From: Busy Person’s Guide to Luke 13 to 24 Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2019
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
credit is given and the text is not altered.
Busy Person’s Guide to the
New Testament:
Quickly Understanding Luke
(Volume 2: Chapters 16 to 18)
Chapter Sixteen
The Value of Using
Good Judgment in Dealing with the Crises of Life: A Parable of a Clever—But Dishonest--Steward
. . . (Luke 16:1-9): 1 Jesus also said to the
disciples, “There was a rich man who was informed of accusations that his
manager was wasting his assets. 2 So he called the
manager in and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Turn in the account of your administration,
because you can no longer be my manager.’
3 ”Then the manager said to himself, ‘What should I do, since my master is
taking my position away from me? I’m not
strong enough to dig, and I’m too ashamed to beg. 4 I know what to do so that when I am put out of management, people will
welcome me into their homes.’
5 ”So he contacted his master’s debtors one by one. He asked the first,
‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 The man replied, ‘A hundred measures of olive oil.’ The manager said to him, ‘Take your bill, sit
down quickly, and write fifty.’ 7 Then he said to
another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ T he second man replied, ‘A hundred
measures of wheat.’ The manager said to
him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’
8 ”The master commended the dishonest manager because he acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their contemporaries than the
people of light. 9 And I tell you, make
friends for yourselves by how you use worldly wealth, so that when it runs out
you will be welcomed into the eternal homes.”
16:1 He also said to His disciples: ”There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and an accusation was brought to him that this man was wasting his goods. The core point of this parable (verses 1-8) is that sometimes lessons can be learned even from evil people. It is not to endorse the chicanery of the steward but to point out the need to use such astuteness in an honorable manner.
Being trusted and having great responsibility, the supervision by this “rich man” was modest, if it existed at all beyond the most modest form. But trust can be misplaced and a convincing report was brought that the steward was not using the master’s goods in a wise or desirable manner. He was “wasting” them [“squandering,” Holman, NASB], thereby costing the master income and profit.
We aren’t informed of the form the “wasting” took, but presumably it was on himself. Today we might think of the manager who is supposed to be flying “coach” but is actually flying “first class”--and the most expensive form of that as well. Or when it comes to modest budget “business related meals” he is not a “meat and potatoes” man, but is feasting on wine and caviar. This ancient steward was also finding some contemporary way of padding his lifestyle at his employer's expense.
16:2 So he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’ The accuser is clearly viewed as a reliable source of information because the rich man proceeds to act on his information: The chief steward was summoned and informed that he was going to be stripped of his post because the master found the charges quite credible. As part of leaving office, he was ordered to present the financial records. The master has technically left him in office until that reporting is completed. Hence he has full authority to reach agreements in the master’s name--binding agreements--and his use of that loophole makes possible what happens next.
16:3 “Then the steward said within himself, ‘What shall I do? For my master is taking the stewardship away from me. I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg. We read nothing of the steward protesting the charge. Not even in his own private thoughts did he apparently consider it an outrageous injustice. In other words, the steward was candid and honest enough with himself to recognize its validity. (In vivid contrast to those who are “never guilty of anything” even when the evidence is right in front of their faces.)
He was also realistic enough to recognize that he was not about to be taken on in similar responsibilities by anyone else--or any position for that matter. He doesn’t even raise the possibility in his own thoughts.
However the few alternatives were horrifying: He was clearly not trained in anything that would provide an alternate income; hence the grim alternatives--but even those would not work. “I cannot dig” (i.e., be a manual laborer), suggesting it was either beneath his dignity or, more likely, that his soft and cushiony position had left him without the strength to actually do such a job. Turning to begging could be done but only at the total loss of self-respect. Or as the apocryphal literature puts it in one place, “it is better to die than beg” (Sirach 40:28). (For that matter, word would quickly get around of what he had done; would people even think of giving to such an undeserving person?)
16:4 I have resolved what to do, that when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.’ Reviewing the possibilities he decided on a strategy that would assure that the debtors would owe him assistance even after he lost his position. It would not create a legal obligation, but it would create (and I use the term loosely) a “moral” obligation. They would feel he had done so much good for them by drastically lowering their debt load, that they would go out of their way to provide for his survival indefinitely.
16:5 “So he called every one of his master’s debtors to him, and said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?' He left no stone unturned for he had each and every one who owed agricultural product to his master to come in and talk with him. First of all, he confirms with each how much they owe. Written records surely would have told him this as well. But the personal interest of the debtor is made even more clear cut by having them say it out loud. It is, if you will, a re-acknowledgement of the debt.
16:6 And he said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ So he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ Utilizing his continued rights as steward he reduced the owed by half, meaning that he had saved the debtor half of the debt. In this case it was a debt in olive oil--which had a variety of usages, including food and fuel for lamps. (The fact that the farmer is told to “write” shows that at least a modest level of literacy was common.) The original document is handed back to him and the steward “trades” the revised form for the original. By doing it in his own handwriting this made him a conscious and knowing “co-conspirator” and increased even more the sense of obligation to help out the steward later.
Sidebar: A “measure” of oil would have been at least about 56 pints (7 gallons) but two rival standards of the day would push it much higher.
16:7 Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ So he said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ When it came to the debt of wheat, he reduced the due amount by only twenty percent. Why the difference in percentages we have no certain idea. Possibly something in the difference of typical interest rates on the two items. Since “every one” of the debtors was met with (verse 5), we are left to assume that similarly large reductions was granted to them all, based upon the particular agricultural product they would be paying back for the loan.
Sidebar: The word for “measure” here is different than in the previous verse and is estimated to have ranged between 8 and almost 12 bushels each--the latter figure coming from Josephus in his Antiquities.
16:8 So the master commended the unjust steward because he had
dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this
world are more shrewd in their generation than the
sons of light. We don’t know how the master learned what
had been done. Presumably the number
involved in the scheme was quite large because verse 5 speaks of “every one
of his master’s debtors” being called to meet the steward. Hence word would inevitably--and rather
quickly one would think--leak out and be shared as “juicy gossip” from one
person to another.
