Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 3)

Having dealt with that transition, it’s now possible to move on to an examination of Jesus at a meal at the house of a Pharisee.  At this particular meal, Luke reports that “a woman of that town, who was a sinner, learned that Jesus was dining at the Pharisee’s house,” and that “she brought an alabaster jar of perfumed oil” (Luke 7:37) to this house.  Jesus, of course, was in the customary reclined position on the dining couch, with His feet away from the table, and this woman “As she stood behind Him at His feet, weeping… began to wet His feet with her tears.  She wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and anointed them with the perfumed oil” (7:38).  

At first glance, this may seem to be a repetitive presentation, as this study has already encountered a similar story of perfumed anointing in an examination of the meals of Matthew and Mark.  However, this is clearly a different function and a different woman, with this event taking place well ahead of the anointing story chronicled in Mark and Matthew.  As a matter of fact, Luke omits the particular anointing story found in Matthew and Mark, providing this one instead.    

There are a lot of very interesting things that could be said concerning what this woman is reported to have done.  She wet Jesus’ feet with her tears, and wipes His feet with her hair (7:38).  Jesus calls attention to this when He speaks to the Pharisee, pointing out the fact that she is now doing that which the Pharisee had failed to do when Jesus entered his house, which was wash Jesus’ feet (7:45).  One need not dwell too long on this one point, but for a woman to take her hair down and to use it in this way would bring much reproach. 

Clearly, this woman is unconcerned with the reproach and shame that she is bringing on herself, and is only concerned with honoring Jesus and making up for the dishonor that was extended to Him when He did not receive the customary foot-washing.  She is more than willing to take shame upon herself so that the one that she obviously looks to as Lord might be honored, which is a cruciform expression of love. 

In addition, she was said to have kissed Jesus’ feet and anointed them with oil (7:38), whereas Jesus did not receive this courtesy from His host (7:46).  Though Jesus saw these acts as expressions of love, the Pharisee looked upon them quite differently, saying to himself, “If this man were a prophet, He would know who and what kind of woman this is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner” (7:39).  As Jesus was quite familiar with the responses that He received in association with His dining with “tax collectors and sinners,” one can imagine that He was sensitive to the demeanor of His host. 

Being obviously aware of what was being thought of Him, Jesus proffers a short parable to the Pharisee, posing a question concerning the forgiveness of debts, to which the Pharisee is said to have responded correctly.  It is upon receiving an appropriate response that Jesus turns the tables on the one that had been subjecting Him to such critical thoughts.  When He calls attention to her acts, not only does Jesus honor this woman, but in the process, He shames the negligent Pharisee.  The Pharisee had sought to shame Jesus and the woman, but Jesus reverses the situation. 

Son Of Abraham (part 2 of 2)

Following the telling of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, Luke recounts a scene in which there is an issue with people bringing their babies for Jesus to touch them.  Some did not appreciate this, “and began to scold those who brought them” (18:15b).  However, “Jesus called for the children, saying, ‘Let the little children come to Me and do not try to stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.  I tell you the truth, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.’” (18:16-17) 

Now how could this possibly relate to Zacchaeus?  Because Zacchaeus was said to be short (19:3) should one equate that with being a child?  Of course not.  Rather, one must look at the fact that he wanted to “get a look at Jesus” (19:3a), but because he was short “he could not see over the crowd, So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see Him” (19:4a).  Quite simply, men did not climb trees.  In an honor and shame culture, climbing trees was not dignified---it was considered to be a shameful activity for a man.  Such things were left to children.  So in climbing the tree, Zacchaeus attempts to come to come close to Jesus by acting like a child.  In addition to that, it is possible to tie in the story of the healing of the blind beggar, who most certainly, like Zacchaeus, wanted nothing more than to get a look at Jesus.  Luke indeed is a skilled constructor of narrative.

Returning again to the eighteenth chapter of Luke, Luke reports that “a certain ruler” came to Jesus and “asked Him, ‘Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’” (18:18)  Rather than get sidetracked into a dissertation about the point of the question and Jesus’ initial response to it, it is best to skip down a few lines and hear Jesus tell this man to “Sell all that you have and give the money to the poor” (18:22b).  What is it that is heard from Zacchaeus?  “Lord, half of my possessions I now give to the poor” (19:8b).  Now, that doesn’t sound like he is selling all that he has and giving the money to the poor---it sounds like he is committing to giving half his possessions to the poor.  However, the follow-on statement, which was “and if I have cheated anyone of anything, I am paying back four times as much” (19:8c), is likely going to require him to dispose of the remaining half of his possessions. 

In chapter eighteen Luke records that “when the man heard this he became very sad, for he was extremely wealthy.  When Jesus noticed this, he said, ‘How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!’” (18:23-24)  Hard?  Yes.  Impossible?  No.  Jesus says “What is impossible for mere humans is possible for God” (18:27).  To prove that this is the case, Luke offers the story of Zacchaeus giving away all that he had, entering the kingdom of the Creator God as a “son of Abraham.”  By the way, the man that came to Jesus in chapter eighteen was said to be a “ruler.”  Zacchaeus was also something of a “ruler,” being a chief tax collector. 

Lastly, it is with interest to note that rather than simply indicating that Zacchaeus has entered into the kingdom of Israel’s God (acceded to Jesus’ kingdom principles) by his actions, Jesus refers to him as a son of Abraham.  Why make this type of statement?  Well, any mention of Abraham is bound to call to mind the Creator God’s first words to Abraham, in which the man that was then named Abram was told that he was going to exemplify divine blessing.  It would certainly not be a stretch to say that Zacchaeus, by giving in the manner that he proposed, was going to exemplify divine blessing.  In so doing then, he would truly become a son of Abraham. 

That exemplification of divine blessing has been spelled out, to some extent, by Jesus, a bit earlier in Luke’s Gospel, where Jesus can be heard to say “Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God belongs to you.  Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.  Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh” (6:20b-21).  Certainly Zacchaeus’ actions blessed the poor and brought a measure of satisfaction to the hungry, whereas those whom he had cheated, who had no doubt wept as they slipped further and further into mounting and perhaps insurmountable debt, who perhaps came to find themselves in a position in which they were unable to feed themselves and their families and forced to consider lives of slavery because of that debt, were comforted with a joy that resulted in laughter at the four-fold reparation.    

Absalom (part 5)

It is not known how much time elapsed following Absalom’s obviously less than amicable reunion with his father, but “Some time later Absalom managed to acquire a chariot and horses, as well as fifty men to serve as his royal guard” (2 Samuel 15:1).  Slowly but surely, he was going to take up the mantle of kingship that he perceived, perhaps rightly, to have been abandoned by his father.  After all, he could justifiably reason, a man that will not serve justice within his own family to defend the honor of his own daughter and to punish an evil perpetrated by his son, certainly could not be relied upon to perform that task for an entire people. 

Much like was seen with Absalom’s patience with Amnon, having waited two full years between the rape of Tamar and the final delivery of the consequences for those actions, Absalom acted meticulously.  First, there were the royal trappings.  That would be the chariot and horses and a royal guard.  Next would be gaining the trust and respect of the people.  He probably did not imagine that such would be difficult, for if he saw the king as weak then surely the people did as well.  To effect this, “Absalom used to get up early and stand beside the road that led to the city gate.  Whenever anyone came by who had a complaint to bring to the king for arbitration, Absalom would call out to him” (15:2a), determine his city of origin, listen to his complaint, and respond by saying “Look, your claims are legitimate and appropriate.  But there is no representative of the king who will listen to you” (15:3b). 

