THE UNITY of LUKE 17,1-10 the Ultimate Aim of This Essay Is to Suggest How Luke 17,1-10 Can Be Consid- Ered to Be a Unit, Contra

THE UNITY OF LUKE 17,1-10

The ultimate aim of this essay is to suggest how Luke 17,1-10 can be considered to be a unit, contrary to the present-day and usual assumption that all we have here are four sayings of Jesus (vv. 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-10) which are unrelated among themselves1. To achieve this aim, I begin with a discussion of vv. 7-10 and work backwards to show how one group of verses flows from what precedes it. Because the sense of vv. 7-10 is somewhat disputed, I offer first an interpretation of them2; this interpretation becomes a secondary purpose of this essay, i.e., a means to achieve the ultimate aim of this essay. With these verses explained, I proceed to the explain the unity among the verses 1-10 of Luke 173.

Verses 7-10

It is clear that vv. 7-9 are in the nature of a parable; Jesus proposes a fictional scene from which he hopes to draw a conclusion or teaching for the moral life of his apostles4. The three verses are made up of two questions, the first of which is really a lengthy double question (vv. 7-8). The questions have to do with a particular treatment of a servant by a master; the questions depend on the listeners’ agreement that the master’s treatment of the servant is in every way correct.

1. For example, K. ALAND et al. (eds), The Greek New Testament, Stuttgart, United Bi- ble Societies, 31983, p. 281 title these verses merely “Some Sayings of Jesus”; J. FITZ- MYER, Luke (AB, 28A), Garden City, Doubleday, 1985, p. 1136: “The sayings are unrelated to each other… The only link they seem to have is a bearing on various aspects of discipleship”; I.H. MARSHALL, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC, 3), Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1978, p. 640 speaks of a “lack of logical connection”. 2. J. DUPONT, Le Maître et son Serviteur (Luc 17, 7-10), in ETP 60 (1984) 233-251 dis- cusses this parable from both the literary viewpoint (arguing to the unity of the four verses [pp. 234-239]) and the pre-text inherited by Luke (arguing to the various uses to which the parable was addressed in its various verses [pp. 239-251]). His conclusion regarding the relationship between v. 8 [the continuation of v. 7] and v. 10 is important to show the unity of all four verses: “Nous avons déjà observé que le mouvement de la phrase du v. 10 cor- respond à celui du v. 8” (p. 238). 3. Commenting elsewhere more fully (on verses of Chapters 11–13), E. Ellis notes very usefully, in regard to our vv. 1-10: “They follow a definite Lukan literary pattern in which an introductory saying, question, or incident is illustrated or applied by a concluding parable”; E. ELLIS, The Gospel of Luke (NCBC), Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1983, p. 179. 4. One of the strongest (and longest) arguments that Luke is applying this parable of Jesus to the apostles’ later successors, who should not seek gratitude for carrying out their duties, is that of P. MINEAR, A Note of Luke 17:7-10, in JBL 93 (1974) 82-87. To begin to establish this thesis, Minear asks, p. 83: “Can apostles appreciate and answer the questions of vv. 7-9 without being owners of slaves and so as to appreciate v. 10?” But, must one who hears the parable and understand it truly be a slave-owner? To put such a question, as the first of his many such questions, so as to argue that v. 10 is aimed at the “shepherds of the church” of Theophilus’s time, is to begin to thrust upon Luke an intention which is little more than hypothetical. Minear, however, ask questions which had, as he notes on p. 84, already occurred to and influenced J. JEREMIAS in this direction, The Parables, New York, Scribner, 1992, p. 193. 158 J.J. KILGALLEN

