"Reason to Weep: Isaiah 52 and the Subtext of Luke's Triumphal Entry," Journal of Theological...

REASON TO WEEP: ISAIAH 52 AND THESUBTEXT OF LUKE’S TRIUMPHAL ENTRY

TUCKER S. FERDA

University of Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh Theological [email protected]

AbstractThis article contributes to the study of Luke’s use of Israel’s Scripture bysuggesting that the Third Evangelist has shaped the triumphal entry ofJesus to evoke and subvert a famous oracle of Jerusalem’s restoration,Isaiah 52. The upshot is a striking reversal of expectations: the long-awaited e2aggeliz0meno" on the Mount of Olives with his message ofpeace here weeps and prophesies the destruction of the city because ofits failure to recognize ‘the time of visitation.’ The argument finds supportin the narrative function of Isaiah in the larger context of Luke–Acts,otherwise clear interpretative strategies and assumptions in the immediatecontext, the role of Isaiah 52 in Luke’s interpretative milieu, and somerather striking corroboration in the history of interpretation.

ONE of the most poignant scenes in Luke is without parallel inthe other Gospels: Jesus interrupts the triumphal entry to weepover Jerusalem, prophesy its destruction, and speak of the city’smissed ‘time of visitation’ (19:41–4). The passage has stimulatedmuch creative reflection throughout the ages on topics as variousas Jewish and Christian identities,1 Christology,2 and, in themodern period, ex eventu prophecy and the Lukan theology of

I would like to thank Dale Allison, Dan Frayer-Griggs, and Richard Haysfor their comments on the whole or parts of this article. I also appreciate thefeedback received at the 2014 meeting of the EGLBS in Erie, PA.

1 Johannes Maldonatus, Commentarii in quatuor Evangelistas, vol. 2: InLucam et Joannem, ed. Conradus Martin (2nd edn.; Mainz: Kirchheim,1854), pp. 327–30; more recently Jack T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke–Acts(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1987), p. 210.

2 Cf. e.g. Origen, Hom. Luc. 38.1–2; Pseudo-Clement, Hom. 3.15; Jerome,Ep. 46.5; 122.1; Ambrose, Paen. 2.6.49; Cyril of Alexandria, Hom. Luc. 131;Gregory the Great, Hom. ev. 39.1; Rupert of Deutz, In Gen. 6.45; CorneliusLapide, The Great Commentary, vol. 4: S. Luke’s Gospel, ed. and trans. G.Gould Ross (2nd edn.; London: John Hodges, 1887), p. 463 (‘To show thebowels of His love’); John Gill, Gill’s Commentary, vol. 5: Matthew to Acts, ed.William Hill (repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980), p. 556 (weeping is ‘proofof the truth of his human nature’).

The Journal of Theological Studies, NS, 2015

� The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

For Permissions, please email: [email protected]

doi:10.1093/jts/flv006

1 of 33

by guest on March 16, 2015

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/

70 CE.3 But a key aspect of this text has been overlooked: theweeping Christ assumes that Jerusalem should have expected‘this day’ to come (v. 41). From where does the expectation for‘the time of your visitation’ (v. 44) derive? What does the disap-pointment presuppose?

The question may seem less pressing if one supposes that‘visitation’ refers generally to Jesus’ activities in Jerusalemduring the final week, and that since the Evangelist refers tothe city’s failure to anticipate and then understand these laterevents, the triumphal entry is a preamble to the ‘visitation’proper.4 But this does not seem probable in context. Surely theultimate rejection of Jesus is in view, but Luke has shaped thetriumphal entry itself to be a key part of this ‘visitation.’5 Thearrival of Jesus to Jerusalem has been anticipated since at least9:51 (Jesus ‘set his face to Jerusalem’), which makes this scenehighly climactic from a narrative-critical perspective.6 Moreover,

3 Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. John Marsh (repr.Peabody: Hendrickson, 1963), pp. 36, 123; Bo Reicke, ‘Synoptic Prophecies onthe Destruction of Jerusalem’, in David E. Aune (ed.), Studies in New Testamentand Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of A. P. Wikgren (Leiden: Brill,1972), pp. 121–34; Augustin George, Etudes sur L’Oeuvre de Luc (Paris: Gabalda,1978), pp. 26–7; Marcus J. Borg, ‘Luke 19:42–44 and Jesus as Prophet?’, Forum 8

(1992), pp. 99–112; R. Alan Culpepper, The Gospel of Luke (NIB 9; Nashville,TN: Abingdon, 1995), pp. 372–3.

4 Hobert K. Farrell, ‘The Structure and Theology of Luke’s CentralSection’, TJ 7 (1986), pp. 33–54, at 51 thinks the visitation refers to thepast ministry up to this point.

5 So D. Bernhard Weiss, Das Evangelium Lukas im berichtigten Text, mitkurzer Erlauterung zum Handgebrauch bei der Schriftlekture (Leipzig: J. C.Hinrichs, 1902), p. 416 (‘Die hm. aut. ist der gegenwartige Tag, an dem derMessias zu seiner Hauptstadt kommt’); Alfred Plummer, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke (ICC 30; 5th edn.;Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1922), p. 452; I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historianand Theologian (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1971), p. 155; David L. Tiede,Luke (ACNT 3; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980), p. 331 (‘The arrival of Jesus isthe divine visitation of Jerusalem, intended to be her salvation, but tragicallyturned into her destruction by a humanity opposed to God’s Messiah’); LukeTimothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (SP 3; Collegeville, MN: LiturgicalPress, 1991), p. 301; Laurie Guy, ‘The Interplay of the Present and Futurein the Kingdom of God (Luke 19:11–44)’, TynBul 48 (1997), pp. 119–37, at124; Heiner Ganser-Kerperin, Das Zeugnis des Tempels: Studien zur Bedeutungdes Tempelmotivs im lukanischen Doppelwerk (Munster: AschendorV, 2000), p.161, n. 64: ‘Die Darstellung unterstreicht damit die Bedeutung der Gegenwartder Begegnung mit Jesus.’

6 Helmuth L. Egelkraut, Jesus’ Mission to Jerusalem (EuropaischeHochschulschriften 80; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1976), p. 128 (‘sum(s) up thedrama’); Bart J. Koet, ‘Isaiah in Luke–Acts’, in Steve Moyise and Maarten J.J. Menken (eds.), Isaiah in the New Testament (London and New York: T & T

T U C K E R S. F E R DA2 of 33



ownloaded from


in the middle of the triumphal entry, Jesus responds to rebukingPharisees by saying that the very stones would cry out should hisdisciples be quiet (19:39–40). Here the triumphal entry is not amere prologue to more important events that come later; theentry itself is something that must take place.

To assume then, at the moment, the importance of the ques-tion, the purpose of the present study is this: to clarify the subtextfor Jerusalem’s ‘visitation’ in Luke 19. It will be suggested thatmodern critics have overlooked an interesting intertextual rela-tionship between Luke’s triumphal entry and a well-knownIsaianic oracle (52:6–10) about the redemption of Jerusalem, ‘aherald who proclaims good news of peace’, and the end-time ar-rival of God at Mount Zion.7 The argument is that the eschato-logical hopes in Isaiah 52 explain the reason to weep: for Jesus, asGod’s anointed ‘herald’, embodies God’s advent to redeemJerusalem, yet Jerusalem’s inability to ‘see’ ‘this day’ also disap-points the fulfilment of these hopes.8 The evidence of Isaiah 52’sdisappointment clusters in the material that brackets the prophe-cies of future destruction (‘If you knew, even you, on this day thethings which bring peace, but now it is hidden from your eyes [v.42] . . . you did not know the time of your visitation’ [v. 44c]), andproduces a startling reversal of expectations: the city can antici-pate destruction instead of ‘redemption’ (Isa. 52:3, 9).

Clark, 2005), pp. 79–100, at 86; Bruce Fisk, ‘See My Tears: A Lament forJerusalem’, in J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb (eds.),The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of RichardB. Hays (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008), pp. 147–78, at 152

(‘All signs suggest that Luke sees Jerusalem as Jesus’ theological 2rc0 andte#lo"’).

7 Study of biblical intertextuality in 19:41–4 has focused on the images ofdestruction in vv. 43–4a which was spurred by C. H. Dodd’s famous article,‘The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘‘Abomination of Desolation’’ ’, in More NewTestament Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), pp. 69–83, esp. 79:‘there is no single trait of the forecast (of destruction) which cannot be docu-mented directly out of the Old Testament.’ Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, TheGospel according to Luke (AB 28/28A; New York: Doubleday, 1964), pp.1256–7; E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (New Century Bible; London:Oliphants, 1977), p. 226; David L. Tiede, Prophecy and History in Luke–Acts (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1980), pp. 78–86; John Nolland, Luke(WBC 35; Dallas, TX: Word, 1989–93), pp. 930–32; Kenneth DuncanLitwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke–Acts: Telling the History of God’s PeopleIntertextually (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2005), p. 14.

