§ b 15:1–32 God’s Joy in pardoning the Sinner—The prospect and the tone here change; there is no longer a note of severity and renunciation but one of confidence in the astonishing kindness of God towards frail human nature, ‘a mercy that even anticipates the repentance of the sinner and pursues him in order to render him worthy of pardon’ (Lagr7466., GJC II 62). But there is more than that, for the Pharisees were familiar enough with the Bible’s insistence on the mercies of God; what is revealed here by the Son is the joy that overflows from the Father’s heart when he wins back one of his children by repentance. Here is the true meaning of that μετανοία or ‘penance’ which the Gospel so often insists on. There is little need to explain the three parables in which this truth is illustrated; a truth that is one of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God revealed not only to the disciples but also to them that are without (cf. 8:10). In view of the stern teaching on renunciation just recorded it is a remarkable contrast to find the publicans and sinners drawing near to Jesus to hear him; a clear proof that he could speak with such apparent severity without ceasing to show himself the kind and loving person Lk has presented to us in his earlier chapters. It is only the Scribes and Pharisees whose bitter opposition prejudices them against him however he speaks, and here they are still faithful to the role they have always adopted. These parables are spoken in answer to their complaints against the familiar friendliness our Lord insists on showing to sinners.

§ c 4–7 Parable of the Lost Sheep—A parallel is found in Mt 18:11–14 but in a different context, the warning against scandal. Mt restricts himself to the bare terms of the comparison; all the details of Lk’s version seem so exaggerated that we almost expect the audience to protest that no human shepherd would act in so extraordinary a way: leaving ninety-nine sheep, when the flock is collected at night in the sheep-fold, in order to return to the dark hillside to look for a strayed one; when it is found, carrying the heavy sheep down the hill on his shoulders with joy; rousing his fellow shepherds to share his joy. But that is the precise point of the parable; our Lord’s answer to the objection is: ‘I agree: no human shepherd would act thus. But that is the way the Divine Shepherd behaves over one of his lost children’. The OT presents God so often in the guise of a Good Shepherd that every Jew must have seen the application; cf. Is 40:11; 49:22; 60:4; 66:12, etc. There is no lack of consideration for the just in 7, nor is there any ironical reference here to the Pharisees (cf. 18:9). It is merely that the just have not been the occasion for such joy as God and the whole heavenly court feel over the conversion of a sinner. The same conclusion in different words is in 31–32.

§ d 8–10 The Lost Drachma—Proper to Lk and repeating the same theme, as though to add further emphasis. The Greek drachma is roughly equal to the Roman denarius or penny, reckoned a day’s pay for a workman. The situation seems to grow in tragedy; before it was one lost out of a hundred, now it is one of ten. Hence there is no improbability in the woman’s going to such trouble to find the lost coin, but there is the same improbable invitation to the neighbours to rejoice over the find. The joy of the angels recalls 2:10–14 and contrasts strongly with the grumbling discontent of the Pharisees who, by inference, are not God’s friends and neighbours since they do not rejoice with him.

§ e 11–32 The Prodigal Son—Nothing parallel to this wonderful parable in any of the other gospels. Lagrange notes that the traditional title is too restricted; it has been well said that a better title would be The Prodigal Father, who was as reckless in loving as the son was in spending. In this parable, which no mortal would have dared to invent, our Lord reveals the very heart of God in order to inspire the sinner with confidence to approach him. It is not now a question of one out of a hundred, or even out of ten, but one of two, and these two the only sons of a loving father. 12–16. The contrasts are striking: the younger son and spoilt child, little sensible of the father’s love, almost impatient for the father’s death so that he may receive the inheritance, departing as soon as he has got his desire. The following details are masterly: loss of money, a great famine, absolute want, a Jewish hireling under a Gentile master in ‘a far country’, a feeder of swine. A Jew in a pig-sty with his head almost in the pig-trough! In the allegorization of the parable these details provide a powerful picture of the sad state to which the sinner is reduced when he departs from his heavenly Father. 17–20. At last his eyes are opened to realize his situation; as the Gospel insists, the true basis of penance or repentance (μετανοία) is the sincere admission of sinfulness with a determination to destroy sin by returning to God; cf. 3:3 ff. The suggestion of the parable is clear: all the time that the son has forgotten his father, the father has not forgotten his son, but has looked out daily for his return with longing; hence he sees him ‘when he was yet a great way off’. Unlike the Pharisees, he is waiting with love and compassion to make the first move towards reconciliation. § f 21–24. The erring son is not allowed to finish the confession he has prepared; there can be no question of his being taken back as a hireling: he is restored immediately to the dignity of a son. And lest he be disgraced before the household by his rags and destitution, the father quickly orders a robe of the first quality, a ring for his finger, shoes for his feet; to complete all and bring us back to the thought of the Messianic Great Supper, a feast of the best is prepared with music and singing. This echoes the joy of God and the angels in 7 and 10. 25–30. With sudden contrast here now appears over against the loving enthusiasm of the father, the unfeeling coldness of the other son; we return to the Pharisaic complaint in 2. 31–32. Here is the true description of God’s regard for the just: ‘Son, thou art always with me and all I have is thine’. The conclusion in 32 is essentially the same as that of the two former parables. It was long the fashion to regard this parable as an allegory of the Jews (the elder son) and the Gentile sinners; but the younger son does not represent the sinner: he is the sinner. Some again regard the elder son as representing the real just, others as the hypocritical just, i.e. the Pharisees. In the former case it might be said that the parable shows how even the friends of God do not always realize the unplumbed depths of God’s mercy. But it would be false to the parable to see the Pharisees in the elder brother; our Lord was far from admitting that they had served God faithfully. See Lagr., GJC II 62–74677 for an excellent treatment of this chapter.

§ 761a 16:1–31 Advice on the Right Attitude to Earthly Goods—All this chapter is proper to Lk save for scattered parallels of 13, 16–18 in Mt. The parables of ch 15 about God’s kindness towards the sinner do not alter in any way the fundamental truth that he must be loyally served no matter what the cost; Lk here returns to the duty of renunciation but adds a positive aspect of that renunciation which is full of encouragement. What is to be done with the goods of which a disciple of Christ strips himself? Jesus reminds him that the poor are always with us; therefore let him use his goods to make friends with these special friends of God and so secure a welcome for himself in the world to come.

§ b 1–13 The Unjust Steward—Many find difficulties in the interpretation of this parable, but the meaning is clear enough especially if an emended reading be given to 9. There is question of a steward who manages the estate of a rich man: the steward is a villicus or farm-bailiff. Accused of bad management (and with good reason, as the parable hints) he is dismissed. How is he to live? Afraid to work, ashamed to beg, he is not ashamed to steal. Therefore he calls up the tenants who pay their rent in kind and with them he falsifies their contracts and so cheats the master further. By this piece of trickery the bailiff thinks to make friends and patrons for himself who will welcome him after his dismissal. The lord’s commendation of ‘the steward of unrighteousness’, this dishonest bailiff, is the great difficulty. Which lord? Surely not the cheated master! But how could our Lord praise such a piece of swindling so contrary to all his spirit and teaching? The answer is, as Lagrange points out, that both master and bailiff are ‘children of this world’; the former learns how he has been swindled in a way that will be difficult to prove: ‘he prudently decides to treat it as a joke and makes the comment anyone would make in the circumstances: “A rascal, but a clever rascal!” ’ Our Lord commends neither master nor bailiff. The parable does not say that the bailiff had acted ‘wisely’ but ‘shrewdly’, i.e. with a prudence that belongs to the ideals of this world; this is what our Lord (not the master here) means in 8b, where he compares ‘the children of this world’ with ‘the children of light’, Hebraisms which denote those who live by the ideals of this world or of the world to come; cf. Eph 5:8; 1 Thess 5:5. If only those who have the light to live with a view to their eternal advantage would show the keenness and sagacity of those who live for temporal advantage! § c 9. An example of how the children of light might imitate the shrewdness of the steward: ‘Make for yourselves [as he made for himself] friends through the means of the mammon of unrighteousness, in order that when it shall be no more with you they may welcome you into everlasting dwellings’. ‘Mammon’, an Aramaic word (lit7468. ‘something confided’ or ‘deposited’), used under the form of ‘Mammon of unrighteousness’ as we speak of ‘filthy lucre’. Our Lord does not condemn the possession of wealth absolutely, but demands that in this as in all else a man should regard himself as a steward for God. The day will come when that stewardship shall cease by death; V7469g and D7470V follow the reading ‘when you shall fail’, but ‘when it [i.e. mammon] shall fail you’ is the preferable reading; both come to the same meaning. Therefore prepare for that day by giving alms. It is not necessary to conclude that it is the poor, whom we thus secure as friends, who shall themselves welcome us to heaven where they are at home; ‘they’ may be impersonal as in 12:20. But there is an echo here of 6:20 and 16:22. 10–13. The parable is followed by advice about the unrighteous mammon with which is compared something that is true (not the true mammon as the grammatical construction shows); but it is evidently a contrast between false riches and genuine riches. The contrast between ‘that which is another’s’ and ‘that which is your own’ may mean the wealth confided to our stewardship by God on the one hand, and our own soul’s welfare on the other. Almost verbal parallel between 13 and Mt 6:24.

