Summary

This chapter completes the study of the Gospel According to Luke. Comparisons with the other Synoptic Gospels are made so that similarities and differences may be noted.

Learning Objectives

• Read the Gospel According to Luke from chapter 3 to the end

• Learn the genealogy in the Gospel According to Luke and how it differs from the genealogy in the Gospel According to Matthew

• Become familiar with the stories and parables which are unique to the Gospel According to Luke

Assignments to Deepen Your Understanding

1. What is the significance of the genealogy in the Gospel According to Luke. How does it differ from the genealogy provided in other Gospels?

2. What does it mean to say that Luke is gentle in his approach?

Preparing for Your Seminar

The Gospel According to Luke gives a larger place to the role of women throughout the life of Jesus. How do you interpret this? How has this influenced Christian theology in the past, and what might it say to us? How might you present this to others?

Works Cited

G. B. Caird, The Gospel of St. Luke, Pelican Gospel Commentaries (Harmondsworth and Baltimore: Penguin, 1963).

Fred B. Craddock, Luke, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1990).

R. Alan Culpepper, “The Gospel of Luke,” in Leander E. Keck, ed., The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 1-490.

Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).

_____, Luke, Proclamation Commentaries, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). John Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel (London: Darton Longman & Todd, 1976; Atlanta: John Knox, 1977).

O. C. Edwards, Jr., Luke’s Story of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981).



C. F. Evans, Saint Luke (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990).

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, AB 28, 28A, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1981-85).

Joel B. Green, The Theology of the Gospel of Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, Sacra Pagina 3 (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1991).

Mark Alan Powell, What Are They Saying About Luke? (New York: Paulist, 1989).

Robert C. Tannehill, Luke, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996).



John the Baptizer’s Preaching;
Jesus’ Baptism and Recognition 3:1-22

The introduction to the Gospel According to Luke (Chapter Eleven) discusses John the Baptizer to a considerable extent. Luke’s presentation of the Baptizer is very similar to Mark’s or Matthew’s, though he extends the quotation from Isaiah farther than Matthew or Mark (Luke 3:4-6; Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:2-3; cf. Isa. 40:3-5). This difference illustrates how Jewish and Christian writers of this period in effect recall an entire passage by citing only a small portion of it. Matthew and Mark, no less than Luke, intend the reader to remember the whole of Isaiah 40, not just the bit that is quoted here. The units of thought are much larger than the units of quotation throughout the New Testament.

Luke follows either Mark or “Q” in this section, except for Luke 3:10-14. This summary of John’s teaching sounds a lot like Wisdom Literature, so that John (like Jesus, later on) is here set not only within the prophetic tradition but also within the Wisdom tradition. For Luke both John and Jesus are Wisdom’s “children” (Luke 7:35). Jesus’ own teaching, whether in Luke or in the other Gospels, characteristically draws upon and integrates Jewish prophetic, sapiential [Wisdom], and legal traditions.

The Genealogy 3:23-38

Luke traces Jesus’ ancestry (through Joseph, of course, as does Matthew) not only to David and Abraham but also to Adam and to God. Thus the parallel between Mary and Eve is reinforced. In Luke the genealogy explicates the beginning of the ministry rather than (as in Matthew) the birth of Jesus.^top

The Temptation 4:1-13

This is “Q” material in which Luke probably preserves the original order (contr. Matt. 4:1-11). Unlike Matthew, Luke does not include the Markan note about Jesus being “with the wild beasts,” nor does he have the angels ministering to Jesus after the tempter departs, but he does conclude the pericope with a disquieting note preparing us for what is to come: Satan departs from Jesus “until an opportune time” (4:13).