8 Brent Kinman’s argument that Jesus weeps because he did not receive theexpected ‘celebratory welcome(s) in the ancient world’ is not convincing,though such welcomes surely inform the background of this episode. See‘Parousia, Jesus’ ‘‘A-Triumphal’’ Entry, and the Fate of Jerusalem (Luke19:28–44)’, JBL 118 (1999), pp. 279–94.

ISAIAH 52 AND LUKE’S TRIUMPHAL ENTRY 3 of 33



ownloaded from


To defend this reading five things will be shown: (1) that Lukewould take a scriptural text and signal not just its fulfilment butalso its subversion in narrative action; (2) that such a use ofIsaiah 52 squares with Luke’s use of Isaiah in general; (3) thatlexical and thematic connections between Luke 19 and Isaiah 52

suggest an intertextual relationship; (4) that there is a similar useof Scripture in the immediate context; (5) that, despite the lackof attestation in modern commentaries and exegetical studies,this author is not the first to be put in mind of Isaiah 52 byLuke 19. We can take each in turn.

1. ‘DIALECTICAL IMITATION’ IN LUKE

The Lucan Jesus claims that ‘heaven and earth will pass away’before one stroke of the law is dropped (16:17), but this in no wayleads to a strait-jacketed approach to Israel’s Scripture. In Luke,as in other Jewish and early Christian sources, it is quite commonto find an interpretative technique of manipulating the language ofa scriptural text so as to make some rhetorical or theological point.Richard Hays has termed this practice ‘dialectical imitation’,which he describes as a process of juxtaposing two literary worldsso that the tensions between the worlds generate meaning.9

Examples are ubiquitous in the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamentalliterature, and the New Testament. A sampling is as follows:10

� Joel 3:10 instructs ‘Beat your plowshares into swords, andyour pruning hooks into spears’, which reverses thefamous Isaianic imperative for peace (2:4).� To make clear God’s use of Pompey to punish Jerusalem,

Pss. Sol. 8:17 describes Pompey’s coming with Isaiah 40’simagery of rough roads being made smooth.

9 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven:Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 174–7. See also Walther Eichrodt, ‘IsTypological Exegesis an Appropriate Method?’, in Claus Westermann andJames Luther Mays (eds.), James Barr (trans.), Essays on Old TestamentHermeneutics (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1969), pp. 224–45, at 225:‘Emphasis can be given to certain corresponding features also from anotherside, where the purpose is not to illustrate a likeness but a contrast.’

10 For further discussion see Michael Fishbane, ‘Torah and Tradition’, inDouglas A. Knight (ed.), Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), pp. 275–300.




ownloaded from


� The impious speaker of Wis. 2:10–18 unwittingly parodiesIsaiah 53 and voices support for doing violence to God’sServant.11

� Mark 10:45 underscores the startling nature of Jesus’ suf-fering and death by having Jesus explain that he, as ‘theSon of Man’, has come ‘to serve rather than be served’,whereas the ‘all peoples, nations, and languages . . . serve’the ‘son of man’ in Dan. 7:14.� The healing of ‘the blind and the lame’ in Matthew’s

temple action (21:14) casts Jesus in a Davidic light butwith a twist, for David had entered the Jebusite capitalviolently and was opposed by ‘the blind and the lame’ (2Sam. 5:8).12

These examples also befit Dale Allison’s discussion of ‘reversingsubtexts’, a phenomenon which he rightly says is ‘not abouteradication but transformation’ of the subtext.13 The prophetJoel’s point with the hooks to spears is not to say that Isaiahwas wrong, but that his own contemporaries will surely suVerGod’s imminent judgement.

What is striking for our purposes is that, as widespread as thishermeneutical device appears to be, Luke has a special aYnity forit. Four examples suYce to prove the point, and there are morethat could be mentioned: (i) Early in Luke’s travelogue, Jesusrebukes his disciples for desiring to ‘call down fire from heaven’ onSamaritans (9:54–5) as Elijah himself had done (2 Kgs. 1:9–12).14

The gesture intensifies the portrayal of Jesus’ mission as acompassionate and peace-seeking one and the misunderstandingof that mission on the part of the disciples. (ii) Again in thetravelogue, Jesus uses common language for Israel’s collectiverestoration—‘many will come from the east and west’ (13:29; cf.

11 As convincingly argued by M. J. Suggs, ‘Wisdom of Solomon 2:10–15: AHomily Based on the Fourth Servant Song’, JBL 76 (1957), pp. 26–33.

12 Cf. J. C. Fenton, The Gospel of St. Matthew (rev. edn.; London: Penguin,1977), p. 334.

13 Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q (Harrisburg,PA: Trinity, 2000), pp. 192–7. See also the discussion of ‘dialogical’ intertext-uality in Steve Moyise, ‘Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament inthe New Testament’, in Steve Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the NewTestament: Festschrift for J. L. North (JSNTSup 189; SheYeld: SheYeldAcademic Press, 2000), pp. 14–41, esp. 25–32. See also Will Kynes, ‘Beatyour Parodies into Swords, and Your Parodied Books into Spears: A NewParadigm for Parody in the Hebrew Bible’, BibInt 19 (2011), pp. 276–310.

14 Dale C. Allison, Jr., ‘Rejecting Violent Judgment: Luke 9:52–56 and itsRelatives’, JBL 121 (2002), pp. 459–78.




ownloaded from


Isa. 43:5; 49:12; 59:19; Bar. 4:37)—to signify the dramatic reversalof the kingdom of God (‘the last will be first’ at v. 30).15 (iii) In thesame context, Jesus intimates that Jerusalem’s rejection of him,and the ensuing ‘desolation’ of its ‘house’ in return (13:34–5), failsto uphold the scriptural expectation that Jerusalem’s ‘house’would heap blessing on ‘the one who comes in the name of theLord’ (LXX Ps. 117:26). (iv) Luke’s apocalyptic discourse (21:5–36) describes the events surrounding Jerusalem’s destruction as‘the days of vengeance (3me#rai 2kdik0sew") to fulfil all that iswritten’ (v. 22), which is startling because LXX Deut. 32:35

claims that ‘on the day of vengeance’ (2n 3me#rG 2kdik0sew") Godwill vindicate Israel and destroy her enemies.

In these examples Luke’s ‘dialectical’ hermeneutic serves twoends at the same time: to demonstrate that the preparation andministry of the Messiah fulfil Scripture,16 and to show that Jesusreversed many expectations.17 The hermeneutic often shows thatit is Jesus’ contemporaries, not Jesus himself, who fail to upholdscriptural precedent by misunderstanding or rejecting what Godis doing in Jesus.18 By taking an oracle and changing its intendedaudience Luke emphasizes the blindness or stubbornness of theopponents of Jesus, and by changing the way that a particularoracle or model manifests in Jesus’ career he upends expect-ations.19 All of this, it will be clear, fits well with 19:41–4 andLuke’s already Scripture-laden entry to Jerusalem.

15 Here the debate concerning the identity of those from the ‘east and west’(e.g. from the Diaspora and/or Gentiles?) is not of major consequence for thereversal theme. See Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Jesus Tradition in Q (Harrisburg,PA: Trinity, 1997), pp. 176–91 (Jewish Diaspora) vs. Michael Bird, ‘WhoComes from the East and West? Luke 13.28–29/Matt. 8.11–12 and theHistorical Jesus’, NTS 52 (2006), pp. 441–57 (Jewish DiasporaþGentiles).

16 Cf. Nils Dahl, Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church (Minneapolis:Augsburg, 1976), p. 88 on Luke’s ‘continuation of biblical history.’

17 On reversal in Luke see John O. York, The Last Shall Be First: TheRhetoric of Reversal in Luke (SheYeld: JSOT, 1991).

18 Note Luke 10:23–4: ‘For I tell you that many prophets and kings desiredto see the things you see, but did not see, and to hear the things you hear, butdid not hear.’ See also 16:31: ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets,then they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’

19 As seen already in Luke 4:16–30 (linking Isaiah 61’s prophecy of the‘anointed one’ with Elijah and Elisha’s mission to non-Israelites). Cf. LeanderE. Keck, ‘Jesus’ Entrance upon his Mission’, RevExp 64 (1967), pp. 465–84;James A. Sanders, ‘From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4’, in James A. Sanders and CraigA. Evans (eds.), Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke–Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), pp. 46–69.




ownloaded from


2. ISAIAH AND LUKE’S ERZAHLUNGSTECHNIK

In addition to this ‘dialectical’ hermeneutic and Luke’s predi-lection for it, Luke’s narrative as a whole signals the fulfilment ofIsaianic expectations as well as the subversion of those expect-ations for those who reject Jesus and his message. Significantly forthis study, both aspects artfully intertwine as Jesus enters the city.