While it is true that the apostles are asked to put themselves in the place of the master, this imaginary role-playing does not mean to lead to an understanding of the master. The parable clearly has in mind a clarification about the servant. In support of this view, one notes that it is the routine of the servant which is the subject of interest, that the master is so presented that he would never be understood to change the routine of the servant. Indeed, there is really no extended description of the master’s day, as there is of the servant’s day – the latter plows or shepherds all day, serves the master his dinner, then retires to eat his own. One agrees that the master would never upset the role of the servant; never would the servant appear to take the role of the master, i.e., the one served. Once it has been established that the servant remains always the servant (vv. 7-8), to do all that he is expected to do, Jesus turns to the question of a possible motive to change the definition of servant; Jesus raises the question, only to deny that such motivation would lead to such a change. The servant’s lot is to do all the tasks expected of him. It is important to note the sense of ‘thanking the servant’ in v. 9, and its purpose in the parable. There is no picture here of a master who is forever ungrateful for a servant’s work. Nor are we asked to think about gratitude, or lack thereof, to one’s inferiors; indeed, the master’s morality, his kindness to his servant, is not at stake here at all. What is important is that, after the supposed affirmations made about the matter of vv. 7-8, one will not suppose that gratitude will lead a master to change the identity or definition of servant, to change his essential role. One might argue that vv. 7-8, even though they do not mention gratitude (or any other motive) for a master’s making his servant the master, inevitably lead to the question of gratitude posed in v. 9; thus, v. 9, specifically the question of expecting thanks for work done, really imbues the entire parable. Yet, such does not seem to be the case. As one follows the flow of the parable, one answers its questions very easily and clearly, without reference to motivation or, specifically, to gratitude. Verse 9 appears to be simply another way by which to draw out of the apostles the same answer, the same agreement made earlier in vv. 7-8, about the nature of servanthood. Indeed, in the light of vv. 7-8, it seems clear that the reason for denying an expression of gratitude is the more important element in v. 9: because a servant is servant, one does not expect an expression of gratitude (always understood here to be a gratitude that inverts the meaning of servant and master). From an understanding, shared among parabolist and audience, that a servant is not to be made into a master – no master would agree to it (no matter what a servant might say or hope) – Jesus can proceed to draw the proper conclusion for his apostles. One can already anticipate it: the servant is one who does his work. As noted earlier, at times it is argued that Jesus has changed the nature of his parable when he finally draws out its conclusion: from the way he was talking about how a master treats his servant, does he not lead one to expect a description of the apostle as master? Yet, one gets the sense, even when reading just the parable (without Jesus’ conclusion) that more at stake is the definition of servant than that of master; the master’s actions (or non-actions) define the servant as much as they do the master. Indeed, at the core of the parable is the question about the servant: will his life-role be changed? for any reason? specifically, out of gratitude5? 5. That gratitude is the key element in v. 10 is the view of H. CONZELMANN, The Theol- ogy of Luke, London, Faber, 1960, p. 234; in agreement is JEREMIAS (n. 4), Parables, pp. 193, 219. THE UNITY OF LUKE 17, 1-10 159

The anticipated conclusion has to do with the servant, and so Jesus does center his conclusion on the apostles as servants. Verse 10 is essentially made up of two elements. First, there is the conditional clause beginning with Ωtan. Second, there is the content of what the apostles are to say (légete): we are doÕloi âxre⁄oi, what (Ω) we were supposed to do, we have done. The second element is the total content of the word “say (about yourselves)”, for the reason that I consider the clause, “what we were supposed to do”, to be in apposition to the “servants” statement preceding it6. The first element in v. 10 is distinctive for its use of pánta) The link between the parable and its application is perfect in the repetition of tà diatax‡énta. All the more noticed, then, is the insertion of (the disruptive) “all” in the application. The parable eventually underlined the rightness of the servant’s doing all his tasks, and eating only after they were all done. It is this element that Jesus wishes to make explicit as he teaches his apostles that they are to say about themselves: what we were supposed to do, (all of it) we have done. Distinctive, too, on the level of language is the use of the word Ω) In a context of plurals (pánta tà diatax‡énta), the pronoun in the singular calls attention to the fact that the multiple activities of the apostle can be viewed as a totality, which, having been performed, can allow one to say, “We have done all”. Again, as with the insertion of pánta, Jesus looks to the completion of all tasks, with all apostolic life being a oneness of service. Is gratitude a part of the sense of v. 107? One might make a case for this, were one to think the meaning of âxre⁄ov to be “to whom nothing is owed”, thus, “we are servants to whom no gratitude (or reward) is owed”8. The merits of this proposed meaning of the adjective apart, the fact that doÕloi âxre⁄oi9 is further explained by the appositional clause following it, in which there is no reference at all to gratitude (not to mention reward), indicates that gratitude is not a concern in Jesus’ application of the parable to his apostles; rather, it is doing what one is supposed to do – all one is supposed to do – that stands as the central affirmation of Jesus’ teaching10. Thus, that the apostles are here told to call themselves doÕloi âxre⁄oi11 suggests that, for a moment only, Luke is asking them to iden- tify themselves by a term of the parable, most specifically as it appears in v. 9, in the context of gratitude12. He immediately turns to another terminology, however,