The Galilean Ministry 4:14-9:50

Jesus goes throughout Galilee in the power of the Spirit (4:14) and is “praised by everyone” (4:15). The widespread success of his mission is thus the background for the account of Jesus’ proclamation in the synagogue at Nazareth (4:16-30). The pericope begins at Nazareth with Jesus in the synagogue on the Sabbath “as was his custom” (4:16). He is given the scroll of Isaiah to read, and then he comments on the reading (Isa. 61:1-2): “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (4:21). Although Luke says first, “All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth” (4:22), by the end of Jesus’ address all were in violent opposition (4:28). Why?

Jesus says he has come in the Spirit of the Lord to proclaim good news to the poor, release for captives, sight for the blind, and liberty for the oppressed—in other words, “the year of the Lord’s favor,” meaning vindication and deliverance for those on



the fringes of society, the messianic era (4:19). Perhaps at first his hearers think he is going to proclaim deliverance from the Roman occupation, or perhaps they think his words are conventional religious reassurance. In any event, when he begins to point to scriptural examples of God’s prophets who went not to Israel but to Gentiles, precisely because Israel would not hear the word of God, “all in the synagogue were filled with rage” (4:28). This pericope serves to get the rest of the Gospel under way; how “Israel” gets opened to the Gentiles, which Luke will recount in detail in the Book of Acts, is at the heart of the opposition to Jesus as Luke presents it. Nevertheless, it is not only the religious leaders’ possessiveness of the tradition but also their essential lack of faithfulness to it that is at issue throughout the Gospel.

Luke 4:31-44 is taken from Mark 1:21-38, but Luke alters Mark’s “proclaim the message” (Mark 1:38) to “proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God” (Luke 4:43). This is Luke’s first use of this phrase, which summarizes all the activity in 4:31-41. It is also the second time Luke says that what Jesus is doing is what he must do (cf. 2:49).

The call of the first disciples (5:1-11) is Lukan, except possibly for 5:10b (cf. Mark 1:17). The call to discipleship is closely associated with the experience of forgiveness (5:8-11). Like Paul later, Peter becomes aware of his own guilt when he meets Jesus; like Paul, he finds himself not only accepted but also commissioned.

In 5:12-6:11 we have a series of conflict stories from Mark 2:1-3:6. Luke emphasizes again that Jesus’ mission is for all Israel (5:17; cf. Mark 2:2). Jesus continues all night in prayer (6:12), then calls his “disciples” (6:13). The word “disciples” is obviously used by Luke in a sense wider than the Twelve, for from the disciples Jesus selects the Twelve, whom he calls “apostles.” The word is probably equivalent to the Hebrew shaliachim (meaning “agents” or “personal representatives”). According to the rabbis, “a person’s representative (shaliach) is as the one who sent him.” Among the evangelists only Luke makes this distinction.

Luke’s “Sermon on the Plain” in 6:17-49 is as close as any of the Gospels come to Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount. The beatitudes indicate, as in Matthew, that those who seem unfortunate in the eyes of the world are truly fortunate in the eyes of God. In Luke the “blesseds” are balanced by the “woes,” emphasizing the two rival ways of human conduct (Wisdom again!) and the reversal of human values implied by Luke’s Gospel.

As in Matthew, the episode of the centurion’s servant (7:1-10; cf. Matt. 8:5-10, 13) follows the sermon, foreshadowing the Gentile mission.

The pericope about the widow of Nain (7:11-17; compare the widow of Zarephath, to whom Elijah went, as Jesus remarks in Luke 4:26) speaks of Jesus’ compassion for the disadvantaged, as well as of his sovereign authority over death. The pericope about the woman who was a sinner (7:36-50) speaks of his compassion for the sinner, so that it is no wonder that many early New Testament manuscripts make the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman (John 7:53-8:11) part of the Gospel According



to Luke (see Chapter Thirteen). Verse 47 should be understood as saying that the woman’s great love is evidence that she is a forgiven person. Forgiveness involves a relationship: to be effective, it must not only be offered but also accepted. The quality of the woman’s loving behavior, however little it has to do with orthodox manifestations of piety, shows that she has both known and accepted God’s forgiveness of her sin.

