LUKE FOOTNOTES
Fn.1 The name ‘Israel’ signifies not only Jacob, but is inclusive of his family and their descendants.
Similarly, it is not just David, but his family (house) which is referred to. The Hebrew mind
understood this inclusiveness. We need to make it more obvious.
Fn.2 verses 23-38. This translates the essence of Luke’s long genealogy, tracing Jesus’s ancestry
first to Abraham to assert his true Jewishness, to Adam (adam=man or mankind) to assert his full
humanity, and to God, father of all, thus father of Jesus. The expression ‘as was supposed’ attached
to the parenthood of Joseph was almost certainly an addition to Luke’s text, seeking to harmonize
the genealogy with an interpretation of the birth narrative which saw a virgin birth. It is unlikely
that Luke thought he was writing about a virgin birth. His genealogy is the clue. Everyone comes
into the world as an act of God’s Spirit, Jesus (and John the Dipper) included, just as everyone has
God for parent, Jesus included. There is even less evidence for a virgin birth in Matthew. The Greek
‘parthenos’ is as easily rendered ‘young woman’, and Matthew, like Luke, also traces the descent of
Jesus through Joseph. The scriptural evidence for a virgin birth thus ranges between the minimal
and nil, and relies mainly on a literalist interpretation of a doubtful translation.
Fn.3 Luke uses doulos (slave, servant, attendant) where Matthew uses pais (houseboy, boyfriend).
Compare footnote page 135. This may mean that Luke’s account is less suggestive of a gay relationship than
Matthew’s. But in both accounts the contexts make it clear the relationship is one of affection rather than just
master/servant. The unwarranted guilt of the commanding officer, which Jesus removes with his words of
approval, is recorded in both accounts.
Fn.4 Nain=modern Nein. Possible Hebrew meaning ‘beauty spot’.
Fn.5 ‘A popular politician’ – literally ‘a bent reed’, sarcasm by which the Jewish people would
have understood Herod Antipas, since it was the symbol on his coins. The pattern here suggests a
humorous repartee between Jesus and the crowd. To the first two questions the crowd would have
laughingly shouted out ‘No!’ and to the third ‘Yes’.
Fn.6 Greek. ‘Woman of the town’, as today, euphemism for prostitute.
Fn.7 It may be noticed we do not use inverted commas for this section. The explanation of the
parable is probably from the gospel-writer, Mark, used here by Luke.
Fn.8 The number seventy together with the term ‘others’ may symbolize the Gentiles. (Genesis 10
lists the number of the nations of the earth as 70, and ‘others’ was a common euphemism for
Gentiles.) Luke seems to be describing a mission to Gentile or semi-Gentile territory, just over the
border from Galilee, which Jesus himself visited on occasions. The mission may be the equivalent
in Luke to the feeding of the four thousand in Mark and Matthew which was likley also a Gentile or
semi-Gentile occasion in the same territory. In line with this impression are the favourable
comments of Jesus on his reception in Gentile towns (v.14 Tyre and Sidon in modern Lebanon) in
contrast to those in Galilee (v.13). See also vs.7&8 where the missionaries are not to insist on
kosher food.
Fn.9 Sodom is significant for Jesus, not for its sexual ambiguity, but for its notorious breach of the
customs of hospitality.
Fn.10 A precise procedure of ritual washing was expected of the good Jew. The use of the word
‘baptizo’=dip, suggests the host possessed a bathing suite on the Roman pattern, a mark of
considerable affluence.
Fn.11 Verses 23-30 require a contextual translation along these lines to be properly understood.
Luke sets two contrasting agendas side by side, that of the typical Pharisee with his narrow-minded
question and narrowness of vision, and that of Jesus who throws the New World open to all with a
generous heart. The Victorian pictures of the ‘broad and narrow’ way thus got it disastrously wrong
in directing the enquirer to adopt the Pharisee as role model instead of Jesus. (Enoch Powell agrees
with this interpretation in his commentary on Matthew.)
