The normative reading of Luke 19:41-44 emphasizes the predictive nature of Jesus’ lamentation outside of the city and
temple of Jerusalem.
A number of biblical scholars have even suggested that the purpose of the passage is to condemn the Jewish temple establishment and provide further legitimacy for Paul’s missionary activities amongst the gentiles.
However, if the passage is read with an awareness of its historical and literary context a different dimension of Lukan theology is revealed.
Instead of a prediction of the destruction and obsolescence of the Jewish temple system, in this passage the author of Luke provides a prophetic
critique of the messianic desires of his contemporaries, as well as the abuses of the elites that ruled by complicity with Roman oppression.
For the author of Luke, the militaristic and political conception of the Messiah was mistaken.
Also, Luke shows that the pursuit of power in general is not the way “that makes for peace.”
On the contrary, the Gospel of Luke presents the nonviolent, apolitical
Jesus as expected Messiah, or “anointed one.”
The question of the Gospel’s authorship is difficult to resolve. Marion Llyod Soards clarifies this point in her introduction to Luke in the New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha:
The oldest traditions of the Christian church identify Luke, a physician who was a traveling companion and coworker with Paul (Philem 1.24; Col 4.14), as the author of the Gospel and its sequel, The Acts of The Apostles.
At times the tradition further identifies Luke as a Syrian from
Antioch, but practically nothing else is remembered of the writer of the Third Gospel.
The earliest of these traditions about the identity of the author are from the late second century, and scholarly analysis of the Gospel and Acts raises critical questions about the accuracy of the attribution of the writings to the doctor, Luke, who was Paul’s associate.
John T. Squires also indicates that “the name ‘Luke’ is used purely by convention to designate the unknown author of this gospel.
However, while there is some dispute regarding the identity of the author of the Gospel of Luke, the traditional ascription of authorship to Luke, Paul’s companion, is not entirely problematic.
Whether or not Luke the physician is the actual author of the Gospel has little bearing on the interpretation of the passage in question.
The resolution of this dispute in either direction does not lend weight or credence to either the predictive or prophetic reading of Luke 19.41-44, because the accuracy and authority of the text does not require apostolic authorship.
The author of the gospel does not claim to be an “eyewitness” to the events described, but a historian.
The title of “historian” must be qualified, since the author of the Gospel of Luke did not view the function and purpose of history in the same manner as most modern historians.
David Bolotin points out the distinction between ancient and contemporary historiography in his essay regarding the political philosophy of the ancient historian Thucydides. Bolotin suggests that for ancients like Thucydides histories were complied and written for the moral instruction of their readers, and not as a pseudo-scientific endeavor to record and codify the events of the past.
For Bolotin “Thucydides whole work,” directs us “toward his own way of life – above all, his ‘quest for truth’ and his writing of ‘a possession for all time’ – as the best life for man.”
Ernst Breisach also notes the moralistic motivation present within ancient historiography.
While it has been asserted that the Gospel of Luke belongs a number of differing genres
, its classification as an example of ancient Hellenistic biography and historiography appears to be justified.
John T. Squires makes this point explicit in his essay “The Gospel According to Luke.”
According to Squires “many of the formal characteristics of Luke-Acts resonate with the way that ‘history’ was presented in the Hellenistic world.”
Squires also states that the author’s purpose for writing the gospel places it within the genre of Hellenistic historiography:
Why does the author write?
The final clause of the preface declares that this work is designed to provide ‘assurance’ or ‘certainty’ (
asphaleian, 1.3).
The NRSV translation, ‘truth’, evokes the sense of correct dogma or irrefutable historical fact, but points beyond this to the notion of truth as an interpretation of the material collected in the work which is pertinent and applicable to the context in which those who read it are located.
Hellenistic writers were explicit in noting that a good history must be for the benefit of its audience, by instilling the truth in those who read their works.
The preface thus expresses the purpose of the work in terms of the historical enterprise, indicating that the author writes to encourage his fellow believers in their faith, and to equip them to bear witness to their faith in the circumstances of their daily lives.
