Acts 19, Legitimacy, and Spiritual Power

Another paper, this time on an Acts narrative:

***** 

 

JESUS, PAUL, AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD: VINDICATION AND SPIRITUAL POWER IN EPHESUS

The goal of this paper is to examine Acts 19:11-20 (especially 19:13-16 – the examination of the other verses will be much more cursory) in light of its context in the larger section of 18:24-19:20 and Luke-Acts as a whole, with particular attention to the relationship between spiritual power – whether in the form of exorcism, healing, or magic – and vindication of the subject of such power or his message.  In the course of this study I will be arguing for the thesis that my chosen passage has the effect of re-enacting and re-appropriating the vindication of Jesus and his message, thereby applying this vindication to Paul and his message.[1]

To demonstrate my thesis I will first show how Paul is re-enacting Jesus’ ministry generally in 18:24-19:12.  In the next two sections of the paper, I will then show how Jesus’ vindication in Luke is re-enacted and applied to Paul as Jesus’ legitimate envoy in 19:10-16, with most of my focus being on verses 13-16.  The first of these final two sections will focus on the re-enactment of vindication in the form of both demonic testimony and contrast with other exorcists, and the second will focus on vindication in the form of superior spiritual power. 

Paul Re-enacting Jesus’ Ministry

In this section I will show the ways in which Paul seems to be re-enacting Jesus’ ministry in 18:24-19:12, which will help us to see how Paul, as re-enactor of Jesus’ ministry, can thereby receive Jesus’ vindication.  Like Jesus in Palestine, Paul is preceded in Ephesus by another; in Luke, Jesus is preceded in ministry by John the Baptist, who prepares the way for him, whereas in Acts Paul is here preceded in ministry by Apollos who, teaching accurately about Jesus just as John had done (yet without knowledge of the full truth about Jesus), prepares with his teaching for the fuller message about Jesus to be delivered by Paul.[2] 

As can be seen in Acts 18:24-28, Apollos and John are both portrayed in rather similar ways.  Both, for instance, are associated with “the way of the Lord” (τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου – Luke 3:4; Acts 18:25) and Apollos knows only John’s baptism.  And like John with Jesus, Apollos more or less falls out of the story to make way for Paul’s own ministry in Ephesus.  Apollos, like John, preaches about Jesus, whereas Paul, like Jesus, following, preaches the kingdom of God after his forerunner disappears from the scene (Acts 19:8).[3]  More parallels could be laid out,[4] but the overall effect seems to be that presenting the Apollos episode in the way that it does, and placing it where it does just before Paul’s arrival and preaching of the kingdom of God, has the effect of already inclining a reader towards seeing Paul portrayed as a true successor to Jesus in his ministry and in his message (and makes the further links in this paper to and through the Baptist material in Luke all the stronger). 

Following the material dealing with Apollos, Acts 19 begins with Paul’s arrival at Ephesus and his interaction with more people (called “disciples”) who are associated in some way with John the Baptist and his baptism.[5]  Earlier, John the Baptist and his baptism had prepared for the coming one (a form of ἔρχομαι is used in John’s speech in Luke 3:16 and Luke 7:20, as well as in Acts 19:4) who would baptize with the Holy Spirit.  This coming one, of course, was Jesus, who baptized his disciples with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 (see also Acts 1:5; 11:16; 13:24-25).[6]  So now those prepared with John’s baptism receive the Holy Spirit, Paul playing the part of Jesus as the envoy of Jesus, the one who came after John, and mediator of their Spirit baptism. 

Given the connections outlined between Paul and Jesus as successor to John the Baptist and sender of the Holy Spirit, 19:7’s mention of the number of these disciples being “about twelve” (ὡσεὶ δώδεκα) has the effect of calling to mind the original Twelve disciples called by Jesus (who themselves seem to be connected with John’s baptism in Acts 1:21-22) and the group of “about” (ὡσεὶ) one hundred twenty (Acts 1:15) who meet to reconstitute the Twelve by adding one to the Eleven[7].  Indeed, this latter scene is immediately followed by Pentecost and the coming of the Spirit upon the gathered disciples.  Contra many commentators, then, whatever the historical author’s intention, the effect of the narrative at this point, highlighting the number by setting it at the end of the scene in 19:1-7, is precisely to call to mind these other passages.  The addition of ὡσεὶ to the number in 19:7, rather than detracting from the effect (say, because that word is never applied to the number of apostles), adds to it, since the same word also appears in 1:15 (in connection with the larger group in which the apostles appear), as already stated.[8] 

The effect of saying these disciples were “about twelve” in number, then, is to further set Paul up as a successor to Jesus and also connects him further with apostles such as Peter, who themselves are portrayed as Jesus’ successors and bestowers of the Spirit by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:17).  Paul is thus seen as, like the apostles, the legitimate envoy of Jesus and his message is the legitimate one as well, the source for the legitimation and full incorporation of those disciples he lays hands on.[9]  Acts 19:11-12 further links Paul both with Jesus and the apostles as he is associated with displays of spiritual power including exorcism, healing, and the passing on or application of spiritual power from his person to another via physical intermediaries, acts previously associated both with Jesus and with his legitimate envoys, the apostles (see, for instance, Luke 8:43-48; Acts 5:12-16).[10] 

Paul’s entire Ephesian ministry, indeed, can be seen as a paradigmatic fulfillment of Jesus’ mission and his preaching of the kingdom, particularly as he had passed it on to his disciples in Luke 24:46-47 and Acts 1:8 – not only are displays of spiritual power evident but it is one of Paul’s longest, most successful, most universal ministries.  Indeed, it can be seen as a culmination of Paul’s ministry thus far (and thereby a culmination of any and all various portrayals of Paul as legitimate successor or envoy of Jesus).  This ministry (Paul’s last before he goes to Jerusalem for the final time) lasts two years, including a successful three month ministry in the synagogue, where instead of the usual broad rejection he meets with large success and is not kicked out but rather moves out of his own accord when some oppose him, addressing both Jews and Gentiles in his ministry rather than turning from Jews to the Gentiles.[11]  What we have here, then, is a culmination of the various portrayals of Paul so far.

