1. The numbers for John include Revelation and the Johannine letters. These numbers may vary slightly, depending on how one assesses certain text critical problems.

2. In this introduction, we confine ourselves to the basic features that introduce the historical setting of the third Gospel. For summaries of this work’s structure and biblical theology, see D. L. Bock, “Luke, Gospel of,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. by J. B. Green, S. McKnight, and I. H. Marshall (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), 495–510. For a more complete treatment of the book’s theology, see my “A Theology of Luke-Acts,” in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, ed. by R. Zuck and D. Bock (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 87–166.

3. For this position, see E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), 85.

4. This case is made most forcefully by P. Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. by L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (London: S.P.C.K., 1966), 33–50.

5. F. F. Bruce, “Is the Paul of Acts the Real Paul?” BJRL 58 (1975/76): 282–305.

6. My two volumes on Luke, Luke 1:1–9:50 and Luke 9:51–24:53 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994 and forthcoming) make such detailed comparisons a verse at a time and a passage at a time. Given the detail there, I am not repeating such comparisons in the current commentary.

7. C. H. Dodd, “The Fall of Jerusalem and the Abomination of Desolation,” JRS 37 (1947): 47–54.

8. For a more complete discussion as it relates to Luke, see the discussion on introduction in Luke 1:1–9:50.

9. See Luke 1:1–9:50 and Luke 9:51–24:53, where literary issues of the division of the Gospel are given full treatment at the beginning of each division.

1. See Lucian’s, How to Write History, 47–48. L. Alexander, “Luke’s Preface in the Context of Greek Preface Writing,” NovT 28 (1986): 48–74. On the genre of Luke, G. E. Sterling, Historiography and Self Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992).

2. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, I-IX (AB 28a; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981), 294.

3. R. Riesner, “Jesus as Teacher and Preacher,” in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed. H. Wansbrough (JSNTMS 64; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 185–210.

4. On hermeneutics and genre, R. Stein, Playing by the Rules: A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994). To know the genre is to know how to read the text. Luke is writing theological narrative history.

5. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, I-IX, 16.

6. C. W. Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1983).

7. For example, the recent work by the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels (ed. R. Funk and R. W. Hoover [New York: Macmillan, 1993]) argues that over fifty percent of the teaching attributed to Jesus has no historical contact with him at all! The fifth gospel is the extrabiblical Gospel of Thomas. They received much attention in late 1993 with their color coding of the sayings of Jesus: red = from Jesus; pink = a paraphrase of Jesus; gray = not Jesus’ words but may go back to him; and black = not from Jesus at all. For an incisive evaluation of this excessively skeptical approach to the Gospels, see Jesus under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. J. P. Moreland and M. Wilkens (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).

8. Both citations are from John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.4.1.

1. The more detailed story of this Jewish surrogate ruler is told in the ancient works of Tacitus (Histories, 5.9.3) and Josephus (Antiquities, 14.14.4–5 §§ 383–86; 14.15.1 §469; 17.8.1–3 §§ 191–99).

2. I. H. Marshall, Commentary on Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 52.

3. H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (München: C. H. Beck, 1926), 2:71–75.

4. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, I-IX, 328.

5. Bertram, “ἐπιστρέφω,” TDNT, 7:727.

6. J. Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20 (WBC 35a; Dallas: Word, 1989), 26.

7. That he is deaf as well is indicated by the signing they do to him in v. 62.

8. In some cases I will cite material from later Judaism, either from the Mishnah (the written record of the oral law recorded, in c. A.D. 170), the Talmud (the official rabbinic commentary of the Mishnah from the fifth century A.D.), or the Targums and Midrashim (the rabbinic translations and commentaries on Scripture of the same period). Though these texts are later than the period in question and thus cannot be said to have a direct link to first-century culture, they often reflect the kind of mood that existed in Judaism, a religious culture of rich history and tradition that often changed slowly as to its religious sensibilities.

9. Two excellent works on the role of the man, especially in terms of family, are both written by Steve Farrar: Point Man (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1990) and Standing Tall (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1994). Luke 1:5–25 reveals how one of the outworkings of a good relationship with God is the potential to reconcile family members to each other.

10. Philip Yancey, Where Is God When It Hurts? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), is an excellent discussion of this question of pain and the Christian.

1. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, I-IX, 343.

2. This is the most natural reading of the Greek word order (see TDNT, 4:238, n. 29). A connection between Jesus and the Davidic house through Joseph is not problematic, since Jesus would be the perceived son of Joseph, even though he was virginally conceived. Human inheritance would come to him through that connection. Precedent for nonbiological ancestry exists in levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5–10).

3. It is debated whether or not Isaiah 7:14 plays a major role in Luke’s portrayal. He certainly is less explicit in any allusion to the passage than Matthew, who cites the text (Matt. 1:21–23). The issue here is not whether Luke sees a virgin birth, since the dialogue with the angel makes clear that that is what Luke sees. Rather, the question is whether Luke noted the tie to the Old Testament. Nothing in the description clearly makes the connection, though nothing excludes it either.

4. Jim Jones, “The Gospel Truth?” Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Dec. 16, 1994), front page of Metropolitan section.

5. For a classic work on the Virgin Birth, see J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965 reprint).

1. The idea of children reacting to events from the womb is known in Judaism. The later Targum to Psalm 68:27 calls on the fetus in the womb to praise God, while Odes to Solomon 28:2 speaks of a child leaping in the womb. The precedent for such hope is Genesis 25:22. In the Palestinian Talmud, the fetuses present at the Exodus were said to react at the parting of the sea.

2. Friedrich, “προφήτης,” TDNT, 6:835.

3. A. Plummer, Luke (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), 30.

4. For a chart covering the Old Testament background of the hymn, see ibid., 30–31.

5. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, I–IX, 367.

6. Stählin, “νῦν,” TDNT, 4:1111, 1113.

7. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 83.

8. Plummer, Luke, 33.

9. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 83–84.

10. Such detail is spelled out in the Jewish recording of oral tradition found in the Mishnah. In the tractate Tamid, the details of the daily worship are presented a step at a time, even giving the direction one must go around the altar as the offering is given.

11. Often one of the obstacles to effective ministry in the inner city is that we do not understand how minorities feel about their plight. An excellent work outlining that clearly and forthrightly is William Pannell, The Coming Race Wars? A Cry for Reconciliation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993). On a more international scale, one can note John Stott, Involvement: Being a Responsible Christian in a Non-Christian Society, vol. 1 (Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1984).

12. Pannell, The Coming Race Wars? 38–39. I cite this section in detail so that the pain and mood of the remarks are clear.

13. Stott, Involvement, 1:58.

14. For a balanced evaluation of liberation theology, see Emilio Nuñez, Liberation Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1985).

1. E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (London: Nelson, 1966), 78. Often the naming of a child took place earlier, at birth (Gen. 4:1; 25:25–26).

2. The imperfect in verse 59 is conative: The crowd “was wishing to name him” Zechariah.

3. Frederick Danker, Jesus and the New Age (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 46.

4. The theme of God’s visit (episkeptomai) is important in Judaism as well as in the Old Testament; Wisdom 3:7; Psalms of Solomon 3:11; 10:4; Genesis 50:24–25; Exodus 3:16; 4:31; 13:19; 30:12; Isaiah 23:17; Psalm 80:14; see Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20 (Dallas: Word, 1989), 86.

5. For more on the hermeneutics of this passage’s teaching, see Darrell L. Bock, “The Son of David and the Saints’ Task: The Hermeneutics of Initial Fulfillment,” BibSac 150 (1993): 440–57.

6. Strathmann, “λατρεύω,” TDNT, 4:62–63.

7. See the comments on the prophetic aorist in the discussion of Luke 1:51–55.

8. On the debate whether God or Jesus is meant by “Lord” here, see Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, 385–86, and Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 49. Danker has the better case here in terms of this literary context in seeing God in view. But it is important to remember how linked God is to his work through Jesus in this text.

9. On forgiveness of sins, see Colin Brown, “Redemption,” NIDNTT, 3:212.

10. On the “rising star,” see Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977), 373–74. The allusion to anatole, which is a reference “to that which springs up,” may conceal a double entendre—a reference to the morning sun and to the branch, since the term is also used that way in the Greek Old Testament (Isa. 11:1–10; Jer. 23:5; Zech. 6:12).

11. Henri J. M. Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership (New York: Crossroads, 1994). Citation below is from pp. 71–72.

1. The issue of the timing of this census is one of the most heavily debated chronological-historical issues in this Gospel. The mention of Quirinius and a first census while he was governor of Syria in v. 2 is a major problem, since he is known to have produced a census in A.D. 6 (Josephus, Antiquities 17.13.2 §§ 34–44; 17.13.5 § 354; 18.1.1 §§ 1–10), about ten years after the placement of Jesus’ birth during the time of King Herod, who died in 4 B.C. (see Luke 1:5). Some are convinced there is an error here (e.g., R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 547–56). In a detailed excursus, I have defended the historicity of the remark elsewhere (see Darrell L. Bock, Luke [Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994], excursus 2, “The Census of Quirinius in the Time of Herod the Great”).

2. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 549, allows for this possibility. Other Jewish customs the Romans allowed were a tax exemption every seventh year and Sabbath observance.

3. Demonstrated by his being laid in a manger, an animal’s feeding trough. About the Greek word for manger (phatne), see Hengel, “φάτνη,” TDNT, 9:53–54.

4. R. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 38.

5. Friedrich, εὐαγγελίζομαι,” TDNT, 2:710.

6. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 109.

7. Foerster and Fohrer, “σωτήρ,” TDNT, 7:103–21.

8. On the term anointed one, see M. De Jonge, “The Use of the Word ‘Anointed’ in the Time of Jesus,” NovT 8 (1965–66): 132–48.

9. This conceptual combination is frequent in the Old Testament (Josh. 7:19; 1 Chron. 16:35; Pss. 66:2; 106:47).

10. This is, for example, the interpretation of William Hendriksen, The Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 149. The evidence for this Jewish view of shepherds is late, involving the Talmud and the Midrash to the Psalms, texts produced centuries later.

1. Reicke, “παρίστημι,” TDNT, 5:841, esp. n. 14.

2. Plummer, Luke, 65; C. Brown, “Bird,” NIDNTT, 1:172.

3. On the syntax of this line, where “light” is the general point applied for all, while “revelation” is for Gentiles and “glory” for Israel are parallel to one another, see Fitzmyer, Luke, 428.

4. Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 68.

5. On the question whether she was a widow for eighty-four years or was eighty-four years of age, see Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 123–24. It seems more likely her widowhood is in view here. Remember that in the first century, young women were married at around thirteen. This makes her around one hundred and five.

1. Jewish boys became responsible for their actions at thirteen (m. Niddah 5.6; m. Megillah 4.6). At the age of twelve the instruction of boys became more intensive in preparation of the recognition of adulthood (m. ʿAbot 5.21). The Bar Mitzvah of modern times, however, postdates the time of Jesus by five hundred years (Fitzmyer, Luke, 440).

2. C. Schneider, “κάθημαι,” TDNT, 3:443.

3. There are two main options for this cryptic text. (1) “I must be about my Father’s business.” Jesus’ point is that he must do God’s will. (2) “I must be in my Father’s house.” Jesus must be involved with the instruction of divine things that is associated with the temple. For a discussion of these options and other views, Brown, The Birth of Messiah, 475–77; Fitzmyer, Luke, 443–44. The second view is preferred (Gen. 41:51; Esth. 7:9; Job 18:19).

4. One of the more well-known churches in the 1980s was Bear Creek in the Denver area, which developed a church philosophy it called “the church unleashed.” Their point was that ministry is as much what happens away from the church home as what happens within its walls. So they sought to encourage all ministry involvements of its members, whether the local body received direct benefit or exercised any oversight role. Their attitude was if the ministry was meaningful and the goals biblical, then Bear Creek would cheer them on and say, Amen! The church needs more communities like that who seek to work for the body of Christ as a whole and do not require their people “to stay at home.”

1. This study will not fully analyze such differences, though it will discuss major points as they emerge. For detailed analyses of them, see Darrell L. Bock, Luke, vols. 1–2 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994 and forthcoming). This more technical commentary assesses the literary and historical significance of these differences for Luke.

2. There is discussion about how the fifteen years are counted. Was it from coregency in A.D. 11 or from Augustus’s death or the Senate’s voting Tiberias into office in A.D. 14? Was the accession year excluded, so A.D. 12 or 15 starts the reckoning? And which calendar was used (Roman, Jewish, Syrian, or Egyptian)? The issues here are complex, but it seems most likely that Luke refers to an accession year, which starts the count of fifteen years. This put us in A.D. 28–29 (H. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977], 29–44).

3. Fitzmyer, Luke, 460; H. Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium. 1 Teil. Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1–9,50 (HTKNT 3; Freiburg: Herder, 1969), 154–57; Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, 141; esp. R. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study (JSNTMS 62; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 214–16, 254–348.

