Category Archives: Luke

Posted on

The good Samaritan, part two: Luke 10:31-37

Verse 31: Priests tried to avoid unnecessary impurity from corpses (touching a corpse rendered one unclean for seven days), even though this one is leaving Jerusalem, hence not about to serve in the temple. Some Jews went so far as to teach that one could contract impurity if so much as one’s shadow touched the corpse! Because this priest is heading (presumably home) to Jericho, where many wealthy priests lived, he might be a wealthy priest.

32: Levites sought to avoid ritual impurity, although the standards for them were less strict than for priests (see 10:31).

33: Because some Jewish stories involved a priest, a Levite, and an Israelite, some suggest that Jesus’ first audience may have expected him to mention a lay Israelite next. Jews and Samaritans were mutually hostile, and religious justified their respective nationalisms.

34: People used oil medicinally and for washing wounds; they could also use wine to disinfect wounds. Sources suggest that strict Jewish people avoided Gentile oil, so they may have done the same with Samaritan oil. A donkey might have seated both men, unless (as is very possible for a donkey-owner) the Samaritan was a merchant with many wares.

The Samaritan instead leads the donkey, taking the inferior (even servile) position to help the Israelite. The possible allusion to 2 Chronicles 28:15 and its context would remind Jesus’ most biblically literate hearers of a common bond uniting two different kingdoms in the land.

35: “I will repay” appears as a common formula in ancient documents about debts. Because inns were known for immorality and innkeepers often mistrusted, his promise to pay more offered the innkeeper further incentive to tend to the wounded man.

37: Although the legal expert is reluctant to simply confess, “the Samaritan,” Jesus has forced him to answer his own question offered in 10:29.

(Adapted from Dr. Keener’s personal research. Used with permission from InterVarsity Press, which published similar research by Dr. Keener in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)

 

Posted on

The good Samaritan, part one: Luke 10:25-30

Verse 25: As this law-expert would know, students normally sat to listen to teachers, but might stand to ask a question or (normally only for non-students) to issue a challenge. How to inherit eternal life was a common subject of discussion in early Judaism.

26: Teachers frequently answered questions with questions. Rabbis often asked,”How do you read?”

27: Some other Jewish teachers gave answers like this (see also Jesus in Mark 12:29-31). Using the ancient Jewish interpretive principle of linking texts based on a common key word, it was natural for Jewish scholars to link Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 (both beginning with, “You shall love”).

28: Various passages in the law promise long life on the land for those who keep the commandments (Leviticus 18:5; Deuteronomy 4:1, 40; 8:1; 16:20; 30:6, 16-20). Many later Jewish interpreters reapplied this promise to involve eternal life, as here (cf. Lk 10:25).

29: Jewish people typically applied “neighbor‚” to “fellow Israelite.” While this was the immediate context of Leviticus 19:18, the rest of the context applies the principle to all non-Israelites (Leviticus 19:34).

30:  Jesus’ story deliberately confronts his audience’s values, forcing identification with a solitary merchant or a Samaritan, while Israel’s religious elite side with the bandits by default. Parables usually have a central point (though sometimes also some subsidiary points), so some details are present simply for the story’s setting, not communicating any symbolic meaning.

Jerusalem was higher in elevation than Jericho (thus the man goes “down”). Robbers were not uncommon on the steep, 17-mile downhill road; they naturally targeted especially those traveling alone. Although clothes were a valuable commodity, completely stripping him treated him like a corpse on a battlefield. In ancient texts, “half-dead” meant that, insofar as one could tell, the person was dead.

(Adapted from Dr. Keener’s personal research. Used with permission from InterVarsity Press, which published similar research by Dr. Keener in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)

 

Posted on

The crucifixion of Jesus — Luke 23:33-49

Verse 33: Crucifixion was meant to be death by slow torture; although a victim could die faster from shock due to blood loss, they could spend a few days dying of dehydration or perhaps asphyxiation. Hanging naked before crowds, unable to hold back one’s bodily waste or swat flies from wounds, was also meant to humiliate the victim.