Both the foregoing stories speak of Jesus’ relationships with women. The summary in 8:1-3 then emphasizes Jesus’ acceptance of the ministry and financial support of women (8:3; cf. Mark 15:40-41). Joanna (see 24:10) and Susanna are mentioned only by Luke and may be the source of some of his other information about Herod’s court (Acts 12:20; cf. Acts 13:1).

The next section (8:4-9:50) largely follows Mark. It includes such important episodes as Peter’s confession (9:18-22) and the Transfiguration (9:28-36). Luke makes some interesting omissions and changes. Most amusing of these, if Luke was indeed a doctor, is his omission of Mark’s comments about doctors (8:43; cf. Mark 5:26). He has omitted Mark’s account of the rejection at Nazareth (Mark 6:1-6), possibly because he saw it as duplicating his own version in 4:16-30. He has omitted the Salome episode (9:7-9; cf. Mark 6:14-29) as well.

Luke has omitted the whole of Mark 6:45-8:26, often referred to by scholars as “the great Lukan omission.” It is possible that Luke’s copy of Mark did not contain this section, but the omissions can all be explained in other ways. Some involve material that Luke might well have regarded as repetitive. Others involve material that Luke might have regarded as unsuitable (e.g., Mark 7:1-23, because it showed Jesus in such sharp controversy with the Pharisees; Mark 7:24-30, because of its apparent discourtesy; and Mark 7:31-37 and 8:22-26, because of their crudity). But none of these possibilities can be proven.

In the account of Peter’s confession Luke omits the quarrel between Peter and Jesus (Mark 8:32b-33), perhaps because he found it embarrassing. In 9:22 Luke repeats the 12 first of the three Markan Passion predictions, and again we hear the must of divine necessity in Jesus’ mission. In the Transfiguration account, most strikingly, Luke has given a midrash specifying the subject of the conversation between Jesus and Elijah and Moses: how Jesus’ “departure” (Greek: exodos) will be accomplished in Jerusalem (9:31). Just as God through Moses liberated God’s people from political bondage in the time of the first Exodus, so now God through Jesus liberates the people from the deeper bondage of sin and death. In 9:43-45 comes the second Passion prediction; the third is in verses 18:31-34, so that the journey to Jerusalem is in effect framed by these assertions of the necessity of the death of Jesus.

Jesus’ Journey to Jerusalem 9:51-19:27

From 9:51 to 18:14 Luke makes no use of Mark at all. Occasional echoes (e.g., 11:14-23; cf. Mark 3:20-27) are probably the result of overlap between Mark and “Q.” If the Proto-Luke hypothesis is correct, this long journey to Jerusalem constituted the main part of the teaching ministry of Jesus in the original Gospel.



The two opening pericopes (9:51-56, 57-62) seem deliberately to set Jesus in contrast to Elijah (note the NRSV marginal reading at 9:54; cf. 2 Kings 1:9-16). Taken together, as Luke seems to intend, the two pericopes oblige us to hold important truths in tension. The “gentleness” of Christ does not mean that his demand is not absolute.^top