This means that the gospel of Luke was written in order to instruct its audience in a particular ethic and manner of living. It is therefore likely that the passage in 19:41-44 was included in order to accomplish this goal, and not to illustrate Jesus’ clairvoyance, or predictive, psychic ability.
Since the main purpose of the author of the Gospel of Luke appears to be the instruction of its audience regarding a particular mode of living, a brief consideration of the audience is necessary.
Kathy Maxwell has noted that the author of Luke uses rhetorical tools that indicate an expectation of audience participation.
In her book
Hearing Between the Lines: The Audience as Fellow-Worker in Luke-Acts and its Literary Milieu, Maxwell asserts that the author of Luke is not merely recording historical data for the purpose of developing archival knowledge.
On the contrary, as was noted above, the author of Luke intended to write something that shapes the lives of those who read it.
This suggests that there existed a particular community that would have been receptive to the lessons contained within Luke’s history.
While there is a great deal of debate over the exact nature of audience being addressed,
it would be difficult to deny that the author of Luke has a definite audience whose perceptions he intends to shape.
In general, however, it is believed that the Gospel of Luke was intended for specific ancient Christian communities and also as an apologetic tool for the expansion of those communities.
This reality has lead Craig L. Blomberg to state that while the ancient Christian gospels were intended for the spiritual formation of early Christian communities, they are also intended for “all Christians.”
Recognizing this fact, the lessons that were intended for specific ancient Christian communities could still be, at least analogically, applicable for modern Christian communities.
Most scholars argue that the Gospel of Luke was written after 70CE, due to the fact the Mark and Q both appear to be significant sources for its author.
This means that the Gospel of Luke was written following the Roman destruction the city of
Jerusalem and of the second Jewish temple.
The destruction of the temple system and the city of
Jerusalem would have had a profound impact on the gospel’s author, as well as its audience.
This is because the socio-political power dynamics of the ancient world were always couched in the imagery and symbolism of religion.
This is especially true of the world dominated by the hegemony of the
Roman Empire.
Richard Bauckham notes that the emperors and the elites of the Roman imperial state justified their authority and power by locating its origin in divine will.
Essentially, the claim of Roman imperial propaganda was that the locus of divine power and will was in the Roman emperor’s throne room.
Bauckham clarifies this point in his book
The Theology of the Book of Revelation:
The
Roman Empire, like most political powers in the ancient world, represented and propagated its power in religious terms.
Its state religion, featuring the worship both of deified emperors and of the traditional gods of
Rome, expressed political loyalty through religious worship.
In this way it absolutized its power, claiming for itself the ultimate divine sovereignty over the world.
Thus the Romans, along with most of the people of the Roman Empire, would have viewed the destruction of
Jerusalem and the Jewish temple as an affirmation of the primacy of Roman imperial and religious power.
The Jewish claim that God would deliver them from Roman rule by sending a Messiah would also be called into question.
The author of the gospel of Luke was also cognizant of this situation.
As such, the passage in Luke 19:41-44 can be seen as a response to this reality in two ways.
Luke challenges the erroneous messianic expectations of the Jewish religious elite, as well as the alliances made by the Jewish political leaders.
With respect to the former, by Jesus’ time the Jewish people had already developed a history of political and military messianic resistance in relation to the
Roman Empire and it predecessors.
Extending back to the period of Babylonian and Persian domination of the Jewish populous there has always been an expectation that a political and military leader would liberate the nation of
Israel from foreign oppression.
Indeed it is thought that many of the prophetic writings that are included in Old Testament were written during either the exilic or post-exilic period, meaning that much of the imagery used to describe the Jewish Messiah was likely influenced by the experience of political and religious oppression.
This expectation persisted through the period of Hellenistic rule and was intensified by the Jewish experience of the Maccabean Revolt followed by the establishment of the semi-independent Hasmonean state.
