1993 - frank j. matera - jesus' journey to jerusalem (luke 9.51-19.46). a conflict with israel

7/27/2019 1993 - Frank J. Matera - Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9.51-19.46). A Conflict with Israel

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1993-frank-j-matera-jesus-journey-to-jerusalem-luke-951-1946 1/22

http://jnt.sagepub.com/ the New Testament

Journal for the Study of

http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/16/51/57The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X9301605103

1993 16: 57Journal for the Study of the New Testament Frank J. Materawith Israel

Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9.51-19.46): a Conflict

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Testament

Journal for the Study of the New Additional services and information for

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1993Version of Record>>

by guest on January 28, 2013 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jnt.sagepub.com/



http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/16/51/57



http://www.sagepublications.com/


http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav



http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/16/51/57.full.pdf









http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions







57-

JESUS’ JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM (LUKE 9.51-19.46): A CONFLICT WITH ISRAEL

Frank J. Matera

The Catholic University of America

Washington, DC 20064

Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem is one of the

most distinctiveaspects of his Gospel. Composed of material from

Mark, Q and his special source,’ Luke’s version of the journey is ten

chapters in length.’ More importantly, Jesus’ determination to go to

1. I am assuming the Two Source Hypothesis. On the basis of this hypothesis,9.51-18.14 is Luke’s ’major interpolation’ of material from Q and L. Most of the

material from 18.14-19.46 comes from Mark, except for 19.1-10 (L); 19.11-27 (Q,at least in part); 19.41-44 (L). I view 10.25-28; 11.14-23; 11.29-32; 11.33; 12.1;

12.10-12; 13.18-19; 14.34-35; 16.18; 17.1-3a and 17.5-6 as overlaps of Mark and

Q rather than as Luke’s use of Markan material. For the problem of Mark-Q over-

laps, see R. Laufen, Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des

Markusevangeliums (BBB, 54; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1980). For a listing of Q

material, see F. Niernyck, Q-Synopsis: The Double Tradition Passages in Greek

(Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1988). For a listing of L material, see

J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation, and

Notes (AB, 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), I, pp. 83-84. Not all

authors, of course, accept Markan priority, and even among those who do, there are

some who dispense with Q by arguing that Luke employs Matthew as one of his

sources. Thus, J. Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel: A Study in EarlyChristianity Historiography (Atlanta: John Knox, 1976); and J.W. Wenham,

’Synoptic Independence and the Origin of Luke’s Travel Narrative’, NTS 27 (1980-81), pp.507-15.

2. In contrast to Luke, Mark’s report of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem is a singlechapter (10.1-52). Matthew’s account is two chapters (19.1-20.34). While there is

unanimous agreement that the Lukan journey begins at 9.51, the literary conclusionof the journey is disputed; e.g. 18.14; 19.27; 19.44.I maintain that the journey ends








58

Jerusalem, so eloquently stated in 9.51, is clearly a major turningpoint in the Gospel narrative, eclipsing even Peter’s confession that

Jesus is the messiah.’ But as distinctive as the

journeynarrative is, it is

also one the most puzzling aspects of the Gospel. For example,although Luke presents this section as Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem,there are relatively few geographical indications of Jesus’ progress

toward the city. Moreover, the geographical notices which are presenttend to occur with greater regularity at the beginning and the con-

clusion of the journey section with only a few general notices of Jesus’

progress placed in the middle of the narrative.4 Chronological notices

are even fewer,’ a surprising fact when one considers that, of all the

Evangelists, Luke is the most concerned to correlate the events of

Jesus’ life and ministry with those of the Roman empire and Jewish

history (2.1-2; 3.1-2). Thus, whereas Luke’s descriptions of Paul’s

journeys can be traced on a map, this is not the case with Jesus’ final

journey to Jerusalem.’

Despite the paucity of geographical notices, source critics have

sought to recover something of the journey or journeys that thehistorical Jesus made to Jerusalem,’ while form and redaction critics

at 19.46 for two reasons. First, Jesus does not enter the city of Jerusalem until

19.45. Secondly, 19.47-48 and 21.37-38 form a literary inclusion which marks the

beginning and ending of Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem: κα&iacgr; &eeacgr;ν δ&igr;δ&aacgr;σκ&OHacgr;ν τò κα&thetas;’

&eeacgr;μ&eacgr;ραν &eacgr;ν τ&OHacgr; &iacgr;ϵρ&OHacgr; (19.47);?Hν δ&eacgr; τ&aacgr;&sfgr; &eeacgr;μ&eacgr;α&sfgr; &eacgr;ν τ&OHacgr; &iacgr;ϵρ&OHacgr; διδ&aacgr;σκων (21.37).

3. In contrast to Luke’s Gospel, the turning point of the narrative in the Gospelsof Matthew and Mark is Peter’s confession.

4. Texts which indicate that Jesus is on a journey are 9.51, 53, 56, 57; 10.1,38; 13.22, 33; 14.25; 17.11; 18.31, 35-36; 19.1, 11, 28, 29, 37, 41, 45. Texts

which actually mention Jerusalem as Jesus’ destination are 9.51, 53; 13.22; 17.11;18.31; 19.11, 28.

5. The only indications of time are 9.51; 10.17; 13.10; 13.33; and 14.1.

6. For example, at the beginning of the journey it appears that Jesus is about to

enter Samaritan territory, but by the middle of the journey (13.31) it is apparent thathe is still in Galilee, the territory of Herod Antipas. Only from 18.35 to the end of the

narrative, the section of the narrative which is dependent upon Mark, does it become

possible to trace the progress of Jesus’ journey. On the question of the geographicalnotices of the journey, see C.C. McGown, ’The Geography of Jesus’ Last Journeyto Jerusalem’, JBL 51 (1932), pp. 107-29.

7. The last full-scale source analysis for the purpose of recovering the journeysof the historical Jesus was carried out by L. Girard, L’Evangile des voyages de Jésus

ou la section 9,51-18,14 de Saint Luc (Paris: Gabalda, 1951), who argued that thecentral section of Luke’s Gospel actually recounts multiple journeys made by Jesus








59

have concluded that the journey section is a Lukan literary construc-

tion and not a historical report of Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem.