In terms of the fulfilment of Isaiah, it is generally recognizedthat Luke attempted to write his narrative on an Isaian subtext,since he cites the prophet en bloc on five occasions at majortransitions in the narrative (Isa. 40:3–5 in Luke 3:4–6; Isa. 61:1–2

in Luke 4:18–19; Isa. 66:1–2 in Acts 7:49–50; Isa. 53:7–8 in Acts8:32–3; Isa. 6:9–10 in Acts 28:26–7)20 and often crafts events tofulfil particular prophecies.21 Concerning the identity of Jesus inparticular, many have noted and discussed the heightenedimportance of Isa. 42’s ‘servant’ (Luke 3:22; 9:35; 23:35; Acts26:18), Isaiah 61’s ‘anointed’ (Luke 4:18; 7:22; Acts 4:27; 10:38),and Isaiah 53’s suVering ‘servant’ (Luke 18:31–3; 22:37; 24:26;Acts 3:13–14) for Luke. He obviously read all of these figures asreferences to the same person—as did many Jews in this period(esp. Isaiah 52 and 61; see 11QMelch 2:15–20; 1QHa

23:12–14)22—and the annunciation at Nazareth (4:16–20) casts the wholeof Jesus’ career in an Isaianic light.23 For our purposes it is

20 Bart J. Koet, Five Studies on the Interpretation of Scripture in Luke–Acts(Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), p. 145: ‘Luke outlines the ministryof Jesus and that of the disciples and in particular that of Paul by means ofquotations from or allusions to Isaiah . . . In this way Luke uses Isaianic ideasas a framework, illustrating at crucial points the ministries of his protagonists.’

21 E.g. ‘opposition’ to Christ in the Passion Narrative and Ps. 2:1–2; seeWim Weren, ‘Psalm 2 in Luke–Acts: An Intertextual Study’, in S. Draisma(ed.), Intertextuality in Biblical Writings (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1989), pp. 189–204. Moreover, for the ‘pouring out’ of the Spirit at Pentecost and Joel 3, seeBarnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of OldTestament Quotations (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), pp. 36–8.

22 See James A. Sanders, ‘The Old Testament in 11QMelchizedek’,JANESCU 5 (1973), pp. 373–82, at 380, n. 12 (for rabbinic sources); DavidSeccombe, ‘Luke and Isaiah’, NTS 27 (1981), pp. 252–9, at 254; Koet, ‘Isaiahin Luke–Acts’, pp. 83–5, 87–9. The trend perhaps began with Third-Isaiah(esp. 61:1–3) itself, so Jacob Stromberg ‘An Inner-Isaianic Reading ofIsaiah 61:1–3’, in David G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.),Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,2009), pp. 261–72.

23 The literature here is endless. Notable studies include Christopher J.Schreck, ‘The Nazareth Pericope: Luke 4:16–30 in Recent Study’, in F.Neirynck (ed.), L’Evangile de Luc: Problemes litteraires et theologiques (BETL32; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), pp. 399–471; Koet, Five Studies,pp. 24–55; Peter Mallen, The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke–Acts (LNTS 367; New York; London: T & T Clark, 2008), pp. 137–40.




ownloaded from


especially important that Luke included in his portrait thedescription of the messenger of Isaiah 52 who proclaims peace(p0de" e2aggelizome#nou 2ko1n e2r0nh"), as Peter summarizes themission of Jesus in Acts 10:36: ‘You know the message God sent tothe sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ(e2aggeliz0meno" e2r0nhn di1 *Ihsou~ Vristou).’24 Peter’s summarystatement of Jesus ‘evangelizing’ coheres with a clear Lukantendency to insert into Mark (or Q) mention of Jesus ‘evange-lizing’ (8:1; 9:6; 16:16), which is also used summarily (4:43: ‘Imust proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God[e2aggel0sasqa0 me de8 t1n basile0an tou~ qeou~] to the other citiesalso; for I was sent for this purpose’).25 While in most of thesecases it is dubious to try to distinguish between the threeparticular Isaianic intertexts that Luke may have in mind (Isa.40 :9 [3 e2aggeliz0meno"]; 52 :7 [p0de" e2aggelizome#nou];61:1[e2aggel0sasqai]), it is clear enough elsewhere that he wasfamiliar with all of them and drew on each accordingly.

The Evangelist has also made Jesus the enactor of the greatpromises of salvation in Deutero-Isaiah: the redemption, comfort,and restoration of Jerusalem, the ingathering of the exiles, theend-time advent of God on Mount Zion. Isaiah 40 and 52 werecentral for these expectations, which is a fact Luke acknowledgesat the beginning of the narrative.26 In the Nunc Dimittis, Simeon,

24 Already noted in Eusebius, Dem. ev. 6.24. See also Jacques Dupont, TheSalvation of the Gentiles: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles, trans. John R.Keating (New York; Ramsey; Toronto: Paulist, 1979), p. 143; Johannes M.Nutzel, Jesus als OVenbarer Gottes nach den lukanischen Schriften (Wurzburg:Echter, 1980), pp. 55–7; Darrell L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy andPattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology (JSNTSup 12; SheYeld: SheYeldAcademic Press, 1987), p. 233; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles(AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), p. 463.

25 On the linkage between ‘evangelizing’ and the kingdom of God, it isnoteworthy that in Isa. 52:7 the evangelizer proclaims, ‘your God willreign!’ (basile0sei sou 3 qe0"); this appears in Tg. Jonathan as ‘the kingdomof your God is revealed!’ ($yhlad atwklm taylgta). It is quite probable thatthe historical Jesus was aware of this connection—as well as in Isa. 40:9 (cf.Isa. Tg. 40:9)—especially if John the Baptist had associated his ministry withthe ‘way of the Lord’ in Isa. 40:1–3. See Bruce D. Chilton, God in Strength:Jesus’ Announcement of the Kingdom (Freistadt: Plochl, 1979); Craig A. Evans,‘From Gospel to Gospel: The Function of Isaiah in the New Testament’, inCraig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans (eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll ofIsaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (Leiden and New York: Brill, 1997),pp. 651–91, at 671; Dale C. Allison, Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory,Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010), pp. 113–15.

26 So Fitzmyer, Luke, p. 421 (‘Both the consolation of Israel and the re-demption/deliverance of Jerusalem are the message of the herald of good newsin Isa. 52:9’); Culpepper, Luke, pp. 70–1; Richard Bauckham, ‘The Restoration




ownloaded from


a model Jerusalemite ‘looking forward to the consolation of Israel’(prosdec0meno" par0klhsin tou~ *Isra0l), lauds Jesus the fulfilment ofhis Isaiah-inspired hope: ‘my eyes have seen your salvation (e9dono3 2ßqalmo0 mou t1 swt0ri0n sou) which you prepared before allpeople’ (vv. 30–1). The combination of sightþ salvation is rare butoccurs twice in Deutero-Isaiah: 40:5 (5yetaiþ t1 swt0rion) and52:10 (5yontaiþ t1n swthr0an), as others have noted.27 In addition,the prophetess Anna, who is another model Jerusalemite and afirst-fruit of the ingathered exiles,28 sees Jesus and tells ‘all whowere looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem’ (l0trwsin*Ierousal0m, 2:38).29 This expectation is connected even moreclosely to Isaiah 52, which predicts that God ‘will redeem’(lutrwq0sesqe) ‘Jerusalem’ (Ierousalhm) without silver in the end-time (52:3; see also 52:9).30 In both of these early testimonies,

of Israel in Luke–Acts’, in James M. Scott (ed.), Restoration: Old Testament,Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (JSJSupp 72; Leiden; Boston, MA; Koln:Brill, 2000), pp. 435–88, at 438: ‘(Here) Luke provides his readers with aframework of expectation and significance within which to read the rest ofthe story of the Gospel and Acts’ (see also p. 457). Cf. John R. Levison,‘The Spirit, Simeon, and the Songs of the Servant’, in I. Howard Marshall,Volker Rabens, and Cornelis Bennema (eds.), The Spirit and Christ in the NewTestament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner (GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), pp. 18–34.

27 Isa. 52:10: ‘And the Lord will reveal his holy arm before all the nationsand all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation from God.’ Cf. e.g.Nolland, Luke, p. 120 (‘the allusion is almost certainly to Isa. 52:10’);Mallen, Transformation of Isaiah, p. 66. Note also Plummer, S. Luke, p. 69,hears Isa. 52:10 via other details in 2:31–2. So too I. Howard Marshall, TheGospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 120–1;Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on Luke’sGospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), p. 66; Francois Bovon, Das Evangeliumnach Lukas (1,1–9,50) (EKK III/1; Zurich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989), p. 145; Ganser-Kerperin, Das Zeugnisdes Tempels, p. 132.

28 Significant here is mention of Anna being from the tribe of Asher, asdiscussed by Richard Bauckham, ‘Anna of the Tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36–38)’,RB 104 (1997), pp. 161–91.

29 Here note Nolland, Luke, p. 125 (‘the phrase echoes Isa. 52:9’); Marshall,Luke, p. 124 (‘phraseology is based on Is. 52:9’); Bradley J. Chance, Jerusalem,the Temple, and the New Age in Luke–Acts (Macon, GA: Mercer UniversityPress, 1988), pp. 54–5, 136; Bauckham, ‘Restoration of Israel in Luke–Acts’, p.456 (thinks Luke dependent on the MT here, as he argues is typical in Luke1–2); Ganser-Kerperin, Das Zeugnis des Tempels, p. 133.

