NT420 - LESSON TEN - The Purpose of Luke's Gospel Exegesis of Luke 19:29-48

THE PURPOSE OF LUKE’S GOSPEL

1. The Preface (1:1-4)

a) pepljroforjmenwn (fulfilled) and ‡sfaleia (reliability) are key words in the preface. Clearly Luke is concerned to present Christianity as the legitimate fulfilment of the OT and Jewish hope of salvation. However, difficulties emerge when we attempt to be more precise than this, that is, to identify his target audience and the reason for this focus on fulfilment.

b) One problem is that ambiguity exists over several words/phrases in the preface:

i) kratistov (1:3) (most excellent)

Conclusion: Theophilus may have been an official of some sort, at least a man of important social standing (possibly Luke's patron who either:

i) would have the work deposited in his library and made available to others (OR)

ii) would use his home as a location for an oral performance

ii) logov (1:4)

iii) katjcjqjv (1:4)

Thus having arrived at the end of the preface, the modern reader is still unsure of a number of key factors regarding Luke's purpose. These are:

2. A Survey of Unsuitable Views for the Purpose of Luke-Acts

a) To defend Christianity before the Roman state (B.S.Easton):

That is, to present it as a religio licita (legal religion). Christians are not politically subversive. Note the following emphases:

but in response note the following

i) C. K. Barrett was surely correct in pointing out that no Roman official would be able to sift such an apology out of, what would be to him, so much theological and ecclesiastical rubbish. It may, however, be that Luke had a purpose along these lines but with a less formal orientation.

ii) The depiction of Roman authorities is not always positive (Lk 13:32; Acts 4:25-28; 24:22,26-27; 25:8-11)

iii) Jesus has a zealot for a disciple (Lk 6:15)

Also think about certain aspects of Jesus' teaching that could have been construed as a potential threat to the social patterns of the empire:

b) To defend Paul at his trial (A.J.Mattill) / To defend Paul in the face of Jewish Christian attack (J. Jervell)

This view notes:

c) A defence against Gnosticism (C.H.Talbert):
Note the Gnostic tendency to de-historicise the gospel. Thus the emphasis on:

but the date of Gnosticism? (not developed until second century)

d) A response to a crisis in belief over the delay of the parousia (Conzelmann)
See the notes and response to this proposal in addendum 1, under the topic of Salvation History/Promise-Fulfilment

3. Arguments for a Christian Audience for Luke-Acts(the dominant view today)

The main arguments here are:

But is Luke writing to Gentile or Jewish Christians?

a) Arguments for a Gentile Christian audience

This has been the traditional view due to the following:

b) Arguments for a Jewish Christian audience

Beginning with Jacob Jervell, this view has become increasingly popular (also Brawley/Esler/Tiede). This relies on the following:

c) Evaluation

d) Possible Setting

Assuming a Christian audience for the moment, there have been a number of settings proposed, not all of which are mutually exclusive:

i) The church needed to clarify its position in regard to Judaism. How can Christianity claim to be the fulfilment of the OT/Jewish hope if Jews, in the main, have rejected Jesus (e.g. Acts 28:20-28)?

ii) A situation of internal conflict

iii) To supplement Mark’s Gospel (Marshall)
Luke-Acts is a single work, intended as such from the outset. It was not that Mark was deficient, but that he did not write a history of the church (i.e. the story was incomplete). Luke wrote to Theophilus to show how the church got to where it was at that point. Thus prologue of Gospel covers Luke and Acts.

A good point that Marshall makes is that we need to distinguish between secondary concerns (i.e. rich-poor) and his primary purpose.

4. Arguments for a non-Christian Audience (i.e. God-fearer)

a) Arguments

i) explains the knowledge of OT/Judaism

ii) the relationship between Christianity and Judaism in Acts proves very little about Luke's audience, except that the fulfilment motif is important for Luke

iii) the positive focus on Judaism enables Luke to meet Theophilus on common ground, without alienating him from the outset

iv) Note the secular preface

v) The parenetic material does not conflict with evangelistic intention

- e.g. material on wealth/possessions, concern for poor etc.

vi) The interest shown in God-fearers (Acts 10:2,22,35; 13:16,26,43,50; 17:4,17; 18:7; cf. Lk 7:1-10)

vii) prominence of the repentance theme

b) Possible Setting

In presenting Christianity as the realisation of the Jewish hope, Theophilus (or a group represented by him) is encouraged to leave the synagogue and the attraction of Judaism

5. The calling into question of a specific target audience

Since the work of the redaction critics, the Gospels have increasingly been seen in terms of an author writing to a specific community, often their own community (thus we encounter terms like "the Matthean community" etc.). Furthermore, it is the particular redactional concerns of the author that act as a mirror of the needs of that community.