§ d 14–18 Denunciation of the Pharisees—The introductory verse is special to Lk, the rest finds parallels in Mt 11:12–13; 5:18, 32. The Pharisaic opposition to Christ’s teaching on wealth arises not only from their love of money (φιλάργυροι) but from that traditional Jewish attitude which looked on worldly prosperity as a sign of God’s favour. But Jesus insists that God’s standards are far otherwise: ‘that which among men is lifted up is an abomination before God’, lit7471. stinks in God’s face. For 15a see 18:9. The sudden introduction of the ideas in 16–18 may be explained by the supposition that the Pharisees quoted the Law in favour of the traditional attitude. But this is no time, replies our Lord, to look on earthly prosperity as a sign of God’s favour, even if the Law did promise it to Israel in return for faithful service. ‘The Law had been upheld by the Prophets, of whom John was the last, but from now onwards the Kingdom of God was to be preached’ (Lagr7472., GJC II 71). In what way does ‘everyone use violence towards’ the Kingdom of God? The Greek says ‘everyone advances violently into it’. In view of the demand for stern renunciation it must be concluded that here our Lord means that it is no longer a question of prosperity being a sign of God’s favour, but of depriving oneself of everything for the Kingdom of God. In 17, perhaps in answer to an unspoken objection, he adds that what he has said is not against the Law; the Kingdom of God is the beginning of a new order in which the Law finds its fulfilment, for everything in the Law that is necessarily good and true is good and true because it forms part of God’s Eternal Law. The remark in 18 seems utterly discordant unless it be taken as a cited example of the way in which Jesus means his teaching about the fulfilment of the Law to be understood. In Mt 19:8–10 he declares that repudiation (remarriage is not included) was against the mind of Moses; he may well claim here then that the Law is brought to its perfection by his teaching on marriage.

§ e 19–31 Dives and Lazarus—The parable logically follows: the fact of being rich is no assurance that a man is God’s favourite, despite what was asserted to be the contrary teaching of the Law. Here is added the authority of Abraham to show what was the true mind of Moses, for Moses cannot be put in opposition to Abraham. An ancient opinion took this story as real history, and it is true that our Lord does not elsewhere give names to the actors in his parables. But the general opinion is that we have here a true parable. Note the contrasts again: a rich man, finely clothed and sumptuously fed each day; a poor beggar, lying at the gate, famished, diseased, reduced to the extremity of being abandoned by all but the despised curs of the street who also wait to be fed with the crumbs of the rich man’s table. Omit ‘and no one gave him’ with the Greek MSS. The reverse of the medal is shown in 22–24; the beggar sitting close to Abraham in the great feast of God’s Kingdom, the rich man in hell tortured by fire and parched with thirst. The situation is thus changed: the beggar is rich and the rich man now begs through the good offices of Lazarus. The request is refused: the change of situation is now irrevocably fixed, and there is no means of bridging the gulf of separation. If it is not said, it is at any rate supposed that Lazarus is not only poor but righteous, the rich man not only rich but living for the things of this world; this is implicit in 27–30. Lk is not here teaching that the poor are necessarily the friends of God and the rich his enemies. § f 22b–23. ‘And the rich man also died and was buried; and in hell lifting up his eyes …’. 25. ‘Son, remember that thou didst receive thy good things in thy life-time’, i.e. the goods thy heart was set upon; 25b supposes the opposite for Lazarus. 27–28. The rich man confesses that he and his brethren have not understood what it is that wins companionship with Abraham, the ideal friend of God; but the excuse is inadmissible because the Law and the Prophets teach precisely that, and what could be more authoritative than the Law and the Prophets in the eyes of a Jew? Thus the parable teaches that Jesus is in full accord with the Law regarding both the significance of wealth and the duty of charity; cf. Deut 26:13; Is 58:5–8; Amos 6:4–6; 8:4–6.

§ 762a 17:1–10 Teaching on Scandal, Forgiveness, Faith and Humility—(Mt 18:6–7, 15, 21–22; 17:19; Mk 9:41). Here Lk begins a new theme. He softens down the inevitability of scandal in Mt 18:7 by saying ‘it is impossible that scandals should not come’, i.e. it is impossible to avoid them altogether. 1–6 correspond in general terms with the parallels in Mk and Mt, but Lk alone records the Apostles’ demand for faith; this is their sole appearance under that title in the Journey Narrative. It is not a request for theological faith but, as the context proves, for that confidence in God which is requisite for the working of miracles. Some have supposed that the petition had its motive in the great demands just made by Jesus on the subject of forgiveness. But the answer of our Lord is connected by Mt and Mk with the Apostles’ failure to heal the epileptic boy and with the withered fig-tree; Mt 17:19; 21:21; Mk 11:22–23. In v 3 the words ‘against thee’ (V7473g in te) are not in the Greek. 7–10. Proper to Lk. Perhaps our Lord’s recognition of the Apostles’ ability to do miracles calls for this exhortation to the humble recognition on their part of their uselessness; not that God cares nothing for their services, but they are not to preen themselves on what they do.

§ b 11–19 Healing of the Ten Lepers—Proper to Lk. The incident occurs while Jesus is still on the way to Jerusalem; a rare indication of place and a peculiar one, ‘between Samaria and Galilee’. It is suggested that he had gone north, east of Jordan, crossed the river near Bethshan (Beisan), and now descends west of Jordan towards Jericho where we shall next find him. 12. The lepers stand afar off as the Law prescribed and Jesus gives them the command that the Law enjoins, Lev 13:49; 14:2–4; the Samaritan is included in the command because his compatriots follow the Pentateuch. It is not said that the other nine were Jews, but Lk indicates this; thus the incident serves a double purpose: it shows how the Gospel blessings extend beyond the confines of Israel, and it attacks the unjustifiable confidence of the Jews. The plain suggestion is that the Jewish lepers took their cure as a matter of course, as though God’s Messianic blessings were theirs by right of birth. The Samaritan, on the other hand, showed the right attitude: faith, diffidence in his own merits, and consequent gratitude; God was intervening through Jesus on his behalf, though as a hated Samaritan ‘foreigner’ (rather than ‘stranger’) he could lay no claim to share in the benefits of Israel. 19b. The incident concludes with a repetition of the formula ‘thy faith hath saved thee’ (cf. 7:50; 8:48; 18:42).

