In the history of research, Luke 22:31-34 has been on the whole judged to be a rather awkward composition consisting of traditional material and Lucan wording. This article intends to show the completely Lucan character of the passage as well as the theological meaning Luke attached to it. In these verses,
Luke reveals his literary mastery as well as his theological overall project in Luke-Acts: the primacy of Peter is rooted in the prayer of Jesus Christ himself during His Passion.
Jesus’ messianic self-understanding has been put into question from Bultmann’s day to the present. If he did not think of himself as the Messiah, we would be left with the riddle of a Jesus who never actually said who he claimed to be. However,
Jesus’ reply to the inquiry of John the Baptist in Mt 11,2-6 par is an important clue to his own understanding of his mission. A careful reconsideration of the criteria
for authenticity leads to the conclusion that Jesus claimed to be not simply a prophet announcing the kingdom, but the Messiah who healed and brought good news to the poor, thus doing what in the OT God had promised to do at the end of
time. 4Q521 confirms that ancient Judaism expected this kind of miracle to occur at the time of the Messiah.
Many translations understand the father of the vineyard (parable in Luke 20, 9-19) to think that he will send his beloved son to the vineyard workers because they possibly might accept him; this seems faulty reasoning on the part of the father. It seems better to re-read i1swj (v. 13) in accord with its basic sense, which in turn allows the father a proper logic: “they will give my son a treatment that is equal to his dignity as my beloved son”.
Luke wrote, concerned to help Theophilus comprehend the reliability of the things he had been taught. One of the teachings to Theophilus in this tumultuous century is, it seems most likely, an explanation as to how it is that he, a pagan, has become a full member of an exclusionary religion that began as thoroughly Jewish. This attention to Theophilus, it is suggested, makes necessary a story that geographically and chronologically arrives and finishes at the place where
Theophilus and his community are; it is to them the story is written (Luke 1, 4). Luke’s work does not stop till Rome, 61 AD, but stops there and then. This strongly suggests Luke’s satisfaction that he has told a story which finally arrives where Theophilus is. That Luke stops his work at Rome, 61 AD, indicates Theophilus and his church are there. By Luke’s story, Theophilus understands the truth many teachings, particularly about his place in God’s plan of salvation.
The theme of fear is to be found in the gospel of Luke not only in connection with the central revelations of glory — in the account of the birth and transfiguration as well as in the chapter on the resurrection — but also in several miracle stories. In the light of Luke 9,43 Jesus’ mighty deeds, which give rise to fear in those present, appear as the visible aspect of his heavenly glory. This understanding of revelation echoes the revelation theology of the Book of Exodus which interprets the signs and wonders which Israel experiences in the context of the departure from Egypt as the soteriological aspect of God’s glory revealed on Sinai. Jesus as the Holy One of God, who, like the God of Exodus, arouses revelation fear, is to be understood against this background.
The motive of joy in suffering for Jesus' sake, makes the last beatitude in Matt 5,11-12 and Luke 6,22-23 different from the former blessings. The persecution form present in this beatitude seems to be an authentic saying of Jesus, subsequently widespread in NT literature. Such a motive, in fact, does not appear in Judaism and in intertestamental or in apocryphal literature. The First Letter of Peter is instead a special witness of 'joy in suffering'.
The present tense forms di/dwmi and paradi/dwmi in Lk 19,8 are mostly considered as futuristic. Another view interprets them as iterative or customary. In order to discover their right meaning one has to pay attention to signals in the immediate context. The strongest signal is the expression ta\ u/pa/rxonta, which must mean «possessions» or «property». Already from this term the first readers/hearers must have concluded that Zacchaeus wanted to make a decision concerning his future life. Other signals in the context (including the form di/dwmi itself used in last wills) confirm this interpretation.
All Jewish religious teachers wanted sinners to repent; how one achieves this was disputed, as was Jesus’ choosing to associate with sinners in their houses and at their meals. Four times Luke describes Jesus as fraternizing with sinners, which violated Jewish pious practice. The first three times (chaps. 5, 7 and 15) Jesus underlines his motive for this conduct and its value; the fourth time (chap. 19), and rather late in the Gospel, Luke shows that indeed Jesus’ method proved true, i.e. the wisdom of his conduct was shown justified by repentant children of God.