4. Interestingly, the parallel in Matt. 3:7 identifies the audience as the Sadducees and Pharisees. Apparently John spoke to all, but his remarks were particularly of value for the leadership.

5. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 50–145.

6. Donahue, “Tax Collectors and Sinners,” CBQ 33 (1971): 39–61, details how tax collection worked and how hated these Jewish men were for working for Rome. Taxes in the ancient world covered 20–30% of one’s income.

7. On soldiers, see Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 143; Heiland, “ὀψώνιον,” TDNT, 5:592; Josephus, Antiquities 17.8.3 §§ 198–99.

8. So menial was this task that a Jewish slave was exhorted not to perform it (Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael on Ex. 21:2).

9. J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: SCM, 1970).

10. On Herod, see Hoehner, Herod Antipas: A Contemporary of Jesus Christ (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972).

11. Luke has clearly arranged this remark for literary reasons, because the next event has John baptizing Jesus, an event that clearly precedes John’s arrest. The parallels to the arrest are Matt. 14:3–5 and Mark 6:17–20.

12. Commentary on the significance of John’s ministry appears in Luke 7:26–35; Acts 10:37–38; 13:23–25.

13. More like Luke is the other parallel from Mark 1:9–11. Telling the event from the Baptist’s perspective is John 1:29–34. Matthew and Mark note that Jesus came to John from Galilee.

14. For summaries of the options, Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 153–54.

15. D. Bock, Proclamation From Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology (JSNTMS 12; (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 100–105.

16. For example, W. R. Stegner, Narrative Theology in Early Jewish Christianity (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989), 15–31.

17. For a look at this debate, see William V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos, ed., Through No Fault of Their Own? The Fate of Those Who Have Not Heard (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991); Ramesh P. Richard, The Population of Heaven (Chicago: Moody, 1994); Roger Olson, “Has God Been Held Hostage by Philosophy?” CT 39 (January 9, 1995), which is one of several reviews in that issue on the most recent discussion.

18. Darrell Bock, “Athenians Who Have Never Heard,” in Crockett and Sigountos, Through No Fault of Their Own? 124.

1. Josephus notes the importance of lineage for Jews in Life §§ 3–6; Against Apion 1.7§§ 30–36.

2. L. T. Johnson, Luke (Sacra Pagina 3; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1991), 72.

3. R. H. Stein, Luke (The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 141.

4. Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, 170–72.

5. Some argue that Luke’s choice of Nathan as son of David indicates a prophetic, not a regal, concern; so M. Johnson, The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies (SNTSMS 8; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988), 234–52. But Fitzmyer (Luke, 497) rightly contends that this alternative requires that Nathan son of David equals Nathan the prophet, an identification that cannot be established. So a prophetic emphasis is unlikely. If one were to argue for the Nathan line, it still would have to be through a regal emphasis.

1. This event has two parallels. Mark 1:12–13 only briefly summarizes this event. Matthew 4:1–13 is parallel except that the order of the temptations differs, with Luke’s third temptation being Matthew’s second. Most likely Luke has altered the order so that Jerusalem is the climactic temptation since Jerusalem is so important to Luke’s story. The absence of clear temporal markers in Luke supports this conclusion, as well as the lack of any note of Satan’s dismissal. For other possible explanations, see C. Kimball, Jesus’ Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke’s Gospel (JSNTMS 94; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 81, n. 8.

2. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 169.

3. The Greek is particularly striking here. Literally, the word order reads, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory.” In other words, the request is put in self-indulgent terms.

4. Plummer, Luke, 113.

5. B. Gerhardsson, The Testing of God’s Son (Lund: Gleerup, 1966), 56–58.

6. See her book Through Gates of Splendor (New York: Harper & Row, 1957).

1. The Greek word for “news” (pheme) is the word from which we get the English word “fame.” In Greek this refers to news passing through the public.

2. Argued by Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, 187.

3. Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium, 223. Note also Luke 2:13, 20, 28; 7:16.

4. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 177–80; D. Hill, “The Rejection of Jesus at Nazareth,” NovT 13 (1971): 161–68; C. J. Schrenk, “The Nazareth Pericope: Luke 4,16–30 in Recent Study,” in L’évangile de Luc, ed. F. Neirynck (BETL 32; Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1989), 397–471.

5. For a careful assessment of this movement, see E. Nuñez, Liberation Theology, trans. P. Sywalka (Chicago: Moody, 1985).

6. The Mishnah was compiled in c. A.D. 170, but many of its customs, especially the practices associated with worship in the synagogue, probably reflect older practices, since religious liturgy tends to be slow to change. The synagogue services are described in Megillah 3–4 and Berakoth 2.

7. There are a few minor variations in these citations from both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek Old Testament, but they do not influence the basic sense of the passage; for details see Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern, 106–7.

8. Bammel, “πτωχός,” TDNT, 6:888.

9. On this theme, R. B. Sloan, The Favorable Year of the Lord (Austin: Scholars Press, 1977).

10. There is much debate whether Luke 4 stresses Jesus’ prophetic or his regal, messianic role. Actually, both are involved. Within Luke 4 and its illustrations, the stress is on Jesus as prophet. But in light of the baptism and the nature of Jesus’ anointing, the portrait includes the messianic emphasis.

11. The Greek in verse 22 expects a positive answer to the question about Jesus’ roots going back to Joseph.

12. This verse is why many suspect the event has been moved forward in Luke. Jesus has not been to Capernaum (see Luke 4:31–44), yet he has apparently already done works there.

13. For a solid yet popular analysis of how our culture does this, see James Sire, Chris Christman Goes to College (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993), and The Universe Next Door, 2d ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1988). Sire carefully analyzes the different “isms” that exist at a philosophical level in our culture and assesses them from a Christian point of view. Sire covers the “isms” of individualism, pluralism, relativism, and privatization on pp. 20–27.

14. Brian J. Walsh and J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian World View (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1984), 139–40.

1. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 191.

2. Testament of Zebulon 9:8; Assumption [Testament] of Moses 10:1. For the Jewish view of demons, see Josephus, Jewish Wars 7.6.3. § 185; 1 Enoch 19:1; Jubilees 10:5; Testament of Benjamin 5:2; Foerster, “δαίμων,” TDNT, 2:8–9.

3. Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 111; Seesemann calls it “a defensive formula,” “οἶδα,” TDNT, 5:117–18.

4. R. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London: SCM, 1970), 71–74; R. H. Stein, Luke, 163.

5. Perhaps the best known contemporary defense of miracles is the work by C. S. Lewis’s Miracles (New York: Macmillan, 1947). For a Catholic statement on miracles not conceding the principle of analogy (like today, so yesterday—so no miracles yesterday), see J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 528–29 and n. 24. Another key work is C. Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984).

6. The classic work arguing for the cessation of such gifts is B. B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles (London: Banner of Truth, 1972; repr. of 1918 ed.). More recently is the cessationist argument by T. Edger, Miraculous Gifts: Are They for Today? (Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1983). A work arguing for such gifts is Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993). Deere interacts directly with Warfield, but works hard to try to explain why gifts today are not as frequently and consistently displayed as in the time of the apostles. More mediating is D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987).

1. Call scenes appear in 5:1–11, 27–39; 6:12–16.

2. This passage’s relationship to the calls in Matthew and Mark is not entirely clear. The Lucan event seems to be a distinct and confirmatory event, since the activity of the fishermen differs slightly (washing versus mending nets), the nets described are possibly different (Luke refers to deep sea nets, Mark to shallow fishing nets), and Andrew is not mentioned here. Luke’s greater detail does indicate why a disciple felt Jesus’ call was compelling.

3. Stein, Luke, 169; S. Wachsmann, “The Galilee Boat—2,000-Year-Old Hull Recovered Intact,” BAR 14 (1988): 18–33.

4. C. Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 63. The parallels to these healings are Matthew 8:1–4 and Mark 1:40–45 (for the leper) and Matthew 9:1–8 and Mark 2:1–12 (for the paralytic).

5. Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium, 276; Jubilees 23:26–30; 1 Enoch 5:8–9; 96:3; 2 Esdras 7:123; 2 Baruch 29:7.

6. Michaelis, “λέπρα,” TDNT, 4:233–34.

7. Luke uses a third class Greek condition at the end of verse 12 to express the man’s uncertainty as to whether Jesus might act.

8. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 209; Plummer, Luke, 149–50.

9. A. Leaney, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (New York: Harper, 1958), 124.

10. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 212; Fitzmyer, Luke, 581.

11. S. Safrai, The Jewish People in the First Century, sec. 1, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 730–32.

12. Plummer, Luke, 153.

13. No Jewish text extant today shows a person forgiving sin. One text is disputed—The Prayer of Nabonidus from Qumran (4QprNab 1.4). However, this text should not be interpreted to mean that the exorcist mentioned in the text forgave sin. See D. Bock, “The Son of Man in Luke 5:24,” BBR 1 (1991): 109–21, esp. 117, n. 26.

14. A later Jewish text in the Talmud, Nedarim 41a reads, “No one gets up from his sick bed until all his sins are forgiven.” The “Son of Man” title is debated and involves a series of complex questions. At this early point in Jesus’ ministry, the term is simply a way for Jesus to refer to himself. It is Jesus’ favorite title for himself, probably because it refers to a human figure who possesses supernatural authority. Later he will reveal that the imagery comes from Daniel 7:13–14. For more on the Son of Man title, see Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, excursus 6. The Son of Man image in Daniel describes a human figure who bears authority from God and who rides the clouds as God does.

15. Fitzmyer, Luke, 589; Michel, “τελώνης,” TDNT, 8:105. Fitzmyer details how the Pharisees viewed such associations with contempt.

16. The parallel to this text includes Matthew 9:9–13 and Mark 2:13–17. The tax collector in Matthew is named Matthew. This has raised a question whether this is the same event. Most equate the two figures, since the accounts are so agreed in the details and since of the Twelve, only Matthew-Levi is a tax collector. Double names are also common in this culture; Acts 1:23; 4:36; 12:25; 13:9; Josephus, Antiquities 18.2.2 § 35.

17. On the term “banquet,” see Gen. 21:8; 26:30; Est. 1:3; Luke 14:13; Grundmann, “δοχη,” TDNT, 2:54.

18. The Greek version of the Old Testament also used this word to describe Israel’s complaints in the desert (Ex. 15:24; 16:7–8; Num. 14:2, 26–35; 16:11).

19. Schrenk, “δίκαιος,” TDNT, 2:189; Priesker, “μισθός,” TDNT, 4:717.

20. A helpful work on this topic that is balanced and full of wisdom is Joseph C. Aldrich, Life-Style Evangelism: Crossing Traditional Boundaries to Reach the Unbelieving World (Portland: Multnomah, 1981).

1. The parallels to this text are Matthew 9:14–17 and Mark 2:18–22. Mark’s placement in his Gospel parallels Luke’s. Matthew places it later in a more topically oriented section of his Gospel.

2. Behm, “νῆστις,” TDNT, 4:928–29.

3. For this image in Judaism, see Jeremias, “νύμφη,” TDNT, 4:1101–3.

4. Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 128.

5. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 228; cf., Sirach 9:10; Mishnah, Aboth 4:20.

6. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 12:1–8 and Mark 2:23–28. Luke has the event in a sequence that resembles Mark. Matthew’s distinct positioning comes in a section where he is working more topically in summarizing Jesus’ ministry.

7. Lohse, “σάββατον,” TDNT, 7:12–13.

8. That David is at the tabernacle is suggested by the remark in 1 Sam. 21:7 that he was detained before the Lord. That he fed more than himself is suggested by the request for five loaves of bread.

9. Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 131.

10. For a full discussion of the options, noting five distinct views, see The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian, by G. Bahnsen, W. Kaiser, D. Moo, W. Strickland, and W. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992). According to these views, the Law can be seen as (1) “the perfection of righteousness in Christ Jesus,” (2) “still fully applicable,” (3) “God’s guidance for the promotion of holiness,” (4) “replaced with the law and gospel of Christ,” and (5) “is fulfilled in the Law of Christ.” All views argue that in one sense or another, Christ is the representation of what the law intended, but they disagree on how that is to be done and which parts of the law can be carried over into application today. Theonomy applies more of the law for today than any other approach. Others either explain how the demands of the law can be met internally through the Spirit, so that it still has merit, or they argue that it is illustrative of the kind of righteousness God demands, that its moral demands still need to be met, or that the law of love in Christ becomes that which fulfills what the law called for. The issue of the law is complex and cannot be solved here. The New Testament values the Old Testament as instructive (2 Tim. 3:15–17), while making it clear that the era of the Spirit has changed the way it is to be seen (2 Cor. 3–4; Heb. 7–10).

1. The parallels to this text are Matthew 12:9–14 and Mark 3:1–6. The question of Matthew’s later placement of this event is similar to what happened with the parallels of Luke 6:1–5.