§ c 20–37 The Coming of God’s Kingdom and of the Son of Man—This instruction is joined by Mt to the discourse on the ruin of Jerusalem, 24:26–28, 37–41, but with a slightly different arrangement. In his usual manner Lk introduces it by means of a question put by a member of the audience, a question quite in keeping with traditional Messianic views which looked for a catastrophic divine manifestation in favour of Israel. This was not in accordance with realities, as Jesus here shows. No need to be on the lookout for the Kingdom of God as one looked out for a new star; ‘the Kingdom of God is within [or, among] you’. Whatever be the right word here the meaning is clear; the Kingdom of God was already there, and if the Pharisees did not see it that was because they were looking for something entirely different (cf. 11:20). The patristic interpretation favours in vobis, in your souls; but our Lord would hardly have said that of the Pharisees, though as the Pater teaches, the Kingdom of God is certainly within those who do the will of God. Such a meaning is naturally favoured by Protestants since it supports, as they think, the thesis of an invisible Church. Our Lord is merely answering the question of 20: the Kingdom will not come, because it is already here. Therefore it would not come with a glorious Messianic manifestation. Doubtless this surprised his disciples who had witnessed his miracles and the Transfiguration. In 22–31 he puts an end once and for all to these idle dreams; ‘his disciples must resemble neither worldlings whose minds are set on their own temporal interests and pleasures, nor those visionaries who go no further than to look for signs of salvation; they must live like men whose hopes are set on eternity. But at the same time, knowing that the Son of Man will not come till his hour has arrived and when he comes he will come unexpectedly, they must work in constant readiness for the time when he will call them to rejoin him’ (Lagr7474., GJC II 79). § d 22–24. A reminder perhaps of a previous warning, that he is destined to leave them and this world in a shocking manner; repeated in 25. In those days to come they will long for his glorious return, a prediction fulfilled as the Epistles of the NT show. But they must not let their longing desire lead them into the error of thinking he has come and, like the Jews, go running after a pseudo-Messias; it is useless to go looking for his coming, as fruitless as it would be to look for where the lightning will fall next. In the parallel of Mt 24:26–28 there is mention of the Parousia, the ‘presence’, ‘coming’ or ‘arrival’ of the Son of Man; Lk avoids the term though it is a favourite with St Paul. He prefers the expression ‘the Son of Man in his day’, not the ‘one day’ of 22 but the great final Messianic Day when he shall be manifested in his glory; cf. Dan 7:13–14. § e 26–35. As that coming will be so sudden, let them neither waste their time in seeking for it nor show that indifference to the judgements of God which was manifested in the examples cited in 26–29; many will be taken by surprise and found unprepared in spite of all his efforts (cf Mt 24:37–41; 10:39). With the example of Lot’s wife our Lord returns to the lesson of complete detachment in affection from the things of this world, even from life itself, where the soul’s good is at stake. He does not forbid due preoccupation with the ordinary needs of life; it is not the mere possession and use of earthly goods that will determine God’s judgements, but the soul’s attitude towards these goods; cf. 1 Cor 7:26–35. So two persons may be occupied about the same thing, and it will not appear outwardly why God has accepted the one and rejected the other, 34–35. The ‘day of the Lord here’ changes to ‘in that night’, not so much perhaps because the first example is taken from sleep as that there is now a prospect of judgement, calamity and darkness; cf. 12:20, 35–36; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10. 35b. Omitted in the best MSS; probably added here from Mt 24:40. § f 36–37. Various interpretations are put upon the disciples’ question, e.g. where will be the place of judgement? The sense of the question is to be sought in the answer, the literal meaning of which is plain: when one sees birds of prey (vultures rather than eagles) gathering in one direction, the presence of a dead body may be presumed and found by following them. In Mt 24:28 the parable is used by Jesus to indicate that his chosen ones will flock to him as swiftly and surely as vultures smell out their prey; he is warning his hearers not to be led astray by false rumours, as in 23 above. The difficulty of interpretation in Lk arises from the fact that 37 is separated from that context which it has in Mt. Some interpret it here as meaning: there the judgment will be where sin has been.

§ 763a 18:1–14 Further Instructions on Prayer—Proper to Lk. The last instructions contain a note of impending disaster along with an assurance that the Kingdom of God will be realized in spite of every opposition. Lagrange therefore sees in the first of these parables a word of comfort for the disciples. The warning about the need of being ready to forsake life itself recalls memories of our Lord’s predictions of the bitter persecutions they will have to suffer for the name of Christ. But let them never forget that they have a Father in heaven who watches over them, who will hear their cry and even revenge them; cf. 6–22; 12:11, 22–32. They had to be warned against the temptation of asking in the days to come why God in his power did not immediately intervene on behalf of his servants: a common complaint at all times with those who suffer persecution from evil men. Hence they must go on praying and not lose heart, advice Jesus illustrates with a parable.

§ b 2–8 The Wicked Judge and the Widow—The application of the parable (allegorization would be unfitting here for it would identify God, ‘the father of orphans and judge of widows’, Ps 67:6, with this ‘judge of unrighteousness’) is that if even a wicked man eventually heard the suppliant widow, will not an infinitely just God do justice to his chosen ones? 5b. Insistence here, as in the parable of 11:5–8, on the necessity of importuning till one’s prayer is granted, 7b. Much dispute about the interpretation of these words. Are they a question or an affirmative statement? Who are those to whom God will (or will not) show himself patient? Lagrange takes it as a question: ‘Will he (God) have patience in regard to them (the persecutors of the elect)?’ In other words, if God seems slow to revenge his elect, we must not complain that he seems so long-suffering as to abandon his elect. There follows the answer to the question in 8a; let them go on praying, confident that evil will not finally prevail. The sad prognostication of 8b seems to indicate that although the final victory for God’s justice is assured, yet some of the followers of Jesus will not have the resolution and faith to persevere until the end; paralleled in Mt 24:12. The faith in question is the faith already seen in Lk, a conviction that the presence of Jesus in the world signifies the loving intervention of God for man’s salvation. Such a faith is supremely necessary in times of persecution, and it is then that confident prayer must be kept up.

§ c 9–14 The Pharisee and the Publican—Josephus describes the Pharisees as ‘a sect of the Jews who esteemed themselves more religious than others and thought their interpretation of the Law more accurate’ (BJ 1, 5, 2). Their very name Perushim, ‘the separated ones’, owed its origin to the fact that they were a class apart, and was originally bestowed on them for their real piety. The typical Pharisee revealed to us in the Gospels and contemporary Jewish writings separated himself from his fellow-men by such a firm conviction of his own righteousness as made him contemptuous of all whom he regarded as incapable of being pleasing to God, e.g. those Jews who showed indifference to the minutiae of traditional observance (cf. Jn 7:48–49), and of course those of Gentile birth. This, as our Lord said, 16:15, was what made the Pharisees abominable to God. 11. The prayer is quite in the spirit of one of the Jewish Benedictions prescribed for daily prayer: ‘Blessed art thou … that thou hast not made me a Gentile … a servant … a woman’; very different from the prayer prescribed by our Lord for his disciples, a prayer making no comparisons but springing from a sense of deep-felt need. The Pharisee in his prayer, as in his life, gives the impression of self-sufficiency, the national vice attacked by St Paul in his description of the very purpose of the Mosaic Law, Gal 3:21–25; Rom 3:20; 5:20. § d 12. His prayer completed, he recalls ‘the chief points of righteousness which he has accomplished, considerably exceeding the standard prescribed by the Law.… Even the Lord himself could hardly demand more, though he might very well desire a little less vain complacency’ (Lagr7475., GJC II 84). 13. With the marked contrast characteristic of Lk, the Publican is presented beating his breast repeatedly (ἔτυπτεν impf.), not reciting a list of God’s debts to him but declaring himself to be in dire need of divine mercy. The conclusion of 14 is all the stronger from the fact that it omits formal condemnation of the Pharisee, though the word’ justified’, i.e. right with God, responds to the ‘trusted in themselves as just’ of 9. The parable is the justification of our Lord’s attitude to sinners (cf. 15:1) and it ends with a repetition of the warning uttered when he twitted the Pharisees with their itch for precedence, 14:11, a warning which cannot fail to remind us of the spirit of the Magnificat, 1:47–54, and the Beatitudes, 6:20–22.

§ e 15–30 Right Dispositions for Entry into the Kingdom of God—Some commentators see the end of the Journey Narrative in 18:14, for here Lk resumes the thread of Mt and Mk; moreover there is now a distinct change of tone. Lagrange prefers to continue it to 18:30 where Lk puts another prediction of the Passion and the commencement of the definitive move towards Jerusalem for the final tragedy. The two incidents narrated here are placed by Mt and Mk also at the beginning of the ascent to Jerusalem from Peraea, but they first describe the discussion with the Pharisees about marriage and repudiation omitted by Lk; cf. Mt 19:1–12; Mk 10:1–12. Lk’s omission makes the incident of 15–17 appear abruptly, while it falls very well into place in Mt and Mk after the discussion on marriage.

15–17 Jesus and the Children—(Mt 19:13–16; Mk 10:13–16). Lk follows Mk with characteristic changes: no mention of the indignation of our Lord against the disciples, Mk 10:14, or of his embracing the children whom he makes ‘infants’, βρέφη. The meaning is very clear; entry into the Kingdom demands the frankness, simplicity and innocence which we love to see in children.