Given what we have seen so far, then, Paul is set up in 18:24-19:12 as generally re-enacting Jesus’ mission and message and is portrayed as, like the apostles before him, a legitimate envoy of Jesus.  In the following sections we will see further how this background serves to help us read 19:13-16 in particular in terms of a transference of Jesus’ vindication to Paul through the topic of spiritual power. 

Testimony and Contrast of Power

In the next two sections I will show how the theme of Paul as Jesus’ legitimate envoy is once again established in Acts 19:11-16 and how Jesus’ own vindication is applied to Paul, thus effectively demonstrating my main thesis.  In the current section I will demonstrate that the effect of 19:11-16, following as it does the previous verses (and seen in the larger context of Luke-Acts), is to display Paul as being vindicated with the vindication of Jesus by demonic testimony and by contrast with other exorcists, which is one example of the pattern posited in this paper’s thesis. 

In various places in Luke, demons recognize Jesus’ identity and power, thus vindicating his message of the kingdom of God and his person (e.g., Luke 4:31-37, 40-43).  As spiritual beings with a grasp of spiritual powers and realities, the demons provide a kind of hostile (though, paradoxically, consistently reliable) witness to Jesus in the Third Gospel.  This is re-enacted to a certain degree in Acts 19:15, where the demon answers the sons of Sceva who are attempting to cast it out, not by recognizing them but by recognizing Jesus and also Paul – that is, it recognizes Jesus, re-enacting earlier vindications, but also recognizes Jesus’ power and its presence in Paul as well (and not in the sons of Sceva).   

In contrast to the spiritual power evinced by Paul, then, including his own exorcisms, the sons of Sceva seem to be lacking – the power of Jesus present in his ministry and in his legitimate followers is not similarly present with them and thus sets Paul up as one vindicated like Jesus, with Jesus’ own vindication, in contrast with these others.  Coming right after 19:11-12 and immediately prior to the response of the burning of magical texts, it would seem that these would-be exorcists use Jesus’ name to rival Paul’s own spiritual power he had been demonstrating in Ephesus.  But instead Paul is the one who is vindicated in connection with Jesus and Jesus’ name, not them – he is the one who is vindicated through the Vindicated One.  Like the greater spiritual power evinced by Paul in contrast with the Jewish sorcerer Elymas in 13:4-12, the power of Paul in Ephesus again is in contrast, this time with these other Jewish seekers after spiritual power. 

The story similarly connects with 8:9-25, where there is a contrast between the magician Simon who covets the apostles’ spiritual power and their bestowing of the Holy Spirit and the apostles themselves (this connection works whether or not we want to call the lesser spiritual power of the sons of Sceva “magic”).  Because of the connection with Elymas and Simon, the proximity to the burning of the magical texts in the following verses – and the fact that this is a response to the current episode – suggests a formulaic usage of Jesus’ name in 19:13; an attempt, like Simon the Magician, to co-opt the spiritual power of the church which had been so apparent in Paul.[12]

The episode here thus re-enacts in these events the situational vindication of Jesus in Luke 11:19-20, where Jesus charges his opponents with inconsistency in ascribing to him illegitimate spiritual power derived from the demonic realm and yet not doing the same against certain other Jewish exorcists – despite the fact that his exorcisms and miracle working are even more unmistakably unlike magical practices than the more ambiguous exorcisms traditionally performed by Jewish exorcists.[13]  But if Jesus’ power is not demonic, his deeds are by God’s own power.  Hence, by the liberating power of God, Jesus’ kingdom message as seen throughout Luke is vindicated and the kingdom of God (ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ) – God’s eschatological power and rule which has broken proleptically into the present, constituting the sphere of God’s salvation – are present in Jesus.[14]  Thus his message of the coming kingdom in his person is vindicated and hence Jesus himself is vindicated as well. 

Here again, then, Jesus’ kingdom message, now proclaimed by Paul, is once again vindicated in the display of that liberating kingdom power by which Paul heals and casts out demons.  And because it is Paul who is the legitimate envoy of Jesus here, and is affirmed as such by the demon’s testimony as well as the deeds and words of Paul, the vindication of Jesus now applies to Paul as well.  Hence, like Jesus, demonic testimony and the contrast with other exorcists vindicates Paul.

Jesus’ Kingdom Power against the Demons

In this section, I will now show further how Acts 19:11-16, in its context, portrays that Paul’s spiritual power, greater than that of the sons of Sceva, belongs to him precisely as the kingdom power of God present in Jesus, now manifest in him on account of his being a legitimate envoy of Jesus himself.  The kingdom power present in Jesus makes him the possessor of supreme spiritual power and hence one whose power is greater than that of the demonic realm.  Hence, Paul is in this way also presented as vindicated since Jesus’ defeat of the demonic vindicates both Jesus and his message and Paul is his envoy.  Hence, again, we have an instance of the thesis presented at the beginning of this paper.

In addition to what has been shown in the previous section, Paul’s own displays of spiritual power and their contrast with the failed exorcism of the sons of Sceva also (re-)enact Jesus’ defeat of the demonic realm as discussed in Luke.  As seen in the first section of this paper, in Luke 3:16 John the Baptist, who prepares for the coming of Jesus, speaks of Jesus as the one who is coming (as discussed above).  In the same verse, however, he also speaks of Jesus as “the stronger one” (ὁ ἰσχυρότερος).  In other words, Jesus is not simply the coming one but also one with spiritual power beyond John, one who can grant the Holy Spirit.  In Luke 11:21-22, the notion of ὁ ἰσχυρότερος once again shows up, this time in the context of the defeat of a demonic tyrant, a strong one or strong man (ὁ ἰσχυρός); like the Exodus pattern found in Isaiah 49:24-26 (and 59:16-18), God’s people are rescued from an oppressive tyrant by the even more powerful divine warrior.[15]  Jesus, as the stronger one foretold and prepared for by John, is the one who defeats the powers of darkness by his more superior power – their spiritual power is no match for his, for his power is none other than that of the eschatological reign of God, God’s own kingdom. 

Additionally, Luke 11:21-22 here seems to look back not only to Luke 3:16 but also to Luke 10:17-19 – the spiritual power of Jesus is available to his envoys, whose casting out of demons by that power and in Jesus’ name amounts to the defeat of the demonic realm.  Read together with 11:21-22, the effect is that Jesus not only directly defeats the demonic with God’s power but also does so through his own chosen, legitimate envoys.[16]  Having argued in the previous verses that his defeat of the demonic is not through demonic power, Jesus affirms that it is in fact through God’s own power, which makes Jesus stronger than the demonic, that the demonic realm suffers defeat in every exorcism accomplished by him or his disciples, thus again vindicating Jesus’ message of the coming of the kingdom and its presence in him.