Richard Horsley notes the importance of this historic epoch stating that the Jewish people (both the elites and the peasantry) “had sustained a successful war of national liberation, probably with some significant apocalyptic [and messianic] inspiration.”
For many of their contemporaries the Maccabean leaders were regarded as messianic leaders.
In other words, the experience of the Maccabean revolt and Jewish independence under Hasmonean rule would have further ingrained the political and military imagery associated with messianic ideas in the consciousness of the Jewish people.
This political and martial messianic tradition persisted through the period of Roman imperial hegemony.
This type of messianic expectation culminated in the 1
st (66-70CE) and 2
nd (132-135CE) Jewish wars against
Rome.
It is likely that the author of the gospel of Luke included the passage found in 19:41-44 as an attempt to criticize the false messianic ideology of the Jewish religious elite and to indicate that Jesus was the true Messiah.
In doing so Luke inverts the power dynamics of Jewish messianic thought, and answers the Roman challenge that Jewish messianic was a lost cause.
Jesus did not come to lead another war of liberation against the Romans, or to establish an earthly kingdom which wielded the power of the state.
According to Luke, those that engage in such activities “do not know the ways that make for peace,” and do not “recognize the hour of the Lord’s visitation.”
Furthermore, those who accept the legitimacy of martial and political messianic movements end up surrounded and under siege by the forces of imperial power.
In her book
My Enemy is My Guest: Jesus and Violence in Luke J. Massyngbaerde Ford points out that the author of Luke equates “peace” with the acceptance of Jesus’ message and that divine “visitation” is the harbinger of “political disaster, not political, victory for
Israel.”
Ford also notes the similarities between Jesus’ prediction of the fate of
Jerusalem and the description of the Roman siege and destruction of
Jerusalem provided by the ancient Jewish historian Josephus.
This provides some evidence in favor of the post-70CE dating of the gospel.
She further elaborates on this point, contrasting the accounts of Jesus’ prediction of the fall of
Jerusalem and the temple in the other synoptic gospels:
Luke further elaborates Jesus’ prediction of the fall of Jerusalem in his redaction of the synoptic apocalypse…It seems to me that in both descriptions Luke, in contrast to Matthew and Mark, speaks clearly about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans…What is interesting, however, is how Luke, and Luke alone, speaks of this catastrophe…the prediction is directly contrary to the nationalistic expectations of the infancy narratives (cf. the Magnificat).
Vengeance or retribution does not come upon
Israel’s enemies but upon itself.
In other words the erroneous ideas of the popular messianic ideology contemporaneous with Jesus and his followers ultimately lead to the destruction of
Jerusalem, the temple, and any semblance of an independent Jewish polity.
This criticism would have remained relevant after the destruction of
Jerusalem and the temple because several “socio-revolutionary resistance and rebellion movements”
were still operative.
A second major Jewish conflagration with
Rome occurring in the years 132-135CE is evidence of this.
Luke 19:41-44 is placed in a significant position with regard to the entire narrative of the gospel.
This passage is placed between Jesus’ triumphal entry into the city of
Jerusalem (19:35-40) and the description of his driving the merchants and money lenders from within the temple, followed by his teaching in the temple (19:45-48).
As in the other synoptic Gospels, the triumphal entry into the city is described in order to indicate the messianic identity of Jesus.
The lament in Luke 19:41-44 is not present in the other Gospel accounts, indicating that Luke is attempting to communicate something distinct regarding Jesus’ identity as the Messiah.
In all likelihood, for reasons at least similar to those listed above, Luke probably included this portion in his narrative to emphasize the uniqueness of the Christian messianic perspective.
The second way that Luke 19:41-44 challenges the ancient power dynamics is by confronting the assumption of the Hellenized Jewish rulers that a stable relationship with the Roman imperial power structure was the primary condition for peace.
For Luke’s Jesus is not just weeping over the temple establishment, but the city of
Jerusalem as a whole.
This is an indication that he, in a manner similar to the prophets of the Old Testament is prophetically judging the oppression that is being perpetrated by the Jewish ruling elite, as well as the Romans.
