The Annunciation
The angel Gabriel is busy in the opening chapter of Luke, bringing messages about unexpected pregnancies to both Zechariah and Mary. His conversation with Mary, remembered in church tradition as the Annunciation, frequently attracts the imagination of artists.
Heaven and earth collide in the Annunciation, making the fearful appearance of an angel and the virtue of Mary a challenge to depict side by side in visual art (see Henry Ossawa Tanner’s The Annunciation of 1898). Often Mary is depicted as calm and pensive. Often images of fecundity, such as flowers or a garden, are included (see James B. Janknegt’s modern nod to that imagery in his Joyful MysteryA mystery is something secret, hidden and not perceived by ordinary means. In the book of Daniel a significant mystery is revealed through divine revelation (Daniel 2); Paul speaks of a mystery of God in Romans 11 and again in Ephesians 3. In speaking of... #1: Annunciation of 2007). Some medieval painters place Mary in a walled-off estate or a room with strong walls, to call attention either to her virginity or to her calling to a special, holyHoly is a term that originally meant set apart for the worship or service of God. While the term may refer to people, objects, time, or places, holiness in Judaism and Christianity primarily denotes the realm of the divine task. Painters sometimes include the Holy Spirit as active in the scene or standing by. A 21st-century painting by PaulThe Apostle Paul, originally known as Saul of Tarsus, was the author of several New Testament letters and the founder of many Christian communities. Woelfel (Annunciation) includes the delightful detail of a kneeling Gabriel having removed his sandals as he delivers the message to Mary, indicating that her own body is holy ground (compare MosesProphet who led Israel out of Egypt to the Promised Land and received the law at Sinai. at the burning bush in Exodus 3:5).
Hymnwriters also work with this scene, which elevates Mary’s faithful discipleship and prompts reflections on the IncarnationIncarnation literally means "embodied in flesh." It is a Christian doctrine, based on the witness in John's Gospel, that God's Word was made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds confess the central importance of the incarnation of Jesus. of JesusJesus is the Messiah whose life, death, and resurrection are God's saving act for humanity.. A popular example is the carol “The Angel Gabriel from Heaven Came,” which retells the story.
The Magnificat
When Mary encounters her relative ElizabethMother of John the Baptist. in Luke 1:39-56, their meeting becomes an occasion for the narrative to celebrate God’s plan working itself out in the two women’s pregnancies. Most notably, Mary offers a song of praise called the “Magnificat” (named after the first word in the Latin translation of the song), which describes God’s goodness to her and God’s faithfulness to the people of Israel. The song also extols the reversals God effects in human society, characterizing God as committed to ensuring the well-being of people who suffer from their disadvantages.
The song has inspired innumerable poems and musical pieces over the years, including a great deal of liturgical music. Musical adaptations in the modern period cover a broad range of styles, from Johann Sebastian Bach’s “Magnificat” (1723 and 1733), to Rory Cooney’s peppy hymn “Canticle of the Turning” (1990), to U2’s stirring “Magnificent” (2009).
Interpreters often call attention to the song’s vision of a disrupted social order, which makes Mary a poor fit for the “meek and mild” reputation that some traditions have attached to her. Her song’s focus on power, hunger, and wealth makes it popular among those who cast Mary in a more revolutionary mold, including liberation theologians. Occasionally one hears the claim that the government of Guatemala once banned the singing and recitation of the “Magnificat” in churches, in an attempt to suppress dissent, but this appears to be an unsubstantiated church legend given a boost by the internet.
The Christmas Story
Every year the Christmas story told in Luke is reenacted in churches, visualized in crèches, and heard recited in the King James Version of the Bible on broadcast television by Linus in “A Charlie Brown Christmas” (1965). According to the King James Version of Luke 2:9, which Linus reads alone on a stage in that classic show, when the shepherds in the field are encountered by angels with news of the Messiah’s birth, “They were sore afraid.”
