No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Jesus, the Victorious Scribal-Intercessor in Luke's Gospel
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Extract
Few investigations in biblical studies begin with utterly unique ideas. We all stand upon the shoulders of our predecessors. This study is no exception. There is nothing new about this paper's claim that Jesus' prayer for Peter, referred to in Luke 22.31–32, is thematically related to Satan's fall from heaven, narrated in Luke 10. 18. Adolf Schlatter articulated the similarities between these two texts, which have given rise to similar interpretative suggestions made more briefly by others. Schlatter made three basic observations. Firstly, in both scenes Satan's power stands in opposition to the disciples: directly in 22.31–32; indirectly through the demons in 10.17–19. Secondly, Satan has been in heaven before God: implied in 22.31–32; the point of origin for his fall in 10.18. Thirdly, Jesus is not a mere spectator, but in some way has a hand in resolving the situation in each case. While Schlatter did not elaborate on the final point, any more than he did the others, the remainder of this study will try to demonstrate more clearly what Schlatter seems to have sensed. Just as Luke 22.31–32 portrays Jesus-the-Advocate standing against Satan-the-Accuser in heaven, so 10.18 offers a picture of the decisive overthrow of this accuser from heaven. Furthermore, the implication is that this heavenly overthrow has been accomplished through the prayers of the scribal-intercessor, Jesus.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992
References
1 Schlatter, A., Das Evangelium des Lukas (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960) 279–80Google Scholar. He concludes that they ‘… stehen so nahe beieinander, daß sie wieder zu einer festen Klammer werden, die die Verbundenheit der Texte sichtbar macht’.
2 For example, Foerster, W., ‘διαβόλος’, TDNT 2 (1964) 80Google Scholar; Hengel, M., Nachfolge und Charisma: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie zu Mt 8:21f und Jesu Ruf in die Nachfolge (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1968) 73Google Scholar; Miyoshi, M., Der Anfang des Reiseberichts Lk. 9:51–10:24: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1974) 99Google Scholar; Schneider, G., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (2 vols; Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1977) 241Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel according to Luke (2 vols; New York: Doubleday, 1981–1985) 2.860, 862.Google Scholar
3 Schürmann, H., Jesu Abschiedsrede, Lk. 22, 21–38 (Münster: Aschendorffsche, 1957) 102 n. 357.Google Scholar
4 Müller, U., ‘Vision und Botschaft’, ZTK 74 (1977) 416–48, esp. p. 422 n. 14.Google Scholar
5 As, for example, does Schneider, Lukas, 241, who speaks of Satan the ‘Widersacher’ (Adversary) rather than using the more common ‘Verklager’ (Accuser).
6 See my unpublished doctoral dissertation, Jesus the Intercessor: Prayer and Christology in Luke–Acts (Aberdeen, 1988) 302–46.Google Scholar A published version is forthcoming from J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
7 Miyoshi, , Anfang, 99Google Scholar; also see Mattill, A. J., Luke and the Last Things: A Perspective for the Understanding of Lukan Thought (Dillsboro: Western North Carolina, 1979) 166–7Google Scholar for a discussion of the various positions; for a defence of the first option see Ott, W., Gebet und Heil: Die Bedeutung der Gebetsparänese in der lukanischen Theologie (München: Kösel, 1965) 77–8.Google Scholar
8 Zerwick, M., Biblical Greek (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963) 90 par. 269Google Scholar; Lowther-Clark, W. K., ‘Studies in Texts, St Luke x.18’, Theol 7 (1923) 104Google Scholar; Webster, C. S., ‘St Luke x.18’, ExpT 57 (1945–1946) 53.Google Scholar
9 Spitta, F., ‘Der Satan als Blitz’, ZNW 9 (1908) 160–3.Google Scholar
10 Spitta, ‘Blitz’, 162; so also Lewis, F. W., ‘“I Beheld Satan Fall as Lightning from Heaven” (Luke x.18)’, ExpT 25 (1913–1914) 233Google Scholar; Foerster, W., ‘Lukas 22:31f’, ZNW 46 (1955) 132CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mattill, , Last Things, 167Google Scholar. Lewis seems to be unaware of Spitta's work. Mattill tries to distinguish his conclusions from Spitta's, but it is difficult to see the difference.