6. One might argue correctly that the following clause is the reason why we are to call ourselves doÕloi âxre⁄oi, but I believe the ultimate emphasis, created by the ending of v. 9 and the elements of v. 10, falls on doing “all” one is supposed to do. 7. D. TIEDE, Luke (ACNT), Minneapolis, Augsburg, 1988, p. 292, summarizes the teaching of vv. 7-10: “…do not look for recognition for simple obedience”; similarly, ELLIS, Luke (n. 3), p. 207, “…not a personal achievement for which thanks are due”. 8. Cf. J.J. KILGALLEN, What Kind of Servants Are We? Luke 17,10, in Bib 63 (1982) 549-551. 9. Cf. DUPONT, Le Maître (n. 2), p. 234: “…auxquels leur obéissance ne confère aucun droit sur Dieu”. 10. Though a servant-master relationship is often used by Luke in parables, the apostles are never called doÕloi in the Gospel elsewhere but here (cf. however, Acts 4,29; 16,17). 11. As regards the sense of âxre⁄ov, D.L. BOCK, Luke (BECNT 3), Grand Rapids, Baker, 1996, vol. II, p. 1394, notes very well: “The text is not describing inherent worth…”. 12. “âxre⁄ov means ‘unworthy’…and is simply an expression of modesty, underlining the meaning of doúlov”; MARSHALL, Luke (n. 1), p. 647. If I understand this interpretation, the emphasis in the parable will be on doing what one should do, and not on expecting reward or gratitude. 160 J.J. KILGALLEN as he explains what it means for an apostle to be doÕlov: he does what he was supposed to do. What stands out, too, in v. 10 is the repetition of the word poiéw, in three dif- ferent forms. If one adds to this factor the senses of tà diatax‡énta and Öfeílomen13, one recognizes the central point of Jesus’ teaching: doing (all) that one is supposed to do14. It is this “doing what the Lord wants” which defines the apostle. In accord with the full teaching, we should say that it is “doing all that the Lord commands” that characterizes the apostle15. For what reason does Jesus give his teaching about the nature of servanthood to his apostles16? I believe the answer to this lies in uncovering the relationship of vv. 7-10 most specifically to vv. 1-617. It is to this relationship that I now turn.

Verses 5-618

While one might gloss over the change of addressees (from “disciples” to “apostles”)19, Plummer seems to offer the best explanation why Luke now wants “apostles” to be the addressees of Jesus: “The expression [ö kúriov] has point here. The Apostles ask the Lord who had given them their office to supply them with what was necessary for the discharge of that office”20.

