1. They needed to consider the judgment to come. First, He mentioned the judgment He would render—to cast fire (12:49), and then He referred to the judgment that He Himself would suffer—a baptism to undergo (12:50). Jesus tied the two events together because the latter, His suffering on the cross, is the only way for men and women to escape the former (1Th 5:9). “Jesus’ commitment to God’s will was total. He was completely governed by the desire to complete his baptism, even though it meant suffering death in Jerusalem (Lk 13:32–33)” (Stein, Luke, 365).

2. The disciples needed to know the division that serving Jesus would bring (12:51-53; cf. Mc 7:6). “With Jesus’ arrival comes a period of decision and crisis for people and between people” (Bock, Luke, 1192). This division will reach to the most intimate levels—even among families.

3. They needed to be discerning about the nature of the times (12:54-56). The time for repentance was running out. They were hypocrites who could discern the weather but claimed to be unable to discern the meaning of Jesus’ ministry—this present time (12:56).

4. They needed to settle (temporal) accounts quickly (12:57-59). The point here appears to be that disciples must not be found fussing over temporal matters when the Lord returns. Disciples should do whatever it takes to avoid spending their last dime or last hour before the Lord returns dealing with merely temporal concerns. “Because of the arrival of God’s kingdom (12:53–56), it [was] time to get one’s life in order and be reconciled to God (12:58)” (Stein, Luke, 367). In short, they were to get things settled with the earthly judges so they could prepare to face the heavenly One.

13:1-9. 5. They needed to repent—turn to God because of the uncertainty of life (13:1-5). Jesus’ teaching prompted a few in the crowd to report to Him an incident in which Pilate ruthlessly executed some Galileans, apparently as they were in the act of offering sacrifices. “They were killed as they were sacrificing” (Stein, Luke, 370). No known incident fits the exact picture indicated here (cf. Bock, Luke, 1205). Jesus did not take the occasion to excoriate Pilate, or offer a defense of God in the face of evil, or even to propose an explanation of why such tragedies happen at all. He rejected the idea that the deaths of these unfortunates were because (as many might suppose) they were especially notorious sinners. They were no more and no less sinful than anyone else. Jesus unnervingly affirmed that “the threat of a tragic end [was] present for all” (Bock, Luke, 1206). He even added another tragic, and in this case seemingly even more inexplicable, incident of calamitous death (13:4) to reinforce the point that His hearers should not waste time seeking to fathom the exigencies of (apparently capricious) events. Rather, they—as sinners themselves—should repent before God and be prepared for the eternity that looms after this unpredictable and often tragic existence. “The issue is not when death will happen or why, but avoiding a terminal fate with even greater consequences” (Bock, Luke, 1206).

6. Finally, they needed to produce fruit (show evidence of the working of God in their lives) soon (13:6-9; cf. Mc 7:1). The key to the point of this parable is not that the owner wanted to cut down the fruitless tree, but rather the advice of the vineyard-keeper to wait and give it a chance—with some care and tending—to produce fruit. Jesus’ hearers are warned that as of yet they have no fruit—but the Lord is longsuffering. Still, without fruit they can anticipate only judgment. The fig tree was often used as a symbol for the nation of Israel (cf. Mt 21:19; Mk 11:14), so there may be an application to that nation and to individuals who were fruitless (cf. Stein, Luke, 371). “Literally the parable’s ending is open ended, awaiting an appropriate response by those it represents” (Bock, Luke, 1210).

I. Six Features of Jesus’ Ministry (13:10-35)

13:10-35. Luke used this juncture to exhibit six features of Jesus’ ministry: (1) Jesus showed compassion by healing a woman on the Sabbath (13:10-13; for background on the Sabbath controversies, see the comments on Mt 12:1-14). (2) He dealt with opposition by facing down His critics (13:14-17). (3) He provided instruction in two parables that revealed the nature of the kingdom (13:18-21—when it comes the kingdom will be “extensive” and “pervasive”; see also the comments on Mt 13:31-33). (4) He gave a strong admonition to strive to enter the narrow way—that is come into a relationship with God through faith and trust Him alone (13:22-30; see also the comments on Mt 7:13-14). (5) He showed resolution to press on to Jerusalem to fulfill His mission (13:31-33). (6) He demonstrated His affection for the inhabitants of Jerusalem in His lamentation over the city (13:34-35; see also the comments on Mt 23:37-39). Here again, Luke mentioned that Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem (13:22).

J. Jesus at Dinner with a Pharisee (14:1-24)

14:1-6. Jesus did not refrain from meeting and even dining with His opponents. He used these opportunities to rebuke and instruct them. On this occasion Luke recorded Jesus’ attendance at a Sabbath dinner with one of the leaders of the Pharisees (14:1), “a synagogue head (8:41) or a higher official” (Bock, Luke, 1255). More than likely, a man suffering from dropsy (14:2; “‘dropsy’ is literally hydropikos, probably edema in which various parts of the body become filled with fluid”; Stein, Luke, 386) was present for the purpose of testing Jesus. Luke notes He was under the scrutiny of the opposition—they were watching Him closely (14:1). “The term means ‘to watch lurkingly’” (Bock, Luke, 1256), no doubt to find some cause to accuse Him of some infraction of their traditions. Jesus challenged His opposition with a question: “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?” (14:3; cf. 6:9; 13:16). Their silence allowed Him to proceed to heal the man. Jesus healed him with three actions: He took hold … He healed him … He sent him away (14:4), thus the miracle was firm, full, and final. Jesus concluded this encounter with an illustration of simple, commonsense kindness and humanitarianism (14:5) that made the unarguable (14:6) point that even Sabbath observance was subordinate to compassion.

14:7-15. Jesus then took the occasion to teach on humility (14:7-11), a quality apparently lacking in the other guests, and hospitality (14:12-14), a quality apparently lacking in his hosts. The simple principle behind both pericopes is that a concern for others should supersede a concern for oneself. Once again, Jesus taught His disciples to consider the eternal perspective. His disciples must wait to be exalted (cf. 14:11), and they must be generous and considerate of others in this life, expecting to be repaid at the resurrection (14:14).

14:16-17. Jesus followed this teaching with a parable about a big dinner (14:16-24). Apparently, Jesus’ teaching had had an effect on the guests—but not the effect He desired. In response to Jesus’ words a man cried, Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God (14:15). It is unclear if the man meant the “bread of Jesus’ teaching” (which he should have meant) or the physical bread of this Jewish (Sabbath) dinner (which he probably meant). This man was expressing the common assumption that only the Jews—the pious Jews—would be in the kingdom enjoying this feast. In response Jesus told this parable of a man who prepared a dinner and invited guests (14:16-17). Stein notes, “It was customary to extend two invitations. The first (as here v. 16) was to ‘make reservations’ and the second (cf. v. 17) to announce that the banquet was beginning” (Stein, Luke, 393).

14:18-24. Apparently, many of these invitees had accepted the first invitation, but they began to make excuses, and the excuses were superficial, insincere, and even insulting (14:18-20). “Such excuses are lame, even insulting, in light of the occasion and their previous willingness to come” (Bock, Luke, 1273). The man was angered by this disrespect, and in response he sent his slave to invite the poor, crippled, blind, lame (14:21). Even then there was still room, and so the man sent his slave out beyond the confines of his neighborhood. “To find these outcasts and afflicted takes effort, and so the servant searches the city” (Bock, Luke, 1275). There was still room, and so the slave was sent to the highways and along the hedges that lined the fields, and travelers were compelled—irresistibly drawn in to the feast (14:22-23), while the first invitees were shut out (14:24). The meaning and application of the parable became dramatically clear when Jesus revealed that He had been speaking of my dinner (14:24). In this parable Jesus made it clear that his hosts—the leaders of the nation—had in effect declined His invitation (to believe in Him) and that others (the Gentiles) would be invited to take their places. “The rejection of Jesus and the kingdom by official Judaism (14:24) precipitated the inclusion of Israel’s outcasts (4:18; 7:22) and the Gentiles (Acts 13:47–48; 18:6; 28:25–28). The great reversal had taken place” (Stein, Luke, 394; cf. Bock, Luke, 1277).

K. Jesus’ Teaching on Discipleship (14:25-35)

14:25-35. Even though large crowds followed Jesus (14:25), Jesus’ attention was on His own disciples. “Jesus wants those who are contemplating a relationship with Him to know what it means” (Bock, Luke, 1283). In His teaching to them He instilled several principles of true discipleship. The principle of “first loyalty” (14:26) is that devotion to Jesus must take precedence over all others. Jesus’ saying that His disciples are to hate their own relatives probably has the idea of “in comparison to their overriding devotion to Christ.” “Discipleship is fundamentally a call to allegiance. Jesus is to have first place over all, including family” (Bock, Luke, 1284). Next is the principle of “cross bearing” (14:27). A disciple must be willing to suffer (see also the comments on Mt 10:34-38). This is complete commitment to Christ that sets aside all personal ambition and gives oneself to the third principle, “counting the cost” (14:28-32). One must plan ahead and serve Christ prudently. Jesus illustrated this principle using the example of the “imprudent builder” (14:28-30) who began but could not complete his project, and by the example of the “prudent king” (14:31-32) who came to terms with an enemy he could not defeat. Next is the principle of “sacrifice” (14:33). The disciple must be willing to give up all temporal goods in service to Christ. The principle of “being salt” (14:34-35a) reveals that disciples are to have an “influence” on the world and not the other way around. Finally, the principle of “hearing with one’s ears” (14:35b) indicates that disciples are to do more than “hear Jesus’ words.” They are to follow through on these principles in their daily lives.

L. Three Parables of “Lost and Found” (15:1-32)

In this chapter Luke recorded three parables. One of them—the Prodigal Son—is among the best known and most beloved of all Jesus’ parables. The primary point of the parables, usually neglected in popular lessons on them, is that the religious leaders should not have been criticizing Jesus for seeking tax collectors and sinners (15:1; note how this verse introduces all three parables). God rejoices when such are “found,” and the sour attitude of the Pharisees and the scribes is condemned (as seen in the interaction between the father and the older brother in 15:25-32, which makes up nearly half of the parable, another point frequently neglected). A secondary, though admittedly important, theme of all three parables is that God rejoices when repentant sinners turn to Him and are “found.” “The way to God is through repentance. God’s arms are open to the person who will seek Him on His terms. God’s arms close around the child ready to run to Him and receive what He offers” (Bock, Luke, 1295). Another theme is the joy that comes when that which is lost is found.

1. Setting of the Parables (15:1-2)

15:1-2. The setting in which Jesus spoke these parables is important to the point of the parables. The tax collectors and the sinners, the ostracized, and the outcast, were coming to hear Jesus (15:1), and He received them. This provoked the Pharisees and the scribes who criticized Jesus for these associations. The parables explained why Jesus welcomed and fellowshipped with such people. The fourfold pattern—an item is lost, a search is made, the item is found, rejoicing follows—appears in each of the parables. This pattern is the pattern of salvation—sinners are lost, they are sought by Christ (cf. 19:10), they are found by God, rejoicing follows. Only in the parable of the Prodigal Son is the human responsibility to repent presented.

2. Parable of the Lost Sheep (15:3-7)

15:3-4. The parable of the lost sheep is best known for the numbers involved. Jesus put the hypothetical situation before His listeners. He imagined a man with a hundred sheep—ninety-nine were with him safe and secure while one has become lost (15:4a). In real life, the risk of leaving the ninety-nine in open pasture (lit., “wilderness”) would probably have been too great to go after the one which is lost (15:4b). Yet the caring shepherd did just that. He searched for the lost sheep until he found it (15:4c).

15:5-7. The tender picture of a shepherd carrying the sheep across his shoulders (15:5) would have heightened the point: the shepherd is the one who pursued, found, and retrieved the sheep. The initiative (of seeking) and the accomplishment (of finding) belong to the shepherd. When the sheep was found there was great joy. The picture of rejoicing—calling the neighbors, rejoicing over one lost, but found, sheep is to be understood as hyperbole. While an actual circumstance like this would surely be a cause for joy and relief (for the shepherd anyway), it is unlikely that the picture Jesus was describing would actually happen. The “over-the-top” reaction of the shepherd (15:6) is meant to contrast with the attitude of the Pharisees and scribes toward the tax collectors and sinners who have come to hear Jesus. They should at least have been supportive—if not ecstatic—when sinners showed an interest in the things of the Lord. They were however as unmoved as this shepherd was overjoyed. Jesus made the point: heaven (a metonymy for God) is much more like the overly ecstatic shepherd when sinners come to repentance (15:7) and unlike the critical Pharisees.

