http://jnt.sagepub.com/the New Testament Journal for the Study of http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/16/51/57 Theonline version of this article can be foun d at: DOI: 10.1177/0142064X9301605103 1993 16: 57 Journal for the Study of the New TestamentFrank J. Matera with Israel Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9.51-19.46): a Conflict Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com can be found at: TestamentJournal for the Study of the NewAdditional services and information for http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: - Jan 1, 1993 Version of Record >>
24
Embed
1993 - Frank J. Matera - Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9.51-19.46). A Conflict with Israel
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/27/2019 1993 - Frank J. Matera - Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9.51-19.46). A Conflict with Israel
JESUS’ JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM (LUKE 9.51-19.46): A CONFLICT WITH ISRAEL
Frank J. Matera
The Catholic University of America
Washington, DC 20064
Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem is one of the
most distinctiveaspects of his Gospel. Composed of material from
Mark, Q and his special source,’ Luke’s version of the journey is ten
chapters in length.’ More importantly, Jesus’ determination to go to
1. I am assuming the Two Source Hypothesis. On the basis of this hypothesis,9.51-18.14 is Luke’s ’major interpolation’ of material from Q and L. Most of the
material from 18.14-19.46 comes from Mark, except for 19.1-10 (L); 19.11-27 (Q,at least in part); 19.41-44 (L). I view 10.25-28; 11.14-23; 11.29-32; 11.33; 12.1;
12.10-12; 13.18-19; 14.34-35; 16.18; 17.1-3a and 17.5-6 as overlaps of Mark and
Q rather than as Luke’s use of Markan material. For the problem of Mark-Q over-
laps, see R. Laufen, Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des
Markusevangeliums (BBB, 54; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1980). For a listing of Q
material, see F. Niernyck, Q-Synopsis: The Double Tradition Passages in Greek
(Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1988). For a listing of L material, see
J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation, and
Notes (AB, 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), I, pp. 83-84. Not all
authors, of course, accept Markan priority, and even among those who do, there are
some who dispense with Q by arguing that Luke employs Matthew as one of his
sources. Thus, J. Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel: A Study in EarlyChristianity Historiography (Atlanta: John Knox, 1976); and J.W. Wenham,
’Synoptic Independence and the Origin of Luke’s Travel Narrative’, NTS 27 (1980-81), pp.507-15.
2. In contrast to Luke, Mark’s report of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem is a singlechapter (10.1-52). Matthew’s account is two chapters (19.1-20.34). While there is
unanimous agreement that the Lukan journey begins at 9.51, the literary conclusionof the journey is disputed; e.g. 18.14; 19.27; 19.44.I maintain that the journey ends
by guest on January 28, 2013 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Jerusalem, so eloquently stated in 9.51, is clearly a major turningpoint in the Gospel narrative, eclipsing even Peter’s confession that
Jesus is the messiah.’ But as distinctive as the
journeynarrative is, it is
also one the most puzzling aspects of the Gospel. For example,although Luke presents this section as Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem,there are relatively few geographical indications of Jesus’ progress
toward the city. Moreover, the geographical notices which are presenttend to occur with greater regularity at the beginning and the con-
clusion of the journey section with only a few general notices of Jesus’
progress placed in the middle of the narrative.4 Chronological notices
are even fewer,’ a surprising fact when one considers that, of all the
Evangelists, Luke is the most concerned to correlate the events of
Jesus’ life and ministry with those of the Roman empire and Jewish
history (2.1-2; 3.1-2). Thus, whereas Luke’s descriptions of Paul’s
journeys can be traced on a map, this is not the case with Jesus’ final
journey to Jerusalem.’
Despite the paucity of geographical notices, source critics have
sought to recover something of the journey or journeys that thehistorical Jesus made to Jerusalem,’ while form and redaction critics
at 19.46 for two reasons. First, Jesus does not enter the city of Jerusalem until
19.45. Secondly, 19.47-48 and 21.37-38 form a literary inclusion which marks the
beginning and ending of Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem: κα&iacgr; &eeacgr;ν δ&igr;δ&aacgr;σκ&OHacgr;ν τò κα&thetas;’
3. In contrast to Luke’s Gospel, the turning point of the narrative in the Gospelsof Matthew and Mark is Peter’s confession.
4. Texts which indicate that Jesus is on a journey are 9.51, 53, 56, 57; 10.1,38; 13.22, 33; 14.25; 17.11; 18.31, 35-36; 19.1, 11, 28, 29, 37, 41, 45. Texts
which actually mention Jerusalem as Jesus’ destination are 9.51, 53; 13.22; 17.11;18.31; 19.11, 28.
