Luke claims to have "had perfect understanding of all things from the very first" (of the events discussed in the book), but we don't have much reason to suppose that he was present with the disciples during Jesus' travels. Such claims were very common in the writings of that period.
Zacharias: a priest whose turn it was to officiate in
the temple.
Elisabeth:
Zacharias' wife and cousin
of Mary
John son of Zacharias and Elisabeth, who later became known as John the Baptist
Joseph man scheduled to marry Mary
Simeon an ancient holy man
Anna an ancient holy woman
Herod a Quisling King
the devil
Simon later renamed Peter
James and John T3rd and 4th disciples
Levi a tax collector
Andrew Simon Peter's brother
Phillip a disciple
Bartholomew a disciple
Matthew a disciple (may have been Levi?)
Thomas the doubting disciple
Simon the Zealot Zealots were terrorists.
Simon the pharisee, and the sinful woman
the woman with the issue of blood
the epileptic and his father
a child
the Samaritans
a lawyer
a woman with a spirit of infirmity
1:5ff Quoting Hugh J. Schonfield in The Jesus Party, page 41:
The account of the birth of John the Baptist and of Jesus
draws upon the stories of the birth of
Samson
and of the prophet
Samuel.
Samson, like John, was born of a woman thought barren and was
dedicated as a
nazarite.
When Mary came to see her cousin, Elizabeth, a spirit filled song came from Elizabeth's lips, very similar to the song of Hannah in 1st Samuel 2:1.
Luke 1:17: This is the first of several mentions in Luke of the prophet Elias (Elijah). Throughout the gospels he is closely associated with Jesus, who identified John the Baptist as the prophet. At the Mount of Transfiguration it was Moses and Elijah who appeared in shining garments. For the fascinating story of the original prophet turn to the 17th chapter of 1st Kings
1:32 If we take this literally, we have to admit that Gabriel's prophecy never came to pass. Metaphorically the throne of David is a figure for the kingdom of God.
Luke 1:33 The House of Jacob signifies Judea. Gabriel's vision of the career of Jesus seems quite limited in view of the reality. Actually Jesus may have thought of Gabriel's vision as his course when he began, but before his last days on earth it had enlarged to include all mankind.
Luke 1:46 The hymn of praise from Mary's lips is called the Magnificat, a latin word, said to mean "my soul does magnify the Lord". It has a number of references to portions of the Old Testament. Look especially at 1Sam 2:1-8. Hannah had experienced an unusual birth, like Sarah, the wife of Abraham.
Luke 1:52 These words which Luke puts in the mouth of the angel express an idea repeated three times by Jesus himself. Luke 10:15 Luke 14:11 Luke 18:14
Luke 2:1ff My Canadian Friend
David McKay at Christmas 2004 pointed out the
political dimension of the nativity stories. Seen as political
documents they appear as cogent threats to the ruling powers, Rome and
Herod. He referred us to a prophetic article
in the Boston Globe focusing on the misuse
of Christmas as a commercial holiday and ignoring the political
dynamite which the nativity stories contain:
"The child who was born
in Bethlehem represented a drastic political challenge to the imperial
power of Rome. The nativity story is told to make the point that Rome
is the enemy of God, and in Jesus, Rome's day is over"
(Cf article).
2:8ff "The story of the shepherds affirms that the good news-- the gospel is especially for the marginalized" (Borg page 53).
Luke 2:48 Notice in the King James Version the juxtaposition of the words 'father' and 'Father' in the next verse. The parents of Jesus have been the subject of endless discussion and controversey through the ages. (There are some who have even suggested that Jesus' real father was a Roman soldier, but that can be no more than the grossest kind of speculation.)
It seems futile to wonder about the identity of Jesus' parents. For me the only thing of importance is the spiritual meaning and import of the idea. My personal opinion of his ancestry is best summed up by the anecdote re William Blake: when asked by a friend if he thought Jesus was the son of God. His timeless and deathless reply was "YES, he WAS, and so am I and so are YOU."
Luke 3:8 John in his gospel (John 8:33)reports an altercation between Jesus and some Jews in which they claim to be Abraham's seed.
Luke 3:16 This statement may be taken to relate to an incident that Luke reports in his second book, Acts.
In The Lost Gospel Q this is translated as "today I have become your father".
