The larger division of the Gospel that records Jesus' ministry on the way to Jerusalem and the Cross continues with teaching about the coming kingdom. The parables of the kingdom that begin this section (vv. 18-21) introduce this subject. The difference in Jesus' teaching in the present section is a matter of emphasis rather than a clear-cut change. The subtlety of this distinction is observable in that the commentators differ over where they believe the sections divide. Jesus' discipleship training also continues in this section.
The connection with what has preceded that Luke's "therefore"suggests is probably the reaction of the multitude (v. 17). Since the multitude reacted positively to Jesus, He taught them about the coming messianic kingdom. His previous comments about coming judgment made this teaching appropriate.
These parables occur in Matthew and Mark in a different context. Luke therefore may have reported the same teaching on another occasion, or he may have moved Jesus' teaching on the occasion Matthew and Mark reported to this place in his Gospel. The former alternative seems more probable.
Another question led to this teaching. The thematic connection with Jesus' words about the small beginning of the kingdom (vv. 19, 21) should be obvious. As elsewhere, Luke recorded Jesus teaching lessons and using illustrations and expressions that the other Gospel writers wrote that He used in other contexts. Jesus' repetition is understandable in view of His itinerant ministry and His great skill as a teacher.
13:22 Luke employed similar geographical summary statements in Acts too to indicate divisions in his narrative (e.g., 12:25; 14:27-28; 16:4; et al). They give a sense of movement and progress in material that is essentially didactic. Jesus' general movement was toward Jerusalem and the Cross. The goal is the important feature, not how Jesus reached it. He gave the following teaching on the way.
13:23 Luke did not identify the questioner who could have been a disciple or a member of the ubiquitous crowd. The questioner evidently wanted to know if he or she was correct in concluding from Jesus' previous teaching (e.g., Mark 10:23-26) that only a few people would experience salvation. For the Jews, and probably for the questioner, salvation meant entering the kingdom as well as entering heaven. The identity of the people to whom Jesus responded is indefinite and unimportant.
13:24 Jesus did not answer the question directly. Instead of giving an impersonal answer He explained how a person could enter the kingdom. A narrow door pictured an unpopular and difficult entryway (cf. Matt. 7:13). Jesus meant the door was the way He taught in contrast to the more popular way that the religious leaders taught. Striving consisted of believing Jesus in spite of the intrinsic difficulty of believing and the opposition of others (cf. John 10:9). Many people would seek to enter the kingdom through ways other than the narrow door but would be unable to enter.326
13:25 The revelation that God would soon shut the narrow door of opportunity to enter heaven and the kingdom should have moved Jesus' hearers not to delay believing in Him. In one sense anyone can believe as long as he or she is alive. In another sense it becomes more difficult to believe as one procrastinates and as one grows older. However in view of Jesus' illustration of the banquet that follows, it is more likely that He was thinking of the beginning of the kingdom. When the kingdom began, it would be impossible for unbelievers to change their minds and be saved. Therefore in view of the kingdom's imminency when Jesus uttered this warning, His hearers needed to believe without delay.
13:26-27 When the kingdom began no amount of appeal based only on friendship or familiarity with Jesus would avail. Jesus had extended fellowship to His hearers and had taught them the way of salvation, but they had rejected His offers. Here Jesus identified the person who shut the door as Himself (cf. Matt. 7:22-23). He will also be the person who will utterly forsake and pronounce judicial rejection on unbelievers for their lack of righteousness (cf. Ps. 6:8).
13:28-29 The phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth"elsewhere describes eternal punishment in hell (Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30).327There is no reason to conclude that it means something else here. Weeping expresses sorrow (cf. 6:25; Acts 20:37; James 4:9; 5:1) and gnashing or grinding the teeth pictures anger and hatred (cf. Job 16:10; Ps. 35:16; 37:12; 112:10; Lam. 2:16; Acts 7:54). These feelings will arise in people outside the kingdom as they view others within it.
The judgment at the beginning of the kingdom is in view. Evidently God will raise Old Testament saints then to enter the kingdom (Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2).
The Old Testament revealed that Gentiles would also participate in the messianic banquet that will inaugurate Messiah's reign (cf. Isa. 25:6-7; 64:3; 65:13-14; Ezek. 34:2; 39:17-20). People coming from the four compass points would be Gentiles rather than the Jews who lived primarily in Palestine. Jesus said that many Jews would not enter the kingdom (cf. Matt. 8:10-12). Many of Jesus' hearers were undoubtedly trusting in their Jewish blood and heritage to get them into the kingdom, so Jesus' words would have shocked them.
13:30 The people who are last in this context probably refer to Gentiles whom the Jews regarded as least likely to enter the kingdom (cf. Matt. 19:30; 20:16; Mark 10:31). The ones who are first were the Jews. They considered themselves to be superior to Gentiles in many ways. They were also the first and the foremost objects of Jesus' ministry.
Another comment triggered teaching of a similar nature. The continuing theme is the messianic kingdom.