3. Parable of the Lost Coin (15:8-10)

15:8-10. The second parable is remarkably simple and reiterates the same basic point as the first: something lost (a coin) was diligently searched for and ultimately found, to the great joy of the finder. As with the parable of the lost sheep, the reaction of the woman who found her coin—calling neighbors and friends—is not true to life. It is an exaggeration. However, it is meant to make the point that there is extravagant joy in the presence of the angels (15:10 indicating God Himself) when sinners repent. Both of these parables teach that it is God who takes the initiative to seek the lost (cf. 19:10), as demonstrated by the controversial actions of Jesus who sought the social and spiritual rejects.

4. Parable of the Lost Son (15:11-32)

15:11. This parable appears only in Luke’s gospel and is acknowledged by many as a masterpiece of storytelling. While it is often known as the parable of the Prodigal Son, note that Jesus began the parable with the mention of two sons (15:11), with the older brother playing as vital a role in the parable as the younger.

a. The First Son (15:12-24)

15:12-20a. The younger of the man’s sons exhibited a foolish rebellion (15:12-13). He selfishly requested his inheritance, showing himself as disrespectful and uncharitable In effect, when the young man asked for his inheritance he was betraying a materialistic, selfish impulse at best, and at worst was saying to his father, “I wish you were already dead.” When the young man received his inheritance (15:12) he imprudently departed, and then he sinfully squandered his money (15:13). The young man found himself in an inevitable destitution (15:14-16). He was struck by poverty (15:14), thrown into virtual slavery (15:15a), and experienced hunger and estrangement (15:16-17), probably for the first time in his life. From the nadir of this condition the young man took the steps necessary for his restoration (15:17-20a). He came to his senses (15:17), that is, he became aware that his own foolishness and sinfulness had brought him to this destitution. He realized he needed to make a full confession (15:18, 21), and he had to own up to the condition of his heart and the consequences of his actions. He exhibited genuine humility when he concluded that he was unworthy to be called a son and was willing to accept the status of hired man (15:19). Finally, he took the necessary action to follow through in deed from the intentions of his heart—he got up and came to his father (15:20a).

b. The Gracious Father (15:20b-24)

15:20b-24. The note that his father saw him (15:20b) while the young man was still far off may indicate that the father was looking for the son, though the text does not say this and the point should not be pressed. The father’s reaction, like the response of the shepherd to finding the lost sheep and of the woman upon finding the lost coin, was “exaggerated” (15:20c). “There can be no doubt that in the father’s welcome of the younger son Jesus is teaching that the heavenly Father welcomes returning sinners” (Morris, Luke, 243). The father’s compassion for his returning son would not permit him to accept the terms offered by the Prodigal. The father did not even allow his son to get so far as to propose becoming like one of the hired men (15:19b)—nothing short of full restoration would do. The son was clothed (15:22) and his return was celebrated (15:23). The father’s justification for this celebration revealed the severity of the son’s condition before his repentance (was dead … was lost) and the complete restoration of his condition since his repentance (has come to life … has been found) (15:24). The father’s statement made the application of the parable clear: Sinners are dead and lost, but they can come to life and can be found if they return to the Father.

c. The Second Son (15:25-30)

In a sense the parable was complete, having made, for the third time, the point made in the first two parables of this chapter—God finds and receives lost sinners who repent and return to Him. But the attitude of the Pharisees (15:2) needed to be addressed directly. It is clear that the older brother represented the scribes and Pharisees. It is this half of the parable that is most pertinent to the context of 15:1, and in which the primary point of the parable is found.

15:25-30. When the older brother was made aware that his younger brother had returned and that a celebration was underway to welcome him back (15:25-27) he became angry and resentful (15:28a). His complaint I have never neglected a command of yours (arguably not true) (15:29) echoed the attitude of the legalistic Pharisees. His accusations against his brother were uncharitable (and untrue—there is no mention of prostitutes [15:30b] in the earlier narrative about the younger son). His unwillingness to be forgiving was in stark contrast to the attitude of the father. And his attitudes were not significantly different from those of his younger brother’s. The older brother would have liked a young goat so that he could be merry with his friends (v. 29), that is, to enjoy material goods from his father without his father’s company. The two were not so different after all!

d. The Gracious Father (15:31-32)

15:31-32. Again, the father was the picture of graciousness and forbearance. His pleas to the older son, reiterating his earlier words about the younger son’s pre- and post-repentant states were largely lost on the bitter and resentful older son. No conclusion to this exchange between the father and this older son is given. Jesus allowed the Pharisees to write their own conclusion: They could continue to resent that Jesus welcomed tax collectors and sinners (cf. 15:2), or they could drop their bitterness and join the celebration as repentant sinners themselves. Perhaps an application from these parables is that God’s people should weigh carefully their own attitudes toward those on the fringes of society—and consider more deliberate attempts to reach them as Jesus did, and for which He was criticized. We should also be slow to criticize or question the motives of those who are seeking to minister to social and spiritual outcasts (such as drug addicts, homosexuals, prostitutes, or criminals). The last verse summarizes the point of all three parables—what was lost has been found.

M. Parables and Teaching for Disciples and Pharisees (16:1-31)

In this chapter Jesus challenged His disciples and the Pharisees about temporal values and worldly ways of thinking. The relation of the teaching here to the previous chapter is unclear. “The material in this chapter is for the most part unique to Luke” and it “deals with the common theme of possessions” (Stein, Luke, 411). Both the disciples and the Pharisees needed to understand that the values, principles, and standards of the world—the “ways of thinking” that enable one to get along in this life—are incommensurate for one who serves God, and God will judge those who do not serve Him.

1. Parable of the Dishonest Manager (16:1-9)

16:1-9. In an enigmatic parable Jesus taught the disciples that they needed to be wise in the use of temporal positions, possessions, and power. Jesus pictured a discredited manager who was about to be fired by his employer (16:1-3). This dishonest manager shrewdly used his position to secure his future—at his employer’s expense—by discounting the outstanding accounts of his master’s debtors (16:4-7). Surprisingly, the master praised this man, not for his dishonesty, but for his shrewdness (16:8). Jesus also commended the man, not for his dishonest dealings, but for his foresight and shrewdness (16:9). “He is commended for acting and preparing himself for the judgment awaiting him. He is commended essentially for being a shrewd scoundrel and taking care of his future” (Stein, Luke, 412). The master did not like it, but he had to give the “shrewd manager” his due—the master had been outwitted! Jesus was not encouraging His disciples to be dishonest, but to be shrewd—and that not about temporal matters like this scoundrel, but with respect to eternal matters (cf. 12:33). Our temporal wealth should be used for treasure in heaven.

2. Teaching about Faithfulness in Service (16:10-13)

16:10-13. Still addressing the disciples, Jesus articulated two principles (loosely related to the previous parable) about service. First, the principle of “faithfulness”—He who is faithful in a very little thing can be trusted with much (that is, many more and larger things). Thus disciples are to be faithful (exhibiting honesty and integrity) in temporal things (like money) if they want to be trusted in more important (spiritual and eternal) matters. (16:10-12). The second principle concerns masters: It is impossible to serve two masters. Therefore, disciples need to serve God (out of love and loyalty to Him) and not wealth, that is, they must not serve merely to get paid or because they want to get rich (16:13).

3. Corrections for the Pharisees (16:14-18)

16:14-18. Jesus commended faithfulness for His disciples in contrast to the greed of the Pharisees—lovers of money (16:14). The Pharisees were given several (somewhat disparate) correctives to their way of thinking: What they valued was not what God valued (16:15). The law was not what they thought it was (16:16), and as an example of that, their views on divorce were judged by Jesus to be deficient (16:17).

4. Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31)

It seems best to understand this as a type of parable or a parable-like story (cf. Bock, Luke, 1363). Some argue that several of the features of this story are not typical of a parable: It is not actually identified as a parable. Unlike in other parables, one of the characters is named. Lazarus was a fairly common name, meaning “God helps” (see comment on 16:20). This is not the Lazarus of Jn 11. Unlike other parables, it is not an illustration that could be observed in the course of everyday life (e.g., a sower sowing, a woman cleaning her home). It portrays the afterlife in untypical ways (i.e., there’s no judgment or banquet), cf. Bock, Luke, 1362-63. However, “to call this account parabolic is not entirely incorrect” (Bock, Luke, 1363). Considering the lack of clear corroborating passages in Scripture, it is highly speculative to suggest this story describes either Hades (the abode of the dead, in the LXX Sheol) or the relative arrangement of the compartments of the afterlife for the righteous and unrighteous dead. In other NT uses (Mt 11:23; 16:18; Rv 20:13-14) Hades is understood as a real but otherwise shadowy place for the wicked dead until the time of judgment, and there are no indications that people there can see, much less communicate, with the righteous dead. Bock is probably correct to suggest that “the conversations are simply part of the story’s literary means to depict the great chasm in the afterlife between the righteous in Paradise and those in Hades” (Bock, Luke, 1363).

16:19-25. The skewed values and thinking of the Pharisees and the foolishness of all who live without a thought for eternity are exposed by this parable. Jesus began by describing the temporal conditions, the life circumstances, of two men: one was rich and lived an opulent life (16:19); the other was not just poor but destitute and diseased (16:20-21). Even though they lived in proximity—the poor man at the rich man’s gate (16:20b) living off the scraps from the rich man’s table (16:21)—their lives could not have been more disparate. Upon his death the poor man named Lazarus (16:20a; the one “helped by God”) is taken by angels to Abraham’s bosom (16:22), a place of comfort and blessing. Upon his death the rich man is confined to Hades (16:23). Their circumstances are completely reversed. The rich man first asked for relief but was informed that this was impossible (16:24, 26) because there was a great chasm fixed between them. Chasm is a term found only here and describes an “unbridgeable space.” “The theological passive that such a place ‘has been fixed’ asserts that God has set up the afterlife in such a way that the righteous and the unrighteous do not mix … the image is strong and suggests that how we respond in this life is decisive for where we reside in the next” (Bock, Luke, 1373). The rich man’s torment increased knowing that he could have elevated Lazarus in life (and perhaps himself in death) had he been more concerned about the injustice of their temporal circumstances (16:25). Now it is too late for him.

16:26-31. The rich man then turned to thoughts about those whom he had left behind. Showing that he was still thinking like the worldly man he was, he asked that someone might return to warn his brethren about his fate (16:27-28). Surely, he reasoned, if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent! (16:30)—evidences and human reason would certainly bring his brethren around. But he was informed that, in effect, the warning was already available in the Scriptures (They have Moses and the Prophets, 16:29) and that additional warnings—even by someone rising from the dead—would prove ineffective. The point of the parable is clear: a set of values and a perspective on life that considers only the temporal, the worldly, and the “present life” is inadequate and will prove to be foolish in the light of eternity. The rich man did not go to Hades/hell because he was rich. He went there because his life and hope were devoted to his earthly riches, which he never used to “lay up treasure in heaven.” He put his own earthly ease before his concern for others, which indicated that his heart was not right with God! The parable also indicates that even the most extreme miracles (if someone rises from the dead, v. 31) will not be sufficient to engender faith or repentance in those who observe them.

N. Jesus Warning, Teaching, Healing (17:1-19)

1. Sayings for Disciples (17:1-10)

17:1-10. To prepare His disciples for the ministry they will undertake for Him, Jesus warned them about stumbling blocks (17:1-3a)—people and things that cause His disciples to sin. These stumbling blocks are inevitable (17:1a), will be judged severely (17:1b-2), and should be avoided (17:3a). Furthermore, Jesus taught them to be prepared to rebuke and forgive those who stumble (sin) and repent (17:3b-4). Additionally, Jesus taught them about faith (17:5-6): it is not the size or amount of faith but the object of faith that gives faith its power. Finally, Jesus taught them to be prepared to be a slave (17:7-10)—completely at the Master’s disposal.

2. Healings of the Ten Lepers (17:11-19)

17:11-19. Luke again (for the third time cf. 9:51; 13:22) mentioned that Jesus was on the way to Jerusalem (17:11). On the way he was confronted by ten lepers (17:12). He did not immediately heal them but sent them to the priests (17:13) an act that would be appropriate for one who was healed from leprosy (cf. Lv 13:2, 3; 14:2-32), and on the way they were cleansed (Lk 17:14). However, only one (and he was a Samaritan, 17:16—a people who were, in the prevailing view of the Jews of the pharisaical type, not acceptable to God) turned to glorify God, to acknowledge that Jesus had healed him, and to give thanks to Jesus (17:15). Jesus commended his faith (17:19). The principle here is that even those who in low religious standing (as the Samaritans were, in the opinion of the Jewish people in Jesus’ day) were able to acknowledge and believe in Jesus. But the religious leaders of Israel, who should have been most sympathetic to Jesus and His teaching, were unwilling to embrace Him.

