man’s movement
from darkness to light and his confession of his faith in Jesus provided a vehicle through which
the church could celebrate the power of new life that begins in baptism. The blind man’s
words in John 9:25 also offer eloquent testimony to the transforming power of God’s grace
in the hymn “Amazing Grace”: “I once was blind, but now | see.”
John 10:1-21, The Shepherd Discourse

NIV NRSV
] 0 “I tell you the truth, the man who does “Very truly, I tell you, anyone who does
not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but l Onrot enter the sheepfold by the gate but
climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a climbs in by another way is a thief and a bandit.
robber. 2The man who enters by the gate is the 2The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd
shepherd of his sheep. °The watchman opens the of the sheep. *The gatekeeper opens the gate for
gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his
He calls his own sheep by name and leads them own sheep by name and leads them out. “When
out. ‘When he has brought out all his own, he he has brought out all his own, he goes ahead of
goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him them, and the sheep follow him because they
because they know his voice. °But they will never know his voice. *They will not follow a stranger,
follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from but they will run from him because they do not
him because they do not recognize a stranger’s know the voice of strangers.” Jesus used this
voice.” ‘Jesus used this figure of speech, but they figure of speech with them, but they did not
did not understand what he was telling them. understand what he was saying to them.
7Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the 7So again Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell
truth, I am the gate for the sheep. *All who ever you, I am the gate for the sheep. ®All who came
came before me were thieves and robbers, but before me are thieves and bandits; but the sheep
the sheep did not listen to them. °*I am the gate; did not listen to them. °I am the gate. Whoever
whoever enters through me will be saved.* He enters by me will be saved, and will come in and
will come in and go out, and find pasture. "The go out and find pasture. '"The thief comes only
thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy, I to steal and kill and destroy. | came that they may
have come that they may have life, and have it have life, and have it abundantly.
to the full. 11“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd
a9 Or kept safe
lays down his life for the sheep. '?The hired hand,
665
JOHN 10:1-21
NIV NRSV
'1*T am the good shepherd. The good shepherd who is not the shepherd and does not own the
lays down his life for the sheep. '*The hired hand sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep
is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when and runs away—and the wolf snatches them and
he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep scatters them. The hired hand runs away be-
and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock cause a hired hand does not care for the sheep.
and scatters it. The man runs away because he '4T am the good shepherd. I know my own and
is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. my own know me, '*just as the Father knows me
'46T'am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and I know the Father. And I lay down my life
and my sheep know me— 'just as the Father for the sheep. '°I have other sheep that do not
knows me and I know the Father—and I lay belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and
down my life for the sheep. '*I have other sheep they will listen to my voice. So there will be one
that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them flock, one shepherd. '’For this reason the Father
also. They too will listen to my voice, and there loves me, because I lay down my life in order to
shall be one flock and one shepherd. '’The reason take it up again. '*No one takes? it from me, but
my Father loves me is that I lay down my life— I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to
only to take it up again. '8No one takes it from lay it down, and I have power to take it up again.
me, but | lay it down of my own accord. I have I have received this command from my Father.”
authority to lay it down and authority to take it 19Again the Jews were divided because of
up again. This command | received from my these words. ?°Many of them were saying, “He
Father.”
has a demon and is out of his mind. Why listen
'SAt these words the Jews were again divided.
to hime” 7'Others were saying, “These are not
2°Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and
the words of one who has a demon. Can a demon
raving mad. Why listen to him?”
open the eyes of the blinde”
1But others said, “These are not the sayings of
aQOther ancient authorities read has taken
a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open
the eyes of the blinde”
(COMMENTARY
The discourse of John 10:1-18 continues the of the “figure of speech” (vv. 1-5), followed by
words of Jesus begun at 9:41 and is positioned in the Evangelist’s interpretive comment (v. 6).
the narrative as Jesus’ reflection on what has just Verses 7-18 consist of a series of four “I am”
taken place with the blind man and the Phari- statements (vv. 7-16), followed by a conclusion
sees/“Jews.” As noted in the Overview to 9:1- (vv. 17-18).
10:21, this combination of miracle, dialogue, and 10:1-6. Scholars are divided on whether vv.
discourse is common in the Fourth Gospel. John 1-5 contain one unified figure of speech?®® or
10:1-18 has a transitional function in the overall whether it is the fusing of two distinct figures.2%°
movement of the Gospel.78° It is the last full Those who argue for two figures see these verses
discourse of Jesus’ public ministry; Jesus’ next as preserving two parables, one about entering the
major discourse is the Farewell Discourse of John sheepfold (vv. 1-3a), a second about the shepherd
14:1-16:33, which is directed to his disciples. (vv. 30-5). A sharp division between the two parts
The Fourth Evangelist uses the expression
“very truly, I say to you” to mark the two parts 289. E.g., George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.:
Word, 1987) 166-67.
of the discourse (vv. 1-6, 7-18). Verses 1-6 consist 290. E.g., C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 382-85; Raymond E.
288. Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), AB 29 (Garden City, N.Y.:
R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: Doubleday, 1966) 391-92; Robert Kysar, /ohn, Augsburg Commentary of
Westminster, 1971) 363. the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986) 159-60.
666
of wv. 1-5 does not seem warranted by the text, (vv. 304) and the shepherd’s ability to call “his
however, because all of vv. 1-5 focuses on the own” by name (v. 30). To call the sheep by name
shepherd and his relation to the flock. In vv. 1-3a, may refer to the practice of giving pet names to
the shepherd comes to the sheep, and in vv. 365 individual sheep?” or it may simply mean to call
the sheep recognize the shepherd. A positive each sheep individually. As a result of this inti-
image of the shepherd (vv. 2-4) is contrasted with macy, the sheep will follow the shepherd.
the negative image of thief, bandit, and stranger The dominant imagery of v. 5 is also hearing
(vind 1h). and motion, but it is used to the opposite effect
The expression “very truly, I tell you” (v. 1) in this verse. Just as the intimacy of the shep-
serves two rhetorical functions. First, it marks the herd/sheep relationship was defined by voice and
shift from dialogue to monologue (cf. 3:11; 5:19), movement, so also the absence of such intimacy
and second, it indicates a new movement in the with the stranger is defined by voice (“they do
argument (cf. 5:24-25; 6:26, 34; 8:34). Instead of not know the voice of strangers”) and movement
continuing to address the Pharisees’ situation di- (“will not follow a stranger”; “will run from
rectly (9:41), Jesus addresses it more obliquely him”). In and of itself, then, the figure is not hard
through his use of figurative language (cf. Jesus’ to understand. It presents a fairly simple picture
use of the parable of the lost sheep in Luke of the work of the shepherd and his flock that
15:3-7). corresponds to the pastoral practices of the Medi-
10:1-3a. Verses 1-2 are one sentence in the terranean world. For example, sheepfolds were
Greek text, marked by a carefully balanced anti- usually constructed adjoining the house and had
thetical parallelism that establishes the identity of a separate entrance gate. The only access to the
the shepherd (v. 2) by first establishing who he sheepfold was through this gate. If the flock was
is not (v. 1). The pivot of the antithesis is the large enough to require more than one shepherd,
way one enters the sheepfold. The one who has an undershepherd might be assigned the task of
“authorized access”?"? (i.e., enters by the gate) is watching the sheepfold door at night. The roles
the shepherd; the one without authorized access of each of the characters in the figure are well
is a thief and a bandit. The fact that the shepherd defined and limited: The shepherd has the largest
has authorized access is confirmed by the gate- role, coming to the sheep, calling them by name,
keeper’s opening the gate for him (v. 34). and leading them; the sheep respond to the shep-
10:3b-5. In vv. 30-5, the figure expands from herd (or refuse to respond to the stranger); and
the identification of the shepherd to the sheep’s the thief, the bandit, and the stranger reflect
recognition and response to the shepherd. Verses potential threats to the sheep and hence the
30-4 use a chiastic parallelism built around images economic livelihood of the shepherd.
of hearing and movement to develop the positive
10:6. The Evangelist’s commentary in v. 6
image of the shepherd and the sheep:
makes clear, however, that Jesus’ words are to be
understood as more than a depiction of Palestinian
v.30 A “hear his voice,” “calls his own pastoral practices. First, the Evangelist explicitly
sheep by name” labels Jesus’ words a “figure of speech”
B “and leads them out” (Tapotuta paroimia). Paroimia is a difficult word to
v.4 B’ “brought out all his own,” “goes translate precisely. In the LXX, paroimia is used to
ahead of them,” “the sheep translate the Hebrew word that means “proverb”
follow him” (ow masal; e.g., Prov 1:1). The only NT usage of
JN
“they know his voice” the Greek word paroimia outside of John (2 Pet
2:22) clearly means “proverb,” because it is used to
The intimacy of the relationship between the introduce a quotation from the book of Proverbs.
shepherd and the sheep is demonstrated by the Yet the Hebrew word masal is also translated by
sheep’s ability to recognize the shepherd’s voice the Greek word for “parable” (tapaBoAn para-
bole) in the LXX, and in some texts it is clear
291. Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium des Johannes (Gutersloh: G.
Mohn, 1979) 325.
292. Beasley-Murray, John, 168. 293. So Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 385.
667
that parabolé and paroimia are synonyms (e.g., (cf. 9:36-38). It is this use of the pastoral imagery
Sir 47:17). One of the other meanings of the that the Pharisees did not understand, because as
Hebrew word masal is “riddle.” The translation the teachers and leaders of Israel (cf. 3:2, 10),
“figure of speech” is an attempt to capture the they would think of themselves in the role of
open-endedness of paroimia that the word “prov- shepherd, not thief or stranger.
erb” rarely conveys in English. To the reader of the Gospel, the figure of
It is in the very nature of the general language speech of vv. 1-5 has an even wider range of
and images of proverbs to be suggestive of many associations. The language of vv. 1-5 not only
meanings. Sirach 39:3 is instructive in this regard: draws the reader into OT pastoral imagery, but
“He seeks out the hidden meanings of proverbs” also carries echoes of Johannine themes—for ex-
(NRSV). In v. 6, then, the Evangelist is drawing ample, “his own” (vv. 3-4; cf. 1:11), hear his
the reader’s attention to Jesus’ use of language voice (v. 3; cf. 5:37; 12:47).2°° These echoes open
whose meaning intentionally resides below the up to the more explicitly christological use of the
surface level, as in 4:35-38 and 12:24. In the same pastoral imagery in vv. 7-16.
other two uses of paroimia in John (16:25, 29), 10:7-18. A commonly held view of the rela-
speaking in “figures of speech” is contrasted with tionship between vv. 1-5 and vv. 7-18 is that vv.
speaking “plainly” (mappnota parresia). Paroimia 1-5 should be seen as a parable, and vv. 7-18 as
thus points to a way of speaking that encom- the parable’s allegorical (and perhaps secondary)
passes, but is not limited to, a particular literary explanation (analogous to the relationship of the
form such as parable or proverb.?% parable of the sower in Mark 4:1-9 to its inter-
Second, the Evangelist informs the reader in v. pretation in 4:13-20).2°° There are several prob-
6 that the Pharisees do not understand what Jesus lems with this interpretive move. First, there is
says. One has to ask whether within the narrative no one-to-one correspondence between the figure
framework of John 9:1-10:21, the Pharisees could of vv. 1-5 and Jesus’ words in vv. 7-16. Many
have interpreted this “figure of speech,” or if Jesus of the elements of vv. 1-5 are ignored in vv. 7-16
used it intentionally to preclude interpretation (cf. (e.g., the gatekeeper, the stranger) and new ones
Mark 4:11-12). The images of sheep and shepherd are introduced (the hired hand, the wolf). Jesus
were frequently used with metaphorical signifi- continues to use pastoral imagery in vv. 7-16,
cance within the OT. Traditionally, God is under- but uses it to move in a new direction. Second,
stood as the shepherd and God’s people as sheep this interpretive move tends to read the “I am”
(eg. Pss2o:1-) (4215. 79:13; 00:1; 9o.7> 1 00:3). statements in isolation from the use of figurative
Of particular importance for the background of language in other discourses and “I am” state-
Jesus’ use of pastoral imagery here is Ezekiel 34, ments inJohn (¢.¢,,°6:35;:8:12% 15:1) 2”
in which the kings of Israel are the bad shepherds A comparison with John 6 is especially helpful
who endanger and exploit the flock (Ezek 34:1- in guiding the interpretation of John 10:7-16.2%8
10); God is the good shepherd who will rescue Jesus’ words in John 6 also consist of a series of
the sheep and who will place them in the care “I am” statements (6:35, 41, 48, 51) followed
of “my servant, David” (v. 23)—that is, a restored by theological expansion (6:36-40, 43-47, 49-50).
monarchy (Ezek 34:11-31). In John 6, Jesus’ self-revelation is couched in the
When Jesus’ figure of speech is read in the language of bread and built around images from
context of 9:1-41, it seems clear that Jesus is the exodus tradition to show that he was the
positioning the Pharisees in the role of thief, true fulfillment of Mosaic hopes (see Commentary
bandit, and stranger. Their conduct toward the
blind man (cf. 9:34) has demonstrated that they 295. See E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber & Faber,
1947) 371-72.
do not have the flock’s best interest at heart, 296. E.g., Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 391.
whereas Jesus’ conduct toward the man has 297. Robert Kysar, “Johannine Metaphor—Meaning and Function: A
Literary Case Study of John 10:1-18,” Semeia53 (1991) 81-111, attempts
shown him to be the shepherd who comes to the to read John 10:1-18 in the light of Johannine metaphor, but even he
sheep (cf. 9:35) and to whom the sheep respond isolates this discourse and does not relate it to other Johannine discourses.
Interestingly, the shepherd imagery also receives barely a notice in Culpep-
per’s discussion of Johannine symbolism in Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel,
294. See Kim E. Dewey, “Paroimaiin the Gospel of John,” Semeia 17 another example of the idiosyncratic treatment this text receives.
(1980) 81-99. 298. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 367.
668
on John 6). A similar use of language and imagery clearer in vv. 9-10. Jesus explicitly identifies him-
is at work in John 10:7-16. In his reworking of the self as the means to salvation (v. 9; cf. 14:6).
images of OT pastoral imagery, Jesus shows how he Verse 9 incorporates OT imagery in its description
is the one who meets the needs of the sheep. of Jesus as the gate. The promise of entering
The second part of the discourse begins like the through the gate to find salvation echoes Ps
first, with the use of “very truly, I say to you” to 118:19-20 and identifies Jesus as the point of
indicate a new development in the discourse. Verses access to God for the flock. The promise of finding
7-16 divide into two parts, each part containing a pasture recalls the pastoral imagery of Ps 23:2 and
pair of “I am” statements by Jesus that are accom- Ezek 34:14. Jesus’ promise of pasture in v. 9 also
panied by brief explanations. Verses 7-10 are built recalls his earlier promises of gifts of water (4:14;
around Jesus’ self-identification as the gate for the 7:37) and bread (6:35) that will end thirst and
sheep (vv. 7, 9), and wv. 11-16 around his self-iden- _ hunger. The three verbs identified with the thief
tification as the good shepherd (vv. 11, 14). in v. 10a all have to do with the destruction and
10:7-10. Verses 7, 9, and 100 present the death of the flock, whereas v. 100 restates one of
positive image of Jesus as the gate; vv. 8 and 10a the central affirmations of the Gospel: Jesus comes
present the contrasting negative image of the to brits wife “e-o5. 3:10; £5:24-".0:40, 1515) b1G25:
thief. In vv. 1-2, the gate was the means of 20:31);
authorized access to the sheepfold and was intro- The imagery of the gate, then, has both chris-
duced in order to distinguish the one who had tological and ecclesiological significance (see Re-
authorized access, the shepherd, from those who flections below). By addressing the grounding of
did not, thieves and bandits. In vv. 7-10, by the community’s life in Jesus, vv. 7-10 introduce
contrast, the primary point of reference for the themes that will dominate the Farewell Discourse
gate imagery is the effect of the gate on the sheep (14:1-16:33). These community concerns fit well
themselves. When Jesus identifies himself as the after the drama of John 9, in which the Pharisees
gate for the sheep (v. 7), he points to the ways attempted to destroy community by driving out
in which one’s place in the sheepfold, and hence the healed man (9:34; cf. 10:4), and Jesus moved
one’s identity as a member of the flock, is deter- to restore it (9:35-38).
mined exclusively by one’s relationship to Jesus 10:11-16. At v. 11, the focus shifts to Jesus’
as the gate. One enters the fold through Jesus. self-revelation as the good shepherd. The identifi-
Those who enter the fold by ways other than cation of Jesus as the shepherd was implicit in the
the gate are thieves and bandits (v. 8; cf. v. 1). figure of speech in vv. 1-5, but it is made explicit
Some of the earliest manuscripts omit the phrase for the first time here. As in vv. 7-10, the positive
“before me” (11pd €j100 pro emou) in the descrip- image of the good shepherd (vv. 11, 14-16) is
tion of the thieves and bandits in v. 8 in an contrasted with a negative image, that of the hired
attempt to soften the seeming rejection of all OT hand (vv. 12-13).
figures. “All who came before me” cannot imply The “I am” saying of v. lla is explained
a sweeping rejection of OT figures, however, exclusively in metaphorical language in vv. 110-
because Jesus has earlier referred to both Moses 13. That is, after the initial use of a first-person
singular pronoun, Jesus never refers to himself
and Abraham as positive witnesses to him (5:45-
directly again. Instead, he draws on images de-
46; 8:56).2 Rather, it refers to those like the
rived from the OT to explain what he means by
Jewish leaders in John 5 (vv. 39-40, 47) and 9
“good shepherd.” The adjective “good” (kahds
(vv. 28-29) who discount these witnesses to Jesus
kalos) also has the meaning “model” or “true,”
and thus attempt another means of access to the
and the reference point for what constitutes a
sheepfold. The sheep do not listen to them, since
model shepherd is set by the image of God as the
they have not entered through the gate and thus
good shepherd in Ezekiel 34. According to Ezek
do not belong in the fold (v. 80). 34:11-16, God the good shepherd cares for the
That Jesus’ self-identification as the gate is primar- sheep, rescuing them from the places to which they
ily oriented to the life of the sheep is made even have been scattered, feeding them, and tending to
299. Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 376.
the weak, the injured, and the lost. By identifying
669
himself as the good shepherd of Ezekiel 34, Jesus figurative speech results in some ambiguity in
thus identifies himself as fulfilling God’s promises interpreting Jesus’ words. This ambiguity is imme-
and doing God’s work (cf. 4:34; 17:4). diately evidentin v. 140. When Jesus speaks of
Verse 116 pushes beyond the imagery of his relationship with his own, he may be speaking
Ezekiel 34 in its reference to the shepherd’s within the shepherding figure (cf. vv. 3-4), but
willingness to lay down his life for the sheep. A the expressions “my own” (ta €1d ta ema) and
possible OT antecedent may lie in the messianic “his own” (ot 1&0. hoi idioi) also describe Jesus’
oracle of Zech 13:7-9, in which the death of the relationship to his followers in John (e.g., 1:11;
shepherd is required so that the flock can be 13:1; 17:9-10). Verse 140 suggests that the line
purified. Verse 116 may also have points of between metaphorical and direct speech is very
contact with Palestinian shepherding practices; a thin in this section of the discourse.
good shepherd may indeed have to give up his This is especially evident in the use of the verb
life to prevent the decimation of his flock by wild for “know” (y.wuickw ginosko) in w. 146-152.
animals. Yet the reference to the shepherd’s laying Jesus’ words in v. 140 may be read as an elaboration
down his life is cast in a distinctive Johannine of the shepherd imagery of vv. 4-5, but v. 15a
idiom (10:15, 17-18; °13:37-38;,.15:13;,leJohn explicitly moves outside of the shepherd imagery by
3:16), so that the reader of the Gospel cannot pointing to Jesus’ relationship to the Father. Verse
help hearing in Jesus’ words an allusion to his 15a provides a working definition of knowledge in
own death. Verses 15 and 17-18 will make those John: Knowledge is not a cognitive category, but is
associations with the death of Jesus explicit, but a category of relationship. The true measure and
at this point Jesus stays within the metaphor of model of knowledge is God’s and Jesus’ mutual
shepherding. He works to build the interpretive knowledge. Jesus is thus the good shepherd not
frame of reference before he turns more directly simply because of his relationship to the sheep, but
to his own life and death. also because of his relationship to God.
The image of the hired hand in vv. 12-13 has Verse 150 makes the connection of Jesus’ death
many echoes of the image of the bad shepherd in and thé shepherd’s death (cf. v. 11) explicit. The
Ezek 34:5-6, 8-10. It also recalls descriptions of juxtaposition of vv. 15a and 150 suggests again
the bad shepherd in Jer 23:1-3 and Zech 11:15, that Jesus lays down his life not simply because of
17. The common denominator in these OT por- his relationship to the sheep (as in the image of
traits of the bad shepherd and the picture of the the shepherd in v. 11) but because of his relation-
hired hand is the shepherd’s primary concern for ship with God. The reference in v. 16 to other
his own well-being at the expense of the flock’s sheep has particular relevance in the setting of
well-being. In each of these portraits, the flock is Jesus’ conversation with the Pharisees. Jesus is
scattered and devoured by animals as a result of suggesting here that his flock is not limited to the
the shepherd’s neglect. This picture of the hired sheep of IsraelS*! and that the community created
shepherd’s lack of concern for the sheep (v. 13) by his death will include people from outside of
stands in marked contrast to the picture of the Israel (cf. 12:32). The mark of this expanded flock
good shepherd, who cares for the sheep to the will be that “they will listen to my voice,” a trait
point of laying down his life for them. that distinguishes the flock from the Jewish leaders
Jesus’ self-revelation in vv. 14-16 weaves back who neither listen to nor know Jesus’ voice (cf.
and forth seamlessly between figurative and non- 8:43; 10:6). To hear Jesus’ voice is the mark of
figurative speech. Jesus begins by once again iden- faithfulness to Jesus and his word (cf. 5:24; 10:27;
tifying himself with the image of the good Tari :
shepherd (v. 14), but explains that image primar- The final image of v. 16 returns fully to the
ily by making reference to his ministry and rela- sheep metaphor. The vison of a united flock
tionship to God, rather than by staying within the recalls the final promise of Ezek 34:31: “You are
images of sheep and shepherd as he did in wv. my sheep, the sheep of my pasture and I am your
11-13. This move between figurative and non- God” (NRSV). Jesus once again positions himself
300. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols. 301. See Beasley-Murray, ohn, 171; C.K. Barrett, The Gospel Accord-
(New York: Seabury, 1982) 2:295. ing to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 376.
670
as the fulfillment of promises traditionally associ- demonstrated this in the authorities’ inability to
ated with God. Jesus the good shepherd will bring arrest Jesus (7:30, 44) and his control of the hour
about unity in the flock through his relationship (2:48 h30318:20).204
with God and his death (v. 15). Third, vv. 17-18 point to the inseparability of
10:17-18. This unit forms the conclusion to Jesus’ death and resurrection in John. Jesus’ en-
the discourse. In these verses, the shepherd meta- actment of God’s work is incomplete until he
phor is abandoned completely and Jesus speaks returns to the Father through his resurrection and
directly about his death and relationship with ascension (13:1; 17:1, 4-5). Jesus reveals God’s
God. These verses focus on three theological will for the world not only in his death, but also
themes that are essential to understanding the in his victory over death through his return to
death of Jesus in John. First, vv. 17 and 18c place God. When Jesus lays down his life, therefore, it
Jesus’ death fully in the context of his relationship _ is to the end of taking it up again. In vv. 17-18,
with God. Verse 17 contains the first linkage of Jesus speaks of himself as the agent of both his
“love” (ayattdw agapao) with Jesus’ death in the death and his resurrection (cf. 2:19-21). That is,
Fourth Gospel. God’s love for the world (3:16) whereas elsewhere in the NT God raises Jesus
and for Jesus (3:35; see also 17:24) are already (6:0. mACSH2: 24: LOO ieCor toxto7Gal 1:1),
known to the reader, and v. 17 adds a new here Jesus speaks of taking up his own life again.
dimension to that love. God loves Jesus because The “power” (€Eovota exousia) that Jesus has to
Jesus lives out God’s commandment fully (v. 18). lay down his life and to take it up again is given
In the Fourth Gospel, the core commandment that to him by God (see 17:2 and Jesus’ statement
Jesus gives his disciples is that they love one about Pilate’s “power” at 19:11). These verses
another just as he has loved them (13:34). The point to the complete union of God and Jesus in
sign of Jesus’ love for them is that he is willing their work (cf. 4:34), a union that receives explicit
to lay down his life for them (cf. 13:1; 15:13). expression at 10:30.
Jesus thus obeys the same commandment from 10:19-21. The schism among the “Jews” in
God that he passes on to his disciples, to live fully
response to Jesus’ words (v. 19) recalls the schism
in love. It is wrong to read the phrase “for this
among them in response to his healing of the blind
reason” (Sta tovTo dia touto, v. 17) as saying that
man (9:16). In 9:16a, some attempted to discredit
Jesus wins the Father’s love through his death;
Jesus by calling him a sinner; here the charge is
rather, his death is the ultimate expression of the
demon possession (v. 20; cf. 7:20; 8:48). Others
love relationship that already exists and defines
are willing to trust the evidence of the miracle
who he is and how he enacts God’s will for the
itself (9:16; v. 21). Verses 19-21 make clear that
world.
the Fourth Evangelist intends the healing and the
Second, vv. 17-18 make clear that Jesus’ laying
discourse to be assessed in the light of each other.
down his life is an act he freely chooses as an
A decision about Jesus’ identity must hold to-
expression of his obedience to God (vv. 178, 184).
gether both his words and his works.
Jesus is not a victim in death nor a martyr against
his will, but is in control of his own death (v. 302. See Jerome H. Neyrey, An /deology of Revolt: John’s Christology
180; see 19:11, 17). The Gospel story has already in Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 71.
REFLECTIONS
The image of Jesus as the good shepherd has a perennial hold on Christian imagination and
piety. Some of the most popular pictures of Jesus are those that depict him as a shepherd,
leading a flock of sheep.”* This picture of Jesus has influenced the church’s images of its
leaders, so that in many traditions the ordained minister is referred to as the “pastor,” and
ministerial care of the congregation is referred to as “pastoral care.” Behind both of these
understandings of ministerial vocation is the sense that the minister is called to lead in the image
303. See James P. Martin, “John 10:1-10,” /nt. 32 (1978) 171.
of Jesus’ leadership, to be the shepherd as Jesus is shepherd. Because these images play such an
important role in the life of the church, it is critical for the interpreter of John 10 to distinguish
among the various uses of shepherd imagery in the NT. The move to pastoral images of ministry,
for example, belongs more to other NT texts (e.g., John 21:15-19; Acts 20:28-29; 1 Pet 5:2-3)
than to the interpretation of John 10. The pastoral images of John 10 are primarily christological
and ecclesiological, focusing on Jesus’ identity and his relationship to the sheep.
Because the picture of Jesus as good shepherd has such a rich tradition in the life of the church
(for other NT examples of this image, see Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25; 3:4), there is a tendency to
read John 10 as if Jesus’ self-revelation as the good shepherd is the only christological image in
the discourse. As a result, the christological imagery of the gate (vv. 7-10) is subsumed into the
imagery of the good shepherd (vv. 11-16). This move runs contrary to the text itself, however.
The two “I am” statements of John 10 present the reader with two christological images whose
theological integrity must be preserved. When the shepherd image is emphasized in isolation from
the gate image, the picture of Jesus in John 10 becomes too easy to appropriate and loses its
christological edge. When the gate imagery is dropped, the christological focus of the shepherd
imagery can become anthropocentric. That is, Jesus as the good shepherd becomes a model for
other shepherds who would lead the “sheep.” The text becomes as much about “us” as leaders
as it is about Jesus as the shepherd. When the. gate imagery is retained, however, this slide from
the christological to the anthropocentric is more difficult.
The heavy concentration of OT pastoral images in this discourse, particularly images
associated with God in the OT texts, points the reader to the discourse’s christological heart:
Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promises to God’s people. Yet Jesus is more than the good
shepherd for whom Israel waits (Ezekiel 34), because he is also the gate for the sheep. Jesus
is the way to life (the gate), and he leads the way to life (the good shepherd). While these
are closely related, they are not the same thing. Jesus is the way to life because he is himself
life (v. 10; cf. 14:6). Jesus leads the way to the life because he lays down his own life (vv.
11, 14-15). These are non-transferable attributes; they derive from the heart of Jesus’ identity
as the one sent by God.
The “I am” statements of John 10, then, deepen the array of images of Jesus available to
the church. The images of Jesus as the gate and the good shepherd are intensely relational;
they have no meaning without the presence of the sheep. These “I am” statements do not
simply reveal who Jesus is, but more specifically reveal who Jesus is in relationship to those
who follow him. The identity of Jesus and the identity of the community that gathers around
him are inextricably linked.
The relational dimension of the christological images provides the bridge to the ecclesiological
dimension of this imagery. The identity of the community is determined by the shepherd’s
(Jesus’) relationship to it and its relationship to the shepherd (Jesus). There is, then, an
anthropological dimension to the shepherd discourse, but it is an anthropology completely
dependent on the discourse’s christology and expressed exclusively in communal terms. For
the community of faith, human identity is determined by Jesus’ identity. Who Jesus is with
and for the community determines who the community is.
What image of community life does this discourse present? Nowhere in this discourse are
any who follow Jesus depicted as shepherds or even assistant shepherds. Rather, al! who gather
around Jesus receive their identity as members of the flock. The community that gathers around
Jesus are the ones who share in the mutual knowledge of God and Jesus, whose relationship
to Jesus is modeled on Jesus’ relationship to God (v. 15). Listening to Jesus’ voice is the source
of its unity (v. 16). By taking Jesus as its point of access to God, the community receives
abundant life (v. 10).
Most important, however, the community that gathers around Jesus receives its identity
through Jesus’ gift of his life for them. In the end, to be a member of Jesus’ flock is to know
672
oneself as being among those for whom Jesus is willing to die. The christological and
ecclesiological images of the shepherd discourse become one around the death of Jesus. The
death of Jesus also holds together the metaphors of gate and shepherd and shows how Jesus
can be both things. In the freely chosen act of his death, Jesus shows the way to life (gate)
and offers abundant life by the example of his love (shepherd). It is important that Jesus says
he lays down his life for the sheep, not for his sheep (v. 15), just as in 6:51 he speaks of
giving his flesh for the life of the world. It is an inclusive, rather than an exclusive, gift, just
like God’s love for the world (3:16). Jesus makes the love of God fully available by expressing
that love in his death (vv. 17-18).
The shepherd discourse thus provides the contemporary church with the occasion to reflect
on several critical theological themes. First, it asks the church to attend to the christological
heart of its identity. Who the church is cannot be separated from who Jesus is. Reflection on
church identity, then, always needs to be part of a serious christological conversation, a
conversation that takes Jesus’ gift of his life as its starting point. Second, this discourse provides
an occasion to reassess the assumptions that accompany the use of shepherd and pastoral
imagery within the church, particularly about the church’s leaders. When that imagery sets
the church’s “shepherds” apart from the rest of the sheep, the power of the pastoral imagery
of community in John 10 is diminished, if not lost. Jesus uses pastoral imagery in this discourse
to depict the lives of all believers, not just some, in relationship to him.
Finally, the discourse provides the church with a fresh vantage point from which to reflect
on community practices. What does it mean for the church to live as Jesus’ sheep? What does
a church that understands itself as Jesus’ sheep look like? How will its identity be manifested
in the world? Jesus the good shepherd chose to make his identity manifest to the world through
his death. The shepherd discourse calls the church to live out its life according to the model
of community envisioned here by Jesus, a model grounded in the mutuality of love embodied
in the relationship of Jesus and God. This model of community will be developed further in
the Farewell Discourse, but the first glimpse of the community for which Jesus gave his life
is available in this text.
JOHN 10:22-42, JESUS AT THE

FEAST OF DEDICATION
NIV NRSV
22Then came the Feast of Dedication? at Jeru- 22At that time the festival of the Dedication
salem. It was winter, *2and Jesus was in the took place in Jerusalem. It was winter, *°and Jesus
temple area walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. was walking in the temple, in the portico of
The Jews gathered around him, saying, “How Solomon. *4So the Jews gathered around him and
long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the said to him, “How long will you keep us in
Christ,’ tell us plainly.” suspense? If you are the Messiah,’ tell us plainly.”
25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do 25Jesus answered, “I have told you, and you do
not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s
name speak for me, **but you do not believe name testify to me; **but you do not believe,
because you are not my sheep. ?”7My sheep listen because you do not belong to my sheep. *”7My
to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. sheep hear my voice. | know them, and they
28] give them eternal life, and they shall never follow me. 2°] give them eternal life, and they will
624 Or Messiah aOr the Christ
a2? That is, Hanukkah
673
JOHN 10:22-42
NIV NRSV
perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. never perish. No one will snatch them out of my
2°My Father, who has given them to me, is greater hand. 2°What my Father has given me is greater
than all* no one can snatch them out of my than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the
Father’s hand. *°I and the Father are one.” Father’s hand.? *°The Father and I are one.”
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 31The Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many 32Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good
great miracles from the Father. For which of these works from the Father. For which of these are
do you stone me?” you going to stone me?” *°The Jews answered,
3“We are not stoning you for any of these,” “Tt is not for a good work that we are going to
replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, stone you, but for blasphemy, because you,
a mere man, claim to be God.” though only a human being, are making yourself
34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in God.” *Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your
your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’’? *If he law,° ‘I said, you are gods’? *If those to whom
called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and
came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— the scripture cannot be annulled— °°can you say
3what about the one whom the Father set apart that the one whom the Father has sanctified and
as his very own and sent into the world? Why sent into the world is blaspheming because I said,
then do you accuse me of blasphemy because | ‘T am God’s Son’? °’If I am not doing the works
said, ‘I am God’s Son’? °’Do not believe me unless of my Father, then do not believe me. **But if I
I do what my Father does. **But if I do it, even do them, even though you do not believe me,
though you do not believe me, believe the mir- believe the works, so that you may know and
acles, that you may know and understand that understand* that the Father is in me and I am in
the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” °°Again the Father.” *°Then they tried to arrest him again,
they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. but he‘escaped from their hands.
“Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to 40He went away again across the Jordan to the
the place where John had been baptizing in the place where John had been baptizing earlier, and
early days. Here he stayed “'and many people he remained there. *!Many came to him, and they
came to him. They said, “Though John never were saying, “John performed no sign, but every-
performed a miraculous sign, all that John said thing that John said about this man was true.”
about this man was true.” “And in that place “2And many believed in him there.
many believed in Jesus. 2 Other ancient authorities read My Father who has given them to
me is greater than all, and no one can snatch them out of the Fa-
229 Many early manuscripts What my Father has given me is greater ther’s hand © Other ancient authorities read in the law
than all 6 34 Psalm 82:6 ¢ Other ancient authorities lack and understand, others tead and be-
lieve
(COMMENTARY
John 10:22-42 brings the second cycle of Jesus’ assume that his listeners will recognize its mean-
public ministry (6:1-10:42) to a close. John 7:1— ing. How is the chronological gap between the
10:21 is located at or around the Feast of Taber- two halves of John 10 to be understood?
nacles (7:2, 14, 37). Verse 22 indicates that Jesus It is important to remember that the Fourth
is still in Jerusalem, but the time of year has Evangelist has located 10:22-39 in the narrative
changed. Tabernacles was celebrated in late Sep- with an eye primarily to the Gospel reader’s sense
tember/early October, the Feast of Dedication in of theological coherence, not the demands of
December (see Commentary on 10:22-23; see Fig. chronology. First, from a narrative perspective, the
9, “Jewish Religious Festivals in John,” 542). Yet audiences of vv. 1-18 and vv. 22-39 are linked
10:26-28 uses language and images drawn from despite the time difference. In both instances,
the discourse of 10:1-18, and Jesus seems to Jesus is speaking to members of the Jewish reli-
674
gious establishment in Jerusalem, called the Johannine material has points of similarity with
“Jews” in both texts (10:19, 24, 31, 33). The both Markan and distinctly Lukan traditions sug-
issue of Jesus’ identity vis-a-vis the Jewish religious
gests that the Fourth Evangelist had access to
establishment has been a constant theme since traditional Jesus material similar to that used by
7:1, and the similarities between vv. 1-18 and wv. the other evangelists, and not that he depends
22-39 underscore that theme here for the reader directly on one or the other or even both.%0”
(cf. the relationship between 5:1-18 and 7:19-24). Moreover, it is consistent with the treatment of
Second, in addition to the thematic overlap with passion traditions in other Johannine texts to find
10:1-18, Jesus’ words in 10:22-39 also revisit this interrogation material outside of the passion
themes from the discourses of John 5 and 6 (cf., narrative proper. The location of the narrative of
e.g., 10:28 and 6:37, 39; 10:30 and 5:17). Each of the cleansing of the Temple in John 2 and the
the four witnesses to which Jesus appealed in 5:31- . eucharistic traditions in John 6, both outside of
49 is appealed to again in this section: his works their synoptic location within the passion narra-
(10:25, 32, 37-38; cf. 5:36), God (10:29, 30, 36; tive, suggests that the Fourth Evangelist was quite
cf. 5:37), Scripture (10:34-36; cf. 5:37), John the intentional about crossing the strict division that
Baptist (10:40-42; cf. 5:35). It is not necessary, the synoptic Gospels maintain between Jesus’ pas-
therefore, to explain the similarities between 10:22- sion and the rest of his ministry (see Commentar-
42 and the preceding unit by theories of text ies onfi:53: and: 1.2:27)3°°
displacement?“ or by locating all of John 10 at the 10:22-23. The scene is set for the conversa-
Feast of Dedication.*° Rather, 10:22-42 serves as a tions that follow. The Feast of Dedication (v. 22)
climax of many earlier themes,*°° and indeed is the is the Jewish festival of Hanukkah. It celebrates
theological conclusion to Jesus’ public ministry. the liberation of Jerusalem from the reign of the
10:22-39. These verses have the cast of a Syrian (Seleucid) king Antiochus Epiphanes. Anti-
formal interrogation of Jesus by the “Jews.” Verses ochus had defiled the Jerusalem Temple in 167
24-31 focus on the identity of Jesus as the Messiah BCE by building an altar to his own gods within
and vv. 32-39 on Jesus as the Son of God. These the Temple sanctuary (1 Macc 1:54-61), and in
two parts follow the same narrative pattern: The 165 sce Judas Maccabeus and his brothers re-
“Jews” confront Jesus about his identity (vv. 24, gained control of the Temple and rededicated it
to the God of Israel (1 Macc 4:36-58). The
33); Jesus answers (vv. 25-30, 34-38), each time
eight-day feast takes place in the month of Chislev
speaking about his relationship with God; and in
(December), as did the original rededication (1
response to Jesus’ words, the “Jews” react vio-
Macc 4:56; 2 Macc 10:1-8) and is marked by the
lently (vv. 31, 39). (The paragraph break at v. 30
lighting of lamps and rejoicing (1 Macc 4:59; 2
in both the NIV and the NRSV undercuts the
Macc 1:8-9, 18).
structure of these units.)
The Feast of Dedication could be celebrated
Much of the text in these verses recalls material
away from Jerusalem because it was not one of
found in the narratives of the trial before the
the pilgrimage feasts. Its mention in v. 22, then,
Sanhedrin in the synoptic Gospels. For example,
does not give a reason for Jesus’ presence in
the demand that Jesus clarify whether he is the
Jerusalem (cf. 7:1-10). Instead, its mention here,
Messiah in v. 24 is similar to Luke 22:67, and along with the realistic notation about winter,
the charge of blasphemy in v. 33 is similar to draws attention to the passing of time since the
charges of blasphemy in Mark 14:64 (cf. Matt Feast of Tabernacles and Jesus’ continuing pres-
26:65). In Mark 14:61, the high priest inquires ence in Jerusalem. The reference to Solomon’s
whether Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of the portico (v. 23) adds a realistic detail to the picture,
Blessed One” (NRSV; cf. 10:24, 36). That the
304, Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G. bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 92; The Interpretation of the
R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: Fourth Gospel, 361-62.
Westminster, 1971) 312-13. 308. David Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community
305. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According'to St. John, 2:275-76. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988) 75-77; Wilhelm Wilckens, Die Entste-
306. C.H.Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: hungsgeschichte des vierten Evangeliums (Zollikon: Evangelisher Verlag,
1958). See also A. E. Harvey, Jesus on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel
Cambridge University Press, 1953) 362; Barrett, The Gospel According
(Atlanta: John Knox, 1977).
to St. John, 387.
675
because the area of the Temple so known was those instances does Jesus endorse their identi-
located on the eastern side of the Temple and so fication of him. Instead, he claims more for
would have been the most protected area of the himself than the title “Messiah” (4:26; 11:25-
Temple precincts in winter.” 26, 40). That is also the case in Jesus’ response
10:24. A literal translation of the “Jews’ ” to the “Jews” here.
question in v. 24a would be, “How long are you 10:25-30. Jesus’ response in vv. 25-29 dem-
taking away our life?” Even though both the NIV onstrates the truth of his opening words (“I have
and the NRSV translate the phrase as “keep us in told you”) because in these verses he repeats
suspense,” there is little evidence of the idiom’s claims he has already made in other speeches to
use with that meaning in other literature. In the “Jews” (e.g., 5:31-47; 8:28-29, 38). In v. 25,
modern Greek, the idiom means, “How long will he returns to the theme of his works as witness
you continue to annoy us?” and there are ancient (5:36). It is unfortunate that the NIV has chosen
examples of that meaning of the idiom as well.?!° to translate Epya (erga) as “miracles” instead of
Because the idiom is difficult to translate precisely, “works” because that translation limits what Jesus
scholars are divided on whether the question means when he speaks of his works in the Gospel
expresses suspense and a genuine desire to have of John. While “works” certainly includes Jesus’
the issue resolved?!! or irritation and hostility.?!? miracles (cf. 7:21), it is not limited to them. The
Since the idiom follows on the heels of John 8-9, purpose of Jesus’ ministry is to do the works God
irritation seems more likely. has given him to do (4:34; 5:20; 9:3; 17:4). John
The similarities between v. 24b and Luke 22:67 14:10 makes clear that Jesus does not draw a
have already been noted (see Commentary above). strict line between words and works, and Bult-
The request that Jesus speak “plainly” (Tappnota mann has rightly seen that “works” refers to
parresia; cf. 7:4) about his Messiahship has a “Jesus’ revealing activity as a whole.”?!%
particular relevance in this context, because his Jesus’ words in vv. 26-29 confront the “Jews”
last public discourse was a “figure of speech” with the Johannine paradox of faith and election,
(Tapotta paroimia, 10:6; see also 16:25-33). As expressed here in the metaphors of the shepherd
noted in the Commentary on 10:1-18, the shep- discourse (cf. 10:3-4, 10, 12, 14, 16). To believe
herd figure, which dominates that discourse, is a - is to belong to those who hear Jesus’ voice and
metaphor for the restored rule of God in the OT, receive eternal life (cf. 5:24), but one cannot hear
and so it has messianic implications. Jesus’ voice unless one is given to him by God
John 10:24 is the only place in the Gospel (cf. 6:37, 39). The Greek text of v. 29a is con-
where Jesus is asked directly whether he is the fused and impossible to reconstruct with certainty;
Messiah. This inquiry into Jesus’ messianic iden- the NIV and the NRSV present the two main
tity at the close of his public ministry provides an alternatives. The basic difference in the syntax of
intriguing balance to the “Jews’” interrogation the variants is whether the subject of v. 29a is
of John the Baptist (1:19-28), which serves as taken to be God (NIV; NRSV footnote) or what
the prelude to Jesus’ ministry. In both the God has given Jesus (NRSV; NIV footnote).3!4
opening and closing moments of Jesus’ public Both meanings are possible in the context, al-
ministry, the “Jews” are concerned with though an affirmation about the greatness of God
whether the Messiah is among them (see also (NIV), rather than the community, seems more
7:260-27, 31, 41-42; 12:34). The significant dif- appropriate in the light of vv. 296 and 30.
ference between 1:19-28 and 10:24 is that now The parallelism between what Jesus says of
Jesus is being interrogated directly. The Samari- himself in v. 286 and of God in v. 296 (the sheep
tan woman recognizes that Jesus may be the ate secure in the hands of each) underscores the
Messiah (4:25, 29), and Martha confesses that fact that Jesus and God do the same work; what
he is the Messiah (11:27); but in neither of is true of the work of one is true of the work of
309. Josephus Antiquities 15.398-402; cf. Acts 3:11; 5:12. 313. Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 390.
310. Barrett, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 380. 314. For a full discussion of all the manuscript options, see C. K.
311. E.g., Kysar, John, 166. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: West-
312. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 2:305. minster, 1978) 381-82.
676
the other. Jesus gives explicit expression to this John 10 (vv. 11, 14, 32-33),3!” so that it seems
inseparable unity of work in 10:30: “The Father likely that the description of Jesus’ works as
and I are one.” It is critical that the contemporary “good” is intended to recall his earlier description
interpreter read v. 30 in the context of Johannine of himself as the good shepherd.
theology and not through the lens of the chris- 10:33. The only occurrence of the formal
tological controversies of the second through charge of blasphemy in the Fourth Gospel is this
fourth centuries or of the trinitarian doctrine that verse (cf. Matt 26:65; Mark 14:64). The defini-
developed out of those controversies (see Reflec- tion of blasphemy does not fit the description
tions). The Greek word “one” (ev hen) is neuter, of blasphemy in either Leviticus or the Mishnah,
not masculine, so that Jesus is not saying that he but focuses instead on the same issue that
and God are one person, nor even of one nature provoked the “Jews” at 5:18, that Jesus is mak-
or essence. Rather, he is saying that he and God ing himself God. As at 5:18, the “Jews” are
are united in the work that they do. It is impos- - both right and wrong in what they hear Jesus
sible to distinguish Jesus’ work from God’s work, saying. They correctly hear his claims to equal-
because Jesus shares fully in God’s work. John ity of relationship with God, but they wrongly
10:30 presents in summary form what Jesus said hear it as an equality of his own making (cf.
at length about his relationship with God in 5:17, Phil 2:6-11):
19-30. God gives life; Jesus gives life (5:21; 10:34-36. Jesus employs an intricate argu-
10:28). God judges; Jesus judges (5:22; 9:39). ment from Scripture to show that his equality
Jesus’ words in v. 30 do not add anything to that with God is of God’s making, not Jesus’. He
earlier discourse, but respond to the “Jews’” introduces his argument in v. 34a with the phrase
request that he speak “plainly.” “your law” for rhetorical effect. Jesus wants his
John 10:30 affirms what Jesus’ “works” have adversaries to recognize that their charge of blas-
already shown: that Jesus shares in God’s work phemy will be undone by their own Scripture.
and power. His unity with God thus provides the Jesus’ parenthetical reminder of the immutability
answer to the Messiah question (v. 24); Jesus is of Scripture in v. 350 serves the same purpose.
both more than and other than traditional expec- His appeal to Scripture here exemplifies his claim
tations for the Messiah. His power is not that of of 5:39 that Scripture bears witness to him. “Law”
a political liberator who will restore Israel; it is (vos nomos) is used to refer to Scripture in
the very power of God. God shares with Jesus general, not simply to the books of the law (cf.
God’s eschatological power over life, death, and 15:25; 1 Cor 14:21).
judgment.?° Jesus’ argument in vv. 34-36 employs several
exegetical techniques common to first- and second-
10:31. The “Jews” respond to Jesus’ words in
the same way they did to his comparable words
century Jewish exegesis.°!® Jesus’ exegesis may
seem strained to contemporary exegetes, but it
at 5:17, with the intent to kill him (cf. 5:18).
falls solidly within the range of exegetical ap-
They recognize, as they did at 5:18 and 8:58-59,
proaches of first-century Judaism. Therefore, it is
that Jesus is claiming equality with God. Stoning
wrong to read Jesus’ exegesis in vv. 34-36 as a
was a more appropriate response at 8:59, how-
parody of Jewish exegesis.3!”
ever, because there Jesus did pronounce the name
First, Jesus cites only the first half of Ps 82:6,
of God (8:58), the only explicit grounds for blas-
even though he clearly presupposes the rest of the
phemy as a capital offense stated in the Mish-
verse (“children of the Most High, all of you”) in
nah.2!° He does not do that here.
his argument (see v. 36). Second, in rabbinic
10:32. Jesus’ question to the “Jews” in v. 32
argumentation, a comparison could be made be-
moves immediately to the grounds for their at- tween two biblical texts simply on the presence
tempted stoning. He once again presents them of the same word in both texts, even if the words
with the witness of his works (cf. v. 25). The
adjective “good” (kadds kalos) is concentrated in 317. The only occurrence of kalos outside of John 10 is in the descrip-
tion of the wine at 2:10.
gy in 318. See Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-X1),
315. Jerome H. Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt: John’s Christolo
AB 29 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 409-10.
Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 69-71. 319. Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 389.
316. See m. Sanh. 7:5; cf. Lev 24:11, 15-16.
677
occur in distinct contexts and with quite different opening words to the “Jews” in v. 26. In that
meanings. Jesus employs this technique when he verse, the “Jews’ ” belief was precluded because
compares “gods” to God (vv. 35-36). Third, his they did not belong to his sheep, but in v. 38,
main line of argumentation follows the common they are presented with faith as a decision they
rabbinic pattern of arguing from the lesser to the can make. The juxtaposition of these verses
greater. That is, if Scripture speaks of human returns to the theme that received its fullest
beings who receive the Word of God as gods, expression in 6:36-40, the delicate balance of
how can it be blasphemy for Jesus to speak of human decision and divine initiative in one’s
himself as God’s Son? For the Gospel reader, there response to Jesus. The pivot, as in 6:36-40, is
may be an additional level of meaning in this God’s relationship with Jesus. Faith in Jesus is
argument from the lesser to the greater, because impossible without God’s initiating act in send-
Jesus not only receives the Word of God like those ing his sanctified Son into the world (10:36; cf.
of whom Ps 82:6 speaks, but he is the Word of 1:32-34), but humans are responsible for recog-
Godet {eb 14.320 nizing the work and presence of God in Jesus
Jesus’ self-description in v. 36 answers the (10:38).
Jews’ blasphemy charge, because it points to God John 10:386 expresses the unity of Father and
as the author of Jesus’ identity and vocation, not Son in the language of intimacy and indwelling
Jesus himself. By speaking of himself as the one bef d ls L4rPOrs 17215 23). GAS ain 21SO aie
whom God “has sanctified” (ayvdCw hagiazo), emphasis is on the indissoluble union of the two.
Jesus identifies himself as the Holy One of God, As before, this claim to oneness with the Father
the one set apart by God (cf. 6:69; 17:19). His provokes Jesus’ antagonists to action (v. 39). The
identity as the one whom God “has sent” notation that he “escaped from their hands” re-
(atooTé\Aw apostelio) into the “world” (kdopos calls 7:20 and 8:20; even though Jesus’ control
kosmos) is well documented throughout the Gos- of “the hour” is not mentioned, it is clearly
pel (6:8:.3:17717:18, 21,23). As in 10:30; Jesus’
implied. The expression also echoes Jesus’ claim
use of the title “Son of God” here is a distillation
for the security of the sheep in 10:28-29. Jesus,
of his description of his relationship with God in
like the sheep, will not be snatched from the
5:19-30. As God’s Son, Jesus does what the Father
Father’s hand.
gives him to do.
10:40-42. These verses return Jesus to the
10:37-38. Jesus once again appeals to the
place where John the Baptist first bore witness to
witness of his works (cf. 5:36; 10:25, 32). Barrett
him (1:28). His retreat serves two purposes. First,
has pointed out an interesting similarity between
Jesus removes himself from Jerusalem and Judea
Jesus’ line of argumentation in v. 37 and 8:39-41.
in order to return there to meet his death at a
In 8:39-41, the “Jews’” claim to descent from
Abraham was disproved by their works; in 10:37, time of his own choosing (11:7-9),322 thus under-
Jesus applies the same standards to himself. His scoring his words about his death in 10:17-18.
“sonship and apostleship could be disproved by Second, it moves the witness of John the Baptist
deeds not congruent with them.”°?! On the sur- into view for the last time. John is depicted as
face, Jesus’ appeal in vv. 37-38 contradicts his the model witness to Jesus, whose testimony is
true (cf. 5:33) and leads people to Jesus (vv.
320. For more detailed discussions of John 10:34-36 as midrash on Ps 41-42; cf. 1:37). The public ministry of Jesus ends
82:6, see Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt, Appendix 2, 221-24; Richard
Jungkuntz, “An Approach to the Exegesis of John 10:34-36,” C7ZM 35 where it began: with the testimony of John.
(1964) 556-65.
321. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 386. 322. Ibid., 379.
REFLECTIONS
John 10:22-42 brings the interpreter face to face with the decisive theological issue. of this
Gospel: the relationship of God and Jesus. As the commentary has shown, this passage says
nothing about this relationship that has not been said before, but it says it in direct and concise
formulations: “The Father and I are one”; “the Father is in me and I in the Father.”
There is a temptation to interpret these words according to the norms of later trinitarian doctrine,
to read them according to what they became in the life of the church, rather than what they say
in their own context. To do so, however, is to distort and diminish the theological and christological
witness of this important text. The Gospel of John was an important resource for the theologians
of the second and third centuries as they struggled to think through the interrelationship of the
three persons of God, but their questions were not the Fourth Evangelist’s questions, nor were
their intrachurch controversies his.” As the Commentary on 10:30 shows, John was talking about
the functional unity of God and Jesus in their work and power, not a metaphysical unity of nature
and person. Later christology expressed this unity metaphysically by speaking of the one nature or
substance, categories absent from John. The Fourth Evangelist’s primary concern was to articulate
the relationship of God and Jesus in the context of Jewish-Christian relations, not Christian-Christian
relations in the debates over christology.
The most important difference between the discussions of the early church fathers and
the Fourth Evangelist about the relationship of God and Jesus is that the church fathers
were developing doctrine and the Fourth Evangelist was telling a story.” This does not
mean that the Fourth Evangelist’s reflections are inherently any less theological, but because
they are cast in a story, they have a very different theological intent. John 10:30 and 38
thus belong to John’s story of Jesus and cannot be abstracted from that context without
altering their meaning. When Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” it does not come as
any surprise to the Gospel reader, because that reality has been acted out throughout the
Gospel narrative. Jesus has done the works of God, spoken the words of God, identified
himself with the I AM of God. The relationship of God and Jesus is not a metaphysical
puzzle for the Fourth Evangelist, but evidence of God’s love for the world (3:16-17). The
wonder of the incarnation is that God is palpably available to the world in the person of
Jesus, that those who believe in Jesus, who see the works of God in Jesus, have access
to God in ways never before possible (14:7-11).
The question of the identity of the persons of God and Jesus would make no sense to the
Fourth Evangelist, because he is clear throughout that Jesus’ incarnation and presence in the
world are wholly the result of God’s initiative: God gave; God sent. The two distinct characters,
God and Jesus, are essential to John’s proclamation of the gospel. In fact, much of the trinitarian
conversation about natures and persons would probably sound to the Fourth Evangelist like
the “Jews’” erroneous charge of blasphemy in 10:33, a conversation that misses the point
about the unity of God and Jesus.
One non-negotiable point that John and the early framers of doctrine have in common,
however, is that Jesus’ relationship to God is the crux and stumbling block of Christian faith.
For the Fourth Evangelist, that relationship is the dividing line between Jews and Christians,
and hence is the focal point of most of the controversy between Jesus and the religious
line
authorities. For the second-, third-, and fourth-century theologians, it was the dividing
it is the source of Christians’
between orthodoxy and heresy. For contemporary Christians,
of different
distinctive religious identity in their conversations with one another and with people
religious faiths.
to replace God
In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus does not claim to be a second God or somehow
human has ever known
or to “make himself” God. Rather, Jesus claims to know God as no
This truth, and the
God, to be one with God in will and work for the salvation of the world.
Gospel narrative .
believer’s experience of it, is the ultimate shaping factor in the Fourth
Controversies,” N7S 3 (1956-57) 334-49,
323. See T. E. Pollard, “The Exegesis of John x.30 in the Early Trinitarian
and secondary languages of faith in George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology
324. See the discussion of primary
in a Post-Liberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminste r, 1984).
679
Everything, from the hymnic beginning (1:1-18) to Thomas’s confession at 20:28, works to
show forth the incarnate presence of God in Jesus.
It thus requires a significant amount of interpretive imagination and effort to allow John
10:22-42 to speak to the church about the relationship of God and Jesus in its own voice,
and not in the voice of church doctrine. In order to understand Jesus’ claims in 10:30 and
38 about his relationship with God, it is critical that the interpreter keep them grounded in
the whole story of the Fourth Gospel. Jesus’ acts of healing and giving life, his words of
teaching all demonstrate and embody the presence of God in the world. Taken out of that
larger context, the theological and christological claims of John 10:30 and 38 become doctrinal
propositions. Within that narrative context, however, they have a life and vitality that they
cannot have as doctrinal propositions. They serve to guide the reader back into the story of
Jesus, to remind the reader of the shape and character of the “grace upon grace” (1:16) that
is available when Jesus makes God known.
680
JOHN 11:1-12:50
‘THE PRELUDE TO JESUS’ HOUR
OVERVIEW
t is conventional to locate the major divi- John 11-12, therefore, stand as a bridge between
sion in the structure of the Gospel of John Jesus’ ministry and his hour.%2¢ They belong nei-
at 13:1. That verse is correctly seen as signaling ther to the public ministry nor to the story of
the beginning of the narrative of Jesus’ “hour’— _ Jesus’ hour, but constitute their own section
his death, resurrection, and ascension. According within the Gospel narrative. John 11-12 move
to this division, John 11 narrates the concluding the public ministry into the context of Jesus’
“sign” of Jesus’ public ministry, John 12 the death.
concluding words of the public ministry. This John 11-12 have an analogous function to that
commentary proposes, however, that the signifi- of John 1:1-51. Just as 1:1-51 stands as the prelude
cance of chaps. 11-12 in the Fourth Gospel to Jesus’ ministry, chaps. 11-12 stand as the prelude
narrative is lost when it is taken as the conclusion to Jesus’ hour. As has been seen, many of the
to the public ministry. As the Commentary on John themes that are enacted in chaps. 2-10 were an-
10:22-42 discussed, those verses represent the ticipated and telegraphed first in 1:1-51. It is the
theological conclusion to Jesus’ public ministry.** same with John 11-12. Just as 1:1-51 prepared the
reader to enter the story of Jesus’ ministry, so also
325. In the Commentary above, Jesus’ retreat beyond the Jordan and
the appeal to the witness of John the Baptist in 10:40-42 were seen as chaps. 11-12 prepare the reader to enter the story
establishing a symmetry between the beginning and end of Jesus’ public of his death and resurrection.
ministry. It is not necessary to claim, as Brown does (Raymond E. Brown,
The Gospel According to John /I-XII], AB 29 [Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1966] 414), however, that these verses were the end of the
326. Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans.
public ministry in the original Gospel outline and that John 11-12 are an
G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia:
addition at a later stage of composition. This view misconstrues the role
of John 11-12 in the Gospel narrative. Westminster, 1971) 392.
JOHN 11:1-12:11, JESUS’ HOUR PREFIGURED
OVERVIEW
John 11:1-12:11 consists of three interrelated anointing at Bethany occurs in the shadow of that
sections: (1) 11:1-44, the raising of Lazarus; (2) decision (12:7-11). It is important that John 11:1-
11:45-54, the decision to kill Jesus; (3) 11:55— AA be read in this broader context, and not as an
12:11, Jesus’ anointing at Bethany. The decision isolated text, because the story of the raising of
to kill Jesus is made in direct response to the Lazarus is incomplete without its aftermath.
raising of Lazarus (11:46-48, 53), and Jesus’
681
JOHN 11:1-44
- John 11 1-44, The Raising of Lazarus
NIV NRSV
] Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He ] Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of
was from Bethany, the village of Mary and Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister
her sister Martha. This Mary, whose brother Martha. Mary was the one who anointed the
Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her
poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet hair; her brother Lazarus was ill. *So the sisters
with her hair. *So the sisters sent word to Jesus, sent a message to Jesus,? “Lord, he whom you
“Lord, the one you love is sick.” love is ill.” “But when Jesus heard it, he said,
“When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness “This illness does not lead to death; rather it is
will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so for God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be
that God’s Son may be glorified through it.” -Jesus glorified through it.” °Accordingly, though Jesus
loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. °Yet loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, °after
when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed having heard that Lazarus? was ill, he stayed two
where he was two more days. days longer in the place where he was.
7Then he said to his disciples, “Let us go back 7Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let
to Judea.” us go to Judea again.” ®The disciples said to him,
8“But Rabbi,” they said, “a short while ago the “Rabbi, the Jews were just now trying to stone
Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going you, and are you going there again?” %Jesus an-
back there?” swered, “Are there not twelve hours of daylight?
‘Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours Those who walk during the day do not stumble,
of daylight? A man who walks by day will not because they see the light of this world. !°But
stumble, for he sees by this world’s light. 'It is those who walk at night stumble, because the
when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he light is not in them.” ''After saying this, he told
has no light.” them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but
"After he had said this, he went on to tell I am going there to awaken him.” !*The disciples
them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will
I am going there to wake him up.” be all right.” '’Jesus, however, had been speaking
'2His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he about his death, but they thought that he was
will get better.” '3Jesus had been speaking of his referring merely to sleep. '*Then Jesus told them
death, but his disciples thought he meant natural plainly, “Lazarus is dead. '*For your sake I am
sleep. glad I was not there, so that you may believe.
'4So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is But let us go to him.” '!°Thomas, who was called
dead, ‘Sand for your sake I am glad I was not the Twin,‘ said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also
there, so that you may believe. But let us go to go, that we may die with him.”
17When Jesus arrived, he found that Lazarus?
Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the had already been in the tomb four days. '8Now
rest of the disciples, “Let us also go, that we may Bethany was near Jerusalem, some two miles?
die with him.” away, '’and many of the Jews had come to
"On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had Martha and Mary to console them about their
already been in the tomb for four days. '*Bethany brother. ?°When Martha heard that Jesus was
was less than two miles? from Jerusalem, !%and coming, she went and met him, while Mary
many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to stayed at home. ?!Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if
comfort them in the loss of their brother. ?°When you had been here, my brother would not have
Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went died. **But even now I know that God will give
out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home. you whatever you ask of him.” “Jesus said to her,
a/8 Greek fifteen stadia (about 3 kilometers) aGk him 5’ Gk he ¢Gk Didymus 4 Gk fifteen stadia
682
JOHN 11:1-44
NIV NRSV
*I“Tord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been “Your brother will rise again.” @4Martha said to
here, my brother would not have died. 2?But I him, “I know that he will rise again in the
know that even now God will give you whatever resurrection on the last day.” *°Jesus said to her,
you ask.” “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who
Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise believe in me, even though they die, will live,
again.” and everyone who lives and believes in me
Martha answered, “I know he will rise again will never die. Do you believe this?” ?”She said
in the resurrection at the last day.” to him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the
SJesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and Messiah,° the Son of God, the one coming into
the life. He who believes in me will live, even the world.”
though he dies; *°and whoever lives and believes 28When she had said this, she went back and
in me will never die. Do you believe this?” called her sister Mary, and told her privately, “The
27“Yes, Lord,” she told him, “I believe that you Teacher is here and is calling for you.” ?°And
are the Christ,? the Son of God, who was to come when she heard it, she got up quickly and went
into the world.” to him. *°Now Jesus had not yet come to the
28And after she had said this, she went back village, but was still at the place where Martha
and called her sister Mary aside. “The Teacher is had met him. °!The Jews who were with her in
here,” she said, “and is asking for you.” ??When the house, consoling her, saw Mary get up quickly
Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to and go out. They followed her because they
him. 2°Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, thought that she was going to the tomb to weep
but was still at the place where Martha had met there. **When Mary came where Jesus was and
him. *!'When the Jews who had been with Mary saw him, she knelt at his feet and said to him,
in the house, comforting her, noticed how quickly “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would
she got up and went out, they followed her, not have died.” *?When Jesus saw her weeping,
supposing she was going to the tomb to mourn and the Jews who came with her also weeping,
there. he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply
32When Mary reached the place where Jesus moved. **He said, “Where have you laid him?”
was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” *Jesus
“Lord, if you had been here, my brother would began to weep. *°So the Jews said, “See how he
not have died.” loved him!” *’But some of them said, “Could not
33When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews he who opened the eyes of the blind man have
who had come along with her also weeping, he kept this man from dying?”
was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 38Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to
34“Where have you laid hime” he asked. the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying
“Come and see, Lord,” they replied. against it. *%Jesus said, “Take away the stone.”
35Jesus wept. Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him,
36Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” “Lord, already there is a stench because he has
37But some of them said, “Could not he who been dead four days.” “Jesus said to her, “Did I
opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this not tell you that if you believed, you would see
man from dying?” the glory of God?” !So they took away the stone.
38Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to And Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, |
the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid thank you for having heard me. “I knew that you
across the entrance. °°“Take away the stone,” always hear me, but I have said this for the sake
he said. of the crowd standing here, so that they may
“But, Lord,” said Martha, the sister of the dead believe that you sent me.” “When he had said
man, “by this time there is a bad odor, for he has this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come
been there four days.” d out!” ““The dead man came out, his hands and
427 Or Messiah aOther ancient authorities lack and the life 5Or the Christ
683
JOHN 11:1-44
NIV NRSV
40Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face
you believed, you would see the glory of God?” wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind
41So they took away the stone. Then Jesus him, and let him: go.”
looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you
have heard me. “I knew that you always hear
me, but I said this for the benefit of the people
standing here, that they may believe that you
sent me.”
43When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud
voice, “Lazarus, come out!” “The dead man came
out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of
linen, and a cloth around his face.
Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes
and let him go.”
COMMENTARY
John 11:1-44 has a much more complex struc- 56), a story not found in John, so that it is clear
ture than any of the previous miracle stories in that a story about Jesus’ raising someone from the
John. It does not follow the common Johannine dead is common to all of the Gospel traditions
pattern of miracle/dialogue/discourse (cf. John 5; (see also Luke 7:11-17, 22; Matt 11:5). There is
9-10). The miracle concludes, rather than begins, no question that the Fourth Evangelist has shaped
the story: vv. 1-16, introduction: Lazarus’ illness the story of the raising of Lazarus to fit his
and death; vv. 17-37, preparation for the raising theological purposes, but this does not mean that
of Lazarus; vv. 38-44, the raising of Lazarus. the core of the story, the raising of Lazarus, did
Even though the presenting issue of the story not come to him from oral traditions about Jesus.
is Lazarus’s illness and death (cf. 11: 1-5), only a Lazarus is the name of the poor man in the
fraction of the story is given over to the raising parable in Luke 16:19-31. The presence of the name
of Lazarus. The bulk of the story focuses on Jesus’ “Lazarus” in a parable that focuses on a potential
conversations with characters in preparation for return from the dead (Luke 16:27-31) has led some
the raising of Lazarus: with the disciples (vv. scholars to suggest that John 11:1-44 is simply a
7-16), with Martha (vv. 20-27), and with Mary historicizing of the parable and, therefore, of no
and the “Jews” (vv. 28-37). There is no conclud- independent value as a Jesus tradition.°*”” The literary
ing discourse. Instead, narrative and discourse are characteristics of Jesus’ parables argue against this
tightly interwoven. In this regard, the style and view, however. The presence of the name “Lazarus”
structure of John 11:1-44 resemble that of John in the Lukan parable is highly unusual; indeed, Luke
4:4-42 in which narrative and discourse also are 16:19-31 is the only one of Jesus’ parables in any
woven together. of the Gospels in which a character has a name. It
The raising of Lazarus is recounted only in the seems literarily more credible, therefore, to suggest
Gospel of John. It serves as the catalyst for Jesus’ that the name “Lazarus” enters the parable under
death, a role played by the cleansing of the the influence of the Jesus tradition that lies behind
Temple in the synoptic Gospels (see Commentary John 11:1-44,38
on 2:13-21). Its absence from the synoptic Gospels
327. See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed.
should not be taken as proof that the Fourth (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 389.
Evangelist made up this story. Each of the other 328. See C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 228; Brown, The Gospel
Gospels recounts the story of the raising of Jairus’s According to John (I-XIl), 428-29; George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC
daughter (Matt 9:18-26; Mark 5:21-43 Luke 8:40- 36 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987) 199-200.
684
: Salim, ,
Aenon? }-
Judea at the
Time of Jesus
SAMARIA
Jericho,
Bethphage
Jerusalem @
th
Bethlehem,
JUDEA
‘Miles
20
Kilometers
11:1-16. The introduction consists of two ence on Luke.°? It is more likely that the two
units: (1) vv. 1-5, which set the scene, and (2) sisters appeared in traditions to which Luke and John
vv. 6-16, in which Jesus interprets Lazarus’ death both had access. Lazarus is‘identified in relationship
in the context of his own life and death. to his sisters (v. 10), and the description of his sister
11:1. The Bethany mentioned here is not Mary occupies the center of vv. 1-2.
the Peraean Bethany to which Jesus retreated 11:2. Verse 2a gives a proleptic identification
in 10:40 (cf. 1:28); it is a Judean town in close of Mary; the anointing to which it refers will not
proximity to Jerusalem (v. 18). The synoptic be recounted until 12:3. It is conventional to read
Gospels also identify this Judean Bethany as the this verse as an editorial gloss inserted to clarify
place where Jesus stayed immediately prior to which of the many Marys known in Christian
and during his passion week visit to Jerusalem tradition is meant here,*°° but it is not necessary
(et. Matt o2 beh/; oMark’'sldeloddel23;. Luke to attribute this verse to a later editor. First, this
19:29). John is alone among the Gospels in proleptic identification is similar to the proleptic
identifying this village with Mary and Martha. identification of Andrew as Simon Peter’s brother
This reference may preserve an accurate tradi- in 1:40. The Fourth Evangelist assumes that his
tion-historical reminiscence; that is, early Chris- readers are familiar with these characters from
tian tradition identified Bethany primarily as the their place in Christian tradition. Second, and
place of Mary’s anointing of Jesus (11:2; 12:1-
more important, this proleptic identification serves
8). The two sisters also appear in Luke, al-
a narrative and theological function. Mary’s
though without any indication of their anointing of Jesus in 12:1-8 is explicitly linked
geographical origins (Luke 10:38:42). The pres-
ence of the two sisters in both Luke and John 329. So Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 46, 390.
does not necessarily indicate Johannine depend- 330. E.g., Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XII), 423.
685
with the preparation of Jesus’ body for burial begins (“so when he heard...” author’s trans.)
(12:3, 8). By pointing forward to Mary’s role in explicitly counterpoise Jesus’ love and his delay.
this anointing, the Fourth Evangelist moves Jesus’ (The NRSV moves the conjunctions to the begin-
death into the forefront of the Lazarus story. The ning of v. 5; the NIV paraphrases them as “yet”
connections between the Lazarus story and Jesus’ and softens the disjunction.) Jesus’ delay needs to
death will become even more explicit in the be interpreted alongside his response to his
remainder of the introductory verses. mother and brothers in 2:4 and 7:6-10; as Bult-
11:3. The sisters’ message recalls the words of mann says, “The work. of Jesus has its own
Jesus’ mother in 2:3; although they merely inform hour.”52 The juxtaposition of vv. 5 and 6 under-
Jesus of the situation and make no direct request of scores that not even his love for this family will
him, some action on Jesus’ part seems to be ex- alter the unfolding of the events of his hour.
pected. The identification of Lazarus as “he whom 11:7-15. By choosing the time for his return
you love” (ov direis hon phileis) has led some to Judea (v. 7), Jesus also chooses the time for
to link Lazarus with the “beloved disciple” who his death (v. 8).5°3 The disciples’ question in v. 8
appears in chaps. 13-21,%%' but that linkage does emphasizes Jesus’ decision in the face of unambi-
not hold up to the scrutiny of the text itself. Jesus guous danger and probable death (cf. 10:31, 39;
loves this whole family (v. 5), not simply Lazarus. see also 8:59). Jesus’ decision recalls his words in
A comparison of the verbs in v. 3, “love” (biréw 10:17-18, in that he “lays down” his life freely.
phileo), and v. 5, “love” (ayatdw agapao) sug- Jesus will explain his decision to return to Judea
gests that for the Fourth Evangelist the two verbs to his disciples in two ways, in relation to his own
function as synonyms (cf. 21:15-17). life and death (vv. 9-10) and in relation to Laz-
11:4. Jesus’ response turns the focus away arus’s death (vv. 11-15).
from the illness per se to the illness as an occasion Jesus’ rhetorical question in v. 9a refers to
for revelation (cf. 9:3). Jesus’ words are theologi- the common Jewish practice of dividing the day
cally dense. First, v. 4a points toward the end of into twelve hours of daylight and twelve of
the story. Lazarus’s illness is not ultimately about night. He uses this image in vv. 90-10 to explain
death, because Jesus will give life to Lazarus. his decision. Just as the hours of daylight are
Second, this gift of life will reveal the glory of limited, so, too, are the hours for Jesus’ work
God (cf. 1:14; 2:11). That is, in it the character (cf. 9:4). He must be about his work while it
and identity of God will be visible. Third, by is still day and will not be hindered by whatever
linking this glory with the Son of God, Jesus dangers Judea holds. Jesus’ answer recalls the
continues to use the theological categories that Johannine use of “hour” (djpa hora) as a meta-
shaped his controversy with the “Jews” in 10:22- phor for the time of Jesus’ death (e.g., 2:4; 7:30;
39. This gift of life will be revelatory of Jesus’ 8:20; 12:23; 13:1; 17:1). Yet because Jesus has
relationship with God. Finally, the “glorification” already identified himself as the light of the world
of Jesus in John refers to his death, resurrection, (8:12; 9:5), these verses can also be read as
and -ascension (¢.6.,.12:10,23, 28; -13:315 17:1, referring to the disciples’ relationship to Jesus (cf.
4). Jesus thus makes an explicit connection be-
3:19-21; 12:35, 46). Just as the time for Jesus to
tween Lazarus’s illness and his own death (cf.
work is limited, so also the time for them to
11:2). There is, then, an irony to Jesus’ words in
move from darkness to the light of Jesus is
v. 4, because while the illness will not end in
limited. The prospect of Jesus’ death, or their
Lazarus’s death, it will end in his.
own deaths (cf. v. 16), is not the stumbling block;
11:5-6. Verse 5 functions as a concluding walking apart from the light is (cf. Isa 8:14-15).
affirmation of Jesus’ love for the family when it Verses 11-12 are an extended word play
is read with the preceding verses. Read with what
about Lazarus’s death. The narrative has not yet
follows, however, this affirmation is jarring and reported his death, and Jesus’ knowledge of it
disjunctive. The conjunctions with which v. 6
332. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 398.
331. Floyd Filson, “Who Was the Beloved Disciple?” /BL 68 (1949) 333. Ibid., 398; Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 379, 391;
83-88; J. N. Sanders, “Those Whom Jesus Loved: St. John xi.5,” N7S 1 C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cam-
(1954-55). bridge University Press, 1953) 367.
686
is another instance of his ability to know all for “twin” [AiSujos Didymos]) is the meaning of
things (cf. 1:48; 4:16-18; 6:6). “Fallen asleep” the Semitic name “Thomas,” translated for the
(kotpdopat koimaomai, v. 11) has a literal mean- Gospel’s Greek readers (cf. 1: 38, 41-42). This
ing of “sleep,” but is also used frequently in the meaning of the name “Thomas” gave rise in
NT as a euphemism for death (e.g., Matt 27:52; Gnostic circles to the belief that Thomas was
PRON 73959) 308415 :62'18 2055 13° Thess Jesus’ twin.3 Thomas is mentioned in all of the
4:13-15). “To awaken him” (€Eumvitw exypnizo) synoptic lists of disciples (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke
plays on that double meaning. The disciples’ mis- 6:15; see also Acts 1:13), but has his most prominent
understanding of Jesus’ words (v. 12) contains its role in John (see also 14:5; 20:24-29; 21:2). In this
own word play. The disciples do not understand verse, Thomas epitomizes the obedient disciple, but
why Jesus would risk his life by returning to Judea his obedience has an ironic edge to it, because he
if Lazarus is only “asleep” (cf. the “Jew’ ” misun- cannot yet fully understand what the Judean trip will
derstanding of Jesus’ death at 8:21-22). The word ~ entail for Jesus and his disciples.
translated as “get better” (NIV) or “be all right” 11:17-37. The middle section of the Lazarus story
(NRSV) is the future passive of the Greek verb (vv. 17-37) is its theological heart. It consists of an
owtw (sozo). In relation to illness, the passive of introduction (vv. 17-19), followed by two scenes:
sozo does have the meaning of “recover,” but Jesus and Martha (vv. 20-27); and Jesus and Mary
other meanings of the verb are often implied as and her fellow mourners, the “Jews” (vv. 28-37).
well.2* In Markan healing stories, for example, the 11:17. Verse 17 provides confirmation of Jesus’
verb also conveys its theological meaning of “save” knowledge of Lazarus’s death (vv. 11, 14). The
or “deliver” (e.g., Mark 5:28, 34; 10:52), and that four-day period to which it refers underscores the
double meaning seems to be at play in v. 12. finality of the death (cf. v. 39). According to popular
Word play and misunderstanding are common Jewish belief at the time of Jesus, the soul hovered
literary techniques in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., around the body in the grave for three days after
3:3-4, 8, 14; 4:10-11, 31-34). What is unusual about death, hoping to reenter the body. But after the third
the misunderstanding of vv. 11-12 is that the Fourth day, when the soul “sees that the color of its face
Evangelist so quickly resolves it (vv. 13-14). First, has changed,” the soul leaves the body for good.**°
he inserts an explanatory comment to the reader (v. 11:18-19. The geographical information in v. 18
13), lest the reader miss the tension in the conver- serves two purposes. First, it reminds the reader how
sation between Jesus and his disciples. Second, v. close Jesus now is to Jerusalem, the place where his
14 resolves the misunderstanding within the story life is at risk (10:31, 39; 11:8). Second, it suggests
line itself. “Plainly” (tappnota parresia) is clearly that the “Jews” referred to in v. 19 come from
used here to contrast Jesus’ direct description of Jerusalem. The presence of fellow mourners was an
Lazarus’s death with his figurative description of expected courtesy within Jewish religious and social
Wye ee O24 O25, 20), practice.” The fellow mourners have a more im-
In v. 15, Jesus gives his delay and Lazarus’s portant narrative function than that of consoling the
death a theological interpretation. Not only is sisters, however, as they will serve as witnesses to
Lazarus’s death an occasion for revelation (v. 4), the miracle (vv. 31, 36-37, 45-46). At v. 19, “the
but it also is an occasion for the disciples to come Jews” seems to be a neutral designation for Jewish
to faith (cf. the same combination of revelation mourners (see also vv. 31, 33), but at vv. 36-37
and faith in 2:11). Like v. 4, v. 15 anticipates the and 45-46, the division among these “Jews” about
miracle with which the story ends. Jesus echoes the division among the “Jews” else-
11:16. Thomas’s response in v. 16 is ambigu- where in the Gospel (e.g., 10:19-21), when “the
Jews” refers to a resistant and hostile crowd.
ous. Does he mean that the disciples should die
with Jesus or with Lazarus? This ambiguity mir- 335. E.g., The Acts of Thomas 1, 31.
rors the two explanations Jesus has given for his 336. See Gen. Rab. 100 [64a]. See also Hermann L. Strack and Paul
Judean trip, his life and death and Lazarus’s.

Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash
(Miinchen: Beck, 1924) 2:544-45. See also Andre Neher, 7he Exile of the
“Twin” (NRSV; the NIV retains the Greek word Word (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1981) 24.
337. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 4:592-
334. BAGD, 798. 607.
687
11:20. Verse 20 returns the narrative focus to Dan 12:2. Pharisaic Judaism held to this belief,
the two sisters of vv. 1-5. Scholars have tended although the Sadducees denied it (Acts 23:6-8;
to evaluate the characterization of Martha and Mark 12:18-27 and par.) Martha thus affirms her
Mary in this verse according to the portrait of the belief in one of the tenets of her faith. Her
sisters in Luke 10:38-39, identifying Martha with understanding of the resurrection is grounded in
activity and Mary with passivity,?°* but the char- traditional eschatological expectations. The ex-
acterization does not seem as close as these schol- pression “on the last day” (ev Tf} €oxaTy NHEpa
ars maintain.*°° It is a misreading to label Mary’s en té eschaté hemera) is distinctively Johannine
behavior in v. 20 as passivity. Instead, she stays (e.g., 6:39-40, 44, 54), occurring nowhere else in
in the house to continue the mourning rituals the NT.
with her fellow mourners. 11:25-26. In the “I am” statement of v. 254,
11:21-22. Martha’s greeting to Jesus makes Jesus identifies himself as the fulfillment of eschato-
the implied request of v. 3 explicit; she had logical expectations. The promise of resurrection and
expected Jesus to do something. Commentators life is not lodged in some distant event, but is
are reticent to identify Martha’s words here as available already in the person of Jesus. The dis-
a complaint, seeing in them only an expression course of John 5:19-30 focused on how God’s gift
of regret and faith in Jesus as a healer.34° To of the works of judgment and life to Jesus marked
overlook their edge of complaint, however, is Jesus’ presence in the world as the decisive eschato-
to overlook the thoroughgoing Jewishness of logical event, and this “I am” statement serves as
Martha’s remarks. Complaint belonged to the the culmination of the themes begun there. By
language of faith in Judaism (e.g., Psalms 4; 6; announcing that he is both the resurrection and the
13; 22) and does not cast doubts on Martha’s life, Jesus affirms his sovereignty over the present
piety. On the contrary, the edge of complaint and future lives of believers.3°
in v. 21 gives greater impact to Martha’s state- This double dimension is brought out in vv.
ment of confidence in Jesus in v. 22. “Even 25b-26a. These verses consist of two tightly con-
now,” in the face of Lazarus’s death, Martha’s structed parallel phrases, built around the verbs
confidence is undiminished. Martha’s words are “believe” (miotevw pisteuo), “live” (Caw Zao),
framed as a confession, “I know... ”%4! (see and “die” (amo8vjoKw apothnesko). The hinge
also Martha’s words in vv. 24, 27; cf. 9:31) and of both phrases is the expression “the one who
can be read as her assessment of Jesus as a believes in me”:
righteous man to whom God will listen in
prayer.**? The truth of Martha’s assertion runs the one who believes in me and dies—yet lives
deeper than that, however, because God has the one who lives and believes in me— never dies
given all things into Jesus’ hands (3:35; 10:29). The focus of v. 250 is the effect that believing in
11:23-24. Jesus’ response to Martha (v. 23) Jesus has on the believer’s death; the focus of v.
is intentionally open-ended and thus susceptible to 26a, the effect it has on the believer’s life.>4
misunderstanding. Since it supplies no time frame The two phrases spell out what it means for
for the resurrection of which it speaks, it can be Jesus to be the resurrection (v. 250) and the life?4
read as a general affirmation of the future resurrec- (v. 26a) and are not synonymous.“ For Jesus to
tion of the dead. This is how Martha interprets be the resurrection means that physical death has
it (v. 24). The belief in the general resurrection no power over believers; their future is deter-
of the dead can be traced back in the Bible to
343. Some of the oldest manuscripts (e.g., sp”) omit the words “and
338. Barrett, Zhe Gospel According to St. John, 394; Brown, The the life.” Text critics tend to accept the longer reading and to explain the
Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 433. omission as an attempt to harmonize with v. 24, which only mentions the
339. Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G. resurrection. See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek
R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975).
Westminster, 1971) 401n. 4. 344. See Gail R. O'Day, The Word Disclosed: John’s Story and Narra-
340. E.g., Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, tive Preaching (St. Louis: CBP, 1987) 88-89.
3 vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982) 2:329: “No criticism of Jesus for not 345. See C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cam-
coming sooner is implied.” bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953) 364-65.
341. Bultmann, 7he Gospel of John, 401. 346. Despite Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 403; Schnackenburg, The
342. E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel(London: Faber& Faber, 1947) Gospel According to St. John, 2:831; Barrett, The Gospel According to St.
402. John, 396.
688
_JOHN 11:1-44 COMMENTARY
mined by their faith in Jesus, not by their death anticlimactic to the theological intent of the dia-
(cf. 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54). For Jesus to be the logue. For this reason, Jesus’ request to see Mary
life means that the believer’s present is also de- is reported secondhand by Martha (v. 28) and
termined by Jesus’ power for life, experienced as serves as the introduction to the next scene (vv.
his gift of eternal life (cf. 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; 28-37), rather than as the conclusion to the for-
10:28; 17:2). mer. The scene between Mary and Jesus is con-
Jesus’ words in vv. 25-26 are the critical theo- ventionally seen by commentators as a pale
logical lens for interpreting the raising of Lazarus imitation of the preceding scene with Martha.34°
and, indeed, for understanding the Fourth Gospel’s Indeed, Schnackenburg writes, “Mary... gives
eschatological categories (see Reflections). In v. 25a, the impression of being nothing more than a
he makes a christological claim that redefines tradi- complaining woman.”*°° Such views of the rela-
tional Jewish eschatological expectations; in vv. 25- tionship between the two scenes arise from the
26a, he unfolds the soteriological implications of that efroneous assumption that the exchange between
claim. His question to Martha, then, in v. 266, is Mary and Jesus is the focal point of vv. 28-37,
also the critical question for the reader, because when the scene itself signals quite strongly that
unless one believes in Jesus and his word, the this is not the case. Any exchange between Jesus
transformed life he offers is rendered void. and Mary is intentionally aborted by the Fourth
11:27. Martha’s response to Jesus is couched Evangelist’s mention of the presence of “the Jews”
in the formal language of confession. “I believe” is in v. 33. The narrative attention given to the
the perfect tense of the verb tiotetw (pisteuod), whereabouts of the “Jews” (vv. 31, 33, 36-37)
used in the Fourth Gospel to communicate formal suggests that the scene was never intended to
confession of faith (e.g., 6:69; 20:29). The se- narrate a private encounter between Jesus and
quence of christological titles recalls the sequence Mary, but to identify the public tensions that arise
of titles in John 1 (vv. 41, 49). The title “Messiah” from the encounter of Jesus and the “Jews.”
is an appropriate response to what Jesus has said, 11:28-31, Martha’s words to Mary (v. 28) and
because the expected Messiah was the main car- Mary’s response to them (v. 29) provide one of the
rier of Jewish eschatological hopes (cf. 4:25; 7:26- first illustrations of the truth of Jesus’ words in 10:3
27, 41-42; 10:24). So, too, is the designation of and 16: Mary shows herself to be one of Jesus’
Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus’ words in wv. 25-26 sheep in that she goes to him when he calls (cf.
about his power over life and death are revelatory 11:43-44; 20:16-18). Martha’s efforts at a private
of his unique relationship with God (5:21-29; conversation (v. 28) and Mary’s hasty departure to
10:17-18). Martha’s confession is thus of the Jesus (v. 29) will not yield a private meeting be-
status of the confessions of Peter (6:68-69) and tween Jesus and one of “his own,” however. In vv.
Thomas (20:28) and anticipates the narrator’s 30-31, the Fourth Evangelist interrupts the move-
own witness to Jesus in 20:31. ment of the story and moves the focus from Mary
Scholars are divided over whether “the one to the “Jews.” Jesus’ location outside the village is
who is coming into the world” should be taken restated (v. 30) in order to underscore the fact that
as a third title4” or simply as modifying the first Jesus has not yet come into the “Jews’ ” presence.
two.*8 Two considerations argue for reading it as The lengthy description of the scene from the “Jews’
a third title. First, it returns to the theme of ” own perspective (v. 31) makes clear that whatever
eschatological expectation that has dominated Je- happens next in the narrative will be public. (Verse
sus’ conversation with Martha. Second, it echoes 31 seems even lengthier and more of an interruption
the distinctly Johannine designation of Jesus as the in the Greek text, because it is one complex sen-
one who comes into the world (e.g, 1:9-11; 3:31; tence that slows down the pace of the story.)
O251 7 29-"6:28). 11:32. It is not a sign of the use of different
11:28-37. The conversation between Martha strata of tradition that Mary greets Jesus with the
and Jesus ends on the high note of Martha’s same words her sister used (v. 32).°°! The initial
confession; any additional conversation would be
349. See Brown, 7he Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 433.
350. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 2:333.
347. E.g,, Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 397.
348. E.g., Schnackenburg, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 2:332. 351. Brown, 7he Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 433.
689
message to Jesus had come from both sisters (v. The evidence of the Greek text, then, seems
3); both shared the expectation that Jesus would incontestable that Jesus is described as angry in
intervene on their brother’s behalf. Mary’s greet- v. 33. But why do the tears of Mary and the
ing displays the same combination of complaint “Jews” arouse Jesus’ anger and indignation? The
and confidence in Jesus as a healer that her sister’s main explanations offered for Jesus’ anger con-
did (see Commentary on 11:21). That Mary falls clude that Jesus was angry at the unbelief of Mary
at Jesus’ feet (NIV; the NRSV erroneously trans- and the Jews? or that Jesus was angry at the
lates timTw [pipto, “to fall”| as “kneel”) is further evidence of the power of sin and death in the
evidence of her devotion to Jesus and seems world.**4 There are two significant variations on
intended to draw the anointing of 12:1-8 into this the latter suggestion. Chrysostom suggested that
story once again (see also v. 2). Jesus was angry at the prospect of his own death
11:33-35. These verses are among the most and his upcoming battle with Satan, much as he
difficult to understand in the Gospel. From the was in the Garden of Gethsemane in Mark
earliest patristic interpreters of this text, commen- (14:33). Barrett adds to Chrysostom’s suggestion,
tators have struggled to interpret the words about seeing in Jesus’ anger evidence of the theme of
Jesus’ emotions in these verses. This difficulty has the messianic secret. In addition to being troubled
even influenced the way v. 33 is translated. The by the approaching end of his ministry, Jesus is
differences between the NIV and the NRSV trans- angry because he feels pressed to reveal himself
lations are instructive in this regard. The NIV through the raising of Lazarus.°°°
translates the verb EveBptnoato (enebrimesato) None of the above suggestions resolves all of the
as “deeply moved,” the NRSV as “greatly dis- issues in v. 33. To say that Jesus is angry at death,
turbed.” The NIV translates the verb é€tdpatev either his own or the power of death in general, is
(etaraxen) as “troubled,” the NRSV as “deeply to overlook the powerful evidence of wv. 4, 15,
moved.” The two translations suggest that the 25-26, and 40 that Jesus understands Lazarus’s
verbs are synonymous and that they have to do death ‘as a joyous occasion for the revelation of the
with the depths of Jesus’ compassion (esp. “deeply glory of God and Jesus’ power as the resurrection
moved”). However, they are more interpretation and the life. The suggestion that Jesus is angry at
than translation, because the Greek verbs do not the lack of faith fits the context better. Jesus may
have these meanings. The first verb (EBptpdopat be angry that the “Jews,” those who are not his
embrimaomai) connotes anger and indignation, own, have intruded onto the scene. The introduc-
not compassion. In its LXX and other NT usages, tory verses repeatedly stress the intimacy of Jesus’
it has this meaning consistently (e.g., Dan 11:30 relationship with Lazarus and his sisters (vv. 3, 5,
LXX; Matt 9:30; Mark 1:43; 14:5). The primary 11). Jesus rejoiced that Lazarus’s death would be an
meaning of the second verb is “agitated” or “trou- occasion for his disciples to come to faith (v. 15).
bled” (tapdoow tarasso; the NIV is more accurate Perhaps this miracle was to be for his intimates,
here) and is used here to underscore the intensity much like the foot washing in 13:1-20, and his last
of Jesus’ emotion. words in 14:1-17:26 are only for “his own.” Now
The NIV and the NRSV thus tend to sentimen- Jesus is angry that it must be shared with those who
talize Jesus’ emotions in v. 33, turning them from do not believe that he is the Son of God.
anger to compassion. This tendency to soften The “you” in v. 34 is second-person plural, not
Jesus’ emotions is evident in the very earliest singular; Jesus is speaking to the crowd, not to
manuscripts as well. $*, for example, avoids the Mary alone. This exchange confirms that Laz-
direct statement that Jesus was indignant (“He arus’s death is no longer a family matter; it is a
was disturbed in spirit like being angry”). Inter- public matter. “Laid” (ti@nut tithemi) functions
estingly, German translations of this text, follow-
as a technical expression for burial (cf. 19:41-42;
ing Luther’s initial translation, tend to render the 20:25, b3, 49}.
verbs as verbs of anger.35?
353, Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 406; E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth
352. See Beasley-Murray’s excellent review of the translation history Gospel (London: Faber & Faber, 1947) 404-5; Beasley-Murray, John, 193.
of v. 33. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 354. See Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XII), 435.
1987) 192-93. 355. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 399.
690
Jesus’ anger in v. 33 informs the interpretation 11:39. Martha’s protest in v. 390 interrupts
of his tears in v. 35. It is again important that Jesus as he initiates the miracle (v. 39a), thus
the tears not be sentimentalized. Nor should one heightening the suspense. Her words (and her
point to these tears as evidence of Jesus’ “human- description as “the sister of the dead man”) draw
ity.” As noted in the Reflections on the cleansing of attention to the reality of death that confronts
the Temple (2:13-22), it goes against the Fourth Jesus at the tomb. Jewish burial did not involve
Evangelist’s understanding of the witness of the embalming, as it did in Egypt (see Gen 50:2-3,
incarnation (cf. 1:14) to point to an isolated emotion 26). The body was anointed with perfume and
as “proof” of Jesus’ humanity. Jesus’ tears come in wrapped (cf. 12:7; 19:40), but after four days the
direct response to the invitation to “Come and see” effect of the perfume would be rendered null by
where Lazarus is buried (v. 340); these tears are the odor of the body’s decomposition. The refer-
thus positioned in the story as Jesus’ public acknow- ence to “four days” also underscores the reality
ledgment of the pain that death causes in human . Of the death (see on v. 17).
life. As Schnackenburg notes, “The scale of Jesus’ Martha’s assumptions about the reality and
act can only be recognized if the bitterness of power of death govern her response to Jesus (cf.
physical death is not minimized.”°° the ways in which Nicodemus’s assumptions
11:36-37. The interpretation offered by the about the birth process informed his response to
“Jews” in v. 36 should not be taken as an accurate Jesus in 3:3-9). Even her exemplary confession of
interpretation of Jesus’ tears. Throughout the Fourth faith at 11:27 could not prepare her for the
Gospel, the response of the crowd, particularly when fullness of Jesus’ identity and gifts.
they are called “the Jews,” is not to be trusted. They 11:40. Jesus’ response to Martha in v. 40 is
are neither faithful witnesses to nor interpreters of an amalgam of his words in vv. 4, 15, and 25-26.
Jesus (cf. 7:35-36; 12:29). This verse serves as a They thus pull together everything that Jesus has
further signal not to sentimentalize Jesus’ emotions said in this story about the revelatory significance
in this scene, as does the division of opinion noted of the miracle he is about to perform. The syn-
in v. 37. Verse 37 establishes continuity between thetic nature of this question makes clear that the
Jesus as the light (9:5) and Jesus as the resurrection Fourth Evangelist intends this question to be
and the life (11:25; cf. 1:4), but it also links the heard by the readers as directed to them as well
“Jews” who bore witness to Jesus’ healing of the as to Martha (cf. the question in v. 260). It
blind man with the “Jews” here. Although some reminds the reader and those gathered at the
commentators read the “Jews’” words in v. 37 as tomb of the theological categories through which
a statement of faith in Jesus,” a comparison with the upcoming miracle must be viewed.
other instances of divided response to Jesus in the 11:41-42. Jesus’ own actions in vv. 41-42
Gospel suggests that v. 37 is spoken hostilely (e.g., add to the suspense surrounding the miracle.
7:12; 9:16; 10:19-21). After the stone is removed (v. 41a), Jesus stops
11:38-44. 11:38. The final scene begins with to pray. Verse 410 contains two elements that
Jesus’ arrival at Lazarus’s tomb. Jesus’ emotions are characteristic of Jesus’ prayer in John: Jesus
are described with the same verb used in v. 33, lifts up his eyes (cf. 17:1) and addresses God
“disturbed” (embrimaomai), so that again Jesus’ as. “Father”, (cf. 12:26:17:1. [hes vocative of
anger and indignation are being described, not his “father” (mdtep pater) is also used by Jesus in
compassion. This anger supports reading the his prayers in the synoptic Gospels (Matt 26:39,
“Jews’ ” words in v. 37 as expressing doubt and 42; Mark 14:36; Luke 10:21; 22:42; 23:43, 46).
hostility. The description of the tomb suggests that This is the first time in John that Jesus has directly
it was built into rocks. addressed God as “Father.” Jesus’ prayer is one
356. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3 of thanksgiving (evxaptotéw eucharisteo) for
vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982) 2:337.
357. E.g., Raymond E. Brown, Zhe Gospel According to John (I-Xil),
his relationship with God. Some commenta-
AB 29 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 426, C. K. Barrett, The tors have been bothered by this prayer,
Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978)
400-401. ; taking it to be a “show” prayer, intended
358. As opposed to a vertical shaft dug into the ground; see the solely to influence the listeners (cf. v. 42)
descriptions of such tombs in m. Mo‘ed Qat. 1:6; m. B. Bat. 6:8; and
Matt 27:60.
and not as an expression of any piety on
691
Jesus’ part.°°° Such views proceed from the another demonstration of the complete falsity of
assumption that this prayer is intended as inter- those charges. He has said that he does nothing
cession or petition, when, in fact, it is a prayer of without God, and now he demonstrates it.°™
thanksgiving. Wilcox has helpfully observed how Everything that Jesus says and does has been
Jesus’ words in v. 410 echo Ps 118:21 (“I thank given to him by God (5:19-20). God is the one
you that you have answered me... ”).°°? As a who has given him power over life and death
prayer of thanksgiving, this prayer is a powerful (5:21), the power to raise the dead (5:25-29; see
acknowledgment from Jesus to God of the rela- also 6:39-40), and this prayer serves to locate the
tionship to which Jesus has repeatedly appealed upcoming miracle with God.
throughout his ministry. He does not need to 11:43-44. As is typical in the Fourth Gospel,
make individual prayer requests of God, because the miracle itself is narrated leanly (cf. 2:7-8;
he lives in constant communion with God and in 5:8-9; 9:6-7). Yet even this lean narration has
the certainty of his relationship with God. In this layers of theological meaning. Jesus’ summons to
prayer, as in the prayer of John 17, Jesus models Lazarus in v. 43 recalls Jesus’ words in 5:28 and
the confidence in God to which he will summon
10:3; it is Jesus’ voice to which Lazarus responds.
his disciples in the Farewell Discourse (14:13-14;
Jesus’ words also echo the words of the Servant
15:7, 16; 16:23-24, 26).°°! As Bultmann writes,
in Isa 48:9 to those who are bound and in
“In him that which is promised to his followers
darkness.°°
as eschatological possibility is realised.”%°2
The Fourth Evangelist creates a startling visual
Jesus’ prayer in vv. 41-42 is also an act of
doxology. Jesus wants to direct the eyes of those image of Lazarus’s exit from the tomb (v. 44a).
who gather at the tomb, like his own eyes, toward First,he is referred to as “the dead man,” not as
God, not toward Jesus himself, so that God’s glory Lazarus, again to emphasize the sweep of the
will be seen in the miracle (vv. 4, 40). Jesus prays miracle Jesus has performed (cf. v. 39). Second,
so that those gathered at Lazarus’s tomb may he is still bound in his grave clothes.*°° These
recognize what Jesus knows: that he does nothing details, too, underscore the magnitude of the
on his own, that everything he does is God’s miracle of the raising of Lazarus by concretizing
action in and through him. Whether the bystand- the hold that death had on him. They do not
ers hear the words of Jesus’ prayer is thus a moot point away from it to a secondary miracle—that
point. What is critical is that they (and the reader) is, Lazarus walks even though his feet are
recognize that he puts himself in a prayerful bound.°°’ It is also possible that the description of
relationship with God. the burial clothes anticipates the story of Jesus’
This prayer needs to be read alongside Jesus’ resurrection. In that story, the burial clothes also
discourses in 5:19-30 and 10:32-39.3° Jesus spoke will be described in vivid detail (20:6-7). The
those discourses in response to the Jews’ charges difference is that Lazarus arose still dressed in the
that he was making himself God. Jesus’ prayer is clothes of death, dependent on the voice of Jesus
359. A. Loisy, Le Quatriéme Evangile (Paris: Alphonse Picard, 1903) 651.
to achieve his freedom from death (vv. 43-440),
360. M. Wilcox, “The ‘Prayer’ of Jesus in John xi.41b-42” NTS 24 but Jesus arises completely free of death.
(1977-78) 128-32.
361. E.C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel(London: Faber&Faber, 1947) 406.
364. Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 408.
362. Rudolf Bultmann, Zhe Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G.
R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: 365. Sandra Schneiders, “Death in the Community of Eternal Life:
Westminster, 1971) 409. History, Theology, and Spirituality in John 11,” /nt. 41/(1987) 55.
363. See also Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 403, and 366. See m. Sabb. 23:4 for a reference to burial wrappings.
Jerome H. Neyrey, An /deology of Revolt: John’s Christology in Social- 367. E.g., Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, following Basil; perhaps C. K.
Science Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 90-92 for a discussion Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: West-
of the relationship between 11:1-44 and 5:15-30. minster, 1978) 403.
REFLECTIONS
As a first step in reflecting on this text, it is important to acknowledge the question that
many hearers of the story of the raising of Lazarus will ask: Did this really happen? As the
Overview discussed, there is no more reason to reject this story on tradition-historical grounds
than there is to reject any of the other Gospel stories of Jesus raising someone from the dead
or, indeed, of any of the accounts of Jesus’ miracles. Yet the question of whether it happened
is usually not merely a question about the historicity of the event; beneath it lies a question
about the very metaphysical possibility of the event. That is, the question that lingers in many
hearers’ minds is “Can we really believe that something like this happened?”
For some people, even those who are eyewitnesses of events that others around them
attribute to the miraculous, it is simply impossible to accept that the supernatural can overlap
with the natural, that anything can occur for which there is no rational explanation. It ‘is
always a matter of reason over faith, of the known over the “might be.” Yet for many people,
the experiences of their lives have led them to accept that there is genuine mystery in the
world, that the world is full of evidence that the supernatural does overlap with the natural,
that the line between the two is permeable. For religious people, this mystery, the overlap
between the natural and the supernatural, is seen as evidence of God’s transcendence of the
categories by which God’s creatures understand the world to be ordered and of God’s
intervention in the workings of creation. It is thus a question of faith whether one can
acknowledge the possibility and, indeed, reality of God’s miraculous intervention in creation.
It is against this background that the question, “Could it happen?” of the Lazarus story can
be engaged. There is no way to prove the “facts” of this miracle. Rather, the Fourth Evangelist
(and all the Gospel writers) confronts his readers with the ultimate clash between views of
historical and metaphysical reality in order to lead them to make a decision about how they
understand the world to be ordered. The only answer to the question of whether this miracle
could have occurred is another question: Can we believe that God, acting through Jesus, has
power over the course of life and death?
The Fourth Evangelist engages this question head on in John 11:1-44. As noted in the
Commentary, the theological heart of this story is in vv. 25-26, because these verses explain
the meaning and import of the miracle of vv. 43-44. The miracle of the raising of Lazarus
from the dead concretely illustrates the truths that Jesus declares in vv. 25-26, but it is these
truths, not the miracle, that have the lasting significance fer the life of faith.
What truths do these verses offer the reader? First, they offer the truth of-the identity of
Jesus. When Jesus identifies himself with the images of the resurrection and the life (v. 254),
he uses those metaphors to give concrete expression to his unity with the Father, to show
what it means that Jesus and God are one. Even though this “I am” saying has a predicate
nominative supplied, it is closer in meaning to the absolute “I am” sayings (those without a
predicate nominative; see also Fig. 10, “The ‘1 AM’ Sayings in John,” 602), because Jesus’
self-revelation as the resurrection and the life points to his sharing fully in the power of God.”
The magnitude of this claim cannot be overstated, because it announces that God’s power
over life and death, a central belief of OT faith (e.g., 2 Kgs 5:7; Ezek 39:3-12) is now shared
with Jesus (see Commentary on 5:21-29). When one sees and hears Jesus, one does not see
and hear God in some static sense (as frequently seems to be communicated in doctrinal
formulations), but one sees God’s will for the salvation of the world at work in the world.
Jesus’ self-revelation as the resurrection and the life is the decisive eschatological an-
nouncement of this Gospel. His full share in God’s power over life and death marks the
reality.
beginning of God’s new age, the age in which God’s hope for the world becomes a
the
What God wills and hopes for the life of the world is now available in Jesus—that is,
not only what
defeat of death’s power to remove people from life with God. Who Jesus is,
decisive shift in God’s relationship
Jesus does (i:e., the works of God as in John 9), marks this
402. he, ’
368. See E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber & Faber, 1947)
this “I am” statement and the other predicate
369. See Neyrey, An /deology of Revolt, 88, for a discussion of the difference between
nominative “I am” statements.
693
with the world. As the resurrection and the life, Jesus defeats death in the future and in the
present. The power of death to separate people from God is reduced to nothing by the presence
of the power of God in Jesus. This defeat is no longer merely eschatological promise; it is
eschatological reality.
Jesus defeats the power of death because in him the world meets the power of the love of
God incarnate (cf. Rom 8:35-39). God’s full sharing of power over life and death with Jesus
is an expression of God’s love for Jesus and for the world. Because God loves Jesus, God has
given all things to him (3:35), culminating in the power over life and death. Because God
loves Jesus, God has given him the glory that is revealed in the raising of Lazarus, in the
defeat of death (11:4; 17:24). Because God loves the world, God gives Jesus to the world for
its salvation (3:16-17), so that the world might come to know fully God’s love for it and live
grounded in that love (17:23). Jesus’ own death is a measure of this love (10:17; 15:12),
because in it Jesus’ power as the resurrection and the life comes to fullest expression.
Yet this decisive christological announcement is only half of the truth that vv. 25-26 offers
the Gospel reader. These verses also offer readers the opportunity to claim that truth for their
own lives. Significantly, then, who Jesus is in relationship to God is linked with who Jesus is
for believers. As noted in the commentary, the hinge of the parallel phrases in vv. 2506 and
26a is the expression “the one who believes.in me.” Jesus’ words point to the “So what?” of
his identity for the life of the believer.
Verses 25b and 26a are the most far-reaching promise anywhere in the Gospel of what
relationship with Jesus offers those who embrace it. They are of a piece with the promises of living
water (4:10, 14; 7:37-38), living bread (6:33, 35, 51), and even eternal life (3:15; 6:47; 10:28),
but they supersede all those earlier promises by confronting head on the question of death.” They
are not idle words of hope, because they name the greatest threat to full relationship with God:
death. They offer a vision of life to the believer in: which his or her days do not need to be
reckoned by the inevitable power of death, but instead by the irrevocable promise of life with God.
The two parts of vv. 256 and 26a invite the believer to a vision of life in which one remains in
the full presence of God during life and after death. The physical reality of death is denied power
over one’s life with God, as is the metaphysical reality of death.
This promise is also an invitation, made explicit in Jesus’ question in v. 26b. The way to
experience the power of God’s love for the world that defeats death, to receive the promises of
God as the reality of God, is to believe in Jesus. When Jesus asks Martha, “Do you believe this?”
he asks her to believe both that he is the resurrection and the life and that as the resurrection
and the life he defeats the power of death. That is, he asks her whether she believes in the fullness
of his relationship with God and the effects of that relationship on the life of the world.
Faith, therefore, is not assent to a series of faith statements, but assent to the truth of Jesus’
relationship with God and the decisive change that relationship means for the lives of those
who believe. Schnackenburg has eloquently expressed what it means to answer yes to Jesus’
question of v. 260: “The content [of faith] is what Jesus means for believers, and therefore
faith is fundamentally an attachment to this messenger of God... . The relevance of faith lies
not in the power of faith as such, but in the fact that faith creates communion with Jesus and
that through Jesus believers receive the gift of life.”””
Jesus’ claim in vv. 25-26, the claim to which he invites Martha’s (and the church’s) assent,
is that the eschatological reality of God that.is present in Jesus has decisively altered human
experience of life and death. Martha confesses her faith in Jesus as the Son of God (v. 27),
yet v. 39 shows that she is not really convinced about the “So what?” of her christological
confession. Martha’s attempt to stop Jesus from opening Lazarus’s tomb (v. 39) shows that
the full impact of that eschatological claim is beyond her comprehension (see Commentary).
370. See Schneiders, “Death in the Community of Eternal Life.”