By contrast with Jesus and his envoys in Luke, what we have in Acts 19:13-16, as Richard I. Pervo notices, is a kind of exorcism in reverse.  In a normal exorcism the one possessed by the demon could be naked (Luke 8:27), exorcists were expected to win, and the demons were supposed to flee and the exorcists were left standing.  Instead, the exorcists are the ones left naked and fleeing and the demon is the one who wins and is left standing.[17]  The word used for the demon’s overpowering of these would-be exorcists is a verbal form of ἰσχυρός (the verb ἰσχύω), thus emphasizing that here we have one who is stronger than the sons of Sceva.  Now, Paul is already being portrayed as following after Apollos just as Jesus followed after John and the connection has already been established between the broader passage and Luke 3:16.[18]  And Luke 3:16, as we have seen, itself connects us with Luke 11, thus strengthening the link between Luke 3, Luke 11, and Acts 19.  Hence, the effect seems to be that the sons of Sceva suffer from one who is stronger than them, not being disciples of the even stronger Jesus (truly ὁ ἰσχυρότερος), whose spiritual power is capable of defeating the demon but to which these sons do not have access as they are not legitimate envoys of Jesus – even though, as sons of a Jewish “chief priest” they might otherwise seem entitled to spiritual power and authority.[19] 

In this contrast, Paul emerges as like one of the disciples from Luke 10:17-19, a disciple of the truly stronger one foretold by John the Baptist, a legitimate envoy of Jesus with access to the eschatological power of God which belongs to Jesus.  That kingdom power at work in Jesus, vindicating him and enabling him to defeat evil and hence to transfer that power and authority to his apostles, is now with Paul.  And Jesus’ vindication is once again, we see, now Paul’s own.  Jesus, in other words, is vindicated as the stronger one than the demon in this passage and Paul is thereby vindicated as his approved envoy and disciple – Jesus brings the message and power of God’s kingdom through Paul and Paul is able to bestow the Holy Spirit, do miracles, and defeat the demonic world through him, unlike the sons of Sceva.  Jesus, successor to John and stronger than demons, has sent Paul, successor to Apollos in Ephesus and servant of Jesus the stronger one.

Conclusion

As we have seen so far, Paul has re-enacted Jesus’ vindication by displaying the same power as Jesus and preaching the kingdom message as Jesus did, bestowing the same Spirit, being the subject of testimony by demons, comparing favorably versus other users of spiritual power, and displaying that kingdom power as supreme over all other power.  All other spiritual power is impotent in the face of the kingdom power of God present in Jesus and now manifested through Paul.  In Acts 19:17-20, in direct response to the incident with the sons of Sceva, others seem to acknowledge this greater power of Jesus (and of Paul as his envoy), burning magical texts which might otherwise be thought to be sources of spiritual power for their users.[20]  Next to Paul’s Jesus, these other sources are worthless and illegitimate. 

The Word of the Lord in 19:20 is said to be strong (again, a form of ἰσχύω), emphasizing again that true spiritual power is found in Jesus’ message and hence in Jesus.[21]  And since Paul is his legitimate envoy, it is also present in Paul’s message and in Paul as well.  Jesus is vindicated and so is Paul.  What we see in 18:18-19:20 as a whole (and as it is condensed down into 19:11-20 in particular) is that Paul does and preaches as Jesus, re-enacting Jesus’ vindication through his kingdom ministry and hence that Paul is a legitimate envoy of Jesus and thus Jesus’ vindication transfers to Paul as well.  As a culmination of Paul’s ministry prior to his final “mission” to Rome, this passage arguably thus sets the stage in Acts for the trials and questions concerning Paul and his message that will follow. 

Bibliography

Barrett, C. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Volume II: Introduction and Commentary on Acts XV-XXVIII.  ICC. New York: T&T Clark, 1998.

Bruce, F. F. The Book of Acts, Revised Edition. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988.

Caragounis, Chrys C. “Kingdom of God, Son of Man, and Jesus’ Self-Understanding.” Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1989): 3-23, 223-238.

Emmrich, Martin. “The Lucan Account of the Beelzebul Controversy.” Westminster Theological Journal 62 (2000): 267-279.

Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. “Miracles, Mission, and Apologetics: An Introduction.” In Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by E. Schüssler Fiorenza, 1-25.  Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB. Garden City: Doubleday, 1981

_____.  The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV. AB. Garden City: Doubleday, 1985.

_____.  The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1998.

Humphries, Michael. “The Kingdom of God in the Q Version of the Beelzebul Controversy: Q 11:14-26.” Forum 9 (1993): 121-150.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Gospel of Luke.  SP. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1991

_____. The Acts of the Apostles. SP. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1992.

Kurz, William S. Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox, 1993.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978.

_____.  The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1980.

_____. Luke: Historian & Theologian, Third Edition.  New Testament Profiles. Downer’s Grove, Illinois: IVP Press, 1988

Pereira, Francis. Ephesus: Climax of Universalism in Luke-Acts: A Redaction-Critical Study of Paul’s Ephesian Ministry (Acts 18:23-20:1). Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1983.

Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009.

Shauf, Scott. Theology as History, History as Theology: Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19. BZNW. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005.

Shirock, Robert. “Whose Exorcists are They? The Referents of οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν at Matthew 12:27/Luke 11:19.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 46 (1992): 41-51.

Talbert, C. H., and J. H. Hayes. “A Theology of Sea Storms in Luke-Acts.” In Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy, edited by D. P. Moessner, 267-283. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 1999.

Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Volume 2: The Acts of the Apostles. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.

Witherington, Ben, III. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998.