5. The only indications of time are 9.51; 10.17; 13.10; 13.33; and 14.1.
6. For example, at the beginning of the journey it appears that Jesus is about to
enter Samaritan territory, but by the middle of the journey (13.31) it is apparent thathe is still in Galilee, the territory of Herod Antipas. Only from 18.35 to the end of the
narrative, the section of the narrative which is dependent upon Mark, does it become
possible to trace the progress of Jesus’ journey. On the question of the geographicalnotices of the journey, see C.C. McGown, ’The Geography of Jesus’ Last Journeyto Jerusalem’, JBL 51 (1932), pp. 107-29.
7. The last full-scale source analysis for the purpose of recovering the journeysof the historical Jesus was carried out by L. Girard, L’Evangile des voyages de Jésus
ou la section 9,51-18,14 de Saint Luc (Paris: Gabalda, 1951), who argued that thecentral section of Luke’s Gospel actually recounts multiple journeys made by Jesus
by guest on January 28, 2013 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
have concluded that the journey section is a Lukan literary construc-
tion and not a historical report of Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem.
But whereas form critics have viewed Luke’s journey narrative as a
depository for all kinds of material that the Evangelist inherited,’8
redaction critics have sought to identify the theological intent of the
Evangelist in composing the journey narrative. They have argued,with varying shades of nuance, that Luke’s purpose is christological or
ecclesiological.’
to Jerusalem. His work was criticized by J. Blinzler, ’Die literarische Eigenart des
sogenannten Reiseberichts im Lukasevangelium’, in J. Schmid and A. Vögtle (eds.),
Synoptische Studien: Alfred Wikenhauser zum siebzigsten Geburtstag am 22 Februar
1953 dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schulern (Munich: Zink, 1953),
pp. 20-52. More recently, G. Ogg (’The Central Section of the Gospel according to
Luke’, NTS 18 [1971-72], pp. 39-53) has argued that the central section contains
two different accounts of Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem (9.51-10.42 and 17.11-
19.28) rather than accounts of multiple journeys. For brief histories of research on
this topic, see H.L. Egelkraut, Jesus’ Mission to Jerusalem: A Redaction Critical
Study of the Travel Narrative in the Gospel of Luke, Lk 9:51-19:48 (EuropäischeHochschulschriften, 80; Frankfurt: Lang, 1976), pp. 30-41; and J.L. Resseguie,’Interpretation of Luke’s Central Section (Luke 9:51-19.44) since 1856’, Studia
Biblica et Theologica 5 (1975), pp. 3-36.
8. For example, R. Bultmann(Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition
[Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 8th edn, 1970], p. 388) writes, ’Er empfandwohl ein Bedürfnis, die Reise nach Jerusalem nicht so im Dunkel zu lassen, wie es
bei Mk geschieht, und zugleich fand er in ihr einen geeigneten Hintergrund, um
allerlei situationslose Stücke unterzubringen’. Similarly, K.L. Schmidt (Der Rahmen
der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zum ältesten Jesusüberlieferung[repr.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969 (1919)], p. 257)writes, ’Dieser Schriftsteller stand einer Fülle von Einzelgeschichten gegenüber, die
er zusammenordnen wollte...’
9. Among those who see Luke’s purpose as primarily christological are the
following: H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper & Row,
1961); J.H. Davies, ’The Purpose of the Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel’, TU87 (1964), pp. 164-69; W. Grundmann, ’Fragen der Komposition des lukanischen
"Reiseberichts"’, ZNW 50 (1959), pp. 252-71; P. von Osten-Sacken, ’Zur
Christologie des lukanischen Reiseberichts’, EvT 33 (1973), pp. 476-96. Others
view Luke’s purpose as more ecclesiological, focusing on salvation history,discipleship or the church’s mission. Among these are the following: D. Gill,’Observations on the Lukan Travel Narrative and Some Related Passages’, HTR 63
(1970), pp. 199-221; B. Reicke, ’Instruction and Discussion in the Travel
Narrative’, TU 73 (1959), pp. 206-16; M. Miyoshi, Der Anfang des Reiseberichts
Lk 9,51-10,24: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AnBib, 60; Rome:
by guest on January 28, 2013 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
The purpose of this essay is to provide another perspective on the
journey section, one which focuses upon the text as a narrative.’° I
will
begin by identifying changesof time and
placein Luke’s account
of the journey and argue that a significant number of these are the
occasion for discourses by Jesus as he travels to Jerusalem. Next, I
will show that these discourses disclose a conflict between Jesus and
Israel (represented by the crowd and the religious leaders). Finally, I
will offer some brief reflections about the role of the journey section
in the plot of Luke’s narrative.