694
Martha serves as a mirror for the contemporary Christian, because the church responds to
Jesus’ claims of vv. 25-26 in ways that often are as hesitant as Martha’s words in v. 39.
For example, Jesus’ “I am” statement of v. 25a, one of the christological high points of the
Gospel, loses much of its eschatological and soteriological significance if the only time the
church engages it is at Easter or funerals. The church preaches about death and resurrection
at the time of death, but shies away from such topics in the midst of life. Yet it is in the
everyday rhythms of life that the church most needs to talk about Jesus’ power as the
resurrection and the life, so that death can indeed lose its sting. To proclaim the power of
resurrection only at the time of death is both to impoverish the proclamation and to weaken
the power of its witness in the face of death. There is thus a critical need to include
conversations about death and the theological significance of Jesus as the resurrection and the
life in the ongoing theological reflection of the church, not just in its reflection about death.
In the moment of crisis, at the funeral of a loved one, the immediate need is for pastoral
care and reassurance about the power of the resurrection. Indeed, funerals do provide gospel
witness to the power of God in Jesus. But a funeral is not the moment for believers to reassess
their lives in the light of the new eschatological reality in which the incarnation enables the
church to live, because the power of grief and loss is so palpable. Why, then, does the church
so often save its most powerful proclamation about death and resurrection for funerals?
Jesus’ powerful announcement to Martha suggests that the church needs to embrace Jesus
as the resurrection and the life not only at times of death, but also in the daily moments of
human lives, because these moments, too, whether one names them so or not, are also lived
in the face of death. John 11 asks the church to reflect that Jesus is the resurrection and the
life not just for the crisis moment of death, but for all moments in life. Jesus as the resurrection
and the life is the decisive eschatological announcement, because he announces that the world
is now definitively under God’s care and power. John 11:25-26 invites the church to claim
that death is indeed an inescapable part of the believer’s life, but that it also belongs to the
ongoing, life-giving power of God in Jesus (“even though they die, will live,” v. 250). And
Jesus’ words here invite the church to claim that God’s life-giving power in Jesus is the power
that determines the believer’s existence, not the power of death (“everyone who lives and
believes in me will never die”). John 11 thus offers a promise about how those who believe
in Jesus will live their lives, not just about how they will end them.
It is the church’s responsibility to reintegrate death into the mainstream of its theological
and pastoral reflection and experience. The goal of such a reintegration is not to eliminate the
pain at the death of those we love—that would be a gnostic exercise in denial—but to help
the church experience the life of faith grounded in the affirmation that Jesus is the resurrection
and the life. The promises of God in Jesus offered in the face of death can equip the church
to understand the promises of God in Jesus offered in the midst of life.
John 11:45-54, The Decision to Kill Jesus

NIV NRSV
4STherefore many of the Jews who had come 45Many of the Jews therefore, who had come
to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put with Mary and had seen what Jesus did, believed
their faith in him. ““But some of them went to in him. “But some of them went to the Pharisees
the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. and told them what he had done. 4’So the chief
47Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the
a meeting of the Sanhedrin. council, and said, “What are we to do? This man
“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. is performing many signs. “If we let him go on
695
JOHN 11:45-54
NIV NRSV
“Here is this man performing many miraculous like this, everyone will believe in him, and the
signs. “If we let him go on like this, everyone Romans will come and destroy both our holy
will believe in him, and then the Romans will place* and our nation.” 4But one of them, Caia-
come and take away both our place* and our phas, who was high priest that year, said to them,
nation.” “You know nothing at all! °°You do not under-
4Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was stand that it is better for you to have one man
high priest that year, spoke up, “You know noth- die for the people than to have the whole nation
ing at all! °°You do not realize that it is better for destroyed.” °'He did not say this on his own, but
you that one man die for the people than that the being high priest that year he prophesied that
whole nation perish.” Jesus was about to die for the nation, °2and not
5'He did not say this on his own, but as high for the nation only, but to gather into one the
priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would dispersed children of God. *So from that day on
die for the Jewish nation, °2and not only for that they planned to put him to death.
nation but also for the scattered children of God, 54Jesus therefore no longer walked about
to bring them together and make them one. °’So openly among the Jews, but went from there to
from that day on they plotted to take his life. a town called Ephraim in the region near the
+4Therefore Jesus no longer moved about pub- © wilderness; and he remained there with the dis-
licly among the Jews. Instead he withdrew to a ciples.
region near the desert, to a village called Ephraim, aOr our temple, Greek our place
where he stayed with his disciples.
248 Or temple
COMMENTARY
11:45-46. These transitional verses provide Pharisees had a de facto voice in Sanhedrin de-
corroboration of the miracle (cf. 2:9-10; 5:10-18; liberations, because during this period most of the
9:8-12), and hence can be read as the conclusion scribes were Pharisees.°”? The Pharisees’ unofficial
to the preceding miracle story. Jesus’ actions cause power may explain why the combination “chief
division among the “Jews,” continuing a pattern priests and Pharisees” (rather than “scribes”; cf.
found elsewhere in the Gospel (cf. 7:40-41, 43; Mark 14:1, 43, 53; Luke 19:47; 20:1,- 19; 22:2,
9:16; 10:19). The contrast between “many” (troA- 66; 23:10) is the Fourth Gospel’s standard desig-
dot pollo’) in v. 45 and “some” (tives tines) in nation for the Jewish leadership when it acts as
v. 46, suggests that more “Jews” believe in Jesus a formal, deliberative body (7:32, 45; 18:3).37
as a result of the raising of Lazarus than those Moreover, as noted earlier (see Commentary on
who denounce him. Yet, more important, vv. 1:24), it was the descendants of the Pharisees
45-46 also move the story forward from the with whom the Fourth Evangelist was in conflict;
raising of Lazarus to the formal decision to kill and so his word choice focuses on the branch of
Jesus. The report given to the Pharisees in v. 46 Judaism that was most recognizable to his readers
is explicitly identified as the reason for the council (cf. the alternation of the terms “Pharisees” and
meeting in v. 47 (“so...” [ovv oun], NRSV; the “Jews” in chap. 9).
NIV masks the causal link between the two 11:47b-48. The chief priests and Pharisees’
verses). question in v. 476 can be translated as either a
11:47a. At the time of Jesus, the members of rhetorical question (NIV) or a deliberative ques-
the Sanhedrin were chief priests, elders, and
scribes; the Pharisees were not official members 372. See, e.g,, Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 15.3.
373. Ernst Bammel, “Ex Illa itaque die consilium fecerunt... (John
and, therefore, had no authority to call the council
11:53),” in Ernst Bammel, ed., The Trial ofJesus: Cambridge Studies in
together (cf. v. 47). Yet it is also true that the Honor of C. F. D. Moule (London: SCM, 1970) 21.
696
tion (NRSV). The continuation of their speech in during Roman rule the high priest held office only
v. 48 suggests that the question is not merely at the discretion of the Roman governor; thus the
rhetorical; they are looking for a solution to their priest could not count on a lifetime appoint-
dilemma. The dilemma is expressed in terms of ment.*’® The temporal reference may thus intro-
the political consequences of Jesus’ popularity. duce another note of irony into the passage by
The Sanhedrin’s political concerns here are for reminding readers of the tenuous hold the high
their own self-interest. The emphatic placement priest had on his office, despite his claims to
of the first-person plural pronoun in the Greek power, an irony that is developed further in vv.
makes this clear. A more literal translation that 51-52 (cf. 19:10-12). Indeed, Caiaphas’s term did
accurately conveys the leadership’s concerns is not last his lifetime, because he was deposed at
“The Romans will come and take away from us the end of Pilate’s term as governor (18-36 ce).9”?
the holy place and the nation” (cf. NIV). The Since Origen, however, another interpretation
leaders are not concerned about the destruction of the words “in that year” has been suggested:
of Jerusalem by the Romans (NRSV),374 but their to translate them emphatically, “for that year.”
own loss of power within the religious and politi- This translation draws attention to this particular
cal system. This loss of power was indeed a year of Caiaphas’s high priesthood, the year of
concern of the ruling Jewish establishment pre—70 Jesus’ death, and does not speak about the dura-
ce.3”° Were Jesus to attract more of a following, tion of his term.*®° The Fourth Evangelist wants the
like the crowd that attempted to make him king reader to identify Caiaphas’s priesthood with that
(6:15) or the crowd that will hail him as king year, regardless of when else he may have been high
when he enters Jerusalem (12:12-19), the Romans priest. This reading has much in its favor. In par-
would hold the Jewish leadership responsible for ticular, the repeated use of the phrase “that year”
this disturbance and take away their power.?”° To in relation to Caiaphas (see also v. 51; 18:13)
read the leadership’s words this way adds a level suggests that the Evangelist intends more than a
of irony to this scene, because the post—70 cE reference to the length of the high priestly term.
Gospel reader knows that the truth of the Sanhe- The abrasiveness of Caiaphas’s opening words
drin’s concerns ran deeper than they anticipated. in v. 49 matches Josephus’s portrait of the tenor
11:49-50. Caiaphas is identified as “high of conversations at Sanhedrin meetings.°*' His
priest that year” (v. 49). Many scholars see this words in v. 50 are a model of political realism
apparent reference to Caiaphas’s yearly appoint- and expediency,*® and they speak to the leader-
ment as an example of the Fourth Evangelist’s ship’s self-interest. They are offered in the form
ignorance of Jewish customs, because the office of an aphorism, and similar aphorisms are well
of high priest came with lifetime tenure.%”” Yet documented in the ancient Mediterranean world.
some scholars think that the reference to an Beasley-Murray, for example, cites the following
annual appointment is not a mistake by the Fourth saying from Gen. Rab. 94, 60a: “It is better that
Evangelist, but a nod to the realities of Jewish this man be killed than that the totality be pun-
life in the Roman Empire. That is, even though ished on his account.”3°°
the high priesthood was a lifetime appointment, 11:51-52. The irony that has underlaid much
of this passage comes to its fullest expression in
374. So Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 442; Barrett, the commentary in vv. 51-52. The narrator in-
The Gospel According to St. John, 406.
375. See Ernst Bammel, “Ex Illa itaque die consilium fecerunt... forms the reader that Caiaphas’s words are not
(John 11:53).”
376. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 410; Ernst Haenchen, John, 378. See “Ex Illa itaque die consilium fecerunt . . . (John 11:53),” 39;
Hermenia, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 2:75; George R. Beasley- Beasley-Murray, John, 197.
Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987) 196. For further 379. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 28. 35, 95.
discussion of Jewish/Roman political interactions around the death of 380. So, e.g, Brown, Zhe Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 440,
Jesus, see the Commentary on John 18:28-19:16. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 446; Schnackenburg, Der
377. See Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 410n. 10; Haenchen, John, Evangelist Johannes, 2:348.
2:75. Priestly appointments in cities in Asia Minor were one-year term 381. Josephus The Jewish War 2.166.
appointments, so the suggestion is made that the Fourth Evangelist 382. Bultmann, Zhe Gospel of John, 411.
confused the Jewish and pagan customs,’ See also C. H. Dodd, “The 383. Beasley-Murray, John, 196-97. See also Hermann L. Strack and
Prophecy of Caiaphas: John xi 47-53,” in Neotestamentica et Patristica: Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und
Midrash (Miinchen: Beck, 1924) II:540; Bammel, The Trial of Jesus,
Eine Freudengabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullman zu seinem 60.
Geburstag, NovTSup 6 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962) 141. 26-27.
697
simply the political realism that he intends, but him, and hence show themselves as children of
are inspired, albeit unintentional, prophecy about God and those who do not. These categories will
the true meaning of Jesus’ death. The oracular be expanded upon in the Farewell Discourse.
power of the high priesthood can be traced back This vision of the purpose of Jesus’ death has its
to the beginning of the institution, because in- own irony because the Fourth Evangelist’s language
cluded in the priestly regalia were the lots of Urim in v. 52 plays on Jewish hopes for the restoration
and Thummin, which guided the priest in oracular of the true Israel. One of Israel’s eschatological hopes
decisions (e.g., Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8; Deut 33:8; is the gathering together of all the tribes of Israel
1 Sam 14:41-42). Josephus wrote about the oracu- who have been dispersed throughout the Mediter-
lar powers of John Hyrcanus when he was high ranean world (e.g, Isa 43:5-6; 60:6; Jer 31:10; Ezek
priest;34 so the notion of the priest’s prophetic 34:12), and the Fourth Evangelist names Jesus as
powers was not unknown at the time of the the agent of that gathering. Verse 52 makes clear
Fourth Evangelist. What is striking about the that the Fourth Evangelist’s eschatological vision is
Fourth Evangelist’s appeal to this tradition in v. not for a merely national restoration, however, but
51, however, is that he uses it to show how the for a truly inclusive gathering of all of God’s children.
power of the priesthood can witness to the truth The arrival of the Greeks in 12:20 (see below)
of Jesus even as it works actively to suppress it. confirms that this gathering includes Jews and Gen-
The Fourth Evangelist’s attitude toward Caiaphas tiles.
here is like that of Second Isaiah to Cyrus; even 11:53. The Sanhedrin leadership were per-
those who do not know God can be God’s instru- suaded by Caiaphas’s argument of expediency,
ments for salvation (Isa 45:4-5). unaware of the implications of his prophecy.
In addition to revealing the ironic dimension of The word translated as “planned” (BovAevopat
Caiaphas’s desire for political expediency, the bouleuomai) has the meaning of a formal deci-
Fourth Evangelist’s commentary in vv. 51-52 pro- sion. This verse echoes 5:18 (see also 7:1, 25;
vides the reader with theological categories 8:37, 40}, with the important difference that the
through which to assess Jesus’ upcoming death. death threat has moved from intention to official
At 1:12, “children of God” are defined as those decision and resolve. These verses thus serve as
who receive Jesus and believe in his name. At the formal prelude to the narrative of Jesus’ death
8:28 Jesus told the “Jews” that at his death they in John 18-19.
would “realize that I am.” Both of these ideas are 11:54. Jesus’ retreat to Ephraim (v. 54) is
brought together in v. 52, when the Fourth Evan- explicitly linked to the Sanhedrin’s decision
gelist identifies the purpose of Jesus’ death as the (“therefore”). As at 10:40, Jesus’ retreat signals
gathering of God’s dispersed children into one (see the reader that Jesus’ arrest and death will occur
also 12:32). The Fourth Evangelist’s commentary according to his time and plan, not the Sanhe-
recalls Jesus’ image in 10:15-18 of himself as the drin’s. He retreats until his hour arrives with the
shepherd who lays down his life for the one flock. Passover (12:23; 13:1). Ephraim was located in
Jesus’ death will be the dividing line between the Judean outlands, further signaling that Jesus
those who believe in his name, recognize God in does not retreat to escape his death (cf. 11:8-10),
384. See Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 13.282-83, 299; The Jewish
but to control its time.
War 1.68.
REFLECTIONS
The Commentary on 11:45-54 noted the repeated instances of irony in the Fourth
Evangelist’s presentation of the Sanhedrin’s decision to kill Jesus. This use of irony raises two
important issues for the Gospel interpreter. First, it confronts the interpreter with the paradox
of Jesus’ raising of Lazarus as the catalyst for his death sentence. In the synoptic Gospels,
Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple is the catalyst for his death sentence (see Commentary on
2:13-21), but by explicitly naming the Lazarus miracle as the precipitating cause of the
Sanhedrin meeting, the Evangelist expands the arena of Jesus’ threat to the Jewish authorities’
power. That is, Jesus’ challenge is not interpreted simply as his challenge to the political power
of the religious establishment; it is presented as a challenge to the very way in which the
presence of God is known and approached in the world. Jesus’ raising of Lazarus demonstrated
that all of Jesus’ claims about his unity with God are true: He does share God’s power for
life; he does embody the fulfillment of God’s promises (see Commentary on 11:1-44).
The governing irony of the juxtaposition of the Lazarus miracle and the Sanhedrin
decision is that even as the authorities resolve to kill Jesus, they are powerless in the
presence of the one who is the resurrection and the life. Before performing the miracle,
Jesus explicitly stated that Lazarus’s illness was not for death, but for the glory of God
(11:4). Faced with that glory, the religious leadership nonetheless resorts to planning his
death. Jesus’ gift of life is the most radical and dangerous threat to the authorities’ power,
yet all of their political machinations will only enhance Jesus’ power for life, not impede
it. The truth of who Jesus is and what Jesus gives exceeds all hopes and anticipations, and
because Jesus’ gift of life redefines the power of death, all agents of death are rendered
impotent in his presence. The Fourth Evangelist’s ironic commentary tells the reader that
this decision for death contains the seeds of life for those who believe. It is a brilliant way
of reinforcing the bold message of 11:1-44: Because Jesus is the resurrection and the life,
death has lost its sting.
Yet this thoroughly ironic treatment of Jesus’ death sentence confronts the interpreter with
a second issue: How is the relationship between “history” and “interpretation” to be negotiated
in this text? The Evangelist’s interpretive work is undisguised in this passage; he provides
explicit narrative commentary on the theological meaning of the event he is recounting (vv
51-52); he arranges details of the story to highlight his ironic reading. Yet as the Commentary
on these verses has shown, they also offer glimpses of the workings of the Sanhedrin that
stand up well next to other sources about life in first-century Palestine under Roman rule.
It is critical that the interpreter of the Fourth Gospel not fall into the anachronistic trap,
shaped by Enlightenment understandings of science and history, of drawing a line between
history and interpretation. The Fourth Evangelist did not separate recounting the story from
interpreting the story, and that unity of purpose shapes all aspects of the Gospel. Details that
give the reader a glimpse into the religious life of early and mid—first-century Palestine, stories
that come from common traditions about Jesus, find their way into this Gospel, but they do
so through the Fourth Evangelist’s literary and theological lens. The irony with which the
account of Caiaphas’s pronouncement is laced is evidence not that the Fourth Evangelist had
no regard for history, or even that he made the story up, but rather that he understood God’s
purposes to be at work even in history and constructed his narrative so that his readers could
see that, too.
John 11:55-12:11, Jesus’ Anointing at Bethany
NIV NRSV
55When it was almost time for the Jewish 55Now the Passover of the Jews was near, and
Passover, many went up from the country to many went up from the country to Jerusalem
Jerusalem for their ceremonial cleansing before before the Passover to purify themselves. °°They
the Passover. *°They kept looking for Jesus, and were looking for Jesus and were asking one an-
as they stood in the temple area they asked one other as they stood in the temple, “What do you
another, “What do you think? Isn’t he coming to think? Surely he will not come to the festival, will
the Feast at all?” °’But the chief priests and he?” °’Now the chief priests and the Pharisees
699
JOHN 11:55-12:11
NIV NRSV
Pharisees had given orders that if anyone found had given orders that anyone who knew where
out where Jesus was, he should report it so that Jesus? was should let them know, so that they
they might arrest him. might arrest him.
a] Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived Six days before the Passover Jesus came to
at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom l2.Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he
Jesus had raised from the dead. *Here a dinner had raised from the dead. *There they gave a
was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was
Lazarus was among those reclining at the table one of those at the table with him. *Mary took a
with him. °Then Mary took about a pint? of pure pound of costly perfume made of pure nard,
nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them? with her
Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of
the house was filled with the fragrance of the the perfume. “But Judas Iscariot, one of his disci-
perfume. ples (the one who was about to betray him), said,
‘But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who 5“Why was this perfume not sold for three hun-
was later to betray him, objected, °““Why wasn’t dred denariic and the money given to the poor?”
this perfume sold and the money given to the °(He said this not because he cared about the
poor? It was worth a year’s wages.°” °He did not . poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the
say this because he cared about the poor but common purse and used to steal what was put
because he was a thief; as keeper of the money into it.) Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She bought
bag, he used to help himself to what was put it? so that she might keep it for the day of my
into it. burial. You always have the poor with you, but
™ZLeave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was in- you do not always have me.”
tended, that she should save this perfume for the 9When the great crowd of the Jews learned
day of my burial. You will always have the poor that he was there, they came not only because of
among you, but you will not always have me.” Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised
*Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out from the dead. '°So the chief priests planned to
that Jesus was there and came, not only because put Lazarus to death as well, '!since it was on
of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had account of him that many of the Jews were
raised from the dead. '°So the chief priests made deserting and were believing in Jesus.
plans to kill Lazarus as well, ''for on account of
aGk he 5 Gk his feet eThree hundred denarii would be
him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus nearly a year’s wages for a laborer 4Gklacks She bought it
and putting their faith in him.
a3 Greek a litra (probably about 0.5 liter) 65 Greek three hundred
denarii
(COMMENTARY
11:55-57. These verses link the decision to are intentionally ambiguous; it is unclear whether
kill Jesus (11:53) with the upcoming Passover, those who look for Jesus have positive or mali-
the context for the final events in Jesus’ ministry cious intent (cf. 7:11). The language of v. 57 is
(12:1, 12, 20; 13:1). This is the third Passover an explicit reminder of the formal death threat
mentioned in John (see 2:13, 23; 6:4). The need _ under which Jesus stands: “chief priests and Phari-
for purification prior to celebrating Passover (v. 55) sees” recalls the official body that passed the death
accurately represents Jewish cultic practices (cf. sentence (cf. v. 47, 53); and the verbs “give orders”,
Num 9:10; 2 Chr 30:17-18; Josephus The Jewish “report”, and “arrest” are legal terms.38
War 1.229; see also Acts 21:24, 26; 24:18). The
385. Ernst Bammel, ed., “Ex Illa itaque die consilium:fecerunt .. .
tension attendant on this last Passover is under-
(John 11:53),” in The Trial ofJesus: Cambridge Studies in Honor of C. E
scored by vv. 56-57. The crowd’s questions (v. 56) D. Moule (London: SCM, 1970) 33.
700
12:1-8. 12:1. The story of Jesus’ anointing is bined details from the two anointing traditions
narrated here. The time referent locates the because both stories had details that served his
anointing in the same week as Passover and thus theological purposes.
serves as a reminder of the proximity of Jesus’ The anointing itself is narrated in v. 3. Both
hour. The identification of Bethany as the site of John and Mark point to the quality of the perfume
Jesus’ raising of Lazarus (v. 1) also directs the (cf. Mark 14:3), but only John mentions the
reader’s attention toward Jesus’ hour, because this quantity. To many commentators, Mary’s actions
miracle precipitated the death sentence under seem merely an awkward echo of the woman in
which Jesus now stands (cf. 11:47, 53, 57). Jesus’ Luke 7; they note that the woman’s action of
return to Bethany, the place from which he had wiping her tears from Jesus’ feet with her hair fits
retreated in response to this death sentence the Lukan story, but such a gesture seems out of
(11:54), also suggests movement toward his hour. place in the Johannine account.2* Careful atten-
12:2. The Evangelist does not specify who gave tion to the Fourth Evangelist’s word choice in
the dinner for Jesus; the naming of Lazarus, Martha, narrating Mary’s actions, however, suggests that
and Mary supports the assumption that the dinner the action of wiping Jesus’ feet is essential to the
is at the home of this family whom Jesus loves (cf. Johannine account. The verb “to wipe” (€xudoow
11:5). Outside of this verse, the word “dinner” ekmasso; see also 11:2) is the same verb used to
(Seitrvov deipnon) is used exclusively in John to describe Jesus’ wiping of his disciples’ feet at the
refer to Jesus’ last dinner with his disciples (13:2, foot washing in John 13:5. Mary’s anointing and
4; 21:20). As the discussion of vv. 3-8 will show, wiping of Jesus’ feet thus point toward Jesus’ foot
this dinner has many echoes of that meal. washing at the farewell meal.°*? Like the stories
12:3-8. Two anointing traditions are preserved of the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44) and the San-
in the canonical Gospels. The first, found in Mark hedrin’s decision to kill Jesus (11:45-54), this
14:3-9 (and followed by Matt 26:1-13), is associ- story prefigures critical events in Jesus’ hour.
ated with the events of Jesus’ passion and narrates The reference to the pervasiveness of the fra-
the anointing of Jesus’ head by a woman as grance of the perfume {v. 30) signals the extrava-
preparation for his burial (Matt 26:12; Mark gance of Mary’s act; a pound of expensive
14:8). The second, found in Luke 7:36-49, nar- perfume would, indeed, overwhelm the house!
rates the anointing of Jesus’ feet and has no Yet this reference to the perfume’s fragrance may
associations with Jesus’ burial. It exemplifies the have additional significance. At 11:39, Martha
woman’s love and respect for Jesus (Luke 7:44-47) attempted to stop Jesus at Lazarus’s tomb because
and evokes Jesus’ forgiveness of her sins (Luke of the stench that would come out of the tomb.
7:48-49). The story in John 12:3-8 includes ele- Through Mary’s act, the stench of death that once
ments from both traditions. For example, Mary lingered over this household has been replaced by
anoints Jesus’ feet, as in the tradition preserved the fragrance of love and devotion.
in Luke, yet her anointing is explicitly linked with In the Markan anointing, an unnamed group
Jesus’ burial, as in the tradition preserved in Mark. protests the woman’s waste of the perfume (Mark
The Fourth Evangelist seems to have combined 14:5), but in John the protest is voiced by Judas
the two traditions into one story in composing his alone (v. 4). The major role played by Judas in
story of the anointing.°®° It is not necessary to the anointing story (vv. 4-6) further suggests that
postulate Johannine dependence on the synoptic the Fourth Evangelist intends the reader to link
Gospels for this story,°®” but rather acquaintance Mary’s anointing with the events of the farewell
with the two traditions that lie behind all of the meal (cf. 13:2, 26, 29). The lengthy description
Gospel anointings (see Commentary on 4:46-54 of Judas in v. 4 serves two purposes. First, it
and 6:1-21). The Fourth Evangelist carefully com- makes the connection with Jesus’ death explicit
(see also 6:71; 18:2, 5), and second, it delegiti-
386. So,-e.g., Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John mates Judas’s protest before he even speaks. What
(I-XIl), AB 29 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 450-52; Robert
Kysar, John, Augsburg Commentary of the New Testament (Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1986) 325-26n. 17. 388. So Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3
387. So C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982.
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 410-11. 389. See Kysar, John, 187.
701
might be a reasoned complaint about the expen- without a clear protasis clarify the meaning of
diture of money (cf. Matt 26:8) is shown to be Jesus’ words here. At both 9:3 and 11:4, an
untrustworthy by the Evangelist’s commentary. elliptical hina’purpose clause is used to announce
Judas’s words in v. 5 nonetheless underscore the the purpose of Jesus’ revelatory acts. Here, the
extravagance of Mary’s act; she has spent a year’s same construction is used to announce the reve-
wages (NIV) on this act of devotion. latory significance of Mary’s act. The anointing in
The delegitimation of Judas continues in v. 6. Mark 14 is the only anointing Jesus’ body receives
This verse provides a detail about Judas that will for its burial, but in John, there will be another
be repeated at 13:29; he was the keeper of the anointing at the time of Jesus’ burial (19:38-42).
common purse. Greed was one of the early The significance of Mary’s act is that it anticipates
church’s explanation for Judas’s treachery (e.g., that final anointing. Jesus’ words in v. 7 thus
Matt 26:15), and v. 6 can thus be read as con- interpret Mary’s act as confirming the impending
tinuing the vilification of Judas in early Christian arrival of his hour.
tradition. Yet the details of this description seem Jesus’ words in v. 8 are identical to Matt 26:11
to serve another purpose as well. Judas is labeled (cf. Mark 14:7). This verse is absent from some
a “thief” (kAéTTns kleptes), the same word used manuscripts and may have been added to others
to describe the one who threatens the flock in 10:1, by a scribe to harmonize with the Matthean
8, 10. The expression “not because he cared about — account.%”! It alludes to the commandment to care
the poor” echoes the description of the hired hand’s for the poor in Deut 15:11, and in Matthew and
lack of care for the sheep (10:13). The use of these Mark it clearly rebuffs the protest about money
words suggests that the description of Judas is in- and waste. Yet this verse takes on a distinct
tended to point the reader toward the proper con- meaning in the Johannine context and as such
text in which to place Judas’s actions. When he may point again to the Evangelist’s creative use
betrays Jesus, he also betrays the sheep. of tradition. It reminds the disciples of the limited
Verses 3-6 thus narrate two distinct responses time of Jesus’ presence among them and the
to the arrival of Jesus’ hour. Mary is the model urgency to respond to Jesus while he is still here
of faithful discipleship, Judas unfaithful.°°° Jesus’ (cf. 11:9-10). Mary has recognized this limited-
words in vv. 7-8 validate Mary’s response. The ness and responded to it.
grammar of the Greek text of v. 7 is difficult. 12:9-11. These verses form an appropriate
Verse 7b begins with an elliptical purpose clause conclusion to all three stories of 11:1-12:11 by
(lit., “in order that [iva hina] she might keep it”). reiterating the link between Jesus’ raising of Laz-
The NRSV resolves the difficulty by supplying the arus and the threat to Jesus’ life. The authorities’
verb phrase “she bought it,” but these words are fears (11:48) come true; “many of the Jews”
not in the Greek text and their addition limits the desert and believe in Jesus (v. 11). The danger
scope of Jesus’ response. The NIV comes closer that the authorities perceive in Jesus’ miracle is
to the meaning of the Greek text because it underscored by their decision to put Lazarus to
emphasizes the centrality of the purpose clause. death also; there can be no public reminders of
Two other instances of a hina purpose clause what Jesus has done.
390. Elisabeth Schtissler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her; A Feminist 391. So Brown, Zhe Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 449; Barrett,
Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983) 330. The Gospel According to St. John, 415.
REFLECTIONS
The Commentary on 12:1-8 identified Jesus’ anointing by Mary as anticipatory of two events
in Jesus’ hour: Jesus’ washing of his disciples’ feet at the last supper and Jesus’ burial. Perhaps
because the linkage with Jesus’ burial is an interpretation shared by Mark and Matthew,
commentators have focused almost exclusively on this aspect of the story. Yet it is in the link
between the anointing and the foot washing that the Fourth Evangelist’s distinctive theology can
be seen most clearly, and the full meaning of this story is lost when that linkage is overlooked.
JOHN 11:55—12:11 REFLECTIONS
In the foot washing (see Commentary and Reflections on 13:1-20), Jesus will wash his
disciples’ feet as an expression of his love for them (13:1), as a way of drawing them into his
life with God (13:8). He will also ask them to repeat this act of service for one another
(13:14-15). What Jesus will do for his disciples and will ask them to do for one another, Mary
has already done for him in 12:3. In Mary, then, the reader is given a picture of the fullness
of the life of discipleship. Her act shows forth the love that will be the hallmark of discipleship
in John and the recognition of Jesus’ identity that is the decisive mark of Christian life.
Mary’s act of discipleship is brought out even more strongly in the contrast with Judas in
this scene. Judas does not respond to the impingement of Jesus’ hour with an act of love for
Jesus, but with self-centered disdain. Judas’s response leads to the destruction of the flock,
whereas Mary’s actions model the life of love that should characterize Jesus’ sheep.
The power of the witness of Mary’s discipleship in this story is that she knows how to
respond to Jesus without being told. She fulfills Jesus’ love commandment before he even
teaches it (e.g., 13:34-35); she embraces Jesus’ departure at his hour before he has taught his
followers about its true meaning (e.g., 14:2-4; 16:19-24). In the story of the raising of Lazarus,
she responded to Jesus’ calling for her (11:28-29), thus showing that she was one of Jesus’
own. In the anointing, she shows what it means to be one of Jesus’ own. She gives boldly of
herself in love to Jesus at his hour, just as Jesus will give boldly of himself in love at his hour.
The Commentary and Reflections on John 11:1-44 discussed Jesus’ raising of Lazarus as the
eschatological announcement of the fullness of God available in Jesus and the fullness of life
Jesus makes available to those who believe. Mary’s anointing of Jesus is the companion
eschatological act, because it is the eschatological announcement of the promise of discipleship.
That is, if in the raising of Lazarus, Jesus is fully revealed, then in Mary’s anointing of Jesus,
faithful discipleship is fully revealed. Mary’s act of anointing illustrates the Evangelist’s
eschatological vision of the new life to be lived by those who embrace Jesus’ life and death
and become children of God (1:12; 11:53).
Jesus’ words about discipleship in the Farewell Discourse will make explicit what this
story shows: Discipleship is defined by acts of love and one’s response to Jesus. It is
important, therefore, in the appropriation of John 12:1-8 in the life of the church to
acknowledge that the Fourth Evangelist names a woman as the first to embody the love
that is commanded of all disciples. The Fourth Evangelist’s eschatological vision of a
community shaped by love and grounded in relationship to Jesus is first enacted by a
female disciple who by conventional standards has no claim to that position (cf. the
disciples’ response to Jesus’ conversation with a woman in 4:27). Discipleship in the Fourth
Gospel does not conform to some of the church’s stereotypical assumptions about the
composition of Jesus’ circle of disciples. For example, the Twelve as a fixed group of male
disciples are nearly invisible in this Gospel (see 6:67-71). Jesus’ disciples are persons, like
Mary, whom he loves and who love him and live out that love (ergeel3:35; 15:9-10,
f2-17; 17:20):
703
Figure 11: Chronology of the Holy Week and Resurrection Appearances in the Gospels
Matthew Mark
Saturday
Sunday Mark 11:1-11 Triumphal entry

Looks around
Goes to Bethany
Monday Matt 21:1-17 Triumphal entry Mark 11:12-19 Curses fig tree
“Cleanses” Temple “Cleanses” Temple
Cures the blind and the lame Conspiracy against Jesus
Goes to Bethany. Leaves city
Tuesday Matt 21:18- Curses the fig tree, which withers Mark 11:20— Discovers withered fig tree
25:46 Jesus in the Temple: 13:37 Jesus in the Temple:
Question about authority Question about authority
Three parables Three parables
On paying taxes On paying taxes
Question about the resurrection Question about the resurrection
The Great Commandment The Great Commandment
Question about David’s Son Question about David’s Son
Denunciation of scribes and Pharisees Denunciation of scribes
Lament over Jerusalem Widow’s offering
Leaves the Temple Leaves the Temple
Destruction of the Temple foretold — Destruction of the Temple foretold
On the Mount of Olives On the Mount of Olives
Discourse on the end of the age Discourse on the end of the age
Signs of the end Signs of the end
Persecutions foretold Persecutions foretold
Desolating Sacrilege Desolating Sacrilege
Coming of the Son of Man Coming of the Son of Man
Lesson of the fig tree Lesson of the fig tree
Necessity for watchfulness Necessity for watchfulness
Faithful and unfaithful slave
Two parables
Judgment of the Gentiles
Wednesday Matt 26:1-16 Plot to kill Jesus Mark 14:1-11 Plot to kill Jesus
Anointing in Bethany Anointing in Bethany
Betrayal by Judas Betrayal by Judas
Thursday Matt 26:17-75 Day of Preparation* Mark 14:12-72 Day of Preparation*

Last supper Last supper
Prayer at Gethsemane Prayer at Gethsemane
Betrayal and arrest Betrayal and arrest
Trial before the Sanhedrin Trial before the Sanhedrin
Peter’s denial Peter’s denial
Matt 27:1-61 Day of Passover Mark 15:1-47 Day of Passover

Suicide of Judas Trial before Pilate
Trial before Pilate Barabbas released
Barabbas released Jesus mocked
Jesus mocked Crucifixion, death, and burial
Crucifixion, death, and burial
Saturday Matt 27:62-66 Guard placed at tomb
Sunday Matt 28:1-15 Resurrection Mark 16:1-8 Resurrection

Angel appears to the women Discovery of empty tomb
Jesus appears to the women Angel appears to the women
Report of the guard The women say “nothing to anyone”
Mark 16:9-21 Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene

Jesus appears to “two of them”
Jesus appears to the Eleven
Later Matt 28:16-20 Great Commission to the Jesus’ ascension
Events eleven in Galilee
*The Day of Preparation could refer to preparing for the sabbath (as in Matthew, Mark, and Luke) or preparing for a festival (cf.
Matt 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:8). Only in John does it refer to both, since, according to John’s chronology, the Passover fell on
the sabbath the year of Jesus’ death. The Day of Preparation, like the festival itself, began at sundown of the previous evening.
704
Chronology of the Holy Week and Resurrection Appearances in the Gospels, continued
Luke-Acts John
John 12:1-11 Mary anoints Jesus in Bethany Saturday

(No time reference is given for these events.) Plot to kill Jesus
Triumphal Entry John 12:12-50 Triumphal entry Sunday
Lament over Jerusalem Greeks come to see Jesus
Jesus speaks about his death
Response to Jesus
“Then Jesus cried out...”
“Cleanses” Temple
Question about authority

Parables
On paying taxes
Question about the resurrection
The Great Commandment
Question about David’s Son
Jesus denounces the scribes
The widow’s mite
Destruction of the Temple foretold

Destruction of Jerusalem foretold
Coming of the Son of Man

Lesson of the fig tree
Need to be alert
“Every day he was teaching in

the temple” (Luke 21:37)
Plot to kill Jesus
Betrayal by Judas
Luke 22:7-65 Day of Preparation*

Last supper John 13:1— Jesus washes disciples’ feet Thursday
Dispute about greatness 18:27 Jesus’ final discourse
Prayer on Mt. of Olives Jesus and disciples go to a garden
Betrayal and arrest Betrayal and arrest
Jesus brought to High Priest’s house Trial before High Priest
Peter’s denial Peter’s denial
Jesus mocked
Luke 22:66— Day of Passover John 18:28- Day of Preparation”

23:564 Trial before Sanhedrin 19:42 Trial before Pilate
Trials before Herod and Pilate Crucifixion, death, and burial
Barabbas released
Crucifixion, death, and burial
Luke 23:566 “They rested on the sabbath” Day of Passover Saturday
Luke 24:1-49 Resurrection John 20:1-23 Resurrection Sunday

Discovery of empty tomb Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene
Two men “in dazzling clothes” Peter and the Beloved Disciple visit
appear to the women the tomb
Peter visits the tomb Jesus appears to the disciples
Jesus appears in Emmaus (without Thomas)
Jesus appears to the disciples
Acts 1:3-11 “Forty Days Later” John 20:26-29 “One week later”
Jesus’ ascension at Bethany Jesus appears to the Eleven
‘ John 21:1-25 “After these things”
Jesus appears in Galilee
705
JOHN 12:12-19
JOHN 12:12-19, JESUS’ ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM
NIV NRSV
'2The next day the great crowd that had come 12The next day the great crowd that had come
for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to to the festival heard that Jesus was coming to
Jerusalem. '*They took palm branches and went Jerusalem. '°So they took branches of palm trees
out to meet him, shouting, and went out to meet him, shouting,
“Hosanna!é” “Hosanna!
Blessed is the one who comes in the name
“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”°
of the, Lotd—
“Blessed is the King of Israel!” the King of Israel!”
‘Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as '4Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it; as it
it is written, is written:
'S “To not be afraid, daughter of Zion.
'5“T)o not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion; Look, your king is coming,
see, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt!”
seated on a donkey’s colt.”* _. lHis disciples did not understand these things at
first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they
lCAt first his disciples did not understand all remembered that these things had been written
this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize of him and had been done to him. '’So the crowd
that these things had been written about him and that had been with him when he called Lazarus
that they had done these things to him. out of the tomb and raised him from the dead
'7Now the crowd that was with him when he called continued to testify.? '*It was also because they
Lazarus from the tomb and raised him from the dead heard that he had performed this sign that the
continued to spread the word. '*Many people, because crowd went to meet him. !°The Pharisees then
they had heard that he had given this miraculous sign, said to one another, “You see, you can do nothing.
went out to meet him. '°So the Pharisees said to one Look, the world has gone after him!”
another, “See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how aOther ancient authorities read with him began to testify that he
the whole world has gone after him!” had called... from the dead
a13 A Hebrew expression meaning “Save!” which became an

exclamation of praise 613 Psalm 118:25, 26 c15 Zech. 9:9
(COMMENTARY
Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem is narrated number of significant differences in John’s version
in all four Gospels (see also Matt 21:1-11; Mark of the entry, a theory of Johannine dependence
11:1-10; Luke 20:29-40). All four versions share a on Mark for this story°*? seems neither tenable nor
common core: Jesus is greeted by a crowd waving necessary. Rather, the recounting of Jesus’ entry in
branches and shouting the words of Ps 118:25; Jesus all four Gospels is best interpreted as evidence of
rides a donkey during the entry. Beyond this com- the prominent place the entry occupied in early
mon core, however, the differences between the Christian traditions about Jesus.
Johannine account and those in the other Gospels 12:12-15. The entry is narrated in vv. 12-15.
are especially pronounced. For example, the Johan- Verses 12-13 focus on the crowd; vv. 14-15 on
nine version is considerably briefer than those of the Jesus.
other three Gospels, narrating only the entry itself 12:12. This verse explicitly connects the entry
and containing no account of the preparation for the
story with the preceding narratives. First, the
entry and the procuring of the donkey (cf. Matt
21:1-7; Mark 11:1-7; Luke 19:29-35). Given the 392. So Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 416.
706
entry is located on the day after the anointing authorities’ fears about Rome’s response to Jesus’
(“the next day”). Since the anointing took place popularity (11:48).
six days before Passover (v. 1), a Saturday, the This is not the first time Jesus has been hailed
entry takes place on Sunday. John alone among as king in the Fourth Gospel. In the panoply of
the Gospels specifies the day of the week of Jesus’ christological titles of John 1, Nathanael proclaims
entry, and the church has followed this chronol- Jesus to be the King of Israel (1:49). Jesus re-
ogy in its liturgical celebration of Palm Sunday. sponds to Nathanael’s announcement by promis-
Second, the identification of the “great crowd” ing that he will see “greater things than these”
points back to the crowds of 11:55-56 and 12:9 (1:50), suggesting that Nathanael’s understanding
and is a reminder of the numbers that Jesus is of Jesus’ kingship will be changed by the reality
attracting (cf. 11:48). of Jesus’ ministry. Perhaps closest to the crowd’s
12:13. John is also alone among the Gospels response here are the actions of the Galilean
in identifying the branches waved by the crowd crowd at 6:14-15. In response to Jesus’ miraculous
as palm branches (cf. Matt 21:8; Mark 11:8; there feeding, the people wanted to make Jesus king
is no mention of branches in Luke). Since the “by force,” but Jesus escapes from them. They,
Maccabean period, palm branches were symbols like the crowd here, misunderstand the nature
of national triumph and victory (e.g., 2 Macc and purpose of Jesus’ power. The theme of Jesus’
10:7; 1 Macc 13:51). The palm branches thus kingship will reach its conclusion in the passion
suggest that the crowd greets Jesus as their na- narrative (see 18:33-19:22).
tional hero. The crowd’s opening words in v. 130 12:14-15. The focus now turns to Jesus. In
combine words from two verses of Psalm 118: the synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ riding on a donkey
“Hosanna” (v. 24 [v. 25 English]) and “Blessed be precedes the acclamation by the crowd (cf. Matt
the one who comes in the name of the Lord” (v. 21:1-7; Mark 11:1-7; Luke 19:29-34), but in John
25 [v. 26 English]). These words occur in all four it follows the acclamation and is positioned as a
Gospel accounts and match the wording of the corrective to the crowd’s misunderstanding of the
LXX of Psalm 118 exactly. One can also detect nature of Jesus’ kingship. The story of the pro-
in the entry narrative echoes of the liturgical curement of the donkey is streamlined into the
instructions of Ps 118:260 (v. 27 NRSV and other words “Jesus found a young donkey” (v. 14).
English trans.): “Bind the festal procession with Jesus’ action is interpreted in the citation from
branches.” Psalm 118 is a royal psalm sung in Zech 9:9 (v. 15; cf.:Matt 21:5), affirming that
thanksgiving for victory in battle; vv. 19-29 of the Jesus is king, but not the warrior king whom the
psalm provide the instructions for the liturgical crowd greets with palm branches. He is instead
celebration of the return of the triumphant king the king who embodies the eschatological vision
to the Temple. The use of Psalm 118 suggests of Zech 9:9: “Triumphant and victorious is he,/
that John 12:13 is to be read as the reenactment humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the
of this psalm’s liturgical celebration of a royal foal of a donkey” (NRSV).
triumph. The Fourth Evangelist has altered the opening
The Fourth Evangelist further reinforces the royal words of Zech 9:9 from “Rejoice,” to “Do not be
dimension of the crowd’s greeting by adding the afraid.” The words “Do not be afraid” occur in
words “the King of Israel” to the traditional greeting many places in the OT canon, most frequently in
from Psalm 118 (cf. the additions that each of the the poetry of Isaiah, where they announce the
Gospels makes to Psalm 118: Matt 21:9; Mark beginning of the reign of God and the fulfillment
11:9-10; Luke 19:38). These words come from Zeph of God’s eschatological promises (e.g., Isa 35:4;
3:15. Zephaniah 3:14-15 is similar to the enthrone- 40:9; 41:14). They are also associated with theo-
ment psalms (e.g., Psalms 95-99), which celebrate phanies (e.g., Gen 15:1). Of particular importance
God’s heavenly enthronement as King. The use of for v. 15 is the occurrence of those words at Zeph
Zeph 3:15 here highlights the people’s hope in Jesus 3:16. The allusion to Zephaniah 3 here provides
as the one who will restore God’s kingdom in their a further corrective to the crowd’s perception of
nation. The fact that the Jerusalem crowd reacts to Jesus. They incorrectly used the words of
Jesus as their national savior corroborates the Zephaniah 3 to greet Jesus as their political savior;
707
the Fourth Evangelist makes a renewed appeal to returning to a theme from 11:47-53: the authori-
Zephaniah 3 to show that Jesus comes as the ties’ fear of Jesus’ popularity. Verses 17-18 point
presence of God among them, but not as the to two groups that now follow Jesus: those who
conquering hero. were present at the Lazarus miracle (v. 17) and
12:16. The disciples saw what the reader those who have heard reports of the miracle (v.
sees—the crowd greets Jesus with palm branches, 18; cf. 4:39-42). The Pharisees themselves testify
Jesus responds by sitting on a donkey—but the to the fulfillment of their fears in v. 19 (cf. the
meaning of these events was unclear to them until Pharisees’ complaint in Luke 19:39). Their con-
after Jesus’ glorification. That is, it is only from fession of helplessness (“you can do nothing”)
the perspective of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and answers their own question of 11:47 (“What are
ascension that the real meaning of Jesus’ kingship we to do?”). Their hyperbolic announcement that
can be comprehended. For the disciples to remem- the “world” (kdajos kosmos} has gone after Jesus
ber means that they reflect on the past in the light provides ironic testimony to the truth of Caia- -
of the resurrection with the aid of the Spirit (cf. phas’s prophecy (11:50-52). The Pharisees, the
14:26). As at 2:22, remembering the past with Jewish authorities, unwittingly confirm one of the
the aid of the Spirit reveals the truth about Scrip- central tenets of the Gospel: Jesus came to save
ture and Jesus’ actions (see Reflections). John has the world (3:16-17); he is the Savior of the world
assisted the reader in that “remembering” by (4:42). Their words thus provide a fitting conclu-
supplying his commentary in v. 15. sion to the entry narrative, in which the crowd
12:17-19. These verses integrate the entry has wrongly greeted Jesus as their national hero
narrative into the larger unit of John 11-12 by (cf. 11:48). .
REFLECTIONS
As noted in the Commentary, the church follows the Fourth Gospel’s lead in naming its
liturgical celebration of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem Palm Sunday. The waving of palm branches
and the occurrence of the entry on a Sunday are only mentioned in John. The church follows
the Fourth Gospel’s lead in another aspect of its Palm Sunday celebration as well. When the
church celebrates Palm Sunday correctly, it is doing the very thing that is reported about the
disciples in v. 16: It is remembering the past through the lens of Jesus’ death, resurrection,
and ascension. That is, Palm Sunday is not merely a commemoration of a past event; it is,
rather, the liturgical remembrance through which Jesus’ entry becomes real for the present-day
worshiping community.
In v. 16, the Fourth Evangelist rightly reminds the reader that the individual pieces of Jesus’
life and ministry will assume their final shape only when they are reflected on after Jesus’
glorification—after the fullness of Jesus’ identity is revealed, after the full extent of Jesus’ love
for his own is made manifest. By including this explicit reminder in the middle of telling the
story of Jesus, the Fourth Evangelist identifies the church’s work of interpretation and reflection
as an essential part of the gospel message. That is, he acknowledges that the work of
interpretation and reflection is an act of faith, done through the gift of the Spirit and informed
by the recognition of God’s defeat of the power of death through the death, resurrection, and
ascension of Jesus. Moreover, the Fourth Evangelist affirms that only when one consciously
and intentionally engages in such reflection can the full truth of Jesus be grasped.
How, then, can the church’s celebration of Palm Sunday be such an act of reflection and
remembrance? When the church celebrates Palm Sunday, when it shouts, “Hosanna! Blessed
is the one who comes in the name of the Lord,” it is not participating in a victory march.
Palm Sunday is not one more excuse for a parade; it is, rather, a moment for communal
reflection on Jesus’ identity. The life of the church derives from the life and love of Jesus, and
the Palm Sunday liturgy invites the church to remember the shape and character of that life
708
and love. The liturgy of the church uses Palm Sunday as the occasion to focus its life on the
events of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension, because Palm Sunday is also Passion Sunday.
Like Jesus’ disciples in 12:16, the church can understand the meaning of Jesus’ entry—and
its identity as liturgical reenactor of that entry—only by remembering it in the light of the
rest of the story.
It is noteworthy that after the two events that traditionally mark the beginning of Jesus’ journey
to his death (the cleansing of the Temple and the entry), the Fourth Evangelist appends the same
commentary about remembering (2:22; 12:16). Although some scholars explain this with an appeal
to sources,” a more theologically suggestive explanation is that the Fourth Evangelist wanted to
underscore for the reader the incompleteness of traditions about Jesus, even those that are most
well-known, when they are interpreted apart from the full story of Jesus’ glorification. These two
notices about remembering, taken in conjunction with Jesus’ teaching about the role of the Paraclete
in bringing the community to remembrance (14:26), reveal a great deal about the Fourth Evangelist’s
understanding of his own interpretive work. His Gospel narrative is itself an act of remembering,
of reflecting on the whole story of Jesus from a post-glorification perspective, and of allowing that
perspective to govern his interpretation.
393. So Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 2:377; possibly Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 403.
JOHN 12:20-36, JESUS INTERPRETS HIS DEATH

NIV NRSV
20Now there were some Greeks among those 20Now among those who went up to worship
who went up to worship at the Feast. 'They at the festival were some Greeks. ?'They came to
came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Gali- Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and
lee, with a request. “Sir,” they said, “we would said to him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” **Philip
like to see Jesus.” Philip went to tell Andrew; went and told Andrew; then Andrew and Philip
Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus. went and told Jesus. **Jesus answered them, “The
23Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless 24Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat
a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single
remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Those
produces many seeds. ?°The man who loves his who love their life lose it, and those who hate
life will lose it, while the man who hates his life their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
in this world will keep it for eternal life. °Who- 26Whoever serves me must follow me, and where
ever serves me must follow me; and where | am, I am, there will my servant be also. Whoever
my servant also will be. My Father will honor the serves me, the Father will honor.
one who serves me. 27“Now my soul is troubled. And what should
27Niow my heart is troubled, and what shall | I say—‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is
say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this reason that I have come to this hour.
for this very reason I came to this hour. **Father, 28Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came
glorify your name!” from heaven, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify
Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glo- it again.” 2°The crowd standing there heard it and
rified it, and will glorify it again.” *°The crowd said that it was thunder. Others said, “An angel
that was there and heard it said it had thundered; has spoken to him.” “Jesus answered, “This voice
others said an angel had spoken to him. has come for your sake, not for mine. *'Now is
30Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this
709
JOHN 12:20-36
NIV NRSV
not mine. ?'Now is the time for judgment on this world will be driven out. *And I, when I am
world; now the prince of this world will be driven lifted up from the earth, will draw all people? to
out. 3@But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, myself.” 32He said this to indicate the kind of
will draw all men to myself.” **He said this to death he was to die. 34The crowd answered him,
show the kind of death he was going to die. “We have heard from the law that the Messiah?
34The crowd spoke up, “We have heard from remains forever. How can you say that the Son
the Law that the Christ? will remain forever, so of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of
how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted Man?” Jesus said to them, “The light is with
up’? Who is this ‘Son of Man’?” you for a little longer. Walk while you have the
35Then Jesus told them, “You are going to have light, so that the darkness may not overtake you.
the light just a little while longer. Walk while you If you walk in the darkness, you do not know
have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The where you are going. **While you have the light,
believe in the light, so that you may become
man who walks in the dark does not know where
he is going. °°Put your trust in the light while you
children of light.” .
After Jesus had said this, he departed and hid
have it, so that you may become sons of light.”
from them.
When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid
* aQOther ancient authorities read all things 6 Or the Christ
himself from them.
434 Or Messiah
(COMMENTARY
12:20. The arrival of the Greeks marks the 28:20), can thus also be read as their desire to
beginning of a new section. These “Greeks” become disciples. Because Andrew and Philip
(‘EXAnves Hellénes) are to be distinguished from were the first to receive the invitation to dis-
Greek-speaking Jews (“EAAnviotat Helle nistai; cf. cipleship directly from Jesus (1:39, 43), their pres-
Acts 6:1; 9:29; 11:20). Because they have made ence in vv. 21-22 establishes a connection be-
the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the Passover feast, tween the call of the first Jewish disciples and the
they may be Gentile proselytes, but what the arrival of the first Gentile disciples.
Fourth Evangelist intends to underscore is that 12:23. Just as the raising of Lazarus and Jesus’
they are non-Jews, representatives of the Gentile anointing by Mary both prefigured Jesus’ glorifica-
world. Their request to see Jesus confirms the tion, so, too, does this arrival of the Greeks. It
Pharisees’ unconscious prophecy of 12:19; the prefigures the church’s future mission to the Gentiles
world is indeed going after Jesus. and the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s promises. As
12:21-22. The prominent role of Philip and such, it points to the fulfillment of the eschatological
Andrew in vv. 21-22 can helpfully be compared promises of universal salvation (cf. 4:42). This
with the call narratives of 1:35-46, in which they proleptic glimpse of that future marks the arrival of
also play prominent roles.°”4 Jesus greeted the first Jesus’ hour (v. 23) because it is through Jesus’
disciples (one of whom was Andrew, 1:40) with glorification—his death and resurrection, his return
the invitation “Come and see” (1:39); Philip to God—that God’s promises for God’s people are
called Nathanael with the same invitation (1:46). fulfilled. Jesus’ hour is the decisive eschatological
The Greeks’ request to “see” Jesus, a conventional _ dividing line. The future to which the arrival of the
way to request a meeting (cf. Luke 8:20; 9:9; Acts Greeks points requires Jesus’ death (cf. 10:15-16).
12:24-36. Jesus’ announcement of the arrival
394. The two most frequent explanations for the prominence of Philip
and Andrew are: (1) They are the only two disciples who were known of his hour (v. 23) is followed by a series of
solely by Greek names, and (2) these verses may allude to an actual role teachings about the meaning of his death (vv.
that the two played in the Gentile mission. (So, e.g., Schnackenburg, The
Gospel According to St. John, 2:382; Barrett, The Gospel According to 24-26, 32) and the urgency of the hour (vv. 27,
St. John, 422). 30, 32, 35-36). These teachings are punctuated
710
by responses from the crowd (vv. 29, 34). The ences also point to the ways each evangelist
Fourth Evangelist uses the same compositional adapted this Jesus saying to serve his Gospel.
technique employed in John 7 to construct this Verse 25 must be read against the backdrop of
narrative about Jesus’ death. Jesus’ death (vv. 23-24). The word for “life”
12:24-26. Jesus introduces the first set of teach- (uxy psyche) is common to the tradition (e.g.,
ings about his death (vv. 24-26) with a brief agri- Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; 17:33), but it takes on
cultural parable (v. 24; cf. 4:35-36). The seed particular significance here, because it is the same
imagery recalls the parables of sowing found in the word used by Jesus to describe his gift of his life
Synoptics (Matt 13:3-32; Mark 4:3-20, 26-32; Luke (10:11, 15, 17; see also 15:13). To love one’s life
8:5-15), but this Johannine agricultural figure seems is the opposite of Jesus’ own action; it places one
to be independent of any in the synoptic tradition.3% outside of the community shaped by Jesus’ gift of
The agricultural figure that most closely resembles his life (psyche) and leads to the loss of that life
v. 24 is 1 Cor 15:37-38, but the purpose of the two (v. 25a). This is reinforced in the antithesis of v.
figures is quite distinct. Paul uses the seed imagery 250. To hate one’s life in “this world” is to declare
to illustrate the resurrection of the body, whereas one’s allegiance to Jesus (cf. 15:18-19) and so to
Jesus uses the imagery to interpret his own death. receive his gift of eternal life (cf. 3:16; 6:40;
The significance of this parable for under- 10:28; 17:2). Peter’s profession of his purported
standing Jesus’ death lies in the contrast between willingness to give up his life for Jesus (13:37-38)
remaining solitary (ovos wéver monos menei; and his subsequent denial of Jesus (18:15-18,
“just a single grain” [NRSV]) and “bearing much 25-27) illustrate v. 25a, his reclaiming of his love
fruit” (Todkvv kaptrov dépet polyn karpon pherei). and service for Jesus in 21:15-19 illustrate v. 250.
In John, “fruit” is Jesus’ metaphor for the life of Verse 26 also has analogues in the synoptic
the community of faith (see 15:1-8; the NIV tradition (Matt 10:38; Mark 8:34; Luke 14:27).
[“many seeds”] masks this important point). Jesus While the synoptic versions establish a condition
thus uses the seed parable to show that the salvific for following Jesus (“taking up one’s cross”), the
power of his death resides in the community that Johannine version contains both condition (v. 264)
is gathered as a result of it (cf. 10:15-16; 11:51- and promise (v. 260 and c). Since Jesus’ ultimate
52). Verse 24 states metaphorically what v. 32 service is the gift of his life in love, v. 26a calls the
will state directly and as such is an appropriate disciples to love as he loves and hence to serve as he
response to the Greeks’ request; one comes to serves.3 What it means to be Jesus’ servant will be
Jesus through his death.°?° enacted in the foot washing of 13:1-20 (see the
Verse 25 records one of the best-attested say- Commentary there). Verse 26a builds on the an-
ings of Jesus; in addition to this verse, some form tithesis of v. 25 and again points to the link between
of the saying occurs five times in the synoptic Jesus’ death and membership in the community of
Gospels (Matt 10:39; 16:25; Mark 10:39; Luke disciples. Verse 260 affirms that the disciple is not
9:24; 17:33). While all of the occurrences share only called to follow Jesus to his death, but also is
the basic pattern of an antithetical parallelism that offered the promise of following Jesus through his
highlights contrasting attitudes toward one’s life, death to share in his glorification. This promise
there are also significant differences among the anticipates the promises of the Farewell Discourse:
sayings. The significant number of variations
Jesus and the believer will always remain together
within the synoptic tradition and between the
(e.g., 14:2-4, 18-20; 17:23-24). Verse 26c, too, is
Synoptics and John argues against any theory of
an “unambiguous statement of promise.”%”? It is the
literary dependence and for multiple attestations
only time in the Gospel that God is spoken of as
of this saying in the oral tradition.°°” The differ-
honoring someone, and it anticipates the mutuality
395. C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cam- of relationship among God, Jesus, and believer prom-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 366-69. ised in the Farewell Discourse.
396. Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G.
Westminster, 1971) 424. ’ 398. Interestingly, the only other use of the verb for “serve” (Staxovew
diakoneo) in John is at 12:2, where Martha does the very thing Jesus calls
397. See the detailed analyses in Dodd, Tradition, 338-43, and Ray-
mond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), AB 29 (Garden for here: She serves him.
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 473-74. 399. Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 425.
711
12:27-28a. The focus returns to Jesus’ hour. publicly audible answer to Jesus’ prayer testifies
There are echoes of the Gethsemane agony scene to God’s involvement in the events of the hour
in these verses, but it is not necessary to postulate (cf. vv. 29-30): “I have glorified [my name]” points
Johannine dependence on Mark 14:32-42 to ex- to what God has already done in Jesus and should
plain the use of these echoes.*° Rather, these be understood as referring to the events leading
verses are an ironic play on the tradition of Jesus’ up to and including the inception of the hour. It
agony at his death, which is handled quite differ- may also contain a specific reference to the Laz-
ently in Mark. Unlike the Markan text, the focus arus story (cf. 11:4). “I will glorify it again” points
of vv. 27-28a is on the immediacy and urgency to the hour and its aftermath. Verses 27-28 an-
of Jesus’ hour (“now”), not on his struggle in the ticipate Jesus’ prayer in John 17 in which the past,
face of that hour. present, and future of God’s glorification of Jesus
The only words of “agony” that Jesus speaks are also combined.
in v. 27a are an allusion to Ps 42:5, 11 (Psalm 12:29-33. Verse 29 is commonly interpreted
41 LXX; cf. Mark 14:34). The Fourth Evangelist’s as a classic example of Johannine misunderstand-
use of this psalm as the vehicle for Jesus’ words ing, in which the crowd completely misses the
of agony is one indicator of his ironic handling of point.4* The crowd’s response may be more am-
the tradition, because Psalm 42 affirms the psalm- biguous than simple misunderstanding, how-
ist’s trust in God. By evoking this psalm, the _ ever.4°3 Thunder was a common religious symbol
Fourth Evangelist communicates that Jesus trusts for the voice of God (e.g., Exod 4:23; Ps 29:3-9),
in God at his hour. A second indication of the and angels were traditionally understood as God’s
Evangelist’s ironic handling of the agony tradition messengers (e.g., Gen 16:7; 18:2-8; 19:1; Luke
is in the parallel prayers of vv. 276 and 28a. The 1:11, 26; 2:9). The crowd’s hearing the voice of
first prayer, framed as a question (“And what God as either thunder or an angel’s voice suggests
should I say?”), is never prayed by Jesus and that the crowd recognized that they were wit-
stands as a parody of the prayer associated with nesses to an epiphany, some revelation of the
Jesus’ agony in the garden (Mark 14:36).*°' The divine, but that they did not grasp that they
second prayer, “Father, glorify your name,” is the witnessed the unmediated presence of God in
true prayer for the hour. Jesus lays down his life God’s relationship to Jesus. Jesus’ words in v. 30
of his own free will (10:18); he embraces his hour underscore that this is indeed what the crowd has
as an expression of his love for God and the missed. They suggest that the voice should be
moment of God’s glorification. heard as the partner to Jesus’ prayer in 11:41-42,
Verses 27-28 are an excellent example of the external attestation of the relationship between
way the Fourth Evangelist takes traditional ma- God and Jesus.
terial and reshapes it to fit the theological vision Verses 31-32 focus on Jesus’ death as the
that drives the Gospel. An “agony” scene cast in decisive eschatological event, through which both
the idiom of the tradition as recorded in Mark negative (v. 31) and positive (v. 32) judgment are
would make no sense in this Gospel, because enacted. Verse 31 underscores the eschatologi-
God’s will and Jesus’ will have always been the cal immediacy and urgency of Jesus’ hour (note
same. There is no internal struggle in the face of the repetition of “now”) and the inevitability of
his death, because Jesus recognizes the hour as judgment. “This world” will be judged in its
the ultimate purpose of his ministry. It is the final response to Jesus at his hour (see 3:18-19). The
revelation of his relationship with God. judgment of this world is expressed in more
12:28b. The appropriateness of Jesus’ prayer traditional eschatological imagery in v. 310. The
is confirmed by the voice from heaven. The past, . expression “the ruler of this world” occurs only
present, and future of God’s self-revelation in in John (see also 14:30; 16:11), but similar imagery
Jesus are brought together in this verse. The
402. E.g., Bultmann, 7he Gospel of John, 430; Brown, The Gospel
400. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Phila- According to John (I-XII), 468.
delphia: Westminster, 1978) 424-25. 403. George W. MacRae, /nvitation to John (Garden City, N.Y.:
401. Butsee ibid., 425; and George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 Doubleday, 1978) 154.
(Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987) 212, who contend that Jesus actually prays this 404. See Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3
prayer here. vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982) 2:390-93; Beasley-Murray, John, 213.
712
is used elsewhere in the NT (cf. Matt 4:8-9; 2 Fourth Evangelist thus suggests that the crowd
Cor 4:4; Eph 2:2; 6:12) and Qumran literature grasps some of the eschatological implications of
to refer to the devil, the embodiment of opposition Jesus’ words, but not enough. The distance be-
to God. Verse 31 6 thus names the cosmic implications tween Jesus and the crowd is captured in their
of Jesus’ hour; it marks the defeat of the power of final question. Jesus has been speaking about
evil in the world (cf. 13:2, 27; 16:33). himself as the Son of Man since v. 23, but the
Verse 32 is the third prediction of the “lifting up” crowd has not realized this.
of Jesus (see also 3:14; 8:28). The double meaning 12:35-36. Jesus turns from direct speech
_ of “lifted up” (ixsda Aypsoo) is again at play here. about his death to a metaphorical description of
To be lifted up “from the earth” can be read as a his ministry. He never speaks about himself di-
description of the physical act of crucifixion (as the rectly in these verses, but instead cloaks every-
Evangelist underscores with his comment at 12:33; thing in the metaphor of light and darkness. These
cf. 18:32), but it can also be read as a description verses build on Jesus’ earlier uses of this metaphor
of Jesus’ exaltation (uplifting, literally) in his return (Si1Os2 Ott 9559110106 chet:4-9), The
to God. The positive effect of Jesus’ hour is described choice for those who listen to Jesus is clear:
in sweeping terms (“draw all people”) and highlights Receive the new life he offers (“become children
the universal offer of salvation available in Jesus. It of light”) or remain lost in the darkness.
is people’s response to this offer that sets limits, not Verses 35-36 do not address the crowd’s question
Jesus himself (cf. 12:46-48). about the Son of Man directly, but instead offer a
12:34. The crowd’s misunderstanding of Jesus’ compelling, indirect response to the crowd’s con-
words recalls crowd misunderstanding in 7:26-27, tinuing misunderstanding and distance from Jesus.
41-42: conventional teachings and expectations First, Jesus once again underscores the temporal
about the Messiah stand in the way of receiving urgency of the situation. “For a little longer” points
Jesus. “Law” refers to Scripture in general, not to the contingency of Jesus’ ministry (cf. 7:33;
strictly to the Torah (cf. 10:34), and the text
13:33; 14:19; 16:16-18). Second, the light/darkness
alluded to here may be Ps 89:37 (36, English),
metaphor continues the theme of judgment and
which states that the line of David will continue
response to Jesus. These verses, therefore, function
forever.*°° What is most interesting about the
as a concluding appeal for faith in Jesus as a response
crowd’s response is that they have not completely
to the urgency of the hour.
misunderstood Jesus (cf. v. 29). They are the ones
Jesus’ departure in v. 360 enacts the contin-
who introduce both “Messiah” and “Son of Man”
gency of his ministry and creates a dramatic pause
into the conversation; Jesus has used nei-
in the Gospel narrative. Although the voice of
ther of those terms in his passion prediction. The
Jesus will be heard in vv. 44-50 (see Commentary
405. See 10M 1:1, 5, 13; 14:9; 10S 1:18; 2:5, 19. below), this departure marks the end of his teach-
406. This idea was first suggested by van Unnik and has achieved ing prior to his hour. Jesus hides from the crowd
consensus recognition. See W. C. van Unnik, “The Quotation from the
OT in John 12:34,” NovT3 (1959) 174-79. because the moment of decision has arrived.
REFLECTIONS
John 12:20-36 is the most concentrated collection of sayings on the death of Jesus in the
Gospel of John and, therefore, provides the interpreter with an appropriate place to reflect on
the meaning of the death of Jesus in this Gospel. Theological inquiry about Jesus’ death and
its soteriological efficacy is most frequently identified as “atonement theology.” Before looking
at the Johannine understanding of the death of Jesus, it will be helpful to review407 the theologies
of atonement that have shaped and continue to shape the life of the church.
It is conventional to speak of three atonement theologies that have had the most influence
Hall in his thorough review of |
407. This review of the three theologies of atonement follows the pattern suggested by Douglas John
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 413-34,
theologies of the atonement in Professing the Faith: Christian Theology in a North American Context
463-80.
on the church’s understanding of the death of Jesus. These three models are commonly
identified as (1) the ransom or “classical” theory, in which Jesus’ death is understood as the
act of ransom (payment) that bought the world its freedom from sin and death; (2) the
substitutionary or sacrificial victim model, in which Christ’s death is understood as the sacrifice
necessary to atone for human guilt and sin;“” and (3) the “moral influence” theory, in which
Jesus’ death is understood as a model of moral behavior because it reveals to humanity how
much God loves them.”
None of the traditional atonement theologies presents a soteriology that accords with that
offered in the Fourth Gospel. Theologies of ransom or substitution are wholly absent from this
Gospel’s understanding of the cross. For example, as the discussion of John 10:1-21 pointed
out (see Reflections there), Jesus is not a victim at his death, but is in complete control (see
12:27-28 also). Abelard’s theology of Jesus’ death on the cross as the demonstration of God’s
love captures part of the Fourth Gospel’s soteriology, but as the discussion below will suggest,
it overlooks the demand for human response and decision that is an essential part of Jesus’
“glorification” in John.
In reflecting on the Johannine understanding of the death of Jesus, it is important to begin
by remembering that theologies of atonement are in actuality theologies of reconciliation—that
is, they attempt to explain how God and humanity were reconciled to one another in Jesus’
death. There is a disheartening tendency in theological conversations in the contemporary
North American church to subsume all models of reconciliation under the umbrella of
“sacrifice.”""' Sacrifice is one way of understanding reconciliation, but not the only way. Jesus’
sayings in John 12:23-36 suggest an alternative model of reconciliation, one that is built around
the restoration of relationship.
The Commentary on 12:24 noted that Jesus’ death is described as both necessary and
life-giving because as a result of it community is formed (“much fruit”). The discipleship
teachings in vv. 25-26, which in the synoptic traditions define discipleship exclusively as taking
up one’s cross, instead define discipleship as serving Jesus and make clear that the goal of
such service is restored relationship with God and Jesus. The passion prediction in 12:32 also
focuses on relationship, that through Jesus’ death all people will be drawn to him. Finally, in
the concluding teaching of vv. 35-36, community is described as “becoming children of light.”
Throughout the Gospel, this new relationship to God and one’s fellow human beings is
described in the metaphors of new birth and new or eternal life (e.g., 3:3-8; 4:14; 5:24; 6:40,
47, 54; 10:28; 17:3). Jesus’ glorification is the final step in the offer of this new life, because
through Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension God’s relationship to the world itself is
irrevocably changed. The world that lives in opposition to Jesus (“this world”) is judged by
Jesus’ death, and its power overcome (vv. 25, 31). Jesus’ death has this effect, not because it
is a sacrifice that atones for human sin, but because it reveals the power and promise of God
and God’s love decisively to the world.
What is striking about John 12:23-36 is that the connection between Jesus’ death and the
life of the believing community is repeatedly stressed. The faith community consists of those
who redefine the meaning of life on the basis of Jesus’ death (vv. 24-26). The faith community
is the fruit of Jesus’ death; it is what shows forth Jesus’ love to the world (see also 13:34-35).
It is the transformative potential of Jesus’ death for those who believe that leads to the repeated
408. The most influential statement of this view of the atonement for the contemporary church is Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor; An
Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement, trans. A. G. Herbert (London: SPCK, 1953).
409. The most influential expressions of this theology of atonement are the works of Anselm and Calvin.
410, The original proponent of this understanding of the atonement was Abelard, but this theory achieved its popularity in liberal North
American churches through the works of the Social Gospel theologians and others who looked to Jesus as a source of moral inspiration.
411. The resistance that feminist critiques of the substitutionary model of atonement receive in the church is a disturbing example of the
hold that this model has on popular Christian imagination. Feminist suggestions of alternative models are labeled a distortion of the tradition,
heretical, or worse. For one such suggestion, see Delores Williams, Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist God Talk
(Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1993).
714
expressions of temporal urgency in 12:23-36. It is critical to believe in Jesus so that one can
share in the gift of his life—the gift that leads to eternal life, to the confident assurance of
God’s and Jesus’ abiding presence.
A strong note of tension and judgment is implicit in this urgency, because for Jesus’ death
to effect reconciliation with God one must make the decision to believe in Jesus. That is,
Jesus’ death offers reconciliation to all people, but one must decide to accept this offer. This
element of tension is lacking in all of the dominant theologies of atonement, and, as a result,
the balance between the human and the divine is skewed. That is, there is a tendency for
discussions of atonement to favor either the side of divine initiative (ransom, sacrifice) or of
human embrace of God’s love (moral influence), but in the Fourth Gospel, the focus remains
steadfastly on the inseparable interrelationship of the divine and human, an interrelationship
that is most fully expressed in the incarnation.
At the heart of the Johannine understanding of the death of Jesus is the recognition that it is
of a piece with the life of Jesus. Jesus’ death is an expression of his relationship with God, which
began “at the beginning.” For the Fourth Gospel, then, a theology of reconciliation does not focus
exclusively on the death of Jesus, but on the incarnation itself—the life, death, and resurrection
of Jesus—and on the interrelationship of God and Jesus in love that the incarnation reveals.
The Fourth Gospel, then, makes two important contributions to the ongoing conversation about
reconciliation. First, it suggests a way of understanding reconciliation that takes relationship as a
serious theological category. Jesus’ death is the ultimate expression of his relationship to God and
to his own people (10:16-18). The decision to believe is the decision to become a partner in that
relationship, to become a member of a community that is bound to God and Jesus as they are
bound to each other, and whose relationship to one another is an extension of the God/Jesus
relationship. Second, the Fourth Gospel insists on placing the incarnation as the starting point for
any conversation about atonement and reconciliation and not isolating Jesus’ death on the cross
as the sole moment of reconciliation. Jesus’ glorification, the events of his “hour,” complete what
began in the incarnation (cf. 12:28), but the incarnation itself is the locus of reconciliation.
JOHN 1237250 SFHEERILOGUE TO

JESUS MINISTRY. -
NIV NRSV
37Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous 37Although he had performed so many signs in
signs in their presence, they still would not believe in their presence, they did not believe in him. **This
him. °8This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: was to fulfill the word spoken by the prophet
Isaiah:
“Lord, who has believed our message
“Lord, who has believed our message,
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been
revealed?”?
revealed?”
39For this reason they could not believe, be- 39And so they could not believe, because Isaiah
cause, as Isaiah says elsewhere: also said,
40“He has blinded their eyes 40 “He has blinded their eyes
and deadened their hearts, and hardened their heart,
so they can neither see with their eyes, so that they might not look with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts, and understand with their heart and
nor turn—and I would heal them.”° turn-=
38 Isaiah 53:1 640 Isaiah 6:10 and I would heal them.”
JOHN 12:37-50
NIV NRSV
4\[saiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and 4Ilsaiah said this because? he saw his glory and
spoke about him. spoke about him. “Nevertheless many, even of
“Vet at the same time many even among the the authorities, believed in him. But because of
leaders believed in him. But because of the Phari- the Pharisees they did not confess it, for fear that
sees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; “*for
they would be put out of the synagogue; “for they loved human glory more than the glory that
they loved praise from men more than praise from comes from God.
God. 4AThen Jesus cried aloud: “Whoever believes in
44Then Jesus cried out, “When a man believes me believes not in me but in him who sent me.
in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the 45And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. “I
one who sent me. “When he looks at me, he have come as light into the world, so that everyone
sees the one who sent me. *I have come into who believes in me should not remain in the
the world as a light, so that no one who believes darkness. 471 do not judge anyone who hears my
in me should stay in darkness.
words and does not keep them, for I came not to
47“As for the person who hears my words but
judge the world, but to save the world. “The one
does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I
who rejects me and does not receive my word has
did not come to judge the world, but to save it. .
a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken
48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and ~
will serve as judge, “for I have not spoken on my
does not accept my words; that very word which
I spoke will condemn him at the last day. “°For own, but the Father who sent me has himself given
I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father me a commandment about what to say and what
who sent me commanded me what to say and to speak. °And I know that his commandment is
how to say it. °° know that his command leads eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as
to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the the Father has told me.”
Father has told me to say.” aQOther ancient witnesses read when
(COMMENTARY
John 12:37-50 serves as the epilogue to Jesus’ verse in Rom 10:16). In this context, it provides
public ministry. It divides into two parts: (1) vv. a useful summary of Jesus’ ministry—“message”
37-43, the Evangelist’s commentary on Jesus’ min- evokes Jesus’ words, “the arm of the Lord,” his
istry, and (2) vv. 44-50, a summary discourse by works. The second Scripture quotation is Isa 6:10
Jesus. (v. 40). This passage played an important role in
12:37-43. The Evangelist struggles with the early Christian attempts to explain lack of faith in
same dilemma that drives Paul in Romans 9-11: Jesus, appearing in some version in all four Gos-
How does one account for the rejection of Jesus pels and Acts (seé Matt 13:14-15; Mark 4:12;
by his “own” (cf. 1:11)? This was a serious Luke 8:10; Acts 28:26-27).
theological dilemma for Jews who understood The introduction to Isa 6:10 in v. 39 makes
Jesus to be the fulfillment of God’s eschatological clear that the crowd’s inability to believe is not
promises to Israel. The problem is stated quite the result of the prophet’s work, as is the case in
succinctly in v. 37, and the Evangelist’s explana- , Isa 6:9-13, but is part of God’s plan for salvation
tion for the lack of faith is in two parts, vv. 38-41 history (cf. the use in Acts). The Evangelist elimi-
and 42-43. nates any reference to hearing and ears from the
In vv. 38-41, the Fourth Evangelist mounts an quotation in v. 40, thereby placing the emphasis
argument from Scripture built around two quota- on seeing and knowing, two pivotal Johannine
tions from Isaiah. Verse 38 is an exact quotation themes. The people’s obduracy is thus in line with
of the LXX of Isa 53:1 (cf. the use of the same the Johannine definition of sin as spiritual blind-
716
ness (9:39-41). That the Isa 6:10 quotation is to faith in Jesus as a human choice (cf. 5:44). The
be understood as a prophecy of God’s work in reference to the “glory that comes from God”
Jesus is made explicit by the concluding comment links vv. 42-43 to the argument from Isaiah in
in v. 41. This verse alludes to the broader context vv. 38-41 and brings the contrast between faith
of Isaiah 6, in which the prophet experiences a and unbelief into even sharper relief.4!4 Because
theophany (vv. 1-5). The link to the vision of of a fear of political power and loss of prestige
Isaiah 6 is stated even more directly in textual (“human glory”) and security (“be put out of the
variants of v. 41 that read “when” (dte hote) synagogue”), some choose against the experience
instead of “because” (ot. Aoti; see the NRSV of God revealed in Jesus. To love human glory is
footnote). The Fourth Evangelist interprets this theo- equivalent to loving one’s life and so removes one
phany as a vision of God’s glory, and hence as a from the promises that come as a result of Jesus’
vision of the glory of the Logos (cf. 1:14; 17:5; see glorification (see 12:23-26).4!
also the reference to Abraham in 8:56-58). 12:44-50. Like the discourse at 3:16-21, these
It is significant that while the synoptic Gospels verses are an independent discourse by Jesus that
place the Isa 6:10 quote in Jesus’ mouth, the the Fourth Evangelist has intentionally positioned
Fourth Evangelist positions this explanation as the as the epilogue to Jesus’ ministry and the prelude
later reflection of the believing community.4!? In to his hour. These verses are not displaced from
vv. 38-41, the Fourth Evangelist thus demon- another discourse,*!° but instead stand on their
strates the “remembering” he describes at 2:22 Own as an overview of the dominant themes of
and 12:16. Jesus’ ministry. These verses add no new teach-
The argument from Scripture in vv. 38-41 ings to the Gospel; rather, they read as a com-
places its theological emphasis on the side of pendium of all that has preceded. They serve to
divine initiative and determination as an explana- present the reader with the theological issues
tion for unbelief. That is, the rejection of Jesus necessary to make his or her own decision about
and unbelief among God’s people is part of God’s Jesus (see Reflections).
plan for salvation history, not a sign of the failure The brief introduction to the discourse (“Jesus
or unreliability of God’s promises. That the Fourth cried out,” v. 44a) places weight on these words
Evangelist is not arguing for simple predestination, as a proclamation (cf. 1:15; 7:28, 37). Verses
however, is made clear by the explanation for 44-45 and 49-50 provide a frame for the discourse
unbelief offered in vv. 42-43. In those verses, the and proclaim the central theological claim of Je-
emphasis is on human choice. As at 6:37-40 (see sus’ ministry: that Jesus makes God known (1:18;
Commentary), the Fourth Evangelist maintains cf. 8:19), that faith in Jesus is ultimately faith in
the tension between divine initiative and human God. Jesus says or does nothing on his own, but
freedom. speaks the words that God has given him to say
Verses 42-43 offer an explanation for unbelief (cf.. 5:30; 6:38; 7:16-17; 8:28). In significant
that acknowledges the sociopolitical realities of ways, these framing verses restate the claims of
the conflict between Judaism and emerging Chris- the Prologue: Jesus is one with God (1:1-2; cf.
tianity. Nicodemus is one example of an “author- 5:19-24; 10:30, 38), the incarnate Logos of God
ity” who believes in Jesus but does not confess (1:14; cf. 5:37-38; 10:36). They also point for-
his faith (7:50; cf. 19:39-41), but the real intent ward to Jesus’ words in the Farewell Discourse
of v. 42 is to point to the conflict with the Jewish (e.g, 14:7, 9-11, 20; 15:15). The center verses,
religious establishment in the Evangelist’s own vv. 46-48, restate the central soteriological claim
day. As at 9:22 (see also 16:2), the two levels on of Jesus’ ministry: Jesus has come as light into the
which the Fourth Evangelist is writing are revealed; world (cf. 1:4-5; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35-36) to save the
he describes the unbelief in Jesus’ time in categories world (cf. 3:16-17). They also restate the para-
drawn from the experience of his readers.*!> Verse doxical nature of judgment in the Fourth Gospel:
43 explicitly identifies the fear of confessing one’s
412. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XIl), 485. 415. See C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cam-
413. See J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953) 380.
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1968; 2nd ed., 1979) 40-41. 416. So Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 313.
717
Jesus comes not to judge, but his presence will the Farewell Discourse (e.g., 14:23-24; 15:22-24).
evoke judgment because of the response people = This concluding discourse thus succinctly states
make to his word (cf. 3:18; 5:24; 8:15, 26; 9:39). the heart of the Johannine gospel.
This soteriological claim, too, points forward to
REFLECTIONS
In order to understand the narrative and theological function of this epilogue, it is helpful
to envision this section along the analogy of the theater. With Jesus’ exit at 12:36, the curtain
has come down on his public ministry. In vv. 37-43, the Evangelist, “the playwright,” reveals
himself directly to the audience and comments on the dilemma with which the first “act”
ends: Why do Jesus’ own reject him? After he completes his speech, he, too, disappears behind
the curtain, and the stage is completely empty and dark. The voice of Jesus is then heard (vv.
44-50), crying out to the darkened theater from the wings, his own voice providing the final
commentary on the drama that has played itself out before the audience. When Jesus finishes
speaking, the audience is once again alone in the darkness, with Jesus’ offer of salvation ringing
in their ears.
John 12:37-50 thus provides a poignant conclusion to the story of Jesus’ public ministry, as
this passage makes the drama of faith or unbelief the reader’s own. By placing the final
summation of the gospel of Jesus’ public ministry in Jesus’ mouth, the Fourth Evangelist
positions Jesus as the final authority on the significance of his own ministry. By placing this
summation in an independent discourse, free from any specific temporal or geographical
location, the Fourth Evangelist creates a situation that speaks directly to the reader’s own
situation. That is, the Gospel reader does not hear Jesus’ words as being directed first to Peter
or to Martha, for example, but as spoken to the reader directly.
This epilogue also positions the reader to enter the story of Jesus’ hour. The ultimacy of
Jesus’ ministry is laid bare both in the Evangelist’s words of judgment and in Jesus’ concluding
proclamation. The reader is faced with a simple alternative: to believe in Jesus as the incarnate
Word of God, or not to believe. The Fourth Evangelist allows no possibility of hedging this
decision; to believe is life, to reject Jesus is to incur judgment. As the reader moves into the
story of Jesus’ glorification, of his death, resurrection, and ascension, the reader is inescapably
aware of what is at stake in that story.
718
JOHN 13:1-17:26
THE FAREWELL MEAL AND DISCOURSE
OVERVIEW
hn 13:1 marks a significant shift in the the first full day of the Passover festival, whereas
_. Orientation of the Fourth Gospel’s narrative. in John it occurs on the day before Passover, or
Prior to this verse, Jesus’ hour has been antici- the Day of Preparation (19:31, 42).
pated (2:4; 7:30; 8:20) or acknowledged as im- Both chronologies imbue the death of Jesus
minent (12:23, 27), but 13:1 signals its arrival. with symbolic significance vis-a-vis the Passover.
The rest of the Gospel will narrate the unfolding In the synoptic chronology, the symbolism comes
of the events of Jesus’ hour. The events narrated from presenting the institution of the eucharist as
in John 13:1—17:26 are all situated at Jesus’ final the Passover meal. In John, the symbolism comes
. meal with his disciples before his arrest (18:1-12). from linking the crucifixion of Jesus with the
These chapters consist of three large units: (1) slaughter of the Passover lambs (19:14, 36). The
13:1-38, the foot washing and subsequent dia- differences between these two chronologies are
logues between Jesus and his disciples; (2) 14:1— impossible to resolve cleanly, and it is not possible
16:33, Jesus’ farewell discourse; and (3) 17:1-26, to recover the “correct” chronology, because the
Jesus’ prayer. handling of tradition in both cases seems to show
The chronology of the events of the last days theological coloration. Scholars who favor the syn-
of Jesus’ life in John differs from that of the optic chronology tend to do so because they
synoptic Gospels (see Fig. 11, “Chronology of the accept as normative the Synoptic portrait of the
Holy Week and Resurrection Appearances in the institution of the eucharist.*!” The Johannine chro-
Gospels,” 704-5). Both John and Mark (followed nology is equally plausible, however, and may
by Matthew and Luke) agree that the trial and resolve some of the tensions attendant upon the
crucifixion took place on Thursday evening/Fri- trial’s taking place on a holy day.4’8 As a point of
day, but they disagree on the relationship of those comparison, the Pauline tradition does not specify
events to the Passover celebration. In the Synop- whether the last supper was a Passover meal (1
tics, the meal in the upper room is explicitly Cor 11:23-26), but it does refer to the death of
positioned as the meal on the first evening of Jesus as the sacrifice of the paschal lamb (1 Cor
Passover (Mark 14:12, 14, 16), whereas in John Sei}.
the final meal occurs “before the festival of Pass-
417. E.g., Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 48-51.
over” (13:1). This means that in the synoptic 418. Raymond E. Brown, 7he Gospel According to John (XIII-XX1),
Gospels, the crucifixion of Jesus takes place on AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 555-56.
JOHN 13:1-38, THE FAREWELL MEAL
OVERVIEW
The displacement of eucharist traditions to John John 6:25-59 and need not be repeated here. The
6 and John’s eucharistic theology is discussed at Fourth Evangelist has chosen to narrate the fare-
length in the Commentary and Reflections on well meal in a way that highlights his under-
719
JOHN 13:1-38 OVERVIEW
standing of the events of Jesus’ hour as the full of a series of dialogues and brief discourses by
expression of Jesus’ love. Jesus that interpret an “event,” the feeding of the
On a surface reading, the constituent elements of five thousand. A similar series of dialogues is
John 13:1-38 are easy to identify: vv. 1-11, the foot found in John 13. As noted in the Commentary
washing; vv. 12-20, discourse by Jesus on service; vv. on John 9:1-10:21, John 9:39-41 serves as both
21-30, Jesus prophecies his betrayal; vv. 31-38, the the conclusion to the dialogue with the Pharisees
love commandment and prophecy of Peter’s de- and the introduction to the discourse (10:1-18).
nial. The links between these units are explicitly John 13:31-38 has a similar double function; it
signaled in the narrative (v. 12: “After he had concludes the dialogue scenes between Jesus and
washed their feet...he said to them”; v. 21: his disciples and introduces the discourse.
“After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit and As the Commentary to follow will show, when
declared... ”; v. 31: “When he had gone out, John 13:1-38 is read as an interconnected series
Jesus said... ”). The Fourth Evangelist thus pre- of passages, the interpreter is able to note the
sents the four sections of 13:1-38 as interlocking recurrence of certain themes throughout all four
pieces that depict the events at the farewell meal. units. In particular, the theme of discipleship
Such complex interrelationships among units in dominates these verses (e.g., vv. 8, 10, 14-17,
a lengthy text are not unusual in the Fourth 34-35),,as does the tension between Jesus’ gift of
Gospel (see, for example, the Commentary on . himself in love and the betrayal and rejection of
John 6; 9-10; 11). The examples of John 6 and that gift by those whom Jesus loves (e.g., vv. 11,
9:1-10:21 provide the closest analogues in under- 18-19, 21-30, 36-38).
standing the structure of John 13. Chapter 6 consists
John 13:1-11, The Foot Washing

