Sin, Forgiveness, Faith, and Service, 1-10

17:1 Jesus said to his disciples, “Stumbling blocks are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! 17:2 It would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 17:3 Watch yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him. 17:4 Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times returns to you saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

“One of these little ones” – Noting that there is no mention of children in the immediate context, Michael Licona thinks that Luke may have transposed this saying from Luke 9:46-50, but forgotten to remove the reference to ‘these little ones’.  See this discussion, by Lydia McGrew.

17:5 The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” 17:6 So the Lord replied, “If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this black mulberry tree, ‘Be pulled out by the roots and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.

“Increase our faith!” – Ian Paul comments that this means something like, ‘Give us this kind of faith’:

‘The phrase here is πρόσθες ἡμῖν πίστιν, using the verb prostithemi, meaning to add to something that is already there. They have faith, but it is not this kind of faith, so there needs to be a dramatic change in the kind or degree of faith or trust that they have in God.’

Why do they ask for an increase in faith (rather than, say, love)?  William Gurnall:

‘But why did they rather not say, ‘Increase our love,’ seeing that was the grace they were to exercise in forgiving their brother? Surely it was not because love hath its increase from faith. If they could get more faith on Christ, they might be sure they should have more love to their brother also. The more strongly they could believe on Christ for the pardon of their own sins, not ‘seven,’ but ‘seventy times’ in a day committed against God, the more easy it would be to forgive their brother offending themselves seven times a day. This interpretation, our Saviour’s reply to their pray-er for faith favours, ver. 6 -‘And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.’ Where Christ shows the efficacy of justifying faith by the power of a faith of miracles. As if he had said, ‘You have hit on the right way to get a for-giving spirit; it is faith indeed that would enable you to conquer the unmercifulness of your hearts. Though it were as deeply rooted in you as this sycamore tree is in the ground, yet by faith you should be able to pluck it up.’ When we would have the whole tree fruitful, we think we do enough to water the root, knowing what the root sucks from the earth it will soon disperse into the branches. Thus that sap and fatness, faith, which is the radical grace, draws from Christ, will be quickly diffused through the branches of the other graces, and tasted in the pleasantness of their fruit.’

On different types and degrees of faith:

‘Of course, faith varies from person to person. It also varies in our own lives from time to time, What we must always remember is that it is not great faith that saves, but real faith. And yet: why should our faith remain little? We should feed it. Sometimes we try to feed faith on faith, giving it a diet of teaching about faith, teaching about assurance and analysis of the grace itself. What feeds faith is a sight of the glory of the Word of God and above all, a sight of the glory of Christ. Often, faith is little, faith is malnourished, because it is starved of Jesus. It is a terrifying possibility that there may be Christians who are firmly within the bounds of orthodoxy and starved of Christ. Faith needs to feed on the full range of His glory: as human and divine, Prophet, Priest and King. We should treasure and value those means of grace, those sermons and discussions and books that bring the Lord closer to us, because that is where our faith grows. The most magnificent definition of faith ever penned was the one implicit in the great words of William Guthrie describing a man who has come to faith in Christ: ‘Less would not satisfy and more is not desired.’ That is faith! Thrilled with Jesus. It cannot think of any way in which He could be improved. The New Testament is full of Christology. Let our reading and our meditation be full of Christology. Then our faith will grow.’ (McLeod, A Faith to Live By)

‘Be pulled out by the roots and planted in the sea’ – According to Morris, the rabbis said that the roots of the black Mulberry tree remained in the ground for 600 years, so strong were they.  So the tree is a metaphor for something seemingly immovable.  Faith can achieve what mere human reasoning would regard as impossible.

Stein suggests that such faith is effective in

• preaching (Acts 2:14–41; 3:11–26; 4:8–20; 7:1–53),
• healing (Acts 3:1–10; 4:22, 30; 5:12–16),
• endurance (Acts 4:21, 23–30; 5:17–42; 7:54–60), and
• forgiveness (Lk 17:3-5).

17:7 “Would any one of you say to your slave who comes in from the field after plowing or shepherding sheep, ‘Come at once and sit down for a meal’? 17:8 Won’t the master instead say to him, ‘Get my dinner ready, and make yourself ready to serve me while I eat and drink. Then you may eat and drink’? 17:9 He won’t thank the slave because he did what he was told, will he? 17:10 So you too, when you have done everything you were commanded to do, should say, ‘We are slaves undeserving of special praise; we have only done what was our duty.’ ”

“Your slave” – There is little reference to slavery within Judaism in the Gospels.  It may be that we should understand the role here as ‘servant’, rather than ‘slave’.  But the idea of ‘slave’ would have resonated strongly with Luke’s readers, who were probably mainly Gentiles living outside Israel.