Changes of Time and Place
Overall, Luke has kept his promise to Theophilus by providing him,and us, with an orderly sequence of events: infancy narrative (1.5-2.52) ; preparation for Jesus’ public ministry (3.1-4.13); Galilean
ministry (4.14-9.50); journey to Jerusalem (9.51-19.46); ministry in
Jerusalem (19.47-21.38); passion, death and resurrection (22.1-24.53). When we examine the content of the journey narrative more
closely, however, Luke seems to have forgotten his promise, for there
is little or no agreement among scholars about the structure of this
material. While several authors suggest that the material is structured
chiastically,&dquo; others rely primarily upon the notices of Jesus’ progress
Biblical Institute Press, 1974); W.C. Robinson, Jr, ’The Theological Context for
Interpreting Luke’s Travel Narrative (9.51ff.)’, JBL 79 (1960), pp. 20-31;J. Schneider, ’Zur Analyse des lukanischen Reiseberichtes’, in Schmid and Vögtle(eds.), Synoptische Studien, pp. 207-29; G.W. Trompf, ’La section médiane de
l’évangile de Luc: L’organization des documents’, RHPR 53 (1975), pp. 141-54;G. Sellin, ’Komposition, Quellen und Funktion des lukanischen Reiseberichtes
(Lk. IX 51-XIX 28)’, NovT 20 (1978), pp. 100-35.
10. This essay, of course, is not the first to approach the journey narrative from a
literary-critical perspective. David P. Moessner (Lord of the Banquet: The Literaryand Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative [Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1989]) has recently produced a full-scale study of the literary and theologicalsignificance of the journey section in which he argues that Luke portrays Jesus,
against the background of a Deuteronomistic view of history, as the Prophet like
Moses who is rejected by an evil generation that will be punished and destroyed.While I concur that conflict plays a major role in the journey narrative, I do not agree
with Moessner’s interpretation of Luke’s Christology. Nor do I find it necessary to
press into service a Deuteronomistic view of history to interpret this section.
11. Among those who argue for a chiastic structure are the following:C.F. Evans, ’The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel’, in D.E. Nineham (ed.),
by guest on January 28, 2013 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
to Jerusalem, especially 13.22 and 17.11, to structure the narrative.’2The first of these suggestions has always proved problematic, given
the different chiasms which have been proposed, and the second is, as
Fitzmyer notes, ’a mere convenience, since the division at these pointsis otherwise insignificant and somewhat arbitrary’. 13
In light of the current impasse I suggest that, instead of searchingfor a formal or thematic structure, it may be more helpful to isolate
those moments in the narrative when there is a change of time or
place. Changes of time and place can be verified, and they provide
objectivecriteria for
makinga decision. More
importantly, theyindi-
cate changes of scene which are essential for grasping the movement
of a narrative.&dquo; By identifying changes of time and place, I am not
claiming to establish an outline or structure of the journey narrative,as traditionally understood. Rather, I am segmenting the text on the
basis of major changes in scene.&dquo; These changes, after all, provide the
narrative with a sense of movement and, however imperfectly, sustain
the claim of 9.51 that Jesus is on a
journey. A
significantnumber of
these changes provide the occasion for Jesus to deliver discourses to
the disciples, the crowd, and the religious leaders (see Chart 1 ).
Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1955), pp. 37-53; H.K. Farrell, ’The Structure and Theology of Luke’s
Central Section’, TrinJ NS 7 (1986), pp. 33-54; M.D. Goulder, ’The Chiastic
Structure of the Lucan Journey’, TU 87 (1964), pp. 195-202; P. Kariamadam,
’The Composition and Meaning of the Lucan Travel Narrative (Lk. 9,51-19,46)’,Bible Bhashyam 3 (1987), pp. 179-98; C.H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, TheologicalThemes and the Genre of Luke-Acts (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974), pp. 51-
56. While there are clearly chiastic elements in the journey narrative, e.g., the
question of the lawyer and the question of the rich ruler, 10.25 and 18.18, the
intricate chiastic structures presented are more contrived than convincing.12. F.W. Danker(Luke [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976], p. 108) divided
the journey into six stages: 9.51-13.21; 13.22-17.10; 17.11-18.30; 18.31-19.27;19.28-48; 20.1-21.38. In the second revised editionofLuke (1987, p. 11) Danker
speaks of four stages: 9.51-13.21; 13.22-17.10; 17.11-18.30; 18.31-19.27.
13. The Gospel according to Luke, p. 825.
14. Changes of time and place, of course, are not only means of determining a
change of scene. A change of characters can also indicate a change of scene, e.g., the
appearance of the lawyer in 10.25. But overall, changes of time and place are
stronger, and changes of character are subordinate to them.