2. Reisenfeld, “παρτηρέω,” TDNT, 8:147.

3. Mishnah, Yoma 8:6.

4. Behm, “ἄνοια,” TDNT, 4:963.

5. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 10:1–4 and Mark 3:13–19. Again Mark and Luke are close in their relative placement of this event. Matthew holds his listing until the discussion of the mission of the Twelve.

6. Fitzmyer, Luke, 617; Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 238–39.

7. Plummer, Luke, 172.

8. Plummer, Luke, 173.

9. See discussion of Levi in Luke 5:27–32.

10. Though the formal Zealot party that led to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 probably did not yet exist, the nationalist tendencies that became associated with that later movement are probably reflected in Simon’s nickname.

11. For a comprehensive study of this question, see D. A. Carson, ed., From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), esp. the closing essay by A. T. Lincoln (pp. 343–412).

1. The question of the relationship between this sermon and the Sermon on the Mount is complex. I regard this sermon as Luke’s summary of the sermon Matthew records. For details, comparisons, and a discussion of the ethical-theological role of the Sermon on the Mount and Plain, see D. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, excursus 7: “The Sermon on the Plain in Luke.” Also covered in detail there is whether the sermon represents a single occasion or an anthology of Jesus’ ethical teaching. Either option is possible, though I prefer to see a specific event. I think it less likely that Luke used Matthew. Rather, he seems aware of a tradition about the sermon like that found in Matthew.

2. To make such a point may seem odd, but some expressions of dispensational theology in the first half of this century argued that the Sermon on the Mount addressed issues of the future kingdom and thus were not directly relevant for today. Many evangelicals still think this is the dominant position held within this tradition, but they are mistaken. For a discussion of this issue from a dispensational point of view and a short history of dispensational interpretation, see C. Blaising and D. Bock, ed., Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church: A Search for Definition (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1992), esp. the article by John Martin, “Christ, the Fulfillment of the Law in the Sermon on the Mount,” 248–63.

3. This explanation means that there is no problem with identifying this event and Matthew’s sermon as the same.

4. To say the poor are Jesus’ special concern is not to say he excludes the rich, since Zacchaeus is blessed in Luke 19:1–10. But there is a consistent note that Jesus pays special attention to this group. This text should not be spiritualized, so that the poor cease to be a point of focus. Jesus chooses this description of his audience on purpose. Too often we ignore the sociological element in this description, even though it also has a religious element.

5. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982), 67–72.

6. Rengstorf, “γελάω,” TDNT, 1:660; “κλαίω,” 3:722–23.

7. Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 142.

8. W. E. Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981) is an excellent book on this topic.

9. Plummer, Luke, 182.

10. 1 Esdras 4:30; Stählin, “τύπτω,” TDNT, 8:263, nn. 23–24.

11. Ellis, Luke, 114–15.

12. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount, 223.

13. See also 1 Peter 2:21–24.

14. D. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, on Luke 6:31. In the discussion of this text, eleven cultural parallels are cited. Among the most accessible are Sirach 31:15; Tobit 4:15; 2 Enoch 61:2. However, it should be noted that Jesus’ version is the most emphatically stated form.

15. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 263.

16. Plummer, Luke, 189.

17. Judaism shared this view in some of its literature. Mishnah ʿAbot 1:6 reads, “When you judge, incline the balance in his favor”; Sota 1:7 reads, “With the measure a man measures, it will be measured to him again.”

18. Ellis, Luke, 116.

19. Michaelis, “ὁδηγός, ὁδηγέω,” TDNT, 5:100.

20. The reference to the beam refers to a large beam of a building that is actually bigger than our two by four planks! A hypocrite in Greek was a “play actor,” someone who was different in behavior than in character; Danker, Luke, p. 154.

21. An example of such work is Crisis and Hope in Latin America: An Evangelical Perspective, by Emilio A. Nuñez and William D. Taylor (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey, 1995). This work evidences a concern to understand the culture in which Latin Americans minister as well as deal with the life-and-death issues they must face daily.

1. Luke has several scenes where the major figure does not speak directly: see 7:36–50 (the sinful woman), 10:38–42 (Mary), and 16:19–31 (Lazarus). The parallel to this story is Matthew 8:5–13. In all likelihood, Matthew has telescoped this event, since he has the centurion address Jesus directly. But in ancient culture a commissioned person speaking for someone is like speaking to the person directly, so that Matthew, condensing the account, merely simplifies the account. What Luke’s more detailed edition allows him to show is that cooperation between Jew and Gentile is possible.

2. A centurion could be a mercenary soldier or a soldier who helped collect taxes; cf. Fitzmyer, Luke, 651.

3. Josephus, Antiquities 16.6.2 §§ 162–65; 19.6.3 §§ 300–301.

4. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 280.

5. Fitzmyer, Luke, 652.

6. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 223–24.

7. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 284.

8. Mishnah, Sanhedrin 6:5; 23:4–5; cf. Acts 5:1–11.

9. Mishnah, Megillah 4:3.

1. The parallel to this unit is Matthew 11:2–19.

2. Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 163.

3. So, for example, W. F. Arndt, Luke (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), 209, who argues John is only seeking to reassure his disciples.

4. The two terms for disease in the verse suggest an escalation from simple maladies to more debilitating illness.

5. One can argue that the second person reference in the Malachi 3:1 quote is an indirect allusion to Jesus. If so, then it means that John goes before Jesus. But the context of these verses highlights the people’s response, and the theme reflects what Luke 1:17 taught. So a reference to going before the people is more likely.

6. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 300; Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, 344.

7. On the figure of wisdom’s children, see Sirach 4:11; Proverbs 8:32–33; Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, 346.

8. For a thoughtful study of this issue, see Philip Yancey, Disappointment with God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).

1. This passage is unique to Luke. Though some equate it with Matthew 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9; John 12:1–8, it really is a distinct account. In these other passages, the woman is not a notorious sinner, nor is the host a Pharisee.

2. The name of this woman is never given. She is not Mary Magdalene, who is introduced in the next event. Efforts to tie the two together are late.

3. See also Josephus, Antiquities 3.8.6 § 205; 19.9.1 § 358.

4. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 311–12.

5. For an imaginative way in which Jesus might engage Madonna and other modern celebrities, see Lee Strobel, What Would Jesus Say? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).

6. For a defense of a more traditional understanding of the role of women, see John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1991), and Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ: An Examination of Roles of Men and Women in Light of Scripture and the Social Sciences (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1980). For a more egalitarian approach, arguing for women in every role of church life, see Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Equal to Serve (Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1987), and Craig Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, Mass: Hendricksen, 1992). I remain personally more persuaded that Paul’s appeal to creation looks at roles distinguished in terms of head and helpmeet as a part of God’s initial design and is not a reflection of cultural limitations placed on him as a result of living in a patriarchal first-century culture (esp. 1 Cor. 11:7–9; 1 Tim. 2:11–15). Despite holding to a more traditional approach, I am grateful that evangelical feminism has caused all of us to look harder at the issue of women’s roles and has led to a consideration and affirmation of women’s ministry, even if I share concerns that some steps have gone too far. Those who hold to a more traditional view have tended to overuse power metaphors in the discussion. Two excellent practical works on being a woman and pursuing ministry are Vickie Kraft, The Influential Woman (Dallas: Word, 1992), and Mary Farrer, Choices: For Women Who Long to Discover Life’s Best (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1994).

7. See the warnings in Os Guinness, Dining with the Devil: The Modern Church Movement Flirts With Modernity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993).

8. For an instructive and practical work on understanding how the lost think, see Lee Strobel, Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993).

9. Ibid., 15.

10. For a good discussion of the issue of self-worth, pride, and humility, see Joseph M. Stowell, Perilous Pursuits (Chicago: Moody, 1994).

1. Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, 703.

2. Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, 371–72.

3. Perhaps no one has addressed this as effectively in our time as J. I. Packer. His works Knowing God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1973) and Hot Tub Religion (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1987) are positive and negative examinations of these themes.

4. In its February 6, 1995 issue, Newsweek magazine presented a study on shame, our culture, and the issue of guilt. One of the sidebar articles in that issue had this title (p. 23).

1. Luke 5:1–11 was the first nature miracle, and it served as the basis for a call to discipleship. This text has parallels in Matthew 8:23–25 and Mark 4:35–41. This cluster of four miracles in Luke 8:22–56 parallels Mark 4:35–5:43. Coming after the section highlighting God’s Word in 8:4–21, we again get a pattern of word and deed (cf. 4:16–44).

2. One can think of Jonah (Jonah 1) or Paul (Acts 27:8–44). In Judaism, 2 Maccabees 9:8 relates Antiochus Epiphanes IV’s claim to be able to calm the sea. Jewish tradition knows of a couple of examples where God was invoked through prayer and calm emerged (see Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 757).

3. Larry Crabb, Finding God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993).

4. See William J. Reynolds, Companion to Baptist Hymnal (Nashville: Broadman, 1976), 241–42.

1. The exact location of Gerasa is debated. Some place it on the east side of the Sea of Galilee, while other have it located in the Decapolis region east of the Jordan, twenty miles south of the Sea. Another complicating factor is that Matthew and Mark describe the exorcism as taking place at Gadara, another city of the Decapolis, five miles southeast of the Sea. Probably a reference to a countryside location has produced different local references to give the event a general locale.

2. The parallels are Matthew 8:28–34 and Mark 5:1–20. Mark’s account is by far the more detailed, while Matthew is the most concise, as is often his custom.

3. Preisker, “λεγιών,” TDNT, 4:68.

4. The abyss probably refers to the abode of the dead and a place of judgment; see Jeremias, “ἄβυσσος,” TDNT, 1:9–10.

1. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 9:18–26 and Mark 5:21–43.

2. Schrage, “ἀρχισυνάγωγος,” TDNT, 7:847.

3. In Matthew’s version, which is condensed, the time sequence is collapsed and the daughter is already presented as having passed away. Matthew often shortens his accounts in this way.

4. Arndt, Luke, 256.

5. Liefeld, “Luke,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 8:916.

6. Stählin, “κοπετός,” TDNT 3:844–45; Rengstorf, “κλαίω,” TDNT, 3:724–25.

1. For more details on the kingdom hope, see discussion on Luke 10:1–24.

2. Conceptual parallels to this account are Matthew 10:1–14 and Mark 6:6b–13, though the Matthean text is really part of a larger mission that is paralleled in Luke 10:1–24.

3. Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 190. This became such a problem later in the church that Didache 11–12 give detailed instructions about how to deal with traveling missionaries. It can still be a problem today to know if someone who consistently speaks of the need for money truly represents the church.

4. The difference in wording between the various parallels about whether there are instructions about taking a staff may be resolved in recognizing that Jesus speaks of traveling light, so that no extra provisions are required. Although one Gospel speaks of not taking a staff (Matt. 10:9–10) while the other does allow it (Mark 6:8–9), each may be communicating the idea that one does not need to take an extra staff, since one must travel light.

5. According to the Jewish background of this action, such shaking reflected the removal of uncleanness from their feet as they said “good riddance” to those who lived in pagan contexts; Liefeld, “Luke,” 8:919.

6. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 14:1–2 and Mark 6:14–16.

7. For more discussion on the role of miracles today, see the discussion in Luke 4:31–44, where we discussed the power evangelism movement associated with the ministries introduced by John Wimber and Peter Wagner.

1. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 357.

1. The parallels to this text are Matthew 16:13–23 and Mark 8:27–33. The account is rendered with some variation, but the fundamental point of each text is the same: a confession of Jesus’ messiahship.

2. Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, 468–74.

3. This approach to Jesus has been critiqued thoroughly in Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. M. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).

1. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 16:24–28 and Mark 8:34–9:1. The passages occupy the same relative position in each of the Synoptic Gospels. On crucifixion, see M. Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

2. J. Schneider, “σταυρός,” TDNT, 7:578–79; Fitzmyer, Luke 1-IX, 787; Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 373.

3. Only Luke adds the word “daily” to the idea of taking up one’s cross.

1. The parallels to this event are Matthew 17:1–9 and Mark 9:2–10, where the event occupies a similar locale.

2. Arndt, Luke, 262; Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 798.

3. For the many suggestions, see Jeremias, “Ἡλείας,” TDNT, 2:938–39; Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 199; Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 384.

4. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 386; Michaelis, “σκηνη,” TDNT, 7:370; see also the Mishnah, Sukka 3:9; 4:5.

5. For two key works touching on different areas of these questions, see Os Guinness, The American Hour: A Time of Reckoning and the Once and Future Role of Faith (New York: Free Press, 1993); John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton: Crossway, 1993).

6. Guinness, The American Hour, 398.

1. This text has parallels in Matthew 17:14–21 and Mark 9:14–29. This is also the last of thirteen miracles Luke describes in the Galilean section of his Gospel.

2. This recalls the only son of the widow of Nain in 7:11–17 and the only daughter of Jairus in 8:40–56.

3. H. van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus, 401–5. It was seen as particularly difficult to cure. Some Jews attributed this disease to Balaam and Saul (Num. 24:4; 1 Sam. 19:24).