34: Although there was biblical precedent to pray for vengeance (e.g., 2 Chron 24:22; Ps 139:7-9; Jer 15:15; 17:18; 18:23; 20:12), Jesus prays for his persecutors’ forgiveness (cf. Lk 6:28). Later rabbis said that those being executed were to confess their sins and pray, “May my death atone for all my sins.” Jesus instead refers to the sin of those who unjustly convicted him; false witnesses were biblically liable to the penalty they sought to inflict (Deut 19:18-19). Ancient biographers liked to parallel comparable figures; cf. Acts 7:60 in Luke’s second volume.

By custom, the soldiers could keep whatever possessions the executed person still had. For lots, see comment on Acts 1:26.

35: One of a naked crucifixion victim’s sufferings was normally public ridicule. Irony is common in ancient literature (here, Jesus does in fact save others, and his enemies sound like the devil in Luke 4:3, 6-7, 9).

36: Cheap, low-quality “sour wine” or “wine vinegar” could be offered to someone to dull their pain, but here is simply part of the mockery.

37: Their ridicule may reflect the anti-Judaism of the Syrian auxiliaries who comprised much of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem.

38: The condemned person sometimes carried the “titulus,” or statement of the charge, to the site of the execution. Posting it above Jesus contributes to the mockery.

42: This request offers another example of Luke’s theme of Jesus’ extraordinary practice of welcoming sinners.

43: Jewish sources often speak of “paradise” or “the garden of Eden” as the future dwelling of the righteous, in contrast with Gehenna, the destiny of the wicked. They proposed various locations for Paradise, such as in the third heaven or on the edge of the world (where some Greeks placed the Elysian Fields). They could use it for the abode of the righteous after death (as here) or after the resurrection.

44: In April, the “sixth hour” might begin shortly before noon. A person could spend days dying on the cross, but Jesus’ beating may have been particularly savage. The ninth hour, beginning shortly before 3 p.m., was also close to the time for the “evening” sacrifice in the temple. Darkness was one judgment on Egypt and recurs as a judgment in the prophets, sometimes for the end-time (due to locusts, smoke, etc.; e.g., Is 13:10; Ezek 30:3, 18; 32:7-8; Joel 2:2, 10, 31; 3:15; Amos 5:18; Zech 14:6). For darkness at noon as a judgment, cf. Deut 28:29; esp. Amos 8:9.

45: The temple curtain here probably is the one separating the holy of holies (the place of God’s presence) and the priestly sanctuary (Ex 26:33). Its rending might indicate that God now provides access for everyone to his presence (cf. Heb 6:19), but the context of judgment suggests that it likelier emphasizes God’s withdrawal from the temple (as in Ezek 10 to 11).

46: Later tradition suggests that Psalm 31:5 (the wording of which Jesus evokes here) was often recited at the time of the evening offering – roughly the time of Jesus’ death here.

47: “Innocent” is a natural corollary of Mark’s “Son of God.”

48: Beating one’s chest was a sign of extreme mourning (cf. 18:13). No public mourning (such as a funeral) was allowed after criminals died, so pious Jewish women may have offered this as the only consolation they could give the deceased.

49: Family and friends could attend an execution; the male disciples, however, could risk danger because they could be regarded as followers of the one convicted of treason. Most crosses were fairly close to the ground (in contrast to most modern pictures of the event), so no one was permitted too near lest they obstruct others’ view. That these women had often accompanied Jesus’ disciples could appear scandalous to some.

 

(Adapted from Dr. Keener’s personal research. Used with permission from InterVarsity Press, which published similar research by Dr. Keener in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)

Posted on

The Via Dolorosa: Jesus walks to the cross — Luke 23:26-32

Verse 26: Condemned persons normally carried their own crosses (technically, just the horizontal beam of the cross) out to the site of their execution. Here, however, someone else is drafted; Roman soldiers could draft bystanders to carry things for them (see comment on Matt 5:41).

Cyrene in North Africa had a massive Jewish community (as well as Greek and indigenous residents); many Jewish people used the name “Simon” (which resembled the patriarchal name “Simeon”). Jewish pilgrims (and presumably a few God-fearers) came from throughout the Empire for Passover. (Given the Passover context, when work would be forbidden, Simon cannot be “coming from the field” because he was working there; Jerusalem was so full of pilgrims that many had to seek lodging in surrounding villages.)