Genealogy of Jesus:Luke 3:23
Note the difference between Jesus's family here and the one at the beginning of Matthew.
Luke 4:2;4:33, and many others: Many "liberated" Christians have trouble with the ancient ideas of devil, demons, demoniacs, unclean spirits, etc. This stems basically from the proclivity of even "liberated" Christians to read the Bible literally rather than poetically. Truly the words have been degraded in modern English and replaced with 'troubling thoughts', 'emotional problems', 'compulsive people', etc. The truly liberated, reading it poetically are not turned off by the unfortunate modern connotations of the words, but look to what they represent, and especially to the spiritual truth Luke attempted here to convey.Luke 4:3 Looking at this poetically and reflecting on its meaning, one may conclude that this was the temptation, not simply for Jesus to eat himself, but for him to feed the people, meet all their material needs. He could have done that, but he knew it would not necessarily make them any closer to the kingdom of God.
Elias was the N.T. spelling for the prophet, Elijah, enormously important in the gospels and elsewhere
Eliseus was the N.T. spelling for the prophet, Elisha, who succeeded Elijah, when he was taken up in a chariot into heaven
Luke 4:42: The gospel records of the last years of Jesus' earthly life, as he was day by day becoming more famous, suggest that he alternated his time between meeting with large crowds and retiring into the desert. Recall that he did this right after the initiation of his public ministry with his baptism. And once again in the Garden of Gethsemanehe retired to pray while he was waiting for Judas and the Roman soldiers.
Luke 5:4: With these words Luke introduces the calling of the four fisherman, the first of the twelve disciples. We have already heard of Simon's wife's mother. Now we read of the fishing activities of Simon (Peter), his brother Andrew, whose name will be revealed shortly with the naming of the disciples, and two other brothers, James and John. These four men become most prominent among the followers of Jesus.
The story of the miraculous catch introduces one of the most significant metaphors of the Christian faith: they began by catching fish, and Jesus told them they would catch men. The metaphor points to the transformation from the material to the spiritual consciousness.
The story concludes by reporting on the effect which the miraculous event had on the four men: "they forsook all and followed him". The words came to be used to describe the full and true meaning of "following Jesus".
Luke 5:17: This verse is weird. I can't help feeling that the King James translators really missed it here--probably a manuscript that was faulty at that point. Modern translations seem much closer to the obvious intent of Luke; I checked the Jerusalem Bible, the New English Bible and Phillips: they all depart significantly from the King James translation of this verse.
In particular it was not to heal the Pharisees and doctors that "the power of the Lord was present", but the people. An interesting example of how the modern translators probably had access to more (and perhaps earlier) source documents.
Luke 5:20: Luke mentioned sin in the prophecy of John's father, Zacharias and again at the baptism of John.
The word, one of the central metaphors of the Christian faith, has been badly degraded in modern culture (probably due to the commonplace excoriations of small-minded and ignorant preachers). Unfortunately the abandonment of the idea of sin has accompanied an overwhelming loss of the Christian faith on the part of (probably) millions of kind and liberal minded people.
But inclusion of the word in the three modern versions (mentioned above) evidences its centrality. The meaning of the word to the serious enlightened Christian differs vastly from its connotations from the mouth of the 'ignorant preachers'.
The original meaning of the word is-to miss the mark, as an archer. The mark is 'the fulness of Christ' or a perfect man, as described by Paul in Ephesians 4:13..
"Till we all come in the unity of the faith..." The is a mind boggling, extravagant promise, impossible to be believed except through a trans-rational faith.
Christian Perfection was particularly emphasized by John Wesley, so much so that every Methodist minister at his ordination is required to avow that he means to go on to perfection.
Late in his life some one asked Wesley if he had reached perfect: "No." "Do you know anyone who has?" "Well there are a couple of old ladies that I sometimes wonder about."
Like Marjorie, ages ago the caretaker at the Church of the Saviour. She wouldn't even go to the bathroom without consulting the Lord about it.
Returning to the text in Luke we note that "when he saw their faith", `their' referring to the people who made such a great effort to get the man before Jesus. Here is a testament to the efficacy of prayer for others.
Luke 5:21:At this point Luke announces the (ever-widening) split between Jesus and the "scribes and Pharisees" (religious leaders of Judaism). Their authority was legalistic; his was spiritual. he was a `can-do'; they were `can't do'.