The appointment of seventy (or seventy-two in some manuscripts) to go ahead of Jesus (10:1) may be meant by Luke to prefigure the universal mission of the church, although Luke does not suggest that the disciples actually went to the Gentiles. The number may also refer to the tradition that the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek by six representatives from each tribe (hence the name “Septuagint” and the abbreviation LXX). The mission charge (10:2-16) seems to be taken from “Q.” It concludes with the appointment of the seventy disciples also as shaliachim, personal representatives of the one who sent them (10:16). The return of the seventy is met with joy (10:17-20 from “L”; 10:21-24 from “Q”). Nothing can stop the gospel (10:17-18)! Yet the final word is a recall to priorities. What matters is not power, not even “spiritual” power. What matters is God’s gift of calling and salvation (10:20, 23-24), which now is being realized.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is prefaced by a conversation (10:25-29) reminiscent of Mark 12:28-34 (which Luke omits). While the exchange between Jesus and the lawyer is vigorous, there is no particular hostility in it. “Wanting to justify himself”(10:29) means “wanting to explain why he had asked the question,” not “wanting to make himself righteous before God.” There is certainly nothing anti-Jewish in the parable. From the lawyer’s point of view the Samaritan was a heretic, and to that extent the parable shocks—another example of Lukan “reversal.” Despite being frequently misinterpreted, the parable continues to challenge: How do I know whom I am to love as my neighbor? Simply by treating all people as neighbors, whether they belong to my group or not (10:25-37). The story of Martha and Mary (10:38-42) challenges our tendency to impose our view of what is proper and necessary on everyone else. The pericope further illustrates Luke’s interest in the relationship of women disciples to Jesus and shows Jesus as approving of a woman who claims the role of disciple by sitting and learning at the feet of the teacher. Martha is “worried and distracted”—an anxiety to be addressed by the material to come on prayer (11:1-13).

Luke 11-14 is made up mostly of “Q” material. Luke has his own version of the Lord’s Prayer and a delightful parable about persistence in prayer (11:5-8). This parable, like so many, is an example of the rabbinic technique “light and heavy”—if in so ordinary a matter we provide for our neighbors, will God not provide in matters of far greater moment? Merely sentimental approval of the Messiah is greeted with the affirmation, reminiscent of the rabbis, that God’s word requires a response. In 11:37-12:1 (mostly “Q”) we have criticism of Pharisees, almost in the spirit of Matthew. In Luke, however, it starts with Jesus’ dining with a Pharisee (11:37). As elsewhere in Christian and Jewish tradition, the nub of the criticism seems to be a question about the Pharisees’ sense of priorities (11:42); “justice and the love of God” are the things necessary (the same must in Greek that Luke uses about Jesus’



mission). The parable of the rich fool emphasizes the futility of material wealth (12:13-21, from Luke).

The opening pericopes of chapter 13 are also unique to Luke. The episodes mentioned in the “repent or perish” pericope (13:1-5) are unknown from other sources, but historically entirely credible. These are counter-examples to the theory (widely held now, as well as then!) that the unfortunate are demonstrably evil: “They must have done something to deserve it.” Nevertheless, Jesus may well have discerned tendencies in the life of the nation that were leading to the catastrophe of 70 CE. These themes are picked up in the parable of the barren fig tree (13:6-9).

In the episode of the woman with the spirit of infirmity (13:10-17) Jesus uses another qal wa-homer (“light and heavy,” meaning “if this, then much more that”). God’s reign manifests itself in release of captives and in grace to weak and outcast. Here are two more examples of Lukan must, translated in NRSV as “ought to” (13:14, 16).

In 13:31-32 the Pharisees’ friendly warning against Herod provides the setting in which Jesus speaks of the course he must finish: “I must be on my way, because it is impossible [literally “not permitted”] for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem” (13:33). Jesus’ life and work remain in the hands of God, however much things may seem otherwise. Jesus speaks of Jerusalem as a prophet does (13:33b-35), but not without a note of love for the city. For Luke the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem before the Passion remains, in spite of all its ambiguities, a time of eschatological joy (cf. 13:35 and 19:38).

The group of pericopes in 14:1-24 is mostly Lukan (although 14:15-24 resembles Matt. 22:1-10). The material is arranged, either by Luke or his source, very much in accord with the Hellenistic literary convention of the “sage at the banquet,” where a wise man is invited to dine, acts strangely, and then, in response to questions about his behavior, teaches his fellow guests. The discussions themselves are rabbinic (e.g., the qal wa-homer argument in 14:5).

A section on the cost of discipleship (14:25-35; cf. Matt. 10:37-38) reminds us that, although Luke speaks of the gentleness of Christ, he is in no doubt about the seriousness of Christ’s demand. The parables of the tower builder and the king going to war (14:28-33) confront us with a pair of questions: Can we afford to hear Christ’s demand? Can we afford not to hear it?