O. Jesus’ Teaching on the Kingdom and the Second Coming (17:20-37)

1. The Pharisees’ Question (17:20-21)

17:20-21. The Pharisees—apparently in yet another attempt to trip up Jesus—had asked about the coming of the kingdom (17:20a). Jesus’ answer did not cast doubt on the fact of the coming of the kingdom, but His answer corrected two popular notions. First, the kingdom was not coming in such a way that it could be predicted (with signs) (17:20). Second, the kingdom would not come in exactly the way men expected it would (17:21).

2. The Instruction to the Disciples (17:22-37) (see also the comments on Mt 24-25^{1 2})

17:22-37. The question and answer about the kingdom led to Jesus’ more detailed instruction about the kingdom for the benefit of His disciples (17:22a). Jesus instructed them about the kingdom in four areas. First, as to the timing of the coming of the kingdom, there will be a longing for the days of the Son of Man (17:22) as well as false sightings of the Son of Man (17:23). Yet, there will be no missing Him when he does appear (17:24), and He will not appear until after the cross (17:25). Second, Jesus instructed them about the earthly conditions when the kingdom comes. It will be a time like the days of Noah (17:26-27; see also the comments on Mt 24:37-39) and the days of Lot (17:28-30), meaning that life will proceed in a normal, even mundane way until a time of sudden and unexpected catastrophe. Third, Jesus taught them about the urgency related to the coming of the kingdom (17:31-33). It is a time not to look back or hesitate. This is a description of the second half of the tribulation period (cf. Dn 9:24; Rv 19:11; Mt 24:29-44), and it applies to the nation of Israel. Finally, Jesus revealed that the purpose of the coming of the kingdom (Lk 17:34-37) would be judgment.

P. Two Parables Concerning Prayer and Righteousness (18:1-14)

1. The Widow and the Judge (18:1-8)

18:1-3. This episode begins a bit differently in that the application of the parable about to be told appears as the introduction of the parable. In light of the troubles of life and the difficulties encountered because of their service to Christ, the disciples needed to pray and not to lose heart (18:1). The note about praying here makes it clear that the actions of the widow in the parable to follow are to be understood as lessons on prayer, not legal advice! Specifically, disciples are to pray for the Lord’s return and not grow weary in those prayers! The persons in the parable are a judge (18:2) who lived in a certain city and a widow (18:3) in the same city. Jesus described the judge (18:2) as one who did not fear God. “This describes the judge’s lack of the most fundamental requirement in life, reverence toward God (cf. Pr 9:10)” (Stein, Luke, 444). Furthermore this judge did not respect man. “This judge did not care what people thought. This judge was not the type to be moved out of compassion” (Bock, Luke, 1448). In these respects he was completely unlike God (and Jesus’ hearers may have wondered where this comparison was headed). The woman is noted for her persistence—she kept coming to him and her insistence—Give me legal protection (18:3).

18:4-5. The widow came day after day to register her legal claim. At first the judge resisted—he was unwilling to give her legal protection (18:4a). He was probably waiting for a bribe, which she could not pay. But after a time he relented—I will give her legal protection (18:5b). He explained (to no one in particular) it was not because he feared God, which he did not, and not because he respected man, which he did not, but only because by her coming she had worn him out (18:5). She had so badgered him that he gave her what she wanted only to get relief from her pestering. “The words ‘wear me out’ (hypopiazei me) are difficult to translate, for they literally mean ‘strike under the eye, give a black eye’ [BAGD, 858; TDNT 9:50 n. 88]” (Leifeld, “Luke,” 1000; cf. Bock, Luke, 1449). This seems to be a figurative expression for “wear one down emotionally.”

18:6-8. Jesus then explained—And the Lord said (18:6)—in a “lesser to greater” type of argument, that if such an unlikable, irascible, ignoble judge can be moved to do the right thing by the persistence of a lowly widow (who means nothing to this judge), what will the good, loving, kind, and righteous God do for His elect (“chosen ones”), His own people, when they cry to Him day and night (18:7b) (continually, without ceasing)? “As in 16:1-8, Jesus used a less-than-noble character as an illustration (cf. also Mt 13:44: 25:1-13) … If the unjust judge finally granted the persistent widow’s request, how much more will a just God hear and grant the petitions of his followers who pray to him day and night” (Stein, Luke, 444). The answer is He will not delay long to answer their cries (Lk 18:7c). He will bring about justice (18:7a), and He will answer them quickly (18:8). The promise here is not necessarily for speedy, but for timely answers to prayer.

In this parable Jesus taught that God need not be badgered by prayer but that those who pray, His own elect, should do so consistently (18:1), persistently (18:5), and expectantly. For those who pray this way answers will come—maybe not as soon as they want or expect, but when they come they will be understood as having come “right on time.”

2. The Pharisee and the Tax-Collector (18:9-14)

18:9-12. Luke introduced the next episode with the term parable (18:9) and again provided the reader with the application in the introduction. Possibly this lesson was prompted by an incident Jesus actually witnessed in the temple and related in this parabolic form. Jesus identified two men praying in the temple (18:10). One was a self-righteous Pharisee (18:11). His prayer was filled with contempt for others (18:11) and self-congratulation (18:12). His prayer reflected the typical attitude of the self-righteous Pharisees who thought they could be in a right standing before God (that is, “justified”), by such fastidious acts as fasting and tithing (18:12). The other man was a tax collector (18:10). Tax-collectors were typically Jews who served the Romans by collecting taxes for them. They were viewed as collaborators and were ostracized. Often they were unscrupulous and greedy and took advantage of their fellow Jews by overtaxing them and keeping the takings. Roman authorities typically contracted with individuals to collect taxes. As long as the Roman quota was met, the Romans were happy. For a tax collector to make a profit, however, required systematic overcharging of those who were taxed, as the Romans did not share a percentage of the fees with the tax collectors.

18:13-14. The people looked at the tax collectors both as traitors and as thieves. For Jesus to use such a person as the “hero” of a parable would have been a surprising twist indeed. This tax collector’s demeanor conveyed his sense of unworthiness (18:13a), in that he stood some distance away from the temple proper. He showed utter self-abasement before God—unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven. He displayed a distressed and penitent attitude by his act of beating his breast, and his prayer was a cry for mercy from a repentant heart (18:13b). He entreated God to be merciful to him. Merciful (hilaskomai) was used in the LXX to translate verbs related to atonement for sins, and here means “to be gracious because of some sacrifice.” This publican was completely dependent on God for establishing a right relationship with Him, in contrast to the Pharisee in the parable. Jesus’ shocking conclusion was that the humble man, the tax collector, was justified (considered righteous in the eyes of God) rather than the proud man (18:14). The lesson was clear: only those who come to God with authentic humility can expect to find God favorable. This parable is one of the most significant lessons on the crucial truth of justification (cf. Rm 3:21-28). The tax-collector was declared righteous on the basis of his repentant faith.

Q. Jesus Meets Children, a Wealthy Ruler, a Blind Man, and Zaccheus (18:15-30; 18:35–19:10)

18:15-17. Jesus’ first meeting with the children demonstrated His approachability and illustrated the type of faith needed to approach Him (18:15-17). This does not mean one must be credulous (like a child who will believe anything), but one must trust in Jesus implicitly—as a child would trust a parent or other responsible adult. Such a child does not ask for an adult’s credentials or inquire into his or her parents’ qualifications—he or she just recognizes the authority and ability of the parent intuitively.

18:18-27. Jesus’ next meeting with a ruler demonstrated that, while He could be approached, this approach had to be with the right understanding (18:18a; the designation “rich young ruler” is arrived at by combining all three synoptic gospel accounts of the meeting—see Mt 19:22, Mk 10:22, and here, the only account where he is identified as a ruler). The response of Jesus to the ruler’s greeting—Why do you call me good? No one is good except God (Lk 18:19)—was not a denial by Jesus of His own deity, but a question designed to expose the ruler’s superficiality. The man had a superficial understanding of “goodness,” and therefore a superficial understanding of God. As the conversation continued he showed a superficial understanding of the law (18:20-21). Finally, he proved to have a superficial understanding of Jesus, for he failed to demonstrate humility before Jesus or a willingness to follow Jesus, because that meant giving up the comforts and securities he possessed in this life (18:23; see also the comments on Mt 19:16-30). Even though there are many explanations for the saying Jesus quoted in 18:25—For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle—in the end it seems that it is a hyperbolic expression. As such the meaning is fairly plain—it is very difficult for those who are rich by the temporal standards of the world to give up those riches for the sake of the kingdom. This saying perplexed some of Jesus’ followers. It was assumed that the rich had advantages not only for this life but also for the next. Riches were considered a sign of God’s blessing and favor. Jesus’ words seemed to belie that assumption. Jesus answered that even in such cases only the grace and power of God can break the hold of temporal riches (18:27) (cf. Stein, Luke, 459).

18:28-30. This discussion of riches prompted Peter to remind Jesus of all that he and the others had given up to follow Him (18:28). Jesus assured Peter and the others that such sacrifices would not go unrewarded (28:28-30).

18:35-43. Jesus’ next meeting with the blind man on the Jericho road (18:35; see also the comments on Mt 20:29-34) demonstrated that Jesus was indeed the Messiah—the Son of David (18:38b, 39b) and that He would show compassion (as it was predicted for the Messiah, see Lk 4:18; Is 61:1).

19:1-10. Jesus’ last meeting with Zaccheus in Jericho (19:1) demonstrated that Jesus had indeed come “to seek and save the lost” (cf. 19:10). Even though one might consider Zaccheus an unlikely candidate for Jesus’ attention—he was a tax collector (see 18:10 above) and he was rich (18:2b). With this description no doubt Luke intended that the reader recall the incident with the rich young ruler at this point (cf. 18:23-24). He also was small in stature (18:3b, he would have been easy to overlook). Nevertheless, Zaccheus had the desire and determination to see Jesus (19:3a, 4). Jesus saw not only the figure in the sycamore tree but also the desire of the man’s heart. He spoke to him and invited Himself to Zaccheus’s house (18:5-6). Despite Jesus’ reception of sinners rankling some (18:7), it was soon clear that Zaccheus had been changed by this encounter with the Messiah. He resolved to give to the poor and make restitution to those whom he had defrauded (18:8). This quick, decisive reversal of attitude toward wealth—a willingness to spend it not in a shrewd, worldly way but to spend it with eternal life in view (cf. 16:9) (in contrast to the reticence of the ruler, cf. 18:18; in contrast to the life of the rich man, cf. 16:19) made it clear that salvation had come to Zaccheus’s house (18:9).

R. Jesus Foretold His Death and Resurrection (18:31-34) (see also the comments on Mt 20:17-19)

18:31-34. This was the third prediction by Jesus of His coming passion (cf. 9:22; 43b-45). He made the prediction to the disciples in particular (18:31a) and with a precision that made it unmistakable (18:31b-33). Yet the disciples failed to understand (18:34). Luke’s purpose for including these predictions was to prove that Jesus was in control—His death was no miscalculation or accident of history.

S. The Parable of the Ten Minas (19:11-27) (see also the comments on Mt 25:14-30)

19:11-27. This parable taught a concluding lesson (at the end of the journey to Jerusalem, 19:11) on the proper attitude toward one’s temporal resources in light of eternity. There are two parts to this parable: Part one concerned a nobleman who departed to a distant country to receive a kingdom … and then return (19:12). The citizens, however, sent a delegation saying, We do not want this man to reign over us (19:14). At the end of the parable it was revealed that these rebellious citizens—called enemies of the Master/king (19:27a)—would be destroyed (19:27b). The picture is, of course, that of the Lord Jesus Christ who would depart (after the resurrection) but will return to establish His kingdom. The rebels needed to be warned: “There is no neutral position in relationship to Jesus” (Bock, Luke, 1543).

Part two of the parable concerned the charge the Master left with His slaves. Ten slaves were each given a mina (a unit of money worth about one-sixtieth of a talent, or about three months’ wages) and charged to do business with this money—invest it (19:13b). Upon his return, the master looked for an accounting. With two of the slaves the accounting was good. Each man had made money by his investments (19:16, 18), and each was commended (19:17, 19) and given greater opportunity for service. Thus far this parable illustrated the principles Jesus had taught on earlier occasions (cf. 12:34-48;16:10-12). A third slave is called Another (heteros), a word that means “another of a completely different sort.” This slave had not invested the money. He had for fear of the Master hidden it away and intended only to return it to the Master (19:20-21). This provoked a scathing rebuke from the Master (19:22-23) and the loss of the man’s mina (19:24). He proved to be a faithless slave unworthy of any opportunity to serve the Master (see also the comments on Mt 25:29-30). The lesson once again was that (while Jesus is away) His disciples are to use the goods of this world and the opportunities to serve Him to accomplish spiritual goals.