In the Old Testament the relationship between prophet and priest reflects the same split. The priests knew the law, the traditions, ceremonies, rituals; they knew it all, but the prophets spoke to and heard from God. So with Jesus: he had a direct relationship with the living God (Abba--which means Daddy), about which the priests knew nothing.
The split still dominates the religious scene today- and not just in Christianity! It reveals the two levels of consciousness.
Luke 5:29: The first gospel, paralleling Luke here, calls the publican, Matthew , and also helps us understand what `publican' means.
Luke 5:36: If you're not yet convinced that Jesus' words, as reported in the Bible, were primarily metaphorical (poetic), the parables should help. In this passage he's certainly not talking about garments and wine; he's talking rather about spiritual realities, what we today speak of as the two levels of consiousness--the material and the spiritual.
Of course there is no way (and no language) to talk about spiritual realities except with the use of materialistic metaphors.
Luke 6:6:In this story Jesus attempts to reason with the murmuring scribes and pharisees. But it seems to be in vain. Perhaps some one of them heard him and secretly agreed.
Luke 6:17: This "sermon on the plains" closely parallels the more famous Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, 6 and 7. Close study of Luke's version suggests that Luke was more of a `democrat' than Matthew; he had a strong passion for social justice, for the goods of the world as well as those of the Spirit.
6:19 "Went virtue out Better translated, "power was coming out." The people realized that He was a source of power." (From Ted Wade)
Luke 6:36: Matthew at this point says perfect.
6:40 Luke at John Wesley's sermon on Christian Perfection
Luke 6:42: Jesus here speaks of hypocrisy in its generic sense: seeing the other's faults but not one's own. In modern parlance it's called projection. It's so easy to see our own faults in others rather than recognizing them in ourselves.
(One might say that modern psychology has gone beyond Jesus here in its understanding that projection (hypocrisy) is the first step in recognizing one's own characteristics.
Notice how Jesus employs his usual hyperbolic language to compare the speck in your eye to the plank in my own.
Luke 6:46:(more on hypocrisy)This is for me a very significant statement bearing on the meaning of the concept Christian. It's elaborated on in one of Jesus' stories about two brothers .
Luke 7:2:centurion:A Roman army officer of course. The Roman soldiers seem to play a quite prominent role in the gospel story. Outside of the Jewish culture, many soldiers were nevertheless attracted to Judaism; in the course of time the army became one of the most fertile fields for evangelism. This sadly ended when ca 312 Emperor Constantine ordained that they must all be Christians and began baptizing them by regiments. Thereafter the Church became a worldly institution; the road to a higher consciousness was largely cut off.
Faith, perhaps the most ubiquitous word and idea in the gospels found extravagant expression in many of Luke's stories. Each of them informs us somewhat about the nature of faith.
Luke 7:9:
This centurion must have been pretty commited to Judaism, for the elders whom he sent to Jesus say that he "loves our nation and built us a synagogue". As a man of more extensive culture than most of the Jews in that area, he shows a deeper appreciation of Jesus' position than any of them did. Jesus is highly impressed by his faith.
This tells us something about the meaning of faith, as Jesus understood it. He constantly exhorted his followers to have faith; even though they had already forsook all to follow him. He scolded them for their poor faith, over and over. But this Roman has an extravagant faith.
He believed Jesus could do what he chose; when Jesus performed his miraculous healings, everyone else was terribly surprised, amazed, stunned. But the Roman believed. We constantly hear that we should "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ", but what does it mean?
I think it means to believe that the things he said about God and about Heaven are true, and to choose to live in it as he did. That's what the centurion did.
Luke:7:37
The sinful woman in the story of the anointing also casts light on the meaning of faith. She believed in the goodness and power of Jesus (who personifies here the kingdom of heaven) and this belief healed her psyche. (We might think of the forgiveness of sins as the healing of the psyche.)
In Luke's gospel belief occurs about as often as faith. Belief as Jesus understood it bears virtually no resemblance to the meaning of the word in popular religion. Traditionalists (actually tied to 20th century materialism for the most part!) hold that belief in a really large pile of intellectual doctrinal constructs constitutes the meaning of being a Christian. Jesus on the other hand constantly invited and urged people to believe in the goodness of God, his love and caring and intention of healing. That's all. (How badly did our fathers go astray!)