4. The parallels are Matthew 17:22–23 and Mark 9:30–32.

5. The parallels to the first incident are Matthew 18:1–5 and Mark 9:33–37. The parallel to the second incident is Mark 9:49–50.

6. Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 821.

7. R. Kent Hughes, Disciplines of a Godly Man (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991); Stuart and Jill Briscoe, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Holiness (Wheaton: Scripture Press, 1993).

1. Lohse, “πρόσωπον κτλ.,” TDNT, 6:776, n. 45.

2. For first-century descriptions of the hostility, see Josephus, Jewish War 2.12.3 §§ 232–33; Antiquities 20.6.1 §§ 118–23. Earlier discussion includes Sirach 50:25–26 and Jubilees 30:5–6, 23. Interestingly, this is the only passage in Luke where the Samaritans are portrayed in a negative light.

3. The parallel to this text is Matthew 8:18–22, which describes the first two of these incidents. The third exchange is unique to Luke. Matthew places this event after a summary text where Jesus heals many and before the stilling of the storm and the Gerasene healings. Thus the call to discipleship is sandwiched between a period of intense miraculous ministry. Disciples can trust in the power of God. Luke has the event after the failure in Samaria and before the larger mission, in a context of rejection. Matthew notes that one of the characters in the account is a scribe. Luke, as is his pattern, leaves the identities indefinite. One final difference is that Luke highlights the kingdom in the second and third replies, a detail Matthew lacks. So Luke’s version is more explicit about kingdom urgency.

4. L. Johnson, Luke, 162.

5. M. Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (New York: Crossroad, 1981).

6. See Sirach 38:16; Tobit 4:3–4; 12:12.

1. This passage has numerous parallel points of contact in the Synoptics: Matthew 9:37–10:16 is like Luke 10:1–12; Luke 10:13–15 is like Matthew 11:20–24; Luke 11:17–20 does not have a parallel; and Luke 10:21–24 is like Matthew 11:25–27 and 13:16–17. The Matthean parallels only mention the Twelve. In Luke the mission of the seventy-two have the same principles as the mission of the Twelve. Another issue in the passage is whether seventy or seventy-two are sent. This problem involves a difference in the Greek manuscript tradition of Luke. Either number could be correct, but slightly better manuscript evidence favors the choice of seventy-two.

2. In nonbiblical literature, see 1QS 8:5–6; CD 1:7; 1QH 16:4–11; Odes of Solomon 38:17–21.

3. Psalms of Solomon 8:23, 30 refer to the nations as wolves who devour Israel.

4. Mishnah, ʿAboth 4:15.

5. Note also 11:14–23, where Jesus’ ministry evidences the defeat of Satan before a stronger foe.

6. 1 Enoch 55:1; Jubilees 23:29; Testament of Simeon 6:6; Testament of Judah 23:3.

7. See Exodus 32:32; Psalm 69:28; Isaiah 4:3; Daniel 7:10; 12:1; Philippians 4:3; Revelation 3:5; 20:12, 15; 21:27.

1. The parallels to this passage are debated. The parable is unique to Luke, but its introduction looks like Matthew 22:34–40 and Mark 12:28–34. Matthew and Mark are clearly parallel, but connection to Luke is less certain. The Lucan event appears to be a separate incident covering a similar theme. See R. Stein, Luke, 314–15, esp. n. 39.

2. G. Schenk, “δόξα,” TDNT, 2:249–50. The answer has parallels in Judaism: Testament Issachar 5:1–2 refers to loving the Lord and one’s neighbor, while the Testament of Dan 5:3 refers to loving God and one another.

3. W. Michaelis, “λῃστής,” TDNT, 4:257–59, 261.

1. The parallels to this passage are scattered throughout the Synoptics and raise difficult questions whether the overlap represents the same event or are merely conceptual parallels. Luke 11:1–4 is similar to Matthew 6:9–13, but Luke’s version is shorter than Matthew’s and comes in a distinct context. Luke 11:5–8 represents material unique to Luke, while Luke 11:9–13 is conceptually similar to Matthew 7:7–11, though in a different setting. Many speak of genuine parallels here, but I prefer to see distinct teaching events covering similar themes.

2. Apparently John’s community had a distinct prayer. The Jews also had a well-known community prayer known as the Eighteen Benedictions. Such prayers gave a community a sense of shared identity. Though many traditions today look down on liturgy, there is community value in sharing a form of intercession as a body.

3. J. Barr, “Abba Isn’t Daddy,” JTS ns 39 (1988): 28–47.

4. For the options and discussion, see Foerster, “ἐπιούσιος,” TDNT, 2:592–95.

5. See NIV text note here. Cf. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV (AB 28A; Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday, 1985), 906. Qumran also used the metaphor of debt for sin (4QMess at 2:17).

6. The Jews shared this view. The Talmud, Berakoth 60b, reads, “Bring me not into the power of sin, nor into the power of guilt, nor into the power of temptation.” The Talmud was written later than the time of Jesus, but it shows a recognition that the way to avoid sin is to depend on God.

7. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 462.

8. There is some debate about how the parable works, since in Greek the syntax of vv. 5–8 is difficult. Some see the point of the parable as comparing the neighbor and God. God, like the neighbor, will respond to avoid shame, that is, to preserve his honor. But this reading breaks the contextual focus on the petitioner, which is Jesus’ point all the way to v. 13. God does not need to be prodded to save his honor. Therefore, the perspective of v. 8 is that of the petitioner, as “his” friend and “his” boldness show. Thus the point is not about God but about the petitioner’s focus on the Lord.

9. The parable in Luke 18:1–8 adds the idea that prayer should be persistent.

1. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 12:22–30 and Mark 3:22–27. It is placed earlier in Mark than in Luke or Matthew, but that may be because Mark 2:1–3:6 is more topically arranged, displaying a series of successive controversies.

2. That Satan is connected to a wider set of debilitating conditions than exorcisms is seen in a text like 13:10–17, which, though portrayed as a healing (v. 14), is also linked with Satan’s activity (v. 16).

3. Fitzmyer, Luke X–XXIV, 920–21.

4. Luke presents this remark vividly in Greek using a first class condition. The vividness says in effect, “If this is really the case, then think what that really means.”

5. Rengstorf, “μαθητής,” TDNT, 4:443.

6. The NIV “your followers” takes the view that Jesus is alluding to Jewish exorcists. As I have suggested, this reading makes less sense than seeing a reference to Jesus’ disciples.

7. Cf. Ephesians 4:7–10, which uses the same imagery in a context where victory is clearly tied to the Jesus’ resurrection-ascension.

8. W. Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus (London: SCM, 1961), esp., 107; K. Schmidt, “βασιλεύς” and “βασιλει,” TDNT, 1:566–76 and 580–89. For the idiom see, Daniel 4:24, 28 (in Greek Theodotion text). The key is the presence of the preposition epi with the verb ephthasen. See above on 10:9.

9. Many texts treat these themes. Two key passages that look to what the future will bring with the rule of Jesus are Acts 3:18–20 and Revelation 20–22. For a discussion of these themes in more detail, see D. Bock, “The Reign of the Lord Christ,” in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church: A Search for Definition, ed. by C. Blaising and D. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 37–67.

10. The imagery is not unusual. In Judaism, Testament of Levi 18:12 looked to a day when Beliar (another name for Satan) would be bound and power to tread over evil spirits would be given to the children of the promised great priest. Though the New Testament does not refer to such a distinct high priestly figure who is different from the Messiah, the concept that the promise includes victory over Satan is similar.

1. One of the passages in this unit, Luke 11:27–28, is unique to Luke. Luke 11:24–26 is paralleled by Matthew 12:43–45. Luke 11:29–32 is like Matthew 12:38–42 and Mark 8:11–12, though Luke’s version is closer to Matthew, where Jonah is mentioned. Luke 11:33 is similar to Matthew 5:15 (in the Sermon on the Mount) and Mark 4:21 (in the discourse on the kingdom); the remark is proverbial enough to be appropriate to each of these settings. The same is true of the parallel to Luke 11:34–36 in Matthew 6:22–23.

2. The idea of a demon seeking a place to live also occurs in Judaism: Tobit 8:3; Baruch 4:35.

3. F. Hauck, “μακάριος,” TDNT, 4:369.

4. See also Josephus, Antiquities 8.6.5–6 §§ 165–75.

1. This text has a conceptual parallel in Matthew 23. Most regard Luke to have relocated that event here. Against that conclusion stand the distinct setting, the lack of overlap in vocabulary between the two texts, and the order of the woes. What we have are distinct but conceptually parallel sayings.

2. Josephus, Antiquities 17.2.4 § 42; 18.1.3–5 §§ 12–22. For this portrait of the Pharisees, see E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993), 44–46.

3. Mishnah, Yadim 1; Josephus, Jewish Wars 2.8.5 § 129; R. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7 (JSNTSS 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 119–50, 194–203.

4. On the Jewish view and high regard for alms, see Sirach 7:10 and Tobit 12:8–9. My reading of this text disagrees with the NIV translation. It reads the text more literally as referring to giving what is inside the dish to the poor, but this does not make sense in this context. It is better to see a rhetorical figure here.

5. On scribes, see Luke 5:17–26.

6. K. Weiss, “φορτίον,” TDNT, 9:85.

7. Who this Zechariah is, is not clear. It is either the martyr mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:20–25 or the minor prophet Zechariah. Of the two, the former is slightly more likely.

8. On the image of the key of knowledge, see H. F. Weiss, “Φαρισαῖος,” TDNT, 9:48.

1. The parallels to this text are scattered in their location in the other Gospels, raising the possibility that what is present are sayings that Jesus taught on various occasions: Luke 12:1–2 is like Matthew 16:5–6 and Mark 8:14–15. Luke 12:3–9 has a potential parallel in Matthew 10:26–33. Luke 12:10 is like Matthew 12:31–32 and Mark 3:28–30. Luke 12:11–12 has conceptual parallels in Matthew 10:19–20; Mark 13:11; and Luke 21:14–15.

2. The Jews had a similar understanding. 4 Maccabees 13:14–15 reads, “Let us not fear him who thinks he kills; for a great struggle and peril of the soul awaits in eternal torment those who transgress the ordinance of God.”

3. Chuck Colson, The Body (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1992) is full of accounts from such contexts. He describes people who drew on what God provided through his Spirit. Suggestions for how we can be prepared come in Bob Briner, Roaring Lambs: A Gentle Plan to Radically Change Your World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993). A classic account of the options Christians have is found in John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress (New York: Penguin, 1965; originally published in 1678 and 1684).

4. Colson, The Body, 239.

5. Briner, Roaring Lambs, 31.

6. This position is called annihilationism. It is particularly prominent in Britain, where I first encountered it. For a examination of this view, see Clark H. Pinnock, “The Conditional View,” in Four Views on Hell, ed. William Crockett (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 135–66.

1. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, 177.

2. The reference to “they will require of you” in the Greek of v. 20 (NIV: “your life is demanded from you”) is either a Semitic indirect reference to God (Prov. 9:11b) or a reference to the angelic execution of the task. Either way heaven has issued a call and the man’s life is at an end.

3. The parable is similar to remarks in Sirach 11:18–19. A second Jewish text where the conclusion is similar but the assumption is that the wealth has been collected immorally is 1 Enoch 97:8–10. See G. Nicklesburg, “Riches, the Rich, and God’s Judgment in 1 Enoch 92–105 and the Gospel According to Luke,” NTS 25 (1978–79): 324–44.

4. W. Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor, 112.

1. The parallels to this passage come from Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount: Matthew 6:25–34 for Luke 12:24–32 and Matthew 6:19–21 for Luke 12:33–34.

2. Fitzmyer, Luke X–XXIV, 978.

3. In Greek the reference is to adding a cubit to one’s life. Some debate whether Jesus is referring here to length of time or to one’s height. The second example is a bit more ridiculous, which would add an emotive note to the remark. The point either way is that worrying does not change such realities. It serves no positive purpose.

4. Grass is a standard figure for that which is transitory (Job 8:12; Pss. 37:2; 90:5–6; 102:12; Isa. 37:27; 40:6–8).

1. This parable has a conceptual parallel in Matthew 24:42–51. Much of the rest of the passage is unique to Luke. We call the parable conceptually parallel because of the distinct settings in which they appear.

2. W. Michaelis, “λύχνος,” TDNT, 4:326.

3. In an ancient wedding the celebration could go on for a week, so the return was not always predictable.

4. The image of the thief as a picture of the return is frequent (1 Thess. 5:2, 4; 2 Peter 3:10; Rev. 3:3; 16:15).

5. The literary sequence of 1 Corinthians 3 is key to understanding it. Each punishment moves down the scale. Since those who are saved as through fire (v. 15) barely make it, the next step down must be a description of those who in the end are out (vv. 16–17). Theologically we would say that although they were associated with the church and appeared to be members of Christ, in fact, they never were. You cannot lose what you never really had. The parallel of Corinthians is important, because it shows the variety of categories people can fall into.