27: Authorities derived propaganda value from public executions, and crowds normally turned up to view them. Although official public mourning (as at a funeral service) was forbidden for a condemned person, no one would stop women from mourning in the streets. Women were expected to express lamentation more freely and dramatically than men, and they were less subject to public punishment. (Later rabbinic tradition claims that Jerusalem’s pious women offered a narcotic drink to dull the pain of the person being executed.)

28: “Daughters of Jerusalem” naturally enough refers to Jerusalem’s women, but might also recall some OT judgment oracles (for example, Isaiah 3:16). “Mourn for yourselves” also recalls judgment oracles (e.g., Isaiah 32:9-14; Joel 1:5).

29: Other Jewish sources use similar language for the lament a mother would utter when her children died. During the siege of Jerusalem a generation later, Josephus reports that some women became so hungry that they ate their children (cf. Deut 28:53).

30: Jesus recalls here OT judgment oracles (Hoseah 10:8; Isaiah 2:10, 19-21).

31: Dry wood would catch fire much more easily than green wood. This could mean that if Rome reacted thus to Jesus, how much more would they punish genuine revolutionaries? Or that if Jerusalem’s leaders treated Jesus this way, how much greater would be the violence against genuine threats (Jewish people fought each other as well as Romans in 66-70)? Or it could simply indicate that Jerusalem is becoming more ripe for judgment (cf. Luke 21:24, 29-30).

32: Authorities preferred to execute people on festivals, when the executions would warn the greatest number of people against rebellion. Executing several prisoners at once also simplified the soldiers’ duties.

 

(Adapted from Dr. Keener’s personal research. Used with permission from InterVarsity Press, which published similar research by Dr. Keener in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)

Posted on

The illegal trial of Jesus — Luke 22:52-69

Verses 52-53: Romans distrusted subversives who acted secretly at night; here it is Jesus’ enemies, not Jesus, who act this way. People popularly associated night with evil, demons and witchcraft.

54: Taking Jesus at night to the high priest’s private home breached ancient legal protocol (both Jewish and Roman).

55: The guards, perhaps servants, may have planned to stay awake late for Passover, but some guards had to remain on watch during night in any case. To trespass on the high priest’s property required great courage from Peter.

56: Even in this household with many servants, the slave girl would (as we may infer from similar cases in antiquity) recognize that Peter did not belong to the household; he would also be clothed differently from the guards. (Residing in the Upper City and working for a priestly household, she might have seen Peter with Jesus in the temple courts.)

59: Galileans were noted for mispronouncing (from a Judean perspective) guttural sounds. Regional accents were hard to conceal (cf. Judges 12:6).

63: Jewish law did not allow mocking and beating a person before trial.

64: They may view Jesus as guilty of the crime of being a false prophet, misleading Israel (Deut 13:1-5).

66: Whatever informal deliberations may have occurred earlier, a daylight hearing was necessary for any semblance of legality. The groups noted here together constituted the Sanhedrin, Jerusalem’s municipal senate and the land’s highest Jewish court. Later tradition assigns to the Sanhedrin 71 members (including the high priest), seated in a semicircle around the high priest in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. In this period they must have met very close to the temple (see comment on Acts 23:10, 15). Not every member was necessarily present on every occasion, and especially during a festival this may be a specially called meeting of select members (cf. Luke 23:51).

67: For the Sanhedrin, demanding whether Jesus was “Messiah” was tantamount to asking whether he would challenge Rome, hence disturb the peace and their security (cf. 23:2). Yet later reports of Jewish law suggest that one could not force a prisoner to convict himself. A prophet could speak the truth while doubting that his hearers would accept it (Jeremiah 38:15).

69: Jesus is not a conventional “messiah” figure but the universal ruler of Dan 7:13-14. Luke simplifies the Jewish divine circumlocution “power” (Mk 14:62) for his Greek audience less familiar with it.