All Jewish religious teachers wanted sinners to repent; how one achieves this was disputed, as was Jesus’ choosing to associate with sinners in their houses and at their meals. Four times Luke describes Jesus as fraternizing with sinners, which violated Jewish pious practice. The first three times (chaps. 5, 7 and 15) Jesus underlines his motive for this conduct and its value; the fourth time (chap. 19), and rather late in the Gospel, Luke shows that indeed Jesus’ method proved true, i.e. the wisdom of his conduct was shown justified by repentant children of God.
All Jewish religious teachers wanted sinners to repent; how one achieves this was disputed, as was Jesus’ choosing to associate with sinners in their houses and at their meals. Four times Luke describes Jesus as fraternizing with sinners, which violated Jewish pious practice. The first three times (chaps. 5, 7 and 15) Jesus underlines his motive for this conduct and its value; the fourth time (chap. 19), and rather late in the Gospel, Luke shows that indeed Jesus’ method proved true, i.e. the wisdom of his conduct was shown justified by repentant children of God.
All Jewish religious teachers wanted sinners to repent; how one achieves this was disputed, as was Jesus’ choosing to associate with sinners in their houses and at their meals. Four times Luke describes Jesus as fraternizing with sinners, which violated Jewish pious practice. The first three times (chaps. 5, 7 and 15) Jesus underlines his motive for this conduct and its value; the fourth time (chap. 19), and rather late in the Gospel, Luke shows that indeed Jesus’ method proved true, i.e. the wisdom of his conduct was shown justified by repentant children of God.
The literary device of the synkrisis, the methodological comparison between two persons or situations, is regularly used in Luke's work, in particular to create links between the Gospel and Acts. A particular synkrisis unites the Emmaus episode (Lk 21,13-33) and the meeting between Paul and Lydia (Acts 16,5-11). In both narratives, the rare verb parabia/zomai is employed and, while this has been pointed out by commentators, the theological value of this synkrisis has nevertheless been underestimated. Luke had a deeply theologically inclusive agenda, and the parallels between Cleophas, the Jewish man who meets the Risen One, and Lydia, the pagan woman who meets Paul the Apostle, illustrate this.
The Kingdom of God does not play a central role in the Gospel of John. John sees it as a transcendent reality promised to humans by a 'rebirth' or a 'birth from above' (John 3,3.5). The 'Kingdom' of Jesus is not of political nature, but consists in Jesus' testimony to the truth (John 18,33-37). Besides the texts which speak expressly of the 'Kingdom' of 'God' or of 'Jesus', there are others in the Gospel of John which describe the reality of the Kingdom of God using some basic terms like peace, joy and the Holy Spirit. The roots of this tradition can be traced back to the Gospel of Luke (24,36-49) and even to the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East with its royal ideology: the ruler as bringer of justice, peace and joy.
In addition to the scene conventionally known as "the Annunciation" (Luke 1,26-38), three other texts in the infancy narrative qualify to be classed as such. This article proposes an understanding of 2,8-20; 2,22- 35; 2,41-52 as annunciation pericopes by highlighting the fact that other characters, namely, the shepherds, Simeon, and Jesus function as messengers communicating to Mary further information about her son. It identifies the messenger, the act of speaking, the message, and the reference to Jesus' mother in each of the four scenes. Luke's infancy narrative, so the argument runs, contains four annunciation scenes in which a progressive revelation about Jesus addressed to his mother takes place.
In addition to the scene conventionally known as "the Annunciation" (Luke 1,26-38), three other texts in the infancy narrative qualify to be classed as such. This article proposes an understanding of 2,8-20; 2,22- 35; 2,41-52 as annunciation pericopes by highlighting the fact that other characters, namely, the shepherds, Simeon, and Jesus function as messengers communicating to Mary further information about her son. It identifies the messenger, the act of speaking, the message, and the reference to Jesus' mother in each of the four scenes. Luke's infancy narrative, so the argument runs, contains four annunciation scenes in which a progressive revelation about Jesus addressed to his mother takes place.
In addition to the scene conventionally known as "the Annunciation" (Luke 1,26-38), three other texts in the infancy narrative qualify to be classed as such. This article proposes an understanding of 2,8-20; 2,22- 35; 2,41-52 as annunciation pericopes by highlighting the fact that other characters, namely, the shepherds, Simeon, and Jesus function as messengers communicating to Mary further information about her son. It identifies the messenger, the act of speaking, the message, and the reference to Jesus' mother in each of the four scenes. Luke's infancy narrative, so the argument runs, contains four annunciation scenes in which a progressive revelation about Jesus addressed to his mother takes place.