1. The parallels to this text are also conceptual, as with many passages in this chapter. Luke 12:49–53 is like Matthew 10:34–36 and Mark 10:38. Luke 12:54–56 is tied to Matthew 16:2–3. Luke 12:57–59 is like Matthew 5:25–26. But the differences in setting and in vocabulary between these texts means they are not true parallel descriptions of the same event.

2. A. Oepke, “βάπτω,” TDNT, 1:535–36; Job 9:28; 32:35; Ps. 18:4; Jonah 2:3–6. The texts show the association of water with judgment.

3. K. Rengstorf, “ὑπερέτης,” TDNT, 8:539; C. Mauer, “πράκτωρ,” TDNT, 6:642.

4. S. Safrai and M. Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 1:554–55, discuss private law and torts.

5. The two events referred to here are not known outside their mention here. Though several candidates have been suggested for these events from Josephus, none really fits; Fitzmyer, Luke X–XXIV, 1006–7.

6. The term for “sinner” is an interesting one in v. 4, since it describes people who were more indebted than others. The comparison of sin to debt is common, as the Lord’s Prayer indicates; F. Hauck, “ὀφείλω,” TDNT, 5:561–63.

7. G. Stählin, “ἐκκόπτω,” TDNT, 3:859.

8. For example, one of the reasons the Jesus Seminar believes that certain portions of Jesus’ words in the Gospels are not rooted in his actual teaching is because he did not, in their view, teach judgment. That was something they argue was added by the early church to the portrait of Jesus. This is an example of creating Jesus in an image that makes him more palatable. For an example of such an explanation, see R. Funk and R. Hoover, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? (New York: Macmillan, 1993), 332–35. For a critical assessment of the Seminar’s claims, see M. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, ed., Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).

9. Scot McKnight, “Who Is Jesus? An Introduction to Jesus Studies,” in Jesus Under Fire, 61–62.

1. R. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 1:65.

2. S. Safrai, “The Synagogue,” in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974), 2:919–20, discusses the role of women in the synagogue. Luke loves to discuss women. He has forty-two passages with motifs related to women. Three are shared with all the Gospels, nine with the Synoptics, five with Matthew, two with Mark. That leaves twenty-three specifically Lucan passages; T. Seim, The Double Message: Patterns of Gender in Luke & Acts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994). On the position of women in the culture, they were generally not counted when it came to worship, since only men counted for a quorum in the synagogue formal service (Mishnah, Megillah 4:3). Generally they were left to work in the home (ibid., 118–24). Women might attend synagogue, but how active they were is debated. Mishnah, Megillah 4 does not mention women in discussing reading Scripture in the service (cf. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 23a, which is clearer in stating the point). For a more active view of women’s role in the synagogue, including claims of leadership roles, see M. D. Hamm, “The Freeing of the Bent Woman and the Restoration of Israel: Luke 13.10–17 as Narrative Theology,” JSNT 31 (1987): 23–44.

3. Damascus Document 11:5–7 notes the Qumran community’s practice.

4. Romans 14:5 suggests that Jews and Gentiles may have handled this issue differently, but it is not a matter of law in the New Testament. Rather, the different practices are a matter of mutual tolerance.

5. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan, 1961). The following citations are from pp. 3, 20, and 32 respectively.

6. The issue of physical healing for today is also discussed in our comments on 4:31–44.

1. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 13:31–33 and Mark 4:30–32. In those Gospels the remarks are part of a kingdom parables discourse. Here the parables stand alone, but this is teaching Jesus would have repeated on a regular basis.

2. The type of tree in view here is debated. Is it Salvadora Persica, which could grow to twenty-five feet? Or is it a Sinapis Nigra, which grows to ten feet? For the discussion, see C.-H. Hunzinger, “σίναπι,” TDNT, 7:288–89. The text is not clear enough to decide. The point is not the specific tree, but the contrast between a small seed and a shady tree. In fact, the story has a twist, since mustard seeds do not normally become trees. In other words, the growth viewed here is unusual, supernatural.

3. For a more complete treatment of the theme of the kingdom, see earlier discussion in 9:27, 58–62; 10:8; and 11:14–23. As we noted there, the kingdom is not just the church, but is in the process of realization, which involves the church now and a rule of Jesus to come. It is debated whether that future rule is in the new heaven and new earth alone (amillennialism/postmillennialism) or includes a thousand-year earthly reign from Israel (premillennialism). I prefer a premillennial reading of Scripture in light of texts like Acts 3:14–26; Romans 11:13–32; Revelation 20:1–6. Even recognizing the symbolic nature of Revelation, the portrait of Revelation 20 supports an intermediate kingdom before the establishment of the new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21–22). Such a kingdom, according to Acts 3, completes the promises laid out in the Old Testament, that include Jesus’ ruling from Jerusalem. Regardless of this issue, what the parable makes clear is that the program of Jesus’ rule starts with the planting of this tree, an event that began with his ministry as he worked to form a new community of the faithful.

4. The conceptual parallels are Matthew 7:13–14, 22–23; 8:11–12; 19:30; 25:10–12. They treat one theme or another of the various themes present in this parable.

5. This is one of several Lucan Jerusalem travel notes in this section: 9:51; 17:11; 18:31; 19:28; and (conceptually) 13:31–34; 19:44.

6. See Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:1; 2 Esdras 7:47; 9:15. The idea that few are saved was not unusual for Judaism; the issue was who the few were (see 2 Esdras 8:1, 3).

7. G. Bertram, “στενός,” TDNT, 7:605–6 (cf. John 10:7).

8. K. Rengstorf, “βρυγμός,” TDNT, 1:642; “κλαυθμός,” TDNT, 3:726. In Judaism the phrase was reserved to describe the ungodly.

9. Luke 13:31–32 has no parallels, while verses 33–35 are similar to Matthew 23:37–39. The different settings suggest these are conceptual parallels as opposed to being the same event. Luke’s placement of this detail here, whether a separate event or a mere topical arrangement, sets the tone for the transition to follow in this journey section. From this point on, Jesus spends more time teaching his disciples about facing rejection and prepares them for the hard road of discipleship. Those notes come with the black cloud of Israel’s approaching rejection already prophetically presented. Jesus’ message here is repeated in 19:41–44, where the city’s destruction is predicted as evidence of the judgment that will come on this generation of the nation (cf. 11:29–32).

10. J. Darr, On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke-Acts, 105–6, 127–46, has an incisive examination of the character of Herod and of the Pharisees in Luke’s Gospel.

11. For the meaning of “fox” as “destroyer” rather than indicating cunning, see Darr, On Character Building, 140–41. The background to this image is Nehemiah 3:35; Song of Songs 2:15; Lamentations 5:17–18.

12. Luke 21:24 and Acts 3 also suggest a future for Israel, since in Acts 3 the rest of what is promised in the Old Testament will occur at Jesus’ return (vv. 18–21); see Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 155–56.

13. The cultural mandate of the church is not primarily the reconstruction of society and culture but the proclamation of the gospel and the reformation of the community of God as an example that can be pointed to as a place where healthy, restored, and reconciled relationships can be seen. Often when the church takes on society with too much zeal, the church loses focus on how it is to be a community of character and virtue; see S. Hauweras, A Peaceable Kingdom (London: SCM, 1984).

14. For how this operates in our modern culture, see Stephen Carter, The Culture of Disbelief (New York: Basic Books, 1993).

15. Ibid., 3–4.

16. Such a view of Israel’s future is not limited to dispensational teaching; see the interesting work by the Reformed New Testament scholar, David Holwerda, Jesus & Israel: One Covenant or Two (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).

1. Such meal scenes in Greco-Roman culture would have been called symposia, where a figure of wisdom shares his knowledge with others. Luke has several: 5:29; 7:36; 10:38; 11:37; 22:14; 24:30, 41.

2. Riesenfeld, “παρατηρέω,” TDNT, 8:147.

3. Both the Talmud and texts from the Greek culture indicate this suspicion (see van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus, 506).

4. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 581.

5. The Greek term gamos, used here, can refer to a wedding feast or a more general feast (Est. 2:18; 9:22). See Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke XX–XXIV, 1046.

6. The concept is similar to being forgiven (passive voice) by God because we forgive others (Luke 11:4; Eph. 4:30–32).

7. The second group in this list are the severely maimed in contrast to the third group, which is a general term for the lame.

8. This passage is often considered a parallel to Matthew 22:1–14, but it is only conceptually similar, as the differences are too great to establish identity. See Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 237–39, for a list of differences.

9. The reference to the kingdom alludes to the Jewish expectation of God’s rule and blessing in the future, when Israel will have a central role in God’s plan. See Psalm 22:26; Isaiah 25:6; 1 Enoch 62:14, 25:5; Baruch 29:8; cf. Behm, “ἐσθίω,” TDNT, 2:691.

10. L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, 229.

11. J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (London: SCM, 1972), 176–77.

12. On this part of the terrain, see W. Michaelis, “ὁδός,” TDNT, 5:68. Highways are the main roads running out into the country, whereas hedges are the enclosures that surround vineyards or other fruit gardens outside the city.

1. This text is unique to Luke, though parts of it sound like Matthew 10:37–38; the concluding two verses are conceptually similar to Matthew 5:13 and Mark 9:49–50.

2. J. Denny, “The Word ‘Hate’ in Luke 14:26,” ExpTim 21 (1909–10): 41. The idiom is known in Greek (see Epictetus 3.3.5). See also O. Michel, “μισέω,” TDNT, 4:690–91.

3. On such towers, see J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 196, n. 19.

4. F Hauck, “ἅλας,” TDNT, 1:229.

5. An example of this kind of judgment is 1 Corinthians 11:30, where some believers died in Paul’s judgment for taking the Lord’s Supper in an inappropriate manner.

6. On the disciple as learner, see K. H. Rengstorf, “μαθητής,” TDNT, 4:419–21.

1. This passage is unique to Luke, though Matthew 18:12–13 is conceptually parallel to the parable of the lost sheep.

2. Stein, Luke, 400.

3. J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 133.

4. H. Preisker and S. Schultz, “πρόβατον,” TDNT, 6:690.

5. The rhetoric about the ninety-nine righteous looks like 5:31–32 in tone. It is a way of saying how much God loves a turnaround in a person’s life. The comparison with those “not needing to repent” shows that it is a priority that the shepherd leaves those already in God’s forgiving care to find more lost sheep.

1. R. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 1:171.

2. Schrenk, “πατήρ,” TDNT, 5:983–84.

3. In later Judaism an expression arose about how dire circumstances could bring a change of perspective: “When the Israelites are reduced to carob pods, then they will repent” (Leviticus Rabbah 35 [123c], a rabbinic anthology of interpretations on Leviticus).

4. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 176.

5. For a development of the practical side of a grace walk with God, see Charles Swindoll, The Grace Awakening (Dallas: Word, 1990).

1. The parable is unique to Luke, though verse 13 is conceptually similar to Matthew 6:24. In addition, Luke 16:10–12 has some points of conceptual overlap with Matthew 25:20–30 and Luke 19:17–26.

2. D. J. Ireland, Stewardship and the Kingdom of God: An Historical, Exegetical and Contextual Study of the Parable of the Unjust Steward in Luke 16:1–13 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992), 5–47, notes the various attempts to explain this passage in the history of its interpretation. He notes six prominent options in that discussion, of which we discuss the two most significant alternatives. There also is some discussion of where the parable ends. Does it end at vv. 7, 8a, 8b, or 9? We prefer to see the parable go to v. 8a, with everything after it being the various applications Jesus makes from the parable.

3. For discussion of this later option, see Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV, 1098. On the cultural background here, see Fitzmyer, “The Story of the Dishonest Manager (Luke 16:1–13),” TS 25 (1964): 23–42, and J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman, & Todd, 1970), 48–77. Fitzmyer and Derrett explain the background slightly differently. Derrett argues the manager simply removed the interest from the debt (Ex. 22:24; Lev. 23:36–37; Deut. 15:7–8; 23:20–21). Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV, 1097–98, argues that what was removed was the manager’s commission. Either of these explanations is possible, though a variation in the rate of commission depending on the item in view might be more natural than a variation in the rate of interest.

4. There is some dispute about how to count this measure in the ancient texts. We have opted for the larger measure above. If more modest standards are applied, then one hundred measures would be much smaller, equaling one tenth of the total or the wage for an average worker for 8 to 9.5 months. For these variations, see Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 619. Either way the amount is significant and so is the reduction.

5. I opt for the commission view because I find it implausible that the master would commend the dishonest manager if he continued to cheat him in the last round of pricing. Jesus’ parables usually have an element of internal coherence to them, even when there are twists in the story. So the master’s commending the manager for continued dishonesty looks unlikely. The manager is called “dishonest” because of his earlier actions, not his more recent ones.