But whereas form critics have viewed Luke’s journey narrative as a

depository for all kinds of material that the Evangelist inherited,’8

redaction critics have sought to identify the theological intent of the

Evangelist in composing the journey narrative. They have argued,with varying shades of nuance, that Luke’s purpose is christological or

ecclesiological.’

to Jerusalem. His work was criticized by J. Blinzler, ’Die literarische Eigenart des

sogenannten Reiseberichts im Lukasevangelium’, in J. Schmid and A. Vögtle (eds.),

Synoptische Studien: Alfred Wikenhauser zum siebzigsten Geburtstag am 22 Februar

1953 dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schulern (Munich: Zink, 1953),

pp. 20-52. More recently, G. Ogg (’The Central Section of the Gospel according to

Luke’, NTS 18 [1971-72], pp. 39-53) has argued that the central section contains

two different accounts of Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem (9.51-10.42 and 17.11-

19.28) rather than accounts of multiple journeys. For brief histories of research on

this topic, see H.L. Egelkraut, Jesus’ Mission to Jerusalem: A Redaction Critical

Study of the Travel Narrative in the Gospel of Luke, Lk 9:51-19:48 (EuropäischeHochschulschriften, 80; Frankfurt: Lang, 1976), pp. 30-41; and J.L. Resseguie,’Interpretation of Luke’s Central Section (Luke 9:51-19.44) since 1856’, Studia

Biblica et Theologica 5 (1975), pp. 3-36.

8. For example, R. Bultmann(Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition

[Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 8th edn, 1970], p. 388) writes, ’Er empfandwohl ein Bedürfnis, die Reise nach Jerusalem nicht so im Dunkel zu lassen, wie es

bei Mk geschieht, und zugleich fand er in ihr einen geeigneten Hintergrund, um

allerlei situationslose Stücke unterzubringen’. Similarly, K.L. Schmidt (Der Rahmen

der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zum ältesten Jesusüberlieferung[repr.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969 (1919)], p. 257)writes, ’Dieser Schriftsteller stand einer Fülle von Einzelgeschichten gegenüber, die

er zusammenordnen wollte...’

9. Among those who see Luke’s purpose as primarily christological are the

following: H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper & Row,

1961); J.H. Davies, ’The Purpose of the Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel’, TU87 (1964), pp. 164-69; W. Grundmann, ’Fragen der Komposition des lukanischen

"Reiseberichts"’, ZNW 50 (1959), pp. 252-71; P. von Osten-Sacken, ’Zur

Christologie des lukanischen Reiseberichts’, EvT 33 (1973), pp. 476-96. Others

view Luke’s purpose as more ecclesiological, focusing on salvation history,discipleship or the church’s mission. Among these are the following: D. Gill,’Observations on the Lukan Travel Narrative and Some Related Passages’, HTR 63

(1970), pp. 199-221; B. Reicke, ’Instruction and Discussion in the Travel

Narrative’, TU 73 (1959), pp. 206-16; M. Miyoshi, Der Anfang des Reiseberichts

Lk 9,51-10,24: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AnBib, 60; Rome:








60

The purpose of this essay is to provide another perspective on the

journey section, one which focuses upon the text as a narrative.’° I

will

begin by identifying changesof time and

placein Luke’s account

of the journey and argue that a significant number of these are the

occasion for discourses by Jesus as he travels to Jerusalem. Next, I

will show that these discourses disclose a conflict between Jesus and

Israel (represented by the crowd and the religious leaders). Finally, I

will offer some brief reflections about the role of the journey section

in the plot of Luke’s narrative.

Changes of Time and Place

Overall, Luke has kept his promise to Theophilus by providing him,and us, with an orderly sequence of events: infancy narrative (1.5-2.52) ; preparation for Jesus’ public ministry (3.1-4.13); Galilean

ministry (4.14-9.50); journey to Jerusalem (9.51-19.46); ministry in

Jerusalem (19.47-21.38); passion, death and resurrection (22.1-24.53). When we examine the content of the journey narrative more

closely, however, Luke seems to have forgotten his promise, for there

is little or no agreement among scholars about the structure of this

material. While several authors suggest that the material is structured

chiastically,&dquo; others rely primarily upon the notices of Jesus’ progress

Biblical Institute Press, 1974); W.C. Robinson, Jr, ’The Theological Context for

Interpreting Luke’s Travel Narrative (9.51ff.)’, JBL 79 (1960), pp. 20-31;J. Schneider, ’Zur Analyse des lukanischen Reiseberichtes’, in Schmid and Vögtle(eds.), Synoptische Studien, pp. 207-29; G.W. Trompf, ’La section médiane de

l’évangile de Luc: L’organization des documents’, RHPR 53 (1975), pp. 141-54;G. Sellin, ’Komposition, Quellen und Funktion des lukanischen Reiseberichtes

(Lk. IX 51-XIX 28)’, NovT 20 (1978), pp. 100-35.

10. This essay, of course, is not the first to approach the journey narrative from a

literary-critical perspective. David P. Moessner (Lord of the Banquet: The Literaryand Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative [Minneapolis: Fortress

Press, 1989]) has recently produced a full-scale study of the literary and theologicalsignificance of the journey section in which he argues that Luke portrays Jesus,

against the background of a Deuteronomistic view of history, as the Prophet like

Moses who is rejected by an evil generation that will be punished and destroyed.While I concur that conflict plays a major role in the journey narrative, I do not agree

with Moessner’s interpretation of Luke’s Christology. Nor do I find it necessary to

press into service a Deuteronomistic view of history to interpret this section.

11. Among those who argue for a chiastic structure are the following:C.F. Evans, ’The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel’, in D.E. Nineham (ed.),








61

to Jerusalem, especially 13.22 and 17.11, to structure the narrative.’2The first of these suggestions has always proved problematic, given

the different chiasms which have been proposed, and the second is, as

Fitzmyer notes, ’a mere convenience, since the division at these pointsis otherwise insignificant and somewhat arbitrary’. 13

In light of the current impasse I suggest that, instead of searchingfor a formal or thematic structure, it may be more helpful to isolate

those moments in the narrative when there is a change of time or

place. Changes of time and place can be verified, and they provide

objectivecriteria for

makinga decision. More

importantly, theyindi-

cate changes of scene which are essential for grasping the movement

of a narrative.&dquo; By identifying changes of time and place, I am not

claiming to establish an outline or structure of the journey narrative,as traditionally understood. Rather, I am segmenting the text on the

basis of major changes in scene.&dquo; These changes, after all, provide the

narrative with a sense of movement and, however imperfectly, sustain

the claim of 9.51 that Jesus is on a

journey. A

significantnumber of

these changes provide the occasion for Jesus to deliver discourses to

the disciples, the crowd, and the religious leaders (see Chart 1 ).

Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Basil

Blackwell, 1955), pp. 37-53; H.K. Farrell, ’The Structure and Theology of Luke’s

Central Section’, TrinJ NS 7 (1986), pp. 33-54; M.D. Goulder, ’The Chiastic

Structure of the Lucan Journey’, TU 87 (1964), pp. 195-202; P. Kariamadam,

’The Composition and Meaning of the Lucan Travel Narrative (Lk. 9,51-19,46)’,Bible Bhashyam 3 (1987), pp. 179-98; C.H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, TheologicalThemes and the Genre of Luke-Acts (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974), pp. 51-

56. While there are clearly chiastic elements in the journey narrative, e.g., the

question of the lawyer and the question of the rich ruler, 10.25 and 18.18, the

intricate chiastic structures presented are more contrived than convincing.12. F.W. Danker(Luke [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976], p. 108) divided

the journey into six stages: 9.51-13.21; 13.22-17.10; 17.11-18.30; 18.31-19.27;19.28-48; 20.1-21.38. In the second revised editionofLuke (1987, p. 11) Danker

speaks of four stages: 9.51-13.21; 13.22-17.10; 17.11-18.30; 18.31-19.27.

13. The Gospel according to Luke, p. 825.

14. Changes of time and place, of course, are not only means of determining a

change of scene. A change of characters can also indicate a change of scene, e.g., the

appearance of the lawyer in 10.25. But overall, changes of time and place are

stronger, and changes of character are subordinate to them.

15. Not all of these segments, of course, are of equal length or importance.








62

The majority of changes listed in Chart 1 are changes of place.These changes of place are as follows: ’and they journeyed to another

village’ (9.56); ’As they continued their journey he entered a villagewhere a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him’ (10.38); 16’He was praying in a certain place’ (11.1 ); ’After he had spoken, a

Pharisee invited him to dine at his home. He entered and reclined at

table to eat’

(11.37);’When he left, the scribes and Pharisees

beganto

act with hostility toward him’ (11.53); ’He passed through towns and

villages, teaching as he went and making his way to Jerusalem’

16. On the basis of Jn11.1, older commentators identified the village of Martha

and Mary as Bethany. This, however, led to further problems since Bethany is justoutside of Jerusalem, and in 13.31 Jesus is still in Galilee! Consequently, some

authors, e.g. Girard, argued that the central section preserves accounts of multiple

journeys, while others, e.g. Ogg, maintained that the central section contains differ-ent versions of Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem.








63

(13.22); ’Great crowds were travelling with him, and he turned and

addressed them’ (14.25); ’As he continued his journey to Jerusalem,

he travelled through Samaria and Galilee’ (17.11);&dquo; ’Now as heapproached Jericho a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging’(18.35); ’He entered Jericho and was passing through it’ (19.1); ’After

he had said this, he proceeded on his journey up to Jerusalem’ (19.28);’As he drew near to Bethphage and Bethany’ (19.29); ’And now as he

was approaching the slope of the Mount of Olives’ (19.37); ’As he

drew near, he saw the city and wept over it’ (19.41); ’Then he entered

the temple area’ (19.45).In two instances changes of place are coupled with an indication of

time: ’He was teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath’ (13.10); ’On a

Sabbath he went to dine at the home of one of the leading Pharisees’

(14.1). Only twice is time alone used as an indicator of change. The

first is the elegant verse which begins the journey section: ’When the

days for his being taken up were fulfilled, he resolutely determined to

journeyto Jerusalem’ (9.51 ). The second is the return of the

Seventy-two, an indication that a period of time has elapsed: ’The Seventy-tworeturned rejoicing’ (10.17).

Finally, there are four texts in which a change of place is impliedby the wider context. In 11.14 Luke writes, ’He was driving out a

demon that was mute’. Since previous to this incident Jesus was alone

with his disciples, praying in a certain place, the reader surmizes that

a

changeof

placehas occurred. In 12.1 Luke writes, ’Meanwhile, so

17. This phrase has given rise to several variants (μ&eacgr;σν, ’in the midst of’; &aacgr;ν&aacgr;

μ&eacgr;σ&ogr;ν, ’between’, or ’in the midst of’; δτ&aacgr; μ&eacgr;σ&ogr;ν, ’through the midst of’). Fitzmyer(Luke, pp. 1152-53) writes, ’These variants, however, arc undoubtedly grammaticalcorrections by copyists who sought to remedy the difficult reading δτ&aacgr; μ&eacgr;σ&ogr;νbecause δτ&aacgr; + acc. usually means "because of, for the sake of" whereas δτ&aacgr; + gen.

normally has the sense of "through" (with spatial, temporal, or instrumental

nuance)’. BAGD (s.v. ’μ&eacgr;σ&ogr;&sfgr;’) says that ’17:11 prob. can only mean throughSamaria and Galilee’, and this is how the phrase is translated in the revised version

of the NT of the NAB. This translation, however, gives the impression that Jesus is

moving from south to north.

Consequently, most commentators urge a translation similar to that of the NRSV:

’Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee’. Thus Jesus

would be moving in a south-westerly direction along the Galilean-Samaritan border.

Luke, however, was not as familiar with Palestinan geography as modern

commentators who have the benefit of detailed maps. Thus the text presents a

geographical problem for us rather than for him.