In addition to the scene conventionally known as "the Annunciation" (Luke 1,26-38), three other texts in the infancy narrative qualify to be classed as such. This article proposes an understanding of 2,8-20; 2,22- 35; 2,41-52 as annunciation pericopes by highlighting the fact that other characters, namely, the shepherds, Simeon, and Jesus function as messengers communicating to Mary further information about her son. It identifies the messenger, the act of speaking, the message, and the reference to Jesus' mother in each of the four scenes. Luke's infancy narrative, so the argument runs, contains four annunciation scenes in which a progressive revelation about Jesus addressed to his mother takes place.
The phrase a)natolh e9c u3yous in Luke 1,78 has long proven enigmatic. This note focuses on the meaning of e9c u3yous. Scholars have debated whether it should be interpreted as "from God/Most High" or "from upon high/heaven". The use of e9c u3yistoj elsewhere in Luke 1–2 appears to be impacting the reading of 1,78 unnecessarily. An analysis of ~280 instances of e9c u3yoj and ~230 of e9c u3yistoj in the relevant Jewish/christian sources suggests that while e9c u3yistoj often refers to God, e9c u3yoj never does. The a)natolh, should be understood as coming "from heaven", thus impacting one’s reading of this metaphor in the Benedictus.
This essay applies conventions of ancient rhetoric to the analysis of the literary sequence of Mark and Luke’s Gospels. With an eye on basic and more advanced rhetorical handbooks, I outline two significant rhetorical conventions for improving upon literary sources: clarity (perspecuitas) and propriety (aptum). When we ask whether the evangelist Mark has applied these principles to the adaptation of Luke's Gospel (following the Griesbach Hypothesis), or whether Luke has applied these principles to the adaptation of Mark (following the Two-Document and Farrer Hypotheses) in the pericope of the Widow's Mite, we find that the latter scenario is more plausible.
The Lukan Sondergut develops its soteriology by narrating encounters inside a triangular spatial structure. Several important pericopae make use of a recurring scheme: salvation takes place in the encounter between the sinner and Jesus/God. The Pharisees who distance themselves therefrom are called upon to learn a lesson from the sinners and to share in the joy that results from the return of the lost one.
This paper examines the issue of the variant readings of the names of Aminadab and Aram in the genealogy of Jesus, presenting the hypothesis that the reading Adam-Admin-Arni may illuminate the pretextual stages of Luke, when we consider the manner in which ancient writers worked. Proceeding from the OT, in the hypomnemata of Luke or his source the list from Adam to David was probably written down in columns, with the names one under the other, following the hereditary line, as is the usual form of genealogies. In this list, Aminadam and Arni proceed from Aminadab and Aram, a mistake that is paleographically justifiable, taking cursive script into account. Being a longer name, Aminadam would have been divided into two lines. As Luke’s genealogy is in ascending order, Aminadam would have generated two names, Adam and Amim. Admin proceeds from the latter, through the dittography of triangular letters in an uncial script.
B. Witherington III et al. propose that gameo and gamizo in Matt 22,30 (par. Mark 12,25; Luke 20,34-36) describe entrance into marriage rather than the state of marriage. Consequently, these passages indicate no more than the impossibility of new marriages in the resurrection; they do not, by themselves, insists Witherington, teach the termination of existing marriages, as has been ordinarily assumed. In contrast, this article argues for the traditional interpretation of these texts by demonstrating that when combined gameo and gamizo posses an idiomatic value and refer to the institution of marriage and the family, which, according to Jesus, will end with this age.
B. Witherington III et al. propose that gameo and gamizo in Matt 22,30 (par. Mark 12,25; Luke 20,34-36) describe entrance into marriage rather than the state of marriage. Consequently, these passages indicate no more than the impossibility of new marriages in the resurrection; they do not, by themselves, insists Witherington, teach the termination of existing marriages, as has been ordinarily assumed. In contrast, this article argues for the traditional interpretation of these texts by demonstrating that when combined gameo and gamizo posses an idiomatic value and refer to the institution of marriage and the family, which, according to Jesus, will end with this age.