30 Cf. Adrian M. Leske, ‘The Influence of Isaiah 40–66 on Christology inMatthew and Luke: A Comparison’, in Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. (ed.), Societyof Biblical Literature 1994 Seminar Papers (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1994), pp.897–916, at 901. Luke’s only other use of l0trwsi" appears in 1:68 and itsrelevance will become apparent below, as will that of 24:21 (3 me#llwn lutrou~sqait1n *Isra0l). It is also worth mentioning that Tit. 2:14 and 1 Pet. 1:18 also use




ownloaded from


then, Luke signals Jesus as the one in whom Isaiah’s hope for anew Exodus finds fulfilment, and sets the hopes for Jerusalem’srestoration squarely before the reader’s eyes.31 The focus onIsaianic fulfilment is reconfirmed shortly after by John theBaptist, who prepares the way for Jesus to tread the Lord’s 3d0n(Luke 3:4; cf. 1:76; Isa. 40:3).32

With the Isaiah-saturated early chapters of Luke, many ofwhich centre around Jerusalem and anticipate its redemption, thereader is led to expect that Jesus’ re-entry to the city in 19:28–48 isconversant with these motifs.33 After all, the Evangelist has notonly re-evoked Isaiah throughout the ministry to this point, he hasmade Jerusalem, more clearly than Matthew and Mark, the clearte#lo" of his mission: 9:51 (he ‘set his face to Jerusalem’); 13:32–3

(‘on the third day I finish my work . . . it is impossible for a prophetto die outside Jerusalem’); 17:11 (‘on the way to Jerusalem’); 18:31

(‘we are going up to Jerusalem’); 19:11 (‘near Jerusalem’); 19:28

(‘going up to Jerusalem’).34 The arrival of Jesus is all the moreclimactic in Luke because he comes not just as Isaiah’s ‘anointed’and ‘messenger of good news’, but also as the one who stands in

lutr0w and converse with Isa. 52–3; see John H. Elliott, 1 Peter (AB 37B;New York et al.: Doubleday, 2000), pp. 369, 72. Cf. Test. Levi 2:10–11 (esp.per1 tou~ me#llonto" lutrou~sqai t1n *Isra0l khr0xei"); 11QMelchizedek (¼ 11Q13)II, 15, 20.

31 See Andres Garcıa Serrano, ‘Anna’s Characterization in Luke 2:36–38: ACase of Conceptual Allusion?’ CBQ 76 (2014), pp. 464–80, at 478–9; Mallen,Transformation of Isaiah, p. 65. On Isaiah 40 and 52 and the new Exodus, seeBernhard W. Anderson, ‘Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah’, in Bernhard W.Anderson and Walter J. Harrelson (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Heritage (NewYork: Harper, 1962), pp. 177–95; Konrad Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck,‘Restoration Expectations in the Prophetic Tradition of the Old Testament’,in Restoration, pp. 41–82, at 71–2.

32 See Nolland, Luke, p. 144; Darrell L. Bock, Luke (BECNT 3; GrandRapids, MI: Baker, 1994–6), pp. 293–5. On the ‘Transparenz’ between Jesusand God in Luke see Nutzel, Jesus als OVenbarer, pp. 11–14.

33 On one common view of 19:41–6 as the climax of Luke’s ‘travelogue’which begins at 9:51, see e.g. Charles H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, TheologicalThemes, and the Genre of Luke–Acts (SBSMS 20; Missoula, MT: Scholars,1974), p. 114; Tiede, Luke, p. 259 (‘This passage stands in the midst ofJesus’ journey to Jerusalem which began at 9:51 and will conclude at 19:28–44, climaxed by his entry and cleansing of the temple in 19:45–46’); Frank J.Matera, ‘Jesus’ Journey to Jerusalem: A Conflict with Israel (Luke 9.51–19.46)’, JSNT 51 (1993), pp. 57–77; Bock, Luke, p. 1567; Ganser-Kerperin,Das Zeugnis des Tempels, p. 50.

34 Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 659–60 rightly comments that such notices ‘have ensuredthat we continue to correlate realization of the divine purpose with arrival inJerusalem.’




ownloaded from


God’s stead and enacts a new Exodus:35 working ‘glorious things’(note 7ndoxo" in Luke 13:17 and Exod. 34:10),36 discussing withMoses and Elijah t1n 7xodon he was to fulfil in Jerusalem (Luke9:31), beginning his journey by ‘sending messengers before hisface’ (9:52: 2pe#steilen 2gge#lou" pr1 pros0pou a2tou~; cf. 7:27; Exod.23:20), exorcizing demons by the ‘finger of God’ (11:20; cf. Exod.8:15), and gathering around himself the first-fruits of Israelrestored (12:32; 18:31; cf. 22:30).37

But it is clear that Jesus’ entry to the city is a double-edgedfulfilment and disappointment of prior hopes, and readers recallthat Simeon had said that Jesus would cause ‘the rising and fallingof many in Israel’ (2:34, my italics).38 On the one hand the‘multitude of disciples’ are overjoyed as they carry out—know-ingly or not—the fulfilment of Zechariah 9. They also broadcastthe success of Jesus as Isaiah’s anointed doer of ‘power’ (d0nami")as mentioned earlier in the ministry (Luke 4:14, 36; 5:17; 6:19;8:46; cf. Acts 2:22; 10:38). And even Jesus himself appeals tothe necessity of this event when replying to some objectors amongthe Pharisees, which is a motif Luke typically identifies with thefulfilment of Scripture (18:34; 24:45). But, on the other hand,sorrow accompanies the rejoicing, and many details in contextappear to subvert not just Isaiah but the expectations andexamples of earlier chapters.39 The point is not that God’s planwas thwarted, but that opponents to the Jesus mission are like

35 On the new Exodus motif in the travelogue, see C. F. Evans, ‘TheCentral Section of St. Luke’s Gospel’, in D. E. Nineham (ed.), Studies inthe Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955),pp. 37–53; John Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel (Atlanta, GA:John Knox, 1977), pp. 138–63.

36 See Marshall, Luke, pp. 384–5.37 Here see Egelkraut, Jesus’ Mission, p. 133 (‘Lk depicts the establishment

of the new people of God’); James M. Dawsey, ‘Jesus’ Pilgrimage toJerusalem’, PRSt 14 (1987), pp. 217–32, at 220.

38 Fitzmyer, Luke, p. 423, calls Simeon’s line a ‘chord struck’ that ‘will beorchestrated in many ways in the Gospel proper.’ See also Tiede, Luke, pp.77–8; James A. Sanders, ‘Isaiah in Luke’, in Luke and Scripture, pp. 14–25, at15: ‘Isaiah was particularly helpful in understanding why Christ’s own peopleand contemporaries rejected him.’

39 Also noted by Peter W. L. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City: NewTestament Perspectives on Jerusalem (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge:Eerdmans, 1996), p. 79: ‘The great hopes for Israel and Jerusalem adumbratedat the beginning Luke’s Gospel do not materialize. Jesus’ coming to Jerusalem,which should have been the city’s finest hour (cf. 19:44), has proved to be itsundoing.’ So too Ganser-Kerperin, Das Zeugnis des Tempels, pp. 162–3: ‘wirdfur den Leser der Erzahlung deutlich, daß die hohen Erwartungen, die in derErzahlung mit der Geburt Jesu verknupft sind . . . , nicht gradlinig erfulltwerden.’




ownloaded from


those Pharisees and Scribes who, by refusing to be baptizedby John, ‘rejected God’s purpose [t1n boul0n] for themselves’(Luke 7:30).40 (i) Zechariah the Jerusalem priest expected‘salvation from our enemies’ (1:71, swthr0an 2x 2cqr8n 3m8n), butJesus predicts that ‘your enemies will surround you’ (19:43,parembalou~sin o3 2cqro0); (ii) Jerusalemites and temple frequentersSimeon and Anna immediately identified Jesus (2:27–32, 36–8),but here Jesus laments that the significance of his arrival is hiddenfrom the city’s eyes (19:42);41 (iii) the boy Jesus interacted withreligious leaders in the temple and impressed them (2:47), buthere Jesus finds opposition from Jerusalem’s elite in the temple(19:47); (iv) also significant is Luke 13:34–5:

Jerusalem! Jerusalem! The city that kills the prophets and stonesthose who have been sent to her. Many times I desired to gatheryour children in the manner that a hen gathers her brood underher wings, but you did not desire it! Behold, your house is left toyou. I say to you, by no means will you see me until you say,‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’

Ultimately the Lukan Jesus probably looks forward to the par-ousia with these words, since elsewhere the conditionality of thatevent seems presupposed.42 But it is also true that Luke’s place-ment of this text in the travelogue means that the triumphalentry becomes a proleptic fulfilment of the oracle.43 For in

407:29–30 is unique to Luke. One also thinks of the parable of the wicked

tenants (20:9–19), and Luke’s movement of Isa. 6:9–10 to the very end of Acts(28:26–7).