15. Not all of these segments, of course, are of equal length or importance.
by guest on January 28, 2013 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
The majority of changes listed in Chart 1 are changes of place.These changes of place are as follows: ’and they journeyed to another
village’ (9.56); ’As they continued their journey he entered a villagewhere a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him’ (10.38); 16’He was praying in a certain place’ (11.1 ); ’After he had spoken, a
Pharisee invited him to dine at his home. He entered and reclined at
table to eat’
(11.37);’When he left, the scribes and Pharisees
beganto
act with hostility toward him’ (11.53); ’He passed through towns and
villages, teaching as he went and making his way to Jerusalem’
16. On the basis of Jn11.1, older commentators identified the village of Martha
and Mary as Bethany. This, however, led to further problems since Bethany is justoutside of Jerusalem, and in 13.31 Jesus is still in Galilee! Consequently, some
authors, e.g. Girard, argued that the central section preserves accounts of multiple
journeys, while others, e.g. Ogg, maintained that the central section contains differ-ent versions of Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem.
by guest on January 28, 2013 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
(13.22); ’Great crowds were travelling with him, and he turned and
addressed them’ (14.25); ’As he continued his journey to Jerusalem,
he travelled through Samaria and Galilee’ (17.11);&dquo; ’Now as heapproached Jericho a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging’(18.35); ’He entered Jericho and was passing through it’ (19.1); ’After
he had said this, he proceeded on his journey up to Jerusalem’ (19.28);’As he drew near to Bethphage and Bethany’ (19.29); ’And now as he
was approaching the slope of the Mount of Olives’ (19.37); ’As he
drew near, he saw the city and wept over it’ (19.41); ’Then he entered
the temple area’ (19.45).In two instances changes of place are coupled with an indication of
time: ’He was teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath’ (13.10); ’On a
Sabbath he went to dine at the home of one of the leading Pharisees’
(14.1). Only twice is time alone used as an indicator of change. The
first is the elegant verse which begins the journey section: ’When the
days for his being taken up were fulfilled, he resolutely determined to
journeyto Jerusalem’ (9.51 ). The second is the return of the
Seventy-two, an indication that a period of time has elapsed: ’The Seventy-tworeturned rejoicing’ (10.17).
Finally, there are four texts in which a change of place is impliedby the wider context. In 11.14 Luke writes, ’He was driving out a
demon that was mute’. Since previous to this incident Jesus was alone
with his disciples, praying in a certain place, the reader surmizes that
a
changeof
placehas occurred. In 12.1 Luke writes, ’Meanwhile, so
17. This phrase has given rise to several variants (μ&eacgr;σν, ’in the midst of’; &aacgr;ν&aacgr;
μ&eacgr;σ&ogr;ν, ’between’, or ’in the midst of’; δτ&aacgr; μ&eacgr;σ&ogr;ν, ’through the midst of’). Fitzmyer(Luke, pp. 1152-53) writes, ’These variants, however, arc undoubtedly grammaticalcorrections by copyists who sought to remedy the difficult reading δτ&aacgr; μ&eacgr;σ&ogr;νbecause δτ&aacgr; + acc. usually means "because of, for the sake of" whereas δτ&aacgr; + gen.
normally has the sense of "through" (with spatial, temporal, or instrumental
nuance)’. BAGD (s.v. ’μ&eacgr;σ&ogr;&sfgr;’) says that ’17:11 prob. can only mean throughSamaria and Galilee’, and this is how the phrase is translated in the revised version
of the NT of the NAB. This translation, however, gives the impression that Jesus is
moving from south to north.
Consequently, most commentators urge a translation similar to that of the NRSV:
’Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee’. Thus Jesus
would be moving in a south-westerly direction along the Galilean-Samaritan border.
Luke, however, was not as familiar with Palestinan geography as modern
commentators who have the benefit of detailed maps. Thus the text presents a
geographical problem for us rather than for him.
by guest on January 28, 2013 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
many people were crowding together that they were trampling one
another’. Since Jesus has just left the home of the Pharisee (11.53), it
isapparent
that a
changeof
placehas occurred. In 15.1-2 Luke
notes,’The tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to listen to him,but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, &dquo;This man
welcomes sinners and eats with them&dquo;’. Since previous to this Jesus
was in the house of one of the leading Pharisees on the Sabbath (14.1),one supposes that there has been a change of place and time. Finally,in 18.31 Luke notes, ’Then he took (7ta paAapc.óv) the Twelve aside
and said to them...’ Since
previousto this incident Jesus had been
speaking to the Rich Ruler, presumably in the presence of the crowd
as well as the disciples (18.18-30), it is probable that Jesus’ teachingabout his impending fate occurs in another place. A closer examination of these changes discloses that a significantnumber of them provide the occasion for Jesus to deliver a discourse.