At this point, the master was faced with an accomplished fact. On the one hand, he might wish to hang the steward; on the other hand that was impossible (it wasn't a death penalty offense) and there was no way to get back the lost revenue. Hence he complimented the shrewdness--not the morality--of the steward. Jesus then drew the moral lesson: in temporal matters “sons of this world” typically exercise more insight than “the sons of light.” They use their minds for their own temporal good while the religious all too easily forget to use theirs for their spiritual good.
16:9 “And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon, that when you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home. The sons of God needed to learn how to use worldly possessions astutely. (As I told my daughters when they were young, “The good Lord gave you a brain; He expects you to use it.”) They needed to use what they had in such a manner that when they died, the right and constructive usage will cause them to be received “into an everlasting home.” (Helping the needy would be an obvious application of such usage of our temporal blessings, but far from the only one.)
Sidebar: “The Greek may
mean either Make the unrighteous mammon your friend; or make yourselves friends by your use of the unrighteous
mammon.” (
. . . In Contrast
to the Behavior of the Dishonest Steward, Honorableness Must Be the Foundation
of the Believer’s Good Judgment (Luke
If we are “unjust” (in the unjust
steward's case = dishonest and unreliable) in minor matters, our lifestyle is
going to remain the same if our tasks expand and cover a much wider range of
responsibilities.
Hence insightful and
wise use of temporal possessions demonstrates our degree of faithfulness. If we demonstrate it when the sums are
modest, then we can be counted on to be faithful and proper when we have far
greater blessings. The opposite is also
true--if we are “unjust” and callous when we have only minor amounts of income,
why should our judgment be any better if greater responsibilities come our
way? We shouldn’t fall into the trap of
thinking “if things get better, I’ll change.”
Our automatic, “fall back” instinct will be to continue duplicating the
actions and attitudes of the past. The
time to begin change is now.
Sidebar: Paul describes the true spiritual riches
available to us as “the unsearchable riches of
Christ” (Ephesians 3:8). By our faith and behavior we “lay up for [ourselves] treasures in
heaven” that can not be stolen from us by age or thievery (Matthew
However it is far harder to apply this kind of “earthly realism” to our evaluation of the role of our worldly possessions and the world’s “mammon” that allows us to buy them. Even so there is an inevitable tension between “fully” serving both God and gaining wealth: Both require time; both require hard work; both require dedication. By our actions, reasoning, and words we reveal which we center our hearts upon and which we diminish to our secondary priority. And God knows without our saying a word aloud.
This teaching leads directly into the next topic for Jesus is going to discuss those who had a “shining veneer” of piety but something “stank” nor far beneath the surface of far too many of them. Their religion was “skin deep” rather than “soul deep.”
Sidebar: “Mammon” has so dropped out of use, translations prefer to substitute “money” or “wealth.”
The Pharisees—Who
Could “Justify” Any Money Making Scheme They Preferred—Had a “Religiousness”
That Permitted Them to Set Aside What God’s Law Actually Said (Luke
16 ”The law and the
prophets were in force until John; since then, the good news of the
Sidebar
on “derided:” “The verb implies visible rather than audible signs of scorn—the
distended nostril, and the sneering lip, the naso suspendere adunco of
the Roman satirist. It is, i.e., a word that forcibly expresses the [visible]
physiognomy of contempt. [This overtone
is best caught by the NIV ('were sneering at Jesus') and the GW ('were
making sarcastic remarks about Him').]. . . The motive of the derision lies on the
surface. That they, the teachers of
Israel, should be told that they were like the Unjust Steward, that they were
wasting their Lord’s goods, that they must make friends with the unrighteous
mammon of quite another kind than those whom they were wont to court—this was
more than they could stand. They have felt the force of the rebuke, and
therefore they stifle it with mockery” (Ellicott's Commentary for English
Readers).
Furthermore, their popularity is no guarantee of rightness: “What is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.” What is desirable and praiseworthy in the sight of the human species is that drastically at odds with the evaluation God puts on things! He clearly targets both the popular and the “clerical” distortion of reality.
It is hard not--especially in retrospect--to read here a quiet warning that the era of “the law and the prophets” was coming to an end. Through the preaching of John and Jesus a new religious age was dawning and with it a new religious system--the redemptive gospel of Jesus Christ. It had served its purpose well; its ultimate goal is now being reached.
In the
broader context of being money centered, it is likely that the desired
interpretation was granted due to that person’s wealth; it “bent” their interpretation
and made them work even harder to find a way to justify the divorce. Not necessarily “cash on the barrel head,”
but generosity and extra honor to be given in the future.
An Example of
Where a Rich Man Loses Everything Because of Greed and a Destitute Man Receives
Abraham’s Embrace—A Truth Even an Angelic Messenger Would Never Convince the
Rich Man’s Relatives of Since They Already Rejected the Authority of Divine
Revelation (Luke 16:19-31): 19 ”There was a rich man
who dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 But at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus whose body was covered with
sores, 21 who longed to eat what
fell from the rich man’s table. In addition, the dogs came and licked his
sores.
22 ”Now the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And in hell, as he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far off
with Lazarus at his side. 2 4 So he called out,
‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his
finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish in this fire.’
25 ”But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that in your lifetime you received
your good things and Lazarus likewise bad things, but now he is comforted here
and you are in anguish. 26 Besides all this, a
great chasm has been fixed between us, so that those who want to cross over
from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’
27 ”So the rich man said, ‘Then I beg you, father—send Lazarus to my
father’s house 28 (for I have five
brothers) to warn them so that they don’t come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they must respond
to them.’ 30 Then the rich man
said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will
repent.’ 31 He replied to him, ‘If
they do not respond to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even
if someone rises from the dead.’ “
This is widely called a “parable” and, perhaps, it is. On the other hand, parables are normally stories of what had definitely happened on one occasion or another or about things that reasonably could happen--go down the list from the sower to the lost sheep to the lost coin and this “reality base” of the parables comes through repeatedly. Furthermore, if this be a pure imaginary picture of the afterlife, it is odd that the beggar’s name (Lazarus) is given and that in no other purported parables are names ever assigned.