13:31 This incident followed the former one chronologically. Therefore it is probable that Jesus' words about Jews not entering the kingdom and Gentiles entering it had caused the Pharisees to gnash their teeth in anger against Him. Luke's presentation of the Pharisees has been consistently antagonistic, so it is reasonable to assume that their suggestion had a hidden motive. They wanted to scare Jesus into retreating rather than continuing on toward Jerusalem where Herod awaited Him.
Did Herod Antipas really want to kill Jesus? He kept trying to see Jesus (9:9), and when he finally did he was very glad for the opportunity hoping that Jesus would perform a miracle (23:8). However he proceeded to mock Jesus and to treat Him with contempt (23:11). It appears that the Pharisees were overstating Herod's hostility at this time. Their warning posed a temptation for Jesus to depart from His Father's will for Him, but He did not yield to it.
13:32-33 Jesus' reply to the Pharisees shows that He viewed them as Herod's messengers. They were as antagonistic to Him as they claimed Herod was. A fox is, of course, a proverbially dangerous and cunning animal that destroys and scavenges (cf. Lam. 5:17-18; Ezek. 13:4; 1 Enoch 89:10, 42-49, 55). In Jesus' day foxes were also insignificant animals (cf. Neh. 4:3; Song of Sol. 2:15). Jesus viewed Herod similarly.
Jesus explained that He would not run from Jerusalem but would continue moving toward it and ministering as usual as He went. He would reach Jerusalem in three days. This may have been a reference to three literal days. In this case it appears to refer to Jesus' second visit to Jerusalem rather than to His third and final visit.328This seems unlikely in view of Jesus' statement about visiting Jerusalem in verse 35. Probably this was an idiomatic expression indicating a relatively short, limited period (cf. Hos. 6:2).329In this case the days would refer to the time of present opportunity culminating in the end of that opportunity.330
Jesus spoke of the city as His goal because it would be in Jerusalem that He would reach the goal of His ministry, namely His passion. He acknowledged that He would die there. He viewed dying outside Jerusalem as inconsistent with the tradition of prophets who had died there at the hands of the Jews (1 Kings 18:4, 13; 19:10; Jer. 26:20-23; Neh. 9:26; cf. Acts 7:52). Jesus obviously did not mean that all the prophets died in Jerusalem. He meant that since Jerusalem had killed prophets it was appropriate for Him to die there too.
13:34-35 The double reference to Jerusalem, following as it does the name of the city at the end of verse 33, draws attention to it. It was the city of Jesus' destiny and the pathetic, unresponsive object of His love. Jesus' lament recalls Jeremiah's lamentation over Jerusalem's destruction by the Babylonians (cf. Jer. 12:7; 22:5; Lam.). The city was heading for a similar fate under the Romans for rejecting Jesus. The house left desolate is perhaps the temple (cf. 1 Kings 9:7-8), though this could be a reference to the nation as a whole, the city, or the Davidic dynasty.
"The great expectations in the birth narrative for the redemption of Israel and Jerusalem are not being realized in the anticipated way and with the anticipated fullness, because Jerusalem is failing to recognize the time of its visitation. The great expectations aroused at the beginning contribute to the tragic effect of this turn in the plot, for we feel the loss more keenly in contrast to these great hopes."331
The city would not see Jesus until the Triumphal Entry (Ps. 118:26; Luke 19:38; 23:41-50). However the final and true fulfillment of the prophecy of the people of Jerusalem hailing the arrival of their Messiah is still future (Matt. 23:39). Jesus gave two predictions of the fulfillment of Psalm 118:26. The one here was fulfilled at the Triumphal Entry. The second one that He gave after the Triumphal Entry (Matt. 23:39) will be fulfilled at the Second Coming.
Jesus' lament constituted a formal rejection of Israel for her rejection of her Messiah (cf. Matt. 23:37-39). Jesus used Jerusalem figuratively (i.e., in metonymy) for the whole nation. However, Jesus rejected her with a broken heart. He continued to offer Himself to the nation, but its fate was now irrevocable.
This section contains the record of several incidents that happened when Jesus was the dinner guest of a leading Pharisee. Jesus had just announced that He would leave Jerusalem desolate (13:35). The present section justifies Jesus' condemnation by showing that the root of Israel's problems lay with her leaders, the Pharisees. It also gives the rationale for Jesus excluding many Jews from the kingdom and admitting Gentiles (13:28-30).
Luke had just recorded Jesus' teaching about God's gracious invitation to enjoy the messianic banquet in the kingdom. It was free for all who would respond. Jesus taught elsewhere that responding meant believing on Him. Now Luke recorded Jesus' teaching that though salvation was free, discipleship was costly. This is important balancing revelation. Salvation guarantees heaven, but it also calls for complete commitment to Jesus, not to secure heaven but to express gratitude for heaven.
"The theme of the cost of accompanying Jesus runs like a refrain throughout Lk. (9:57-62; 18:24-30)."340