But in a collection of essays edited by Richard Bauckham, this long-cherished scholarly axiom has been seriously challenged.

6. The problem of finding Luke’s community

a) L. T. Johnson:

b) D. C. Allison:

c) H. Moxnes:

Conclusions Regarding Luke's Purpose

a) Any discussion of purpose must take account of Luke's major themes / emphases. These are:

b) While the precise identity of Luke's target audience is unclear, the following seems evident:

i) Luke is concerned to show how the church of his day owed its existence to the salvation that God had accomplished in the historical Jesus in fulfilment of the Jewish hope.

ii) The church continues to proclaim this salvation; continuing the ministry of Jesus empowered by his Spirit. Thus he gives the message of the church authority.

iii) It is out of this concept of Salvation History (promise-fulfilment) that Luke addresses other practical matters of discipleship, preparing his readers for a functional existence in history.

EXEGESIS OF LUKE 19:28-20:19

The Royal Entry to Jerusalem (19:28-40)

Introductory Comments

Notice that v. 28 forms an inclusio with 9:51. The city of destiny is now reached. This episode follows the parable of the Minas (19:11-27), with the triumphant entry picking up the royal theme from this parable. It leads into a lament over Jerusalem (19:41-44) and the cleansing of the temple (19:45-48).

Luke’s account reveals the following purposes:

i) Jesus enters the city of destiny (9:51). The Travel Narrative has thus reached its climax (see exegesis on v. 28)

ii) Jesus arrives as the messianic king (a theme that continues throughout the Passion Narrative)

Note: Only the disciples address him as king. It is unlikely that all the people recognised him as the Messiah

iii) Probably not intended to fulfil 13:35 - see the exegesis on vv. 37-38

iv) Did Jesus intend this to be a messianic action in view of Zechariah 9:9, taking the role of the humble king?

v) Luke does not portray this as an eschatological event (19:11) or as a political event. He deletes Mark 11:10 regarding “the arrival of the kingdom of our father David”

vi) The conflict motif (cf. v. 27)

- at the beginning of the Travel Narrative, Jesus was rejected by the Samaritans (9:52-53), now here by the Pharisees

Analysis

19:28
Verse 28 draws the Travel Narrative to a conclusion. One can sense the resoluteness of Jesus here. He leads the way to the place of destiny where God’s salvation would be accomplished. This is the end of the journey and the end of Jesus’ life. It marks his xodov ('exodus' - 9:31) and his ‡naljmyewv ('taking up' -9:51). We recall that in 13:34-35 Jerusalem is personified as the one who would kill him.

"Go up" (‡nabainw) is a technical term for pilgrimage to Jerusalem (e.g. Ps 122:4). Fitzmyer feels that it could foreshadow the ascension.

19:30-31
At this point Jesus sent two of his disciples into a nearby village (probably Bethpage) to obtain an untried colt. It is hard to say whether this was: i) supernatural knowledge (Bock/Fitzmyer/Marshall), or ii) pre-arranged (Morris).

Jesus seemed to expect a query from its owners. However, the disciples are merely to say that he needed it. It is unsure how we are to take kuriov. Given Luke’s use of the term, we should probably take it as “Lord”, though how widely Jesus was known by that title is debatable. He does, however, appear to have close associations in Bethany. L. Morris feels that it was a pre-arranged password.

19:32-35
Things went according to plan, and the colt’s owners responded to the disciples explanation. Note how Luke stresses Jesus’:

i) foreknowledge (‘just as he said’)

ii) authority (just a simple statement of need - no mention of their agreement as in Mk 11:6)

After bringing the animal back the (two?) disciples placed their garments on the colt, presumably in the form of a saddle, and placed Jesus upon it.

19:36
As Jesus rode along the disciples placed their garments on the road, thus making a royal carpet.

The "road" is also translated as the "way" in Acts, and there is possibly a deeper sense here (cf. 9:31), given the Acts usage. The journey is not quite over.

19:37
Verse 37 is unique to Luke, emphasising Jesus’ proximity to Jerusalem. His entourage was close to the western descent of Olivet, just outside the city. At this point the whole band of the disciples (Mark is more general) began praising God for all the miracles they had seen Jesus perform. This praise motif is typically Lukan (13:13; 17:15), and it recalls the birth scene (2:13-14,20). Given that Luke refers only to the disciples here, this event is not meant to act as fulfilment of 13:35b (“You will not see me until.......”).