NIV NRSV
It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus Now before the festival of the Passover,
] 3 knew that the time had come for him to ] Cee knew that his hour had come to
leave this world and go to the Father. Having depart from this world and go to the Father.
loved his own who were in the world, he now Having loved his own who were in the world, he
showed them the full extent of his love.? loved them to the end. The devil had already put
?The evening meal was being served, and the it into the heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot to
devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of betray him. And during supper ‘Jesus, knowing
Simon, to betray Jesus. ‘Jesus knew that the that the Father had given all things into his hands,
Father had put all things under his power, and and that he had come from God and was going
that he had come from God and was returning to God, “got up from the table,? took off his outer
to God; “so he got up from the meal, took off his robe, and tied a towel around himself. “Then he
outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his poured water into a basin and began to wash the
waist. °After that, he poured water into a basin disciples’ feet andto wipe them with the towel
and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them that was tied around him. ‘He came to Simon
with the towel that was wrapped around him. Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to
°He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, wash my feet?” Jesus answered, “You do not
“Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” know now what I am doing, but later you will
7Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I _ understand.” Peter said to him, “You will never
am doing, but later you will understand.” wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash
8“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my you, you have no share with me.” °Simon Peter
feet.” said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my
Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have hands and my head!” 'Jesus said to him, “One
no part with me.” who has bathed does not need to wash, except
a] Or he loved them to the last 4Gk from supper
720
JOHN 13:1-11
NIV NRSV
*“Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just for the feet,? but is entirely clean. And you? are
my feet but my hands and my head as well!” clean, though not all of you.” ''For he knew who
‘Jesus answered, “A person who has had a was to betray him; for this reason he said, “Not
bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body all of you are clean.”
is clean. And you are clean, though not every one a Other ancient authorities lack except for the feet 5 The Greek
of you.” '!For he knew who was going to betray word for you here is plural
him, and that was why he said not every one was
clean.
(COMMENTARY
13:1. This verse introduces Jesus’ hour and and 13:16 makes clear that the end of his life will
hence the larger narrative of the events of Jesus’ be governed by the same knowledge (cf. 18:4;
death, resurrection, and ascension (see Overview 19:28).
to 13:1-17:26), but it also introduces the specific The second clause (v. lc “Having loved his
events of the farewell meal. It establishes two own who were in the world...”) offers a de-
frameworks for the events that are about to be scription of Jesus’ ministry to this point. Like v.
narrated. The first is an external framework; the 10, it both recalls the Prologue (cf. 1:10-13) and
events of the farewell meal are located in the anticipates the Farewell Discourse and prayer (cf.
context of the Passover festival (see Fig. 9, “Jew- 15:9-17; 17:6-19). Jesus’ own are those whom he
ish Religious Festivals in John,” 542). This is the knows and loves (cf. 10:14; 15:13); they are those
third Passover festival mentioned in John (see also “in the world” who have embraced God’s gift of
2:13, 23; 6:4), and the Fourth Gospel narrative Jesus (cf. 3:16-17).
has been signaling the approach of this final Pass- Jesus’ knowledge of his hour and his continuing
over since 12:1 (see also 12:9, 12, 20). The love for his own provide the backdrop for 13:1 d.
second framework could be called an “internal” The Greek expression used to describe Jesus’ love
framework, because the Fourth Evangelist enables (eis TEAOS eis telos) can be translated two dif-
the reader to view the events of the farewell meal ferent ways, aS a comparison between the
from the perspective of Jesus’ knowledge and love. NRSV and the NIV shows. It can be translated
John 13:1 is one long sentence in Greek (alas a temporal expression (“to the end,” NRSV),
though both the NIV and the NRSV punctuate it or as referring to the quality of Jesus’ love
as two sentences), in which Jesus’ knowledge of (“the full extent,” NIV). The Fourth Evangelist
his hour and his love for his own are expressed probably intended both meanings to be heard
in three participial clauses that introduce the one here, because it was in loving his own “to the
finite verb clause of the sentence, “He loved them end” that the “full extent” of Jesus’ love is
to the end.” Each of these three verb clauses revealed. The English translation “fully” or
deserves serious attention. The first clause (v. 10: even the more literal “to completion” would
“Jesus, knowing that this hour had come... ”) must thus more adequately capture the multivalence
be interpreted alongside the verses in the Prologue of the Greek. Jesus’ love for his own will be
that describe Jesus’ coming into the world and his demonstrated in the foot washing, but it will
relationship to God (e.g., 1:1-5, 10-14, 18). Jesus’ receive its full and final expression in his gift
hour marks the end of his ministry in “this world” of his life (15:13).
and his return to the Father. The full significance of 13:2-5. Verses 2-3 introduce the foot washing,
Jesus’ return to God will be brought out in the and vv. 4-5 narrate the foot washing proper.
discourse in 14:1-16:33. Jesus’ ‘knowledge of his Again, although these verses are punctuated as
relationship to God has been a theme throughout three separate sentences in the NIV and the
his ministry (e.g., 5:17, 19; 7, 28-29; 8:54-55; 10:38) NRSV, they are one long, complex sentence in
SpA
the Greek text (so the RSV). Verses 2-3 contain equivalent to the time that would elapse in the
no finite verbs, and instead consist of a series enactment of the events themselves. The details
of participial clauses that introduce the finite are intended to draw the reader’s attention to the
verbs of vv. 4-5 (“he got up... began to absurdity of the event, an absurdity that will be
wash”). While the breaks in the English trans- reinforced by Peter’s comments in vv. 6-8.4’° Yet
lations make for smoother syntax, unfortunately the details also provide important clues to the
they also serve to play down the interrelation- theological significance of the foot washing for the
ship and interdependence of the introduction to Fourth Evangelist. First, the verb used to de-
the foot washing and the act itself. scribe Jesus’ “removal” (t{@ny tithemi) of his
13:2. The evening meal that is already in clothes in v. 4 is the same verb used by Jesus to
progress and the devil’s decision about Judas’s describe laying down his life (10:15, 17-18; cf.
betrayal of Jesus both provide the context for 10:11; 13:37-38; 15:13). The Fourth Evangelist’s
the statement about Jesus’ knowledge in v. 3 verb choice thus signals the connection be-
and the foot washing in vv. 4-5. This combi- tween the foot washing and Jesus’ gift of his
nation is important, for it signals a tension life.42° Second, the description of Jesus’ “wiping”
between fellowship and betrayal that will re- (Exudooew ekmassein) the disciples’ feet with
cur throughout 13:1-38. The reference to the the towel (v. 5) links the foot washing with the
devil and Judas in v. 2 is more ambiguous anointing (see Commentary on 12:1-8).
than the English translations suggest. It is not Foot washing was practiced in both Jewish
clear from the Greek whether the devil has and Greco-Roman contexts in the ancient Medi-
put it into his own heart that Judas will betray terranean world. It had three main functions:
Jesus or into Judas’s heart. Although the ref- (1) personal hygiene; (2) an act of hospitality;
erence to Satan and Judas in v. 27 would or (3) a cultic act.4#! Since the foot washing in
support the first reading, the significance of John 13 occurs in the context of a meal, the
the comment is the same regardless of the practice of foot washing as hospitality provides
reading: The events of the last supper are the most helpful analogue in interpreting the
enacted against the backdrop of a cosmic Johannine text. Foot washing was a way of
struggle between the powers of good and evil welcoming one’s guests; a person’s feet would
that will be manifested in Judas’s betrayal of become dusty during the journey, and the host
Jesus: (cf 71223121 4:30); offered water so that guests could wash their
13:3. The narrator once again takes the feet (e.g., Gen 18:4; 19:2; 43:24; Luke 7:44;
reader inside the mind of Jesus (cf. v. 1). This Joseph and Asenath 7.1; Odyssey 19.308-
interior perspective provides an interesting jux- 319).422 The foot washing was normally per-
taposition with v. 2, which took the reader formed by the guests themselves, or by servants
inside the “mind” of the devil. Jesus’ knowledge at the behest of the host, so that foot washing
in v. 3 expresses the essence of his ministry: as service is closely linked with foot washing
that everything he has is given to him by God as hospitality. The combination of service and
and that his home from whence he comes and hospitality is particularly strong in Abigail’s
to which he returns is with God. These two words to David in 1 Sam 25:41.
theological realities have formed the center of When Jesus washes his disciples’ feet, then, he
Jesus’ words and works throughout the Gospel combines the roles of servant and host. When
(see, e.g., 3:13; 6:37-38; 8:23; 10:29) and will Jesus wraps himself with the towel, he assumes
form the center of Jesus’ words and works at
the farewell meal and in his death and resurrec- ' 419. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G.
tion (see, e.g.,.14:2, 28; 16:28; 17:2; 4-5, 24). Westminster, 1971) 466.
13:4-5. The description of the foot washing is 420. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 439.
421. See Arland J. Hultgren, “The Johannine Footwashing (13:1-11) as
given in almost exaggerated detail; each action is Symbol of Eschatological Hospitality,” N7S 28 (1982) 541-42; and John
narrated in something approaching “real” time. Christopher Thomas, Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Com-
That is, the space given to narrating Jesus’ prepa- munity, JSNTSup 61 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 26-58.
422. For more examples, see Hultgren, “The Johannine Footwashing,”
ration for and initiation of the foot washing is and Thomas, Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community.
722
the garb and position of the servant,423 but the 17:23-24, 26). Through the foot washing, Jesus
act of hospitality that he offers is the prerogative unites the believer with him as he enters the
of the host. This odd combination of roles events of his hour (cf. 13:1, 3).47” If one re-
prompts Peter’s protest in v. 6. Moreover, foot moves oneself from this act, then one removes
washing normally occurred before food was oneself from Jesus and the promises of God. To
served (e.g., Gen 24:32-33; Judg 19:21), not in have Jesus wash one’s feet is to receive from Jesus
the middle of the meal. an act of hospitality that decisively alters one’s
13:6-10. The dialogue between Jesus and relationship to Jesus and, through Jesus, to God.
_ Peter clarifies the nature of Jesus’ striking ges- One’s share with Jesus, then, is the gift of
ture of hospitality. full relationship with him, which he offers in
13:6-8a. One can infer from v. 6 neither that the foot washing, a relationship that opens the
Jesus washed Peter’s feet first (so Augustine) nor believer to Jesus’ eschatological gift of eternal
that he came to Peter last (so Origen). Rather, as life (see Reflections below). The salvific dimen-
is common across the Gospels, Peter speaks as the sion of the foot washing, therefore, is lodged in
representative disciple.**4 Jesus’ response to Peter the relationship with Jesus that it offers, not in
in v. 7 points to a time when Jesus’ gesture the foot washing as an act of ritual purification
will be comprehensible to him. The future to (see Commentary on 13:10) nor as repre-
which Jesus alludes is the time after his return sentative of the disciples’ “cleansing in the sac-
to the Father (cf. vv. 1 and 3). Jesus’ words rificial blood of Christ.”4
here anticipate his use of a similar expression 13:9. Peter’s insistence that Jesus wash more
in the Farewell Discourse (cf. 14:29; 16:4, 25- than his feet is uttered as emphatically as his
28) to remind his disciples that what he teaches earlier refusal to allow Jesus to wash him at all
them will become comprehensible to them only (v. 8a). The hyperbole of the rhetoric in both
after his “hour.” As at 2:22 and 12:16, the Holy instances draws attention to Peter’s continuing
Spirit will lead the disciples to understanding in misunderstanding of the foot washing. The re-
the future (14:25-26). The NIV captures the quest that his head and hands be washed suggests
emphatic denial in Peter’s words in v. 8a; Jesus’ that Peter locates the value of the foot washing
words in v. 7 notwithstanding, Peter will not in the cleansing power of the water and not in
allow Jesus to assume the role of a servant (cf. Jesus’ offer of relationship.
Peter’s response to Jesus at Mark 8:31-33). 13:10. That Jesus rejects Peter’s interpretation
13:8b. Jesus’ response holds the key to under- of the foot washing is clear (v. 10); what is not
standing the foot washing. Jesus’ washing of Pe- clear is the precise meaning of his words. The
ter’s feet is stipulated as a necessary condition for interpretation of Jesus’ words is complicated by
Peter’s “share” (uépos meros) with Jesus. To have the uncertainty of the wording of v. 10a. Two
a share with Jesus is to have fellowship with versions of this verse are found in the manuscript
him,’?5 to participate fully in his life. The foot tradition: a longer version (printed in the NIV and
washing is “a symbolic act of eschatological hos- NRSV texts) and a shorter version that lacks the
pitality,”“2° through which Jesus shares his phrase “except for the feet” (NRSV variant).*”°
home—that is, the Father’s home (cf. 1:1; The longer version seems to say that the washing
14:2)—with his disciples. The foot washing is an of one’s feet is a secondary or extra activity, done
eschatological act because through it Jesus mani- only to supplement one’s bath. This reading of
fests the unity and intimacy of God, Jesus, and the foot washing is clearly at odds with Jesus’
the believer that marks full relationship with God words in v. 8 and probably entered the textual
(e.g., 15:1-10). It draws the disciple into the love tradition under the influence of those interpreters
that marks God’s and Jesus’ relationship to each in the early church who misinterpreted the
other and to the world (3:16, 35; 14:23, 31; foot washing in John as symbolic of Christian
423. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 427. Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 468.
1987) 233. ‘ 428. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Phila-
424. Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 466. delphia: Westminster, 1978) 436.
425. Ibid., 468. 429. For example, the shorter version is accepted by Origen, Tertullian,
426. Hultgren, “The Johannine Footwashing,” 542. and Tatian.
723
baptism.*%° In this view, the overall bath to which so that it includes all who are present at the foot
Jesus refers in v. 10a is baptism, and the foot washing, not just Peter. This announcement an-
washing refers to additional acts of penance for ticipates Jesus’ words in the Farewell Discourse,
sins after baptism. Even though modern transla- “You are already cleansed [katharoi| by the word
tions employ the longer version of the verse, that I have spoken to you” (15:3). When 13:10
modern scholars are close to unanimity in their and 15:3 are read together, it becomes clear that
view that the shorter reading should be accepted the cleanliness of which Jesus speaks is accom-
as authentic.**! plished by one’s reception of Jesus’ word, not by
Even when the shorter reading of v. 10a is the ritual cleansing Peter envisions and requests.
followed, Jesus’ words in this verse remain diffi- In 13:10, Jesus’ “own” are clean through their
cult to interpret. First, what is the relationship reception of his enacted word, in 15:3, through
between the verbs “to bathe” (Aotw /ouo) and their reception of his spoken word.* Verse 10
“to wash” (vitttw nipto)? Jesus seems to be thus supplements Jesus’ words in v. 8, focusing
underscoring a contrast for Peter that challenges attention on the participatory and relational di-
his misunderstanding of the foot washing. Since mensions of the foot washing.
the verb /ouo is frequently associated with ritual 13:11. The Evangelist inserts his commentary
bathing,*° Jesus may be challenging Peter’s as- in v. 11 to ensure that the Gospel readers recog-
sumption about the purifying effects of the water nize Jesus’ disclaimer at the end of v. 100 as an
itself. The foot washing is not about water per se; allusion to the betrayal. The fact that the one who
it is about entering into relationship with Jesus by is not clean is the one who will betray Jesus
receiving his gesture of hospitality. Peter does not confirms that cleanliness has to do with one’s
need a ritual bath; he needs to have his feet relationship to Jesus and acceptance of the foot
washed by Jesus. Inattention to the distinction washing, not with the cleansing power of the
between bathing and washing in this verse may water itself. To be unclean is not to be unwashed,
also have contributed to the addition of the words for Judas belongs to the circle of those whose feet
“except for the feet.” Jesus washed. Rather, to be unclean is to turn
Second, what does Jesus mean by “clean” away from union and intimacy with Jesus. As at
(ka8apot katharoi, v. 106)? The announcement of the earlier prediction of the betrayal (6:70-71), the
cleanliness is made in the second-person plural, mention of Judas’s betrayal reminds the reader
that even election as one of Jesus’ “own” (13:3),
430. To read the foot washing as a type of baptism is to misread
the foot washing by overemphasizing the role of water in this text. one whom he loves completely, is no guarantee
See, e.g., Oscar Cullmann, Early Christian Worship (London: SCM, of a faith response.**4 In order to have one’s share
1953). The salvific dimension of the foot washing comes not from
the water, but from Jesus’ assuming the role of one who washes feet. with Jesus (v. 8), one must choose to accept the
Even when the rite of foot washing was included in early church gesture of love that Jesus makes in the foot
baptisms, there was disagreement among the church fathers as to
the relative status of foot washing. See E.C. Hoskyns, The Fourth washing. The introduction (v. 2) and conclusion
Gospel (London: Faber & Faber, 1947) 443-46. For a review of (v. 11) to the narrative of the foot washing to-
scholarship on baptism and foot washing, see Raymond E. Brown,
The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), AB 29A (Garden City, gether place Jesus’ act of hospitality, service, and
N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966) 556-68; and Beasley-Murray, John, 234-35. love in the inescapable context of his betrayal.
431. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 438-39; Bultmann, The Gospel of
John, 469-71; Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 441-42; Rudolf (See Reflections at 13:12-20.)
Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols. (New York:
Seabury, 1982) 3:20-22; Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII- 433. Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 470-71; Beasley-Murray, John,
XX1), 566-68; Beasley-Murray, John, 229. 234.
432. See BAGD, 480, 26 for examples. 434. Bultmann, 7he Gospel of John, 473.
724
JOHN 13:12-20
John 13:12-20, Discourse by Jesus on Communal Saivics
NIV NRSV
"When he had finished washing their feet, he 12After he had washed their feet, had put on
put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do his robe, and had returned to the table, he said
you understand what I have done for you?” he to them, “Do you know what I have done to you?
asked them. '3“You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ 'SYou call me Teacher and Lord—and you are
and rightly so, for that is what I am. '4Now that right, for that is what I am. '4So if I, your Lord
I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also
you also should wash one another’s feet. '5I have ought to wash one another’s feet. '°For I have set
set you an example that you should do as I have you an example, that you also should do as I have
done for you. '°I tell you the truth, no servant is done to you. 'Very truly, I tell you, servants? are
greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater not greater than their master, nor are messengers
than the one who sent him. '7Now that you know greater than the one who sent them. 'If you
these things, you will be blessed if you do them. know these things, you are blessed if you do
'8“T am not referring to all of you; I know those them. '8I am not speaking of all of you; I know
I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: whom I have chosen. But it is to fulfill the
‘He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel scripture, “The one who ate my bread? has lifted
against me.’4 his heel against me.’ '°I tell you this now, before
19¢7 am telling you now before it happens, so it occurs, so that when it does occur, you may
that when it does happen you will believe that I believe that I am he.* ?°Very truly, I tell you,
am He. 7° tell you the truth, whoever accepts whoever receives one whom I send receives me;
anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts and whoever receives me receives him who sent
me accepts the one who sent me.” me.”
2/8 Psalm 41:9 4 Gk slaves >Other ancient authorities read ate bread with me
eGk/ am
(COMMENTARY
John 13:12-20 is a discourse spoken by Jesus If one approaches the relationship of vv. 1-11
after the foot washing (v. 12a). It is conventional and vv. 12-20 from the perspective of the broader
to identify these verses as the “interpretation” of relationship of the four scenes of John 13 (see
the foot washing,**> but scholars are divided over Overview), however, one gets a different picture.
the relationship of this “interpretation” to the The Fourth Evangelist follows the foot washing
foot washing narrative. The division arises be- (vv. 1-11) with three scenes between Jesus and
cause the discourse seems to move in a different his disciples (vv. 12-20, 21-30, 31-38), not one
direction from vv. 1-11. In vv. 12-20 Jesus speaks scene. These three scenes together focus on the
community that is created when Jesus washes his
of the foot washing as an act the disciples are to
disciples’ feet.4°? The entire supper sequence
imitate (cf. vv. 14-15), whereas in vv. 1-11 he
places positive and negative images of relationship
speaks of the foot washing as an act that they
with Jesus before the reader and so sets the stage
are to receive (v. 8). Some scholars conclude that
for the discourse of 14:1-16:33.
the interpretation in vv. 12-20 is a secondary,
13:12-15. Jesus teaches about the foot wash-
“moralizing” addition to the primary foot wash-
ing and its implications for the life of the believing
ing narrative of vv. 1-11.%° community. His introductory question in v. 12 is
435. E.g., Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XX1), 569;
a rhetorical device, intended to draw the disciples’
Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 443.
436. E.g., Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), 562. 437. Cf. Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 478-79.
725
attention to the central paradox of the foot wash- confronts the reader with the painful truth about
ing: that he, their master (lord) and teacher, the betrayal. Jesus is not betrayed by a stranger,
assumed the role of the servant (vv. 13-144; cf. but by someone whom he has chosen (cf. 6:70),
Luke 22:27). The one in the position of teacher to whom he has offered himself fully in love.
and lord could expect service from his followers, Verses 12 and 14 pointed to those listening to
and the foot washing reverses this pattern. In vv. Jesus as the recipients of his paradoxical service
14-15, Jesus issues two imperatives for the disci- (“what I have done to you”; “I, your Lord and
ples. The imperative in v. 14 refers explicitly to Teacher, have washed your feet”), yet one of
the foot washing and is developed as a logical them will reject that service. The quotation of Ps
argument from the greater to the lesser; what is 41:9 in v. 186 underscores the intimacy of the
true for the teacher and lord must also be true of betrayal; Jesus’ betrayer is one who has broken
the disciples. The inclusion of foot washing among bread with him.*°?
the list of a widow’s “good works” in 1 Tim 5:10 Second, Jesus’ knowledge of his betrayer re-
suggests that this imperative was followed by veals that Jesus is in control of the events leading
some early Christian communities. Verse 15 re- up to his death, that no one is taking his life from
frames the imperative in the more general lan- him (cf. 10:17-18). Jesus prepares his disciples in
guage of “example,” a reframing that anticipates advance for what is coming (v. 19; cf. 14:29;
the love commandment of 13:34-35. 16:1, 4-5) so that when the events of his hour
13:16-20. The focus shifts to more general | unfold, “you may believe that I am.” Jesus’ use
teachings on discipleship and relationship to Jesus. of an absolute €yw cipt (ego eimi, v. 19; the
These verses are framed by two “very truly” NRSV and NIV wrongly supply a predicate nomi-
(aun anv amen, amen) sayings (vv. 16, 20). native, “he”) announces his claim of oneness with
At the center of these verses is Jesus’ prediction God (cf. 6:20; 8:24). Jesus wants his disciples to
of his betrayal by a member of his intimate circle recognize that in his betrayal, death, and resur-
(vv. 18-19). rection the fullness of his identity will be revealed
The saying in v. 16 reinforces the imperatives (see also 8:28).
of vv. 14-15 by reminding the disciples of the Verse 20 focuses on the mutuality of relation-
relative roles of servant and master. A similar ships among Jesus, God, and those whom Jesus
teaching is also found in the synoptic tradition sends. This verse, like 13:16, resembles a teaching
(Matt 10:24-25; Luke 6:40). The teaching is lo- of Jesus found in Matthew (10:40). The meaning
cated in quite distinct contexts in each of its three of the two verses is similar, although the vocabu-
Gospel occurrences, and that, coupled with the lary is quite distinct (e.g., Matthew and John use
variations among the three versions of the saying, different verbs for “to receive”). The relationship
suggests that this saying circulated orally in variant of the two texts thus seems best explained by
forms.*® The precise meaning of Jesus’ words in access to variant forms of the saying in the oral
v. 17 is unclear. “These things” may refer to his
tradition rather than by any literary dependence.
double imperative in vv. 14-15. If that is the case, What God has done for Jesus (sent him into the
the disciples will be blessed if they follow the
world, 3:17, 23; 6:38), Jesus now does for the
example of Jesus in love and service.
disciples (cf. 17:18). The disciples share fully in
Jesus’ teaching on the foot washing includes Jesus’ work, which means that they share fully in
another prediction of the betrayal (v. 18; cf. vv.
God’s work (cf. 4:34; 5:17). For the disciples to
106-11). In both instances, Jesus’ knowledge of
do what Jesus has done, then, is a way to make
his betrayer is stressed (vv. 11, 18a). This empha- visible the unity and intimacy with God and Jesus
sis serves two purposes. First, Jesus’ knowledge , that their participation in the foot washing sym-
438. See C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel
bolized.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 335-38; Brown, Zhe
Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), 569-70. 439. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 478.
726
REFLECTIONS
The foot washing, like all of Jesus’ works in John, needs to be understood as an act of
self-revelation. The extended introduction (vv. 1-3) opens the revelatory dimension of the foot
washing to the reader. Like the introductions that precede the healing of the blind man in
John 9 and the raising of Lazarus in John 11, these opening verses show the reader what to
look for in the story that follows. In John 13:1-3, the reader is cued to look for a revelation
of Jesus’ relationship with God (vv. 1a and 3) and his love for his “own” (v. 10). Indeed,
when Jesus washes his disciples’ feet, thereby welcoming them into his “home” with God,
Jesus’ union with God and his “own” is revealed.
Just as the miracle at the Cana wedding (2:1-11) initiated Jesus’ ministry with a parabolic
act that revealed Jesus’ glory, so also the foot washing initiates Jesus’ hour with a parabolic
act that reveals Jesus’ love. Both are christological signs pointing beyond the particular event
to the truth of Jesus’ identity. The Cana miracle revealed the abundance of life and gifts that
Jesus has to offer (see Commentary and Reflections on John 2:1-11); the foot washing reveals
the promise of full relationship with God and Jesus that is offered to those whom Jesus loves.
By washing his disciples’ feet, Jesus enters into an intimate relationship with the disciples that
mirrors the intimacy of his relationship with God. It is an intimacy that discomfits Peter,
because it overturns all his conventional assumptions of roles and propriety (vv. 6, 8). Yet it
is only by accepting Jesus in the surprising role of loving host and intimate servant that one
has a “share” with him, that one receives the love of God incarnate.
As noted in the commentary, the salvific offer of the foot washing is found in the intimacy of union
with Jesus that it makes available. The essence of the foot washing is Jesus’ offer of himself in love;
the transformative power of the foot washing is in the gracious and hospitable service of Jesus. God’s
love for the world in sending Jesus (3:16) is here enacted in Jesus’ love for his own. The interrelationship
of God, Jesus, and the believer will be the subject of the discourse of 14:1—16:33, but it is enacted
in the foot washing narrative first. The foot washing reveals Jesus’ unfettered love for the disciples,
and it is this love that holds the promise of new life for the disciples. The call for the disciples is to
allow themselves to be ministered to in this way, to accept Jesus’ gesture of love fully.
In 13:1-11, Jesus asks nothing of the disciples other than that they place themselves
completely in his hands (cf. 13:3), that they discard their images of who he is and how
one comes to God and give themselves to his ministrations. He asks that they enter into
relationship with him on his terms, that they allow their relationship with him to be
defined by God’s love and God’s love alone. They are to allow Jesus to lead them in love,
much like the image of the good shepherd in John 10. The foot washing removes the
possibility of distance between Jesus and his followers, and brings them face to face with
the love of God for them. Peter’s initial responses (vv. 6, 8) and the mention of Judas’s
betrayal (vv. 2, 11) make clear that accepting this gesture of love and hospitality is indeed
a challenge for those who follow Jesus.
There is a tendency in contemporary church appropriation of the foot washing narrative to
begin and end one’s interpretation of this text with vv. 12-15. That is, in most conversations
about this text within the church, the foot washing is held up as an example of humble service
that those who follow Jesus are called to imitate. While there is no question that John 13:12-15
does present the foot washing as a model for communal service, those verses are one piece
of a much larger picture.
The call to service in this text cannot be separated from the call to participation with Jesus
in vv. 1-11. One can follow Jesus’ example (v. 15) only if one has already experienced Jesus’
loving service for oneself. The call of vv. 12-15 is to embody the love and service of Jesus for
one another. In the community’s embodiment and enactment of Jesus’ love, the community
72h
reveals Jesus’ identity to the world. It is critical that this christological dimension be understood
as definitional for the foot washing. Jesus does not simply issue a general call for service; he
issues a call to give as he gives, to love as he loves.
Bultmann has articulated more clearly and powerfully than any other commentator the
relationship between Jesus’ act of love and the call to communal service. In commenting on
the relationship between vv. 1-11 and vv. 12-20 he writes:
The explicit theme of the first section is the fellowship with Jesus; this is shown to be grounded
in an event that contradicts the natural reason, namely in the service rendered by Jesus, the
binding power of which will prove itself... if [the disciple] is prepared to base his life on this
event and on it alone. The second section adds that this fellowship of the disciples with Jesus at
the same time opens up a fellowship amongst themselves, and that for the former to exist, the
latter must be made a reality through the disciples’ action.”
When the faith community embodies Jesus’ love, it not only reveals his identity, but it also
assumes a new identity for itself, shaped by Jesus’ identity. The references to the betrayal that
are woven into the foot washing narrative sound a cautionary note about this new identity.
Jesus’ act toward us in love presents the community with a choice: One can embrace Jesus’
gift to us and embody one’s embrace of that gift through one’s own acts of love, or one can
turn one’s back on Jesus’ gift of love. We.can enter into community with Jesus and with one
another, or we can reject that communi ty.
440. Ibid., 478-79.
John 13:21-30, Jesus Prophesies His Betrayal

NIV NRSV
21 After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in 21After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit,
spirit and testified, “I tell you the truth, one of and declared, “Very truly, I tell you, one of you will
you is going to betray me.” betray me.” *The disciples looked at one another,
22His disciples stared at one another, at a loss uncertain of whom he was speaking. 73One of his
to know which of them he meant. 7*One of them, disciples—the one whom Jesus loved—was reclin-
the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next ing next to him; **Simon Peter therefore motioned
to him. ?4Simon Peter motioned to this disciple to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking. So
and said, “Ask him which one he means.” while reclining next to Jesus, he asked him, “Lord,
>Teaning back against Jesus, he asked him, who is it?” @°Jesus answered, “It is the ‘one to whom
“Lord, who is it?” I give this piece of bread when | have dipped it in
Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will the dish.”? So when he had dipped the piece of
give this piece of bread when | have dipped it in bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot.?
the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he 27After he received the piece of bread,° Satan entered
gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. ?7As soon into him. Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you
as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. are going to do.” “Now no one at the table knew
“What you are about to do, do quickly,” Jesus why he said this to him. ?Some thought that,
told him, *8but no one at the meal understood because Judas had the common purse, Jesus was
why Jesus said this to him. ?°Since Judas had . telling him, “Buy what we need for the festival”;
charge of the money, some thought Jesus was
or, that he should give something to the poor. *°So,
telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast,
after receiving the piece of bread, he immediately
or to give something to the poor. *°As soon as
went out. And it was night.
Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it
4 Gk dipped it 6Other ancient authorities read Judas Iscariot son
was night. of Simon, others, Judas son of Simon from Karyot (Kerioth)
¢ Gk After the piece of bread
728
COMMENTARY
John 13:21-30 is explicitly tied to the preceding says how many of Jesus’ disciples were present at
scene with the words, “After saying this...” (v. this supper gathering. Scholars who assume that
21). The reader is thus intended to read this those present at this meal were the Twelve im-
narrative of betrayal in the context of the foot pose the Synoptic understanding of discipleship on
washing and Jesus’ teaching about community. the Johannine narrative.*“?
The intimacy of the setting at the supper contin- 13:23-25. The questioning of Jesus by his
ues in this scene and, indeed, is reinforced by disciples (vv. 23-25) is narrated with much more
many of the details of these verses (e.g., vv. detail in John than in the other Gospels. These
23-26). verses introduce a new character into the Fourth
13:21. Verse 21 is the first explicit an- Gospel narrative, “the disciple whom Jesus
nouncement of the betrayal in the supper scene loved.” This disciple was not mentioned in the
(cf. the narrator’s statement in v. 2, and Jesus’ narrative of Jesus’ ministry, but he will play a
allusions in vv. 10, 18-19). The notation that prominent role in the narrative of Jesus’ hour
“Jesus was troubled in spirit” (v. 21a) once again (19:26-27; 20:2-10; see also 21:7, 20-23). This
takes the reader “inside” Jesus (cf. 13:1, 3). The disciple is never named, but is always identified
verb for “troubled” (tapdoow tarasso) normally solely in terms of Jesus’ love for him. The disciple
refers to anger or indignation (cf. 11:33), and that may have been recognizable to the first readers,
seems to be the emotional state described here. and John 19:35 and 21:24 suggest that it is this
The narrator may preface the betrayal prediction disciple to whom the community points as the
with a mention of Jesus’ anger in order to under- guarantor of its witness to Jesus (see Introduction).
score the disparity between Jesus’ offer of himself Nonetheless, the anonymity of this disciple sug-
in love in the foot washing and the rejection of gests that the Fourth Evangelist understands the
that offer by one of his own. The gravity of Jesus’ significance of this disciple to rest in his relation-
announcement is signaled in two ways to the ship to Jesus, not in his own identity.
reader: the use of the verb “to testify” (uaptupew The opening description of the beloved disciple
martyreo) to introduce Jesus’ remarks and the in v. 23 draws particular attention to his relation-
ship with Jesus. He is described as “reclining in
“very truly, I tell you” with which Jesus’ words
the bosom of Jesus” (v. 23, author’s trans.) This
in v. 21 begin. Both mark these words as a solemn
description of the beloved disciple’s relationship
and prophetic announcement of the betrayal.
to Jesus mirrors exactly the description of Jesus’
13:22. The reference to the disciples’ uncer-
relationship to God in 1:18. “As Jesus is in the
tainty (v. 22) renders the scene from the perspec-
bosom of the Father, so the Beloved Disciple lies
tive of those who are gathered around Jesus. This
in the bosom of the Son; thus the concrete posi-
verse functions as an important reminder that
tion of the disciple marks the verity that the true
even though the significance of the prediction of
disciples are in Jesus as Jesus is in the Father.“
the betrayal is apparent to Jesus and to the Gospel The position of the beloved disciple at the supper
readers (cf. 6:64, 71; 12:4; 13:2, 11), it is not thus anticipates Jesus’ teachings about discipleship
yet comprehensible to the disciples (cf. vv. 28-29). in the Farewell Discourse (e.g., 14:20; 15:4-5).
Jesus’ announcement, coupled with the disciples’ The beloved disciple is paired with Simon Peter
response, is recounted at the last supper scene in in this scene, as he is frequently in the narrative
all four Gospels (see Matt 26:21-25; Mark 14:18- of Jesus’ hour.44 This pairing probably points to
21; Luke 22:21-23). All four seem to preserve a the prominence of both disciples for the Johannine
similar core tradition, but, with the exception of community (see Commentary on John 20:2-10).
Matthew and Mark, do not seem to depend on The description of the disciples reclining at the
one another.“*! The Fourth Evangelist nowhere
442. So Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 445.
441. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), $77, Bult- 443. E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber & Faber, 1947)
mann, The Gospel ofJohn, 478; Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth 443.
Gospel, 52-54. 444, The only exception is 19:26-27.
729
meal suggests that the diners sat on cushions or tle, Satan’s work is framed by Jesus’ initiative:
couches on the floor, not at the table. One would Jesus offers the food to Judas and instructs him
recline on one’s left side, leaving the right hand free to proceed quickly.
for eating. In v. 25, the beloved disciple is described 13:28-29. These verses remind the reader that
as leaning back into Jesus to ask his question, which the other disciples remain outsiders to the full
would suggest that he was sitting at Jesus’ right side. scope of the cosmic dimensions of the betrayal.
Although scholars have tried to recreate the seating The disciples’ ignorance of what transpires be-
arrangement of the rest of the disciples from these tween Jesus and Judas is not a narrative “weak-
verses,““° the text provides no data to support those ness,” included as a way of “exonerating the
constructions. One can tell nothing from v. 24 about Eleven for complicity in Judas’ sin.”4** Rather, by
where Peter or Judas was seated. The NIV incor- highlighting the disciples’ ignorance (note the use
rectly translates v. 24 as if Peter asks the beloved of the verb “know” [yiviiokw ginosko] in v. 28),
disciple a question; the Greek text says only that Jesus’ singular knowledge of the events of his hour
Peter “nodded” to him (vetw neuo) and through is again underscored (cf. 13:1, 3). Indeed, the
that motion indicated that the beloved disciple suppositions that the disciples reach about Jesus’
should inquire of Jesus. words to Judas are plausible at the surface level
13:26. In Matt 26:22 and Mark 14:19, each of (cf. 12:6) and continue the Johannine theme of
the disciples in turn asks Jesus whether he is the misunderstanding into Jesus’ hour. Just as the
betrayer (in Luke 22:23, the disciples ask one an- ’ disciples misunderstood Jesus’ words about his
other, but not Jesus). In John, the beloved disciple food at 4:31-33 and his words about Lazarus’s
is given the prominent role of the lone questioner. death at 11:11-12, so also they misunderstand and
Jesus’ answer in v. 26, like his words at 13:18, misperceive Jesus’ words at this crucial moment.
underscores the contrast between the intimacy of Their misunderstanding will continue into the
the meal and the presence of the betrayer. Jesus’ discourse of John 14-16 (e.g, 14:5, 8; 16:29-33).
words and actions in v. 26 reinforce that the be- 13:30. Ironically, even in betrayal, Judas is
trayer is one of Jesus’ intimates; he is one to whom obedient to Jesus; he leaves “immediately,” fulfill-
Jesus offers food as a gesture of friendship and ing Jesus’ urging for haste in v. 27. Jesus remains
hospitality, even though Jesus knows that Judas is in control of the events of his hour (cf. 10:17-18).
the one who will betray him.° The notation “And it was night” has many layers
13:27. Like v. 2, v. 27 reminds the reader of
of meaning. First, this notation underscores the
the cosmic dimensions of the betrayal. The de-
truth of Judas’s identity. By removing himself from
scription of Satan’s entering Judas suggests that
Jesus, he has demonstrated that he loves the
Judas’s defection from the community of love and
darkness more than the light and so cuts himself
friendship that surrounds Jesus is a result of de-
off from Jesus’ offer of life (cf. 3:17-21). Second,
monic possession. That is, the critical players in
one of the core elements of Jesus’ teaching is that
the betrayal are Jesus and the devil, not Jesus and
he is the light of the world (8:12; 9:5) and that
Judas.’ The Gospel of John, unlike the Synoptics,
day and light are the times for his work in the
has narrated no stories of exorcisms in Jesus’
world (9:4; 11:10). Judas’s actions usher in the
ministry. The battle with demonic forces and evil
time that brings Jesus’ presence as the light of the
is saved until the consummate battle of Jesus’ own
world to a close. Yet, finally, this verse also brings
hour. Importantly, even in this consummate bat-
home the truth of the Prologue (1:5): “The light
445. See, e.g., Raymond E. Brown, 7he Gospel According to John shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not
(XIII-XX1), AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970) 574.
446. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.: Word,
overcome it.”44? (See Reflections at 13:31-38.)
1987) 238.
447. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G. 448. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Phila-
R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: delphia: Westminster, 1978) 447.
Westminster, 1971) 482. 449. See also Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 483.
730
JOHN 13:31-38
John 13:31-38, The Love Commandment and
Prophecy of Peter’s Denial
NIV NRSV
s!'When he was gone, Jesus said, “Now is the 31When he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now
Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has
“If God is glorified in him,? God will glorify the been glorified in him. "If God has been glorified
Son in himself, and will glorify him at once. in him,? God will also glorify him in himself and
$8“My children, I will be with you only a little will glorify him at once. °*Little children, I am
longer. You will look for me, and just as I told with you only a little longer. You will look for
the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, me; and as | said to the Jews so now I say to
you cannot come. you, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’ *4]
“A new command I give you: Love one an- give you a new commandment, that you love one
other. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should
another. By this all men will know that you are love one another. *By this everyone will know
my disciples, if you love one another.” that you are my disciples, if you have love for one
3eSimon Peter asked him, “Lord, where are you another.”
going?” 36Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are
Jesus replied, “Where I am going, you cannot you going?” Jesus answered, “Where I am going,
follow now, but you will follow later.” you cannot follow me now; but you will follow
37Peter asked, “Lord, why can’t I follow you afterward.” °’Peter said to him, “Lord, why can I
now? | will lay down my life for you.” not follow you now? | will lay down my life for
%8Then Jesus answered, “Will you really lay down you.” “Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your
your life for me? | tell you the truth, before the life for me? Very truly, I tell you, before the cock
rooster crows, you will disown me three times!” crows, you will have denied me three times.”
432 Many early manuscripts do not have Jf God is glorified in him. aQOther ancient authorities lack Jf God has been glorified in him
(COMMENTARY
As noted in the Overview to John 13, vv. 31-38 conjunction with what has preceded. The
can be read as either the conclusion to the series scenes between Jesus and his disciples in 13:1-
of last supper scenes between Jesus and his disci- 38 focus on what it means to be Jesus’ own;
ples that begins with the foot washing*® or as the the supper began with a symbolic gesture by
introductory section of the Farewell Discourse.*! Jesus that embodied what it means to be in
Scholars who argue for reading 13:31-38 as the relationship with Jesus (vv. 1-5), followed by a
introduction to the discourse note that the themes sequence of dialogues and teachings of Jesus
introduced by these verses are the central themes that draw out the meaning of this relationship.
of the rest of the discourse and that these verses John 13:31-38 brings those dialogues to a close
fit the pattern that continues in 14:1-24: words by providing a final definition of Jesus’ “own”
of Jesus punctuated by questions by the disciples and thereby setting the stage for the discourse
(cf. 14:5, 8, 22). Yet the beginning of v. 31 whose ultimate concern is the interrelationship
(“When he had gone out, Jesus said... ”; v. 314) of Jesus and his own.*°?
suggests that this scene is to be read first in
452. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 449, suggests that
450. Robert Kysar, John, Augsburg Commentary of the New Testament 13:31-38 be read as a unit complete unto itself that functions as a farewell
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986) 449; R. Alan Culpepper, “The Johannine discourse in miniature, anticipating in both form and content the discourse
Hypodeigma: A Reading of John 13:1-38,” Semeia 53 (1991) 134. that follows in John 14-16. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According
451. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XX1), 608-9; Beasley- to St. John, 3 vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982) 3:48-58, also treats
Murray, John, 244; Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 447. 13:31-38 as a distinct unit.
731
| JOHN 13:31-38 COMMENTARY
John 13:31-38 divides. into two parts: (1) vv. return to God, the full glory of God and Jesus will
31-35, a teaching by Jesus, and (2) vv. 36-38, a be revealed (see also 17:1). Who God is, who
dialogue between Jesus and Peter. Jesus’ teaching Jesus is, and who they are to each other and to
clusters around two topics: (1) Jesus’ glorification the believer is fully revealed in Jesus’ death,
and departure (vv. 31-33) and (2) the command- resurrection, and ascension.
ment that the disciples love one another (vv. 13:33. As Jesus himself notes, his words to his
34-35). disciples about his imminent departure do not
13:31-32. The “now” with which Jesus’ differ from his earlier words to the “Jews” (7:33-
words in v. 31 begin marks a decisive turn in the 34; 8:21). What is different is the significance of
narrative. The supper scene opened with the that departure for the hearers. When Jesus spoke
narrator’s commentary that Jesus knew that his to the “Jews,” those in power who opposed him,
hour had come (13:1; see 13:3 also), and with he pointed to his return to God as a moment of
Jesus’ words at v. 31 this knowledge is made judgment and condemnation. Here, his departure
public (cf. his remarks at the arrival of the Greeks, is presented to his disciples as the seal of their
12:23). The disciples are thus given access to the new relationship with God, with Jesus, and with
knowledge that motivated Jesus’ actions toward one another. At 1:12, the Prologue announced
them in the foot washing. that “to all who received him, who believed in
Verses 31-32 are complex to interpret. Their his name, he gave power to become children of
complexity arises because the verb “to glorify” God.” When Jesus addresses his followers as “lit-
(S0EdCw doxazo) is repeated five times, but the tle children,” he acknowledges the truth of the
temporal framework in which the verb is used Prologue’s claims. Verse 33 is the only place in
shifts from past to future. This seeming temporal the Fourth Gospel where Jesus’ followers are
confusion is intentional, because in these verses explicitly addressed as “little children” (texvia
Jesus’ and God’s mutual glorification is depicted teknia), a common form of address for members
as a reality that is underway even as Jesus speaks. of the believing community in 1 John (2:1, 12,
The arrival of the hour is now the governing 2008 516; MANS 2),
narrative and theological reality of the Gospel. 13:34-35. The intimacy of “little children”
Past, present, and future are redefined in the light sets the framework for Jesus’ teaching in these
of the arrival of the hour. Jesus’ announcement verses. The commandment of v. 34 builds on
in 13:31 thus heralds the arrival of the eschato- Jesus’ words to his disciples after the foot washing
logical hour (cf., “the hour is coming and now (13:15); his love for them has provided them with
1S. 23 9:24).9 the model of how they are to relate to one another.
The eschatological import of Jesus’ an- In order to understand why this is a new command-
nouncement is underscored by his use of the title ment, it is important to look at how “command-
“Son of Man” here. “Son of Man” is the chris- ment” (€vtody entole) is used elsewhere in the
tological title with the strongest eschatological Gospel. At 10:18, Jesus’ decision to lay down his
associations in the Fourth Gospel (5:27; 8:28; life is described as his enactment of God’s com-
12:23) and is most explicitly linked with Jesus’ mandment; at 14:31 and 15:12, Jesus’ obedience
descent and ascent—that is, his coming from and
to God’s commandment is the mark of Jesus’ love
returning to God (1:51; 3:13-14; 6:62; 12:32-34),.
for God. For Jesus to keep God’s commandment
The mutual glorification of God and Jesus was is for Jesus to enact his love of God in words and
initiated in the incarnation (1:14)—that is, in the works (cf. 12:49-50).
incarnation, the presence of God in Jesus becomes
What is new, therefore, is not the command-
visible to the world (cf. 17:24). Jesus’ words and _ Ment to love, because that commandment lies at
works continued the mutual glorification (2:11;
the heart of the Torah (Lev 19:18; Deut 6:4; cf.
7:18; 8:54; 11:4), but the decisive moment of Mark 12:28 and par.). Rather, what is new is that
glorification is the unfolding of the events of Jesus’ the commandment to love derives from the incar-
hour. In that hour, in Jesus’ death on a cross and
nation (see 3:16). The “new” turn in the com-
453. Gail R. O'Day, “ ‘I have overcome the world’ (John 16:33): mandment of 13:34 is that Jesus’ “own” are asked
Narrative Time in John 13-17,” Semeia 53 (1991) 153-66. to enter into the love that marks the relationship
732
of God and Jesus. Their participation in this rela- denial, but the distinctiveness of both the Johannine
tionship will be evidenced the same way that and the Lukan treatments of the prediction argue
Jesus’ is: by acts of love that join the believer to against any theories of literary dependence on one
God (cf. 14:15, 21, 23; 15:12). Keeping this another or on the Markan tradition.4*
commandment is the identifying mark of disci- The distinctiveness of the Johannine treatment of
pleship (v. 35), because it is the tangible sign of the denial is the language it uses to speak of Peter’s
the disciples’ abiding in Jesus (15:10). death and its placement in the story. The expression
13:36. Simon Peter, like the “Jews” before him “lay down my life for you” echoes directly Jesus’
(7:35-36; 8:22), does not understand Jesus’ words description of the good shepherd at 10:11 and of
about his departure (v. 36a). Jesus’ response in v. himself at 10:17-18. Peter thus presents himself as
360 anticipates the prophecy of Peter’s future in willing to keep Jesus’ commandment, to do what
21:18-19, but they also correct Peter’s misperception he has done (13:15), to love as he loves (13:34-35).
of the nature of Jesus’ departure. Jesus leaves his Yet, as Jesus’ prediction of the denial makes clear,
disciples in order to complete God’s work and make Peter’s enthusiasm is possible only because he does
a new life with God possible for them (cf. 14:2-3), not understand the full demand of Jesus’ hour (cf.
and they cannot follow him into that life until the Peter’s words at 13:9). Faced with that demand, he
events of the hour are completed (that is, after the will deny Jesus. What Jesus predicts of Peter here
full sequence of death, resurrection, and ascen- he will predict of all his disciples at 16:32: They
sion). Verse 36a thus evokes a time after the hour, will all desert him at his death (cf. Matt 26:31; Mark
a theme that will recur throughout the discourse 14:27).
(e.g., 16:7, 16-24). The pathos of the prediction of Peter’s denial
13:37-38. The centrality of the prediction of is increased in John by its location at the foot
Peter’s denial of Jesus (vv. 37-38) to early Christian washing and immediately following the love com-
traditions about Jesus’ death is evident in the inclu- mandment. This dialogue between Jesus and Peter
sion of some version of this prediction in all four serves notice to the disciples (and the reader) that
Gospels (see Matt 26:30-35; Mark 14:26-31; Luke in significant ways Judas is not an isolated case.
22:31-34). The common elements in all four ver- While the betrayal may be the most dramatic case
sions are Peter’s announcement of his willingness to of refusing to remain with Jesus, Peter’s denial
die for Jesus, the prediction of Peter’s triple denial, underscores that the decision to be one of Jesus’
and the reference to the cock’s crowing. Matthew “own” is always at risk.
and Mark contain almost identical versions of the
454. Cf. Bultmann, 7he Gospel of John, 596-97. bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 55-56.
REFLECTIONS
When John 13 is read as a unit, it provides the reader with a dramatic and tensive
presentation of the meaning of discipleship. The chapter begins with a demonstration of love
by Jesus that is misunderstood by Peter (13:1-11), and it closes with a commandment to love
in the light of Jesus’ hour, which is also misunderstood by Peter (13:31-38). In between these
two scenes are two conversations that focus on the opposite poles of discipleship: 12:12-20,
which raises up the possibility of community grounded in love and service, and 12:21-30,
which raises up the reality of betrayal even within this community.
The tension of John 13 invites the reader to look at the commandment to love one another
with fresh eyes. As 13:35 makes clear, this commandment is the hallmark of discipleship, yet
it seems that the radical call of this commandment is often missed. The ethical demand of
this commandment, which focuses so specifically on love within and among members of the
faith community, is often dismissed as “easier” or “softer” than the ethical demand to love
one’s neighbor as oneself (Matt 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31) or to love one’s enemies (Matt
5:44; Luke 6:27-35). Moreover, this is the only commandment that Jesus explicitly identifies
733
for his disciples and insists that they keep, so that again, the Johannine ethic can be seen as
somewhat diminished when read next to the broad range of ethical imperatives in the Sermon
on the Mount.
Yet the very narrative in which this commandment is lodged suggests that there is nothing
easy about keeping the commandment to love one another. Jesus’ teachings on love and
discipleship are unrelentingly placed in the context of his betrayal and death in John 13. The
example to which the love commandment points is the love of Jesus for his disciples, a love
that will receive its fullest and final expression in his death. Jesus’ followers, therefore, are
exhorted to love one another as fully as he loves them, a love that may indeed find its
expression in the laying down of one’s life. To model one’s love on a love whose ultimate
expression is the gift of one’s life is to model one’s love on a love that has no limits, that
knows no boundaries and restrictions. To interpret Jesus’ death as the ultimate act of love
enables the believer to see that the love to which Jesus summons the community is not the
giving up of one’s life, but the giving away of one’s life. The distinction between these
prepositions is important, because the love that Jesus embodies is grace, not sacrifice. Jesus
gave his life to his disciples as an expression of the fullness of his relationship with.God and
of God’s love for the world. Jesus’ death in love, therefore, was not an act of self-denial, but
an act of fullness, of living out his life and identity fully, even when that living would ultimately
lead to death.
One of the most powerful contemporary North American examples of a life that followed
fully Jesus’ model of limitless love is that of Martin Luther King, Jr. His death came not because
he chose to give up his live for others, but because he chose to live the love of Jesus fully.
In sermons from near the end of his life, it is apparent that King knew full well the jeopardy
into which his ministry put his life, but to live out the love of Jesus carried with it the threat
of death from which King did not shy away. Like Jesus, he put no limits on his love. Bishop
Oscar Romero, too, did not choose to give up his life, but he chose to love his “sheep” fully,
which ultimately meant laying down his life for them.
To love one another as Jesus loves us does not automatically translate into one believer’s
death for another, nor does it mean to deny oneself for others. Jesus did not deny himself; he
lived his identity and vocation fully. Rather, to love one another as Jesus loves us is to live a
life thoroughly shaped by a love that knows no limits, by a love whose expression brings the
believer closer into relationship with God, with Jesus, and with one another. It is to live a
love that carries with it a whole new concept of the possibilities of community.
That the love commandment is directed internally—to members of the community—does
not make it easier to keep. Indeed, the wisdom of this commandment as the sole explicit
commandment of Jesus in this Gospel is made abundantly clear by a review of the history of
the church in any era. The church’s witness in the world is always hurt and diminished by
the hatred and lack of love that marks Christians’ dealings with one another. It is no easy
task for Christians to love one another. In many ways, it is easier to love one’s enemies,
because one might not have to deal with them every day. Jesus promised that the community’s
love for one another would be a signal to people (“everyone,” v. 35) that they were Jesus’
disciples, yet that signal is crippled daily by the divisions and discord within the Christian
community.
The betrayal that haunts John 13 (vv. 2, 11, 18, 21-30) points to the destructiveness of
living against Jesus’ love, as does the prediction of Peter’s denial. The very story of John 13
thus points to the cost and challenge of living a life that keeps one commandment: to love
one another as Jesus loved us. The commandment opens up the possibility of community with
God and Jesus and community with one another, but it is not an easy word to Keep.
734
JOHN 14:1-16:33, THE FAREWELL DISCOURSE
OVERVIEW
As noted in the Overview to John 13:1- Peter, whereas at 14:1 they are addressed to all
17:26, John 14:1-16:33 is the centerpiece of of the disciples, as the use of the second-person
the three units that compose the Johannine plural pronoun indicates (cf. the shift in per-
account of the farewell meal (13:1-38; 14:1- sonal pronouns in the move from dialogue to
16:33; 17:1-26). As the centerpiece, the Fare- discourse in 3:11). The discourse will be pep-
well Discourse needs to be read in the light of pered with questions by the disciples (e.g, 14:5,
what both precedes and follows it. The common 8), but after 13:38 Jesus’ responses will always
Johannine narrative pattern, noted repeatedly address the circumstances of all his disciples,
throughout this commentary, is that of not simply those of the individual petitioner.‘%”
event/dialogue/discourse (e.g., John 5; 6; and (Note the use of the second-person plural in
9). Read from one perspective, the Farewell Jesus’ response to Thomas at 14:7 and to Philip
Discourse coheres with this pattern, because at 14:9). This commentary, therefore, proposes
Jesus’ teachings in John 14-16 do indeed draw that John 14:1 marks the beginning of the
out themes that are introduced by the foot discourse.
washing and the dialogues that follow it. A second critical determination is where to end
Yet the primary orientation of the Farewell the discourse. Although Jesus’ words in 17:1-25
Discourse is not to an event that preceded it, but share the same narrative setting with the dis-
to an event whose arrival is imminent—that is, course, there is a significant shift in Jesus’ in-
Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension. In John tended audience between 16:33 and 17:1. The
14-16, Jesus explains the significance of his de- formal markers at 17:1 (see Commentary on John
parture to his disciples and points them toward 17) make clear that Jesus ceases speaking to his
the life that they will lead after his hour. The disciples and addresses his words to God in
Farewell Discourse thus interprets an event before prayer. Therefore, although John 17:1-25 shares
it happens and as such marks a decisive variant many themes with the discourse and has a formal
on the familiar Johannine narrative style. It is as relationship to the preceding discourse unit (see
the interpretation of Jesus’ death that John 14-16 “The Genre of the Farewell Discourse” below),
derives the name the “Farewell Discourse,” be- this shift in audience argues for interpreting Jesus’
cause in preparing his disciples for his departure, prayer as a discrete textual unit within the larger
Jesus’ words here do indeed function as his fare- farewell meal narrative.
well to his own. The third and most complex critical issue is
Critical Issues in Reading the Farewell how to assess the interrelationship of the various
Discourse. The delineation of the boundaries units of the discourse. Even in the most cursory
and structure of the Farewell Discourse presents reading of the Farewell Discourse, the interpreter
the interpreter with several critical issues. The is struck by both the density of the material,
first, as noted in the Commentary on 13:31-38, particularly evident in the repetition of key sayings
is where to mark the beginning of the discourse. by Jesus (e.g., 14:13-14; 15:7, 16; 16:23-24) and
There is no sharp break between 13:31-38 and by some apparent contradictions. The most glaring
14:1; indeed, John 14:1 is presented as the con- surface contradiction is Jesus’ summons to depart
at 14:31, followed not by departure, but by an
tinuation of the words of Jesus that begin at
extension of the discourse. Another set of appar-
13:38.45° Yet there is nonetheless a significant
ent contradictions is the variety of verb tenses
shift between 13:38 and 14:1, because Jesus’
Jesus uses to speak of his departure. He speaks of
words in 13:38 are addressed specifically to
the events of his hour in the past tense (cf. 16:33),
456. Many commentators, therefore, identify 13:31 ff. as the beginning
of the discourse. See the list in the Commentary on 13:31-38. 457. Cf. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XX1), 608.
dad
as imminent (e.g., 14:3), and as underway even and added to in 15:1ff. This redactional approach is
as he speaks (e.g., 16:15, 28). Commentators the consensus among recent Fourth Gospel
have struggled with the significance of these scholars,*°! although they disagree over the particu-
repetitions and seeming contradictions for cen- lars of who wrote the second version (i.e., whether
turies and have proposed a variety of solutions the Evangelist or a later editor) and who added it
to the interpretive puzzle they pose.*® (again, whether the Evangelist or a later editor).
Three approaches have dominated the critical The redactional solution is arguably the cleanest
conversation. The first, a more traditional ap- solution to the composition history of the dis-
proach, assumes that Jesus and his disciples did course, yet it, too, is not without problems. First,
indeed depart the supper at 14:31 and that the one is led to ask whether the contents of the
speeches in John 15-17 were spoken as he and discourse really necessitate such a thoroughgoing
his disciples walked to the Garden of Gethse- redactional proposal. The purported intent of the
mane.*°’ The introduction to 18:1 (“After Jesus redactional proposal is to account for the repeti-
had spoken these words, he went out...”) tions and logical inconsistencies and contradic-
calls this proposal seriously into doubt. The tions within the Farewell Discourse. Yet a careful
second, advanced most thoroughly by Bultmann reading of the “first” and “second” discourses
but also by others,*°° suggests that the repeti- identified by these scholars reveals that even
tions and contradictions are the result of the within these supposed discrete units, one still
displacement of the discourse at some stage encounters repetitiveness and awkward transitions
in its composition and/or transmission. The between and within units (note, for example, the
contents of the discourse must therefore be shift from future to present tense in the descrip-
rearranged in order to return it to its original tion of the disciples’ pain in 16:20-22). The theory
order. For example, Bultmann proposes that of two full versions of the Farewell Discourse
the original order of the discourse was 13:1- seems an attempt to impose an externally deter-
305 0075 932312352 515-16; ..13236-14:31. Yet, mined logic on the discourse rather than accepting
as with all displacement theories (see the its repetitiveness and circularity of logic and de-
discussion of the order of John 5 and 6 velopment as essential to both its form and nar-
above}, these rearrangements create their own rative and theological purpose. Circularity of logic
set of interpretive problems. Bultmann’s rear- and repetition is a distinctive trait of the dis-
rangement overlooks many of the introductory courses in John (cf. the Commentary on 5:19-47)
features of John 14 as well as the concluding and their use in the crowning discourse of the
features of John 17. Gospel should be expected.*62
The third approach proposes that John 14-16 One also has to ask whether this redactional
(or 13:31—16) contains two alternative versions of approach gives inordinate weight to one verse,
the Farewell Discourse. The repetitions and struc- 14:31. There are two significant inconsistencies
ture of the discourse are thus explained in terms in the way this verse is handled in the two-dis-
of its redactional history. That is, John 14:1-31 course theory. First, the redactional solution as-
preserves one version of Jesus’ farewell words to
sumes a slavish handling of the Jesus traditions
his disciples, John 15:1-16:33 a second. The call that the rest of the Gospel neither demonstrates
to depart in John 14:31 is viewed as the conclu-
nor supports. The Fourth Gospel shows a remark-
sion to the first discourse, which has been revised
able freedom in the way it handles traditions (cf.,
458. For a recent review of the history of research on the structure and
for example, the displacement of the cleansing of
composition of the Farewell Discourse, see Fernando Segovia, 7he Fare- the temple narrative to the opening of Jesus’
well of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1991) 21-47. , ministry). There is little support from the rest of
459. Examples of this approach among contemporary commentators
include Ernst Haenchen, John 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of John 461. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3:90-
Chapters 7-21, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 128; and D. A. Carson, The 91; Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), 581-94; Barrett,
Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 477-79. The Gospel According to St. John, 454-55; Beasley-Murray, John, 223-
460. Bultmann, John, 459-61. For a review of scholars prior to Bult: 24; Kysar, John, 219-20; Segovia, The Farewell of the Word, 319-28.
mann who proposed a variety of displacement theories (e.g., Wellhausen, 462. See George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through
Bacon, Bernard, Wendt), see W. F. Howard, The Fourth Gospel in Recent Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
Criticism and Interpretation (London: Epworth, 1931) 1984) 73-85.
736
the Gospel for the view that because the first focus on Jesus’ death and the disciples’ future.
version of the discourse ended with the words in Jesus’ death confronted the early church with
14:31, the Evangelist (or a later editor) had to two immediate crises: the meaning of Jesus’
include it here. Second, the two-discourse theory death on a cross and his absence from his
assumes that neither the Evangelist nor a later followers. It is the pastoral and theological gen-
editor (depending on whom commentators credit ius of the Fourth Evangelist that he positioned
with the redaction) noticed the disjunction be- the Farewell Discourse to be Jesus’ response to
tween 14:31 and 15:1 that is so glaringly obvious those crises.
to modern interpreters. Again, the only way to The Genre of the Farewell Discourse. In
explain this authorial/editorial lapse is to appeal reading the Farewell Discourse, one needs to
to a slavish adherence to tradition. consider its relationship to a genre of literature
The problem of 14:31 is not easy to resolve. well documented in the ancient Mediterranean
Yet were not such emphasis given to 14:31, one world—that of the farewell or last testament of
wonders whether the break between John 14 and a famous man. In the OT, one finds this form in
15-16 would seem so glaring. There are interpre- Jacob’s farewell and blessing of his twelve sons
tations of the Farewell Discourse that attempt to (Genesis 49), in Joshua’s farewell address (Joshua
take 14:31 as one verse in the discourse and not 22-24), and in David’s farewell and instructions
as the decisive verse for the discourse. Hoskyns, to Solomon and the royal court {1 Chronicles
for example, explains the verse in terms of tradi- 28-29). The most extended example of the fare-
tion history, and Dodd offers a symbolic reading well address is in Deuteronomy, in which the
of the verse.*°? In this respect, they are following entire book is cast as Moses’ farewell speeches
the interpretive traditions of the early church to his people. This literary form also occurs in
theologians (e.g., Cyril of Alexandria; see Com- extra-canonical Jewish literature, particularly
mentary below). In more contemporary criticism, those books like The Testaments of the Twelve
attempts are made to read the discourse as a Patriarchs and Jubilees, which retell and expand
whole, and thus to arrive at its meaning without the stories of the Pentateuch; in Greek and Ro-
dependence on the theory of two discourses.4 man literature (e.g., the death of Socrates in
There is no doubt that the Fourth Evangelist Plato’s Phaedo); and elsewhere in the NT (e.g.,
has brought together in John 14:1-16:33 tradi- Paul’s farewell at Miletus, Acts 20:17-38).
tions that originally existed independently of this Some of the defining characteristics of this form
one long unit. In that regard, the combination of include the gathering of family and/or followers
traditions in the Farewell Discourse is no different by the dying or departing man, the announcement
from the combination of traditions in the dis- of approaching death or departure, prophecies
courses of John 5; 7-8. Therefore, it does not and/or promises and blessings, a review of the
seem necessary to postulate two distinct versions man’s life, the naming of a successor, final instruc-
of the Farewell Discourse to explain the compo- tions, and a prayer.*° Each of these characteristics
sition history and structural complexities of the appears in the Farewell Discourse, and there can
Farewell Discourse. Instead, one finds in these be little doubt that the Fourth Evangelist has
chapters a combination of many once distinct composed the narrative of the events at the supper
units of tradition whose prior history is not recov- with the farewell speech form in view.*°° Fer-
erable. Just as the Fourth Evangelist brought to- nando Segovia has suggested that the entire sup-
gether distinct units of tradition in John 5 to form
a discourse that focused on the relationship of 465. The most important studies of the farewell form include Johannes
Munck, “Discours d’adieu dans le Nouveau Testament et dans la literature
God and Jesus and in John 7-8 to focus on the biblique,” in Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne: Melanges offerts a M.
conflict between Jesus and the Jewish authorities, Maurice Goguel (Neuchatel and Paris: Delachaux & Niestle, 1950) 155-70;
H.-J. Michel, Die Abschiedsrede des Paulus an die Kirche Apg 20, 17-38
so also here he has brought together traditions to (Munich: Kosel, 1973); and William S. Kurz, “Luke 22:14-38 and
Greco-Roman and Biblical Farewell Addresses,” /BL 104 (1985) 251-68; and
Farewell Addresses in the New Testament (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical
463. E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel(London: Faber&Faber, 1947)
Press, 1990).
464-65; C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel(Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1953) 408-9. 466. So, e.g. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI),
597-601; Beasley-Murray, John, 222-23; Schnackenburg, 7he Gospel
464, See Yves Simoens, La Gloire d’Aimer (Rome: Biblical Institute
Press, 1980). According to St. John, 3:57.
PST
per scene should be read as a farewell type of Jesus in the Farewell Discourse, even though set
scene, a suggestion that helpfully draws together at the farewell meal and hence prior to Jesus’
both the genre of the farewell testament and the hour, move beyond this narrative setting to ad-
narrative setting.*°7 dress his followers in the time after his hour.
In addition to identifying the formal charac- What is the narrative and theological signifi-
teristics of the farewell speech in general, the most cance of having a farewell discourse that is spoken
instructive comparison may be between the Jo- from the perspective of the risen Jesus, grounded
hannine Farewell Discourse and the farewell in his victory over the world (16:33)? First, just
speeches of Moses in Deuteronomy.*® Through as the Deuteronomic authors used the voice of
the literary device of the farewell speech in Deu- Moses to sanction their own interpretive work,
teronomy, the traditions of Sinai and Moab are so also the Fourth Evangelist uses the voice of
given a fresh hearing, a “re-presentation,” in a Jesus to give sanction to his. The community’s
new setting, because they are presented as being future is envisioned in Jesus’ voice, not the Evan-
spoken in this moment for this people (cf. Deut gelist’s own. The Fourth Evangelist has chosen to
5:1-3; 8:1; 30:1-20).4°° Deuteronomy was not disclose the future of the community of faith by
written for a people about to enter the promised grounding it in the present voice of Jesus in the
land, however, but was written centuries after discourse. Second, the voice of the risen Jesus that
Moses for a people who had long lived in the resounds in the Farewell Discourse communicates
land. The farewell speeches in Deuteronomy in- the central eschatological truth of this Gospel: The
vite the readers of eighth- and seventh-century BcE hour is coming and now is. That is, by addressing
Israel to see themselves as if they were the people the disciples’ present (i.e., the time before the
on the plains of Moab. Moreover, by using this hour) with words that are grounded in the victory
narrative strategy, the author(s) of Deuteronomy of the hour, the Fourth Evangelist makes the
give Mosaic sanction to their interpretive work. transformative eschatological presence of Jesus a
The Fourth Evangelist has a similar aim with reality for both the disciples and the Gospel
the Farewell Discourse. Jesus speaks with confi- reader. In constructing this discourse, which
dence and knowledge about the events of the glides without notice from past to present to
future, about his relationship with God and his future, the Fourth Evangelist shows how God’s
disciples, about the advent of the Paraclete, and new age is already shaping the disciples’ lives
about the disciples’ future. The voice of Jesus in through the farewell promises and assurances of
the Farewell Discourse is the voice of one who Jesus. The future for which they wait is already
says, “But take courage; I have conquered the underway, because Jesus’ “future” victory is in
world!” (16:33). Jesus’ victory over the world in fact the present reality.
his death, resurrection, and ascension is the gov- Units and Themes of the Farewell Dis-
erning theological reality of this discourse, and, course. The Farewell Discourse can be divided into
indeed, this theological perspective accounts for four broad units: (1) 14:1-31, “I will not leave you
many of the seeming contradictions in the dis- orphaned”; (2) 15:1-17, “Abide in my love”; (3)
course (see Commentary on 14-16). The voice of 15:18-16:4a, “I have chosen you out of the world”;
Jesus that speaks in the Farewell Discourse is, (4) 16:4033, “It is to-your advantage that I go away.”
therefore, that of the risen and victorious Jesus.4”° The first and last units (14:1-33; 16:4033)
Just as the words of Moses in Deuteronomy are contain teachings of Jesus punctuated by questions
addressed beyond their narrative setting to the from his disciples, whereas the middle two units
later readers of the book, so also the words of (15:1-17; 15:18-16:44) consist exclusively of Je-
sus’ teaching. The governing theme of each unit
467. Segovia, Farewell of the Word, 1-20.
468. See A. Lacomara, “Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse,” "is signaled in the paragraph above by a key saying
CBQ 36 (1974) 65-84. of Jesus from that unit. John 14:1-31 focuses
469. See Gerhard von Rad, “Ancient Word and Living Word: The
Preaching of Deuteronomy and Our Preaching” Jnt. 15 (1961) 3-13; and primarily on themes of consolation and assurance
Martin Noth, “The Interpretation of the Old Testament: I. The Repre- for the disciples in the light of Jesus’ departure
sentation of the Old Testament in Proclamation,” /nt. 15 (1961) 50-60.
470. See Gail R. O’Day, “ ‘I have overcome the world’ (John 16:33): and return to the Father. This unit emphasizes
Narrative Time in John 13-17,” Semeia 53 (1991) 153-66. Jesus’ relationship to God and the implications of
738
that relationship for the disciples, as well as the on the believers’ relationship to the world and
promise of the Paraclete (14:16-17, 26). John contains another promise of the Paraclete (15:26-
15:1-17 contains the extended metaphor of the 27). John 16:46:33 returns to the themes of con-
vine and its branches (15:1-11), as well as a solation and assurance in the face of Jesus’
restatement of the love commandment (15:12- departure, but with a particular focus on the role of
17). Together these two sections articulate the the Paraclete in offering that consolation (16:7-15).
theme of abiding love. John 15:18-16:4a focuses
John 14:1-31, “I Will Not Leave You Orphaned”
OVERVIEW
John 14:1-31 consists of a sequence of Jesus’ “see” (14:7, 17, 19); for “remain” (uévw meno,
teachings that address the themes of Jesus’ depar- 14:10, 17, 25); for “love” (ayattdw agapao, 14:15,
ture and its significance for his followers. As is 21, 23-24, 28); Jesus’ relationship to the Father
the case with the entire Farewell Discourse (see (14:6-13, 16, 20-21, 23, 26, 28, 31). This repe-
the Overview above), this unit does not develop titiveness creates a web of interwoven themes and
according to a strict linear logic. Rather, its logic motifs (see Commentary on 5:19-30) that resists
is more circular, developing its perspective clean outlining. The Commentary below is di-
through repetition of key themes and words— vided into three sections: (1) vv. 1-11; (2) vv.
e.g., verbs for “coming” and “going” (14:2-6, 12, 12-24; and (3) vv. 25-31, in order to faciliate the
18, 28, 30); for “believe” (mioTevw pisteud, 14:1, analysis and interpretation of the text.
10-12, 29); for “know” (14:4-5, 7, 9, 17, 20); for
John 14:1-11, “I Am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life”
NIV NRSV
| A “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust | A “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe?
in God* trust also in me. 2In my Father’s in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s
house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would house there are many dwelling places. If it were not
have told you. I am going there to prepare a place so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a
for you. *And if I go and prepare a place for you, place for you?? *And if I go and prepare a place for
I will come back and take you to be with me that you, I will come again and will take you to myself,
you also may be where | am. *You know the way so that where I am, there you may be also. “And
to the place where I am going.” you know the way to the place where I am going.”°
5Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know SThomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where
where you are going, so how can we know the you are going. How can we know the way?” ‘Jesus
way?” said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth life. No one comes to the Father except through
and the life. No one comes to the Father except me. ’If you know me, you will know? my Father
through me. 7If you really knew me, you would also. From now on you do know him and have seen
know? my Father as well. From now on, you do him.” ®Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the
know him and have seen him.” Father, and we will be satisfied.”
8Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that Or You believe 6Or
If it were not so, | would have told you;
for I go to prepare a place for you ¢ Other ancient authorities
will be enough for us.” read Where J am going you know, and the way you know
‘
a] Or You trust in God 67 Some early manuscripts /f you really dOther ancient authorities read /fyou had known me, you would
have known me, you will know have known
JOHN 14:1-11
NIV NRSV
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this
even after I have been among you such a long time, Philip, and you still do not know me?
time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How
Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? '°Do you not
Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and believe that I am in the Father and the Father is
that the Father is in me? The words I say to you in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak
are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living on my own; but the Father who dwells in me
in me, who is doing his work. '!Believe me when does his works. ''Believe me that I am in the Father
I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then
me; or at least believe on the evidence of the believe me because of the works themselves.”
miracles themselves.”
(COMMENTARY
14:1. Jesus’ opening words to his disciples (vv. of faith they will recognize Jesus’ hour as the
1-4) begin with three imperative clauses (v. 1). culmination of his enactment of God’s work, as the
The verb for “troubled” (tapdcow tarasso, v. 1 a) defeat of the ruler of the world (12:31; 14:30).
translates a verb used three times previously in 14:2-3. In vv. 2-3, Jesus turns from exhortation
the Gospel to describe Jesus’ condition of distress to promise. Jewish traditions that identify the “Fa-
(11:33; 12:27; 13:21). In each of these three uses, ther’s house” with a heavenly dwelling place clearly
the verb refers primarily to Jesus’ agitation and lie behind the imagery of v. 2a (e.g., Pss 2:4; 66:1;
disturbance in the face of the power of death and 113:5-6; 123:1; Isa 66:1),47! but it is critical to the
evil, not simply to his sadness. The same meaning interpretation of Jesus’ words here that the reference
of “troubled” applies here, and it is important that to “my Father’s house” not be taken as a synonym
the opening imperative of v. 1 not be excessively for heaven.4”? Instead, this reference to the Father’s
sentimentalized. Jesus does not speak to the dis- house needs to be read first in the context of the
ciples’ personal sadness at his death, but instead mutual indwelling of God and Jesus, a form of
exhorts them to stand firm in the face of his “residence” that has been repeatedly stressed from
departure, when the events may look to them as the opening verses of the Gospel (e.g., 1:1, 18).
if evil and death are having their way. It is a Throughout the Gospel, location has consistently
rallying cry for strength. Peter’s denial, predicted been a symbol for relationship. For example, in 1:18,
in 13:38, can be seen as an illustration of how a description of Jesus’ physical location (in the bosom
the disciples will act if they surrender to their of the Father) communicates the intimacy of Jesus’
troubled hearts. relationship with God. Jesus’ description as one who
The two final verbs (“believe ... believe” comes from heaven (3:31; 6:41, 51; cf. 3:12-13)
[mLoTeveTe pisteuete|) could be translated either confirms his origins with God. To know where Jesus
as indicatives (i.e., “you believe... ”) or impera- is from is to know his relationship with God. The
tives. The introductory imperative of v. la sug- parable about the relative place of the son and the
gests that all three verbs in the verse should be slave in the house in John 8:35-36 confirms that
read as imperatives, as in both the NIV and the God’s house is about relationship and not exclusively
NRSV. These final two imperatives build on the , about location (see also 2:16). It is in this relation-
christological core of Jesus’ ministry, the unity of ship, as much as in any heavenly dwelling per se,
Jesus and God (10:30; cf. 12:44), and provide the that there are “many rooms.”
theological grounding for the opening exhortation. The noun translated “dwelling place” (j1ovn
The disciples’ faith in the relationship of God and
Jesus will empower them to rejoice in the events 471. See also especially Philo Som. 1, 256.
of Jesus’ hour (14:28), because through the eyes delphia: Westminster, 1978) 457.
740
mone, “room” in the NIV) also points to the eschatological orientation of these verses. To turn
relational dimension of Jesus’ imagery. While it, Jesus’ promise here into language about Jesus’
too, appears in Jewish literature as a reference to coming to the individual believer at the believer’s
heavenly dwellings for the faithful,4”3 it takes on death is to misconstrue the eschatological signifi-
additional meaning in the Johannine context. This cance of this promise.*”° His return will be the
noun is derived from the verb “remain” or “to enactment of the eschatological announcement of
dwell” (\évw meno), a verb used in the Fourth the Lazarus story, “I am the resurrection and the
Gospel to describe the mutuality and reciprocity of life” (11:25; see Commentary and Reflections on
the relationship of God and Jesus (14:10; 15:10). John 11:1-44). It is the ultimate witness to the
The use of this noun here (see also 14:23) points power of God over life and death,*”” and it is this
to the inclusion of others in this relationship, this power that is the mark of the new age. Jesus’
“house.” Jesus uses the domestic imagery to say, return announces that nothing, not even death,
“My return to God will make it possible for you can separate Jesus and his “own” from God (cf.
to join in the relationship that the Father and | Rom 8:38-39). Jesus’ promised return to his dis-
share” (cf. 20:18). The promise of v. 2a is thus ciples thus functions as the seal of the new
verbal confirmation of what Jesus enacted in the eschatological reality ushered in by the events of
foot washing; the disciples are welcome in the his hour. Jesus’ promise to take his own to himself
Father’s house (see Commentary on 13:1-8). is the promise of the arrival of the hoped-for age,
Verse 20 is difficult to translate with certainty which is marked by reunion and reconciliation
(note the differences between the NIV and the with God, by inhabiting one’s “place” in God’s
NRSV). The main question is how to translate the home.
Greek conjunction ott (Aoti, “that” or “for”), Verses 2-3 thus draw on the traditional imagery
which follows the words “told you” in most of heaven as God’s home to describe the new
manuscripts. The array of options chosen by trans- reality that Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascen-
lations and commentators evidences the lack of sion make available to the believer. He reinter-
consensus about this verse. The NIV follows the prets this traditional imagery, however, to reflect
text tradition that omits the conjunction alto- his eschatological perspective (cf. this text, e.g.,
gether and places a complete stop after “you.”4”4 with the use of heaven imagery in | Thess 4:13-
The NRSV footnote translates Aoti as “for” and 18). The language about place promises the dis-
positions Jesus’ words about his preparation of a ciples a share in Jesus’ relationship with God (cf.
place for the disciples as proof of the truth of v. 13:8), a share that is made explicit in the con-
2a.*”> The NRSV translates foti as “that” and so cluding promise of v. 3: “so that where | am,
punctuates v. 20 as a question. The interrogative there you may be also.” This promise of the
reading of the NRSV seems doubtful, however, advent of the eschatological age marked by full
since 14:2-3 is the first and only time in John that communion with God is the Johannine vision of
Jesus speaks of preparing a place for his disciples. the “kingdom of God” (cf. 3:3, 5; see Reflections
Jesus’ words about preparing a place are the core on Johannine eschatology at 16:25-33).
promise of these verses and are not offered as a 14:4-5. Verse 4 is transitional; on one level its
test of the disciples. The NIV and the NRSV language about Jesus’ departure seems to continue
footnotes, therefore, seem the better reading be- the theme of vv. 1-3, but as vv. 6-7 will make
cause they position Jesus’ preparation of a place clear, Jesus is actually introducing a new topic in
for the disciples as the grounding of Jesus’ assur- this verse. Jesus’ words here shift their focus away
ance about “the Father’s house.” from the destination of Jesus’ journey to a new
The expression “I will come again” (v. 3) term, “the way” (086s he hodos). The word
evokes the traditional early Christian expectation order of the Greek text reinforces this shift, “And
of the second coming of Jesus and signals the where I am going, you know the way” (author’s
473. See, esp. Enoch 39:4. 476. See Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn: A Commentary, trans.
474. So Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XITI-XXI), G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia:
AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970) 619-20. Westminster, 1971) 600-603; Barrett, Zhe Gospel According to St. John,
475. So George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 457.
1987) 241, 243; Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 457. 477. Cf. Beasley-Murray, John, 251.
741
trans.). Thomas, however, does not perceive the “wise” (those who live in accordance with the
shift in Jesus’ words. He, like Peter in 13:36, teaching of the sages [Prov 2:8, 20]) and the
remains confused about where Jesus is going (v. “wicked” (those who flaunt wisdom [Prov 2:12,
5; cf. Thomas’s misunderstanding at 11:16), and 14]). In the Psalms, “way” is used as a metaphor to
interprets “the way” and “where I am going” as describe a life lived either in accordance with the
synonyms, both pointing to Jesus’ destination. The law or the will and desire of God (e.g., Ps 119:1,
“Tam” (éyo) elt ego eimi) saying in v. 6a reveals 3, 5, 27, 33). In this context (see also, e.g., Ps 86:11;
the extent of Thomas’s misunderstanding. “The Tob 1:3), “way” is not ted strictly as the route to
way” is not a geographical term, as Thomas has somewhere else (as in the Mandean and Hermetic
perceived it, but is instead a description of the literature), but as an expression of the faithful per-
revelatory work of Jesus. To “know the way” is son’s unity with God. The following quotation from
thus synonymous with knowing Jesus himself. a Palestinian targum provides an interesting example
14:6a. As with the other “I am” sayings for of the metaphorical use of “way” within first-century
which a predicate is supplied (e.g., 6:35; 8:12; synagogal Judaism: “Better is Torah for the one who
9:5; 11:25; 15:1; see Fig. 10, “The ‘I AM’ Sayings attends to it than the fruits of the tree of life: Torah
in John,” 602), Jesus identifies himself in v. 6a which the Word of the Lord has prepared in order
with a symbol, “the way,” that is at home in the that it may be kept, so that man may live and walk
variety of religions and cultures that intersected _ by the paths of the way of the life of the world to
with one another in the eastern Mediterranean come.”“8? The combination of “way” and “life” in
world (cf. the discussion of the term Jogos in the this passage is noteworthy, as is its eschatological
Commentary on John 1:1). For example, Bult- orientation. These examples from biblical and post-
mann, noting the prominence of language about biblical Judaism show that “way” as a metaphor for
the way in Mandean literature, proposed that the life with God was present within Judaism and thus
decisive religious influence on the Fourth Evan- available for adaptation by the Fourth Evangelist.
gelist’s use of “way” was Gnosticism.*”* As with The distinctiveness of the Johannine appropria-
Bultmann’s suggestion about the origins of logos, tion of “way” (hodos) rests in its combination
however, the absence of any gnostic documents with the predicates that follow (“truth” [aAn8eva
that predate the Gospel weakens his suggestion. alétheia| and “life” [Cwh Zoe]) and in its singular
Indeed, there is a stronger likelihood that some of identification with the person of Jesus. As with
the second-century gnostic literature contains echoes the two “I am” sayings in John 10 (“gate,” 10:7,
of the Gospel of John.*”? C. H. Dodd suggested that 9; “good shepherd,” 10:11, 14), in v. 6a Jesus
the source of the term “way” was to be found in reveals himself to be simultaneously the access to
the philosophy of the hermetic literature, a body of and the embodiment of life with God. “Truth”
literature produced in Egypt that worked through and “life” thus function as appositives in relation
the philosophical dimensions of religious life and to the leading noun, “way”—that is, they clarify
faith.4°° Yet, as with the Mandean literature, the how and why Jesus is “the way.”“*> These two
Hermetic literature postdates the Gospel of John. In nouns are not general abstract nouns, but are
both gnostic and hermetic literatures, one sees evi- nouns whose specific christological content has
dence of the richness of religious discourse in the been demonstrated throughout Jesus’ life and min-
Mediterranean world in the first and second centu- istry. To recognize Jesus as the truth is to affirm
ries, but these parallels do not readily translate into that as the Word made flesh, Jesus makes the
clearly defined streams of influence. truth of God available to the world (1:14, 17-18;
As with logos, the background for the Fourth cf. 5:33). It is to acknowledge that one’s relation-
Evangelist’s use of “the way” is to be found within ' ship with Jesus is relationship with the liberating
Judaism.**' Within the Jewish wisdom tradition, truth of God (8:31-32), that Jesus’ life and min-
“way” (777 derek) denotes the life-styles of the
482. See Targum Ps-J., Gen. 3.24, cited by Craig A. Evans, Word and
Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background ofJohn’s Prologue,
478. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 602-6. JSNTSup 89 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993) 116.
479. E.g., The Gospel of Thomas. 483. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XII-XXI), 621; Rudolf
480. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 48-51. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols. (New York:
481. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XX1), 628-29. Seabury, 1982) 3:64-65.
742
istry are the ultimate witness to God’s truth 10:30, 34-38; 12:44-45). This is the heart of the
(18:37). Jesus is the “way,” the promise of the good news for the Fourth Evangelist, that in Jesus,
possibility of unity with God, because in him one the incarnate Word, the Son of God, one can see
meets the truth of God. and know God in a manner never before possible.
When Jesus identifies himself as “the life,” he 14:8-11. Jesus’ claims in v. 7 have been the
is repeating the self-revelation that formed the stumbling block for his conversation partners
heart of the Lazarus narrative (see Commentary throughout the Gospel (5:37-38; 8:25-27, 42; 10:25-
on 11:25). As at 11:25, this saying claims God’s 30), and Philip’s request in v. 8 shows that they are
life-giving powers for Jesus, and so serves as the no less of a stumbling block for his “own.” Philip
key eschatological announcement of the Gospel. does not understand the nature of Jesus’ self-revela-
Jesus is life (cf. 1:4), because Jesus brings God’s tion, that the incarnation is the ultimate revelation
gift of life to the world (e.g., 3:15-16; 5:21, 26; of God. Even Jesus’ explicit announcement in v. 7
10:28-29; 11:25-26; 12:50). Jesus is “the way,” is not enough for Philip. Yet Jesus can offer nothing
because he is the access point to God’s promise more than he has already made available to Philip
of life. and. the others (v. 9). His words and works offer
14:6b-7. The three predicate nominatives of corroborating witness to God’s presence in him (vv
the “I am” saying of v. 6a thus all point to the 10-11;. cf. 5336-37; 7:1617; 10:37-38; .12:48-50),
unity of Jesus and God in the work of salvation. but in the end the decisive question is whether
This unity is stated directly in the absolute lan- Philip and the disciples believe in Jesus as the
guage of v. 60. This verse, and its positive restate- tangible, enfleshed presence of God. “Believe”
ment in v. 7, voices the irreducible heart of (mLoTevw pisteuo) occurs three times in vv. 10-
Johannine theology (see Reflections below). The 11, and the repetition of this verb shifts the focus
christological claim of vv. 60-7 was first intro- from Jesus’ revelation of God to the disciples’
duced in the concluding affirmation of the Pro- acceptance of it. This unit ends by returning to
logue (1:18) and sounded throughout Jesus’ the exhortation with which it began, “Believe in
discourses (e.g., 5:19-29; 7:28-29; 8:24-29, 54-58; God, believe also in me” (14:1; cf. vv. 10, 11).
REFLECTIONS
Rudolf Schnackenburg has rightly identified John 14:6-7 as “the high point of Johannine
99484
theology. These verses announce in clear language the theological conviction that drives
the Fourth Evangelist’s work, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” These words
express the Fourth Evangelist’s unshakable belief that the coming of Jesus, the Word made
flesh, decisively altered the relationship between God and humanity. These words affirm that
Jesus is the tangible presence of God in the world and that God the Father can be known
only through that incarnate presence. Humanity’s encounter with Jesus the Son makes possible
a new experience of God as the Father.
Yet the very clarity and decisiveness of the Fourth Evangelist’s conviction here have turned
these words into a weapon with which to bludgeon one’s opponents into theological submis-
sion. These words are used as a litmus test for Christian faith in myriad conversations and
debates within the contemporary church. They are taken by some as the rallying cry of Christian
triumphalism, proof positive that Christians have the corner on God and that people of any
and all other faiths are condemned. They are seen by others as embarrassingly exclusionary
and narrow-minded, and they are pointed to as evidence of the problems inherent in asserting
Christian faith claims in a pluralistic world.
How is the contemporary Christian to interpret this central claim of the Fourth Gospel? It
is of the utmost importance that before the interpreter decides to accept or reject the Fourth
Gospel’s affirmation, embrace or distance oneself from its theological view, the Fourth Evangelist
484. Schackenburg, Der Evangelist Johannes, 3:65.
743
be allowed to have his say. That is, it is incumbent upon the contemporary interpreter to
engage in an act of theological imagination when interpreting this passage, to try to envision
the theological claim the Fourth Evangelist might have been making in his context instead of
assessing these words as if they were spoken directly to the contemporary context.
Jesus’ claim that “no one comes to the Father except through me” is the joyous affirmation
of a religious community that does, indeed, believe that God is available to them decisively
in the incarnation. This claim has been announced from the opening lines of the Gospel, “No
one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has
made him known” (1:18). In many ways, John 14:6 is both truism and tautology, because,
following John 1:18, it is indeed only through the incarnation that the identity of God as
Father is revealed. John 14:6 is not a general metaphysical statement about “God”; Jesus does
not say “No one comes to God except through me,” but “No one comes to the Father except
through me,” and the specificity of that theological nomenclature needs to be taken seriously.
John 14:6 is the very concrete and specific affirmation of a faith community about the God
who is known to them because of the incarnation. As noted in the Reflections on the Prologue,
the incarnation changes everything for the Fourth Evangelist, because through it humanity’s
relationship to God and God’s relationship to humanity are decisively altered. The incarnation
has redefined God for the Fourth Evangelist and those for whom he writes, because it brings
the tangible presence of God’s love to the world. “God” is not a generic deity here; God is
the One whom the disciples come to recognize in the life and death of Jesus. When Jesus
says “no one,” he means “none of you.”*” In John 14:6, then, Jesus defines God for his
disciples; the Fourth Evangelist defines God for the members of his faith community.
It is important to try to hear this joyous, world-changing theological affirmation in the
first-century context of the Fourth Gospel. This is not, as is the case in the twentieth century,
the sweeping claim of a major world religion, but it is the conviction of a religious minority
in the ancient Mediterranean world.’ It is the conviction of a religious group who had
discovered that its understanding of the truth of God carries with it a great price (see Reflections
on John 8:31-59). This conviction has led them into conflict with the Judaism that previously
had been their sole religious home, and so they have had to carve out a new religious home
for themselves, a home grounded in the incarnation. It is possible to hear an element of
defiance in the proclamation of 14:1-11, a determination to hold to this experience and
knowledge of God against all opposition and all pressure to believe otherwise. In the
unambiguous words of John 14:6-7, the Fourth Gospel declares where it stands in the
first-century intraJewish debate about the character of God and the identity of God’s people.
What is often labeled in 14:1-11 as excessively exclusionary would be described more
accurately as particularism. That is, the claims made in John 14:6 express the particularities
of the Fourth Evangelist’s knowledge and experience of God, and membership in the faith
community for which he writes and which he envisions does indeed hinge on this claim. This
claim has distanced them from their prior religious home, and thus it will shape their new
one (cf. 14:2-4). The particularism of John 14:6-7 does de facto establish boundaries; it says,
“This is who we are. We are the people who believe in the God who has been revealed to
us decisively in Jesus Christ.” To be included in the circle of Jesus’ “own,” one must recognize
Jesus for who he is, which means recognizing the revelation of God in him.
The claim of John 14:6-7 becomes problematic when it is used to speak to questions that
were never in the Fourth Gospel’s purview. To use these verses in a battle over the relative
merits of the world’s religions is to distort their theological heart. It is a dangerous and
destructive anachronism to cite John 14:6-7 as the final arbiter in discussions of the relative
485. See Paul Minear, John: The Martyr’s Gospel (New York: Pilgrim, 1984) 108-10. .
486. See David Rensberger, “Sectarianism and Theological Interpretation in John” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL,
Chicago, Ill., November 1994).
744
merits of different religions’ experiences and understanding of God. The Fourth Gospel is not
concerned with the fate, for example, of Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists, nor with the
superiority or inferiority of Judaism and Christianity as they are configured in the modern
world. These verses are the confessional celebration of a particular faith community, convinced
of the truth and life it has received in the incarnation. The Fourth Evangelist’s primary concern
was the clarification and celebration of what it means to believe in Jesus (cf. 14:1, 10-11).
The theological vision articulated here expresses the distinctiveness of Christian identity, and
it is as people shaped by this distinctiveness that Christians can take their place in conversations
about world religion. Indeed, the Prologue’s claims about the Logos (1:1-3) provide an opening
for conversations about how one encounters the divine.
When one brackets out the questions that contemporary Christians falsely import into these
verses, there is nothing outrageous or offensive about the claims made here. Rather, at the
heart of Christianity is this affirmation of the decisive revelation of God in the incarnation.
John 14:6 can thus be read as the core claim of Christian identity; what distinguishes Christians
from peoples of other faiths is the conviction given expression in John 14:6. It is, indeed,
through Jesus that Christians have access to their God.
John 14:12-24, “If You Love Me, You Will