---

[1] Previous readers had trouble with my use of the term “vindication” for what is going on in this passage since vindication generally implies the existence of some opponent, whether that be a human opponent or a more metaphorical one (such as a vicious rumor).  That is, the word “vindicated” is often used to mean that someone is vindicated versus someone or something else.  We do not need to choose just one opponent for Paul here, however.  As Luke-Acts has already demonstrated, there is plenty of opposition to Jesus and his followers and to Paul in particular, both from fellow Jews and from pagans.  Paul even experiences opposition to his ministry in the form of other Christians who do not see eye-to-eye with him on the question of Gentile Christians.  Paul’s vindication here can be understood as vindication of himself and his message versus the many opponents which have shown up in Acts so far and a vindication of him against any opponents that may come against him in the final chapters of Acts, as well as any potential real-life opponents outside the text.  Slander and an unwillingness to accept Paul or his message are both shown to be in the wrong here, just as Jesus was vindicated versus his enemies and those unwilling to accept him or his message.  If a different word is sought, however, “legitimation” and its cognates could handily be used in place of “vindication” and its own cognates, if so desired.

[2] Cf. Francis Pereira, Ephesus: Climax of Universalism in Luke-Acts: A Redaction-Critical Study of Paul’s Ephesian Ministry (Acts 18:23-20:1) (Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1983), 60-64.

[3] Pereira, Ephesus, 64.

[4] Pereira, Ephesus, 62-65.  Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 470 notes also parallels between Apollos as forerunner of Paul and Stephen (and to a lesser extent, Philip) as forerunner of Peter and Paul in the Gentile mission.  Compare, for instance, Acts 6:10 and 18:25.

[5] The relation between Apollos and these disciples, their differences, which if any were already Christians, and the nature of the disciples’ puzzlement about the Holy Spirit are all contested questions that go beyond the scope of the current paper.  See C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Volume II: Introduction and Commentary on Acts XV-XXVIII (New York: T&T Clark, 1998), 888, 894; F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988), 359, 363; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 337; I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1980), 304, 306; Pereira, Ephesus, 56, 86-92; Scott Shauf, Theology as History, History as Theology: Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 107, 146-153; Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Volume 2: The Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolist: Fortress Press, 1990), 232; Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998), 565, 570-571.

[6] Cf. Johnson, Acts, 332; Pervo, Acts, 470; Shauf, Theology as History, 159.

[7] That is, the original Twelve minus Judas Iscariot.

[8] Those who simply dismiss this verse as a historical footnote with no broader relevance include Barrett, Acts XV-XXVIII, 808; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 642; Marshall, Acts, 308.  On the other side, see Johnson, Acts, 338; William S. Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 97; Pereira, Ephesus, 102-103.  Cf. Shauf, Theology as History, 159-161.

[9] Cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 642; Shauf, History as Theology, 157.

[10] Cf. Pereira, Ephesus, 182.  Note that in the case of Acts 19:12a, Paul combines two varieties of miracles accomplished by Jesus in one kind of miracle: healing through physical intermediary and healing at a distance.  Hence, rather than going beyond Jesus or doing something radically new, it is merely a different combination of the characteristics of Christ’s miracles.

[11] See Pereira, Ephesus, 135, 148, 153; Shauf, History as Theology, 87, 124, 126, 165-168; Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 234-236.

[12] See Barrett, Acts XV-XVIII, 910-912; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Miracles, Mission, and Apologetics: An Introduction,” in Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. E. Schüssler Fiorenza (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976), 24; Fitzmyer, Acts, 646; Marshall, Acts, 311; Pervo, Acts, 478; Shauf, Theology as History, 194-195, 199, 223; Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 237.

[13] See Chrys C. Caragounis, “Kingdom of God, Son of Man, and Jesus’ Self-Understanding,” Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1989): 229; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 918.  For an alternative (and less plausible) interpretation according to which these exorcists are the disciples rather than Pharisees (or some other Jews outside Jesus’ circle), see Robert Shirock, “Whose Exorcists are They? The Referents of οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν at Matthew 12:27/Luke 11:19,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 46 (1992): 41-51.  Note that this important move on Jesus’ part in no way implies or requires the acceptance of the other exorcists and their exorcisms by Jesus, contrary to the assumption of the opposite by, e.g., Michael Humphries, “The Kingdom of God in the Q Version of the Beelzebul Controversy: Q 11:14-26,” Forum 9 (1993): 132-134; Shauf, Theology as History, 195-196. 

[14] See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Garden City: Doubleday, 1981), 154-155.  As I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978), 198, puts it, “In Lk. the kingdom of God is his activity in bringing salvation to men and the sphere which is thereby created; God is active here and now in the ministry of Jesus and will consummate his rule in the future.”  See also I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian & Theologian, Third Edition (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: IVP Press, 1988), 128-136.

[15] Martin Emmrich, “The Lucan Account of the Beelzebul Controversy,” Westminster Theological Journal 62 (2000): 273; Marshall, Luke, 478.

[16] Cf. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991), 183.

[17] Pervo, Acts, 478.

[18] For some further links with Luke which fall outside the scope of the current paper, see C. H. Talbert and J. H. Hayes, “A Theology of Sea Storms in Luke-Acts,” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy, ed. D. P. Moessner (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 1999), 281.

[19] This last point is further strengthened in that Luke 9:49-50 would seem to show that one need not even be one of Christ’s apostles or closest of disciples to legitimately cast out demons in Jesus’ name.  The sons of Sceva, thus, are cast in a decidedly negative light in comparison with Paul.

[20] Though I cannot do it here due to considerations of space, it would be interesting, given how Luke 3:16 has linked to my passage in other ways so far, to examine the potential for reading the burning of the magical texts in its context in chapter 19 in light of John’s foretold baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire.  It would also fall outside the scope of this paper to discuss the unique situation in Acts 19:18 where we have people confessing sin, something that does not happen often in Luke-Acts.  This issue is, after all, intertwined with the broader issue of who these people in 19:18-19 are – Christians, new Christians, or something else – and the nature of what they are doing exactly.  Since there is no universal agreement among commentators about such issues and they go beyond the scope of the current paper, I have chosen to set them aside, given my overall focus on 19:13-16.

[21] Indeed, according to Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 154, the kingdom of God in Luke arrives already in its proclamation by Jesus.

Luke's Semi-Triumphal Entry

Another paper, this one on Luke from a narrative perspective:

****

 

A SEMI-TRIUMPHAL ENTRY: FATES AND DECISIONS IN JESUS’ ENTRY TO THE TEMPLE

The goal of this paper is to examine some aspects of the role of Luke 19:28-48 in the larger Lukan narrative, particularly the ways in which it deals with Jesus’ fate and the various reactions to him.  In the course of this endeavor I will be arguing for the thesis that we can successfully read this passage as portraying Jesus’ visitation as the catalyst which seals his and others’ fates by means of their reactions to his coming. 