In chapter 15 three parables of grace present the heart of the Gospel. In response to those who are shocked by Jesus’ acceptance of sinners, he speaks of God as shepherd, as housewife, as father—and always as the One who will seek and save what is lost. The ending of the last of these parables has Luke’s must again: “But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found” (15:32). That rejoicing must happen because of who the father is, and Jesus’ death had to happen because of who he was.



The dishonest steward (16:1-9)—child of “this world” that he was—was faced with a crisis. There was a need for decisive action and the steward acted. The “bill” that each debtor was allowed to alter no doubt included a usurious amount of interest. By cancelling this interest while he still had power to do so, the steward gained for himself the general good will he was going to need when he was fired (16:4). The steward is not commended for his dishonesty but for his prudence in a moment of crisis. To hear and be moved by Jesus is likewise to be faced with a crisis [Greek: krisis, “judgment”].

The parable of Dives [Latin “rich man”] and Lazarus (16:19-31) is in some respects unique among parables attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. All others draw their imagery from the events of life as we know it; only this one uses (popular traditional) imagery of the life to come. Nevertheless, its message is clear and very much in accordance with Jesus’ teaching as Luke understands it: material wealth without compassion is damnable. The concluding words (16:31) hint at the results of Jesus’ Resurrection.

The story of the ten lepers (17:11-18) is peculiar to the Third Gospel. It calls on the beneficiary to give thanks to the benefactor, and showing a Samaritan as a hero no doubt appealed to Luke. In the pericope about the coming of the kingdom (17:20-21) the phrase “among you” can also be translated either “within you” or “in your midst,” or even “by means of you.” Tertullian and other patristic commentators interpret it to mean “within your grasp” or “within your power [to take hold of it].” Whatever else it may mean, the phrase surely underlines human instrumentality: God does not force the kingdom upon anyone but rather invites active participation in what is not, finally, something external to humanity but something “built in,” something for which humanity was created in the first place. Aristotle said that human beings were “political” beings, beings whose nature it is to live in a polis, a human community. Jesus is saying here that human beings are beings whose nature it is to live in God’s kingdom.

By contrast, the kingdom is also something clearly not present (17:22-37), something that will come, but with a condition: that the Son of Man “must endure much suffering and be rejected by this generation” (17:25). The material of the kingdom is here, “among you,” but the actualization of it requires a new creation. “This generation”—then or now—regularly rejects God’s way and so causes God’s prophets to suffer; as Jesus must suffer, so must his disciples.

Even so, they are not to despair; rather, they must pray always and not lose heart (18:1). The parable of the unjust judge (18:1-8) is a story about what God is not like; God does not require that we batter heaven with our prayers. Rather, this is “light and heavy” again. If an unrighteous judge will respond to a persistent complainer, will not God the righteous judge hear those who pray? The parable with its interpretation (18:7-8) suggests that a major purpose of prayer is to ask for the kingdom—as the Lord’s Prayer also implies.

The parable of the Pharisee and the publican (tax collector) is one of the most subtle in the tradition. Interpretations along the lines of “Thank goodness I am not like that



Pharisee!” (because I am devout, or moral, or Christian) fall into the very trap the parable depicts! The parable is addressed to Pharisees (18:9), and only if we identify with Pharisees can we hear it. There is nothing wrong formally with the Pharisee’s prayer, but he is overconfident of his status before God because he is relying upon his own performance rather than God’s mercy. The tax collector is all too conscious of his sinfulness, of his being admitted to God’s presence only because of God’s mercy, not because of his human virtues.

Luke 18:15-43 generally follows Mark 10:13-52, although Mark 10:35-45 is omitted, perhaps because it so closely resembled Luke’s own material at 22:24-27. It is also Luke’s own material that concludes this account of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. The story of Zacchaeus (19:1-10) is about grace being free and offered to all. Jesus says to Zacchaeus, “I must stay at your house today” (19:5), for this is why Jesus has come (19:10).