§ f 18–30 The Rich Ruler—(Mt 19:16–30; Mk 10:17–31) Each of the Synoptists has special details about this man, but Mk’s account is the most natural and vivid. In Lk he is a rich ruler, ἄρχων, therefore belonging to the Jewish aristocracy; Mt adds that he is a young man, a detail implicit in Mk’s story too where the man shows that youthful enthusiasm which appears so fittingly after the advice of 15–17; he runs up to Jesus and throws himself on the ground. It is tempting to think that it was Mark himself, cf. the young man of Mk 14:51–52; in both cases the man shows the dispositions of the Mark we know from Acts. It will be noted that Mk alone adds the touching detail of Mk 10:21. The man’s question and his whole manner betray his excellent dispositions; he was concerned about that which Jesus has insisted is the only thing of real importance. But he has not yet reconciled himself to the condition of absolute renunciation on which our Lord has also insisted. 19. The reply is essentially the same as that made to the Scribe in 10:26, better expressed in Mt 19:17. ‘Do you ask me, a man, about a thing that concerns God alone? What has God himself told you?’ § g 20. It is remarkable that only those commandments are recalled which concern the second of the two great precepts of the Law. 21. The young man makes a young man’s reply with the candour and confidence just recommended by our Lord. Whether he was taking a too optimistic view of himself or not, his disposition and enthusiasm earn for him an invitation to become a disciple, i.e. to make the great renunciation demanded by true discipleship. ‘Yet one thing is wanting to thee’; note Mt’s ‘if thou wilt be perfect’. The sudden change from spirited enthusiasm to sad despondency, again so characteristic of the young, calls forth our Lord’s warning against the danger of wealth, 24–30, after the young man has departed according to Mk and Mt, a detail neglected by Lk. This teaching is given by Lk as in Mk, save for the omission of the disciples’ mystification and Mk’s repeated warning ‘Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God’ (preferable reading of Mk 10:24b). § h 25. There is no need to suggest the usual far-fetched interpretations of ‘camel’ and ‘needle’s eye’ in order to tone down the severity of our Lord’s warning; the words mean what they say and so give occasion to the disciples’ conclusion that no one can be saved. Our Lord’s answer, better put in Lk than in Mt and Mk confirms their conclusion but adds that God himself will save those who adopt the dispositions Jesus has recommended. Riches in themselves are neither good nor bad; it is undue attachment to riches leading to their abuse that keeps men out of the Kingdom. God can save the rich man by inspiring him to give away his wealth, or he can save him without such renunciation, which the Law indeed does not demand, provided he acts like a good steward in the sense of the parable of 16:1–9. All the same a great reward is promised to those who, rich or poor, renounce all ties of family or possessions ‘for the sake of the kingdom of God’ (in Mt 19:29b ‘for the sake of my name’, in Mk 10:29b ‘for my sake and the gospel’s sake’). Here as elsewhere Lk substitutes Kingdom of God for gospel in Mk, a word that surprisingly he never uses.

18:31–23:56 Arrival at Jerusalem and Passion—This section is grouped into four distinct parts: (1) The arrival at Jerusalem; (2) Disputes with the Jewish leaders; (3) The great sermon on the destruction of Jerusalem and the Last Judgement; (4) The Passion. In a general way Lk follows the narrative of Mk with some omissions and the following notable additions: the incident of Zachaeus, 19:1 ff.; Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, 19:41 ff.; prayer for infallibility and primacy of Peter, 22:31 ff.; Jesus before Herod, 23:6 ff.

§ 764a 18:31–4 Further Prediction of the Passion—(Mt 20:17–19; Mk 10:32–34). This is Lk’s fourth prediction, if we take 17:25 into account. He here omits Mk’s note of surprise and fear shown by the disciples, but adds the often repeated remark that what is to happen at Jerusalem is in accordance with the Prophets; this, taken with the conclusion, 34, should be compared with 24:25–27, 45–46. Jesus is now moving up from the Jordan through Jericho; he takes only the Twelve, leaving the general crowd of his followers.

§ b 35–43 Healing of the Blind Man at Jericho—(Mt 20:29–34; Mk 10:46–52). Omitting the request of the Sons of Zebedee, here inserted by Mk and Mt, an incident which would have made a good commentary on 34 (no parallel in Mk and Mt), Lk joins them in narrating this miracle. There are differences which raise difficulties, e.g. the incident is at our Lord’s entry into Jericho while Mk and Mt put it at his departure. With Mk he speaks of one blind man only (name omitted by Lk) while Mt has two. Various suggestions have been made: e.g. the unlikely explanation that Lk tells the story of one of Mt’s blind men while Mk deals with the other. Lk’s incident seems to be the same as Mk’s; but some, in order to safeguard the truth of Scripture, have held that they are describing two completely different occasions. Others have suggested that there is no greater contradiction of the truth of Scripture here than there is in the different order of temptations in Lk 4:1–13 and Mt 4:1–11. Note that 35 merely says ‘when he was near to Jericho’, ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν, which would do either for coming in or going out; Lk is generally careless of topographical details. It is true that later we read ‘entering in he walked through Jericho’, 19:1, but that is a new incident which need not have occurred on the same occasion, for it is possible that there was a stay of some days in the neighbourhood (cf. 19:5). Some hold there is question of two Jerichos, the old and deserted, and the new. In 42 we have the final repetition of the accustomed formula ‘thy faith hath saved thee’, given here by Mk also. Lk’s conclusion, noting the glorifying of God and the praise of God by the people, is also frequent in Lk and peculiar to him.

§ c 19:1–10 Zachaeus the Publican—It is worth noting that while Lk has omitted to mention the name of the blind man (if his miracle is the same as Mk’s) he is careful to record the name of Zachaeus. Some think that this is because Zachaeus represents the call of the Gentiles. But was he a Gentile? Jews were willing enough to undertake these posts in the Customs Department, though their fellow Jews called them renegades and hated them as the ancient world hated all publicans and their collaborators. Zachaeus has a Jewish name and a Jewish character. Jericho on account of its situation was an important customs office and would furnish him with good opportunities of profit, if he was none too scrupulous like his colleagues. 3–4. Were it not for the trouble taken by him to see what sort of person Jesus looked like, we might think him moved merely by idle curiosity, stirred perhaps by the rumour of miracles. But the sequel contradicts this; a wealthy man of position will hesitate to risk his dignity in that fashion unless moved by something deeper than curiosity. 5. Perhaps a preliminary confirmation of Zachaeus’ suspicions about Jesus, who thus shows awareness of where he is and what is his name. In 6 Zachaeus proves that he is a brother of the publicans of 15:1; there is no doubt about his good dispositions, while the universal complaint of 7 shows what was the common opinion of him. 8. He immediately begins to put into practice our Lord’s teaching on the proper use of wealth; it does not appear to be restitution of ill-gotten wealth, for he does not admit that he has certainly defrauded anyone by ‘sycophancy’, ἐσυκοφάντησα, i.e. by false denunciation in his office as tax-collector; see the same word in 3:14 where John the Baptist gives advice to the publicans and their police. If he has been guilty of injustice, then he is ready to restore as the Law commands, Num 5:6–7, and even to restore fourfold. That his conduct has not been all it should be, however, may be gathered from 10. Thus Jesus is provided with his reply to the grumblers: Zachaeus, sinner and renegade Jew though he be, has not forfeited his right to the promise made to Abraham; and in receiving Jesus into his house, he has welcomed the one in whom the promise to Abraham is fulfilled.