The natural corollary to this would be for Absalom to say, “If only they would make me a judge in the land!  Then everyone who had a judicial complaint could come to me and I would make sure he receives a just settlement” (15:4).  Naturally, one would have to imagine that Absalom’s commiseration with the complainer would also include his own sharing of his story of injustice and exile because there was no one, and especially not the king, that was truly interested in promoting the cause of justice for the people. 

Absalom continued his efforts at building the respect and loyalty of the people, doing so through both sharing with them his own complaints with the king, while commiserating with them in their complaints.  For the people, these complaints may not have initially been against the king, but in the end, Absalom would be sure that such would be the case.  The increase in his support would have then been due to the mutual sympathy of two aggrieved parties.  It is inescapable to notice that, contrary to all of the deliverers and judges and kings that came before him, Absalom is attempting to gain a leadership position within Israel without being anointed to that position.  He is trying, like Moses, to kill the Egyptian guard in order to “rally the troops” around him.  This will have only succeeded on a short-term basis. 

Absalom also made it a point that he did not act like David.  It is possible that he thought that his father had been condescending towards him when he had had been summoned to the palace to finally appear before the king.  Absalom bowed before David as a sign of humility and respect, and David had merely kissed him.  He was a prodigal of sorts, returned from a distant land, and that was all his father could muster.  One might be tempted here to think of the New Testament parable and a son that had gone so far as to wish his own father dead, and there one also sees a son that was embraced, kissed, and re-seated in a position of honor, all at the hands of a loving and forgiving father.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 12)

Looking through the synoptic Gospels and comparing the records that follow Jesus’ actions in the Temple and His being questioned as a result of those actions, one is forced to notice similarities and differences.  As has been seen, Matthew reports the parable of the two sons, the parable of the tenants, the parable of the wedding banquet, the challenge concerning Caesar and taxes, the question from the Sadducees about marriage the resurrection, and the rabbinic challenge concerning the greatest commandment.  From there, Matthew has Jesus proceed to offering up the “seven woes” that comprise the twenty-third chapter of his Gospel.  Matthew built on Mark’s account and traveled a longer path in the story of Jesus that he presented, and it must be said that Matthew’s account is the busiest of the three.   

Mark, which is generally understood to have provided the basis for both Matthew and Luke, does not have a parable of the two sons, narrates the parable of the tenants, lacks a parable of the wedding banquet, recounts the conversation about the paying of taxes, reports the question by the Sadducees, and offers up a memory of the question about the greatest of the commandments.  In something of an anomaly, Mark’s presentation of the exchange concerning commandments is actually longer than that which is reported by Matthew.  Matthew and Mark differ in their account of Jesus’ words, with Matthew’s Jesus saying “All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments” (22:40).  In Mark, Jesus does not say this. 

In addition, “The expert in the law said to Him, ‘That is true, Teacher; you are right to say that He is one, and there is no one else beside Him.’” (Mark 12:32b)  Here, the expert in the law quotes back to Jesus what has been said, which also informs the reader that Mark has another statement that is omitted by Matthew, in that Jesus here says, to begin His response to this man, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.’” (12:29)  This is the preface to the specific quotation from Deuteronomy in regards to loving the Lord with heart, soul, mind, and strength.  This is also a reminder that in Matthew, Jesus is not reported to have mentioned “strength.”  The man continued, conflating Jesus’ answers and the quotations together, saying “And to love Him with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices” (12:33). 

Just in case it may be thought that this study was reaching a bit by calling attention to the fact that the section being called to mind with the neighbor quotation from Leviticus begins with mention of the peace offering sacrifice, and that this serves as yet another reminder of the setting---that being the Temple and that which takes place in the Temple, this response confirms that such was not a reach at all.  Beyond that, just to reconfirm the intimate ties between the Temple, the importance of the promised land, and concepts concerning the kingdom of God, Mark reports that “When Jesus saw that he had answered thoughtfully, He said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’” (12:34a) 

This final statement is also part of a fuller account (in this particular pericope) than that which is on offer from Matthew.  Luke omits this exchange concerning the commandments entirely, which is not surprising.  One remembers that Luke made no mention of the withered fig tree in conjunction with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, so it apparently does not fit with Luke’s overall purpose.  Following his report about Jesus’ actions in the Temple and the questioning from the authorities that He underwent there, Luke follows Mark by not presenting a parable of the two sons, and moving right along to the parable of the tenants.  There is no parable of the wedding banquet as part of Luke’s Temple narrative, though Luke does present a great banquet, with similar features, in his fourteenth chapter.  Following the parable of the tenants, Luke moves to the discussion about taxes, and then to the question about marriage and the resurrection.

No One Knows The Hour (part 10)

Jesus’ talk of the kingdom, His triumphal entry, and His dramatic and judging words and actions in the Temple that fit within Israel’s narrative history, are rooted in hopes concerning the Creator God’s promise to His people and the covenant faithfulness of that God.  Occupation and possession of that land, in which their God would build His temple and in which He would dwell amongst His people, was always the evidence of their God’s power and of the fulfillment of His promises to His people.  So when Jesus speaks in the way that He does when challenged by the expert in the law, He is not simply offering up aphorisms on how the people of the covenant God are to live.  Rather, He is building upon the edifice that is already in place, and He must be heard to be speaking in the context of promise, land, Temple, and kingdom. 

So even though it does not appear, on the surface, that this particular exchange is linked to His Temple concerns, one can affirm that it most certainly is linked to Jesus’ opinions concerning the Temple and that it continues in the narrative flow.  It is not an isolated statement or encounter, but one that absolutely demands to be understood in connection to the Temple, as has all that has been examined to this point of this study, and it builds to a conclusion concerning Jesus’ insistence that no man can know the day or the hour.

If the quotation from Deuteronomy conjures up a wider context, does Jesus other statement about loving one’s neighbor as one loves self, which is taken from Leviticus, do the same?  Based upon what has been learned to this point, it would be a surprise if it did not.  Just as there was no disappointment when turning to Deuteronomy, turning to Leviticus again disparages disappointment.  When Jesus speaks these words about the love of God and the law, He is quoting from the eighteenth verse of the nineteenth chapter.  As one examines what is to be found in the preceding verses, it is almost possible to be stunned at what can be found. 

Beginning in the eleventh verse and quoting extensively (always remembering that calling to mind a larger section of Scripture, understood within Israel’s history, is the function of an isolated quotation), the Levitical text insists that “You must not steal, you must not tell lies, and you must not deal falsely with your fellow citizen.  You must not swear falsely in My name, so that you do not profane the name of your God.  I am the Lord.  You must not oppress your neighbor or commit robbery against him.  You must not withhold the wages of the hired laborer overnight until morning” (19:11-13).  This last part, concerning the laborers, is of even greater interest if this entire section is being called to mind, taking on a more interesting dimension and revealing Jesus’ and Matthew’s theological genius, as Matthew, just before Jesus’ triumphal entry, records Jesus’ telling of the parable of the workers in the vineyard, which begins with “For the kingdom of heaven is like...” (Matthew 20:1a).   Once again the reader is reminded that land, Temple, and kingdom are inseparably bound. 