11 Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology (London: SCM, 1971) 73Google Scholar, suggests that πεσόντα is equivalent to a Hebrew nāpal, Aramaic nepal, which functions as a ‘quasi-passive’; cf. Miyoshi, , Anfang, 99Google Scholar; Klostermann, E., Das Lukasevangelium (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1975) 117.Google Scholar
12 Spitta's article (p. 162) incorrectly refers to 2 Kings.
13 According to Duling, D. C., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols; ed. Charlesworth, J. H.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983–1985) 1.941–2Google Scholar, the estimated dates range from the 1st to the early 3rd centuries AD for the final composition of T.Sol. McCown, C. C., The Testament of Solomon: Edited from Manuscripts at Mount Athos, Bologna, Holkam Hall, Jerusalem, London, Milan, Paris and Vienna, with Introduction (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichsche, 1922) 89–90, 107–10Google Scholar, judged the original recension, which included chapter 20, to have been a Jewish work, free of Christian elements, dating from the 1st century AD. According to McCown (2–66) the T.Sol is a strongly syncretistic work reflecting pre-Talmudic Jewish demonology.
14 Cf. 1 Enoch 108.7: ‘For some of (these things) were written and sealed above in heaven so that the angels may read them and know that which is about to befall the sinners…’.
15 The verb έθεώρουν is frequently interpreted as either an iterative or conative imperfect describing a repeated or ongoing action; Miyoshi, , Anfang, 99Google Scholar; Creed, J. M., Gospel according to St Luke (4th ed.; London: Macmillan, 1953) 147Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, Gospel, 2.862. However, it is also admitted that θεωρέω only occurs in the present and imperfect tenses (this is Luke's only use of the imperfect); Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago/London: University of Chicago, 1961) § 101Google Scholar. Thus it is not impossible for the imperfect to be used in lieu of an aorist; Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 428.Google Scholar
16 It is not possible to determine whether Jesus is describing a vision or simply speaking symbolically. Luke's views on the immediacy of spiritual reality would certainly allow for the description of a real vision. But a symbolic meaning is not impossible. Nützel, J. M., Die Verklärungserzählung im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Würzburg: Echter, 1973) 145Google Scholar, argues for a future vision.
17 Plummer, A., The Gospel according to St. Luke (5th ed.; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1981) 278Google Scholar; Creed, , Gospel, 147Google Scholar; Caird, G. B., The Gospel of Saint Luke (Middlesex: Penguin, 1963) 143Google Scholar; Brown, S., Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969) 6Google Scholar; Nützel, , Offenbarer, 145–6Google Scholar; Danker, F. W., Jesus and the New Age According to St Luke: A Commentary on the Third Gospel (St Louis: Clayton, 1974) 128Google Scholar; Franklin, E., Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke–Acts (London: SPCK, 1975) 25Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, Gospel, 2.860. Ernst, J., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1977) 337 extends this view even further by relating the logion to the missionary proclamation of the church.Google Scholar
18 Danker, , New Age, 128.Google Scholar
19 Minear, P., To Heal and To Reveal: The Prophetic Vocation according to Luke (New York: Seabury, 1976) 36Google Scholar, has properly perceived these interconnections of relative authority. The relationships may be schematized as:
20 So also Müller, , ‘Vision’, 418, 428–9Google Scholar; Noack, B., Satanás und Sotería: Untersuchungen zur Neutestamentlichen Dämonologie (Københaven: G. E. C. Gads, 1948) 73Google Scholar; Wurzinger, A., ‘Es komme Dein König’, BLit 38 (1964–1965) 92.Google Scholar
21 Foerster, ‘σαταν⋯ς’, 157 maintains that these two texts refer to the same event. In both of them ‘an Already is combined with a Not Yet’. The eschatological tension continues as Jesus inaugurates the final defeat of Satan, who still has time to exercise his own power on the earth; cf. Maddox, R., The Purpose of Luke–Acts (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1982) 143Google Scholar. I am also inclined to agree with Müller, ‘Vision’, 428–9, who dates the time of the vision from the beginning of Jesus' preaching ministry; but cf. Barrett, C. K., The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (London: SPCK, 1947) 64.Google Scholar
22 Miyoshi, , Anfang, 109.Google Scholar