To motivate my main thesis, I will be performing three tasks: first, I will offer some initial considerations in favor of the suitability of reading 19:28-48 as a unified narrative in the first place, carrying Jesus to his fate, a prerequisite for the sort of reading I am proposing.  Second, I will examine some aspects of the way in which the three sections of the narrative characterize the characters surrounding Jesus in terms of their various reactions to him.  Third, I will examine some of the ways in which the various reactions to Jesus’ entry serve to seal the fates of the various characters in the story.  My conclusions will then follow finally on the basis of the results gained from these three tasks.  None of these tasks will be exhaustive in their examination of the evidence,[1] but there will be enough data to successfully provide motivation for the reading I am proposing. 

The Unity of Luke 19:28-48

In this section I will offer some preliminary considerations in favor of viewing Luke 19:28-48 as a narrative unity.  This passage provides us with a single, complex narrative which portrays Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem as a single, complex event spanning initial preparation in the form of procuring a mount up to his dramatic temple actions and their fallout.  Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem thus sets the stage for the final sections of the Gospel and ends the long journey to Jerusalem. 

As others have noted, this passage fits roughly into a broader ancient story pattern or type-scene of a royal visit to a city, a parousia (παρουσία).[2]  Such type-scenes help to set up expectations of what is supposed to happen in the narrative in accordance with the type-scene so used.  As David Catchpole notes,[3] the structure of this sort of story is played out through the following elements:

(a) A victory already achieved [and/or] a status already recognized for the central person. (b) A formal and ceremonial entry.  (c) Greetings and/or acclamations together with invocations of God [or gods].  (d) Entry to the city climaxed by entry to [the t]emple, if the city in question has one.  (e) Cultic activity, either positive (e.g. offering of sacrifice), or negative (e.g. expulsion of objectionable persons and the cleansing away of uncleanness). 

Brent Rogers Kinman adds somewhere in Catchpole’s (b) or (c) that the officials, elites, and others of the city are to come to meet the one arriving outside the city.  Following (c), the visiting figure is to be escorted into the city.  Ultimately, however, failure to respond properly could mean disaster for a city, as is also perhaps reflected in the disciples’ reactions in Luke 9:51-56.[4]

Our current passage does indeed represent a kind of parousia, but one where things do not go entirely well.[5]   First of all, it fits nicely with (a) in that Jesus is not going to Jerusalem in order to be made king; rather, his status is already firmly in place and has even been recognized as such – in 18:35-42, for instance, we see Jesus’ messianic status as “Son of David” explicitly affirmed by the blind man, who ironically sees Jesus’ identity better than those who can physically see (see also, e.g., 1:32-33; 19:11-27).[6] 

Following closely to (b) now, we have the passage begin with the enactment of a ceremonial procession towards Jerusalem.  A particular mount is chosen, one in some sense set aside for Jesus’ particular use (perhaps following a Near Eastern royalty motif), and the occasion for a display of Jesus’ royal authority both in the requisition of the mount and in his coming to enter upon it.[7]  The omission of any pledge to return the animal perhaps even further emphasizes Jesus’ royal status.[8] 

This is where (c) and being greeted by the leaders of the city would naturally come into the story.  However, most of the leaders of the city do not yet appear on the stage and we here lack any scene of universal acclamation by the city’s inhabitants, as will be further explained in the following section of the paper.  Those who do acclaim Jesus, however, explicitly affirm his royal status.[9] 

Following the mixed reception and Jesus’ response to it ending in verse 44, we get (d) and (e) in the final verses, along with the repercussions of this messianic parousia, thus bringing the entry narrative to a close (I will discuss these verses further in later sections).  This passage therefore seems to conform to a version of the parousia narrative pattern. 

Even without knowledge of the parousia story structure, however, we would still have reasons from within Luke to think of Jesus’ temple actions as the culmination of his entry rather than as a separate, subsequent event.   Jerusalem, after all, is the center of national and religious life and the temple the symbol, power center, and religious focal point of Jerusalem.  Jerusalem and its temple therefore function in Luke as the center of his narrative world, from which the narrative proceeds and to which the narrative invariably returns, not only in the Gospel but in Acts as well.  The Gospel, and many of the stories of Jesus’ early life, begins there, and it is here that Jesus must return in order to fulfill his mission. 

The Gospel begins in the temple in chapter 1; he is dedicated there in 2, where his identity is prophetically proclaimed and where in 2:34-35 it is foretold that he would divide the people and reveal their hearts.  He then is involved in a teaching session at the temple, his Father’s house, in 2:41-52.[10]  In 4:9-13 the culmination of the devil’s temptations involves bringing Jesus to Jerusalem, to the temple, where he is to assert the prerogatives seemingly appropriate to his identity in a dramatic fashion, something which he refuses, then going on to pursue his mission and act out his identity in his own way, not the devil’s.[11]  Chapter 9 then commences the long journey to Jerusalem, where he will die and rise again, the true culmination of his mission and identity, something which will happen later in Luke but is in the meantime the subject of a number of prophecies on the part of Jesus (e.g., in 13:31-35).  The broader Lukan narrative therefore seems to move one towards Jerusalem and the temple in particular, his Father’s house to which he must, as messiah and in accordance with his properly understood identity and mission as such, return.[12] 

The narrative of 19:28-48 itself, by its very wording, focuses us on Jerusalem and the temple in particular.  It piles up verbs of motion and geographical references, pacing the narrative and taking its time as the narrative is brought to its geographic goal, thus creating tension as Jesus comes nearer and nearer to that goal.[13]  This gives time to describe the entry and the reactions to it, increasing the sense of divine purpose by virtue of Scriptural quotations in verse 38.[14]  Following the introduction in verse 28, forms of the verb ἐγγίζω (to come near) form a backbone for the progress of the narrative, appearing in 29, 37, and 41, with a culmination as Jesus arrives at his destination at the temple (no separate mention is made of an arrival into the city apart from this) in 45, where the verb is no longer ἐγγίζω but rather a form of εἰσέρχομαι (to enter).  The effect of all this, then, is to create the impression of an inevitable, focused progression of purpose towards the final goal, the place which will draw things to their divinely-ordained close, the dramatic tension building as we wait to see how the next group will react to Jesus.