VI.  Ministry in Jerusalem (19:28–21:38)

19:28. This is a transitional verse that marks the end of the journey to Jerusalem that began at 9:51 and the beginning of the next phase of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Jesus had a complex relationship with Jerusalem and its inhabitants. His fame had obviously spread to the populace of the city (cf. 19:37b), but just as obviously they had little genuine understanding of His mission.

A. Triumphal Entry (19:29-44)

The triumphal entry was “an event of outstanding significance” (William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978], 872). Actually, Luke recorded only the approach to the city (cf. 19:37) and not the actual entry.

1. Preparations for the Entry (19:29-34) (see also the comments on Mt 21:1-6)

19:29-34. The preparations were made as Jesus approached Bethphage (exact location unknown) and Bethany (19:29a) on the eastern side of the Mount of Olives (itself just east of the city.) Luke recorded: Jesus’ instructions (19:29b-31), the disciples’ compliance (19:32), and the acquiescence of those who owned the colt that Jesus said would be ready for Him (19:33-34). The entire picture seems to indicate, not “prophetic insight” or “divine omniscience,” but that Jesus, by means not revealed, had made prior arrangements with the colt’s owners to have the animal in readiness. That the owners so freely allowed the colt to be taken seems to suggest this was a prearranged rendezvous. Also, the instructions Jesus gave included a mix of precise and vague terms (19:30-31), and this semi-cryptic conversation is repeated exactly in the actual event of retrieving the animals (19:33). This all looks very much like a preplanned event. Luke’s point in this account seems to be that Jesus took the initiative and that He was fully in control of the event. Furthermore, by this arrangement He was giving evidence of His own messianic consciousness. He knew what He was doing, and what He was doing was fulfilling prophecy. Specifically He was consciously fulfilling the prophecy of Zch 9:9 (see the comments there) much as He had done in Lk 4:16-21 when He was consciously fulfilling the prophecy of Is 61:1-2a. He was announcing Himself as the Messiah.

2. The Event Itself (19:35-40)

19:35-40. All of the details of this event (see the commentary on Mt 21:1-9)—Jesus on a colt (19:35), the coats strewn on the road (19:36), the words used by the shouting crowds (19:37-38), indicated the messianic presence. Luke alone used the title King (19:38a) to alert his audience to the “regal figure” of Jesus and to highlight (for Gentiles who may not have been as cognizant of OT messianic imagery) that as Jesus entered the city He presented Himself “as the king who brings the nation’s eschatological hope” (Bock, Luke, 1559). However, even as the crowds were expecting eschatological triumph (over the Romans), Jesus was about to bring the eschatological judgment on sin—at the cross (cf. Dn 9:24a, “to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity”; see the comments there). The rebuke of the Pharisees (Lk 19:39) demonstrated that they understood the implicit (messianic) claim that was being made in this event. Jesus’ response (19:40; cf. Hab 2:11) indicated that this claim could not be denied.

3. Jesus’ Lament over the City (19:41-44)

19:41-44. Luke recorded Jesus’ reaction upon seeing the city. The expression wept over it (19:41) fails to convey the depth of emotion—Jesus “burst into tears” (cf. Jr 8:18-21; 9:1). He saw … He wept … He said. He entered as the King but turned immediately to His role as prophet and again (cf. Lk 13:34-35) pronounced judgment on the city (19:44-45). This judgment was fulfilled in AD 70 (Lk 21:10-28 describes events at the end of days; for the historical background of AD 70, see the comments introducing the Olivet Discourse in Mt 24-25). In spite of the apparent recognition of Him, He knew these things had been hidden from their eyes (19:42b). Their own preconceptions and self-generated expectations about who the Messiah would be and what he would do prevented them from seeing the Messiah in Jesus and kept them from recognizing the time of your visitation (19:44c).

The judgment of Jerusalem clarifies two issues regarding the history of anti-Semitism: First, the judgment was caused by the Jewish leadership’s rejection of Jesus as Messiah, not for being uniquely and perpetually guilty of crucifying Jesus. This contradicts the historic “Christ-killer” accusation against the Jewish people. Second, the judgment was fulfilled by the devastating events of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, not through the oppression of the Jewish people in their perpetual wanderings and persecutions. Beginning with Justin Martyr (who wrote of the Jewish people “tribulations were justly imposed on you, for you have murdered the Just One,” Dialogue with Trypho, 16), the church has frequently leveled both these false charges against the Jewish people, misunderstanding the clear teaching of Lk 19:41-44.

B. Jesus and the Religious Leaders (19:45–21:4)

1. How the Conflict Began (19:45-48) (see also the comments on Mt 21:12-13)

19:45-48. Soon after the events of the triumphal entry Jesus embarked on a course of action that brought Him into conflict with the religious leadership of the nation. He entered the temple and drove out those who had perverted the place of prayer and worship into a commercial enterprise (19:45-46). He taught in the temple, and His popularity provoked the opposition of the chief priests and the scribes (19:47-48).

2. How the Conflict Continued (20:1–21:4)

20:1-8. The opposition to Jesus took the first available opportunity to question His teaching and authority (20:1-2; see also the comments on Mt 21:23-27). Jesus countered this inquiry with one of His own about John the Baptist (20:3-4). Jesus knew that the leaders had not believed in John but He, and they also, knew the people regarded John as a prophet of God (20:6). They could not openly deny John, but they refused to acknowledge him (20:7). Jesus therefore refused to answer their question about His authority. Yet in effect He had answered it, for His authority came from the same God and Father who had commissioned John.

20:9-18. Jesus followed this encounter with a parable about a vineyard owner and some renters who refused to honor the vineyard owner’s representatives when he sent them to receive his payment (see also the comments on Mt 21:33-46). The wicked renters mistreated and killed the owner’s men and finally mistreated and killed the owner’s son (20:9-16). Afterward, the owner himself destroyed them and gave the vineyard to others (20:16a). The religious leaders understood immediately that they were being cast as the wicked renters (cf. 20:19) and rejected the story—May it never be! (20:16b). It appears from the context and the reaction of the religious leaders that Jesus meant them—those leaders had been rejected. Jesus was not making an application to the nation of Israel (and notions of “replacement theology” are not indicated by this parable and its application. See Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994], 59 commenting on Mt 21:43). But Jesus drove home the point that these leaders, in rejecting Him, had rejected the CHIEF CORNER stone (20:17)—in effect, the Messiah (cf. Ps 118:22).

20:19-26. The conflict continued with questions from the religious leaders designed to trap Him in a contradiction or to get Him to say something that would diminish His popularity. The first question was about paying taxes (20:21-22; see also the comments on Mt 22:15-22). Jesus’ answer made it clear that paying taxes (to Caesar or any human government) did not indicate divided loyalty. Rather paying taxes and devoting oneself to God were both expressions of submission to God (cf. Rm 13:1-7).

20:27-40. Next the Sadducees, who did not believe in the supernatural afterlife, presented Jesus with a ludicrous hypothetical scenario about a woman who successively (according to the law) married seven brothers (one after the other as each died) (20:27-31; see also the comments on Mt 22:23-33). Their question was, “In the afterlife, which one’s wife will she be?” (20:33). Jesus’ answer was simply to point out that the conditions of that life will be completely different from conditions in this life so far as marriage is concerned (20:34-36). Then He turned their reasoning back on them by pointing out that the very Scriptures they honored spoke of the Lord THE GOD OF ABRAHAM … ISAAC, AND … JACOB (20:37b; cf. Ex 3:6). The way Scripture spoke of the patriarchs indicated that they were still living years after they had passed from the scene. This proved He is not the God of the dead but of the living (Lk 20:38), and thus these patriarchs could look forward to the resurrection (cf. Dn 12:2).

20:41-47. At this point Jesus turned the tables on the opposition, and He asked them a question (see also the comments on Mt 22:41-46). In Psalm 110 David, clearly in reference to the Messiah (Christ), calls the Messiah MY LORD (20:42; Ps 110:1). Jesus’ question to the religious leaders was, “How is it that David calls the Messiah—one who is David’s descendant—MY LORD?” Of course, the leaders had no answer, but Jesus knew that the One who was the “child born” descendant of Abraham and David humanly speaking was also the preexistent “son who was given” (cf. Is 9:6). This made it possible for the Messiah to be both David’s descendant and divine Lord. Jesus then warned his disciples about the duplicity and hypocrisy of the scribes (Lk 20:45-47; see also the comments on Mt 23:1-36) and contrasted that with the lesson of the widow’s humble gift (21:1-4).

21:1-4. Apparently, Jesus noticed a poor widow who put two small copper coins into one of the several chests designed to receive such offerings. “These coins (lepta) were the smallest coins in use” (Stein, Luke, 509), and the smallest denomination acceptable as a gift. No one else was paying her any attention because what she would give would be inconsequential and unworthy of notice compared to the grand gifts of others. But Jesus noticed and commented the others gave out of their surplus (21:4a)—that is, they gave what they could easily spare. However, she gave out of her poverty (21:4b)—that is, she gave what she could not really spare. She gave all that she had to live on. She gave sacrificially. The actions of this poor widow are not to be seen as a “requirement” to get right with God. One does not earn a right standing with God by giving—sacrificially or otherwise. But these are the actions of one who is right with God. They prove one’s standing with God.

C. Jesus’ Teaching about the Tribulation and the Second Coming (21:5-38)

In the context of this conflict with the religious leaders (on the same day, see 20:1) Luke included Jesus’ teaching to the disciples about the second coming. Much of this discourse is prophetic and refers to the time of the tribulation (see commentary on Mt 24-25) and the second coming of Jesus.

1. The Disciples’ Questions (21:5-7)

a. Exchange that Prompted the Questions (21:5-6) (see also the comments on Mt 24:1-2)

21:5-6. During a lull in the back-and-forth with the opposition, the disciples took time to admire the striking beauty of the temple (21:5). The temple itself was adorned with beautiful white marble stones (Josephus, Wars, 5.5.6). The massive foundational stones, some of them 30 feet long and still in place today, would have been impressive. The decorations, contributed by wealthy worshipers (votive gifts, 21:5b), would have made the temple a place of unusual opulence—something quite beyond what the disciples would have seen anywhere else. The admiration of the disciples was soon broken by Jesus’ stark prediction that one day this structure, as massive and as beautiful as it was, would be utterly destroyed—not one stone left upon another (21:6). (It may be that this prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in the Jewish revolt (Lk 19:41-44), but the content and context of the discourse to follow would suggest that this was an eschatological prediction (cf. Bock, Luke, 1663; but see the interpretive options for the Olivet Discourse in the introductory comments before Mt 24:1).

b. The Two Questions (21:7) (see also the comments on Mt 24:3)

21:7. The unexpected and stunning nature of Jesus’ prophecy about the temple would have impressed the disciples. “The disciples recogniz[ed] the importance of Jesus’ reply and ask[ed] Him, as Teacher (didaskale) when ‘these things’ will be” (Bock, Luke, 1663). Note that there were two questions the disciples asked—when? (21:7a).. and what sign? (21:7b). In effect, Jesus answered the first question in the discourse itself and warned them not to attempt to focus and rely on any “one sign.”