It's true that Jesus did in fact invite and urge his intimates to believe in him. He was completely identified with the propositions advanced above. He wanted their commitment to the program he projected of announcing the kingdom of God and living into it.
Here are some other illustrations of this critical truth:
Dont be afraid, only believe . Mark 5:36. Here we see fear (guilt, rage) as opposites of faith.
If thou canst believe Mark 9:23
Belief is the verb; faith is the noun:
O ye of little faith Matthew 6:30
Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Matthew 8:26
Daughter, be of good comfort; Matthew 9:22
O thou of little faith? Matthew 14:31
great is thy faith Matthew 15:28
thy faith hath made thee whole Mark 10:52.
thy faith hath made thee whole Luke 17:19
Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee. Luke 1842.
Luke 7:12: The story of the dead son of the widow of Nain can be seen as a prefigurament of the Raising of Lazarus and of the Resurrection. All three stories tell us something about death. Death is not exactly what it has been popularly thought to be. (For example Paul said, "I die daily .") To have the faith of the Roman centurion for example is to see death in an entirely different way from the usual way.
This verse mystifies many: John is the greatest prophet, but everyone in the kingdom of God is greater. How could that be? It points once again to the two levels of consciousness: John was great in the old consciousness (law), but anyone who has been saved lives in a higher consciousness (spirit). Read Romans 8 for an exhaustive description of the difference.
Luke 7:37:Another (different according to the Abingdom Bible Commentary) woman anointed Jesus at Bethany in preparation for his burial. In this story Luke has Jesus trying to teach Simon the Pharisee that his virtue does not reside in the avoidance of sinners, but in bringing them forgiveness and healing.
The parable of the sower illustrates the two ways Jesus dealt with his listeners, in this case the common people and the disciples. One might say that they showed two different levels of consciousness, but best to simply say here that Jesus was prepared to spend more time with his disciples explaining his meaning. The metaphors relate to the various ways people respond to the gospel.
Looking at the story of the sower and the seed literally it appears to have pretty minor interest, but poetically it is pregnant with meaning. Once again The Bible in Poetry.
Luke 8:18: People have problems with this verse by taking it literally: it's easy to judge Jesus here and say, "well that isn't very Christian." But he's not talking about thinking, blessings, whatever; he's talking about knowledge. The more you have, the easier it is to learn. Pretty straightforward!
The account of this in Matthew and Mark are much more emphatic: "Who are my mother and my brothers?" Once again pretty hyperbolic language. He didn't exactly disown his blood kin, but asserted emphatically that the spiritual kinship was primary. (My life experience has amply borne that out.)
Archetypes fill the four verses describing the Night Sea Journey. Most psychologically insightful people recall such an experience in their own journey through life. Particularly for those who have made a commitment of their faith in Jesus' conception of God: a moment (or moments!) come when faith comes under the pressure of direful events and circumstances. Then, being truly faithful, they hear the calm and collected voice of the Master, turning their thoughts away from their fears and replacing them with his love.
Luke 8:27: The Gadarene (Gergesene) Demoniac serves as another archetypal figure for anyone conversant with the gospel story. He is the type of one who has lost his human heritage, his sense of reality; he seems to have lost the image of God. God calls him back to his human condition.
In chapter 15 we will meet the Prodigal , a very similar type; the stories are identical. In each case the word of love calls the lost to his true home; the kingdom of heaven breaks in upon the darkness and misery. These stories announce the future that awaits us all--as way opens. Jesus here gives us a personal paradigm of the history of the Chosen People and of the Human Race.
In Matthew 8:28 there are two demoniacs!)
Luke 8:37: This is the saddest part of the story. The miraculous healing had a cost in the economic welfare of the privileged few, particularly the owners of the swine herd. So they beseeched Jesus to depart. The healed man wanted to continue the relationship, but the burgers sent Jesus away. Greed is a greater obstacle to the kingdom of heaven than war! (Of course war is usally an expression of corporate greed.)
The story of Jairus' daughter and the woman with the issue of blood is nested together. The second one is another example of that extravagant faith ...
I suppose it's a common occurence for healers to feel that expenditure of spiritual energy when healing takes place.