Be that as it may, the story depicts the kind of situation that one can easily imagine developing: There was a very wealthy man who could dress in expensive “purple and fine linen” every day and for that he has to be not just well-to-do but very rich on top of that: purple dye was ultra-expensive and the “linen” under discussion was as well. Is it any surprise that a man this extravagantly well off would have the best of food not just on special occasions but “every day”?
Furthermore,
the dogs “licked his sores”--a statement that most naturally seems to suggest
that this was the only comfort he received from anyone in or near the
household. Since dogs were not kept as
household pets like in the modern West, these were wild and untamed dogs. Yet, in the limited way they could, even
they tried to give more “comfort” to the sufferer than anyone in the rich
man’s employ.
Sidebar on
the honor of being with Abraham--“This is a
phrase taken from the practice of reclining at meals, where the head of one lay
on the bosom of another, and the phrase, therefore, denotes intimacy and
friendship. . . . See . . . John 13:23; John 21:20. The Jews had no doubt that Abraham was in
paradise. To say that Lazarus was in his
bosom was, therefore, the same as to say that he was admitted to heaven and
made happy there. The Jews, moreover,
boasted very much of being the friends of Abraham and of being his
descendants, Matthew 3:9. To be his
friend was, in their view, the highest honor and happiness” (Albert Barnes Notes).
In contrast, the wealthy man died and was appropriately buried. A major undertaking, it surely was with many paid mourners as was the custom and the finest burial garments. That was the greatest thing that could be said about his death and that was the glory of his burial. But unlike the beggar there is no mention of him going to the same place as the patriarch Abraham. In fact we immediately learn that he did not. . . .
16:24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ He clearly saw no way to get out of where he was confined; the most he could imagine was to have conditions marginally alleviated. Clearly he recognized that at death, one’s eternal fate is permanently sealed; the best one can even dream of is making it slightly better rather than fundamentally altering it.
We may argue to our heart’s content to what degree these expressions are “literal” or “figurative”--but one thing is surely incontestable: Those who have not lived as the Lord wishes will face conditions they will hate and wish they could be out of. And nothing they can do or beg will change the situation one iota. If that doesn’t mean “pain and agony” in an extremely serious sense, then language has lost all meaning.
We are
told nothing of the rich person’s moral character. Rather the story is centered on what he did
or did not do with his wealth. It
was all there for his pleasure and his alone and wasn’t used to help
others as well. With them he was utterly
unconcerned. Hence the
grim irony of begging Abraham to “send Lazarus” with relief (verse 24), when he
himself had never taken time to send anyone to Lazarus with help.
16:26 And
besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those
who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’ This “great gulf” (rendered “chasm” in most translations)
is not only large--conveyed by the word “great”--but is of such a nature that
those in anguish can not escape it however much they want to and those who
might “want to” provide some kind of relief are unable. This is the profound difference between “it
would be nice” and “it can’t be.” There
are hard core realities that all the wishes in the world can do nothing to
alter. There had been time in this
life to assure that he would not be on the wrong side of that unpassable divide, but it had not been used by the
self-centered rich man.
Sidebar: In the expression “great gulf fixed” is
the implication that it is both permanent and irrevocable.
If you
wish to be even more cynical than me, you might even find here a subtle
self-defense: “I was never warned;
especially from someone whose testimony I would have had to accept!” But would it have been? If he himself were still alive, would he have
regarded a resurrected Lazarus as any more credible than a similar message from
folk like John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth? There is always an excuse to dismiss whatever
you don’t want to accept.
“Here again we are left to choose between opposite
views of the motive which prompted the request.
Was it simply a selfish fear of reproaches [when they arrived] that
might aggravate his sufferings? Was it the stirring in him of an unselfish
anxiety for others, content to bear his own anguish if only his brothers might
escape? Either view is tenable enough,
but the latter harmonizes more with the humility of the tone in which the
request is uttered” (Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers).
Sidebar: Consider the implications of Isaiah 8:19-20
on how words from the dead are not needed when there is divine revelation, “And when they say to you, 'Seek
those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,’ should not a people
seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the
living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this
word, it is because there is no light in them’ ” (Isaiah
Sidebar: Oddly enough, in the gospel of John we read
of Jesus raising from the dead--not sending but raising--a friend
named Lazarus. This raised Lazarus some
wanted to see: John 12:9-11. (Oddly the text doesn’t mention that they
wanted to hear anything he had to say about the interim.) The religious authorities considered him an
embarrassment and wanted to have him killed (John
Chapter Seventeen
We Must Never Stop Forgiving the Person Who Admits Doing
Wrong Against Us (Luke 17:1-5): 1 Jesus said to his
disciples, “Stumbling blocks are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom
they come! 2 It would be better for
him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea than
for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3 Watch yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke
him. If he repents, forgive him. 4 Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times
returns to you saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” 5 The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
17:1 Then He said to the disciples, “It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they do come! The closing third of chapter sixteen targeted the uncaring rich for censure. It is easy to see their faults and even mock such people because there are so few of them in comparison to the general population. The truth of the matter, however, is that everyone is susceptible to dangerous weaknesses that are self-destructive and--in some forms--harmful to others.
Jesus introduces the matter by reference to the one who is on the receiving end: In this life it is inevitable: Individuals are going to “do us wrong.” It may be in mild and annoying ways, but they can run the gauntlet upwards into things quite serious. As to the perpetrator, Jesus puts him/her on warning--they are facing Divine wrath. . . .
17:2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. If it would solve the problem of Divine punishment (and it won’t) it would be better to be thrown into the sea with a heavy millstone around the neck than to have to answer for causing harm to “little ones.” Although in this setting the young in faith are likely the center of emphasis, the principle of not causing needless difficulties for others would also apply in regard to the chronologically young in general as well.
Just as it takes years of schooling to reach intellectual maturity, it takes years of study, thought, and practice to reach full spiritual maturity. In that transition, it is those who are in the early stages (“these little ones”) who are most vulnerable. To those who are fully developed, your hindrances may be more annoying than anything else; but to these it can be spiritually (and psychologically) fatal.
Even as
mature believers, though, challenges like these are inevitably going to come our way as well.