2. Jesus’ Answers to the Questions: The Tribulation (21:8-24)

Jesus did not discount the value or relevance of “predictive prophecy” but addressed the disciples’ questions with a series of “warnings” and “words” of instruction.

a. Warning to Be Wary about Signs (21:8-11) (see also the comments on Mt 24:4-8)

Jesus began by turning to the question about the sign (21:7b). In effect, He warned about the relative predictive value of the signs—that is, the disciples must be wary about the use of the signs—do not be misled (21:8a). He warned them about the coming of “phony prophets” (will come in My name), “false Christs” (I am He), and “deceitful date-setters” (the time is near) (21:8b). Even “catastrophic” events (wars and disturbances 2:9b, 10a; earthquakes … plagues … famines … terrors … signs from heaven [such as eclipses] 2:10b-11), must not cause them to follow the false alarmists (2:8c) or to lose heart (2:9a). These things will continue to happen but the end is not immediately (21:9c)—that is, He has not yet come. The events Jesus was describing here are the events of the first half of the tribulation (cf. Jr 30:7; Jl 2; Rv 6–19) and are thus the events that lead up to, but are not the second coming itself.

b. Warning and Encouragement Regarding Persecution (21:12-19) (see also the comments on Mt 24:9-14)

21:12-19. Here Jesus offered the disciples not only a word about the nature of the tribulation but also some practical instruction about persecution. First, disciples were to expect persecution from the world (21:12a, b, 17a). Second, they should recognize the opportunity for a witness (12:13) for My name’s sake (21:12c, 17b). Third, disciples should be determined to endure persecution (21:14a; make up your minds). Finally, they must expect the promise of preservation and endurance from the Lord (21:18-19).

c. Warning about Jerusalem (21:20-24) (see also the comments on Mt 24:15-28)

21:20-21. The tribulation will be a time of unprecedented persecution and hardship for the Jewish people and nation of Israel (21:23b; cf. Jr 30:7). The height of persecution will come with a siege of Jerusalem (Lk 21:20a; Zch 12:1-9). The description here and in parallel texts on this point in prophetic history (cf. Mt 24:4-31) make it unlikely that this is a description of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70 (for more evidence on this understanding, cf. the comments introducing Mt 24, and on Mt 24:15-16). This siege will be a prelude to the city’s desolation (Lk 21:20b; cf. Mt. 24:15). “The abomination of desolation” is the center point of the tribulation period (cf. the comments on Dn 9:24-27).

21:22-24. The note that these things will happen so that all things which are written will be fulfilled (21:22b) indicates that Jesus expected the OT prophecies concerning the end times to be literally fulfilled. The uniquely Lukan phrase times of the Gentiles (21:24b) (cf. Bock, Luke, 1680) covers the time when Israel lives under ungodly Gentile rule, from the beginning of the Babylonian captivity (c. 586 BC; cf. 2Kg 25), through the era of the postexilic return, the era of the NT, the era of the Church until the second coming, and the ensuing restoration of the Davidic kingdom (cf. Zch 14:9). Some maintain that the events referred to in Lk 21:24 should be restricted to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and that Luke’s version of the Olivet Discourse was altogether fulfilled when Rome destroyed Jerusalem. For a criticism of this view, see the comments introducing Mt 24. Finally, there is the note that the city will be trampled under foot … until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (21:24b), which again covers the time from the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon in 586 BC until the restoration of the kingdom during the millennium following Christ’s second coming (cf. Rv 20:1-6).

3. Jesus’ Answers to the Questions: The Second Coming (21:25-36)

Jesus finally turned to the matter of His second coming (cf. Mt. 24:3b).

a. Times of Upheaval (21:25-26) (see also the comments on Mt 24:29)

21:25-26. Jesus described the days prior to the second coming itself as days of upheaval—cosmic, 21:25a, 26b (cf. Jl 2:30-31; Ac 2:19-20a); international, Lk 21:25b; terrestrial, 21:25c; and social, 21:26a (cf. Rv 15-19). “Humans will be overcome by fear” (Bock, Luke, 1683).

b. The Coming Itself (21:27) (see also the comments on Mt 24:30-31)

21:27. At this time of unprecedented upheaval the SON OF MAN (21:27a; cf. the comments on Dn 7:13) will return. He will return in the same way as the disciples will see Him ascend into heaven (cf. Ac 1:11b and the comments there)—physically, and in A CLOUD (21:27b; cf. Ac 1:11a). He will return with power and great glory (Lk 21:27c; Zch 14:4-6; Rv 19:11-16).

c. A Word of Encouragement to Be Hopeful (21:28)

21:28. Jesus offered a word of encouragement to those who will survive the upheavals of the tribulation and are awaiting the return of their Lord. “Redemption here is used in a broad sense, not deliverance from the penalty of sin but deliverance from a fallen world” (Bock, Luke, 1687). Jesus’ return will mark the ultimate victory over the forces of the world and Satan.

d. Words of Warning to Be Alert and Expectant (21:29-36) (see also the comments on Mt 24:32-35)

21:29-33. Jesus followed up His discourse with some words of warning and admonition. The parable of the fig tree essentially warned the disciples that once the events Jesus has just described begin to unfold they will continue unabated to the conclusion—the second coming—He has just described. The note about this generation (21:32a) is best taken to refer to the generation that is alive when these events begin to unfold (not to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking; similarly, see the comments on Mt 24:34). Jesus’ point is, “When the signs come, they will proceed quickly; they will not drag on for generations. It will happen within a generation” (Bock, Luke, 1692). Jesus’ strong assurance of the veracity of His words—My words will not pass away (21:33b)—is also a bold claim to ultimate authority.

21:34-36. Jesus concluded His discourse with a warning to be expectant and to live expectantly—Be on guard (21:34)—keep on the alert (21:36). In essence, He was teaching His disciples that the way to endure the day-to-day trials of life, as well as the times of peculiar stress and even persecution, is to live with the expectation of the Lord’s return—to “keep seeking the things above,” to “set your mind on the things above,” and keep living for the Lord’s return (cf. Col 3:1-4).

4. Summary of the Temple Ministry (21:37-38)

21:37-38. Luke added a note at the end of this section to inform the reader of the situation in which Jesus found Himself during these days of opposition and teaching. Although Jesus’ teaching in the temple was popular, this only increased the intensity of the opposition against Him. While He was teaching the crowds in the temple during the day He was relatively safe, but in the evening, when the crowds went home, He found it necessary to retire to the safety of the mount that is called Olivet (Mount of Olives).

VII.  The Passion and The Resurrection (22:1–24:53)

A. Plot to Murder Jesus (22:1-6) (see also the comments on Mt 26:1-5, 14-16)

Having noted that Jesus found it necessary to spend His nights at this time outside the city on the Mount of Olives, Luke made explicit the reason for these movements.

1. The Plotters (22:1-2)

22:1-2. Luke noted the time when the plotters began to get serious about their work—it was Passover (22:1). Luke was alerting his non-Jewish audience that this was a time of unique significance—the time of the sacrifice of the paschal lamb (cf. Ex 12:1-27; Lk 22:7). The plotters are, in effect, preparing the sacrifice of the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (cf. Jn 1:29). The plotters are identified as chief priests and scribes (Lk 22:2a)—they were more on the political side of Jesus’ opposition. Apparently, they wanted to get rid of Jesus before the crowds of Passover worshipers entered the city. They feared He would find even greater popularity with the crowds who came into the city from around the nation (22:2c) so they coldly and deliberately determined to put Him to death (22:2b).

2. The Traitor (22:3-6)

22:3-6. Luke immediately stated that Judas (Iscariot was his family name) was motivated and animated by Satan (22:3a). This was by no means an effort to exonerate Judas, but was meant to highlight that one facet of the opposition to Jesus was supernatural, spiritual, and satanic—alongside the human designs of Judas and the religious leaders. The note that Judas had been one of the twelve (22:3b) made this act the more unfathomable and heinous. How Judas knew that the plotters would receive him (22:4a), accept his offer to betray Him (22:4b), and pay him for this act (22:5) is not made clear. While the exchange of money might seem to indicate a motive of greed, in reality, Judas’ act was utterly irrational and inexplicable, as is unbelief itself. Judas’ plan was to seek a suitable time and opportunity to betray Him—a time when Jesus was isolated from the protection of the crowd (22:6).

B. The Upper Room (22:7-38)

With the plot hanging over Jesus’ head, the scene in the upper room had a melancholy aspect to it from the start. Throughout Luke’s description there is a “sense of the significant” in every scene.

1. Preparations for Passover (22:7-13) (see also the comments on Mt 26:17-19)

22:7-13. The note about the feast of Unleavened Bread and the sacrifice of the Passover lamb (22:7) would have added to the significance and solemnity of these preparations for the reader who was aware that Jesus Himself is “our Passover” (cf. 1Co 5:7). Jesus Himself knew this was His last Passover and these were His last hours. The Passover had to be eaten within the walls of the city (cf. Lk 2:41; 2Ch 35:16-19; Jub 49:15-16; cf. Stein, Luke, 538), so He needed to make arrangements other than His retreat to the Mount of Olives. Luke alone noted the names of the two disciples charged with the preparations for this Passover—Peter and John (Lk 22:8a). The preparations would have involved “seeing the lamb was roasted … and preparing all the side dishes and wine” (Stein, Luke, 538), and yet the only question from the disciples was, Where? (22:9b). The details in Jesus’ response indicate that this was a prearranged meeting (22:10) and the room had already been secured (22:11-12). The disciples found that everything was just as He had told them (22:13). Jesus was thus presented as an observant Jew, performing all the responsibilities of piety as described by the law. It also showed that Jesus was in control of the situation—an emphasis that will be true even through His arrest and trials. (On the question of the chronology of the Passover accounts see Thomas and Gundry, Harmony of the Gospels, 320–23).

2. Institution of the Lord’s Supper (22:14-20) (see also the comments on Mt 26:20-29)

22:14. Luke’s introduction to the scene of the last supper—When the hour had come (22:14a)—continued “the sense of the significant.” This was “the hour” not just of the start of the Passover celebration, but the hour that actually began the passion of Christ. However, the scene opened with no hint of all that was to come. Jesus reclined at the table (22:14b) and the apostles with Him (22:14c), enjoying the meal and each other’s company.

22:15-20. Into this idyllic scene Jesus introduced an ominous note, one He had attempted to convey to the disciples previously (cf. Lk 9:22)—His impending suffering (22:15b). In addition, He announced He would not eat another Passover with them until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God (22:16). It was in the light of the cross (His suffering) and the hope of His future reign (until the kingdom of God comes; 22:18b) that Jesus instituted the celebration of “the bread and the cup.” Using items left over from the Passover meal, Jesus took the elements of bread and wine and re-signified them as My body (22:19b) and My blood (22:20c). As the bread was given (22:19a) and the wine poured out (22:20b) so His body was given and His life poured out. Jesus viewed His death as sacrificial and vicarious—His body was given for you (22:19a), His blood poured out for you (22:20b; emphasis added). The actions He prescribed—eating and drinking—indicated the disciples, by partaking of these elements, were signifying their faith in Him and their trust in the death He was about to suffer. “Here is not only deep theological truth but great love” (Bock, Luke, 1725). Jesus’ command, Do this in remembrance of Me (22:22:19c), was meant to remember His Person, His work on the cross, and that He is coming again—we are “proclaiming His death until He returns” (1Co 11:26).

3. Four Post-Supper Conversations (22:21-38)

The disciples were given no time to reflect on the significance of the ceremony that Jesus had just instituted because the events of that night moved inexorably, allowing little time to reflect or think.

a. The Betrayer Announced (22:21-23) (see also the comments on Mt 26:21-24)

22:21-23. In the first post-supper conversation, Jesus announced that He would be betrayed (22:22). Although the reader already knew this, it was a shock to the disciples. Even more outrageous was that the betrayal (22:21b; lit., “is in the process of betraying”) was already underway. Next, Jesus explained that this treachery was not unexpected but was a part of the way that had been determined (22:22a) as part of the divine plan (cf. Ps 41:9; 55:12-14; Ac 2:23). Nevertheless, He indicated that the traitor would still be culpable for his crime (Lk 22:22b). This conversation concluded with the disciples speculating on who the culprit might be (22:23).

b. Debate Over Who Is the Greatest (22:24-30)

22:24-30. Whatever angst the disciples felt over the revelation that Jesus was about to be betrayed soon left them, and, in the second post-supper conversation, they began a silly argument over which of them would be regarded as the greatest (22:24). It was an evidence of Jesus’ selflessness and patience that He did not rebuke them for their truly amazing indifference to Him and His impending passion, but instead He used the occasion to teach them yet another serious lesson on service. True greatness, He taught, is not in having others serve you (22:25), but the greatest is the one who serves. Jesus pointed to Himself as the supreme example (22:27). Still, He gave them an encouraging promise and assured them that their service and sacrifice would not go unrewarded (22:28-30).

c. Jesus Predicts Peter’s Denials (22:31-34)

22:31-34. In the third post-supper conversation Jesus revealed to Peter that he would deny Him. The conversation began with Jesus reassuring Peter that while Satan had asked to sift Peter like wheat (22:31)—that is, to test him severely, nevertheless, He, Jesus, had prayed for Peter, specifically that his faith may not fail (22:32a). Jesus’ words indicated that Peter would not be completely unscathed by this Satanic attack, but that he would be turned again (22:32b; i.e., repentant) and that he could look forward to being again in a place where he could strengthen the others (22:32c). Peter’s response showed that he had no inkling of the danger he was in, and that he was overconfident in his own ability to keep himself faithful. His boast—I am ready (22:33)—would in short order be proven empty, sadly, as Jesus’ sobering prediction of Peter’s denial would be fulfilled (22:34).

d. Jesus Attempted to Prepare His Men for the Coming Conflict (22:35-38)

22:35-38. In the final post-supper conversation Jesus once again attempted to prepare His disciples for the conflict that was just ahead of them. He first reminded them that He had not previously sent them out unprepared (22:35). Now, speaking metaphorically (using the items of money belt, bag, and sword as non-literal expressions of “being prepared”), they were called to prepare themselves (22:36) because He was going to be NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS (22:37b). What He was about to undergo was to be considered a fulfillment of what was written (predicted in the OT) (22:37). Nevertheless they were to be ready for His absence. The disciples did not understand Jesus’ point, or the nature of the conflict to come, and they produced two actual swords (22:38a). Jesus’ words, It is enough (22:38b), may be understood not as a commentary on the number of weapons but as an expression of mild frustration over the disciples’ misunderstanding (cf. Stein, Luke, 555). But enough means “to be sufficient, suitable in number or amount.” The disciples had two swords after accompanying Jesus for nearly three years. If He objected to the possession of weapons as a general rule, the disciples would not have had them so late in their association with Jesus in His ministry. It is enough more than likely indicates that Jesus did not object to the means for self-defense.