(Into the Garden my Master went and he was clean forspent.......and well content. All of his virtue passed out of him...into us.
The first missionary journey! These disciples have been traveling with Jesus, listening to his words and witnessing his amazing actions, and now he encourages them to "go and do likewise!"That was his whole program, to convert the world- one by one. to what? to love and oneness of Spirit. it's called the kingdom of heaven.
This story has invited the incredulity of most people who take it in a literal sense. Read it mythopoeically, and it becomes believable. The bread is spiritual food, and the great miracle of Christ's power lies in the fundamental truth that we feed one another as he fed us. He is the catalyst.
The Feeding of the 5000 is told in all four of the gospels: Matthew Mark Luke John. Here Jesus states, "I am the bread of life." Catholic theology holds that the communion bread is the actual body of Christ. To the spiritual consciousness it's a powerful metaphor: a physical category pointing toward a transcendent spiritual reality.
The writers were all familiar with the O.T. story of the manna from heaven. That was in the first exodus, this is in Jesus' exodus. The fundamental lesson of both stories is that obedience to God brings his immediate support. Take a half step for Jesus, and he will carry you a mile (a personal proverb).
Peter used a similar metaphor.
In their scriptures (our Old Testament) God had promised them a Messiah(Christ in Greek) and many Jews pinned their chief hopes on his coming--a godly and mighty man who would make right in Judaism all the things that had gone wrong. (This hope is prevalent even today in some Moslem groups as well as Jews themselves. Mohammed, as well as the Jews, differed from the Christians of his day in not calling Christ, God.)
In Jesus' day as in ours that hope was chiefly based on his "making things right" in the material world. Jesus' hopes and ambitions centered on something entirely different, which he called the kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven, that is to say, the rule of God in the hearts of men.
Where Jesus got the third day is a mystery, but we do know that the gospel writers referred to Jonah in Jesus' words to the people.
A very natural explanation of this verse suggests that if you cling to your self centeredness, you won't have much of a life, but if you give yourself away in love to others, then you truly have a life. Note that this is repeated in Luke 17:33.
This one is a mystery! Perhaps the intent is that those who do believe have a different experience at physical death than one might expect.
Luke 9:31: This is one of the most significant verses in Luke in relating the gospel story, especially the passion and death of Jesus, to the history of his people (the Jews). Other translators use the word departure rather than decease. But in Greek it's the word for exodus.
Think about it. The first exodus of course was the deliverance from slavery in Egypt. (All three words are fraught with symbolic meaning throughout the Bible.) Here Luke makes a direct comparison between the Exodus of Moses and the Exodus of Jesus. Both were deliverances: in the first case from bondage in Egypt; in the second from our bondage to sin and death. Read the story of the first one, and notice the lamb and the blood sprinkled on the lintels (the old timey preachers used to exhort us to "preach the blood", and for many years I didn't really know what they meant.
In the gospel of John John the Baptist makes a direct connection between the lamb mentioned in Exodus and Jesus.
Luke gives here the reverse of a more famous quotation of Jesus which is often used by the exclusivistists.
Luke 9:58: a favorite verse. This has often been the fate of those brave souls who have tried to follow the Master most closely.
At the beginning of the last chapter we read of Jesus sending out the Twelve. Now Luke tells us he sent out 70. This story is more elaborate and records what they did and what happened when they came back.
With Isaiah 14:12 the source of the idea for Paradise Lost!
This verse has unforunately been interpreted by some poor souls who take it as direction to walk on snakes.
If we take this historically, it means that the two great commandments, to love God (Deuteronomy 6:5), and to love thy neighbor (Leviticus 19:18) were known as such by the establishment scholars of that day. They are also quoted by Paul and in other epistles.
"A Certain Samaritan.." Notice first that samaritan in that day and time was roughly comparable to negro in this country before 1950. The Samaritans were thought to be a mixed race made up partly of Jews, but largely of captive people emplanted in an area north of Jerusalem by one of the Kings of Assyria after the Jews had been largely or completely deported. The Samaritans followed a schismatic form of Judaism, and, according to Peloubet's Bible Dictionary (1925), existed into the 20th Century although few in number.
Some things never change. Jesus notes that the Samaritan was the one to help. Many of us have observed that in times of distress the negro is the one to help.