41 See Fred B. Craddock, Luke (Interpretation 3; Louisville, KY:Westminster John Knox, 1990), pp. 228–9.

42 See Acts 3:19–20: ‘repent . . . and turn . . . so that [7pw"] times of refreshingmay come . . . and that God may send the Messiah.’ On the conditionality ofLuke 13 (par Matt. 23) see the important study in Allison, Jesus Tradition inQ, pp. 192–204. Cf. also Chance, Jerusalem, pp. 130–2. Contra H. van derKwaak, ‘Die Klage uber Jerusalem (Matth. xxiii. 37–39)’, NovT 8 (1966),pp. 156–70 (only Matthew’s version is conditional).

43 Cf. Johann Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, vol. 2: Commentary onthe Gospels according to St Luke and St John and the Acts of the Apostles, ed.and trans. Andrew R. Fausset (2nd edn.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1858), p.178 (the pilgrims ‘fulfill’ 13:35); Danker, New Age, pp. 266–7 (in Luke 19 Jesusgives Jerusalem ‘another chance’); Marshall, Luke, p. 577; Johnson, Luke, p. 219

(‘fulfilled by the entry of Jesus into the city in 19:38’). Matthew, on the otherhand, has this Q passage after the tirade against the Pharisees in Jerusalem(23:37–9), which shows that the Evangelist has the parousia in mind. It is alsosignificant that Luke has ‘by no means will you see me until’ while Matthewhas ‘by no means will you see me from now on (2p1 4rti) until . . ..’ Cf. FrancisD. Weinert, ‘Luke, The Temple and Jesus’ Saying about Jerusalem’sAbandoned House (Luke 13:34–35)’, CBQ 44 (1982), pp. 68–72.




ownloaded from


Luke 13 we learn what Jerusalem ought to do, and in Luke 19

we see that requirement both satisfied and subverted: the ‘multi-tude of the disciples’ is on key with Psalm 118, the city and itsleaders are not (more on this below).44

All told, then, it is clear that the triumphal entry typifies whatJohn Darr called Luke’s ‘rhetoric of perception’: diVeringresponses to Jesus lead to respective ill or gain for the persons/groups involved.45 It is also clear that the triumphal entry alignswith what Tannehill observed on other grounds: many scriptur-ally derived expectations voiced at early points in the narrative aredisappointed by later events in Luke–Acts.46 A similar use ofIsaiah 52, wherein the oracle is at once aYrmed and subverted bythe actions of diVerent characters, is well suited to Lukan themesand the Evangelist’s Erzahlungstechnik.47

3. ISAIAH 52 IN LUKE 19

As significant as Luke’s hermeneutical precedent and thesenarrative themes are for this reading, however, the mostcompelling evidence is the thematic and lexical connections

44 On the pregnant silence of Jerusalem see Manfred Korn, Die GeschichteJesu in veranderter Zeit: Studien zur bleibenden Bedeutung Jesu im lukanischenDoppelwerk (WUNT 51; Tubingen: Mohr, 1993), p. 98; Kinman, ‘Parousia’,pp. 290–2. On the disappointment of 13:34–5 in Luke 19, see Fisk, ‘See myTears’, p. 168 (ch. 19 an ‘ironic non-fulfillment of Jesus’ oracle’ [italics orig.]).

45 John A. Darr, On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric ofCharacterization in Luke–Acts (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation;Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992), pp. 54, 87; Dennis Hamm,‘Sight to the Blind: Vision as Metaphor in Luke’, Bib 67 (1986), pp. 457–77;cf. William Manson, The Gospel of Luke (MoVatt New TestamentCommentary 3; New York; London: Harper, 1930), p. 21 (‘Men will be de-pressed or exalted according to their attitude to the new revelation’); Mallen,Transformation of Isaiah, p. 169 (‘the full blessings of salvation [are] for thefirst group including healing, restoration, release of sins and a place in God’skingdom; and judgment [is] for the second group that includes exclusion fromGod’s kingdom and the destruction of Jerusalem’). Such scenes make onethink of Aristotle, Poet. 1452

b: ‘a joint recognition and reversal will yieldeither pity or fear . . . both adversity and prosperity will hinge upon such cir-cumstances’ (LCL2

199, p. 67).46 Robert C. Tannehill, ‘Israel in Luke–Acts: A Tragic Story’, JBL 104

(1985), pp. 69–85; Mallen, Transformation of Isaiah, pp. 96–8, 114–16, 207.See also Bauckham, ‘Restoration of Israel in Luke–Acts’, p. 486: ‘the prophe-cies of restoration expressed in scriptural and traditional terms in Luke 1–2

find fulfillment in events which are narrated in Luke’s story, (but) the fulfill-ment takes place in unexpected ways.’

47 Here Mallen’s conclusion in Transformation of Isaiah, p. 101, is apropos:‘the mission to proclaim salvation to all people and its rejection by many in Israelform Luke’s characteristic use of Isaiah’ (italics orig.).




ownloaded from


between Luke 19 and Isaiah 52, as well as the general historicalplausibility for such a reading given Isaiah 52’s pre-ChristianWirkungsgeschichte.

In terms of general thematic coherence, it is important to noteat the outset the linkage between chapter 40 and chapter 52 inDeutero-Isaiah itself. Isaiah 40 looks forward to 52 as itsfulfilment: for chapter 40 announces ‘comfort’ to Jerusalem andoutlines the ‘way’ to Jerusalem beginning in the ‘wilderness’, andchapter 52 describes the moment when God arrives at themountains around Jerusalem with the exiles in tow as a newExodus, announcing ‘peace’, ‘salvation’, and an end to the city’smisfortunes.48 This movement from anticipation to climacticarrival is the same movement evident in the public ministry ofJesus in Luke’s Gospel, as Jesus begins travelling the Lord’s ‘way’announced by John the Baptist (3:4–6), and now arrives at last athis intended destination in Jerusalem, with his own ‘multitude ofdisciples’ (19:37) surrounding him.49 So too, the arrival of God atJerusalem in Deutero-Isaiah matches the dual role of Jesus inLuke as the Lord’s Messiah who also embodies the Lord’s savingpresence.50 Key here is the lament for Jerusalem in Luke 13:34–5

wherein Jesus connects his own rejection with the departure of thedivine presence from the holy ‘house.’51 Jesus also claims here that

48 Cf. Schmid and Steck, ‘Restoration Expectations’, p. 50; Rikki E. Watts,‘Consolation or Confrontation? Isaiah 40–55 and the Delay of the NewExodus’, TynBul 41 (1990), pp. 31–59, at 33–4; J. Ross Wagner, Heralds ofthe Good News: Isaiah and Paul ‘in Concert’ in the Letter to the Romans(NovTSup 101; Leiden: Brill, 2002), p. 175; John N. Oswalt, The Book ofIsaiah: Chapters 40–66 (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998), p.367; John Goldingay and David Payne, A Critical and Exegetical Commentaryon Isaiah 40–55 (ICC; New York; London: T & T Clark, 2006), p. 262. Thefragmentary Gabriel Revelation should also be mentioned here, for, despitebeing opaque and diYcult to understand (aside from the possibility of beinginauthentic), it certainly associates Isaiah 40 traditions (e.g. the ‘glory of theLord’, ‘Jerusalem’, ‘consolation’, and ‘cities of Judah’) with the end-time res-toration of Jerusalem itself. See lines 25–7.

49 Nolland, Luke, p. 143 noted in passing in his commentary on 3:4: ‘DespiteJohn’s work of preparation, Jerusalem proved unready for its time of visitation.’See also Ganser-Kerperin, Das Zeugnis des Tempels, p. 154, n. 26.

50 On this connection see C. Kavin Rowe, Early Narrative Christology: TheLord in the Gospel of Luke (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2006). His keyconclusion summarized on p. 218: ‘Jesus of Nazareth is the movement of Godin one human life so much so that it is possible to speak of God and Jesustogether as k0rio".’