The only question is how we should deal with them--and Jesus promptly
provides the answer. . . .
17:3 Take
heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. It is easy to growl to ourselves, “He ought not to have
done it!” But what do we do when it
happens? Do we “stew in our juice,”
allowing the annoyance to embitter us?
No, if our
coreligionist--and note that our “brother” is specifically under
consideration--has done wrong to us we are to “rebuke him,” i.e., take the
matter to the person rather than pretending it never happened. If the person realizes that wrong was done,
apologizes, and indicates he is going to avoid that kind of action in the
future we are obligated to forgive him.
Just as we should not cause others to fall into needless temptation and
sin, we are not to harbor an unforgiving sense of alienation and rage either.
Sidebar: Due to the absence of “against you” in the manuscripts that are considered most reliable, the words are usually omitted here in verse 3; however in verse 4 they unquestionably are present. The presence of “against you” there, however, argues that the same is under consideration in both places.
Sidebar: The Old Testament also taught the
desirability of challenging the troublemaker.
See Leviticus
17:4 And
if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns
to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.” Even if that person somehow
manages to act improperly against us seven times in a single day, we are still
to forgive him. This is obvious
hyperbole: even the bitterest enemy
would have a hard time finding seven ways to mistreat us in a single day! Yet so important is the basic principle of
forgiveness that Jesus uses such exaggeration to convey its importance. In effect, He is saying: “No matter how many times it happens,
forgive him if he manifests a genuine desire to change.”
17:5 And the apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith.” Unspoken words are omitted but inevitably implied: “to make it possible for us to do so.” Which leads the Lord to shift the discussion. . . .
The Paradox of Repeated Forgiveness: It Requires—In Comparison With Some Other
Things—But a “Little” Faith . . . Yet It Is Also a
Solemn Duty (Luke 17:5-10): 5 The apostles said to
the Lord, “Increase our faith!” 6 So the Lord replied, “If
you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this black mulberry
tree, ‘Be pulled out by the roots and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey
you.
7 ”Would any one of you say to your slave who comes in from the field after
plowing or shepherding sheep, ‘Come at once and sit down for a meal’? 8 Won’t the master instead say to him, ‘Get my dinner ready, and make yourself ready to serve me while I eat and drink. Then you may eat and drink’? 9 He won’t thank the slave because he did what he was told, will he? 10 So you too, when you have done everything you were commanded to do,
should say, ‘We are slaves undeserving of special praise; we have only done
what was our duty.’ “
17:5 And the apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith.” The admonition that one must be willing to forgive the repentant (verses 3-4) has rarely been easy to heed and the apostles recognized that all too well. It is no wonder that the apostles, hearing this, pleaded, “increase our faith!” It takes faith in both God and our fellow man to act in such a forgiving manner--in God that He will give us strength and in our fellow man out of the conviction that change is possible and that repetition is not inevitable after all.
On the
one hand, the repetition challenges us to give up and reject the possibility of
real change ever happening; on the other hand, the willingness to again admit
that wrong has been done argues that he is at least trying and is well
aware of his guilt. Surely it is
that fact that motivates the admonition that we continue to forgive in spite of
the repetition. Indeed is that not why
God Himself forgives us in spite of our own sinful repetitions?
Sidebar: In verse 1 we read of “the disciples;” here we read of “the apostles.” Even the future leaders of the church recognized this was something they had to work at--that it would be difficult to carry out.
17:6 So the Lord said, “If you have faith as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be pulled up by the roots and be planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you. Jesus’ answer to their plea for increased faith came in two parts. First (using an illustration similar to the one about why they had failed in casting out demons--Matthew 17:19-21), He spoke of how if they even had faith as small as that of a mustard seed they would be able to cast the nearby “mulberry tree” into the sea. To practice forgiveness so freely seemed to them a miracle. So Jesus responded that if they only had a modest/tiny amount of faith they could work such “miracles of forgiveness.” In other words their implicit admission that they had inadequate faith (verse 5) was quite true!
Sidebar: Any seed would have made the point,
but He chose the one that was regarded as “the least [smallest, NET, NIV] of
all the seeds” (Matthew
17:7 And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down to eat’? The second half of Jesus’ response came in the form of a parable against the kind of pride that could grow out of the ability to freely forgive. (Pride can perversely twist even the greatest virtue into a fault!) It’s point is that even when they reach this level of spiritual maturity, they will have nothing to brag about. They will still have other duties and responsibilities to fulfill as well. It’s like the hard working servant who has spent the day in the field. Even when it’s evening, fixing himself a meal is still not the first thing that he does.
17:8 But will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink’ The servant--and, though the apostles were, so to speak, at the “top of the power structure” in the early church, they were and ever remained servants of the Lord first and primarily . . . as such they would go about preparing for the Lord’s needs before they took care of their own. Not that theirs were unimportant, but that the Lord’s were far greater.
17:9 Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. That servant would not receive praise for doing what he was told. It was his job. It was what was expected. It is a case of “to ask the question is to answer it.”
It has
been suggested that this was especially important to stress to the apostles
since a sense of self-entitlement had grown in a number of them: “See, we
have left all and followed You. Therefore what shall we have?” (Matthew 19:27). “Now there was
also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the
greatest” (Luke
In other words, whatever our accomplishments in spiritual development inwardly and outwardly might be, we leave the praising to God. We don’t brag of it ourselves. Only He is able to judge with absolute fairness and justice whether our evaluation is just or mere bravado.
The
immediate theme is humility even when we forgive others--for this section is a
development of the command to do so in the previous section. From one standpoint we have done something
incredibly challenging. True. But it is also true that we have
simply done “our duty.” One reality does
not exclude the other. Even our virtues
need to be kept in perspective.
Jesus Stresses the Irony That the Only Leper Out of Ten He
Healed at One Time Was the Least Likely Person His Listeners Would Expect to Go
Out of His Way to Express Gratefulness—An Outsider, a Non-Jew, a Samaritan
(Luke 17:11-19): 11 Now on the way to
Jerusalem, Jesus was passing along between Samaria and Galilee. 12 As he was entering a village, ten men with leprosy met him. They stood
at a distance, 13 raised their voices
and said, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.” 14 When he saw them he said, “Go and show yourselves
to the priests.” And as they went along,
they were cleansed.