§ d 11–27 Parable of the Pounds—In spite of the many differences between this and the Parable of the Talents in Mt 25:14–30, many commentators identify them. Maldonatus, for example, admits the identity and attributes the divergences to the evangelists; it would be safer, according to Lagrange, to say that the differences are due to the handing down of the parable by oral tradition under different forms. In both a master is shown putting his servants to the test; the faithful are rewarded splendidly, the rest punished severely. The conclusion is the same in both. Lk alone, 11, gives the occasion of the parable: Jesus is ascending to Jerusalem and some of his followers still think in spite of all that there is to be a glorious Messianic manifestation. Perhaps there is a hint of the question of the Sons of Zebedee, Mt 20:20–28; Mk 10:35–45, which Lk has omitted. The parable contradicts such hopes; Jesus is not going to act as a political Messias and start a revolution in order to seat himself on the throne of Israel. He is the King, but he is going on a long journey in order to receive royal investiture from his Father. His true disciples will be loyal to him during his absence. He will return: let them be ready for that event. § e 12. The comparison is very apt, for everyone knew how the Herodian princes visited Rome in order to receive their kingdoms at the hands of Caesar. What Lk adds in 14 (not in Mt) is precisely what happened when Archelaus went to Rome in 4 b.c. to receive the kingdom inherited from his father, Herod the Great; the Jews sent an embassy to oppose his claim. The Jewish leaders are now acting in just the same manner towards Jesus, though manifestly the allegory must not be pressed too closely. 17. Here Mt’s allegorization is stronger; he adds to the reward bestowed the words ‘enter thou into the joy of thy Lord’. 20–26. In Lk the idle servant is dealt with in the same manner as in Mt save for small details; he is condemned because he has not watched, i.e. he has not been active and lively in the interests of his master. He defends himself by attributing evil dispositions to his master, an accusation proved untrue by 17, 19 and 24. The remark added in Lk’s account, 25, is not intended to reflect jealousy; it is a literary manner of bringing out the generosity of the master which has just been called into question. 27. Another addition in Lk made necessary by his addition in 14. It contains a formidable lesson for the Jewish leaders.

§ 765a 28–40 Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem—(Mt 21:1–9; Mk 11:1–10; cf. Jn 12:12–19). Apart from the short dialogue with the Pharisees, 39–40, Lk’s narrative is a close parallel of Mk’s. The following points are to be noted in Lk, where the stage is now set for the final unravelling of the plot: Jesus has received acknowledgement from on high at his Nativity, Baptism, Transfiguration; from his disciples; from the crowd who have recognized in him one through whose ministrations God is visiting his people. He has shown a clear consciousness of his Divine Sonship, and in virtue of that has made such demands of self-surrender on his followers as none but God could make. In the foregoing parable he has indicated clearly that he is the Messianic King; he is about to make a fitting entry into his royal city. It is the last sign of his dignity until he shall have attained the glory of his Resurrection; but that, as we have been repeatedly warned by Lk, is in God’s design to be reached only through the humiliation of the Passion. § b 28. A parallel of Mk 10:32a, omitted previously by Lk. 37. A common custom for the residents of Jerusalem to go out and meet the incoming pilgrims with music and singing. In Lk it is ‘all the multitude of his disciples’ who praise God ‘for all the miracles, δυνάμεις, they had seen’. ‘Multitude’; πλῆθος means a great number; cf. Ac 1:15. The numbers and the style of their salutation give reason for the complaint of 39. 38. Omitting the Hebrew Hosanna of Mk and Mt, Lk records the salutation as ‘Blessed be he-that-cometh, the king, in the name of the Lord’, which recalls the ὁ ἐρχόμενος of John the Baptist, 3:16; 7:19. Finally he omits their concluding ‘Hosanna in the highest’ and inserts ‘peace in heaven and glory on high’, which recalls the song of the angels, 2:14; the angelic prediction is near fulfilment. Lk alone records the objection of the Pharisees in this place, 39, though Mt 21:15–16 places a similar incident later in the temple. Lk here reflects the objection of the citizens in the parable, 19:14; the Pharisees are obdurate in their refusal to welcome the Kingdom of God of which Jesus is not merely the representative but the King. It may be noted that only now, at the end of his career, does he allow any public acknowledgement of himself as the Messias-King; there is no further need of past injunctions about the Messianic Secret. And even now he admits acknowledgement only as a means of testifying to the goodness of God manifested through the miracles, 37; see his answer in 40 and cf. Hab 2:11.

§ c 41–44 Jesus weeps over Jerusalem—Proper to Lk and coming well after the last incident; the Pharisees fittingly represent the dispositions of Jerusalem. Another of Lk’s striking contrasts: the enthusiastic joy of the disciples, the tears of the Master; their song of peace and glory, his vision of war and desolation, ‘the vision of a people delivered over to madness, factions on every side, divisions healed for a time by a despairing rage against a determined enemy who is tightening his toils about the city’ (Lagr7476., GJC II 124). The prediction is so true to life that rationalist critics feel bound to maintain that Lk wrote it after the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. 42. If Jerusalem, the city of peace [so the name was interpreted], had recognized the things to her peace today, the evils of that other day would not have come upon her. The thought of peace is recalled by 38 (cf. also 14:32). 44. The details of destruction are an echo of Mic 3:12, the prophet’s conclusion of a long denunciation of Israel for her sins; cf. Jer 6:3, 6. All through Lk we are reminded that the Messianic Day is a time of God’s beneficent visitation of his people; 1:68, 78; 4:18–21; 7:16, 21–23, etc. For the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem see Jos. BJ Books 5 and 6.

§ d 45–6 Cleansing of the Temple—(Mt 21:12–13; Mk 11:15–17; Jn 2:14–16). Omitting the incident of the withered fig-tree, placed by Mt after and by Mk before the cleansing of the temple, Lk gives Mk’s account of this in shortened form. Jn puts it at the beginning of the ministry, while all three Synoptists ‘have put the expulsion of the traders from the Temple during the Pasch immediately preceding the Passion, and this seems to be demanded by their plan, for they mention but one Pasch’ (Lagr7477., GJC I 98), and the Pasch was the reason for the presence of the traders in the temple. Jn gives three Paschs and connects the incident with the first. This is in all probability the correct place, chronologically speaking. See comments on Mt 21:12; Mk 11:15; Jn 2:13 for further discussion. Lk omits the words ‘to all nations’ from Mk’s quotation of Is 56:7, at which Plummer is surprised in view of Lk’s universalizing tendency; but it would have been more surprising if he had included them after the recent prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, with all that it entailed for the liberation of the early Church from the bonds of Judaism. See Edershei7478m I, 370 ff., for an account of the abuses practised in the temple markets.

§ e 47–48 Ministry in Jerusalem—(Mk 11:18–19). Omitting after his manner the details of Mt and Mk concerning the comings and goings from the city, Lk sums up the situation briefly by describing the action of Jesus and its diverse effect on the people and their leaders. Here appear the three categories of the latter which are to be responsible for his death: chief priests, Scribes, and ‘the first of the people’, i.e. the aristocracy—the three groups making up the Sanhedrin. One of their chief motives is the fear of his growing influence: all the people are hanging on his lips; cf. Jn 12:19.

§ 766a 20–21 The Last Teachings of Jesus—The hour of sacrifice drawing near, it is fitting that the whole life of Jesus should now be turned towards the place of sacrifice, the temple. ‘Miracles are now done with. All his teaching indicates the clear view he has of what is to come, the fate awaiting him, the punishment about to fall upon the Temple and the people. He manifests a personality far higher than that of the Jewish conception of the Messias, Son of David. The impression is given that he is in command of the shape of events; death is his own free choice. But he prepares his disciples to carry on his work after he has gone’ (Lagr7479., S. Luc 505).

§ b 20:1–8 Question of Jesus’ Authority—(Mt 21:23–27; Mk 11:27–33). Close following of Mk here. Our Lord perseveres in ‘announcing the good tidings’; the desire of Jesus to seek the people’s good up to the last moment contrasts with the opposite attitude of his opponents towards him. 2. The reason of the inquiry made by the representatives of the Sanhedrin need not be his cleansing of the temple; indeed many of the Pharisees would have sympathized with that in principle, since it was their Sadducean opponents who were responsible for the abuses. As all three Synoptists agree, their chief fear was our Lord’s growing popularity. They had not forgotten John the Baptist’s ascendancy over the people; cf. 6b. Their efforts are therefore concentrated on the attempt to ruin the reputation of Jesus with the crowd by taxing him with embarrassing questions; there follow several such questions. In this instance he completely disconcerts them by associating himself with the popular enthusiasm for John. If they, the self-constituted guides of Israel, are not able to make up their minds about such a person as John, then he denies their right to ask for the source of his authority.

