Reid and Morris suggest this is an image of the messianic banquet, where the righteous will eat with the messiah. The parable addresses an issue at the heart of religion, the places at the banquet will not be given first to those whoa re just important by human standards. It is the humble who will receive the seats of honour. Moreover, those who share the feast may not be the one’s who were first invited (the Jews). If they refuse then new guests (gentiles) will take their place.
An example of a parable of the Burglar Lk 12;39-40 “but know this, that if the householder had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an unexpected hour."
This parable shows that Christians should always be prepared for the Kingdom of God of God through by living their lives according to the Bible, like through prayer and good deeds because they do not know when the Kingdom of God is coming. Conzelmann thinks that Luke has changed this parable to make it sound more futuristic because people were concerned that the Parousia that Jesus had promised had not come yet. Therefore the emphasis is on the suddenness of the coming of the Kingdom of God rather than how quickly it will come.
With reference to scholars, what does Luke seem to be saying about when the kingdom of God is coming and why was Jesus’ life so controversial at the time?
In Luke there appears to be three main strands of thought as to when the kingdom of God is due to arrive.
Firstly, Schweitzer believes that Luke thought the Kingdom of God would be coming very soon. He thinks Luke presents the possibility that Jesus would return very soon and suddenly. His evidence for this is “You must be ready because the Son of Man will come at an hour you do not expect him,” taken from the Parable of the Burglar.
Secondly, Conzelmann and Sanders believe that Luke was saying that the end would come in the future. They believe Luke presents the possibility that the Kingdom of God would not come soon but suddenly in the future. Their evidence is the Parable of the faithful and unfaithful servants.
Lastly, Dodd believes that the Kingdom of God has already arrived. He thinks Luke presents the possibility that the kingdom to some extent has already arrived with the coming of Jesus. His evidence is the Parable of the Mustard seed.
Conzelmann suggests that at the end of the first century Luke and other early Christians were faced with a crisis that the promised Kingdom that Jesus had spoken about had not come as Mark had written “and he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power," (Mk9.1) yet the disciples were dying and the kingdom had not come.
. Contrary to Schweitzer’s theory, Conzelmann thought that Luke had actually edited and altered his sources to try and solve this problem. Since Luke edited them accordingly and therefore in Luke’s gospel we end up with the idea of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom, found in Mark, being replaced by the idea of “salvation history.” He argues that any passages that appear not to support his theory and which appear to show that Luke believed that Jesus was saying the end is near are just vestiges of other non-Markan sources which he did not bother to alter. E Kasemann agrees with Conzelmann that Luke foresaw a future coming and wrote accordingly as he states “You do not write the history of the church if you are expecting the end of the world to come any day.” Tucket also supports Conzelmann’s theory saying there are three main pieces of evidence for it.
Firstly, using Mk 9.1 “and he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death," Luke does not say “before they see the kingdom of God come with power”. Many say this gives the idea that the Kingdom is more of a spiritual reality rather than a physical place that is near at hand.
Secondly, in Lk 21.8 “he replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them” Luke adds to the Markan version that false claimants will come saying they are Jesus and saying the end is near. This implies that Luke was warning people against believing those who say the end is near.
Lastly, there is no mention in Acts of an imminent end to things. In fact the disciples are told it is not for them to know the times or periods set by the father’s own authority (Acts 1:7).
A N Wilson suggests that Luke was just trying to meet the needs of a dual opinion in society where some believed the end was near and others having doubt that it was ever going to come. Most likely is Tucket’s suggestion that the most satisfying solution goes back to Luke’s role as a historian. Luke is concerned that the Parousia has not arrived but he does not as Conzelmann suggests abandon all hope of it coming. Hense the fact that he himself as a writer is spilt and this impacts the way that he writes.
Morris says conflict between Jesus and Jewish groups forms a central part of the story of Jesus presented in the Gospels. Even from his birth, Jesus was at odds with authorities, Herod, for example. The Pharisees were convinced without doubt that their laws and religious observances were correct. They could not accept that Jesus, the Messiah, could break these rectified rules. Throughout Jesus’ lifetime he violated many of their oral laws. Some of Jesus’ actions would have offended and infuriated the religious authorities immensely, mixing with outcasts would have annoyed them, but disobeying food laws was unacceptable. By mixing with outcasts Jesus was making himself ceremonially unclean, he also ate with ceremonially unclean hands, broke the Sabbath law by healing people and gleaning corn to eat. Jesus also publicly forgave sins, which the Pharisees would interpret as blasphemy. To make it worse, he freely criticised the Pharisees for the hypocrisy and self-righteousness. This made his life extremely controversial for the time he was living in.