Thus, after praying in a certain place (11.1), Jesus delivers a brief
teaching on prayer to his disciples (11.2-13); after casting out a
demon (11.14), he addresses a harsh discourse to the crowd (11.17-36) ; when dining in the home of a Pharisee (11.37), he excoriates the
Pharisees and lawyers (11.39-52); after leaving the home of the
Pharisee (11.53), he delivers an extended discourse which alternates
between his disciples and the crowd (12.1b-13.9); passing throughcities and villages (13.22), he addresses, the crowd (13.23b-30); eatingin the house of a Pharisee (14.1), he addresses the Pharisees and
lawyers (14.8-24); when great crowds journey with him (14.25), he
explains the demands of discipleship to them (14.26-35); when the
Pharisees and scribes complain that he eats with sinners (15.1-2), he
delivers an extended discourse which alternates between them and the
disciples (15.3-17.10)18 (see Chart 2).
18. In three instances a brief episode intervenes between a change of place and a
discourse: (1) the account of three would-be disciples intervenes between 9.56 and
the discourse to the Seventy-two; (2) the healing of the ten lepers and the Pharisees’
question intervenes between 17.11 and the discourse to the disciples about the
coming of the Son of Man; (3) the story of Zacchaeus intervenes between 19.1 and
the parable of the Ten Pounds. Changes occur more frequently, and are identified
with greater geographical precision, toward the end of the journey section: Jesus
draws near to Jericho (18.35); he enters Jericho (19.1); he continues his journey(19.28); he draws near to Bethphage and Bethany (19.29); he approaches the slopeof the Mount of Olives (19.37); he draws near to the city of Jerusalem (19.41); and
he enters the temple (19.45). These changes occur after Luke’s great interpolation
by guest on January 28, 2013 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
The dominance of these discourses becomes more apparent when one
notices that from 11.1 to 18.14 there are only a few episodes which
are not discourses: the healing of a crippled woman on a Sabbath
followed by two short parables (13.10-21); the warning of the
Pharisees and Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem (13.31-35); the healing of
a man on the Sabbath (14.1-6);19 and the healing of ten lepers and thequestion of the Pharisees (17.11-22). As a result, a significant numberof the changes of time and place in the journey narrative provide the
occasion for Jesus to deliver discourses 2’ a fact which is especiallytrue for 11.1-18.14.
All told, there are eleven discourses in the Lukan journey narrative,all of them delivered by Jesus.2’ In most instances they are addressed
(9.51-18.15) and, except for 19.1, are not occasions for discourses.
19. This episode becomes the occasion for a discourse.
20. The exceptions to this are 9.51; 10.17,38; 13.10; 18.31, 35; 19.28, 29, 37,41,45.
21. By ’discourse’ I mean an extended speech delivered by Jesus to a group of
people such as the disciples, the crowd or the religious leaders. In each case, the
discourses I have identified begin with an introductory formula which indicates the
to a single audience, for example, the Seventy-two, the disciples, the
crowd or religious leaders. But in two instances the audience alter-
natesbetween either the crowd
andthe disciples
or the
disciples andthe religious leaders. In terms of the narrative these discourses
dominate the journey section, especially 11.1-18.14. Because of them
the time of the story begins to correspond to real time, that is, the
time that it actually takes to read or listen to the discourses. Changesof time and place become the occasion for Jesus to deliver discourses,
giving the impression that his journey to Jerusalem is a period of
sustainedteaching,
often of a
polemicalnature.
Furthermore,these
discourses allow the Lukan narrator to develop the evaluative point of
view which Jesus espouses and tries to communicate to the disciples,22a point of view which is in conflict with that embraced by the crowd
and the religious leaders. This clash of evaluative points of view
between Jesus on the one hand, and the crowd and the religiousleaders on the other, is essential for the plot of Luke’s narrative.23With this in mind, I turn to the discourses of the
journeynarrative.
Conflict and Discourse
1. At the beginning of the journey, the Lukan narrator notes that
’after these things’ the Lord (6 1C’ÚptOç) appointed seventy-two others
and sent them to every city and village where he was about to go
an individual (10.30-37). The parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven (13.18-21) are not discourses because they lack an introductory formula. The passionprediction (18.31-34) is not a discourse because it is not an extended speech.
22. By evaluative point of view I mean the standpoint or the system of values one
employs to evaluate the world. Thus Jesus evaluates the world from the point of
view of God, e.g., ’For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one
who humbles himself will be exalted’ (14.11). The religious leaders, however,evaluate the world from the point of view of human esteem. So Jesus tells them,’You justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts; for what
is of human esteem is an abomination in the sight of God’ (16.15). The evaluative
point of view of a character is disclosed by comments made by the narrator, by what
a character says and does, and by what reliable characters, e.g. Jesus, say about the
character. For a discussion of point of view, see B. Uspensky, A Poetics ofComposition: The Structure of the Artistic Text and the Typology of a CompositionalForm (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), pp. 8-16.