The story of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is memorialized in countless Christmas songs, both sacred and secular. Artists depict the simplicity of Jesus’ birth and the feeding trough that doubles as a cradle.
It is noteworthy how Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth has become merged with the story told in MatthewA tax collector who became one of Jesus' 12 disciples. 1-2. In Luke, angels and shepherds play significant roles in bearing witness to Christmas wonder right away. Matthew’s version includes magi who follow a star to find the baby sometime after Jesus’ birth has occurred. The Christmas stories told in Matthew and Luke have merged into a single story in present-day telling. This offers an illustration of how interpretations and retellings of biblical stories often create new, expanded stories that become deeply embedded in liturgies, practices, traditions, and memory. Just ask the magi who have to tiptoe their way around sheep in the life-sized manger scene in front of the church down the street.
Jesus in the TempleThe Jerusalem temple, unlike the tabernacle, was a permanent structure, although (like the tabernacle) it was a place of worship and religious activity. On one occasion Jesus felt such activity was unacceptable and, as reported in all four Gospels, drove from the temple those engaged...
There is only one story in all four Gospels that offers a glimpse of Jesus during the time between his infancy and the onset of his public ministry as an adult. That story, told in Luke 2:39-52, describes a 12-year-old Jesus who slips away from his parents and other travelers who are returning to Galilee after a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Eventually his parents find him in the Jerusalem temple, where he amazes Jewish teachers with his insights.
For one thing, this passage—as the lone exception to the pattern of no biblical stories about Jesus’ childhood—reminds readers of how little is known about Jesus’ early years. (There are some ancient Christian writings that include stories about Jesus as a boy, but those stories are generally regarded as legendary and therefore more whimsical than rooted in reliable traditions. They come from a time, probably over one hundred years, after the biblical Gospels were written.)
For another thing, this passage stokes curiosity about the Incarnation. If Jesus is indeed both human and divine, what would that mean for him as a young person, someone still learning, developing, and living under the authority of parents? When the passage concludes with the line “Jesus increased in wisdomWisdom encompasses the qualities of experience, knowledge, and good judgment. The Old Testament book of Proverbs, which sometimes invokes a Woman as the personification of Wisdom, is a collection of aphorisms and moral teachings. Along with other biblical passages, it teaches, "The fear of the... and in years,” it indicates that he is not born with encyclopedic knowledge. He grows, which means he changes. He matures. His perspective adapts over the years. At the same time, he remains “obedient” to his parents, as would be expected of any child. Luke suggests that he appears to be an ordinary child, although the flashes of brilliance in the temple among the teachers indicate something special about him, too. Jesus is not simply a divine mind residing in a human body or somehow a God pretending to be human. He takes on humanity in every respect. The Christmas carol “Once in Royal David’s City” captures that character of Jesus well with this lyric about his childhood, which originated in a poem by Cecil Frances Alexander (1848): “Jesus is our childhood’s pattern; day by day, like us he grew; he was little, weak, and helpless; tears and smiles like us he knew.”
John the Baptizer’s Teachings to Tax Collectors and Soldiers
Only Luke’s Gospel contains descriptions of John the Baptizer instructing tax collectors and soldiers about how to conduct themselves (Luke 3:12-14). Although the descriptions are brief, they nevertheless provide insight into Luke’s message.
Members of both groups, tax collectors and soldiers, ask John the same question: “What should we do?” He tells the former, “Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you,” and to the latter he says, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages.” In some periods of the church’s history, those instructions have been taken to support the notion that Christians can serve in governmental positions and in militaries, as long as they conduct themselves honorably. John addresses people doing work that was known to harass and encumber the population of Roman-occupied Judea and Galilee and tells them that they do not need to leave their jobs; they merely need to do their jobs the right way. John forbids them from taking advantage of their authority to get wealthy or to intimidate others. Opportunities to do so were remarkably easy and commonplace for Roman tax collectors and soldiers.