64

many people were crowding together that they were trampling one

another’. Since Jesus has just left the home of the Pharisee (11.53), it

isapparent

that a

changeof

placehas occurred. In 15.1-2 Luke

notes,’The tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to listen to him,but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, &dquo;This man

welcomes sinners and eats with them&dquo;’. Since previous to this Jesus

was in the house of one of the leading Pharisees on the Sabbath (14.1),one supposes that there has been a change of place and time. Finally,in 18.31 Luke notes, ’Then he took (7ta paAapc.óv) the Twelve aside

and said to them...’ Since

previousto this incident Jesus had been

speaking to the Rich Ruler, presumably in the presence of the crowd

as well as the disciples (18.18-30), it is probable that Jesus’ teachingabout his impending fate occurs in another place. A closer examination of these changes discloses that a significantnumber of them provide the occasion for Jesus to deliver a discourse.

Thus, after praying in a certain place (11.1), Jesus delivers a brief

teaching on prayer to his disciples (11.2-13); after casting out a

demon (11.14), he addresses a harsh discourse to the crowd (11.17-36) ; when dining in the home of a Pharisee (11.37), he excoriates the

Pharisees and lawyers (11.39-52); after leaving the home of the

Pharisee (11.53), he delivers an extended discourse which alternates

between his disciples and the crowd (12.1b-13.9); passing throughcities and villages (13.22), he addresses, the crowd (13.23b-30); eatingin the house of a Pharisee (14.1), he addresses the Pharisees and

lawyers (14.8-24); when great crowds journey with him (14.25), he

explains the demands of discipleship to them (14.26-35); when the

Pharisees and scribes complain that he eats with sinners (15.1-2), he

delivers an extended discourse which alternates between them and the

disciples (15.3-17.10)18 (see Chart 2).

18. In three instances a brief episode intervenes between a change of place and a

discourse: (1) the account of three would-be disciples intervenes between 9.56 and

the discourse to the Seventy-two; (2) the healing of the ten lepers and the Pharisees’

question intervenes between 17.11 and the discourse to the disciples about the

coming of the Son of Man; (3) the story of Zacchaeus intervenes between 19.1 and

the parable of the Ten Pounds. Changes occur more frequently, and are identified

with greater geographical precision, toward the end of the journey section: Jesus

draws near to Jericho (18.35); he enters Jericho (19.1); he continues his journey(19.28); he draws near to Bethphage and Bethany (19.29); he approaches the slopeof the Mount of Olives (19.37); he draws near to the city of Jerusalem (19.41); and

he enters the temple (19.45). These changes occur after Luke’s great interpolation








65

The dominance of these discourses becomes more apparent when one

notices that from 11.1 to 18.14 there are only a few episodes which

are not discourses: the healing of a crippled woman on a Sabbath

followed by two short parables (13.10-21); the warning of the

Pharisees and Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem (13.31-35); the healing of

a man on the Sabbath (14.1-6);19 and the healing of ten lepers and thequestion of the Pharisees (17.11-22). As a result, a significant numberof the changes of time and place in the journey narrative provide the

occasion for Jesus to deliver discourses 2’ a fact which is especiallytrue for 11.1-18.14.

All told, there are eleven discourses in the Lukan journey narrative,all of them delivered by Jesus.2’ In most instances they are addressed

(9.51-18.15) and, except for 19.1, are not occasions for discourses.

19. This episode becomes the occasion for a discourse.

20. The exceptions to this are 9.51; 10.17,38; 13.10; 18.31, 35; 19.28, 29, 37,41,45.

21. By ’discourse’ I mean an extended speech delivered by Jesus to a group of

people such as the disciples, the crowd or the religious leaders. In each case, the

discourses I have identified begin with an introductory formula which indicates the

audience: 10.2; 11.2; 11.17; 11.39; 12.1; 13.23; 14.7; 14.25; 15.3; 17.22; 19.11-

12a. The parable of the Good Samaritan is not a discourse because it is addressed to








66

to a single audience, for example, the Seventy-two, the disciples, the

crowd or religious leaders. But in two instances the audience alter-

natesbetween either the crowd

andthe disciples

or the

disciples andthe religious leaders. In terms of the narrative these discourses

dominate the journey section, especially 11.1-18.14. Because of them

the time of the story begins to correspond to real time, that is, the

time that it actually takes to read or listen to the discourses. Changesof time and place become the occasion for Jesus to deliver discourses,

giving the impression that his journey to Jerusalem is a period of

sustainedteaching,

often of a

polemicalnature.

Furthermore,these

discourses allow the Lukan narrator to develop the evaluative point of

view which Jesus espouses and tries to communicate to the disciples,22a point of view which is in conflict with that embraced by the crowd

and the religious leaders. This clash of evaluative points of view

between Jesus on the one hand, and the crowd and the religiousleaders on the other, is essential for the plot of Luke’s narrative.23With this in mind, I turn to the discourses of the

journeynarrative.

Conflict and Discourse

1. At the beginning of the journey, the Lukan narrator notes that

’after these things’ the Lord (6 1C’ÚptOç) appointed seventy-two others

and sent them to every city and village where he was about to go

an individual (10.30-37). The parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven (13.18-21) are not discourses because they lack an introductory formula. The passionprediction (18.31-34) is not a discourse because it is not an extended speech.

22. By evaluative point of view I mean the standpoint or the system of values one

employs to evaluate the world. Thus Jesus evaluates the world from the point of

view of God, e.g., ’For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one

who humbles himself will be exalted’ (14.11). The religious leaders, however,evaluate the world from the point of view of human esteem. So Jesus tells them,’You justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts; for what

is of human esteem is an abomination in the sight of God’ (16.15). The evaluative

point of view of a character is disclosed by comments made by the narrator, by what

a character says and does, and by what reliable characters, e.g. Jesus, say about the

character. For a discussion of point of view, see B. Uspensky, A Poetics ofComposition: The Structure of the Artistic Text and the Typology of a CompositionalForm (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), pp. 8-16.

23. J.L. Resseguie (’Point of View in the Central Section of Luke’, JETS 25

[1982], pp. 41-47) has employed the literary technique of point of view to explainthe conflict that arises in the journey narrative. I am indebted to his study.