The Romans typically did not rule any territory directly (the exception would be made in the case of an obstinate client state).
More often, the Roman imperial structure used client kings, who were usually members of the local elite, to extend its influence in any particular region.
This was the case in
Israel, with the dynasty created by Herod Antipater controlling much of the territory within
Palestine.
Richard Horsley has indicated that the temple establishment of
Jerusalem was also implicated in the oppression and injustice extended by Roman rule.
In his essay “Jesus and Empire,” Horsley states that in the region of
Judea the Jewish temple was the center of Roman imperial power:
Roman imperial rule of Galilee and
Judea worked primarily through client-rulers.
Just as Herod Antipas maintained order on
Rome’s behalf in Galilee, so the priestly aristocracy maintained order and collected the tribute in
Judea, under the oversight of the Roman governors.
Indeed, except perhaps at Passover time when the Roman governor and his troops provided such a visible reminder of Roman domination, the primary face of Roman imperial rule in Judea was the Temple, Herod’s massively reconstructed ‘wonder of the world’ with the Roman eagle over its gate, and the high priests, appoint by the Roman governor.
Hence, it is easy to see that the prophetic critique voiced in Luke 19:41-44 is also targeting the ruling Jewish aristocracy and its complicity with Roman oppression.
This is why, according to Horsley, “Jesus stands in a long line of Israelite prophets who protested the ruling house’s exploitation and were killed.”
This passage has a much to teach contemporary Christian readers.
Whether one is cognizant of it or not, many of the power dynamics at work during the time Luke’s Gospel are still prevalent in the modern world.
Authors such as Richard Horsley
, Nicholas Wolterstorff
, and Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri
have all written about the presence of imperial dynamics in the contemporary historical period.
Thus, there is potential for Christians today to participate in idolatrous practices similar to those denounced by the author of the Gospel of Luke in 19:41-44.
Christians can embrace a militant millenarian perspective similar to the messianic revolutionaries that challenged Roman domination through military insurgence.
It is equally possible for Christians to uncritically benefit from the political status quo, supporting injustice and oppression by proxy.
If however, the modern Christian reader actively engages the text of Luke 19:41-44, there is potential to develop the critical perspective necessary to avoid either of these instances.
It is important that those who teach this text be conscious of its potential.
Works Cited
Balch, David L. “Luke” in
Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, eds., James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson (
Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2003).
Bauckham, Richard The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
Blomberg, Craig L. “The Gospels For Specific Communities and All Christians,” in
The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity, ed., Edward W. Klink III
(
London: T & T Clark, 2010).
BockMuehl, Markus and James Carleton Paget, eds.,
Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity (
London: T & T Clark, 2009).
Bolotin, David “Thucydides” in History of Political Philosophy: Third Edition. eds., Leo Struass and Joseph Cropsey (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).
Breisach, Ernst
Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern (
Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2007).
Ford, J. Massyngbaerde My Enemy is My Guest: Jesus and Violence in Luke (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1984).
Fredrick, Mary Ann Luke’s Portrayal of the Jews and Judaism in Luke-Acts and its Relationship to the Sources of Anti-Semitism (Florida: University of Florida Press, 1994).
Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri
Empire (
Cambridge,
Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 2000).
Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri
Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire (
New York: Penguin Books, 2004).
Horsley, Richard
Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder (
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003).
Horsley, Richard “Jesus and Empire” in
In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance, ed., Richard Horsley (
London:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2008).
Horsley, Richard and John S. Hanson Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers, 1985).
Horsley, Richard Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
Klink III, Edward W.
The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity (
London: T & T Clark, 2010).
Maxwell, Kathy
Hearing Between the Lines: The Audience as Fellow-Worker in Luke-Acts and its Literary Milieu (
London: T & T Clark, 2010).
Soards, Marion Llyod Introductory article to
The Gospel According to Luke in
The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha (
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
Squires, John T. “The Gospel according to Luke” in
The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels, ed., Stephen C. Barton (
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)