Keep My Commandments”
NIV NRSV
127 tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me '2Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in
will do what I have been doing. He will do even me will also do the works that I do and, in fact,
greater things than these, because I am going to will do greater works than these, because | am
the Father. '*And I will do whatever you ask in going to the Father. '%I will do whatever you ask
my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the in my name, so that the Father may be glorified
Father. '4You may ask me for anything in my in the Son. “If in my name you ask me? for
name, and I will do it. anything, I will do it.
1S“If you love me, you will obey what I com- 15“If you love me, you will keep? my com-
mand. '°And I will ask the Father, and he will mandments. '®And I will ask the Father, and he
give you another Counselor to be with you for- will give you another Advocate,° to be with you
ever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot forever. '’7This is the Spirit of truth, whom the
accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows world cannot receive, because it neither sees him
him. But you know him, for he lives with you nor knows him. You know him, because he abides
and will be? in you. '*] will not leave you as with you, and he will be in? you.
orphans; I will come to you. '*Before long, the 18“I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming
world will not see me anymore, but you will see to you. "In a little while the world will no longer
me. Because I live, you also will live. ?°On that see me, but you will see me; because | live, you
day you will realize that I am in my Father, and also will live. 2°On that day you will know that
you are in me, and I am in you. *'Whoever has I am in my Father, and you in me, and | in you.
my commands and obeys them, he is the one who 2IThey who have my commandments and keep
loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my them are those who love me; and those who love
Father, and I too will love him and show myself me will be loved by my Father, and | will love
to him.” them and reveal myself to them.” ?Judas (not
22Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you
Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us will reveal yourself to us, and not to the world?”
and not to the world?” , a Other ancient authorities lack me 6Other ancient authorities
read me, keep ¢ Or Helper d Or among
2/7 Some early manuscripts and is
745
JOHN 14:12-24
NIV NRSV
Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will 3Jesus answered him, “Those who love me will
obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and keep my word, and my Father will love them,
we will come to him and make our home with and we will come to them and make our home
him. #4He who does not love me will not obey with them. 24Whoever does not love me does not
my teaching. These words you hear are not my keep my words; and the word that you hear is
own; they belong to the Father who sent me.” not mine, but is from,the Father who sent me.”
(COMMENTARY
14:12-14. The expression “very, truly, I tell anything intrinsic to the disciples themselves, but
you” with which v. 12 begins signals the intro- because they belong to the new eschatological age
duction of a new teaching (vv. 12-14) into the ushered in by Jesus’ hour. As such, they continue
discourse (cf. 5:24-25). This new teaching builds the glorification of God through Jesus’ that was
on the theme of faith in Jesus that was prominent the purpose of Jesus’ own works {v. 130; cf. 5:44;
in 14:1-11, but moves it in a new direction by | W145 4 754)3
focusing on the ways in which belief in Jesus Second, Jesus’ repeated promise in vv. 13-14
empowers the believing community. Jesus has that he will answer the believers’ prayers makes
declared throughout his ministry that the works explicit that it is Jesus who acts in and through
that he does are God’s works, not his own (5:20, the disciples and their works (note the repetition
36; 10:37-38; 14:10), that his work is to complete of the expression “I will do”). Their works in
God’s work (4:34; 17:4). Verse 124 includes those reality are Jesus’ works.4°* Jesus does not specify
who believe in Jesus in that mutuality of work; the‘ nature of the disciples’ works in vv. 12-14,
the disciples’ works will be Jesus’ works in the but vv. 15-24 suggest that they are to be works
same way that Jesus’ works are God’s (cf. 17:18; that spring from one’s love of God and Jesus, and
20:21). In relation to Jesus, “works” refers to all as such continue the love that is at the heart of
the acts of his ministry, the purpose of which is
Jesus’ own works.
always to make known “the power and character
14:15-24. These verses describe two dimensions
of God.”487 For the disciples to share in Jesus’
of the believer’s love relationship with Jesus: (1) the
works, then, is for them to share in the revealing
inseparability of one’s love of Jesus and the keeping
of God to the world.
of his commandments (vv. 15, 21, 23-24) and (2)
Verses 126-14 underscore the links between
the abiding and indwelling of the presence of God,
the believers’ works and Jesus’ own work. First,
even after Jesus’ death and departure with those
the success of the disciples’ works is directly
who love him (vv. 16-20, 22-23).
dependent on Jesus’ departure to the Father (v.
14:15. A comparison of vv. 15 and 21 with
120). When Jesus returns to the Father, his work
in the world is completed (cf. 19:30). The events
vv. 23-24 shows that “commandments” (évtoAat
entolai, vv. 15, 21), “word” (héyos logos, v. 23),
of Jesus’ hour—his death, resurrection, and ascen-
sion—show forth the fullness of his love for God and “words” (Aoyot logoi, v. 24) are all synonyms.
and the fullness of God’s love for the world (cf. They point to the totality of what Jesus says and
3:16-17; 10:17-18; 14:31). The disciples’ works, reveals about God. In order to interpret Jesus’
which will be done after the events of the hour, words about keeping his commandments/word in
are therefore greater because they will reveal the ' these verses, they need to be placed alongside
completed story of the Word made flesh and Jesus’ earlier teachings about faithfulness to his
hence the fullness of God’s love. Their works thus word. Jesus regularly cites faithfulness to his
are not greater than Jesus’ works because of words as the mark of belonging to him (e.g., 5:38;
8:31, 37, 51; 12:47-48; cf. 6:67-69). John 13:34-
delphia: Westminster, 1978) 460. 488. Bultmann, 7he Gospel of John, 611.
746
35 makes clear that the sign of faithfulness to resonances of all the meanings that are lost to the
Jesus’ commandments is to live a life of love contemporary reader when one English noun is
grounded in Jesus’ own love. Here Jesus conjoins privileged.
those two aspects of keeping his commandments. Jesus identifies his request to God as the origin
When vv. 15 and 21a are read together, it be- of God’s gift of the Paraclete (v. 16a). Yet in the
comes clear that the protasis of v. 15a does not other Paraclete passages, the relationship between
introduce a conditional sentence, but introduces God and Jesus will be nuanced slightly differently;
two parallel clauses that together define what it John 14:26 most closely resembles 14:16, but at
means to love Jesus. To love Jesus is to keep his 15:26 and 16:7, Jesus speaks of himself as the
commandments; to keep Jesus’ commandments is one who sends the Paraclete. This interchange of
to love him. the roles of God and Jesus in the description of
Jesus’ words also point to the ways in which the Paraclete’s origins is not a theological incon-
the disciples’ love and obedience to Jesus de- sistency in the discourse, but rather is a further
termine their relationship with God. As with demonstration of the theological truth that under-
Jesus’ words about the disciples’ works in v. girds this Gospel: God and Jesus are united and
12, his words in vv. 21 and 23 open up the share fully in the work that they do (cf. 5:17, 19;
distinctiveness of his love relationship with God 10:30, 37-38).
to include the disciples. The disciples will share The use of the adjective “another” (aAos allos)
in the Father’s love as a result of their love of to modify “Paraclete” in v. 16a suggests that
Jesus (vv. 21, 23; cf. the negative statement in Jesus was also a Paraclete (cf. 1 John 2:1, where
vy. 24). This mutual love of God, Jesus, and the Jesus is explicitly identified as Paraclete).
disciples provides the context in which the “Paraclete” thus is not simply another name for
three promises of the indwelling of the divine the Spirit, but is a particular way of describing
presence in the community are to be heard: the the functions of the Spirit, functions held in
promise of the Paraclete (vv. 16-17 ); of Jesus’ common with Jesus. What the Paraclete does is
return (vv. 18-20); and of the advent of God and not new, but is a continuation of the work of
Jesus (v. 22-23). Jesus. This can be seen clearly in the description
14:16-17. This is the first occurrence of the of the Paraclete as the Spirit of truth in v. 17.
noun tapdKAntos (parakletos) in the Fourth Gos- To call the Paraclete the “Spirit of truth” is to
pel. This noun derives from the verb rapakaew identify the Paraclete as more than a true—i.e.,
(parakaleo), which has a wide range of meanings truthful—Spirit. As the Spirit of truth, the
that include “to exhort and encourage,” “to com- Paraclete shares in the work of Jesus, because
fort and console,” “to call upon for help,” and “to Jesus is the truth (14:6). The work of the
appeal.” The noun form can mean “the one who Paraclete is thus to keep the truth of Jesus present
exhorts,” “the one who comforts,” “the one who to the world after Jesus’ departure (cf. 16:7-11).
helps,” and “the one who makes appeals on one’s As with the unity of God and Jesus in their work,
behalf.” The Fourth Evangelist seems to draw on the relationship between Jesus and the Paraclete
the whole range of meanings in the variety of is also defined by the unity of their work.
functions attributed to the Paraclete in the five The response of the world to the Paraclete’s
Paraclete passages in the Farewell Discourse (see presence echoes the response of the world to the
also 14:26; 15:26; 16:8-11, 12-15).% The diffi- incarnation itself, a division between those who
culty of choosing among these meanings is Te: receive and those who do not (cf. 1:10-13). Yet
flected in the various English translations of the the focus of vv. 16-17 is not ultimately on this
noun paraklétos—e.g, “Comforter” (KJV), “Advo- division, but on the assurance that the presence
cate” (NRSV), “Counselor” (NIV). It seems bet- of the Paraclete gives to Jesus’ “own.” Knowledge
ter, therefore, to translate parakletos as “Paraclete” of the Paraclete is defined as the Paraclete’s abid-
(as NJB) rather than settle on one English noun, ing with the believing community (v. 170). The
because the Greek reader would have heard the Paraclete is repeatedly described in ways that
John
emphasize its presence in and relationship with
489. George Johnston, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).
the faith community: “will be with you forever”;
747
“abides with you”; and “will be in you.” The 16:23, 26; Isa 4:2; Mark 13:32).4?' The notion of
Paraclete ensures that the revelation of God in the parousia is transformed here, however. The
the incarnation does not end with Jesus’ death events of Jesus” hour, his departure and return,
and return to God. (Excursus on the Paraclete usher in a new age with God, an age in which
follows 16:12-15.) the full mutuality and intimacy of God, Jesus, and
14:18-20. The second promise of continuing believers will be experienced (v. 20).
presence is Jesus’ promise of his own return The promise of Jesus’ Easter return needs to be
(vv. 18-20). “Orphan” (dphavos orphanos) was read in concert with the preceding promise of the
a common metaphor to describe disciples left Paraclete (vv. 16-17). The advent of the Paraclete
Without their masters,*”° but the use of the meta- does not render Jesus himself superfluous, nor
phor here has a special poignancy in the light of does it supersede him. Rather, the Paraclete’s
the familial and domestic imagery that runs presence will make the events of the resurrection
throughout Jesus’ words to his own (e.g., 13:33; available beyond their limited moment in time. It
PA2-3,7 10-145 2152081151 6:21-2450 27) Jesus’ is through the Paraclete that the eschatological
promise that he will not leave the disciples or- fulfillment of Jesus’ hour becomes an experience
phaned recalls his use of the address “little chil- for all believers, not just those of the first genera-
dren” in 13:33 and is an assurance that the tion (see Reflections below).
intimacy of that familial relationship is not under- 14:21-24. The interrelatedness in the life of the
cut by Jesus’ departure. His promise to return (v. believing community of the love of Jesus, the keep-
185) thus immediately counters any possible per- ing of Jesus’ commandments, and the indwelling of
ception of Jesus’ death as his abandonment of his the divine presence is evident in the third promise
own. of presence (vv. 22-23). In v. 21c, Jesus links his
The primary referent of this promise to love for those who love him with his self-revelation,
return is Jesus’ Easter appearances; indeed, but Judas’s question in v. 22 shows that he misun-
vv. 18-20 are the first in a series of promises derstands this linkage. Judas, like Jesus’ brothers at
made by Jesus in the Farewell Discourse that 7:3-4, is looking for a messianic sign that will impress
find fulfillment in the stories of John 20-21 the world,*” and he does not recognize Jesus’ love
(see also~ F4:27" 16306, 20, 22):"Verse™ 19 as the theophany for which he seeks (cf. Philip’s
provides an anticipatory description of the misunderstanding at 14:8). The name of this second
post-resurrection appearances (e.g., “you will Judas does not occur in any synoptic lists of the twelve
see me”; “because I live”). As in the promise disciples. John 14-16 does not explicitly restrict the
of the Paraclete at v. 17, Jesus’ promise of disciples present at the discourse to the Twelve,
his Easter return also makes a distinction be- however; therefore, it is a misguided exercise to try
tween the world and the believing community to harmonize this name with those lists. .
(see also 15:18-25; 16:8-11; 17:6-25). Jesus’ As is typical of Jesus’ teaching (cf. 3:4-8; 4:12-
resurrection life gives life to the believers (v. 14; 14:5-7), he does not address Judas’s misun-
19d), because it is the ultimate demonstration derstanding directly, but instead restates his words
that Jesus is indeed “the resurrection and the about love and revelation (v. 23). When the
life” (see 11:25-26). disciples live in love, and thereby keep Jesus’
The language in vv. 18-20 also highlights the word, they experience the love of God, and it is
eschatological dimension of the promise; “I am through that love that they will also experience
coming” recalls the traditional language of the the indwelling of God and Jesus. The noun trans-
parousia (cf. 14:3); “in a little while” evokes the lated as “home” in v. 23 is the same Greek word
interim period before the time of eschatological translated as “dwelling place” in v. 2 (yovy
fulfillment (cf. 16:16-22; Isa 26:20); “on that day” mone). In 14:2-3, faith in Jesus leads to the
evokes the time of eschatological fulfillment (cf. disciples’ full communion with God and Jesus in
the Father’s “dwelling place,” and at v. 23, love
490. E.g., the disciples of Socrates at his death, Phaedo, 116a. For
rabbinic examples, see Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommen-
491. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIN-XX1), 640; Beasley-
tar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash (Munchen: Beck, Murray, John, 258.
1924) 2:562. 492. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XI1-XX1), 647.
748
of Jesus leads to the same end. To love Jesus is God and Jesus within the community is thus both
to live with God and Jesus—that is, to enter into the foundation and the result of the community’s
relationship with them (cf. 15:9-10, 12), to come love. This section of the discourse concludes with
home. The revelation of God in Jesus is explicitly a warning about how this presence can be for-
linked to the community’s love of Jesus and God’s feited by not living out one’s love of Jesus (v. 24;
love of them (cf. 3:16). The abiding presence of cf. v. bh).
REFLECTIONS
All of Jesus’ words in vv. 12-24 address the shape of the community’s life after the events
of Jesus’ hour and as such are intimately connected to the farewell situation. The following
statement from Bultmann helps to place this section of the discourse in its appropriate
theological context: “The question therefore which activates the section vv. 15-24 is this: what
is this love, which is directed to Jesus? And this question, too, has to be understood in the
context of the ‘farewell situation.’ Can the disciples still love him, when he has gone? Can
the next generation love him, without having had a personal relationship with him?”*”
“Can the disciples still love him, when he has gone?” John 14:12-24 answers yes to this
question, but it may be a yes that surprised even Jesus’ first disciples. The disciples can still
love Jesus, but neither by clinging to a cherished memory of him nor by retreating into their
private experience of him. Rather, they can continue to love Jesus by doing his works (vv.
12-14) and by keeping his commandments (vv. 15-24). That is, when they move outside of
their own private experience of Jesus, when they live what Jesus has taught them and
demonstrated in his own life, then they will find themselves once again in his love.
Jesus’ teachings to the disciples here about love chart the continuation of his own life into
the life of his followers. Jesus lived out God’s love of him by keeping God’s commandments,
by making God known to the world, by offering God’s promise of salvation to the world, by
loving fully, even to the extent of laying down his life. Jesus’ union with God was not a
private, mystical union, in which their love for one another was only self-beneficial—that is,
for the glory of God and Jesus alone with no eye to the life of God’s creation. On the contrary,
the love of God and Jesus was a public love, first revealed to the world in the incarnation
and repeatedly revealed in Jesus’ words and works throughout his ministry. The glorification
of God and Jesus in Jesus’ works was for the sake of those to whom Jesus came, so that they
might believe and come to share in the love of God and Jesus.
The believer’s union with God and Jesus is possible after Jesus’ death, resurrection, and
ascension, but like the union of God and Jesus, it is not a private, mystical union of the
believer with his or her God. Jesus’ words in vv. 12-24 consistently point to the communal
nature of union and relationship with him after the end of his earthly ministry. The promises
of divine presence are promises made to the community, not to the individual. All of the
personal pronouns in these verses are second-person plural, not singular. Jesus does not promise
the Paraclete, or his own return, or the home-making of God and Jesus to individuals (14:23),
but to a community who lives in love. God, Jesus, and the Paraclete are inseparably
interconnected with one another, as the promise of God’s sending the Paraclete in response
to Jesus’ request shows (v. 16), and they come together to those who love, to those who
mirror the divine communion in their human communion with one another.
When Jesus’ disciples follow his own model of love, then, it is possible for relationship with
Jesus to extend beyond the first generation of believers. Relationship with Jesus does not
depend on physical presence, but on the presence of the love of God in the life of the
community. And the love for God is present whenever those who love Jesus Keep his
493. Bultmann, 7he Gospel of John, 613.
749
commandments (v. 21, 23), when they continue to live out the love that Jesus showed them
in his own life and death. Since in the Farewell Discourse Jesus speaks to the time after his
hour, the reader of the Gospel is placed in the same situation as the narrative audience. That
is, the contemporary reader must also discover what it means to have relationship with Jesus
in his absence. The insistence of these verses on love as the sign of fidelity to Jesus and the
way to communion with God, Jesus, and the Paraclete suggests that the believing community
in any generation will enter into relationship with Jesus only when it takes on and lives out
the love of the incarnation.
John 14:25-31, “Rise, Let Us Be on Our Way”

NIV NRSV
29“ All this I have spoken while still with you. 25“I have said these things to you while I am
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the still with you. *°But the Advocate,? the Holy Spirit,
Father will send in my name, will teach you all whom the Father will send in my name, will teach
things and will remind you of everything I have you everything, and remind you of all that I have
said to you. ?”Peace I leave with you; my peace said to you. ?”Peace I leave with you; my peace
I give you. I do not give to you as the world I give to you. I do not give to you as the world
gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do
not be afraid. not let them be afraid. You heard me say to you,
28“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and | ‘I am going away, and I am coming to you.’ If
am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going
would be glad that I am going to the Father, for to the Father, because the Father is greater than
the Father is greater than I. 7°I have told you now I. And now I have told you this before it occurs,
before it happens, so that when it does happen so that when it does occur, you may believe. °°]
you will believe. °° will not speak with you much will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler
longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He of this world is coming. He has no power over
has no hold on me, *!but the world must learn me; *'but I do as the Father has commanded me,
that I love the Father and that I do exactly what so that the world may know that I love the Father.
my Father has commanded me. Rise, let us be on our way.”
“Come now; let us leave.” 2Or Helper
(COMMENTARY
John 14:25-31 concludes this first unit of the and not primarily in the service of a redactional
discourse by recapitulating most of the themes theory.
of vv. 1-24. Its summary quality is pointed to 14:25. The expression “I have said these
by many scholars as support for their view that things to you” occurs repeatedly in the Farewell
14:1-31 is the original version of the discourse Discourse as a transitional sentence both to draw
(see Overview to 14:1-16:33). Yet it is not at together earlier teachings and to introduce a new
all uncommon in the discourses of this Gospel teaching (16:1, 4, 6, 25, 33; cf. 17:1, 3). The use
for the Evangelist to advance the discourse by of the verb “remain” (uévw meno) here does not
returning to and summarizing earlier themes speak of the mutual indwelling of God, Jesus, and
(e.g., 5:19-31; 6:35-59), and the use of that the Paraclete (14:10, 17), but of Jesus’ physical
technique here should be evaluated in relation presence. This verse serves as a reminder that
to the overall stylistic tendencies of the Gospel, regardless of the abiding presence of God and
750
Jesus with the disciples (14:23), the concrete (e.g., | Sam 1:17), but Jesus is not simply saying
reality of Jesus’ physical departure from them farewell to his disciples with this promise of
remains unchanged. peace. In the context of Jesus’ death, the verb “to
14:26. The second promise of the Paraclete leave” (adinut aphiémi) takes on the meaning
emphasizes the continuity between what Jesus of a bequest, and its use here provides an inter-
says while he is present and what the Paraclete esting counterpoint with its use in v. 18. In that
will teach in Jesus’ absence. Verse 26 is quite verse, Jesus promised not to leave (aphiémi) the
specific about the precise nature of the Paraclete’s disciples “orphans,” and his promise of his peace
teaching: The Paraclete will “remind” the disci- supports that earlier promise. The disciples will
ples of Jesus’ teachings. “To remind” not be orphans—that is, they will not be alone—
(UToptpvyoKw Aypomimnesko) occurs only here because they will live in the peace of Jesus (cf.
in the Fourth Gospel, but a related passive form, “to 16:33). The peace that Jesus offers is not the
remember” (utpvyjoKkopat mimneskomai), occurs world’s peace—neither the false promise of secu-
at 2:22 and 12:16. These two verses are impor- rity (e.g., Jer 6:14) nor the end of conflict. The
tant for understanding what the Paraclete’s work peace that Jesus gives is Ais peace, a peace that
of reminding—that is, causing to remember— derives from the heart of Jesus’ life. The peace of
looks like in the life of the believing community. Jesus is “the all-embracing sphere of his life (see
At 2:22 and 12:16, the Fourth Evangelist notes v. 19), his love (vv. 21, 23), his joy (15:11; 16:22;
that after Jesus’ resurrection, the disciples “re- 17:13).”44 The gift of peace rests at the center
membered” what Jesus had said and done, and of Israel’s eschatological hopes (e.g., Isa 52:7;
they were brought to deeper understanding and 54:10; Ezek 37:26-28; Zech 9:10) and is now
faith. The Paraclete does not teach new things, available in Jesus.
but keeps Jesus’ own teachings alive in the post- The promise of Jesus’ peace is not an occasion
resurrection community. for complacency, however, as is seen by Jesus’
The primary description of Jesus in this Gospel is repetition of the exhortation with which the dis-
as the one whom the Father sent, and God’s sending course opened (v. 27c cf. 14:1). The addition of
of Jesus is associated with his mission to complete the second imperative in v. 27d (lit., “Let them not
God’s work (e.g., 3:17; 4:34; 6:38; 7:29; 8:29; be cowardly [setAvdtw deiliato)”) reinforces the
10:36; 12:44; 14:24). The notation that God will fact that these are not sentimental imperatives,
send the Paraclete in Jesus’ name indicates that the simply telling the disciples not to worry, but call
Paraclete, too, shares in God’s work (cf. 5:43). Verse the disciples to find strength to face the new
26 is the only place in John where the Paraclete is circumstances in which Jesus’ departure places
referred to as the “Holy Spirit.” It is important that them.
this reference be read in its Johannine context and 14:28. Verse 28a points back to v. 3 and once
not with the full weight of later trinitarian theology. again brings the disciples face to face with the
The Fourth Gospel’s description of the interrelation- reality of Jesus’ departure. Jesus’ words to the
ship of Father, Son, and Paraclete is the seed bed disciples about their love in v. 280 are expressed
from which trinitarian doctrine grew, but the doc- as an unreal condition (“if you loved me, you
trinal formality of those later articulations should not would rejoice... ”). Some manuscripts soften the
be read back into the description of the sentence by changing the Greek verb into a real
Spirit/Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel. “The Holy condition (that is, a statement of the disciples’
Spirit” is one of the ways the Fourth Evangelist actual love for Jesus), but the unreal condition is
describes the presence of the Paraclete in the believing essential to its meaning. Jesus’ words ask the
community, but not the only or even the primary disciples to look at their understanding of the
way. (See Excursus “The Paraclete,” 774-78.) nature and meaning of love in their relationship
14:27. Jesus’ words of assurance to his disci- with Jesus: Do they love only for their own
ples contain a new promise. Verse 27a is the first benefit, or can they love for Jesus’ benefit as well?
occurrence of the word “peace” {eiprvn eirene) If they are able to be generous in their love, then
in the Fourth Gospel. In the OT, “peace” (ni?w
salém) was a conventional leave-taking address 494, Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3:84.
751
they will rejoice.4° Jesus’ words here recall the of the judgment of the world in Jesus’ death is
parable of the bridegroom told by John the Baptist stressed (see also 16:11).
at 3:29-30. Like the friend of the bridegroom, the The powerlessness of the ruler of this world is
disciples should love Jesus enough to rejoice that contrasted in v. 31.with Jesus’ obedience to God’s
he completes his work by returning to the Father. commandment. God’s commandment is for Jesus
Jesus’ statement “the Father is greater than |” to give eternal life to the world and is grounded
became a pivotal text in the christological contro- in God’s love for the world (3:16-17). The con-
versies of the third and fourth centuries ce. In trast between the two antagonists in the cosmic
order to understand what Jesus is saying to his battle could not be more clearly drawn: the ruler
disciples about his departure, however, his words of this world, who embodies everything that is
need to be read independently of the use made opposed to God, and Jesus, the Son of God, whose
of them by Arius and the answers to Arius offered actions demonstrate his love for God.
by either Athanasius and Origen or Cyril of Alex- As noted in the Overview to 14:1—16:33, the
andria and Augustine.*°° John 14:28 is not about last phrase of 14:31 (“Rise, let us be on our way”)
the creation of the Son, nor is it in any way about is one of the most controversial in Fourth Gospel
the metaphysical nature of the relationship of God scholarship. The difficulty with the verse is that
and Jesus. Rather, as with 10:30 and 38, these while it seems to be instructions from Jesus to his
words speak to the relationship of God and Jesus disciples to depart, no change of location is noted
to each other in the work that they share. until 18:1. Also as noted in the Overview, the
First, God is the one who sent Jesus, the incarnate consensus solution to this problem is to postulate
Word, into the world to do God’s work. God has that 14:31 was the original conclusion to the
given Jesus his words to say and works to do (cf. discourse and is, indeed, a direction to depart and
5:19-20). As the one sent by God, Jesus cannot be that chaps. 15-17 are later additions to this original
greater than the one who sent him (13:16). God, as discourse. Yet this consensus solution is not without
the originator of Jesus’ saving work, is greater than difficulties, the most glaring of which is that it seems
he is. Second, all of Jesus’ life and ministry have been to assume that what is now such an obvious disjunc-
to make God known (1:18). Jesus’ reminder of the tion to critical commentators would have been unno-
Father’s greatness is a reminder that Jesus’ life is all ticed or ignored by the person (or persons) who
about God, not about himself. It is a cause for rejoicing appended chaps. 15-17 to 14:31. In addition, this
when Jesus returns to the Father, because his revela- solution asks three brief words in the Greek text to
tion of the character of God is completed. support a major critical hypothesis.
14:29-31. This section of the Farewell Discourse Scholars who have attempted to wrestle
is brought to a close by an announcement of the with the text as it is, without recourse to
cosmic significance of Jesus’ departure. Verse 29 either a displacement or an editorial theory,
repeats almost verbatim Jesus’ words at 13:19; in are rare. Among major commentators of John,
both instances, Jesus wants his disciples to recognize only Hoskyns and Dodd can be included in
that the events of the hour belong to his revelation that group. Hoskyns interprets 14:31d as the
of God and so are an occasion for faith. Verses 30-31 Johannine echo of Mark-14:42 (“Get up, let us
focus on the struggle with the world that is at the be going. See, my betrayer is at hand”).4°” The
heart of Jesus’ death and departure. The “ruler of Fourth Gospel has no scene of Jesus’ “agony” in
this world” (v. 30) is an apocalyptic expression, the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt 26:30-35; Mark
depicting the devil, the embodiment of evil and 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46), and muchof the ma-
opposition to God. The cosmic conflict with God’s terial from the Gethsemane traditions has echoes
opponent will be waged at Jesus’ death, but it is a in other places in John (see, e.g., the Commen-
conflict whose outcome is known and assured (“has tary on John 12:27-28). Dodd, too, appeals to
no power over me”). As at 12:31, the inevitability Mark 14:42 in interpreting John 14:31d.498 As
495. Raymond E. Brown, 7he Gospel According to John (XII-XXI), 497. E.C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel(London: Faber&Faber, 1947)
AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970) 654. 462, 464-65.
496. For a discussion of the exegesis of this text in the christological 498. C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:
controversies, see T. E. Pollard, “The Exegesis of John x.30 in the Early Cambridge University Press, 1953) 406-9; Historical Tradition in the
Trinitarian Controversies,” N7S3 (1956-57) 334-49. Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 68, 72.
Ta
v. 30 makes clear, in John, Jesus’ real enemy is Jesus’ opening words in 14:2, spatial language has
the devil, not Judas, and the battle with that doubled for relational language throughout this
enemy has already been joined. In that context, chapter (see, e.g., 14:6-7). It is consonant, there-
then, with this concluding exhortation Jesus sum- fore, with the language about place in John 14 to
mons his disciples to enter into the conflict with
interpret the words “on our way” (évted@ev en-
him. teuthen) as being about relationship with Jesus at
Given the reworking and displacement of tra-
his hour, as much as they are about physical loca-
ditional passion material throughout the Fourth
tion. The first-person plural pronouns of 14:31d
Gospel (e.g., 2:13-22; 6:51-60; 11:53), the sug-
include the disciples in the eschatological moment
gestions of Hoskyns and Dodd have more merit
of Jesus’ departure and mark the ushering in of the
than they are usually accorded.4” The advantage
promise of 14:3—Jesus will take his disciples to
of these suggestions is that they require the inter-
himself, and thus to their place and home with God.
preter to read John 14:31 d in its present position
John 14:31 d thus ends this first unit of the discourse
in the discourse and not dismiss it simply as a
on a note of eschatological triumph quite in keeping
faulty editorial seam. They also require the inter-
with the rest of vv. 30-31. The impotence of the
preter to look at the exhortation not simply as a
ruler of this world is a reality; the disciples’ home
misplaced instruction to depart, but as an exhor-
tation that might have theological content. From and full relationship with God beckons. Indeed, this
note of eschatological triumph provides the theologi-
499. Note the dismissal of these positions by Brown, 7he Gospel cal foundation for the continuation of the discourse
According to John (XIIT-XXI}, 657; Barrett, The Gospel According to St.
John, 454; Beasley-Murray, John, 263, all of whom advocate the two-dis-
in John 15-16.
course theory.
REFLECTIONS
The governing theological and pastoral concern of John 14:1-31 is to prepare the community
of Jesus’ followers for life in his absence. This theme is captured most poignantly in the promise
of Jesus to his disciples in John 14:18: “I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you.”
This promise speaks directly to the disciples’ fear and despair—that they will be left alone,
that the new life and hope for a future that Jesus has given them will end when his physical
presence among them ends, that they will be left like children without parents, with no one
to care for them, with no one to love and no one to love them—as they face the inevitability
of Jesus’ departure.
It is the wonder of the Farewell Discourse that on the eve of Jesus’ own death, he pauses to
speak to the disciples about their fears, anxieties, and despair. The words he offers in John 14 are
not simplistic offers of comfort and assurance, however, but derive from his knowledge of the love
of God for him and his “own,” and his confidence in the triumph of that love over “the ruler of
this world.” In John 14, Jesus moves the disciples beyond the present moment in which they are
living into the future that is grounded in the certitude of the resurrection and the gift of the Spirit.
He offers them a vision of a future shaped by the promises of God, in which God is always present
to them—through their love for one another and through the communal indwelling of God, Jesus,
and the Paraclete. Over and over again in John 14, Jesus sounds the note that the disciples will
not face the future alone, that the gift God has given to them in Jesus will not terminate with the
end of Jesus’ life, but will take on new shape when, under the guidance of the Paraclete, they
live out God’s commandment to love.
The Farewell Discourse will spell out in specific detail the adversity and strife that the
followers of Jesus will experience on account of their love for him (e.g., 15:20; 16:1-2), but
the focus of this opening sectionof the discourse is on the theological resources available to
them so that they will believe that they will triumph as Jesus has triumphed. Jesus calls them
to recognize the indomitable power of the love of God that Jesus has made known to them.
753
One way to think about Jesus’ words in John 14 (and the rest of the Farewell Discourse)
is as Jesus’ preaching to his gathered followers. Jesus offers his disciples the good news of the
love of God and of the abiding presence of God with them, even. when the circumstances of
their lives would indicate otherwise. In the face of the evidence that says that the battle is
lost, that death will claim Jesus, and that the hope Jesus offered them is thereby nullified,
Jesus speaks words of renewed hope and assurance, “Do not let your hearts be troubled, and
do not let them be afraid” (14:27). The speaking of the assurance of God’s presence against
the fears of the world can be traced back into the temple liturgy of Israel and the exilic
preaching of Second Isaiah. In the temple liturgy, the priest’s spoken word, “Do not be afraid,”
marked the turn from despair to hope in Israel’s laments (e.g., Psalm 13; Lam 3:55-57). In
the preaching of Second Isaiah, it was the insistent refrain of that same salvation oracle, “Do
not be afraid,” that led the exiles to believe that a new future with God was possible (e.g.,
Isa 41:8-13; 43:1-7; 44:1-5). In the preaching of Jesus in the Farewell Discourse, that refrain
thus occurs again, summoning disciples to believe in a life shaped not by Jesus’ absence, but
by the unending presence of God.”
Both the form and substance of John 14 provide powerful resources for the life and faith
of the contemporary church. Its form, the offer of a confident word of hope to meet one’s
fears, is often neglected in the theological and pastoral debates that sometimes threaten to
consume the life of the church. Its substance, that God’s presence will not be defeated by any
distress, can give the church renewed strength and hope to live as the people of God. Jesus’
words in the Farewell Discourse offer his first followers and contemporary believers the
possibility of a world in which hope overcomes despair, God’s presence overcomes anxiety
about God’s absence, and in which the present holds in it the seeds of a fresh future shaped
by love, not fear.
500. See Gail R. O’Day, “Towards a Biblical Theology of Preaching,” in Listening to the Word, ed. Gail R. O’Day and Thomas G. Long
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1993) 17-32.
John 15:1-17, “Abide in My Love”

NIV NRSV
1 5 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the ] 5 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the
gardener. ?He cuts off every branch in me vinegrower. 7He removes every branch in
that bears no fruit, while every branch that does me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears
bear fruit he prunes? so that it will be even more fruit he prunes? to make it bear more fruit. 7You
fruitful. °You are already clean because of the have already been cleansed? by the word that I
word I have spoken to you. “Remain in me, and have spoken to you. ‘Abide in me as I abide in
I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself
itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless
bear fruit unless you remain in me. you abide in me. °I am the vine, you are the
*“T am the vine; you are the branches. If a man branches. Those who abide in me and I in them
remains in me and I| in him, he will bear much bear much fruit, because apart from me you can
fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. ‘If do nothing. “Whoever does not abide in me is
anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch thrown away like a branch and withers; such
that is thrown away and withers; such branches branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and
are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. burned. “If you abide in me, and my words abide
“If you remain in me and my words remain in in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be
you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given done for you. *My Father is glorified by this, that
a2 The Greek for prunes also means cleans. aThesame Greek root refers to pruning and cleansing
754
JOHN 15:1-17
NIV NRSV
you. *This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear you bear much fruit and become? my disciples. °As
much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide
*“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved in my love. 'If you keep my commandments, you
you. Now remain in my love. '°If you obey my will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s
commands, you will remain in my love, just as | commandments and abide in his love. '!I have said
have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain these things to you so that my joy may be in you,
in his love. ''I have told you this so that my joy
and that your joy may be complete.
may be in you and that your joy may be complete.
12“This is my commandment, that you love one
'2Mly command is this: Love each other as I have
another as I have loved you. 'SNo one has greater
loved you. 'SGreater love has no one than this,
love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
that he lay down his life for his friends. “You are
'4You are my friends if you do what I command you.
my friends if you do what I command. "I no
'S] do not call you servants’ any longer, because the
longer call you servants, because a servant does
servant does not know what the master is doing; but
not know his master’s business. Instead, I have
called you friends, for everything that I learned I have called you friends, because I have made known
from my Father I have made known to you. !°You to you everything that | have heard from my Father.
did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed '6You did not choose me but I chose you. And |
you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last,
the Father will give you whatever you ask in my so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him
name. '’This is my command: Love. each other.” in my name. '’7I am giving you these commands so
that you may love one another.”
aOr be b Gk slaves ¢ Gk slave
(COMMENTARY
John 15:1-17 contains the final “I am” sayings in This understanding of the literary character
the Gospel (vv. 1, 5) and introduces the governing of John 15:1-17 has several major limitations,
metaphor of this unit: the vine and its branches. however. First, as is the case with the pastoral
This metaphor is developed most fully in vv. 1-6, imagery of John 10, the vineyard imagery is not
so that many scholars see these opening verses as as self-contained in vv. 1-6 as Brown’s analysis
an independent figure, similar to the figure of the would suggest. The imagery recurs in v. 8
sheepfold in John 10:1-5. For example, Brown pro- (“bear much fruit”) and v. 16 (“bear fruit”),
poses that 15:1-6 belongs to the genre of puzzle or suggesting that the line between figure and
tiddle (ox masaJ, see the discussion of this term at exposition of the figure cannot be drawn
10:6), a genre well-documented in Hebrew litera- cleanly. The problematic nature of the line be-
ture.°°! He further proposes that this vineyard tween figure and exposition in this text can be
masal originated in another context and was seen in the variety of scholarly proposals on
located secondarily in the Farewell Discourse. how to subdivide vv. 1-17 into its component
Based on this understanding of the figurative lan- parts.°°? Second, even within vv. 1-6, the line
guage in vv. 1-6, Brown divides 15:1-17 into two between figure and exposition is not com-
parts: (1) vv. 1-6, the figure, and (2) vv. 7-17, pletely clean. In vv. 3-5, Jesus repeatedly uses
its exposition and application. Brown thus notes second-person plural pronouns to open up the
an exact analogy between the structure of John vineyard figure to appeal directly to his listeners’
10:1-18 (vv. 1-5, the figure; vv. 7-18, exposition experience. The interweaving of third- and second-
and application) and John Israelis
503. For example, Bultmann, John, 529; Kysar, John, 238; and Segovia,
The Farewell ofthe Word, 127-31 identify vv. 1-8 and 9-17 as the two parts,
501. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XII-XXI), 668; followed by
while Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3:75-96 divides the
Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St John, 3:108; Beasley-Murray, John, 269.
502. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), 665-67. unitin two atv. 11.
TaD:
person pronouns throughout vv. 1-6 under- from the theology he is communicating (cf. the
cuts Brown’s view that the “third person Commentary on 10:1-21). The correct analogy to
dominates the imagery” of these verses and draw between chaps. 10 and 15, then, is between
thus raises questions about his isolation of the discourse of 10:7-18 (with its four “I am”
this figure from the rest of the discourse.™ sayings) and 15:1-17 (with its two “I am” sayings),
Third, Brown’s analysis overlooks the distinctive because each of those texts is a discourse that is
role of the “I am” sayings in 15:1-6. His analogy shaped and governed by its metaphorical content.
with 10:1-18 breaks down at this point, because In each text, there is continual movement be-
in 10:1-18 the “I am” sayings are found in vv. tween the metaphorical and the “literal.”
7-18, the section that develops the figure, whereas 15:1. Jesus’ words at 15:1 are the beginning
in John 15, they are found in the figure itself. The of a lengthy monologue (see Overview to John
“IT am” statements of 15:1, 5 are thus treated 14:1-16:33). The transition from 14:31 to the “I
almost as independent sayings and not integrated am” statement of 15:1 is abrupt, but no more
fully into their literary and theological context. In abrupt than many other transitions in earlier dis-
both 10:7-18 and 15:1-17, the “I am” sayings are courses in the Gospel (see, e.g., the transitions
more generative of the content and shape of the from’ 9:4) to).10215513:38 to 14e1}.
discourses in which they are embedded than In the “I am” (e€ywW cipt ego eimi) saying of
Brown’s analysis allows. 15:1a (see Fig. 10, “The ‘I AM’ Sayings in John,”
Barrett and Dodd come closer to understanding 602), Jesus once again identifies himself with a
the literary character of the discourse of 15:1-17. symbol common to the religions of the Mediter-
Because Barrett eschews any generic identification ranean world, and scholarly debate again focuses
of this passage and speaks instead of “John’s on whether the symbol of the vine derives pri-
reflection upon the traditional image [the vine],”°°° marily from Gnosticism or Judaism. The case for
Dodd’s comments are more helpful. Dodd does Gnostic influence is particularly weak with regard
not attempt to subdivide this unit into figure and to the vine metaphor, however. When one studies
interpretation, but instead notes the complete the parallels adduced from Mandaean texts,*° it
integration of figurative language and language becomes clear that the ideas of these later texts
that speaks directly of Jesus and his disciples have been read back into John 15 by scholars.
throughout this unit. “The language indeed For example, Bultmann identifies the vine of 15:1
changes to and fro between the literal and the with the Mandaean “tree of life,”*°° but as
metaphorical in a way which would be bewilder- Schnackenburg has rightly pointed out, the word
ing, if the reader were not conscious all through life appears nowhere in John 15:1-17.°!° In addi-
that all the statements made really refer to Christ tion, to maintain the claim of Gnostic influence,
and his disciples, under the symbol of a vine and the interpreter must focus exclusively on the vine
its branches, rather than to any earthly vine.”>°” as a symbol for Jesus and disregard the develop-
Dodd’s observation suggests that any attempt ment of the vine imagery as a symbol for the
to differentiate sharply between figurative and community in 15:1-17.
“literal” (language that speaks directly of Jesus and When one turns to Judaism, one finds vineyard
his situation) in this discourse is a distortion of symbolism that is consonant with the use of the
the very nature of this discourse. That is, the symbol in John 15. In Sir 24:16-17, for example,
categories of figure and exposition are an external Wisdom compares herself to a vine: “Like the vine
imposition on the way the Fourth Evangelist uses I bud forth delights,/ and my blossoms become
language and develops his theology. The Fourth
glorious and abundant fruit” (NRSV). The song of
Evangelist uses metaphor as one of the primary
language tools in constructing his discourses, so 508. E.g., “We are a vine, the vine of life, a tree on which there is no
that the word pictures he creates are inseparable lie, the tree of praise, from the odor of which each man receives life” (Ginza
59.39-60.2). See the list of texts in Eduard Schweizer, Ego Eimi... Die
Religionsgeschichtliche Herkunft und theologische Bedeuting der Johan-
504. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIIT-XXI), 667. nesischen Bildreden, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage des vierten
505. As he himself notes in passing, ibid., 666. Evangeliums (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939) 39-41; fol-
506. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: lowed by Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 530-31.
Westminster, 1978) 471. 509. Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 529.
507. Dodd, /nterpretation, 136. 510. Schnackenburg, Der Evangelist Johannes, 3:98.
756
the vineyard (Isa 5:1-7) offers the parade example parable of 5:19-20: God is the source and guiding
of “vine” as a symbol for the people of God. In hand that governs Jesus and his work (cf. 4:36-37; ~
this text, “the house of Israel and the people of 10:28-30). Like the true light (1:9) and the true
Judah” are explicitly identified as “the vineyard bread from heaven (6:32), Jesus is the “true”
of the Lord” (v. 7). The failure of Judah to live (aAnO.vds alethinos) vine because he comes from
in justice and righteousness is expressed through the Father (cf. 17:3, “the only true [alethinos]
the metaphor of yielding fruit: God, the planter, God”).
expected grapes, but Judah produced only wild 15:2. Like the song of the vineyard in Isaiah
grapes (vv. 2, 4). These verses also make use of 5, v. 2 depicts the role of God the gardener in
the language of clearing away (v. 5) and pruning the judgment of the vineyard (cf. esp. Isa 5:5-6).
(v. 6) to describe God’s actions toward the vine- The description of God’s actions toward both
yard. Similar imagery reappears in Jer 2:21; Ezek unproductive and productive branches involves a
19:10-14; and Hos 10:1 (cf.Ps 80:8-19; Isa 27:2-6; word play that is difficult to reproduce in an
Ezek 15:1-8; 17:7-8). Vine imagery remained a English translation. The verb for “prune”
symbol for Israel in rabbinic Scripture interpreta- (ka8atpw kathairo) in v. 2b is a compound form
tion,?!' as well as in the synoptic Gospels (Matt of the root verb “to remove” (atpw airo), which
21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-16). The vine is used in v. 2a. Beasley-Murray’s translation of
imagery in John 15:1-17 should thus be read in the two verbs (“cuts off”/ “cuts clean”) may come
the context of the rich use of this symbol in closest to giving the English-language reader a
Jewish Scriptures and tradition.°!2 sense of how the Greek reader would have heard
As with the symbols of the other “I am” this verse.°! “To bear fruit” is a common image
statements, the traditional symbol of the vine is in the OT to speak of the community’s faithfulness
wholly redefined by its christological content. Je- (e.g., Ps 1:3), but it is important to ask what that
sus does not simply adapt the vine imagery in metaphor means in the specific context of the
order to suggest that he is now the true Israel, Farewell Discourse. When John 15:2 is read in the
however. In order to understand what Jesus light of 14:1-31, “bearing fruit” emerges as another
means when he identifies himself as the vine in way to speak about the works of love that are
vv. 1 and 5, one must read the two “I am” sayings required of Jesus’ followers (14:12, 15, 21, 23). The
in conjunction with the additional predicates that unproductive branches of which v. 2 speaks are
follow them. In v. 1, Jesus’ self-identification is those people within the Christian faith community
lodged in the context of his relationship with God, who do not bear fruit in love. This verse is not a
in v. 5 in the context of his relationship with the polemic against Jewish apostasy,°'4 nor does it point
community of his followers. When Jesus speaks back to Judas’s betrayal.°'> Its concern is with those
of himself as the vine, then, his words are not people who are already in relationship with Jesus
only self-revelatory, but are revelatory of the in- (“every branch in me”).°!°
terrelationship of God, Jesus, and the community 15:3-4. The verb kathairo has the double
in the life of faith as well. All three elements— meaning of “to prune” and “to cleanse” (note the
gardener, vine, and branches—are essential to the NIV and NRSV footnotes), so that with this verb
production of fruit. The repetition of the “I am” the Fourth Evangelist can simultaneously evoke
saying in vv. 1 and 5 positions Jesus as the middle agricultural realism and theological truth.°!” Jesus’
ground between God and the community. words in vv. 3-4a build on this double meaning
When Jesus speaks of “my Father” as the and equate “cleansing” with staying in relation-
gardener in v. 1, he expresses in agricultural ship to Jesus and his word (“abide in me as |
imagery the truth that he stated directly to his abide in you”). Jesus’ abiding in the disciples
disciples in 14:28, “the Father is greater than I.” 513. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.: Word,
It is the same truth that lies behind the father/son 1987) 266.
514. Brown, Zhe Gospel According to John (XIII-XX]), 066.
511. E.g., Lev. Rab. 36:2, a midrash on Psalm 80. 515. E.C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel(London: Faber&Faber, 1947)
512. Fora thorough listing of the Jewish parallels to John 15, see Craig 471.
A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background
517. Dodd, /nterpretation, 136.
ofJohn’s Prologue, JSNTSup 89 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993) 37-45.
157
provides the grounds for their faithfulness to him. ground of the community’s abiding with Jesus is
These verses recall the foot washing in John 13, the love that God and Jesus share with each other
where cleansing was also identified as being in and that the community is called to enact (cf.
relationship with Jesus (to have a “share” with 14:20-24, 31).
Jesus, 13:8-10). The return to the agricultural 15:11. The refrain with which v. 11 begins
metaphor in v. 46 reinforces that relationship (“I have said these things to you”) marks a tran-
with Jesus is the key to bearing fruit. Note that sition in the discourse (cf. 14:25; 16:1, 25). Jesus’
the branch’s relationship to the vine is described words about joy complement his words to the
with the same verb that describes the disciples’ disciples about their joy in 14:28. The unity and
relationship to Jesus, “to abide” (uwévw meno). mutuality that love makes possible, symbolized by
Agricultural imagery and more direct theological the unity of vine and branches, leads to full joy
language are completely intertwined in these (cf. 3:29-30; 16:24; 17:13).
opening verses of John 15. 15:12-17. This passage builds on what pre-
15:5-6. The “I am” saying with which v. 5 cedes, but focus even more directly than vv. 1-11
begins explicitly links the community’s self-iden- on what it means for the disciples to live out
tity with Jesus’ identity. This linkage is reinforced Jesus’ love. Verse 12 is a direct restatement of the
in v. 5c-d, which restates the claim of v. 4. The love commandment of 13:34 and sets the theme
vivid description in v. 6 of the removal and for all that follows. Verse 13 is the most explicit
disposal of branches is set in antithetical parallel- statement in the Gospel of what it means to love
ism to Jesus’ positive words about abiding and as Jesus loves. Jesus’ words in v. 13 echo the ideal
bearing fruit in v. 5. The language of this verse of friendship as expressed in classical Greek phi-
is an accurate representation of the pruning and losophy (e.g., both Plato and Aristotle point to
clearing of a vineyard (cf. Ps 80:16; Ezek 15:1-8; death for others as the noble ideal), but the
Matt. 13:30). It builds on the agricultural imagery classical ideal is given new content through the
of v. 2, but in that verse the focus is on God’s life and death of Jesus. That Jesus’ death is the
actions as gardener (as amplification of v. 10), ultimate demonstration of his love has been im-
whereas in v. 6 the focus is on the branches plied in 10:17-18, in the foot washing narrative
themselves (as amplification of v. 50). of John 13, and in the love commandment itself,
15:7-10. These verses are an excellent exam- but is only now stated directly.
ple of the interweaving of themes that charac- The word translated “friend” (thos philos) in
terize the Farewell Discourse. In these verses, the vv. 13-15 is from the verb “to love” (dir\éw
themes of John 14 are revisited in the context of phileo). The Fourth Gospel uses the two Greek
the vineyard imagery of 15:1-6. For example, v. verbs for “love” (ayatdw agapao and phileo)
7 echoes the promises of 14:13-14, but explicitly interchangeably (cf., e.g., 13:2 and 20:2; 5:20 and
links the promise of answered prayer with the 10:17), so when Jesus speaks of friends here, he
community’s abiding with Jesus (cf. 14:16 also). is really saying “those who are loved” (cf. the
Verse 8 reaffirms the claim of 14:12-14 that the description of Lazarus at 11:3, 11). The English
community’s works continue the glorification of noun “friend” does not fully convey the presence
God that characterizes Jesus’ own works. The of love: that undergirds the Johannine notion of
community’s works are depicted in the agricul- friendship. Verse 14 makes it even clearer that
tural imagery of vv. 1-6, “bear fruit.” The two Jesusis not simply appealing to the noble ideal of
verb clauses in v. 80, “bear much fruit” and friendship in v. 13, but to an understanding of
“become my disciples,” are complementary aorist friendship wholly grounded in Jesus’ particular
subjunctives, but they are not synonyms. To bear love. A comparison of 14:15 and 21 with 15:14
fruit—that is, do works of love—is the tangible suggests that to be Jesus’ friend and to love Jesus
sign of discipleship (cf. 13:34-35). The NIV trans- are synonymous, because both are defined as
lation correctly communicates the relationship of keeping Jesus’ commandments.
the two verbs in v. 80, but it does so by para- At the foot washing, Jesus spoke of his relation-
phrasing the Greek text. Verses 9-10 make the ship to his disciples with the servant/master meta-
connections between John 14 and 15 explicit; the phor (13:13-16), but as his hour draws even closer
758
that relationship changes (v. 15). Jesus’ disciples 16c; cf. 15:7). Jesus prays to God with full con-
are now his friends, because he has kept nothing fidence that he is heard and will be answered (see
about God from them (cf. 16:25). Jesus has in- Jesus’ prayers at 11:41-42; 12:28-30; 17:1-26),
volved the disciples in the intimacy of his rela- and he promises the disciples that they can pray
tionship with God (e.g. 14:2, 23, 31; 15:9). with that same confidence. They thus share fully
Again, in the context of the Farewell Discourse in Jesus’ relationship with God, further evidence
and the restatement of the love commandment in that they are Jesus’ “friends.”
15:12, “everything that I have heard from my The repetition of the love commandment in v.
Father” has to be interpreted as referring to the 17 provides a frame with Jesus’ words in v. 12.
love of God and Jesus that receives its full expres- This verse explicitly restates the theme of the
sion in Jesus’ death. It is the events of Jesus’ hour preceding unit, but it also serves as a transition
that determine the change in status from servants to the next section of the Farewell Discourse,
to “those who are loved” (cf. 19:26-27). 15:18-16:4a. In that section, the focus shifts from
The language of friendship is immediately con- the love within the community to the hate and
textualized by language of election in v. 16a. This strife the community will experience in its deal-
language of election does not speak of the election ings with “the world.” Two themes that occupy
of the Twelve,?!® because there is no indication a prominent place in the farewell setting, the love
anywhere in the Farewell Discourse of the num- commandment and the theme of the abiding
ber and composition of the circle that is present presence and relationship (meno) of God and
with Jesus on this last evening. Rather, Jesus Jesus with the community are thus brought to
reminds the disciples (including the readers) that their joint conclusion in John 15:1-17. These
their place with him is the result of his initiative, themes will be picked up again in Jesus’ culmi-
not theirs; relationship with Jesus is ultimately a nating prayer in John 17 (vv. 21, 23, 26), but
result of God’s grace (cf. 6:37-39, 44). Jesus will not speak to his disciples again about
Jesus follows this reminder of election with a either loving or abiding.
reminder of commission and vocation (v. 160). Many scholars debate whether eucharistic sig-
“Appointed” translates the Greek verb TiOnt nificance should be accorded the vine symbolism
(tithe mi), the verb used in v. 13 to speak of laying of John 15:1-17,!° but that debate seems to
down one’s life (see also 10:11, 17-18). This verb misread the function of this image in the Farewell
thus depicts the disciples’ commission as Discourse. The farewell meal is governed in the
grounded in Jesus’ gift of his life. The description Fourth Gospel by the foot washing, not by the
of the disciples’ commission returns to the agri- institution of the eucharist (see Commentary on
cultural imagery with which John 15 began (“bear John 6). As noted in the Commentary on John
fruit”). The language of appointment and commis- 13, the foot washing is an act through which the
sion in this verse suggests a possible mission disciples share in Jesus’ presence and that provides
dimension to bearing fruit: The disciples are a model for their own acts of love. The vine image
commissioned by Jesus to go and do works of love thus provides the crowning symbol for the life of
(cf. 17:18; 20:21). Jesus describes the disciples’ a community who lives out the love that Jesus
works as “fruit that will last” (wévw meno), sug- shared with it in the foot washing and in his
gesting that their works, too, will attest to the death. The intermingling of the branches in the
abiding presence of and union with God and vine and the gardener’s attentive care to the
Jesus. This verse may also contain an allusion to fruitfulness of the branches create the quintessen-
the lasting character of the church as evidence of tial visual image of the life of the Christian com-
Jesus’ continuing presence (cf. the description of munity that is shaped by love and grounded in
the Paraclete at 14:16-17). As a final guarantee God’s presence.
of the community’s union with God and Jesus,
Jesus repeats his promise of answered prayer (v. 519. E.g., E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber & Faber,
1947) 474-75; Beasley-Murray, John, 269, argue for a connection between
518. So Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), 683. this imagery and the eucharist.
159
REFLECTIONS
John 15:1-17 poses challenging questions to the contemporary Christian community about
its self-identity. What does it mean for the church to live as the branches of Christ the vine?
What would “church” look like if it embraced this model for its corporate life?
1. First, the image of community that emerges from John 15:1-17 is one of interrelationship,
mutuality, and indwelling. To get the full sense of this interrelationship, it is helpful to visualize
what the branches of a vine actually look like. In a vine, branches are almost completely
indistinguishable from one another; it is impossible to determine where one branch stops and
another branch starts. All run together as they grow out of the central vine. What this vine
image suggests about community, then, is that there are no free-standing individuals in
community, but branches who encircle one another completely. The fruitfulness of each
individual branch depends on its relationship to the vine, nothing else. What matters for John
is that each individual is rooted in Jesus and hence gives up individual status to become one
of many encircling branches.
The communal life envisioned in the vine metaphor raises a strong challenge to contemporary
Western models of individual autonomy and privatism. At the heart of the Johannine model
is social interrelationship and corporate accountability. The vine and branches metaphor exhorts
the community to steadfastness in its relationship to Jesus, a steadfastness that is measured by
the community’s fruits (vv. 4-5). To bear fruit—that is, to act in love—is a decidedly corporate
act. It is “rooted” in Jesus’ love for the community (v. 9) and issues in the community’s
embrace of that love as the central commandment of its own life (vv. 10, 12, 17). To live as
the branches of the vine is to belong to an organic unity shaped by the love of Jesus. The
individual branch is subsumed into the communal work of bearing fruit, of living in love and
so revealing itself to be one of Jesus’ disciples (vv. 8, 16). To live according to this model,
then, the church would be a community in which members are known for the acts of love
that they do in common with all other members. It would not be a community built around
individual accomplishments, choices, or rights, but around the corporate accountability to the
abiding presence of Jesus and corporate enactment of the love of God and Jesus.
Z. Second, the metaphor of the vine suggests a radically non-hierarchical model for the
church. As the description of a vine and its branches suggests, no branch has pride of place;
no one branch can claim precedence or privilege over any other. The descriptions of the cutting
and pruning of the branches in 15:2 and 6 underscore this point. Fruitfulness is the only
differentiation among branches, and the discernment of fruitfulness falls to the gardener (God)
alone, not to any of the branches. It is the gardener’s role to prune and shape the vine to
enhance fruitfulness. All branches are thus the same before God, distinguishable only by their
fruit. There is neither status nor rank among the branches. Hierarchy among the branches of
the vine is precluded, because all members grow out of the one central vine and are tended
equally by the one gardener.” ‘
This dimension of John’s metaphor also poses some serious challenges to the ways in which
institutional church life is understood and maintained. For the Fourth Gospel, there is only
one measure of one’s place in the faith community—to love as Jesus has loved—and all, great
and small, ordained and lay, young and old, male and female are equally accountable to that
one standard. Were the church to shape itself according to the Johannine metaphor, it would
be a community in which decisions about power and governance would be made in the light
of the radical egalitarian love of the vine image.
520. See Gail R. O’Day, “John,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary, Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe ed. (Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox, 1992) 303.
760
3. Third, this metaphor is stark in its anonymity. That is, the visual image of the branches
lacks any and all distinctions in appearance, character, or gifts. The anonymity of this image
is brought into sharp relief when compared with another NT ecclesial metaphor, the Pauline
metaphor of the church as the body of Christ. First Corinthians 12 is irresistible in the
anatomical fantasy it puts before the Corinthians: talking feet and ears, entire bodies composed
exclusively of ears or eyes or noses. Unlike the Johannine metaphor, the Pauline image does
not remove the differences among the various members of the body, but actually points to
those differences as definitional of what it means to be a body. Each member is able to see
the place that his or her individual gifts occupies in the corporate body (1 Cor 12:12-13,
27-30). Paul holds together the oneness of Christ and the diversity of gifts and members in
the body metaphor.
The Johannine metaphor undercuts any celebration of individual gifts, and this, too,
challenges contemporary Western understandings of personality, individualism, and self-expres-
sion. Were the church to live as the branches of Christ, individual distinctiveness would give
way to the common embodiment of love. The distinctiveness of the community would derive
solely from its relationship to God and Jesus, not the characteristics or even gifts of its members.
The mark of the faithful community is how it loves, not who are its members. There is only
one gift, to bear fruit, and any branch can do that if it remains with Jesus.
John 15:18—16:4a, “I Have Chosen You Out of the World”

NIV NRSV
_ 18*Tf the world hates you, keep in mind that it 18“If the world hates you, be aware that it
hated me first. '°If you belonged to the world, it hated me before it hated you. "If you belonged
would love you as its own. As it is, you do not to the world,? the world would love you as its
belong to the world, but I have chosen you out own. Because you do not belong to the world,
of the world. That is why the world hates you. but I have chosen you out of the world—therefore
20Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No ser- the world hates you. ?°Remember the word that
vant is greater than his master.’? If they persecuted I said to you, ‘Servants’ are not greater than their
me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute
my teaching, they will obey yours also. *!They you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours
will treat you this way because of my name, for also. 2!But they will do all these things to you on
they do not know the One who sent me. “If I account of my name, because they do not know
had not come and spoken to them, they would him who sent me. “If Ihad not come and spoken
not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no to them, they would not have sin; but now they
excuse for their sin. 23He who hates me hates my have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me
Father as well. “If I had not done among them hates my Father also. *4If [ had not done among
what no one else did, they would not be guilty them the works that no one else did, they would
of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, not have sin. But now they have seen and hated
and yet they have hated both me and my Father. both me and my Father. *It was to fulfill the
25But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: word that is written in their law, ‘They hated me
‘They hated me without reason.’’ without a cause.’
26“When the Counselor comes, whom I will 26“When the Advocatec comes, whom | will
send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth
who goes out from the Father, he will testify who comes from the Father, he will testify on my
about me. 2”7And you also must testify, for you behalf. 2”You also are to testify because you have
have been with me from the beginning. been with me from the beginning.
aGk were of the world 6 Gk Slaves ¢ Or Helper
a20 John 13:16 625 Psalms 35:19; 69:4
761
JOHN 15:18-16:4a
NIV NRSV
] 6 “All this I have told you so that you will ] 6 “I have said these things to you to keep
not go astray. ?They will put you out of you from stumbling. ?They will put you
the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when out of the synagogues. Indeed, an hour is coming
anyone who kills you will think he is offering a when those who kill you will think that by doing
service to God. *They will do such things because so they are offering worship to God. *And they
they have not known the Father or me. “I have will do this because they have not known the
told you this, so that when the time comes you Father or me. “But I have said these things to you
will remember that I warned you. | did not tell so that when their hour comes you may remem-
you this at first because I was with you.” ber that I told you about them.
“I did not say these things to you from the
beginning, because I was with you.”
(COMMENTARY
John 15:18-16:4a moves the Farewell Discourse 11) and appear in an abbreviated form in Jesus’
in a new direction. For the first time in the dis- instructions to his disciples in Luke 12:1-12 (see
course, Jesus addresses the believing community’s Luke 12:11-12; cf. also Luke 6:22-23). The Johan-
relationship to those outside the community. This nine persecution traditions seem to be inde-
picture of the community’s relationship to the world pendent of both of these synoptic clusters. The
stands in stunning contrast to the picture of its presence of persecution traditions in all four Gos-
internal relationships. Where its internal relation- pels, however, points to the role that the experi-
ships are governed by love (14:15, 21, 23; 15:12, ence of persecution played in the formation of
17), its relationship with the world will be governed early Christian self-identity.
by hate (15:18-19, 23-25), persecution (15:20; There is some scholarly debate over the boundaries
16:24), and death (16:20). David Rensberger has of this third unit of the Farewell Discourse. Barrett,
convincingly argued that the Fourth Evangelist in- for example, breaks the unit at 15:27, while Bultmann
tentionally placed the traditions in 15:18-16:4a in argues that the theme of the community’s relationship
this location in the Farewell Discourse to comple- to a hostile world continues through 16:40-11.°22 Two
ment the love traditions of John 15:1-17. The call factors argue for dividing the discourse at 16:4. First,
to love as Jesus loves receives its most crucial test 16:466 introduces the theme of the concluding sec-
when the community meets the world’s hatred (see tion of the discourse, Jesus’ departure from the com-
Commentary on 16:3).°2! munity. The promise of the Paraclete in 16:7-11
The synoptic Gospels, too, contain teachings on speaks of the Faraclete’s relationship to the world,
the world’s hatred and persecution of the Chris- not the community’s, and is offered as evidence of
tian community. These traditions appear in two why the community should not sorrow at Jesus’
clusters. In all three Synoptics they form part of departure. Second, John 16:4a marks the end of Jesus’
the eschatological discourse, in which Jesus monologue that began at 15:1. At 16:5-6, Jesus again
teaches his disciples about the signs of the end of engages in dialogue with his disciples.* The majority
the age (Matt 24:1-36, esp. vv. 9-14; Mark 13:1- of scholars, therefore, end this unit at John 16:4a54
37, esp. vv. 9-13; Luke 21:5-36, esp. vv. 12-19).
522. C.K. Barrett, Zhe Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Phila-
Matthew and Luke also preserve another set of delphia: Westminster, 1978) 479-80; Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of
traditions about persecution of the faithful; in John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and
J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 547-48.
Matthew they are found in the discourse of 10:1- 523. Fernando Segovia, The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call
42, in which Jesus commissions and instructs the to Abide (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 173. :
Twelve (see Matt 10:17-23; cf. also Matt 5:10- 524. So Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XX1),
AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970) 693; George Ry Beasley-
Murray, John, WBC (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987) 270; Rudolf Schnackenburg,
521. David Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982)
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988) 79. 3:92-93.
762
JOHN 15:18-16:4a COMMENTARY
John 15:18-16:4a can be divided as follows: sharply dualistic. Jesus does not belong to this
(1) 15:18-25, the world’s hatred of the community; world (8:23), and neither do his disciples. As a
(2) 15:26-27, the promise of the Paraclete; and result, both incur the world’s hatred (17:14).
(3) 16:1-4a, the enactment of the world’s hatred. Verse 20 gives concrete expression to the truths
15:18-25. 15:18-20. Jesus’ opening words in stated in abstractions in vv. 18-19. Verse 20a is
v. 18 present the disciples with an inescapable a direct quote of Jesus’ words in 13:16 (see also
reality of their life as the community of his fol- Matt 10:24; Luke 6:40). By recalling this teach-
lowers: They will experience the world’s hatred ing, Jesus recalls the entire foot washing for his
(cf. 1 John 3:13). The inescapability of this hatred disciples and thereby places that act of service and
is underscored by the grammar of v. 18; the love in a new context. Jesus’ words here may at
sentence is a real condition (i.e., “if the world first seem to contradict 15:15 (“I do not call you
hates”), not an unreal condition (i.e., “if the world servants any longer...but I have called you
were to hate you”). Jesus does not follow this friends”), but they actually complement them. Jesus
announcement with easy words of comfort, but reminds the disciples that friendship does not pre-
instead exhorts the disciples to a full under- clude the demands of service. If the disciples share
standing of the sources of this hatred (“be aware” in Jesus’ love and gifts, then they must also share
[y.wiokeTte ginoskete]). The disciples must rec- in the consequences of that love and those gifts (cf.
ognize what is at issue in their conflict with the v. 2006). The double conditions in v. 200 (if they
world, because that knowledge will enable them persecuted me/ will persecute you; if they kept my
to stand firm in the face of persecution (see 16:1, word/ will keep yours) suggest that the “mission of
4a). the church will result in the same twofold response
Verses 180-20 identify one source of the as the work of Jesus himself.”>2°
world’s hatred of the community: It is an exten- 15:21. This is a transitional verse. Verse 21a
sion of the world’s hatred of Jesus. The verb “to summarizes the essence of vv. 18-20; the world’s
hate” (itcéw miseo) is in the perfect tense in v. hatred of the disciples is “on account of my
180; the hatred of Jesus began in the past, but name”—that is, not because of the disciples them-
its effect continues into the present. The world’s selves, but because of Jesus and their identification
hatred of Jesus extends to the disciples because with him (cf. Matt 5:11; 24:9; Mark 13:13; Luke
of their relationship with him (v. 19). The noun 21:17). Verse 216 provides the interpretive key
“world” (kdop0s kosmos) occurs five times in v. to the remainder of the discourse by identifying
19, and this heavy concentration highlights the another source of the world’s hatred of the disci-
contrast between the community and the world. ples: its fundamental ignorance of the identity of
Although “world” is sometimes used neutrally in God as the one “who sent me [Jesus].” Not to
John to name God’s created order (e.g., 3:16), know the one who sent Jesus is not to recognize
here it clearly is used to represent what is opposed the work and will of God in Jesus’ works, not to
to God’s work and presence in Jesus (cf. 7:7). The recognize that to see and know Jesus is to see
antithetical parallelism of Jesus’ words in v. 19a-b and know God (e.g., 1:18; 4:34; 7;16-17, 28-29;
further underscores the contrast between Jesus’ 8:18-19; 9:4; 10:36; 12:45; 14:7). The world
followers and the world. The language of love in hates Jesus (and by extension, his disciples), be-
v. 19a is an ironic play on the love language of cause the world does not know that the one who
the Farewell Discourse, because in order to re- sent Jesus is “the only true God” (17:3; cf. 16:3).
ceive the world’s love instead of its hatred, the As always in the Fourth Gospel, the core issue is
community would have to renounce its share in ultimately theological (cf. 1:18; 5:18; 10:30, 38;
Jesus’ love (cf. the possible ironic play in the 14:6).
contrast between the world’s “own” and Jesus’ 15:22-24. These verses explain how the
“own”; cf. also 1:11). Verse 196 builds on the world’s lack of recognition of the true identity of
election language of 15:16. When Jesus chose the God is equivalent to their hatred of both Jesus
disciples to be his own, he also chose them out and God. These three verses consist of a pair of
of the world (see also 17:6, 9). The picture of the
community’s relationship to the world in v. 19 is 525. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 480.
763
parallel sayings (vv. 22-23; v. 24) that show the clear that “the world” is to be understood as the
interrelatedness of “hate” and “sin” (4uaptia hamar- Jewish leaders who oppose Jesus. This will be
tia) in the Gospel of John. Without the advent of brought out even more fully in 16:1-4a. Second,
Jesus and his words (v. 22) and works (v. 244) Jesus positions the Jewish leaders’ own Scripture
into the world, then the world would be without to bear witness against them. He used Scripture
sin (v. 22, 24a). But because Jesus has made God in a similar way at 5:39, 46-47, and 10:34.
available to the world through his words and 15:26-27. Jesus’ third promise of the advent
works (e.g., 10:32, 38; 14:10) and the world does of the Paraclete (see also 14:16-17, 26) provides
not recognize God in Jesus, therefore the world an interlude between the two depictions of the
is without excuse for its lack of faith and hence hate the faith community will experience (vv.
its sin (v. 220). To see and reject Jesus is to hate 18-25; 16:1-4a). As in the earlier promises, the
both Jesus and the God whom he reveals to be interrelationship of Jesus and God in the sending
the Father (vv. 23, 240). Verses 22-24 state di- of the Paraclete is evident in 15:26. Indeed, v.
rectly what was enacted indirectly through the 26 contains two parallel clauses that speak of both
drama of the healing of the blind man in John 9 Jesus and God as the originating agents of the
(see Commentary and Reflections there). Paraclete (“I will send to you from the Fa-
There is an unavoidable and probably inten- ther”; “who comes from the Father”).°2° Both
tional circularity to this presentation of sin and share in the Paraclete’s mission, just as both
hate. Jesus “takes away the sin of the world” shared in Jesus’ mission (e.g., 4:34). The verb
(1:29) by providing the world with access to the “to come from” (NRSV) or “to go out from” (NIV;
life-giving presence of God. To reject this offer of ExTropevoyiat ekporeuomai) is analogous to the
life is by definition to die in one’s sin (8:21, 24). verb “to send” (1éuT1w pempo) here. It does not
The advent of Jesus thus simultaneously exposes refer to the eternal “procession” of the Spirit as
the world’s sin and provides the only means of is found in the classic trinitarian creeds of the
removing that sin (cf. 3:16-21). For the Fourth church‘(e.g, the expression “who proceeds from
Gospel, “sin” is defined by whether one believes the Father and the Son” in the Nicene Creed).
that God is present in Jesus, that Jesus is the John 15:26 is not a description of the metaphysi-
incarnate Word of God (see 16:9). “Hate,” there- cal unity of God and the Spirit, but of God as the
fore, is not simply enmity or intense dislike. In source of the Paraclete’s presence with and mis-
the Fourth Gospel, “hate” describes a life shaped sion to the believing community.*2”
by the rejection of the revelation of God in Jesus This third promise introduces a new function of
(cf. 3:20), in the same way that “love” describes the Paraclete, “to testify” (laptupéw martyred)
a life shaped by the embrace of the revelation of about Jesus.°”° In assigning this function to the
God in Jesus. “To have sin [Aamartia]” and “to Paraclete, Jesus places the Paraclete in a long line of
hate” (miseo) thus are presented as synonyms in witnesses to him that include John the Baptist (1:7,
wy. 22-24. To relate to God through hate, not 19, 32, 34; 5:33), the Samaritan woman (4:40), Jesus’
love, is the ultimate definition of sin. works and words (5:36; 8:14, 18; 10:25), the Scrip-
15:25. Jesus brings his discussion of the tures (5:39), and even God (5:37). In the context of
world’s hatred to a close with a quotation from witnessing, the identification of the Paraclete as the
Scripture (v. 25). The words Jesus quotes appear “Spirit of Truth” (cf. 14:17) takes on added signifi-
at Pss 35:19 and 69:4, so it is difficult to deter- cance. As noted at 14:17, this epithet indicates the
mine with certainty which psalm Jesus is invoking continuity between the Paraclete and Jesus (who is
here. The introductory phrase with which Jesus the truth, 14:6), but it also marks the continuity of
sets up the quote points to its significance as the the Paraclete’s witness with these other witnesses.
conclusion of his argument. First, the introduction
provides the first explicit identification of the 527. See Beasley-Murray, John, 276; Brown, The Gospel According
adversaries to whom Jesus refers when he speaks to John (XIIT-XX1), 689.
528. The decision of the translators of the NRSV to translate “about
of “the world.” The quotation from Jewish Scrip- me” (Tepl €j100. periemou) as “on my account” is difficult to explain, since
ture and Jesus’ designation of it as “their law” (cf. it changes the meaning of Jesus’ words and is inconsistent with the use of
the preposition peri after the verb “to witness” (martyred) elsewhere in
the expression “your law” at 8:17, 10:34) make the Gospel. See, for example, 1:7, 15; 5:31, 32, 36-37; 8:14, 18.
764
John the Baptist testified to the truth (5:33), and provides the background for the fourth promise
during Jesus’ trial before Pilate, Jesus will describe of the Paraclete in 16:8-11.
his mission as testifying to the truth (18:37). 16:1-4a. John returns to the theme of the
John 15:27 provides the link between this world’s hatred and depicts the community’s per-
promise of the Paraclete and the framing verses secution in much more vivid and concrete lan-
about the world’s hatred. The presence of the guage than that found in 15:18-25. This passage
Paraclete as a witness with the community pro- is framed by the refrain “I have said these things
vides the grounds for Jesus’ exhortation to the to. you" a(L6:] w4a; cf. 14:25; 15:11504.6:33)xIn
community that they, too, must be witnesses. As both instances “these things” refers to Jesus’
16:1-4a will make explicit, the community will teachings about the world’s hatred and persecu-
endure persecution as a result of its faith. The tion of the community. The refrain focuses the
promise of the Paraclete, who will be a co-witness hearers’ attention on Jesus’ words, but more im-
to Jesus alongside the community, is offered as portant, it alerts the hearers to Jesus’ intention in
encouragement and a reminder that they will not speaking them: to bolster the disciples and their
be alone in their trials and that they can stand faith in the face of persecution. “To stumble”
firm in what they believe (see 16:1). (oxavdariCw skandalizo) is used in 16:1 to mean
The witness of the Paraclete and that of the to fall away from their faith in Jesus (note the
community are not two distinct acts; rather, the NIV’s “go astray”), and Jesus offers his teachings
community’s witness is the visible sign of the as encouragement against such defection (cf.
Paraclete’s work as witness. The witness of each 6:60-61). If the disciples “remember”
provides continuity between the ministry of Jesus (uvnLovevw mnemoneuo) Jesus’ teaching at the
and the ministry of the church. The warrant for the time of their persecution (v. 4a), they will be able
community’s witness is that they have been with to recognize (with the aid of the Paraclete, 14:26)
Jesus “from the beginning” (cf. Acts 1:21-22; 10:39) that their persecution is in continuity with Jesus’
and provide historical continuity between the earthly own ministry and teachings and not an annulment
ministry of Jesus and the church’s own ministry after of all that they heard from him.
Jesus’ death (cf. 1 John 1:1-2; see also 4:14). Inter- Within this rhetorical frame, Jesus presents the
estingly, Hoskyns suggests that the phrase “from the disciples with a harsh picture of the life that
beginning” refers to conversion (so 1 John 2:24; 2 awaits. them because of their faith in him. At 9:22
John 6) and should not be restricted to a historical and 12:42, the expression “put out of the synagogue”
connection with Jesus.°?° Since in the Fourth Gospel (atoouvaywyos aposynagogos) was found in the
“in the beginning” is used to introduce the story of Evangelist’s comments; at 16:2 it occurs for the first
Jesus’ relationship with God (1:1) and not his earthly and only time in the mouth of Jesus. The use of
ministry, there may be some grounds for Hoskyns’s this term in 16:22 points once again to the two-level
claim. That is, the expression refers to the beginning nature of the teachings of Jesus in John. Predictions
of one’s relationship with Jesus. about the persecution of the faith community are
One further dimension of the Paraclete teach- common to all of the Gospels (e.g., Mark 13:9-13),
ing in vv. 26-27 needs to be mentioned. The but in John those predictions are cast in language
function accorded the Paraclete in 15:26-27 is that mirrors the persecution experienced by the
Fourth Evangelist’s community. (See Excursus “John
quite close to Jesus’ words about the role of the
9:22 and the Benediction Against Heretics,” 657-58,
Spirit in the synoptic teachings on persecution: to
for a discussion of the community’s expulsion from
speak with and for the community when it is
the synagogue.)
brought before its adversaries (Matt 10:20; Mark
Yet excommunication is not the full extent of
13:11; Luke 12:12). The synoptic teachings bring
the persecution that Jesus predicts for the faith
out the forensic context of the Spirit’s witness
community. The expression “the hour is coming
more explicitly than John 15:26-27, although the
when...” sets the context for the prediction of
forensic context is clearly assumed in the descrip-
martyrdom that follows. Even though both the
tion of the community’s persecution in 16:2 and
NRSV and the NIV translate the Greek particle
529. Hoskyns, 7he Fourth Gospel, 482. iva (hina) as “when,” it is not used simply to
765
mark time in 16:20, but conveys a sense of faithfulness to God and who can lay claim to
purpose. Its use here parallels that at John 12:23, knowing the true identity of God. This is brought
“the hour has come for [Aina] the Son of Man to out even more sharply by v. 3 (cf. 15:21). To
be glorified.”*°° “The hour” and its arrival are the know neither the Father nor Jesus is to be
distinctly Johannine metaphor for Jesus’ death, res- ignorant of the meaning of the incarnation,
urrection, and ascension, for his completion of God’s because it is in the incarnation that one comes
work (12:23; 13:1; 17:1-5). “The hour is coming” to know the Father (14:7). From the perspective
also is used in the Gospel to refer to the time of of the Fourth Evangelist, what is at stake in the
eschatological fulfillment (e.g., 4:21, 23; 5:25, 28). persecution and martyrdom of the Christian
With respect to Jesus’ life, those two meanings of faith community is the very identity of God.
“hour” are indistinguishable, because the hour of Jesus’ prediction of persecution and martyrdom
Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension is the de- in 16:2 must be read in the context of his earlier
cisive eschatological moment, the time when God’s teachings in the Farewell Discourse. The contrast
plan for the world’s salvation is fulfilled. When Jesus between the world’s murderous hatred of the faith
speaks of the disciples’ deaths with the metaphor of community and the love to which Jesus enjoins
“the hour,” he implies that the disciples share his the community is striking. The persecution for
hour with him, with all its eschatological implica- which Jesus prepares the disciples will be the
tions (see also 16:44).>*! ultimate test of whether they will love one an-
The expression “service (worship) to God” (Aa- other as Jesus loves them (13:34-35; 15:12, 17),
tpeta latreia) is used in the NT to refer to Jewish because the threat of martyrdom will present the
worship (Rom 9:4; Heb 9:1, 6). Like the reference disciples with the same situation that Jesus faced:
to the community’s excommunication from the the giving up of one’s life for one’s friends (15:13;
synagogue in 16:24, it points to the Johannine cf. 10:11, 15, 17). As Rensberger has seen, The
community’s conflict with the Jewish religious disciples’ “love for one another indicates the re-
leadership as the cause of its persecution (cf. Acts ality of their faith in Jesus, just as the world’s
6:8-8:14; 23:12-15; Gal 1:13). The identification hatred of them reflects its rejection of him.”>?
of the motivation for this persecution as worship Neither “love” nor “hate” is an abstract proposition
also focuses on the theological roots of the conflict in the Fourth Gospel, but is the concrete embodiment
and persecution: division over what constitutes of one’s relationship to Jesus and God.
530. Paul S. Minear, John: The Martyr's Gospel (New York: Pilgrim 532. David Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community
Press, 1984) 26. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988) 79.
531. E.C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel(London: Faber & Faber, 1947)
483; Minear, John, 26.
REFLECTIONS
John 15:18-16:42 brings the contemporary reader face to face with some of the most complex
issues raised by the sectarianism of the Fourth Gospel, because in these verses the lines between
the faith community and the “world” are more sharply drawn than anywhere else in the Gospel.
The Reflections on John 8 discussed one aspect of Johannine sectarianism, the Johannine commu-
nity’s self-identity as an oppressed Jewish sect and how that self-identity led to the antagonism to
the Jewish authorities that is evident throughout the Gospel. The Johannine community’s relation-
ship to establishment Judaism is clearly a factor in the depiction of persecution in 15:18-16:4a
(15:21, 25; 16:2-3), but the community’s adversaries are named more generally here as “the
world.” This choice of nomenclature highlights the radical heart of Johannine sectarianism.
At the center of Johannine ecclesiology is a communal self-understanding that intentionally
and unflinchingly positions itself over against the ways of “the world.” The Johannine
533. For a full treatment of the implications of Johannine sectarianism for contemporary theology, see ibid., 135-52. My comments are
shaped by Rensberger’s insights.
766
JOHN 15:18-16:4a REFLECTIONS
community will not accept the terms by which the world would have it live, because the
world denies the one thing that it knows to be the truth: “No one has ever seen God. It is
God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known” (1:18). This
community derives its identity from this truth and from the new relationship with God and
one another that is now possible because of the revelation of God in Jesus. The Johannine
Jesus calls his followers to recognize that they belong to him and makes clear that to belong
to Jesus precludes any membership in the world. The Johannine community, therefore,
understands itself to be living in opposition to the ways of the world.
What are the ethical implications of reading this sectarian vision in the contemporary context?
Does this Johannine sectarian vision of Christians’ relationship to the world have anything of
value to contribute to contemporary discussions of Christian identity? Or is it so bound by the
particular social context in which the Johannine community found itself that it can make no
contribution to contemporary ecclesiology?
In order to answer these questions, the interpreter must begin by acknowledging the negative
and potentially destructive aspects of this sectarian vision. First, the Johannine claims about its
knowledge of God and the world’s ignorance of God can lend itself to a rigid dogmatism and
misplaced triumphalism in the contemporary context (see Reflections on John 14:1-11). Second,
world-denying language can all too easily be confused with life-denying language. That is, the
Johannine language about the world can be misinterpreted as a call to extreme asceticism or
as a renunciation of life. In this regard, it is crucial to note that at 17:15 Jesus says, “J am
not asking you to take them out of the world.” Not belonging to the world does not mean
absenting or hiding oneself from the world, nor, as 17:15 makes clear, is it a metaphor for
speaking about death. To translate the Johannine language about the world into language about
death or ascetic renunciation is to spiritualize this language and to rob it of its radical
countercultural edge. Third, as the Fourth Gospel rhetoric itself shows, when a group’s
self-identity is so sharply framed in opposition to others, there is a tendency to dehumanize
or even demonize one’s adversary (e.g., John 8:31-47). When this dehumanizing is taken to
extremes, it makes a sham of the love commandment that lies at the heart of Johannine
theology. :
Contemporary interpreters cannot dismiss these negatives lightly, nor can they dismiss the
ways in which sectarian language like that found in John 15:18-16:4a has been used
irresponsibly and destructively in the history of the church. Yet neither can contemporary
interpreters allow these negatives to provide them with an easy excuse for not engaging the
challenges raised by this text. John 15:18-16:4a challenges the contemporary church to reject
the way the world does business and to present the world with an alternative, an alternative
grounded in the love of God revealed in Jesus.
Jesus calls his followers to reject “business as usual,” to reject the ways of the world that stand
in opposition to his ways—to his revelation of the love of God in his life and death. The effect of
this call is the very opposite of ascetic renunciation or withdrawal from the world. Rather, John
15:18-16:4a challenges the Christian community to be fully present in the world while
at the same time not following the dictates of the world. Because the faith community
and
does not belong to the world, it is not governed by the world’s categories
world’s games, by the world’s rules,
expectations. When the church chooses to play the
“successful”
the church risks losing everything, because when the church is judged
to the world instead of like
according to the world’s standards, it acts as if it belongs
vision can be
it was chosen out of the world (15:19). In many ways, this Johannine
understood through H. Richard Niebuhr’s category of “Christ against culture.”
obedience
The community will call the world and its culture into question by its radical
Bros., 1951).
534. H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper and
767
to the one commandment Jesus set before it: “Just as I have loved you, you also should love
one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one
another” (13:34-35). This love cannot be separated from its source in God and Jesus. The
community’s love and presence in the world are defined by the incarnation, including the
hour. Just as Jesus’ hour overcomes the power of the world (12:31; 16:33), so also the
community’s continuing embrace of the model of Jesus’ life and death in its own life has the
promise of overcoming the world.
The world’s hatred of this community can be seen as a direct response to the threat this
community’s love and witness pose to its ways of doing business. It is important to note that
“hate” is never used in John to describe the community’s response to the world; it is used
exclusively to describe the world’s response to Jesus and his followers. If hate begins to shape
the Christian community’s response to the world, then it is acting in opposition to the incarnate
love of God.
These verses thus challenge the contemporary church to shape its life according to the
standards of the incarnation and not according to the standards of the world. They challenge
the church to call into question all of the world’s practices that do not show forth the love
of God as known in the life and death of Jesus. Yet they also challenge the church to do this
without redefining itself in terms of hate.
John 16:4b-33, “It Is to Your Advantage That I Go Away”
NIV NRSV,
4] have told you this, so that when the time comes ‘But I have said these things to you so that when
you will remember that I warned you. I did not their hour comes you may remember that I told
tell you this at first because I was with you. you about them.
°“Now I am going to him who sent me, yet “I did not say these things to you from the
none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ beginning, because I was with you. *But now I
°Because I have said these things, you are filled am going to him who sent me; yet none of you
with grief. 7But I tell you the truth: It is for your asks me, “Where are you going?’ “But because I
good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the have said these things to you, sorrow has filled
Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will your hearts. ’Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it
send him to you. "When he comes, he will convict is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do
the world of guilt? in regard to sin and righteous- not go away, the Advocate? will not come to you;
ness and judgment: °in regard to sin, because men but if I go, I will send him to you. 8And when
do not believe in me; '°in regard to righteousness, he comes, he will prove the world wrong about?
because I am going to the Father, where you can sin and righteousness and judgment: °about sin,
see me no longer; '!and in regard to judgment, because they do not believe in me; '°about righ-
because the prince of this world now stands teousness, because I am going to the Father and
condemned. you will see me no longer; ''about judgment,
'26T have much more to say to you, more than because the ruler of this world has been con-
you can now bear. '’But when he, the Spirit of demned.
truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He 12“I still have many things to say to you, but
will not speak on his own; he will speak only you cannot bear them now. '*When the Spirit of
what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth;
to come. '*He will bring glory to me by taking for he will not speak on his own, but will speak
a8 Or will expose the guilt of the world 2 Or Helper Or convict the world of
768
JOHN 16:46-33
NIV NRSV
from what is mine and making it known to you. whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the
'SAll that belongs to the Father is mine. That is things that are to come. '4He will glorify me,
why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine because he will take what is mine and declare it
and make it known to you. to you. 'All that the Father has is mine. For this
'°“Tn a little while you will see me no more, reason I said that he will take what is mine and
and then after a little while you will see me.” declare it to you.
'7Some of his disciples said to one another, 16“A little while, and you will no longer see
“What does he mean by saying, ‘In a little while me, and again a little while, and you will see me.”
you will see me no more, and then after a little '7Then some of his disciples said to one another,
while you will see me,’ and ‘Because I am going “What does he mean by saying to us, ‘A little
to the Father’?” '®They kept asking, “What does while, and you will no longer see me, and again
he mean by “a little while’? We don’t understand a little while, and you will see me’; and ‘Because
what he is saying.” I am going to the Father’?” '®They said, “What
‘Jesus saw that they wanted to ask him about does he mean by this ‘a little while’? We do not
this, so he said to them, “Are you asking one know what he is talking about.” '*Jesus knew that
another what I meant when I said, ‘In a little they wanted to ask him, so he said to them, “Are
while you will see me no more, and then after a you discussing among yourselves what I meant
little while you will see me’? 7° tell you the truth, when I said, ‘A little while, and you will no longer
you will weep and mourn while the world re- see me, and again a little while, and you will see
joices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to me’? “Very truly, I tell you, you will weep and
joy. 7!A woman giving birth to a child has pain mourn, but the world will rejoice; you will have
because her time has come; but when her baby pain, but your pain will turn into joy. ?}When a
is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy woman is in labor, she has pain, because her hour
that a child is born into the world. ??So with you: has come. But when her child is born, she no
Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again longer remembers the anguish because of the joy
and you will rejoice, and no one will take away of having brought a human being into the world.
your joy. **In that day you will no longer ask me 22So you have pain now; but I will see you again,
and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take
anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give
your joy from you. On that day you will ask
you whatever you ask in my name. Until now
nothing of me.? Very truly, I tell you, if you ask
you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask
anything of the Father in my name, he will give
and you will receive, and your joy will be
it to you.’ “Until now you have not asked for
complete.
anything in my name. Ask and you will receive,
25“Though I have been speaking figuratively, a
so that your joy may be complete.
time is coming when | will no longer use this
25“I have said these things to you in figures of
kind of language but will tell you plainly about
speech. The hour is coming when | will no longer
my Father. 7°In that day you will ask in my name.
speak to you in figures, but will tell you plainly
I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your
of the Father. ?°On that day you will ask in my
behalf. 2”No, the Father himself loves you because
name. I do not say to you that I will ask the
you have loved me and have believed that I came
Father on your behalf; *’for the Father himself
from God. #8] came from the Father and entered
loves you, because you have loved me and have
the world; now I am leaving the world and going believed that I came from God.° "I came from
back to the Father.” the Father and have come into the world; again,
2°Then Jesus’ disciples said, “Now you are I am leaving the world and am going to the
speaking clearly and without figures of speech. Father.”
30Now we can see that you know all things and 29His disciples said, “Yes, now you are speak-
that you do not even need to have anyone ask o Other ancient authorities read Fa-
aOr will ask me no question
you questions. This makes us believe that you ther, he will give it to you in my name ¢ Other ancient authori-
came from God.” ties read the Father
169
JOHN 16:4b-33
NIV NRSV
31“You believe at last!”* Jesus answered. *2“But ing plainly, not:in any figure of speech! *°Now
a time is coming, and has come, when you will we know that you know all things, and do not
be scattered, each to his own home. You will need to have anyone question you; by this we
leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my believe that you came from God.” *'Jesus an-
Father is with me. swered them, “Do you now believe? **The hour
33“T have told you these things, so that in me is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be
you may have peace. In this world you will have scattered, each one to his home, and you will
trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the leave me alone. Yet I am not alone because the
world.”
Father is with me. *I have said this to you, so
that in me you may have peace. In the world you
#31 Or “Do you now believe?”
face persecution. But take courage; I have con-
quered the world!”
COMMENTARY
The final section of the Farewell Discourse assuring his disciples that the future is possible
begins at 16:46 (see Commentary on 15:18-16:4a even though he is leaving them (14:1-4, 18, 27).
for discussion of the reasons for this division). This John 16:46:33, by contrast, brings Jesus’ farewell
section returns to the themes with which the instructions to a conclusion and focuses less on
Farewell Discourse opened in John 14: Jesus’ assurance and more on the shape of the future itself.
departure and its effect on the disciples’ future. In these verses, Jesus is showing his disciples that
The farewell situation governs both 14:1-31 and his departure is necessary so that they can fully
16:4033. The thematic overlap between chaps. embrace the future. He repeatedly points them to
14 and 16 leads some scholars to suggest that the benefits of his departure (16:7, 22-27, 33).
14:1-31 and 16:40:33 are duplicate discourses—
John 16:4633 can be divided into three parts.
that is, two versions of the same tradition.°* Yet,
The first part, vv. 40-74, reintroduces the theme
as discussed in the Overview to John 14:1—16:33,
of Jesus’ departure and the disciples’ response to
this solution to the composition of the Farewell
it. This introduction is followed by two sections
Discourse tends to discount the role of repetition
as a literary technique throughout the Fourth that show why Jesus’ departure is to the disciples’
Gospel. There are undeniable echoes of John 14 advantage: vv. 70-15, which contain two new
in Jesus’ teachings in 16:40:33 (e.g., John 14:13- teachings about the advent of the Paraclete; and
14; 16:23-24), but one does not need to resort vv. 16-33, which focus on Jesus’ victory over the
to a complex redactional theory to explain them. world in which the disciples will share.
Rather, as in other discourses in the Fourth Gos- 16:4b-7a. Jesus’ reflection on his own words
pel, the Farewell Discourse employs a web-like once again marks a transition in the discourse {v.
construction. The argument of the discourse often 46; ct. 14:25; 915:113 16:2, 4am 12) “These
moves forward by moving backward, by returning things” (“all this,” NIV) refers to Jesus’ prediction
to what has been said before and restating it in of the community’s persecution in 15:18-16:4a,
a new context. but it also applies more generally to all of Jesus’
There are subtle yet important distinctions in teachings in the Farewell Discourse, particularly
the way the farewell theme is handled in John his teaching about his departure. Verses 4b and
14 and 16. John 14:1-31 introduces the theme of Sa highlight the contrast between the time of
absence and departure and focuses on words of Jesus’ ministry (“from the beginning”; “I was with
assurance and consolation. It is as if Jesus is you,” v. 40) and the present moment of the hour
535. Most notably Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (“now” [viv nun, v. 5a; cf. 12:31; 13:31; 17:13).
(XITI-XX1), AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970) 588-97. The arrival of the hour, of Jesus’ death, resurrec-
770
JOHN 16:4b-33 COMMENTARY
tion, and ascension, determines what Jesus Discourse (cf. 14:16-17, 26; 15:26-27; 16:12-15).
teaches his disciples (cf. 12:23; 13:1; 17:1). The two conditional clauses of v. 70-c identify
Verses 5b-7a introduce the theme of 16:4033: Jesus’ departure as the prerequisite for the advent of
the disciples’ “sorrow” (AUT lype) at Jesus’ de- the Paraclete. At 7:39, the Evangelist explained to the
parture. Although many scholars point to v. 50 as reader that the gift of the Spirit could not occur until
evidence of the compositional problems in the Fare- after Jesus’ glorification, and v. 70 places that same
well Discourse,-%° Jesus’ complaint here (“none of claim in the words of Jesus himself. The Paraclete’s
you asks me...”) does not contradict 13:36 and ministry is to make Jesus and his work present and
14:5, but is primarily a rhetorical device. Jesus is available for the community in his absence. Since
not really concerned with the disciples’ questions Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension complete his
about his departure, but refers to their present revelation of God (17:1-5), his departure must precede
speechlessness as a way of introducing their “situ- the advent of the Paraclete. Verse 70 thus defines the
ation of sorrow.”°%’ As Dodd suggests about v. 50, relationship between Jesus and the Paraclete; the
Jesus reproaches the disciples, “not because they are Paraclete’s work cannot be undertaken until Jesus’
not enquiring about his destination, but because in work is completed. Verse 7c identifies Jesus as the
spite of knowing that he is going to the Father they sole sender of the Paraclete. This identification does
are dismayed about the future.”°%* not contradict earlier references to the mutual involve-
The disciples’ “sorrow” (lype ) at Jesus’ teaching ment of God and Jesus in the sending of the Paraclete
about his departure (note the repetition of “these (cf. 14:16, 26; 15:26), but rather is worded this way
things” in 16:6) provides the occasion for his words to highlight the inseparable bond between Jesus’
in this final unit of the Farewell Discourse. In departure and the advent of the Paraclete.
14:1-31 Jesus offers the assurance of his peace to Verses 8-11 paint a vivid picture of the Paraclete’s
the disciples’ troubled hearts (14:1, 27); in 16:46:33 activity in the world. The picture is clearly one of
he now offers their sorrowful hearts reasons for a trial, in which the Paraclete has the role of
rejoicing (see 16:20-22).°°° Verse 7a confirms this prosecuting attorney and the world is the defendant,
intent. The expression with which this verse begins, standing before the believing community. The trial
“T tell you the truth,” can be read simply as a solemn motif has been prevalent throughout the Gospel of
asseveration, synonymous with the more common John, although prior to this passage, the focus has
expression “very truly I tell you.” Yet the noun been on Jesus himself as prosecutor and judge (e.g,
“truth” (ddjOeva aletheia) may also suggest that 3:19; 8:26; 9:39; cf. 12:47-48). Jesus’ active role as
Jesus’ promise that his death is to the disciples’ judge of the world will reach its dramatic climax in
advantage is grounded in the truth of Jesus’ reve- his trial before Pilate (see Commentary on 18:28-
lation of God (cf. 1:17; 3:33; 8:45-46; 14:6). At 19:16), and 16:8-11 shows how that role will be
14:28, Jesus urged his disciples to love him ceded to the Paraclete after Jesus’ departure. The
enough to see his death as a reason for rejoicing, Paraclete’s share in the judgment of the world is
because through it Jesus completes God’s work. another example of how the Paraclete continues the
Here he urges the disciples to see the good in it work of Jesus.
for them as well. It is important to note the distinction between
16:7b-15. 16:7b-11. These verses contain the juridical roles of the Paraclete in 15:26-27 and
the fourth promise of the Paraclete in the Farewell 16:8-11.54° In 15:26-27, the Paraclete’s role is that
of the defense counsel, bearing witness with and
536. So Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. for the community in the world’s case against it.
Westminster, 1971) 459, 558n. 2; and Brown, The Gospel According to This shift in roles confirms the importance of not
John (XII-XX1), 583, 710, who make this verse one of the key pieces in limiting the translation of Paraclete to one English
their compositional theories.
537. Rudolf Schnackenburg, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 3 noun (e.g., “Advocate”; see above at 14:16) and
vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982) 3:126; note the use of the present tense of noting the variety of functions that define the
“asks” (EowtG erota), so C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John,
2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 485: Paraclete’s presence and ministry in the faith
538. C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: community (see Excursus “The Paraclete,” 774-78.
Cambridge University Press, 1953) 413.
539, Awrm (lypé) is translated as “pain” by both the NIV and the NRSV
540. See Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 414.
in 16:20-22.
Tih |
The precise contour of the Paraclete’s role is Gospel (16:8, 10). The juridical context of vv.
more difficult to identify than its broad forensic 8-11 suggests that it is used in the legal sense of -
function. The key difficulty is how to translate the what is right and just, as in the use of the
central verb phrase in v. 8 (édéyEet... Tept adjective “righteous” (Sikatos dikaios) to modify
elegxei.. .peri). The verb €héyxw (elegcho) can “judgment” at 5:30 and 7:24. In the context of
be translated either as “expose” (as at 3:20) or the world’s trial by the Paraclete, then, righteous-
“convict” (as at 8:46). The NRSV (“prove the ness should be read as synonymous with “vindi-
world wrong about”) and the NIV (“convict the cation,” and not as referring to the believer’s
world of guilt in regard to”) both adopt the basic justification by faith, an interpretation overly in-
meaning of “convict,” although they must para- fluenced by the Pauline use of the term (e.g., Rom
phrase this verse in order to communicate that Ae25).°"
meaning (neither the word “wrong” nor “guilt” Righteousness is exposed in two ways {(v. 10).
appears in the Greek). “Expose” seems a better First, Jesus’ death is not defeat, as the world
translation, however, because it has the same assumes. Rather, his death shows forth the right-
double meaning as the Greek verb: both “bring eousness (“rightness”) of God, because in death
to light” and “hold up to reprobation.”°*! To say Jesus goes to God and completes his work. This
that the Paraclete will expose the world regarding will be confirmed in Jesus’ address of God as
sin, righteousness, and judgment means that the “righteous [dikaios| Father” at 17:25. Second, the
Paraclete will bring out into the open the true disciples no longer see Jesus. This expression here
meaning of sin, righteousness, and judgment and does not refer to the contingency of the revelation
hold the world accountable to those standards. As (as, for example, 7:33-34; 8:21; 13:31). Nor is it
in 15:18-25, “world” is not a neutral term, but related to Jesus’ abiding presence with his disci-
means “that which is opposed to God in Jesus.” ples, and therefore is not followed by a promise
The Paraclete’s exposure of the world is nar- that the disciples will see him again (14:19;
rated in a strict symmetrical pattern in vv. 9-11; 16:16-19). Rather, Jesus’ absence is offered as
each verse opens with the key noun, followed by corroboration of his departure and hence the seal
a hoti clause (“that” or “because”) that simultane- of his vindication.
ously “exposes” the meaning of the noun and the The trial motif governs the interpretation of v.
world’s relation to it. In each instance, the exposure 11 as well. This verse brings to prominence the
has a christological core. Sin, righteousness, and cosmic and eschatological dimensions of the
judgment thus are not abstract concepts, but derive world’s trial; the ultimate judgment is the judg-
their meaning from the life and death of Jesus. ment of “the ruler of the world” (see also 12:31;
Verse 9 provides the Gospel’s most straightfor- 14:30). The verb “judge” (kéxpitat kekritaé, “con-
ward statement of the Johannine understanding demn,” NRSV, NIV) is in the perfect tense. The
of “sin” (ayaptta hamartia). As has been noted NIV captures the meaning of the Greek perfect
already (see Reflections on John 9), for the Fourth tense well: The ruler of the world was judged in
Gospel, sin is a theological, not a moral, category. the past (at Jesus’ hour), and that judgment con-
The world’s sin is not to believe in Jesus—that tinues into the present. In Jesus’ death, resurrec-
is, not to believe that Jesus is the incarnate Logos tion, and ascension, the ruler of the world, the
of God (cf. 8:24; 15:22-24). The present tense devil, the embodiment of all that is opposed to
verb in the expression “they do not believe” God, is defeated and God is victorious. The life
(ov TLoTEVOUVGLV OU pisteuousin) shows that the and death of Jesus are ultimately about the gov-
Fourth Evangelist’s primary concern is with the ernance of the world. It is important to read v.
world’s ongoing rejection of the revelation of God Tl in the light of v. 8, which says that the
in Jesus, not simply with one particular rejection Paraclete “will expose the world concerning...
of Jesus by the Jewish power structure. judgment.” The future tense, like the perfect tense
The noun “righteousness” (Stkavoovwn dikaio- of “to judge,” shows that the Paraclete continues
syne} occurs only in this passage in the Fourth God’s eschatological judgment beyond the time of
541. E.C. Hoskyns, 7he Fourth Gospel(London: Faber& Faber, 1947) 542. John Calvin, The Gospel According to St. John 11-21 and First
484, John, 1:18; Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1959).
772
Jesus’ life and death into the life of the faith of God (cf. Pss 25:5, 9; 85:10) in leading the
community. The world is continually judged by community into right and faithful behavior. In Wis
God’s work in Jesus. 9:11 and 10:10, it is used to describe the teaching
16:12-15. The focus shifts from the role of function of Wisdom. This verb thus points to the
the Paraclete in the world to the functions of the teaching role the Paraclete will have in the future
Paraclete within the faith community (cf. 14:16- life of the faith community. Its combination with
17, 26). Verse 12 sets the context for the fifth “truth” is a direct echo of 14:6, “I am the way,
and final Paraclete teaching in the Farewell Dis- and the truth, and the life,” and thus specifies the
course (vv. 13-15). Jesus confronts the disciples content of the Paraclete’s teaching. To say that
with the constraints that time imposes on his the Paraclete will guide the disciples into all the
teaching to them and points them toward their truth is to say that in the future the Paraclete will
own futures. The verb “to bear” (Baotd¢w bas- lead the community into the life-giving revelation
tazo| is normally used to refer to the physical act of God in Jesus.
of supporting or bearing a heavy load (e.g., Matt Verse 130 offers the warrants for the Paraclete’s
3:11; 20:12; Mark 14:13; Luke 7:14; Acts 3:2; Rom guidance (“for”): The Paraclete will not be an
11:18). Here it is used metaphorically to point to independent witness to the truth, but speaks what
the burden of the disciples’ future. The future will he will hear. The textual witnesses are divided
test them in ways that they cannot now anticipate; over whether “hear” (akovw akouo) is in the
Jesus, therefore, can teach the disciples nothing present or future tense. The future tense fits the
more about the future in the present moment. context best, because Jesus is describing the future
Bultmann moves to the heart of Jesus’ words here activity of the Paraclete. The future tense is the
when he writes, “The believer can only measure reading preferred by the Nestle-Aland?’ edition of
the significance and claims of what he has to un- the Greek text, although the NIV and the NRSV
dergo when he actually meets it. He anticipates the both opt for the present tense variant. This de-
future in faith, not foreknowledge.”°* scription of the Paraclete echoes earlier descrip-
This does not mean, however, that Jesus’ teach- tions of Jesus (7:16-17; 8:26, 40: 12:49-50), in
ings have come to an end for the disciples nor that which Jesus is described as speaking what he
they will have to face the future without the sup- hears from God, and is thus another example of
porting words of Jesus. Jesus’ words about the the continuity between Jesus and the Paraclete.
Paraclete in vv. 13-15 show the disciples how, even Second, the Paraclete “will declare to you the
in his absence, their futures fall within his provi- things that are to come” (v. 13c). The verb “to
dence. The functions of the Paraclete spelled out in declare” (avayyéh\\w anangello) means to pro-
these verses will ensure that the disciples do not claim what has been heard (cf. 4:25; 16:25)>#4
face the future alone (cf. 14:18), unequipped with and as such builds on the claim of v. 130. It is
not a verb of prophecy or prediction, and thus
the necessary words of Jesus. The Paraclete will
does not describe the Paraclete as one who fore-
carry Jesus’ teachings into the future.
- tells the future. Rather, it highlights the proclama-
As at 14:17 and 15:26, the title “Spirit of
tory function of the Paraclete within the
Truth” (v. 13) underscores the reliability of the
community. “The things that are to come” may
Paraclete and points to his link with Jesus, who
refer specifically to the events of Jesus’ hour
is the truth (14:6). Verse 13 describes two inter-
(which the Paraclete will help to interpret to the
related functions of the Spirit of Truth in the
community; cf. 2:22; 12:16), but it also refers to
future life of the community. First, “he will guide
the community’s future, to the events for which
you into all the truth” (v. 13a). The verb “to
Jesus cannot prepare them now {v. 12). The
guide” (oSnyéw hodegeo) occurs only here in Paraclete thus will proclaim the teachings of Jesus
John and is a compound verb from the roots
to them in the new and changing circumstances
“way” (686s hodos) and “lead” (dyw ago), thus of their lives. That is, Jesus’ words are not locked
literally “lead in the way.” This ,verb is used in
the Psalms (LXX) to point to the instructional role 544. P. Jouon, “Le verbe Anagell6 dans St. Jean,” RSR (1938) 234-35;
Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), 708; Schnackenburg,
543. Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 573. The Gospel According to St. John, 3:135.
773
in the disciples’ past, restricted to a particular to the community of “what is mine” as an act of
historic moment. Nor does Jesus’ death rob future glorification. Jesus’ words and actions glorified
believers of the chance to receive the word of God, made visible the identity of God (1:14, 18;
Jesus in the changing circumstances of their lives. 17:4-6), and the Paraclete’s proclamation will do
The promise of v. 13c is that the presence of the the same for Jesus. This description again under-
Paraclete in the life of the community will ensure scores continuity between Jesus’ ministry and the
that all believers’ futures are open to fresh proc- Paraclete’s ministry. Second, in v. 15 Jesus returns
lamations of Jesus’ words. to one of the central affirmations of his ministry
The repetition of the expression “he will take (“All that the Father has is mine”; cf. 5:19-20) in
what is mine” in vv. 14-15 supports the definition order to underscore the grounding of the
of anangello as “to declare what has been heard.” Paraclete’s ministry. For the Paraclete to take
These verses offer supplementary definitions of what is Jesus’ is for the Paraclete to participate in
what it means to speak of the Paraclete as the the fullness of Jesus’ revelation of God and then
one who will declare what he has heard. First, in to declare that fullness to succeeding generations
v. 14, Jesus describes the Paraclete’s declaration of disciples.
>,
“~~ o,
“ ~o, ’ +,
~~
ExCuRSUS: THE PARACLETE