Ian Paul adds that there might be echoes here of the duties of leaders in the early church:

‘Ploughing (in 1 Cor 9.10), tending the flock (in 1 Cor 9.7) and serving at the meal table (in 1 Cor 11; compare the debate in Acts 6) were all metaphors for aspects of Christian leadership (Parsons, p 254). This connects Luke’s theology with that of Paul, who consistently describes himself as ‘slave’ of Christ, and defines disciples as those who confess that ‘Jesus is Lord’ (Romans 10.9, 1 Cor 12.3).’

But what kind of master are we slaves to? –

‘For Paul, he is the ‘Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me’ (Gal 2.20). He is the one who has ‘poured the love of God into our hearts by the Holy Spirit’ (Rom 5.5). He is the one who cried ‘Abba, Father’ to God, and having justified us freely (so that there is no condemnation), gives us his Spirit so that we too might cry out ‘Abba, Father’ as he did (Rom 8.15). He is the one who, on the cross, dealt with our sin and in his resurrection gave us new life, so that in baptism we died to sin and live to him (Rom 6.4). This is no ruthless master!’

‘We are slaves undeserving of special praise; we have only done what was our duty’ –

In some translations: ‘We are unworthy servants’.

Ian Paul:

‘Neither Christian discipleship nor Christian ministry are a means to privilege and power. They cannot be a means to prosperity—though can and should be a means of living, since ‘the worker is worthy of his or her hire’ (1 Tim 5.18 quoting as scripture Luke 10.7)—nor can they justify creating a culture of deference, in which leaders parade around in fine clothes and expect others to bow to them.’

See also Mt 23:8-11.

We all fall short of the perfect obedience to the law that would merit acceptance with God:

‘Christ speaks here of an entire observance of the law, which is nowhere to be found; for the most perfect of all men is still at a great distance from that righteousness which the law demands. The present question is not, Are we justified by works? but, Is the observance of the law meritorious of any reward from God? This latter question is answered in the negative; for God holds us for his slaves, and therefore reckons all that can proceed from us to be his just right. Nay, though it were true, that a reward is due to the observance of the law in respect of merit, it will not therefore follow that any man is justified by the merits of works; for we all fail: and not only is our obedience imperfect, but there is not a single part of it that corresponds exactly to the judgment of God.’ (Calvin)

The law is good, but insufficient:

‘Throughout the Synoptic tradition, wherever Jesus speaks of commandments, there is always the hint of “something more” that is needed to make a person righteous before God, whether it is loving an enemy or selling one’s possessions to give to the poor. Only Luke tells the story of the servant who comes in from working in the field and is given no rest, but is told to prepare supper for the master. Yet this story is the unspoken presupposition of all Jesus’ teaching: “So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty’” (Lk 17:10).’ (DJG)

Not ‘worthless’, but undeserving:

‘The point to be derived from the servant’s recognition of his master’s sovereignty depends on the translation of achreios. The traditional renderings-“unprofitable” or “worthless”-are misleading. God’s people are of great worth in his sight. “Unworthy” is an improvement and suggests the idea of one who is undeserving or unable to accrue merit. It is even possible that a more strictly etymological translation does most justice to the term, in which case it would mean “without need.” Luke 17:10 would then mean that the servant is one to whom nothing is owed or to whom no favor is due. Whatever the precise nuance, it is clear that Jesus is highlighting the need for disciples to renounce any claim they might try to make on God’s grace. The parable does not deny that God will reward his people-that point is made elsewhere (e.g., Lk 12:35-38)-but it stresses that an individual’s relationship with God is “not a matter of earning or deserving, still less of bargaining, but all of grace.” The context in which Luke places this parable is a series of teachings for his disciples about faith. Like most of the parables addressed to the disciples in the Gospels, many think this one was originally meant for his opponents. Here the most important alleged incongruity is the unlikelihood of many (or any) of Jesus’ disciples being sufficiently well-to-do to own slaves. But this allegation probably overestimates the poverty of Jesus’ followers and underestimates the number of households of only modest income who were able to have one slave (and the parable gives no indication of more than one). The family of Zebedee and his sons had at least two servants (Mk 1:20). More importantly, the disciples need not even have had slaves to appreciate the force of the illustration. They would have been well enough acquainted with the practice, even if only second-hand, to appreciate its relevance. On the other hand, if the context be accepted as authentic, we need not go to the opposite extreme and assume that the teaching was applied only to the twelve disciples, or, in Luke’s day, to church leaders. The precious truths of God’s sovereignty and grace apply to all Christians. They may perhaps best be summarized as follows: (1) God retains the right to command his followers to live however he chooses.(2) God’s people should never presume that their obedience to his commands has earned them his favor. ‘ (Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables)