67

(10.1). ’These things’ refer to the rejection of Jesus by a Samaritan

village (9.52-53) and Jesus’ encounter with three would-be disciples

(9.57-62).24 The discourse to the Seventy-two (10.2-16), therefore, isdelivered against a background of rejection and the need to follow

Jesus unreservedly. Among the points made by this discourse, two are

crucial for the narrative that follows: (1) the preaching and healingministry of the Seventy-two signifies the presence of the kingdom of

God (iíYYtKEV T1 PCC(YtkEi(X Tou 6~ou, 10.9, 11); (2) those who rejectthe Seventy-two reject Jesus, and the one who sent him. From the

outset of the

journey, then,Jesus

already anticipatesthe conflict which

will occur as he travels to Jerusalem, and it is apparent that he under-

stands himself as God’s messenger in whose ministry the kingdom is

already present. Later, Jesus will point to this presence of the king-dom when speaking to the crowd (11.20) and the Pharisees (17.21).

2. A series of brief episodes follows Jesus’ initial discourse (thereturn of the Seventy-two, Jesus’ encounter with a hostile lawyer, and

his visit with Martha and

Mary).From 11.1-18.14, however, the

journey section is, for all practical purposes, a series of nine

discourses. The first of these (11.2-13) is addressed to the disciples&dquo;and reveals something about the evaluative point of view of Jesus and

his disciples. On the one hand the reader is confirmed in his or her

opinion about Jesus’ relationship to God, for Jesus’ teaching on prayer

discloses that he views God as a father who does not refuse the requestof his children (also see 10.21-22 where Jesus explicitly identifies

himself as God’s son). On the other hand the reader learns that the

disciples are still in the process of learning this. They view themselves

as Jesus’ disciples, but they do not yet know how to pray with the

confidence and intimacy that Jesus does.

3. Immediately following this Jesus delivers a major discourse to

the crowd (11.17-36),26 an episode which marks the first appearance

24. The text does not say whether or not the three would-be disciples follow

Jesus but, in any case, this incident highlights the urgency of discipleship.25. For a literary study of the disciples in Luke’s Gospel, see J.D. Kingsbury,

Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991),

pp. 109-39; and R.C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary

Interpretation. I. The Gospel according to Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986),

pp. 201-74.

26. For studies on how Luke portrays the crowd, see D.P. Moessner,

’The "Leaven of the Pharisees" and "This Generation": Israel’s Rejection of Jesus








68

of the crowd in the journey section. Prior to the journey the Lukan

narrator has generally portrayed the crowd in a favorable light (4.42;

S.1; 6.19; 7.11; 8.4, 19, 40; 9.11), exceptfor 7.31-35 and 9.41 which

foreshadow the harsh rebuke of this discourse. While the crowds are

amazed (10aE>aJav) that Jesus casts out a demon (11.14), the

narrator says that some (ziv~5) from the crowd accused Jesus of

casting out demons by Beelzebub while others (9’cFpot) tested him byseeking a sign (11.15-16). The use of ’some’ and ’others’ indicates that

the crowd is divided over the nature of Jesus’ ministry. Thus the

narrator does not

portraythe crowd as monolithic in its

responseto

Jesus. Some, but not necessarily all, are in conflict with him.

Jesus’ response to these complaints provides a further characteriza-

tion of the crowd. First, the crowd, or at least a portion of it, does not

recognize that the kingdom of God has come upon it (apa E(p6aoEV1/p’ úJ.Lâç T1 P(xatkFi(x iou 9cov, 11.20). Secondly, the crowd is a

’wicked generation’ (YEVEà novrlpa) because it seeks a sign but

refuses to repent at the Jonah-like sign of Jesus’ preaching (11.29-32).This description of the crowd as a wicked generation recalls Jesus’

earlier characterization of the crowd during his Galilean ministry(7.31-35; 9.41).

4. Having narrated Jesus’ discourses to the disciples and crowd, in

11.39-52 the Lukan narrator focuses upon the religious leaders. 27There has already been a history of conflict between Jesus and the

Pharisees and lawyers (5.17, 21, 30; 6.2, 7; 7.30). Moreover, Jesus’

first meal in the home of a Pharisee (7.36-50) resulted in conflict. It isnot surprising, therefore, that this discourse, which takes place in the

context of a meal, concludes with increased hostility on the part of the

religious leaders who, the narrator says, began interrogating Jesus and

plotting to trap him (11.53-54).The conflict arises when Jesus’ host is amazed (E9avp,aaEV, 11.38)

that he does not wash before eating, the same reaction manifested bythe crowd in the previous discourse (11.14). In response, the Lord

according to Luke’, JSNT 34 (1988), pp. 21-46; and Tannehill, The Narrative

Unity of Luke-Acts, pp. 141-66.

27. For Luke’s portrayal of the religious leaders, especially the Pharisees, see

J.T. Carroll, ’Luke’s Portrayal of the Pharisees’, CBQ 50 (1988), pp. 604-21;

Kingsbury, Conflict in Luke, pp. 79-107; M.A. Powell, ’The Religious Leaders in

Luke: A Literary-Critical Study’, JBL 109 (1990), pp. 93-110; Tannehill, Narrative

Unity in Luke—Acts, pp. 169-99.








69

(6 KupioS, 11.39) pronounces a series of woes upon the Pharisees and

lawyers (11.39-42). The use of ’Lord’ rather than ’Jesus’ is unusual,

and suggests that the narrator is emphasizing Jesus’ authority vis-A-visthat of the religious leaders.

The conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees concerns ritual purityand discloses two opposing points of view. Whereas the Pharisees

define ritual purity in terms of external ablutions, Jesus defines it in

terms of almsgiving: ’give alms, and behold everything will be clean

for you’ (11.41). The theme of money and possessions will become

increasingly important as the narrative progresses.5. Thus far, the Lukan narrator has reported discourses by Jesus to

the disciples, the crowd and the religious leaders. In l2.lb-13.9 he

narrates one of the longest discourses of the journey section, a

discourse whose audience alternates between the disciples and the

crowd. 28

Although the discourse alternates between the crowd and the disciples,the reader can suppose that the disciples hear what Jesus says to the

crowd, and that the crowd hears what Jesus says to the disciples.Moreover, this technique invites the reader to compare what Jesus

says to each group.The Lukan narrator begins by noting the countless thousands of the

crowd (iwv >upiG5wv TOD 6xXou, 12.1) who press upon Jesus,

suggesting that despite his harsh discourse to the crowd in ch. 11, the

number of people following Jesus has not decreased .2’ The Lukan

narrator notes, however, that Jesus speaks to his disciples first

(7t pw’tov, 12.1), an indication that he will address the crowd later.