51 Tg. Isa. 52:8 discusses the arrival of ‘his Shekinah to Zion’ (!wycl hytnyk?).On the connection between Jesus and the divine presence, see Klaus Baltzer,‘The Meaning of the Temple in the Lukan Writings’, HTR 58 (1965), pp.263–77, which argues that Luke connects Jesus with the ‘glory’ of the Lord’s




ownloaded from


those who recite LXX Psalm 117 would be those who ‘see’ thedivine presence, which is precisely the cry of those whoaccompany Jesus into the city in 19:38.52 In all, then, thenarrative trajectory from Luke 3 to 19 is a microcosm of thetrajectory from Isaiah 40 to 52.53

More detailed thematic and linguistic connections to Isaiah 52

in Luke 19 are evident in the light of the central part of the oracle(vv. 6–10):

6 Therefore my people will know my name in that day (di1 tou~togn0setai 3 la0" mou t1 5nom0 mou 2n tI 3me#rG 2ke0n:), that I myself amthe one who speaks: 7 I am present (p0reimi) as a moment upon the

presence (cf. esp. 9:28–36), and that Jesus’ entry into the city from the Mount ofOlives is inspired by Ezekiel’s vision of the return of God’s presence to Zionfrom the East (Ezek. 43). Gregory R. Lanier furthers the argument in his recentstudy ‘Luke’s Distinctive Use of the Temple: Portraying the Divine Visitation’,JTS 65 (2014), pp. 433–62. Strong evidence in support of this contention—whichboth Baltzer and Lanier fail to mention—is Luke’s conclusion to the apocalypticdiscourse and transition to the Passion Narrative with this: ‘And he was in thetemple teaching during the days, and during the nights he would depart(2xerc0meno") and lodge on the mountain which is called Olivet’ (Luke 21:37).The movement clearly imitates the route taken by the glory of the Lord indeparting from the temple in Ezekiel (Ezek. 10:19; 11:22–3), picked up also inJosephus, B. J. 6.293 [note the 2natolik1 p0lh], 299 (metaba0nomen 2nteu~qen) andLam. Rab. 25 (the Shekinah rests on the Mount of Olives for three and a halfyears, waiting for Israel to repent, but they do not). Moreover, it is conspicuousthat Luke, unlike Mark and Matthew, does not specify that Jesus went toBethany, even though that may be implied; he rather specifies that Jesus wentto lodge ‘on the mountain, which is called Olivet.’ This only strengthens theparallel. Finally, one should also note that the point would not be unique to theThird Evangelist, as Matthew makes it plain: ‘Behold your house is left to youdesolate (23:38) . . . And Jesus departed (2xelq1n) and went away from the temple(2p1 tou~ 3erou~) (24:1).’ See also John 8:59, discussed by W. D. Davies, The Gospeland the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1974), pp. 291–6.

52 Cf. Cyril of Alexandria, Hom. Luc. 100; Fitzmyer, Luke, p. 1257 (‘recalls13:34 and accentuates the concern expressed there’); Tiede, Prophecy andHistory, p. 73; Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts: ALiterary Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), pp. 158–9 (‘Jerusalemdoes not join in saying this [Ps. 118] and so does not ‘‘see’’ Jesus in thecrucial sense’); Hamm, ‘Sight to the Blind’, p. 471; Craig A. Evans,‘Prophecy and Polemic: Jews in Luke’s Scriptural Apologetic’, in Luke andScripture, pp. 171–211, at 179 (‘What was hinted at in Luke 13:35 is nowmade explicit’); J. A. Sanders, ‘A Hermeneutic Fabric: Psalm 118 in Luke’sEntrance Narrative’, in Luke and Scripture, pp. 140–53, esp. 144–8; Culpepper,Luke, p. 282; Ganser-Kerperin, Das Zeugnis des Tempels, pp. 156, 159.

53 On the Lukan travel narrative in particular as an enactment of the ‘newExodus’ from Deutero-Isaiah, see Mark L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah inLuke–Acts: The Promise and its Fulfillment in Lucan Christology (SheYeld:SheYeld Academic Press, 1995), pp. 285–305.




ownloaded from


mountains (2p1 t8n 2re#wn), as the feet of one proclaiming good newsof peace (p0de" e2aggelizome#nou 2ko1n e2r0nh"), as one proclaiming goodthings. For I will make known your salvation, saying, O Zion, yourGod will reign (basile0sei sou 3 qe0")! 8 For the voice (ßwn0) of thosewho watch you is raised high (3y0qh), and in one voice together theywill rejoice (tI ßwnI 6ma e2ßranq0sontai), because eyes shall look toeyes (2ßqalmo1 pr1" 2ßqalmo1" 5yontai) when the Lord (k0rio") shallhave mercy upon Zion. 9 Let the waste places of Jerusalem breakforth in joy together because the Lord has had mercy upon her andhas delivered Jerusalem. 10 And the Lord will reveal his holy armbefore all the nations; and all the ends of the earth will see (5yontai)the salvation of our God.54

For Luke Jesus is, as noted above, the ‘messenger’ from Isaiah52, and the Evangelist recalls this Isaianic identity in context asJesus begins teaching and ‘evangelizing’ (a2tou~ . . . e2aggelizome#nou,20:1) in the temple.55 Moreover, the arrival of Jesus is theophanic,not least because of the narrative themes traced thus far (esp.13:34–5), but because he laments that Jerusalem has notrecognized the time of its ‘visitation’ (t8" 2piskop8", 19:44)—astatement justly expanded by many English translators to ‘visit-ation of God’ (e.g. NRSV, NIV, NET; more on 2piskop0 below).56

54 Text is from the critical edition, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum,vol. 14: Isaias, ed. Joseph Ziegler (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983),pp. 318–19.

55 On Luke’s triumphal entry and temple action as one dramatic event, seeJulius Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Lucae (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1904), p. 110.

56 Note Luke 1:68; 7:16. Cf. Manson, Luke, p. 217; Danker, New Age, p.315 (‘For Jesus is the manifestation of God’s visitation’); Chance, Jerusalem, p.53; Craddock, Luke, pp. 228–9. On the linkage between God and ‘visitation’language in Luke and in the LXX, see Lanier, ‘Divine Visitation’, pp. 456–60;Richard B. Hays, Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the FourfoldGospel Witness (Baylor, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), pp. 66–8. LXXIsaiah 52 may imply as much, if it suggests the messenger is an agent ofGod’s presence; see Oswalt, Isaiah, p. 369 (‘For him [the author], to see themessengers is to see the Lord’); Wagner, Heralds, pp. 176–7, n. 170 (‘TheLXX ties 52:6 and 7 together syntactically, so that God himself is the onewho brings the good news’). On 2piskop0 see Hermann W. Beyer,‘2piske#ptomai, 2piskope#w, ktl’, TDNT 2, pp. 599–622, esp. 603–8.Interestingly, Grotius, Annotationes in Novum Testamentum, vol. 3:Annotationes ad Marcum et Lucam (2nd edn.; Groningen: Zuidema, 1827), p.432, hears LXX Exod. 3:16 where God commissions Moses and commandshim to tell Israel 2piskopI 2pe#skemmai 3ma'", which would befit the new Exodusmotifs of Luke’s travelogue and entry that others have noted.




ownloaded from


It is significant in this regard that Jesus calls himself ‘the Lord’ (3k0rio") when sending for a colt, which also appears in Isa. 52:8, 9,10.57 Further, the many disciples of Jesus (the size and temper ofthe event has been dramatized by Luke) together raise up their‘voice’ (ßwn0) in praise on account of the mighty works which theyhad ‘seen’ (3r0w, 19:37).58 And Jesus stands on ‘the mountain’surrounding Jerusalem—a fact Luke has emphasized.59 It isrelevant for this final connection that the theological significanceof place is a clear motif in this Gospel60 and that the Evangelist isclearly aware of eschatological traditions associated with theMount of Olives.61

57 Here see Bonaventure, Comm. Luc. 19.47 in St. Bonaventure’s Commentaryon the Gospel of Luke 17–24, trans. Robert J. Karris (Saint Bonaventure, NY:Franciscan Institute, 2004), pp. 1849–50; Rowe, Early Narrative Christology,pp. 162–63.

58 Luke’s ‘seeing’ ‘all the mighty works’ (per1 pas8n . . . dun0mewn) has a closeparallel in the Tg. Isa. 52:8, where the witnesses of God’s return praise ‘themighty works’ (!rwbg) of the Lord. Note also how things ‘seen and heard’ in7:22 confirm Jesus’ Isaianic identity in the reply to John the Baptist. SeeDanker, New Age, pp. 312–13.

59 Luke specifies, more clearly than Matthew or Mark, Jesus’ location on‘the mountain, which is called Olivet’ (t1 5ro" t1 kalo0menon 1Elai8n, 19:29; cf.v. 37), and the topography appears to serve as a signal to the disciples: thevery moment Jesus rounded the summit the disciples ‘began’ (4rxanto) to lifttheir voices in praise (v. 37). Here see Karl Staab, Die Heilige Schrift indeutscher Ubersetzung: Das Neue Testament, vol. 1: Die Evangelien nachMatthaus, Lukas, Johannes (Wurzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1967–8), p. 115: ‘Lkallein bezeichnet den Ort genauer, an dem die Begeisterung der Junger inlauten Jubel ausbrach.’ Also Alfred Loisy, Les Evangiles synoptiques, vol. 2

(CeVonds: Loisy, 1907–8), p. 265: ‘le mont des Oliviers semble etre pourl’evangeliste le lieu de la gloire messianique.’ The terminology used also sig-nals the geographical significance: the kat0basi" of the mountain is, at last, theculmination of the aforementioned journey ‘up to’ (2naba0nw) Jerusalem (cf. e.g.18:31; 19:28). On the mountains in Isaiah 52 as the mountains aroundJerusalem, see Wagner, Heralds, p. 173. Isaiah 52, alongside other texts, mayhave inspired the activities of Josephus’ ‘Egyptian’, who predicted that he andhis entourage would take Jerusalem while standing on the Mount of Olives (cf.B. J. 2.261–3; A. J. 20.169–71).