The Farewell Discourse places a rich portrait of the Paraclete before the Gospel reader. As
the Commentary on the five Paraclete passages has shown (14:16-17, 26; 15:26-27; 16:7-11,
12-15), the Paraclete is intimately tied to Jesus’ preparation of his disciples for their life after
his return to God. In none of the other Gospels does the Spirit play such a central role in the
teaching of Jesus. Furthermore, by speaking of the Spirit as the Paraclete, the Fourth Evangelist
seems to be attempting to free his portrait from early Christian preconceptions of the nature
of the Spirit in order to get a fresh hearing for the role the Spirit plays in the life of the
believing community. For example, John does not identify the presence of the Spirit in the
Christian community with specific spiritual gifts (cf. 1 Cor 12:1-11, 27-28; 14:1-33; Acts 2:4).
The Gospel does not portray the Spirit as actively directing the activities of the believing
community (cf. Acts 8:29, 39; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2, 4), nor does it point to the role of the
Spirit in baptism (cf. Acts 2:38; 8:16-17; 10:44-48). The portrait of the Paraclete in the Farewell
Discourse is thus one of the most substantive and distinctive theological ae i of this
Gospel, and it warrants the interpreter’s careful reflection.
The Commentary has discussed the details of the Johannine portrait of the Paraclete. Two
aspects of that portrait can be singled out as the basis for theological reflection on the Paraclete:
the Paraclete as the continuing presence of Jesus in the post-resurrection community and the
Paraclete as teacher and witness.
THE PARACLETE AS’ THE: PRESENCE OF JESUS

It is impossible to overstate the crisis that the believing community faced as a result of Jesus’
death. The shape and scope of this crisis can be illustrated by looking at the conversation
between Jesus and Peter at 6:67-68. At 6:67, Jesus asked the Twelve whether they, too,
wanted to leave him because of the difficulty of his teachings. In response, Peter replied, “Lord,
to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life” (6:68). Peter, speaking for the
disciples, recognized the life-giving power of Jesus’ revelation. At Jesus’ death, the disciples
face the inversion of the situation proposed at 6:67: Jesus is leaving them, and Peter’s question
becomes even more poignant, “Lord, to whom can we go?” Is Jesus’ death the end of his
“words of eternal life”?
774
EXCURSUS: THE PARACLETE
Figure 12: Paraclete Passages in the Gospel of John*
14:16-17 “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to
be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him,
because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he
lives with you and will be in you.”
“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I
have said to you.”
“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father,
the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
“But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away.
Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I
will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of
guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment; in regard to sin,
because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because
I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in
regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands
condemned.”
16:12-15 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But
when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.
He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and
he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by
taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs
to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what
is mine and make it known to you.”
*Scripture quotations are from the NIV.
It is important to be clear about the theological dimension of this crisis. In John, Jesus’
revelation of God hinges on the recognition that Jesus is the incarnate Logos, the Son of
God. Jesus’ revelation of God is not a general, abstract revelation of the character. of God.
The essence of God cannot be abstracted from the incarnation and represented as some
general notion of the “divine.” Rather, the reality of the incarnation is the essence of Jesus’
revelation of God. It is in the Word become flesh, in God’s gift of his Son, that believers
come to know who God is. That is, the incarnation has brought believers into new
relationship with God and has opened up the possibility of their becoming children of God
(1:12-13). Jesus’ death and departure thus presented the disciples, and the church, with a
crisis far greater than simply the loss of their teacher and friend. Jesus’ death and return
to God marked the end of the incarnation. If the revelation of God is lodged in the
incarnation, what happens when Jesus is gone? Was Jesus’ revelation of God possible for
only the first generation of believers, available only to those who had physical contact with
Jesus and his ministry? Was Jesus’ revelation of God thus limited to one particular moment
in history, or does it have a future?
TS:
It is the theological genius of the Fourth Evangelist to present the Paraclete as the solution
to this crisis. Throughout Jesus’ words about the Paraclete, the emphasis repeatedly falls on
the Paraclete as the one who will continue Jesus’ work after his absence, as the one who will
make it possible for the experience of God made known and available in the incarnation to
be known after Jesus’ death. The Commentary on the Paraclete passages repeatedly noted the
ways in which the description of the Paraclete echoed the Gospel’s description of Jesus. For
example, the verbs “to witness” and “to abide,” both identified in the Gospel with the life
and ministry of Jesus, are associated with the Paraclete in the Farewell Discourse (“witness”
[aptupéw martyreo], e.g., 3:32; 8:13-18; 15:26-27; “abide” [yévw meno], e.g., 14:17, 25;
15:4). The Paraclete is explicitly described as speaking the words of Jesus and reminding the
disciples of Jesus’ teaching (14:26; 15:13-15). The Paraclete’s origins are explicitly linked to the
agency of God and Jesus, and the Paraclete is described as being sent by God and given by God
(14:16, 26), verbs that are also used to describe Jesus’ advent into the world (e.g., 3:16; 4:34;
6:38; 12:44-45). The very language of these promises thus establishes the connections between
the ministry of Jesus and the ministry of the Paraclete. The Paraclete is positioned as the link
between the historical ministry of Jesus and the future life of the church after Jesus’ death.
Through the promise of the Paraclete, the Fourth Evangelist is able to portray Jesus’ death,
resurrection, and ascension not as the end, but as the beginning of a new era in the life of
the believing community. Indeed, in 16:7-8, Jesus goes so far as to speak of his departure as
being for the disciples’ good, so that they will be able to share in the advent of the Paraclete.
Future generations of believers are not left alone, bereft of the experience of God made known
in the incarnation, because the Paraclete takes that experience of God and extends it beyond
the limits of Jesus’ life and death. The Paraclete makes it possible for all believers to share in
the good news of the incarnation, because the es makes Jesus present to believers, even
though Jesus is now physically absent.
The promise of the abiding presence of the Paraclete highlights the interconnection of all
aspects of the Johannine theological vision. In addition to clarifying the Johannine understanding
of the Spirit (its pneumatology), the Paraclete passages also contribute to the Fourth Evangelist’s
portrait of Jesus and point to the writer’s understanding of the nature of Christian community.
As the Farewell Discourse is at pains to make clear, Jesus’ death will not leave the disciples
orphaned, because Jesus and God will send the Paraclete to the believing community. Jesus
will leave the world, but the disciples will not (17:11, 15), and the promise of the Paraclete
shows Jesus as one who will continue to support his followers for perpetuity. The promise of
the Paraclete thus stands as a testament to the reliability of Jesus and his love, because Jesus
has not ignored the future of those who will live on after he leaves them. It is a stunning
portrait of Jesus that has at its heart a conviction about the abiding presence of Jesus with
those whom he loves and who love him. Jesus is, indeed, the good shepherd who loves and
cares for his own both in his death (10:17-18; 13:1, 35; 15:12-13)-and beyond.
The promise of the Paraclete thus provides the ultimate definition of what Jesus means
when he says, “Abide in me as I abide in you” (15:4). The presence of the Paraclete means
that there are no temporal or spatial limits on Jesus’ love and on believers’ access to that love.
The love of God made known in the incarnation continues into the life of the community
through the gift of the Paraclete. What is critical about the promise of the Paraclete is that
Jesus and God send the Paraclete to the community, not to individuals. Readings of the Fourth
Gospel that emphasize the individual believer’s mystical relationship to Jesus through the Spirit
distort the Johannine picture of the Paraclete. The Paraclete is not a private possession, nor is
its presence discernible as an internal experience of the individual believer. The Paraclete is
given to and known in the community. Because the Paraclete is the presence of Jesus after
Jesus’ departure, it is not simply a subjective experience of “God,” but is always linked to the
revelation of God made known in the incarnation. The Paraclete keeps the community
776
grounded in Jesus’ revelation of God, not in an individual’s private experience of God. The
Paraclete is thus the unifying mark of Christian community, because it gives all believers
access to Jesus.
THE PARACLETE AS TEACHER AND WITNESS

Jesus’ teachings in the Farewell Discourse consistently depict the Paraclete as teacher
and witness, and this depiction illuminates the role of the Paraclete in forming and shaping
Christian community. Two passages are especially important in this regard. First, at 14:26,
Jesus says that the Paraclete will “remind you of all that I have said to you.” As noted in
the Commentary, this verse points both to the connection between what Jesus said and
what the Paraclete will say (see also 16:14) and to the nature of the Paraclete’s teaching
role. For the Paraclete, to teach is to remind the community of what Jesus himself said.
Second, at John 16:12-13, Jesus says, “I still have many things to say to you, but you
cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the
truth.” In these verses, as the Commentary suggested, Jesus points to the importance of
fresh encounters with the words of Jesus, given at the time of need, not in advance of that
time, and identifies the Paraclete as the medium of those encounters.
These descriptions of the Paraclete are pivotal for contemporary Christian communities
of faith, because they point to the ways in which the Paraclete enables past, present, and
future to converge in the life of the church. The Paraclete enables the words of Jesus to
resound afresh in ever-changing circumstances. On the one hand, the Paraclete’s role is
essentially conserving. That is, the Paraclete enables the Christian community, at any time
in its life, to reach back to the teachings of Jesus and “remember,” to bring Jesus’ teachings
to life afresh with new understanding (see Reflections on 12:12-18). On the other hand,
the Paraclete’s role as teacher is also creative. The Paraclete enables the word of Jesus to
move forward from its moment in history to the present life of the church. The Paraclete
gives new meanings to the teachings of Jesus as the changing circumstances of faith
communities and the world demand.
The words of Jesus that community members are able to receive before a crisis are
quite distinct from the words that the community is able to receive during or after a
crisis. For example, if someone tried to tell an adolescent what he or she would need
to hear from Jesus to endure what life will bring at thirty, fifty, or seventy years of age,
the adolescent would not be able to “bear” them. The words of Jesus that a community
will need to endure the destruction of a church building by fire would also be
insupportable in advance of the event. The words of Jesus that the community needs
to hear to make sense of the church’s place in changing social and economic circum-
stances are likewise unbearable in advance, because there is no context for such words
in advance of the situation of need. The Fourth Evangelist portrays the Paraclete as the
guarantee that the words of Jesus will always be available as fresh words for any and
all futures.
The Paraclete thus ensures that there is an ongoing communication between Jesus and
contemporary communities of faith. As with the Gospel’s emphasis on the abiding presence
of the Paraclete, this interpretation of the Paraclete’s role as teacher and witness is also a
the
stroke of theological genius. This understanding of the Paraclete as teacher both honors
Jesus’
integrity of the historical ministry of Jesus and at the same time recognizes that
ministry must always be interpreted in order to keep its offer of God alive.
life of
The Paraclete’s teaching, witness, and interpretation can take many forms in the
experiences
the faith community. The first place where the reader of the Fourth Gospel
Jesus, the
the work of the Paraclete is in the Gospel narrative itself. In telling his story of
his readers
Fourth Evangelist shares in the work of the Paraclete. He does indeed “remind”
f0)
of what Jesus said and did, thus carrying the teachings of Jesus forward from the past into the
present. But in his reminding, he also places the story of Jesus into conversation with the
circumstances in which his readers live, so that they are able to hear Jesus’ words as if he
were speaking to their own lives and needs. The two levels of many of the Gospel’s narratives,
in which Jesus’ relationship to the Jewish authorities of his day melds with the Jewish
controversies of the Evangelist’s time (e.g., John 5:31-46; 7:11-13; 9:22-41), can be interpreted
as the work of the Paraclete, to show that Jesus’ story is both a past event and a contemporary
story." The Fourth Evangelist understands, perhaps better than any other evangelist, that story
and interpretation, history and theology, are inseparably linked in the life of Jesus and the
church and that is incumbent upon the faith community to engage in disciplined conversation
between the story of Jesus and their own stories.
The contemporary Christian also experiences the Paraclete in the preaching of the church.
Each time a preacher attempts to proclaim the Word of God in a new circumstance, he or
she shares in the work of the Paraclete. At its heart, preaching belongs to the ongoing
conversation among past, present, and future in the life of the church. Like the work of the
Paraclete, preaching is both conserving and creative. It is at the same time both old and new,
past tense and contemporary. The preacher is bound ,both to the traditions of the church, so
that his or her work is an act of reminding, and to the present moment, so that his or her
work is also an act of discovering how the Word of God speaks in a new day. The gift and
presence of the Paraclete allows both the preacher and the congregation to share in a fresh
experience of the Word of God.
545. J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968; 2nd ed., 1979) 143-51.
K2
K? “
y.,
?,
16:16-33. As noted in the Commentary eschatological expectation and to evoke the im-
above, John 16:7033 provides two responses to minence of God’s new age (e.g, Isa 10:25; 26:20;
the disciples’ sorrow at Jesus’ impending depar- 29:17). The prominence of OT imagery, particu-
ture (vv..70-15 and vv. 16-33). Jesus’ words in larly from Isaiah, in 16:21 (see below) supports
v. 16 provide the transition between these two reading Jesus’ words in v. 160 against that back-
responses, because they turn the focus from the ground. Some interpreters (e.g., Augustine), there-
Paraclete back to Jesus’ departure per se, the fore, find a reference to the resurrection too limiting
theme with which he began in vv. 5-7a. and instead see mikron as referring to the time
16:16. Jesus has used the expression “a little before the parousia, Jesus’ Second Coming.>“° These
while” (utkpdov mikron) to speak of the imminence interpreters rightly emphasize the eschatological di-
of his departure and hence the limited time of his mension of Jesus’ promise here, but misread the
presence (7:33; 13:33; cf. 12:35). Against this back- Johannine understanding of the resurrection. For
ground, it is clear that the adverb mikron in v. 16a John, the hour—Jesus’ death, resurrection, and as-
refers to the time leading up to Jesus’ death. With cension—is the eschatological event, marking the
beginning of God’s new age, and as such the
the second mikron in v. 16b, however, Jesus points
significance of the resurrection appearances extends
beyond his death to the disciples’ future experience
beyond the experiences of his first disciples on Easter
of Jesus (“you will see me again”). In the context
day (see below on 16:22 and 20:1-29).547
of the Farewell Discourse, this second “a little
16:17-18. The disciples’ confused questioning
while” seems to refer to the time between Jesus’
death and his resurrection appearances. 546. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XII-XX1), 729-30, ina
In the OT, the expression “a little while” is quite different vein, takes this verse as a reference to the Paraclete.
often used to refer to the interval of intense (New York: Seabury, 1982) 3:156.
778
__JOHN 16:4b-33 COMMENTARY
underscores the ambiguity of Jesus’ words in v. world’s joy into its opposite, until the final words
16. These verses are the first time the disciples of the discourse (16:33).°48
have spoken since 14:22, although at this juncture 16:21. Jesus employs a short parable to illus-
they speak only among themselves (v. 17) and do trate the relationship between present sorrow and
not address their words directly to Jesus (cf. v. future joy in the disciples’ experience. In John’s
19). Their questions to one another link the two Gospel, Jesus often draws on proverbs or short
parts of the discourse in John 16, because not parables to illustrate his claims (e.g., 4:37-38;
only do they repeat the immediately preceding 5:19-20; 8:35; 10:1-5; 12:24).>4° Dodd offers an
words of Jesus from v. 16, but they also repeat excellent analysis of the form of this parable,
his words of v. 10 (“because I am going to the noting the formal balance of its composition: two
Father”; cf. the similar function of the disciples’ parts that each have the same pattern, “when A
questions to one another at 4:27). Their questions occurs, B occurs, because C has occurred.”*°° In
show that they have recognized that Jesus is v. 21a, the interrelated elements are labor, pain,
speaking to them about his departure, but that and the time of delivery; in v. 210, the mother’s
the meaning of that departure still remains beyond delivery of the child shifts the balance between pain
their grasp. Their continual repetition of Jesus’ and joy. This parable, which draws on a common
words sounds almost like stammering (note the life experience, thus serves as an apt illustration of
NIV’s correct translation of the Greek imperfect Jesus’ teaching about sorrow and joy.
at v. 18, “they kept asking”). The language of vv. Yet this parable is much more than a general
17-18 conveys the disciples’ inarticulateness in the illustration. Its imagery, while reflective of ordinary
face of Jesus’ departure and thereby confirms experience, draws on a wealth of OT imagery in
Jesus’ words of vv. 50: the disciples’ sorrow at which the metaphor of childbirth is used to describe
Jesus’ departure seems to have rendered them the advent of God’s salvation. Of particular relevance
speechless. are two texts from Isaiah. Isaiah 26:17 employs the
16:19. Jesus’ knowledge of the disciples’ ques- childbirth metaphor to describe the experience of
tions points again to his ability to know “what God’s people as they await God’s deliverance. (As
was in everyone” (2:25; cf. 1:47-48; 6:15, 61; noted above, an echo of Isa 26:20 can be heard in
13:11). As is typical of the teaching of Jesus Jesus’ words in v. 16.) In Isa 66:7-17, the metaphor
throughout this Gospel, Jesus does not answer of childbirth is used to envision the restoration of
their questions directly, but instead moves their Jerusalem. Both of these texts use the childbirth
questions in a new direction (cf. 3:2-9; 4:12-14). metaphor as a communal metaphor; it evokes the
The expression “very truly, I tell you” with which experience of the people of God as they move from
v. 20 begins is used once again to introduce a suffering to renewed joy.
new teaching (cf., e.g., 3:3, 5; 5:24-25; 8:34). The language of v. 21 has other theological
The teaching that follows in vv. 20-24 addresses resonances. First, the Greek word translated
the disciples’ sorrow (AvTn lype; “pain,” NRSV; “pain” (/ype) is an unusual word to describe a
“orief,” NIV) and its resolution. woman’s pain at childbirth, since it is normally a
16:20. Verse 20a depicts the contrasting effect word for emotional, not physical, pain. Its use
of Jesus’ death on his disciples and the world (cf. here is probably to call the disciples’ (and the
15:18-16:44). The verbs “to weep” (khaiw klaio) reader’s) immediate attention to the connections
and “to mourn” (@pnvéw threneo) describe the Jesus is establishing between the conventional
lamentation and grieving at a death (John 11:31, parable and the particularities of the disciples’
33; 20:11; Luke 7:13; 7:32; 8:52; 23:27; see also situation at Jesus’ departure. Second, Jesus speaks
Jer 22:10). The contrast between mourning and of the woman’s time of delivery as “her hour.”
rejoicing in v. 20 recalls the contrast in the This use of “hour” evokes both Jesus’ own hour
blessing and woe of Luke 6:21 and 25 between 548. E. C. Hoskyns, Zhe Fourth Gospel (London: Faber&Faber, 1947)
the disciples of Jesus and their adversaries. Jesus 488.
immediately promises the transfdrmation of the 549. See C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 366-87, for a full discus-
disciples’ sorrow into joy in v. 200, but will not sion ofJesus’ use of these literary forms in John.
address its counterpart, the transformation of the 550. Ibid., 370.
779
(2:4; 8:20; 12:23; 13:1) and the anticipated es- initiative toward the disciples in the resurrection
chatological hour (4:21, 23; 5:25, 28). Third, the (cf. the wording of 16:16). Verse 22 ends with a
noun Odtudts (thlipsis, “anguish”) is used to de- statement of the permanence of the disciples’ joy.
scribe the woman’s ordeal in labor. This noun, Like the birth of the child in the parable, Jesus’
normally translated “tribulation,” is usually used resurrection will irreversibly change the course of
in apocalyptic contexts to describe the suffering the disciples’ lives.
and persecution the community will endure in 16:23-24. As at 14:20, “on that day” (v. 234)
advance of the inbreaking of God’s kingdom (e.g., underscores the connection between Jesus’ resur-
Matt 24:9, 21, 29; Mark 13:19, 24; Acts 14:22; rection and the time of eschatological fulfillment.
Rom 8:35). Because of Jesus’ resurrection, the disciples have
In this parable, then, Jesus draws on OT child- entered into eschatological joy. The sign of this
birth imagery to communicate the eschatological eschatological joy will be their lack of questions
transformation that will occur within the faith (v. 23a).
community as a result of his death. The disciples The precise meaning of Jesus’ promise here
will become a new people, a people of joy. Images depends on how one interprets the Greek verb
of birth are important metaphors in the Fourth Epwtdw (erotao). The NRSV gives it the meaning
Gospel to describe the new life that Jesus makes of “petition” (“ask nothing of me”). According to
available to those who believe (1:12-13; 3:3-10; this reading, vv. 23-24 form one teaching about
cf. “little children” at 13:33). The imagery of the believers’ petitions. This reading seems un-
childbirth is especially significant in the context likely, however, since the expression “very truly,
of the Farewell Discourse, because it is, indeed, I tell you” with which v. 230 begins always
new birth for the disciples that will be effected introduces a new teaching in John and so marks
through Jesus’ death and resurrection (see Com- a shift in Jesus’ teaching. The more common
mentary on 20:17). It is a distortion of the parable meaning of erotao is “to ask questions,” and this
to interpret its symbolism as depicting the birth is the: meaning accepted by the NIV and most
of the Messiah, along the analogy of Rev 12:2-5, scholars (see also the NRSV footnote).°>? “On that
because such a view misreads the essential com- day” the confused, anxious, and stammering ques-
munal referent of the metaphor.>>! As in the Isaiah tions that have marked the disciples’ relationship
texts, the woman stands as a symbol for the to Jesus during his ministry (e.g, 6:9; 11:8; 13:6,
community, suffering through tribulation in order 25, 36) and especially during the Farewell Dis-
to receive God’s awaited salvation and new life. course (14:5, 22; 16:17-18) will cease. As Bult-
16:22. Jesus makes the direct comparison be- mann has eloquently stated, this is “the
tween the parable and the disciples’ sorrow (“so eschatological situation: to have no more ques-
you have sorrow now”). He identifies his reap- tions! ... This is to say that the believers live in
pearance to them as the act that will transform joy; because it is the nature of joy that all ques-
their sorrow to joy. Jesus’ words seem to be a tioning grows silent, and nothing needs explain-
promise of his resurrection appearances, and, in- ing,”553
deed, in John 20 Jesus’ appearance will cause
In vv. 230-24, Jesus describes a second charac-
Mary to cease weeping (20:16) and cause the
teristic of eschatological joy: answered prayer (cf.
other disciples to rejoice (20:20). The Easter sto-
14:13-14; 15:7, 16). Answered prayer is a sign of
ries thus show the reliability of Jesus’ farewell
eschatological joy because it is a sign that the
promise and the truth of his words. Jesus’ promise
disciples share fully in Jesus’ relationship with
in v. 22 is the perfect complement to v. 6 (cf.
God. The manuscript evidence is divided over
the relationship between 14:1 and 27), and at the
whether the phrase “in Jesus’ name” should be
same time seems to contain a deliberate allusion linked with the disciples’ asking (the reading fol-
to Isa 66:14 (“You shall see, and your heart shall
rejoice” [NRSV]). The wording of the promise in 552. For example, Hoskyns, John, 489; Bultmann, John, 583; Brown,
v. 22 (“I will see you again”) highlights Jesus’ The Gospel According to John (XII-XXI), 722-23; Barrett, The Gospel
According to St. John, 494.
553. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G.
551. So Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XX]), R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia:
AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970) 731-32. Westminster, 1971) 583.
780
lowed by the NIV and the NRSV) or God’s re- to their conclusion. Verse 25 complements v. 234,
sponse (NRSV footnote). Both readings emphasize wv. 26-27 complement vv. 230-24, and v. 28 states
the interrelationship of God, Jesus, and the com- the grounds of all of Jesus’ eschatological promises.
munity in prayer. As a sign of God’s new age, the Jesus’ promise in v. 25 is not a general promise
disciples can pray, like Jesus, in the full confidence about direct speech, but is a very particular prom-
that God hears their prayers. This confidence in ise about his revelation of the Father. Jesus’
prayer will be enacted for the disciples in Jesus’ hour—his death, resurrection, and ascension—
prayer of 17:1-16. completes his revelation of God and as such marks
16:25-33. 16:25. The final section of the a decisive change in the believer’s access to God.
Farewell Discourse is introduced by the transi- “The hour is coming” when Jesus’ revelation of
tional expression “I have said these things to you” God will be “plain” because “the hour is coming”
(v. 25a; see also 14:25; 15:11; 16:4). The Greek when Jesus will return to God (13:1). What has
noun translated “figures of speech” by the NRSV been anticipated during Jesus’ life will be fully
(Tapotpiat paroimiai) can refer to a range of available as a result of his hour. Jesus’ promise in
literary forms, including parable, proverb, and riddle v. 256 thus confirms his promise in v. 230: the
(see Commentary on 10:6). Its use in the plural in disciples will not need to ask questions because
v. 25a (as opposed to the singular at 10:6; Jesus’ revelation will be “plain.” Jesus’ promise
16:29) suggests that it is being used adverbially in v. 256 must also be read alongside his promises
(note the NIV’s “figuratively”)—that is, it de- of the Paraclete in 14:25 and 16:12-15. The verb
scribes a general mode of speaking rather than a “l will tell” (amtayyé\\w apangello) in 16:25
specific literary form.°>4 “These things,” therefore, echoes the verb used to describe the future work
should not be read as referring simply to the of the Paraclete in 16:13-15: “he will declare”
parable of 16:21, but to all of Jesus’ teaching in (avayyédkw anangello).°°° The Paraclete will give
the Farewell Discourse.*° the disciples access to Jesus’ full revelation of God
On the surface level, the contrast to which after Jesus’ return to God (cf. 16:7).
Jesus points in v. 250 is clear. In the Fourth 10:20-27. The eschatological dimension of Jesus’
Gospel, “plainly” (mappnota parresia) is used to promises is reinforced by the opening words of v.
characterize the public cast of Jesus’ ministry (e.g., 26, “on that day” (cf. 14:20; 16:23). Verses 26-27
7:26; 18:20), but it is also used to describe direct place the eschatological promise of answered prayer
speech (10:24-25; 11:14). Jesus thus accentuates (cf. vv. 230-24) in the context of God’s love for
the difference between the present, when he those who love Jesus. The disciples’ prayer is
speaks in “figures of speech” (paroimiais), and the grounded in their relationship with Jesus (“you will
ask in my name,” v. 26a), and Jesus’ disclaimer of
future, when he will speak “plainly” (parresia).
his own role in their petitioning confirms the
But the real. emphasis of this verse is not on Jesus’
strength of this relationship. Jesus is not renouncing
mode of speaking per se, but on the changes that
his role as petitioning mediator with God in v. 268,
will be accomplished by “the hour.” The expres-
as his prayer in John 17 shows (cf. 14:16). Rather,
sion “the hour is coming” (cf. 4:21; 5:28) makes
his words here accentuate the authenticity of the
clear that the eschatological vision that shapes
disciples’ own relationship with God and the claim
Jesus’ words in vv. 19-24 continues in vv. 25-28.
that relationship has on God.
In vv. 23-24, Jesus gave two promises of the
Verse 27 specifies the character of this relation-
disciples’ participation in eschatological joy: the
ship: love. The vision of a community shaped by
end of their need to ask questions (v. 23a) and
love, intimacy, and mutuality that formed the core
their answered prayer (vv. 230-24). In vv. 25-
of Jesus’ teaching in 15:1-17 receives its fullest
28, Jesus moves those eschatological promises expression here by explicitly naming God as a
554. Luis Rubio Moran, “Revelacion en enigmas y revalacion en
member of that community. Just as Jesus and the
claridad,” Salmanticensis 19 (1972) 118. disciples are friends, “loved ones” (dtAot philoi,
555. C.H.Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:
15:13-15), so also God and the disciples are friends,
Cambridge University Press, 1953), restricts this phrase to 16:19-21, but
the consensus view among Johannine scholars is that it refers to the entire
discourse (e.g., Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XX1), 735, 556. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.: Word,
Schnackenburg, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 3:162. 1987) 287.
781
united by love.*” The disciples’ love of Jesus is not almost verbatim, thus offering a seemingly appro-
a prerequisite for God’s love of them, however. priate response, but the few differences between
Rather, v. 27 points to the organic connection their words and Jesus’ original words are telling
between the believers’ love of Jesus and God’s love and offer another.example of Johannine irony.°°°
of them, a connection that mirrors the organic First, as noted already, paroimia is used in the
connection between Jesus and his followers (14:20- plural in v. 25 (“figures of speech”). The disciples,
24; 15:10). Both verbs in v. 27 (“have loved” however, respond to Jesus’ words as if only one
[(Tedikykate pephilekate| and “have believed” figure of speech is in view. The disciples’ confi-
[memiotevKate pepisteukate|) are in the perfect dent response to Jesus’ words, then, misinterprets
tense, pointing to the duration through time of the words’ central premise. By using “figure” in
the disciples’ love and faith. Verse 27 is the the singular, the disciples seem to assume that the
ultimate eschatological vision of union with God. contrast of which Jesus speaks is between the
16:28. This verse is a summary of the Johan- parable of v. 20 and the “plain” words of vv.
nine Gospel. It returns to the theme first hinted 25-28. Second, and much more significant, the
at in 1:51 (“angels of God ascending and descend- disciples completely overlook the eschatological
ing upon the Son of Man”) and first stated fully dimension of Jesus’ words. Jesus pointed to a time
at 3:13 (“No one has ascended into heaven except in the future when he would speak plainly, a time
the one who descended from heaven, the Son of after his departure, but the disciples respond as if
Man”). Both halves of v. 28 are essential to the the present moment is already the time of Jesus’
Fourth Evangelist’s theology. Verse 28a, which plain speaking. They misconstrue the meaning of
emphasizes Jesus’ origins with and from God, is “figures,” because of their exclusive focus on their
the key to the Fourth Evangelist’s understanding present conversation with Jesus.
of the incarnation and Jesus’ revelation of God. The irony of the disciples’ response becomes
Verse 286, which emphasizes Jesus’ return to even clearer in v. 30, which opens with a hyper-
God, is the key to the Fourth Evangelist’s ecclesial bolic statement of confidence (“Now we know
and eschatological vision, because Jesus’ return that you know all things”) and ends with a
completes his revelation of God, makes possible confession of faith (“by this we believe”). The
the gift of the Paraclete, and so opens up the irony of v. 30 arises because the disciples think
community to the possibility of a new relationship they are making an appropriate confession, but
with God and with one another. In the context they are not. First, v. 30a seems to refer to Jesus’
of the Farewell Discourse, this summary serves to ability to discern their questions at v. 19. Their
remind the disciples and the readers that it is not “knowledge” about Jesus is not based on anything
enough to focus on Jesus’ origins with God. Jesus’ he said about mutuality of relationship among
descent must be complemented by his ascent; his God, Jesus, and the believer as a result of Jesus’
story is incomplete without his death and depar- departure (vv. 26-28), but is instead based on his
ture. Verse 28 thus brings the discourse of John omniscience. Jesus spoke of the disciples’ love for
16 back to its beginnings in vv. 5-7; Jesus’ depar- him (v. 27), but they respond solely in terms of
ture is indeed to the disciples’ advantage.°°® knowledge. Second, inv. 300 the disciples’ confes-
16:29-30. In contrast to the questions that have sion of faith only acknowledges Jesus’ words about
previously characterized their contributions to the his origins with God (cf. Nicodemus’s opening
farewell conversation (e.g., 14:5, 22), the disciples words at 3:2); it says nothing about his departure.
respond to Jesus with boldness and certainty in This omission underscores the incompleteness of
these verses. Their confidence is readily apparent their bold confession, because they do not acknow-
in the NRSV translation of the opening exclama- ledge the necessity of Jesus’ death and departure to
tion of v. 29: “Yes, now you are speaking plainly.” complete his revelation of God.
The disciples repeat Jesus’ words from v. 25 16:31-32. Jesus’ words in v. 31, “Now you
557. See Barrett’s powerful observation, 7he Gospel According to St.
believe,” ironically echo the disciples’ words in
John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 496, that v. 27 shows
how the Father stands within “the unique circle of love.” 559. For a fuller discussion of the ironic dimensions of this conversa-
558. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, tion, see Gail R. O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode
SHINO, and Theological Claim (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 104-9.
782
vv. 29-30 and shatter any illusions about the Jesus and God’s relationship with Jesus. Scholars
adequacy of their confession. Verse 31 is not are divided on whether the Fourth Evangelist intends
introduced by an interrogative particle or adverb, Jesus’ affirmation of God’s presence in v. 32 as a
so it is unclear whether Jesus’ words should be correction of the “cry of dereliction” found in the
read as a statement or a question. The Nestle- synoptic tradition (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34). Hoskyns
Aland’’ text punctuates the sentence as a question, and Barrett, for example, maintain that v. 32 is a
and that is the reading followed by the NRSV and deliberate correction, but Jesus’ words do not need
the majority of scholars. The NIV, however, punc- to be read with that polemical note here. The Farewell
tuates it as a statement. If v. 31 is punctuated as a Discourse has repeatedly emphasized that Jesus’ hour
statement, it is important to remember that Jesus is brings the disciples into the union that he shares with
mocking the disciples’ earlier confession, not con- God (e.g., 14:20; 15:9-10, 16) and has promised the
gratulating them. The emphatic use of “now” (dptt disciples lasting relationship with God and Jesus (e.g.,
arti) parodies the disciples’ emphatic use of 14:18, 23), but the disciples do not hold to that
“now” (viv nun), and the repetition of “believe” relationship at the moment ofJesus’ death. Jesus does,
(mioTevw pisteuo) challenges their confession. however; even at his death, he knows that God is
The disciples’ words assumed that the time of with him (cf. 8:29).
eschatological fulfillment of which Jesus spoke had 16:33, Jesus once again reflects on his own
already arrived, and in vv. 31-32 Jesus reorients words (“I have said these things to you”) as a
them to the true meaning of “the hour.” “Now” way of bringing the discourse to its conclusion.
is not the time of glib confessions; “now” is the Verse 33 makes clear why and how Jesus’ gift of
hour of death and betrayal. The shift in Jesus’ his peace is not like the world’s peace (cf. 14:27).
words from “The hour is coming” (v. 25) to “The The disciples’ relationship with Jesus (“in me you
hour is coming, indeed it has come” (v. 32) points may have peace”), the significance of which has
to the link between the time of eschatological been spelled out for them over and over again in
fulfillment and Jesus’ death. The hour that is upon the Farewell Discourse, enables them to experience
Jesus and his disciples is the hour of Jesus’ death, peace even in the face of the world’s “persecution”
and the disciples’ confession in v. 30, with its (Ortdsis [thlipsis]; cf. 16:21). The disciples’ place
omission of any mention of Jesus’ return to God, in the world and the world’s power over them is
shows that they still do not recognize the signifi- transformed because of Jesus. This is stated in
cance of the hour. This lack of recognition and absolute terms in the ringing announcement with
comprehension is poignantly underscored by Je- which the Farewell Discourse closes, “But take
sus’ prediction of the disciples’ abandonment of courage; I have conquered the world!” Jesus’
him at his death. This prediction is cast in lan- peace is the definitive eschatological gift, because
guage that echoes Zech 13:7: “Strike the shep- it marks the ultimate defeat of the powers of the
herd, that the sheep may be scattered” (NRSV). world (kdop0s kosmos) that stand in opposition
Matthew and Mark also use this tradition from to God (cf. 12:31; 14:30-31). Jesus’ words of hope
Zechariah to predict the disciples’ abandonment and reassurance in the Farewell Discourse thus
of Jesus (Matt 26:31; Mark 14:27), but the proph- are not idle words of hope, but are grounded in
ecy has special poignancy in the Fourth Gospel the reality of the guaranteed victory of God’s love
because of its echoes of the scattering of the herd in Jesus. The language of victory in John 16:33
in the good shepherd discourse (John 10:12). is very similar to Paul’s language in 1 Cor 15:57,
Jesus’ prediction of the disciples’ abandonment but the eschatological perspective is different. For
is rendered even more poignant by the contrast Paul, the victory is future, but for John, it is
in v. 32 between the disciples’ relationship with already present.
REFLECTIONS
In John416:33,.the eschatological perspective that has governed the Farewell Discourse is
stated explicitly. Jesus’ “future” victory—his glorification in the events of his hour—is indeed
the present reality. The Jesus who speaks in the Farewell Discourse is the Jesus who has
JOHN 16:4b-33 REFLECTIONS
already conquered the world; the voice of Jesus that reassures the disciples and points them
to their future is the voice of the risen Jesus. John 14-16 is an ingenious eschatological
discourse, because it brings God’s future into the present of the Gospel narrative by announcing
that this is the moment of victory. John 16:33 announces that God’s new age, initiated by
Jesus’ victory over the world, has entered the present. Jesus’ victory over the world thus
transforms conventional understandings of present and future.”
Much has been said in this commentary about the richness of Johannine eschatology (see,
e.g., Commentary on 5:24-28; 11:25-26). It simplifies the eschatological options in the NT to
characterize them as “realized” versus “future” eschatology, because by definition eschatology
has to do with the future, with “the last things.” Johannine eschatology is no exception,
because it, too, is concerned with the future. What varies among the different eschatological
perspectives in the NT is the relationship between present and future in the eschatological
vision. In some eschatologies, the emphasis is on the present’s giving way to the future (e.g.,
1 Cor 15:23-28), whereas in others the emphasis is on the future’s breaking into and
transforming the present. Johannine eschatology belongs to the second category, but that does
not mean that the Fourth Gospel portrays all of the possibilities of God’s future as “realized”
in the present moment. On the contrary, as John 16:16-33 shows quite clearly, Johannine
eschatology points to the confidence with which Christians can face into the future, knowing
that God’s sovereign presence in and governance of the present and the future is assured.
When contemporary Christians think about eschatology, then, they come face to face with
some of the core questions of Christian faith: How does the believer move from the present
to the future? What is God’s place in that future? What is the nature of Christian hope? John
16:16-33 provides the interpreter with one perspective from which to engage those questions,
because it is above all an eschatological text. In this concluding section of the Farewell
Discourse, Jesus offers the disciples (and the readets) ways to imagine the possibilities of life
beyond the present moment and points them toward their future life with God.
Key to the Johannine eschatological vision is the cosmic significance of Jesus’ hour—his
death, resurrection, and ascension. Just as the “beginning” (1:1) of the Jesus story, the
incarnation, has cosmic significance (see Reflections on 1:1-18), so, too, has the conclusion of
the Jesus story. Jesus loved his own “to the end” (13:1), and because of that love the believers’
futures are forever altered. The last things, like the first things, are redefined by the incarnation.
In the return of the Logos, the Son, to the Father, the world is decisively changed. Indeed,
the world is conquered by Jesus, the ruler of the world rendered powerless (14:30) by the
fullness of Jesus’ love made manifest in the gift of his life. The full possibilities of life with
God are revealed in Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension, because death did not defeat
Jesus. Rather, Jesus defeated death, laying down his life to take it up again (10:17-18), laying
down his life in love so that he could return his life to God in love and so open to all believers
the possibility of communion and union with God (16:27-28; 17:23). Jesus repeatedly stresses
the necessity and advantage of his departure in John 14-16 (e.g., 14:28; 16:7, 28), because
without his death and departure the cosmic changes begun at the incarnation are incomplete.
Without Jesus’ death and departure, the old order remains in place. With Jesus’ death and
departure, the old order is judged and peace and joy take its place (14:30-31; 16:8-11, 23-24,
33), even in the face of persecution (16:1-3).
That Jesus’ offer of eschatological peace and joy is not an instance of “cheap grace” is
evidenced by the repeated references to suffering and persecution in the Farewell Discourse
(15:18-16:4a, 20-22, 33). This persistent reminder of the persecution the community will
endure and the courage that will be required of them belies any easy labeling of Johannine
eschatology as “realized eschatology.” The Farewell Discourse does not paint a picture of the
560. See Gail R. O’Day, “ ‘I have overcome the world’ (John 16:33): Narrative Time inJohn 13-17,” Semeia 53 (1991).
784
JOHN 16:4b-33 REFLECTIONS
Christian life devoid of present hardship and trial, in which all of God’s promises are fully
actualized in the present moment. The prediction of the disciples’ abandonment of Jesus at
his hour underscores this (v. 32). Just as Jesus’ victory over the world could not be effected
without his death, so also the believers’ share in Jesus’ victory will be accompanied by suffering,
sorrow, and pain.
What the Farewell Discourse does promise is that the movement from present sorrow to
future joy is possible and, indeed, guaranteed as a result of Jesus’ victory in his hour. It is this
guarantee, the sure, unshakable confidence in Jesus’ victory over the world and the peace that
the victory makes possible, that provides the grounds for Christian hope. Hope is not idle
speculation about the future, about what might be or what might happen, although contem-
porary parlance often reduces “hope” to that range of expectations. Rather, Christian hope is
the conviction, grounded in the victory of Jesus’ death and resurrection, that one’s present
and future belong to God and that, as a result, all things are possible (16:23-24). The measure
of what is possible in the present is the victory of Christ (16:33). The measure of what is to
be hoped for is the promises of Christ (16:23, 26-28). Both the present and the future are
redefined by Jesus’ death and resurrection and are held together in a delicate balance. When
one lives in hope, the present moves toward the promises and possibilities of the future, and
the future transforms the sorrows and seeming impossibilities of the present.
The Fourth Gospel’s distinctive contribution to the church’s conversation about hope and the
future is the value that it places on the present moment as the arena in which God’s future is
already underway. For the Fourth Evangelist, the decisive Easter proclamation is “In the world you
face persecution. But take courage; I have conquered the world!” Jesus’ victory over the world is
neither partial nor only anticipated, no matter what present struggles, suffering, and sorrow suggest.
Because of that decisive and absolute victory, both the present and the future are now the locus
for the enactment of the promises of God. John 16:16-33 invites the faith community to enter the
eschatological domain of its life, to embrace God’s future that has been opened up for them even
in the present moment because of Jesus’ death and departure.
JOHN 17:1-26, JESUS’ FAREWELL PRAYER

NIV NRSV
I
After Jesus said this, he looked toward After Jesus had spoken these words, he
heaven and prayed: l 7 looked up to heaven and said, “Father, the
hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son
“Father, the time has come. Glorify your
may glorify you, 2since you have given him author-
Son, that your Son may glorify you. *For you
ity over all people,? to give eternal life to all whom
granted him authority over all people that he
you have given him. °And this is eternal life, that
might give eternal life to all those you have
given him. *Now this is eternal life: that they they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus
may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. ‘I glorified you on
Christ, whom you have sent. “I have brought earth by finishing the work that you gave me to
you glory on earth by completing the work do. °“So now, Father, glorify me in your own
you gave me to do. °And now, Father, glorify presence with the glory that I had in your pres-
me in your presence with the glory I had with ence before the world existed.
you before the world began. 6“I have made your name known to those
6“T have revealed you? to those whom whom you gave me from the world. They were
you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have
a6 Greek your name, also in verse 26 a Gk flesh
785
JOHN 17:1-26
NIV NRSV
yours; you gave them to me and they have kept your word..’Now they know that everything
obeyed your word. ’Now they know that you have given me is from you; *for the words
everything you have given me comes from that you gave to me I have given to them, and
you. ®*For I gave them the words you gave they have received them and know in truth that
me and they accepted them. They knew I came from you; and they have believed that you
with certainty that | came from you, and sent me. °I am asking on their behalf; I am not
they believed that you sent me. °I pray for asking on behalf of the world, but on behalf of
them. I am not praying for the world, but those whom you gave me, because they are yours.
for those you have given me, for they are 10Al] mine are yours, and yours are mine; and I have
yours. !°All I have is yours, and all you have been glorified in them. ''And now I am no longer
is mine. And glory has come to me through in the world, but they are in the world, and I am
them. !'I will remain in the world no longer, coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your
but they are still in the world, and I am name that you have given me, so that they may be
coming to you. Holy Father, protect them one, as we are one. '2While I was with them, |
by the power of your name—the name you protected them in your name that? you have given
gave me—so that they may be one as we me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost
are one. '?While I was with them, I pro- except the one destined to be lost,’ so that the
tected them and kept them safe by that scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming
name you gave me. None has been lost to you, and I speak these things in the world so
except the one doomed to destruction so that they may have my joy made complete in
that Scripture would be fulfilled. themselves.° '4I have given them your word, and
'S“T am coming to you now, but I say the world has hated them because they do not
these things while I am still in the world, belong,to the world, just as I do not belong to the
so that they may have the full measure of world. '°I am not asking you to take them out of
my joy within them. 'I have given them the world, but I ask you to protect them from the
your word and the world has hated them,
evil one.’ !°They do not belong to the world, just
for they are not of the world any more than as I do not belong to the world. '’Sanctify them in
the truth; your word is truth. '*As you have sent
I am of the world. 'SMy prayer is not that
me into the world, so I have sent them into the
you take them out of the world but that
world. !°And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that
you protect them from the evil one. '°They
they also may be sanctified in truth.
are not of the world, even as I am not of
it. '7Sanctify? them by the truth; your word 20“I ask not only on behalf of these, but also
is truth. '*As you sent me into the world, on behalf of those who will believe in me through
their word, ?'that they may all be one. As you,
I have sent them into the world. !?For them
Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also
I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly
be in us,® so that the world may believe that you
sanctified.
have sent me. The glory that you have given
20“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray
me I have given them, so that they may be one,
also for those who will believe in me
as we are one, “I in them and you in me, that
through their message, ?!that all of them
they may become completely one, so that the
may be one, Father, just as you are in me
world may know that you have sent me and have
and I am in you. May they also be in us so
loved them even as you have loved me. *4Father,
that the world may believe that you have
I desire that those also, whom you have given
sent me. 77] have given them the glory that
me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory,
you gave me, that they may be one as we
which you have given me because you loved me
are one: “I in them and you in me. May
before the foundation of the world.
they be brought to complete unity to let the
2Other ancient authorities read protected in your name those whom
217 Greek hagiazo (set apart for sacred use or make holy); also in verse 5 Gk except the son of destruction ¢ Or among themselves
19 4Or from evil e Other ancient authorities read be one in us
786
JOHN 17:1-26
NIV NRSV
world know that you sent me and have 25“Righteous Father, the world does not know
loved them even as you have loved me. you, but I know you; and these know that you
*4“Father, I want those you have given have sent me. *I made your name known to
me to be with me where | am, and to see them, and I will make it known, so that the love
my glory, the glory you have given me with which you have loved me may be in them,
because you loved me before the creation and I in them.”
of the world.
“Righteous Father, though the world
does not know you, I know you, and they
know that you have sent me. 7°I have made
you known to them, and will continue to
make you known in order that the love you .
have for me may be in them and that |
myself may be in them.”
(COMMENTARY
Jesus’ prayer in John 17:1-26 is the final scene conventional prayer of a dying man. Indeed, Jesus’
of his farewell meal with his disciples. Since the farewell, as John 14-16 has underscored, is about
sixteenth century, the traditional title of this prayer the full constellation of the events of Jesus’ hour—
has been “Jesus’ high priestly prayer.” This title death, resurrection, and ascension—not simply his
highlights the role of Jesus as intercessor in this death. The prayer of John 17 is thus not a
prayer, but it minimizes the intrinsic connections death-bed prayer, but the prayer of the One on
between this prayer and the preceding discourse.>! the verge of willingly laying down his life and
By concluding his narration of the farewell with thus completing God’s work (17:1-5).
this prayer, the Fourth Evangelist is adhering to The Fourth Evangelist has crafted and posi-
the conventions of the farewell genre (see Over- tioned Jesus’ farewell prayer to stand as the theo-
view to John 14:1—-16:33). In biblical literature, logical climax of the Fourth Gospel. First, within
for example, Moses’ farewell speeches in Deutero- the prayer of John 17, the reader hears echoes of
nomy conclude with a hymn of praise to God (the themes from all of Jesus’ preceding discourses (cf.,
Song of Moses, Deut 31:30-32:47) and Moses’ e.g., 17:2 and 5:21; 17:12 and 6:39; 17:16 and
blessing of the Israelites (Deuteronomy 33). Many 15:19; 17:20-21 and 10:16; 17:23 and 14:21-
of the farewell speeches of the patriarchs in Jubi- 23),>°* as well as echoes of the Prologue (cf. 17:2
lees end with prayer,>*°? as do farewell speeches and 1:12; 17:5 and 1:1-2,.14; 17:3.and.1:17; 17:24
found in Jewish apocalyptic literature.° The fare- and 1:1-3, 14; 17:25 and 1:10; for details, see the
well prayer is thus well documented in the relig- Commentary below). The Jesus who speaks in this
ious literature of the ancient Mediterranean world prayer is familiar to the Gospel reader as the incar-
and would have been a familiar genre to the first nate Logos, the Son of God the Father.
readers of the Gospel. Second, Jesus’ prayer stands between his words
The prayer in John 17, however, is not the to his disciples in the Farewell Discourse and the
beginning of the passion story (chaps. 18-19). The
561. This title was given to the prayer by David Chytraeus. As early as prayer thus stands at the pivotal turn into the events
the fourth century, however, Cyril of Alexandria already labeled Jesus the
“High Priest” in this prayer. Although this title correctly conveys Jesus’ of the hour and needs to be read in the context of
role as intercessor, it also inappropriately reads the notion of Jesus’ cultic Jesus’ last announcement in 16:33, “I have over-
sacrifice into this prayer. See Commentary v. 19.
562. E.g., Moses, Jub. 1:19-21; Noah, Jub. 10:3-6. come the world.” This prayer is not a universal
563. E.g., the prayer of Baruch in 2 Baruch and the prayer of Ezra in 4 and timeless prayer of Jesus,°® but one decisively
Esdras, C. H. Dodd has noted that many of the dialogues in the Hermetica
often end with a prayer or a hymn. See Dodd, The Interpretation of the
Fourth Gospel, 420-23. Bultmann, of course, also notes parallels in 564. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 417.
565. So Brown, The Gospel According to John (XII-XX1), 747.
Mandaean documents. See Bultmann, Zhe Gospel ofJohn, 489n. 8.
787
grounded in and shaped by Jesus’ hour. Jesus prays suggests that the three parts of the prayer are vv.
in the confidence of the eschatological victory of his 1-8, 9-19, 20-26, thus producing sections of equal
hour, and the temporal perspective of his prayer is length.5” Other scholars argue for a four-part divi-
governed by that eschatological reality. In this sion, with some seeing wv. 6-8 as a distinct unit,>”!
prayer, Jesus speaks of his departure as already and others seeing vv. 24-26 as a distinct unit”
accomplished (17:11-12), imminent (17:1, 5), and Many suggest even more intricate divisions based
even underway as he speaks (17:11, 13). The shift- on stylistic rather than content considerations.°”
ing temporal perspective of the prayer, which brings This commentary suggests the following three-
past, present, and future together into one narrative fold division of the prayer: (1) vv. 1-8, Jesus prays
moment, shows that conventional understandings of for his glorification; (2) vv. 9-23, Jesus prays for
time are redefined by this “hour.” Form and content the faith community; (3) vv. 24-26, Jesus prays
work together in John 17 to communicate the eschato- for the eschatological union of Father, Son, and
logical impact of Jesus’ hour.°° Dodd’s comment that believers. In many ways, however, it is best to
the prayer “in some sort is the ascent of the Son to read the prayer as an indivisible unit. As is char-
the Father” overstates the case, but it nonetheless acteristic of the Johannine literary style, the prayer
captures the theological and narrative significance of has a lean vocabulary base, and its thought is
this prayer for the Johannine story of Jesus.°°” developed through repetition, expansion, and
In the Farewell Discourse, Jesus repeatedly elaboration of key themes. The same themes run
spoke of the disciples’ complete confidence in God’s from the beginning to the end of the prayer (cf.
response to their prayer as a sign of eschatological 17:5, 25). In this way, the form of the prayer
newness and possibility (14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-24, mirrors its central theme, the unity of Father, Son,
26-27). When Jesus prays in John 17 he models this and believers. The interrelationship of the differ-
confidence of asking and receiving and so enacts the ent sections of this prayer may thus be the con-
eschatological reality of union with God. The prayer summate example of the coherence of form and
of John 1:7 thus represents the relationship between content in the Fourth Gospel and should be hon-
God and Jesus. As Dodd writes so eloquently, “We ored in the interpretation of the prayer.
still need something which will represent the arche- 17:1-8. 17:la. In the opening section of
typal union of the Son with the Father; and this is Jesus’ prayer, he prays for himself and his work.
supplied in the only way in which such union can be Verse 1a, the narrator’s introduction of the prayer,
truthfully represented in human terms.”°° In this contains two important signals to the reader about
prayer, then, the reader is given a glimpse of the the words of Jesus that follow. First, throughout
intimacy that marks the union of God and Jesus, for the Farewell Discourse Jesus repeatedly used the
Jesus stops addressing his disciples directly and ad- expression “I have said these things” to indicate
dresses himself to God. The Johannine story of Jesus a transition in his words (14:25; 15:11; 16:1, 4,
will move to its conclusion as it began, with Jesus 6, 25, 33). In v. 1, this same expression is used
“close to the Father’s heart” (1:18). by the narrator in his commentary (“After Jesus
Most scholars suggest that the prayer should be had spoken these words”) to refer to the Farewell
divided according to the person or groups for Discourse and mark the transition to the prayer.
whom Jesus prays, but even with that beginning Words that the reader has come to recognize as
point, scholars are unable to reach any agreement as a refrain within the story are now used to com-
to the division of the prayer into its constituent parts.
570. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XII-XXI),
Westcott, for example, argued that the prayer has AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970) 749-50. -
three parts: Jesus prays for himself (vv. 1-5), for his 571. So C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cam-
disciples (vv. 6-19), and for the church (vv. 20- 572. So RudolfSchnackenburg, Der Evangelist/ohannes: Wie erspricht, denkt
26). Brown follows Westcott’s basic structure, but und glaubt: Ein Kommentar (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948) 3:168-69. Barrett suggests
a fourfold division with wv. 25-26 as the concluding unit. See C. K. Barrett, The
Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 499.
566. See Gail R. O’Day, “ ‘I have overcome the world’ (John 16:33): 573. E.g.,A.Laurentin, “We ’attah—kai nun. Formule characteristique
Narrative Time in John 13-17,” Semeia 53 (1991) 163-64. des textes juridiques et liturgiques (a propos de Jean 17:5),” Biblica 45
567. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 419. (1964) 168-94, 413-32; Jiirgen Becker, “Aufbau, Schichtung, und theolo-
568. Ibid., 419. giegeschichtliche Stellung des Gebetes in Johannes 17,” ZNW 60 (1969)
569. B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (London: 56-83; Mark Appold, The Oneness Motifinthe Fourth Gospel(Tiibingen:
Clarke, 1880) 237-38. J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1976).
788
ment on the story from outside. Second, to look a Hebraic expression for “all people” (cf. NIV and
up to heaven is a formal posture of prayer (cf. NRSV) also has echoes of 1:14. Jesus’ authority over
11:41-42; Ps 123:1; Mark 6:41; Luke 18:13). The “all flesh” is exercised in his own enfleshment—that
narrator’s description of Jesus thus underscores is, in the incarnation. Jesus’ eschatological powers are
the shift that has taken place in the story; Jesus evidenced in his gift of eternal life “to all whom you
no longer includes those around him in his range have given me” (v. 20; cf. 1:12). Verse 2 thus points
of vision. His words, like his eyes, will be directed to God as the source of everything for Jesus and the
to God. The reader, like the disciples in the story, faith community (cf. vv. 6, 9-10, 22, 24; 6:37).
is placed on the outside, looking in as Jesus prays. “Eternal life” (Cwis aiuvios zoes aionios) is
17:1b-5. The first words of Jesus’ prayer in v. the primary description of the gift that Jesus brings
10 indicate both the One to whom the prayer is to those who believe in him in chaps. 1-12 (e.g.,
addressed and the occasion for the prayer. Jesus 321533431 4:46:27 268 nl Onl Osiseealso™ <A); (but
will use the direct address “Father” (matep pater, vv. 20 and 3 are the only occurrences of “eternal
the vocative) six times in this prayer (see alsov. life” in John 13-21. In the last half of the Gospel,
Se De 242534 1241512:27-28). Jesus’ refer- when Jesus is speaking only to his “own,” language
ence to the arrival of the hour complements the of love replaces the language of eternal life as the
narrator’s announcement of the arrival of the hour primary imagery to speak about the life of the
at 13:1. The entire farewell meal has been en- believing community. Jesus’ death, resurrection,
acted under the imminence of the hour, but this and ascension reveal the extent and nature of the
is the first time during the meal that Jesus himself love that shapes his relationship with God and his
has spoken explicitly of its arrival (cf. 12:23, 27). “own,” and thus reveal the character and identity
Verses 10-5 are framed by Jesus’ repeated peti- of God (cf. 13:1, 34-35; 15:12). Jesus’ glorification
tion, “Glorify your Son” (v.1) /“me” (v. 5), which completes the revelation of God as Father and
recalls Jesus’ words at 13:31-32 (cf. 12:23, 28). The hence “the only true God” (see Commentary and
contrast between the prayer of Jesus at Gethsemane Reflections on 14:6-8). To know this God is to
on the eve of his death (Mark 14:34-36 and par.) have eternal life (v. 3; cf. 3:16; 5:24; 6:40;
and this petition is stark (see also Commentary on 10:28). This verse does not emphasize knowledge
12:27-28); the Johannine Jesus experiences no “ag- per se, but emphasizes the revelation of God in
ony” at his hour, because he recognizes the hour the incarnation. The knowledge of which v. 3
as the ultimate purpose of his work and the com- speaks is thus neither gnostic nor metaphysical; it
pletion of his revelation of God. This petition also must be interpreted through the love manifested
acknowledges that Jesus’ glory, like the rest of his in Jesus’ life and death (see vv. 23, 26).
ministry (cf. vv. 2, 24), derives from God. Most scholars label v. 3 an editorial gloss in-
Jesus’ opening petition is followed by three serted to clarify the meaning of “eternal life,” and
dependent clauses, the syntax of vv. 1c2 thus thus not part of the prayer.°” The strongest evi-
confirming the necessity of God’s glorification of dence for reading the verse as a gloss is the use
Jesus for the completion of Jesus’ work. The first of the name “Jesus Christ,” which appears else-
dependent clause (“so that the Son may glorify where in the Gospel only at.1:17. Barrett regards
you”) emphasizes the theological dimension of v. 3 as a parenthetical comment by the Evangelist
God’s glorification of Jesus at his hour. In Jesus’ rather than a gloss.°”° Barrett’s interpretation cor-
death, resurrection, and ascension, the glory of rectly identifies the Evangelist’s motive, but plays
God—God’s identity—will be made visible (cf. down the narrative and theological significance
8:28). The second and third dependent clauses (v. that v. 3 is deliberately cast as part of Jesus’ prayer
2) emphasize the soteriological dimension ot Je: (note the second-person singular pronoun, “that
sus’ glorification.5’* The expression “authority they may know you”). Verse 3 should be inter-
over all flesh” (mdons capKds pases sarkos, V. preted like 3:16-21 (see Commentary there), as
2a) recalls God’s gift of the eschatological power of another example of the way in which the Fourth
giving life and judgment to Jesus (5:21-27). “All flesh,” 575. See Brown, Zhe Gospel According to John (XIII-XXl), 741,
Schnackenburg, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 3:172. Brown thinks the
verse reflects a “confessional or liturgical formula of the Johannine church.”
574, The NIV masks the interdependence of these clauses by punctu-
ating v. 2 as a separate complete sentence. 576. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 503.
789
Evangelist meshes his theological voice with Jesus’ which v. 5 begins returns the prayer to the
voice. moment of Jesus’ hour. Jesus’ repeated reference
In v. 4, Jesus reviews his ministry. He empha- in the petition of v. 5 to being in God’s presence
sizes his work as the completion of God’s work makes clear that the ultimate goal of Jesus’ hour
(4:34; 5:36; cf. 5:17; 10:37-38; 14:31) and as the is his return to God (see 13:1; 14:28; 16:7). Verse
revelation of God’s glory (7:18; 11:4, 40; cf. 5 returns the reader to the theological world of
2:11). The work of God that Jesus has completed the Prologue (1:1-18), in which the Logos was
will be described in vv. 6-8. The “And now” with with God before creation (1:1-3).
o, 2%, 7
~~ >, “~ ~~
~~
EXCURSUS: JESUS’ RETURN TO GLORY