Did they regard this as a messianic event? It is not clear, but it seems that Luke wants us to understand that they did. Their excitement probably stems from the same idea underlying the giving of the parable in 19:11ff. Jesus had spoken of the presence of the Kingdom (11:20; 17:20-21) and the availability of salvation (19:10). It was only natural then, that when seeing the one they had already confessed as Messiah arrive at the messianic city, that this would be the time for the arrival of the messianic kingdom. But a far different fate awaited Jesus, as he had tried to explain without apparent success (18:31-34).

Note that a king would more likely appear riding a white stallion; but the ass was the mount of a man of peace (cf Zech 9:9 and notes on Purpose above). Thus note how Jesus is continuing to redefine popular conceptions of Messiah.

19:38
All four evangelists record the crowd citing Ps 118:26, but only Luke and John mention the designation é basileuv ('king' - note also that Luke mentions the disciples only. John adds “of Israel,” whereas Mark has “the kingdom of our father David that is coming”). This kingly aspect has already been prepared for by:

This is possibly an allusion to Zech 9:9 (which only John quotes).

Psalm 118 was one of the Hallel Psalms used to greet pilgrims, but clearly Luke wants us to understand Jesus as more than a pilgrim here. The proclamation of "peace in heaven" echoes the same proclamation at Jesus' birth (2:14).

19:39-40
These verses are unique to Luke. Some see here a parallel to Matthew 21:14-16, but although it is a similar event, there is almost no verbal similarity.

Some Pharisees, who were possibly fellow pilgrims from Galilee (they seem to have been part of the crowd since 13:31), asked Jesus to rebuke his disciples. They would certainly not have been impressed with the previous messianic proclamation, and were probably against enthusiasm in general. They may also have feared Roman intervention.

The title "teacher" identifies Jesus with the rabbis, one of the revered teachers of Palestine. It was a title of honour but ultimately inadequate for Jesus. Note that the attitude of the Pharisees parallels to some extent the role of the antagonistic citizens in the parable of 19:11ff (19:14).

19:40
In a graphic way Jesus answered them that such praise was inevitable. The occasion was so significant that if the disciples were quiet the very stones would cry out. Compare Hab 2:11 were a similar image refers to the stones crying out against those who do evil. If this is the source of the idea here, then it could refer to:

i) the disciples do evil by being quiet

ii) the Pharisees do evil by rejecting Jesus

It could also have been a proverbial saying.

Lament over Jerusalem (19:41-44)

Introductory Comments

The story takes a sombre turn as triumph turns to lament. Jesus again reflects on the disasters to befall Jerusalem because of her unwillingness to accept him, the last emissary of peace. This recalls the similar lament in 13:34-35 (and to a lesser extent 19:27). It also foreshadows 23:26-32 - the women weeping on the way to Golgotha.

Some regard this as a saying after the event written back as prophecy. Others consider it as the result of early Christian prophecy. However, it is not a precise historical description, and it pictures common siege techniques. Furthermore it reflects OT passages from Jeremiah dealing with destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. In addition we must question such a-priori assumptions that will not entertain prophetic disclosure of the future.

This pericope (unique to Luke) shows how closely Luke links the messianic and prophetic. It also embodies the rejection motif (cf. 19:27; 20:9-18), picking up 13:34-35 and anticipating 21:20ff (the eschatological discourse). It is clear that neither Jesus nor Luke take delight in Jerusalem’s fate.

Analysis

19:41
Only here and in John 13:35 is Jesus said to have wept. In the OT weeping was a prophetic sign (Jer 9:1; 14:17; 2 Kgs 8:11). Here it is not regarding his fate but that of Jerusalem, the city of destiny .

19:42
Here we have a conditional sentence without an apodosis. We should understand something like “...... your future would have been so different”. Jerusalem did not know, however, the things that make for peace. "Peace" is probably meant in the full sense of the Hebrew shalom. There could also be an allusion to Jeremiah 6:14, where Jerusalem thought it had peace but did not.

"They are hidden from your eyes" could refer to blatant spiritual blindness, or to the passive concealing God’s action as a result of continual rejection of his emissaries (11:50; 13:34; 20:9-18). Compare this with 9:45; 18:34; 24:16 regarding the limited perception of the disciples. The latter is culpable yet forgivable (see 23:34; Acts 3:17; 13:27; 17:30).

19:43
But as Jerusalem did not know these things, a fearful destruction would overtake it. "Days will come" echoes the Day of Yahweh tradition, which can be either a day of blessing (Amos 9:13) or a day of judgment (Isa 39:6). The enemies are not identified, but the imagery is of a military siege.

perikuklow ('surround') and sunecw ('hem in') are a graphic picture of a siege. Siege works would completely surround a city cutting off routes of supply and ways of escape (see Jos. War 5.491-526 for a vivid description of this in the Jewish war). The picture echoes that described in Isaiah 29:3 and Ezekiel 4:1-3.