The Grateful Leper, 11-19

17:11 Now on the way to Jerusalem, Jesus was passing along between Samaria and Galilee. 17:12 As he was entering a village, ten men with leprosy met him. They stood at a distance, 17:13 raised their voices and said, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.” 17:14 When he saw them he said, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went along, they were cleansed. 17:15 Then one of them, when he saw he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice. 17:16 He fell with his face to the ground at Jesus’ feet and thanked him. (Now he was a Samaritan.) 17:17 Then Jesus said, “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? 17:18 Was no one found to turn back and give praise to God except this foreigner?” 17:19 Then he said to the man, “Get up and go your way. Your faith has made you well.”

Ten men with leprosy – ‘Lepers tended to live in groups (2 Kings 7:3), they avoided contact with nonlepers (Luke 17:12; Lev. 13:45–46; Num. 5:2), but they stayed near populated areas to beg alms.’ (Harper’s Bible Commentary)

Between Samaria and Galilee – This explains the mixed racial character of the group, at least one of whom was a Samaritan, v16.

They stood at a distance, raised their voices and said, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us – They were required to keep at least 50 paces away from other people (Lev 13:45f).

Jesus does not touch them (cf. Mk 1:41) or promise them healing, but simply gives them a command.

“Go and show yourselves to the priests” – This would be the normal procedure after a person had recovered from leprosy.  Edwards thinks that the Samaritan would have gone to a priest at Gerizim, and the Jews (if any) to Jerusalem.

The idea of ‘turning back’ is common in this Gospel, and (for Edwards) symbolises conversion to faith.

It seems that this man, rather than continuing on to the priest, headed back to Jesus.

Harper’s Bible Commentary points out some apparent incongruities in this account.  Why was the Samaritan commended for returning to Jesus (and the other nine criticised for not doing so), when Jesus himself had instructed them to go and present themselves to the priests?  And why was the Samaritan included in this command, when he had a different centre of worship (Mount Gerizim)?  And why was he told that his faith had made him well, when all had been made well?

With regard to the last of these questions, the commentator suggests that Jesus meant something other than physical healing (since that was true for all).  Lit., the expression is, ‘Your faith has saved you’.  We may, therefore, have here an anticipation of Acts 28:26f and the faith of foreigners and the blindness of Israel.  Edwards, however, cautions against assuming that the other nine were all Jews.

The Coming of the Kingdom, 20-21

17:20 Now at one point the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming, so he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, 17:21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

“The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed” – ‘with observation’.  Bock (IVPNTC) thinks that this is  probably ‘an allusion to the apocalyptic signs that are supposed to accompany the kingdom’s coming’.

“The kingdom of God is in your midst” – or ‘within you’ (NIV), or ‘among you’.

See also Mt 12:28, Lk 11:20.  These texts indicate that, in Jesus’ teaching, the kingdom is present when and where God works with power.

But not ‘in your hearts’, since Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, who rejected him.

Various interpretations have been proposed:

Some think that this is a later addition to the Gospel, attempting to deal with the so-called ‘delay of the Parousia’ and seeking to ‘spiritualise’ the notion of the kingdom of God.

This proposal is implausible in a number of ways, not least in that vv22-38 contain apocalyptic teaching.

Others think that Jesus is referring to a mystical and spiritual kingdom.  The kingdom is ‘within your hearts’.  But, apart from any other considerations, Jesus cold scarcely have said this to Pharisees, who are almost always characterised in this Gospel as more or less antagonistic towards Jesus.

A NET translation note:

‘[‘In your midst’] is a far better translation than “in you.” Jesus would never tell the hostile Pharisees that the kingdom was inside them. The reference is to Jesus present in their midst. He brings the kingdom. Another possible translation would be “in your grasp.”’

The suggested translation ‘within your reach’ would, perhaps, imply that the kingdom is available, subject to repentance.  But ths is rather conjectural.

Perhaps Jesus means, ‘the kingdom of God is as good as present, since I am here among you.’  Bock (IVPNTC) puts it like this:

‘It is present in Jesus, so he and it stand before you. You do not have to look for it, because it is right before your face! This answer is very much like 7:22–23 and 11:20. It also fits the time perspective of 7:28 and 16:16, as well as the explicit declarations of current fulfillment in 4:16–23.’