Fn.12 These parables are meant to contrast rather than compare God’s ways with human ways.
They contrast the acceptance by Jesus of those classed as ‘sinners’ with their rejection by the
Pharisees. We have tried to capture the note of irony in Jesus’s voice, essential for an understanding
of the parables.
Fn.13 Like all the parables, this story offers itself for numerous interpretations. If the story is taken
in context with the stories which precede it in chapter 15, and the story which follows it at 16:19,
then the point seems to be that not only are the Pharisees cold-hearted in their rejection of
‘outcasts’, but their policy also lacks good sense. (Or the story may be simply about ‘gumption’ and
the lack of it among religious people.)
Fn. 14 Verse 17 should be interpreted contextually with verse 16. That way there is no
contradiction. The verses express Jesus’s frustration at the inability of the Pharisees in particular to
embrace the new order introduced by John and himself.
Fn.15 Verse 18 appears to be out of context, but may not be so. It may follow on from the contrast
in verses 16&17 between the call of God in the mission of Jesus and obsession with the minutiae of
the Law. In Hebrew thought Israel was married to God. Jesus is saying that those choosing to bind
themselves to the Law, instead of God, were being unfaithful.
Fn.16 It is possible the explanatory comment of verse 10 is not part of the original story. It may
have been supplied by Luke, or his source. If this is the case, alternative interpretations of the
original may be considered. As with other parables (e.g. The Prodigal Son, The Lost Sheep), the
hearer is invited to contrast God’s generous behaviour with human hardness.
Fn.17 The term ‘Son of Man’, usually translated by us as ‘The Complete Person’, frequently carries
with it a sense of community, referring at one and the same time to Jesus and his followers. This
wider sense is evident in Luke’s version of these sayings.
Fn.18 Jesus is not here indulging in Biblical literalism, but rather making fun of Biblical literalists,
tying them up in knots!
Fn.19 This is just one of many conflicting possible interpretations of what is happening at this
point, according to Luke’s distinctive account. This interpretation suggests that Jesus is deliberately
going on a fast, possibly as a wise precaution of keeping his gut clear for the ordeal ahead,
something Luke, as a doctor, would be likely to appreciate.
Fn.20 The words of Jesus to the disciples to have their swords ready is not a call to arms, but
realism on his part. Since his followers are not going to adopt his peaceful ways as they did on the
mission tour, they might as well, as befits their desertion, provide adequate physical protection for
themselves. The word of Jesus, ‘enough’, is a cry of frustration and sadness.
Fn.21 Some interpretation has to be put on these words. The Greek translated literally ‘you have
said’ is meaningless. “You said it, not me” is also possible, or “You’ve hit the nail on the head!”.
VERSES OMITTED.
The scriptures are based on several manuscripts and the manuscripts differ from each other in the
inclusion or exclusion of some texts. Scholars differ as to which texts should be included or
excluded. Here is a list of the texts we have decided not to include. They do not appear in all the
manuscripts. Our decisions may not have been the right decisions. We hope that at least some of
them are. We have included (in brackets) the doubtful 24:12, on the advice of Bishop John Shelby
Spong.
5:39. Does not make a lot of sense in the context. Sounds like a Pharisee getting the last word, or
possibly Jesus making fun of the Pharisee’s conservative position. Its inclusion does not add
anything and confuses the issue.
11:33. Verse 33 already occurs at 8:16. It is unlikely that Luke, always sparing of space, repeated
his material in this way. Its presence is not essential and interrupts the flow of the argument.
17: 36. This verse seems to be added from Matthew’s gospel. It adds nothing to the thought.
22: 19b&20. This translation follows the ‘shorter text’, probably the more likely original, reflecting
an alternative pattern for the celebration of the communal meal, in which cup precedes bread, as in
1 Corinthians 10: vs 16&21.
23: 17 Another addition copied from the accounts of Mark, John & Matthew.