Jesus’ discourse to the disciples establishes a contrast between the pointof view which the disciples should espouse and the point of view of

the Pharisees, described in the previous discourse (11.39-52). It is

summed up in the phrase: ’avoid the leaven of the Pharisees which is

28. In fact, Luke speaks of the crowd in 12.13 and the crowds in 12.54, but this

does not indicate two different characters.

29. Although the composition of the crowd undoubtedly changes, the narrator

seems to view ’the crowd’ as a constant character.








70

hypocrisy’ (12.1). Thus one can infer that whereas the Pharisees are

concerned about human esteem, the disciples must seek the esteem of

God.

When someone from the crowd (Tiq iK Tou 6XXou) asks Jesus to

settle an inheritance dispute (12.13), the narrator notes that Jesus

addresses the entire crowd (El7tEV 8i 1tpOç aviovS) rather than justthe individual, 31 warning all to avoid greed (7tÀEoVEçta) and tellingthem the parable of the Rich Fool. Although it is not explicitly stated,it appears that some members of the crowd are dangerously close to

the evaluative

pointof view of the Pharisees whom Jesus counseled to

give alms if they wish to become clean (11.41).But it is not just the crowd that needs instruction on the proper use

of possessions. In 12.22 the discourse returns to the disciples, and

Jesus encourages them not to be anxious (u/q gFptgv6c-cE) about what

they will eat and wear. Demanding more from his disciples than from

the crowd, he tells them to sell their possessions and give alms (SoreÈÀET1J.LocrúvT1v, 12.33). The counsel to give alms, of course, recalls

Jesus’ earlier instruction to the Pharisees (11.41). Finally, Jesus

encourages the disciples to view themselves as watchful servants and

faithful stewards (12.35-48), and warns them that he will be a cause of

division (12.49-53).In 12.54 the discourse returns to the crowd whose members are

now addressed as hypocrites (~7rOKptc(xi) because they do not discern

the signs of the times (12.56). By calling the members of the crowd

hypocrites, Jesus associates them with the Pharisees whose leaven is

hypocrisy (12.1). In 13.1-9 Jesus summons the crowd to repentance.His warning, that the crowd will perish if it does not repent (13.2, 5),recalls his earlier description of the crowd as unrepentant (11.32).By the conclusion of this discourse, the reader understands that both

the crowd and the disciples need instruction in the use of possessions.The narrator, however, portrays the disciples as more receptive to

Jesus’ teaching while suggesting that the unrepentant crowd, now

called hypocrites, is dangerously close to the point of view of its

religious leaders.

6. The healing of a crippled woman on the Sabbath (13.10-17)marks the first break in the discourse material begun at 11.1. The

theme of conflict, however, continues as the Lukan narrator aligns the

30. While it might be argued that πρ&oacgr;ζ α&uacgr;τ&ogr;&uacgr;&sfgr; (12.15) refers to the disciples,this is unlikely since the disciples are specifically addressed as such in 12.22.








71

synagogue ruler with the Pharisees by revealing the ruler’s motivation

for reprimanding the crowd: ’the leader of the synagogue was indig-nant that Jesus had cured on the Sabbath’

(13.14).Thus the narrator

has Jesus respond, ’hypocrites’ (unoxpmai, 13.15), thereby associat-

ing the ruler with the Pharisees. In contrast, the narrator aligns the

crippled woman and the crowd with Jesus by noting that the woman

glorified God (13.13), and the crowd rejoiced at the glorious deeds

done by him ( I 3.17).=&dquo;When someone «iq) asks if only a few will be saved (13.23a), the

narrator says that Jesus

respondedto them

(npos (x~,ro,6q,13.23), and

there follows a discourse (13.23b-30). Although the audience is not

identified, there are indications that the narrator has the crowd in

mind. The narrator notes, ’Jesus was passing through towns and

villages teaching as he went’ (13.22). Then, in the parable of the

doorkeeper, the people respond to the doorkeeper, ’We ate and drank

in your company and you taught in our streets’ (13.26). Thus there is

a correspondence between the parable and what Jesus is actuallydoing: eating and drinking with the crowd, and teaching in their towns

and villages. The crowd, then, is likened to the people within the

parable; they are workers of iniquity (ip-y6crcct a5i)dac;, 13.27) and

will not enter the kingdom if they do not repent.7. In 13.31-14.6 the discourse material is interrupted for only the

second time since 11.1 by two episodes which involve the Pharisees.

In the first (13.31-33) they appear in a positive light, warning Jesus to

flee from Herod’s territory. The second, the healing of a man on theSabbath in the home of a leader of the Pharisees (14.1-6), becomes the

setting for a second discourse to the Pharisees and lawyers (14.8-24).The hostility of the Pharisees is apparent since they watch Jesus

closely (771(Y(XV 7tapa’tTlPOÚJ.LEVOl aútóv, 14.1, see 11.53-54). Jesus’

discourse does not result in open hostility, but it does highlight the

contrasting points of view espoused by him and the Pharisees.

Whereas the Pharisees embrace a point of view which humbles

31. R.F. O’Toole (’Some Exegetical Reflections on Luke 13,10-17’, Bib 73

[1992], pp. 84-107) notes that the woman becomes a model for the whole crowd

and resembles the grain of mustard seed and the leaven. He writes, ’Her crippledcondition rendered her small and insignificant, yet her cure and positive response to

what God and Christ did for her reveal her as full of hope and potential as are theseed and leaven’ (p. 96).








72

oneself,32 Jesus upholds a point of view which humbles oneself

(14.11). Furthermore, whereas the Pharisees view the kingdom as a

banquetto which

onlythe

socially acceptablewill be

invited,Jesus

views it as a banquet to which the poor, the lame, the blind and the

crippled will be invited (14.12-14, 15-24): the sinners and tax

collector with whom he shares table fellowship (15.1-2).8. As he journeys to Jerusalem (14.25), Jesus addresses another

discourse to the crowd (14.26-35). While the discourse is a stern

warning about the demands of discipleship, it also implies that certain

members of the crowd are

capableof

becoming disciplesif

theycalculate the cost and make the necessary sacrifices. Thus Jesus’ state-

ment, toward the end of the discourse, that those who do not renounce

all of their possessions cannot be his disciples (14.33), recalls his

earlier exhortation to the disciples to sell their possessions (12.33),and foreshadows his challenge to the Rich Ruler (18.22).