Some interpreters hold that Luke’s Gospel is generally more friendly toward—or less demanding of—people who enjoyed privileges in the Roman world. Some other passages in Luke appear to counter that hypothesis, but John’s teachings to tax collectors and soldiers evidently support it.
Jesus’ First Sermon and the Beginning of His Public Ministry
Every Gospel tells its story about Jesus with its own particular emphases. Luke calls attention to the prophetic character of Jesus and his ministry. In Luke, Jesus’ preaching often accents issues pertaining to justice and oppression. Jesus’ eventual rejection and death are also portrayed as consequences of his prophetic activity.
The other Gospels that describe Jesus preaching in a synagogueA synagogue is a Jewish house of worship. Jesus often taught in synagogues where he sometimes ran afoul of Jewish leaders. In the book of Acts, Paul and others attend synagogues and teach in them. located in his hometown of Nazareth situate that episode at a time after Jesus’ public ministry is already well underway (Matthew 13:54-58; Mark 6:1-6). In Luke, however, the first extensively narrated scene in Jesus’ public ministry is the scene in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30). Luke’s narrative sequence makes Jesus’ sermon and subsequent rejection programmatic, meaning the events are especially revelatory for understanding the whole of the story. They set the stage, so to speak. Luke also provides much more information in comparison to what appears in similar scenes in Matthew and Mark. Luke describes the scripture Jesus reads, his references to Elijah’s and Elisha’s ministries, and the crowd’s attempt to kill him. Not only is this prophet unwelcome in his hometown, his life is in danger there!
Interpreters debate why Jesus refers to ElijahA miracle working Israelite prophet who opposed worship of Baal. going to Zarephath and ElishaMiracle working prophet who succeeded Elijah. healing a Syrian military commander. Those are two notable scenes from the Old Testament in which a prophet is a conduit for miraculous assistance to gentiles. Some interpreters see in Luke’s account of Jesus encountering resistance in Nazareth a promise that Jesus intends to benefit gentiles, even perhaps at the expense of his fellow Jews. Those interpretations do not hold, however, because throughout Luke Jesus remains interested in addressing Jewish audiences. He never presents his ministry and message as attempts to move away from Judaism or to create a new religion. The same is true for the church throughout most of the Acts of the Apostles, which was written by the same person who wrote the Gospel of Luke. Other interpreters insist that, when Jesus refers to Elijah and Elisha, Luke is emphasizing the ways in which prophets often refuse to give special treatment to the people who know them best. In other words, it is the nature of prophecyProphecy is the gift, inspired by God, of speaking and interpreting the divine will. Prophets such as Amos, Isaiah, and Ezekiel spoke words of judgment and comfort to the people of Israel on behalf of God. to spread blessings around as widely as possible. No one can claim a prophet as their own special source or guarantor of blessings. If that is the case, then Jesus’ statements are what causes the crowd in Nazareth to become so angered. Evidently they do not appreciate being accused of intending to hoard the prophetic benefits all to themselves.
The Anointing Woman
Among the stories that appear in Luke alone and not in any other Gospel is one about a woman who kisses Jesus’ feet and washes them with her tears (Luke 7:36-50). As Jesus dines as a guest in the home of a Pharisee named Simon, an unnamed woman enters the house and expresses great affection and gratitude toward Jesus. He explains that her joy is a response to his forgiving her sins. It is a touching, moving story. Nevertheless, the passage has a history of being interpreted with excessive creativity and hasty presumptions. Some of those interpretations have embedded themselves deep in Christian traditions and are difficult to extricate and correct.
Interpreters note that there is something very intimate about this woman’s actions. Add to that the offense that Simon takes at the woman and her behavior, and some interpreters surmise that there is something erotic or at least provocative and unseemly about the woman’s deeds. However, nothing in the passage indicates the woman is a prostitute. Interpreters sometimes assume she is, though, because of her effusive affection and also because Simon labels her as a “sinner” and Jesus refers to her “many sins.” Sinfulness, however, obviously comes in many forms. When interpreters assume she is sexually promiscuous, because she is a notorious “sinner,” that seems to say more about their interests and their views of what makes for a misbehaving woman than it says about what her undescribed sins might be. After all, no one assumes Simon PeterPeter (also known as Cephas, Simon Peter) was the disciple who denied Jesus during his trial but later became a leader in proclaiming Jesus. must be a sex worker when he refers to himself as a “sinful man” in Luke 5:8.