With this in mind, there is no doubt as to why conflicts arose about the controversy of Jesus’ teachings. In the Pharisees’ eyes Jesus was guilty of being a lawbreaker and of blasphemy. Criticising them was just the “icing on the cake”. They saw him as a threat to their popularity and authority of the people, therefore he had to be punished for his actions. They plotted to kill him. Stanton describes them as the most “influential sect or movement within Judaism.”
In Luke 13:10-17 there was controversy over the laws of the Sabbath, this was due to Jesus healing a crippled woman on this day of rest in the synagogue. Healing was permitted on the Sabbath only in a life or death situation. Stanton points out that since Jesus could have waited until the following day to heal the woman, he was provoking conflict with the religious authorities, especially the Pharisees, who were keen to observe Sabbath regulations meticulously. However, it is possible to argue that in this account, amongst other Sabbath healing, Jesus heals with a word, not a physical action. This could mean that allegedly the Sabbath law was transgressed. Stanton believes this argument is “dubious” as it is based on silence, Jesus may have used “physical action that is not recorded, but it is also based in Sabbath regulations which cannot to dated with confidence to the first century.” It can be concluded that Jesus deliberately caused offence to the religious authorities over the Sabbath laws and acted against the spirit of these rules. Though he rarely broke the law. Even if the healings did not technically break Sabbath regulations Jesus went out of his way to heal the woman knowing he would cause deep offence.
In Luke 11:37-54 the Pharisees invited Jesus to a meal. They are disgusted when Jesus does not wash before the meal. Price says hat the washing of hands was considered essential before a meal and this is why the Pharisees were upset. It was to wash off any uncleanness after mixing with non-Jews. Jesus accuses them of hypocrisy as he claims they care more about how they look than the true love of God; they take the seats of honour at the synagogues without doing anything to deserve them. Morris points out that Jesus grieves over the Pharisees for their tithing practices. The Jewish law required tithing, but it was meant to be a joyful offering of love. Jesus makes a mockery of them by describing how they laboriously give 10% of everything, even their herbs. Technically there is nothing wrong with this, except they pay too much attention to trivial things and neglect the love of God. Price suggests that Jesus was upset because some of the Pharisees just wanted to show off their goodness which did more harm to their religion than good. Having the best seats in the synagogue meant that they would be seen as men of distinction, Jesus criticised this. Jesus further accused the lawyers of being the same, “you load men with intolerable burdens, and you will not put a single finger to the load.” Cooper explains that the lawyers were responsible for making the everyday law too difficult for people to keep. Jesus then explains why God has sent prophets to the earth to be killed. It is because the generation that takes everything for granted and is greedy, such as the lawyers and Pharisees, will have to answer for these deaths at the time of Judgement. Price explains the lawyers’ actions had prevented people from getting to know God, as had the Pharisees with their failure to be sincere.
In Luke 7:36-50, Jesus dines at the home of Simon, a Pharisee. Morris says that “it is a mark of Jesus’ broad sympathies that he dined earlier with a Publican (Luke 5:29) and now with a Pharisee. A woman who was a sinner, probably a prostitute, entered the house. A prostitute would not have been welcome and so her courage to come could be considered as an act of wanting to be forgiven and repentance. She shows these by pouring perfume on Jesus’ feet after washing them with her tears and drying them with her tears. Morris points out that Jewish women did not untie their hair in public, showing the sinner’s oblivious attitude towards public opinion in the immensity of emotion. Morris also informs that to attend to feet was often regarded as a servant’s task and was probably a mark of humility. The woman showed great love and gratitude towards Jesus. Simon questioned the authenticity of Jesus as a prophet and doubted Jesus was aware of who the woman was. Jesus made a contrast between the woman’s and Simon’s behaviour, which Morris said, was that Simon had not given Jesus the treatment due to an honourable guest but the woman had. Jesus then tells the prostitute that her sins are forgiven. It is apparent that no matter how many and how great the sins, God can forgive them. In contrast to this, he who is forgiven little loves a little.
In conclusion, although Jesus recognised the Pharisees genuine keenness and anxiety to please God, and he saw that in many ways they were good, honest people, he also new they were misguided and their legalistic ways soon made them forget that the law was a benefit to humanity. Stanton concludes that regarding the Sabbath, that Jesus parted company with some of the ways many, particularly the Pharisees, interpreted the implications of the law. In these cases, the conflict revolved around different interpretations of the will of God revealed in scripture. It is also important to realise that although there was a great deal of conflict, Jesus and the religious authorities shared the same objectives and both continued to seek the renewal of Israel. Sociologists have often observed that the closer the relationships between groups, the more intense the conflict is.