§ c 9–19 Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen—(Mt 21:33–46; Mk 12:1–12). As in Mk save for literary changes and the addition of the threat in 18. Lk omits the details concerning the preparation of the vineyard but adds the interjection of 16b ‘God forbid!’ lit7480. ‘May it not be!’. Such a detail would appeal to him since it is called forth by the suggestion of 16a that God will choose for himself another people who will prove more faithful than the Chosen Race. The whole parable is so pointed in its allegorical significance, ‘a parable of Jewish history’, that liberal critics deny its authenticity; they maintain that our Lord always used pure parables and that allegorical touches are due to additions made in the light of later events. In the parable (the application of which no one could fail to see) the servants were evidently those whom God had sent to his people: God’s last hope comes in the person of his beloved Son, clearly his only Son. The killing of that Son is the final crime, and after the last crime comes punishment. Here Jesus claims that he possesses the title of Son of God in a unique sense, thus providing his enemies with just the pretext they wanted for destroying him.

§ d 20–26 Question of the Tribute—(Mt 22:15–22; Mk 12:13–17). The Jewish leaders are under no misapprehension about the meaning of the parable, 19, but they find it necessary to go warily for fear of the crowd; hence they set spies to find some pretext for handing Jesus over to the Roman authorities (Lk alone). Lk omits to specify the emissaries (Pharisees and Herodians in Mk and Mt) but identifies them sufficiently by the phrase ‘who feign themselves just’ (20, cf. 16:15; 18:9). Using subterfuge themselves, they appeal to his well-known straightforwardness and fearless speaking of the truth. It was known to all that neither Pharisees nor Herodians offered opposition to Roman domination: the latter because they depended on it, the former having even asked for incorporation into the empire on the death of Herod the Great (Jos. Ant. 17, 11, 2). But it should be recalled that twenty years before this very question of tribute to Caesar had caused a rebellion which the Romans had put down severely, crucifying 2,000 Jews (Ant. 17, 10, 10). Hence Jesus’ answer might have grave consequences with the crowd or with the police. 26. Lk points out that the opponents are completely disconcerted again; there is nothing in his answer they can seize on to discredit Jesus either with the Roman authorities or with the people.

§ e 27–40 Question about the Resurrection of the Dead—(Mt 22:23–33; Mk 12:18–27). The third question, curiously enough, is one about which Pharisees and Sadducees were at loggerheads (cf. Ac 23:8; Ant. 17, 1, 3; Lagr7481., GJC II 142 ff.). Perhaps the explanation is found in the satisfaction of the Sadducees at Jesus’ answer to the previous question, for they gave unequivocal support to Rome. Lk runs in accord with Mk and Mt while insisting more emphatically on the theological character of the question. 34–36. Note the Lucan additions ‘children of this world’, ‘children of God’, ‘children of the resurrection’; cf. 16:8. These are Hebraistic idioms signifying those who have the characteristics of mortal or immortal life. 37. The Sadducees are disappointed by the answer while their opponents are gratified, 39. A further interesting addition of Lk is 38b, ‘for all live to him (God)’, a Pauline expression; cf. Rom 6:10; Gal 2:19.

§ f 41–44 Question of the Davidic Sonship of the Messias—(Mt 22:41–46; Mk 12:35–37). Though Lk agrees with Mk in recording the gratification of the Scribes, he omits the question of one of them now given by Mk which fits in well with the narrative: but he has already narrated this or a similar incident in 10:25–28. Here he confines himself to the captious questions of the adversaries, so that all may be ‘in order’. On this occasion it is Jesus who takes the initiative, perhaps to turn the tables on them. They are seeking to discredit him with the crowd. Having put them to shame with the crowd by making them confess that they can give no satisfactory answer about John the Baptist, he now puts them in a much more serious difficulty by asking them about the Messias’s Davidic origin. Whatever disagreements there were about the Messias’s character, all agreed that he was to be the Son of David. Thus, as Lk has said in 40, he closes their mouths even in the matter of their boasted ability to interpret the Scriptures. At the same time he provides positive teaching about himself; for if David himself in the Psalms, of which he was the accredited author (cf. Mt 22:43; Mk 12:36), shows the Messias seated at God’s right hand, then it follows that the Messias ranks higher than all the servants of God and is consequently much more than a mere Son of David. Who but the Son of God would be invited to sit at God’s right hand? It is at the conclusion of this incident that Mt has placed the remark that from this time no one dared to pose any more questions, much better here than where Lk has put it in 40.

§ g 45–47 Warning against the Scribes—(Mt 23:1–36; Mk 12:37b–40). The attack is carried further into the enemy’s camp. Note how Mk concludes the last incident by reminding us of the pleasure of the crowd at Jesus’ words, and it seems to be the crowd that he warns against the Scribes; in Lk the warning is reserved for the disciples. Mt expands the theme, including much of what Lk has already said in 11:37–54. Here Lk agrees closely with Mk; both conclude with the formidable words of 47b.

§ 767a 21:1–4 The Widow’s Mite—(Mk 12:41–44). Lk abbreviates. The connexion with the foregoing is clear: Jesus has just denounced the Scribes (and the Pharisees, cf. 11:43, 14:7), one of the chief censures being that they ‘devour the houses of widows’, the biblical type of the poor and forsaken. The Pharisees are φιλάργυροι, ‘lovers of silver’, 16:14. The two types are contrasted here: the rich man, evidently one of those just denounced, ostentatiously casting his offering into the trumpet-shaped collecting box of the temple; the poor widow humbly approaching to put in her two mites, the smallest coin in circulation. The lesson is plain; they have given ‘out of their superfluity’; ‘she out of her deficiency hath cast in all the livelihood that she had’. She is an excellent example of that complete self-surrender which Jesus demands of his followers.

§ b 5–36 The Ruin of the Temple and the Coming of the Son of Man—In the eschatological discourse (τὰ ἔσχατα, the last things) with which the ministry of Jesus closes, Lk’s general plan is the same as Mk’s. But he shows greater precision in describing the details of the ruin of Jerusalem, a fact which leads rationalist critics to conclude that his Gospel was written after that event. Mt’s eschatological discourse is paralleled by Mk and by what Lk contains on the same subject in 17:20–37, material that Mt and Lk are supposed to have drawn from a common source, such as the hypothetical document Q. Lk shows more care in distinguishing the two themes, the ruin of Jerusalem and the Parousia being confused in Mk. Some have suggested that the Synoptists have blocked together two completely different discourses spoken on different occasions; it seems unlikely. Hostile critics maintain that in the mind of Jesus the ruin of the temple was the sure sign of the end of the world, and that he consequently was a victim of deception. But it is clear from the Gospels that he distinguished the two events, even if he treated of both at once. The first was to be the sign for the flight of his disciples; the second was to be a catastrophe from which flight was impossible. The first was predicted as near; the disciples should see it. § c As for the second, Jesus refrains from predicting the time; that was his Father’s secret. But why did he deal with both subjects together and thus lead to the possibility of error? But the error that the end of the temple would be the end of the world was not suggested to men’s minds by his words; every true Israelite was convinced of this already, just as the idea of a world without the city of Rome was unthinkable for the people of the empire. The complete and final destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the consequent collapse of Judaism and the Mosaic Law! How could the world go on after that? Besides, Jewish Messianism, if it meant anything at that time, meant the triumph of Israel and the everlasting supremacy of the Mosaic Law. That is sufficiently clear from the Jewish apocryphal writings. It was therefore necessary for Jesus once more and in an unmistakable manner to disabuse his own disciples of all such notions. He was not that kind of Messias. (But see the commentary on Mt in loc. for a very different view; cf. also § 417g.)

§ d 5–7 The Coming Ruin of the Temple—(Mt 24:1–3; Mk 13:1–4). This prediction is admirably introduced in Mt by our Lord’s apostrophe of Jerusalem, including the words ‘behold your house shall be left desolate’, which Lk has put much earlier; 13:34–35. Jesus and his disciples were probably on the slopes of Olivet (cf. Mk 13:3) whence they looked down upon the temple. Lk in his fashion omits such details. The disciples call their Master’s attention to the mighty buildings and ‘the offerings’, perhaps the great brazen gates leading into the inner courts which had been given by an Alexandrine Jew; cf. Jos. Ant. 15, 11. But the temple, built for eternity, will soon be no more than a heap of stones, 19:44; Mic 3:12.