 

(Adapted from Dr. Keener’s personal research. Used with permission from InterVarsity Press, which published similar research by Dr. Keener in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)

Posted on

Zaccheus meets Jesus — Luke 19:1-10

Verse 2: As a border city, Jericho had a customs station. As one of Palestine’s wealthiest cities, in Judea’s most fertile region, Jericho would provide particularly lucrative tax business. It had a massive sunken garden, a Herodian palace (especially for winter use, given the inviting climate) and other wealthy domiciles. As a “chief” tax gatherer, Zaccheus would hire lower tax collectors and would contract for sales and customs taxes. But while Zaccheus could thus have acquired wealth without cheating, he apparently cheated anyway (19:8).

3: Many men in this era were about five feet tall, so Zaccheus would be shorter than this. People often paid more attention to tall people (though Zaccheus by virtue of his office commanded attention).

4: Unlike the Judean hill country, Jericho had a pleasant climate throughout the year. It was known especially for its palm trees (hence one of its traditional titles, Deut 34:3; 2 Chron 28:15) but also had many other trees, including sycamores. The kind of “sycamore” mentioned here resembles a fig tree and was easy to climb; it differs from the North American sycamore and European and Asian sycamore maple.Although houses in OT Jericho were closely packed, NT Jericho hosted spacious villas and parks, so a tree was handier than a rooftop.

5: Regardless of one’s status, one did not normally invite oneself to another’s home. Also unusual is Jesus’ willingness to accept table fellowship, which normally created a bond of friendship. Pharisees would not trust the table of a tax gatherer, because anyone unreligious enough to collect taxes certainly could not be trusted to tithe foodstuffs.

Jewish people recognized that one who could call the name of a person they had not met was a prophet. Because the journey to Jerusalem from Jericho was about 17 miles uphill (nearly a day’s journey), Jesus may have preferred to let his disciples rest in a place with sufficient accommodations before continuing their journey.

8: Zaccheus’ promise to make restitution treats his exploitation as theft (Ex 22:1-4). Pharisees, who tended to be lenient on legal punishments, required four- or fivefold restitution only for stolen oxen or sheep that were slaughtered or sold, and only if this was verified by witnesses. Zaccheus goes beyond this. Moreover, Judaism traditionally thought of restitution to receive forgiveness, but here it responds to grace instead of invites it.

Zaccheus could not imprison someone on his own authority, but he could make false reports to produce that outcome; his office would thus have given him power to intimidate and secure his demands, if he wished to do so.

9: Jewish people believed that God had made a covenant with Abraham’s descendants, so that most were destined for life except those who broke God’s covenant.

10: In Ezek 34:6, 11, when the leaders of God’s people failed to care for the sheep, God himself sought out the lost sheep.

(Adapted from Dr. Keener’s personal research. Used with permission from InterVarsity Press, which published similar research by Dr. Keener in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)

 

Posted on

The prodigal son — Luke 15

15:11-12.   To  ask  one’s  father for one’s  share of  the  inheritance early was unheard of in antiquity; in effect, one would  thereby say, “Father, I wish you were already dead.” Such a statement would not go over  ell even to­day,  and in a society  stressing  obedience to one’s father it  would be a serious act of rebellion (Deut  21:18-21) for which  the father could have beaten him or  worse.

That  the  father grants the  request  means that most of the hearers will not identify with the father  in this parable;  from the  start, they would think of him as stupidly lax to pamper such an immoral son.

The eldest son always received a double portion (Deut   21:17);  in this case, he would have received two­ thirds of the inheritance and the younger brother one-third.

15:13.  Jewish  law did permit a father to determine which assets (especially land) would go to which sons before he died, but they could take possession only on the father’s death: the father was manager and received the land’s profits until then. Thus this son could know what  would be his but could not legally sell his assets; he does it anyway.

Many Palestinian Jews migrated, seeking fortune in less economically pressed areas. The younger son is presumably no older than 18 (he was unmarried) and had an older brother; he would thus have had little experience in managing finances. Moralists considered squandering very evil.

15:14.    Famine was a common devastating  feature of the ancient economy. (People often viewed famines as divine judgments, but because  Jesus’ story does not address the famine area as a whole,  it does not apply this perspective to the story line.)