15 Then one of them, when he saw he was healed, turned back, praising God
with a loud voice. 16 He fell with his face
to the ground at Jesus’ feet and thanked him. (Now he was a Samaritan.) 17 Then Jesus said, “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? 18 Was no one found to turn back and give praise to God except this
foreigner?” 19 Then he said to the
man, “Get up and go your way. Your faith
has made you well.”
The Cambridge
Bible for Schools and Colleges suggests that “the most natural meaning of these words is that our Lord, when rejected
at the frontier village [of
Jewish/Samaritan
distinctions meant nothing to the group (verse 18) because, due to the disease,
they were all effectively outsiders to the nation.
Their action takes for granted that somewhere along the line they had heard the reports of His successful healings and hoped that He would be willing to cure them as well. Especially if the reports included the fact that He had been known to heal lepers.
Sidebar: Although the others would certainly have been
heading to
For that matter they could always argue “I’m supposed to go to the priest and Jesus commanded us to go! Returning is needless.” The obligation for a physical examination was absolutely true! But how does that justify blotting out the sense of gratitude and taking time to express it? One does not exclude the other.
Perhaps
this is endemic to the human race, a reflection of a self-centeredness that
requires an altered mind-frame to step outside of it. Albert Barnes lamented its continuation in
the 1800s: “When people are restored from dangerous sickness, here and there one
comes to give thanks to God; but ‘where are the nine?’ When people are defended from danger; when
they are recovered from the perils of the sea; when a steamboat is destroyed,
and a large part of crew and passengers perish, here and there one of those who
are saved acknowledges the goodness of God and renders Him praise; but where is
the mass of them? They give no thanks;
they offer no praise.” Has human
behavior changed in the 200 years since he wrote these words? I think not.
The “Quiet” Nature of God’s Kingdom: It Comes Without Nationalistic or
Militaristic Fanfare (Luke 17:20-21): 20 Now at one point the
Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming, so he answered, “The
kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ For indeed, the
17:20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of
God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with
observation. The
Pharisees looked forward to a triumphant militaristic rule of the Messiah from
Hence His giving even a vague date could--with a little creative “massaging” of the language--be presented to the Romans as threatening the government. . . . a near term threat, in fact. After all, with so many supporters, surely He wasn’t anticipating it would be delayed to the distant future! And if He did give an explicit near term time they would have an even easier task.
Quite possibly they are also trying to “needle” Him: “You’ve been preaching the kingdom for so long--isn’t it about time it was established!”
His
response about “not with observation,” however, challenges their very belief in
a temporal kingdom. His words imply an inward
coming of the kingdom, a theme He develops further in the next verse.
They won’t so much possess
the kingdom as be the kingdom. Hence it is to be interpreted in terms of the
individual spiritual restoration of multitudes and not national power--a
rejuvenation of the inner person. It is
to be a spiritual kingdom, not a temporal one.
The majority of
translations lay aside “is within you” and prefer something along the
lines of “in the midst of you” (ESV). In
that case the idea may be that the seed of the kingdom has already been
planted in some of those they walk among and deal with. It is already germinating within the souls of
the receptive among them. It has not yet
taken external visible form, but it will as the “visible spiritual
kingdom”--the church--is brought into existence in Acts 2.
In Contrast to the “Quiet” Coming of God’s Kingdom (Verses
20-21 Above), Is The Coming of the “Son of Man” in Judgment Upon Jerusalem
(Luke 17:22-37): 22 Then he said to the
disciples, “The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of
the Son of Man, and you will not see it. 23 Then people will say to you, ‘Look, there he is!’ or ‘Look, here he is!’
Do not go out or chase after them. 24 For just like the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side
to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day. 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
26 ”Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the
Son of Man. 27 People were eating,
they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage—right
up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then
the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot, people were eating,
drinking, buying, selling, planting, building; 29 but on the day Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from
heaven and destroyed them all.
30 ”It will be the same on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day, anyone who is on the roof, with his goods in the house,
must not come down to take them away, and likewise the person in the field must
not turn back. 32 Remember
34 ”I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed; one will
be taken and the other left. 35 There will be two
women grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.
37 Then the disciples said to him, “Where,
Lord?” He replied to them, “Where the
dead body is, there the vultures will gather.”
17:24 For
as the lightning that flashes out of one part under heaven shines to the other part under heaven, so also the Son of Man will
be in His day. When
Jesus’ intervention appeared it would be as clear cut as lightning that is seen
throughout the entire sky. There would
be no ambiguity in the situation--at least to believers. This is true whether interpreted of His
bodily return at the end of the ages or His “return” in earthly judgment on
If
applied to the fall of
And note that Jesus cites the innocent
things they were doing and not their sin.
The point is that even if you are doing “the right and above board” when
God brings earthly judgment (whether by your accident or intent!), that is not
going to keep judgment from being unleashed.
You are either prepared for it--like Noah--or you face the disastrous
consequences that preparation would have avoided.
Within
Sidebar: With flat roofs and much warm weather, housetops were typically cooler and quieter--a place away from the noise going on in the house--and connected to the ground by an external stairway. Hence one did not have to even enter the house (and be tempted to grab as much as one could carry); one could immediately flee.
Did she look back because she so hated leaving? Because she couldn’t, psychologically, “leave it behind”? Whatever was going on inside her mind, it diverted attention from the absolute priority of saving her own life.
Sidebar: There were those only a century or so later
who positively courted martyrdom as a way of assuring their salvation and they
thought this text provided a guarantee that they would gain it for their
reward. But there is a profound
difference between being willing to die and virtually crying out, “Take
me! Take me!” Although the apostle Paul was willing to
suffer painfully and repeatedly, he was also willing to flee a place as well
(Acts 14:4-7, 19-20). Die when needing
to is praiseworthy; dying when there is no need is self-centered ego.
Despair would be easy. If it was their misfortune to somehow be among those captives they were not to allow it break their faith (cf. verse 33). If they could avoid it, they would have that much more to rejoice about.
