Original Meaning
THIS SHORT UNIT in Luke 16 is difficult to put together. It stands between two passages that clearly address the topic of money, but the connection seems obscure. However, it is introduced by a remark that the Pharisees, “who loved money,” scoff at Jesus’ comments, making a connection explicit. That is, Jesus’ remarks about money raise the issue of his authority, since the presence of the kingdom raises the question of the source and allegiances of one’s values.1 The kingdom exposes divided loyalties, for one serves either God or Money (vv. 10–13). Idolatries are revealed by its presence, and God hates them (vv. 14–15). A key to such values is total integrity, which is why the example of the divorce pledge gets noted in verse 18. The hinge is verses 16–17, where the arrival of the kingdom is linked to the preaching of Jesus. He has the right to call on people to examine how they use their resources and to reflect on the nature of their walk with God in terms of integrity.
If this description of this unit’s argument is correct, then the Pharisees’ scoffing indicates that they do not understand the values that Jesus insists are reflective of his kingdom. Their love for money has put them out of touch with his message. So Jesus directly mentions where they stand before God. They may justify themselves before people, but God knows their hearts. What they value highly, God detests. Jesus can hardly use a stronger word than what the NIV translates as “detestable.”2 On the continuum that measure values, God and the Pharisees are on opposite ends.
Our knowledge of God-endorsed values comes from both Old and New Testaments. “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John,” but now a new era has come—the good news of the kingdom. Jesus brings its message, and its presence means the initiation of the time of fulfillment. In addition, he reveals the ethical standards God desires. But those standards do not represent the destruction of the values reflected in the Law, since it is easier for the creation to pass away than for the least stroke of the Law to be altered. Jesus is arguing that what he brings represents the fulfillment of the promise and hope of the Law, to bring righteousness to God’s people.
The text makes another point. God’s plan divides into two periods: Law and Prophets, and kingdom. The boundary line is John the Baptist’s ministry. The call of Jesus is the beginning of the realization of promise. Now the kingdom is being proclaimed.
The last part of verse 16 is disputed. The NIV translates the verse, “Everyone is forcing his way into it”—a reading that suggests acceptance of the gospel that is more widespread than Scripture portrays. The word “is forcing” (biazetai) can be read differently, however, since the form is a middle-passive voice. We prefer to read a passive here and translate it: “Everyone is urged insistently to enter in.” With this reading, the emphasis is on the preached word, which is what Jesus gives here.3 He highlights that his call and the call of those who follow him is to preach the word of the kingdom.
Jesus closes with a note about divorce to illustrate that the ethical call of the kingdom is rooted in an integrity that matches the integrity of the period of the Law and the Prophets. If anyone makes a commitment before God in marriage and then divorces, this represents adultery, not only because it is an act of unfaithfulness but also because it is a violation of the original vow made before God. The point of this passage is not to discuss possible grounds for divorce, as Matthew 5:31–32 and 1 Corinthians 7:14–16 do, but simply to illustrate the importance of personal commitments made in the new era. The commitment to marry is a commitment to stay married. To break that commitment and remarry is to commit adultery. That is how serious the commitment of our word is to be in our relationships.
Bridging Contexts
THE DESCRIPTION OF the two-part division of God’s plan over time is a timeless breakdown of how promise became fulfillment through Jesus. We call this today the Old Testament era and the New Testament era, but it is important to remember that this is one promise being realized in two phases: the period of the church and the period that follows Jesus’ return. The roots of New Testament fulfillment begin with God’s promise to Abraham (cf. Gal. 3).4 As a result, certain practices are no longer required, such as sacrifices for sin (Heb. 8–10). In addition, the new era brings fresh elements to the promise, as Gentiles are graciously included in God’s community more directly than before (Rom. 9–11; Eph. 2:11–22).
These changes we now take for granted, but they were revolutionary at the time. What clearly carries over from our reading of the Old Testament is the reflection of its ethical values of commitment to holiness and meeting the needs of others, so that we live in a way that does not take advantage of others. Even in areas of worship, though we do not bring lambs to the altar, we are called to give a sacrifice of faith that honors and gives thanks to God (Rom. 12:1–2). The Old Testament is filled with instruction that is profitable for the Christian (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
Another fundamental truth expressed in this text is the warning that God does not necessarily value what we value. Engaging in rhetorical overstatement, Jesus speaks of God’s detesting what we value. In mind here is our tendency to be attracted to material things and to pursue status in a way that abuses others. The specific application of this idea is discussed elsewhere in Luke (e.g., 12:22–34; 16:1–13, 19–31). Luke hammers away at this theme, possibly because Theophilus comes from a socially high background, so that if his ministry is to be effective, his handling of resources and his social status will need special sensitivity. The use of money in our world takes special spiritual strength, since our culture so ingrains us with expectations that are high and self-focused. Developing generosity means denying the self, which is one of the most fundamental of spiritual virtues.5
There is a juxtaposition of continuity and discontinuity in what Jesus says here about God’s promise. On the one hand, a shift of era has taken place. No longer do we reside in the period of the Law and the Prophets. On the other hand, what Jesus brings represents fulfillment of all the Law stood for, in that he has provided a permanent forgiveness and a means of enablement in the Spirit, so that we may walk in a way that leads to holiness (2 Cor. 3–4).