C. Three Heartbreaking Scenes (22:39-62)

Even with the institution of the Lord’s Supper and the post-supper conversations, the disciples had not realized the deep significance of the events of the night thus far. Moreover, nothing in the movement of Jesus out of the city would have alerted them to the shattering experiences that were soon to follow. Luke noted that it was His custom (22:39; cf. 21:37) to leave the city at night for the refuge of the Mount of Olives. In three emotionally fraught scenes, the disciples’ world was turned upside down.

1. Prayer in Gethsemane (22:39-46) (see also the comments on Mt 26:30-46)

22:39-40. Upon reaching the western slope of the Mount, identified by Luke only as the place (22:40a, identified in the other gospels as “Gethsemane,” which means “olive press,” Mt 26:36; Mk 14:32), Jesus admonished His disciples to pray (lit., “keep praying”) that you may not enter into temptation (Lk 22:40b). The events to follow would test the disciples’ trust and commitment to Jesus. They needed the strength that only divine assistance could provide. Tellingly, Jesus’ response to an impending crisis was prayer (cf. Bock, Luke, 1763). Even as He was facing the monumental challenge of His passion, He was concerned for His men. Luke did not record that Jesus took Peter, James, and John with Him inside the garden to pray (cf. Mt 26:37).

22:41. Luke recorded Jesus’ actions with a simplicity that still conveyed the depth of significance of the scene. First, Jesus withdrew … about a stone’s throw (22:41a) or simply “not far away.” The term withdrew (apospao, “tear away”) is stronger than simply “went away”—it adds a note of emotion (cf. Ac 21:1). Second, He knelt down (Lk 22:41b); again, the action is more vivid than simply the act of “kneeling.” The parallel accounts (cf. Mt 26:39; Mk 14:35) say He “fell down,” in the sense “He dropped to His knees.” Finally, He began to pray (22:41c), indicating that He gave voice to the sentiments of His heart.

22:42-44. There are four parts to Jesus’ prayer: First, He acknowledged the Father’s ability to hear and to answer—if You are willing (22:42b). Second, He communicated His petition—remove this cup from Me (22:42c). Jesus was not asking to be released from the purpose for which He had come, but He was voicing the perfectly understandable desire to avoid the suffering He was about to face. Third, He expressed His submission—yet not My will, but Yours be done (22:42d). This was no mere resignation but an active submission, a giving of Himself to the Father’s purpose and will. Fourth, He conveyed His fervency (22:44b). So intense was this act of prayer that Luke recorded that He was in agony (22:44a), that is, He was physically affected—so much so that His sweat became like drops of blood (22:44c). This may be an instance (noted only by Luke the physician) of hematridrosis—a condition that occurs when one is under great stress. However, Luke said Jesus’ perspiration was like blood, using a comparative particle (hosei). The phrase probably indicates simply a comparison, meant to indicate the intensity of Jesus’ effort; it produced profuse or dripping sweat. The intensity of the prayer affected Him spiritually as well, so much so that an angel from heaven (22:43) arrived to strengthen Him (perhaps with encouraging words; cf. Dn 9:3, 23). This is another detail found only in Luke’s account.

22:45-46. As the mysterious scene began with Jesus’ concern for His disciples, so it concluded with that concern. Jesus returned to find the disciples asleep. Luke noted that the sleep was from sorrow (22:45), which may indicate that they were aware of His struggles in, and the intensity of, His prayers. Nevertheless, He rebuked them for their inattention and warned them of the danger at hand (22:46). Although Jesus understood the gravity of the moment, the disciples did not. Yet in a short time they would.

2. Arrest in the Garden (22:47-53) (see also the comments on Mt 26:47-56)

22:47-51. Luke’s account indicates the swift and confusing rush of events. From the secluded scene of prayer, the action moved to the chaotic events of arrest and trial. Luke’s account of the arrest is the shortest of the gospel writers. Even while Jesus was still speaking (22:47a), a crowd of chief priests and officers of the temple and elders (22:52a) led by Judas the traitor (22:47b) approached Him to kiss Him. The kiss (22:47c; Luke did not record the act of the kiss itself) was no doubt the signal to the officers that He was the One to be arrested (cf. Mt 26:48-49; Mk 14:44). But the familiarity and (false) affection of the act made the betrayal that much more heinous. Jesus’ rebuke to Judas (Lk 22:48) was blunt and withering—no question that this was the despicable act of a traitor. This word from Jesus may have been the first indication to the disciples of what was actually happening, and it prompted an inept and futile response (22:49). The impetuous act of one of them (22:50a; Peter, cf. Jn 18:10), slicing off the ear of a servant of the high priest (Lk 22:50b), indicated the continued misunderstanding of the disciples (cf. 22:38). The swift rebuke of Jesus—Stop! No more of this and His compassionate act of healing the man’s ear (22:51, the last miracle of Jesus’ ministry) contrasted with the militant actions and harsh intentions of His accusers.

22:52-53. Jesus’ rebuke to the religious leaders was condemning and revealing. As if this healing was not enough of an implied rebuke, Jesus noted that their method (with swords and clubs), their manner (as you would against a robber, 22:52), their choice of location, and their timing (not in the temple and at this hour, 22:53) of this arrest all indicated something of their real motivation and intentions. Bluntly, He attributed their act to the power of darkness, namely, Satan (cf. Col 1:13).

3. Denial in a Courtyard (22:54-62) (see also the comments on Mt 26:69-75)

22:54-55. As the sweep of events moved on, Luke recorded that Jesus was taken to the house of the high priest (22:54a). Before the trial itself Luke (as did the other three gospel writers) recorded Peter’s denial. It is a testimony to the veracity of the gospel writers that they faithfully recorded the failure of one of the “pillars of the church” (cf. Gl 2:9). The events of the scene are almost painful to read, and they unfolded slowly over the course of Jesus’ trial. First, Peter’s following at a distance (22:54) is noted. It is doubtful that any spiritual significance is to be attached to that note. He simply lagged behind the arresting party. Next, Peter’s presence at a small fire with a group of the locals is mentioned (22:55). Again, this is merely a factual statement meant to set up the three identifications that follow.

22:56-60a. Three separate people identified Peter, likely because he had sat with them for perhaps two or three hours, outside the high priest’s house. First a mere servant-girl, after looking at him intently (22:56b; this probably was meant to convey that Peter was trying to conceal himself in the dim glow of the firelight), identified him as one who was with Him too (22:56c). Peter’s denial was swift and terse (22:57). Second, a little later (22:58a) another man placed Peter with Jesus’ disciples—You are one of them too! (22:58b). Again, Peter’s denial was swift, but now a bit more emphatic—Man, I am not! (22:58c). Then, after about an hour (22:59a) yet another man more insistently began to affirm that certainly Peter was with Him, and he asserted that Peter was Galilean to back up his identification (22:59b). The rising conviction of his accusers was met by the rising intensity of Peter’s denials. Therefore, he responded with his most vehement denial—Man, I do not know what you are talking about (22:60a; Luke omitted Peter’s cursing, cf. Mk 14:71). The scene was distressing, but it was about to grow even more intense.

22:60b-62. While the words of denial were being spoken, Peter heard the crow of a rooster (22:60b). At that instant, the Lord turned and looked at Peter (22:61a). One can only imagine the searing pain of conscience that swept over Peter at that moment as Peter recalled Jesus’ words (cf. 22:34) spoken only hours before (22:61b). He went out and wept bitterly (22:62); “The effect on Peter was shattering” (Morris, Luke, 316). As difficult as this scene is to read, it serves not only to reassure readers of the veracity and accuracy of the narrative as a whole. It also served to teach that restoration, even after the most egregious failures, is possible. The gospel writer spared no one’s reputation so as to tell the story completely and faithfully.

D. Four Unjust Trials (22:63–23:25)

The identity of Jesus is the main theme of the trials, as it is of the historical narrative as well. Luke kept asking and answering, who is Jesus? Ironically, in these accounts the interrogators are the ones who speak the truth about Jesus. Although Luke does not highlight it, evidently the accounts themselves demonstrate that there were a number of illegalities about these trials. Luke left it to the reader to see and come to the appropriate conclusion that Jesus was unjustly charged and executed.

1. Jesus before the Sanhedrin (22:63-71)

22:63-64. Apparently there was some sort of illegal pre-trial hearing that Luke did not record (cf. Mt 26:59-68; Mk 14:55-65). Holding Jesus at the high priest’s house had been illegal, as was the beating that followed. The abuse Jesus suffered involved both psychological (mocking) and physical abuse (beating, Lk 22:63), as well as a cruel game—they blindfolded Him, struck Him, and then taunted Him to identify the attacker (22:64). Luke added the emphatic explanation—they were blaspheming (22:65). All of this had been predicted by Jesus (cf. 9:22, 44), showing that in spite of the appearances, through all the abuse, Jesus was in control, and all of it was according to the divine plan (cf. Mt 26:53-54).

22:65-67. As the trial itself got underway, Luke noted who was attending. The Council of elders (22:66a) is probably a synonym for the Sanhedrin (cf. Acts 22:5). Among those sitting in judgment were some of those who had been in the garden to arrest Jesus—scribes and chief priests (Lk 22:66)—so much for a fair trial! There followed a series of questions from the council and Jesus’ response. The first question—If You are the Christ, tell us (22:67a) was completely disingenuous. Everything Jesus did, His healings and His teachings, from His affirmation in Nazareth (cf. 4:21) up to the healing of the servant’s ear just hours earlier, had proven that He was the Messiah. His first response exposed their dishonesty—If I tell you, you will not believe (22:67b). Jesus’ point was that neither “evidence” nor “reason” would change their minds because they were already convinced that Jesus was not the Messiah.

22:68-71. Jesus also exposed their prejudice by pointing out that “dialogue” with them was useless because they would refuse to answer Him honestly (22:68). However, even in the face of their dishonesty and bias (and knowing how His answer would be twisted by them) He answered honestly and more completely than they expected. In effect He told them, “Yes, I am the Messiah and one day I will prove it to your satisfaction and chagrin.” He quoted a portion of Ps 110:1 and applied the messianic title SON OF MAN (cf. Dn 7:13-14) to Himself. This prompted the council to ask an even more inflammatory question—Are You the Son of God, then? (Lk 22:70a). Jesus’ ready and confident answer was in effect, “Yes, I am the Son of God.” (Yes, I am is literally “You say that I am”; both expressions convey the same idea.) Luke recorded this to convey that Jesus did not hesitate to affirm His messiahship and His deity, truths that Luke had been affirming throughout his narrative (cf. 1:32-35; 3:22; 4:3, 9, 41; 8:28; 9:35; cf. Ac 9:20; 13:33). The reaction of the council was swift and definitive. “As far as Jesus’ opponents were concerned, their purpose … had now been accomplished” (Stein, Luke, 571).

2. Jesus before Pilate the First Time (23:1-7) (see also the comments on Mt 27:11-14)

23:1-2. However, while the council had the verdict they wanted, they did not have the authority to carry out the death sentence they wanted. For that they needed another charge, one that would stand before Pilate, the Roman governor (23:1). Therefore, Jesus’ accusers would change their strategy before Pilate. Rather than question Jesus, they attempted to bring three accusations against Him. One accusation was that He was misleading our nation (23:2a)—a sort of general charge of stirring up insurrectionist sentiments. A second accusation was that He was encouraging insubordination to the Roman authorities, at just the point that mattered most to those authorities—the paying of taxes (23:2b). (That this charge was patently false would have been clear to anyone; cf. 20:20-26). The third accusation was that Jesus was calling Himself Christ, a King (23:2c). This last accusation revealed that Jewish people considered any claim to be the Messiah as a claim to be king, no doubt reflecting their expectations of the literal fulfillment of the promises of the Davidic covenant (cf. 2Sm 7; Ps 89). From this charge, they also wanted Pilate to conclude that Jesus intended to foment a literal (armed and military) rebellion against Rome.