The move from outside and into the temple, then, represents a single event of entry, a transition between the travel narrative proper and the pause before the storm in chapters 20-21.[15]  The entry is not complete until Jesus comes to the temple.  Verse 28, a hinge between this section and the last, starts the action off by moving Jesus and the action finally to Jerusalem, which culminates in verses 45-46.  But then why include 47-48 in this narrative, since they take place following Jesus’ temple action, the culmination of his entry?  I think it is helpful to include them precisely because they describe the direct consequences of Jesus’ actions and tell us the reaction of the city and temple leaders, who were previously absent, to Jesus’ entry and actions.  The description of the entry, which showcases the reactions of various people to his entry to the city, then, is not as complete without the inclusion of the response of the leaders of city and temple themselves.  These verses then form a hinge between this section and the next, where Jesus teaches at the temple, cementing the reactions of Jerusalem to himself and the consequences thereof prior to the Passion narrative.[16]  What we have, then, can be read as a single narrative of Jesus moving inexorably towards his fate.  The readings given in the sections that follow I believe will only further confirm the unity of this passage.

Reactions to Jesus’ Entry

In the previous section, I gave some motivation for reading 19:28-48 as a single narrative bringing Jesus to his fate.  The narrative, however, also features various responses to Jesus which will help to seal both Jesus’ and others’ fates.  Indeed, as we will see, the pattern of reactions serves to illustrate narratologically Jesus’ movement towards his fate on the cross, culminating in the rejection by the city and temple leadership.  In the current section, my focus will be on the reactions themselves; in the next section of the paper, I will discuss the consequences of these reactions. 

In 19:28-48, our narrative revolves around Jesus, all other characters being defined or determined solely in terms of their responses to him, to his person, his actions and his words.  No single person is named in this narrative but only given generic designations – they are all of only secondary importance next to Jesus and their only role and importance in the story are their reactions.  Whereas the man born blind and Zacchaeus (along with a lack of opposition through large chunks of the travel narrative) might have given some hope for a positive reception, the parable of the minas (Luke 19:11-27) muddies the expectations somewhat – the coming of a king may bring either rewards or, if he is rejected, disaster.  Thus, despite warnings that he is to die in Jerusalem, the reader, like the disciples, may be left with a slight narrative opening as to the possibility that something positive may in fact happen.  Will Jesus’ coming be met with acceptance or rejection – will it bring blessing or judgment? 

What we find in the narrative, then, is a progressive dashing of hopes, a plunging of the narrative into rejection and ambivalence to Jesus, thus reaffirming Jesus’ earlier predictions as to his fate.  The reactions of the characters thus move slowly from positive to negative as we progress.  Verses 28-35 begin with only two disciples.  We are not told which two disciples – whether these belong to the Twelve, the Seventy(-Two), or some larger, more inclusive group.  The Twelve and the Seventy(-Two), however, were the only ones previously sent out (Luke 9:1-6, 10; 10:1-24), their ministries characterized positively with success and boldness.  Since something similar happens here, we can similarly see the disciples as acting as envoys at this point of Jesus himself and hence envoys of peace, Jesus being the one who brings the message of peace.[17]  Elsewhere, the disciples (in chapter 12 in particular) do not necessarily understand Jesus’ mission or his fate, but are still generally portrayed in close relationship with him as genuine followers (at this point Judas’ betrayal has yet to occur).  Anticipating the accolades of the disciples in the following verses, the expectation is therefore set up of an acceptance of Jesus by the populace to which he is coming.  These two disciples obey Jesus without question and the owners of the colt are not even given a response when it is declared that Jesus needs it – the colt is simply taken directly to Jesus.  We can notice, then, that in contrast to those who might reject the mission of the Seventy(-Two) in Luke 10:10-16, these two disciples are not rejected and hence, as Jesus’ envoys, neither is Jesus rejected by the owners of the colt.[18]

In the following verses, up to 38, we have all of Jesus’ disciples acclaiming him as king.  Positive expectations are overturned, however, as some Pharisees in 39 object to this, while the rest of the crowd to which the Pharisees belonged remains silent in the narrative.  Elsewhere the Pharisees often oppose Jesus, though they can at times perhaps be ambiguous as they sometimes approve of Jesus’ words or engage in table fellowship with him (hence, perhaps, the “some” here, which may leave some ambivalence among the Pharisees as well).[19]  We have thus gone from an overwhelming positive reaction to Jesus to one of mixed positive, negative, and ambivalent reactions. 

In the final verses, however, all positive reactions have melted away.  The leaders of city and temple have decided to kill Jesus as a result of the event of his entry and the crowds, though more engaged, yet remain ambivalent in their reaction – though they are said to “hang onto” or “listen intently” (ἐκκρεμάννυμι) to what Jesus says, nowhere is it affirmed that the crowds ever in fact accept Jesus or his words here, contra many commentators who see the crowds’ responses as positive.[20]  The crowds or people (ὁ ὀχλός or ὁ λαός, which seem to be used interchangeably) have previously had mixed reactions towards Jesus, often wishing to see and hear him and benefit from his healing (e.g., 5:1, 15; 6:17-19), but also at times evincing a more negative reaction to Jesus’ doings (e.g., 19:7).  The crowds are indeed interested in Jesus, but to what end?  Before the Gospel ends, they will side with the leaders in 23:18-24 in rejecting Jesus.[21] 

Appearing here in the Gospel for the first time, the sellers, meanwhile, do not even get a voice – they are cast out of the temple, implicitly perhaps aligned with the temple leaders rather than Jesus, a fact which would seem to precipitate some of the reaction against him following his actions.[22]  The city as a whole is treated by Jesus as if it were a character itself in 19:42-44 (using, for instance, the singular personal pronoun σύ) – that is, as a collective character embodying both the crowd and Pharisees as well as the sellers and leaders (see also 13:34-35, where Jerusalem is treated similarly).  This city will as a whole have rejected Jesus before it is all done, with disastrous result as predicted in 19:41-44.  The narrative thus draws us from positive acclaim to final rejection unto death.