Edwards agrees that the expression could be translated, ‘the kingdom of God is within you’, but notes that ‘you’ is plural, giving a much less subjective connotation, and something nearer to ‘among you’.  This would mean that ‘Jesus among them is the presence of the kingdom, but his presence is not heralded by a display of wonders.’

Harper’s Bible Commentary:

‘This phrase can be translated “within you” but the “you” is plural, best translated “among you,” a much less subjective perspective.’

Shogren remarks that although the primary meaning of ‘entos‘ is ‘within’, when used with a plural object it often means ‘between’ or ‘among’.

Shogren thinks that the meaning is something like:

‘Do not concentrate on the future kingdom, when you can already see clearly in my actions that God is acting with the power of the kingdom among you: in the preaching of the good news, in exorcisms, in healings.’

Morris favours the translation, “The kingdom of God is among you”.

‘“Within you,” therefore, seems to be Luke’s way of expressing the inward nature and dynamic of the kingdom of God, rather than refer to any actual presence in or among the Pharisees.’ (DJG)

Perrin favours the view just outlined, but thinks that the meaning may possibly be: ‘The kingdom of God is present among you, in my work and ministry, and it is therefore within your grasp.’

This saying appears to be in conflict with Lk 22:18, where Jesus speaks of the kingdom as future, “from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”  But this is yet another instance of the Bible’s now/not yet theme:

‘In the present context Jesus was stressing that the kingdom is within reach. Jesus’ presence and activity meant that the kingdom did not need to be searched for; Jesus brought it with him (Luke 11:20 is similar in force). In what follows, Jesus indicated that the end or consummation of kingdom promise will come about at the return of the Son of Man, but that cannot take place before his suffering. This return will happen in the midst of life when many will not be ready for it or for the judgment that comes with it.’

(Holman Apologetics Commentary)

The Coming of the Son of Man, 22-37

17:22 Then he said to the disciples, “The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. 17:23 Then people will say to you, ‘Look, there he is!’ or ‘Look, here he is!’ Do not go out or chase after them. 17:24 For just like the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day. 17:25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 17:26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man. 17:27 People were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage—right up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. 17:28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot, people were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building; 17:29 but on the day Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. 17:30 It will be the same on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 17:31 On that day, anyone who is on the roof, with his goods in the house, must not come down to take them away, and likewise the person in the field must not turn back. 17:32 Remember Lot’s wife!

“As the lightning…so will be the Son of Man in his day” –

Writing in Evangelical Times, Andy McIntosh cites this saying as proving that the Flood was worldwide:- ‘Christ’s second coming will be global, so by the same token the Flood was global.’  But the expression, “As it was…so it will be…” does not suggest that the two events are similar in every respect.  The context makes it clear that the similarity is not in their extent, but in their unexpectedness.

“But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation” – Does this imply that Jesus thought that the end of all things would happen soon after his death?

Bock (IVPNTC) notes:

‘Scholars often argue that the church suffered from the “delay of the parousia”: Jesus predicted a soon arrival, and when it did not come the church struggled to explain why it did not come. In Lukan studies the major name tied to this view is Hans Conzelmann (1961). He taught that much of Luke is dedicated to concern over the fact that Jesus did not come as quickly as the church had expected (or, in some views, as quickly as he had led them to believe). But in this speech and in the Olivet discourse Jesus is outlining a series of events that precede the return. He makes clear in texts like Mark 13:10, 32 that the exact timing is not known and that other things must happen first, like his suffering and the church’s preaching of the gospel. These discourses function to reassure disciples that God has a plan, even if we cannot know the exact timing of all these events. If there is a problem with “delay,” it is because the church failed to reflect on the whole of Jesus’ teaching.’

“The flood came and destroyed them all” – ‘Christ describes the indifferent routine of the people of Noah’s times, then notes that the flood came and destroyed them all anyway. To this he likens the day when the Son of Man is revealed. Here the point is that people were unprepared for the disaster that was to strike. It refers only to people who were destroyed, not to land that was covered.’ (DOTP)

17:33 Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it. 17:34 I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 17:35 There will be two women grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”
17:37 Then the disciples said to him, “Where, Lord?” He replied to them, “Where the dead body is, there the vultures will gather.”

“In that night there will be two people in one bed” – Masculine in Gk., and possibly, but not necessarily, implying two males (complementing the two women mentioned in the next verse.

Garland says that ‘the image has no sexual overtones and reflects less affluent times when people did not enjoy the luxury of private bedrooms.’  Edwards is of the same opinion, adding, however, that the expression indicates that the closest of family ties will be severed.