Sidebar: Such a large number of the “better” ancient
manuscripts omit verse 36, that it is often omitted by translations or placed
in brackets to indicate the documentation problem. It is often thought that this is inserted on
the basis of its inclusion in Matthew 24:40 where the two women reference
follows in the next verse--the opposite of here. The “bed” reference of verse 34 is totally omitted
in that other context.
On the
other hand, there is more than a little of appropriate symbolism in
speaking of “eagles” for the Roman banners would be bearing those--making it
plain that all of this tragedy was coming in consequence of the rebellion
against Roman power. In the apocryphal
literature, the image of the savage eagle is used by Jews only a few decades
after the destruction of
43 Your insolence has come up before the Most High, and your pride to the Mighty
One. 44 The
Most High has looked at his times; now they have ended, and his ages have reached completion.
45 Therefore you,
eagle, will surely disappear, you and
your terrifying wings, your most evil little wings, your malicious heads, your most evil talons, and your whole
worthless body, 46 so
that the whole earth, freed from
your violence, may be refreshed and relieved, and may hope for the judgment and mercy of him who made it.
Chapter Eighteen
If Even an Unjust Judge--Who Has Contempt for Both Others
and God--Could Ultimately Be Persuaded by Unending Persistence to Do the Right
Thing, How Can Anyone Doubt that a Loving God Will Do It As Well? (Luke 18:1-8): 1 Then Jesus told them a parable to show them they should always pray and
not lose heart. 2 He said, “In a certain
city there was a judge who neither feared God nor respected people. 3 There was also a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying,
‘Give me justice against my adversary.’ 4 For a while he refused, but later on he said to himself, ‘Though I
neither fear God nor have regard for people, 5 yet because this widow keeps on bothering me, I will give her justice,
or in the end she will wear me out by her unending pleas.’ “
6 ”And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unrighteous judge says! 7 Won’t God give justice to his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and
night? Will he delay
long to help them? 8 I tell you, he will
give them justice speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will
he find faith on earth?”
18:1 Then He spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to
pray and not lose heart [“give up,” NIV; “become discouraged,” GNT] . Discussing
the fall of
Sidebar: “The whole
verse is remarkable as being one of the few instances (Luke 18:9 being
another) in which a parable is introduced by a distinct statement as to its
drift and aim.” (Ellicott’s
Commentary for English Readers)
18:2 saying: “There was in a certain city a judge who did not fear God nor regard man. To illustrate the point of steadfastness in prayer, Jesus gave a parable about an unjust and callous judge (18:2-8). (The more common such were in their region, the greater credibility as a “real life situation” this story had.) He had no respect for God nor did he have any for mankind either. This sounds like a general contempt for anyone who lacked the power he had. In a superficial sense, he had to show a certain visible “respect” for the important and well-to-do for they could find ways to make life difficult for him. But his unvarnished attitudes--even toward them--could be given full expression toward those who were less well off.
Even in a
fully pagan society, this kind of man would be viewed as wanting in fundamental
ways. For a Jewish society this was even
more so. When Jesus was challenged in
Matthew 22:35-40 as to what was the greatest (most important) commandment of
the Mosaical Law, He
responded that full and total love of God led the list. Right next to it was the obligation to “love
your neighbor as yourself. On these two
commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Or as we might put it modern language: the command to love God and neighbor is the
fundamental text; all the rest of law is merely commentary on how to do
these. To view others with contempt is
fundamentally antithetical to such love.
18:3 Now there was a widow in that city; and she came to him,
saying, ‘Get justice for me from my adversary.’
Being a
judge (and the judicial system working the way it did back then), it would be
natural for those who did not have the “right” financial or social connections
to plead for help. Well-to-do people
could buy lawyer time in court; poorer folk could easily be
ignored. The widow was about as
vulnerable as you could get in their society.
Yet ignoring her violated about as
fundamental a principle of jurisprudence as could be committed: Intentional refusing to exercise the fundamental
responsibility of all judges, to evaluate claims fairly and justly. As Moses reminded the people while he was
still alive: “And I charged your judges at
that time, ‘Hear the disputes between your people and
judge fairly, whether the case is between two Israelites or between
an Israelite and a foreigner residing among you. Do not show
partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of anyone, for judgment
belongs to God. Bring me any case too
hard for you, and I will hear it.’ ” (Deuteronomy 1:16-17, NIV).
18:4-5 And he would not for a while; but afterward
he said within himself, ‘Though I do not fear God nor regard man, This reads almost like an apology to himself for doing the
right thing! “I know I am stubborn and
mule-headed and don’t have any interest in anyone but myself. The fact that I’m doing something different
has absolutely nothing to do with principle or justice. And you don’t have to worry about this
indicating a change in fundamental attitude.
This is a one time only case!”
18:5 yet because this widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.’ ” He persisted in refusing to become involved in her case till finally her unending pleas for help overcame his refusal to get involved. Her repeated intervention was simply wearing him out. Nothing beyond this was a factor. What concerns of justice and equity had not produced, persistence accomplished.
By his own standards, he was simply getting rid of a perpetual nuisance that he was “sick and tired” of having to deal with. He judged it this way and bystanders acquainted with the case surely did as well.
18:6 Then the Lord said, “
‘Hear what the unjust judge said. Though out of self-serving reasons, justice is
ultimately performed--though nowhere near as quickly as it should have
been. They needed to “hear” the unjust
judge’s words: Think about them,
meditate upon them, consider their implications for
those situations in which earthly justice is denied us. Persistence may yet cause us to win
out over the uninterested and callous.
But this temporal observation serves
as a springboard to make a spiritual point about God’s willingness to intervene
on our behalf. . . .
18:7 And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? If an unjust judge can be moved to action through persistence, will not a just God be moved similarly even though, from the human standpoint, He seems to delay “long” in answering the prayer? Some things simply take time and circumstance to accomplish. He could make things happen immediately, but to make them happen the right way, the best way, the way they should be can take far longer.