Continuing in Leviticus: “You must not curse a deaf person or put a stumbling block in front of a blind person.  You must fear your God; I am the Lord.  You  must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich.  You must judge your fellow citizen fairly.  You must not go about as a slanderer among your people.  You must not stand idly by when your neighbor’s life is at stake.  I am the Lord.  You must not hate your brother in your heart.  You must surely reprove your fellow citizen so that you do not incur sin on account of him.  You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people, but you must love your neighbor as yourself” (19:14-18). 

Now, it is rather simple to agree that this does in fact delineate the way in which the people of the Creator God should strive to live, and it would be wonderful to insist that Jesus was speaking in such a way so as to encourage His people (then and now) to live in such a way.  Certainly that is part of what He is doing, but considering the setting, it is obvious that it reaches beyond that.  Would this not remind the reader or listener of something that Jesus has already said?  Does this not provide a reminder of a narrative that has been called to mind by what Jesus said?  It should. 

...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 12)

What comes next in Matthew is rather suggestive that Ezra is in mind at this juncture, as Jesus offers up what has come to be known as the “Parable of the Unforgiving Slave.”  This parable becomes a picture of both the type of treatment desired by Jesus and forgiveness in action.  It does so along with a word of warning of the way that the Creator God will look upon those that do not abide by Jesus’ prescription.  Here, it is appropriate to reflect on the statement offered up by Ezra, originally called to mind through and following his use of “seventy-seven,” reflecting the experience of the returnees from Babylon during the era of Persian occupation, while also serving to adequately describe the prevailing situation in Israel under the Romans, which was “Although we are slaves, our God has not abandoned us in our servitude” (9:9a).  This lines up quite nicely with what will be found in the parable. 

Together with that, in an era in which the cry of Rome, which it sought to put on the lips of all upon whom it foisted its dominion, was “No king but Caesar,” the respondent cry of an Israel that would not be assimilated and subdued was “No King but our God!”  Owing to that, thoughts and hopes and dreams concerning the coming kingdom of their God were current; and of course, Matthew presents a Jesus that is primarily concerned with the advent of the kingdom of His God.  It is in the mindset created by this set of ideas---ongoing slavery, claims concerning kingship, and concerns about a kingdom---with which one presses forward into the parable. 

As an obvious adjunct to what Jesus has just said, with no separation, division, nor delay, the parable begins with “For this reason, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves” (Matthew 18:23).  The king, naturally, is the God of Israel.  The slaves are the people of His covenant.  “As he began settling his accounts, a man who owed ten thousand talents was brought to him” (18:24).  This man is one of the already referenced slaves.  He had an obligation to his king.  However, “Because he was not able to repay it, the lord ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, children, and whatever he possessed” (18:25). 

This demands a reach into the collective memory of the respective audiences, with a recollection of Israel’s obligation under its covenant to be a light to the people of the surrounding nations and to bearing the image of their God in representing His covenant to the world.  Israel had failed to fulfill their end of that covenant, and their ongoing subjection by Rome confirmed that their failure was ongoing.  They did not meet their obligation, so it was understood to be the case that their God had “sold” them into both Assyrian and Babylonian exile, with Rome now playing the role of those two empires. 

Proceeding, Jesus says “Then the slave threw himself to the ground before him, saying, ‘Be patient with me, and I will repay you everything.’” (18:26)  This, because of the mindset and self-identifying history in which the hearers are steeped, is reminiscent of the prayers of repentance and restoration from exile that are to be found in the second book of the Kings, the second book of the Chronicles, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. 

These prayers are best summed up with “if My people, who belong to Me, humble themselves, pray, seek to please Me, and repudiate their sinful practices, then I will respond from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).  The audience goes on to learn that “The lord had compassion on that slave and released him, and forgave him the debt” (18:27).  Indeed, in spite of their covenant failures, and because of His faithfulness to His plan of redemption for His people and the world through them, because of their response to this demand, the Lord allowed His people to return to the land, to reconstruct the Temple, and to rebuild Jerusalem. 

Compassionate Brother (part 18 of 18)

In the parable of the prodigal, the younger son returns home, doing so with the knowledge that he is taking a risk and potentially putting his life in jeopardy.  If he is seen and recognized by the community, he is possibly going to be subject to stoning at worst, and a very public ceremony of shaming at best.  However, Jesus says that “while he was still a long way from home his father saw him, and his heart went out to him: he ran and hugged his son and kissed him” (Luke 15:20b).  Like Esau running to Jacob, the compassionate father ran to his son, subjecting himself to loss of honor (increase in shame).  As is said of Esau, who did not take it upon himself to inflict pain and suffering on Jacob, the compassionate father, following the model of the compassionate brother, shamed and dishonored himself, rather than allowing his son to suffer. 

As Esau hugged and kissed his brother, enduring the shame and extending compassion, so too did the father and true star of the parable hug and kiss his son, in a similar demonstration of merciful compassion.  The son of the parable attempted to execute the plan that he formulated and rehearsed, but before he was able to deliver his prepared speech, the father cuts him off and restores him to the position of honor as if he had never wronged his father, his family, or his community.  Likewise, Jacob’s planning and preparations were wholly unnecessary, as Esau welcomed him with open arms, celebrating a joyous reunion with no apparent thought of retribution or a need to re-pay (thought Jacob is revealed to not be fully convinced of his brother’s compassion). 

The father in the parable exclaims that “this son of mine was dead, and is alive again---he was lost and is found!” (15:24a).  Esau, who had wished his brother dead, and to whom he was effectively dead, celebrates the return of his brother---alive again.  Here are the stories of a compassionate brother and a compassionate father, who dealt with a brother and a son whose stories shared some common features.  Both had been dishonored and both had been shamed.  Both had the right to take vengeance.  Both exercised compassion. 

Both stories, as told to and for a people of the covenant-making and providential Creator God that seeks to reconcile His image-bearers and His world to Himself, reveal a God that revels in compassion---willing to take the pain and shame and suffering that rightfully belong to others upon Himself (there was no greater shame than the curse of the cross) so as to set His world to rights, restore the beings created and set forth as His image in the world, and show forth His kingdom and His glory.           

Compassionate Brother (part 17 of 18)

Jacob did not squander his wealth, though as has been seen, life was a bit wild for him.  Like the prodigal in his exile from his father’s house, fortune had eluded Jacob though others had gotten rich at his expense.  The son of the famed parable is said to have experienced the effects of destitution, as a terrible famine grips the land.  Seeking whatever income he could find, he attaches himself to a citizen of that country, much like Jacob was attached to Laban because of the need to pay him for all of the wives (and children until the wife debt obligation is met), and is sent to feed the citizen’s pigs. 

Naturally, as the hearers of Jesus’ parable were predominantly Jewish, and because they would naturally assume that the family in the story is Jewish, they would see this as an attempt by the man to get rid of an unwanted hanger-on, expecting that the young Jewish man would resolutely refuse to lower and defile himself in such a way.  This was viewed as a possibility in Laban’s business deal with Jacob, which, based on Laban’s actions after striking the deal, might be taken to have indicated a desire to rid himself of Jacob. 

Eventually, while feeding the pigs but while still hungry, the young man in the parable is said to have come “to his senses,” saying “How many of my father’s hired workers have food enough and to spare, but here I am dying from hunger!” (Luke 15:17), and so hatches a plan to return to the home that he had left in shame and dishonor.  Similarly, Jacob comes to his senses.  With the documented hostility that he is experiencing, he wonders why it is that he remains where he is, when he could return to his father’s house, rather than continuing to serve under a man who clearly did not want him around any longer. 