§ e 8–24 Signs of the Coming Catastrophe—(Mt 24:4–20; Mk 13:5–18). The horrible prediction had called forth the startled question of the disciples in 7b. 8–11. The appearance of false Christs, wars, etc. is not to lead them into the error of thinking that the day of destruction is at hand; Lk omits the concluding apt remark of Mt and Mk, ‘these are (but) the beginning of the birth-pangs’. 12–19. The ruin of the city will be preceded by persecution for Christ’s sake; by omitting Mk 13:10 ‘unto all nations the Gospel must first be preached’ Lk avoids the possibility of confusing the time of the two great events. What does 13 mean? Either that persecution will provide the disciples with an opportunity for witnessing to the truth, as 14 seems to indicate, or else that the persecutions will provide that sort of witness, μαρτύριον, which is borne by martyrdom; this had already been verified when Lk wrote by the deaths of James, Stephen and others; cf. 16b. 15. Jesus promises to do for his disciples what God himself had promised to Moses, Ex 4:11–12; in Mk it is the Holy Ghost who is made the source of inspiration. 18. This seems either out of place or contradictory of 16b, unless it be taken as a proverbial expression (cf. 12:7; Ac 27:34; 1 Kg 14:45; 2 Kg 14:11; 3 Kg 1:52) signifying that God has control of all in such a way that nothing will happen without his will, and his will towards the disciples is all for their good; if they lose their life it will be for the good of their soul (cf. 12:4–7). Hence the conclusion, ‘by your endurance win your souls’; cf. Mk 13:13b, ‘he who endures unto the end shall be saved’.

§ f 20–24 The Ruin of Jerusalem—(Mt 24:15–20; Mk 13:14–18). ‘Lk here puts in clear terms what Mk has wrapped up in symbolical language such as Gentile readers could with difficulty have understood’ (Lagrange). The ‘abomination of desolation standing where it ought not’ is missing, though he retains the word ‘desolation’ ἐρήμωσις and applies it to Jerusalem, ἐρήμωσις is an active word meaning ‘laying waste’. Jerusalem besieged by armies inevitably recalled to a Jewish mind the thought of Nabuchodonosor’s siege and its result, 4 Kg 25:1 ff. That will be the sign for the disciples to flee from the city, for (22 proper to Lk) this is the punishment decreed by God and it cannot be escaped. 24. Here Lk neglects the Marcan narrative and describes in great detail the fate of the inhabitants of the city, concluding with the prediction ‘Jerusalem shall be trodden under foot by [i.e. shall be under the heel of] the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled’; cf. Dan 8:13; Apoc. 11:2. The Gentiles are to take the place of the Jews in the divine plan (cf. 20:16 and Rom 11:25).

§ g 25–27 The Coming of the Son of Man—(Mt 24:29–31; Mk 13:24–27). The mention of the ‘times of the Gentiles’ provides an introduction to this theme; Lk’s perspective is now carried beyond the ruin of Jersusalem into the future. Omitting the warnings in Mk and Mt about false rumours concerning the second coming of Christ (already dealt with in 17:23–24) he joins them in describing the signs in the heavens and on earth that shall precede the Parousia. In his context the time of the appearance of these signs is indefinite; moreover the fear and distress caused by them are not confined to Jerusalem but spread over the world. 27. The appearance of the Son of Man is described almost in the words of Mk; but instead of Mk’s consolatory words about the gathering together of the elect Lk adds the encouragement of 28. Since, however, there is no promise that the disciples are to see the Parousia, it seems that 28 must be referred to the signs that shall precede the ruin of Jerusalem; but Knabenbauer, Schanz and Plummer refer 28 to the coming of the Son of Man. Our Lord always insists that there shall be no warning signs of his second coming. He will come suddenly, when least expected, like a thief in the night; 17:24 and 21:34–36.

§ h 28–33 Signs of the Approach of the Kingdom of God—(Mt 24:32–35; Mk 13:28–31). Here, as in 17:20 ff., Jesus distinguishes between the Parousia and the coming of the Kingdom of God, which in some way is already ‘in you’ or ‘among you’, 17:21. Note also the distinction between ‘then they shall see’ of 27 and ‘look you up and lift up your heads’ of 28; there is a break in thought. The ‘redemption’ in 28 may be taken as the liberation of the disciples from the restraining bonds of Judaism which are not only the persecutions proceeding from the Synagogue, but also the hindrances arising from the Judaizers among the convert Jews of which Lk will write in Ac. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple solved both of these problems, and provided the occasion for the spread of the Kingdom of God throughout the world, the thing foreseen by the Prophets: Is 2:2 ff.; 65:1 ff.; 66:19 ff.; Mal 1:11. 30. ‘When they already shoot forth [with leaves, not fruit] you know by looking at them that summer is already nigh; so you also …’. Consequently it is not a question of the Parousia but of something the disciples (some of them at least) will live to see, something the date of which can be roughly fixed; therefore the ruin of the city.

§ i 34–36 Be Ready for the Coming of the Son of Man—(Mt 24:42; Mk 13:33–37; cf. Lk 12:41–48). Nowhere in Lk do we find the words of Mk and Mt about the ignorance of the Son concerning the last day; he omits them here; cf. Mk 13:32. There is a distinct change of tone in Lk; no more talk of encouragement as in 28, but a warning beginning with the admonitory formula, ‘take heed to yourselves’ (cf. 17:3) which takes the place of Mk’s parable. We are back in the situation of 17:26 ff., watching for the coming of the Son of Man. Here, as there, that coming will be a day of judgement and sifting. ‘As a snare’ (or trap) should probably be attached to 34 rather than commence a new sentence in 35; ‘that day will come upon you like a snare’; a snare is useless unless laid where least expected; cf. 1 Thess 5:2. Hence, instead of looking out for signs, be always ready. 36. Lk adds the advice to be constant at prayer ‘at every time’.

§ 768a 22–23 The Passion—Like his fellow evangelists Lk attaches primary importance to the story of the Passion; these two chapters account for one ninth part of his Gospel. Here he does not bear such a similarity to Mk as in the preceding part, but shows a clear dependence on some source which is neither Mt nor Mk. His story is composed in order: the plot, the betrayal, the institution of the Eucharist followed by the final discourse, the capture at Gethsemani, the appearance of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, the delivery to Pilate for execution, the crucifixion. There are some changes of order, omissions and additions which distinguish Lk from Mt and Mk. Very notable is the omission of the anointing at Bethany; but that is sufficiently explained by the inclusion of a similar story early in his Gospel and his dislike of repetitions.

§ b 22:1–23 The Last Supper—(Mt 26:1–29; Mk 14:1–25; cf. Jn 13:21–38). 1–6. Much as in Mk, but abbreviated, save for the addition that Judas acts at the instigation of Satan, cf. 4:13 and Jn 13:2, 27. The ‘magistrates’ referred to in 4 are merely στρατηγοί, officers of the temple police and therefore Jews; Lk alone mentions them. 7–14. Lk alone mentions the identity of the two disciples sent to prepare the Pasch. He is in conformity here with Mt and Mk about the day of the paschal supper, apparently against Jn who makes the Jews eat the Pasch after the crucifixion, Jn 18:28. Orthodox scholars are divided as to whether the Synoptists intend us to understand that Jesus and his disciples ate the Jewish Pasch; according to some Jesus anticipated the Judaean date by one day, following the calendar of the Galilean Jews. See Lagr7482., S. Marc (1911) 330 ff. Beyond doubt according to Lk Jesus celebrates the Jewish Pasch as is evident from 15–18. ‘This Pasch’ is clearly the paschal lamb which lies before him as he speaks (cf. 7); the thought of the immolation of the lamb reminds him of his own sacrifice: ‘before I suffer’. It is his final celebration of the Pasch with his disciples, the beginning of the new Pasch of the Kingdom of God in the celebration of which he will be always present with them. Thus he does not destroy but fulfils the ancient rite, as he had promised; cf. 16:17 and Mt 5:17–18. § c 17–18. In the Jewish rite of the paschal supper there were four separate ceremonial draughts of wine, and this was apparently one of them; but Mt and Mk place words similar to 18 after the consecration of the chalice; Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25. Why the change of order? All three Synoptists here envisage the heavenly feast of the world to come rather than the celebration of Mass7483. 19–20. The remarkable fact that each synoptist gives a different version of the actual words of consecration furnishes a useful example of the manner in which the evangelists deal with common incidents, which each records after his own manner. It might have been thought that they all would have been scrupulous to observe identical phrasing in such a matter. Lk’s version comes nearest, as might be expected, to that of St Paul; 1 Cor 11:24 ff. Note the following changes and additions: in 19 ‘giving thanks’, εὐχαριστήσας, which provides the name Eucharist, instead of Mk’s and Mt’s ‘blessing’ εὐλογήσας (cf. Mt 15:36; Mk 8:6 with Mt 14:19; Mk 6:41; Lk 9:16); ‘which is given for you’ is added after the consecration of the bread, indicating that our Lord has already offered his body to be immolated like the lamb, and that the sacrifice of himself is now an accomplished fact; ‘do this for a commemoration of me’ is added as in 1 Cor 11:24. 20. ‘This chalice is the new covenant in my blood, shed for you’. D7484V following V7485g says ‘shall be shed’ without authority in the Greek, but ‘shed’ seems to be parallel with ‘given’ in 19, indicating a sacrifice already offered. For ‘the new covenant’ see Ex 24:7–8; Jer 31:31 ff. 21–23. It is only now that Lk makes that reference to the treason of Judas which precedes the institution of the Eucharist in Mk and Mt, as if they wish to remove the traitor from the scene before the solemn moment; cf. Jn 13:21–30. But in Lk it looks as if the giving of his body and blood by our Lord is deliberately contrasted with the contrary action of the traitorous disciple; note the force of ‘but yet behold’ in 21. In 22 Lk expresses with more pronounced emphasis than Mt and Mk the divine preordination of events, though 22b insists that the crime of Judas is contrary to the will of God.