In
addition, there is far more involved than just answering our personal
concerns. God must be concerned not just
with you and me, but with everyone else as well. He must do the best possible by us without
compromising the welfare of our fellow believers either.
18:8 I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?” From God’s own standpoint and time perspective “He will avenge [our urgent concerns] speedily.” In spite of this, it was an open question whether when Jesus returned He would still “find faith on the earth.” (Or, at least, real profound faith rather than just a thin veneer.) If taken of the Jewish Revolt (66-70 A.D.), this could refer to how war turns the suffering despondent and desperate. With instability and hunger fear escalates and faith can be crushed--if they let it. Not just in one person but moving like a steam roller over everyone else as well.
If this was true in the short term of a few decades, how vastly more it could be true if it is many centuries before Jesus returns to raise all the dead--the second possible reference point He could have in mind. For that matter, both points in time could be under discussion! Each breeds its own discontents, frustration, and even despair.
The Conceited “Righteous” Person Will Have Prayer Rejected
by God While the Repentant Reprobate Will Be Embraced (Luke 18:9-14): 9 Jesus also told this parable to some who were confident that they were
righteous and looked down on everyone else. 10 ”Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a
tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and
prayed about himself like this: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other
people: extortionists, unrighteous people, adulterers—or even like this tax
collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I
give a tenth of everything I get.’
13 ”The tax collector,
however, stood far off and would not even look up to heaven, but beat his
breast and said, ‘God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am!’ 14 I tell you that this man went down to his home justified rather than the
Pharisee. For everyone who exalts himself will be
humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
18:9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others. Another parable (verses 9-14) targeted the conceited religious individuals who were so confident in their superior moral and religious character--“righteous” would cover both--that they felt free to “despise” those who had not reached their level of supposed greater spirituality.
To
actually have been that great would have been wonderful. To be self-deluded about it was a different
matter. The Old Testament had warned “There is a generation
that is pure in its own eyes, yet is not washed from its filthiness”
(Proverbs 30:12). In the days of Isaiah
God rebuked those with false delusions of superiority, “Who say, ‘Keep to yourself,
do not come near me, for I am holier than you!’
These are smoke in My nostrils, a fire that
burns all the day” (Isaiah 65:5).
Sidebar: Note their double sin: (1) delusion as to their own spirituality;
(2) contempt for others.
Here Jesus is not concerned with how they undermined their own supposed loyalty to scripture. Instead He is concerned with how the Pharisees saw themselves as steadfastly loyal to good character and God. From that standpoint they are the supposed elite. From the standpoint of anticipated bad behavior you would find it hard to fall lower than the tax collector in all his assumed--usually rightly--dishonesty and unjust behavior. With these two in mind, you already know how the story about prayer in the temple should turn out. But will it?
Sidebar
on posture in prayer: “Standing was the ordinary Jewish attitude of prayer (1
Kings 8:22; Mark 11:25), but the word statheis (which
is not used of the Tax-gatherer) seems to imply that he stood by himself
to avoid the contaminating contact of the ‘people of the earth,’ and posed
himself in a conspicuous attitude (Matthew 6:5). . . .” (
The Old Testament commanded it only once a year, during the Day of Atonement, provided for in Leviticus 16: The translated words in both verses 29 and 31 are “you shall afflict your souls” (verse 29). In Hebrew the expression was an effective synonym for “fasting”--presumably upon the basis that avoiding food is a form of self-imposed discomfort or affliction.
At the
time of Zechariah the custom was to have four fasts yearly (
His second outstanding virtue he finds in his tithing. This certainly was not evil: It was what everyone was supposed to do in the first place. But, ah!, there was a difference between regular folk and what the spiritual elite like himself did: “I give tithes of all that I possess.” It is hard not to find here a reference to the Pharisaic nit-picking that Jesus rebuked: He spoke of how they tithed tiny seed that were so time consuming to count that most folk would simply give an approximate tenth and leave it at that--if they even bothered with anything that obscure at all (Matthew 23:23-24).
18:13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ In contrast to the other man’s bravado, the tax collector was well aware that he had nothing to brag of. Indeed, he felt so ashamed that he could only look down at the earth rather than up to heaven. He knew he had moral warts and that forgiveness could only come from one source. Hence, he begged, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!”
The Pharisee had not bothered to ask for such. If challenged, he probably would have admitted he did sin but stress that they were so tiny and inconsequential why should he waste time mentioning them? At worst, surely all the (humanly invented) religious traditions he observed more than compensated for them!
Sidebar
on the posture of prayer: “The Jew usually stood with arms outspread, the palms
turned upwards, as though to receive the gifts of heaven, and the eyes
raised. ‘Unto Thee lift I up mine eyes,’ Psalm 123:1-2; but
on the other hand . . . , ‘O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face
to thee, my God: for our iniquities are
increased over our head, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens,” Ezra
9:6.” (
18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” Jesus warned His audience that this repentant sinner went home “justified” (hence, acceptable) in God’s sight instead of the man who felt so full of his own spirituality. Similarly any person who exalts his or her own piety and morality above what it really is, will be rejected by God. In contrast, the person who recognizes the imperfections that exist, will be embraced and accepted by God as he asks for forgiveness and tries to set life right.
His Disciples Saw No Reason to “Waste” Time with Small
Children Even Though They Would Be the Next Generation to Come Into the
Kingdom. This Draws the Rebuke of Jesus
Since the “
Contrary
to their assumptions, He finds something useful happening. Young children are the prototype of the kind
of person who enters “the
Sidebar: In Mark’s account of Jesus’ reaction, the
annoyance is strongly emphasized by the words “greatly displeased” (
Part of
the connotation of what Jesus is aiming at can also be found where a similar
imagery is used. Hence Psalms 131:1-2
uses it of one who is not proud but has sought peace of mind: “Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor my eyes lofty. Neither do I
concern myself with great matters, nor with things too profound for me. Surely I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a
weaned child with his mother; like a weaned child is my soul within
me.”
