Thomas K. Dailey | New Testament Professor, Virginia Beach Theological Seminary
Our chapel plan for the 2023-24 school year is to continue the study of Luke’s Gospel. Last year we covered the first three major sections of Luke: 1) the infancy narratives (Luke 1:1–2:52), 2) the preparation for John’s and Jesus’ ministries (Luke 3:1–4:13), and 3) Jesus’ Galilean ministry (Luke 4:14–9:50). This Fall we will study 4) the travel narrative (Luke 9:51–19:44) and in the Spring, 5) the passion and resurrection narrative (Luke 19:45-24:53).
The travel narrative, Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem, is the largest section of Luke (424 verses)—larger than the passion and resurrection narrative (269 verses). Not only is it the largest section in Luke, Luke’s account of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem is longer than the accounts of Matthew (73 verses) and Mark (81 verses)—over 5x longer than the others. So, while each synoptic rehearses the travel narrative (Matt 19:1–21:9; Mark 9:30–11:10), one quickly notices a uniqueness about Luke’s presentation because of how it dominates his telling of the story of Jesus.
The journey to Jerusalem is closely connected with Jesus’ passion predictions (Matt 16:21; Mark 10:32-34; Luke 18:31–33). Jesus understands well the implications of his own predictions, that it is in Jerusalem where he will suffer from the hands of men—the elders, chief priests, scribes, and the Gentiles. Luke draws the reader’s attention to the destination more so than the other Gospels by repeatedly referencing Jerusalem.
Starting from the northern regions of Israel, Jesus had to “go to Jerusalem” (9:51), “toward Jerusalem” (9:53), and was “teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem” (13:22). In the light of a threat from Herod (Antipas), Jesus speaks enigmatically, “it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem” (13:33). His encounter with the lepers happened “on the way to Jerusalem” (17:11). His third passion prediction begins with “see, we are going up to Jerusalem” (18:31). Then, the final leg of the journey is geographically catalogued highlighting different waypoints along the path: “he drew near to Jericho” (18:35), “he entered Jericho and was passing through” (19:1), “he was near to Jerusalem” (19:11), “he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem” (19:28), “he drew near to Bethphage and Bethany at the mount that is called Olivet” (19:29), “as he was drawing near—already on the way down the Mount of Olives” (19:37), and “he drew near the city” (19:41).
Two significant observations emerge from Luke’s emphasis on Jerusalem. First, Jesus knows full well what lies ahead of him in Jerusalem—he must suffer at the hands of men. Nevertheless, his commitment to the task can be seen in the manner he pushes himself to Jerusalem. This must be the intention behind the uniquely Lukan adoption of the OT language that Jesus “set his face to go to” (9:51) or “his face was set toward” (9:53) Jerusalem. The “setting his face” metaphor presents the determination of a man that is evident in his countenance. In Mark’s Gospel, his determination is subtly indicated by the fact that “Jesus was walking ahead of them” (10:32). Jesus must get to Jerusalem!
Second, Jesus’ upcoming suffering by the hands of men does not lead him to lash out in an uncontrollable outburst against the city. He balances Jerusalem’s culpability with tender compassion. It is true that Jerusalem had a track record of killing and stoning God’s prophets (13:34a). In light of this, the city rightly deserves judgment. However, Jesus is able to speak of the city in tender terms “Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... how often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings” (13:34b). With more than tenderness, Jesus speaks redemptively. While the city will be judged and forsaken, Jesus envisages a time when the city will see him again and with purified lips shout, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” (13:35). There remains a future hope for Jerusalem—her story is not over yet.