The younger son however, knows that he has shamed himself and his family, and knows that harsh consequence up to and including the possibility of death, await him if he returns to his father’s house.  Owing to that, and considering the fact that his father’s hired workers earn enough to feed themselves with money to spare, he devises a plan that will allow him to gain one of those positions, so as to be able to pay back his father over time, and in the process allow him to regain the honor that he had lost.  So he says “I will get up and go to my father and say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.  I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired workers.’” (15:18-19) 

This is the same thing that can be seen with Jacob.  He cannot simply return to the house that he left, covered in shame, having dishonored his father and his brother.  He has a brother that has previously declared his desire to kill him, and a father that he greatly dishonored.  Therefore he must devise a plan.  Clearly, because his father (though it was done unwittingly) passed the covenantal blessing on to him, his primary concern is with the wrath of his brother, thus the planning taking place with the division of the families, and then the gifts of animals, with the message passed along by the servants. 

Effectively, with the language that is heard on the lips of Jacob, bowing to the ground as he refers to himself as Esau’s servant while also referring to Esau as “my lord” and telling him that seeing his face is like seeing the face of God, it is almost as if Jacob can be heard saying something like “I have sinned against heaven and against you; treat me like one of your hired workers.” 

Compassionate Brother (part 16)

With the gifts of a substantial number of animals, the words of the messengers, the bowing before Esau, and the repeated use of “servant” and “lord,” that plan could be seen unfolding.  However, it was also seen that Esau felt these things to have been completely unnecessary, as he runs to his brother, welcoming him with open arms and demonstrating compassion in his words and actions.  Basically, though Esau will begrudgingly accept the gifts that are on offer from his brother, Jacob’s well-rehearsed plan is dismissed out of hand, as Esau counters Jacob’s attempt to attract shame to himself in order to elevate his aggrieved brother. 

In stark contrast and as something of a reversal, Esau’s own actions bring shame upon himself, as he runs to his brother and refrains from taking action to avenge the dishonor done to him many years prior.  Whereas Jacob expected conflict, Esau appeared to be in favor of celebration.  Though Jacob had been dead to him, and though part of the plot was the thought that Esau had wanted him dead, it was now as if Jacob had returned to life.      

Though it has taken some work to get to this point, this story of the compassionate brother sounds remarkably similar to a story that would eventually be offered up by Jesus.  Though Esau generally gets a bad rap, and though there is precious little positive talk of Esau in Scriptures, perhaps the man who regularly dined with tax collectors and sinners, who offered up stories commending “unjust” stewards and good Samaritans, and generally opened up the kingdom of God to what were considered to be all the wrong people, had the story of Esau as the compassionate brother in mind when He offered up the parable of the compassionate father (often incorrectly labeled as the parable of the prodigal son). 

In that story, Jesus tells about a man with two sons.  The younger of the two demanded that his father give him the assets that would eventually come to him upon his father’s death.  This is the equivalent of wishing his father dead, which would have been well understood by those that would hear this tale from the lips of Jesus.  The father, who would be immensely dishonored by this action (the family would also suffer dishonor in the community), accedes to his son’s wishes. 

Though this is not precisely what happened with Isaac and his two sons, Isaac insisted on blessing Esau (the older son), indicating that he wanted to do so before he died.  However, rather than Esau receiving the blessing as the firstborn, the blessing fell to Jacob.  In the parable, as it is presented by Jesus, the son dishonored his father by his request, just as Jacob dishonored his father.  In both cases, the father has every right to take vengeance on his son, but he restrains himself.  There is compassion in evidence. 

In the parable, reports of the actions of the son would have quickly spread through the community, creating a growing hostility towards this presumptuous and shameful son.  It is not unreasonable to suggest that his life would have possibly been in jeopardy (as was Jacob’s), so it is quite likely that he quickly sells the assets in order to gain liquidity and leaves.  As did Jacob, with possible death looming, the son leaves on a journey to a distant country.  Jesus informs His hearers that the son “squandered his wealth with a wild lifestyle” (Luke 15:13b).  

Experts In The Law (part 11 of 11)

Naturally, having heard what was said by Jesus in the fourteenth chapter and the parable that followed, this mention of the burning desire for places of honor at banquets will not be lost on Luke’s hearers.  They, as should any educated and culturally aware observer, make the connections.  The final nail is driven into their figurative coffins as Jesus informs His hearers (and Luke’s hearers), that these experts in the law, “devour widows’ property” (20:47). 

They devour widows’ property?  This is unconscionable!  How do they do this?  Is there evidence of this?  Absolutely there is evidence, and Jesus immediately points His hearers to the evidence as He “looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box.  He also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins.  He said, ‘I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put in more than all of them.  For they all offered out of their wealth.  But she, out of her poverty, put in everything she had to live on.’” (21:1-4) 

For too long this has been looked upon as Jesus offering a commendation to this widow, as she was willing to sacrifice all that she had for the Temple as a sacrifice to the Creator God.  However, in light of all that has led up to it, and in the wake of Jesus’ symbolic judgment against the Temple, it demands to be understood as a rebuke to the Jerusalem Temple, its system, and all associated with it.  Indeed, when understood correctly, it should be concluded that Jesus sees the offering of this widow as a tragedy, as her property was completely devoured by a corrupt system (they devour widows’ property) full of robbers, which He had already condemned.  This becomes especially clear when one rightly incorporates the idea that Jesus is the true Temple. 

This Temple, already “adorned with beautiful stones and offerings” (21:5b), and its functionaries (essentially the powers-that-be of the day) should have been lavishing care upon this poor widow, exercising justice and mercy, rather than taking that which she could not afford to give.  This would have been the proper attitude of those that were supposed to be representing the faithful and gracious God of Israel.  However, with the portrait of the experts in the law that has been painted, there is nobody, reading or hearing, that is surprised at what has just happened, and that this poor widow has had her property devoured. 

It is little wonder then that the remaining mentions of the experts in the law to be found in Luke take the form that they do.  Along with the Temple, Jesus has condemned them, so it is no surprise to hear that “The chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find some way to execute Jesus” (22:2a), that they played a role in an unjust and illegal trial in which “the council of the elders of the people gathered together, both the chief priests and the experts in the law” (22:66), and that “The chief priests and the experts in the law were… vehemently accusing Him” (23:10).  The point, which had begun to be made in the fifth chapter when Jesus takes up the role of the Temple by forgiving sins, adding healing to that role, with this immediately questioned by the experts in the law (their first mention), is that Jesus is the true Temple.  It would seem that Luke wants all to know that Jesus, as the embodiment of Israel’s God, is the place where the Creator God resides.        

Experts In The Law (part 10)

For good measure, before reaching a seminal usage of the phrase, Luke once again makes a point to call attention to what he insists is the nefarious desire of the experts in the law, as in the nineteenth verse of chapter twenty, after Jesus has delivered yet another parable that is deemed to be yet another scathing rebuke of these antagonistic characters, Luke reports: “Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest Him that very hour, because they realized He had told this parable against them” (20:19a).  After this, Luke presents the story of Jesus being questioned about paying taxes to Caesar (20:20-26).  This is followed by a strange bit of questioning from the Sadducees in regards to marriage and the resurrection (20:27-40). 