Other Gospels include stories about women who anointTo anoint is to pour oil, water, or other substances on a person's head in a ritual fashion. In the Old Testament the prophet Samuel anointed David; and in Luke's gospel Jesus declared that he was anointed by the Spirit to bring good news to... Jesus’ body in similar but still quite different ways. In Mark 14:3-9, an unnamed woman in Bethany anoints Jesus’ head with oil just prior to his last full day with his followers before his execution. Jesus interprets her act as preparing his body for burial. In John 12:1-8, Mary of BethanyThe sister of Martha and of Lazarus. anoints Jesus’ feet with perfume and then wipes them with her hair. Scholars hypothesize that a single event or story about an anointing woman might lie behind these three Gospel stories. To some, that makes more sense than assuming that such an intimate, tactile expression happened to Jesus three different times, and perhaps initiated by three different women during the course of Jesus’ public ministry. In addition, both Mark and Luke describe a separate anointing—rather, an attempted anointing—of Jesus’ corpse when Mary MagdaleneFollower of Jesus and among the first to reach Jesus' tomb on Easter. and other women go to Jesus’ tomb with spices on Easter morning. Confusion about the various Marys and the various anointing stories may reside behind medieval interpretations of Luke 7:36-50 that propose Mary Magdalene is the woman who bathes and kisses Jesus’ feet in the home of Simon the Pharisee.
Mary Magdalene
All four Gospels report that Mary from the village of Magdala, or Mary Magdalene, was one of Jesus’ faithful followers and also present at Jesus’ empty tomb on Easter morning. It is hardly controversial to assert that she was a discipleA disciple is a person who accepts and follows the pronouncements of a teacher. Jesus chose twelve disciples (also called "apostles" in some of the Gospels) to follow him and bear witness to his message Anyone who (like them) follows Jesus is engaged in Christian... of Jesus and prominent among the whole company of his disciples. Luke reveals more information about her, however, in a short description of various women who are part of Jesus’ movement (Luke 8:1-3). That description describes those women as, among other things, patrons of the movement. They keep things moving.
Luke also includes the detail that seven demons had been cast out of Mary Magdalene. This information, along with other passages, has inspired a raft of unhelpful interpretations that have defamed Mary and her reputation. A number of those interpretations created the persistent mischaracterization that Mary was once a prostitute, which is something no New Testament passage either states or implies. The misogynistic assumption that propels that mischaracterization, whether intended or not, is that Mary must have been an arch-sinner (because seven demons possessed her) and therefore a prostitute. The interpretations say more about male interpreters’ voyeurism and desire to hypersexualize Mary than they say about any evidence found in biblical texts.
Mary’s erroneous and disparaging reputation got attached to her at least as early as the sixth century, when a sermon by Pope Gregory the Great identified her as a prostitute. The idea became widespread through the western (Roman Catholic) church in the Middle Ages, but it appears never to have gained traction in the eastern (Orthodox) churches. It seems that Mary became equated with the unnamed woman who kisses Jesus’ feet and washes them with her tears in Luke 7:36-50. (That passage does not identify that woman as a prostitute, either.) Equating Mary Magdalene with the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11 is also part of the history of misguided misinterpretation about this follower of Jesus.
No biblical writings disclose what happened to Mary Magdalene after Easter. There are, however, colorful legends about what she did next, as there are such legends about all of Jesus’ apostles. Some legends place her death in Ephesus, others in what is now France. The most widespread legends describe her as an effective and persecuted evangelist, a cause for miracles, and also a contemplative recluse.