1. Tiede, Luke, 285–88.

2. The Greek term can be translated “abomination.” See Foerster, “βδελύσσομαι, κτλ.,” TDNT, 1:600.

3. For the full lexical defense of this interpretation, see J. B. Cortes and F. M. Gatti, “On the Meaning of Luke 16:16,” JBL 106 (1987): 247–59.

4. For discussions of this theme from a Reformed and a dispensational perspective that are close to each other in highlighting how the eras of promise and fulfillment are connected, see (for the Reformed) O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980); (for a dispensational approach) C. Blaising and D. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993). It is important to recall that aspects of these promises still await fulfillment at the time of Jesus’ return. What the period to come looks like is discussed among Christians. Some see Jesus returning to set up the eternal state (amillennialism and postmillennialism), while others agree there is an intermediate earthly kingdom before the eternal state (premillennialism). Most of the discussion turns on how Revelation 20 is read. What most agree on is that the fulfillment starts with Jesus’ ministry and that Jesus’ activity in the end will be comprehensive. For more discussion, see Luke 21:5–38. This passage also alludes to the complex issue of the Law’s relationship to the Christian, a topic that continues to spawn new books. Among three of the most helpful are G. Bahnsen, W. Kaiser, Jr., D. Moo, W. Strickland, W. VanGemeren, The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian: Five Views (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993); T. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993); F. Thielman, Paul and the Law (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994).

5. Two thought-provoking works on this topic are: R. Sider, Rich Christians in a Hungry World (Dallas: Word, 1990), and J. Schneider, Godly Materialism (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994).

6. For a good survey and interaction over the various approaches to this question in the church, see H. Wayne House, ed., Divorce and Remarriage: Four Views (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1990). Two other key works are W. Heth and G. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce: The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus (Nashville: Nelson, 1984), and C. Keener, And Marries Another (Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksen, 1991). Heth and Wenham argue for no remarriage after divorce, while Keener opts for the right to remarry.

1. Kistemaker, The Parables of Jesus, 236–37.

2. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV, 1131.

3. On the use of wild dogs as a negative image, see Michel, “κύων,” TDNT, 3:1103. Some have pressed the detail to argue that the dogs show more compassion than the rich man, but this ignores the Jewish background to this scene, where the act is seen as bringing uncleanness; thus, it is not a positive symbol. The later rabbis would have called Lazarus’s life no life at all; see the Talmud, Batzah 32b, which states that not having a life meant depending on someone else for food, being ruled by a wife, and having a body full of sores.

4. On Hades as the place of the dead, the Greek name for Sheol, see Psalm 86:13; in Judaism, Psalms of Solomon 14:6, 9–10; 15:10.

5. The four views noted in the last two sentences are summarized in an interactive format in John Walvoord, William Crockett, Zachary Hayes, and Clark Pinnock in Four Views on Hell, ed. W. Crockett (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992). The four views are literal, metaphorical, purgatorial, and conditional.

1. Conceptual parallels exist to these texts. For Luke 17:1–3a, Matthew 18:6–7 is similar. Mark 9:42 is like Luke 17:2. For Luke 17:3–4, similar ideas are present in Matthew 18:15, 21–22. Luke 17:6 is like Matthew 17:20, while Mark 9:28–29 is comparable to Luke 17:5–6. The parable is unique to Luke. The repetition may well indicate that Jesus taught certain ideas in various settings.

2. Stählin, “σκάνδαλον,” TDNT, 7:351, refers to its use as involving sin that leads to defection. The millstone was a heavy upper stone in a grinding mill. The distinction about sin leading to apostasy is important. Jesus has the most destructive situations in mind.

3. A grammatical touch makes the point even stronger. The verb describing the tree’s obedience is in the aorist tense, in a contrary-to-fact condition. It suggests that the tree was ready to obey the command. In effect, the remark says, “If you had done this, it would have obeyed you!”

4. The use of the Greek particle ouchi in verse 7 indicates that Jesus’ question expects a positive reply.

5. For more on the force of 1 Corinthians 3:17, see “Bridging Contexts” section on Luke 12:35–48.

1. Though some equate this miracle with Mark 1:40–45, the parallel to that miracle is Luke 5:12–16; thus, the present miracle is unique to this Gospel. Even at the end of his journey, Jesus is still ministering with compassion, despite the growing rejection around him.

2. Jesus’ order is similar to the one given to Naaman, who was told to wash in the Jordan seven times in order to be healed (2 Kings 5:10–15).

3. This is normally a derisive term; see van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus, 500.

4. Some argue that a unique declaration of salvation is not in view here; rather, the other nine had an incomplete faith. But it seems the isolated and unique quality of Jesus’ remarks to this man indicate the salvation noted here is his.

5. A. Oepke, “ἰάομαι,” TDNT, 3:211.

1. We prefer a different translation from the NIV here, because it gives a misimpression about the meaning of this verse. Jesus is addressing Pharisees here, so he is not about to tell them that the kingdom of God is inside of them. Rather, he is speaking about what his presence indicates: “The kingdom of God is among you.”

2. The background and parallels to this event are much discussed, since so much of what Jesus says here is conceptually paralleled in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. But the settings are different. Jesus is speaking in Matthew and Mark privately to his disciples during the last week of his ministry. Here he addresses the Pharisees, long before he reaches Jerusalem. Thus, this looks like a unique event that conceptually parallels what Jesus says to his disciples later. Regardless of whether one event was originally in view in Luke’s report here or two [my preference], he has decided to split the presentation of events about the future, since other elements do appear in Luke 21.

3. On the variety of messianic expectations in Judaism, see J. Neusner, W. Green, and E. Frerichs, eds., Judaism and Their Messiahs (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987).

4. Riesenfeld, “τέλος,” TDNT, 8:50.

5. L. T. Johnson, Luke, 263; R. Stein, Luke, 438. Stein distinguishes between “in your midst” and “in your grasp,” preferring the former, though noting either makes good contextual sense.

6. G. Fitzer, “φθάνω, κτλ.,” TDNT, 9:89, n. 10; K. L. Schmidt, “βασιλει,” TDNT, 1:584.

7. A. Oepke, “λάμπω, κτλ.,” TDNT, 4:25.

8. Other key uses of dei include 4:43; 24:7, 26, 44.

9. The grinding mill in view here is a handmill that grinds grain for bread. Verse 36, which supplies a third illustration of separation, is not found in the better manuscripts of Luke. But its omission is not significant, since it merely supplies an additional picture of the separation that comes at judgment.

10. The Greek word used in verse 37 can also be translated “eagles,” but in this context about judgment and death, the rendering “vultures” is better.

11. On this description, see Josephus, Antiquities 10.5.2 § 83, who used it to describe Jehoiakim.

12. G. Stählin, “χηρα,” TDNT, 9:450; H.-F. Weiss, “ὑπωπιάζω,” TDNT, 8:590–91.

13. S. Hauerwas and W. Willimon, Resident Aliens: Life in a Christian Colony (Nashville: Abingdon, 1989), discusses the ethical implications of such a worldview.

14. Ibid., 49.

15. The debate centers around whether Christ is the only way to God. Some, calling for openness to God, argue that we should not restrict God to just saving through Jesus; for a solid critique of this “openness to God” theology, see R. Richard, The Population of Heaven (Chicago: Moody, 1994).

16. For a chronicling of such attempts, see Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1992). Among the more famous predictions were those by William Miller in the nineteenth century (1844) and those more recently who suggested that the generation after Israel’s return to the land of Palestine in 1948 would see the Lord’s return, making 1988 the key date. But such efforts appear almost annually.

1. For the ancient view of tax collectors, see S. Kistemaker, The Parables of Jesus, 259.

2. O. Michel, “τελώνης,” TDNT, 8:105.

3. J. Jeremias, “αἴρω,” TDNT, 1:185–86; W. Michaelis, “ὀφθαλμός,” TDNT, 5:377, n. 11; G. Stählin, “τύπτω,” TDNT, 8:262 n. 18; 264.

4. F. Büchsel, “ἱλάσκομαι,” TDNT, 3:315.

5. This passage is paralleled in Matthew 19:16–22 and Mark 10:17–22. This is the first passage with a substantial Marcan parallel since Luke 9:49.

1. This text has parallels in Matthew 19:16–30 and Mark 10:17–31. The Lucan version is closer to Mark in the way it proceeds than Matthew.

2. R. Stein, Luke, 459.

3. The expression “to inherit life” has a rich Jewish background. See Psalm 36:9, 11, 18; Daniel 12:2; 2 Maccabees 7:9; 4 Maccabees 15:3; 1 Enoch 37:4; 40:9; 58:3; Psalms of Solomon 3:12.

4. The parallel in Matthew 19:19 cites the command to love one’s neighbor, which is seen as a corollary and outgrowth to loving God in light of the Ten Commandments as a whole.

5. There is another indication of the rhetorical force of Jesus’ request of the rich man. Zacchaeus was a rich man who sold half of his possessions to give to the poor; yet Jesus said of him that salvation had come to his house. This rich man simply turns away, showing that he does not even want to discuss the call with Jesus. His heart is firmly rooted in his material identity.

6. Some have argued that Jesus is alluding to Needle’s Eye Gate in Jerusalem here, but this is entirely unlikely, since then there is no figure of speech to interpret. A camel going through a gate was not a difficult assignment; see D. Bock, Luke (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994), 301.

1. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 20:17–19 and Mark 10:32–34. An indirect reference to Jesus’ death appears in 2:35, but it is too implicitly stated to be called a clear allusion.

2. The parallels to this account are Matthew 20:29–34 and Mark 10:46–52. There are differences in these versions. Matthew and Mark speak of a healing as Jesus leaves Jericho, while Luke appears to have the healing as he enters. Matthew has two blind men healed. Some appeal to two Jerichos to deal with the locale issue, but it may simply be a case of reordering two events in Jericho so that the healing of the blind man can come before the Zacchaeus account to add to the second event’s symbolic value. Thus the difference may only be one of literary arrangement and superficial appearance. Matthew’s additional blind man is also merely a difference in narrating the details of the event.

3. The Nazarean connection to Jesus appears often in the New Testament (Matt. 2:23; 26:71; John 18:5, 7; 19:19; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8; 26:9).

4. Josephus, Antiquities 8.2.4–5 §§ 42–49. The Davidic tie is frequent in the New Testament: Matthew 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:31–32; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47–48; 12:35; John 7:42; Acts 2:29–32; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8.

1. O. Michel, “τελώνης,” TDNT, 8:104–5. On the disdain tax collectors received, see comments on Luke 3:1–20, as well as Mishnah, Nedarim 3:4, where they are paired with murderers and robbers.

2. K. Rengstorf, “γογγύζω,” TDNT, 1:728–37.

3. See the Talmud, Kethuboth 50a.

4. E. Ellis, Luke, 221; O. Michel, “τελώνης,” TDNT, 8:105 n. 154.

1. There is a conceptually similar parable in Matthew 25:14–30. For example, Matthew has talents, while Luke has minas. There is an explicit group that rejects in Luke 19:14, which Matthew does not mention, a detail that also explains why Luke 19:27 is unparalleled. Luke portrays the parable as involving a king, while Matthew’s version is decidedly less regal. These differences suggest that this may be a parable that Jesus told more than once with some variation in detail. A similar metaphor appears in Mark 13:34–35.

2. Josephus, Antiquities 14.14. 1–4 §§ 370–85.

3. C. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 217–20.

4. The NIV’s “three month’s wage” (footnote) slightly underestimates the value, assuming a six-day work week.

5. This difference in detail has led some to suggest two parables are combined here, but the difference may be nothing more than telling the story as concisely as possible. On two parables combined here, see Nolland, Luke 18:35–19:53 (Dallas: Word, 1993), 910–11. For a careful discussion leaning to one parable in the entire tradition history, see Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 700–702. He is uncertain whether two parables were combined into the one parable that he sees behind both Matthew and Luke (see his n. 402).

6. The alternative to this reading of the text is to see the third slave as one who loses salvation or as one who receives no reward but still belongs to the community. The problem with the first view is that it underestimates the New Testament teaching about the permanent effect of regeneration (John 6:37), while the second ignores the decidedly negative imagery of v. 22. The negative imagery here is reinforced by the parallel to the third servant in Matthew 25:30. There the servant is worthless, is confined to outer darkness, and experiences “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” This is not someone just on the edge of the kingdom of light; rather, he is subjected to the deepest recesses of darkness.

1. The parallels to this entry are Matthew 21:1–11; Mark 11:1–11; and John 12:12–19. These accounts are told with a great deal of similarity, thought the discussion with the Pharisees in Luke 19:39–40 is unique to Luke.

2. B. Kinman, “The ‘Atriumphal’ Entry (Luke 19:28–48),” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (University of Cambridge, 1993).