13. “The use of ôfeílw conveys the idea of man’s obligation to serve God”; ibid., p. 648. This understanding seems more suitable than that which suggests that the word re- fers only to the obligations of some particular, later church officials. 14. Cf. F. BOVON, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (EKK 3), Neukirchen, Benziger, 2001, p. 141: “Es geht nicht mehr nur um Handlungen in Übereinstimmung mit den Befehlen … sondern um die Ausübung einer Plicht”. While I am reluctant to see v. 10 as an application of Jesus’ parable to later leaders’ church duties, I welcome the comment which pays little attention to “gratitude-seeking” as the concern of the parable, and much attention to doing what one is supposed to do. 15. On the contrary, many exegetes see in the teaching of Jesus, as Luke wishes it to be understood, a call to humility; cf. M.-J. LAGRANGE, Saint Luc, Paris, Gabalda, 31948, p. 456, “…la parabole se dirige nettement vers le sujet de l’humilité”. 16. It is at v. 5 that we find Jesus’ addressees to be apostles; before this, they were disciples. DUPONT, Le Maître (n. 2), pp. 244-246, notes, like others, that the change of addressees is owed to Luke’s redaction. Then he concludes, “Des deux côtés, il s’agit d’un appel aux apôtres (et à ceux qu’ils représentent) de ne pas se prévaloir du service qu’ils accomplissent: ne s’en prévaloir ni devant Dieu (17,7-10) ni à l’égard de leurs frères (22,24-27); p. 246. This conclusion may be considered true, if the reason Luke includes the parable here is to teach certain persons “de ne pas se prévaloir”. Though the parable might be open to such a possible lesson, I do not think that is Luke’s reason for recounting this parable here; rather, he here wants to insist on the fact that the apostle is the one who is to do all that is commanded him – all. 17. “The connection between the paragraph [vv. 5-6] with what precedes and follows is imperceptible, and it is best to assume that Luke is following sources which simply listed sayings of Jesus”; MARSHALL, Luke (n. 1), p. 643. 18. “3b-4, 5-6 are derives from Q”; FITZMYER, Luke (n. 1), p. 1137. It is also likely, according to Fitzmyer, that Q is the source for the eventual vv. 1b-2. 19. Fitzmyer (ibid., p. 1138), notes only, “Despite such specific designations [‘disciple’, ‘apostle’], Jesus’ words are being addressed to Luke’s Christian readers”. 20. A. PLUMMER, St. Luke (ICC), Edinburgh, Clark, 51922. THE UNITY OF LUKE 17, 1-10 161

Verse 6 is, of course, not self-standing; it is a response to, and in this sense depends on, v. 5, as the pivotal word pístin indicates21. Problematic is the explanation of Jesus’ response here to the call for more faith in v. 5. Plummer notes ascetically: “In the protasis [which begins Jesus’ response in v. 6] the supposi- tion is left open: in the apodosis it is implicitly denied”22. Apparently, the “sup- position” is that the apostles have faith; apparently, then, Jesus’ main clause (or apodosis) denies that they have faith, or at least subtly claims so, in that their faith is smaller in size than a mustard seed23. His denial of what they affirm about themselves is, therefore, quite cynical24 – with no further comment from either Jesus or the apostles. On the other hand, given that the verb in the protasis is indicative, I find it hard to support Plummer’s apparent position. Yes, the present indicative may not be taken to be an affirmative or a negative judgment about the apostles’ degree of faith, but it seems to me to say more than just speak about faith in an abstract way. I believe Jesus means to confirm the apostles’ own self awareness: they do have faith. It would be Jesus’ contention that the faith they have is sufficient to do what they are expected to do as his followers. Jesus expresses himself in a partially contrary-to-fact construction25. The “contrary-to-fact” aspect of Jesus’ reply, then, does not mean to negate what “little” faith the apostles have26. Rather, it reflects the proper doubt that they would, by faith, try to uproot a tree. They will not uproot a tree, but they will do a more marvelous thing with the faith they have. What might be considered, then, a pious request for “still more” faith ends in assurance that their faith is sufficient to respond to the demands of apostleship27, specifically to aid them in doing all that has been commanded them. But the teaching likely flows from what precedes it. I believe that Jesus means to give support to the apostles in regard to what he has just asked of them28. That is, the plea to “increase” our faith (followed by Jesus’ assurance about faith) is a response, to a degree a desperate response, to vv. 3-429. It is to these verses, then, that we now turn.

21. Jesus’ references to pístiv apparently ground C. Blomberg’s opinion about the unity within vv. 1-10, “…a series of teachings for his disciples about faith”; C. BLOM- BERG, Interpreting the Parables, Leicester, Apollos, 1990, p. 262. 22. PLUMMER, Luke (n. 20), p. 400. 23. Such seems to be the opinion of FITZMYER, Luke (n. 1), p. 1142: “It implies that the faith of the apostles is not even the size of a mustard seed”. 24. Cf. MARSHALL, Luke (n. 1), p. 644: “The curious form [partial contrary-to-fact] may be due to politeness … the disciples’ request presupposes that they have some faith, and ‘if you had faith’ [e÷xete in D E G] might seem to deny this assumption too bluntly”. 25. One assumes, from the indicative form ∂xete, that the apostles have faith (the size of a mustard seed); êlégete ân indicates wherein lies what is contrary-to-fact. 26. “Als wolle er die kirchliche Aktualität der Sprüche Jesu unterstreichen, rekurriert Lukas hier auf das christliche Vokabular der ‘Apostel’ und ihres ‘Herrn’”; BOVON, Lukas (n. 14), pp. 139-140. 27. Cf. C. TALBERT, Reading Luke, New York, Crossroad, 1986: “Luke believed those who live in faith were able to do what has been asked of them”. 28. “It is very forced to make it [vv. 5-6] apply to what precedes, the faith that enables one to forgive a brother seven times a day. Power to fulfil that duty would have been otherwise expressed”; PLUMMER, Luke (n. 20), p. 400. 29. “Their plea [in the light of vv. 1-3a and 3b-4], ‘Increase our faith!’, is understandable”; TIEDE, Luke (n. 7), p. 294. 162 J.J. KILGALLEN