23. J.L. Resseguie (’Point of View in the Central Section of Luke’, JETS 25
[1982], pp. 41-47) has employed the literary technique of point of view to explainthe conflict that arises in the journey narrative. I am indebted to his study.
by guest on January 28, 2013 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
(10.1). ’These things’ refer to the rejection of Jesus by a Samaritan
village (9.52-53) and Jesus’ encounter with three would-be disciples
(9.57-62).24 The discourse to the Seventy-two (10.2-16), therefore, isdelivered against a background of rejection and the need to follow
Jesus unreservedly. Among the points made by this discourse, two are
crucial for the narrative that follows: (1) the preaching and healingministry of the Seventy-two signifies the presence of the kingdom of
God (iíYYtKEV T1 PCC(YtkEi(X Tou 6~ou, 10.9, 11); (2) those who rejectthe Seventy-two reject Jesus, and the one who sent him. From the
outset of the
journey, then,Jesus
already anticipatesthe conflict which
will occur as he travels to Jerusalem, and it is apparent that he under-
stands himself as God’s messenger in whose ministry the kingdom is
already present. Later, Jesus will point to this presence of the king-dom when speaking to the crowd (11.20) and the Pharisees (17.21).
2. A series of brief episodes follows Jesus’ initial discourse (thereturn of the Seventy-two, Jesus’ encounter with a hostile lawyer, and
his visit with Martha and
Mary).From 11.1-18.14, however, the
journey section is, for all practical purposes, a series of nine
discourses. The first of these (11.2-13) is addressed to the disciples&dquo;and reveals something about the evaluative point of view of Jesus and
his disciples. On the one hand the reader is confirmed in his or her
opinion about Jesus’ relationship to God, for Jesus’ teaching on prayer
discloses that he views God as a father who does not refuse the requestof his children (also see 10.21-22 where Jesus explicitly identifies
himself as God’s son). On the other hand the reader learns that the
disciples are still in the process of learning this. They view themselves
as Jesus’ disciples, but they do not yet know how to pray with the
confidence and intimacy that Jesus does.
3. Immediately following this Jesus delivers a major discourse to
the crowd (11.17-36),26 an episode which marks the first appearance
24. The text does not say whether or not the three would-be disciples follow
Jesus but, in any case, this incident highlights the urgency of discipleship.25. For a literary study of the disciples in Luke’s Gospel, see J.D. Kingsbury,
Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991),
pp. 109-39; and R.C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary
Interpretation. I. The Gospel according to Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986),
pp. 201-74.
26. For studies on how Luke portrays the crowd, see D.P. Moessner,
’The "Leaven of the Pharisees" and "This Generation": Israel’s Rejection of Jesus
by guest on January 28, 2013 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
hypocrisy’ (12.1). Thus one can infer that whereas the Pharisees are
concerned about human esteem, the disciples must seek the esteem of
God.
When someone from the crowd (Tiq iK Tou 6XXou) asks Jesus to
settle an inheritance dispute (12.13), the narrator notes that Jesus
addresses the entire crowd (El7tEV 8i 1tpOç aviovS) rather than justthe individual, 31 warning all to avoid greed (7tÀEoVEçta) and tellingthem the parable of the Rich Fool. Although it is not explicitly stated,it appears that some members of the crowd are dangerously close to
the evaluative
pointof view of the Pharisees whom Jesus counseled to
give alms if they wish to become clean (11.41).But it is not just the crowd that needs instruction on the proper use
of possessions. In 12.22 the discourse returns to the disciples, and
Jesus encourages them not to be anxious (u/q gFptgv6c-cE) about what
they will eat and wear. Demanding more from his disciples than from
the crowd, he tells them to sell their possessions and give alms (SoreÈÀET1J.LocrúvT1v, 12.33). The counsel to give alms, of course, recalls
Jesus’ earlier instruction to the Pharisees (11.41). Finally, Jesus
encourages the disciples to view themselves as watchful servants and
faithful stewards (12.35-48), and warns them that he will be a cause of
division (12.49-53).In 12.54 the discourse returns to the crowd whose members are
now addressed as hypocrites (~7rOKptc(xi) because they do not discern
the signs of the times (12.56). By calling the members of the crowd
hypocrites, Jesus associates them with the Pharisees whose leaven is
hypocrisy (12.1). In 13.1-9 Jesus summons the crowd to repentance.His warning, that the crowd will perish if it does not repent (13.2, 5),recalls his earlier description of the crowd as unrepentant (11.32).By the conclusion of this discourse, the reader understands that both
the crowd and the disciples need instruction in the use of possessions.The narrator, however, portrays the disciples as more receptive to
Jesus’ teaching while suggesting that the unrepentant crowd, now
called hypocrites, is dangerously close to the point of view of its
religious leaders.