It can be here noted, with great interest, that the Sadducees now make their lone appearance in Luke’s Gospel.  This occurs after the Pharisees have dropped out of view.  Looking to Acts, where Luke reports that some members of the Pharisees have joined with the Christian community, there one finds conflict between the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the twenty-third chapter (in relation to Paul’s trial), in which the Pharisees (believers in the resurrection of the dead) are pitted against the Sadducees (“who contend that there is no resurrection” (20:27) – repeated in Acts 23:8).  In addition to the fact that Luke, in the second portion of his narrative, cannot simply have the Sadducees appearing out of nowhere but needs to have them in conflict with Jesus, the previous excursus and possible conclusion in regards to the situation with the Pharisees and their disappearance from Luke’s narrative may also serve to explain Luke’s cursory mention of the Sadducees.

Moving along then, Jesus then goes into a dissertation, with this followed by a question, about the Messiah being both King David’s son and Lord (20:41-44).  This is followed by Jesus’ warning to “Beware of the experts in the law” (20:46a).  This comes on the heels of what looked like it could have been a paradigm shift in Luke’s presentation of the experts in the law.  After Jesus had answered the questioning of the Sadducees, flatly rebuking their resurrection-denying position in the process, Luke reports that “some of the experts in the law answered, ‘Teacher, you have spoken well!’” (20:39).  Luke also reports that “they did not dare any longer to ask Him anything” (20:40), though this could easily apply equally to both the Sadducees and the experts in the law. 

Those who comprise the initial and ongoing audience of this story, who are presumably at least somewhat familiar with the Jesus traditions, already know what is soon to happen.  Indeed, those that may be unfamiliar with Jesus, who are hearing or reading this presentation for the first time, owing to the heightening sense of conflict that is sparked by Jesus’ actions in the Temple (the tremendous importance of which would be readily recognized by any denizen of the first century---or any century in almost any place for that matter), will more than realize that this story is building to a grand finale. 

Throughout the story, lines of demarcation are being drawn.  By this point, it is quite clear as to who it is that is going to ultimately be playing the role of villain in this story.  Any reasonable person knows that the experts in the law have been positioned as the chief villains, and it merely remains to be seen how Luke’s telling of the Jesus story will play out.  The potential paradigm shift comes with this report about the words of the experts in the law.  It provides something of a ray of hope for them.  This, along with the fact that the Pharisees are no longer the consistent companions of the experts in the law, with their role having been almost completely taken up by the chief priests, might cause one to think that the experts in the law are going to change their position concerning Jesus.  Accordingly, perhaps Jesus will change His position concerning them. 

Of course this is not to be.  After a glimmer of hope appears for them, that light is quickly extinguished as Jesus warns the people away from them.  This should not be unexpected.  Not only have they been well-positioned as the villains of Luke’s narrative, as one can easily imagine boos and hisses from the crowd whenever they make their appearance on the stage of the story, but after all of the potential villainy that has been seen and heard, Jesus adds that “They like walking around in long robes, and they love elaborate greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets” (20:46).  

Experts In The Law (part 6)

In light of all that has been said and done in the moments leading up to this statement on the lips of these people (Jesus welcomes sinners and eats with them---sinners broadly defined as those that stand outside the group of covenant members), one cannot help but imagine that those hearing the telling of this Gospel would find themselves laughing.  It is almost as if this statement demands to be read as a punch-line, in which the Pharisees and the experts in the law are presented as unfortunate dupes.  Indeed, it almost seems as if Luke wants his audience to reach the conclusion that there is a group that is not quite getting it, even though Jesus is attempting to make things as obvious as He possibly can. 

This most definitely serves to de-legitimate the role of these men.  Not only could they not answer Jesus’ simple questions, but now, even though Jesus has made things as simple as possible---offering a parable about a banquet, a directive about banquets, and then another parable about a banquet, Luke demonstrates that the point has been completely missed by these men, as they go right back to what was presented as one of their earliest accusatory attempts at discrediting Jesus. 

If can be recalled that, in the fifth chapter, Luke employs his second use of the phrase “experts in the law” (5:30), which accompanied their complaint that Jesus was eating with tax collectors and sinners (5:30).  That, of course, was at a banquet given for Jesus (5:29).  When one is carefully attuned to the fact that this is an ongoing narrative, and that there is a certain structure and flow to Luke’s presentation (which makes sense in light of the fact that it is a dramatic presentation designed to be consumed in a single sitting), it would probably not be a mistake to surmise that Luke’s words of the fifteenth chapter are intended to cause a recall of scene of chapter five. 

Considering this then, it should be noted that the fourteenth chapter began with a mention of experts in the law and Pharisees (Temple representatives), moved on to a question posed by Jesus, and concludes (in terms of the chapter divisions) with a healing.  The movement of the fourteenth chapter actually concludes with the fifteenth chapter’s opening complaint that “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”  In chapter five, Jesus forgives sins (a Temple function), the audience learns about hostile thoughts and questioning on the part of the experts in the law and the Pharisees (a question), and then comes a healing by Jesus.  From there, Luke moves to the complaint about with whom Jesus is eating.  Within a culture that is accustomed to listening to stories, holding ideas together over extended tellings, and processing information accordingly, this bracketing structure would not be lost on Luke’s audience.        

This complaint about Jesus’ table companions comes to be voiced on a regular basis.  It is a relatively prominent feature of the Gospel portraits of Jesus.  Considering the importance of the meal table in that day and time, this fact should go a long, long way towards informing an observer about a major thrust of Jesus’ ministry (table fellowship), along with informing that same observer about a major focal point of the early church and the oral traditions about Jesus (table fellowship), with these given considerable weight by His crucifixion and Resurrection, as those oral traditions are eventually codified as the Gospels.  In consideration of this, it is important to not overlook an instance of the use of “experts in the law” leading up to its use in the twentieth chapter, which could lead to overlooking a usage that will serve to provide enlightenment as the way in which Luke is pushing his hearers to react and respond to such usage. 

Experts In The Law (part 5)

So in the fourteenth chapter, when Jesus makes reference to a meal table that will be at least partially occupied by experts in the law and Pharisees, and Luke writes about the way in which Jesus was noticing how some guests chose their places of honor, and then Jesus is heard speaking about humility and exaltation, those that hear this do so with ears that have also just heard Jesus make reference to a messianic banquet, wherein Jesus has used words about the last becoming first (exaltation) and the first becoming last (humility).  These two things cannot be disconnected.  Furthermore, because the fourteenth chapter begins with Jesus challenging the experts in the law and the Pharisees, and because there is no change of setting until the seventeenth chapter, there is every reason to believe that all that follows from that initial, unresponded to challenge is at least tacitly directed to those same groups. 

After making His previous point, within a setting that has been informed by a messianic banquet reference, a challenge to the experts in the law and the Pharisees, and a rather instructive parable, Jesus goes on to offer instructions in regards about engagement in table fellowship “to the man who had invited him” (14:12a), saying “when you host an elaborate meal, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind” (14:13).  Jesus then offers up a parable of a banquet (doing so while at a banquet) in which the man who made invitations ends up inviting “the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame” (14:21b).  The man in the parable even takes it one step further, as he sends his representatives “out to the highways and country roads” to “urge people to come in” (14:23b). 