9. The longest speech of the journey narrative is found in 15.3-

17.10. It is addressed in alternating fashion to the Pharisees and

scribes, and to the disciples.

As in the case of the discourse addressed to the disciples and crowd

(l2.lb-13.9), the readercan

suppose that this speech is spoken in thehearing of both groups. Moreover, this mixed discourse invites the

reader to compare two groups.The discourse begins as Jesus’ response to the Pharisees and scribes

who grumble (5iEy6yyu§ov) because he eats with tax collectors and

sinners (15.2). The grumbling of the religious leaders recalls a similar

reaction to Jesus’ table fellowship with Levi (5.30) and foreshadows

the reaction others will have when he stays at the house of Zacchaeus(19.7 ).33 Most importantly, Jesus’ table fellowship with sinners

signifies a break with the Pharisees and scribes who no longer invite

32. This is confirmed by the narrator’s comment in 14.7 that Jesus told the

parable because he noticed how the guests were choosing the places of honor at

table. Note that in 11.43 Jesus characterizes the Pharisees as those who love the seat

of honor in the synagogue and greetings in market places.33. The identity of those who grumble when Jesus accepts hospitality from

Zacchaeus is not clear. Luke describes them as π&aacgr;ντϵ&sfgr;.








73

him to dine with them. In response to the grumbling of the Pharisees

and scribes, Jesus tells the parables of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin

and the Prodigal Son.Without mentioning a change of time or place, the Lukan narrator

says that Jesus addressed his disciples (16.1), telling them the parableof the Dishonest Steward (16.2-13), a lesson about the correct use of

possessions. In 16.14 the narrator informs the reader that the

Pharisees, who loved money (TtX6cp-ljpot), heard the parable and

mocked Jesus. Their ridicule leads Jesus to characterize them as self-

righteous (16.15) and to address the parable of the Rich Man andLazarus (16.19-31) to them. Thus there is a sharp contrast between

the evaluative point of view of Jesus and that of the Pharisees.

Whereas Jesus seeks the esteem of God and views possessions as

capable of alienating one from God, the Pharisees justify themselves

before human beings and are lovers of money. They have not heeded

Jesus’ advice to give alms.

Jesus’

disciples, however,are still in need of instruction. In the final

segment of this discourse (17.1-10), therefore, he warns them not to

scandalize each other, explains the power of faith, and encourages

them to view themselves as servants who have only done their duty(17.1-10).

10. The cleansing of the ten lepers (17.11-19) and the Pharisees’

inquiry about the kingdom of God (17.20-21) interrupt the discourse

material

begunat 11.1 for a third time. The latter incident, however,

becomes the occasion for a discourse (17.22-18.14) addressed to the

disciples. The Son of Man will be rejected by this generation but will

return to vindicate his disciples. The rejection of the Son of Man by’this generation’ (17.25) brings to a climax a series of references to

the crowd and religious leaders who comprise ’this generation’ (7.31;9.41; 11.29, 30, 32, 50, 51). The parables which conclude this

discourse teach the

disciplesthat God will vindicate his elect (18.1-8),

and warn them not to trust in their own righteousness (18.9-14).34

34. Whether or not the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican is addressed to

the disciples is problematic. The narrator says that Jesus told the parable ’to those

who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else’. While

one immediately thinks of the Pharisees, it is possible that the Lukan narrator intends

certain members of Jesus’ own disciples, for in the next episode the disciples try to

prevent the children from coming to Jesus.








74

11. The final discourse of the journey is the parable of the Pounds

(19.12-27) which, the narrator says, Jesus told ’because he was near

Jerusalem and

they thought (50KEiv ot~To6q)that the

kingdomof God

would appear there immediately’ (19.11). Although the audience of

the parable is not specified further, its content envisions Jesus’

disciples, who (like the servants) must act industriously in the periodof his absence, and the religious leaders and those members of the

crowd who (like the citizens) oppose Jesus’ kingship. Thus the final

discourse serves as an allegory of the great conflict that is about to

come.

Conclusion

Inasmuch as the discourse material is only a part, albeit the greaterpart, of the journey narrative, it does not disclose the full meaning of

the narrative. Nevertheless, I suggest that this material contributes to

an understanding of the journey section in at least one significant way:

it heightens the reader’s appreciation of the conflict between Jesus and

Israel by exposing the contrasting points of view espoused by Jesus on

the one hand and the crowd and its religious leaders on the other.

For example, Jesus’ discourses to the Pharisees and lawyers reveal

conflicting points of view over ritual purity, the nature of the king-dom of God, Jesus’ association with sinners, and the correct use of

possessions. Whereas the Pharisees espouse an external purity, would

exclude certain kinds of people from the kingdom, and are lovers of

money, Jesus proclaims a purity that derives from almsgiving, sees an

inherent contradiction in allegiance to possessions and allegiance to

God, and views the appearance of the kingdom as a moment of greatreversal. As a result, these discourses disclose a conflict between the

evaluative point of view of Jesus on the one hand, and that of the

Pharisees and lawyers on the other.

The conflict between Jesus and the crowd is more subtle. On the one

hand remarks of the Lukan narrator and the content of Jesus’

discourses portray the crowd as following Jesus, as favorably disposedtoward him, and as a potential pool of disciples. Moreover, there

are members of the crowd who are well-disposed to Jesus, for

example, the crippled woman and Zacchaeus.35 Nonetheless, some are

35. One is called a daughter of Abraham (13.16), the other a son of Abraham

(19.9).