6. The healing of a crippled woman on the Sabbath (13.10-17)marks the first break in the discourse material begun at 11.1. The
theme of conflict, however, continues as the Lukan narrator aligns the
30. While it might be argued that πρ&oacgr;ζ α&uacgr;τ&ogr;&uacgr;&sfgr; (12.15) refers to the disciples,this is unlikely since the disciples are specifically addressed as such in 12.22.
by guest on January 28, 2013 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
synagogue ruler with the Pharisees by revealing the ruler’s motivation
for reprimanding the crowd: ’the leader of the synagogue was indig-nant that Jesus had cured on the Sabbath’
(13.14).Thus the narrator
has Jesus respond, ’hypocrites’ (unoxpmai, 13.15), thereby associat-
ing the ruler with the Pharisees. In contrast, the narrator aligns the
crippled woman and the crowd with Jesus by noting that the woman
glorified God (13.13), and the crowd rejoiced at the glorious deeds
done by him ( I 3.17).=&dquo;When someone «iq) asks if only a few will be saved (13.23a), the
narrator says that Jesus
respondedto them
(npos (x~,ro,6q,13.23), and
there follows a discourse (13.23b-30). Although the audience is not
identified, there are indications that the narrator has the crowd in
mind. The narrator notes, ’Jesus was passing through towns and
villages teaching as he went’ (13.22). Then, in the parable of the
doorkeeper, the people respond to the doorkeeper, ’We ate and drank
in your company and you taught in our streets’ (13.26). Thus there is
a correspondence between the parable and what Jesus is actuallydoing: eating and drinking with the crowd, and teaching in their towns
and villages. The crowd, then, is likened to the people within the
parable; they are workers of iniquity (ip-y6crcct a5i)dac;, 13.27) and
will not enter the kingdom if they do not repent.7. In 13.31-14.6 the discourse material is interrupted for only the
second time since 11.1 by two episodes which involve the Pharisees.
In the first (13.31-33) they appear in a positive light, warning Jesus to
flee from Herod’s territory. The second, the healing of a man on theSabbath in the home of a leader of the Pharisees (14.1-6), becomes the
setting for a second discourse to the Pharisees and lawyers (14.8-24).The hostility of the Pharisees is apparent since they watch Jesus
closely (771(Y(XV 7tapa’tTlPOÚJ.LEVOl aútóv, 14.1, see 11.53-54). Jesus’
discourse does not result in open hostility, but it does highlight the
contrasting points of view espoused by him and the Pharisees.
Whereas the Pharisees embrace a point of view which humbles
31. R.F. O’Toole (’Some Exegetical Reflections on Luke 13,10-17’, Bib 73
[1992], pp. 84-107) notes that the woman becomes a model for the whole crowd
and resembles the grain of mustard seed and the leaven. He writes, ’Her crippledcondition rendered her small and insignificant, yet her cure and positive response to
what God and Christ did for her reveal her as full of hope and potential as are theseed and leaven’ (p. 96).
by guest on January 28, 2013 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
dangerously close to the point of view espoused by the Pharisees and
lawyers. Some are avaricious and do not recognize the presence of the
kingdom in Jesus’ ministry. Most importantly, the vast majority of thecrowd has not repented, making them a wicked generation. One mightsay that the crowd stands between Jesus and its religious leaders,undecided with whom it will align itself.36Viewed in the context of Luke’s wider narrative, the conflict
disclosed in the journey leads to Jesus’ death. When the members of
the council bring Jesus to Pilate they accuse him of misleading their
nation (to Ë8voç T1J.LWV) by opposing the payment of taxes and byclaiming that he is the messiah (23.2). Pilate, however, tells the chief
priests and the crowds (toùç åPX1EPEtÇ Kai toùç 6xXouq) that he
finds no guilt in Jesus. They respond, ’He is inciting the people (iovXa6v) with his teaching throughout all Judaea, from Galilee where he
began even to here’ (23.5).37 The phrase, ’from Galilee where he
36. Note that at the end of the journey (19.39) the Lukan narrator speaks of thePharisees in the crowd (τινϵ&sfgr; τ&OHacgr;ν Φαρτσατ&OHacgr;ν &aacgr;π&oacgr; τo&uacgr; &oacgr;χλ&ogr;ν) which suggests a
close association between the two.
37. As is well known, once Jesus enters Jerusalem, the Pharisees disappear from
Luke’s narrative. Carroll (’Luke’s Portrayal of the Pharisees’) has convincinglyargued that Luke does not present them as direct participants in Jesus’ condemnation
and death because, in Acts, they help to legitimiate the early Christian movement:
they represent an important link connecting the Gentile church to its Jewish heritage.They serve to legitimate the Gentile Christian movement, whose hero is Paul, himself
a Pharisee. For Luke to depict the Pharisees as direct participants in the proceedingsagainst Jesus, the apostles, Stephen, or Paul, would undermine their positive legitimat-ing function in the narrative (p. 620).