How is one to interpret this reference to Jesus’ return to his pre-existent glory? In his famous
study of John 17, Kaésemann claimed that this chapter shows that the Fourth Gospel is concerned
with protology (“first things”), not eschatology, and that the incarnation “does not mean complete,
total entry into the earth, into human existence, but rather the encounter between the earthly and
the heavenly.” For Kaésemann, “the accepted Word of God produces an extension of the heavenly
reality on earth. ... This unity between Father and Son is the quality and mark of the heavenly
world.””” Yet Bultmann interpreted John 17:5 to show the exact opposite:
The evangelist has depicted the work of Jesus in such a way that it can only, and should only,
be understood in the light of the end: as eschatological event....
... The 80€ao0ets [doxastheis, “the one who is glorified”] is at the same time and always
the cap yevouevos [sarx genomenos, “the one who became flesh”]. His is both the exaltation
and the humiliation, and the humiliation is not obliterated through the return into the heavenly
ddEa [doxa, “glory”] (v. 5)....
... Jesus’ S0€a00jvat [doxasthenai, “glorification”] consists in two things: first in his earthly
life becoming the eschatological event... and secondly, it consists in the world’s recovering
the character of creation by means of the same eschatological event.”
Bultmann’s perspective more accurately reflects the Johannine understanding of Jesus’
pre-existent glory. To speak of Jesus’ return to God and the glory that he had before creation
does not negate the incarnation, but rather reinforces its scandal. As in Phil 2:6-11, here the
pre-existent Logos shared in God’s identity. In distinction from the Philippians hymn, however,
where Paul puts the emphasis on Jesus’ emptying himself of his pre-existent status in the
incarnation, John makes an even more radical claim that the incarnation is an act of fullness
(1:16), so that “we have seen his glory” in the Word become flesh. That is, “Whoever has
seen me has seen the Father” (14:9). For Jesus to return to his preexistent glory, the incarnation
must come to an end; Jesus must die. Through his death, which demonstrates his love for his
own, this glory is extended to the lives of the believing community (cf. 17:24). Jesus’ love
“to the end” (13:1) makes his return to God possible, and this love decisively changes the
lives of those who believe “that I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (14:11). What
Kasemann overlooks in his study of John 17 is the essential link between this prayer and Jesus’
death, and the emphasis in the Farewell Discourse on the community’s share while in the
world in the intimacy, mutuality, and love of the Father/Son relationship.
577. Ernst Kasemann, The Testament ofJesus: A Study of the Gospel ofJohn in the Light of Chapter 17 (London: SCM, 1968) 65, 69.
578. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, andJ. K. Riches (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1971) 493, 496.
2
bd 2,
~~
17:6-8. As noted in the Commentary above, constitutive of the faith community (see also 6:37-
there is much scholarly ambivalence about the func- 39, 44; 15:16-17). Verses 7-8 stress the commu-
tion of vv. 6-8 in Jesus’ prayer. Scholars who link nity’s knowledge of the relationship between God
these verses with vv. 9ff. interpret them as the and Jesus, knowledge that they have received
introduction to Jesus’ intercessions for his disciples, from Jesus’ revelation (v. 84). The tautology of v.
whereas scholars who link them with vv. 1-5 inter- 7 underscores its central truth, that God is the
pret them as Jesus’ review of his work and the source of everything Jesus has. This truth is rein-
conclusion of his petitions for his glorification.°”? This forced in v. 8a (“the words that you gave me”; cf.
commentary follows the latter option, because the 5:19; 12:49) and in the two parallel statements
rhetoric of v. 9 (“I am asking. ..”) seems to mark about Jesus’ origins with God in vv. 80-c (cf. 11:42;
a shift in the focus of Jesus’ request of God. Either 16:27-28). Indeed, vv. 6-8 repeatedly emphasize
grouping allows for a credible reading of the prayer, God as the One who gives and from whom Jesus
however. Like so many passages in the Fourth comes. In the context of the prayer, Jesus’ review
Gospel (e.g., 5:17-18; 9:39-41), vv. 6-8 are best of his ministry in vv. 6-8 reminds God (and the
interpreted as having a double function. Jesus’ words disciples and readers who overhear the prayer) of
about his disciples and their relationship to God the connection between the community’s life and
belong at the same time to his words about his God’s gift, a connection to which Jesus will make
own relationship with God. appeal in the intercessions that begin in v. 9.
In vv. 6-8, Jesus continues what he began in 17:9-23. Verse 9 begins the central section of
v. 4, to describe the work through which he has Jesus’ prayer, in which he turns from his own
glorified God on earth. Jesus summarizes his en- glorification to intercessions for the future life of
tire ministry in his statement “I revealed/made his followers. Most commentators subdivide these
known your name” (v. 6a; see also v. 26). Jesus intercessions, distinguishing between Jesus’ prayer
does not use “name” (6voua onoma) in a narrow for his first disciples (vv. 9-19) and for later
sense to refer to a particular name of God (e.g., generations of believers (vv. 20-23).°°* This dis-
“Father” or “I AM”);°8° rather, he uses it more tinction misreads the nature of Jesus’ prayer, how-
broadly to stand for the character and identity of ever. The line between “historical” disciples and
God (cf. Ps 22:23 [22]; Isa 52:6; the NIV follows “future” disciples is blurred throughout the
this understanding of onoma when it translates prayer. The prayer does distinguish between the
“your name” simply as “you”). Jesus’ words are community’s life with the physical presence of
thus a confirmation of the claim of the Prologue, Jesus (v. 12) and without that presence (v. 11),
“It is God the only Son, who is close to the but like the Farewell Discourse, this distinction
Father’s heart, who has made God known.”**! applies to a// community life after the hour, not
Verses 608 describe those to whom Jesus re- just the life of the first disciples. The intercessions
vealed God’s name. Verse 60 returns to a theme - of vv. 9-23 are tightly interrelated and depict the
introduced in v. 2, that Jesus’ disciples were given full life of the faith community after Jesus’ hour;
in vv. 110-16, Jesus prays for God’s safeguarding
to him by God. This verse points to both divine
of the community in the world; in vv. 17-19, Jesus
initiative (“you gave me from the world”; “they
prays for God’s authorization of the community’s
were yours and you gave them to me”) and
work in the world; and in vv. 20-23, Jesus prays
human response (“they have kept your word”) as
for the success of the community’s work in the
579. Commentators who link wv. 6-8 with vv. Off. include C. K. Barrett, world. In John 17:9-23, present and future are
The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westmin- not to be sorted out along a linear time line, but
ster, 1978) 499, 505; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According
to St. John, 3 vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982) 3:169; and George are to be read through the lens of Jesus’ hour.
R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987). Just as the imminence of Jesus’ hour determines the
Those who link vv. 6-8 with vv. 1-5 include E. C. Hoskyns,
The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber & Faber, 1947) 498-99; and Ray-
mond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XX1), AB 29A 582. So Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XX1), 749, 773-
74; Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3:169, 188-89;
580. For “Father,” Beasley-Murray, John, 298; for “T am,” see Brown, Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 499; Hoskyns, The Fourth
Brown, Zhe Gospel According to John (XI-XXI), 755; Dodd, The Gospel, 505. Robert Kysar, John, Augsburg Commentary of the New
Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986) 255, is one of the few commen-
Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 417n. Pe
tators who reads vv. 9-23 as unified intercessions.
791
language about Jesus’ departure (see Overview), in them. As 13:34-35 makes clear, the identity of
so it also determines the language about the faith Jesus is made visible in the community when they
community. The fact that this prayer simultane- love one another as he has loved them. Verse 106
ously holds Jesus’ present and future disciples in helps clarify the importance of Jesus’ review of
view is another example of how this prayer is his ministry in vv. 4, 6-8. The formation of a
eschatological prayer. community based in the mutuality and intimacy
17:9-11a. John 17:9-11a provides a general of the relationship of God and Jesus belongs to
introduction to the intercessions. Verse 9 is un- Jesus’ completion of God’s work.
ambiguous about the subjects for whom Jesus Verse 11a identifies the occasion for Jesus’ inter-
prays. He prays for those whom he described in cessions. As a result of the hour (v. 10), Jesus leaves
vv. 6-8, those whom God gave him, and not for the world to go to God, while his disciples remain
the world. Jesus’ words have a harsh ring to the in the world. The three present tense verbs of v.
modern reader, who may hear v. 9 in the context 1la communicate the ongoing effect of Jesus’ de-
of contemporary thought about the place of the parture to God (instead of “I am no longer [ovKett
church in a secular society or the church’s respon- eiwt ouketi eimi],” the NIV incorrectly translates
sibility to the world. In order to interpret this “T will remain no longer”; see also v. 13a). Jesus’
verse properly, however, the reader must not read absence from the world and return to God are
it in the light of these modern conversations, but the defining realities of the future lives of his
according to the theological perspective of the disciples (see also 14:3, 28; 16:7, 10, 28).
Fourth Gospel. “World” (k6op0s kosmos) is not 17:11b-16. The intercessions begin with Je-
a synonym for “earth” (cf. v. 2) or “creation” here sus’ renewed address to God (v. 110; cf. vv. 1,
(cf. vv. 5, 24), but stands for the sphere of enmity 5). The adjective “holy” (ayvos Aagios) occurs
to'God (eer TTOTl: 7:75 12251 to e190 16:3: rarely in John. Aside from three pairings with
11). Since the world does not know God (15:21, “Spirit” (1:33; 14:26; 20:22), it occurs only here
24; 16:3), Jesus’ prayer to God for the world as and at ‘6:69. Its usage here may reflect the influ-
world is precluded by definition. As Barrett has ence of the liturgical language of the Fourth
articulated aptly, “To pray for the Kosmos would be Evangelist’s time, as the same address to God
almost an absurdity, since the only hope for the occurs in the eucharistic prayer of the Didache,
kosmos is precisely that it should cease to be the a document roughly contemporaneous with the
kosmos.” °° Verses 20-23 show that Jesus does Fourth Gospel.°** To be holy is to be set apart.
have a sense of mission to the world and hope that This address to God is particularly appropriate at
the world will come to know the love of God (cf. this point in Jesus’ prayer because the interces-
3:16), but his prayers can only be for the work of sions that follow include Jesus’ request that God
the community in the world, not for the world itself. “sanctify,” “make holy” (ayia€w hagiazo), the
- disciples (vv. 17-19).
Although both the NIV and the NRSV punctu-
ate v. 10 as a separate sentence, in the Greek, Verses 110-16 consist of a focal request, that
God protect the disciples “in your name” (v. 11),
vv. 9-10 are one sentence that identifies those for
and its elaboration and expansion (vv. 12-16).
whom Jesus does pray. Verses 96-10a reinforce
Jesus’ revelation of God’s name—that is, God’s
that the community belongs mutually to God and
identity and character—shaped the identity of the
to Jesus and that the impetus for this mutuality
faith community during his ministry (vv. 6-8), and
of possession rests with God. The beginning of
he now. asks that God keep secure the commu-
the faith community’s life is once again located
nity’s grounding in that name.°* The purpose of
with the gift of God (cf.3:35; 6:37; 39; 10:29:
this request (“so that” [iva Aina]) is to ensure the
13:3). Verse 100 is the first time in the Gospel
unity of the faith community, which mirrors (“just
that the community is identified as a locus of
as” [ka®us kathos]) the unity of God and Jesus
Jesus’ -glorification (cf. 2:11; 8:54; 11:4; 13:31-
32). For Jesus to be glorified in the community 584. “We give thanks to you, Holy Father, for your holy name” (Did.
means that the identity of Jesus is made visible © 10.2; cf. Matt 6:9; Luke 11:2).
585. The NIV is an awkward paraphrase of the Greek. It seems to treat
the name almost as a talisman in this verse. This translation is at odds with
583. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 506. its translation of “name” (6voja onoma) in v. 6.
132
(cf. 10:30). The community’s life after the hour as such they incur the world’s hatred (vv. 14, 16;
is thus entrusted by Jesus to God. 15:19; cf. 7:7). Verse 15 renews the intercession for
Verses 12-16 provide two rationales for Jesus’ protection from v. 1106. “The evil one” (see also
intercession. First, Jesus was responsible for the Matt 6:13) is synonymous with “the ruler of this
safeguarding of the community during his minis- world” and is the personification of the cosmic forces
try, so his departure necessitates that this work in the world that are opposed to God (cf. 12:31;
now be entrusted to God (vv. 12-13). Jesus’ 14:30; 16:11). Judas’s betrayal of Jesus, to which v.
description of his own safeguarding of the com- 12 has already alluded, is one example of the
munity in v. 12a repeats almost verbatim his destructive power of “the evil one” within the circle
request of God in v. 110; the rhetoric of these of Jesus’ chosen ones (cf. 6:70-71; 13:1, 27). The
verses thus points to the protection of the com- prediction of persecution and martyrdom in 16:1-4a
munity in God’s name as another example of the also points to the threat the world and its hatred of
work that God and Jesus share (cf. 5:17, 19). the faith community poses to the community’s unity.
Jesus’ self-description in v. 126 contains important It is for the preservation of this unity in the face of
echoes of the shepherd discourse in John 10. Jesus the cosmic power of evil that Jesus seeks God’s help.
presents himself as the good shepherd, under The community needs this protection because it is
whose care none of the flock is “lost” or “de- to live out its identity and vocation in the world (v.
stroyed” (dmwAeto apoleto, 10:28; cf. 10:10). 154).
That Judas’s betrayal does not void Jesus’ promise 17:17-19. Jesus’ second intercession (vv. 17-
of protection and care is underscored by Judas’s 19) builds directly from vv. 15-16 and gives more
description in v. 120 as “the one destined to be specific shape to the community’s vocation in the
lost.” The only other NT occurrence of this ex- world. As in the intercession of vv. 110-16, vv.
pression, which is more accurately translated as 17-19 consist of the central request (v. 17a) and
“the son of destruction” (0 ulos Ths atwAetas ho its elaboration (vv. 170-19). “Sanctify” (hagiazo),
huios tés apoleias) is in an apocalyptic prediction like the related adjective “holy” (hagios, v. 11),
in 2 Thess 2:3: “For that day will not come unless means “to set apart for sacred work or duty.” In
the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is the LXX, it designates the consecration of some-
revealed, the son of destruction” (author’s trans.). one for priestly (e.g., Exod 28:41) or prophetic
Its use here highlights the eschatological dimen- (e.g., Jer 1:5) service. In its only other Fourth
sion of the betrayal and anticipates the reference Gospel usage (10:36), hagiadzo clearly means to
to “the evil one” in v. 15. (cf. 13:2, 27). The be set apart for God’s work. In that verse, Jesus
reference to the betrayal as a fulfillment of Scrip- describes himself as “the one whom the Father
ture (see also 13:19) further underscores that the has sanctified and sent into the world.” In the
betrayal does not void the security of Jesus’ care intercession of v. 17, then, Jesus is asking God to
(see also 6:70-71), but belongs to God’s plan. do for the disciples what he has already done for
The “but now” with which v. 13 begins con- him: set them apart for God’s work in the world.
firms that Jesus’ departure to God is indeed the “In the truth” refers to the truth of God revealed
motivation for this intercession, as does Jesus’ use in the life and ministry of Jesus (1:14; 8:32; 14:6;
of the refrain “I speak these things in the world” 16:13; cf. the similar meaning of “in your name,”
(cf. 14:25; 16:48). Jesus’ intercession for God’s vv. 6, 11-12). Verse 170 (“your word is truth”)
protection, spoken at his hour, shares in the eschato- echoes two central claims of this Gospel—Jesus
logical vision articulated by the Farewell Discourse; is God’s Word (1:1-2, 14) and the truth (14:6)—
the unity with God and Jesus that this intercession and thus confirms that “truth” is to be interpreted
anticipates is a mark of the fullness of the disciples’ christologically here. It is through the disciples’
eschatological joy (v. 130; 15:11; 16:20-24). share in Jesus’ distinctive revelation of God that
The second rationale for Jesus’ intercession is they are set apart for their work in the world.
the community’s relationship to the world (vv. Verse 18 parallels the missions of Jesus and the
14-16). As in 15:18-16:44, the community’s re- disciples in the world and reinforces the link
lationship to the world is sharply dualistic; neither between sanctification and sending (cf. 10:36).
Jesus nor the disciples belong to this world, and Throughout the Gospel, Jesus refers to himself as
793
the one whom God has sent into the world, and the completion of his revelation of God in the
v. 18 explicitly gives the faith community a share events of the hour (cf. 14:28, 31). Second, when
in that mission. Those who receive Jesus’ revela- Jesus speaks of his self-sanctification, he is speak-
tion of God also share in the work God has given ing of setting himself apart for the full mission for
Jesus to do (see also 14:12; 20:21). Through their which God has sent him into the world, not
sanctification and their sending, the disciples con- simply his death. His words in v. 19 are both
tinue Jesus’ work in the world. The faith commu- retrospective and prospective. That is, Jesus looks
nity will continue Jesus’ revelation of God to the back to what he has already done and forward to
world (see vv. 20-23). what he is about to do. Jesus’ entire mission, his
As the repetition of v. 17a in v. 196 makes completion of the work of God in his life, death,
clear, Jesus’ words in v. 19 elaborate the initial resurrection, and ascension, enables the sanctifi-
intercession. “Sanctify,” therefore, must be read cation of the faith community (v. 190), because
in the context of its meaning in 10:36 and v. 17. it is in Jesus’ entire mission that the full truth of
For Jesus to sanctify himself means that he sets God is revealed to them.
himself apart for God’s work. The reflexive pro- 17:20-23. Jesus expands the circle for whom
noun is unusual, since God is normally identified he prays. In vv. 7-19, Jesus prayed for those who
as the one who sets apart, but it is thoroughly in took on his work in the world; in vv. 20-23, Jesus
keeping with Johannine usage. Verse 19 offers one prays for those who come to believe through that
more example of Jesus’ full share in God’s work work. The contrast in v. 20 between “these” and
(4:34; 5:17, 19-30; 10:30, 38) and also fits with “those who believe in me on account of their
the Johannine picture of Jesus as the one who is word” is not between the first generation of
fully in control of his life and death (e.g., 10:17- believers and all future generations of believers,
18). Yet most commentators ignore the clear but between those in any generation who already
continuity between the use of “sanctify” in vv. believe and those who do not believe but may
17 and 19, and instead interpret “sanctify” in come to believe on account of the witness of the
terms of the cultic consecration and sacrifice of faith community. In vv. 20-23, Jesus turns his
animals in the OT (e.g., Exod 13:2; 28:41; 29:1- attention to the world and expresses his desire
46; Deut 15:19, 21). With this interpretation of that the world will come to share in the knowl-
“sanctify,” v. 19 becomes primarily a reference to edge of God that marks the life of the faith
Jesus’ self-sacrifice in his death. For example, community (vv. 21, 23).°°” In these verses, the
Brown goes so far as to say that “John xvii 19 “world” (kdap0s kosmos) is not portrayed as
has Jesus consecrating himself, seemingly as a actively hating the community (cf. 15:18-19;
victim.” Hoskyns reads v. 19 as referring to the 17:14), but as receiving the community’s witness.
saving efficacy of Jesus’ blood.°*° As in the intercessions of vv. 9-16, and vv.
Do Jesus’ words about his self-sanctification for 17-19, vv. 20-23 consist of a central intercession
the sake of his disciples refer to his death? Yes, (vv. 20-21) and its elaboration (vv. 22-23). The
but it must be remembered that in the Fourth syntax of v. 21 is complex; it contains four de-
Gospel, Jesus’ death is not an isolated event, nor pendent clauses (vv. 20-21 are one sentence in
is it portrayed as the sacrifice of a victim (see the Greek text). The first dependent clause (“that
Reflections on John 12:20-36). First, throughout they may all be one”) is Jesus’ core prayer for the
the Farewell Discourse and prayer, Jesus speaks unity of the faith community. With this request,
of the full constellation of the events of his hour, Jesus prays that those who come to believe in him
culminating in his return to God (e.g., 14:2-3, 28; will share in the same communal identity as those
16:16, 28). When Jesus speaks of his self-sancti- who brought them to faith (cf. v. 11). The defi-
fication, he does not speak simply of setting him- nition of this unity is supplied by the second
self apart for his death, but of joyously embracing dependent clause (“just as...” |ka@us kathos)).
The unity for which Jesus prays is not intrinsic to
586. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIIT-XX1), 767; Hoskyns,
The Fourth Gospel, 502-4. See also Schnackenburg, The Gospel Accord-
the community itself, but derives from the primal
ing to St. John, 3:187-88. Even Barrett, who notes that “sanctify” must
mean the same thing in both wv. 17 and 19, ignores his own counsel and 587. Paul S. Minear, “Evangelism, Ecumenism, and John 17,” 7Today
reads the preparation of sacrificial victims into v. 19. 35 (1978) 5-13; John: The Martyr’s Gospel (New York: Pilgrim, 1984),
794
unity of Father and Son. For the community to points once again to mutuality, intimacy, and reci-
be “one” means that they mirror the mutuality procity as definitional of the community’s oneness.
and reciprocity of the Father/Son relationship (cf. The ultimate measure of reciprocity is the love of
10:38; 14:10, 20). God and Jesus for each other and for the community
The third dependent clause in v. 21 (“that they as enacted in Jesus’ hour (cf. 13:34-35),5%
may also be in us”) shows that this unity will be The third dependent clause (“that they may be
more than simple mirroring, however. The commu- completely one”) points to the theme of eschato-
nity will experience oneness because they share in logical fulfillment with which the prayer will
the mutuality and reciprocity of the Father/Son conclude (vv. 24-26). The verb “to complete”
relationship (cf. 14:23; 15:8-10). Jesus’ words about (TeXeL6w teleioo) is normally associated in the
the community’s oneness in this prayer never stand Fourth Gospel with Jesus’ completion of God’s work
apart from his affirmation of the unity of the Father (4:36; 5:34; 17:4; see also 13:1; 19:30), so that the
and Son (17:11, 21-23). The oneness sayings thus oneness that v. 230 envisions is the perfection of
present a vision for the theological grounding of the the revelation of God in the world. The commu-
identity of the community that is theirs by virtue of nity’s oneness will complete God’s work in the same
the relationship of God and Jesus (see Reflections). way that Jesus’ life and death did. The community
There is no “one” for the community without the will be able to undertake this work because of the
“we” of the Father and Son. glory Jesus has given them (v. 224).
The final dependent clause in v. 21 points to the The final dependent clause states the ultimate
purpose of the community’s oneness. This one- purpose of the community’s oneness. As at v. 21,
ness—the share in and enactment of the unity that it is to serve as a witness to the world. Verse 23d
defines the relationship of God and Jesus—will offer states explicitly what was implied in the rest of vv.
a witness to the world about the revelation of God 22-23: that the community’s oneness bears witness
in Jesus. In this final clause, Jesus prays that through to the love of God. The community’s oneness, like
the community’s unity, the world will come to the incarnation itself, makes visible and tangible the
believe what the community already believes, that love of God. Verse 23d also states directly what was
Jesus is the one whom God has sent (3:17; 5:24, conveyed by the repeated formulas of mutuality and
36; 7:28-29; 8:18-19; 12:45, 49). reciprocity in vv. 20-23: God’s love for the commu-
Like vv. 20-21, vv. 22-23 are one sentence in nity is the same as God’s love for Jesus. Jesus’ prayer
the Greek (so NRSV) and have the same syntax: is that God, Jesus, and ‘the faith community will
an initial independent clause (“The glory...1 truly be one in love.
have given them,” v. 224) and four dependent 17:24-26. Jesus’ prayer intensifies in its con-
clauses. “Glory” (86€a doxa) links this intercession clusion. First, he addresses God directly as “Fa-
with Jesus’ opening petition for himself (vv. 1-5) and ther” twice (vv. 24-25), giving these verses a
refers to the full revelation of God made known in sense of increased urgency and intimacy.**? Sec-
Jesus. God’s glory marks the beginning and end of ond, Jesus’ language of intercession changes in
the incarnation (1:14; 13:31-32; 17:1, 25), and v. v. 24. Instead of the more conventional prayer
22 makes clear that it will also mark the life of the language of “asking” (Epwtdw erotad; vv. 9, 15,
faith community. In Jesus’ glorification, in the events 20), Jesus employs the language of volition, “I
of the hour, the character and identity of God are want...” (6€Aw thelo). This shift in language is
made known through Jesus’ love for God (14:30) significant, because Jesus does not seek to do his
and his own (13:1, 34-35; 15:12). own “will” (6€Anyua thelema), but God’s will
(4:34; 5:30; 6:38-39). In addition, at 5:21, the
The first dependent clause (“that they may be
only other place in the Fourth Gospel where thelo
one”) repeats the prayer for oneness from v. 21.
is used to describe Jesus’ own actions, the Son’s
The community’s oneness depends on Jesus’ gift
gift of life “to whomever he wishes [0édet thelei |”
to them of God’s glory. That is, the community’s
is an example of his enactment of the eschatologi-
oneness derives from the character and identity cal powers God has given him. The language of
of God revealed to them in Jesus’ life and death.
The second dependent clause (“just as we are one; 588. Schnackenburg, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 3:191.
I in them and you in me”) also echoes v. 21 and 589. Ibid., 3:439n. 84.
795
volition at the conclusion of this prayer, then, firms the eschatological character of the prayer’s
underscores the confidence with which Jesus conclusion. The adjective “righteous” occurs
speaks to God and anticipates God’s response. rarely in the Fourth Gospel and always in the
Third, Jesus’ description of those for whom he context of judgment (5:30; 7:24; see also
prays, “those also, whom you have given me,” “righteousness,” 16:8, 10). This usage sug-
removes all distinctions between those who al- gests that by addressing God as “Righteous
ready have faith and those who are brought to Father,” Jesus is pointing to God as the es-
faith. All believers ultimately depend on the gift chatological judge and handing the work of
and grace of God (6:37; 17:2, 9). judgment and salvation back to God. In vv.
The intercession of v. 24 (“that [they] may be 25-26, Jesus reviews his ministry one last
where I am”) is a prayer for the eschatological time and places the future of both the world
union of God, Jesus, and the faithful. This is not and the faith community in God’s hands.
a prayer for the union of the individual believer The eschatological dividing line remains
with Jesus after the believer’s death, although whether or not one knows the Father and that
many commentators insist on importing this no- the Father sent Jesus (v. 25; cf. 3:19-21; 8:21-24;
tion into this verse.°°° Rather, “the conclusion of 16:8-11). As the rhetoric of v. 25 shows, Jesus is
the prayer is pure eschatology.”°*! The vision of positioned, between God and the world, because
v. 24, like that of 14:2-3 and 23, is of the radical he knows the Father and has been sent by him
indwelling of God, Jesus, and believers that will into the world. Verse 26 summarizes the work of
be the sign of God’s new age. It points to a Jesus’ ministry (“made your name known to
hoped-for future that transcends and transforms them”; cf. v. 6), but it also points to the future
human and divine community, but it is a com- work of Jesus (“will make it known”). This verse
munal future eschatological vision, not a private thus confirms one of the central themes of the
individualistic vision. Farewell Discourse: Jesus’ death and departure
The expansion of this core intercession in the does not end his presence and work with the faith
remainder of v. 24 is the crowning eschatological community. Jesus’ work continues in the work of
statement of the prayer, “to see my glory, which the Paraclete (14:26; 15:26; 16:13-15) and Jesus
you have given me because you loved me before is present in the indwelling of God, Jesus, and
the foundation of the world.” Jesus’ words express the community when the community lives out
a desire for the faith community to share in the the love of the incarnation (13:34-35; 14:21-23;
glory that God and the Logos shared “in the 15:9-10, 12-17). |
beginning” (1:1-3; cf. 17:5). This hope transcends As in v. 24, Jesus’ last words in the prayer
the limits of time and history and returns the leave no doubt about the defining role of love in
reader to the world of the Prologue. Indeed, v. the relationship of God, Jesus, and the commu-
24 translates the claims of the Prologue into the nity. Love is not simply an affective category, but
language of the Farewell Discourse: The glory of moves to the heart of the character and identity
the pre-existent Logos derives from the love of of God. The love of God for Jesus, the love of
God. The hope of the eschatological age is that the Father for the Son, will continue in the life
the faith community will come face to face with of the faith community, and through this love
that love (cf. 1 Cor 13:11-13). Its first full taste Jesus also will be present to the community (v.
of that love comes in Jesus’ hour. 260). The community will become the locus of
The address with which v. 25 begins, “Righ- God’s love in the world, just as the incarnate
teous Father” (tatép Stkate pater dikaie), con- Logos was that locus. Jesus’ ultimate enactment
of that love is in his gift of his life (13:1, 34-35;
590. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI),
AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970) 779-80; Rudolf Schnack- 14:30; 15:12-13; 17:1-2). The words with which
enburg, Zhe Gospel According to St. John, 3:195. the prayer of John 17 end, then, are the perfect
991. E.C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber&Faber, 1947)
506. Also, C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. transition to the story of Jesus’ hour.
796
REFLECTIONS
The crucial beginning point in the interpretation and theological appropriation of John 17
may seem like an obvious one: chap. 17 is Jesus’ prayer to God on the eve of his death. Yet,
despite its seeming obviousness, this narrative reality often is ignored in the interpretation of
this chapter. For example, the verses about unity (vv. 20-23) are often treated in the ecumenical
movement as Jesus’ directives about Christian unity, with little or no attention paid to the
context of those words in the Fourth Gospel—that is, that they are Jesus’ words to God, not
to the community. In order to interpret faithfully John 17, the interpreter must pay attention
both to what this text says and to the form and context in which it says it. The awareness
that John 17 is cast consistently as prayer from beginning to end is essential to its role in the
Johannine story of Jesus. The beginning point in any interpretation of John 17 must be the
acknowledgment that the words in this chapter are portrayed not as Jesus’ instructions to the
community, but as Jesus’ words offered to God in prayer.
As noted in the commentary, 17:1 leaves no doubt that Jesus is no longer speaking to his
disciples, but is speaking instead to God. This is a radical shift from the rest of the farewell meal.
Beginning with the foot washing, Jesus has been engaged in give and take with his disciples,
instructing them and explicitly preparing them for his departure and their lives in his absence. The
disciples have been full participants in John 13-16, but at 17:1, all that changes. Throughout chap.
17, Jesus speaks exclusively to God; the community is spoken of only in the third person. Jesus never
turns from God to address the disciples directly. Their only narrative function is as those for whom
Jesus prays. The disciples in the story thus have the same role as the Gospel readers—all
participate in this prayer only by the privilege of overhearing.” To ignore the difference in the way the
disciples are addressed in John 17 and the rest of the Farewell Discourse is to do a disservice to the prayer
form and the narrative world the Fourth Evangelist has created. Jesus and God must be allowed this narrative
moment of intimate communication; the disciples and the reader must stand on the outside, overhearing.
1. When the narrative presentation of John 17 as prayer governs the text’s interpretation,
three theological themes come to the fore. First, on the eve of his death, Jesus speaks to God
on behalf of the faith community. Jesus entrusts the hope for the future of his followers to
God in prayer. Throughout the Farewell Discourse, Jesus has made promises to the disciples—
and the reader—about the future, and in this prayer, Jesus entrusts that future to God. It is
a striking theological move. Instead of entrusting the community’s future to the community
itself, Jesus entrusts that future to God. Jesus’ final words before the hour are not last-minute
instructions to the community about what it should do in Jesus’ absence; instead, his words
turn the future of the community over to God.
Jesus’ prayer for the community, then, models how the community is to understand and receive
its identity in the world. It is to understand that its life rests in and depends on God’s care. In
this prayer, Jesus does not supply pragmatic directives on how to arrive at church unity or how
to recognize the face of the “evil one” in the world. Rather, Jesus places the church’s future in
the hands of God and invites the church to listen in on that conversation. The church’s future is
thus shown to be God’s, not ours. That is, the future of the church ultimately does not depend
on or derive from the church’s own work, but rests with God. When contemporary readers overhear
this prayer, they are brought face to face with the sovereign grace of God.
By positioning Jesus’ last words as a prayer, the Fourth Evangelist makes it possible for all
generations of believers to hear and experience the love that Jesus and God have for them.
To successive generations of believers, this prayer communicates the theological vision that lies
at the heart of the life of faith. Jesus hands those whom he loves back to God and holds God to
God’s promises for this community. The Fourth Evangelist tells the story of Jesus’ hour so that
592. For a discussion of overhearing, see Fred B. Craddock, Overhearing the Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978).
77
this articulation of Jesus’ love and hope for his “own” provides the lens for interpreting Jesus’
life and death. Indeed, Jesus does not leave his followers orphaned, because he has called on
God on their behalf, asking God to give them what God has already given Jesus. In this prayer,
Jesus puts into words what he will enact in his death, the totality of his love for his “own.”
In reflecting on this prayer, then, and its appropriation in the life of the church, it is critical
that the church remind itself that it is the recipient of Jesus’ prayer. Jesus, “the only Son, who
is close to the Father’s heart,” prays that God will be present in the life and mission of the
faith community. Jesus has entrusted the church to God’s protective care and loving kindness.
It is interesting to ponder how the Christian community’s self-definition would be changed if
it took as its beginning point, “We are a community for whom Jesus prays.”
2. Second, in this prayer, the reader overhears the intimacy of Jesus’ relationship with
God. The language in the prayer creates a tone of intimacy, for the whole prayer is built
around an I/you axis of communication. God’s presence is actively invoked and drawn upon
by Jesus in John 17; Jesus either speaks to God using second-person pronouns or addresses
God as “Father.” Jesus is close enough to God (cf. 1:18) that he can lay his petitions and
intercessions before the Father in the confidence that he will be heard. At Jesus’ hour, he
turns to the One who sent him and loves him.
It is, perhaps, at first glance contradictory: that this intimate portrait of the relationship of
God and Jesus is found in a prayer to which the reader has only indirect access. Yet it is the
very indirectness of the reader’s access to this prayer that gives it its narrative and theological
power. Jesus’ prayer, offered in the confidence that God is present and hears, is the appropriate
vehicle to bring to conclusion the interaction of Father and Son that has so dominated the
Fourth Gospel. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus has insisted that he and God are engaged in
ongoing conversation (3:34-35; 11:42; 12:49; 14:24), and this prayer embodies that truth.
As is the nature of prayer, Jesus is bold enough to hold God to God’s promises:”* You have
given, you have sent, you have loved; now Keep, sanctify, let them be one. In this prayer, Jesus
opens up his relationship with the Father to include the community by calling on the character
and identity of God, which is known to him and in which he desires the community to share. In
this prayer, then, the community is able to hear what it means that Jesus is the Son of God, the
incarnate Logos, that Jesus shares in God’s glory. Jesus’ prayers and desires for those whom he
loves are at one with God’s desires. This prayer enables the faith community to hear how Jesus
and God love each other and work together for the future of the community in the world.
John 17 shows the church its share in the intimacy of the incarnation. Yet the church’s
share in this intimacy is not cause for facile triumphalism, because John 17 is unshakably
lodged in the story of Jesus’ hour. The relationship between the Father and Son that this prayer
reveals is ultimately grounded in Jesus’ death. It is not merely because of the exigency of
tradition or genre conventions that at the end of the farewell meal, prior to the unfolding of
the events of the hour, Jesus addresses himself directly to God in prayer. As he moves toward
his death, Jesus entrusts his own future to God.
3. Third, when contemporary readers overhear this prayer, they are given a glimpse of life
with God that transcends conventional limits and expectations. This prayer invites the reader to
contemplate the eschatological possibility of life with God. This prayer points the faith community
toward a future in which God’s governance and care of them is complete, in which the experience
of God’s love for them is realized. It is this eschatological vision that makes day to day life possible,
because, as this prayer is a reminder, God is responsible for the nurture of the future. This
eschatological vision, too, is not cause for facile triumphalism, because it is grounded in the inescapable
reality of Jesus’ hour. Yet this prayer invites the faith community to believe, as Jesus believed at
his hour, that “the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”
593. See Karl Barth, Prayer, trans. Sara F. Terrien (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1952).
798
JOHN 18:1-19:42
“THE HOUR HAS COME”:
JESUS’ ARREST, TRIAL, AND DEATH
OVERVIEW
t is clear from Paul’s letters that the story explained as deriving from an overlap in the tradi-
~~~ of the death of Jesus formed the heart of tions to which each of the evangelists had access,
early Christian proclamation (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3-5; not as a result of the Fourth Evangelist’s use of any
cf. also the centrality of the story of Jesus’ death of the other Gospel passion narratives as his source.
in the sermons of Acts; e.g., 3:12-26; 10:34-43). Yet there are also significant differences among
It is not surprising, therefore, that one finds a the Gospel passion narratives. Some of these differ-
basic similarity in the passion narratives of all four ences can be attributed to the varieties of passion
Gospels (see Fig. 11, “Chronology of the Holy traditions circulating in earliest Christianity to which
Week and Resurrection Appearances in the Gos- individual evangelists had access, and some can be
pels,” 704-5). Each Gospel narrates Jesus’ be- attributed to the theological emphases of each Gos-
trayal, arrest, trial, crucifixion, and burial. Yet the pel. Each Gospel thus presents its own distinctive
four Gospels share more than just the basic out- treatment of the death of Jesus. In the passion
line. For example, all Gospels narrate Jesus’ retreat narrative, the reader encounters the complex inter-
with his disciples to a garden and the subsequent relationship of tradition and interpretation perhaps
arrival of Judas; the crowd’s demand for the release more acutely than anywhere else in the Gospels (see
of Barabbas; the casting of lots for Jesus’ clothes; Reflections on John 11:45-53).
and the burial request of Joseph of Arimathea. The Johannine story of Jesus’ death is the
The breadth and depth of passion material story of Jesus’ hour, toward which the whole
shared by the Gospels suggest that more than the Gospel has been moving (2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 13:1).
preaching of the early church lies behind the When read in this light, it becomes clear that
Gospel passion narratives, but what occupied the the traditional nomenclature of “passion narra-
middle ground between the early church’s preach- tive” is actually a misnomer for the story of
ing on the death of Jesus and the fully developed Jesus’ death in the Fourth Gospel. “Passion”
Gospel passion narratives is a point of much refers to Jesus’ suffering, and in the Fourth
debate and discussion in NT scholarship. The Gospel, Jesus is not presented as the one who
primary source and historical questions concern suffers. Rather, as the Fourth Evangelist has
the interplay of oral and written pre-Gospel pas- repeatedly underscored in the Gospel, Jesus’
sion traditions, the existence of a pre-Markan death is the hour of his exaltation (3:13-14;
passion source, and the influence of Mark’s pas- 8:28; 12:32) and glorification (12:23; 13:31-32;
sion narrative on the other three Gospels.’ As 17:1). Jesus goes to his death willingly (10:17-
noted in the Introduction, this commentary as- 18; cf. 15:13), not as the suffering victim, but
sumes the independence of John from the synop- as the one in control. Jesus’ control over the
tic Gospels. The similarities in the passion events of his hour is one of the central themes
narratives of John and the Synoptics are best of each episode in John 18-19 (see Commen-
tary below). Moreover, for the Fourth Evangel-
504. Foran exhaustive treatment of the historical and source questions
about the Gospel passion narratives, see Raymond E. Brown, The
Death ist, Jesus’ hour includes his death, resurrection,
of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave. A Commentary on
the
and ascension. Even though John 18-19 can be
Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday,
1994).
read as a discrete narrative unit, it is not a
799
discrete theological unit. The post-resurrection ap- gation by Annas; (3) 18:28-19:16a, the trial be-
pearances, the gift of the Spirit, and the ascension fore Pilate; (4) 19:16037, the crucifixion and
narrated in John 20 conclude the story of Jesus’ death; (5) 19:38-42, the burial. The dramatic pace
hour. That story begins with Jesus’ death, but it of these chapters is controlled by the narrator’s
will not be completed until he returns to the references to the shifts in Jesus’ physical location
Father (16:28; 20:18). after he is arrested and bound at 18:12. Indeed,
The Fourth Evangelist’s understanding of the these references to Jesus’ movement mark the
hour shapes the framing of John 18-19. In John unit divisions (18:13: “they took him to Annas”;
13-17, the Fourth Evangelist dramatically slowed 18:28: “they took Jesus... to Pilate’s headquar-
down the pace of the story, so that Jesus could ters”; 19:160-17: “so they took Jesus, and carrying
interpret his death to his disciples before it took his cross by himself...”; 19:40, “they too, the
place. It is as if the Fourth Evangelist put the body of Jesus” [cf. 19:38)]).
enactment of the hour on hold, so that the disci- It is clear from this outline that the centerpiece
ples—and the readers—could grasp its significance of John 18-19 is the trial before Pilate. Not only
(see Overview to John 14:1-16:33). At 18:1 the does it occupy the literal center of these chapters,
narrative focus turns from Jesus’ interpretation of the but also it is their longest sustained scene. As the
hour to the events of the hour, and the pace of the Commentary below will show, it is the Fourth
story accelerates. Indeed, chaps. 18-19 unfold rap- Evangelist’s literary and theological masterpiece. This
idly, moving quickly toward Jesus’ death and burial. carefully structured trial provides the conclusion to
Once the hour is underway, there is no narrative the theme of judgment that has been central to the
pause for explanation. Fourth Gospel. Employing some of the Gospel’s
John 18:1—19:42 consists of five discrete units: most painful irony, John 18:28-19:16a shows that
(1) 18:1-12, the arrest; (2) 18:13-27, the interro- it is the world, not Jesus, who is on trial.
JOHN 18:1-12, THE ARREST

NIV NRSV
] When he had finished praying, Jesus left ] After Jesus had spoken these words, he
with his disciples and crossed the Kidron went out with his disciples across the
Valley. On the other side there was an olive grove, Kidron valley to a place where there was a garden,
and he and his disciples went into it. which he and his disciples entered. 7Now Judas,
"Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the who betrayed him, also knew the place, because
place, because Jesus had often met there with his Jesus often met there with his disciples. #So Judas
disciples. °So Judas came to the grove, guiding a brought a detachment of soldiers together with
detachment of soldiers and some officials from the police from the chief priests and the Pharisees,
chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying and they came there with lanterns and torches
torches, lanterns and weapons. and weapons. “Then Jesus, knowing all that was
‘Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to happen to him, came forward and asked them,
to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you “Whom are you looking for?” ‘They answered,
want?” “Jesus of Nazareth.”? Jesus replied, “I am he.”?
“Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with
“I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor them. “When Jesus‘ said to them, “I am he,”®
was standing there with them.) “When Jesus said, they stepped back and fell to the ground. 7Again
“IT am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. he asked them, “Whom are you looking for?” And
7Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus answered,
And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” “I told you that I am he.? So if you are looking
81 told you that I am he,” Jesus answered. “If for me, let these men go.” °This was to fulfill the
you are looking for me, then let these men go.” aGk the Nazorean 6Gk/ am ¢ Gk he
800
JOHN 18:1-12
NIV NRSV
*This happened so that the words he had spoken word that he had spoken, “I did not lose a single
would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those one of those whom you gave me.” !°Then Simon
you gave me.” Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high
‘Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s
it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off name was Malchus. ''Jesus said to Peter, “Put
his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink
"Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword the cup that the Father has given me?”
away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has 12So the soldiers, their officer, and the Jewish
given me?” police arrested Jesus and bound him.
"Then the detachment of soldiers with its
commander and the Jewish officials arrested eae
They bound him
29 John 6:39
COMMENTARY
18:1-3. These verses set the scene for the chomai]) and v. 4 (“went out” {eEépxopar exer-
arrest. The introductory phrase, “After Jesus had chomai| NIV) suggest a formal demarcation of the
spoken these words” (v. 1a), echoes Jesus’ familiar boundaries of the garden, probably a wall (see
refrain from the Farewell Discourse (14:25; 15:11; Commentary on v. 4).
16:1, 4, 25; the NIV paraphrase “praying” ob- The reference to Judas’s knowledge of the
scures this connection). As at 17:1, the narrator garden (v. 2) underscores a theme from John 13:
moves this refrain into his own commentary to The betrayer was one of Jesus’ inner circle (cf.
signal a transition in the story. John 18:1a signals 13:18, 21-30; see also 6:70-71). It is this knowl-
the completion of the farewell meal and discourse edge that positions him as the guide for the
and the first change of physical location since 13:1 arresting forces. The Gospel of John alone among
(see Commentary on 14:31). the Gospels portrays both Roman and Jewish
The Fourth Evangelist names neither the specific soldiers at the arrest. The Greek word translated
garden to which Jesus and his disciples depart (cf. “detachment of soldiers” (ometpa speira) always
“Gethsemane,” Matt 26:36; Mark 14:32), nor the refers in the NT to Roman soldiers, either a
general location as the Mount of Olives (Matt 26:30; “cohort” (600 soldiers) or a “maniple” (200 sol-
Mark 14:26; Luke 22:39), but speaks more broadly diers; see Matt 27:27; Mark 15:16; Acts 10:1;
of the Kidron Valley. The Kidron Valley (lit., “the 21:31; 27:1). The other group of arresting officers,
winter-flowing Kidron”; the brook had water only “police from the chief priests and Pharisees,” were
in winter) was on the east side of Jerusalem, the involved in an earlier unsuccessful attempt to
same direction as the Mount of Olives. The location arrest Jesus (7:32, 45). The presence of the Roman
of the arrest site in John is thus consonant with that soldiers is taken by many commentators to be
found in the Synoptics, but its description probably historically impossible, on the grounds that the
reflects the independent tradition on which the Evan- Roman governor would never turn over his troops
gelist draws.°° (The NIV translation of “garden” to the Jewish authorities.°*° Yet the historical
(kfitos kepos) as “olive grove” is thus an unnec- plausibility of their presence can also be argued.°?”
essary attempt to harmonize the Johannine narra- The Roman government maintained troops in the
tive with the other Gospel accounts). The verbs
596. So Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3:222;
of motion in v. 1 (“entered” [eto€pxopat eiser- Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 518.
597. So Brown, The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI), 808; The
595. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 67-68; Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:248-51; Beasley-Murray, John, 332; Dodd,
The Gospel According to John (XIII-XX1}, 806-7. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 73-74.
801
Antonia fortress, which overlooked the Temple, takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my
for the express purpose of maintaining order.°” own accord.”
It does not necessarily strain historical credibility Verse 5 further highlights Jesus’ initiative in his
to think that the Roman governor might have arrest. The soldiers respond to Jesus’ question,
made troops available to the Jewish authorities to identifying him by his geographical place of origin
help prevent a possible riot occasioned by Jesus’ (cf. 1:45-46), and Jesus acknowledges that he is the
arrest (cf. 11:48), especially with the increased one for whom they look (v. 5a). The aside about
crowds at Passover (11:55; 12:9). However one Judas in v. 50 also reinforces Jesus’ initiative. Unlike
decides this historical question, it is clear that the the synoptic Gospels, where Judas initiates the arrest
Fourth Evangelist portrays the conjoined Roman by kissing Jesus (Matt 26:47-50; Mark 14:43-46; cf.
and Jewish interest in Jesus’ arrest from the very Luke 22:47-48), in John’s Gospel Judas stands inac-
beginning of the story.°”? tively with the arresting forces. This aside may also
The mention of the lanterns and torches (v. underscore that Judas, once a member of Jesus’
30), necessary equipment for a nighttime arrest in circle of disciples, now stands with those who
a garden, underscores that Judas’s arrival with the oppose Jesus. ;
arresting officers is the night to which the narrator The centerpiece of vv. 5-6 is the “I am”
referred at 13:30. At the same time, the lanterns (Eyo) cit: ego eimi) with which Jesus responds
and torches are an ironic reminder of the true to the soldiers in v. 5a. The NIV and the NRSV
impotence of Jesus’ opponents, because the sol- both supply a predicate nominative (“he”) that is
diers, equipped with artificial lights, come to arrest not present in the Greek text and translate Jesus’
the “light of the world” (8:12; 9:5).0° Yet the words as a simple formula of self-identification (cf.
reader knows that “the light shines in the dark- 9:9). Yet the repetition of the ego eimi in v. 6a
ness, and the darkness did not overcome it” (1:5). and the description of its effect on the soldiers in
The reference to weapons also sounds an ironic v. 66 show that these words are much more than
note, because it signals a misperception of the a formula of self-identification. They should be
necessity of force in Jesus’ arrest, a misperception interpreted, like the ego eimi at 4:26; 6:20; and
shared by Jesus’ own disciples (see vv. 10-11, 36). 8:28, as another instance of Jesus’ use of the
18:4-6. Verse 4 sets the theme that will gov- absolute ego eimi formula (see Fig. 10, “The ‘I
ern the arrest narrative. As at 13:1, the narrator AM’ Sayings in John,” 602). That is, with these
reminds the reader of Jesus’ knowledge of the words Jesus identifies himself, not simply as the
events of his hour. Jesus’ supernatural knowledge one for whom the soldiers seek, but with the
of persons and events has been repeatedly empha- divine name “I AM” (Isa 43:25; 51:12; 52:6 LXX).
sized throughout the Gospel (1:47-49; 2:24; 4:17; Even at Jesus’ arrest, he reveals himself to be the
6:6, 64). Verse 4 leaves no doubt as to who is in incarnate Logos of God. That Jesus’ words are to
control of Jesus’ arrest; hundreds of soldiers have be interpreted as a theophany is confirmed by the
approached the walled garden that Jesus and his soldiers’ response. To fall prostrate on the ground
disciples have entered, and Jesus exits the enclo- is a conventional response to a theophany (e.g.,
sure to meet the soldiers. His question to the Ezek 1:28; Dan 10:9; Acts 9:3-4; Rev 1:17). The
soldiers is the same as the question he asked the soldiers’ response may also be a reminder of their
first disciples who followed him (see Commentary powerlessness before the power of God (cf. Pss
on 1:38). Instead of seeking relationship with 21250; 9)
Jesus, however, the soldiers are seeking to kill 18:7-9. After the theophany of v. 6, the move-
him (cf. the expression “seek to kill” at 5:18; 7:1, ment toward Jesus’ arrest resumes. Verses 7-8a
20; 8:37; 10:39; 11:8, 56), but as with those first repeat v. 5, emphasizing once again Jesus’ control
disciples, the initiative still rests with Jesus. Jesus’ and initiative. In Jesus’ request that the soldiers
actions in v. 4 fulfill his words of 10:18, “No one let his disciples go (v. 8), Jesus shows that he is
the good shepherd who will lay down his life for
598. See Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 19.9.2.
599. David Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community, his sheep (10:11, 15). The words of Jesus quoted
90, 102n. 18.
600. Paul Duke, /rony in the Fourth Gospel(Atlanta: John Knox, 1985) 601. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols.
109. (New York: Seabury, 1982) 3:224.
802
in v. 9 do not match precisely any one of his with Peter’s earlier misunderstanding of the mean-
previous teachings (see also 6:35, 65; 10:25, 36), ing of Jesus’ death (13:36-38). The addition of the
but clearly echo both 10:28-29 and 6:39 (“I should name “Malchus” may also be a later elaboration
lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise of the tradition, but it nonetheless has the ring of
it up on the last day”; cf. also 6:37; 17:12). Many reminiscence (cf. v. 26).
commentators see this verse’s seeming emphasis 18:11. Jesus’ response to Peter clarifies the na-
on the physical well-being of the disciples as a ture of Peter’s misunderstanding (cf. Jesus’ correc-
misreading of the Jesus teaching it cites and so tion of Peter at 13:7, 10, 38). As Jesus will state
attribute it to a later redactor.% This attribution explicitly in the trial before Pilate, it is not necessary
seems unnecessary, however, because the focus of to fight Jesus’ arrest with force (cf. 18:36), because
vv. 809 is not on the disciples themselves, but on Jesus comes to the hour of his own accord. The cup
Jesus’ demonstrated concern for them that is avail- is a metaphor for Jesus’ suffering and death in the
able in all situations.°° The reference to the fulfill- Synoptics (see Matt 20:22; Mark 10:38-39; Luke
ment of Jesus’ words (see also 18:32) points to the 22:50) and is central to the tradition of Jesus’ agony
trustworthiness of Jesus’ promises (cf. also the ful- in the garden (Matt 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke
fillment of 14:27 in 20:19; 16:22 in 20:20). 22:42). Jesus’ words in v. 11, like 12:27-28, are an
18:10. This verse preserves a tradition also
ironic reworking of that tradition. In v. 11, Jesus
found in the synoptic Gospels, in which one of
does not pray that the cup will pass from him, but
Jesus’ disciples cuts off the ear of the high priest’s
describes the cup as the gift of the Father.°* Jesus
slave (Matt 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50).
freely accepts this gift because it is essential to his
Each of the four Gospels works its own variation
completion of the work God has given him to do
on this tradition, however. In Luke, for example,
(ChASZ/ (507 0122,) 20-275 010k V2I4o|e
Jesus heals the servant’s ear (22:51), whereas in
18:12. The arrest itself is narrated leanly and
Matthew and Mark the disciple’s action provides
swiftly. The exaggerated use of force by Jesus’
the occasion for Jesus’ teaching on the nature of
opponents—all of the soldiers and their leader are
his arrest and is linked with the flight of the
depicted as being involved in the arrest—trein-
disciples (Matt 26:51-56; Mark 14:48-50). John
forces the theme of the enemies’ misperception
alone provides the names of the disciple (Simon
Peter) and the servant (Malchus) involved. The
of the nature of Jesus’ arrest. He is bound and
addition of Peter’s name probably reflects a later thus nominally under their control, but as the rest
development in the tradition. For the Fourth Evan- of chaps. 18-19 will show, he nonetheless re-
gelist, Peter is frequently positioned as the spokes- mains in control of events. The NIV and the NRSV
man for the disciples (e.g., 6:68-69), and this translation “Jewish police” is an unfortunate and
scene should be read in that light. His overreac- inexact translation choice. The text literally reads
tion to the troops recalls his overeager response “the police of the Jews,” and a comparison with
to Jesus at the foot washing (13:9; cf. also Peter’s the description of the officers in v. 3 makes clear
jumping into the lake at 21:7), and his misunder- that “the Jews” is used in its technical Johannine
standing of the nature of Jesus’ arrest is consonant sense here as a synonym for the Jewish leadership.
Verse 12 is a transitional verse; it concludes the
602. So Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. arrest, but it also serves as the introduction to the
Westminster, 1971) 640. Raymond E. Brown, 7he Gospel According to interrogation before Annas (vv. 13-27; vv. 12-13
John (XIII-XX1}, AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970) 811, also are one sentence in the Greek text).
attributes the verse to a final editor, without clearly specifying his reasons.
603. So also C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 432; Schnackenburg, 7he 604. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Phila-
Gospel According to St. John, 3:226. delphia: Westminster, 1978) 522.
REFLECTIONS
John 18:1-12 is the last appearance of Judas in the Fourth Gospel. The central paradox
of Judas’s character was introduced in the very first mention of him in the Gospel, “for
he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him” (6:71). Judas has a featured role in
three scenes in the Gospel: the anointing at Bethany (12:1-18), the farewell meal (13:1-30),
and the arrest (18:1-12). In each of these scenes, the Fourth Evangelist repeatedly places
this paradox before the reader: Judas was one of those closest to Jesus, and yet he betrayed
him. The Fourth Evangelist wants to make sure that the reader understands the extent of the
betrayal; Judas sat at table with Jesus, had his feet washed by Jesus, and nonetheless turned
against him. The Gospel of John does not narrate Judas’s negotiations with the Jewish authorities
over his payment for betraying Jesus (cf. Matt 26:14-16; Mark 14:10-11; Luke 22:3-6), nor is
the Gospel interested in what happens to Judas after the arrest. Once Judas’s act of betrayal
is accomplished, he simply disappears from the scene (cf. Matt 27:3-10; Acts 1:16-20).
As crass as Judas’s betrayal of Jesus for thirty pieces of silver seems, at least that story allows
one to identify in Judas’s greed a clear motive for his betrayal. The Gospel of John does not
give the reader that option. The only details about Judas that have any relevance for the Fourth
Evangelist are those that pertain to his relationship with Jesus. Everything else is theologically
beside the point. The pain and pathos of the betrayal in John are presented unfiltered; the
reader must grapple with the reality that one of Jesus’ intimates betrayed him (see also 6:64,
70-71). Judas was offered relationship with Jesus, the incarnate presence of the love of God.
Judas was offered membership in Jesus’ flock, but Judas chose instead to align himself with
Satan, the ruler of the world, the enemy of God (13:2, 27).
The story of Judas confronts the contemporary reader with very difficult theological issues,
because it asks the reader to acknowledge and accept the reality of evil in the world. There
are no ulterior motives for Judas’s betrayal; he simply came under the sway of evil: “And this
is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather
than light because their deeds were evil” (3:19). It would be much more palatable for many
contemporary readers if one could impute psychological motivations to Judas’s betrayal, but
the Fourth Gospel does not allow that route. Instead, the Fourth Evangelist insists on putting
Judas’s betrayal on the cosmic stage and asks the reader to see in Judas’s betrayal the human
surrender to the power of evil.
Judas’s betrayal, then, is the story of failure—of human failure to resist the pull of evil, of
human failure to embrace God’s gift of love and life. Judas’s failure is far from the end of the
story. In Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension, “the ruler of this world” is defeated (14:30;
16:33), but the pathos of the betrayal lingers, because even within the framework of that
victory, people of faith still have to choose. Will they side with the defeated ruler of the world
or will they side with the victory of God? The choice should be simple, but the story of Judas
remains as an object lesson to show that it is not. Judas was one of Jesus’ intimates, included
in Jesus’ promises of life, and he nonetheless chose the way of death.
JOHN 18:13-27, THE INTERROGATION BY

ANNAS
NIV NRSV
‘Sand brought him first to Annas, who was the 'SFirst they took him to Annas, who was the father-
father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. '4Caia-
4Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews phas was the one who had advised the Jews that it
that it would be good if one man died for the people. was better to have one person die for the people.
'SSimon Peter and another disciple were follow- 15Simon Peter and another disciple followed
ing Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the Jesus. Since that disciple was known to the high
high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest, he went with Jesus into the courtyard of
804
JOHN 18:13-27
NIV NRSV
priest’s courtyard, 'but Peter had to wait outside the high priest, '°but Peter was standing outside
at the door. The other disciple, who was known at the gate. So the other disciple, who was known
to the high priest, came back, spoke to the girl to the high priest, went out, spoke to the woman
on duty there and brought Peter in. who guarded the gate, and brought Peter in. !’The
“You are not one of his disciples, are you?” woman said to Peter, “You are not also one of
the girl at the door asked Peter. this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am
He replied, “I am not.” not.” '8Now the slaves and the police had made
'8It was cold, and the servants and officials a charcoal fire because it was cold, and they were
stood around a fire they had made to keep warm. standing around it and warming themselves. Peter
Peter also was standing with them, warming also was standing with them and warming him-
himself. self.
'8Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus 19Then the high priest questioned Jesus about
about his disciples and his teaching. his disciples and about his teaching. Jesus an-
20“7 have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus swered, “I have spoken openly to the world; I
replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the have always taught in synagogues and in the
temple, where all the Jews come together. | said temple, where all the Jews come together. I have
nothing in secret. !}Why question me? Ask those said nothing in secret. 2'Why do you ask me? Ask
who heard me. Surely they know what I said.” those who heard what I said to them; they know
22When Jesus said this, one of the officials what I said.” 22When he had said this, one of the
nearby struck him in the face. “Is this the way police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face,
you answer the high priest?” he demanded. saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?”
23“Tf | said something wrong,” Jesus replied, 3Jesus answered, “If I have spoken wrongly,
“testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly,
truth, why did you strike me?” **Then Annas sent why do you strike me?” Then Annas sent him
him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest. bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
25As Simon Peter stood warming himself, he 25Now Simon Peter was standing and warming
was asked, “You are not one of his disciples, are himself. They asked him, “You are not also one
you?” of his disciples, are you?” He denied it and said,
He denied it, saying, “I am not.” “T am not.” 2One of the slaves of the high priest,
26One of the high priest’s servants, a relative of a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off,
asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with
the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged
him?” 2”’Again Peter denied it, and at that moment
him, “Didn’t I see you with him in the olive
grove?” 27Again Peter denied it, and at that mo-
the cock crowed.
ment a rooster began to crow.
224 Or (Now Annas had sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high
priest.)
(COMMENTARY
John 18:13-27 contains two blocks of material: morning meeting in which the Sanhedrin decides
(1) Jesus’ interrogation before Annas (vv. 19-24); to hand Jesus over to Pilate (Mark 15:1, 3; see
and (2) Peter’s denials (vv. 17-18, 25-27). Jesus’ also Matt 27:1-2). Luke mentions no evening
trial before the Jewish authorities is recounted in meeting and narrates a morning Sanhedrin session
three different ways in the Gospels. Mark (fol- in which Jesus is tried and handed over to Pilate
lowed closely by Matthew) narrates an evening (Luke 22:66-23:2). The Fourth Gospel narrates
meeting of the Sanhedrin at which Jesus is tried no formal trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin. Instead,
(Mark 14:55-65; see also Matt 26:57-68), and a it recounts Jesus’ interrogation by Annas, the
805
father-in-law of the high priest (vv. 13-14, 19-23), tion.’ As high priest, Caiaphas would have had
and makes only fleeting reference to Jesus’ appear- the official role of presiding over the Sanhedrin
ance before the high priest Caiaphas (v. 24). To session. The reference to Jesus’ transfer from
compound the difficulty, John refers to both An- Annas to Caiaphas in v. 24 suggests that the
nas (vv. 15-16, 19, 22) and Caiaphas (vv. 13, 24) tradition on which the Fourth Evangelist drew
as the “high priest.” The attempt to harmonize for his story of the death of Jesus included
the Synoptic and Johannine accounts can be seen meetings with both Annas and Caiaphas. Other
in some parts of the manuscript tradition of John than this allusion, howéver, the Fourth Evan-
18:13-27, in which scribes rearranged the verses gelist accords this meeting with Caiaphas no
in order to present Caiaphas as the one who place in the story.
interrogates Jesus.°° Against this tradition-historical background, the
Does the Fourth Evangelist preserve a dis- interpreter may then ask: (1) Why does the Fourth
tinctive tradition about Jesus’ trial in John Evangelist omit any account of a Sanhedrin trial?
18:13-27? In order to answer that question, it and (2) Why does he showcase the informal
is important to place both Annas and Caiaphas meeting before Annas? The Fourth Evangelist’s
in their historical context (see Fig. 13, “High acknowledgment of a meeting before the high
Priests During New Testament Times,” 807).°° priest may, have been necessitated by the tradition,
Annas was high priest from 6 to 15 cz, but his but to narrate it more fully would have served no
influence did not end when his term ended. In dramatic or theological purpose in the Fourth
addition to being the father-in-law of Caiaphas Gospel narrative. Jesus’ formal legal relationship
(who was high priest from 18 to 36 cz), five of with the Jewish authorities had been concluded
Annas’s sons, as well as a grandson, succeeded at 11:47-53. The Sanhedrin had already met and
him as high priest. It is clear from reading passed a death sentence against Jesus at 11:53
Josephus that Annas was the most influential (see Commentary); to repeat that decision now
member of the high priestly family for the early would :be anticlimactic (cf. the Fourth Evangelist’s
and mid first century cz.°°” Indeed, in Josephus moving of the cleansing of the Temple narrative
one finds Annas referred to with the title “high to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry). Moreover,
priest” after his term had ended, a practice not only had the death sentence already been
that may be reflected in John’s use of that title passed, but also Jesus’ formal questioning by the
for Annas in 18:15-16, 19, 22. Luke also testi- Jewish leadership had been incorporated into the
fies to Annas’s continuing influence, for he narration of Jesus’ ministry (see esp. 5:16-18;
twice speaks jointly of the high priesthoods of 10:22-39).°!° The dramatic focus of John 18-19,
Annas and Caiaphas (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6). therefore, shifts to the trial before Pilate. Yet the
Given Annas’s influence, it is not implausible Fourth Evangelist nonetheless allows Jesus to speak
that he would have had a role in the interrogation one more word to the Jewish religious estab-
of Jesus and that his role was remembered in a lishment. As the Commentary to follow will show,
tradition to which the Fourth Evangelist had ac- the Fourth Evangelist may have found an interview
cess. Raymond Brown suggests that the meeting with Annas in the tradition, but the content of the
before Annas was like a police interrogation that interview bears throughout the distinctive theologi-
immediately follows the arrest of a suspect, with cal stamp of the Fourth Evangelist.
Annas in the role of interrogator, and there is a In all four Gospels, Jesus’ appearance before the
certain historical plausibility to Brown’s presenta- Jewish authorities is linked with Peter’s denials,
but the narrative presentation of the interrelation-
605. The most dramatic rearrangement of the text occurs in Sinaitic 609. Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2 vols. (New
Syriac (fourth/fifth century ce), in which the text is written as vv. 13, 24, York: Doubleday, 1994) 2:408, 424-26. See also C. H. Dodd, Historical
14-15, 19-23, 16-18, 25-27. This rearrangement positions Caiaphas as the Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
interrogating high priest, but creates more problems than it solves by 1963) 93-95. Barrett takes an opposite approach, seeing in the Johannine
altering the relationship of Peter’s denials to Jesus’ interrogation and by account a variation on the two Sanhedrin sessions in Mark. See Barrett,
making Annas completely superfluous to the story. The Gospel According to St. John, 523-34.
606. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 18.26-35. 610. Hans Windisch, Johannes und die Synoptiker. Wollte.der vierte
607. Ibid., 20.198. Evangelist die alteren Evangelien erganzen oder ersetzen? (Leipzig: J. C.
608. Ibid., 18.95. Hinrichs, 1926) 82; Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 644.
806
Figure 13: High Priests During New Testament Times
High Priests / Dates of Tenure Rulers who controlled appointments Historical events
to the High Priesthood
Joezer ben Boethus' (23-5 BCE) Herod the Great”
}
Eleazer ben Boethus' (?—?) (Matthew 2; Luke 1:5)
Jesus ben Sei (?—?) Herod Archelaus
Joezer ben Boethus ( ?—6 CE) (4 BCE-6 CE) (Matt 2:22)
(reinstated) 1. The Boethus family
2. The bet Hanan family.
3. The Phiabi family.
Annas ben Seth’ (6-15) Quirinius, governor 4. The Kimhit family.
(Luke 3:2; John 18:13, 24; of Syria (Luke 2:2) 5. Member of the bet Hanan family by marriage.
6. According to Josephus a member of the Boethus family;
Acts 4:6) according to the Talmud, a separate family.
7. The bet Hanan family; served as High Priest for
only three months; responsible for the execution of
James, the brother of Jesus.
Ishmael ben Phiabi* (15-16 2) 8. Member of the Boethus family by marriage.
Eleazar ben Anan? (16-17?) 9. Appointed by the Zealots, by lot, during the Jewish
Valerius Gratus, Revolt.
Simeon ben Kimhit* (17-18) 10. Herod appointed seven High Priests during his
procurator of Judea
Joseph Caiaphas> (18-36) thirty-three-year reign.
11. Pontius Pilate never exercised his rights to appoint
(Matt 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2; or depose a high priest.
John 11:48; 18:13, 24; Pontius Pilate,"
Acts 4:6) procurator of Judea (26-36) Era of Jesus’ Ministry
(Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luke 13:1, (c. 28-33)
23; John 18-19; Acts 3:13; 4:27; Apostles arrested and flogged
13:28; 1 Tim 6:13) (Acts 5:17-42)
Stoning of Steven
(Acts 6:1-8:2)
Paul’s Conversion (c. 34)
:
Jonathan ben Anan’ (36-37)
(Acts 4:6) Vitellius, governor of Syria
Theophilus ben Anan’ (37-41)
Simeon ben Boethus' 5—?) Execution of James, son of

Matthias ben Anan?(? Agrippa I Zebedee (c. 44) (Acts 12:1-2)
Elionaeus ben te (43-44) (Acts 12:1-4, 20-23)
Joseph ben Kimhit* (44-47)
Council in Jerusalem
Ananias ben Nedebeus (47-59)
Herod of Chalcis (c. 51) (Acts 15)
(Acts 22:30-23:10; 24:1)
Paul’s arrest and
imprisonment in Jerusalem
and Caesarea (c. 59/60)
Jonathan ben Anan’ (reinstated? (Acts 21:27— 26:32)
Ishmael ben Phiabi® (59-61)
Joseph ben Simeon‘ (61-62) Martyrdom of Paul (c. 62)
Annas ben Anan’ (62) Agrippa II Martyrdom of James (62)
Joshua ben Damnai (62-63?) (Acts 25:13-26,32)
Martyrdom of Peter (c. 64)
Joshua ben Gamaliel® (63-65?)
Jewish Revolt (66)
Mattathias ben Tehophilus? (65-67
+ Siege of Jerusalem;
Phannias ben Samuel’ (67-70) Bold Type: Persons mentioned in
Temple destroyed (70)
the New Testament
807
ship of these two events varies. In Luke 22:54-62, 25; 20:1-10; and 21:15-23.°!! To support this
Peter’s denials are narrated in full before Jesus’ view, one can point to 20:2, where the beloved
interrogation even begins, whereas in Mark (fol- disciple is referred to as “the other disciple, the
lowed by Matthew), the scene for the denials is one whom Jesus loved.” Yet 18:15 refers to
set before Jesus’ trial (Matt 26:58; Mark 14:54), “another disciple,” not “the other disciple,” and
but the denials themselves are not narrated until it is hard to explain why the Fourth Evangelist
after the trial (Matt 26:66-75; Mark 14:66-72). would not have more clearly identified the disci-
The juxtaposition of the two events is much more ple in vv. 15-16 as “the disciple whom Jesus
dramatic in the Gospel of John. In keeping with loved” if that were the disciple he meant.°!?
the Fourth Evangelist’s penchant for structuring a The identity of this disciple is at best a secon-
story along the lines of a drama (e.g., John 9:1-39; dary concern, however, for his importance lies
18:28-19:16), the Fourth Evangelist presents Je- solely in his narrative function: to gain Peter
sus’ appearance before Annas and Peter’s denial admittance to the high priest’s courtyard. To un-
as a three-act drama. The three acts are jointly derscore this function, the disciple’s acquaintance
introduced by vv. 13-16, which establish the with the high priest is mentioned twice in these
characters and setting, and then proceed as fol- verses. Scholars frequently ask how a Galilean
lows: vv. 17-18, Peter’s first denial; vv. 19-24, fisherman: could be an acquaintance of the high
Jesus’ interrogation by Annas; vv. 25-27, Peter’s priest,°'? but this very question reveals several
second and third denials. As the Commentary will interpretive prejudices. First, it assumes that “dis-
show, by structuring the scene this way, the ciple” (ua8nths mathetes) is equivalent to “one
Fourth Evangelist heightens the irony and pathos of the twelve,” an assumption that is not in
of Peter’s denials and the boldness of Jesus’ re- keeping with the use of “disciple” in the Gospel
sponse. of John; John’s notion of discipleship is much
18:13-16. As noted above, vv. 13-16 introduce broader than that (see 1:35-51). Second, it plays
the scenes that follow; vv. 13-14 set the stage for down the evidence of social diversity among Jesus’
Annas’s interrogation of Jesus, and vv. 15-16 for followers. The references to Joseph of Arimathea
Peter’s denials. The relation of Annas and Caiaphas and Nicodemus at Jesus’ burial (19:38-40) suggest
to the office of high priest was discussed above. (For that Jesus attracted disciples from a broad spec-
a discussion of the phrase “high priest that year,” trum of class and political groupings in Judea.
see Commentary on 11:49-50). In v. 14, the narra- 18:17-18. These verses narrate Peter’s first
tor reminds the reader of Caiaphas’s role at the denial. As in the other three Gospels, Peter’s first
earlier Sanhedrin meeting (11:46-53). This reminder questioner is a female servant (Matt 26:69; Mark
confirms that the death sentence from that meeting 14:67; Luke 22:56). The woman’s question in v.
(11:53) provides the decisive context for the inter- 17a is introduced in the Greek text: with the
pretation that follows. By reminding the reader of interrogative particle (wn me), which normally in-
Caiaphas’s unconscious prophecy about the expedi- dicates that a negative response is expected (cf.
ency of Jesus’ death (11:50-52), v. 14 also sets the the use of mé at 4:12; 8:53; 9:41); this usage is
following proceedings within the ironic framework accurately reflected in-the NIV and the NRSV.
of that earlier scene, in which even the high priest The very wording of the woman’s question thus
was shown to be a witness to the truth of Jesus. provides Peter with the opportunity to deny that
The Fourth Evangelist thereby undercuts the juridi- he is one of Jesus’ disciples, which he does
cal force of the interrogation before it even begins. immediately (v. 170). The words of Peter’s denial,
Verses 15-16 explain Peter’s presence at the “I am not” (ovk eit ouk eimi; see also 18:25)
interrogation. In the synoptic Gospels, Peter alone
are the antithesis of Jesus’ words of self-identifi-
follows Jesus and gains access to the courtyard on
cation and revelation from 18:1-12, “I am” (é-yo
his own (Matt 26:58; Mark 14:54; Luke 22:54), eiplt ego eimi; vv. 5-6, 8). Jesus freely and boldly
but in John, Peter is accompanied and assisted by
“another disciple.” Many scholars argue that the O11. E.g., George R. Beasley-Muiray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.:
unnamed disciple in vv. 15-16 is the beloved Word, 1987) 324.
612. So Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3:235.
disciple, who is also paired with Peter at 13:23- 613. So Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 526.
808
declares who he is, but Peter, the representative First, in the context of Jesus’ hour, “world”
disciple, cannot even claim discipleship. This con- cannot simply be read as a synonym for “every-
trast will be heightened in the two scenes that where.” Rather, Jesus is claiming to have spoken
follow (vv. 19-24, 25-27). publicly even among those who did not receive
Verse 18 adds narrative richness to the scene him and, indeed, who hated him (cf. 15:18-20).
in the courtyard with its description of the char- Second, Jesus summarizes his teaching ministry
coal fire and the cold (cf. Mark 14:54; Luke by pointing to those occasions when he has taught
22:55), but this verse also adds dramatic tension. in the official sites of Judaism. Verse 20 is an
The group warming itself at the fire includes the accurate description of Jesus’ teaching ministry in
temple police, the very group involved in the John. John 5 and 7-10 are all located in the
arrest of Jesus (vv. 3, 12). The description of Peter Jerusalem Temple precincts, as is John 2:13-22
standing with the police seems a deliberate echo (cf. also Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, “a
of the description of Judas, who stood with the leader of the Jews,” 3:1-21). John 6:25-59 is
police at 18:5. As at 13:36-38, the Fourth Evan- located in the synagogue at Capernaum. Jesus is
gelist reminds the reader that the line between indeed on record as having kept nothing secret in
outright betrayal of Jesus and denial of one’s his public pronouncements to establishment Juda-
relationship with him is a thin one (see Reflections ism. Third, and perhaps most telling, is Jesus’ use
below). of the expression “the Jews.” “The Jews” does
18:19-24. Annas is referred to with the hon- not refer simply to the Jewish people here, but
orific title “high priest” (see Commentary above) instead is used in the distinctive Johannine sense
in the interrogation scene. His questioning is re- of the Jewish authorities (see discussion of “the
ported to the reader only in the narrator’s com- Jews” at 1:19; 5:1-18; 9:22). The presence of this
mentary; there is no direct speech of Annas in Johannine idiom in the words of Jesus points to
this scene. The focus is on the speech of Jesus. John 18:19-23 as a two-level drama in which
As noted above, John 18:19-24 appears to have Johannine Jewish Christians are invited to see
been deliberately shaped by the Evangelist to their experience of official Judaism in the experi-
highlight his narrative and theological intents. ence of Jesus.
Jesus’ words hold the key to understanding the When the two levels of John 18:19-23 are held
Evangelist’s intent in this scene. Jesus confronts in view, the subjects of Annas’s interrogation—
Annas with the relationship of his teaching min- Jesus’ disciples and his teaching—take on added
istry to Judaism, “I have spoken openly to the significance. Questions about Jesus’ disciples and
world [kéoj10s kosmos]; I have always taught in his teachings fit the context of Jesus’ own time,
synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews but they also fit well the Evangelist’s time. In John
fot lov8aior hoi loudaioi] come together. I have 9:28, one of the charges made against the man
said nothing in secret” (v. 20). Most scholars born blind was “You are his disciple, but we are
misread these words, seeming to read them simply disciples of Moses.” Annas’s question may thus
as the Johannine version of Jesus’ words in Mark echo the questions asked of Jesus’ later disciples
14:49 (“Day after day I was with you in the about their relationship to Jesus.° Similarly, the
temple teaching, and you did not arrest me” early Christian narratives about martyrs record
[NRSV]) and hence as a general statement about that the martyrs were asked about their teach-
the public nature of Jesus’ ministry. Raymond ings.°!© The Fourth Evangelist has framed Jesus’
Brown, for example, interprets Jesus’ words in v. interrogation scene to stand as a model for the
20 along the analogy of “Wisdom speaking pub- Johannine community’s experience of trial and
licly to men,” going so far as to translate Jesus’ interrogation.
words in verse format.°!4 Jesus’ words in v. 20 As the blind man does with the authorities in
are not a general defense of the public nature of John 9, Jesus turns Annas’s questions back on him
his ministry, however, but are his final challenge (cf. 9:27). Jesus has already spoken fully in the
to the Jewish authorities. presence of official Judaism (v. 21); Annas should,

614. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), 825. See also
Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1:415. 616. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 527.
809
therefore, inquire of them, not of Jesus. The is intensified by the use of the verb phrase “he
impotence of the Temple authorities in the face denied it and said.” In the third question and
of Jesus’ witness is symbolized by the action of denial (vv. 26:27); the Fourth Evangelist’s dra-
the police officer (v. 22). As earlier in the matic sense is evident. Peter’s questioner is not
garden, the police still wrongly assume that an anonymous bystander as in the other Gospel
force will bring Jesus into line. Jesus’ response accounts (Matt 26:73; Mark 14:70; Luke 22:59),
in v. 23 recalls his earlier words to “the Jews” but is someone who had a reason to remember
at 8:46 and positions his words as the arbiter Peter, as the slave was related to the man “whose
of right or wrong, guilt or innocence. Annas’s ear Peter had cut off.” Unlike the first two ques-
only response to Jesus’ challenge is to send him tions, the question this slave asks Peter is not
on to Caiaphas (v. 24). Jesus’ words dominate introduced by the interrogative particle me. That
the interrogation, and neither the high priest’s is, this third question does not expect a negative
questions nor the police officer’s blow can rob response, because the questioner knows that the
them of their power. true answer from Peter is yes. Peter’s third denial
18:25-27. The dramatic focus returns to Peter is thus given an added poignancy, because he
with the narration of his second and third denials denies his very presence in the garden to someone
(cf. vv. 15-18). Verse 25a picks up exactly where who had, witnessed him there.
v. 18 left off in order to show the continuity Unlike the synoptic Gospels (Matt 26:75; Mark
between the first denial and this new scene. The 14:72; Luke 22:61-62), John has no narrative
reader is to envision Jesus’ interrogation and Pe- commentary on Peter’s denial. The framing of
ter’s denials as occurring simultaneously. The sec- Jesus’ boldness before Annas with Peter’s denials
ond question and denial (v. 25b-c), as at v. 17, is commentary enough, and the reader is left to
focus on Peter’s discipleship. The question is again make the connections between this scene and
introduced by mé, and Peter’s negative response Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial at 13:36-38.
REFLECTIONS
John 18:13-27, like 18:1-12, presents the reader with two contrasting images. One is the
image of Jesus, who willingly offers himself to those who come to arrest him and boldly
answers those who interrogate him. The other is the image of Jesus’ disciples who betray and
deny the one who so freely gives his life for them. The other characters in these scenes, the
Roman soldiers, the temple police, even Annas and Caiaphas, merely provide the background
against which this drama between Jesus and his own is acted out.
Judas’s betrayal of Jesus is the more dramatic action, but Peter’s denial may bé the most
haunting. Judas’s betrayal bears testimony to the power of evil and so is a reminder of the
cosmic drama that is acted out in Jesus’ life and death (see Reflections on 18:1-12). Peter’s
denials are not placed on such a grand stage, however. Instead, Peter’s denials occupy that
gray area, marked not by outright betrayal, but by compromise and acquiescence to personal
expediency, self-protection, and fear.
Peter’s denials are even more painful and haunting when they are placed in their wider
context in the Gospel narrative. At the farewell meal, Jesus acted out his love for his
disciples in the foot washing, addressing Peter individually about his share in Jesus’ life
(13:6-10). In the Farewell Discourse, Jesus reassured his disciples about his abiding presence
with them and declared his love for them (e.g., 14:18, 21-23; 15:12-15). In the farewell
prayer, Jesus prayed to God on his disciples’ behalf, placing their caretaking and their
future in God’s hands, expressing his hopes for the fullness of their lives with God and
one another (17:20-26). Jesus showed the truth and trustworthiness of his words with his
actions in the garden, when he asked the soldiers to let his disciples go. In front of Annas
he showed that he would, indeed, lay down his life of his own accord when he challenged
810
Annas with the truth of his ministry. Yet with the farewell words of Jesus still echoing in his
ears, Peter cannot even publicly claim his place as Jesus’ disciple.
The Fourth Evangelist thus places before the reader two models of how the faithful can
meet adversity and trial: the model of Jesus, who holds nothing back for the sake of those
he loves, and the model of Peter, who holds everything back for his own sake. In the
theological idiom of this Gospel, these two models provide fresh access to Jesus’ command-
ment to love one another as he has loved us (13:34-35). The fullest embodiment of that
commandment is to lay down one’s life for another (15:12), a promise Peter foolishly and
lightly made at 13:36-38. But in John 18:13-24, the reader is given a painful glimpse of
the limits of Peter’s love and yet one more demonstration of the limitlessness of Jesus’
love.
In the context in which the Fourth Evangelist wrote, of community oppression and
persecution because of one’s faith (see 16:1-4), Peter’s denials clearly show how easy it is to
lose heart (cf. 14:1), how easy it is to remove oneself from the embrace of Jesus’ love. In the
contemporary North American setting, in a social context far removed from that of Johannine
Jewish Christians, the temptation to deny one’s place with Jesus remains real and perhaps
even more insidious. Under what social and personal pressure will one turn one’s back on
Jesus’ love, will one equivocate about discipleship?
In Holy Week liturgies, the passion narrative from one of the Gospels is frequently presented
as a dramatic reading, with the congregation taking the part of the crowd who clamors for
Jesus’ crucifixion. It is a vivid moment in the liturgy, in which each congregant is indirectly
asked to consider the part he or she plays in the crucifixion of Jesus. It is tempting to envision
a Holy Week liturgy in which John 18:13-27 would be presented as a dramatic reading, with
the congregation taking Peter’s part: “Are you one of his disciples? .../ am not.” For most
Christians, the moment of betrayal of Jesus’ love does not come in the dramatic announcement,
“Crucify him!” but in the more subtle denial of allegiance to the one who gives his life for
us, of infidelity to the ever faithful love of Jesus.
JOHN 18:28-19:16a, THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE

NIV NRSV
28Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to 28Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate’s
the palace of the Roman governor. By now it headquarters.? It was early in the morning. They
was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial themselves did not enter the headquarters,’ so as to
uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the
they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. *°So Passover. 2°So Pilate went out to them and said,
Pilate came out to them and asked, “What “What accusation do you bring against this man?”
charges are you bringing against this man?” 3°They answered, “If this man were not a criminal,
30“If he were not a criminal,” they replied, “we we would not have handed him over to you.”
would not have handed him over to you.” 31Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and
31Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge judge him according to your law.” The Jews replied,
him by your own law.” “We are not permitted to put anyone to death.”
32(This was to fulfill what Jesus had said when he
“But we have no right to execute anyone,” the
indicated the kind of death he was to die.)
Jews objected. °2This happened so that the words
33Then Pilate entered the headquarters? again,
Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he
was going to die would be fulfilled. summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the
33PiJate then went back inside the palace, sum- aGk the praetorium
811
JOHN 18:28-19:16a
NIV NRSV
moned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king King of the Jews?” *4Jesus answered, “Do you ask
of the Jews?” this on your own, or did others tell you about
34“Ts that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did me?” 55Pilate replied, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your
others talk to you about me?” own nation and the chief priests have handed you
35“Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “It was your over to me. What have you done?” *Jesus an-
people and your chief priests who handed you swered, “My kingdom is not from this world. If
over to me. What is it you have done?” my kingdom were from this world, my followers
5*Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. would be fighting to keep me from being handed
If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not
arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from from here.” %7Pilate asked him, “So you are a
another place.” king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king.
37“You are a king, then!” said Pilate. For this I was born, and for this I came into the
Jesus answered, “You are right in saying | am world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who
a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate
this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. asked him, “What is truth?”
Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” After he had said this, he went out to the Jews
38°What is truth?” Pilate asked. With this he again and told them, “I find no case against him.
went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no *°But you have a custom that I release someone
basis for a charge against him. **But it is your for you at the Passover. Do you want me to
custom for me to release to you one prisoner at release for you the King of the Jews?” “They
the time of the Passover. Do you want me to shouted in reply, “Not this man, but Barabbas!”
release ‘the king of the Jews’?” Now Barabbas was a bandit.
“They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barab- | Q:Then Pilate took Jesus and had him
bas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion. flogged. And the soldiers wove a crown
] Then Pilate took Jesus and had him of thorns and put it on his head, and they dressed
flogged. *The soldiers twisted together a him in a purple robe. °They kept coming up to
crown of thorns and put it on his head. They him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and striking
clothed him in a purple robe °and went up to him him on the face. “Pilate went out again and said
again and again, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” to them, “Look, I am bringing him out to you to
And they struck him in the face. let you know that I find no case against him.”
4Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, °So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns
“Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Here
know that I find no basis for a charge against him.” is the man!” °When the chief priests and the
*When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns police saw him, they shouted, “Crucify him! Cru-
and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, “Here is cify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him your-
the man!” selves and crucify him; I find no case against
As soon as the chief priests and their officials him.” The Jews answered him, “We have a law,
saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!” and according to that law he ought to die because
But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify he has claimed to be the Son of God.”
him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against 8Now when Pilate heard this, he was more
him.” afraid than ever. °He entered his headquarters?
"The Jews insisted, “We have a law, and ac- again and asked Jesus, “Where are you from?”
cording to that law he must die, because he But Jesus gave him no answer. !°Pilate therefore
claimed to be the Son of God.” said to him, “Do you refuse to speak to me? Do
SWhen Pilate heard this, he was even more you not know that I have power to release you,
afraid, °and he went back inside the palace. and power to crucify you?” ''Jesus answered him,
“Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but “You would have no power over me unless it had
Jesus gave him no answer. !°“Do you refuse to 4Gk the praetorium
812
JOHN 18:28-19:16a
NIV NRSV
speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I been given you from above; therefore the one
have power either to free you or to crucify you?” who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater
‘Jesus answered, “You would have no power sin.” '*From then on Pilate tried to release him,
over me if it were not given to you from above. but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man,
Therefore the one who handed me over to you you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who
is guilty of a greater sin.” claims to be a king sets himself against the em-
_/From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, peror.-
but the Jews kept shouting, “If you let this man 13When Pilate heard these words, he brought
go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who Jesus outside and sat? on the judge’s bench at a
claims to be a king opposes Caesar.” place called The Stone Pavement, or in Hebrew®
'SWhen Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out Gabbatha. '4Now it was the day of Preparation
and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known for the Passover; and it was about noon. He said
as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is to the Jews, “Here is your King!” !They cried
Gabbatha). ‘It was the day of Preparation of out, “Away with him! Away with him! Crucify
Passover Week, about the sixth hour. him!” Pilate asked them, “Shall I crucify your
“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no
'SBut they shouted, “Take him away! Take him king but the emperor.” '“Then he handed him
away! Crucify him!” over to them to be crucified.
“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked. So they took Jesus;
“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests 4Or seated him > That is, Aramaic
answered.
‘Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be
crucified.
So the soldiers took charge of Jesus.
(COMMENTARY
John 18:28-19:16a4 is the supreme example in tured as a drama. The trial narrative opens with
the Fourth Gospel of the Fourth Evangelist’s use an introductory verse (18:28) that establishes the
of dramatic structure, irony, and symbolism in the time and location for the drama. This introduction
service of theological interpretation. Jesus’ trial is followed by seven scenes:°!”
before Pilate is the theological and dramatic cli-
max of the story of Jesus’ hour. 617. The division into seven scenes is almost universally recognized
and accepted by Johannine scholars. The only major exception is Bult-
Like the Pharisees’ interrogation of the blind mann, who grouped 19:1-7 as one scene and thus only had six scenes in
man in John 9, Jesus’ trial before Pilate is struc- the trial.
Location Characters
Scene 1 ((18:29-32) Outside Pilate and “the Jews”
Scene 2 ((18:33-384] Inside Pilate and Jesus
Scene 3 ((18:380-40) Outside Pilate and “the Jews”
Scene 4 (19:1-3) (Inside) Jesus and the soldiers
:
Scene 5 (19:4-7) Outside Pilate, Jesus, and “the Jews”
Scene 6 (19:8-12) Inside Pilate and Jesus (and “the Jews”)
Scene 7 (19:13-16a) Outside Pilate, Jesus, and “the Jews”
813
As the outline makes clear, the drama is en- tion of religion and politics in mid—first-century
acted on two stages, one outside Pilate’s head- Judea. The portrait of the complicity of the Jewish
quarters, one inside. These two stages serve leadership and the Roman procurator in John 18:28-
several literary and theological purposes. First, 19:16a may provide the most vibrant picture of any
throughout the trial, Pilate is depicted as scurrying of the Gospels of the complex relationship of Jews
back and forth between “the Jews” who remain and Romans in the decades leading up to the revolt
outside, and Jesus, who remains inside the head- of 70 ce! This element of the Johannine trial is
quarters (note the verbs of motion that introduce often ignored, with most Johannine commentators
each scene—e.g., 18:29: “Pilate went out to viewing John’s picture of Pilate through the lens
them”; 18:33: “Then Pilate entered the headquar- of later Christian apologetic toward Rome and not
ters again... ”).°!8 This split stage thus robs Pilate through the lens of first-century Jewish/Roman
of any narrative stability and thereby calls into relations. This is seen most clearly in commenta-
question his authority as judge. Second, even tors’ descriptions of Pilate as a sympathetic char-
when the dramatic focus is on Pilate and Jesus acter in John.° As the Commentary below will
inside the headquarters, the offstage presence of suggest, this insistence on reading Pilate sympatheti-
“the Jews” reminds the reader of what is at stake cally distorts the dynamics of the Johannine trial and
in the trial (as with the split stages of John 7).°!° diminishes the full scope of its portrait of Jesus as
Third, the staging supports the theological move- judge and king.
ment of the trial. As the trial moves to its con- The trial before Pilate ultimately has a christologi-
clusion, the boundaries between the two stages cal focus, as both Pilate and “the Jews” are brought
become more permeable and “both the person- to judgment by Jesus the eschatological judge and
ages and the places move nearer to each other.”©° king. Themes from John 5:19-31 and John 10
That is, in scene 5, all of the major characters are provide its theological backdrop. The complete inte-
positioned on the outside stage; in scene 6, the gration of literary technique, tradition, and interpre-
voice of “the Jews” penetrates into the inside tation that is at the heart of John 18:28-19:16a is
stage (19:12), and in scene 7, all of the major another example of the inseparable unity of form
and content in the Gospel. Through its ironic jux-
characters are together outside again.
As with his sophisticated use of literary tech-
tapositions and intricate staging (see Commentary
below), the reader is drawn into the narrative and
niques in John 18:28-19:164, the Fourth Evan-
shares in its cosmic reversal of judgment.
gelist also employs history and tradition to serve
his theological intentions. This does not mean that 18:28. As noted in the Overview to John
the Fourth Evangelist creates this trial narrative 13-17, in John, Jesus’ trial before Pilate occurs
out of whole cloth, however. For example, the on the Day of Preparation for the Passover, the
question with which Pilate begins his interroga- 14th of Nisan, before the first Passover meal is
tion of Jesus, “Are you the King of the Jews?” eaten, whereas in the synoptic Gospels it occurs
(18:33), is also Pilate’s initial question to Jesus in
on the 15th of Nisan, the day after the first
all of the other Gospels (Matt 27:11; Mark 15:2;
Passover seder has been celebrated. Verse 28
makes clear that the Passover meal still lies in the
Luke 23:3). This exchange (cf. also Jesus’ re-
future and that the trial begins early in the morn-
sponse, “You say that 1 am a king,” 18:37) thus
ing of the Day of Preparation (see also 19:14).
seems to belong to the common traditions about
Those who bring Jesus to the Roman headquarters
Jesus’ trial (cf. Matt 27:11-14; Mark 15:1-5; Luke
but refuse to enter are identified only with
23:1-6), but John develops it to fit his theological
interpretation. 621. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 120; Wayne A.
This trial narrative also showcases the intersec- Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christol-
ogy (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967) 63-81; David Rensberger, “The Politics of
John: The Trial of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel,” /BZ 103 (1984) 395-411;
618. John 19:1-3 contains no explicit reference to Pilate’s return David Renshberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community (Philadel-
inside, but that he does is made clear by the verb at 19:4: “Pilate went phia: Westminster, 1988) 87-106.
out again....” 622. So, e.g., Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John
619. C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cam- (XIII-XX1), AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970) 860, 864, 877,
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 96-97. 890; The Death of the Messiah, 1:750, 830, 844-45; Schnackenburg, Zhe
620. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols. Gospel According to St. John, 3:248-49, 256-57, 263; Barrett, The Gospel
(New York: Seabury, 1982) 3:242. According to St. John, 530-31, 533, 538.
814
JOHN 18:28—19:16a COMMENTARY
the vague pronoun “they” (adroit autod in wv. eating the Passover meal a month late if one has
28-30; at v. 31, however, they will be explicitly been rendered ritually unclean by contact with a
identified as “the Jews.” As will become clear as corpse. The narrator’s comment is not intended
the trial narrative progresses, “the Jews” refers to give a note of historical accuracy to the scene,
specifically to the Jewish religious leadership in however, but to establish its theological irony. The
John 18:28-19:16 and not to the Jewish people trial narrative opens with “the Jews’ ” insistence
in general (see esp. 19:6-7, 12, 15). on ritual purity and their meticulous attention to
The key detail in v. 28 is the narrator’s note the demands of their faith, and it will end with
about ritual defilement. There is a historically their complete denial of the claims of that faith
plausible explanation for this note. The Mishnah (19:15).° The attentiveness to ritual purity also
stipulates that dwelling places of Gentiles are provides the rationale for the Fourth Evangelist’s
unclean, perhaps resulting from Gentile burial use of the literary device of the two stages.
’ practices,°2? and Num 9:9-11 has a provision for
624. George W. MacRae, Jnvitation to John (Garden City, N.Y.:
623. See m. Oholoth 18.7 Doubleday, 1978) 209.
ate
oS ~
>,
EXCURSUS: JOHN’S PORTRAYAL OF PILATE

Pilate, who first appears at v. 29, was the Roman procurator of Judea from 26 to 36 cz.
The image of Pilate that emerges from the Jewish and Roman accounts of his procuratorship
625
is that of a mean-spirited and hard ruler, who scorned his Jewish subj ects.’ The portrait
of Pilate in the synoptic Gospels is more benign, probably under the influence of pro-Roman
Christian apologetic. In Matthew, for example, Pilate is portrayed as being completely
guiltless in the death of Jesus (Matt 27:24-26); in Luke he is portrayed as being convinced
of Jesus’ innocence (Luke 23:4, 13-16, 22-25). As will be shown below, the Johannine
portrait in the trial narrative is more consistent with the character of Pilate in the
non-Christian accounts; therefore, it is a mistake to see the Pilate of John 18-19 through
the lens of the synoptic Gospels. The Pilate who emerges from these chapters is antagonistic
and scornful of “the Jews,” but that does not mean he is Jesus’ ally, searching to convince
the Jewish authorities of Jesus’ innocence.” Rather, Pilate, like the Jewish leaders in
11:46-53, is driven primarily by political expedience. He is portrayed as being singularly
unconcerned with questions of guilt or innocence (e.g., 18:31, 38; 19:10), and he involves
himself in Jesus’ trial as a means “to humiliate ‘the Jews’ and to ridicule their national
hopes by means of Jesus.”*” There is no pro-Roman, anti-Jewish apologetic in the portrayal
of Pilate’s role in Jesus’ death. Pilate’s response to Jesus and his culpability are foregrounded
in this trial in order to show the extent of Jesus’ judgment over the world.
625. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 18.35, 55-62, 88-89; Philo Legatio ad Gaium 38; Tacitus Annals 15, 44).
626. A representative example of this approach to Pilate would be Schnackenburg, who writes: “Pilate seeks to save [Jesus] right up
to the last minute” (The Gospel According to St. John, 3:263). So also Barrett and Brown.
627. Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community, 92.
>,
o, “~~
“~~
18:29-32, Scene One: “What Accusation 29-30), “the Jews’ ” answer to Pilate’s inquiry into
Do You Bring?” The conversation between the charges against Jesus is really a non-answer
Pilate and “the Jews” in 18:29-32 pivots on the and as such shifts responsibility for adjudicating
question of who will be accountable for the death Jesus’ case back to Pilate. Yet at a theological
penalty in Jesus’ case. In the first exchange (vv. level, their response points to what is at issue for
815
JOHN 18:28-19:1 6a COMMENTARY
the Evangelist in the trial. The Greek of 18:30 the trial before Pilate (18:33, 37 [twice], 39; 19:3,
would be translated literally as “Were this one 12, 14, 15 [twice]; see also its usage at 19:19 and
not doing wrong [kakdv toudv kakon poion|?” 21), its heaviest’ concentration anywhere in the
and recalls 3:19-21, in which the contrast be- Fourth Gospel.©° The prominence of the kingship
tween doing evil and doing what is true is deter- motif underscores the intersection of religion
mined by one’s relationship to the light. By and politics in the trial narrative. Political sedi-
“handing over” Jesus, the Jewish authorities at- tion fell under the jurisdiction of the Roman
tempt to remove the light that brings them into courts, and Pilate’s questioning about Jesus’
judgment (cf. the use of “hand over” [rapadtdae political claims points to the Roman awareness
paradido mi] at 18:35-36; 19:11, 16, 30). of the potential threat Jewish messianic hopes
Pilate tries to extricate himself from the appar- posed to their governance. Yet, for the Fourth
ent parochialism of this case (“judge him accord- Evangelist, the kingship motif also has theologi-
ing to your law,” v. 31a), but “the Jews” respond cal significance, and throughout the trial he
that Jesus’ capital offense removes him from their plays the political and theological meanings of
jurisdiction (v. 310). “The Jews’ ” response in v. kingship off one another.
310 is consistent with the description of the 18:34. As is typical of Jesus throughout the
Sanhedrin’s meeting in 11:46-53, at which Caiaphas Fourth Gospel, he responds to Pilate’s question
argued that Jesus should be killed in order to protect with a question of his own (v. 34; cf. 3:9-10;
the leaders’ political standing and power vis-a-vis the 11:8-9; 14:8-9). Jesus’ words move to the heart
Roman government. The question of whether the of Pilate’s depiction in this trial, for they question
Sanhedrin had jurisdiction over death-penalty cases whether Pilate can act on his own, or only in
under Roman rule is therefore largely immaterial to response to others. In addition, Jesus’ question
the interpretation of v. 31,°° because the Jewish signals the direction the rest of the trial will take,
leaders are making a political gesture to Rome here. because he turns the tables on Pilate and positions
An internal Jewish resolution of the situation is himself as the interrogator.°°
inadequate if the chief priests want to secure their 18:35. Pilate’s response to Jesus is also pivotal
standing with Rome; Jesus must receive a death in interpreting both Pilate’s character in this trial
sentence from the Roman government. and its political undertones. His initial question is
Verse 32 confirms that Jesus will not die by introduced with the Greek interrogative particle
stoning (cf. 8:59; 10:31; 11:8), but by crucifixion, unt. (meti, a compound form of pn me), which
the Roman method of execution. Verse 32 is the anticipates a negative response, and its sense is
only time in the trial narrative in which the Fourth accurately reflected in the NRSV, “I am not a Jew,
Evangelist interrupts the story to provide explicit am I?” In this question, Pilate expresses his dis-
theological commentary; Jesus’ crucifixion at the dain for the Jews. This disdain, consistent with
hands of the Roman government is to be interpreted the description of Pilate in Josephus (see Excursus
in the light of Jesus’ earlier predictions of his death “John’s Portrayal of Pilate,” 815), will govern his
at, 3:14° 8:28: and? 12:32) (ci esp. 12:39))) Phe dealings with the Jewish authorities in the remain-
maneuvering of Pilate and “the Jews” in reality is der of the trial (see 18:39; 19:5, 14-15). Pilate’s
in the service of Jesus’ exaltation and return to God. reference to “your own nation |E@vos ethnos| and
18:33-38a, Scene Two: “Are You the high priests” in v. 350 recalls the Sanhedrin’s
King of the Jews?” 18:33. The question about meeting in 11:48-52, the only other place where
Jesus’ kingship with which Pilate begins his inter- ethnos occurs in John, and reinforces the role of
rogation of Jesus in v. 33 is found in all of the political expediency and self-interest in the “hand-
Gospel accounts of the trial (Matt 27:11; Mark ing over” of Jesus.
15:2; Luke 23:3). The Fourth Evangelist takes this Pilate’s question in v. 35a is also an example
traditional passion component, however, and de- of the Fourth Evangelist’s use of theological irony
velops it into the governing motif of the trial. in this trial. For the Fourth Evangelist, “the Jews”
“King” (Baotvevs basileus) occurs nine times in represent the world’s resistance to the revelation
628. For a thorough discussion of this question, see Brown, The Death 629. Its only other occurrences are at 1:49; 6:15; 12:13, 15.
of the Messiah, 1:348-72. 630, Paul Duke, /rony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985) 129.
816
of God in Jesus. Pilate anticipates a negative to the NIV), but once again returns responsibility
