16:16 The era of promise lasted until John, and now with the arrival of Jesus the kingdom is being proclaimed; thus people must make every effort to enter it. “The Law and the Prophets” stands for the OT Scriptures (cf. Luke 9:30; 16:31; 24:27, 44; Matt. 5:17; 7:12; John 1:45; Acts 26:22; Rom. 3:21), and the Law and the Prophets were in force until the Baptist began to prophesy. We must understand what is being said here covenantally. The OT Scriptures continue to be the revelation of God and are authoritative as his Word, but believers in the new era live no longer under the old covenant but under the new. The OT Scriptures contain the laws of the covenant under which Israel lived, and they point to the promise of Christ Jesus. In the statement that the OT prophets were “until John,” is John included with the OT era or with the era of the kingdom? The word “until” can be interpreted to defend either view. Luke probably intends to place John into neither period explicitly; John should be understood as a transitional figure. In one sense he belongs to the OT age in that he points to the Christ, but in another sense he belongs to the new era in that he proclaims the imminent coming of the kingdom.

But now the new era has arrived; the proclamation of the good news of the kingdom has commenced, especially with the coming of Jesus Christ. Isaiah proclaimed the coming of the kingdom, the good news that God would reign over his people in a saving way (cf. also Zeph. 3:14–20), that a new exodus was coming (Isa. 40:9; 52:7), a new creation was dawning (Isa. 65:17; 66:22). Israel would see “the king in his beauty” (Isa. 33:17), and Jerusalem would be saved. A new David would arise and deliver the people of God (Isa. 9:2–7; 11:1–10; 55:3; cf. Jer. 23:5–6; 30:9; 33:15–26; Ezek. 34:23–24; 37:24–25; Hos. 3:5; Amos 9:11). These kingdom promises were beginning to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, as he emphasized to John the Baptist (Luke 7:18–23) and proclaimed at the outset of his ministry (4:18–21).

The coming of the kingdom means that it is an hour of decision; entrance into the kingdom is not automatic. Everyone must choose whether he or she will follow Jesus, which means that all must make a radical decision for the kingdom. The word translated “forces his way” (Gk. biazetai) is the subject of controversy. It could be translated as passive, which would mean that the kingdom suffers violence from outsiders. Still, in this context the emphasis is on the active decision people must make, and this is reflected in English translations: “Everyone is urgently invited to enter it” (CSB); “Every man presseth into it” (KJV); “Everyone is forcing his way into it” (NASB); “Everyone is urged to enter it” (NET); “Everyone is eager to get in” (NLT); “Everyone tries to enter it by force” (NRSV); “Every one enters it violently” (RSV). Garland’s rendering, “Everyone is being pressed to enter it,” ends up with the same basic meaning: it is an urgent call to make a decision.187 The coming of the kingdom, as Luke has repeatedly emphasized, is the time of crisis for all. Here we see the relationship with the text on riches in which one must either serve God or wealth (16:13). And we see in verses 19–31 that the rich man does not see it is the crisis hour and thus ends up in torment. The kingdom is being proclaimed by Jesus, and people must make a radical decision and choose to be his disciples.

16:17 The newness of the kingdom is emphasized in verse 16, but here we see that the newness of the kingdom does not cancel the Law and the Prophets but instead fulfills them. A new day, a new era, has come, which means discontinuity with the past, as Luke himself testifies elsewhere. Food laws are no longer required for believers in Jesus Christ (Acts 10:1–11:18); circumcision is no longer the initiation rite for entering the people of God (Acts 15:1–29). The coming of Jesus Christ means that believers are no longer under the old covenant, the covenant made with Israel. The stipulations of that covenant are no longer required for believers in Jesus Christ. Still, a wrong conclusion could be drawn, as if the OT were irrelevant with the coming of the kingdom. The entire law continues as the authoritative Word of God. The importance of the OT is underscored in hyperbolic terms; every detail, every letter or hook or projection on the letters, continues to be valid (cf. Matt. 5:18). This is a reference to “something projecting like a horn and may refer to a serif of a Hebrew letter that distinguishes it from a similar letter. It is not some insignificant squiggle, since it is a crucial mark that denotes that letter is intended.”188 The present cosmos would have to end (“heaven and earth” would have to “pass away”) before the law would be canceled. The law does not apply with the coming of the kingdom in precisely the same way it did before the kingdom was inaugurated, but the coming of the kingdom does not nullify the law but instead fulfills it. The law is actually understood in its fullest sense when we see that it has pointed to Jesus Christ all along.

16:18 This teaching on divorce surfaces unexpectedly, and its interpretation is controverted. We must also ask how it fits in the present context. The link is probably that Jesus’ teaching on divorce does not contravene the OT but fulfills what the OT itself teaches—and how this is the case will be explored as the verse is unpacked. The central meaning of the verse is not difficult. If a husband divorces his wife and marries another woman, he commits adultery. So too, a man who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery. What is being taught here is interpreted in various ways. Some argue that divorce is justified for sexual immorality (Matt. 5:31–32; 19:9) or desertion (1 Cor. 7:12–16) but that remarriage is always forbidden. Space is lacking here to delve into these matters fully, but some argue that remarriage is forbidden because the exception in Matthew 5:32; 19:9 applies only to divorce and not to remarriage.189 Another interpretation is that the Matthean exception relates to sexual sin during the betrothal period, such as we see when Joseph decides to put Mary aside before the angel reveals to him that her child was from the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18–25).190

On first glance, then, the Lukan view eliminates any grounds for remarriage, but I suggest that the most natural way of reading Matthew 5:31–32; 19:3–12; and 1 Corinthians 7:12–16 indicates that sexual immorality and desertion are legitimate grounds for divorce and remarriage. A reference to sexual sin in the betrothal period is scarcely clear in Matthew, and the apostle could have made such clear if he desired to speak of reasons to break an engagement. Nor is it clear in the Greek that the exception clause in Matthew refers only to divorce and not to remarriage. The most natural way to take the text is to see a reference to divorce and remarriage, and thus remarriage is permissible in cases of sexual sin or desertion.191 Luke 16:18, then, represents mainstream teaching of Jesus: divorce and remarriage constitute adultery. The issue is whether there are exceptions, and Luke’s purpose in one verse is not to adjudicate that question. Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage fulfills the OT in that God created males and females in his image (Gen. 1:26–27), and he created the man and woman to become one flesh in marriage (Gen. 2:24). The bond between the man and the woman was to be exclusive and permanent. Provision is made for divorce (Deut. 24:1–4), but divorce is never ideal. Still, in some situations it is permissible. Thus when we read that the man who divorces and remarries is guilty of adultery, this means that divorce and remarriage are adulterous if legitimate grounds for divorce are absent. Similarly, a man who marries a divorced woman is guilty of adultery if the woman divorced without a biblical cause. But if a woman divorces because her husband was sexually unfaithful or deserted her, a man does not commit adultery when he marries her.