3. O. Michel, “πῶλος,” TDNT, 6:959–61.

4. J. D. M. Derrett, “Law in the New Testament: The Palm Sunday Colt,” NovT 13 (1971): 243–49.

5. D. Bock, Proclamation From Prophecy and Pattern, 122.

6. E. Ellis, Luke, 225.

7. Some, like Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 313, argue that the Pharisees fear Roman reprisal, but the interaction of Jesus with the Pharisees suggests that this is not the whole story, though it may be an element in their concern. They do not even regard Jesus as a prophet (7:39), so regal claims for him are certainly exaggerated in their view. Their complaint in this passage is about what is being claimed for Jesus, not what they fear as a result.

8. This passage is unique to Luke’s Gospel. Its presence shows Luke’s concern to discuss the fate of Jerusalem and, as a result, that of the nation.

9. W. Foerster, “εἰρήνη,” TDNT, 2:413.

10. Luke expresses this point in verse 42 in a “contrary to fact” (second class) Greek conditional clause. They did not know what kind of day it was.

1. The parallels to this text are Matthew 21:12–13 and Mark 11:15–19. Many also regard John 2:13–17 as a parallel, which is possible, assuming a literary rearrangement for emphasis by either the Synoptic writers or John. But the differences in the account, like the different Old Testament texts cited, and their differing placement make it more likely in my judgment that John is not narrating the same event, so that two cleansings took place in Jesus’ ministry. If one event is in view, then John is likely to have moved the account forward to anticipate the issue of conflict and Jesus’ comparing his resurrection to temple restoration.

2. V. Eppstein, “The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple,” ZNW 55 (1964): 42–58, notes that some of these innovations may have just been put within the temple courts.

3. B. Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 107–16.

4. If a messianic allusion to an Old Testament text exists, Malachi 3:1 is a candidate, but the problem with that text is its obscurity and the lack of a connection to this tradition. Is “the messenger of the covenant” in Malachi equal to the “messenger, who will prepare the way”? If so, then is that messenger not John? Moreover, is the Lord’s coming to the temple a reference to Jesus or to the Lord’s eventual powerful manifestation on his return? The following verses in Malachi suggest the latter sense.

5. The Greek reads they planned to “destroy” him, which the NIV simplifies to “kill.”

6. The parallels to this text are Matthew 21:23–27 and Mark 11:27–33. In this account the texts are similar, except that Luke lacks reference to the withering of the fig tree. Luke is zeroing in on the Jesus issue.

1. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 21:33–44 and Mark 12:1–11. The variations in details indicate how this parable circulated and was summarized in various versions. For example, in Matthew the interaction with the servants is summarized briefly, while Mark has an escalating severity in the way the servants are treated. Luke is less severe still, with the first servant sent away empty-handed, while the second is beaten and the third wounded. Only Jesus is slain. Luke also shortens the citation of Psalm 118, leaving out verse 23, and reverses the order of the slaying of the son, casting him out of the vineyard before slaying him.

2. For a different opinion, with the vineyard as Israel and the tenants as the leadership, see Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 248 n. 100. I see this parable operating much like Romans 11, where the olive tree contains Israel as natural branches, but is really a reference to the promise. I prefer a reference to all Israel, for Luke’s view is that as the leadership goes, so goes the response of the nation. A parable like this and the judgment it predicts show why the nation is responsible as a whole for their reaction to Jesus’ messianic visit (cf. 19:41–44). Thus, though the leadership is primarily in view (v. 19), the implications of the parable treat the nation’s role. The “others” to whom the tending goes in verse 16 are the Gentiles.

3. The theme of national disobedience leading to divine discipline reflects texts like Jeremiah 7:21–28, which in turn are built the warnings of Deuteronomy 28. The themes raised here reappear with Stephen’s speech in Acts 7.

4. J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 75 n. 99.

5. Both Psalm 118 and this text refer to Jesus as a foundation of the building (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10; Eph. 2:20), not as a capstone. See R. McKelvey, The New Temple (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1969), 195–204. We accept the NIV footnote translation here.

1. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 22:15–22 and Mark 12:13–17.

2. On the Jewish view of this tax, see Josephus, Wars 2.8.1 §§ 117–18; 7.8.1 §§ 253–58; Antiquities 18.1.1. §§ 1–10.

3. The term for craftiness really refers to trickery, O. Bauernfiend, “πανουργι,” TDNT, 5:726.

4. H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper and Row, 1951).

5. For a solid work on religious public discourse, see Richard Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984). A periodical devoted to such concerns is called First Things.

6. Ibid., 86.

7. Highly recommended here is Os Guinness, The American Hour (New York: Macmillan, 1992), esp. 147–61, 371–93.

1. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 22:22–33 and Mark 12:18–27.

2. This is Jesus’ only encounter with the Sadducees in Luke. For background on them, see Josephus, Jewish Wars 2.8.14 §§ 163–65; Antiquities 18.1.4 § 16.

3. R. Meyer, “Σαδδουκαῖος,” TDNT, 7:35–54.

4. Some note similar themes in Tobit 3:8; 6:9–12; 7:12–13.

5. E. Schweizer, “υἱός,” TDNT, 8:347–49, 355.

6. Jesus is actually making a second dig here, for the Sadducees did not believe in angels!

7. Some in Judaism also held to this distinction (1 Enoch 91:10; 92:3; 103:3–4).

8. The text is not explicit here, and neither is the general Jewish teaching on the life to come. Usually the resurrection is associated with the last days, so that the patriarchs would be understood to be awaiting resurrection at the end while existing with the righteous in Sheol (see 1 Enoch 22).

1. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 22:41–46 and Mark 12:35–37. The accounts are similar.

2. D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone, 1956), 158–63.

3. For details on the possible historical background of this psalm, see H. Bateman, “Psalm 110:1 and the New Testament,” BibSac 149 (1992): 438–53.

4. Rabbinic interpretation of Psalm 110 tended to apply it either to Abraham or to the Messiah (see Midrash on Ps. 110). Jesus makes nothing of the footstool image here, since he is interested solely in the question of this figure’s position. But the psalm looks forward to the day when all of Jesus’ opponents are totally subjected to him, not only in position but in reality as well (1 Cor. 15:20–28).

5. D. Bock, “Jesus as Lord in Acts and in the Gospel Message,” BibSac 143 (1986): 146–54.

1. The parallel to this text is Mark 12:38–40. The remarks are conceptually similar to parts of Matthew 23:1–36 and Luke 11:37–54. The presence of this remark in Luke may indicate he is aware of the longer condemnation Matthew describes.

2. On these special salutations, see Windisch, “ἀσπάζομαι,” TDNT, 1:498. Descriptions of these robes are found in Josephus, Antiquities 3.7.1 § 151; 11.4.2 § 80.

3. Examples of such care appear in Luke 7:12 and Acts 6.

4. The parallel to this text is Mark 12:41–44.

5. Nehemiah 12:44; Josephus, Jewish Wars 5.5.2 § 200; 6.5.2 § 282; Antiquities 19.6.1 § 294; 1 Maccabees 14:49; 2 Maccabees 3:6, 24, 28, 40. Such offerings were freewill gifts to the temple.

1. The date of Jesus’ crucifixion is debated as either A.D. 30 or 33. The former date is more popular, but I believe the latter is more likely. For the arguments, see H. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 95–114.

2. Josephus, Jewish Wars 1.21. 1 § 401; 5.5. 1–6 §§ 184–227; Antiquities 15.11.1–7 §§ 380–425; Tacitus, History 5.8.1. He described it as a “snow clad mountain looming over the city.”

3. Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 330.

4. On the phrase “the time” (v. 8) as a technical term for the end, see Delling, “καιρός,” TDNT, 3:461.

5. The Synoptic summaries of this discourse show variation here. Only famines and earthquakes are mentioned in all three accounts. Mark 13:8 calls all of this the beginning of birth pains, a phrase that signals the beginning of the final drama; Luke lacks this phrase. The difference is not a sign of disagreement but of emphasizing different ends of the mirror images of the paired set of events. For both writers, everything from this time on is a part of the unfolding divine plan of the end, a view also shared by Paul (Rom. 8:18–25, esp. v. 22). Luke mentions similar signs again in verse 25 to show they also appear at the end.

6. For the idiom “laying hands on you” in this sense, see 1 Samuel 21:6.

7. This idea is expressed most affirmatively, using the Greek emphatic ou me (i.e., “surely not be harmed”).

8. Some have argued that the difference is evidence that Luke wrote after the fall of A.D. 70, but that position is not necessary. Everything described here fits with a divine judgment for covenant unfaithfulness. so there is no need to appeal to a post facto reading of this text. The distinct time frames can be addressed by different writers because one event pictures the other.

9. Josephus, Jewish Wars 5–7. See especially 6.5.1 §§ 271–73; 6.9.3 § 420; 7.5.3 § 118; 7.5.6 § 154.

10. Josephus, Jewish Wars 6.3.4 §§ 201–11.

11. This would be odd if the text were a post facto update of the prophecy, since the most horrendous thing that happened in the war from a Jewish point of view was the temple’s destruction. By referring it to Jerusalem in general rather than the temple, the passage testifies to its authenticity, for it does not update details in Jesus’ speech.

12. W. Grundmann, “ἀναγκάζω,” TDNT, 1:346.

13. L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, 323 (see Jer. 7:14–26, 30–34; 16:1–9; 17:27; 19:10–15; Mic. 3:12; Zeph. 1:4–13. The early church made much of the fulfillment of this prediction; see Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 16, 92, 110, 115; Tertullian, Against the Jews 13.

14. For a presentation of amillennialism, see A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979). For a presentation of premillennialism, see D. K. Campbell and J. L. Townsend, A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus (Chicago: Moody, 1992).

15. K. H. Rengstorf, “σημεῖον,” TDNT, 7:232. Even the use of this imagery in Acts 2:19–20 looks to the end and not back at the crucifixion; see D. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern, on Acts 2 for a defense of a partial fulfillment looking to the future in this portion of the Acts text.

16. The term “supranatural” is conscious. This Danielic figure is mysterious in the way he mixes supernatural and natural qualities. He is a man in contrast to the animals of the vision, yet like God, he rides the clouds. In the New Testament, the mystery is removed in the explicit teaching about incarnation.

17. For all the options noted here, see R. Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982), 111–15. The problem with the preferred view is verse 28, which appears to tell the disciples to watch and know certain things are near; but this verse may be referring back to the temple issue that started the discussion and guarantees what is said about the end.

18. For another survey of issues tied to Christian view of the Lord’s return, as well as the options taken, see S. Grenz, The Millennial Maze (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992). Regardless of differences of detail in the Christians’ view of the end, it is important to affirm what most Christians agree about on the question. Grenz says it well this way (p. 215):

The eternal reign of God has dawned, is dawning and will one day dawn in its consummated fullness. The God who has reconciled us to himself through Christ will one day bring us into full participation in the grand eschatological community of his divine reign. This is the vision that should inspire us in this in-between era to seek to be a kingdom people now and to proclaim now in word and deed the good news of the coming eternal reign of God.

Corporate eschatology, with its vision of God’s glorious program for history, confronts the church with a grave question: Will we as the church be motivated by the vision of God’s ultimate future to be about the Lord’s business in the present era until Christ comes in glory and splendor?

1. The parallels to this text are Matthew 26:1–16 and Mark 14:1–11.

2. The two holidays came so close to one another that Unleavened Bread could refer to the entire week. See J. Jeremias, “πάσχα,” TDNT 5:898–904; Josephus, Antiquities 14.2.1 § 21; 3.10.5 § 249; Jewish Wars 2.1.3 § 10.

1. The parallels to this event are Matthew 26:17–19 and Mark 14:12–16.

2. Stein, Luke, 538. Later custom was summarized in the Talmud (Pesahim 64a–65b).

3. G. Stählin, “ξένος,” TDNT, 5:19 n. 136.

4. The parallels to this text are Matthew 26:20, 26–29 and Mark 14:17, 22–25. First Corinthians 11:23–26 also alludes to this event in a form similar to Luke.

5. The debate here is complex. Stein, Luke, 539–40, argues that the problem is not solved. L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, 341, argues that one of the Evangelists, either the Synoptics or John, has made an error and that we cannot know first-century Passover custom, given the lateness of our Jewish sources. But the case for a Passover meal can be made. See D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in EBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:531–32; I. H. Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper (Exeter: Paternoster, 1981), 30–75; J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM, 1966), 15–84. Carson explains how there need not be an error here, while Marshall and Jeremias defend the presence of a Passover meal. The Mishnaic tractate Pesahim describes Passover customs. This was a sufficiently old and conservative liturgical tradition, so that the Mishnaic form likely reflects long-time practice, even though it dates from the second century A.D. If a Passover meal is present, it is likely that the portion of the meal the Synoptics depict is associated with the main portion of the meal and the third cup of wine (out of four).