answer to his question, but the trial will show for decision to Pilate.
that in fact Pilate is “a Jew,” that he belongs Verse 37c-d is a distillation of theological
with those who reject Jesus.°*! Pilate’s question themes that have run throughout the Gospel.
is thus similar to the Pharisees’ question at 9:40 First, it stresses the connection between Jesus’
(“Surely [me] we are not blind, are we?”), in origin with God and his witness to the truth (e.g.,
which the false certitude expressed in the ques- 3:31-36; 8:14-18, 42, 46; 14:6; 17:17). “For this
tion will be ironically exposed by one’s response ! was born” and “for this I came into the world”
to Jesus. are synonyms that place Jesus’ kingship in the
18:36-38a. Here Jesus will address the two familiar Johannine idiom of Jesus’ mission in the
questions Pilate has asked him: “Are you a king?” world (see also 3:17, 19; 6:38; 9;39; 12:46-47;
(v. 33) and “What have you done?” (v. 35). Jesus’ 16:28) and affirm that the origins of Jesus’ king-
responses are negative and positive counterparts; ship are not “of this world.” Second, the expres-
in v. 36, he defines his kingship by stating what sion “Everyone who belongs to the truth listens
it is not; in v. 37, he gives a positive description to my voice” recalls the claims of the shepherd
of what he has done. Although both the NIV and discourse of John 10 (vv. 3-4, 16, 27); to “belong
the NRSV translate Baoteta (basileia) as “king- to the truth” is thus to be one of Jesus’ sheep. In
dom,” a more accurate translation would be addition, at 8:31, knowing the truth and being
“kingship” or perhaps “reign.” Jesus is describing Jesus’ disciple were presented as synonyms. To
the nature and function of his kingship, not a “belong to the truth” is to recognize in Jesus the
place. When Jesus says, “My kingship is not of truth of God, to see the fullness of God revealed
this world,” or “not from here,” he is referring to in Jesus, to hear the words of God in Jesus’ voice
its origin, not its location. The Fourth Gospel has (et 5:42 6347271274950):
repeatedly emphasized that Jesus originates from It is important to remember that pastoral im-
God (3:31; 8:23, 42; 16:28), and his kingship has agery had political overtones in Israel; shepherd
the same origins (cf. 15:19). The difference be- was a common metaphor for king (e.g., Ezek
tween Pilate’s and Jesus’ understanding of king- 34:1-31; see Commentary on 10:1-6). By intro-
ship is underscored in v. 360, which provides an ducing motifs from the shepherd discourse into
illustration of the contrast between belonging to the trial, then, the Fourth Evangelist points the
God and belonging to “this world.” The word reader to the proper theological context in which
translated “followers” (Utmpétat /Ayperetai, lit. to interpret the discussion of Jesus’ kingship. Jesus
“servants”) is the same word used elsewhere to is the good shepherd, the one who who lays down
describe the temple police (e.g., 18:3, 12, 18, 22; his life for the sheep (10:11, 17-18).%? Verse 37
19:6), so that Jesus is ironically contrasting his also interprets Jesus’ kingship in the light of his
“officers” and the temple officers. His kingship, role as the eschatological judge. Jesus’ presence
unlike that of the king Pilate serves (cf. 19:12, in the world and the word of truth that he speaks
14-16), is not secured by force (cf. 18:11). are the moment of judgment and decision for the
In v. 37a, Pilate returns to his original question world (5:22, 27; 12:46-48). Although Jesus is
(see v. 33), and the emphatic wording of the nominally on trial here, he is the one who testifies
renewed question suggests that he understands to the truth, and the world is judged by its
that his earlier political assumptions have been response to his witness (3:19; 9:39).
confirmed; Jesus does claim to be “king.” Jesus’ It is in the context of Jesus as eschatological
response, “You say that I am a king” (v. 379), is judge, as the one who testifies to the truth that
similar to his response to Pilate in the Synoptics Pilate’s much-debated question in v. 38a (“What
(Matt 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3). Jesus neither is truth?”) must be heard and evaluated. In the
directly affirms nor denies Pilate’s words (contrary immediate context of the legal proceedings against
Jesus, Pilate’s question seems to provide one more
631. Meeks, The Prophet-King, “ ‘Am | a Jew?'—Johannine Christian- example of his contempt for the case that has
ity and Judaism,” in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults:
Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, ed. Jacob Neusner, 4 vols. (Leiden: E.
632. Meeks, The Prophet-King, 68.
J. Brill, 1975) 1:163-86.
817
JOHN 18:28—-19:16a COMMENTARY
been brought before him. Nothing in the portrait “King of the Jews” for Jesus (v. 39). The identi-
of Pilate in John 18-19 supports reading this fication of Barabbas is terse, simply the one word
question as evidence of Pilate’s desire to acquit “bandit” (Anotis /estes). On the basis of Barra-
Jesus.°°3 The real significance of Pilate’s question, bas’s description in the synoptic Gospels as a
however, lies in what it signals to the reader, and political criminal and the use of the noun “bandit”
here again, one finds a consummate example of to describe political revolutionaries in Josephus,°°
Johannine theological irony, because Pilate’s very many scholars assume that the Fourth Evangelist
question contains its own answer. In asking this is focusing on Barabbas as a political criminal here
question of the one who is the truth (14:6), Pilate as well (note the NIV paraphrase, “Barabbas had
unknowingly reveals that he does not belong to taken part in a rebellion”). Bultmann, for example,
the truth, that he does not listen to Jesus’ voice. sees this scene as further illustrating the hypocrisy
Pilate shows that he is not one of Jesus’ sheep of the Jewish authorities, who, having denounced
and thus begins to answer his question of v. 35, Jesus to Rome as an alleged political criminal, now
“IT am not a Jew, am [?”°4 seek the release of a real political criminal.°° Yet
18:38b-40, Scene Three: “Not This Man, the ultimate significance of the noun “bandit”
but Barabbas.” Pilate does not wait for a reply seems to lie elsewhere for the Fourth Evangelist.
to his question about truth, but immediately exits The same, noun is used in the shepherd discourse
the headquarters and returns outside to “the to describe those who threaten the sheep and
Jews” (v. 380), further suggesting that his ques- come before Jesus (10:1, 8). The choice between
tion is not serious. The tradition about the release Jesus and Barabbas is thus the choice between the
of Barabbas is found in all four Gospels (see Matt good shepherd and the bandit, and in choosing
27:15-26; Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23:18-25), al- Barabbas, the “Jews” once again demonstrate that
though there is no other attestation to this practice they do not belong to Jesus’ sheep. This scene
of Passover release. The Barabbas scene is narrated thus continues the theme of the shepherd/king
quite differently in John than in the other Gospels, from the previous scene.”
however. First, this scene occurs at a different 19:1-3, Scene Four: “Hail, King of the
place in the trial narrative. In all of the other Jews.” As already noted, the Fourth Evangelist
Gospels, it occurs at the climax of Pilate’s delib- locates the account of Jesus’ flogging and mocking
eration, whereas here it (and the scourging in in the middle of the trial. In Mark 15:156-20 and
19:1-3, see Scene 4 below) has been placed near Matt 27:26631, the flogging and mocking of
the middle of the proceedings. Second, it is a Jesus by the Roman soldiers immediately precedes
much more abbreviated scene than in the other his execution.°°® As such, it is narrated in its
three Gospels; there is almost no description of appropriate legal and procedural location, for flog-
Barabbas’s crime (cf. Mark 15:6; Luke 23:19), no ging was normally a preliminary to crucifixion.%9
mention of his actual release (cf. Matt 27:26; In locating this scene in the middle of the trial,
Mark 15:15; Luke 23:25), and a truncated dia- the Fourth Evangelist radically alters its function.
logue between Pilate and “the Jews” (cf. Mark The Roman soldiers’ actions are not an act of
15:9-14; Luke 23:14-23). The Johannine account torture and humiliation meted out to a criminal
also gives very little attention to Pilate’s motiva- after his sentence, because Jesus’ trial is still in
tion for the release or his conviction of Jesus’ progress and no verdict has yet been reached.
innocence (cf. Matt 27:18, 19, 23-24; Mark Many scholars, guided by their assumptions that
15:10, 14-15; Luke. 23:20,°22, 24). throughout this trial Pilate is seeking to persuade
The scene thus is streamlined to have one “the Jews” of Jesus’ innocence, see in the flogging
focus: the choice between “the King of the Jews” an attempt by Pilate to dissuade the Jews from
and Barabbas. Pilate’s disdain for “the Jews” is
once again signaled in his taunting use of the title 635. E.g., Josephus The Jewish War 2.253-54, 585.
636. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn:A Commentary, trans. G.
633. Barrett seems to read Pilate’s question this way. See C. K. Barrett, Westminster, 1971) 657-58.
The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 637. Meeks, The Prophet-King, 68.
1978) 538. 638. Lukes narrates no flogging, although Pilate alludes to it twice
634. Meeks, The Prophet-King, 67, sees v. 35 as being fully answered (Luke 23:16, 22).
in this verse. 639. See, e.g, Josephus The Jewish War 5.449.
818
their determination to seek the death penalty 19:4-7, Scene Five: “Here Is the Man.”
for Jesus. That is, Pilate hopes that the Jews This is the first of two scenes in which Pilate
will accept Jesus’ beating as sufficient punish- brings Jesus outside the headquarters in order to
ment. Yet “the Jews” are not witnesses to present him to “the Jews” (see also vv. 13-16).
this scene; they are outside the headquarters, Both are scenes of high drama, in which all of
and the flogging and abuse occur inside (cf. the protagonists of the trial are together on one
19:4). The actions of John 19:1-3 are thus stage: Jesus, dressed as a king, is silent, while
narrated for the Gospel readers alone, so the Pilate and “the Jews” debate his fate.
clue to the placement of this scene must be 19:4-5. The presentation of Jesus is narrated
sought within the Fourth Evangelist’s dramatic in three parts in vv. 4-5: (1) Pilate’s words of
and theological purposes. introduction (v. 4); (2) Jesus’ appearance (v. 5a);
As with the Barabbas tradition, the Fourth and (3) Pilate’s declaration, “Here is the man” (v.
Evangelist has streamlined the narrative of Jesus’ 56). The juxtaposition of vv. 4 and 5 makes it
flogging and mistreatment by the Roman soldiers difficult to see how Pilate’s words in v. 4 could
to showcase his theological interpretation. First, be taken as a serious statement of Jesus’ inno-
the Johannine account is briefer than those in cence; that Pilate presents Jesus to “the Jews”
Mark and Matthew, and it has one focal point: dressed in royal garb is disdainful both of “the
the dressing of Jesus in royal attire and the sol- Jews” and of Jesus. Pilate’s words in wv. 45
diers’ acclamation of him as “King of the Jews” contain no pity for Jesus, nor is his purpose “to
(vv. 2-3). Second, the Fourth Evangelist nowhere make the person of Jesus appear to the Jews as
labels the soldiers’ actions and words as “mock- ridiculous and harmless.”°*? Rather, Pilate flaunts
ing” (cf. Matt 27:29, 31; Mark 15:20). Instead, his authority as the Roman procurator and paro-
the soldiers’ actions stand on their own, their dies the political claims and aspirations of the
interpretation left to the reader. Third, and most Jewish leadership. The purpose of his words and
important, the Fourth Evangelist does not record actions seems to be to taunt the Jews and their
that the soldiers strip Jesus of the royal garb and messianic pretensions. These verses are the real
return him to his own clothes (cf. Matt 27:31; mockery in the Johannine trial, and the object of
Mark 15:20). Rather, John 19:5 makes clear that the mockery is the Jewish leadership. Pilate’s actions
Jesus stays dressed in the royal garb for the in vv. 4-5 border on the farcical, as the Roman
remainder of the trial. procurator toys with “the Jews” and their “king.”
The Fourth Evangelist thus has transformed the Pilate’s declaration in v. 5 is one of the most
tradition of Jesus’ mockery by the Roman soldiers famous (and most discussed) lines from the
into a narrative of Jesus’ investiture as king.°*! As Fourth Gospel. On the level of the story line, as
the middle scene in the drama, John 19:1-3 is the indicated earlier, Pilate’s words seem to communicate
turning point in the trial narrative. From this point his disdain for the whole notion of a Jewish kingship.
on, Jesus’ kingship becomes a visible and tangible Yet Pilate’s words may also work on a second level,
part of the proceedings; when Pilate presents Jesus providing the reader with yet another indication of
to the “Jews” in 19:4-7, 13-16, he presents to the nature of Jesus’ kingship. It is possible, for
them a man dressed in the garb of a king. John example, that the words “Here is the man lo
19:1-3 thus sets the stage for the ultimate enact- dvOpwttos ho anthropos)” are intended to echo
ment of Jesus’ kingship, his exaltation on the cross the description of Jesus as “the Son of Man” (0
(see vv. 19-21), his gift as the good shepherd of vids Tod dvOpuitrou Ao huios tou anthropou).©“
his life for his own. In the Fourth Gospel, “Son of Man” is associated
with Jesus’ death (e.g., 3:14; 8:28; 12:23, 32-34),
640. So Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 530; Bultmann, but it is also used to describe Jesus as the eschato-
The Gospel of John, 659; Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIl-
XX1), 886; Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel, 132.
642. So Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 659. See also Schnackenburg,
641. Josef Blank, “Die Verhandlung vor Pilatus Jo 18:28-19:16 im
The Gospel According to St. John, 3:255-56.
Lichte johanneischer Theologie,” Biblische Zeitschrift 3 (1959), 60-81;
643. David Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community
Ignace de la Potterie, “Jesus, King and Judge According to John 19:13,”
Scripture 13 (1961) 97-111 (originally published in Biblica 41 [1960]
117-47). Meeks, The Prophet-King, 68-69; Duke, /rony in the Fourth 644. C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cam-
Gospel, 132.
819
logical judge (e.g., 5:27-28). To the Gospel reader, That is, “the Jews” remind Pilate of his stake in
then, Pilate inadvertently presents Jesus to “the this trial and its potential political implications for
Jews” as the eschatological judge, thereby undercut- him. In v. 7, the Jewish leadership thus is por-
ting his own authority as judge and ironically reveal- trayed as willing to exploit the claims of their faith
ing the true nature of this trial. Pilate’s presentation in the service of political expediency. They respond
of Jesus thus may resemble Caiaphas’s unconscious to Pilate’s taunting of their dependence on his
prophecy about the meaning of Jesus’ death at judicial role by reminding him of the limits on his
11:50; even those who seek to destroy Jesus juridical freedom (see also 19:12).
unintentionally witness to the truth about him. 19:8-12, Scene Six: “You Would Have No
19:6a. The reaction of the Jewish leadership to Power Over Me.” 19:8-9. Verse 8 provides
the sight of Jesus dressed as a king is swift and the first explicit reference to Pilate’s reaction
intense. Unlike the synoptic Gospels where the to the proceedings. Although the Greek ex-
crowd clamors for Jesus’ crucifixion (Matt 27:22-23; pression (udddAov EdoBr8n mallon ephobethe)
Mark 15:13-14; Luke 23:18, 21, 23), in John it is can be translated as a comparative (“even more
only the formal leadership and their henchmen. afraid,” NIV; or “more afraid than ever,” NRSV),
“The Jews” and “chief priests” are used interchange- this translation is problematic, because v. 8 is the
ably in John 18-19 (e.g., 19:6-7, 14-15). The elimi- first time: Pilate’s fears have been mentioned.
nation of any role for the crowd and the exclusive Many scholars get around this difficulty by reading
focus on the participation of the leadership again fear back into many of Pilate’s earlier words and
point to the political slant John gives this trial and actions in the trial, but this interpretive move bor-
clarify who he identifies as Jesus’ antagonists. The ders on excessive psychologizing about the character
double cry, “Crucify! Crucify!” (NIV; the NRSV and motives of the Johannine Pilate.°*° It thus seems
supplies the pronoun that is absent in the Greek preferable to translate the expression as an intensive—
text) confirms the chief priests’ intention that Jesus Pilate became “very much afraid.”°4”
die at the hands of a Roman court. Verses 8-9 are one sentence in the Greek text
19:6b. Pilate’s response in v. 60 mocks this inten- (so NIV), so that Pilate’s fear is clearly positioned
tion. The Jewish leadership had no authority to carry as the motivation for his reentering the headquar-
out a crucifixion; that method of execution belonged ters and interrogating Jesus. What is not as clear
to the jurisdiction of the Roman legal system. Pilate is the reason for this fear. Pilate’s fear may derive
thus taunts the Jewish leadership with their depend- from the “Jews’ ” introduction of religious catego-
ence on his granting the merits of their case against ries in v. 7. That is, the possibility that he might
Jesus and threatens to disregard their demands. be in the presence of a divine man, “the Son of
19:7. “The Jews” then allude to the law against God,” evokes Pilate’s fears.°® This interpretation,
blasphemy, which prescribes death by stoning for however, assumes that Pilate would honor and
blasphemers (Lev 24:13-16; see also m. Sanh. 7.5). respect “the Jews’” language about God, an as-
“The Jews” have already tried to stone Jesus for sumption that the text does not otherwise sup-
blasphemy twice (8:59; 10:31), and their charge of port. A more likely explanation for Pilate’s fears
blasphemy here, “He has made himself the Son of is political. If, as suggested, the Jewish leadership’s
God” (author’s trans.), is almost identical to their motivation in introducing the blasphemy charge
charges of blasphemy against Jesus at 5:18 and in v. 7 is political, not primarily religious, then it
10:33. “The Jews’ ” appeal to the blasphemy law is may be that very political threat that evokes
ironic in the light of 18:31, where they disowned Pilate’s fears. Pilate is afraid because he recognizes
their legal right to enact a death penalty, and marks that the situation in which he finds himself may
a new turn in their dealings with Pilate. As the place his political future in jeopardy (see also 19:12).
Roman procurator of Judea, Pilate was required to In this regard, as Brown has observed, Pilate is
honor local customs, and the Jewish leadership
seems to remind him of that responsibility here. 646. E.g., Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John,
(Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948) 3:260; Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 661n. 2.
647. So Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 542.
645. See Philo Legatio ad Gaium 38. So Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel 648. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 114; Schnack-
According to John (XiI/-XX1), AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970) enburg, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 3:260; most dramatically,
890-91. Duke, /rony in the Fourth Gospel, 133.
820
similar to Caiaphas at 11:48-53.°° Both leaders, the exercise of power over Jesus is given to him
secular and religious, are anxious and fearful from above (cf. 3:27). God has given power and
about what Jesus means to their power and authority to judge to Jesus (5:27), not to Pilate.
authority. Indeed, God has given Jesus “power [exousia]
Pilate’s question about Jesus’ origins in v. 9 over all flesh” (17:2). Pilate’s exercise of power,
initiates a new probe into Jesus’ identity in re- therefore, is only as an instrument in the service
sponse to the Jewish charge of blasphemy (cf. of God and Jesus in the fulfillment of Jesus’ hour.
Pilate’s inquiry into Jesus’ origins in Luke 23:5-7), The reference to “sin” (auaptia hamartia) in
but for the Fourth Gospel reader, this question v. 110 is about neither legal nor moral culpability
has additional meaning. The question of Jesus’ in the death of Jesus, but is a theological statement
origins is one of the most important christological about relationship to God. Jesus’ words in v. 116,
and theological issues in the Gospel, and the therefore, do not reflect pro-Roman Christian
reader knows that the correct answer to the apologetic that wants to minimize the culpability
question “Where are you from?” is “From God” of Pilate in the death of Jesus,°° but must be
(Coa lebase PO; StS 4906183;9 75292 162 7:28}. interpreted in the light of the Johannine under-
Pilate’s ignorance of this answer thus further iden- standing of sin. In the Fourth Gospel, “sin” is
tifies him with “the Jews” (see 18:35), whose defined by whether one believes that God is fully
ignorance of Jesus’ origins is a theme throughout present in Jesus, whether one believes that to see
the Gospel (7:27-28; 8:14; 9:29; cf. also 6:42; Jesus is to see God (14:9; see Reflections on John
7:41-42). Jesus’ silence (cf. Matt 27:14; Mark 15:5) 9). To have the greater sin, then, is to have the
allows the implications of Pilate’s question to linger greater blindness to the revelation of God in Jesus.
for the reader; Jesus has already answered the Jesus ascribes the “greater sin” to “the one who
question of his origins for Pilate (18:36-37), and handed me over to you.” Prior to the trial narra-
Pilate rejected that answer with his question, “What tive, the verb “to hand over” or “to betray”
is truth?” No further answer is possible. (Tapadtdwut paradidomi) was used exclusively
19:10-11. The conversation between Pilate to refer to Judas’s betrayal (e.g., 6:64; 12:4; 13:2,
11, 21; 18:2, 5). In the trial narrative, however,
and Jesus in these verses supports reading the
this verb no longer refers to Judas, whose part in
potential loss of power as the cause of Pilate’s
the events of the hour has been played and
fears, since these verses focus on the meaning and
therefore has disappeared from the story, but
source of power. These verses parallel the ex-
refers to the Jewish leadership (18:30, 35-36), as
change about kingship in 18:35-38, for both ex-
it does here. At this point in the trial narrative,
changes contrast power that is based in human
“the Jews” do have the greater sin, because in
institutions with true power, which resides with
handing Jesus over to Pilate they have definitively
God. The wording of Pilate’s challenge to Jesus
rejected the revelation of God in Jesus. That is,
in v. 10 is very important, because it is a direct
they have the greater blindness to the presence
echo of Jesus’ own language about his death in of God in Jesus, especially because they claim to
10:17-18. There, Jesus says, “No one takes it [my know God (5:39; 8:41; 9:29; 10:33; cf. 9:39-41).
life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. By the end of the trial, however, when Pilate
I have power [é€ovoia exousia] to lay it down, himself hands Jesus over to be crucified (19:164},
and I have power [exousia] to take it up again.” Pilate will share their sin, because he, too, will
The reader, therefore, knows that Pilate’s claims have rejected the revelation of God in Jesus. He
to power in 19:10 are false; the judicial power to will be fully a “Jew.”
which Pilate appeals is a sham, because authority 19:12. This verse marks the decisive dramatic
over Jesus’ life and death rests with Jesus. turn in the trial narrative. In v. 12a, the narrator
Jesus makes this explicit in his response in v. informs the reader of Pilate’s intention to release
11. The English wording of v. 11a is ambiguous, Jesus. Where earlier Pilate had only been toying
but the Greek makes clear that Jesus is not saying with “the Jews” about Jesus’ release, now he
that power is given to Pilate from above, but that
650. So Schnackenburg, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 3:261-62;
Brown, Zhe Gospel According to John (XIII-XX1), 893.
649. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XX]), 891.
821
intends it in earnest. Pilate himself never ex- (“Pilate sat on the judge’s seat” [NIV, NRSV}), or
presses this intention, yet in v. 120, “the Jews” as a transitive verb, requiring a direct object to
know of Pilate’s plan. The appearance of the complete its meaning (“Pilate seated [Jesus] on the
narrator’s comments in the words of characters in judge’s seat” [NRSV alt.]). Both translations are
the story heightens the drama of the moment, for grammatically possible, so the question must be
it is as if the Jews know Pilate’s plans as soon as resolved on other grounds. Those scholars who
he does and are one step ahead of him. As in argue for the intransitive translation make their
19:7, “the Jews” remind Pilate of the political case largely on the grounds of historical prob-
constraints on his juridical options. “Friend of the ability. That is, they deem it historically improb-
emperor” may already have been used as an able that Pilate would have mocked the judicial
Official title in this period, granted in recognition process at this point by placing Jesus, the accused,
of loyalty and service to the emperor.®! Even if on the seat from which the judge was to voice
it is not used as a title here, the meaning of “the his verdict.°? This reading once again assumes
Jews’ ” warning is clear: If Pilate releases this man that Pilate is still intent on releasing Jesus, when
who has been handed to him on charges of in fact this scene continues and intensifies Pilate’s
political sedition, he may find himself accused of mockery of the Jewish authorities from 19:4-7
sedition. (see Comrhentary on vv. 140 and 150). It is fully
Pilate’s interrogation of Jesus occurs inside the in keeping with the character of the Johannine
headquarters, out of sight of the Jewish authori- Pilate for him to taunt the Jews at this critical
ties, yet their words to Pilate in v. 120 penetrate point by seating Jesus, still dressed in the purple
into this stage. The divide between the two stages robe and crown of thorns, on the judge’s seat.
is decisively breached, preparing for the final re- This commentary agrees with those scholars
union of all the protagonists in vv. 13-16. The who support the transitive reading of kathidzo.°*
staging heightens the effect of “the Jews’ ” words, For Pilate to seat Jesus on the judge’s seat lends
because their seeming omniscience gives almost a profound irony to the scene that accords with
ominous power to their warning. The immediate the theological and dramatic intent of the trial
juxtaposition of the narrator’s comments in v. 12a narrative. Pilate, who intends to mock Jesus and
and the Jews’ response in v. 120 thus places Pilate the Jews by placing Jesus on the judge’s seat,
and his decision with respect to Jesus in the unknowingly places him in his rightful place as
spotlight. The moment for Pilate’s decision has judge. Read in this light, the staging of the final,
arrived. climactic scene telegraphs its theological content:
19:13-16a, Scene Seven: “Here Is Your Jesus is the true judge and king. It also confirms
King.” This scene is the solemn and tragic con- Jesus’ words of v. 11, that Pilate exercises his
clusion to the trial narrative. The solemnity with authority only in the service of God and Jesus.
which the Evangelist perceives this moment is 19:14. The charade of parading Jesus out one
indicated by both the formal identification of the more time dressed as a king is Pilate’s answer to
site (note that both its Greek and Aramaic names the Jews’ warning about Pilate’s loyalty to the
are provided in v. 13) and the detailed accounting
of the day and time (v. 14a; see below). As at 652. E.g., Bultmann, 7he Gospel of John, 664; Schnackenburg, The
Gospel According to St. John, 3:263-64; Brown, The Gospel According
19:8, “the Jews’” words are explicitly positioned to John (XIII-XXI), 880-81, who writes, “the seriousness of Roman law
as the motivation for Pilate’s actions (“When militates against such buffoonery.” See also Raymond E. Brown, The Death of
the Messiah, 2. vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1994) 1:844, appendix 'II D.
Pilate heard these words... ”). 653. It is also interesting to note that the soldiers “seat” (kaOiCw
19:13. What Pilate does when he brings kathizo) Jesus on the judgment seat and mock him as judge and king as
part of Jesus’ mockery in the Gospel of Peter: “And they dressed him in
Jesus out of the headquarters is a controversial purple and seated him upon the judgment seat, saying, Judge justly, King
point in Fourth Gospel scholarship. The contro- of Israel’ ” (5.7) and Justin’s Apology. “They seated him upon the judge’s
seat, and said, ‘Judge us’ ” (1.35).
versy stems from whether the verb (e€xd®oev 654. The most important and thorough presentation of this position is
ekathisen) should be translated as an intransitive Ignace de la Potterie, “Jesus, roi et juge d’aprés Jn 19, 13: ekathisen epi
verb, describing an action without a direct object bematos,” Biblica 41 (1960) 217-47. See also Meeks, The Prophet-King,
73-76; Duke, /ronyinthe Fourth Gospel, 134-35; and George W: MacRae,
Invitation to John (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1978) 210, Barrett, The
651. Ernst Bammel, “philos tou kaisaros (John 19:12),” Theologie Gospel According to St. John, 544, argues that the Fourth Evangelist was
Literaturzeitung 77 (1952) 205-20. conscious of both meanings.
822
emperor in v. 12. By presenting Jesus as “your the emperor,” the trial reaches its tragic and
King” in v. 140, Pilate once again mocks the Jews’ pathos-filled end. With this reply, the chief priests
Messianic pretensions and any threat they might renounce everything that gives them their distinc-
pose to Roman rule (cf. 19:4-5). As with the tive identity as God’s people.
seating of Jesus on the judge’s seat, Pilate’s First, in professing allegiance to the Roman
words also have a profound theological irony. emperor, the chief priests ironically renounce all
In his mocking and derision, Pilate, like Caia- their messianic hopes and aspirations. At 8:33,
phas at 11:49, unconsciously speaks the truth “the Jews” said to Jesus, “We are descendants of
about Jesus: He is the king (cf. 1:49). Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone”
The reference to the day and hour in v. 14a (see Commentary on 8:33), but here they re-
deserves special mention. As noted earlier (see Over- nounce that defining freedom and enslave them-
view to John 13-17), the Johannine chronology for selves to Rome. Second, at the heart of Israel’s
the trial and crucifixion differs from that of the faith is the claim that God is the only king (e.g.,
Synoptics. In John, as 19:14 makes explicit, the trial Judg 8:23; 1 Sam 8:7; Isa 26:13). In shouting,
and crucifixion occur on the Day of Preparation, the “We have no king but the emperor,” the chief
14th of Nisan. According to John, the legal proceed- priests thus deny their God. One of the theological
ings begin early in the morning (18:28) and last themes of Passover is the celebration of God as
until noon (“the sixth hour,” NIV). Most scholars judge and king, a theme captured in the following
assume that John is trying to establish a connection hymn from a Passover liturgy:
between the death of Jesus and the slaughter of the
Passover lamb with this notation,°° and while that From everlasting to everlasting thou art God
association may be implied at 19:36, it is not the Beside thee we have no king, redeemer, or
savior,
association intended here. Rather, as de la Potterie No liberator, deliverer, provider
and Meeks have carefully observed, John is not None who takes pity in every time of distress
noting the time of Jesus’ crucifixion in v. 14 (as in and trouble
Mark 15:25, “nine o’clock in the morning”), but We have no king but thee.®®
the time of Pilate’s announcement of Jesus as king.®°
By linking Jesus’ presentation as judge and king with In their zeal to reject Jesus, the chief priests have
noon on the Day of Preparation, the Fourth Evangelist rejected the very God whom they purport to
positions this scene to coincide with the time when serve.
regulations for the Passover feast go into effect.’ As 19:16a. With the chief priests’ words, the drama
Jerusalem prepares to celebrate the Passover, “the has been played out. The narrator adds no interpre-
Jews” are presented with their king. tive comment, for such comment would be super-
19:15. This Passover context provides the nec- fluous; the pathos of the moment speaks for itself.
essary theological and dramatic background for “the The trial narrative ends with the very understated
Jews’ ” rejection of Jesus in v. 15. Note again that report that Pilate handed Jesus over to the chief
as in v. 6, it is the religious leadership, not a crowd, priests to be crucified (v. 16). As noted, in handing
who rejects Jesus and calls for his crucifixion (v. Jesus over, Pilate joins “the Jews” in their rejection
15a). Pilate’s taunt in v. 150 sets up the dramatic of God in Jesus. Pilate and “the Jews” have both
conclusion of the trial narrative in v. 15c. When the gotten what they wanted—“the Jews” have rid
chief priests answer Pilate, “We have no king but themselves of Jesus and secured their place with
Rome (cf. 11:48-53), and Pilate has maneuvered the
655. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: ACommentary, trans. G. Jewish authorities into renouncing their messianic
Westminster, 1971) 664n. 5, 677; E. C. Hoskyns, 7he Fourth Gospel
aspirations and so secured his place with Rome—but
(London: Faber & Faber, 1947) 525; C. K. Barrett, 7he Gospel According at a great cost (see Reflections).
to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 545; Raymond E.
Brown, Zhe Gospel According to John (XIII-XX1), AB 29A (Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970) 895. 658. Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the
Johannine Christology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967) 71. The dating of this
656. de la Potterie, “Jesus, roi et juge,” 244ff.; Meeks, Zhe Prophet-
King, 76n. 3. ? hymn is uncertain, but even if this very hymn was not part of the seder in
657. See m. Pesahim 1.4-5. first-century Palestine, it captures the theological intent of the celebration.
823
REFLECTIONS
At John 12:46-49, in the epilogue to his public ministry, Jesus states the role of judgment
in his ministry: “I have come as light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me
should not remain in the darkness. I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not
keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. The one who rejects
me and does not receive my word has a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken
will serve as judge, for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself
given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak.”
These words of Jesus provide the critical theological categories through which to interpret
the trial of John 18:28-19:16a, because they help the interpreter to understand that the real
trial is not whether or not Jesus will be judged guilty of a capital offense, but whether or not
Pilate and the Jewish religious leadership will be judged by Jesus’ word. In order to understand
the ways in which the trial before Pilate brings the theme of judgment to its conclusion, it
will be useful to examine how the conduct and fate of the central characters in the trial
narrative (the Jewish leaders, Pilate, Jesus) through the lens of Jesus’ words in 12:46-49.
1. The Jewish Leaders. For the Jewish leaders, the trial narrative is the capstone on the
theological conflict that has characterized the relationship between Jesus and “the “Jews”
throughout the Gospel narrative. The theological conflicts of John 5 and 7-10 form the
background of this trial scene, but their content is not repeated here. As Jesus made clear in
his words to Annas in 18:20-21, he has already spoken openly to “the Jews” about God, and
they have rejected his revelation; there is no need to rehearse the differences further. As if to
underscore this point, Jesus and the Jews do not speak to one another in the trial. They each
speak only to Pilate. ;
The critical moment of judgment for the chief priests comes in vv. 14-16, which is also the
final opportunity for decision. Jesus stands before them, their king, and Pilate puts the crucial
question to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests’ answer is the most painful
moment in the Gospel, for as the Commentary noted, in their zeal to destroy Jesus, they have
denied the very God in whom their lives are grounded.
For the Fourth Evangelist, the decisive theological issue that divides the Jewish leadership
and Johannine Jewish Christians is how one defines relationship with God. The Jewish
leadership is emblematic of active rejection of Jesus, of the insistence that there is another
way to God, and for the Fourth Evangelist, such a perspective is a lie (see Commentary and
Reflections on 8:31-59). For the Fourth Evangelist, as the Gospel repeatedly makes clear, Jesus
redefines relationship with God: “No one comes to the Father except through me” (see
Reflections on John 14). The Fourth Evangelist’s understanding of judgment is derived directly
from this understanding of God. Those who come to God through’Jesus are not judged, but
come to eternal life. Those who reject the offer of God in Jesus are by definition judged,
because they have closed themselves off from God. In 19:15, the Fourth Evangelist gives
narrative shape to this understanding of judgment; he allows the reader to witness a moment
of judgment. It is the decisive eschatological moment: In rejecting Jesus as king, the Jewish
leadership at the same time reject God as king and are, therefore, judged.
The Fourth Evangelist does not append any explicit word of judgment at the end of this
scene, because none is needed. Through their own words and their rejection of Jesus, the
Jewish leaders have judged themselves, and that judgment lingers in the narrative without
comment. They were offered salvation and invited into the presence of God, but chose
condemnation instead (cf. 3:18). They heard Jesus’ words but did not keep them (12:47).
From the perspective of the Fourth Evangelist, “the Jews’ ” rejection of Jesus is a tragedy of
monumental proportions, because they have lost everything.
824
It is important to note that there is neither joy nor exultation in the Fourth Evangelist’
s
depiction of this moment. It is instead a moment of sheer loss, whose impact echoes
in the
narrative silence. The Fourth Evangelist does not gloat, but instead “the Jews’ ” announcement
feels almost funereal. They have disclaimed their God; who could rejoice? It is critical that
the contemporary interpreter read this presentation of the Jewish leadership’s rejection of Jesus
and denial of their God as the final expression of the Fourth Evangelist’s theological conflict
with Judaism and not as a statement about Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus. The
death of Jesus is not the tragedy for the Fourth Evangelist; “the Jews’ ” loss of their relationship
with God is. John 19:15 is a crystallization of what has been apparent throughout the Gospel:
For the Fourth Evangelist, everything is at stake in the decision one makes about the revelation
of God in Jesus.
2. Pilate. The character of Pilate introduces a new element into the Fourth Gospel’s theme
of judgment. Prior to John 18:28-19:16a, Jesus’ only antagonists have been “the Jews,” and
their part in the trial narrative builds on their other encounters with Jesus throughout the
Gospel. “The Jews” provide the background in this trial, but Pilate and his response to Jesus
occupy the foreground in the trial narrative. By giving Pilate such prominence in the trial
narrative, the Fourth Evangelist asks the reader to look at Jesus and the decision about Jesus
in a new light. In this trial, the Fourth Evangelist opens up the arena of Jesus’ testimony to
include the broader world. Just as he moved outside the traditional boundaries of Judaism and
testified to a Samaritan woman in John 4, so also here Jesus testifies to a representative of the
Roman government who is clearly shown to be wanting, who does not respond to the word
of truth that Jesus brings and indeed is in his very person.
The role of Pilate shows that the “world” (kdopos kosmos), the sphere of enmity toward
Jesus, is not limited to “the Jews,” and that “Jew” is not an ethnic designation. The
eschatological scope of Jesus’ hour and the judgment that comes with it (cf. 8:21-28) is
highlighted in Pilate’s rejection of Jesus. Pilate, a “ruler of the world,” is judged by Jesus’ hour
just as the Jewish religious leadership is judged.
Pilate’s exchanges with Jesus in the trial (18:33-38a; 19:8-11) are a perfect illustration of
Jesus’ words at 12:48: “The one who rejects me and does not receive my word has a judge;
on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge.” Jesus’ words to Pilate move
to the heart of his ministry and revelation of God: “My kingdom is not from this world”; “For
this I came into the world, to testify to the truth”; “You would have no power over me unless
it had been given you from above.” Pilate’s question, “What is truth?” signals his rejection of
Jesus and his words. When Pilate hands Jesus over to be crucified, he puts into action the
rejection that has characterized his response to Jesus throughout the trial. He has never heard
Jesus; he has never listened to Jesus’ voice.
The word that Jesus has spoken does indeed stand as judge, because it is Jesus’ word that has
shown the limits of Pilate’s purported judgment, power, and authority. Pilate attempts to exercise
his power and authority over Jesus, but instead, Pilate’s power and authority diminish as the trial
unfolds. His questions and responses to Jesus draw attention to his distance from any true command
of power, authority, and truth. The trial narrative presents the reader with a ruler who has all the
accoutrements of power and office (note the soldiers at his disposal), with the legal authority to
take away life, but who nonetheless stands powerless in the face of true power, authority, and
life. Jesus testifies to the truth; Pilate builds a case around mockery and political expedience. The
power of this ruler of the world is exposed as empty.
Pilate, then, is not a victim in this trial, nor is he some hapless innocent, trapped by the
machinations of the Jewish leadership.” Rather, Pilate is a man, like so many others in this
659. SoBultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 657-59, 662n. 6, 665 (“Pilate falls victim to the Jews”); Schnackenburg, Der Evangelist Johannes,
3:249, 263, 265; Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XX]}, 893-94.
825
Gospel, to whom Jesus speaks the truth about himself and God. Pilate is given the opportunity
to make his decision about Jesus—not his legal decision, but his theological decision. That is,
by speaking the truth to Pilate, Jesus puts Pilate on trial. Pilate is asked to decide whether he
will receive Jesus’ word, whether he will identity himself with those who “have the love of
God” in them (5:42), or whether he will turn his back on God.
When John 18:28-19:16a is read as part of the Good Friday lessons (Year C), it may be
Pilate who should occupy the church’s attention as it meditates on the significance of the trial.
The “Jews’” rejection of Jesus is a tragedy that brings a theological conflict to its painful
conclusion, and its pathos is palpable. The presentation of Pilate in this trial gives the interpreter
a different angle on response to Jesus, however. Pilate makes it impossible to isolate “the Jews”
as the enemies and rejecters of Jesus, because by the end of the trial Pilate is fully complicit
with them. Pilate’s encounter with and rejection of Jesus are completely played out on this
one stage; Pilate both receives Jesus’ witness and rejects it and him in the course of this one
story. The reader thus is able to experience the drama of decision making and to reflect on
its consequences. In his rejection, Pilate reveals who he is, that he loves the darkness more
than the light, that he belongs to those who reject the revelation of God in Jesus. This image
of the world’s rejection of Jesus puts hard and searching questions before the church, because
it is another reminder that the real issue on.Good Friday is not who is responsible for the
death of Jesus, but the many ways in which the revelation of God in Jesus can be rejected.
3. Jesus. Juridical imagery and metaphors have dominated the presentation of the life and
ministry of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. John the Baptist’s proclamation about Jesus is repeatedly
identified as “witness” or “testimony” (e.g., 1:7, 15, 19, 34; 3:26; 5:33). Jesus speaks of his
words and works as testimony that the Father has sent him (e.g., 3:32; 5:36), and God, too,
is said to bear witness on Jesus’ behalf (5:37; 8:18). Jesus’ life and ministry have been presented
through the metaphor of a trial, in which the world is presented with the truth of God in
Jesus and is asked to respond (3:33; 5:33; 8:31, 45; 14:6; 15:26; 17:17). Jesus both bears
Witness and is the one to whom witness is born in this “trial,” because Jesus both speaks
God’s words and is God’s Word. His mission (what Jesus says and does) and his identity (who
Jesus is) are inseparable in the Gospel. Both belong to his revelation of the character and
identity of God. When Jesus tells Pilate that his mission is to testify to the truth (18:37), he
is also speaking about his identity as the truth.
In addition to juridical language about witness, language about judgment also dominates the
Johannine portrait of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus is identified as the Son of Man, who in the Fourth
Gospel is the agent of God’s eschatological judgment (5:27; 9:35). The lifting up of the Son
of Man is the moment of the world’s judgment (3:13-15; 8:28; 12:34). Jesus is also the light
of the world, whose very advent into the world is the moment of judgment and division (8:12;
0:5; 12:46; cf. 9:39);
In the trial before Pilate, then, the juridical metaphors and imagery about Jesus are brought
to their dramatic conclusion. Story line and theology completely coalesce, because the “trial”
becomes both metaphorical and actual. On one level, Jesus is on trial for his life, but on
another, and for the Fourth Evangelist, the most important level, the world is on trial for its
life. The world thinks it is judging Jesus, but in reality, Jesus is judging it, and he judges the
world both by what he says and does and by who he is. In the trial narrative, then, the
inseparability of Jesus’ mission and identity is most acute.
Jesus bears witness to the truth in what he says, enacting his words of 12:49, “for I have
not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment
about what to say and what to speak.” As was noted in the discussion of the Jewish religious
leaders and Pilate, this witness is also an act of judgment, because it evokes decision. from
those who hear. The world has to declare itself for or against Jesus, and in declaring itself
against Jesus, the world falls under his judgment and the judgment of God (3:30;5:22,) 27-28:
826
45; 8:21-29, 42-47; 12:31, 48-50; 16:8-11). But Jesus also bears witness to the truth in who
he is. As he stands before Pilate and the Jewish authorities, dressed in the raiment of a king,
his presence bears witness to the truth of his identity. He is the king, not the kind of claimant
to power that Pilate fears, but the good shepherd-king, who is about to lay down his life for
those he loves.
From the perspective of the participants in the trial narrative, Jesus plays two roles: the
accused, on whom a verdict is to be rendered, and the mocked and humiliated “king,” an
object of derision and scorn. From the perspective of the Fourth Evangelist, Jesus also plays
two roles in the trial narrative: the eschatological judge and the good shepherd-king. In the
ironic tension between these two sets of roles lies the theological heart of the trial narrative.
At the end of the trial, when Jesus is handed over to be crucified, Pilate and the Jewish
religious leaders think that the moment of judgment on Jesus has finally arrived, that his
“kingship” has come to an end. Yet it is not the moment of Jesus’ judgment, but theirs. Nor
is it the end of Jesus’ kingship, but the prelude to his exaltation and final “enthronement” on
the cross (19:17-22).
The pathos of this trial is lodged in its portrait of Pilate and the Jewish leaders, not of Jesus.
The end of this trial is a tragedy for Jesus’ antagonists, because they have turned their backs
decisively and absolutely on Jesus’ gift of eternal life, of his gift of the love of God, but it is
not a tragedy for Jesus. As Jesus says at 12:27, “No, it is for this reason that I have come to
this hour.” The trial before Pilate is a magnificent portrait of the love of God incarnate in
Jesus, flinching neither from testifying to the truth nor from laying down his life. The trial,
like the crucifixion that immediately follows (19:17-37), does not represent defeat for Jesus,
because it belongs to his moment of glorification. The Fourth Evangelist is masterful in crafting
the trial narrative so that the theological significance of Jesus and his death is always before
the reader. Such an approach does not minimize the “reality” of Jesus’ death, but it insists
that the fact of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion is only part of the story. To understand the death
of Jesus, one must recognize that the man who died on that cross was the loving shepherd,
the witnessing judge, the incarnate Word who did not hesitate in laying down his life for
those he loved.
JOHN 19:16b-37, THE CRUCIFIXION

NIV NRSV
'6Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be '6Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.
crucified. So they took Jesus; '’7and carrying the cross by
So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. '’Carrying himself, he went out to what is called The Place
his own cross, he went out to the place of the of the Skull, which in Hebrew? is called Golgotha.
Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). _ lThere they crucified him, and with him two
'8Here they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between
others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle. them. !°Pilate also had an inscription written and
'9Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to put on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth,° the
the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE King of the Jews.” ?°Many of the Jews read this
jews. 2°Many of the Jews read this sign, for the inscription, because the place where Jesus was
place where Jesus was crucified was near the city,
crucified was near the city; and it was written in
and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and
Hebrew,’ in Latin, and in Greek. ?!Then the chief
Greek. 2'The chief priests of the Jews protested
to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ aThat is, Aramaic + Gk the Nazorean
827
JOHN 19:16b-37 _
NIV NRSV
but that this man claimed to be king of the priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write,
Jews.” ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘This man said, I am
22Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have King of the Jews.’” Pilate answered, “What I
written.” have written I have written.” ?*When the soldiers
23When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and
his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one divided them into four parts, one for each soldier.
for each of them, with the undergarment remain- They also took his tunic; now the tunic was
ing. This garment was seamless, woven in one seamless, woven in one piece from the top. “So
piece from top to bottom. they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but
247 et’s not tear it,” they said to one another. cast lots for it to see who will get it.” This was
“Let’s decide by lot who will get it.” to fulfill what the scripture says,
“They divided my clothes among themselves,
This happened that the scripture might be ful-
filled which said, and for my clothing they cast lots.”
25And that is what the soldiers did.
“They divided my garments among them
Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus
and cast lots for my clothing.”? were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary
So this is what the soldiers did. the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. ?°When
25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his Jesus saw his mother and the-disciple whom he
mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary loved standing beside her, he said to his mother,
Magdalene. 2°When Jesus saw his mother there, and “Woman, here is your son.” ?”Then he said to the
the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that
to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” hour the disciple took her into his own home.
27and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From 28After this, when Jesus Knew that all was now
that time on, this disciple took her into his home. finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture),
28] ater, knowing that all was now completed, “IT am thirsty.” ?°A jar full of sour wine was
and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus standing there. So they put a sponge full of the
said, “I am thirsty.” 2°A jar of wine vinegar was wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his
there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the mouth. *°When Jesus had received the wine, he
sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted said, “It is finished.” Then he bowed his head and
it to Jesus’ lips. 3°When he had received the drink, gave up his spirit.
Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed 31Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews
his head and gave up his spirit. did not want the bodies left on the cross during
31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was
next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to
Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses have the legs of the crucified men broken and the
during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the bodies removed. **Then the soldiers came and
legs broken and the bodies taken down. **The broke the legs of the first and of the other who
soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the had been crucified with him. But when they
first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead,
then those of the other. But when they came they did not break his legs. *4Instead, one of the
to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once
did not break his legs. *4Instead, one of the blood and water came out. *(He who saw this
soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing has testified so that you also may believe. His
a sudden flow of blood and water. *The man testimony is true, and he knows? that he tells the
who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony truth.) *°These things occurred so that the scrip-
is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he ture might be fulfilled, “None of his bones shall
testifies so that you also may believe. *°These be broken.” 37And again another passage of scrip-
a24 Psalm 22:18 aQOr there is one who knows
828
JOHN 19:16b-37
NIV NRSV
things happened so that the scripture would be ture says, “They will look on the one whom they
fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”# have pierced.”
and, as another scripture says, “They will look
on the one they have pierced.”°
236 Exodus 12:46; Num. 9:12; Psalm 34:20 ©37 Zech. 12:10
(COMMENTARY
John 19:160637 has much material in common as one way of underscoring the solemnity of the
with the other Gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifix- event. The Fourth Evangelist takes traditional ma-
ion and death, the most important of which terial about Jesus’ death and shapes it to fit his
include the inscription of the charge against Jesus understanding of Jesus’ death as the hour at which
(Matt 27:27; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John he completes God’s work (v. 30).
19:19) and casting lots for Jesus’ clothes (Matt John 19:160-37 is narrated as a series of five
27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23-25a). episodes:°° (1) vv. 160-22, the crucifixion of “the
Yet the Fourth Evangelist handles these traditions King of the Jews”; (2) vv. 23-24, casting lots for
quite differently from the synoptic authors. The Jesus’ clothes;°°! (3) vv. 25-27, the beloved disci-
events between Jesus’ crucifixion and his death ple and Jesus’ mother; (4) vv. 28-30, Jesus’ death;
are narrated in a different order in John (cf. the (5) vv. 31-37, the piercing of Jesus’ side.
narrative location for the casting of lots in each 19:16b-22. 19:16b-18. The first episode in
of the Gospels). Details that receive only a passing the crucifixion narrative divides into two parts:
mention in the other Gospels receive a fuller (1) the report of the crucifixion of Jesus (vv.
treatment in John (e.g., the inscription; the lots; 160-18) and (2) the debate over the inscription
and the women at the cross, which John develops on the cross {vv. 19-22). Verse 166 marks the
into the scene with Jesus’ mother and the beloved Official beginning of the execution, as the Roman
disciple, vv. 25-27); some aspects of the synoptic soldiers take charge of Jesus (the NIV removes the
accounts—for example, any mocking of Jesus on ambiguity of the pronoun “they” in v. 160 by
the cross—are absent. There are also details found supplying the noun “soldiers”; cf. 19:18, 23, 25).
in John alone (e.g., the piercing of Jesus’ side, vv. The place of execution, Golgotha, was located out-
34-35). The similarities and differences support side the city (note the verb “went out,” v. 174). It
the view that the Fourth Evangelist is drawing on may have been called “The Place of the Skull”
a tradition that at times overlaps with, but is because of its dome-like shape. Unlike the synop-
independent from, those on which the synoptic tic Gospels, in which Simon of Cyrene is com-
authors draw. pelled by the soldiers to carry Jesus’ cross (Matt
The Johannine account of Jesus’ crucifixion and 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26), Jesus carries
death is arranged to highlight the dignity and his cross “by himself” (eaut@ heauto). That the
self-control of Jesus at his death. None of the more criminal carried his own cross to his execution is
dramatic elements of the crucifixion story in the well-documented in Roman literature and, indeed,
Synoptics are found in John: the sun does not was the common practice.°” If the Fourth Evan-
darken (Matt 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44); gelist is drawing on an independent tradition that
the curtain of the Temple is not torn in two (Matt
660. Brown argues for a chiastic structure to John 19:165-42, but the
27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45); there are no correspondences that he notes between scenes seem forced and not at all
earthquakes (Matt 27:51) or opened tombs (Matt self-evident in the narrative. See Brown, 7he Gospel According to John
(XII-XX1), 911-12.
27:52-53). These details contribute to a mood of 661. The verse division of the NIV, in which the episode with the
chaos and confusion, a mood out of keeping with soldiers concludes in v. 24, follows that of the Nestle-Aland” text and is
to be preferred over that chosen by the NRSV.
Jesus’ dignity at his death. Old Testament citations 662. See the list of references in Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 668n.
are given a prominent role (vv. 24, 28, 36, 37) 33
829
makes no mention of Simon, he is not altering double meaning of tksdw (Aypsoo), introduced
the synoptic tradition. On one level, then, the into the Gospel story at 3:14 (see Commentary
reference to Jesus’ carrying his own cross simply there), finally comes fully into play; in the “lifting”
reflects Roman criminal procedures, but to the up of Jesus on the cross, he is “exalted” as king.
reader of the Gospel, this reference carries a Verse 20 highlights the public character of Jesus’
deeper significance. Jesus again demonstrates that exaltation as king. First, Jesus is publicly displayed
he is in total command of the events of the hour as “king” before “many of the Jews.” “Jews”
(10:17-18; 18:5, 8, 20-21; see also 19:28). seems to be used in wv. 19-22 in its general sense
As in all of the Gospels, the narration of the of “Jewish people,” not in its distinctive Johannine
actual moment of crucifixion—that is, the mo- sense of “Jewish leaders” (cf. v. 21, “the chief
ment when Jesus is nailed to the cross—is nar- priests of the Jews”). The leadership’s attempt to
rated with extreme brevity and restraint (v. 18; end the public’s exposure to Jesus (11:48) has
Mark 15:24). None of the gruesome details of this failed. Second, the inscription is written in all
cruel form of death is recounted; the notice that three languages current in Judea during Roman
Jesus was crucified is enough. The Fourth Evan- rule: Aramaic (the Semitic vernacular), Latin (the
gelist’s account is the leanest of all, giving no official language of the Roman Empire), and Greek
description of the two men crucified with Jesus (the language of commerce). The inscription that
other than to note their presence, a notice re- Jesus is the “King of the Jews” is thus a universally
quired by the tradition. His description of the comprehensible announcement. In the lifting up
location of the crosses is vivid in its simplicity; it of Jesus on the cross, the truth of Jesus’ prediction
reads literally, “one there and one there, and Jesus about his death is confirmed: “When I am lifted
in the middle.” up from the earth, I will draw all people to
19:19-22. In vv. 19-22, the Fourth Evangelist myself” (12:32; see also 11:52). On the cross,
takes a detail common to all of the Gospel ac- Jesus is revealed as “the Savior of the world”
counts of Jesus’ crucifixion, the inscription of the (4:42).
charges against Jesus, and develops it to under- In vv. 21-22, Pilate exacts his final humiliation
score his interpretation of Jesus’ crucifixion as the of the Jewish leaders. It is a moment of profound
defining moment in his kingship. The importance irony, because the leaders, who had tried to
of the inscription for the Fourth Evangelist is
appease Rome by denouncing Jesus as a political
evidenced in the amount of narrative space given
criminal and by renouncing loyalty to any gover-
over simply to its description (vv. 19-20}. On the
nance but Rome, have won nothing. Jesus will be
legal level, the inscription “Jesus of Nazareth, the
crucified as their king. Pilate’s insistence on the
King of the Jews” (v. 19), stands as the formal
immutability of his inscription is not evidence of
charge against Jesus of political sedition (see also
his recognition of the legitimacy of Jesus’ claims;
Matt 27:27; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38). The legal
it is Pilate’s assertion of control over his Jewish
formality is underscored by the Fourth Evangelist’s
subjects. Pilate’s assertion of control is also ironic,
use of the term titAos (titlos), which is a trans-
because the trial has shown that his power is false.
literation into Greek of the official Latin term
titulus (“inscription,” NRSV, or “notice,” NIV). The pretensions to power of both the Jewish
Criminals were often required to wear the titulus leaders and Pilate are overshadowed by Jesus’
with their charges inscribed on it around their enthronement on the cross: “For as the Crucified,
neck on the way to their place of execution.° Jesus is really the king; the kingly rule, awaited
On the theological level, however, this inscrip- in hope, is not as such destroyed, but established
tion positions the kingship motifs from the trial in a new sense; the cross is the exaltation and
before Pilate (18:28-19:16a) as the interpretive glorification of Jesus.”°*
lens through which to view Jesus’ crucifixion. The 19:23-24. It was common practice at a Roman
execution for the clothes of the executed criminal
663. So, e.g., C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel to fall to the executioners as spoil. Each of the
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 124-25. Barrett maintains
that John corrects the Markan version. See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel four Gospels interprets the soldiers’ division of
According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 548.
664. See, e.g., Suetonius Caligula 32; Domitian 10; Cassius Dio 54.8. 665. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 669.
830
Jesus’ clothing as a fulfillment of Ps 22:18 (Matt fulfill the Evangelist’s understanding of Ps
27:34; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23-24). 22:18. Another reading suggests that the seam-
The synoptic Gospels use language from Ps 22:18 less garment represents the unity of Christ and
when they refer to the division of the clothes (e.g., believers, but this, too, seems to overstate the
the vocabulary used in Mark 15:24 for “divide” ease.f*?
and “cast lots” is the same as that in the LXX of 19:25-27. The third episode opens with the
Psalm 22), but John is the only Gospel to provide notice of the women standing near the cross (v.
a narrative illustration of Ps 22:18 and to cite the 25). All of the Gospels mention the presence of
verse from the LXX in full. The narrative of the women at the crucifixion, but in the synoptic
soldiers’ actions, in which Jesus’ clothing is dis- Gospels, the women are mentioned after the
posed of in two stages, seems to represent a death of Jesus and are said to stand at a distance
misunderstanding of the function of synonymous (Matt 27:55-56; Mark 15:40-41; Luke 23:49).
parallelism in the psalm. The two halves of Ps The syntax of v. 25 is ambiguous, as the differ-
22:18 describe the same action twice, but the ences between the NIV and the NRSV show. The
Fourth Evangelist’s narrative interprets the verse NRSV interprets the verse as referring to three
as referring to two distinct acts. This misunder- women (Jesus’ mother; his mother’s sister, Mary
standing may derive in part from the LXX use of the wife of Clopas; and Mary Magdalene),
two different nouns for “clothing” in each clause whereas the NIV interprets the verse as referring
of Ps 22:18 (iudtiov himation, watiopds hima- to four women: an unnamed pair and a named
tismos). One finds a similar misunderstanding of pair. The NIV is to be preferred, because one of
Semitic synonymous parallelism at Matt 21:2-9, the functions of v. 25 seems to be to contrast the
where Matthew understands Zech 9:9 as referring four women with the four soldiers of vv. 23-24
to two animals, not one. (v. 24c and v. 25 are explicitly connected in the
This episode seems to have no distinctive theo- Greek text by the use of a pev...d€ [me ..
logical significance for the Fourth Evangelist other de] construction, translated as “meanwhile”).°°
than what it had for all of the evangelists: its The list of women in John 19:25 differs from
fulfillment of Scripture (v. 24). Even in something the lists in Mark 15:40 and Matt 27:56 (Luke
as mundane as the disposition of Jesus’ clothes, does not name the women); the only name they
God’s plan for salvation is at work. The fulfillment share in common is Mary Magdalene (for the role
of Scripture is given prominence in the Johannine of Mary Magdalene at Jesus’ hour, see Commen-
crucifixion account (see also vv. 28, 36-37), per- tary on 20:1-18). Although attempts have been
haps to underscore that Jesus’ death is not a made to reconcile the Johannine list with the
defeat, but God’s victory over the world (cf. Synoptics, Barrett’s comment sounds an important
16:33). Many interpreters have attempted to find cautionary note, “Identifications are easy to con-
a distinctive Johannine emphasis in this pericope, jure but impossible to ascertain.”°° The diversity
but their efforts seem forced. For example, both of the lists suggests the richness of the tradition
ancient and modern interpreters have drawn on about the faithful women who attended Jesus at
Josephus’s description of the seamless tunic his death.
of the high priest to interpret v. 23 as a “The disciple whom he loved” is introduced
reference to Jesus the high priest.°°° Yet the abruptly in v. 26. On a surface level, it is possible
noun “tunic” (xitw&v chiton) is used exclusively
667. Among modern interpreters, see E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth
in the NT to refer to a person’s inner garment Gospel (London: Faber & Faber, 1947) 529; Barrett, Zhe Gospel Accord-
(worn next to the skin; e.g., Mark 6:9; 14:63; ing to St. John, 550. The most influential ancient statement of this view
is Cyprian On the Unity of the Church 7.
Luke 3:11; 6:29; 9:3), and v. 23 suggests nothing 668. See especially Rudolf Schnackenburg, 7he Gospel According to
more than that common usage. The seamlessness St. John, 3 vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982) 3:273, 276.
669. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 551. See, e.g,, the
of the garment is mentioned simply to explain attempts in Brown, 7he Gospel According to John (XITI-XX1), 904-6; and
why lots had to be cast for it (v. 24a), and thus The Death of the Messiah, vol. 2. Such attempts must always remain
inconclusive, a bit arbitrary, and, indeed, unnecessary, because the Synop-
tic lists do not present themselves as either exhaustive or definitive (note
666. Josephus Antiquities ofthe Jews 3.161. Among modern interpret-
that Mark and Matthew preface the list of names with the words “among
ers, see especially Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XX]), 912,
them”).
920-21.
831
to read vv. 26-27 as a scene of filial devotion; at home” (eis ta ita eis ta idia, cf. 1:11; 16:32).
the moment of death, Jesus attends to the care of The beloved disciple’s action is located explicitly
his mother. Yet the very formality of the scene at “that hour,” suggesting that the events of Jesus’
and the symmetry of Jesus’ words to his mother hour—his death, resurrection, and ascension—
and the beloved disciple suggest that the scene make this new family a reality (see also 20:17).
has a deeper meaning for the Evangelist. The 19:28-30. These verses narrate Jesus’ death.
symbolic and theological significance of vv. 26-27 is His knowledge “that all is now finished” (v. 28)
a topic of much debate among Johannine interpret- links Jesus’ death with the beginning of his hour,
ers, and much of the debate seems to divide along when Jesus’ knowledge of the arrival of his hour
Catholic and Protestant lines. Catholic interpreters (13:1) and its significance (13:3) was also explic-
tend to emphasize the role of Jesus’ mother in this itly noted. The verb “to finish” (teAé€w fteleo)
scene, seeing her as symbolic of the Mother of the occurs only at 19:28 and 30, but it is synonymous
Church, the New Eve, or the New Israel.°”° Protes- with the verb “to complete” (TeAetdw teleioo),
tant interpreters tend to put the emphasis on the which is used to describe Jesus’ mission: to com-
role of the beloved disciple as a symbol of the church plete God’s work (4:34; 5:36; 17:4). As it has
and faithful discipleship.°”! throughout the Gospel, the term “all” (mavta
It is important to interpret vv. 26-27 in the panta) refers to everything that God has given
light of the roles of Jesus’ mother and the beloved Jesus {efw3:35; S:20%01 3: 3¢s1 5:b5:a1 77) alesusMs
disciple within the Fourth Gospel narrative and thus depicted as facing the moment of death with
not through the lens of later mariological and the knowledge that he has completed the work
ecclesial teachings. The only other appearance of God has given him.
Jesus’ mother in the Fourth Gospel is at the The scripture to which v. 280 refers seems to
wedding in Cana (2:1-11), the beginning of Jesus’ be Ps 69:22, which in the LXX contains the same
ministry. Jesus’ address of his mother as “Woman” words for “sour wine” (6Eos oxos) and “thirst”
in both scenes suggests that the reader is to (Subsdoj dipsao) as are used here. All of the Gospels
connect 2:1-11 and 19:26-27. The “disciple interpret the offer of sour wine to Jesus on the
whom Jesus loves” was last mentioned at 13:25, cross through the lens of this psalm (see also Matt
inquiring about the identity of the betrayer; he 27:48; Mark 15:36; Luke 23:36), but the Johan-
will appear again as a witness to the empty tomb nine treatment is distinctive. First, as in the treat-
(20:1-10; see also 19:35; 21:20-23). It, therefore, is ment of Ps 22:18 in John 19:23-24, John provides
possible to interpret Jesus’ mother as representing a fuller narrative illustration of the psalm and is
the sweep of Jesus’ incarnate ministry from begin- alone in referring explicitly to its fulfillment. Sec-
ning to end, and the beloved disciple as representing ond, in the synoptic Gospels, someone in the
those for whom Jesus gives his life in love at his crowd takes the initiative to offer Jesus a drink,
but in John, Jesus takes the initiative with his
hour and who are commanded to love in the same
words, “I am thirsty.” Third, in the Synoptics, the
way. When Jesus entrusts his mother and the be-
offer of vinegar is a mocking gesture, but there is
loved disciple to each other, then, the Fourth Evan-
no mockery in John. Jesus remains a figure of
gelist points to Jesus’ death as the link between the
dignity.
past of Jesus’ ministry (represented by Jesus’ mother)
On the most mundane level, Jesus’ thirst ac-
and the movement of that ministry into the future
(represented by the beloved disciple). knowledges the pain that accompanies his death
by crucifixion. On a deeper level, his words recall
John 19:26-27 also symbolizes the beginning of
his question to Peter at the arrest, “Am I not to
the creation of the new family of God. At 1:12-13,
drink the cup that the Father has given me?”
believers were promised a future as “children of
(18:11).°? Jesus’ thirst thus symbolizes his will-
God,” and in response to Jesus’ words, the be-
ingness to embrace his death, and the offer of
loved disciple takes Jesus’ mother “to his own
sour wine takes on an ironic note as one more
670. E.g., Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII- example of the world’s misunderstanding of him.
XXI), AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970) 913, 924-26.
671. E.g., Beasley-Murray, John, 349-50; Barrett, The Gospel Accord- 672. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3:283;
ing to St. John, 552. Brown, Zhe Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), 930.
832
_JOHN 19:16b-37 COMMENTARY
Jesus thirsts for God’s cup and is offered sour wine. “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of
There also may be a related ironic contrast between my own accord,” is confirmed.
the “good wine” at Cana through which Jesus 19:31-37. The Fourth Evangelist now pro-
revealed his glory (2:9, 11) and the “sour wine” vides his final interpretation of Jesus’ death on a
that he receives at his glorification. The world falsely cross. The events narrated in these verses have
attempts to assuage the thirst of the One who is no parallels in the synoptic Gospels. This passage
himself the source of “living water” (4:10, 13-14; is quite straightforward in its narration of the
7:37-38). Interpretations that associate offering vine- - disposition of the bodies on the crosses in vv.
gar on a branch of hyssop to Jesus with the sprin- 31-33. The “Jews’” desire to remove the bodies
kling of the blood of the Passover lamb on lintels from the crosses before the sabbath (v. 31a)
and doorposts with a bunch of hyssop (Exod. 12:22) reflects the legislation in Deut 21:22-23, that the
stretch the textual evidence, however.°73 bodies of hanged criminals should be removed
With the final fulfillment of Scripture accom- from the scaffolding by nightfall (cf. Josh 8:29).
plished in the offer of sour wine, Jesus himself The “day of preparation” does not have particular
announces what the narrator signaled in v. 28: reference to Passover preparation here, but refers
“It is finished” (v. 30a). Jesus’ death is not a in general to the sabbath vigil (sundown Thursday
moment of defeat or despair (cf. the last words to sundown Friday). The reference to the “special
of Jesus on the cross at Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34), Sabbath” (NIV)—i.e., that this sabbath is also the
but a moment of confidence in his completion of Passover (cf. NRSV)—underscores the importance
God’s work in the world (17:4). Jesus’ death on and urgency of the request for “the Jews.”
the cross is the final expression of his love for his The reference to Pilate in this scene and the
own (cf. 13:1; 15:13) and his love for God (14:30- burial scene that follows (vv. 38-42) is a reminder
31). Jesus’ death itself is narrated with dignity and that the crucifixion lay within the jurisdiction of
restraint. The poignancy of the moment is conveyed the Roman courts. There is an ironic symmetry
by the simple notation that “he bowed his head.” between v. 31 and 18:28, the introduction to the
Verse 30c literally reads, “he handed over trial narrative. Jesus’ death is framed by the Jewish
lTapéSwKev paredoken] his spirit.” As in Matt leaders’ preoccupation with religious ritual and
27:50, “spirit” (Tvetjia pneuma) is used here as propriety and their dependence on Roman rule to
a synonym for “life.” On the basis of 7:39, some practice their own customs.
commentators read v. 30c as a description of Jesus’ The request that the legs of the crucified men
gift of the Spirit to the believers who stand near the be broken and the soldiers’ subsequent actions
cross.°”4 But according to 7:39, the gift of the Spirit (vv. 32-33) depict a common practice at crucifix-
comes after Jesus’ glorification, which includes his ions. Death by crucifixion could last for days, and
resurrection and ascension. Moreover, Jesus’ gift of the criminals’ legs often were broken as a way of
hastening death. That Jesus’ legs were not broken,
the Holy Spirit is fully and explicitly narrated at
reported in v. 33 in straight narration, will be
20:22. The theological significance of v. 30c does
given theological significance in v. 36. The moti-
not lie in the noun “spirit,” but in the verb “hand
vation for the soldier’s piercing of Jesus’ side {(v.
over.” In the trial narrative, both the Jewish leaders
34) is not important to the Evangelist; the signifi-
and Pilate “handed over” Jesus to be crucified
cance of the piercing lies in the result, “and at
(18:30, 35-36; 19:11, 16, 30; cf. also the references
once blood and water came out.” The commen-
to Judas at 13:2, 11, 21), thinking themselves the tary that follows in v. 35 about the reliability of
agents of Jesus’ death, but in the end, Jesus hands the eyewitness to this event underscores its im-
himself over. The truth of Jesus’ words in 10:18, portance, as does the Scripture quotation in v. 37.
673. Scholars who advocate the Passover symbolism here include 19:34-35. The emphasis on the eyewitness
Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 553; and Brown, The Gospel and his truthfulness in v. 35 confirm that the
According to John (XII-XX1), 930. Scholars who reject this symbolism reader is to understand the flow of blood and
include Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fqurth Gospel, 123me nz}
Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3:284; Bultmann, water from Jesus’ side as something that actually
John, 674. happened. Although the eyewitness is not explic-
674. So Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 554; Hoskyns,
John, 532. See also Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIT-XX1), 931. itly identified in v. 35, it is almost unanimously
833
assumed by Fourth Gospel scholars that he is the gelist’s emphasis seems less on the sacraments per
“disciple whom Jesus loved.” This disciple was se and more onJesus’ death as a source of life.
explicitly positioned at the foot of the cross (vv. 19:36-37. In these verses, the Fourth Evangelist
26-27), and the reliability of his testimony will be appends scriptural commentary on the preceding
evoked again in similar language at 21:25. Verse scene. The quotation in v. 36 does not occur in that
35 refers to the eyewitness in third-person lan- precise form anywhere in the OT. The Fourth
guage and thus seems to distinguish between the Evangelist may be referring to Exod 12:10 (LXX) or
beloved disciple as the source of information 12:46, verses that proscribe the breaking of the
about this incident and the author of the Gospel bones of the Passover lamb.°’’ If this is the text the
account (see Introduction). Several scholars see v. Fourth Evangelist has in mind, then he is setting up
35 as a later addition to the Fourth Gospel, added a correspondence between the death of Jesus and
to enhance the authority of the beloved disciple, the slaughter of the Passover lamb. There is, how-
but nothing in the text supports or necessitates ever, another OT text that is closer in wording to
positing an author other than the Evangelist.°”° v. 36 than the Passover texts: Ps 34:20 (33:21 LXX),
It is physiologically possible that blood and a clear “(The Lord] keeps all their bones;/ not one of them
liquid that might be described as water could flow will be broken” (NRSV). The Fourth Evangelist has
from a chest wound immediately after death. Yet it already employed two psalms in his presentation of
is clear from the stated purpose of the eyewitness’s Jesus’ death (Pss 22:18; 69:10), and a strong case
can be made that he employs a third one here.°”®
testimony (“that you also may believe,” v. 35) that
Psalm 34 is a hymn of thanksgiving and praise for
more than a report of medical data is at stake here.
deliverance, and v. 20 praises God’s protection of
By drawing attention to this flow of blood and water,
the righteous ones. In interpreting Jesus’ death as a
the Fourth Evangelist seems first and foremost to be
fulfillment of this Scripture, the Fourth Evangelist
confirming the reality of Jesus’ death. First John
focuses attention on God’s victory in Jesus and thus
5:6-8 draws on this language of blood and water in
highlights God’s sovereignty even in Jesus’ death.
the service of its anti-docetic polemic in a way
The OT citation in v. 37 confirms this reading.
consistent with 19:34, but the theological intent of
The text cited there is Zech 12:10, although in a
19:34 extends beyond an anti-docetic apologetic.
version that differs slightly from both the LXX and
The Word became flesh (1:14), and at this moment,
the MT. Like the psalter, Zechariah 9-14 was an
with blood and water flowing from Jesus’ dead body,
important theological resource in the early
the fleshliness of the Word receives its most vivid
church’s interpretation of Jesus’ death (e.g., the
and poignant demonstration. use of Zech 9:9 at Matt 21:5; Mark 11:12; John
The attention that the Fourth Evangelist gives 12:15; the use of Zech 13:7 at Matt 26:31; Mark
to the flow of blood and water suggests that he 14:27; John 16:32). Zechariah 12:10-14 portrays
also attached symbolic significance to it. Jesus is Jerusalem’s lament over the death of the king it
the source of “living water” in the Gospel (4:10, has martyred. Zechariah 12:10 is a text both of
12-14; 7:37-38). In the eucharistic imagery of mourning and of hope, for in the midst of death,
6:53-58, his blood, too, is identified with his gift God pours out “a spirit of compassion and suppli-
of life (6:53-55). It is thus possible to read a cation on the house of David and the inhabitants
second level of meaning into v. 34: that life flows of Jerusalem, so that, when they look on the one
out of Jesus’ death.°”° Patristic and medieval whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for
exegetes read 19:34 as symbolizing the founda- him, as one mourns for an only child,.and weep
tion of the sacraments of eucharist (“blood”) and bitterly over him, as one weeps for a firstborn”
baptism (“water”). Although, as already noted, (NRSV). The Fourth Evangelist’s citation of this
echoes of John 6 can be heard here, the Evan-
677. So Brown, The Gospel According to John (XI-XXI), 952-53;
Barrett, 7he Gospel According to St. John, 553, 558; Hoskyns, John, 533.
675. E.g., Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3:287,
These commentators also link this verse with John the Baptist’s an-
291. Bultmann, /ohn, attributed both vv. 346 and 35 to the ecclesiastical
nhouncement at 1:29 (“Here is the lamb of God that takes away the sin of
redactor, because he understood y. 34 bas depicting the symbolic founda- the world”), even though the Passover lamb did not have expiatory
tion of the sacraments of eucharist and baptism. significance in Judaism. See Commentary on 1:29 and Reflections below.
676. Barrett, Zhe Gospel According to St. John, 558; Brown, The 678. See especially Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel,
Gospel According to John (XIII-XX1), 949-50. 42-44, 131-37.
834
passage may be intended as a final judgment on hope for the reader, as confirmation that even in
“the Jews,” who, in looking at Jesus on the cross, death, when one looks on the One who is pierced,
the executed king, still do not see the revelation one sees God’s only child, the firstborn (cf. 1:18).
of God (cf. 8:28). The full context of Zech 12:10 (See Reflections at 19:38-42.)
suggests, however, that it is cited as a word of
JOHN 19:38-42, ddd BURTAT

NIV NRSV
Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the 38After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who
body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one
but secretly because he feared the Jews. With because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let
Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him
away. **He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the permission; so he came and removed his body.
man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicode- Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by
mus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and
seventy-five pounds.? “Taking Jesus’ body, the two aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. “They
of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the
linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial spices in linen cloths, according to the burial
customs. “'At the place where Jesus was crucified, custom of the Jews. 4'Now there was a garden in
there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, the place where he was crucified, and in the
in which no one had ever been laid. “Because it garden there was a new tomb in which no one
was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the had ever been laid. “#And so, because it was the
tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there. Jewish day of Preparation, and the tomb was
239 Greek 2 hundred litrai (about 34 kilograms) nearby, they laid Jesus there.
(COMMENTARY
The Johannine account of Jesus’ burial has two whom the Evangelist writes (cf. 9:22; 16:2) and
emphases: (1) the men who prepare Jesus’ body for suggests that the Fourth Evangelist intends his
burial (vv. 38-394) and (2) the elegance and dignity readers to see Joseph’s boldness and reverence for
of the preparation and burial (vv. 39042). Each of Jesus as a model for their own discipleship.
the Gospels names Joseph of Arimathea as the The introduction of Nicodemus in v. 39 con-
person who buries Jesus (see Matt 27:57; Mark firms that the Fourth Evangelist sees the willing-
15:43; Luke 23:50-52). Luke and Mark identify ness to bury Jesus as evidence of one’s willingness
Joseph as a member of the Sanhedrin, Matthew as to give public expression to one’s faith. The cross-
a disciple of Jesus. In identifying Joseph as a secret reference to Nicodemus’s initial night visit (3:1-
disciple of Jesus, the Fourth Evangelist links him 21) leaves no doubt that the reader is intended
with the Jewish authorities of 12:24-43 who, be- to carry the whole story of Nicodemus forward
cause of a fear of losing their political power and into this burial scene. In his two previous appear-
position within the synagogue, will not confess their ances (see 3:1-21; 7:50-52), Nicodemus is an
faith in Jesus. At Jesus’ death, however, Joseph is ambiguous figure, showing interest in Jesus, but
willing to make his faith public, even going to the never confessing his faith. At Jesus’ death, Nicode-
Roman authorities to request Jesus’ body for burial mus, like Joseph, abandons neutrality and secrecy
(cf. Mark 15:43-45 and par.). The language used to and acts out his love and reverence for Jesus (cf.
describe Joseph echoes the conflicts between the 12:1-8). The actions of these two men demon-
Jewish religious authorities and the audience for strate the truth of Jesus’ three predictions about
835
the salvific effect of his crucifixion (3:14-15; 8:28; normally accorded only to people of wealth or
12:32): his “lifting up” is a decisive moment of prominence (cf. the elegance of the Johannine
judgment through which Joseph and Nicodemus description with Mark 15:46). The pristine con-
come to “realize that 1 AM.” dition of the garden tomb also underscores the
The prodigious amount of burial spices (v. 398, dignity of this burial (v. 41).
“one hundred” [\ttpas Jitras| are the equivalent The explanation for the use of this pristine tomb
of seventy-five pounds, so the NIV) recalls the echoes the motivation for “the Jews’ ” request in v.
excessive quantity of perfume at 12:3. Here, as 31. The contrast between the two verses is quite
in Mary’s anointing, the excess symbolizes the pointed, however. In 19:31, the impending sabbath
love the two men have for Jesus. In coming provides the motivation to mutilate the bodies and
forward to bury Jesus, Joseph and Nicodemus, like further hasten the deaths of the executed men,
Mary, show themselves to be Jesus’ disciples, whereas in 19:42 it is the motivation for an act of
those who love Jesus and live out that love reverence and love. Details about the closing of the
(13:35). This love is further enacted in the care tomb (e.g., Matt 27:60-61; Mark 15:46-47) are not
and dignity with which Jesus’ body is prepared important to the Fourth Evangelist, because as it has
for burial (v. 40). Not only are the requirements been throughout the Gospel, the focus is on Jesus.
of a proper Jewish burial adhered to, but also the The note that “they laid Jesus there” (v. 42) thus
combination of spices and linen burial clothes is gives finality to the burial.
REFLECTIONS
The Commentary on John 19:16042 noted the ways in which the Fourth Evangelist narrates
Jesus’ death with dignity, respect, and solemnity. There is none of the turmoil of the Synoptic
accounts—no jeering crowds, no loud cry when Jesus dies (see Commentary above). The Fourth
Evangelist provides no narrative details that will distract from the essential focus of the crucifixion
story: Jesus’ serene and controlled gift of his life in love.°” The dignity and serenity of Jesus’ death
in John does not minimize the “reality” of that death, however. To the contrary, on many occasions,
this dignity adds to the poignancy of Jesus’ death—the simple statement “I am thirsty” (v. 28),
the restrained note that Jesus bowed his head (v. 30), the care with which Joseph and Nicodemus
attend to Jesus’ dead body (vv. 39-42). The Fourth Evangelist never lets the reader forget that the
crucifixion narrative is at its core the story of the end of a human life.
In the same way, the Fourth Evangelist never lets the reader forget that the crucifixion
narrative also marks the completion of Jesus’ work of making God known to the world. The
explicit references to the fulfillment of Scripture, the highest concentration of fulfillment
formulas anywhere in the Fourth Gospel, repeatedly reinforce that the drama being acted out
in Jesus’ death belongs to God’s plan and work of salvation. Jesus’ death does not abrogate
God’s offer of life and love; rather, it brings that offer to fruition.
The key to the dignity and serenity that surround Jesus’ death in John are the words “It is
finished” (v. 30). Jesus dies with a public proclamation of the completion of his mission on
his lips. The words he speaks on the cross in Mark 15:34 (and Matt 27:46), “My God, my
God, why have you forsaken me?” are a theological impossibility for the Johannine Jesus. God
and Jesus are united in work and in love, and that unity is strengthened, not broken, at Jesus’
death. Jesus’ death fills him neither with despair nor a sense of abandonment by God, because
he knows that he has lived fully the life and mission God gave him to live. He revealed the
truth of God to an often hostile world, knowing from the very beginning of his ministry that
such words and works could cost him his life (2:19-21; 5:18; 7:30; 8:37, 59; 10:31; 11:8),
but also knowing that his life and work on earth were for the glorification of God (17:4).
In Jesus’ death, then, the reader is confronted one last time with both the wonder and
679. See George W. MacRae, /nvitation to John (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1978) 213-14.
836
the poignancy of the incarnation. Jesus is the Son of God, the one sent by God into the
world to save the world by revealing God’s love. And Jesus is also the man who will die
on a cross, bleeding from his pierced side, wrapped in linen cloths and laid to rest in a
garden tomb. Because Jesus is human, because he can and will die, he can reveal the
fullness of God’s love in ways never before possible, because he reveals God’s love in
categories that derive from human experience. In his death, Jesus gave up what human
beings hold most dear—life—and he gave it up because he chose to do so in love. Jesus
lays down his life in love for those whom he loves, and the meaning of both “life” and
“love” are redefined. Life becomes an expression of love, the ultimate gift. Love, love unto
death, becomes the only true source of life. Jesus’ gift of his life on the cross is the ultimate
gesture of generosity and grace. It is, indeed, pure gift—not required of him, but offered
by him, so that we may understand the full extent of God’s love for the world.
When scholars interpret John’s portrayal of Jesus’ death through the lens of the slaughter of the
Passover lamb (see Commentary on 19:36), and thus point to the sacrificial nature of his death and
the cleansing power of his blood, they overlook the pivotal role of love in Jesus’ death and misread
the Passover lamb. The Passover lamb is not an expiatory sacrifice, but is a symbolic reenactment of
“the passover of the Lorp” (Exod 12:11 NRSV). The blood on the doorposts marked the inhabitants
who lived within as God’s protected ones. The lamb’s blood thus serves as a sign that one belongs
to God, not an act of expiation or atonement. If there is any link between Jesus’ death and the
slaughter of the Passover lamb, it is not in terms of Jesus’ death as an expiatory sacrifice, but as the
new sign of what it means to be marked as God’s people. To share in Jesus’ death, to love as Jesus
loves, is the new sign of “the passover of the Lord,” of a new exodus to freedom and life (cf. 8:31).
It is to this powerful and poignant gift of his life in love that Jesus asks his followers to conform
their lives (cf. 13:34-35; 15:12-17). The crucifixion and the love commandment go hand in hand,
because it is impossible to understand what Jesus’ love is if it is separated from his death on the cross.
The resurrection stories will affirm the transformative power of this love to reshape the world, but it
is to the crucifixion that one must look to understand Jesus’ love, and hence to understand who Jesus
and God are. In the poignancy of Jesus’ death on the cross, he lives out the life for which he was
born and into which he was sent by bearing his ultimate witness to the truth (cf. 12:as 18:37). And
the truth is this: Jesus will give what is most precious, to us and to God.
The crucifixion stands as a reminder that the love of God is neither “soft” nor simply affective.
Love is not simply an emotion, but it defines the very essence of character and identity. To say
that God is love (e.g., 17:26; 1 John 4:7-8, 16), to say that Jesus is love (e.g., 13:34; 14:21;
15:9) is to say that they love without limits, that they love “to the end” (13:1). They also love
freely. If Jesus’ followers are to love one another as “I have loved you,” then they must love
one another with a love that derives from and is shaped by Jesus’ gift of his life on the cross.
This is no easy task or goal. If the fullness of God is revealed in the incarnation (cf. 14:6) and
the crucifixion brings the work of the incarnation to fulfillment, then for Jesus’ followers to love
as he loves means to embrace the cross as the ultimate measure of fidelity to God—to give
without counting, to love without restraint. When the author of 1 John writes, “There is no
fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear” (4:18 NRSV), it is to the love of Jesus on the cross
that he refers. If we love enough to know that we will give our life, our all, to those we love,
what is there to fear? To live in, and out of, such love is to live fully in the presence of God.
How is the ordinary believer to live in the face of such a commandment, in the face of such
a model of what it means to love? There is no simple or easy answer, but there is the story of
Jesus’ own life and death to which the believer and the believing community can and must always
return. In this story of Jesus’ love, one can catch glimmers of what it means to be a community
of love, to see and know God fully in the midst of life and death. In the cross, we come to
understand what the Evangelist celebrates when he says, “From his fullness we have all received,
grace upon grace” (1:16).
837
JOHN 20:1-31
THE FIRST RESURRECTION
APPEARANCES
~ OVERVIEW
_irst Cor 15:4-5 provides a synopsis of the early church’s own approach to this material. The
~~ Easter preaching of the early church: “he remarkable variation among the Gospels suggests
was raised... and “he appeared.” These two ker- that the early church had a rich tradition of
nels of tradition are given narrative form in the resurrection stories and that the evangelists em-
empty tomb and resurrection appearance stories ployed narrative and theological freedom in incor-
of the Gospels. Each of the Gospels begins at a porating these traditions into their Gospels.
similar place with its resurrection accounts—the ’.The resurrection stories in John occur in two
early Sunday morning visit to Jesus’ tomb, the
narrative clusters: chaps. 20 and 21. (For a dis-
presence of Mary Magdalene, the stone removed
cussion of the critical questions surrounding John
from the tomb opening, the appearance of an
angel (or angels}—but after this visit, each Gospel
21 and its relationship to the rest of the Fourth
goes its own way in recounting resurrection tra- Gospel narrative, see the Overview to that chap.)
ditions.° Mark narrates only the empty tomb John 20 contains three stories that are narrated
tradition (16:1-8 resurrection appearances were in a precise chronological sequence:
appended in the additions of Mark 16:9-20); Mat-
thew, Luke, and John recount their own appear- vv. 1-18 Sunday morning: The empty tomb
ance stories. Moreover, the sequence of and Jesus’ appearance to Mary
resurrection appearances noted in 1 Cor 15:5-8 Magdalene
does not correspond to any of the Gospel accounts wy. 19-23 Sunday evening: Jesus’ appearance
of Jesus’ resurrection appearances. Attempts to to the gathered disciples
isolate and reconstruct “authentic” sources of the (without Thomas)
resurrection stories, therefore, may distort the wy. 24-31 One week later: Jesus’ appearance
to Thomas and the gathered
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 140-42. disciples
JOHN 20:1-18, THE EMPTY TOMB AND THE

APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE
NIV NRSV
2 Early on the first day of the week, while Oe on the first day of the week, while
0: was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to
the tomb and saw that the stone had been re- the tomb and saw that the stone had been re-
moved from the entrance. *So she came running moved from the tomb. ?So she ran and went to
to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom
838
JOHN 20:1-18
NIV NRSV
Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken
out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know
have put him!” where they have laid him.” *Then Peter and the
3So Peter and the other disciple started for the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb.
tomb. “Both were running, but the other disciple 4The two were running together, but the other
outran Peter and reached the tomb first. °He bent disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.
over and looked in at the strips of linen lying °He bent down to look in and saw the linen
there but did not go in. “Then Simon Peter, who wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. Then
was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. Simon Peter came, following him, and went into
He saw the strips of linen lying there, ’as well as the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there,
the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. 7and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not
The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a
the linen. ®Finally the other disciple, who had place by itself. *Then the other disciple, who
reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw
and believed. °(They still did not understand from and believed; °for as yet they did not understand
Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.
0Then the disciples went back to their homes, 0Then the disciples returned to their homes.
‘but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she 11But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb.
wept, she bent over to look into the tomb '’and As she wept, she bent over to look? into the tomb;
saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body '2and she saw two angels in white, sitting where
had been, one at the head and the other at the the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head
foot. and the other at the feet. '*They said to her,
\3They asked her, “Woman, why are you “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to
crying?” them, “They have taken away my Lord, and | do
“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, not know where they have laid him.” '4When she
“and I don’t know where they have put him.” had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus
\4At this, she turned around and saw Jesus stand- standing there, but she did not know that it was
ing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. Jesus. ‘Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you
15“Woman,” he said, “why are you crying? weeping? Whom are you looking for?” Supposing
Who is it you are looking for?” him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, you have carried him away, tell me where you
if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and | will take him away.” 'Jesus
have put him, and | will get him.” said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him
loJesus said to her, “Mary.” in Hebrew,° “Rabbouni!” (which means Teacher).
She turned toward him and cried out in Ara- \7Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me,
because I have not yet ascended to the Father.
maic, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher).
But go to my brothers and.say to them, ‘I am
‘Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have
ascending to my Father and your Father, to my
not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my
God and your God.’” '*Mary Magdalene went
brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father
and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the
and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
Lord”; and she told them that he had said these
i8Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with
things to her.
the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told
them that he had said these things to her. aGklacks to look o That is, Aramaic
839
(COMMENTARY
John 20:1-18 consists of three parts: (1) vv. 1-2, 20:3-10. Mary’s report of the empty tomb pro-
introduction; (2) vv. 3-10, the empty tomb; (3) vides the catalyst for the second scene; her own
vv. 11-18, Jesus’ appearance to Mary Magdalene. story will resume in wv. 11-18. John 20:3-10 is the
20:1-2. As in the other Gospels, the first visit to second pairing of Peter and the beloved disciple in
Jesus’ tomb occurs “early on the first day of the the Gospel (cf. 13:21-30; see also John 21). Peter
week, while it was still dark”—that is, on Sunday has functioned as the representative of Jesus’ disci-
morning (Mark 16:2 and par.; the first day of the ples throughout the Gospel; the full range of disci-
week was sundown Saturday to sundown Sunday). pleship has been embodied by Peter: confession of
Mary Magdalene is accompanied by other women faith (6:67-69), misunderstanding and misplaced en-
in the synoptic Gospels (Matt 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke thusiasm (13:6-10, 36-38; 18:10-11), denial (18:15-
24:10), but in John she comes to the tomb alone 18, 25-27). The disciple “whom Jesus loved” is
(v. 1). In addition to her role in the passion and singularly identified with the events of Jesus’ hour
Easter narratives (see Matt 27:56, 61; Mark 15:40, (see also 13:21-30; 19:26-27, 35). He is always
47; John 19:25; cf. Luke 23:49), Mary Magdalene identified by his relationship to Jesus and never by
appears in Luke 8:2, where she is identified as a his name. Peter has many roles in the Fourth Gospel,
Galilean woman from whom Jesus had exorcised but the beloved disciple has only one role: to
seven demons. It is important to distinguish the embody the love and intimacy with Jesus that is the
Gospel portrait of Mary Magdalene from the tradi- goal of discipleship in John.
tions that developed about her in the patristic and The details about these two disciples’ running to
medieval periods.©' There is no biblical foundation the tomb give a vividness to the narrative (v. 4).
for the popular portrait of her as a “sinful” woman There is something almost droll about the interac-
or prostitute. Instead, as v. 18 will show, Mary tions of the two disciples outside the tomb. The
Magdalene is the first disciple to proclaim the good beloved disciple hesitates to enter the tomb (v. 5),
news of Easter. but Peter, whose actions in the Fourth Gospel are
Mary interprets the removal of the stone from consistently characterized by an excess of enthusi-
the tomb as evidence that someone has stolen asm (13:9; 18:10; 21:7), does not hesitate (v. 64).
Jesus’ body (v. 2; cf. Matt 27:63-66; 28:11-14). The history of interpretation of these verses is in-
Her haste in running to Peter and the beloved trigued by these details. For example, some com-
disciple communicates her sense of urgency and mentators interpret the notation that the beloved
anticipates their similar haste and urgency in run- disciple outran Peter to the tomb as evidence that
ning back to the tomb (v. 4). The first-person the beloved disciple was younger than Peter.%4
plural pronoun (“we”) in her report suggests that Bultmann suggested that Peter represented Jewish
Mary understands herself to be expressing the Christianity and the beloved disciple Gentile Chris-
puzzle of the empty tomb for all of Jesus’ follow- tianity, so that in these verses, one sees that “the
ers, not for herself alone (cf. v. 13).°2 In confess- first community of believers arises out of Jewish
ing her ignorance of Jesus’ whereabouts (“we do Christianity, and the Gentile Christians attain to faith
not know where they have laid him”), Mary only after them.”° Still other scholars construct
ironically echoes one of the decisive misunder- elaborate theories about vv. 4-6 as a narrative de-
standings of Jesus’ ministry: whence Jesus comes piction of the ecclesial rivalry between Petrine and
and where he is going (e.g., 7:33-36; 8:21-23).°88 Johannine Christianity.°*° Most of these theories lead
away from the Fourth Evangelist’s focus on the
681. See Susan Haskins, Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor (New significance of the empty tomb.
York: Harcourt Brace, 1994) for a thorough treatment of this question.
682. Itis not necessary to postulate that the first-person plural pronoun
684. See, e.g., most recently, the notes on 20:4 in the New Oxford
arises from the Fourth Evangelist’s slavish adherence to an earlier tradition Annotated NRSV.
in which Mary had companions at the tomb. So, e.g., Raymond E. Brown, 685. Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans.
The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia:
Doubleday, 1970) 984, 1000. Westminster, 1971) 685.
683. Paul Minear, “ ‘We Do Not Know Where...’ John 20:2,” Int. 686. See the discussion in Brown, The Gospel According to John
30 (1976) 125-39. (XIII-XX1), 1004-1007.
840
There is a dramatic progression to the discovery mains incomplete (“for as yet they did not
of the evidence of the empty tomb: Mary sees the know”).
stone that has been removed from the tomb’s It is important to remember that vv. 3-10 relate
opening (v. 1); the beloved disciple notices the an empty-tomb story, not a story of a resurrection
linen cloths (v. 5; cf. 19:40); Peter sees the linen appearance. What the beloved disciple believes,
cloths and the head wrapping (vv. 60-7).°°” With then, is the evidence of the empty tomb: not
Peter’s evidence, the narrative begins to move merely that the tomb is empty, but that its emp-
toward the resolution of Mary’s confusion and tiness bears witness that Jesus has conquered
misunderstanding expressed in v. 2. The Evangel- death and judged the ruler of this world (12:31;
ist describes in great detail what Peter sees when 14:30; 16:33). The beloved disciple’s faith is as
he enters the tomb. There may be an apologetic complete as faith in the evidence of the empty
intent here, a defense against charges that the tomb can be. To say that the beloved disciple
tomb was empty because Jesus’ body was stolen. believes in the resurrection is to rush the story,°°*
The evidence of the burial cloths suggests that the however, as v. 9 reminds the reader. Jesus’ glo-
body has not been stolen; grave robbers would rification is not yet over; the disciples have not
not have unwound the body from its wrappings. yet experienced Jesus’ resurrection, nor has Jesus
But the description of the burial cloths has a more ascended to the Father (cf. 20:17). Only after
important theological function. At Lazarus’s exit Jesus is glorified, when the Paraclete is given to
from the tomb (11:44), his burial cloths were also the community, will the disciples understand and
described in great detail; the same word for “head remember the Scripture (2:22; 12:12; cf. 14:26).
cloth” (covSdpiov soudarion) occurs in 11:44 and It may be for this reason that the story notes that
20:7. Lazarus emerged from the tomb still the disciples simply return home from the empty
wrapped in his grave cloths, and he depended on tomb {v. 10). Jesus has not yet appeared to give
Jesus’ command to free himself from the wrap- his post-resurrection commissions and instructions
pings; but in 20:6-7, Jesus’ grave cloths remain (yvseb7x2h-22):
behind in the empty tomb. The details of the 20:11-18. 20:11-13. The reintroduction of
grave cloths thus point to the theological resolu- Mary Magdalene is abrupt; her return to the tomb
tion of Mary’s misunderstanding: No one has is presupposed by v. 11 but is never narrated (cf.
taken Jesus away; he has left death behind (cf. the abrupt shift of narrative focus to Peter in the
10:18). courtyard at 18:25). Verses 11-13 resume the
The dramatic progression of evidence contin- traditional account of Mary Magdalene’s discovery
ues with the beloved disciple’s entrance into of the empty tomb, but they contain several
the tomb in v. 8 and reaches its theological distinctive Johannine emphases. First, John is the only
conclusion: “he saw |eidev eiden| and believed Gospel in which Mary “weeps” (khatw k/aio) at
lemiotevoev episteusen |.” Yet this statement about the tomb. The repeated references to her weeping
the beloved disciple’s belief is not without inter- (vv. 11, 13, 15) recall Jesus’ words at 16:20a
pretive difficulties. First, the text supplies no ob- (“Very truly, I tell you, you will weep [khavoeTe
ject of the disciple’s faith. Some commentators klausete| and mourn, but the world will rejoice”)
(e.g., Augustine) suggest that this verse means and thus set the stage for the fulfillment of Jesus’
simply that the beloved disciple believed Mary’s promise of 16:22 (“So you have pain now; but I
report that the tomb was empty. It is unlikely that will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice,
the Fourth Evangelist would use the verb “to and no one will take your joy from you”; see also
believe” to mean simply “acknowledge” or “give 16:200). As noted in the Commentary on the
assent to,” as it has more theological weight that Farewell Discourse, many of Jesus’ promises in
that throughout the Gospel (e.g., 1:12; 3:15, 18; those chapters find their narrative fulfillment in
5:38; 11:25-26; 12:46; 14:1, 10-11). Second, the the resurrection stories of John 20 (see also Com-
interpretive commentary in v. 9 suggests that the mentary on vv. 19-23). Second, the angels make
disciples’ understanding of the resurrection re- no Easter announcement, but only draw renewed
3 vols. 688. So, e.g., ibid., 3:312; Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John,
687. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John,
561, 563-64.
(New York: Seabury, 1982) 2:311.
841
attention to Mary’s grief. The announcement of tation to discipleship. Mary’s response to “the
the significance of the resurrection belongs to gardener” is also a supreme example of Johannine
Jesus (vv. 17-18), not to an intermediary messen- misunderstanding and irony. Mary, like the Sa-
ger. Mary’s response to the angels is a reiteration maritan woman at the well, is ignorant of who is
of her words at v. 2, but she now speaks exclu- speaking to her, and so she does not understand
sively of the cause of her own grief, not the the implications of her own question (cf. 4:10).
community’s confusion. From a theological perspective, it is, indeed, Jesus
Finally, John alone among the Gospels locates who has “carried him away,” for it is Jesus who
the angels as “sitting where the body of Jesus had has the power to take up his own life again
been lying, one at the head and the other at the (10:18), but Mary thinks only of the disposition
feet” (v. 12; cf. Matt 28:2; Mark 16:5; Luke of a corpse.
24:4). This explicit link between the angels’ loca- 20:16. The lean narration of the moment of
tion and Jesus’ body may contain an echo of Jesus’ recognition contributes to its poignancy. Mary
opening eschatological promise of angels ascend- turned toward Jesus once before (v. 14), but his
ing and descending on the Son of Man (1:51). speaking her name enables her to recognize him
These angels are not messengers, but are evidence this time. The Aramaic word pafBouvt (tabbouni)
of the inbreaking of the promised new age in is a personal address or form of endearment of
Jesus’ death and resurrection. the word for “rabbi,” teacher or master. This
20:14. The dramatic and theological heart of ° interchange between Jesus and Mary reveals him
this story is vv. 14-18. Verse 14 establishes the as the good shepherd; he knows his sheep by
story’s dramatic tension; the reader knows what name, and they respond to his voice (10:3-4, 14,
Mary does not: that the person she sees is Jesus. 16, 27; cf. Isa 43:1). The promised transformation
This setting increases the reader’s participation in from weeping and pain to joy has been -accom-
the story that is about to unfold, because the plished through the word and presence of Jesus
reader is positioned to anticipate the moment of (16:20-22).
recognition. Luke 24:15-16 creates a similar dy- 20:17. This verse contains the first commands
namic of anticipation and recognition in the Em- of the risen Jesus. Jesus’ first command (v. 174)
maus road story. is a prohibition. The present imperative, “Do not
20:15. Jesus’ questions (v. 15a) reinforce the hold on to me,” may prohibit either an action
drama of mistaken identity. They are questions already in progress or an intention to act. That is,
that one might reasonably expect a gardener to ask Jesus’ words do not necessarily assume that Mary
in these circumstances, and so there is a certain is already holding on to him (cf. Matt 28:9), but
logic to Mary’s response (v. 15). But for the reader, only that he has perceived her intention to do so.
who knows that the questioner is the risen Jesus and Jesus’ prohibition here is not a general prohibition