The Good SamaritanSamaritans were a people who mostly lived between Galilee and Judea and were avoided or shunned by mainstream Judaism. Jesus' message, however, was so inclusive that he often spoke favorably of Samaritans as he did with the woman at the well (John 4) and in...
Even people with no exposure to the Bible might have heard of “the good Samaritan” or at least that phrase. Although Jesus never refers to the Samaritan in his famous parableA parable is a brief story with a setting, an action, and a result. A prominent aspect of Jesus' teaching was telling parables to illustrate something about the kingdom, or reign, of God. (Luke 10:29-37) as “good,” the name has stuck.
What makes the Samaritan such a powerful character in Jesus’ parable, more than his goodness, is his identity as a Samaritan. The parable uses a person whom Jesus’ audience might consider to be an outsider or a morally deficient person to be the exemplar of neighborliness. The parable tries to compel Jesus’ conversation partner, “the expert in the law” who tries to test Jesus (Luke 10:25-28), to learn what neighborliness looks like from someone—a Samaritan!—he would think has no interest in God’s law.
Often the parable is interpreted as simple moralism, however. The offense of the Samaritan-as-hero revelation becomes stripped away, and the parable is made to be a story encouraging people to be better citizens. There is nothing wrong with being a good citizen, but the parable is about more than that. Those limited interpretations often show up in popular understandings of the parable, such as when someone who helps a stranded motorist change a flat tire gets dubbed a good Samaritan. Good Samaritan laws are statutes that protect aid-givers from being sued if they unintentionally harm someone who is injured in the process of trying to be helpful. Those laws became better known to people of certain generations when one such law was a plot point in the series finale of the popular television show Seinfeld (1998). (However, the law in question in that episode was really a duty-to-rescue law, even though the characters in the show wrongly called it a good Samaritan law).
One of the more thoughtful and theologically astute interpretations of the good Samaritan and his actions came in a sermon by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on the night before his assassination (April 3, 1968). Delivered at the Bishop Charles Mason Temple in Memphis while the city’s sanitation workers were on strike, King’s sermon (titled “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop”) urged the congregation to remain committed to the cause and not to give in to fears about their own security. Referring to the parable and the risks to one’s own safety that would come to anyone who dared to give aid to the injured man alongside the road to Jericho, King says that a natural question asked by any passerby would be, “If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?” However, the good Samaritan “reversed the question: ‘If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?’.”
Sins, Debts, and Trespasses
Different Christian denominations recite the Lord’s Prayer in different ways, depending both on how they translate certain words from the Bible and on what those denominations’ preferences are regarding the use of modern or traditional language. Probably one of the most significant differences among the various versions of the Lord’s Prayer in circulation in English centers around the question of what the prayer asks Jesus to forgive. Does the prayer speak of sins, debts, or trespasses?
In Luke’s version of the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11:1-4), the answer is clear: according to the original Greek, the prayer asks God to “forgive us our sins.” However, in many streams of Christian tradition the version of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew’s Gospel has been more influential (see Matthew 6:9-13). Matthew’s version asks God to forgive “debts,” using a term that draws focus specifically to financial restitution. The prayer sees that kind of financial forgiveness and well-being as connected to what God does when forgiving sins (see also Matthew 6:14, which talks about people forgiving one another’s sins or misdeeds).
In various translations of the Bible after the Protestant Reformations, however, words used to indicate financial “debts” also carried moral implications in different languages. Those words in the Lord’s Prayer could therefore do double duty, as it were: they spoke of forgiving monetary debts while alluding to moral misdeeds. As languages and theologies adapted over time, some denominations held onto the vocabulary about “debts” in their recitations of the Lord’s Prayer, because they did not want to lose the prayer’s connections to economic injustice and exploitation. Other denominations used the word “trespasses,” in part because that language seems to have been used in societies in which landed aristocrats saw defending their private property from literal “trespassers” as an important (and oppressive) pursuit. On the whole, and anyway it is sliced, at the heart of Jesus’ prayer is not just a desire to see offenses forgiven but an acknowledgement that economic justice is an unignorable piece of the world that God desires and that God expects humanity to pursue.