60 E.g.: (i) John the Baptist ‘in the wilderness’ and Isa. 40:3; (ii) Luke’smention of the gathering of multitudes from ‘all Judea, Jerusalem, and thecoast of Tyre and Sidon’ ‘on a flat place’ (2p1 t0pou pedinou) (Luke 6:17) andthe traditions of ingathering traditions on topographically ‘flat’ land (e2" ped0a)from Isa. 40:4; (iii) the healing of widow’s boy at Nain (Luke 7:11–16) is nearbiblical Shunem, where Elisha similarly healed a widow’s son (II Ki. 4:34–47).Here see Bovon, Lukas 1,1–9,50, p. 358.

61 Of course the significance of the geography is already assumed in Luke’suse of Zechariah 9 and LXX Psalm 117. See Loisy, Les Evangiles synoptiques,vol. 2, p. 264, n. 1; Donald G. Miller, Gospel according to Luke (Layman’sBible Commentary 18; Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1959), p. 135; Baltzer,‘Meaning of the Temple’, pp. 274–6; Danker, New Age, pp. 311–21; Tiede,




ownloaded from


But alongside this intertextuality that seems to befit the Isaianicfulfilment in Luke’s Gospel, there are equal if not more forcefulindications of disappointment. And this should be expected, sincethe last time readers heard Jesus address Jerusalem directly in13:34–5, he made clear that his rejection disappointed the expect-ation in LXX Psalm 117 that Jerusalem’s ‘house’ would heapblessing on ‘the one who comes in the name of the Lord’ (LXX Ps.117:26).62 These ‘subversions’ of Isaiah 52 appear in 19:41–4,where Jesus addresses Jerusalem in the second person (ka1 s0, v.41) as does Isaiah 52 (se, v. 8):

42 If you knew, even you, on this day the things for peace, but nowit is hidden from your eyes (e2 7gnw" 2n tI 3me#rG ta0t: ka1 s1 t1 pr1"e2r0nhn� nu~n de; 2kr0bh 2p1 2ßqalm8n sou). 43 Because days will comeupon you and your enemies will cast up embankments against youand encircle you and hem you in from all sides 44 and dash you tothe ground, even your children within you, and they will not leave astone upon another in you, because you did not know the time ofyour visitation (2nq 1 3n o2k 7gnw" t1n kair1n t8" 2piskop8" sou).

Here we find not congruity with Isaiah but startling incongruity

(i) Isaiah 52:6 expects that God’s people ‘will know’(gn0setai) God’s arrival ‘on that day’ (2n tI 3me#rG2ke0n:), and Jesus laments that Jerusalem does not‘know’ (e2 7gnw" . . .) ‘on this day’ (2n tI 3me#rG ta0th,19:41).63 It is clear elsewhere that Luke, no less thanother Jewish and Christian writers, contemporized

Luke, p. 328; Ganser-Kerperin, Das Zeugnis des Tempels, pp. 152–8. On Olivetand end-time traditions see Dale C. Allison, Jr., ‘The Scriptural Backgroundof a Matthean Legend: Ezekiel 37, Zechariah 14, and Matthew 27’, in WimWeren, Huub van de Sandt, and Joseph Verheyden (eds.), Life beyond Death inMatthew’s Gospel: Religious Metaphor or Bodily Reality? (Leuven: Peeters,2011), pp. 153–88. Note that Jesus’ disciples after the resurrection ask him,while standing on the Mount of Olives, ‘is this the time you will restore thekingdom to Israel?’ (Acts 1:6), and later the angels imply that Jesus will returnat this very spot (1:11). So Chance, Jerusalem, p. 66; Bock, Luke, p. 1553.

62 See Allison, Jesus Tradition in Q, pp. 194–5. It is also clear in this‘subversion’ of LXX Psalm 117 that the ‘desolation’ is the result ofJerusalem’s failure to fulfil its scriptural mandate; in 19:44 Jesus similarlystates that ‘no stone will be left on another’ ‘because’ (2nq 1 3 ˜n) the time ofvisitation was not recognized. See also Luke 23:27–31. Cf. Tiede, Prophecy andHistory, p. 81. Before him Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 13.

63 Matthew Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 2 (repr. London:Henry G. Bohn, 1846), p. 445: ‘in that day’ refers to ‘when I shall redeem mypeople: which work was begun by the return of the Jews from Babylon, andafterwards carried on, and at last perfected, by the coming of the Messiah.’




ownloaded from


prophecies by assuming that a prophesied ‘that day’has become ‘this day’ or ‘today’ (cf. e.g. Acts 3:24

[the prophets predicted t1" 3me#ra" ta0ta"]; 15:15–17

and Amos 9:11 [2n tI 3me#rG 2ke0n:]; Matt. 12:21 andIsa. 11:10 [2n tI 3me#rG 2ke0n:]; Mark 15:33 and par. andAmos 8:9 [2n 2ke0n: tI 3me#rG]; etc.).64

(ii) Isaiah 52:7’s messenger announces a message of‘peace’, and here Luke’s e2aggeliz0meno" claims thatthe city does not know what leads ‘to peace’ (pr1"e2r0nhn, 19:41).65 Rejection of Jesus’ message of peaceis implied in Acts 10:36, where Jesus is called Isaiah52’s e2aggeliz0meno" (cf. 10:39). Moreover, ‘peace’ isoften linked with the presence of Jesus in Luke:2:14; 19:38; 24:36.

(iii) Isaiah 52:8 anticipates that ‘eyes shall look to eyes’(2ßqalmo1 pr1" 2ßqalmo1" 5yontai), but Jesus lamentsthat his arrival is hidden from the city’s ‘eyes’ (2p12ßqalm8n sou, 19:42).66 Readers recall that Simeon,who serves as a foil to later Jerusalem as mentionedabove, had exclaimed upon seeing Jesus ‘my eyes haveseen your salvation’ (e9don o3 2ßqalmo0 mou t1 swt0ri0nsou, 2:30); cf. 2ßqalmo1, swthr0an in Isa. 52:8, 10.67

(iv) Isaiah 52:6–7 claims that the people ‘will know’(gn0setai) that the Lord is ‘the one speaking’

64 Acts 2:16–17 cites LXX Joel 3 but inserts into the citation 2n ta8" 2sc0tai"3me#rai, possibly from Isa. 2:2 (2n ta8" 2sc0tai" 3me#rai"). This shows, too, thatLuke saw this Septuagintal prophecy having come to pass in the events hedescribes. For other prophetic contemporizations see 2 Cor. 6:2; Heb. 3:7, 13;4:7–8; 10:15–18. Note also the so-called ‘today texts’ in Luke: 2:11; 4:21; 5:26;13:32–3; 19:5, 9; 23:42–3.

65 Messianic readings of Isaiah 52 were common. For the rabbinic literature,note Str-B3

3, p. 282: ‘Jes 52,7 fast ausnahmslos auf die messianische Zeitgedeutet worden.’ Cf. Marius de Jonge and A. S. Van der Woude, ‘11QMelchizedek and the New Testament’, NTS 12 (1966), pp. 301–26, at 310.Isaiah 52:7 is read christologically in Eph. 2:17; cf. Markus Barth, Ephesians1–3 (AB 34; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), p. 267. See Tertullian, Marc.4.13; Ambrose, Fid. 4.37.

66 Cf. Midrash Tan_huma ‘Eqev §7: ‘And after the days of the Messiah will

come the world to come and the Holy One, Blessed be He, in His Honor, as itsays, ‘‘For eye to eye they see as God returns to Zion’’.’

67 A. R. Fausset, A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical on theOld and New Testaments, vol. 2: Job–Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,1973), p. 727 claimed that Simeon’s statement in 2:30 ‘was a prefiguration’ ofIsa. 52:8.




ownloaded from


(3 lal8n) and ‘is present’ (p0reimi), but Jesus lamentsthat Jerusalem ‘does not know’ (o2k 7gnw") ‘the timeof your visitation’ (t1n kair1n t8" 2piskop8" sou, 19:44).68

It is further significant for this ‘dialectical’ reading that Jesus saysthe significance of his arrival ‘is hidden’ (2kr0bh) from Jerusalem.Luke employs this hiddenness motif elsewhere when characters failto grasp the scriptural significance of events.69 En route toJerusalem, Jesus tells his disciples that soon ‘all the things writtenby the prophets (di1 t8n proßht8n) about the Son of Man willbe fulfilled’ (telesq0setai), but, Luke explains, this ‘was hidden’(kekrumme#non, 18:31, 34) from them.70 One expects that when Jesusmentions the ‘hiddenness’ of his arrival at Jerusalem, he againrefers to the scriptural resonance of his actions.71

I further submit that the use of Isaiah 52 in the post-biblicalperiod supports the identification of these lexical and thematicconnections to Isaiah in Luke 19. Multiple witnesses attest to thefact that Isaiah 52 was a ‘type-scene’ for Jerusalem’s restoration.72

68 Isa. 52:6 has often been used christologically. Cf. Ambrose, Fid. 2.4;Jerome, Hom. Marc ad loc. (1:22); Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. Isa. ad loc.(52:6); Isidore of Seville, Ysaye Testimonia de Christo Domino 11 (PSL 4), p.1831: ‘[Isa. 52:6 explains] Quia idem Christus Deus in carne apparens ab homi-nibus esset videndus.’ Note also the 9th-c. Benedictine Heiric of Auxerre, Hom.2.29, ed. Richardi Quadri (CCCM 116b; Turnhout: Brepols, 1994), p. 274: ‘adultimum uisitauit illam per semetipsum serui formam suscipiendo et uerus in homineDeus hominibus apparendo.’ See also John Trapp, A Commentary on the Old andNew Testaments, vol. 3: Proverbs to Daniel, ed. W. Webster and Hugh Martin(repr. Eureka, CA: Tanski, 1997), p. 406.