The scribes, however, do provide a link between Jesus’ opponents in the journeynarrative (the Pharisees and the scribes/lawyers) and in Jerusalem (chief priests,scribes, elders). In the journey narrative the terms ’scribe’ (γραμματϵ&uacgr;&sfgr; and
’lawyer’ (ν&ogr;μτκ&oacgr;&sfgr;) are coterminous (see 11.52-53). The scribes/lawyers are the
cohorts of the Pharisees (11.45; 14.3; 15.2), and their presence in Jerusalem
establishes a link between Jesus’ opponents while on his journey and his opponentsin Jerusalem.
It-should also be noted that after the journey narrative, the term λαó&sfgr; (19.47, 48;
more regularly than öχλo&sfgr; (22.6, 47; 23.4, 48). While λαó&sfgr; has a more theologicalsense (the covenant people) than &Oacgr;χλ&ogr;&sfgr;, one should not draw too sharp a distincion
between the two terms. Like the crowd, the people receive Jesus favorably (19.48;
21.38). In the Passion Narrative, however, they join the chief priests and rulers
(&aacgr;ρχ&ogr;ντα&sfgr;) in asking for the release of Barabbas (23.13, 18). After Jesus’ death,
by guest on January 28, 2013 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
began even to here’ (6cp~6c,,Fvoq ano tílç raÀ1Àálaç Ëroç 15E) shows
that the religious leaders have Jesus’ entire ministry in view: Galilee
(4.14-9.50); the great journeyto
Jerusalem (9.51-19.46); Jerusalem(19.47-21.38). While each portion of this ministry contributes to the
conflict between Jesus and Israel, the longest and most detailed account
of the conflict is found in the journey section where the Lukan
narrator makes use of a series of discourses to describe the ideologicalconflict between Jesus and Israel, a conflict which revolves around the
presence of the kingdom of God, the need for repentance, the correct
use of
possessions,and ritual
purity. 31One of the narrative functions
of the journey section therefore, is to inform the reader why and how
Jesus came into conflict with Israel.
however, they return home beating their breasts (23.48).38. Prior to the journey narrative, the conflict between Jesus, the crowd, and the
religious leaders is underdeveloped. For example, at the beginning of the GospelJohn the Baptist addressed the crowds as γϵνν&eeacgr;ματα &eacgr;χτδν&OHacgr;ν (’brood of vipers’)and warns them to repent (3.7-9). The crowd, however, seems well disposed to this
call for repentance, asking John, ’What then shall we do?’ At the beginning of his
own ministry Jesus is rejected at Nazareth (4.14-30), but immediately following this
incident he receives a warm reception in Capernaum and other Galilean cities. In
7.31-35, after testifying on behalf of John the Baptist, Jesus accuses the people of
this generation of being fickle; and in 9.41, before exorcizing a young boy, he com-
plains that this is a faithless and perverse generation. These incidents, however, are
hardly enough to warrant a full-scale conflict between Jesus and the crowd.
There are more incidents of conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders, but
not as many as one might imagine. In 5.17-6.11 Luke reports a series of controver-
sies between Jesus and the religious leaders. At the end of these controversies the
religious leaders are enraged (6.11), but there is no plot to kill Jesus as in Mk 3.6. In
7.30 the Lukan narrator tells us that the Pharisees and scribes were not baptized byJohn and rejected God’s plan for them, and in 7.39 Simon the Pharisee is scandal-
ized that Jesus allows a sinful woman to touch him. While the religious leaders are
clearly depicted as hostile toward Jesus, their hostility is not as great as one mightexpect. After the journey narrative Luke recounts Jesus’ Jerusalem ministry (19.47-
21.38). This ministry leads him into conflict with the chief priests, the scribes and
the elders because he teaches daily in the temple and his teaching finds a favorable
reception among the people.
by guest on January 28, 2013 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
After reviewing the problems presented by Luke’s journey narrative (9.51-19.46),this essay proposes to view the Lukan journey from a literary-critical perspective. It
proposes that the Lukan narrator often employs changes of time and place to intro-
duce discourses by Jesus to the disciples, the crowd and the religious leaders. An
examination of these discourses, which make up the bulk of the journey narrative,
discloses the conflicting points of view espoused by Jesus on the one hand, and the
crowd and its religious leaders on the other hand. Jesus’ conflict with Israel, as he
journeys to Jerusalem, helps to explain his rejection at Jerusalem.