Jesus as a Mother Hen
Luke includes a notable instance of Jesus using maternal imagery to describe himself and his commitment to his cause. In Luke 13:34 (see also Matthew 23:37) Jesus laments about Jerusalem, calling it “the city that kills the prophets.” He longs for Jerusalem to accept what he has to offer, saying, “How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” This passage resembles what God says to Israel in one of the deuterocanonical writings, 2 Esdras 1:30.
Maternal imagery for Jesus may be rare in the Gospels, but it is hardly insignificant or unexpected within the biblical tradition. Parts of the Old Testament describe God as a mother, including one who nurses her children to keep them safe and healthy (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:13, 18; IsaiahIsaiah, son of Amoz, who prophesied in Jerusalem, is included among the prophets of the eighth century BCE (along with Amos, Hosea, and Micah)--preachers who boldly proclaimed God's word of judgment against the economic, social, and religious disorders of their time. 42:14; 49:15; 66:12-13).
The Prodigal Son and His Brother
The story Jesus tells about the son who leaves home and returns destitute, only to be welcomed home by his father (Luke 15:11-32), is widely considered one of the New Testament’s most poignant depictions of graceGrace is the unmerited gift of God's love and acceptance. In Martin Luther's favorite expression from the Apostle Paul, we are saved by grace through faith, which means that God showers grace upon us even though we do not deserve it. and forgiveness.
The traditional interpretation of the younger son, the so-called prodigal son, holds that he hits rock bottom and goes home full of remorse and humility, only to be forgiven by a generous father. It is also possible, given that the parable says nothing about sorrow or repentance, that the son goes home with a prepared speech he knows will manipulate his father, tugging at the right heartstrings to get his father to open the home to him. No matter which way one reads the son’s motives, the father’s grace still is remarkable.
The older son, the one working in the field, often receives little attention from interpreters. His actions and dialogue with his father are nevertheless quite meaningful. In the history of interpretation, that son is sometimes presumed to represent the Pharisees and the scribes whose grumbling provokes Jesus to tell the parable in the first place (see Luke 15:2). Rembrandt’s painting “The Return of the Prodigal Son” (c. 1665) illustrates that kind of interpretation well. It depicts the father embracing the son in a beautiful, tender gesture, while off to the side the older son frowns with a judgmental posture. Moreover, that son is hardly dressed like someone who has been working in the fields; his clothing may be a stereotypical representation of his Jewishness and maybe also his relatively higher status. In other words, Rembrandt paints the older son to make him look like a Pharisee, thus implying that his resentful response to his father’s embrace of his brother is somehow emblematic of how Jesus’ opponents despise the grace he shows to others. It is a short walk from there to the longstanding anti-Jewish trope that all Pharisees must be self-righteous hypocrites.
A better way of reading the parable is to note that neither of the two sons necessarily represents the Pharisees, scribes, or even the so-called “sinners” who eat with Jesus (see Luke 15:1-2). Both sons, each from his own perspective, misunderstand the workings of grace, for they do not realize that both of them, by the sheer fact of being sons to the father, belong fully to him and within his home. As the father says at the end, “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.”
How Tall Was ZacchaeusA wealthy chief tax collector in Jericho who came to believe in Jesus.? Or Jesus?
There is an old children’s song of unknown origin that starts by saying, “Zacchaeus was a wee little man; and a wee little man was he.” The song restates a longstanding assumption that Zacchaeus, the wealthy chief tax collectorTax collectors, sometimes called publicans, were unpopular because they were thought to be greedy and unscrupulous. Jesus, however, not only ate with tax collectors but also treated them sympathetically. The fact that he favored such tax collectors as Zacchaeus and Matthew annoyed many pious persons. ... of Jericho, is too short to see Jesus over the crowd and so he climbs a sycamore tree to get a better view (Luke 19:1-10).