23:3-4. It was this last charge that interested Pilate and so he followed it up with a direct question to Jesus—Are You the King of the Jews? (23:3a). Jesus’ answer was likewise direct. It is as you say (23:3b; see Jn 18:33-37 for a fuller reply). In spite of what appeared to be an admission of guilt, Pilate rendered his verdict—I find no guilt in this man (23:4).

23:5-7. The accusers were not so easily dissuaded and sought to press the first charge (insurrection) that Pilate had apparently ignored (22:5). However, upon their mentioning of Galilee, Pilate saw a possible opening to avoid further involvement in the matter. He would refer Jesus to Herod (Antipas, ruler of Galilee who had also ordered John the Baptist’s execution, cf. 13:31) who happened to be visiting Jerusalem for Passover.

3. Jesus before Herod (23:8-12)

23:8-12. The account of Jesus before Herod is unique to Luke (cf. Ac 4:27-28). This was a meeting that was long overdue (Lk 23:8b). Herod had wanted to see Jesus to see some sign, that is some miracle, performed by Him (23:8c). The expression is a clue to Herod’s mindset—Jesus was considered to be a “performer” who could put on a good show; Herod had no deeper interests. As Herod was an insincere inquirer (23:9a), Jesus felt no inclination to dignify the proceedings with any answers (23:9b; cf. Is 53:7). This is not the silence of one “Jesus meek and mild,” but the silence of a superior not condescending to lower Himself to the childish level of this shallow knave. Once again, it is an example that through it all Jesus was in control. However, His accusers were again vehemently pressing their case (Lk 23:10). Luke’s description of their behavior is emphatic. Herod’s contemptuous and juvenile mockery (23:11a) of Jesus only served to reinforce the picture of Herod as a superficial and foolish character who, in the presence of the Son of God, can only think of coarse jests and mocking contempt. He made no verdict and sent Jesus back to Pilate (23:11b). “The really frightening thing about the incident [is that] with the Son of God before him Herod could only jest” (Morris, Luke, 321). Luke noted that their mutual hostility toward Jesus turned the hostility between Pilate and Herod to friendship (23:12)—a twisted and corrupt basis for becoming friends.

4. Jesus before Pilate the Second Time (23:13-25) (see also the comments on Mt 27:15-26)

23:13-17. Since Herod had not relieved him of the responsibility of dealing with Jesus, Pilate once again found himself before the Jewish religious authorities (23:13). The scene unfolded in three parts: First, Pilate rendered his (what he thought would be the final) verdict. Again, in Luke’s narrative an unbeliever stated the truth—I have found no guilt in this man (23:14b). The charges against Jesus were, indeed, groundless—He was simply an innocent man—and this was the opinion of Herod as well (23:15) who, like Pilate, had the authority to execute Jesus. Still, to appease the leaders and the crowd, Pilate decided to (unjustly) punish Him, but then to release Him (23:16). In a parenthetical note, Luke informed the reader that, not only had he found Jesus innocent but Pilate also was using a recognized custom, an act of clemency, to release Jesus (23:17; this verse is not found in a few of the oldest Gk. mss).

23:18-25. In the second part of this scene, the crowds (they, 23:18a), no doubt prompted by the religious leaders, expressed their displeasure with Pilate’s verdict and demanded not only that Jesus be taken away (23:18b) and crucified (23:21), but also (in a tragic irony) that a genuine insurrectionist, Barabbas (23:18c-19), be released instead. The scene shifted back and forth—Pilate reiterating his verdict of Jesus’ innocence and his intent to release Jesus (23:20, 22), and the crowds increasingly insistent on his death (23:21, 23). In the final, tragic scene of this trial a pliable Pilate capitulated to the will of the people—he condemned Jesus (23:24) and released the insurrectionist (23:25). Why did the crowd prefer the insurrectionist? That his insurrection was mentioned twice would indicate that that is what they wanted—they were rejecting Jesus as Messiah who came to save sinners (cf. 19:10) and not to throw off the yoke of Rome.

E. Crucifixion and Burial (23:26-56)

Luke related the crucifixion and burial with a studied simplicity. There is no attempt to draw out the pathos of the scene, there is no melodramatic description, (cf. Stein, Luke, 588), and there is no theological explanation of the events—no “theory of the atonement” (see Is 53). There is only the record of the events, which is designed to keep to Luke’s main theme—answering the question “Who is Jesus?”

1. The Cross (23:26-49)

a. On the Way to the Cross (23:26-32) (see also the comments on Mt 27:31-34)

23:26-27. In Luke’s account, the narrative of the way to the cross is taken up with the people encountered on the way. The first person is a man, Simon of Cyrene (23:26a). Normally criminals were forced to carry their own cross to the place of execution. However, the beatings and extended trials caused Jesus to be too weak to perform this task, and so Simon was forced (only Luke uses the forceful term seized) to carry the cross (23:26b). Simon, probably a Jew from North Africa (Cyrene), was visiting Jerusalem for the Passover and may have become a follower of Jesus (cf. Mk 15:21). Luke noted a large crowd (Lk 23:27a) of people following Jesus to His execution. Luke’s description of the crowd was ambiguous. Sometimes the crowd seemed to be with Jesus, but at other times (as during the recent trials) they were with the opposition. Once again the crowd displayed its ambivalence toward Jesus, following more out of curiosity than concern. Next came a brief encounter between Jesus and some women, the professional mourners (23:27b) (not those who had followed Jesus during His ministry) who were dutifully, if somewhat mechanically, performing their duties. Even in His weakened condition Jesus took the opportunity to offer a word of warning to these women and the crowd.

23:28-32. First, instead of expressing appreciation for their sentiments on His behalf, He surprisingly admonished them to direct their lamentations, not for Him, but for themselves and their children. For rejecting Him they will all face a judgment (23:28). Second, He offered a prophetic word on the tragedy about to befall them. The days are coming (23:29a), He said, when conditions would be so bad that those without children would be the most blessed (23:29a, b), certainly a stark and disturbing thought for these women. Furthermore, in those days men would prefer being covered with earth—i.e., death—rather than face the judgment that was about to befall them (23:30). Jesus quoted Hs 10:8 and Is 2:19, both contexts that speak of judgment. Finally He offered a proverb (Lk 23:31) that said in effect, if this travesty—a condemnation of the innocent (when the tree is green)—can happen then how much more likely will be the judgment on the guilty (when the wood is dry)? The overall point Jesus was making is this: the citizens needed to wake up and realize that by this rejection of the Messiah they were in danger of judgment. Indeed, that judgment fell in AD 70.

Luke added a brief note about the two criminals who were being led away with Jesus (23:32) in order to provide a setting for the conversation that took place during the crucifixion.

b. Crucifixion (23:33-38) (see also the comments on Mt 27:35-44)

23:33. The place of the crucifixion was not only a place of shame (with criminals, 23:33b), but even its name—the place called The Skull (23:33a) was foreboding. It may have resembled a human skull (“Calvary” is a transliteration of the Latin word calvaria, which means “skull”; “Golgotha” is the Aramaic equivalent) or it may have been a place associated with skulls, that is, a place of death—executions and graves.

23:34a, b. The first of three statements from the cross (as recorded by Luke) was a word of forgiveness (23:34). If Jesus’ prophetic retort to the professional mourners seemed a bit discordant (one would think He would appreciate the gesture), this word of forgiveness is completely unexpected (in an entirely different way). When one might expect Him to be reasserting His innocence (which in a way He does here), He rather prayed a prayer for forgiveness for His executioners—Father, forgive them (23:34a). Jesus was not suggesting that ignorance is an excuse for sin (23:34b); he was being gracious. He was practicing what He taught (cf. 6:27-28), and He was fulfilling prophecy (cf. Is 53:12).

23:34c-38. The activity around the cross involved the soldiers playing games of chance with His garments as the prize (23:34c; cf. Ps 22:18) and several groups of people mocking and berating Him. Once again, even in the cruel derision and contempt of the people (Lk 23:35a), rulers (23:35b), and soldiers (23:36a), Luke managed to have the opponents of Jesus speak the truth about Him. Unknowingly they were confirming that He is the One who can save others (23:35c; 37b; cf. 19:10) not by saving Himself but by giving Himself. “[T]he saving nature of Jesus’ ministry is referred to four times in the space of five verses” (23:35-39; Stein, Luke 590). He is the Christ of God, His chosen One (23:35d), He is the king of the Jews (23:37a, 38). All of this mockery was fulfilling the prophetic word of Ps 22 (cf. Ps 22:6-18) and thus is itself confirmation that Jesus was the Messiah. Luke expected his readers to understand that these mockers were correct in their mockery and chiding because unwittingly they confirmed the Christology that he had related in the previous 22 chapters: He is the Christ/Messiah (cf. Lk 1:32-33; 2:11, 26; 4:41; 9:20), He is the King of the Jews (cf. 1:32-33; 2:4; 18:38-39; 19:38), and He is the Savior (cf. 1:47, 69, 77; 2:11; 19:10).

c. Conversation with Criminals (23:39-43)

23:39-43. Luke’s account of the conversation with the two criminals is unique to his gospel. With Matthew (Mt 27:44) and Mark (Mk 15:32), Luke noted the abuse that Jesus received from the criminals, but unlike the others he recorded that while the abuse came from one of the criminals (Lk 23:39a) the other criminal defended Jesus. Once again the facts of Jesus’ person and mission (that He was the Christ and had come to save others) were put into the mouth of Jesus’ antagonists through the first criminal’s rant (23:39b). The second criminal responded in three ways. First, he rebuked the mocking criminal, acknowledging the justice of their punishment (23:40-41a). Second, he defended Jesus, acknowledging the Lord’s innocence (23:41b). Third, he made a request of Jesus, demonstrating his faith. In the simple request, Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom (23:42), the criminal affirmed his belief that Jesus was the Messiah and the King of the Jews, since he expected Jesus to have a kingdom, and that He could save him—remember me. As a result, the criminal received a promise—Today, you shall be with Me in Paradise (heaven; Rv 2:7) (23:43b). This was the second of the sayings of Jesus from the cross as recorded by Luke.

d. The Conclusion of Jesus’ Passion (23:44-49) (see also the comments on Mt 27:45-56)

23:44-46. The sixth hour … until the ninth hour (23:44) would have been noon to three o’clock in the afternoon. The supernatural darkness (23:44-45a; there is no hint of an eclipse or other natural phenomenon) indicated that an event of cosmic significance was happening. The rending of the veil in the holy place of the temple was another supernatural indication that the way into the presence of God was now accomplished by Jesus’ sacrifice (cf. the comments on Mt 27:51; cf. Heb 10:19-20). The third word of Jesus from the cross (as recorded by Luke) and the final cry of Jesus, committing Himself into His Fathers’ hands, quotes Ps 31:5. In that psalm a righteous man pleads for a rescue from his enemies but nevertheless commits himself in trust to the LORD. “Jesus’ remarks are an expression of righteous faith … Jesus is the righteous sufferer par excellence.” Bock suggests that in this expression of “his trust that God will care for him … Jesus is expressing his trust that God will “resurrect him” (Bock, Luke, 1862). And as in Jn 19:30—“It is finished!”—Jesus was affirming that He had accomplished the sacrificial atonement for sins, that work for which He had been born (cf. Lk 1:77; 2:29-32). “Thus after finishing his mission, Jesus committed himself into his Father’s hands and breathed his last. No one took his life from him. He gave it freely (cf. Jn 10:18)” (Stein, Luke, 597). Of course, this does not imply the silly notion that Jesus “committed suicide” but that He freely submitted Himself to the Father’s purpose for His incarnation (cf. Mt 1:21; Jn 1:29; Gl 1:4) and offered Himself willingly as a sacrifice.