15:15.    At this point,  Jesus’ Jewish hearers are ready for the story to end (like a similar second-century Jewish story): the son gets what  he deserves­- he is reduced to the horrendous level of feeding the most unclean of animals. The son is cut off at this point from the Jewish community and any financial charity  it would otherwise offer  him.

15:16. Some commentators have suggested that  the “pods” here are the kind of carob pods that Israel would eat only  in  famine, which  some teachers said drove Israel to repentance. Others argue that these are prickly, wild pods that only swine’s snouts could reach.  Neither pod was considered appetizing, and given pigs’ proverbially unclean eating  habits, the thought of eating  pigs’ food would  disgust  Jesus’ hearers. That the young  man is jealous of pigs’ fare also suggests that he is not receiving fair wages (cf. 15:17).

15:17.    “Hired  men” could be either slaves rented for hire or free servants working for pay; either one  suggests that  his father is well-to-do.

15:18-19. Jewish people often used “heaven” as a respectful way of saying “God.” The son here  returns simply out of  hunger and  the belief that his father may feed  him as a servant, not because he is genuinely sorry that he disgraced his father. Given the magnitude of his sin and the squandering of one-third of his father’s life’s earnings, Jewish hearers might  regard his return as an act of  incredible presumption rather than humility.

15:20.    It was a breach of an elderly Jewish man’s dignity to run, though familial love could take priority over dignity after a long  absence. Given the normal garb, the father would have to pull up his skirt  to run. Kissing was appropriate for family members or intimate friends.

15:21-22.  The best robe in the house would  belong to the father himself. The ring would probably be a family signet  ring- a symbol of reinstatement to sonship in a well-to-do house. Slaves did not  normally wear sandals,  though they carried and tied a master’s sandals. The father is saying, “No, I won’t receive you back as a servant. I’ll receive you only as a son.”

15:23.    The  calf would be enough to feed the whole  village; this would be a big party! Aristocratic families often invited  the whole town to  a banquet when a son attained adulthood (about thirteen years old) or a child married.

15:24. Ancient writers sometimes bracketed off a section of their work by repeating a particular line; this bracketing off is called an inclusio. So far this parable has followed the course of the two that preceded it (15:3-10),  but 15:24-32 are bracketed off to address the climactic issue: the elder brother represents Jesus’ religious  accusers (15:2).

15:25-28.  Dancing was used in both religious and nonreligious celebrations. Elder brothers were to reconcile differences between fathers and younger brothers, but here the elder brother, returning at the end of  a long  day’s work, refuses even to enter the house. This is also a grievous insult  to the father’s dignity  and could have warranted a beating (cf. 15:12).

15:29-30.   Failing to greet one’s father with a title  (e.g., “Father, “Sir”;  contrast  even 15:12) was a grievous insult to the father’s dignity.  The elder brother here is a transparent metaphor for  the Pharisees, and the younger brother for  the sinners with whom Jesus was eating  (15:1-2).

15:31-32.  Religious Judaism in this period considered prostitution sinful; both Jewish and non-Jewish sources considered squandering property, especially someone else’s (16:1), sinful. Because the inheritance had been divided, the elder brother was already assured  of his share, effective on the father’s death  (15:12);  he had nothing to lose by his brother’s return. The  final response of the elder  brother is never stated, providing the  Pharisees with the  opportunity to repent if they are willing.

(Adapted from The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)

 

Posted on

The rich man and Lazarus — Luke 16:19-31

This story resembles a rabbinic story of uncertain date, except that there the rich man did a good deed and made it into the world  to come; here he allows starvation while he lives in luxury, and thus  inherits hell. Some details about the afterlife here are standard features of Jewish tradition; a few are simply necessary to make the story line work (acceptable practice in the telling of parables).

16:19.   Purple was an especially expensive form of apparel  (cf. comment on Acts 16:14); the lifestyle Jesus describes here is one of ostentatious luxury.  Although this man may have become rich by immoral means (as people often  did), the only crime Jesus attributes to him is that he let Lazarus starve to death when he could have prevented it.

16:20.   Some Jewish parables (including the rabbinic one mentioned at the beginning of this section) named a character or two.