The parable of the pounds (“talents” in Matt. 25:14-30, which is different enough that it may be from another source) presses the question, “What are you doing with the grace you have received?” Even God’s grace can be misused, and to fail to use it is to fail to accept it, and so in effect to misuse it, and hence to lose it.

Jesus’ Ministry in Jerusalem 19:28-21:38

At last the one who must go to Jerusalem has arrived. His triumphal entry into the city is told here much as it is in Mark and Matthew, with the interesting addition (19:39-40) of Jesus’ refusal to rebuke his disciples for their acclamation, “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest heaven!” (19:38), which is so like what the shepherds hear the angels say at Jesus’ birth (2:13-14). This is the voice of all creation being made new (cf. Rom. 8:19-23). Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem (19:41-44) repeats the theme of verses 13:34-35, just as the triumphal entry fulfills the expectation of verse 13:35.

The “cleansing” of the Temple (19:45-46), the question about authority (20:1-8), and the parable of the wicked tenants (20:9-19) all follow Mark fairly closely. Both the question about tribute (20:20-26) and the question about the Resurrection (20:27-40) end with the astonished silence of the religious leaders doing the questioning. The question about David’s son (20:41-44) is the third in this series, after which Jesus warns his disciples against the scribes (20:45-47) who “devour widows’ houses” (20:47; contrast the description of God in Deuteronomy 10:18 as one “who executes justice for the orphan and widow”). Then follows the story of the widow’s mite (21:1-4), told not to extol her as a model of stewardship so much as to confound the religious leaders for allowing such poverty among the widows and orphans of Israel.

Now the Gospel becomes more eschatological, and we hear once again what must take place (21:9). Comparing Luke 21:20-24 with Mark 13:14-20 leads one to think that Luke is writing after the fall of Jerusalem, with knowledge of detail Mark did not have. Mark’s vague “desolating sacrilege” (Mark 13:14) has become much more precise: “Jerusalem surrounded by armies” (Luke 21:20). Mark’s invitation to pray that it not happen in winter (Mark 13:18) has been omitted, presumably because Luke



knew when it did happen. Further, Luke’s description is a much more precise record of what actually happened after the fall of Jerusalem than is Mark’s (13:19-20).

Again we are reminded of Luke 13, with its recounting of disaster and urging of repentance. Even the fig tree reappears (21:29-30; cf. 13:6-9). Only Luke adds here, “Every day he was teaching in the temple, and at night he would go out and spend the night on the Mount of Olives . . . . And all the people would get up early in the morning to listen to him in the temple” (21:37-38). The dominant picture of Jesus is that of the rabbi, and the popular acclaim he enjoyed and then lost has now returned, in sharp contrast to the hostility of the religious establishment.

The Passion and Death 22:1-23:56

What we make of the Proto-Luke hypothesis depends to a considerable extent on what we make of Luke’s version of the Passion (chapters 22 and 23). Clearly there are both similarities and differences between Luke’s version and Mark’s. Luke has included Markan details such as the Markan dating (22:1-2; cf. Mark 14:1-2) and the episode of Simon of Cyrene (23:26; cf. Mark 15:21). But various important elements in Luke’s Passion narrative have no parallel in Mark: the form of the prophecy of Peter’s denial (22:31-34), the trial before Herod (23:6-16), the daughters of Jerusalem (23:28-31), Jesus’ prayer for his persecutors (23:34; see NRSV margin), and the exchange with the two thieves (23:39-43). Luke may have created these elements as midrash in the course of a revision of Mark, or he may have had access to a version of the Passion other than Mark’s. We do not know, nor do we need to know in order to understand what Luke is saying by the way he tells the story of the Passion. Luke makes us more strongly aware than Mark does of the continuing compassion of Jesus, even in the midst of his own suffering (23:28-31, 34, 39-43). At the same time Luke emphasizes both that Jesus was not guilty under Roman law (23:14, 22) and that many lamented his impending death when they were not directly under the influence of the chief priests and the other religious leaders. According to Luke the trial and Crucifixion are the work of the Establishment: Pilate and the leaders colluding with each other for their own purposes. Even the centurion who carries out the execution can see that Jesus is innocent (23:47). But Jesus dies because he must (22:7, 37), as the resurrection narrative re-emphasizes (24:7, 26, 44). Luke’s work states even more emphatically than the other Gospels that the women from Galilee who had earlier ministered to Jesus (cf. 8:2) now watch by his cross (23:49), watch at his burial (23:55), and prepare to honor his body in death (23:56).