§ d 24–38 Last Discourse to the Apostles—It begins with a dispute among the followers of Jesus (strangely shocking in such circumstances) which Mk and Mt have given much earlier, Mk 10:41–45; Mt 20:24–28, after the request of the Sons of Zebedee, where it seems in place. But it is not impossible that such a dispute occurred now, stirred up perhaps by our Lord’s recent reference to the Kingdom of God. 25. ‘They that have authority over them [the Gentiles] are called ‘beneficent’, εὐεργέται. The final word gives a strong touch of reality to the scene; εὐεργέτης was a title assumed by more than one of the ancient rulers, including the Roman Emperors; particularly Ptolemy Euergetes (145–117 b.c.) was infamous for his cruel despotism in Egypt. 28–32. Proper to Lk save for 30b which is found in Mt 19:28. Here Jesus renews his accustomed teaching which re-echoes the note of the Magnificat and the Beatitudes. His disciples, by their faithful adherence to him right up to the end, have shared his lowly condition and the trials of his life, such as the enmity of the Jewish leaders, rejection by the heads of the nation, poverty, etc (cf. 9:57–62). Therefore they shall share his reign, βασιλεία, kingship. § e To Peter a special promise of sharing the prerogatives of his Master is now given, a promise that appears with all the more significance in that it is joined to a prediction about his fall; the weak one is to serve as the buttress of his brethren, not through his own native power but through that which is bestowed on him by Christ. It is of importance to note the different number (sing. and pl.) in the use of the second personal pronouns of 31–32. 31 ‘Satan hath demanded’, recalling Job 1:11–12. The action of ‘sifting’ is not here meant as a means of distinguishing the good from the bad, but rather as a violent shaking and disturbance such as is used when wheat is sifted from the chaff. It is the overthrow and ruin of the Apostles that Satan seeks. If our Lord prays specially for Peter, we need not conclude that he is weaker than the others (despite his later fall); it is because more is to depend upon him, as the head, than upon the rest, viz. the solid faith of his brethren. He is to serve as the rock of strength for others in his office as head. Clearly the passage, proper to Lk, supposes what Mt has recorded in 16:17–19, omitted by Lk. The faith of Peter is such as Lk has already described in 5:20; 7:9; 8:25, etc. namely, that Jesus is the Messias, the Son of God; nor was this denied by Peter later in 57–60. 32b. ‘And thou, having then [in the future] returned, make firm thy brethren’; for the notion of returning in the biblical sense, i.e. to God, cf. 1:16, 17 (Mal 4:4); Ac 9:35; 11:21; 14:15, etc. § f 33–34. All four evangelists record this; Lk agrees with Jn as to its place, but Mk and Mt put it on the way to Gethsemani. 35–38. Proper to Lk. The apparent contradiction of our Lord’s former and later teaching (10:4 ff.; 22:49–51, cf. Mt 26:52) must be explained in this way: he now wishes to impress upon them that although the principles of his teaching have not altered, nevertheless the times have changed. They are about to enter on a situation of the utmost gravity and danger. Compare the advice concerning the way they are to act in 17:22 ff.; 21:8 ff. When he first sent them out it was with the counsel to depend on the goodwill of their hearers for their needs; now there will be no longer goodwill but hatred for his sake. In fact they will be Ishmaels, like men who have no friends and can obtain even the bare necessities of life only by violence; that is the meaning of ‘he that hath not (a sword) let him sell his coat and buy one’, a proverbial expression, not that he recommends such a measure to his disciples (cf. 12:22). This furnishes the meaning of his answer to their simplicity in 38: ‘It is enough’. He does not mean that two swords are enough for their protection, but, seeing that they have not understood him, he says with a smile, ‘That would be enough for what I meant’. Some think, less probably, that he answers abruptly to change the subject which they have misunderstood: ‘Enough of that’. 37. In confirmation of the advice in 36; the quotation is from Is 53 which deals with the Suffering Servant of Yahweh. Jesus envisages his speedy death: ‘the things that have to do with me are coming to their completion’. He has frequently warned his disciples that the servant must not expect to fare better than the master.

§ 769a 39–46 The Agony at Gethsemani—(Mt 26:30, 36–46; Mk 14:26, 32–42). After commencing like Mt and Mk, Lk omits their account of the scandal and flight of the Apostles; he omits also our Lord’s promise of a future meeting in Galilee. In the latter omission he is consistent with his plan of dealing only with the apparitions at Jerusalem. The protestations of fidelity made by Peter and the prediction of his fall have already been mentioned, 33–34; Lk does not return to the subject. He abbreviates as usual, omitting to mention the choice of Peter, James and John, the name of the garden, the threefold repetition of Christ’s prayers and the failure of the Apostles to keep awake. If he passes over Mk’s vivid description of the signs of human weakness in our Lord, Mk 14:33b–35, he emphasizes the agony and its material effects. Characteristically he draws attention to the earnestness of the prayer: ἐκτενέστερον signifies rather strained effort than prolongation as in D7486V. § b 43. The angelic apparition is proper to Lk; he omitted the angelic apparitions found in Mk and Mt at the end of the former temptation in the desert; 4:13; Mk 1:13; Mt 4:11. Lk alone mentions the agony and sweat of blood, 44. The agony, i.e. contest, striving, mental anguish, was evidently the struggle (or its effect) between the sensitive appetite in our Lord which naturally shrank from suffering and death, and the superior will which voluntarily accepted the divine decree: a struggle which is expressed in the prayer of 42. ‘His sweat became like clots of blood falling upon the ground’. Lk says ‘like clots of blood’, but an actual sweat of blood seems indicated. A similar phenomenon, betraying extremes of pain and mental anguish, is not unknown in the annals of medicine (Hobart, Medical Language of St Luke, 83). The authenticity of 43–44 is much attacked because of its omission in many MSS. But there is good MS evidence for authenticity (א and D, all uncial and cursive MSS and anc. Lat.), the style is Lucan, and none of the Fathers expressed doubts. The omission, particularly in MSS of the Egyptian family, points to suppression on account of theological scruples. The text was commonly used in the 2nd cent. against the Docetists and in the 4th by those who denied the divinity of Christ. 46. The reproach is addressed to all, not to Peter alone as in Mk and Mt.

§ c 47–53 The Arrest of Jesus—Abbreviated account of Mk 14:43–52; Mt 26:47–56; cf. Jn 18:2–11. One or two additions: the protest against the traitorous kiss, 48, which is very characteristic; the disciples’ question about the use of the swords already mentioned, 49; the healing of the man’s ear, 53; the description of the enemy, ‘high-priests, temple-police (στρατηγοί) and seniors’, indicating a delegation from the Sanhedrin, 52; the characteristic conclusion in 53b; cf. 22:3, 31, 37; Col 1:13. The flight of the Apostles is passed over in silence. 51a. Several opinions: either meaning ‘Go no further’ or ‘Let them take me’, the latter being the more probable. There is a further suggestion that our Lord is asking the bystanders to give way so that he may heal the injured man: ‘Let me get at him’; and still another that the remark is addressed to the enemy asking them to excuse the hasty action of the offending disciple.