Consequences of the Reactions

The consequences of the reactions of the various parties to Jesus’ entry confirm the fates of both Jesus and city and temple.  This is the burden of the current section to illustrate.  In response to some Pharisees’ apparent rejection in 19:39, Jesus in the very next verse indirectly both affirms his disciples and rebukes these Pharisees (rather than the other way around as these Pharisees had wanted).  Presumably the disciples, thus affirmed, will (or will have the chance to) escape whatever judgment may be forthcoming. 

As seen in the previous two sections, only the disciples have firmly come out on Jesus’ side and, whereas one ought to expect the city and its leadership to meet their king with acclaim and acceptance, the response from them ranges from mute to hostile.  Like the hostile subjects in the parable of the minas, set right before our current narrative, they have not accepted Jesus’ kingship.  There is therefore then some expectation thereby generated that this must ultimately end in disaster. 

In verses 41-44 this disaster for Jerusalem is precisely what Jesus confirms as a result of their actions, the actions of those Pharisees acting as proleptic for those of the city as a whole.[23]  In 19:42, 44, Jesus connects their failure and subsequent judgment with a kind of metaphorical blindness, thereby creating an ironic contrast with the blind man from 18:35-43 – those who should have seen, do not.  In the Greek, the “visitation” of God, against which Jerusalem is blind, is expressed by the Greek word ἐπισκοπή, which, particularly in an Old Testament context of divine visitation, can have either a positive or negative valence[24] – it could be a visitation unto blessing or a visitation unto judgment.  The tragedy is that it could have and should have been a visitation of blessing (1:68; 7:16), but the blindness of the city and its leadership has led it to the opposite. 

Peace has been held out to Jerusalem, a potential proclaimed at the very start of the Gospel (1:79; 2:14),  but they have rejected it in the person of Jesus and unwittingly chosen ways that will lead to the destruction of the city at the hands of enemies (who historically will turn out in the year 70 to be the Romans), this being foretold in such a way as to echo the great prophets who foretold the destruction of city and temple at the hands of Babylon.[25]  Underlining the tragic nature of this turn of events, Jesus does not exult over Jerusalem or call down judgment himself but rather weeps over it and its choice as he proclaims its fate, the results of their own fateful decision.  In 13:34-35, on his journey to Jerusalem, Jesus similarly lamented over Jerusalem and proclaimed that they would not see him until they proclaimed the words of Psalm 118:26.  When Jesus arrives at Jerusalem, however, the city is blind – they do not see.[26]  Instead of the city proclaiming these words, it was the disciples in 19:38.  Rather than being, “a house of prayer” as it was earlier, a place where Jesus’ true identity might have been acclaimed, the house of his Father (see Luke 1-2), even the temple itself has been made a “den of robbers” (19:45-46), its leaders blind to the ways of peace which might have otherwise come.[27]

Since it is Jesus who is the bringer of peace (see, e.g., 7:50; 8:48; 10:5-6), the proclaimer of the things towards peace (τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην) spoken of in 19:42, the rejection of Jesus can mean nothing other at this point in the story than utter tragedy.[28]  Whereas at Jesus’ birth in 2:14 peace had been proclaimed on earth and “glory in the highest”, the proclamation of “glory in the highest” is instead paired in 19:38 with peace in heaven, perhaps with the narrative effect of thereby functioning as a prolepsis of the rejection of peace by Jerusalem, peace being a gift of heaven, the promise of which those on earth have (at least for now) rejected.[29]  The following section of Luke in chapters 20-21, between our current narrative and immediately prior to the Passion narrative, serves simply to confirm the opposition to Jesus and coming judgment upon Jerusalem and its temple already put into motion in 19:28-48 (see also 23:27-31).[30]

Jesus’ driving out of the sellers in the temple, continuing on from the predictions in verses 41-44, has the effect of a declaration of judgment on those who are in charge of the temple and, by extension as its representative, Jerusalem itself – the leaders of city and temple.  Jesus has upset the corrupted order he has found in his Father’s house and, until his own fate comes, he will model what the temple was meant to be in contrast with how the leaders have made things.[31]  In keeping with the parousia scene, Jesus culminates his entry into Jerusalem with a negative demonstration at the temple, thereby casting a negative outlook on the city and its leaders.  The symbolic words and actions of Jesus against the city are complete – they have not recognized him, preferring to pursue their own ways, and will suffer judgment as a result.  These words and actions of Jesus, in turn, both seal his own fate[32] and that of the leaders of the city, who thereby confirm the negative judgment upon the city by plotting to kill him in 19:48.

Conclusion

Given the readings of the textual data proposed in the three main sections of this paper, I think we can safely say that the reading I introduced at the beginning of the paper is indeed a well-supported one.  Based on our evidence, in other words, we can plausibly read Luke as portraying Jesus’ visitation as the catalyst which seals his and others’ fates by means of their reactions to his coming.  We can read 19:28-48 as a single narrative of a royal visit or parousia, per the first section of the paper – a narrative which, through various techniques and connections with the surrounding text, gives the effect of an inevitable movement towards Jesus’ divinely-ordained fate.  Per the second, we saw that Jesus is the focus of the narrative as he goes on to his fate, other characters being defined in terms of their relations to him.  The city of Jerusalem and the leaders of both the temple and the city do not come out positive and the negative undertow of the reactions to Jesus simply build up through the narrative, guaranteeing that disaster is to come.  And, as we saw in the third section, the various reactions to Jesus on the part of Jerusalem are portrayed as sealing its fate in terms of destruction by enemies as well as sealing Jesus’ fate as he proclaims and acts out that negative judgment against Jerusalem, thereby confirming that very judgment.  From all of this, then, we see that we can successfully read in 19:28-38 a narrative portraying several impending dooms as a result of increasingly negative reactions on the part of Jerusalem to Jesus, their rightful king.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bock, Darrell. Luke, Volume 2: 9:51-24:53. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Catchpole, David. “The ‘Triumphal’ Entry.” In Jesus and the Politics of His Day, edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule, 319-334.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Ellis, E. Earle. The Gospel of Luke. NCB. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974.

Evans, Craig A. “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989): 237-270.

Fitzmyer, Joseph. The Gospel according to Luke X-XXIV. AB. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1985.