23 Appeals to the possible traditional independence of these verses is no excuse for not attempting to see them as a coherent whole within Luke's own context. Ernst, Evangelium, 338, argues that verse 20 is independent of the preceding material due to its introduction by πλ⋯ν and the shift from ‘demons’ to ‘spirits’. However, Luke is well known for his love of variety, so that this change in vocabulary cannot be used to argue for conceptual discontinuity. Also, while πλ⋯ν is an adversative, Luke never uses it with a thoroughly disjunctive sense; quite the contrary (cf. Luke 6.24, 35; 10.11, 14; 11.41; 12.31; 13.33; 17.1; 18.8; 19.27; 22.21, 22, 42; 23.28). An observation of more significance is the fact that Luke writes πλ⋯ν … μ⋯ χαίρετε … χαίρετε δ⋯ … where one might have expected άλλ…μ⋯ χαίρετε…πλ⋯ν χαίρετε… (cf. Luke 23.28). But this does not require the disjunction of verse 20 from the preceding verses either, since the use of μ⋯ … δ⋯ has been influenced by the Semitic idiom of dialectical negation (cf. 12.4–5; see Kruse, H., ‘Die “Dialektische Negation” als Semitisches Idiom’, VT 4 [1954] 385–400, esp. 389)Google Scholar, and Luke elsewhere introduces such a negation by πλ⋯ν without implying any conceptual discontinuity (22.42; cf. Matt 26.39 diff. Mark 14.36). In view of this, it seems most likely that πλ⋯ν is being used here to conclude a section by drawing out those points which are of most importance (i.e. ‘in any case’); Arndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (4th ed.; Chicago/London: University of Chicago, 1957) 675Google Scholar, and Blass, Debrunner, Grammar, § 449 refer to this as a ‘Pauline usage’, but cf. Luke 10.11,14; 11.41; 12.31; 13.33; 18.8; 22.42. Again, this underscores the integral part played by verse 20 in interpreting verses 17–19.
24 See Bietenhard, H., Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjudentum (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1951) 209–21, 231–54.Google Scholar
25 See Segal, A. F., Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977) 187–92.Google Scholar
26 For a good discussion of how the wide variety of heavenly mediator/intercessor activities, whether performed by angelic or human figures, were readily applied to Jesus by the early church see Segal, Two Powers, 207–19.
27 See Strack, H. L. and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (4 vols; München: C. H. Becksche, 1922–1928) 2.169–73Google Scholar; Segal, , Two Powers, 186 n. 7.Google Scholar
28 All pseudepigraphal texts are from Charlesworth (ed.), who dates these portions of 1 Enoch from the 1st century BC; see Pseudepigrapha 1.7; also cf. Milik, J. T., The Books of Enoch, Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) 5–6.Google Scholar
29 E. Isaac offers this as an accepted alternative to the rendering of ‘in heaven the angels will remember you for good’.
30 This is the textual tradition found in the Ethiopic ms of the Garrett collection at Princeton University, and offered in Charles, R. H., The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch in Anecdota Oxoniensia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1906)Google Scholar. Isaac follows the text of the Kebran monastery ms, which reads ‘I wrote down all the prayers of the generations of the world’; see Pseudepigrapha 1.10–11, 62.
31 Cf. Segal, , Two Powers, 192.Google Scholar
32 A Coptic text, dated by Wintermute, O. S. (Pseudepigrapha 1.500–501)Google Scholar as originally written (in Greek) between the 1st century BC to the 1st century AD, ‘probably’ before 70 AD.
33 Wintermute offers this as an accepted alternative to the rendering of ‘who is upon the earth’.
34 On the development of Enoch's role as intercessor, see Odeberg, H., 3 Enoch. The Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York: Ktav, 1973) 36, 80, 91, 115Google Scholar; Le Déaut, R., ‘Aspects de l'intercession dans le Judaïsme ancien’, JSJ 1 (1970) 44 n. 2.Google Scholar
35 Or it is ignored altogether, as in Müller.
36 It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss the wealth of detail which portrays Jesus as the final prophet-like-Moses in Luke–Acts. For a fuller discussion of this important christological perspective in Luke's writings, see Lampe, G. W. H., ‘The Holy Spirit in the Writings of St Luke’, Studies in the Gospels (ed. Nineham, D. E.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955) 175–8Google Scholar; Teeple, H. M., The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1957)Google Scholar; Manek, J., ‘The New Exodus in the Books of Luke’, NovT 2 (1958) 8–23Google Scholar; Moessner, D. P., ‘Jesus and the “Wilderness Generation”: The Death of the Prophet like Moses according to Luke’, Society of Biblical Literature 1982 Seminar Papers (ed. Richards, K. H.; Chico: Scholars, 1982)Google Scholar; ‘Luke 9:1–50: Luke's Preview of the Journey of the Prophet like Moses of Deuteronomy’, JBL 102 (1983) 575–605Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, , Gospel, 1.213Google Scholar; Bovon, F., L'œuvre de Luc: Études d'exégèse et de théologie (Paris: Cerf, 1987) 73–4, 78–91.Google Scholar