Paul uses childhood imagery to
describe the one who avoids doing intentional evil: “Brethren,
do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in
understanding be mature” (1 Corinthians
When a Rich Young Religious Leader Was Not Content With the
High Moral Standards He Already Lived By, Jesus Gave Him a Challenge That He
Refused to Accept—Give All His Goods to the Poor (Luke 18:18-25): 18 Now a certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit
eternal life?” 19 Jesus said to him, “Why
do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder,
do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”
21 The man replied, “I
have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws since my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and give the money to
the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
23 But when the man heard
this he became very sad, for he was extremely wealthy. 24 When Jesus noticed this, he said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter
the
This individual was not a mere anonymous “somebody.” He was one who had risen to significant status and was regarded as a (religious) “ruler” among the Jews. This is likely a synagogue official though, theoretically at least, he might even be one of the younger members of the Sanhedrin.
Sidebar: “Here, again,
the Gospel is true to the letter in its picture of a Pharisaic Rabbi. Thus the Talmud describes one of the classes
of Pharisees as the tell-me-something-more-to-do-and-I-will-do-it Pharisee; and
when R. Chaninah was dying he said to the Angel of
Death, ‘Go and fetch me the Book of the Law, and see whether there is anything
in it which I have not kept.’ ” (
Salvation Does Not Come from Wealth But from God and Any Who
Have Given Up Things and People They Cherish Will Be Amply Rewarded by Him for
Their Sacrifice (Luke 18:26-30): 26 Those who heard this
said, “Then who can be saved?” 27 He replied, “What is
impossible for mere humans is possible for God.” 28 And Peter said, “Look, we have left everything we own to follow you!” 29 Then Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, there is no one who has
left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of God’s
kingdom 30 who will not receive
many times more in this age—and in the age to come, eternal life.”
Sidebar: Some have suggested that this also undermined
a popular conception of what life would be like in the Messianic kingdom--at
least for its leaders. “The longing to be rich was confined to no one class
or order, it was the universal passion. Were they
guiltless here? Were they not
looking for riches and glory in the Messianic kingdom of the immediate future?” (Pulpit Commentary)
Although
in a very different context, the words of Jeremiah 32:17 quite accurately
describe this capacity as well: “Ah, Lord God!
Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth
by Your great power and outstretched arm.
There is nothing too hard for You.” Or as the angel explained to the virgin Mary how she would be able to bear a son even though
unmarried and
Sidebar: Although
the above quite traditional exposition of the meaning is unquestionably true,
it is not impossible that Jesus has a different point in mind as well: The prerequisites of salvation have
nothing directly related to money in the first place--only in regard to how
one uses it and all our other resources and abilities, great or
small. He has made the “barriers” to
salvation such that temporal resources are not required to obtaining it.
Sidebar: Quite likely he has specifically in mind his actions (along with those of James and John) in Luke 5:11: “they forsook all and followed Jesus”--and that sacrifice continued throughout the ministry that followed.
18:29 So He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God. What a person had left behind to serve God could vary and He lays out a selection of those most obviously painful to do so. In some cases these individuals would be trying to intensely discourage discipleship; in other cases they bluntly laid down the gauntlet: “you can have us or Christ--but not both.” And in rejecting these demands, that also meant leaving one’s home (“house”) since they were no longer welcome there. Yet whatever the motivation or demand, they had rejected it to become part of God’s earthly kingdom (the church) and to receive the reward of heaven afterwards.
18:30 who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.” Such individuals will “receive many times more” in blessings than anything they left. Ultimately they would do so in the next world: “in the age to come eternal life.” Since to exist in pain and suffering is hardly a blessing, the image carries with it the implication that all obstacles to a happy life will be removed there. Cf. Revelation 21:4: “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
The “receiv[ing] many times more in this present time” is more puzzling. Since Jesus has plainly warned of the dangers and heartbreaks that will occur, He is hardly encouraging a delusional frame of mind. Rather He is stressing that in spite of these the good things that are the most important will still come upon them in abundance--friendship, love, help from one’s spiritual brothers and sisters in the church. Not to mention the intangible spiritual blessings that also derive from being within God’s covenant community.
The Apostles Are Still Unable to Understand Jesus’ Warning
of His Coming Rejection, Abuse, and Resurrection in Jerusalem (Luke 18:31-34): 31 Then Jesus took the twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going
up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the
prophets will be accomplished. 32 For he will be handed
over to the Gentiles; he will be mocked, mistreated, and spat on. 33 They will flog him severely and kill him. Yet on the third day he will
rise again.” 34 But the twelve
understood none of these things. This
saying was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what Jesus meant.
Taken in
the optimistic approach (“we’ve already been through that”), it would have been
easy to take the words as an indication that the path ahead was rosy and bright
and nothing else. Jesus disabuses the
apostles of this possibility in private.
In
Sidebar: In the parallel account of this in Mark 10
“with persecutions” is thrown in (verse 31) but even that--in short term
optimism--could have been interpreted as referring to the harassments their
movement had already gone through from the Pharisees and other critics.
Sidebar: The same language of not understanding Jesus’
point is also used in His earlier forewarning that He would be betrayed (Luke
Near Jericho, in Spite of Efforts to Get Him to Be Quiet, a Persistent Blind Man Hollers Out to Get the
Attention of Jesus; Jesus Speaks with Him and Heals Him (Luke 18:35-43): 35 As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the road
begging. 36 When he heard a crowd
going by, he asked what was going on. 37 They told him, “Jesus the Nazarene is passing by.”
38 So he called out, “Jesus,
Son of David, have mercy on me!” 39 And those who were in
front scolded him to get him to be quiet, but he shouted even more, “Son of
David, have mercy on me!”
40 So Jesus stopped and
ordered the beggar to be brought to him. When the man came near, Jesus asked him, 41 ”What do you want me to do for you?” He replied, “Lord, let me see again.” 42 Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.” 43 And immediately he regained his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they too gave
praise to God.
Sidebar:
Furthermore
note the specific identification of Jesus as “Son of David”--clearly a
Messianic label if there ever was one.
He might or might not be the long promised Messiah, but surely
this Man was acting with the awe and power that one would expect
to accompany the Messianic figure! So
what more logical thing than to give Him the honor and respect due the Messiah?
But why praising God rather than Jesus? Because God had provided
Jesus the power.