This not only amplifies the words of the thirteenth chapter while also reinforcing the personal instruction that had been on offer by Jesus to the one who invited Him, but the punctuation of the parable, in which the subject of the parable exclaims “For I tell you, not one of those individuals who were invited will taste my banquet” (14:24), also dramatically illustrates the last to first, first to last, exaltation to humility, and humility to exaltation motif that frames this section of Luke.  In addition, it brings an interesting clarity to what had also been heard in the thirteenth chapter, which was a statement about those left out of the messianic banquet, in which they say “We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets” (13:26), to which the Creator God (presumably) replies “I don’t know where you come from!  Go away from me, all you evildoers!” (13:27) 

The ongoing and escalating conflict between Jesus and the experts in the law and the Pharisees, along with Jesus overt challenge to them just a few verses later, function to make it quite clear who it is that is the point of reference in such statements.  The previously mentioned delicious irony is to be found in the fifteenth chapter, because after Jesus, who is living, working, and speaking in such a way that indicates that He is indeed the Messiah (while Luke’s audience has already heard the confession of Jesus as Messiah), makes His points about the people that were participating in meals.  While remembering that the setting has not changed and that Jesus appears to still be at the same meal mentioned in the first verse of the fourteenth chapter, the “Pharisees and the experts in the law” complained that Jesus was welcoming sinners and eating with them (15:2). 

Experts In The Law (part 4)

Luke opens his fifteenth chapter with “Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming to hear Him.  But the Pharisees and the experts in the law were complaining, ‘This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.’” (15:1-2)  According to Luke’s narrative structure, this actually occurs “at the house of a leader of the Pharisees” (14:1b).  Obviously, the complaint of the fifteenth chapter is prefaced by the activities of the fourteenth chapter, and those hearing Luke’s presentation are going to rather enjoy the delicious irony of it all. 

There in the fourteenth chapter, as Luke continues with his building of the tension between Jesus and the experts in the law and their associates (which, if Jesus is being critical of them and of the Temple that they represent, is eventually going to come to a head) it is said that Jesus was being watched closely (14:1c).  Based on all that has come before, Luke’s hearers, knowing what they already know about Jesus through the narrative and through the oral tradition (just as any reader approaches Luke in the midst of a body of knowledge about Jesus, albeit informed by the New Testament and their own traditions), should expect Jesus to present an open challenge.  After all, with the pronouncements of woe that came before, everyone is well aware that there is hostility.  Luke does not let his audience down, as he reports that “Jesus asked the experts in religious law and the Pharisees” (14:3a) a question. 

An answer was not forthcoming, and in fact, Luke writes that “they remained silent” (14:4a).  If it is the case that Jesus’ is challenging the legitimacy of the Temple and those that support its claims while also deriving their personal support from that same structure, then this inability to proffer an answer is an apt demonstration of the ineffectiveness of these people in their duty to represent the Creator God.  Whether they simply did not desire to engage in another rabbinic challenge, or whether they refused to offer an answer because the question was posed to them by Jesus (rather than from them to Him), with a response serving the purpose of validating the standing of the questioner (they were seeking to de-legitimize Jesus), by posing another question that is actually an answer to His first question, Jesus makes them look foolish with what appears to be a rather obvious and simple answer to a simple question. 

As Jesus offers his question-as-answer that is related to the first question, the sense of the ultimate ineffectiveness and illegitimacy of the experts in the law and Pharisees seems to grow, as Luke informs his audience that “they could not reply to this” (14:6).  From there, without a change of scene from the house of the Pharisee at which Jesus had gone to dine (14:1), “Jesus noticed how the guests chose the places of honor” (14:7a)---a very important consideration in a meal-table-oriented-and-demonstrating honor and shame culture. 

In response, He tells a parable (14:7b).  Without recounting the parable, it can be noted that it is summarized by Jesus saying “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted” (14:11).  Crucially, Luke’s hearers would have heard this parable and its summation within the echo of Jesus having spoken of another meal table, as He has previously been reported to have said that “people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and take their places at the banquet table in the kingdom of God” (13:29).  This is the messianic banquet that, without going into too much detail, indicates that the rule of Israel’s God on earth, through His Messiah, has begun.  To that statement is tagged: “But indeed some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last” (13:30). 

Where Your Treasure Is (part 4 of 4)

Shortly thereafter, Jesus can be heard saying “So do not be overly concerned about what you will eat and what you will drink, and do not worry about such things… your father knows that you need them” (Luke 12:29,30b).  The rich man in the parable had taken this to the opposite extreme, which should have been obvious to Jesus’ audience.  Jesus then brings the story back to His primary concern, which was the rule of the Creator God (the coming together of heaven and earth) exercised through His covenant people, saying “pursue His kingdom, and these things,” food, drink, clothing (12:28), “will be given to you as well” (12:31). Clearly, the man in the parable was not in pursuit of the kingdom of heaven (the rule of God/the coming together of heaven and earth). 

With this, Jesus has outlined a portion of His vision of the service of the kingdom of heaven.  He says, “Do not be afraid, little flock,” positioning Himself as the shepherd-King of the kingdom, for your Father is well pleased to give you the kingdom” (12:32).  The kingdom of heaven (the Creator God’s rule), Jesus says, is not unattainable.  Though it will eventually take a direct action on His part to accomplish a final and grand consummation, the Creator God intends to work through His people to make manifest His rule as a foretaste of what is to come. 

The Creator God’s constant desire has been to move through His people in a way that will cause them to provide witness to the world that He is ultimately Sovereign.  To this end, Jesus’ ministry has been marked by His going “through towns and villages, preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God” (8:1b).  Indeed, the larger witness of the Gospel records are that Jesus was insistent that the kingdom of God was at hand. 

Jesus then goes on to fill out His thoughts about the appearance that will be taken when the rule of the Creator God on earth was made manifest, by saying, in contradiction to storing up one’s abundance for oneself, “Sell your possessions and give to the poor” (12:33a).  This firmly connects these words with the earlier parable, which Jesus introduced by saying “one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (12:15b).  In this selling, Jesus’ listeners are informed that they will “Provide yourselves purses that do not wear out---a treasure in heaven that never decreases, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys” (12:33b). 

Because Jesus’ use of “heaven” is here framed by His reference to “the kingdom,” one should not imagine a place somewhere off in space.  Rather, along with His and Luke’s hearers, the call is to imagine the rule of Israel’s God on earth, a time in which death has lost its sting, in which the grave has no victory, and where corruption and decay are no more.  Jesus’ words fit squarely into the vision of a restored creation, which was part and parcel of the conception of the full manifestation of the kingdom of heaven.  It is then that there will be no wearing out, no decrease, no thieves, no moths, and no destruction. 

To this is then added, “For where your treasure is, there you heart will be also” (12:34).  The location of the treasure is firmly ensconced within the vision of the kingdom of heaven.  Selling possessions and giving to the poor, and doing so in recognition of Jesus’ claim of Lordship and of His God’s claim on all things, becomes an operation that causes an overlap of heaven and earth.  The treasure, ultimately, because of the selling of possessions, ends up with the poor. 

This, of course, in a way that should be of massive interest to anyone that claims an allegiance to Jesus as Lord, is where Jesus was and is to be found.  Though it is not to be found in Luke’s narrative, a substantial component of the Jesus tradition that would have been in the air at the time of Luke’s writing is “Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.  For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me… I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me” (Matthew 25:34b-36,40b). 