19:44
The gruesome image of cutting down trees is used here of the devastation of the city and its inhabitants. This recalls the master’s verdict in the parable of the Minas (19:27). The devastation will be so complete that not a stone will be left in position. This statement is repeated in 21:6. The prophet Micah prophesied this regarding Jerusalem (Mic 3:12), but it was averted by the reverence of Hezekiah (Jer 26:18-19). It was virtually accomplished in 70 AD (Jos. War 7.1-4).

The reason for this is that Jerusalem "did not recognise the time of your visitation from God". The last two words are not in the Greek, but this is clearly the sense. In the LXX the term piskopj (episkope) is used for the coming of God:

The Temple Incident (19:45-46)

Introductory Comments

Luke moves straight from the lament over Jerusalem (19:41-44) into the so called ‘cleansing of the temple’. He omits Mark’s account of entering the city and the cursing of the fig tree .

This is a very condensed version of Mark 11:15-18, possibly shortened in order to:

As this incident did not incur action by authorities, it was probably limited in time and space, and thus was not an attempt to stop the cult as such. Rather it appears to have symbolic significance in the sense of a prophetic sign.

It should also be construed as a messianic action. The temple was bound up with royalty - it is the king who has authority over the temple as its builder and reformer (David / Solomon; Josiah; Hezekiah; Zech 6:12f; 14:21; Maccabees). Josephus also describes messianic claims being linked to some action re temple (Jos Ant 18.85ff; War 6.283ff). But nowhere in Judaism was Messiah to destroy the temple, even as a prelude to him building the new eschatological temple (which was expected in some circles of the Davidic Messiah - drawing on 2 Sam 7:13; Zech 6:12).

In the end there are two main interpretations of the event: (see Nolland, 935-6 for a full treatment of all the options):

1. A prophetic sign of judgment re destruction of temple

2. A cleansing of the temple - note Ps Sol 17 re the Messiah cleansing Jerusalem (v. 30)

Given Luke’s focus on wealth and possessions, there may be a subtle link in his thought to the maxim of 16:13 regarding not serving God and mammon (especially in the temple!).

Analysis

19:45
We should understand that the people were selling animals and changing money. The Babylonian Talmud indicates that as a result of a dispute between Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, the high priest permitted the selling of animals in the outer courts of the temple. The animals were used for sacrifice and were sold at the temple for convenience, while the changing of money allowed the taxes and offerings to be given in the appropriate coinage.

19:46
As per the other synoptics, Jesus quotes Isaiah 56:7 with an allusion to Jeremiah 7:11. However, Luke omits ‘called’ and ‘for all nations’ (Matt also omits the latter). May this reflect a post 70 AD date, realising that this never eventuated?

An allusion to Jeremiah 7:11 (LXX) is introduced by way of emphatic contrast. The temple has become a den of robbers. In Jeremiah the reference is to the desecration of the temple due to a perverted cult (idolatry/lawlessness). This is desecration to no lesser extent.

Jesus Teaching in the Temple (19:47-48)

Introductory Comments

The section 19:47-21:38 is delineated by an inclusio which begins here. Luke records both the negative and positive reactions to Jesus’ teaching.
The account is based on Mark 11:18, but whereas Mark makes the temple incident the basis for the opposition of the religious authorities, Luke emphasises that it was his teaching.

The key point for Luke is the antagonism/conflict motif, which foreshadows and prepares for the Passion Narrative. Note also the laov (the people) versus the leaders theme. Throughout the Passion Narrative their attitudes to Jesus are contrasted (see on v. 48 below).

Analysis

19:47
Jesus' teaching aroused strong reaction from the leaders, who subsequently try to destroy him. The Greek imperfect tense captures their persistency over a period of time. Luke tells us they had been planning it long ago (6:11; 11:53-54).

The "chief priests" formed part of the wealthy aristocracy who supported Rome to some extent. The Romans held them responsible for maintaining order in Jerusalem. The "scribes" were experts in the law (= “lawyer” in 10:25). The "leaders of the people" could be further describing the above, or could be the lay leaders of the people - a third group in the Sanhedrin (cf. 9:22). It is interesting that there is no mention of the Pharisees at this point.

19:48
But as the people were reacting favourably to Jesus’ teaching, the authorities could do nothing. laov has its background in LXX usage regarding the community of God's people. For Luke, laov often has the sense of the nation apart from its leaders; the faithful who are open to God (20:1-6,19,26,45; 22:2; 23:5,35; 24:19-20). Note however 23:13-25 where the people are duped by their leaders (cf+ Acts 6:12).