“Two women grinding grain together” – ‘Two women work their hand mill—one normally operated by two women squatting opposite each other with the mill between them, each woman in turn pulling the stone around 180 degrees. The two are apt to be sisters, mother and daughter, or two household slaves. Yet no matter how close their relationship, at the Parousia one is taken, the other left (cf. Mt 10:35–36).’ (Carson, on Matthew)

Wright, on the other hand, does not think that Jesus’ teaching refers to the Parousia.  It is, rather about the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.  Accordingly,

‘this doesn’t mean (as some have suggested) that one person will be ‘taken’ away by God in some kind of supernatural salvation (‘rapture’?), while the other is ‘left’ to face destruction. If anything, it’s the opposite: when invading forces sweep through a town or village, they will ‘take’ some off to their deaths, and ‘leave’ others untouched.’

I think that Wright is mistaken in supposing that this passage refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, rather than to the parousia.  However, he is correct in suggesting that to be ‘taken away’ is bad, whereas to be ‘left behind’ is good.

So conservative an author as E.W. Bullinger (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible) can write:

‘Luke 17:37 clearly shows that it is a time of judgment (see verses 24–37); and that the taking and the leaving refer to judgment, and not to the Rapture of 1 Thess. 4:17; which was a subsequent revelation, and ought not to be read into the Gospels, which are perfectly clear without it.’

And Schnabel (40 Questions about the End Times) explains:

‘In Matthew 24:38–39, Jesus compares the coming of the Son of Man with the people living at the time of Noah’s flood, who were “swept away” because they were unprepared. Thus, the people who are “taken” in Matthew 24:40–41 are people who are “taken” for judgment (see Jer. 6:11). There is no reference to a sudden disappearance of people from earth.’

According to some, the saying of Jesus that his Second Coming of Jesus Christ ‘will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field…is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.’  Even so thoughtful a commentator as Hendriksen can say: ‘This is very logical, for if the Son of man arrives in the air above a place where it is night, it will be day on the other side of the globe; and vice versa.’  I think that such attempts to harmonise the Bible with science are unhelpful.

Bock (IVPNTC) notes that,

‘it is debated whether the one is taken into judgment and the one is left for salvation or the other way around. Given the Noah and Lot metaphors, as well as the picture of the birds gathering over the dead bodies in verse 37, it seems that it is those who are left behind who experience the judgment. Those who flee, like Noah and Lot, are spared.’

[17:36 “There will be two in the field; one will be taken and the other left.”] This verse is not well attested in the ancient manuscripts, and is omitted in a number of modern translations.  It is, however, present in Mt 24:40.

Then the disciples said to him, “Where, Lord?” – ‘Where will judgment take place?’  The question seems to ignore, or perhaps, defy, Jesus’ denial in v23.

“Where the dead body is, there the vultures will gather” – The word translated ‘vultures’ can also refer to eagles. But it is the former, of course, that are noted for feeding off carrion.  Fitzmyer thinks that ‘eagles’ might be meant, as an allusion to the Roman ensign; but this seems unlikely.

Many different interpretations have been offered for this saying.  It is positioned differently in Matthew  and is there linked to the lightning simile and, according to Garland, ‘refers to the universal visibility of Jesus’ coming (Matt 24:27–28)’. In Luke, ‘the saying is separated from the lightning simile and placed in the climactic position of the discourse at the end’ (Garland, who concludes that the saying carries different meanings in the two Gospels.)

This saying may be proverbial (Morris).  Note that it is spoken in response to the disciples’ question, “Where, Lord?”  However, Jesus’ reply is as much about ‘when’ as it is about ‘where’.  Neither timetable nor map is given; but it will be as obvious as the presence of vultures circling around a corpse in the desert.

Morris summarises Jesus’ meaning: ‘Where the spiritually dead are found, there inevitably will there be judgment.’

Stein finds the proverb ‘quite confusing’.  He thinks that ‘it may mean that just as vultures know where carcasses are, so the world unmistakably will know when and where the Son of Man returns.’

For Edwards, the most obvious interpretation is that,

‘as eagles are attracted to a dying or dead animal, so the events of vv. 22–26 portend the return of the Son of Man…Eagles are thus birds of omen, just as events preceding the return of the Son of Man are also omens—not precise timetables, but certain reminders of the inevitable and ultimate.’

Bock writes:

‘The image is grim. The Son of Man’s return means massive judgment; it will be final and will carry the stench of death. The return will be deadly serious. You should not be on the wrong side when it comes. Be assured that the vindication of the saints will come (18:1–8). The Son of Man’s return means humanity’s separation into two camps: those who were for him enter into everlasting life, while those who were against him face an everlasting judgment.’