The Mary and Martha archetypes! You can typify women (or men for that matter) by which one of these two they best fit. All of us have a Mary and a Martha, and it befits us to try and strike a better balance between spiritual and material concerns. Are you cumbered?
The hyperbolic metaphors in this story may mystify more than clarify, but the main point is obvious: Jesus wants us to understand two things: that the Father is loving enough to give us whatever we may need, and that the most valuable gift, the pearl of great price, the secret of life, is the Holy Spirit. If you love, and give, you are being led by the Holy Spirit.
This verse made memorable by Abraham Lincoln.
See the other side of the coin
Here begin the woes. Interestingly Luke took occasion to begin this section by a pharisee criticizing Jesus for not washing his hands. Since Luke was an emphatic democrat, one can speculate that he took this opportunity to use a common derisive reaction of the wealthy toward the poor (who didn't find it so easy to get water before every meal) to begin Jesus' denunciation of the hypocrisy and cruelty of the wealthy religious leaders of his day.
Here's the origin of the one of the verses of Martin Luthers' Mighty Fortress.
A very extravagant promise. Many of us know cases where it has not seemed to be true. At least in the now. We don't know what may happen afterward.
Matthew doesn't say division. He says a sword . As you read on in Matthew, you see that he is most certainly not talking about a physical sword, but a spiritual one. He divides families, and for 2000 years he has done that.
Here is some very judicious advice about avoiding litigation.
The historian Josephus mentioned this incident, and it seems likely these men may have been incited by Jesus' words and understood that he meant to raise a (physical) sword against Rome. He never wanted a physical rebellion. The Abingdon Bible Commentary suggests that this event led to the alientation of many in Galilee, his native province, from Jesus.
We haven't found any other reference to this tower in Siloam.
The fig tree (and the vineyard) is a metaphor for Israel; the man of course representing God. See Isaiah 5:1. The dresser represents Jesus. When he said this, perhaps he had hopes that the people would hear and turn to the kingdom. Read about another fig tree , when his hopes had been more or less blasted.
The idea of healing on the Sabbath puts in a very bright light the dichotomy between law and spirit. The O.T. as commonly understood focused on the law; Jesus' gospel emphasized the spirit. Blake said, Jesus broke every one of the ten commandments and acted from pure virtue.
So many of Luke's stories have an underlying theme re the rejection of Jesus by the people of his day and the acceptance of the poor. Luke describes what happened: Jesus came with an invitation to the kingdom of God. The practioners of the conventional religion rejected it; the poor, the needy, the ones who knew that they needed healing accepted him--and entered the kingdom.
The Great Feast, the manna, the bread of life, all these and many other metaphors point to the goodness and love of God: he nurtures us and meets all our needs. We have the choice to behave like the first group of invited guests or like the ones who came to the feast.
In the 15th chapter of Luke we have three parables: the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son. They all tell the story of how there's more rejoicing in heaven over the lost sheep (the repented sinner) than over those already in the fold.
The climax of course is the famous story of the Prodigal Son. It should be called the story of the two sons (there are several such in the gospels). The younger son takes his inheritance, wastes it, then comes home penniless and is welcomed with great love by the father. The older son stays at home, works hard, and resents the welcome given his wastrel brother. The two boys are both guilty: one of self indulgence, the other of spiritual pride.
Think about it, and you may find both of these archetypes in yourself (just like both Mary and Martha). Most of us carry an indulgent self and a censorious self. The two boys are loved equally as any decent father loves his children. But to feel forgiven (and loved), the elder brother must forgive.
15:11 Of the many valuable meanings we may derive from this story look for a moment at its impact on the nation (Israel): the prodigal son represents the inveterate lapse into paganism which characterized the history of the nation, no doubt down to Jesus' day and beyond. The elder brother represents the corrupt priesthood, just about as ubiquitous in those days-- and ours.
The elder brother is a metaphor for the kind of person (or self) who prides himself on keeping the law and doesn't seek grace (spirit).
Chapter 16 contains two stories beginning at verses 1 and
19. Each begins with this phrase: "There was a certain
rich man". The stories are mythopoeic rather than
historical and belong together, showing two sides of the
same coin. In the middle of the chapter is the complaint of
the "money loving" Pharisees.