Verses 3-4

Verses 3-4 offer a natural division. The beginning of v. 3 contains a command in the plural; the rest of v. 3 and all of v. 4 is concerned with advice to “you” in the singular30. Materially, clearly Jesus is here asking for a very difficult obedience: Jesus wants the disciple to forgive a fellow disciple as often as the offend- ing disciple repents and asks forgiveness, even to seven times a day. Certainly, the Matthean question (how often must I forgive my brother?; 18,21) and its context witness to the difficulty this command entails; who can be so forgiving? Certainly describing the sinning and the forgiving as occurring seven times a day or seventy times seven suggests both the cumulative severity of the offenses and the difficulty of forgiveness. Yet, this is the teaching for a disciple and an apostle of Jesus; this is to be done31. It is before the immensity of this difficulty in forgiving that the apostles des- perately plea for an increase in faith32. The first reply of Jesus to this request is uplifting: the disciples have a faith, and Jesus assures them of its power for good. The reality, apparently, indicated by Jesus is sufficient lesson from Luke to Theophilus as well. Indeed, as we can see the reasonableness of having the apostles’ request for increased faith follow upon the command to unlimited forgiveness, we can understand the logical link between vv. 3-4 and 5-633. Verses 3-4 as a unit are introduced, however, not by the command to forgive, but by the command (in the plural) to “watch out for yourselves”, or “keep guard over yourselves”. What is the function of these first words of v. 334? While one understands the command in itself, one wonders what precisely is on the mind of the person commanding this attentiveness; that is, does Jesus have some particular behavior in mind when he says, “Attend to yourselves”35? Given the legitimacy of, and intention behind this question, it seems clear that the command to forgive without limitation is the object of Jesus’ command, “Be

30. Matthew 18,15 reflects the sense of Luke’s thought here, and uses the second person singular, together with terms “brother” and “seven”. Luke’s source, then, is likely Q; cf. FITZMYER, Luke (n. 1), p. 1137. 31. “…essa [Jesus’ parable] vuole dire che niente è impossibile alla fede”; G. ROSSÉ, Il Vangelo di Luca, Roma, Città Nuova, 1992. 32. “Rem postulavit Christus valde difficilem [cf. v. 3], quae immo a lege aliena esse videri poterat…Videntes itaque apostoli magna exigi et se non sufficere ad illa sublimia opera pietatis petunt sibi fidem augeri (S. Bon. similiter Theoph. Jans. Bisp. Schanz, Fil.)”; J. KNABENBAUER, Evangelium secundum Lucam, Paris, Lethielleux, 21905, p. 487. Thus, Knabenbauer responds to those who “censent … nullum adesse nexum cum antecedentibus (Cai. Luc.)”; p. 487. In disagreement with Knabenbauer is LAGRANGE, Luc (n. 15), p. 454. 33. One may not be far wrong to think that Luke has linked a piece of Q material to something from his private source, emphasizing all the more that Luke has perceived a link between these two pieces of tradition. 34. “Be on your guard: envisages the problem of seduction”; FITZMYER, Luke (n. 1), p. 1137. But how might Jesus imagine that one apostle would cause another to waver in fidelity or towards apostasy? Perhaps this is the basis for Fitzmyer’s later suggestion (ibid., p. 1138), “Since, however, the warning of Jesus is couched in generic terms, it is impossible to exclude a wider connotation, viz. a seduction to sin in general”; yet, he adds, “This connotation is not, however, in the forefront of the present Lucan context”. 35. Cf. LAGRANGE, Luc (n. 15), p. 452: “Nous avons rattaché proséxete ëauto⁄v à ce qui précède. On pourrait en faire une transition, mais le sens deviendrait tout à fait vague”. THE UNITY OF LUKE 17, 1-10 163 concerned about yourselves”. Thus, the first words of v. 3 mean to introduce the reader to the rest of v. 3 and all of v. 4; as such, the introductory words highlight the centrality of moral concern here: forgive your brother as often as he is repentant and seeking your forgiveness. While it is possible that Luke, with the words proséxete ëauto⁄v, means to begin the equivalent of a new paragraph, it is much more likely that, with an eye on the content of the two verses preceding Jesus’ command, v. 3 flows logically from vv. 1-2. That is, the first words of v. 3 not only fix one’s attention on what follows in vv. 3 and 4, but also conclude vv. 1 and 2. We have seen how these first words of v. 3 introduce the rest of v. 3 and all of v. 4; how do they sum up vv. 1-2?