One is not left to wonder at what is implied by these oh so important words.  In providing for the poor, the location of one’s treasure and heart is revealed, and in so doing, one is able to stand with Jesus in acknowledgment of His rule and of the presence of God’s kingdom.              

Where Your Treasure Is (part 3)

Continuing on in chapter twelve of Luke, Jesus can be heard to say “Watch out and guard yourself from all types of greed, because one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (12:15).  This will be programmatic and quite significant for what comes later.  With this said, Jesus embarks upon a parable, saying “The land of a certain rich man produced an abundant crop” (12:16b).  With the mention of an abundant crop, and with the shared background of the knowledge of the Levitical/Deuteronomic blessings to be had for adherence to covenant responsibilities, Jesus’ hearers would likely and immediately take this as a sign that this man was blessed by the Creator God. 

What would or should also come to mind is the passage from Deuteronomy that says “Be sure you do not forget the Lord your God by not keeping His commandments, ordinances, and statutes that I am giving you today.  When you eat your fill, when you build and occupy good houses, when your cattle and flocks increase, when you have plenty of silver and gold and when you have abundance of everything, be sure you do not feel self-important and forget the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt, the place of slavery, and who brought you through the great, fearful desert of venomous serpents and scorpions, an arid place with no water” (8:11-15a). 

Such ideas would not be lost on a people that, though they occupied their promised land, stood under the yoke of Rome, and figuratively at least, were in the place of slavery.  Of course, this was the position of both Ezra and Nehemiah, who gave voice to a mindset that prevailed among the people through the hundreds of years following the return from Babylonian captivity and on into Jesus’ day,

(contrary to the Pharisaic claim of John 8:33 that “we are descendants of Abraham… and have never been anyone’s slaves”) as they insisted that even though the people of God had re-settled in the land, “we are slaves” (Ezra 9:9, Nehemiah 9:36).  According to what comes next in the eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, Jesus’ hearers would have expected the rich man to adhere to the proviso to “Be careful not to say, ‘My own ability and skill have gotten me this wealth’,” and to “remember the Lord your God, for He is the one who gives ability to get wealth” (8:18a).

This rich man, unfortunately, did not have the proper mindset, as “he thought to himself: ‘What should I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’” (Luke 12:17)  In answering this self-directed query, the appropriate response would have been to provide the excess to the poor of the land, as was repeatedly suggested to the covenant people in what is presumed to be their charter, but this was not the route that he chose, Jesus goes on to report that “he said, ‘I will do this; I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods.  And I will say to myself, “You have plenty of goods stored up for many years; relax, eat, drink, celebrate!”’” (12:18-19) 

It would seem that this theoretical rich man also has a portion of Deuteronomy in mind, though it may have been twisted and excerpted through his own personal translation.  The crowd that is listening to Jesus could have understood that this rich man with abundant crops that are clearly productive of excess, has selected portions of the fourteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, reading for himself “When He blesses you… you may spend the money however you wish for cattle, sheep, wine, beer, or whatever you desire.  You and your household may eat… and enjoy it” (14:24a,26a,c). 

They would have known that what he should have done was use the excess in such a way that “the resident foreigners, the orphans, and the widows of your villages may come and eat their fill so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work you do” (14:29b).  Unfortunately, he did not choose this path of action, and Jesus insists that “God said to him, ‘You fool!  This very night your life will be demanded from you, but who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’” (Luke 12:20)  Jesus punctuates the parable with “So it is with the one who stores up riches for himself, but is not rich toward God” (12:21). 

Where Your Treasure Is (part 2)

Heaven was rightly understood to be the realm of abode of the Creator God, and the ongoing movement of that God that occurred through His people was for the purpose of causing heaven and earth to come together (this is what is understood of any temple, and the Jerusalem Temple specifically).  When it comes to the Biblical narrative, when acts in accordance with the covenant responsibilities of the covenant people were performed, such as caring for orphans and widows (an extraordinarily prominent theme throughout the Hebrew Scriptures), that was when heaven and earth were over-lapping and the Creator God’s will was being done on earth as in heaven. 

The long-sought-after kingdom of heaven, among other things, was the time when this overlap of the abode of the Creator God and the realm of man (the creation in which the creatures made in that God’s image dwelt and were called to steward) would finally and completely take place.  When the kingdom of heaven was fully and finally manifest, and the Creator God ruled over His redeemed creation, it would then be said that “Death has been swallowed up in victory,” and questions such as “Where, O death, is your victory?  Where, O death, is your sting?” (1 Corinthians 15:54b-55) could be triumphantly posed.  The Apostle Paul rightly connects the coming of the kingdom of heaven with the resurrection of the dead, thus indicating that this was a feature of first century Jewish thought.    

Joining with the participants of the early church to and for whom Luke wrote, it is now possible to stand in the place of one who would have heard the story told in Luke’s Gospel.  In doing so one hears “Then someone from the crowd said to Him (Jesus), ‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.’” (12:13)  Though the parable will not be touched on here, this statement and the words from Jesus that follow will still be resounding in the ears of an audience well-trained to provide comprehensive attention to an oral-performance-oriented presentation such as Luke’s narrative, when the fifteenth chapter is reached and they hear “A man had two sons.  The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that will belong to me.’” (15:12a) 

The way that the crowd will hear and understand the parable that follows that introduction will not only be shaped by community and cultural norms and traditions, but it will also be shaped by what is seen and heard in chapter twelve.  Of course, it cannot be forgotten that any story that begins with “a man had two sons” would immediately cause a Jew to consider Jacob and Esau (or Isaac and Ishmael) and the foundations of their nation.  

Returning to the request that is made of Jesus concerning the inheritance, Jesus responds by saying “Man, who made Me a judge or arbitrator between you two?” (12:14)  Though it is not entirely relevant to this particular study, an interesting point can be made here based on Jesus’ response.  As part of Luke’s efforts in his two part series of what came to be called the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, Luke makes the effort to paint Jesus as a Moses-like figure (as does Matthew). 

This can be seen in Peter’s speech that is recorded in the third chapter of Acts (3:22-26), where Peter references Deuteronomy 18:15, making it clear with what follows that it is his understanding that Jesus is the promised prophet like Moses.  Based upon this, it is not inconceivable that Jesus’ question of “who made me a judge or arbitrator between you two,” would cause His hearers to hearken back to the story of Moses and to his attempt to settle a dispute between two of his countrymen.  Though it is Moses that is there rebuffed with a response of “Who made you a ruler and judge over us?” (Exodus 2:14a), Luke’s very subtle point is made, and the notion that any attempt to understand Jesus must be grounded in the history of Israel is reinforced.  

Collapse Of The Temple (part 2)

Before one gets further into the record of the Gospels so as to examine Jesus’ dealings with the Temple authorities (remembering that this is an analysis occurring against the backdrop of the collapse of the Philistine temple at the hands of Samson), it is quite useful to peer into the book of the prophet Jeremiah, doing so in order to catch a glimpse of the types of things that Jesus would have been saying in and about the Temple, and how His words would have been received. 