23:47-49. Luke recorded three reactions to Jesus’ death: The first was the confession of the centurion that this man was innocent (23:47). This is significant because any centurion would have been a man of utmost integrity whose word was to be accepted as completely unbiased and true. Also, he would have been the man in charge for this execution (he was in a position to know the man he was executing). Finally, he was a Gentile, so his testimony would have had great weight with Luke’s readership. Furthermore, this is the same testimony as that of the criminal. Thus from both sides of the “law” came the same conclusion—Jesus was innocent. The second reaction was that of the crowd, which was remorse (23:48). The fickle crowd that had cried for His death, that had gathered for the spectacle of it all, those people, after they witnessed all the events, were beating their breasts (23:48c; Luke alone recorded this act of communal contrition). The final reaction to Jesus’ death was on the part of the friends (acquaintances), and faithful women who had followed Him from Galilee (23:49). They were vigilant. They were standing at a distance and waited for the opportunity to serve Jesus one final time.

2. The Tomb (23:50-56) (see also the comments on Mt 27:57-66)

As with the account of the crucifixion, the account of the burial is related simply and without a melodramatic flourish.

23:50-52. First, a good man made a bold request. In a short space, Luke related several key facts about this man: his name was Joseph (23:50a; a common name then as now), he was a member of the Council (23:50b; which meant that this request may have put him at odds with those who had opposed Jesus), and he was a man of quality (a good and righteous man, 23:50c), meaning a man of integrity. As proof, it is related that he had not consented to their plan and action (23:51a)—that is, he had not approved or participated in the unjust trials or false accusations against Jesus. Additionally, he was a from a town called Arimathea, a city of Judea (23:51b), and he was waiting for the kingdom of God (23:51c)—that is, he was looking for the Messiah. He also was a bold man, asking Pilate for the body of Jesus (23:52). For Joseph to identify himself as sympathetic to Jesus—if not as actually one of His followers—right after Jesus had been executed would have required courage.

23:53-56. Next, Luke recorded a considerate and sympathetic burial (23:53). The whole scene conveyed a sense of deep respect and loving care for Jesus. “The reader is to note the respect shown to Jesus and the effort made to give Him care” (Bock, Luke, 1878). Finally, there was a hasty internment. The notes regarding the preparation day and the onset of the Sabbath (23:54) conveyed that the normal preparations for burial had to be curtailed. The women (cf. 23:49) made sure they knew where the tomb was (23:55) so that they could return there after preparing spices and perfumes (23:56) to complete the rituals of burial.

F. Resurrection, Commission, Ascension (24:1-53)

In Luke’s account the events surrounding the resurrection all occurred on the same day, and all of them in, or around, Jerusalem (cf. Stein, Luke, 602).

1. Resurrection (24:1-46)

a. At the Tomb (24:1-12) (see also the comments on Mt 28:1-8)

24:1-3. Luke assumed the reader would understand that it was the women who came to the tomb (they came; cf. 23:49, 55) to complete the burial rituals for Jesus (24:1). Note that Luke recorded that women were the first to learn of the resurrection. That it was on the first day of the week and at early dawn (24:1a) accords with the accounts of the other gospels. Luke had not previously mentioned the stone, which was now rolled away (24:2). On entering the tomb, the women did not find the body of the Lord Jesus (24:3). Luke’s emphasis was on the absence of the “body”—it was a “bodily resurrection.” Furthermore, the fuller identification, “Lord Jesus,” conveyed something of the import of the resurrection—it proved His claim to lordship (cf. Ac 22:22-36; Eph 1:20-21).

24:4-5a. Two men appeared (24:4a; only Luke mentioned both, one of whom was the only speaker, hence Mark’s one man, Mk 16:5, and Matthew’s one angel, Mt 28:2-3, 5). They were clearly angels, as revealed by the suddenness of their appearance, the description of their clothing (Lk 24:4b), and the insight they were able to give to the women (cf. 24:5-6). This was later made explicit in v. 23. This manifestation of angelic glory was startling and caused the women look away in fear (24:5a).

24:5b-8. The message of the angels was stunning. First, there was a question: Why do you seek the living One among the dead? (24:5b), which came as a mild rebuke. Before the women could protest (it was after all quite reasonable for them to be at the tomb looking for Jesus’ body) the angel added: He is not here, but He has risen (24:6a). This was quickly followed by an explanation (24:6b-7), emphasizing the “divine necessity” of the events that had led to this moment (24:7, must be). In effect, the angel was saying to the women, “You should have expected all these events—the passion, the cross, and the resurrection—because this is what Jesus was telling you all along.” Luke noted that they remembered His words (24:8). It was not the evidence of their own eyes—an empty tomb—or even the words of angels, that convinced them. Rather, it was the memory of the Word that Jesus taught and now confirmed by His resurrection that brought them to realize that He had risen!

24:9-12. The women immediately returned to the city and reported all these things to the disciples (24:9). Including the names of some of the women (24:10) is yet another example of how Luke gave prominence to the role of women in the gospel narrative. The report of the women did not receive immediate acceptance (24:11) but prompted Peter to go out to the tomb in haste; he ran to the tomb (24:12a). While he saw the evidences of the empty tomb and the linen wrappings—and he was impressed (marveling)—the impression from what Luke wrote was that Peter did not yet believe (24:12b).

b. On the Road to Emmaus (24:13-32)

The account of the appearance of the risen Jesus to the two on the road to Emmaus is unique to Luke’s gospel.

24:13-14. The two discussing all these things are identified only as being of them (24:13a) that is, of the number of the disciples (not of the Eleven but of the rest 24:9c). They were on that very day (24:13b), that is, the day of the resurrection, traveling to Emmaus, a village about seven miles [west] from Jerusalem (24:13c). That distance might take them half a day to travel and afforded them several hours of conversation on the way. They were probably headed home (cf. Bock, Luke, 1907), talking about all these things that had occurred, (24:14; “these things” and related phrases are key terms in this account) concerning Jesus’ passion and death.

24:15-17a. It is immediately apparent that the One who joined the two travelers was Jesus (24:15), but they were prevented from recognizing Him (24:16). The passive “were kept from recognizing” is a “divine passive, that is, God kept them from recognizing Jesus” (Stein, Luke, 610). His question amounted to, “What were you just talking about?” (24:17a).

24:17b-19a. The question posed by the One stopped them in their tracks (they stood still). So direct a question caused them to think of why “these things” had been the topic of their conversation—and that made them sad (looking sad) (24:17b). Cleopas—the only one of the two to be named—answered with a mild edge of incredulity—Are You the only one … unaware of the things, the recent events in the city? (24:18). Incredulous, these men were amazed that He could have missed so shocking an event as Jesus’ death. The stranger pressed His question—What things? (24:19a).

24:19b-24. Luke took this occasion to rehearse the narrative one more time—giving a historical summary. He took care to include all the most relevant facts about Jesus—His identity: Jesus the Nazarene (24:19b); His calling: a prophet (24:19c); His work: mighty in deed and word (24:19d); His reputation: in the sight of God and all the people (24:19e); His rejection: the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him (24:20a); His death: the sentence of death, and crucified Him (24:20b); and their disappointment over what they thought was His mission (which it was): He who was going to redeem Israel (24:21a). In addition, they related the recent events: it was the third day since these things (24:21b), and they had received a report from the women about the empty tomb not containing Jesus’ body, and a visitation of angels who said that He was alive (24:22-23). Furthermore some of the leaders had checked out the tomb, but Him they did not see (24:24). This mere historical account was complete, but by itself it was not convincing.

24:25-27. Surprisingly, at this point, Jesus, still hidden to their eyes, rebuked them for their silly unbelief (O foolish men … slow of heart to believe) (24:25a). They should have understood this “history” in the light of the “predictions” of the Scriptures (24:25b). He pointed out that all of these things (24:26) were necessary, and He thus patiently took them through the whole of the Scriptures (Moses and with all the prophets, 24:27a) and explained the things (the theology) about Him and His messianic mission that they should have understood. Had they understood messianic prophecy, it would have explained all “these things” to them. The key point Jesus made here was that the OT Scriptures foretold the coming of the Messiah, including two events: a suffering (the first coming) and an entering into glory (a second coming; cf. 21:27).

24:28-32. This discourse must have taken some time, for by its conclusion the party was at the village where they were going (24:28a). The two extended an invitation to the stranger, and it was readily accepted (24:28b-29). It was at this dinner, specifically when He prayed for and began to distribute the bread (24:30), that their eyes were opened and they recognized Him (24:31). Were opened is another divine passive, cf. 24:16; Stein, Luke, 613). The supernatural obscurity was replaced by supernatural illumination (perhaps a way for Luke to explain why some come to faith and others do not). The term recognized is the same term used in 1:4 with respect to “knowing (epignos) the certainty of the things” taught (Stein, Luke, 613).

The impact of this encounter on the two was profound—from “foolish” hearts of unbelief (cf. 24:25) to burning hearts of understanding and faith (24:32).

c. With the Disciples in Jerusalem (24:33-46)

24:33-35. Even though the two had just come from Jerusalem, and the hour was late (cf. 24:29b), they returned that very hour (24:33a) to the city, found the Eleven, and reported their encounter to the others (24:33b). Once there, they were informed that the Lord has really risen (24:34a), confirmed by an appearance to Peter (Simon; 24:34b). The two then corroborated this news, as they related their own encounter with Jesus.

24:36-37. While they were busy trying to convince themselves of the truth of the resurrection He Himself stood in their midst (24:36a). Luke did not explain how Jesus did this or speculate on the nature of Jesus’ resurrection body and its capacities. Ironically, here were the disciples trying to convince each other of the truth of Jesus’ resurrection, but when He actually arrived, they were startled and frightened (24:37a). Luke related that they thought they were seeing a spirit (24:37b). With all the appearances and evidences they were still not convinced of the resurrection. Now, even the presence of the risen Lord Jesus was not enough to overcome their fears and rationalistic thinking.

24:38-43. Again, with a slightly ironic tone, Luke related how Jesus first questioned them: Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? (24:38). The thrust of these questions was, “Do you not believe your own eyes? Do you not trust your own reason?” Of course, the point was they did not, nor should they. Second, Jesus challenged them: See My hands and My feet (24:39a). The thrust of this challenge was, “Do you not trust your own senses?” And they had to admit that they did not, for they still could not believe it because of their joy (24:41a). Luke was emphasizing that this was a bodily resurrection. The proof was Jesus could show His hands and His feet (24:40) and even eat some fish (24:41b-43), something impossible for a “spirit” (a mere ghost).

24:44-46. But these are not the things that lead to faith in the resurrection. As it was with the women who first confronted the empty tomb, for the disciples real belief came through Jesus’ Word. He left off with the physical proofs and evidences and began to speak to the disciples, as He had done for the two on the road to Emmaus, about how the Scriptures prophesied of Him (24:44). Using the tripartite division of the Hebrew Bible, the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms (the first book in the writings), Jesus showed how the Hebrew Scriptures predicted that Christ (the Messiah) would suffer and rise again (24:46). As A. T. Robertson said, “Jesus found himself in the Old Testament, a thing that some modern scholars do not seem to be able to do” (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 2. [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1930], 294). It was through the Scriptures (not reasons or evidences) that Jesus opened their minds to understand the Scriptures (24:45) and thus to understand that what He—the Messiah—had suffered and how He had been raised was all according to the divine plan of redemption.

2. Commission (24:47-49)

24:47-49. In this short discourse, Jesus turned quickly to the message that must be preached in light of the truth of His person and work. The content of the message would be about sin—the need for repentance from it and forgiveness for it (24:47a). This was to be proclaimed in His Name (24:47b), that is, on the basis of His divine person and authority (cf. Ac 2:38; 3:6, 16; 4:7) they are to preach His death and atonement for sin. The venue for this message was to be the world—to all the nations (Lk 24:47c). While Ac 2:38 connects baptism to forgiveness (though see the comments there), Luke made no such association here (writing repentance for forgiveness of sins without baptism), suggesting that the key is repentance and not baptism. The means of this gospel message would be human witnesses to the truth (24:48). The power for this message would be the promise of My Father (which is the Spirit, cf. the comments on Ac 1:4-5, 8), for which they would have to wait (see chaps. 1 and 2 of Luke’s second volume, the book of Acts).

3. Ascension (24:50-53)

This gospel concludes with an abbreviated account of the ascension (24:50-53). The ascension was necessary for the next phase of the plan of redemption to begin; (cf. Ac 1 for a fuller account of the events and significance of the ascension).

Luke certainly fulfilled his purpose giving the church a portrait of Jesus that, while parallel to Matthew’s and Mark’s, in key ways provided unique and vital information about Him so that we “may know the exact truth about the things” (1:4) concerning Jesus Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bock, Darrell L. Luke 1:1–9:50. Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994.

____________. Luke 9:51–24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996.

Craddock, Fred B. Luke. Minneapolis: John Knox Press, 1990.

Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997.

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978.

Leifeld, Walter L. “Luke.” In Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 8, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Luke. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974.

Stein, Robert H. Luke. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992.