6. There is a textual question that influences how the text is read from this point. Luke 22:19b–20 are not in some manuscripts and Latin versions. Textual critics often prefer the shorter reading on the premise that scribes add to clarify and generally do not remove clear wording from the text. So some have argued Luke did not include these verses. But it is more likely that they are a part of Luke, especially since they are included in some of the major Greek manuscript witnesses (e.g., , B, P⁷⁵, and texts of the Byzantine family).

7. O. Michel, “μνει,” TDNT, 4:678; “μνημονεύω,” 4:682.

8. John Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.44.

1. The unit distinct to Luke is the sword discussion in 22:35–38. Parallels to the betrayal and the prediction of the denials are Matthew 26:21–25, 30–35 and Mark 14:18–21, 26–31. The discussion of greatness and authority over Israel is like Mark 10:41–45 and Matthew 20:24–28 and 19:28. These earlier settings in the other Gospels suggest the repetition of a theme, not the same event. The appearance of these five units together stresses that Jesus’ community, to function in a context of rejection, will need humility, dependence, and a sense of self-identity that looks out for one another.

2. R. Stein, Luke, 545–46. Such farewell addresses usually involved a meal, warnings and instructions, prayer, and some type of appointment of leadership. Some have connected this section with the Greek symposium, but a Jewish background also exists, stretching back to Jacob’s farewell in Genesis 49 and Moses’ farewell in Deuteronomy 31 (cf. also The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs).

3. On the term contention (philoneikia), see its adjectival form in 1 Corinthians 11:16; 2 Maccabees 4:4; 4 Maccabees 1:26; 8:26.

4. The parallels in Matthew 20:24–28 and Mark 10:41–45 may indicate that this was an ongoing in-house discussion, much like what can take place within many businesses.

5. This verb (katakyrieuo) is merely the term lord (kyrios) put in verbal form, showing that authority and power are the issue.

6. H. W. Beyer, “διακονέω,” TDNT, 2:84–86; G. Bertram, “εὐεργετέω, κτλ.,” TDNT, 2:655; F. Büchsel, “ἡγέομαι,” TDNT, 2:907–8.

7. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, 256.

8. On the throne imagery, see Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 818; Tiede, Luke, 387. Note also 1 Corinthians 6:2; 1 Enoch 62.

1. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 26:36–46 and Mark 14:32–42. The Lucan version is the shortest of the three accounts, but he alone notes Jesus’ distance from the disciples as “a stone’s throw,” the angelic aid, and Jesus’ sweating drops like blood. It is debated whether verses 43–44 are a part of Luke; we accept them as authentic, given its presence in early manuscripts like and D (see Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 831–32). Those who argue for omission base their conclusion that it is the shorter reading, that the lack of emotion in the text fits Luke, and that the text looks too instructive in character to be original. But does the shorter text rule apply when a whole verse is in view? The addition includes a reference to prayer that is very Lucan. In addition, the text may have been removed because it argues for angelic strengthening, which makes Jesus look too human. The dispute is important, because these verses indicate just how human Jesus’ reaction was as he turned to face his death.

2. G. Schrenk, “βούλομαι,” TDNT, 1:633.

3. On “cup” as a figure for wrath, see Psalm 11:6; 75:7–8; Isaiah 51:17, 19, 22; Jeremiah 25:15–16; 49:12; 51:57; Zechariah 12:12; C. Cranfield, “The Cup Metaphor in Mark xiv.36 and Parallels,” ExpTim 59 (1947–48): 137–38.

1. The parallels to this text are Matthew 26:47–56; Mark 14:43–52; John 18:2–11. Luke has three unique points: the healing of the ear, a remark to Judas (v. 48), and the remark to the disciple who wields the sword (v. 49).

2. On misused kisses, see Genesis 27:46–47; 2 Samuel 15:5; 20:9; Proverbs 7:13; 27:6.

3. Josephus, Antiquities 2.13 2–3 §§ 253–54. It was not used of a revolutionary during Jesus’ life, so such a technical use is probably not intended here. See R. Brown, The Death of Messiah (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1994), 687.

1. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 26:57–75; Mark 14:53–72; John 18:15–18, 25–26. Luke has no discussion of the temple charge, probably because it ended up being irrelevant. He also places Peter’s denials together and has the mocking in an earlier location. The tradition of the mockings seems to have existed in various forms. The details of who challenged Peter differ, as well as how many times the rooster crowed (Mark has the rooster crow twice during Peter’s three denials, while Matthew and Luke speak only of one crowing). Perhaps different traditions had differing degrees of specificity, while the differences in those who speak to Peter shows how engaged those present were in trying to determine if he was a disciple.

2. This title works like our title Governor or President.

3. Matthew and Mark relate an evening trial, while Luke has the conclusion in the morning. Perhaps Luke’s absence of a temple discussion is caused by the fact he narrates only the concluding meeting of the early morning. What is less clear is whether the interrogation of Jesus that the Synoptics relate is part of the same point of inquiry. It is possible Matthew and Mark discuss an earlier exchange, which the morning session simply confirms. John 18 also seems to suggest some short encounters took place.

4. D. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 273.

5. Luke refers to another here, while Mark 14:69 attributes the charge to the same girl. John 18:25 says that “they” raise the issue, so apparently Peter is a topic of the servants’ discussion.

6. For details, see R. Brown, The Death of Messiah, 575.

7. The Mishnah was written down about A.D. 170, so we cannot be sure all the practices of the first century matched these standards.

8. For details, see D. Bock, “The Son of Man and the Debate Over Jesus’ ‘Blasphemy,’” in Jesus of Nazareth, Lord and Christ, ed. J. B. Green and M. Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 181–91. This article also treats many of the historical objections critics make about the trial.

1. The parallels are Matthew 27:2, 11–14; Mark 15:1b–5; John 18:29–38. The meeting with Herod is unique to Luke, while Luke 23:11 is like Mark 15:16–20.

2. Josephus, Jewish Wars 2.8.1 § 117.

3. “διαστρέφω,” BAGD, 189.

4. Blass, DeBrunner, Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961), sec. 441.4.

5. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 521.

6. Pilate had developed a record of insensitivity to the Jews by placing Roman shields in Herod’s palace, an insult to the Jews (see Philo, Legation ad Gaium 38 § 299–305). This may be political expediency here to reverse his recent reputation.

7. Oepke, “λάμπω, κτλ.,” TDNT, 4:17; Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 366. There is no way to decide.

8. On Sejanus’s fall, see Dio Cassius, LVIII, 4.1–11.7. That death may have freed Pilate up to pursue a more “Jewish friendly” policy, as he reflects here.

1. Parallels to this second, more public trial before Pilate are Matthew 27:15–26 and Mark 15:6–15.

2. J. Neyrey, The Passion According to Luke (New York: Paulist, 1985), 81.

3. The Greek verb used here is different from v. 2, but is a synonym.

4. Pilate uses the verb anakrino to discuss his examination, the formal Greek term for a legal investigation that is conducted to reach a verdict (Acts 4:9; 12:19).

5. Bertram, “παιδεύω,” TDNT, 5:621; Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 859.

6. The best manuscripts of Luke lack verse 17, which refers to Pilate’s custom of releasing a man to the nation at this feast. Older manuscripts (, B, and p⁷⁵) lack this verse, so it probably was not originally in Luke.

7. M. Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); C. Schneider, “σταυρός,” TDNT, 7:573–81l; n. 15 on p. 573 summarizes non-Jewish views.

1. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 27:31b–56; Mark 15:20b–41; John 19:16b–37. Unique to Luke is the section on the mourning women. The parallels have some differences between them. Two of the more prominent are that different psalms are cited as the narrative proceeds and that the reactions of the criminals as they hang on the cross are in marked contrast. As for this Gospel, only Luke uses Psalm 31 and only he tells the story of the believing criminal.

2. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 863.

3. The image of dry trees being consumed is from Isaiah 10:16–19 and Ezekiel 20:47.

4. Literally, Luke 12:20 reads, “they will demand your soul from you.” See Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 372. If this option is not right, the best option is the view that sees Jesus as saying, “If the Jews treated me so for coming to deliver them, then how will they be treated for destroying me.” Against this view is that the implicit subject shifts in the first half of the saying to the second from “Jews” to “God.” This option and the one preferred do carry, however, the same essential force.

5. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV, 1503.

6. Though some dispute that the prayer in verse 34 is a part of Luke, we believe it should be included. Some good manuscripts (p^75, B, and D) do omit it, but its presence in and some internal grounds argue for it. Most notably is the parallel to Acts 7:60. Luke loves parallelism between Jesus and the church, which is lost if the verse is omitted. See Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 867–68.

7. See Wisdom of Solomon 2:17–22.

8. The remark is expressed as a first class Greek condition, but it does not indicate the speakers believe the kingship claim is true. The form just adds to the picture of the irony of the sarcasm by presenting it so vividly. Of course, what is presented here is a translation of a taunt that was probably not given in Greek.

9. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, 270.

10. J. Neyrey, The Passion According to Luke, 100.

11. Melanchthon, Loci Communes, as cited in W. Pauck, ed., Melanchthon and Bucer (LCC 19; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 88–89.

12. For a thorough treatment of this theme, see L. Morris, The Cross in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965).

1. The parallels to this passage are Matthew 27:57–61 and Mark 15:42–46. One detail Luke alone notes is that these women are from Galilee.

2. Tiede, Luke, 26, speaks of his being placed among the faithful. The exact location of Arimathea is unknown. One suggested location is about five miles north of Jerusalem, while another is ten miles northeast of Lydda.

3. W. Michaelis, “μύρον,” TDNT, 4:801; “σμύρνα,” 7:458. Mark’s account has the women purchase spices first thing on Sunday. The difference could reflect the fact that the women purchased more spices on that day; or perhaps Matthew and Luke have engaged in literary compression.

1. The parallels to this text are Matthew 28:1–10; Mark 16:1–8; John 20:1–18. The major differences appear between John’s account and the Synoptics. John tells his own story, about how he discovered the resurrection first and then goes back to Mary’s account. This view is defended in detail in my forthcoming book, Luke 9:51–24:53 (Grand Rapids: Baker), in the section discussing Luke 24:1–12. For other explanations on how the differences are resolved, see J. Wenham, The Easter Enigma: The Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), and G. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 149 n. 2.

2. For ancient descriptions of such stones, see Josephus, Jewish Wars 5.12.2 § 507; 5.3.2 § 108.

3. Luke is the only Gospel writer to call Jesus “Lord” in his narrative asides. This title is one Luke regards as one of the best summary descriptions of who Jesus is.

4. The last prediction did not take place in Galilee, but in Jerusalem.

5. Many argue that this is one of the major theological themes in Luke-Acts. See D. Bock, “Luke-Acts,” in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, ed. R. Zuck and D. Bock (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 87–100.

6. G. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives, 114.

1. Luke refers to sixty stadia. A stadia is 607 feet or a touch over 200 yards. So 60 stadia is 6.8 miles. A few manuscripts speak of a 160 stadia, which would be 18.4 miles. This reading, though poorly attested, is why some argue that Emmaus is Ammaous, a locale mentioned in 1 Maccabees 3:40, 57; 4:3. Plummer’s suggestion of el-Qubeibeh (El Kubelbeh) is the right distance, but is unattested as a first-century locale (The Gospel According to St. Luke, 551–52). See also Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV, 1561–62. Josephus mentions an Ammaous some 30 stadia from Jerusalem, which would make the measure of 60 stadia a round-trip figure (Jewish Wars 7.6.6 § 217).

2. J. Schneider, “συζητέω,” TDNT, 7:747.

3. This rendering differs slightly from the NIV, but is more precise.

4. The word for “amazed” appears frequently in Luke-Acts for catching someone off guard (Luke 2:47; 8:56; Acts 8:9, 11).

5. On the use of the Old Testament by the New, see D. Bock, “Use of the Old Testament in the New,” Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, ed. D. Dockery, K. Mathews, and R. Sloan (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 97–114, and the collection of essays in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? ed. G. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994).

6. It is important to appreciate this king-priestly work as one that involves both offices simultaneously. Hebrews 7 makes clear that both authority and intercession are in view here. Attempts to split the imagery into priest now and king later are guilty of dividing the person of Christ in ways the church challenged centuries ago when fighting Nestorianism. Hebrews 1 is clear that his kingship exists now alongside his priestly function.

1. This account is unique to Luke, though it has a few points of contact with John 20:19–23.

2. It is this text and John 20:25 that suggest Jesus was nailed to a cross; see J. Schneider, “σταυρός,” TDNT, 7:574–75.

3. Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms refer to the three mains parts of the Hebrew Bible. On fulfillment as a theme in Luke, see G. Delling, “πληρόω,” TDNT, 6:295–96; G. Schrenk, “γράφω,” 1:748.

4. For a defense of this reading and linkage, see M. Parsons, The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 193–94, 196.

5. For details on this variety and this debate, see D. Bock, “Jesus as Lord in Acts and the Gospel Message,” BibSac 143 (1986): 146–54.