There are, however, questions about whether Luke describes Zacchaeus as short. The questions may never yield certain or satisfactory answers, but considering them is still useful insofar as doing so shines light on Zacchaeus’s story and his social context.
Luke is clear that the crowd prevents Zacchaeus from seeing Jesus. What is less clear is why that is the case. In 19:3 the narrative states, “because he was short in stature.” The Greek word translated “stature” is ambiguous in this context, however. That word, which is hēlikia, carries a general sense of diminishment. With that word Luke could be saying that Zacchaeus has little height or physical stature. That would suggest that he simply cannot find a good angle of vision to see over the taller crowd and so he climbs a tree. Luke could instead be saying however, that Zacchaeus has little heft, little acclaim, or little distinction. In other words, maybe the crowd cannot stomach his presence and gives him no respect, despite the power and wealth that he accrues by working for the Roman occupier. (In fact, later in the story, in 19:7, the narrative reveals that the crowd grumbles when Jesus goes to Zacchaeus’s home, because the chief tax collector is such a “sinner.”) That lack of respect would mean that this man of little hēlikia has no way of getting the crowd to give him a break. They could actively try to keep him away from Jesus. Zacchaeus might think it would be dangerous for him, someone with so little hēlikia, someone with such a rotten reputation, to negotiate a crowded public space. In that case it would be safer and less hassle for him to climb a tree, where the crowd might not even think to look for him.
There is no way of knowing with absolute certainty what Luke means by Zacchaeus’s little hēlikia, but exploring the question reminds readers not to make Zacchaeus into a cute or loveable character. He seems to be despised by his neighbors, whether he is short or he is a target for their contempt. When Jesus dines with him, however, everyone’s perspective changes. SalvationSalvation can mean saved from something (deliverance) or for something (redemption). Paul preached that salvation comes through the death of Christ on the cross which redeemed sinners from death and for a grace-filled life. comes to his house, in the presence of Jesus, which means that other people need to see Zacchaeus differently.
It is also possible that Luke means to say that Jesus is the one who is “short in stature” and thus not easily seen in a crowd. The syntax of the 19:3 makes that interpretation less likely than the others discussed above, but if it is true that Jesus was the “wee little man,” then a lotNephew of Abraham and Sarah. of songs will need to be rewritten.
Pontius PilateThe Roman governor who condemned Jesus to death.
The Roman governor (technically, the prefect) of Judea who condemns Jesus to crucifixion eludes easy interpretation. Because each of the four Gospels describes Pontius Pilate’s interactions with Jesus in a distinctive way, because those interactions—especially in Luke’s telling of the story—are rather brief, and because none of the Gospels provides any meaningful insight into Pilate’s state of mind or motives, interpreters often find him to be a curious character.
When it comes to Luke’s account, Pilate seems rather hasty with Jesus (Luke 23:1-5, 13-25). The only spoken exchange between the two of them entails Pilate asking Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus replies with an enigmatic, “You say so.” It is hardly a serious interrogation. Pilate apparently sees the motives of Jesus’ accusers clearly and so he devotes little time to examining Jesus himself. Later in the story, Pilate capitulates to the people he gathers to hear his pronouncements about Jesus: “the chief priests, the leaders, and the people.” Luke is vague about which “leaders” are present, but temple authorities are the most likely candidates. How many of “the people” is quite unclear. This collection of folks appear to force Pilate’s hand, to compel him to send someone he thinks is innocent to his death. It is difficult to imagine why a Roman prefect, someone who possesses a great deal of unquestionable authority, would allow those without jurisdiction to overrule him, unless he simply does not care one iota about Jesus, which is entirely possible.