Like most of the things that Jesus was reported to have said, there are many ways to look at it. His statement that "the children of this world are in their generation wiser (the KJV says more shrewd) than the children of light" is certainly easy to understand. But continuing with the paragraph he seems (to the critical mind) to be advocating the sort of tricky behaviour of the Unjust Steward. I think we need to look further.
16:8b Nicoll (page 89) deals with this passage and idea. "Worldly people...at their level are more Practical, more shrewd and businesslike...than the children of light in regard to what they're aiming for."
16:9 Mammon "A Chaldee [or Syriac] word signifying riches. Our Savior says we cannot serve God and Mammon, Mt 6:24. Wealth is as truly an idol to those who set their hearts on it, as Jupiter or Diana; and no idolater can enter heaven. He also charges us, from the example of the unjust steward, so to use worldly goods, which are generally sought and used sinfully - "the unrighteous mammon" - as to have God the Judge our friend, and receive the true riches in heaven, Lukecast.htm 16:9,11." (ATS Dictionary) (From Ted Wade)
Luke 16:14 The RSV translates this as 'lovers of money'.
Here Luke has Jesus explicitly state the contrast between "the law and the prophets" (until John) and "the kingdom of God". This is the structure of time and culture which is expressed by the division of the Bible into Old Testament and New Testament. The O.T. in fact is often described as the law and the prophets.
Here is the acme of the particular slant that Luke's gospel expresses: he has little patience with the rich and great compassion for the poor. As the commentators say, his particular emphasis was social justice. Compare the two versions of the beatitudes: Matthew 5 and Luke 6:21.
Luke here in fact consigns the rich man to hell and the poor man (Lazarus) to Abraham's bosom.
Liberal Christians may have problems with this idea as popularly understood. I prefer to envision the two terms mythopoeically. Heat and thirst are materialistic categories that don't properly apply to eternity. Not that Dives' condition was not [is not, will not be] severe and painful, but the graphic materialistic metaphors should not be misinterpreted.
Luke is constantly outraged at social oppression, and perhaps his reading of Jesus at this point is accurate. It should provide appropriate creative insecurity for those of us who are affluent (which includes most of this country).
Another Lazarus appears in the gospel of John. It should be noted that neither of these men were lepers, since they were in proximity to other people (not allowed by N.T. lepers.
16:22 St. Augustine made beautiful use of this figure in his Confessions: Book 9.
An interesting insertion. Luke knew that they were not persuaded, even thought Jesus rose from the dead.
Ah, the need of us all. Only life and our responses can do that, but Jesus tries to do it with his extravagant metaphors. That was his problem: he had to try to do with words for us what we can only do for ourselves with our lives and daily decisions. But for the person of faith he still labors with us day by day.
Here's an example of the above: he tried to increase the faith of ten men and got results from one.
The Revised Standard Version says it's in the midst of you, and the New English Version says among you. All these metaphors are an attempt to divorce his hearers from a materialistic idea of a new judaic state to replace the Romans and to make them aware that the kingdom is a level of consciousness, not an earthy kingdom at all.
Doesn't this sound like a rebirth? You can't reach it through an intellectual effort. It involves giving up much in the way of intellectual and spiritual pretension.
I love this verse. It negates the high Christology that has dominated the established Church. According to Luke Jesus did not consider himself God, nor even good, but a man with a vision of God so high that no one had ever grasped it before (totally!). Son of God? Yes! but so are you.
Here once again is the essence of Luke's economic philosophy: wealth may prevent one from being a disciple. Mark says that Jesus loved the young man when he saw into his character. The man obviously felt something lacking, and Jesus knew what was lacking. And he told him what to do, but "he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions." Matthew 19:22.
The admonition is not aimed at rich people in general, but at the rich young ruler, who had the opportunity and ability to become much more than he was.
Note the abbreviated list of the Ten Commandments.
These verses are dear to my heart. I have certainly not left all to follow him (except in an extremely partial way), but I have experienced the manifold gifts Jesus primised here: particularly houses, and parents, and brethren, and children." And never had any desire for another wife!
The version of this story in Matthew seems to me easier to understand; it comes between the parable of the wise and foolish virgins and the parable of the coming of the Son of man (at the Last Judgment).
In John we read that Jesus wept over the dead Lazarus. Here we find him weeping over Jerusalem, which he understands is soon to die a terrible death.