This juxtaposition is important because theological systems risk ignoring one side of this equation. Some, highlighting the newness of the new era, emphasize the discontinuity and thus tend to dismiss significance of portions of the Gospels or the Old Testament for today, especially those portions relating to ethics and values. Others highlight continuity and emphasize that little, if anything, is really different in the new era of realization. The approach to many issues on which the Old Testament had specific legal instruction has been impacted and altered in form by what Jesus did, so that appealing directly to the Old Testament is not always appropriate. For example, the appeal to maintain the distinction between clean and unclean food, which some Christian works argue for because of health considerations, is really a misuse of the declaration Mark cites that Jesus declared all food clean (see Mark 7:1–20; Acts 10). One of the merits of Luke’s text here is its declaration that what Jesus brings is both a new era and a realization of the promises of old.
The short text on divorce and adultery becomes significant in an age where divorce abounds. God’s standards do not change, but the need for the church to minister wisely in a context where many come from broken homes becomes greater in a culture where marriages are not holding together. The emphasis on families and on keeping them together is a good preventive approach. We need to encourage couples and instruct them before they get to a stage where they desire divorce. We must remind people that the romantic notions attached to marriage today are not the fundamental keys to a marriage that honors God. Marriage is not held together by feelings; cultural expectations for marriage often idealize it so greatly that we are set up for disappointment and an emotional roller coaster when we discover our mate is not perfect and that marriage takes work. At the base of a good marriage is a commitment to God and to each other, to honor each other and him by following through on promises. That means working together and learning to live graciously with one another, as well as being forgiving to each other. The short remark on divorce highlights that one’s ethical commitments are still to be maintained in the new era.
Support also needs to be offered for those who have made the choice to split up. Such couples need to see that divorce is not something God desired and that there may be issues in their lives that contributed to the demise of their marriage. On the other hand, though divorce is sin, it is not an unpardonable sin. Divorce does sometimes occur, and after it happens, the process of restoration must begin. The penalty for divorce may mean certain functions in the church (like eldership) may not be an option for ministry (1 Tim. 3:2), since the church is called to model its values in its leadership; but that does not mean that a remarriage disqualifies one from other types of ministry. Those who have remarried can and should be restored in the church to reflect a new commitment to faithfulness.
This text is but one of several on the theme of marriage and divorce, so this text does not decide the entire issue. It functions rather as an illustration of a truth about integrity, a more modest goal than to treat fully the divorce and remarriage question. One must work with other texts to come to a biblical understanding of the issue.6
Contemporary Significance
JESUS HAS THE right to preach the kingdom and to speak with authority. The basic application to this small unit is to respond with obedience to the kingdom demand for ethical integrity, whether it be in how we deal with our resources or how we approach our marriages. The values of the Pharisees, with their love of wealth, are not values endorsed by God. One’s word before God in an issue like marriage should be one’s word. To honor God means to be faithful to him in all areas of life.
The message of the kingdom is a message about the beginning of fulfillment. Believers are urged to encourage others passionately to enter into its blessings. That is why others are urged insistently to enter in (v. 16b), not in a sense of coercion, but with a pleading that says, “Be reconciled to God” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:20–21). As ambassadors we represent Jesus not just in terms of our preached call to respond to the gospel, but also in the character and values he calls his church to have.
The new era Jesus inaugurated is now nearly two thousand years old, but the dynamics that run it are as fresh as they were at the beginning. The key to the kingdom Jesus brings is the total forgiveness he offers and the Spirit he provides for us until the day he completes what has been promised. The Christian community should be a place where transformation and growth are evident. God has brought us into relationship with him in order to remake us into his image. That is why it is so amazing to see Christian communities where change is viewed negatively.
The essence of the founding of the community is that its dynamic will change us. We must think through how to make this fundamental dynamic of the Christian walk remain vibrant in the midst of pursuing a walk of integrity that is not controlled by values formed by our world. This does not mean that we are so separate in style that we cannot relate to the lost. It does mean that we know the difference between tradition we have made into law and that which God asks of us, so that neutral matters of form are not seen as constitutional-like issues that cannot be changed.