Some interpreters consider Pilate cornered, as if he is a virtuous tragic hero who wants to do the right thing by releasing Jesus but cannot muster the courage to do so. Sometimes Pilate comes across this way in films and paintings about Jesus’ trial. Those interpretations tend to assign the lion’s share of blame for Jesus’ crucifixion to the Jewish leaders. Those interpretations overinflate Jewish culpability in ways that give implicit sanction to anti-Jewish theologies. They also disregard the tremendous power that a prefect like Pilate possesses when it comes to deciding legal issues. Pilate’s main responsibility as a provincial prefect is to uphold the emperor’s honor and to safeguard Roman prerogatives. That means anyone who proclaims a different “kingdom” and aspires to be a king will not last long. Pilate has little to lose by seeing Jesus executed. Letting Jesus go free is not really an option for him, given the accusations that people bring against Jesus and given Jesus’ lack of any significant social standing.
Better interpretations of Pilate’s behavior and speech in Luke conclude that Luke depicts the prefect as confused. No one quite understands who Jesus is at this climactic point in Luke, Pilate included. As Acts 4:27-28 suggests, everyone is playing some kind of a role here as God’s “plan” works itself out in inexplicable ways. Pilate’s confusion makes him careless. Therefore, films and paintings that depict him as cynical are more on target. In Luke, he comes across as a very powerful man who does not have the insight or the discipline to judge well in these circumstances. He remains, nevertheless, the judge, so even in judging Jesus so recklessly he nevertheless bears the responsibility for what happens next.
The Road to Emmaus
Only Luke’s Gospel contains the story of the resurrected Jesus Christ walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus alongside a pair of his followers who do not recognize who he is (Luke 24:13-35). Once the three of them arrive in Emmaus, Jesus reclines at a table to share a meal with the others, and at last they recognize who he is (“their eyes were opened”) before he disappears from their sight. The two followers, Cleopas and an unnamed companion, quickly return to Jerusalem to tell their associates what has happened.
This passage lends mystery and joy to Luke’s description of Jesus’ resurrection. It contends that the Old Testament bears witness to the need for the MessiahThe Messiah was the one who, it was believed, would come to free the people of Israel from bondage and exile. In Jewish thought the Messiah is the anticipated one who will come, as prophesied by Isaiah. In Christian thought Jesus of Nazareth is identified... to suffer and then rise to glory. It describes Jesus in his resurrection as not immediately recognizable to his friends. It situates a moment of recognition at a table, focused on a meal, which lends a sense of hospitality and fellowship to what it means to encounter the resurrected Christ. Largely due to this passage, Luke asserts that recognizing the resurrection does not happen for people automatically. People’s eyes need to be opened or their memories need to be jogged. Sometimes Jesus shows up in a stranger.
Visual artists who depict this passage often choose one of two parts of the story to illustrate. It is popular, first, to recreate the scene of two disappointed people walking down a road with Jesus, laying bare their disappointment following the crucifixion without being aware that the crucified Christ journeys alongside them. Sadao Watanabe’s “The Walk to Emmaus” (1965) captures the pathos of the experience well. Georges Rouault’s “Road to Emmaus” (1936) accentuates the length and loneliness of the journey, with small figures stepping down a wide path that stretches toward the horizon.
The second part of the story that attracts significant artistic attention is the moment when Cleopas and his companion recognize Jesus, as he breaks bread at the table. The energy of the astonishment makes many of these artworks come alive. Matthias Stom’s “Supper at Emmaus” (1650) is a good classic example. The more modern “Emmaus” by Maximino Cerezo Barredo (2002) is more understated and subtle but still powerful. Some classical artists employ a convention of adding a character, someone working in the kitchen who observes the moment when Jesus reveals himself to his two unsuspecting followers. The kitchen worker often has a look on their face that suggests they know more than they are letting on. They recognize more than Cleopas and his partner. The viewer is, in a sense, in on the joke with that additional character. For examples, see “Kitchen Maid with the Supper at Emmaus” by Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez (1618) and “The Scene in the Kitchen: Christ at Emmaus” by Frans Snyders (1620).