The Resurrection and Exaltation 24:1-53

Luke’s resurrection narrative is entirely set in and around Jerusalem. Accordingly the angels remind the women of what Jesus said in Galilee instead of sending a message about Jesus’ going back to Galilee (24:6; cf. Mark 16:7). Luke’s account of the visit of the women to the tomb now specifically names the women who were the first witnesses of the Resurrection. The only one not already named at 8:2 is “Mary the mother of James” (24:10; cf. Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1). Mark 6:3 might be taken as implying that this is another designation of the mother of Jesus, but the phrasing would be odd, especially in view of Luke’s forthright identification of the latter Mary in Acts 1:14.



Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ resurrection appearances on the Emmaus road (24:13-35) and to the disciples (24:36-49) are unique to him, as the synoptic evangelists’ appearance accounts tend to be. We know nothing else of Cleopas (but compare Clopas in John 19:25). The description of Jesus as a prophet “mighty in deed and word before God and all the people” (24:19) is similar to the way in which Moses will be described in Acts 7:22, 37 (cf. Deut. 18:15, 18). All that has happened is in accordance with scripture (24:26-27), but the breaking of the bread is the means by which the risen Lord becomes known to his disciples. The daily table fellowship of Jesus’ ministry was continued into the life of the post-Resurrection church (Acts 2:42, 46). Jesus’ eating fish in verses 24:42-43 also emphasizes the centrality of table fellowship as well as the continuity of the risen Lord with the crucified Messiah.

The risen Jesus expounds scripture, explains his mission, and then commissions the church (24:44-49). All that has happened to Jesus has been in accordance with the Scriptures. The charge to proclaim “repentance and forgiveness of sins . . . in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (24:47) will be carried out by means of “power from on high” (24:49), thus preparing the way for the Pentecost story in Acts 2.

Finally, Jesus leads the disciples out to Bethany (very close to Jerusalem) and bestows his blessing upon them. While still in that act, he is exalted (24:51), as the angel promised at the Annunciation (1:33), and as he prophesied at his trial (22:69). The disciples return to Jerusalem, worshiping Jesus, rejoicing, and praising God. Thus Luke’s first scroll ends where it began, with worship in the Temple (24:53).







































































>









Eve and Mary^back

Unlike the founding mothers of Israel, both young.



































































>












The year of the Lord's favor^back

King James: "the acceptable year of the Lord." See the Jewish Encyclopedia and Wikipedia on Sabbatical Year and Jubilee.



































































>












Aware of his own guilt^back

Or at least of his own human inadequacy in the presence of the miracle.



































































>












The seventy^back

Or it might be true.



































































>












Martha and Mary^back

I suppose it would have been too much to expect Martha to have said, "Lord, how about making your own sandwich?" That would be an anachronism, and hospitality is one of the greatest of the minor virtues. But that said, I don't understand the passage at all. We could discuss.



































































>












Where is the Kingdom of Heaven?^back

ἐντὸς - the first meaning is "inside." I'd go with that or "within." "Among" is a bit of a paraphrase. Score one more for the KJV!



































































>












Tertullian etc.^back

Sorry, but that isn't what it means.



































































>