16:21.   The crumbs here may be regular crumbs or the pieces of bread used to sop up the table. Had Lazarus gotten to eat them, these  leftovers would  still have been insufficient to sustain him. The dogs here appear to be the  usual kind  Palestinian Jews  knew:  scavengers, viewed as if they were rats or other unhealthy creatures (also in the Old  Testament, e.g.,  1 Kings  14:11; 16:4; 21:24; 22:38). They were unclean, and their  tongues would  have  stung his sores.

16:22-23.  Jewish lore often speaks of the righteous being carried away by angels; Jesus spares his hearers the traditional corresponding image of the wicked being carried  away  by demons. Every person, no matter how poor, was to receive a burial, and not  to be buried was seen as  terrible   (e.g., 1 Kings 14:13).  But Lazarus, having neither rel­atives nor charitable patron,  did not receive one,  whereas the rich man would have received great eulogies. True Israelites and especially martyrs were expected to share with Abraham in the world to come. The  most  hon­ored seat in a banquet would be nearest the  host,  reclining  in such a way that one’s head was near  his bosom.

16:24-26.  Jewish literature often  portrayed  hell as involving  burning. The formerly rich man hopes for mercy be­cause he is a descendant of Abraham (see comment on 3:8),  but the judgment here is based on a future inver­sion of status. Jewish people expected an inversion of status, where the oppressed righteous (especially Israel) would be exalted above the oppressing wicked  (especially the Gentiles), and also believed that charitable persons would be greatly rewarded in the world to come.  But this parable specifies only economic inversion, and its starkness would have been as offensive to most first-century hearers of means as it would be to most middle-class Western Christians today if they  heard it in its original  force.

16:27-31.  If those who claimed to believe the Bible failed to live accordingly, even a resurrection (Jesus points ahead to his own) would not persuade them. Jewish  literature also emphasized the moral responsibility of all people to obey whatever measure of light they already had.

(Adapted from The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)

 

 

Posted on

The lost sheep, lost coin and prodigal son in Luke 15:18-32

The religious elite were angry with Jesus for spending time with tax-gatherers and sinners; after all, Scripture warned against spending time with ungodly people (Ps 1:1; Prov 13:20).  The difference, of course, is that Jesus is spending time with sinners to influence them for the kingdom, not to be shaped by their ways (Lk 15:1-2).

Jesus answered the religious elite by telling them three stories: the story of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son.  A hundred was roughly an average sized flock, and when one sheep strayed the shepherd would do whatever necessary to recover it.  (He could leave his other sheep with fellow shepherds who would watch over their flocks together with him.  Sheep would often roam together and be separated by their shepherds’ distinctive calls or flutes.)  When he finds what was lost, he calls his friends together to rejoice, and Jesus says it is the same way with God: those who are really his friends rejoice with him when he regains what was lost (15:3-7).  The implication seems to be that the religious elite are not God’s friends, or they would be rejoicing.

Jesus then turns to the story of the lost coin.  If a woman had ten coins as her dowry, the money she had brought into her marriage in case of divorce or widowhood, she was a very poor woman indeed: ten coins represented about ten days’ wages for the average working man.  In any case, one out of ten is more than one out of a hundred, and she is desperate to find the coin!  Most small, one-room Galilean homes had floors of roughly fitted stones, so coins and other objects routinely fell between the cracks and remained lost until excavated by modern archaeologists!  Further, most of these homes had at most one small window and a doorway, so there was little light to help her find her coin.  She thus lights a lamp, but in this period most lamps were small enough to hold in the palm of one’s hand, and these did not provide much light.  So she sweeps with a broom, hoping to hear it tinkle–and finally, she finds it!  Her friends rejoice with her, just as God’s friends rejoice with him–implying, again, that perhaps the religious elite are not among God’s friends (15:8-10).

Jesus then turns to the story of the lost son.  The younger son says to his father, “I want my share of the inheritance now.”  In that culture, the son was virtually declaring, “Father, I wish you were dead”–the epitome of disrespect.  The father was under no obigation to divide his inheritance, but he divided it anyway; the elder brother would have received two thirds and the younger one third.  Under ancient law, by dividing the inheritance the father simply was telling them which fields and items each would get after his decease; the son could not legally spend the estate before then.  But this son does it anyway; he flees to a far country and wastes his father’s years of work.  In the end, however, reduced to poverty, he has to feed pigs; for Jesus’ Jewish hearers, this was a fitting end for such a rebellious son, and a fitting end for the story.  If the young man were involved with pigs, he would be unclean and not even be able to approach fellow Jews for help!