The question of authority is the $64 question of every religion. The priests and scribes refused the authority of John the Baptist, who had come in the name of God, but they would not acknowledge that. Their real authority was their law, so the law was their God in a manner of speaking. The authority of Jesus came from God, but he knew they would refuse that, so he didn't claim it before them.
Your highest value is your authority, and your God: it may be your business, your marriage, your persona, your child, whatever is your primary value is your authority and your God.
This was the definitive confrontation and challenge of Jesus to the religious fathers of his day. The vineyard has a prominent place in O.T. prophecy representing God's project or enterprise or experiment --namely us. Look at Isaiah 5. This magnificent poetry describes essentially what Jesus was saying with his parable of the vineyard. The priests knew their scripture; they knew what Isaiah was saying; and they knew that Jesus was applying the lesson to them. They had two options: to love and follow him or to hate and attempt to destroy him.
Jesus was essentially an O.T. prophet, much like Isaiah, but of course he was much more as well.
A trap of course. But it presented no problems to Jesus.
The Sadducees were a group of priests, many of them Herod's appointees. They were very worldly and had much wealth and political influence. They disowned the oral law, which was so important to the Pharisees. They were actually secularists, although priests. Like moderns of their ilk they would have said, "When you're dead, you're dead."
Jesus did not heap the scorn on them that he did the Pharisees, but they had no use for him.
Re the seven brothers, etc. look at Deut 25:5
Once again Luke shows his distaste for the rich and his affinity for the poor. Jesus evaluates the gifts not by their absolute monetary value, but by the proportion of the giver's means. Should we also do that?
Luke puts these words in Jesus' mouth. It happened a short time before Luke wrote about it. The Jews revolted as Jesus saw that they would do, and the Romans destroyed the Temple, leaving no stone upon another. Jesus expected it, and he grieved over it, as we've already read.
Note that Jesus says "some of you shall they cause to be put to death.... But there shall not an hair of your head perish."
How shall we interpret this? It becomes reasonable if we assume that death is not exactly what we think it is.
This points to the reality that what he's talking of here is an inner pschic (spiritual) change that comes upon a person to "make all things new".
The Feast of the Passover commemorated the moment in Exodus, when the angel of death passed over the Hebrew families because they had put the blood of a lamb on the lintel of their doors.
Jesus and the disciples were celebrating the Passover in the Upper Room. Jesus used the occasion to initiate a new ritual, which the Catholics call the mass and Protestants call The Lord's Supper and/or Holy Communion.
If we reflect on this statement, it appears that Jesus felt that the kingdom of God would come when he had passed through death. This seems actually an improper statement since the kingdom of God is an eternal reality, not conditioned by time. But perhaps it points us to a fundamental personal reality that the kingdom of God in its fullness will be inaugurated at our death.
It somehow takes a little of the sting of our own frailty to see that the first disciples at that solemn moment began to argue about who would be greatest.
We can see Satan's role here as the sifter, appointed to bring Peter's fear to the surface that it may be experienced, confessed, reflected upon and transcended. Just so "all things work together for good..., and Satan, as Blake said so aptly, is a dunce.
A difficult verse. Jesus has predicted the Peter will deny him. So much for the others: they undoubted will run. Their spiritual power gone, they will lapse back into a worldly point of view, at least for the time being. He ironically suggests that they sell their garments and buy swords; that's surely the way of the world.
In Gethsemane Jesus prayed for deliverance, but he felt it was God's will for him to go through the charade, and he submitted; the angel strengthened him to his initial resolve. When he returned, he found the disciples asleep.
Luke takes great care to point out that Pilate (and the Roman authorities in general) had no problem with Jesus. Their intelligence no doubt had made clear that Jesus had no intention of raising or inciting a rebellion. Men were executed before and after Jesus for that offense, but they knew him to be innocent.
Here Pilate proved himself to be nothing but a weak minded, spineless politician, anxious not to offend the local gentry.
What a mystery!
The symbolism here suggests that with Jesus' crucifixion the separation of God and his people by a priestly intermediary is ended. Henceforth every man has direct access to God.
This verse suggests to me that to recognize Jesus in his Resurrection form required a special level of spiritual consciousness. The two on the road to Emmaus didn't have it initially, but rose to it at the table when he took bread, and blessed it and broke it and gave it to them.