Verses 1-2

The two uses of “scandal” (skándala, skandalísjÇ) point up the concern which opens Jesus’ somber teaching to his disciples. Added to this factor is the tenor of Jesus’ words expressed by the violent oûaì and the shocking preference for violent suicide over scandal of “one of these little ones”. Certainly, the urg- ing of suicide over scandal teaches the evil of scandal, Jesus thereby making his point about the evil of scandal very clear. It is quite understandable that he would follow up this teaching with a command: “watch over yourselves”. The concern of this command, then, is, as link between vv. 1-2 and v. 3, care about oneself that one does not scandalize. It is what follows in vv. 3 and 4 that clarifies in what way the disciples might cause scandal, and that is in not forgiving a brother who, repentant, asks forgiveness. As is indicated by the fact that Luke introduces Jesus words, at v. 1, “How- ever, he said to his disciples”, Luke can be understood to introduce a new theme, a new paragraph36. Yet, I think one can go back beyond this “new” beginning to recognize a strong logical relationship between Chapter 17,1 and the lengthy parable which concludes Chapter 16. However one interprets the dynamics of this parable, one can clearly draw from it the impression of scandalous behavior on the part of the rich man as he ignores for a long time the needs of Lazarus. The unending pain of Hades is as repulsive as violent suicide; the harm done by Lazarus plays well together with the scandal of unforgiveness. In sum, there seems to be sufficient material in the last parable of Chapter 16 to serve as a point of departure for Jesus’ teaching in Chapter 17,1-4. Thus, we can say with some justice that Luke, in whatever sources he found the expres- sions of 17,1-4, has placed the teaching of these verses in a logical relationship with what went before them; Chapter 17,1-4 does not, in that sense, represent an all new beginning. One should underline two important elements about Chapter 17,1-4 vis-à-vis what precedes them. First, the obvious concern is not any longer the rich man’s ignoring the needs of the poor man, as in the previous parable, but the behavior of one brother to another – specifically in the matter of readiness to forgive with-

36. Editions, whether of the Greek text or in translation, reflect this by identifying these words as the first of Chapter 17, assigning to them “verse 1”. Cf. also, J. CREED, The Gos- pel According to St. Luke, London, Macmillan, 1965, p. 215: “There seems to be no connection with what precedes”. 164 J.J. KILGALLEN out limit. Second, the particle dè means to show, not only a shift in teaching emphasis, but also a shift in audience. The parable of the rich man was given to Pharisees (cf. 16,5); the instruction about unlimited forgiveness is given to the disciples, with eventual pointedness as shown in the reply of the apostles. With respect for these two points of difference between what precedes vv. 1-4, there seems to be a strong logical “flow” from materials of the parable which concludes Chapter 16 and the teaching of Jesus in Chapter 17,1-4. We have reviewed Chapter 17,1-10, with a view to showing how one unit of verses relates to the unit previous to it, thereby establishing (even if backwards) a thread of unity among these 10 verses37. In particular, we have studied vv. 7-10 in order to begin to trace the thread that unites vv. 1-10. Now, let us give a unified, overall explanation of the coherence and logic of these verses, with attention to what is the central issue of these ten verses38. For it is that central issue which ultimately unifies everything39.