But the young man decides that he would rather be a servant in his father’s house than starve, so he returns home to beg for mercy.  His father, seeing him a long way off, runs to meet him.  In that culture, it was considered undignified for older men to run, but this father discards his dignity; his son has come home!  The son tries to plead that he might be a slave, but the father ignores him, instead calling for the best robe in the house–undoubtedly his own; and a ring for the young man’s finger–undoubtedly a signet ring, symbolizing his reinstatement to sonship; and sandals for his feet–because most servants did not wear sandals, the father is saying, “No, I will not receive you as a servant!  I will receive you only as my son!”  The fatted calf was enough food to feed the entire village, so he throws a big party, and all his friends rejoice with him.

So far the story has paralleled the two stories that preceded it, but now Jesus goes further, challenging the religious elite more directly.  Ancient literature sometimes framed an important paragraph by starting and ending on the same statement, here that his lost son has come home (15:24, 32).  When the elder brother discovers that the father has welcomed home his younger brother, he has nothing to lose economically; the inheritance was already divided (15:12).  The problem is that he regards as unfair his father celebrating the return of a rebellious son when he himself needed no mercy; he thought himself good enough without his father’s mercy.  He protests to his father, refusing to greet him with a title, reducing the father to coming out and begging him to come in.  He is now disrespecting his father just as much as the younger brother had earlier!  “I have been serving you,” he protests (15:29), thereby revealing that he saw himself as a servant rather than a son–the very role the father refused to consider acceptable (15:21-22).

The religious elite despised the “sinners” who were coming to Jesus, not realizing that their hearts were no better.  The sinners were like the younger brother, the religious elite like the older one.  All of us need Jesus; none can be saved without God’s mercy.

Posted on

Let the dead bury the dead: the demands of discipleship in Luke 9:58-62

Warning a prospective disciple that the Son of Man has less of a home than foxes and birds indicates that those who follow him may lack the same securities.  Disciples usually sought out their own teachers (in contrast to Jesus, who called some of his own).  Some radical philosophers who eschewed possessions sought to repulse prospective disciples with enormous demands, for the purpose of testing them and acquiring only the most worthy disciples.  Many Palestinian Jews were poor, but few were homeless; Jesus had given up even home to travel and was completely dependent on the hospitality and support of others.

The man who wants to bury his father is not asking for a short delay: his father has not died that day or the day before.  Family members carried the body to the tomb shortly after its death and then remained at home for seven days to mourn.  The man could be saying, as in some similar Middle Eastern cultures, “Let me wait until my father dies someday and I fulfill my obligation to bury him.”

The other possibility is that he refers to his father’s second burial, a custom practiced precisely in this period.  A year after the first burial, after the flesh had rotted off the bones, the son would return to rebury the bones in a special box in a slot in the wall.  This son could thus be asking for as much as a year’s delay.

One of an eldest son’s most basic responsibilities was his father’s burial.  Jesus’ demand that the son place Jesus above the greatest responsibility a son could offer his father would thus have defied the social order: in Jewish tradition, honoring father and mother was one of the greatest commandments, and to follow Jesus in such a radical way would have seemed like breaking this commandment.

But while the second inquirer learned the priority of following Jesus, the third learns the urgency of following Jesus.  One prospective disciple requests merely permission to say farewell to his family, but Jesus compares this request with looking back from plowing, which would cause one to ruin one’s furrow in the field.  Jesus speaks figuratively to remind his hearer of the story of Elisha’s call.  When Elijah found Elisha plowing, he called him to follow him, but allowed him to first bid farewell to his family (1 Kings 19:19-21).  The Old Testament prophets sacrificed much to serve God’s will, but Jesus’ call here is more radical than that of a radical prophet!  Although we must beware of others who sometimes misrepresent Jesus’ message, we must be willing to pay any price that Jesus’ call demands on our lives.