Green, Joel. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Gospel of Luke. SP. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1991.

Kinman, Brent Rogers. “Parousia, Jesus’ ‘A-Triumphal’ Entry, and the Fate of Jerusalem (Luke 19:28-44).” Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999): 279-294.

Kurz, William S. Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox, 1993.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978

Sanders, James A. “Prophecy and Polemic: Jews in Luke’s Scriptural Apologetic.” In Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts, edited by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, 171-211. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Spencer, F. Scott. The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008.

Talbert, Charles. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel.  Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 1991.

Tannehill, Robert. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Volume One: The Gospel according to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

_____.  “The Story of Israel within the Lukan Narrative.” In Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy, edited by D. P. Moessner, 325-339. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 1999.

---

[1] For example, I have had to leave out a fuller consideration of Jesus’ identity and connections with the temptation narrative in Luke 4:1-13 as well as any treatment of the “stone” (λίθος) motif found throughout Luke and which makes a marked appearance in my chosen passage.

[2] For examples of this kind of story in ancient literature, see David Catchpole, “The ‘Triumphal’ Entry,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 319-321.  Jesus’ Second Coming, also thought of on the model of a royal visitation, thus gains in Christian theology the standard label of parousia.  I Thessalonians 4:13-18 contains an early example of Christ’s return probably being portrayed as a parousia.

[3] Catchpole, “‘Triumphal’ Entry,” 321.  See also Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997), 692; Charles Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel ( Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 1991), 209-212.

[4] Brent Rogers Kinman, “Parousia, Jesus’ ‘A-Triumphal’ Entry, and the Fate of Jerusalem (Luke 19:28-44),” Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999): 280-283.  Notice that the Lukan travel narrative is framed by rejections – first by a Samaritan settlement, then by a Jewish one in the current passage (see Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke X-XXIV  (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1985), 1246).  In the former, Jesus repudiates his disciple’s predilection for bringing disaster.  In the latter, Jesus predicts disaster will come as an inevitable consequence.  Cf. 19:11-27, which connects with these passages in interesting ways, including a royal arrival and punishment for those not welcoming.  Hence, in some ways, it directly foreshadows 19:28-48 which follows directly on it.

[5] Hence a number of scholars question whether “triumphal” is the best description of such an entry.  See, e.g., E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974), 223; Kinman, “Parousia,” 279

[6] Cf. Green, Luke, 681, 683; Kinman, “Parousia,” 285.

[7] Daniel Bock, Luke, Volume 2: 9:51-24:53 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1554; Green, Luke, 685; Kinman, “Parousia,” 286-287; F. Scott Spencer, The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008), 190.

[8] Kinman, “Parousia,” 287.

[9] See, for instance, Green, Luke, 686.  The terminology of the one coming (ὁ ἐρχόμενος) or who is coming (ἔρχεται) perhaps also links back to 3:15-17 and 7:19-20, where Jesus’ identity and mission is also in view.  Here, then, the coming is actually occurring and we get to see Jesus’ identity proclaimed and we will see what sort of messiah he truly is.

[10] As Green, Luke, 691 notes, “Then, he asserted the divine necessity of his being in his Father’s house – claiming the temple as the abode of God and prefiguring his own teaching ministry in it [begun in 19:47].”  Cf. William S. Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 54.

[11] I here understand the basic idea of the temptations to involve alternative ways to pursue Jesus’ mission and understand his identity which are outside of the way of the cross. 

[12] Cf. Green, Luke, 691-692; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1991), 14; Kurz, Luke-Acts, 54; Talbert, Reading Luke, 212

[13] Bock, Luke, 1553; Green, Luke, 689; Kurz, Luke-Acts, 54.

[14] Bock, Luke, 1547.

[15] Cf. Fitzmyer, Luke, 1242.

[16] We can see an inclusio formed by 19:47 and 21:37, for instance.  Cf. Ellis, Luke, 225; Kurz, Luke-Acts, 54; Talbert, Reading Luke, 221.

[17] See the following section for more discussion of peace in this passage.

[18] Thanks to some comments from William Noe which suggested to me that there might be a connection between this section and the sending of the Seventy(-Two).

[19] For some of the interactions, see, e.g., Luke 5:21-30, 33-34; 6:1-11; 7:30, 36-50; 11:37-44, 53-54; 12:1; 13:31; 14:1; 15:1-2; 16:14-15; 18:1-14.

[20] Hence I side with Bock, Luke, 1557, 1560; Kinman, “Parousia,” 291; Robert Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Volume One: The Gospel according to Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 158 ; contra, e.g., Green, Luke, 686; Johnson, Luke, 300; Robert Tannehill, “The Story of Israel within the Lukan Narrative,” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy, ed. D. P. Moessner (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 1999), 331.

[21] Compare the role of the crowds during Paul’s analogous final trip to Jerusalem, where he is arrested and goes on trial.  See, for instance, 21:27-35.  Though the crowds often react positively to Luke-Act’s protagonists, they are also at times ambivalent or hostile. 

[22] In any case, they are certainly aligned with evil or uncleanness and opposition to Jesus, as evidenced by Jesus’ actions against them and the fact that the narrator uses a form of the word ἐκβάλλω to express Jesus’ casting them out of the temple, the same word used for exorcisms, for Jesus’ casting out demons.  Cf. Green, Luke, 692.

[23] Cf. Green, Luke, 689.

[24] On this, see Green, Luke, 689; Johnson, Luke, 299; I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978), 717.

[25] On this, see, e.g., Bock, Luke, 1547; Johnson, Luke, 300; Spencer, Luke and Acts, 191, 197-199.

[26] Cf. Bock, Luke, 1547; James A. Sanders, “Prophecy and Polemic: Jews in Luke’s Scriptural Apologetic,” in Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts, ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 178-179.

[27] Cf. Green, Luke, 693.

[28] Cf. Bock, Luke, 1561; Johnson, Luke, 298; Marshall, Luke, 717; Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 160.

[29] Fitzmyer, Luke, 1251; Green, Luke, 687.

[30] Cf. Tannehill, “Story of Israel,” 332.

[31] Green, Luke, 692; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1260, 1266, 1269; Johnson, Luke, 300.

[32] Bock, Luke, 1572; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1269; Green, Luke, 692.  Cf. Craig A. Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989): 249, 269.