Conclusion

That Lazarus “covered with sores, longed to eat the scraps that fell from the rich man’s table (Luke 16,21)” and was given none – this is reason for the terri- ble punishment of the rich man. This story is powerful enough to generate sayings of Jesus about another matter which, within the group of disciples, is scandalous; one might even consider that the harm one might do should be avoided even by one’s violent suicide. Such seems to be the forceful reason why the omi- nous and fearsome saying of Jesus about scandal justly appears immediately after the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Scandal, however, is made more precise: it is the refusal to forgive the brother who repents and asks forgiveness. The scandal is placed among the believers, who, by an imitation of their Master, should forgive. How important is forgiveness? One measurement is to say that should a brother sin, then repent and ask forgiveness “seven times a day”, one should forgive. To do otherwise is to scandalize, an act which is better thwarted by one’s violent suicide. What Jesus asks of the disciple seems impossible, at least from the peculiar viewpoint of the apostles40. These believers, self-doubting, ask for an increase of 37. “Now, taken together, they [vv.1-10] constitute a discourse on faithful obedience…”; D. TIEDE, Luke (n. 7), p. 292. I think these words point to the emphasis I find, in the Lucan intention in vv. 7-10: the emphasis on obedience (though Tiede does not so interpret 7-10). 38. BOVON, Lukas (n. 14), p. 132, notes that “Vier Themen … werden nacheinander angegangen, ohne dass dabei sogleich eine logische Aneinanderreihung deutlich wird”. Yet, he adds finally: “Es geht um des Gemeinshaftsleben mit seinen persönlichen Verantwortlichkeiten und den Aufgaben des Dienes, die es mit sich bringt”. Cf. also BOCK, Luke (n. 11), p. 1384, who signals only a most general unity: “Jesus instructs his disciples about some elements of following him”. 39. Cf. L. SABOURIN, L’Évangile de Luc, Roma, Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1985, p. 289, who prefers to say simply that we have here “des instructions sur le scandale, le pardon, la foi, le service … Tout le passage pourrait aussi s’intituler ‘la vie en communauté’ (Rigaux 223)”. 40. From the Gospel itself, there is no reason to think of the apostles as other than the Twelve Apostles of Luke 6,13-16. THE UNITY OF LUKE 17, 1-10 165 faith; otherwise, they think, they cannot do what Jesus asks. The reply is clear: you have the faith to do what I want done. Moreover, apostleship is defined as doing all that one is commanded. There is no limit to this obedience, no expectation that it should be, for whatever reason, abbreviated or abandoned. No servant, in the world we know, expects to do less than all of the tasks laid upon him41. So, too, the apostle, in carrying out his particular following of Jesus, can expect to be expected to do “all” that he has been commanded42. It seems clear that the latter verses (5-10) occur because of vv. 3b-4; on the one hand, the apostle does have the faith necessary to forgive, even to seven times a day, and, on the other, the unlimited forgiveness the apostle is expected to give is simply a part of “all” that he has been commanded – and apostleship is defined as doing “all” that the Lord commands. Further, it seems clear that vv. 3b-4 are the clarification of vv. 1-2: the scandal to be avoided at all costs is the lack of forgiveness to a brother who has repented and asked for forgiveness. Fi- nally, vv. 3b-4 are inspired by the lack of love shamefully exhibited by the rich man toward Lazarus. For these reasons, the central concern of 17,1-10 is that brotherly forgiveness which should always, always follow upon repentance and the request for forgiveness. It is around this concern that Luke gathers Jesus’ sayings that make up our vv. 1-10 of Luke, Chapter 17.

25 Via della Pilotta J.J. KILGALLEN Roma 00187 Italia

41. It is clear that the notion of gratitude (or reward) for work done has no play in the teaching of Jesus to his apostles here. That gratitude is mentioned at all in the parable (then in doÕloi âxre⁄oi) is meant simply to reinforce the notion that to be servant means to do “all” that one has been commanded to do. 42. Luke teaches this total obedience elsewhere when, after citing Jesus’ requirement for a disciple, that ‘he take up his cross and follow me’, Luke cites two parables which criticize doing ‘only a part of the obligation one has assumed’; the result is shame (Luke 14,27-32).