75

dangerously close to the point of view espoused by the Pharisees and

lawyers. Some are avaricious and do not recognize the presence of the

kingdom in Jesus’ ministry. Most importantly, the vast majority of thecrowd has not repented, making them a wicked generation. One mightsay that the crowd stands between Jesus and its religious leaders,undecided with whom it will align itself.36Viewed in the context of Luke’s wider narrative, the conflict

disclosed in the journey leads to Jesus’ death. When the members of

the council bring Jesus to Pilate they accuse him of misleading their

nation (to Ë8voç T1J.LWV) by opposing the payment of taxes and byclaiming that he is the messiah (23.2). Pilate, however, tells the chief

priests and the crowds (toùç åPX1EPEtÇ Kai toùç 6xXouq) that he

finds no guilt in Jesus. They respond, ’He is inciting the people (iovXa6v) with his teaching throughout all Judaea, from Galilee where he

began even to here’ (23.5).37 The phrase, ’from Galilee where he

36. Note that at the end of the journey (19.39) the Lukan narrator speaks of thePharisees in the crowd (τινϵ&sfgr; τ&OHacgr;ν Φαρτσατ&OHacgr;ν &aacgr;π&oacgr; τo&uacgr; &oacgr;χλ&ogr;ν) which suggests a

close association between the two.

37. As is well known, once Jesus enters Jerusalem, the Pharisees disappear from

Luke’s narrative. Carroll (’Luke’s Portrayal of the Pharisees’) has convincinglyargued that Luke does not present them as direct participants in Jesus’ condemnation

and death because, in Acts, they help to legitimiate the early Christian movement:

they represent an important link connecting the Gentile church to its Jewish heritage.They serve to legitimate the Gentile Christian movement, whose hero is Paul, himself

a Pharisee. For Luke to depict the Pharisees as direct participants in the proceedingsagainst Jesus, the apostles, Stephen, or Paul, would undermine their positive legitimat-ing function in the narrative (p. 620).

The scribes, however, do provide a link between Jesus’ opponents in the journeynarrative (the Pharisees and the scribes/lawyers) and in Jerusalem (chief priests,scribes, elders). In the journey narrative the terms ’scribe’ (γραμματϵ&uacgr;&sfgr; and

’lawyer’ (ν&ogr;μτκ&oacgr;&sfgr;) are coterminous (see 11.52-53). The scribes/lawyers are the

cohorts of the Pharisees (11.45; 14.3; 15.2), and their presence in Jerusalem

establishes a link between Jesus’ opponents while on his journey and his opponentsin Jerusalem.

It-should also be noted that after the journey narrative, the term λαó&sfgr; (19.47, 48;

20.1, 6, 9, 19, 26, 45; 21.23, 38; 22.2, 66; 23.5, 13, 14, 27, 35; 24.19) appears

more regularly than öχλo&sfgr; (22.6, 47; 23.4, 48). While λαó&sfgr; has a more theologicalsense (the covenant people) than &Oacgr;χλ&ogr;&sfgr;, one should not draw too sharp a distincion

between the two terms. Like the crowd, the people receive Jesus favorably (19.48;

21.38). In the Passion Narrative, however, they join the chief priests and rulers

(&aacgr;ρχ&ogr;ντα&sfgr;) in asking for the release of Barabbas (23.13, 18). After Jesus’ death,








76

began even to here’ (6cp~6c,,Fvoq ano tílç raÀ1Àálaç Ëroç 15E) shows

that the religious leaders have Jesus’ entire ministry in view: Galilee

(4.14-9.50); the great journeyto

Jerusalem (9.51-19.46); Jerusalem(19.47-21.38). While each portion of this ministry contributes to the

conflict between Jesus and Israel, the longest and most detailed account

of the conflict is found in the journey section where the Lukan

narrator makes use of a series of discourses to describe the ideologicalconflict between Jesus and Israel, a conflict which revolves around the

presence of the kingdom of God, the need for repentance, the correct

use of

possessions,and ritual

purity. 31One of the narrative functions

of the journey section therefore, is to inform the reader why and how

Jesus came into conflict with Israel.

however, they return home beating their breasts (23.48).38. Prior to the journey narrative, the conflict between Jesus, the crowd, and the

religious leaders is underdeveloped. For example, at the beginning of the GospelJohn the Baptist addressed the crowds as γϵνν&eeacgr;ματα &eacgr;χτδν&OHacgr;ν (’brood of vipers’)and warns them to repent (3.7-9). The crowd, however, seems well disposed to this

call for repentance, asking John, ’What then shall we do?’ At the beginning of his

own ministry Jesus is rejected at Nazareth (4.14-30), but immediately following this

incident he receives a warm reception in Capernaum and other Galilean cities. In

7.31-35, after testifying on behalf of John the Baptist, Jesus accuses the people of

this generation of being fickle; and in 9.41, before exorcizing a young boy, he com-

plains that this is a faithless and perverse generation. These incidents, however, are

hardly enough to warrant a full-scale conflict between Jesus and the crowd.

There are more incidents of conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders, but

not as many as one might imagine. In 5.17-6.11 Luke reports a series of controver-

sies between Jesus and the religious leaders. At the end of these controversies the

religious leaders are enraged (6.11), but there is no plot to kill Jesus as in Mk 3.6. In

7.30 the Lukan narrator tells us that the Pharisees and scribes were not baptized byJohn and rejected God’s plan for them, and in 7.39 Simon the Pharisee is scandal-

ized that Jesus allows a sinful woman to touch him. While the religious leaders are

clearly depicted as hostile toward Jesus, their hostility is not as great as one mightexpect. After the journey narrative Luke recounts Jesus’ Jerusalem ministry (19.47-

21.38). This ministry leads him into conflict with the chief priests, the scribes and

the elders because he teaches daily in the temple and his teaching finds a favorable

reception among the people.








77

ABSTRACT

After reviewing the problems presented by Luke’s journey narrative (9.51-19.46),this essay proposes to view the Lukan journey from a literary-critical perspective. It

proposes that the Lukan narrator often employs changes of time and place to intro-

duce discourses by Jesus to the disciples, the crowd and the religious leaders. An

examination of these discourses, which make up the bulk of the journey narrative,

discloses the conflicting points of view espoused by Jesus on the one hand, and the

crowd and its religious leaders on the other hand. Jesus’ conflict with Israel, as he

journeys to Jerusalem, helps to explain his rejection at Jerusalem.

1993 - frank j. matera - jesus' journey to jerusalem (luke 9.51-19.46). a conflict with israel

Documents