LUKE: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (PART 2)

Luke 16:16 (Matt. 11:12) What does trying to enter the Kingdom by force mean?

“The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force.” Luke 16:16

    (NRSV note has alternative translation: “Everyone is strongly urged to enter it.”)

“From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.” Matthew 11:12

    (NRSV note has alternative translation: “has been coming violently.”)

There is controversy over whether the two versions have the same basic meaning, or whether a single saying has been interpreted in two different ways by the two Gospel writers. It is hard to translate because the verb tense is ambiguous. Commentators disagree among themselves as to the most likely meaning for these two passages.

Those trying to take the kingdom by force are:

    ordinary people eager to enter (they must make an effort to do so, accompanied by renunciations and opposition).

    Satan and demonic forces.

    Zealots attempting to force God's hand by resorting to violent action against Roman authorities.

    Men like the Pharisees who opposed the gospel.

    The Pharisees, who tried to bring about the kingdom through fasting, Bible study, etc.

    Herod Antipas and other Roman opposition.

    “wolves in sheep's clothing” within the Christian body.

Or these verses could be interpreted to say that the Kingdom forces its way in despite opposition.

Luke 18:25 This saying of the Rich Man and the Eye of the Needle (also found in Matt. 19:24 and Mark 10:25) sounds rather harsh. What does it really mean?

Obviously Jesus is using hyperbolic (exaggerated) language, such as when he talks about taking the log out of your own eye first, or plucking out your eye if it offends you.

The rich are condemned in many passages in OT and NT, mainly because they are said to have gotten their wealth at the expense of the poor. Also, because their possessions usually rule them and there is no room for God.

Regarding the immediate context, this saying is preceded by the rich young ruler refusing to give away his goods to the poor. The actual quote is identical in all three gospels, followed by the incredulity of the apostles, who seem to assume that the rich will automatically enter into the Kingdom—WHY? Perhaps because possession of riches was assumed to be a blessing from God, showing his favor on the possessor.

Jesus discounts their possessions as not only not helping them spiritually, but as actually hindering them (“You can't serve both God and Mammon"). For another example of this idea, see James 5:1-6. Jesus concludes by saying that the impossible (passing through the eye of a needle) is nonetheless possible through God.

There is another rabbinical saying about an elephant passing through the eye of a needle to express an impossibility.

Another explanation is that word should be kamilos (cable or rope) rather than kamelos (camel). Only a few late mss. have this reading. This reading makes sense in the context but does not alleviate the problem of understanding.

Alternative, popular explanation: There is a very small gate in Jerusalem called “the needle's eye.” A man can enter, but only after dismounting from his camel. A camel must be small and unloaded of all his burden before he can enter. There is absolutely no historical evidence for such an entrance.

Luke 21:24 This is rather a difficult verse to understand. What exactly does it mean?

The context of this section is, of course, Jesus' answer to two different questions by the Apostles: when the temple will be destroyed and signs of Jesus Second Coming. Assuming that these are two completely separate events (unlike both the preterists and dispensationalists), this still leaves two options as to whether the phrase refers to events that are now in the past or are yet to come. The parallel Synoptic accounts do not have this comment of Jesus, so they are really of little help except for the fact that Matthew 24:22 substitutes a comment that the days will be cut short, which is also an ambiguous statement.

I looked at ten different commentaries for a better understanding of this verse and am about as confused as I was to start with. Most of the scholars use the word “probably” to preface their opinions or give several competing possibilities. Here are all the options I found, so you can take your pick:

    1. Dispensationalists feel that it refers to the restoration of Israel as THE world power directly following the Tribulation. This will usher in the Millennial Kingdom on earth. (Bible Knowledge Commentary) They often quote Zechariah 8:12-14, in which a siege of Jerusalem appears to be directly followed by the return of the Jews and conversion of the Gentiles. Other scholars specifically deny that there is any hint of this found in Luke 21:24. (New Bible Commentary, New International Commentary on the New Testament)