In the twenty-sixth chapter, the Lord God of Israel is said to have spoken to Jeremiah, delivering instructions to him as to what to say to the people of Jerusalem and Judah on the Lord’s behalf.  The Creator God says, “Tell them that the Lord says, ‘You must obey Me!  You must live according to the way I have instructed you in My laws.  You must pay attention to the exhortations of My servants the prophets.  I have sent them to you over and over again.  But you have not paid any attention to them’.” (26:4-5) 

Similar things are to be heard from Jesus.  He says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).  Jesus is found to be lamenting and saying, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you!” (Matthew 23:37a)  In addition to that, one can read the “Parable of the Tenants”  in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which reflects the theme of the rejection of the Creator God’s prophets.  As is reported, this parable produced anger on the part of the temple authorities (chief priests and elders), as they realized, apparently quite astutely, that it was spoken about them. 

Returning to Jeremiah, one continues to hear the covenant God speaking and says “If you do not obey Me, then I will do to this temple what I did to Shiloh.  And I will make this city an example to be used in curses by people from all the nations on the earth” (26:6).  As Jesus consistently points to Himself, His ways, and His kingdom as the locus of a needful obedience, and as one considers the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple that came about at the hands of the Romans, one would do well to hear His voice in these words out of Jeremiah. 

What is said to have been the experience of Jeremiah as a result of the words of the Creator God that he is reported to have delivered to the people of Judah?  It is said that “The priests, the prophets, and all the people heard Jeremiah say these things in the Lord’s temple.  Jeremiah had just barely finished saying all the Lord had commanded him to say to all the people.  All at once some of the priests, the prophets, and the people grabbed him and shouted, ‘You deserve to die!’” (26:7-8) 

It is possible to see that this was not at all unlike that which was experienced by Jesus when He spoke against the Temple and its ruling authorities.  Furthermore, the reader of the Gospel hears what Jesus would eventually endure in the sneering questioning of His authority to act and speak in a way that was perceived to be against the Temple, as Jeremiah hears “How dare you claim the Lord’s authority to prophesy such things!  How dare you claim His authority to prophesy that this temple will become like Shiloh and that this city will become an uninhabitable ruin!” (26:9)        

Law To Become Void (part 1)

But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tiny stroke of a letter in the law to become void. – Luke 16:17  (NET)

Before Jesus gets to the words presented above, He told a story about a manager that had been irresponsible in the handling and management of the assets of his master.  Without here delving too deeply into the parable itself, it can be posited that his irresponsibility eventually resulted in dishonesty, though this dishonesty was heavily dependent upon the prevailing and determinative honor and shame culture, as the steward ultimately pins his hopes on his master’s concern about his own honor standing in the community. 

Unfortunately, to the western reader, there are a number of nuances to that particular parable that escape notice, including the fact that the initial termination of the steward in the story would not necessarily be understood as an event of finality, but rather, the beginning of a negotiation, which would have most likely ended up with the steward not losing his position.  Because it is the world in which they walked, and as they were steeped in the honor and shame culture and the push and pull that goes along with that, Jesus’ audience would have been able to grasp these nuances almost inherently---as familiar as breathing. 

After telling the parable, Jesus says, “The one who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and the one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much” (16:10).  As Jesus continues to point back to the one framed as the dishonest manager, He says, “If then you haven’t been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will entrust you with the true riches? (16:11) 

As one considers the application and interpretation of the parable that is provided by Jesus, it is necessary to remember that this particular story, and its application, follows the three parables of the fifteenth chapter of Luke (the parables of the sheep, the coin, and the “prodigal”).  Along with that, one must consider Jesus’ audience, and that He is reported to be speaking to “the Pharisees and the experts in the law” (15:2a), who had offered up the complaint that Jesus “welcomes sinners and eats with them” (15:2b). 

This particular accusation was true, as Luke begins his record of Jesus’ dealings in this section of the telling of his story with “Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming to hear Him” (15:1).  So when Jesus is speaking about those who are faithful in a little and dishonest in a little, His original audience, along with the audience of Luke’s Gospel, must keep in mind that He is directing His comments towards the Pharisees and the experts in the law.  The same is true of His statements concerning the handling of worldly wealth and the true riches. 

Considering the nature of His audience, Jesus’ comments were quite direct, as He continued on to say “And if you haven’t been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you your own?” (16:12)  With the clear statement at the beginning of the fifteenth chapter in regards to the Pharisees, who were the self-appointed (in many respects) guardians of the law and the traditions of the elders, and their being included with the experts in the law, it is reasonable to surmise that Jesus is reprimanding these groups in regard to their handling of the law.  

Unrighteous Judge (part 1 of 2)

And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says.” – Luke 18:6  (ESV)

What did the unrighteous judge say?  Backing up a couple verses, we find the judge saying, “Though I neither fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will give her justice, so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming” (18:4-5).  Not only does the judge say this of himself, but this is what is reported of him in the second verse, which tells us that “he neither feared God nor respected man” (18:2b).  The widow in this parable was one that kept coming to him and saying “Give me justice against my adversary” (18:3b).  After reporting the words of both the widow and the judge, we find Jesus saying, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says” (18:6).  From there, He goes on to say, “And will not God give justice to His elect, who cry to Him day and night?  Will He delay long over them?” (18:7). 

When we look at the verses of this parable, it is natural for us to see Jesus shifting His focus following His statement about what the unrighteous judge has said.  It is natural, because believers tend to think of themselves as God’s elect and the ultimate recipients and beneficiaries of God’s justice.  However, it is possible to reframe the statement in a way that finds Him continuing along the same path without a shift in the focus of His message.  Before doing that, it is necessary to consider the context of the setting.  The context is His being asked by the Pharisees a question concerning the kingdom of God, and when it would come.  In response, Jesus told them that “the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (17:21b).  Based on the wider perspective of Luke’s Gospel and its kingdom movement, we know that with this statement, Jesus was talking about His kingdom.

With that as the context, and with Jesus’ antagonism of the Pharisees and the rulers of the people a recurring theme throughout the Gospels, it is possible to see Jesus casting the nation of Israel itself in the role of the “unrighteous judge.”  How can this be?  Israel had been charged with extending the blessings of God’s covenant to all peoples.  This was to be done, at least partially, through their keeping of the law, which would bring them untold blessings, and cause the Gentiles to come to Israel to find the source of their blessings, through which they would receive the knowledge of God.  Israel had not done this.  They had forsaken their Creator God.  Repeatedly, their history informs us that they had turned to idols.  They had been destroyed and exiled, and even though a portion of the people had been returned to their land, they were still under the heel of oppressive rulers, which was what God had promised to them if they forsook His covenant.  In this, it could be said that they neither feared God nor respected man, because they did not keep their God’s laws and they did not care to be a light to the Gentiles for the glory of their God. 

So if Israel is the unjust judge, then the widow is all of the Gentile nations, coming to Israel that they may know Israel’s Lord.  If we frame the parable in this way, we can see that any keeping of the covenant that extended God’s blessings beyond the people of Israel, so that they might be bestowed on Gentile nations (the families of the earth), was done reluctantly and with an eye towards nothing more than self-preservation, rather than the glorification of God. 

Keeping in mind the Pharisees’ question about the Kingdom of God, and our positioning of Israel as the unjust judge, we can then move on to the questioning statements “And will not God give justice to His elect, who cry to Him day and night?  Will He delay long over them?” (18:7).  We can hear this as a question concerning Israel’s total restoration from their cursing and what was really a continuing exile, since the land of promise was not truly their own.  The words of the unjust judge represent Israel’s expectation of triumph over its oppressors and rulers, through their messiah, as they presume on their God, speaking of themselves in haughty terms as God’s elect, declaring that they are crying to Him day and night, and imploring God to cease His delay and return power to national Israel.