not the gardener, the exchange between Jesus and against touching his resurrected body (cf. his in-
Mary is another example of Johannine misunder- vitation to Thomas in v. 27), but a very specific
standing. Indeed, as Barrett has written, “This is prohibition against “holding on to” (amtw hapto)
the supreme example of the device, for it is not Jesus at this moment and hence interfering with
a metaphor but Jesus himself who is mistaken.”°®° the unfolding of the events of the hour.
For example, Jesus’ question, “Who are you look- For the Fourth Evangelist, Jesus’ glorification
ing fore” works on two levels. On the level of consists of his death, resurrection, and ascension.
the plot line, it can be interpreted, as Mary does, The Johannine metaphor for Jesus’ glorification,
as pertaining to Mary’s search for Jesus’ body. But
“lifted up” (tesdw Aypsoo), holds together all three
this question repeats the first words spoken by
- parts of Jesus’ “exaltation.” Jesus’ glorification
Jesus in the Gospel (1:38). Jesus’ words to the
begins when he is lifted up on the cross, but it
first people who seek him at the beginning of his
will not be complete until he returns to God. The
ministry and to the first person who seeks him
awkwardness of Jesus’ words, “I have not yet
after the resurrection thus contain the same invi-
ascended to the Father,” arises from the awkward-
689. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Phila- ness of having to give linear, narrative shape to
delphia: Westminster, 1978) 564. something that transcends and transforms tempo-
842
ral categories for the Evangelist.°°° That is, John relationship with God is now true of the disciples’
must try to communicate his understanding of relationship with God (cf. 14:23; 15:8-11, 16;
Jesus’ glorification as a transtemporal event within 16:23-27; 17:20-26).
the narrative constraints of the traditional stories The Prologue announced that to all who be-
of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension as lieved in Jesus, he gave “power to become chil-
three distinct chronological events. The conversa- dren of God” (1:13), and Jesus’ words at 20:17
tion between Jesus and Mary in the garden is the identify the completion of his glorification as the
Fourth Evangelist’s attempt to give narrative shape source of that new identity. To underscore the
to a theological reality. creation of the new family of God, Mary is in-
The pivotal importance of Jesus’ return to the structed to announce the news of the ascension
Father is stated positively in v. 170. Jesus com- to “my brothers.” Through this metaphorical use
mands Mary to go and proclaim the good news of the noun “brother” (aSeAbds adelphos), Jesus’
of his ascension, not the promise of future post-
disciples are now recognized as members of his
resurrection appearances (cf. Matt 28:7; Mark
family. The noun adelphos is not gender limit-
16:7).°! In announcing his ascent to God, Jesus
ing here, but is used inclusively to identify all
announces the completion of his glorification; his
of Jesus’ disciples as his family (cf. the NRSV’s
distinctive identity as the eschatological Son of
translation of aSe\8o0i [adelphoi as “the commu-
Man is confirmed by his ascent (3:13; 6:62). His
nity” at 21:23).
return to the Father is a moment of great rejoicing
20:18. That discipleship is not restricted to men
(14:28; 17:13). Because Jesus has. promised to
“prepare a place for you” (14:2), his ascension in John is amply demonstrated by the role accorded
ensures the ultimate fulfillment of his promises to to Mary in v. 18. She is the first witness to the
those he loves. In returning to the Father, Jesus resurrection, announcing both the fact of the resur-
makes it possible for his disciples to share fully in rection (“I have seen the Lord”) and the content of
his relationship with God. That is underscored in Jesus’ message (“he had said these things to her”).
the expression “my Father and your Father, my The two names with which Mary speaks of Jesus
God and your God.” This double-identification in vv. 11-18 (“Rabbouni” and “Lord”) recall Jesus’
formula confirms that what was true of Jesus’ words at the farewell meal, “You call me Teacher
and Lord—and you are right, for that is what I am”
690. Brown, Zhe Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), 1014; (13:13), and further confirm her portrayal as one of
Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3:318-19.
691. Bultmarin, The Gospel of John, 688. Jesus’ disciples.
REFLECTIONS
Each of the resurrection stories in John provides the Gospel reader with a different angle
on what it means to meet the risen Jesus. In this first story (20:1-18), the reader is given two
scenes through which to ponder the resurrection: the empty tomb and Mary’s encounter with
the risen Jesus.
1. The empty tomb narrative runs counter to sentimental notions of the resurrection and reunion
with Jesus. Peter and the beloved disciple are given nothing but the evidence of an empty tomb.
The effect of that evidence on Peter is not stated in the text, but its impact on the beloved disciple
is clear, “he saw and believed.” No angelic announcement accompanies the glimpse into the empty
tomb, no reassuring words that Jesus has risen, that he has gone before them. In Mark 16:1-8,
the women have the verbal witness of the angels, and they nonetheless flee the tomb in terror
and amazement. In John there is only the stark emptiness of the tomb and the telltale presence
of Jesus’ abandoned burial clothes; yet the beloved disciple believes.
How can the evidence of ati empty tomb lead to faith? In what may sound like a theological
the
tautology, the beloved disciple believed because he already believed. That is, because
of his promises about himself and
beloved disciple believed in Jesus and the trustworthiness
843
God (e.g., 14:1-3, 18-20, 23; 16:33), when he saw the empty tomb, he knew what it signaled:
that Jesus had conquered death. The beloved disciple did not know what form Jesus’ conquest
of death had taken; he did not know how Jesus’ conquest of death would be manifested among
the living; he did not even know how to speak about what he saw in the tomb. All he knew
was what the burial cloths told him: that Jesus had defeated death.
Stories of empty tombs confront the Christian community with the crux of resurrection faith:
whether to believe in Jesus’ defeat of death without corroborating evidence, without stories of
visits with the risen Jesus. The short ending of the Gospel of Mark leaves the reader to ponder
the empty tomb and to come to his or her own decision about the power of God in Jesus to
overcome death. In John 20:3-10, the Fourth Evangelist presents the reader with a character who
embodies that faith, who does not “judge by appearances,” but “with right judgment” (7:25). It
is important that the contemporary Christian community heed this story and linger with the witness
of the empty tomb before moving ahead to stories of the risen Jesus.
2. The second scene—Mary Magdalene in the garden with Jesus (vv. 11-18)—-contains one
of the NT’s most poignant images of the grace and delight of the resurrection: the moment
of recognition when Mary hears Jesus call her by name. In that moment, Mary abandons her
grief and turns to her teacher with expectancy.’ It is, as the Commentary noted, the
demonstration of the truth of Jesus’ promise that he would see his followers again, that their
grief at his absence would turn to joy, that he would not leave his followers orphaned (16:20-22;
14:18-20). This scene captures in one narrative moment all of the joy the church experiences
when it exults on Easter Sunday, “Christ is risen, he is risen indeed!”
Yet this moment of pure joy is the beginning, not the end, of Mary Magdalene’s encounter
with the risen Jesus. Although the church loves to celebrate Easter through the lens of stories of
resurrection appearances, John 20:17 suggests another way of marking Jesus’ victory on the cross.
The good news that Jesus commands Mary to proclaim is not that he is risen, but that he is
“ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” This is not meant to
minimize the resurrection, but to note that for the Fourth Gospel the appearances of the risen
Jesus are neither the counterpart to the cross nor the climax of the story. The cross brings the
incarnation to a close, but the story of the Logos finds its conclusion only in Jesus’ return to God,
which is the counterpart to the descent from heaven (3:13, 31; 6:38; 8:23). This return makes
new life possible for the believing community (14:28; 16:28), because Jesus’ ascent to God renders
permanent that which was revealed about God during the incarnation. The love of God embodied
in Jesus was not of temporary duration, lasting only as long as the incarnation. Rather, the truth
of Jesus’ revelation of God receives its final seal in his return to God. Cross/resurrection/ascension
is the decisive eschatological event for the Fourth Evangelist, because it forever changes the way
God is known in the world and makes God’s new age a reality.
Language of ascension and return to God, so pivotal in the Fourth Gospel’s proclamation
of the good news, can sound foreign and excessively transcendent to contemporary believers.
In a church culture that often insists on privileging the anthropocentric dimensions of
faith—that is, that insists on translating everything in terms of what it means “for us”—it is
often difficult to know what to do with the Fourth Gospel’s unwavering christological and
theological foci. For the Fourth Evangelist, as the Prologue makes clear, everything begins with
God and with Jesus’ relationship to God (1:1-5), and there can be no conversation about “us”
until there is a conversation about “them”-—God and Jesus. The source of new life lies with
God as revealed in Jesus, and for the Fourth Evangelist, there is no short cut around serious
theological reflection about the identity of God and Jesus.
Yet that serious theological reflection is always linked for the Fourth Evangelist with the
gifts of life and love that God and Jesus bring to those who believe, and his understanding of
the ascension is no exception. Indeed, the new life that Jesus brings may receive its most
explicit expression anywhere in the Gospel in Jesus’ announcement of his ascension: “I am
844
ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” It is an astonishing
announcement, as Jesus himself translates what his ascension means “for us”: Through Jesus’
ascension, the believing community receives a new identity. His ascension is the confirmation
that the believing community now knows God as Jesus knows God, that Jesus has opened up
the possibility of new and full relationship with God. The intimacy of Jesus’ relationship with
God the Father, as in 1:18, now marks the believing community’s relationship with God.
Jesus’ announcement in v. 17 is every bit as poignant and transforming as his speaking Mary’s
name in v. 16, indeed more so. Verse 16 demonstrates the power and intimacy of relationship
with Jesus for one of his sheep, but in v. 17 that power and intimacy is opened up for all members
of the community. Jesus’ promises in the Farewell Discourse all pointed in the direction of this
ascension announcement, that the love that God and Jesus have for each other would be opened
up by Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension to include the believing community. This an-
nouncement is the ultimate “So what?” of Easter. Jesus’ death on the cross, his revelation of his
and God’s love, his resurrection and ascension are indeed ultimately about us, because they open
up for those who believe fresh possibilities of life as children of God. But even as they are ultimately
about us, they must also ultimately be about God, because it is only as one sees God in Jesus that
one can know what it means to live as God’s child.
JOOEEN? 20919223°]ESUS* FIRST APPEARANCE LO

THE:'GATHERED DISCIPLES
NIV NRSV
'°On the evening of that first day of the week, 19When it was evening on that day, the first
when the disciples were together, with the doors - day of the week, and the doors of the house
locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood where the disciples had met were locked for fear
among them and said, “Peace be with you!” of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them
20After he said this, he showed them his hands and said, “Peace be with you.” 7°After he said
and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then
saw the Lord. the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the 21Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you.
Father has sent me, I am sending you.” ??And As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 77When
with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive he had said this, he breathed on them and said
the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. **If you forgive
they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you
are not forgiven.” retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
(COMMENTARY
The story of Jesus’ appearance to the disciples in Jesus displays the wounds of his crucifixion to the
John 20:19-23 can be subdivided into two parts: (1) gathered disciples. The common elements do not
vv. 19-20, the appearance of the risen Jesus, and (2) point to a common source behind the two stories,
vv. 21-23, the disciples’ commissioning by the risen however, as the stories themselves are quite dis-
Jesus. This section has elements in common with tinct, but they do suggest strongly that in John
Luke 24:36-43: Both occur on Sunday evening; Jesus 20:19-23 the Fourth Evangelist is using a story
greets the disciples with the same words; and in both that came to him in the tradition.
845
20:19-20. It is important to note that these Jesus’ calling Mary by name in v. 16, his display-
verses identify those gathered together with the ing his body to them underscores the continuity
general term “disciples” (ja9nTat matheétai). between the earthly and the risen Jesus. In Luke,
They are never identified as the Eleven (the the motivation for this presentation is explicitly
Twelve minus Judas), and it is a mistake to read stated: The disciples were afraid that Jesus was a
this gathering of disciples in the light of the more ghost (24:37). There is no explicit motivation for
closed notion of the Twelve that operates in the Jesus’ actions in John; a motivation like the Lukan
synoptic Gospels (e.g., Matt 28:16-20). The motivation seems to be assumed, however, since
Fourth Evangelist rarely speaks of the Twelve it is not until after Jesus shows the disciples his
(6:67, 70-71; 20:24). The gathering of disciples hands and side that they rejoice (cf. Luke 24:41).
in vv. 19-23, like that at the farewell meal, The disciples’ joy, like the end of Mary’s weeping
probably included the core group, but there is no in v. 16, is the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise in
indication that it was limited to them. This gath- 16:20-22 that the disciples’ pain will turn to joy
ering of disciples, like that in chaps. 13-16, rep- when they see him again. The narrator’s confes-
resents the faith community in general, not the sional perspective is revealed in his designation of
apostolic leadership. Jesus as “the Lord” in his commentary in v. 20.
John 20:19-23 is linked with the preceding story 20:21-23. Jesus’ repeated greeting (v. 21) is
in the garden by the use of the emphatic expression not simply reduplicative. The disciples can receive
“that day” (v. 19), although the disciples’ fearful Jesus’ words as his gift of peace and not simply
conduct indicates that they have not credited as a greeting only after they recognize that the
Mary’s report (cf. Luke 24:11). The locked doors
person who speaks to them is “the Lord” (v. 20).
may be mentioned to heighten the drama and
Jesus’ words in v. 210 are a direct echo of his
supernatural effect of Jesus’ entrance into the
prayer at 17:18. The syntax of both verses clearly
room (v. 190; cf. v. 26; Luke 24:37), but their
positions the Father’s sending of Jesus (e.g., 3:17;
primary importance for the Fourth Evangelist is
4:34; 5:36; 10:36; 14:24; 17:3, 8) as an analogue
found in the phrase “for fear of the Jews.” This
for Jesus’ sending of the community. Jesus thus
expression derives from the Johannine commu-
commissions the faith community to continue the
nity’s conflicts with the Jewish authorities of their
work God sent him to do.
day (see Commentary on 9:22); the Fourth Evan-
Jesus’ breathing on the disciples (v. 22) is
gelist thus intends his readers to see their own
experience reflected in this story of the first dis- explicitly linked with his words in v. 21 (“When
ciples. Jesus’ greeting, “Peace be with you” (cf. he had said this... ”), so that the gift of the Spirit
Luke 24:36) is a conventional greeting (e.g., Rom is presented as that which empowers the commu-
Peet Corh ig: 2) Cor-le3> Gal *1s3), but it has nity to continue Jesus’ work. The Spirit was
an additional function in v. 19. With these words, promised for the time after Jesus’ glorification
Jesus fulfills another of his promises from the (7:37-39), and at v. 22 that moment has arrived.
Farewell Discourse: the gift of his peace (14:27). The verb “to breathe” (Eudvodw emphysad) oc-
This peace is given to a community who will curs only here in the NT, and its usage clearly
experience the world’s hatred and persecution evokes the description of God’s breathing the
(15:18-25). The gift of this peace to the disciples breath of life into the first human in Gen 2:7. It
who have locked themselves away “for fear of the also recalls the description of the breath of life in
Jews” is an explicit reminder to the reading com- Ezek 37:9 (see also the description of God in Wis
munity that they need not face the Jewish authori- 15:11: “and breathed a living spirit into them”
ties anxiously, but can do so with the peace of ‘ [NRSV]). Jesus’ breathing the Holy Spirit on his
Jesus. disciples thus is described as a new, second crea-
Jesus’ presentation of his hands and side (cf. tion. The image of new life provides an important
19:34) in v. 20 is similar to his self-presentation link with Jesus’ announcement in 20:17. Those
in Luke 24:38-40, although in abbreviated form. who believe in Jesus receive new life as children
A fuller self-presentation is saved until the Thomas of God (cf. 3:3-10), and the Holy Spirit is the
story for greater dramatic effect (vv. 25, 27). Like breath that sustains that new life. (For a discussion
846
of this text as the Johannine “Pentecost,” see standing of forgiveness of sins as the work of the
Reflections.) entire community. Second, the community’s en-
The commissioning scene closes with Jesus’ actment of Jesus’ words in v. 23 depends on both
words in v. 23 about forgiving and retaining sins. Jesus’ words of sending in v. 21 and the gift of
This is a very complex verse to interpret. Its the Holy Spirit in v. 22. The forgiveness of sins
vocabulary is unusual for the Fourth Gospel; must be understood as the Spirit-empowered mis-
this is the only occurrence of the verbs “to sion of continuing Jesus’ work in the world. Third,
forgive” (ain aphiemi) and “to retain” (kpatéw although vocabulary of forgiveness and retaining
Krateo) in the Gospel. C. H. Dodd proposed that is foreign to John, “sin” (ayaptia hamartia) is
this verse was an independent form of the teach- not. Because the community’s work is an extension
ing about binding and loosing in Matt 18:18 (cf. of Jesus’ work, v. 23 must be interpreted in terms
Matt 16:19),°°? but as shall be seen below, while of Jesus’ teaching and actions about sin. The crucial
this may explain its traditional roots, the adaptation texts in this regard are 3:19-21; 8:21-24; 9:39-41;
of this teaching into the Johannine setting gives it a and 15:22-24. In John, sin is a theological failing,
quite different meaning from the Matthean version. not a moral or behavioral transgression (in contrast
Also, this verse has had a controversial role in the to Matt 18:18). To have sin is to be blind to the
history of the church, as church leaders have de- revelation of God in Jesus (see Reflections on John
bated its significance for the practices of baptism and 9). Jesus brings people to judgment by his revealing
penance. For example, it was a crucial text in the work and presence in the world.
Council of Trent’s defense of the sacrament of In v. 23, then, Jesus commissions the commu-
penance and the role of ordained clergy in granting
nity to continue the work of making God in Jesus
absolution from sins, and it is often used in discus-
known in the world and thereby to bring the
sions of the relationship between rituals of repen-
world to the moment of decision and judgment
tance and the rite of baptism.°%
with regard to sin (cf. 15:22-24). The description
It is critical in the interpretation of v. 23,
of the Paraclete’s activity in 16:8-9 supports this
therefore, that this verse be heard in its Johannine
reading of 20:23, because the Paraclete is to
context and not be read anachronistically through
“prove the world wrong about sin... because
the lens of the Reformation. First, Jesus’ words in
they do not believe in me.” When the believing
v. 23 are addressed to the entire faith community,
community receives.the Spirit in v. 22, they are
not to its apostolic leaders. Any discussion of this
empowered to carry out this work of the
verse, therefore, must be grounded in an under-
Paraclete.°** Jesus’ words in v. 23 are a more
692. C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cam- specific form of his words in v. 21: The commu-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 347-49. nity is to continue what God sent Jesus to do.
693. Foran excellent treatment of the place of John 20:23 in the history
of the church, see Brown, 7he Gospel According to John (XII-XXI),
1041-45. 694. See ibid., 1042-43, and Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 692-93.
REFLECTIONS
John 20:19-23 occurs as a text for both Easter and Pentecost text in the church’s lectionary.
The preaching cycles of the church year thus recognize that in this text one meets the risen
Jesus, and so they use this text as a vehicle for the Easter message. But the account of the
gift of the Spirit also makes this story an appropriate Pentecost text, because in it one finds
the Johannine version of the beginning of the church’s post-Easter life.
It is important to recognize that the Easter/Pentecost division in the liturgical life of the
church reflects the story line of Luke-Acts and does not reflect the Johannine understanding
of the relationship of the resurrection and the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the Fourth Gospel,
as John 20:19-23 makes clear, the gift of the Spirit and the articulation of the community’s
mission are intimately and inseparably tied to the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. When
the church celebrates Easter, it also celebrates the beginnings of its mission. When the church
celebrates the beginning of its mission and its empowerment with the Spirit, it also celebrates
Easter. For John, the church’s ongoing life as a community of faith, as the people who continue
Jesus’ work in the world, derives from Jesus’ Easter promises and gifts.
This is reinforced in John 20:19-23 by the number of promises from the Farewell Discourse
that find their fulfillment in this story. In the Farewell Discourse, Jesus promised his followers a
life shaped by joy, a life grounded in the gift of his peace, a life guided by the work of the
Paraclete/Spirit, and when each of these promises is fulfilled in 20:19-23, the distance between
Easter and Pentecost is collapsed. The church’s identity as a people is shaped by the gifts it receives
from the risen Jesus, gifts he promised as a way of ensuring his continuing presence among them.
Perhaps the most difficult part of this Easter/Pentecost story concerns precisely what Jesus
commissions the faith community to do. Just as Jesus was sent by the Father, so also he sends the
community (v. 21), but the content of the church’s work is only alluded to. The combination of
vy. 22-23 suggests that the faith community is to be a people shaped by Jesus’ gift of the Spirit
and that the mark of that gift will be the power to forgive or retain sins. As the Commentary
discussed, however, forgiving sins does not involve forgiving moral transgressions (nor does retaining
sins involve retaining moral transgressions), but it involves bearing witness to the identity of God
as revealed in Jesus. If the interpreter combines vv. 22-23 with Jesus’ commandment to love one
another in 13:34-35, a possible picture of the church’s mission emerges. By loving one another as
Jesus loves, the faith community reveals God to the world; by revealing God to the world, the
church makes it possible for the world to choose to enter into relationship with this God of limitless
love. It is in choosing or rejecting this relationship with God that sins are forgiven or retained. The
faith community’s mission, therefore, is not to be the arbiter of right or wrong, but to bear unceasing
witness to the love of God in Jesus.
The resurrection story of John 20:19-23 thus provides a fresh vantage point from which
the church can preach and teach the story of its own beginnings. The beginning of the
community’s life is not separated from the story of Easter; indeed, in John, the gift of the
Spirit and the commissioning of the church occur on Easter Sunday evening. The Johannine
Easter narratives are a reminder that the church’s life is intimately bound to Jesus’ life,
death, and resurrection. To celebrate the resurrection, the Fourth Gospel suggests, is also
to celebrate the beginnings of the church’s mission in the world. Jesus lives, not because
he can walk through locked doors and show his wounds to frightened disciples, but because
he breathes new life into those disciples through the gift of the Spirit and commissions
them to continue his work.
JOHN 20:24-31, JESUS’ APPEARANCE TO THOMAS

NIV NRSV
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the 24But Thomas (who was called the Twin‘), one
Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus
came. *°So the other disciples told him, “We have came. *°So the other disciples told him, “We have
seen the Lord!” seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail ‘see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put
marks in his hands and put my finger where the my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand
nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will in his side, I will not believe.”
not believe it.” 206A week later his disciples were again in the
0A week later his disciples were in the house house, and Thomas was with them. Although the -
again, and Thomas was with them. Though the 2 Gk Didymus
848
JOHN 20:24-31
NIV NRSV
doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among
them and said, “Peace be with you!” 2”Then he them and said, “Peace be with you.” 2”Then he
said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my
hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side.
side. Stop doubting and believe.” Do not doubt but believe.” Thomas answered
8Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” him, “My Lord and my God!” “Jesus said to him,
°Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen “Have you believed because you have seen me?
me, you have believed; blessed are those who Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have
have not seen and yet have believed.” come to believe.”
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the 30Now Jesus did many other signs in the
presence of his disciples, which are not recorded presence of his disciples, which are not written
in this book. °'But these are written so that you
in this book. °'But these are written that you may?
may come to believe? that Jesus is the Messiah,°
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
the Son of God, and that through believing you
and that by believing you may have life in his
may have life in his name.
name.
aOther ancient authorities read may continue to believe 6Or the
431 Some manuscripts may continue to Christ
(COMMENTARY
20:24-25. These verses form a bridge between rejecting the verbal witness to the resurrection,
the appearance story in vv. 19-23 and the appear- then, Thomas is acting no differently from the
ance to Thomas in vv. 26-29. The story in vv. other disciples. Thomas’s demands in v. 250 are
19-23 gave no hint that Thomas was missing from worded graphically, and the demand for concrete
the scene; by informing the reader of this detail evidence is heightened by his insistence on touch-
after the fact (v. 24), the Evangelist gives an ing Jesus’ hands and side, but in essence what he
additional significance to that earlier story (cf. the demands as the conditions of his belief, tangible
way the late notice that Jesus’ healings in John 5 proof of the resurrection, is what Jesus himself
and 9 took place on the sabbath shifted the gave the disciples in v. 20.
emphasis in those stories). A story of the commis- 20:26-29. Thomas’s demands set the stage for
sioning of the faith community now functions to Jesus’ appearance in these verses. The description
showcase the question of faith in the resurrection. of the gathering and of Jesus’ entrance in v. 26
Thomas has appeared twice previously in the mirror v. 19, with two exceptions. First, the
Fourth Gospel (11:16, where he is also identified elimination of the expression “the fear of the
as the Twin, and 14:5; see also 21:2). That he Jews” may suggest that through the gift of the
was one of the Twelve accords with his identifi- Holy Spirit (v. 22), fear is now removed (cf.
cation in the synoptic Gospels (Matt 10:3; Mark 14:27). Second, Thomas’s presence is explicitly
3:18; Luke 6:15). noted, reinforcing that Thomas will now receive
The disciples’ announcement to Thomas in v. what he missed in the earlier appearance. Indeed,
25a is the same announcement that Mary Mag- after Jesus’ communal greeting in v. 26, the focus
dalene made to them in v. 18. Thomas will not of the story rests exclusively on Jesus and Thomas.
believe their announcement (v. 250), but it is In v. 27, Jesus offers to give Thomas exactly
important to note that the disciples did not seem what he demanded; his words parallel Thomas’s
to believe Mary’s earlier announcement either. demands in v. 25. Although the word “doubt” is
Only when Jesus appeared to'the disciples (v. 19) indelibly linked with Thomas in the popular in-
and showed them his hands and his side (v. 20) terpretation of this story, the word occurs no-
did they recognize “the Lord” and rejoice. In where in vv. 24-29 (contrary to the NIV and the
849
__JOHN 20:24-31 COMMENTARY
NRSV). A literal translation of v. 270 reads, “Do shame really be the theological impetus for such
not be unbelieving [attotos apistos| but believing a confession? To the contrary, v. 27 is another
[{tiot6s pistos].” This is the only occurrence of demonstration of the truth of 1:16: “From his
this pair of adjectives in the Fourth Gospel, and fullness we have all received, grace upon grace”
their contrast is important. Jesus exhorts Thomas (see Reflections).
to move from a position of unbelief to belief. This The manuscript evidence is unclear whether v.
story does not focus on doubt and skepticism, but 29a should be punctuated as a question (NRSV)
on the grounds of faith. Jesus will meet the or a statement (NIV), but the punctuation does
conditions that Thomas set for his belief; indeed, not decisively alter the meaning of the verse.
he explicitly identifies his offer of himself as the Jesus’ words in v. 29a contain a direct and seem-
motivation for Thomas’s move from unbelief to ingly intentional echo of the words with which
belief. he concluded his first conversation with his disci-
Jesus’ offer of himself to Thomas evokes the ples at 1:50. In response to Nathanael’s “seeing
most powerful and complete confession of Jesus and believing,” Jesus promised that even greater
in the Fourth Gospel: “My Lord and my God!” things would be revealed to the disciples, includ-
(v. 28). In confessing Jesus as his Lord and God, ing the eschatological vision of the Son of Man
Thomas acknowledges the truth of the words that (1:51). Jesus’ words at 20:29 contain a related
Jesus spoke to him in 14:7 (“If you know me, ‘promise that belief will not be limited to those
you will know my Father also. From now on you who see what Thomas has seen. Jesus does not
do know him and have seen him”; cf. 14:9: disparage the faith of the first disciples, which was
“Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”). As grounded in sight.” The Fourth Gospel has re-
Bultmann has correctly noted, this confession ac- peatedly pointed to the importance of that witness
knowledges that Jesus’ return to the Father is now (see esp. 19:35) and to the word of the first
complete, that Jesus shares in God’s glory “that I disciples as a source of faith for others (17:20-21).
had in your presence before the world existed” Actually, v. 29 is intended to reassure future
(17:5).°% The language of this confession affirms generations of believers that having seen Jesus—
the central truth with which the Gospel began: that is, being a first-generation witness—is not a
“The Word was with God, and the Word was prerequisite for faith. The joy of the first disciples
God” (1:1). Thomas sees God fully revealed in at the sight of the risen Lord is explicitly stated
Jesus. in v. 20; the blessing in v. 29 includes future
It is not touching Jesus that leads Thomas to generations in that joy.°
this confession of faith, but Jesus’ gracious offer 20:30-31. These verses mark a shift in style
of himself. Although many commentators read of the Gospel narrative. The narrator now speaks
Jesus’ words and gestures in v. 27 as slightly directly to his readers (v. 31; cf. 19:35). Because
sarcastic and an attempt to shame Thomas, no of this direct address and the reference to “many
exegetical evidence supports such an interpreta- other signs” in v. 30, nearly all modern scholars
tion.°”° Jesus is not attempting to shame Thomas, maintain that John 20:30-31 is the original con-
but is giving Thomas what he needs for faith, as clusion to the Gospel, and that John 21 is a
he has done so many times in the Gospel (e.g., postscript or addendum.°? Raymond Brown’s as-
4:10-26; 5:6-9; 9:35-38; 11:1-42). Were Jesus sessment of these verses summarizes this critical
attempting to shame Thomas here, Thomas’s con- position: “The air of finality in these two verses
fession in v. 28, the high point of the Gospel’s justifies their being called a conclusion despite the
christological confessions, would be narratively fact that in the present form of the Gospel a whole
and theologically weakened. Why would a char- ‘chapter follows.”7° It is important to note that it
acter whom Jesus has shamed be given the most
697. So Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 696.
powerful confession in the Gospel? Would
698. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), 1049.
699. Robert Fortma, The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the
695. Bultmann, 7he Gospel of John, 695. Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel, SNTSMS 11 (Cambridge:
696. E.g., Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), 1046; Cambridge University Press, 1979), proposed that these verses formed the
Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn, 694; Schnackenburg, The Gospel Accord- conclusion of the signs source.
ing to St. John, 3:331. 700. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), 1049.
850
JOHN 20:24-3 1COMMENTARY
is only modern interpreters who note the decisive (“that you may come to believe,” NRSV) or a
“air of finality” about these verses. In the first present subjunctive (“that you may believe,” NIV;
eighteen centuries of the church’s interpretation ie., “continue to believe”). The aorist subjunctive
of this Gospel, commentators assumed that vv. can be read as suggesting that the Gospel is a
30-31 concluded the stories in John 20 and that missionary document, intended to bring people to
21:1-25 was the conclusion of the Gospel (for faith, the present subjunctive that the Gospel is
a fuller discussion of the relationship of John 21 intended to support and sustain the faith of those
to the rest of the Gospel, see the Overview to who already believe. Such distinctions, especially
John 21). Of major twentieth-century commen- dependent as they are on the variation of one
tators on John, Hoskyns stands alone in main- letter in the manuscripts, impose too strict a set
taining that 20:30-31 concludes the resurrection of alternatives for the purpose of the Fourth Gos-
stories of John 20 and not the entire Gospel.” pel. For identifying the intended audience of the
The evidence in support of reading vv. 30-31 as the Gospel, the rest of the Gospel does not support
conclusion to John 20 (and not the original conclu- such a strict choice between coming to faith for
sion of the Gospel), however, is stronger than the the first time or continuing in faith.
critical consensus allows. Second, according to the majority opinion,
First, the intrusion of the narrator’s voice di- “many other signs [onucta semeia|” in v. 30 is
rectly into the storytelling (vv. 30-31) is not un- a summary statement of all of Jesus’ activity in
usual in the Fourth Gospel; indeed, it is one of the Gospel. By reading the reference to signs in
the distinctive traits of the Fourth Evangelist’s v. 30 so broadly, however, one misses the impor-
narrative style. For example, at 11:51-52 the tance of this verse in clarifying the Evangelist’s
narrator interprets the story of Caiaphas and the understanding of both the resurrection appear-
Sanhedrin in order to ensure that the reader ances and signs. Rather than referring to Jesus’
understands the full meaning of Caiaphas’s proph- entire ministry, the narrator is identifying the
ecy; at 2:22 and 12:16, the narrator makes ex- events of John 20 as signs.” Note that also in
plicit connections to the disciples’ situation after 2:11 and 4:54 the reader is not informed that the
Jesus’ glorification; at 12:33, the narrator inter- miracles Jesus performed were “signs” until the
prets Jesus’ words about his death for the reader end of the story (so also 12:18). In addition, in
(see also 18:32); and at 19:35, the narrator com- 2:18-20 Jesus himself pointed to his resurrection
ments on the source and veracity of the testimony as a sign.”°? The narrator’s comments about signs
in 19:34. The narrator’s words in 20:30-31 belong in v. 30 thus echo the narrative commentary of
to this same category of interpretive comment; 2:21-22, in which the disciples’ faith is linked to
the Fourth Evangelist interrupts the flow of the the completion of the events narrated in John 20.
narrative to ensure that the reader grasps the To identify Jesus’ resurrection appearances as
significance of what has just been recounted. On signs means that, like Jesus’ other signs, the
this basis, John 21 is not an addendum. theological truth of the resurrection appearance
The Fourth Evangelist uses the narrator’s com- lies not in the appearance itself, but in that to
ments in vv. 30-31 to underscore for his readers which it points. That is, the resurrection appear-
that Jesus’ blessing in v. 290 is addressed to them; ance stories are about something other than Jesus’
“you,” the readers, are among “those who have miraculous return from death. In vv. 1-10, the
not seen.” The manuscript evidence is divided on theological truth that is revealed by the empty
whether the verb “to believe” (mioTevw pisteuo) tomb is Jesus’ victory over death and the ruler of
in v. 31 should be read as an aorist subjunctive this world; in vv. 11-18, the revealed truth is
Jesus’ continuing presence as the good shepherd;
701. E.C.Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber & Faber, 1947) in vv. 19-23, Jesus’ appearance to the disciples
549-50. The hold of the modern critical consensus is apparent in the way
Brown refers to Hoskyns’s position: “Hoskyns . . . is one of the few modern points to the gift of the Spirit/Paraclete and the
critical writers who refuses to interpret xx 30-31 as a conclusion” (Brown, truth of his promises in the Farewell Discourse.
The Gospel According to John (XIII-XX]), 1057).The following articles
also challenge the critical consensus: H. Thyen, “Aus der Literatur zum
702. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 550; Minear, “The Original Func-
Johannesevangelium,” TR 42 (1977) 213-61; Stephen S. Smalley, “The
tions of John 21,” 88-90.
Sign in John 21,” NTS 20 (1974) 275-88; Paul S. Minear, “The Original
Functions of John 21,” JBL (1983) 85-98. 703. Minear, “The Original Functions of John 21,” 90.
851
In each of these stories, were Jesus’ appearance identity and relationship with God, of which the
taken only as a miracle and not as a “sign,” its resurrection is a sign. Read in this way, the
revelatory power would be lost. This is most narrator’s words in vv. 30-31 about the resurrec-
dramatically clear in vv. 24-29. Thomas sees tion appearances as signs clarify the significance
through the physical miracle that he demands (v. of the other signs in the Gospel as well.
25) to that to which it points: the full revelation In vv. 30-31, the narrator speaks directly to the
of God in Jesus (v. 28). Jesus’ resurrection appear- reader so that the reader can recognize that he
ance to Thomas is thus a sign in the fullest or she, too, can interpret the signs of Jesus’
Johannine sense, because it points to God in Jesus resurrection and come to faith. It is not physical
and so leads to faith (cf. 2:11). sight and signs that are decisive for faith, but the
Third, the truth to which the “signs” of Jesus’ truth they reveal. The contrast between signs
resurrection appearances point is not his return “which are not written” in v. 30 and “these are
from death, but the completion of his hour. This written” in v. 31 underscores for readers who live
is confirmed in the statement of purpose in v. 31: after the first generation that the words of the
“that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Gospel text will lead to faith in Jesus and through
Messiah, the Son of God.” It is not Jesus’ resur- that faith to new life (v. 31). Verse 31 thus
rection appearances per se that reveal this truth, identifies two interdependent purposes of the res-
but his resurrection appearances as a sign of his .urrection stories: (1) christological, to bring the
return to God in glory. That is what Thomas’s reader to faith in the identity of Jesus as the Son
confession affirms (see Commentary on v. 28). of God, and (2) soteriological, to offer the reader
The reader, like Thomas and the other disciples, the experience of new life that is available because
is not summoned merely to believe in the resur- the work of Jesus’ hour has been completed.
rection, but to believe in the revelation of Jesus’
REFLECTIONS
1. John 20:24-29 is acknowledged almost universally as the story of “Doubting Thomas.” This
epithet for this disciple and his story, which falsely isolates Thomas from the rest of the disciples,
has the unfortunate effect of foreclosing any fresh hearing of this text. To focus so narrowly and
negatively on Thomas’s doubt in the interpretation of this text is to miss the point of this story.
The center of this story is Jesus, not Thomas.
At the heart of this story is Jesus’ generous offer of himself to Thomas. Thomas had established
the conditions for his faith: He must be allowed to touch Jesus’ wounds. The Johannine Jesus does
not censure Thomas for these conditions, but instead makes available to him exactly what he needs
for faith. Thomas should have been able to believe in the disciples’ resurrection proclamation, just
as the disciples should have been able to believe in Mary’s proclamation. But Thomas’s faith is
more important than the grounds of his faith, so Jesus presents his post-resurrection body to Thomas
and exhorts him, “Do not be unbelieving but believing.” He gives Thomas a sign and asks him
to see and believe. This palpable offer of Jesus’ grace leads Thomas to a confession of faith. Jesus’
offer of his wounds to Thomas is of a piece with his calling Mary by name in 20:16; it is another
demonstration of his care for his sheep.
Jesus’ love for his own did not end with his death, but determines all future interactions
between Jesus and the community of his followers. Jesus’ love and care for his own are evident
in the blessing with which the Thomas story concludes (20:29). In this blessing, the Fourth
Evangelist reminds all readers—his first readers, who were a generation removed from these
resurrection appearances, and all later readers, no matter how many centuries removed—that
knowledge of and relationship with Jesus is not limited to his first disciples.
John 20:24-29 is a story of hope and promise, not judgment and reprimand. It stands as a
pledge and promise to later generations that they, too, will experience the grace of God in
852
Jesus. As bold as Jesus’ gesture to Thomas is in 20:26-28, Jesus’ care for the faith of those
who come after Thomas, who will not see, is equally without limit and measure.
2. As noted in the Commentary, 20:30-31 spells out the implications of Jesus’ blessing in
v. 29 for later generations of believers, for those who have not seen and yet believe. These
verses provide an important glimpse into the Evangelist’s understanding of himself as a
theologian and the Gospel text as a vehicle for faith. By drawing explicit attention to the role
of the resurrection stories in bringing people to faith, the Evangelist suggests that the Gospel
narrative itself gives its readers the words that make faith in Jesus possible for those who live
after the first generation of disciples. These verses present the Gospel narrative itself as the
locus of revelation for later generations.””
By ascribing this revelatory role to the Gospel, the Fourth Evangelist completely eliminates all
grounds for thinking that second-, third-, or sixtieth-generation believers are at any disadvantage to
the first generation of disciples. From the perspective of the Fourth Evangelist, the answer to the
old hymn question “Were you there when they crucified my Lord?” would be yes, so long as it
is understood that yes is not a yes to a kind of historicism or historical reenactment, but a yes to
the full experience of God in Jesus that is available in the Gospel stories. The revelation of God
in Jesus is grounded in history, but it transcends history through precisely this narrative.
The revelation of God in Jesus is ever present, ever new, and ever available because of the
work of the Spirit/Paraclete. In claiming the revelatory role of his own account of Jesus, the
Fourth Evangelist confirms the presence of the Paraclete at work with him (see Excursus “The
Paraclete,” 774-78). As storyteller, theologian, pastor, teacher, interpreter, the Fourth Evangelist
opens up the words and works of Jesus so that all experience of God in Jesus is immediate,
so that each new generation of believers has equal access to Jesus and his revelation of God.
John 20:30-31 raises several important issues for contemporary debates about the authority
of Scripture. First, this passage suggests that the authority and “truth” of Scripture is not to
be secured by debates about verbal inerrancy and critically verified “facts.” Rather, the truth
of Scripture lies in its power to make the presence of God in Jesus available to the faith
community in each successive generation. Any and all attempts to equate and identify the
reconstruction (or deconstruction) of the events of Jesus’ life with the authority of Scripture
miss the point. Such attempts would, for the Fourth Evangelist, fall into the category of
demanding signs—falsely equating the fact with its meaning and theological truth. Second, by
identifying the locus of revelation in the Gospel narrative, by ascribing a soteriological purpose
to the things that “are written,” these verses call the Christian community to reexamine its
identity as a people shaped by the biblical text. These verses suggest that an engagement with
the biblical text, with its offer and interpretation of God, is vital to the life of faith. In preaching
and teaching these texts, in meditating on them in prayer, it is, indeed, possible to believe
without having seen.
93-94.
704. See Gail R. O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986)
853
JOHN 21:1-25
JESUS’ RESURRECTION APPEARANCE
AT THE SEA OF [IBERIUS
OVERVIEW
he consensus of scholarly opinion is that on 20:30-31 has already questioned the consensus
ohn 21:1-25 is a secondary addition to view of the function of those verses and proposed
the Fourth Gospel and that it should be inter- that they be read as the conclusion to the resur-
preted as a postscript or epilogue to the Gospel. rection stories in John 20 and not as the original
Scholars are divided on whether the material in conclusion to the entire Gospel. As with the
John 21 was added later by the Evangelist himself critical consensus about 20:30-31, there is a cir-
or by aredactor, although the latter theory is more ‘cularity in the argument that 21:1-25 is secon-
widely held.” It is important to note, however, dary; the decision about the status of chap. 21 is
that all of the extant manuscripts of the Gospel largely based on how it fits scholars’ theological
of John, including the ancient $)°°, contain chap. preconceptions about how the Gospel of John
21. Unlike John 7:53-8:11, where the manu- should end. Beasley-Murray, for example, writes
script evidence supports identifying this passage that John 21 “has an emphasis on the situation
as a later addition (see Commentary there), no of the Church and its leaders beyond anything in
manuscript evidence exists that the Gospel of the body of the Gospel.””°° The very wording of
John ever circulated without chap. 21. In addi- this assessment, however, presupposes that chap.
tion, the case for the secondary status of this 21 does not constitute part of the “body” of the
chapter cannot be made conclusively on the Gospel.
grounds of differences in vocabulary and syntax Again, Hoskyns stands virtually alone among
from the rest of the Gospel. Bultmann’s assess- twentieth century commentators of John in advo-
ment of the linguistic evidence is representative cating that 21:1-25 belongs to the original plan of
of the position of most scholars who advocate the Gospel (cf. Commentary on 20:30-31). He
the redactional status of John 21: “Language and perceives the ecclesial focus of the chapter as
style admittedly afford no sure proof....As to essential to, rather than detracting from, the end-
the vocabulary, the fact that a series of terms are ing of the Fourth Gospel.” Paul Minear also has
met only in ch. 21 is accidental and conditioned questioned the consensus view, arguing that the
by the material.””° stories about the disciples in John 21 provide the
The secondary status of John 21, therefore, is necessary conclusion to themes introduced earlier
argued on two basic grounds: (1) John 20:30-31 in the Gospel.7!°
brings the Gospel to a close, and (2) Jesus’ post- There is a distinction between the focus of John
resurrection appearances in John 21 introduce an 20 and that of John 21, but it is a distinction that
ecclesial focus that is secondary and anticlimactic is integral to the scope and movement of the
to the concerns of John 1-20.” The Commentary ,Gospel narrative. In 20:1-31, the narrative and
705. Barrett, Brown, Bultmann, Dodd, and Schnackenburg all argue
theological focus rests on the completion of Jesus’
that a redactor wrote John 21.
706. Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G. 708. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, Tex.: Word,
R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: 1987) 396.
Westminster, 1971) 700. 709. E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber & Faber, 1947)
707. See, e.g., the arguments in Raymond E. Brown, Zhe Gospel 550.
According to John (XIII-XX1), AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 710. Paul S. Minear, “The Original Functions of John 21,” /BL (1983)
1970) 1077-1082. 91-98. See also those scholars cited at note 701.
854
JOHN 21:1-25 OVERVIEW
glorification. Thomas’s proclamation, “My of Peter and the beloved disciple in 21:15-24.
Lord and my God” (20:28), signals the fulfill- Throughout chaps. 13-17, Jesus spoke of his
ment of Jesus’ prayer of 17:1-5; Jesus is glorified hopes and promises for the life of the faith com-
in God’s presence. But Jesus’ prayer at his hour mumity (e.6:, T4212. 15312-27; 1751 7-18) 20ch:
looks beyond his own glorification to the future 19:26-27), and John 21:1-25 offers a narrative
life of the believing community (17:6-26), and conclusion to those hopes.
the stories of John 21 point explicitly to that John 21:1-25 is narrated as one continuous
future. It is inaccurate, therefore, to state that scene at the Sea of Tiberius. It consists of two
John 21:1-25 introduces ecclesial concerns that parts: (1) vv. 1-14, Jesus appears to the gath-
are not integral to the Gospel. In John 16:2-3, ered disciples, (2) vv. 15-24, Jesus speaks to
for example, Jesus predicted the future persecu- Peter about his future and that of the beloved
tion and martyrdom of members of the commu- disciple. Verse 25 is the formal conclusion of
nity, predictions that are revisited in the stories the Gospel.
JOHN 21:1-14, JESUS APPEARS TO THE

G7VITERED BIS@IPLES
NIV NRSV
y) Afterward Jesus appeared again to his dis- Y After these things Jesus showed himself
ciples, by the Sea of Tiberias.* It happened again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias;
this way: ?Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), and he showed himself in this way. *Gathered
Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of there together were Simon Peter, Thomas called
Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. the Twin,? Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons
3“1’m going out to fish,” Simon Peter told them, of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. °Si-
and they said, “We’ll go with you.” So they went mon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.”
out and got into the boat, but that night they They said to him, “We will go with you.” They
caught nothing. went out and got into the boat, but that night
4Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, they caught nothing.
but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus. AJust after daybreak, Jesus stood on the beach;
5He called out to them, “Friends, haven’t you but the disciples did not know that it was Jesus.
any fish?” SJesus said to them, “Children, you have no fish,
“No,” they answered. have you?” They answered him, “No.” °He said
He said, “Throw your net on the right side of to them, “Cast the net to the right side of the
the boat and you will find some.” When they did, boat, and you will find some.” So they cast it,
they were unable to haul the net in because of and now they were not able to haul it in because
the large number of fish. there were so many fish. ’That disciple whom
7Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When
Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put
heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his on some clothes, for he was naked, and jumped
outer garment around him (for he had taken it into the sea. ®But the other disciples came in the
off) and jumped into the water. *The other disci- boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were
ples followed in the boat, towing the net full of not far from the land, only about a hundred yards’
fish, for they were not far from shore, about a off.
hundred yards.’ °When they landed, they saw a QWhen they had gone ashore, they saw a
a] That is, Sea of Galilee 68 Greek about two hundred cubits (about
a Gk Didymus 6 Gk two hundred cubits
90 meters)
855
JOHN 21:1-14
NIV NRSV
fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and charcoal fire there, with fish on it, and bread.
some bread. \%Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish that
'Mesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” ''So Simon Peter went
you have just caught.” aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large
"Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the fish, a hundred fifty-three of them; and though
net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even there were so many, the net was not torn. '“Jesus
with so many the net was not torn. 'Jesus said said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” Now
to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are
disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They you?” because they knew it was the Lord. '%Jesus
knew it was the Lord. '%Jesus came, took the came and took the bread and gave it to them, and
bread and gave it to them, and did the same with did the same with the fish. ‘This was now the
the fish. "This was now the third time Jesus third time that Jesus appeared to the disciples after
appeared to his disciples after he was raised from he was raised from the dead.
the dead.
(COMMENTARY
The Evangelist has combined elements from cords a Jerusalem resurrection appearance (28:9-
two types of traditions in this story of Jesus’ 10), followed by a Galilean appearance (Matt
appearance to his disciples on the beach: a story 28:16-19; cf. Mark 16:7). The Sea of Tiberius (the
of a miraculous catch of fish (cf. Luke 5:1-11) and Sea of Galilee) was near the site of the miraculous
a recognition story (cf. Luke 24:30-35). The result feeding of John 6:1-14; there are important echoes
is a post-resurrection appearance story that follows of this earlier story in 21:9-13. The temporal
the standard conventions of a miracle story: vv. openness and shift in location from chap. 20 to
1-3, setting and preparation for the miracle; vv. chap. 21 may indicate that Jesus’ presence is not
4-6, the miracle; vv. 7-14, the attestation of the limited to his appearances in that first week in
miracle/recognition of Jesus. The miraculous Jerusalem, but is available to the disciples wher-
catch of fish thus functions analogously to the ever and whenever they gather.
miracle at the wedding in Cana (2:1-11); in both The verb “to show [oneself]” or “to reveal”
stories the miracle is the vehicle for an epiphany. (bavepow phaneroo, v. 1) is an important verb
Jesus’ first and last revelatory acts in the Gospel in the Fourth Gospel. It is associated with the
narrative are thus both miracles of abundance in revelatory dimension of Jesus’ miracles at 2:11
Galilee. and 9:3, and it is used to summarize the purpose
21:1-3. Like the introduction to the Cana of Jesus’ ministry at 1:31 and 17:6. The repetition
miracle story (2:1-2), vv. 1-2 establish the time, of the expression “Jesus showed himself” at the
location, and characters of the miracle story. The beginning and end of v. 1 thus underscores for
tight chronological sequence of 20:1-29 (Sunday the reader that the miracle story that follows is
morning, v. 1; Sunday evening, v. 19; one week an epiphany and should be interpreted in the light
later, v. 26) gives way to the more general phrase of the revelatory acts of Jesus’ ministry (the NIV
“after these things” (cf. the temporal relationship .incorrectly paraphrases v. 16 and eliminates the
between the carefully enumerated days of John second use of phaneroo).’!!
1:19-51 and the opening of the Cana story). All Verse 2 lists seven disciples. Simon Peter and
the resurrection appearances in John 20 are lo- Thomas figured prominently in the resurrection
cated in Jerusalem (as is also the case in Luke stories of John 20 (vv. 3-10, 24-29). John 21 is
24), but the appearance in John 21 takes place in
711. See Stephen S. Smalley, “The Sign in John 21” N7S 20 (1974)
Galilee at the Sea of Tiberius. Matthew also re- 275-88.
856
the first time Nathanael has appeared since the and night, light and darkness (1:5; 9:4; 11:9-10;
call narrative of 1:45-50. At 1:50, Jesus promised 12:35236;5013:30),
Nathanael that he would see “greater things,” and Jesus’ opening words in v. 5 express the familial
his reappearance in the closing epiphany of the intimacy (“children” {matdta paidia|) that is now
Gospel signals the fulfillment of that promise. The a reality because of Jesus’ hour (20:17; cf. his use
beloved disciple, who will play a prominent role of “little children” [revi ateknial at 13:33).
at v. 7, is not explicitly mentioned in v. 2. He Given John’s propensity for synonyms, not much
could be one of the sons of Zebedee (who are can be made of the vocabulary difference between
mentioned here for the only time in the Fourth 13:33 and 21:5. The two nouns are used inter-
Gospel) or one of the two unnamed disciples with changeably throughout 1 John (e.g., 1 John 2:1,
whom the list ends. The fact that the beloved L214 Rta N28);
disciple is consistently unnamed in the Gospel Jesus’ question to the disciples in v. 5 is intro-
argues in favor of the latter (see Introduction). duced with the interrogative particle (unt me
In interpreting v. 3, most commentators focus ti) and thus anticipates a negative response (note
on the disciples’ motivation for the fishing trip the NRSV; cf. 4:12; 8:53; 9:40; 18:17). There is
and what it says about their relationship to Jesus. an underlying irony to this question, because Jesus
Hoskyns, for example, sees v. 3 as a sign of the initiates his contact with the disciples by asking
disciples’ complete apostasy and a fulfillment of them for food, but in the end will give food to
Jesus’ prediction of 16:32; the disciples have scat- them (vv. 9, 12-13). This pattern recalls Jesus’
tered to their own homes and abandoned Jesus. exchange with the Samaritan woman in John >
Brown sees this verse as an indication of the 4:7-16. Jesus initially requested a drink from the
disciples’ aimlessness. In stark contrast, Barrett woman (4:7), but in the end he offered her living
interprets the scene through the lens of the syn- water (4:13-14).
optic call narratives (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; The miracle proper is narrated in v. 6. The
Luke 5:10) and sees the fishing trip as a symbolic miracle, a prodigious catch of fish, occurs in
enactment of the commission of John 20:21. response to Jesus’ word and command (cf. 4:50,
Schnackenburg, however, eschews entering “into 53; 5:8; 11:43). The great quantity of fish (v. 60)
the difficult problems as to how the disciples will be reemphasized in vv. 8 and 11.
behaved after Jesus’ death, whether they stayed 21:7-14. This miraculous catch of fish is the
in Jerusalem or returned to Galilee, etc.,” and direct catalyst for the beloved disciple’s recogni-
wisely recommends that one interpret v. 3 by tion of Jesus (v. 7a). His announcement of Jesus’
“staying with the text.”’!2 Verse 3 plays a critical identity is couched in the language of the Easter
role in the miracle story per se, because it estab- proclamation: “It is the Lord” (cf. 20:18, 20, 25,
lishes the situation of need that Jesus’ miracle will 28). The two earlier Galilean miracles provide a
correct: the disciples’ inability to catch any fish clue in identifying what it is about the catch of
fees. Cl 223. O5). fish that evokes the beloved disciple’s recognition.
21:4-6. These verses narrate the miracle, and In the Cana miracle (2:1-11), the disciples saw
the first characteristics of the recognition story also Jesus’ glory in the abundance of good wine; the
appear here. For example, the introduction of feeding miracle of 6:1-14 also points to the abun-
Jesus in v. 4 recalls the recognition story of John dance of Jesus’ gifts. In this miracle, too, the
20:11-18; the reader knows that the man on the beloved disciple recognizes the abundance of fish
beach is Jesus, but the disciples do not (cf. also as deriving from the fullness of Jesus’ gifts (cf.
Luke 24:15-16). The juxtaposition of the night of 1:14, 16).
unsuccessful fishing (v. 3) and Jesus’ morning The focus on the beloved disciple and Peter in
appearance (v. 4) may be intended to evoke the v. 7 anticipates vv. 15-24. The portrayal of their
theological symbolism of the contrast between day responses to the miracle is consistent with their
responses to the empty tomb (20:3-10). The be-
712. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 352; Brown, The GospelAccording
to John (XII-XX1), 1096; C. K. Barrett, 7he Gospel According to St. John, -
loved disciple is again the first to recognize what
2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 579; Rudolf Schnackenburg, he sees (cf. 20:8), while Peter responds with his
The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols. (New York: Seabury, 1982)
3:353:
characteristic eagerness (v. 76, 20:6; cf. 13:9;
857
18:10). The NIV correctly captures the meaning of read allegorically. Augustine proposed that the
the Greek of v. 7b. The image of Peter dressing number was a symbol of the Trinity, and while
himself in order to jump into the water paints a this specific allegorical reading is rejected by schol-
comical picture of his impetuosity; he is caught ars, other allegorical interpretations are proposed.
between his desire to greet Jesus with proper respect The most common suggestion is that the number
(that is, fully clothed) and his eagerness to greet him stands for the totality of the church.’!4 In addition
immediately. The reference to their proximity to to these symbolic readings, some scholars propose
shore and the other disciples’ more restrained con- that the number 153 preserves the memory of an
duct in v. 8 highlights Peter’s buffoonish enthusiasm. eyewitness who counted the fish.”!°
21:9. Verses 9-13 focus on Jesus’ identity as The symbolic relationship between the miracu-
the source of life for the disciples. This identity is lous catch of fish and the disciples’ mission does
highlighted in two interrelated scenes: Jesus’ offer not seem to lie in the description of the quantity
of a meal to his disciples (vv. 9, 12-13) and the of fish, however, but in Peter’s action in hauling
attestation of the abundance of the miracle (vv. in the net. The verb “to haul” (€AKxw helko; see
10-11). The meal of v. 9 is the same food as that also v. 6) is the same verb used in 6:44 to describe
of 6:1-14, “fish” (Obdptov opsarion) and “bread” those who come to Jesus from God (“No one can
(dptos artos). Jesus’ preparation of this meal for come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent
his disciples confirms that he is the giver of gifts, me”) and in 12:32 to describe the salvific effect
the source of life-sustaining nourishment (4:13-14; of Jesus’ death (“And I, when I am lifted up from
6556; Or STA 108) the earth, will draw all people to myself”). The
21:10-11. Jesus’ command to the disciples in use of this verb with reference to the disciples
v. 10 is a narrative device to introduce a final and the catch of fish suggests that they now join
description of the catch of fish. The threefold God and Jesus in drawing people to Jesus. The
description of the size of the catch in v. 11 (“full catch of fish, then, marks the extension of God
of large fish”; “a hundred fifty-three of them”; and Jesus’ work into the disciples’ work. This
“though there were so many, the net was not story thus stands as the narrative fulfillment of
torn”) leaves no doubt that it is the magnitude of Jesus’ promises to his disciples in the Farewell
the catch to which the Evangelist wants to direct Discourse that they will share in his works (14:12;
the reader’s attention. The magnitude of the catch 15:5, 7-6, 10, CLI/16, 20-20-
confirms that Jesus has performed a great miracle 21:12-14. The disciples recognize Jesus as the
and, as noted above, points to the abundance of Lord and, therefore, do not question him about
Jesus’ gifts. Yet the amount of narrative space his identity (v. 12) points to the fulfillment of
devoted to the size of the catch has suggested to another of Jesus’ farewell promises about the
many interpreters that additional symbolism is community’s life after his glorification (16:23).
intended. In particular, the significance of the The fellowship of the meal in v. 13 confirms the
number “a hundred fifty-three” has intrigued in- intimacy of the relationship between the risen
terpreters since the earliest days of the church. Lord and his disciples (cf. Luke 24:30-35, where
Augustine, for example, proposed two ways of the meal is the moment of recognition).7!° The
reading this number that still govern more recent description of Jesus’ actions as host of the meal
interpretations. First, he proposed a mathematical (v. 13) echoes the description of his actions at the
explanation. The number 153 is obtained when feeding of the five thousand (6:11). Some manu-
all of the integers from 1 to 17 are added together; scripts complete the allusion to 6:11 by adding
this mathematical fact thus suggests the complete- the clause “when he had given thanks.” As in the
ness of the number 153 itself.7'> Second, he Cana miracle of 2:1-11 and the meal at 6:1-14,
suggested, as had earlier patristic writers (e.g., the early church saw eucharistic symbolism in this
Cyril of Alexandria), that the number should be meal. Since in the Gospel of John the eucharist
713. Augustine /n Jo. tr. CXXII.8. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 553- 714. Augustine Jn Jo. XII. For modern allegorical readings, see, e.g.,
54, and Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 581, propose a similar Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 554.
reading. For a review of the history of interpretation of this verse, see 715. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XX1), 1076.
Beasley-Murray, John, 401-4. 716. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3:359.
858
is understood as Jesus’ gift to the believer and an Magdalene in 20:11-18 (cf. Paul’s list of appear-
expression of relationship with Jesus (see Com- ances in 1 Cor 15:3-7, which also does not
mentary and Reflections on John 6), a eucharistic mention the women). The repetition of the verb
reading is consonant with the themes of this story. Phaneroo at the conclusion of the story (here
The enumeration of Jesus’ appearances in v. 14 translated as “appeared”; cf. v. 1) affirms that the
includes the appearances to the gathered disciples fishing miracle is an epiphany.
in 20:19-29, but excludes the appearance to Mary
JOHN 21:15-25, JESUS, PETER, AND THE

BELOVED DISCIPLE
NIV NRSV
'SWhen they had finished eating, Jesus said to 15When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said
Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love
love me more than these?” me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord;
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed
you.” my lambs.” !°A second time he said to him, “Simon
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes,
‘Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him,
truly love me?” “Tend my sheep.” '”He said to him the third time,
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter felt
you.” hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know
“The third time he said to him, “Simon son of everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said
John, do you love me?” to him, “Feed my sheep. '*Very truly, I tell you,
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the when you were younger, you used to fasten your
third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when
you know all things; you know that I love you.” you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. '*I tell you the someone else will fasten a belt around you and take
truth, when you were younger you dressed your- you where you do not wish to go.” '%(He said this
self and went where you wanted; but when you to indicate the kind of death by which he would
are old you will stretch out your hands, and glorify God.) After this he said to him, “Follow me.”
someone else will dress you and lead you where 20Peter turned and saw the disciple whom
you do not want to go.” 'Jesus said this to Jesus loved following them; he was the one who
indicate the kind of death by which Peter would had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had
glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!” said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?”
20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom 21When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord,
Jesus loved was following them. (This was the what about him?” “Jesus said to him, “If it is my
one who had leaned back against Jesus at the wiil that he remain until I come, what is that to
supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you? Follow me!” 7°So the rumor spread in the
you?”) ?}When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, community? that this disciple would not die. Yet
what about him?” Jesus did not say to him that he would not die,
22Jesus answered, “If 1want him to remain alive but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come,
until I return, what is that to you? You must what is that to your”?
follow me.” “Because of this, the rumor spread aGk among the brothers oOther ancient authorities lack what is
among the brothers that this disciple would not that to you
859
JOHN 21:15-25
NIV NRSV
die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; 24This is the disciple who is testifying to these
he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until things and has written them, and we know that
I return, what is that to you?” his testimonyis true. *But there are also many
4This is the disciple who testifies to these other things that Jesus did; if every one of them
things and who wrote them down. We Know that were written down, I suppose that the world itself
his testimony is true. could not contain the books that would be writ-
5Jesus did many other things as well. If every Tens
one of them were written down, I suppose that
even the whole world would not have room for
the books that would be written.
(COMMENTARY
The opening words of v. 15 (“When they had used in all three verses, provides an important
finished breakfast”) explicitly link John 21:15-25 link with Peter’s first appearance in the Fourth
to the preceding scene and position it as a con- Gospel. The risen Jesus’ use of this name repeats
tinuation of the same appearance by Jesus. These the words he spoke when he first met Peter (“You
verses narrate a conversation between the risen are Simon son of John,” 1:42) and once more
Jesus and Peter; vv. 15-19 focus on Peter himself, portrays Jesus as the good shepherd who knows
and vv. 20-24 focus on the beloved disciple. Peter the name of his sheep (cf. 20:16). Two different
has been a prominent figure since the opening verbs for “to love” are used in vv. 15-17: ayatrdw
call narrative of John 1 (see 1:40-42; 6:66-71; (agapao, vv. 15a, 16a) and oirEw (phileo, vv.
13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11,°15-27; 20:3-10), 150, 160, 17). These verbs are used as synonyms
the beloved disciple since the farewell meal throughout the Gospel, with no difference in
(13:21-27; 19:26-27; 20:3-10; see also 19:35). meaning. For example, both verbs are used to
This final scene of the Fourth Gospel concludes speak of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (jyatra
the stories of these two disciples by depicting the egapa, 13:23; edtrer ephilei, 20:2); God’s love
shape of their lives after Jesus’ glorification. They of Jesus (ayaa agapa, 10:17; bidet philei, 5:20);
stand as two specific examples of the continuation God’s love for the disciples (ayatjoet agapeései,
of Jesus’ work in the work of the community. 14:23; philei, 16:27); and the disciples’ love of
21:15-17. The threefold pattern of the con- Jesus (agapa, 14:23; medidrjkate pephilekate,
versation between Jesus and Peter in these verses 16:27). There is no reason, therefore,to ascribe
seems intended to counterbalance Peter’s three gradations of meaning to their usage here (as the
denials of Jesus, predicted by Jesus at 13:38 and NIV does). The Evangelist’s propensity for syno-
narrated in 18:15-27. In these verses, Peter is nyms is also evident in the variation
enabled to move beyond his previous relationship “lambs”/“sheep” and “feed”/“tend.”
with Jesus and claim the unity, intimacy, and Several exegetical details warrant individual at-
mutuality with God and Jesus, promised to believ- tention. First, Jesus’ initial question contains a
ers in the Farewell Discourse. These verses point comparison between Peter’s love for Jesus and
to a future for Peter that is based on his relation- that of the other disciples (“more than these,” v.
ship with Jesus after, rather than before, Jesus’ 15a). On a literary level, by mentioning other
hour. disciples, this phrase provides a bridge between
Verse 15 establishes the basic pattern that is wy. 1-14 and vv. 15-24.7'7 This comparison also
repeated with minimal variation in vv. 16-17: may place Jesus’ question in the context of Peter’s
Jesus’ question of Peter’s love for him; Peter’s earlier conduct at the farewell meal. Peter earlier
affirmation of his love; Jesus’ charge to feed/care
717. Bultmann, The Gospel ofJohn, 711; Brown, The Gospel Accord-
for his sheep. The name “Simon son of John,” ing to John (XIIT-XX]), 10.
860
falsely boasted “more than these” about his willing- 21:18-19. The expression “very truly I say”
ness to lay down his life for Jesus (13:37).7!8 Peter (anny apnv éyw amen amen lego) in v. 18
ignores the comparison in his response (v. 150). marks the introduction of a new teaching. This
Second, the language of Peter’s affirmation of his teaching, as v. 19a makes explicit, is a prediction
love for Jesus highlights a distinctly Johannine of Peter’s martyrdom and takes the form of a short
theme: Jesus’ knowledge of everything (v. 170), parable, a teaching form common in the Fourth
which has characterized his portrayal in John (e.g., Gospel (e.g., 3:29; 4:36; 8:35). First Clement 5.4
P:48522:24>0:0;°642)132159518:4). 28ch 16:30). also refers to Peter’s martyrdom. Verse 182-0 is
Jesus’ charge to Peter in vv. 15-17 is regularly constructed in strict antithetical parallelism; the
interpreted as Peter’s pastoral and apostolic com- three terms of v. 18a (“younger”/“fasten your
mission. That is, in these verses Jesus appoints own belt”/“go wherever you wished”) are
Peter to be the shepherd of his flock.”!° In Matt matched by their exact opposite in v. 180 (“grow
16:16-19, Jesus positions Peter as the foundation old”/“stretch out your hands, someone else will
of the church, but it is not as clear as most fasten belt”/“take you where you do not want to
commentators assume that John 21:15-17 has an go”). Since many of the early church theologians
analogous function. The charge to “feed my interpreted OT references to stretching out one’s
sheep” should be interpreted in the light of Jesus’ arms (e.g., Exod 17:12; Isa 65:2) as foreshadow-
commandments to his disciples in the Farewell ing the crucifixion,’? most scholars see in the
Discourse, not Matt 16:18-19. These verses do expression “stretch out your arms” a specific ref-
not point to Peter as Jesus’ distinctive successor, erence to Peter’s death by crucifixion.’*? The verb
but as embodying what is true of all of Jesus’ Cuvvoiw (zonnyo; “fasten your belt,” NRSV; “dress,”
disciples. These verses position Peter as a model NIV) literally means “to gird,” so the NRSV seems
of what it means to live out one’s love of Jesus. closer to the Greek. The verb’s precise meaning
The heart of vv. 15-17 lies in the relationship in this context is not clear; it may contain an
between Peter’s love for Jesus and the charge to allusion to the binding of criminals to the cross
feed Jesus’ sheep. When Jesus translates Peter’s or the fettering of criminals on their way to
love for him into the charge “feed my sheep,” he execution. Its general meaning, however, is to
is reminding Peter of his words in 13:34-35; “Just contrast the freedom of Peter’s youth with the
as I have loved you, you also should love one captivity that will mark his old age and death.
another. By this everyone will know that you are The wording of the narrator’s interpretive com-
my disciples, if you have love for one another.” mentary at v. 19a is identical to the commentary
In his charge to Peter, Jesus is reminding him to on the manner ofJesus’ death at 12:33 and 18:32.
keep that commandment, to put his love for Jesus The link between Peter’s death and Jesus’ death
into practice by feeding/tending Jesus’ sheep. Je- is made even more explicit by the phrase “by
sus does not hand his sheep over to Peter’s which he would glorify God.” Jesus glorified God
singular care,”2° but instead reminds Peter of what through his death (7:39; 12:16; 13:31-32; 14:13;
it means to love Jesus. Jesus is calling Peter to love 17:1-5), and now Peter will share in that work.
Jesus’ sheep as he has loved them (cf. 10:11-18). In Jesus’ command to Peter, “Follow me” (v.
that call, as Minear has rightly seen, one finds the 196), is a general invitation to discipleship; to
fulfillment of yet another of Jesus’ farewell promises: follow Jesus is to be one of his sheep (10:4, 27).
“They who have my commandments and keep them This command is also a more specific invitation
are those who love me; and those who love me to martyrdom and death (see also 12:26). At the
will be loved by my Father, and | will love them farewell meal, Jesus predicted that Peter could not
and reveal myself to them” (14:21).’2! follow him now, but would follow afterward
(13:36); the invitation in v. 196 marks the arrival
718. So Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 584; Schnacken- of that moment. At 13:37, Peter expressed his
burg, Zhe Gospel According to St. John, 3:362.
719. E.g,, ibid., 3:363-65; Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John,
722. E.g., The Epistle of Barnabas 12.2, 4.
584. See the helpful discussion of this passage in relation to Matt 16:16-19
in Beasley-Murray, John, 406-7. 723. The one major exception to this is Rudolf Bultmann, 7he Gospel
ofJohn: ACommentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W.N. Hoare, and
J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 713.
721. Paul S. Minear, “The Original Functions of John 21,” JBL (1983) 92.
861
willingness to lay down his life for Jesus, a boast ple will “remain” (uévw meno). In v. 24, the
that Jesus rejected (13:38). Verses 18-19 show narrator will address how the beloved disciple
that now Peter is able to do what he could not does indeed remain in the community even after
do before: lay down his life in love. he has died. Second, Jesus’ saying about the
Jesus’ words to Peter in vv. 18-19 thus com- beloved disciple is spoken to Peter, not to the
plement and complete the conversation in vv. beloved disciple. In its present narrative context,
15-17. As the good shepherd, Jesus was willing then, v. 22 highlights the separate fates of two
to lay down his life for the sheep (10:11, 15). At prominent disciples: one’ for whom discipleship is
15:12-14, Jesus commanded his disciples to enact characterized by laying down his life (Peter), and
that same love for one another. In 21:15-19, the one for whom it is not. Jesus’ rebuke of Peter’s
Fourth Evangelist brings the Gospel’s portrait of question (cf. 2:4) and his reiteration of the com-
Peter to a close by pointing to his fidelity to Jesus’ mand to follow suggest that the two disciples are
commandment. Peter, like the beloved disciple, is not to be compared and measured against each
to be known by his share in Jesus’ love. Peter’s other. Rather, the future of each disciple—Peter,
authority for the readers of the Fourth Gospel thus to follow to death; the beloved disciple, to re-
does not derive from his “office,” but from the main—is shown to be Jesus’ will.’
fullness of his love for Jesus and Jesus’ own. Barrett is alone among major Johannine com-
21:20-21. These verses are a narrative bridge _Mentators in correctly noting the intrinsic connec-
constructed to shift the focus from Peter to the tion between v. 24 and the preceding verses about
beloved disciple and to introduce Jesus’ saying in the beloved disciple.””° The narrator’s words in v.
v. 22. The identification of the beloved disciple 24 are analogous to his commentary in v. 19a;
in v. 20 makes an explicit reference to his first in both he interprets for the reader Jesus’ teaching
appearance in the Gospel at the farewell meal (cf. about the key disciples. In v. 19a he makes sure
the identification of Nicodemus at 19:39). This that the reader recognizes that Peter is going to
identification reminds the reader of the beloved die a‘martyr’s death and so live out his love for
disciple’s role as witness to Jesus’ hour. Jesus. In v. 24, the narrator makes sure that the
21:22-24. Verse 22 records a saying of Jesus reader recognizes that even though the beloved
about the future of the beloved disciple; vv. 23-24 disciple does not die a martyr’s death, he none-
are the narrator’s comments on the meaning of theless bears witness to Jesus. His witness is the
this saying and the ongoing significance of the foundation of the very Gospel through which the
beloved disciple. Together they underscore the readers experience Jesus. The beloved disciple’s
importance of the beloved disciple for the com- death does not diminish his standing in the com-
munity for whom this Gospel was written. The munity, because his witness remains. Peter’s min-
most obvious meaning of the saying in v. 22—that istry is marked by his death; the beloved disciple’s
the beloved disciple would be alive at Jesus’ is marked by this Gospel.
second coming—is labeled a rumor and misinter- Verse 24 warrants careful examination because
pretation in v. 23. This saying may record a of the role it plays in decisions about the author-
tradition similar to that found in Mark 9:1; it is ship of the Gospel (see Introduction). First, one
recorded not for its eschatology, however, but to must examine the relationship between the ex-
address concerns about the beloved disciple. pressions “who is testifying to these things” and
First, v. 23 indicates that the saying of v. 22 “has written them.” If John 21 is held to be an
was misinterpreted as a prediction that the be- integral part of the Gospel, then v. 24 cannot be
loved disciple would not die. Although v. 23 does read as the words of a redactor pointing back to
not say so explicitly, the narrator’s comments the written work of another “author.” As the
seem to be occasioned by the death of the beloved verse is constructed, the reference to writing is
disciple, which necessitated the narrator’s direct given as corroboration of the beloved disciple’s
address of the false rumors that had spread about witness. That is, the beloved disciple is pivotal to
the disciple. The tradition recorded in v. 22 does
not use language of life or death, but, in distinctly 724. Ibid., 716.
Johannine vocabulary, says that the beloved disci- delphia: Westminster, 1978) 583.
862
the community, not merely because he provides concluding verse (“I suppose...”; cf. the direct
the oral testimony of an eyewitness, but because address to the readers in 20:30-31). The hyper-
his testimony has found its way into the written bole of this last verse reflects a rhetorical conven-
form of this Gospel. By corroborating the beloved
tion common among Greek and Jewish writers in
disciple’s witness, v. 24a stresses the connection
the ancient Mediterranean world.’2” The following
between this Gospel and the beloved disciple’s
saying, attributed to Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, a
witness, while at the same time seeming to attrib-
contemporary of the Fourth Evangelist, employs
ute the actual authorship of this Gospel to some-
the same convention and helps to illumine the
one other than the beloved disciple himself. John
Evangelist’s intent in the concluding verse: “If all
21:24 thus has the same function as 19:35: to
heaven were a parchment, and all the trees pro-
point to the beloved disciple as the source of the
duced pens, and all the waters were ink, they
traditions about Jesus that are interpreted in the
Gospel. would not suffice to inscribe the wisdom I have
received from my teachers; and yet from the
Second, who is the “we” of v. 240? Again, if
John 21 is taken as an integral part of the Gospel, wisdom of the wise I have enjoyed only so much
this “we” cannot be read as a reference to the as the water a fly which plunges into the sea can
redactor. Instead, this “we” should be read in the remove.””8 Verse 25 is thus a statement of
light of the “we” of 1:14-18.726 This “we” is the authorial humility, in which the Fourth Evangelist
voice of the confessing community that claims distinguishes his work in writing the Gospel and
that the testimony of the beloved disciple is truth- interpreting traditions about Jesus from the wit-
ful. As a truthful witness whose words remain, ness of the beloved disciple. He, the Evangelist,
the beloved disciple stands as another example of is only one among an innumerable many who will
the work and presence of the Paraclete in the write about and interpret the traditions about
community (cf. 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:13). Jesus.
21:25. The direct voice of the narrator is
727. See, e.g., Philo de posteritate Caini 144.
interjected into the commentary in the Gospel’s 728. Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament aus Talmud und Midrash (Miinchen: Beck, 1924) 2:587. This is
726. Minear, “Original Functions,” 95. Hoskyns’s translation, 7he Fourth Gospel(London: Faber & Faber, 1947) 561.
REFLECTIONS
As has been noted repeatedly throughout this commentary, theology and christology are
inseparably interwoven in the Fourth Gospel. The clearest statement of that is found in John
14:8: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” It is equally true that theology, christology,
and ecclesiology are interwoven. The clearest statement of this interrelationship may be the
prayer of John 17, in which Jesus prays to God for the future of the believing community.
Concerns about the faith community’s future, therefore, are not secondary to the Fourth
Evangelist, but are an integral part of his understanding of who Jesus is. In the opening verses
of the Gospel (1:14-18), the “we” of the faith community bear witness to the gifts it has
received from Jesus (see Commentary). Almost one-fifth of the Fourth Gospel narrative (chaps.
13-17) is devoted exclusively to Jesus’ words about the future of the faith community after
his glorification. How will the community live in his absence? What shape will their lives take?
How will they endure persecution and the world’s hatred? How will they experience Jesus’
presence? What will be their identity as a people of faith? Jesus addresses these and other
questions with words of hope and promises of his presence. As noted in the Commentary and
Reflections on the Farewell Discourse, the Fourth Evangelist gives these concerns pride of place
in the Gospel by locating them in the teachings Jesus spoke before his hour, “so that when
it does occur, you may believe” (14:29; see also 15:11; 16:1).
The stories in John 21 belong to this constellation of theological concerns. They show the
reading community what the promises of the Farewell Discourse mean for them by illustrating
863
_ JOHN 21:15-25 REFLECTIONS
the disciples’ lives after Jesus’ hour. The stories in John 21 are not resurrection stories per se,
because their focus is not on Jesus’ resurrection and ascension—that was the theological heart
of John 20. Rather, the focus of John 21 moves beyond Jesus’ resurrection to the future of
which he spoke in the Farewell Discourse. This chapter invites the reader to envision how
the community of disciples can continue to experience Jesus’ post-glorification presence and
carry his work forward.
As noted in the Commentary, the opening story of John 21:1-14 has important points of
continuity with the miracles of Jesus’ ministry, especially the turning of water into wine at Cana
and the feeding of the five thousand. The abundant catch of fish and the breakfast on the beach
both suggest that Jesus’ gifts continue even after the events of “his hour.” This story is a narrative
testimony to the truth of the community’s testimony in 1:16: “From his fullness we have all
received, grace upon grace.” The vast quantity of fish in the disciples’ net and the gracious meal
of bread and fish show that God’s gift is available in the risen Jesus just as it was in the incarnate
Jesus. Just as Jesus’ ministry was inaugurated with a miracle of unprecedented abundance (2:1-11),
so, too, is the church’s ministry. John 21:1-14 is thus a story of celebration for the post-resurrection
community, because it demonstrates for the community that its life is grounded in an experience
of God’s fullness and unprecedented, unexpected gift. .
This joyous story provides the backdrop for the call to discipleship that Peter receives in 21:15-19.
Jesus’ gifts in his miracles are only signs of his ultimate gift—the gift of his life in love—and Jesus
calls Peter to share in that gift. It is noteworthy that Jesus’ commissions to Peter in this story, both
to feed his sheep and to follow him, are grounded in and derive from Peter’s love of Jesus. It is
in the post-resurrection community’s love for Jesus that he continues to be fully known. To love
Jesus is to know Jesus, because, as Jesus’ words to Peter make clear, to love Jesus is to shape
one’s life according to Jesus’ life. The threefold question, answer, and commission in vv. 15-17
underscore that words of love must be matched bY a life of love. Peter’s love of Jesus will be
evidenced when he cares for Jesus’ sheep, not apart from that care.
The life to which Jesus summons Peter, and that, indeed, Peter lived, requires of him an
act of love that matches Jesus’ act: the gift of his life. Peter models for the faith community
the ultimate fidelity to Jesus’ words, because he fulfills Jesus’ core commandment, that his
disciples love one another as he has loved them. When Peter three times answers, “Yes, I
love you,” he is not simply giving lip service to his love for Jesus, but is in essence pledging
his life. Peter is who Jesus calls his followers to be, a disciple who puts no limits on his love,
who will, like Jesus, love “to the end” (13:1).
What does such a model of love and discipleship mean for the post-resurrection community?
If Peter is the model, if a life that is willing to embrace martyrdom fulfills Jesus’ commandments
to his followers, then what about those believers who do not lay down their lives in love,
who are not martyrs for the faith? Are they excluded from the circle of Jesus’ gifts? It may
be some of these very questions that the exchange between Jesus and Peter in John 21:21-22
addresses. When Peter, the martyr, asks Jesus in v. 21 about the beloved disciple, a man who
did not die a martyr’s death, the dilemma of how one loves Jesus is placed before the reader.
Is the beloved disciple’s witness and discipleship invalidated because his life ended without
his laying down his life in love?” As noted, Jesus’ combination rebuke/recommission to Peter
in v. 22 suggests that such questions and comparisons are beside the point. Peter is to be
about the business of his discipleship, and the beloved disciple is to be about his. Indeed, v.
24 avers quite strongly that the beloved disciple’s witness is invaluable to the life of the faith
community.
John 21:15-25 thus surfaces a genuine ecclesial dilemma. That Jesus repeatedly calls his
disciples to a life of love shaped by his own gift of his life is incontestable; yet not all
729. Paul S. Minear, John: The Martyr’s Gospel (New York: Pilgrim, 1984) 160-61.
864
discipleship will be marked by the disciple’s laying down his or her life. The extent of the
dilemma is readily seen in John 21 because the beloved disciple, the figure through whom
the readers of this Gospel have a distinctive connection with Jesus, was not martyred. How
is the church to live with this dilemma?
It is critical that both sides of the dilemma be acknowledged. On the one hand, it is very
easy in the contemporary North American church to soften Jesus’ call to lay down one’s life
in love, to see it as a figure of speech or an ideal far removed from the day-to-day realities
and struggles of the life of faith. But the history of the church is full of people who knew that
Jesus’ words were real, who answered the call to love Jesus and one another fully with their
lives. Nor is such love a relic of the church’s past. Love that knows no limits, including the
limit of one’s own life, also shapes the discipleship of the contemporary church. Martin Luther
King, Jr., and Bishop Oscar Romero are the most obvious and well-known examples of love
that knew no limits, but when one pays careful attention, one regularly notices stories of
Christian disciples who give their lives in love: nuns and priests who have stayed at their
ministries in Central America and war-torn Eastern Europe, knowing that it will cost their
lives; doctors and nurses in hospitals and health-care facilities in impoverished and embattled
countries around the world who will not leave those for whom they care; martyrs of religious
persecution across the globe. It is crucial that contemporary Christians remember this form of
discipleship.
On the other hand, it is easy to minimize all forms of discipleship that do not involve laying
down one’s life. What, one is tempted to think, is the significance of my struggle to live the
love of Jesus in my small ways when compared to those who lay their lives on the line daily?
What is the worth of my witness when weighed against the witness of someone’s death? The
words about the beloved disciple in vv. 20-24 insist that his love for Jesus was not to be
devalued because his witness took the form of reporting traditions about Jesus and not
martyrdom.
Perhaps the story of John 21:1-14 provides the key to working through this ecclesial dilemma.
The stories of John 21 begin, not with Peter’s call to martyrdom or the praise of the beloved
disciple’s witness, but with a story of Jesus’ gracious gifts. Jesus gave gifts to all of the disciples
in the boat: Peter, the martyr; the beloved disciple, the witness; Thomas-and Nathanael, who
wanted to see to believe (1:47-50; 20:24-29); to the sons of Zebedee and the unnamed disciples,
about whom the Gospel records nothing except that they are disciples. For all of these people,
whose discipleship would take varied forms, Jesus provided a miraculous catch of fish and
hosted breakfast on the beach. Those who will give up their lives in love, those who struggle
daily in what may seem the smallest places to bear witness to Jesus’ love—all receive Jesus’
gifts. The discipleship of the believing community, John 21 suggests, begins with the affirmation
and celebration of the gifts of God in Jesus; the embodiment of that graciousness in the life
of faith provides the measure of faithful discipleship.
865
: : deo, hetwgé ‘YiataS wigSie ves
5, resin
Thad yt yin a is if sen re ; a cBe as
bey,Oe siti & feat pasa esl
’
ate Ay ae SAE Vole RPO. CS easel e erin eS rae!

WP FA =e vue aeray ahneta ie fads Sate, e) igembnirsailing phat
ay r eH inttty 3; > oe eotl iy peah at+ ete

ati
in a fieoAmi ne
Se ME ich Ta ve Viale eA 0
asthe) “Yate Gtiyeo aly geile sal 8 nerae ee yr solarky
¥ jen) Pp OW ta hi HL, F
Patey oe Lyi Be Pieter alia yee iva 3 wie
| . “gn cry CARA MilLe Fly SaCstiinebet Stor Ag ue > ar sexo ii Cilve ah
pee
Pode ch glonone SE SHAE fat) Saori ot Weber att prio :
Moss, ; lees) Se Soda ree‘a 5) rw toa Sap fal
eat Onin ‘eaGla' sho Tet i
ede iit eeter ane waioare my BreSON htat Se FulmehAaRsE
AK qortelt bpm yS
=aee : on) . Ags’ os a ad iL ak vet cari esis sehtet’ 2Am,. Stat: “rratiieeids maint “only,
ie
ire RIE treet ssi ibe iam A. et:oe tinttinaute odor able]
Bat: ye! abe Troe ge at ARE, RN raed rorsaew Grocteboaea! wien siti
= i needa tics ie was Bt pevisition wen. tisod mts ARuGZ? i garmtiienite) DIR
;SS oe sabia ayn eke ey “a pen sude! 14in Hh ortorb Ww St DOUOHE 2
” ae bl Bice ree ae re EAL th ia pet sro on ie ‘oan vt eae: ii
+ PN: tet as ee ’ by att oy fe fe “heat se 8 gh
Bok: gaat eaten ‘ahssheRind wy congt esate ate sere inertaati cat
; es “295 ES tpt vine esi fi gleespeaihitsicmsbiiGeeieds ears‘dels eubar1 Te at
tux aie SH sett th veitaxis atest iat: banaferevnuterkatepaiy (tris iylty # if
ong x us GRdpibie eesitiy. Asvn bs sp siren: Te
ee | al ee Bi xseerie Sa Gee, valepiogity adietisannte a
ee SOE Beeb assaat am!ogte‘oom at A eriti: i Op eat ihsaee -
4a Oy aay call :
reas - ‘ee pl Ae
ee, ae ta a imen . «
# ‘¥ emmy? - a . My maanie sie
"ane ents se ot HY insetts28 ‘eaemOrONMen! wae Oey bh! SI RR adped, grokealt :

ner uted nat A valJeet ie: ci) te vice ot tan Misia? Si cton: ego aS" rede te
eho Rea Miewen pee mtFolly aOR “await: aigt royweroutta .
last. sa fad iceanciys Sit ysigiet tine’ belhrngraana se aan
Koigipite Dorney ini seit ban sea frseguaerets a! 1/OSMoha % Dads, Shavaties one: 2G
Feehan seantrke. so byenigioad Sys variysadd tqancscuttieciompebncosy legeotiadtihatns
bows est: Riss hsore see hey es pbabbwand ayaa gelte i 3 hotter goin) blwow qiiteaigineit
sess 1 isa et ey) seen th Geatgetliun our etadt), doped salt cua:tosis
marckoavisoy fe Aeyol Saar zion sean aaydund: zevelgsottebananste
meine i
‘an
alan diisaats epigubaamcur SL aie eng atnd Talveiiod, activgita
, ar
fas a > Sak viabhinciee tring nai Ieee sieratea seul Abhocto aiigean te)oneragian
i eg ee ee ok 2 ee AY inet % cpectemaleor A Ina i ns
ee ea
af — OM i ae. ag, mm r Sha eas]is =i 4 7 ¥, My at rg pee
onl
“i 3
:
, ‘
3
ip @ os
-
nts . i
:
wn x: ‘te Sit care ae) A irpatbcnied:ha ac
ts
; Eom Re Aive "AG Nae Sent opened Peraneteet
a € $ epee. eh Kf Apt Cs aex:! Fas " bis q teen a te c
f oe en
A yt : eee ree nes 4 reine i.te Neabe tan
j PR) ; Jt toe a ‘ah Sc oe > wo denne ty Tey Pa otite ne
Theat ry ~ =
\
* tne?
a iy: ‘ r
o ie s;
TRANSLITERATION SCHEMA
HEBREW AND ARAMAIC TRANSLITERATION

Consonants:
Seite oy Wy v = D OF | =
Boe ee 0) : =" yory =
} = g > ory = k p =
me Cte, 0d, 9 ee Pras 7 =
rn oe ody) noro Ait wv =
ot Ww 10F] ae if w =
pa Ee 0 =e u-8 n = Q°*nHD
YY
HemW
s+
ede e lexoll y ae a
Masoretic Pointing:
Pure-long Tone-long Short - Composite

7 = ow ir : =end a = 4 R =
eT = a =. ¢ Oe =
et) eee eS)
OF ero = oO = 10 =
= u = Uu
Ola
GREEK TRANSLITERATION
ea gee ee L St 0 r
Ge tee 00 eee aoe GOs ie as
ee ag eel! ‘ Pant
ol = id [i ane opi U = AY
€ e ae b = ph
Cas 2 caer as x a. -Ch
‘fects a6 Om eal 0 uU =. eyDS
pee til ie ee YY, W = 0
867
ee ies is _ J
‘ ee Ae 7h.
: a ot ae iad peel
a wees
Po ales
HOR ARTTLIGMANT CAMARA OVA WASH

| “HS oa
re
ver
Pa | =
=
_ ore sais
i e
“= « £rws =!
“ao” = m 7
Se
ok
Base
eo
ae te
@e
<3
ITO - nore gholsnot gaotowt:

Sy
: Tae wR = es >> ¥
ae" St wee
a " : x : } ag aS ‘
% 3 '
a)
ie
'
i
af .
_
i ral pia
>: 2 : " : , & i oS
Fe
Pet = cat a. —_ Jae a
7io =
.
it ; « , ca org a
oa cna = te - “ “0g me: a
es ase ‘el iASe a .

ae aol: re a eld ‘een ¥ ha
“WOTTASTTLICMAST saa
7 Pee
i. a a eae Se Se ee
4 = BHO a a 1 CBee
a : Cee 8 Ewan
Nos tr Se Se bo By ae Seo
ios bet =
ne eer. ae
7S y oS o- eS
a at
" us ~q
“ieViefia year's
. ‘tae ney =e :
a a = . ag: ache 1) oe.
INDEX OF MAPS, CHARTS,
AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Palestine at the Time of Jesus......... AM cet nL a mere Gio SrA eee ayaa ota erat eeu tts 64
Real pe ee CER ria CLOMANG (otOdl te cronies butane ss ig « og Reig she oc BS EEE Epes RES 89
Gloc Ewelve=icentned in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and ActS.........0.0000i0ce0dsess008008 138
Synopsis. the sermonion the Mount/Sermon on the Plain... 5. sc. eee ccc ssecdsesccesves 140
ests Vorks in the Gospelof. Lukeas Fulfillment of the Prophets 2.0.0.0 ..0++0008-s0dsee0049 4 161
RUComeeELN NE NU OSEESere T GAR ee he ce if Soe GN, wens au a ayshared > ales Swe SS Ge ee ees Lea bal
Pareblesnimthe Synoptic Gospels. .0 fe on decdca new idius gens 6dgcedees loeneees arene 297
eGrroaretaabAe ICLOIMCSUG EAC haces oid ares uskisis @ a.cast lla Seton plow a's ales eh aes eons ole ea ate 368
NMCinemenine CrucIixoMonthe TOMp OL JESUS S isciw stew ae sieges 40'S tes Sais Wee eeeramahs «Walia 470
PAPO aRUAR OC AON saCO) eer aye ciara al cone 4 alent. Sin.2 6 miBein cin Saka» yindls hk Sanieoule a yalataRea 537
He Wis RCH CIORSUresu Vals TORT est ink cies wis,s ae Gletehe oiSjalss oo Bd sews «cis wlan w Seay one guateeery 542
ests HOUMe yeFHUOUGH Samlatid ow. Bde < ge canes O85 is sees cel o'sa ean Seo ee Seer ee ae 564
MiEves UT ee AVRASS AIT TON sacar tecgAer cogs. > ane o!bonssictns«cipb-s a ata a laieyar sunighnes a:Suara atm StONe ee en 602
fitererira alee MTINC ON CSUIG yet eee ans Haye neayta ans 63cout eal whe aftaSe acesSaupe hac ade eae ae 685
Chronology of the Holy Week and Resurrection Appearances in the Gospels ...........-....--. 704
Raraciete Passases in the Gospel OLJONM 15.015. ais ee oe a oe elem else ateBl Herel a se ae 775
High Priests During New Testament Times... ........- 2. see e eee cece cece e een e neces 807
869
og ee ProepisD PAA
, BETA ATOLL
tee ie Tet hice “aw hs etgabat aie
“ +e = =
wo ee a ee ee
Fay { | D ; pas
Saas sat ee Sie Neog tal
ee a
v ; | ,
et se ae {evo teres o7 fer ran pa seal os ey ee yews
To a 2 a
ot ee ~ hae ee « er) oF oe > ys 7 *) ee 4 eee onu SHO ou howH toso Yl
ol
a eee :
‘i RE eh nin hs cp severe t+. QA OMe JM wee bag geow
Sg pre. ee i A oa _uoM oan aor? 9d 0
“ia Meee 8o vane a
j co) ‘a ;
Vay TY i i> 28 @ twee eis oe s 'e a Ce) gts. os of46 lanai 2h ou). to JoSegue sitniatoW
PE
_
CF Abs 8
4
2.* @5)* Fe we eee See
—" Ziad
4> 644) wwe pet ma tenn de ts See
= : 7 F
ee BA AY Ss cats et caay eo ois coisas eapee nO oD a
ener : 7
fel
BSee
a im
1
Arse? oi Yobtamisunt> oe368oun ad bare
ha ee.
tee | a
a cays on ne ma tobe
a aS Ps) 054.5 o's ee ee ek ee ee Cad cere eee eT Cee ~« Adal aizovinesl &
- = =”: F be ‘
Se ee wae ref ee ee kwh ewe se Le Te see cohen quotes

vy =. Te,
oF > a - - t
RL Ben pris 6 abe. ey ir€ bigger CPA Ten ae a PM Wah o + ha
s ; ‘ : eine nN
i — 4
. Se o=t-= (ewe i ae a Seee ee ee eee
be a eraincecpe maT 2 A)
eee ce Sagan ct a esomersgeA nolan tne 38 Yh

ng
pete: RSS Se een Ter et eee
; _ .
. =
7 - « y 2
.. + 2
y A M
=
» Cement &
eee f
ne = ‘ ‘
_
oq “
: ”
INDEX OF EXCURSUSES
HOPE ECE CMe Cal SCANO aN s rae, sisial'y ae 0)eS ieBe olso A aha enka « 45g oe acuneat Waa geens 605
HOMmenZ and tne Benedieton ACainst HeTetics. csc es Sa 4 ames aon sie wae a4 ge Se tels whale 657
Na i Pee Pet Ee iergs scan Getata Graibw o's.Ace i Giuc, Bees o caa'w aNeue aan whi8c vopiare oFie ay iss 774
pests etCMa mean Cth teem Peace hws ity co cust cute vox wid wage Aca o Nye ea wo Aw Ge me wis oe a EO 790
BeiMe ger er mn yal Olsr Malem cole 5's Paseo sew aie ere ea cha o'arsi eis ude) hile Diss, etal ¢ Qacers eemeaale 815
"2 ame
exeuesUORe 40vacivl A wg ie)
ed
a
ea veatoere eee +*ten tesa see

oe a
bP a ree a ein - Ha ee e@ 6ce% ¢ isles

+
- x dd
se ST GHb@ wet ys ee ba Fab wena ee rhe aw ep eed» (ee
ee ats bw [Arte a Sie
.e& = + we ee *F O27 Eb) teow Veer at aa eee Files 2 6 ae
ee . » eh ge4«@ ae 68 @ Se+¥See an &

Nock cy teste ont DIDI lai
cs ~ ry _
t
‘
=
.
s™
: ie
= 7
i
a o - c
7 rT Z.
® “>
* ‘
J
.
oe ;
= w ‘ Yn
.
*. ’ t
2
ABBREVIATIONS
General
BCE Before the Common Era

CE Common Era
circa
cent. century
cf. compare
chap(s). chapter(s)
Septuagint
MS(S) manuscript(s)
Masoretic Text
Old Latin
New Testament
Old Testament
verse(s)
Names of Biblical Books (with the Apocrypha)

Gen Nah 1-4 Kgdms John
Exod Hab Add Esth Acts
Lev Zeph Bar Rom
Num Hag Bel 1-2 Cor
Deut Zech 1-2 Esdr Ga
Josh Mal 4 Ezra Eph
Judg Ps (Pss) Jdt Phil
1-2 Sam Job Ep Jer Col
1-2 Kgs Prov 1-4 Macc 1-2 Thess
Isa Ruth Pr Azar 1-2 Tim
Jer Cant Pr Man Titus
Ezek Eccl Sir
Hos Lam Sus Heb
Joel Esth Tob Jas
Amos Dan Wis 1-2 Pet
Obad Ezra Matt 1-3 John
Jonah Neh Mark Jude
Mic {-2 Chr Luke Rev
Names of Pseudepigraphical and Early Patristic Books
As. Mos. Assumption of Moses

Did. Didache
1-2-3 Enoch Ethiopic, Slavonic, Hebrew Enoch
Jub. Jubilees
Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon
T. Dan Testament of Dan
T. Issachar Testament of Issachar
Names of Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts
Q Qumran
book
1Q, 2Q, etc. Numbered caves of Qumran, yielding written material; followed by abbreviation of biblical or apocryphal
10H Hoédayot (Thanksgiving Hymns) from Qumran Cave 1
10S Serek hayyahad (Rule of the Community, Manual of Discipline)
10Sa Appendix A (Rule of the Congregation) to 10S
873
ABBREVIATIONS
Orders and Tractates in Mishnaic and Related Literature
To distinguish the same-named tractates in the Mishna, Tosepta, Babylonian Talmud, and Jerusalem Talmud, m., t, 6., or y. precedes the
title of the tractate. ! :
’Abot ’Abot
B. Bat. Baba Batra
B. Qam. Baba Qamma
Git. Gittin
Hor. Horayot
Ketub. Ketubot :
Mo’ed Qat. Mo’ed Qatan
Nazir Nazir
Ned. Nedarim
Pesah, Pesahim
Qidd. Quddusin
Sabb. Sabbat
Sanh. Sanhedrin
Sukk. Sukka
Tamid Tamid
Yoma Yoma (= Kippurim)
Other Rabbinic Works +
Rab. Rabbah (following abbreviation of biblical book)
Greek Manuscripts and Ancient Versions
Papyrus Manuscripts
p* Third-century Greek Papyrus manuscript of the Gospels
pe? Second-century Greek manuscript fragment of John 18:31-33, 37-38
pe Second or third-century Greek Papyrus manuscript of John (incomplete)
p? Late second-century Greek Papyrus manuscript of the Gospel of John
sp”? Third-century Greek Papyrus manuscript of the Gospels
Lettered Uncials
x Codex Sinaiticus, fourth-century manuscript of LXX, NT, Epistle of Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas
A Codex Alexandrinus, fifth-century manuscript of LXX, NT, 1 & 2 Clement, and Psalms of Solomon
B Codex Vaticanus, fourth-century manuscript of LXX and parts of the NT
G Codex Ephraemi, fifth-century manuscript of parts of LXX and NT
D Codex Bezae, fifth-century bilingual (Greek and Latin) manuscript of the Gospels and Acts
K Ninth-century manuscript of the Gospels
L Eighth-century manuscript of the Gospels
WwW Washington Codex, fifth-century manuscript of the Gospels (also called the Freer Gospels)
xX Codex Monacensis, ninth or tenth-century miniscule manuscript of the Gospels
(2) Koridethi Codex, ninth-century manuscript of the Gospels
w Athous Laurae Codex, eighth- or ninth-century manuscript of the Gospels (incomplete), Acts, The Catholic and Pauline
Epistles, and Hebrews
Numbered Uncials
0181 Fourth or fifth-century partial manuscript of Luke 9:59-10:14
Numbered Minuscules
75 Eleventh century manuscript
Ancient Versions
d The Latin text of Codex Bezae
e Codex Palatinus, fifth century Latin manuscript of the Gospels
Other Abbreviations :
if. Family 1: miniscule manuscripts belonging to the Lake Group (1, 118, 131, 209, 1582)
fe Family 13: miniscule manuscripts belonging to the Ferrar Group (13, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828,
983, 1689, 1709)
x* The original reading of Codex Sinaiticus
x! The first corrector of Codex Sinaiticus
x? The second corrector of Codex Sinaiticus
Ds The original reading of Codex Bezae
De The second corrector (c. fifth century) of Codex Bezae
874
ABBREVIATIONS
Commonly Used Periodicals, Reference Works, and Serials
AB Anchor Bible
ANF The Ante-Nicene Fathers
BAGD W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT
BDF F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the NT
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly--Monograph Series
CTM Concordia Theological Monthly
FFNT Foundations and Facets: New Testament
HTR Harvard Theological Review
IDB Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible
IDBSup Supplementary volume to /DB
Int /nterpretation
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JPS Jewish Publication Society _
JOR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament--Supplement Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
LCE Loeb Classical Library
NIGTC The New International Greek Testament Commentary
NJB New Jerusalem Bible
NovT Novum Testamentum
NTS New Testament Studies
RSR Recherches de science religieuse
RevExp Review and Expositor
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
SR Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses
TDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
TToday Theology Today
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
ZNW Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentamentliche Wissenschaft
875
THEOLOGY LIBRARY
C A C
- ae, ;
F cS)
‘
~
A ae
M ee ee Se idea
9
Pe ee Re i ks
ay . Oe
Bi.
4 wete oth real
seedma ae wae
f ‘< . noe _
hy mm ik eileen,
$ 24 oe,
i am «@ aid
rye anal.
& ey ¢*
7 ‘ a”
' , edad
. or Aa 2
oD ish 7
: tile St mae! dette ea? wl 5 0 Fae WRT erin 7

ns = Z si a pew AO <liana me. PLiyruie |
: | Tes g|tie Mer ont ribo) AL
Auth 57 s Rees OG af on: eniniand Dad dru) ineleemal was
; ee)
Ahh moka)
=
: ie ‘
: A é
a args
tome Soaccened
i. wh
ae :
: parrot one: et iy awl ‘oC _ -

: : Fea
*
: oy Tee eee, UR Agr] cers 4: wane —— } : Piste MarswrMena - ca
; : Sqceeyheerca es peariet Dag yn eo yes hidtaunad ssivicsd Iessatisnesl ee ce ae a" ;
ae 28 Ea boretad 4 Aira entity he KT eee ee ae ; “reds
ab oe »* Sand ASS.| eek gets hivgs Rana BAT aha) GOERTT bee Aas
onl 3 vy Reel came Lieek Geren natescr’ ibe oe t ~ oan RE ROAR, ~
o> Ve E : Riot
tase om *
e4ii re uve’ oe
_ ¥meres <A RT A PERM
Sci Mgt, aees aay @ 2 ae eta eynal Bocee eas Ys
S = “23ers ey) eee Z ai ce oye Pies er + ’
Bae | eancetay Dex © Ls es ic Ye BE : : 2
i: ped, Caccet oepcrte ty et tL s ; —
os) Bite sq wig isd yet Meaty aac onet ete gia Se EH
* = ae OR KtnSer pets Wises Seri : 4 “
a iamebrcates Wal <i Tea Cae i oe ee

2 i be i. Se ate - : * 7 e al n ; am ome ek.
~ ie - ; iano Cites, PRinad cp erie Ne. arty et talet Ng Feed Cage, Pea Uh
) a! aa Pitch, A>. whe aly hobrise Pade of ae Ce + : "i oe
d «€ MEAG Ces: PAM oF cortege ct Ney Cevretty . :
fe < eee ari24, ORs) % nelle ger US fer hee Ten ot ly, dae) OT oe % PSos Cel oo.
A Ae °K 7 : * A = : ey
4
, i » , > -¢ : : iia
els tre = a 5
¢ a” tee) Gree poe pocuctd hte Dy Vata :
_ ad C om / Fal
pee
Ma aes. i i. 1 oe : ia See
re Fe hnil), coleay a Re oe Set x -- « a ’
i» aa hs <oeY Py AL] ¥ : 7 ~ , J ~ in
eth 7 Oe a
, ’ '
~ et ep Aas ects 2 n :
: f, 2 7 sa c +2
; Oe Oe ee Te, aeoy Se Cake? Ou, Se :
- . : ,
; ews hak
‘ ~
W? Be ° wa — bie
a a al =e ies TERT : HeLa hy mee: + tg \h, a, 1S 858,
we a
i es en ees, eae 113,00, 3a Aa
ae |G ; -
ats al dif
= Neha eehagel Cote Te) lg See tsi “s
7 Sind meats neil ner Spabicnt. L i 1 ae “ aa oe
y y Sees CommCat A apes Biel cee - 2 oa o Lia
' 1, Towel sytliee Coviex teabe ; 3 : oa
=
Werte» te‘ ge FRB oeneR tO ps Ne = sm Be ne
K
- De = _ :
meee Name aml os 2 oe
<i = a s (314)ae
a
_,
-=
+e
: bad
chee
= =’
. ee
aes
ae
wn
a |
é
. "1A, bk >
ne agp he rahe
vl (#
7. 1
; a ee as : P Po
nN ks wn - & ‘ im !
me = a f t 2 , k t. F
é :
at be ” ,
‘ - Ce ; ay 1h
= 4 : 7 2 2
i ¥ ; hay
_ 5 * : ~ ,
- on ’
& — sD
: ‘ : ' ,
. 7 a, - b mi ; ” t - Pr
s = ! << A
ra sine a . -* -
~— . - = =e 7 .

The New Interpreters Bible 9 Compress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The New Interpreters Bible 9 Compress

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The New Interpreters Bible 9 Compress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LT

SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AT CLAREMONT

0 JobINA imonso sitesi la fa yrsuGhy PL evIO?

VOLUME II Numbers; Deuteronomy; Introduction to Narrative Literature; Joshua;

VOLUME IV 1 & 2 Maccabees; Introduction to Hebrew Poetry; Job; Psalms

VOLUME V Introduction to Wisdom Literature; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes; Song of

VOLUME VI Introduction to Prophetic Literature; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Baruch; Letter of

VOLUME VII Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature; Daniel; Additions to Daniel;

VOLUME VIII General Articles on the New Testament; Matthew; Mark

VOLUME IX Luke; John

VOLUME X Acts; Introduction to Epistolary Literature; Romans; 1 Corinthians

VOLUME XI 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians;

Tuomas G. Lonc Davip L. PETERSEN

KATHERYN PFISTERER DARR Jack A. KELLER, Jr.

WILLIAM L. Lange James EArt Massey

Copyright © 1995 by Abingdon Press

All rights reserved.

This book is printed on recycled, acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The New Interpreter’s Bible: general articles & introduction,

MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Nei. M. ALEXANDER Nancy C. MiILLer-HERRON

JUAN G. FELICIANO VALERA TALLULAH FISHER WILLIAMS

CELIA BREWER MARSHALL SuK-CHONG Yu

>" i “= on am xe 7 vate “sa _ wv é We -

7:a eeeFoghaint icra a |

—“> Saba. ame .

sar a riboeee "reat

— +a ’ Wiis ae wins es, aie 7 se

ee = : ee or pay rie a a bade a

ELIZABETH ACHTEMEIER Bruce C. BircH

KATHLEEN ROBERTSON FARMER JupirH Marie Gunpry-VoLF

Cain Hope FELDER DANIEL J. HARRINGTON

CATHERINE GUNSALUS GONZALEZ Cart R. HoLtapay

J. PauL SamMPLey Micuaet A. SIGNER

Danie J. SIMUNDSON PHYLLIS TRIBLE

= A. Pe, f Religi GALE A. YEE

Transliteration Schema 867

Rutegyt tasted Wve |erneny at be HB,

7 5 eee o. Ae BOsTg cataa * <buttes theie A wit

HAUIIO 18100 FHT ee eo ne pee

Sy rrerrt GHA SAAT OMNES2 AOUTIORTita

LUKE AMONG THE GOSPELS

Luke 1:1-4 The Prologue

READING THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

Il. Luke 1:5-2:52, The Infancy Narrative

[Il. Luke 3:1-4:13, Preparation for the Ministry of Jesus

IV. Luke 4:14-9:50, The Ministry in Galilee

V. Luke 9:51-19:27, The Journey to Jerusalem

. Luke 19:28-21:38, Jesus’ Ministry in Jerusalem

VIL. Luke 22:1—24:53, The Passion and Resurrection Narratives

A. 22:1-13, Preparations for Passover

22:21-23, Jesus’ Announcement of His Betrayal

fone See (T.

“> )-20), caccnacis as

Ve, Lake 19:28-2 1:34; ji Eesites 2o Na

sy BNF 2 194, Segus’ Teachings in the Temple 4 se

disswet? The Deutantiatien: cs, the Sg eT

pi. dake 2223-" S72, The7 Pabaion: aed nespunted is arvativ

A, 73 : H _ a iea idarationsS far Pasiaver i. “ "i ary