    2. “It refers probably to the end of the present world order.” At that time, God will set up his eternal kingdom on the new earth. (International Bible Commentary, New International Commentary on the New Testament)

    3. It refers primarily to the Roman capture of Jerusalem and carrying people off into captivity. (Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament) The period of Roman domination over Jerusalem will have an end. (New International Greek Testament Commentary) The meaning is “until the triumph of the Romans is complete.” This includes the crushing of the Jewish revolts occurring after 70 AD as well. (The Anchor Bible)

    4. It refers to the time of the Gentile mission, which will extend until the Last Days. At this time, the very much debated events predicted by Paul will occur (see Romans 11:25) during which “all Israel will be saved.” (Interpretation Commentary)

    5. Foreign possession or domination over Jerusalem (including Islamic ) will continue until the Last Days. Alternatively, Gentile domination over world politics will continue until that time that God sets up his own Kingdom. (The New Century Bible Commentary)

Luke 22:35-38 Near the end of Luke's narrative on the Last Supper, there is this interesting dialogue between Jesus and the Eleven about the need for the disciples to now have a sword, even to sell a garment if need be to buy a one! I am sure this is not intended to support the idea of a new political kingdom asserting change by violence, so I am wondering what meaning Luke intended for us to take from this passage? Was having a sword somehow related to fulfilling the prophecy of "being numbered among the transgressors"? What is the importance of this and why does say that two swords are enough?

This is one of the “dark sayings” of Jesus, indicating that its meaning is not transparently clear. There are three basic types of interpretation:

Literal

    1. One opinion is that even two swords are enough for the state to accuse Jesus of leading a rebellion and for the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12 to be fulfilled. (Jacques Ellul's Anarchy and Bible Knowledge Commentary). Since Peter did use his sword at Jesus' arrest, that counts Jesus and his followers as being transgressors.

    2. The older critical view said that Jesus was a Zealot who expected to institute his earthly kingdom in the near future – an idea almost completely discredited today.

    3. The immediate context was one of the two sending-outs of Jesus (Luke 9:2 or 10:3-7). The contrast is that people were hospitable then but will be reluctant to help the apostles in the future since there will be fierce opposition against them from the authorities. A dagger or short sword was part of a normal traveler's equipment and used to defend against wild animals and robbers. Even the peace-loving Essenes traveled with swords. However, the text really has nothing to say on the subject of whether armed resistance is justified in some cases. (Hard Sayings of the Bible) This is essentially a call to "prepare yourselves."

Symbolic

This verse was interpreted symbolically by Pope Boniface VIII in a 1302 papal bull which used it to justify the position of the pope as both supreme political and spiritual leader. This is obviously not to be taken literally since Jesus forbids the use of the sword to spread or defend the Gospel in Luke 22:49ff, repeated in Revelation 13:10 where it is combined with a quote from Jeremiah 43:11.

Figurative

    Marshall: “The saying can be regarded only as grimly ironical, expressing the intensity of the opposition which Jesus and the disciples will experience, endangering their very lives.”

    Anchor Bible: Not material weapons, but spiritual weapons -- the sword of the Spirit.

    Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: the mouth of the Servant of the Lord will be like a sharp sword (Isaiah 49:2).

    Dictionary of NT Theology, I, 729: The apostles are to have the courage of sword-bearers, men ready to risk their lives for a cause.

    Geldenhuys, New International Commentary on the NT: “Jesus declares in a striking figure, as His followers in the struggle of life, be just as determined and wholehearted as a fighting man who gives up everything, even his garment, as long as he only possesses a sword to continue the struggle with...The only way to remain firm in such a world is to be spiritually equipped with His power and armed with the sword of His Word.”

What then are we to make of Jesus' final response “It is enough”? “These words are both a formula of dismissal (as in Deuteronomy 3:26 LXX: “Enough from you! Never speak to me of this matter again!”) and an utterance of the deepest sadness” since Jesus' words have once again been misunderstood by his closest followers. (Geldenhuys)

The Anchor Bible says that these words “throw a brilliant light on the tragedy of the Ministry...The grim irony is the utterance of a broken heart.”