69 Cf. Luke 18:34; 24:16. See Nolland, Luke, p. 931. ‘Hiddenness’ was al-ready associated with Isaianic prophecy in Sir. 48:24–5: ‘(Isaiah) saw thefuture, and comforted (parek0lesen) the mourners in Zion. He revealed whatwas to occur to the end of time, and the hidden things (t1 2p0krußa) beforethey happened.’

70 Mark simply has here ‘We are going up to Jerusalem and the Son of Manwill be delivered to the chief priests . . .’ (10:33); Luke adds the motif about thefulfilment of the prophets.

71 Acts 13:27 supports the inference: ‘Because the residents of Jerusalem andtheir leaders did not recognize him (tou~ton 2gno0sante") or understand the wordsof the prophets (t1" ßwn1" t8n proßht8n) that are read every Sabbath, they ful-filled those words by condemning him.’ Cf. Beverly Roberts Gaventa, ‘Learningand Relearning the Identity of Jesus from Luke–Acts’, in Beverly RobertsGaventa and Richard B. Hays (eds.), Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage(Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008), pp. 148–65, at 151.

72 Note Wagner, Heralds, p. 175: Isa. 52 ‘was widely understood in theSecond Temple period as a depiction of a future, eschatological deliverance.’See also Evans, ‘From Gospel to Gospel’, p. 666.




ownloaded from


That is, the language, tone, and sequence of images in Isaiah 52

became readily identifiable with the eschatological hope for Zion’sdeliverance. As such, later interpreters were not only able to quotesnippets of images from that oracle to communicate the point,they were able, as Robert Alter has described (of type-scenes ingeneral), to give it ‘a sudden tilt of innovation or even to refashionit radically for the imaginative purposes at hand.’73

Exemplary is Pss. Sol. 11, which has the superscription ‘inexpectation’ (e2" prosdok0an):

1 Sound the trumpet in Zion, the signal for the sanctuary! Proclaimin Jerusalem the voice of one bringing good news (ßwn1ne2aggelizome#nou) for God became merciful (2le#hsen 3 qe0") to Israelin visiting them (2n tI 2piskopI a2t8n). 2 Stand on a high place,Jerusalem, and look at your children brought together from the eastand the west by the Lord. 3 From the north they come in the joy oftheir God; from distant islands God has brought them; 4 He loweredhigh mountains to level ground for them; the hills fled at theircoming. 5 The forests shaded them as they passed by; God madeevery fragrant tree to grow for them 6 so that Israel might proceedin the visitation of the glory of their God (2n 2piskopI d0xh" qeou~

a2t8n). 7 Jerusalem, put on the clothes of your glory (7ndusaiIerousalhm t1 3m0tia t8" d0xh" sou), prepare the robe of your holinessfor the Lord proclaimed the good things for Israel forevermore; 8

May the Lord do what he proclaimed about Israel and Jerusalem;may the Lord lift up Israel in the name of his glory. 9 The mercy(t1 7leo") of the Lord be upon Israel forevermore.74

Psalms of Solomon 11 presupposes an eschatological interpret-ation of Isaiah 52 so readily that it recalls the prophecy withStichworter and key images rather than by direct citation:75 (i)‘voice of one bringing good news’ (v. 1; Isa. 52:7:e2aggeliz0meno"); (ii) ‘Jerusalem, put on the clothes of yourglory’ (v. 7; Isa. 52:1: 7ndusai t1n d0xan sou); (iii) mention of

73 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (rev. edn.; New York: BasicBooks, 2011), p. 63.

74 Translated by R. B. Wright, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, ed.James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1985), pp. 661–2 (with mymodifications).

75 Kenneth Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon:Pseudepigrapha (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity; Lewiston, NY:Mellen, 2001), p. 231 notes also here the motif of ‘new Exodus.’ On Pss.Sol. 11 see Evans, ‘From Gospel to Gospel’, p. 658 (‘the whole . . . revolvesaround Isa. 52:7’); Mallen, Transformation of Isaiah, pp. 40–1.




ownloaded from


God’s ‘mercy’ twice (v. 1, 9; Isa. 52:9: 2le#hsen k0rio").76 Psalms ofSolomon 11 is hardly novel in this regard. Many texts, bothJewish and Christian, assume a similar interpretation of Isaiah52 and recall it via similar means. Testament of Judah 22:1–2

describes that

2 . . . my kingdom will be brought to an end among foreigners, untilthe salvation of Israel comes (5w" tou~ 2lqe8n t1 swt0rion *Isra0l) untilthe coming of the God of righteousness (5w" parous0a" tou~ qeou~ t8"dikaios0nh") and until Jacob and all the nations come to rest in peace(t1n *Iak1b 2n e2r0n: ka1 p0nta t1 7qnh).

Here the connections to Isaiah 52 are just as dense: swt0rion (cf.swthr0an in Isa. 52:7), parous0a" tou~ qeou~ (cf. p0reimi in Isa. 52:6),p0nta t1 7qnh (cf. p0ntwn t8n 2qn8n in Isa. 52:10), 2n e2r0n: (cf.2ko1n e2r0nh" in Isa. 52:7). There is more of the same inTestament of Dan 5:8–11:

8 When you return to the Lord you will be shown mercy(2lehq0sesqe), 9 and God will bring you into his sanctuary, cryingout to you peace (bo8n 3m8n e2r0nhn). 10 And he will rise up to youfrom the tribe of Judah and Levi the salvation of the Lord (t1swt0rion kur0ou) and he will make war against Beliar, and will givevictorious vengeance to our fathers. 11 And he will take the captivity(t1n a2cmalws0an) from Beliar . . .

‘Mercy’, ‘peace’, ‘salvation’, ‘captivity’ all cluster in the centralpart of Isaiah 52. And so the point is clear: both patriarchs fore-tell of the inauguration of Jerusalem’s glorious end as Isaiah haddescribed, with Dan even saying shortly after that ‘no longer willJerusalem endure desolation (2r0mwsin)’ (5:13; cf. Isa. 52:9:r&hx0tw e2ßros0nhn 6ma t1 7rhma Ierousalhm).

Especially noteworthy are coins minted by Jerusalemites duringthe First Jewish War. The ‘Year 4’ bronze coins which read ‘forthe redemption of Zion’ (!wyc tlagl) probably evoke Isaiah 52,where lag (twice) and !wyc (four times) feature prominently. Inaddition, the earlier silver coins read ‘Jerusalem the Holy’(h?wdqh <yl?wry), which has a close parallel in Isa. 52:1:‘Awake, awake! Put on your strength, O Zion! Put on your beautifulgarments, O Jerusalem the Holy City (?dqh ryu <l?wry)!’This text could easily be read militaristically, and the following line(‘for the uncircumcised and the unclean will enter you no more’)

76 Isaiah 40 features prominently as well (e.g. khr0xate, 5rh 3yhl12tape0nwsen, d0xa). On Isaiah in Pss. Sol., see Darrell D. Hannah, ‘Isaiahwithin Judaism of the Second Temple Period’, in Isaiah in the NewTestament, pp. 7–34, at 15–16.




ownloaded from


would be a fitting hope when four legions of Roman soldierssurrounded the city. Martin Hengel in fact argued as much in DieZeloten.77

Many other texts with similar intertextual usage of Isaiah 52

could be discussed here (cf. Bar 4:23–4; LXX Isaiah 52;78 LXXJoel 3:5; Tg. (Jon.) Num. 25:12;79 Tg. (Neof.) Num. 23:23; Tg. Isa.52;80 Tg. Zech. 2:11–17; 4Q176 8–11, 2–4; 4Q432 3 I, 16; 11Q13

II, 15–16; Test. Ben. 10:5–9; Rev. 21:2, 25–7; 4 Bar. 3:14–15; 9:15,20; 1 En. 71:15; 3 En. 48:5–9 [MS A]; Zohar 1:134a, 205a; 2:55b,126a; 240b). But the conclusion is already near to hand. Psalms ofSolomon 11 and the rest demonstrate that there is a fittinginterpretative milieu for our thesis as well as a motive for thisintertextuality: we have in Isaiah 52 not just a random passagefrom Israel’s Sacred Writ, but rather a crucial text that was at theheart of hopes for future restoration.81 To hear Isaiah 52 lacedwith a lament over Jerusalem and a prophecy of the city’sdestruction becomes all the more striking, relevant, and probable asa case of Lucan ‘dialectical imitation’ in a post-70 CE context.82

One final point on Isaiah 52’s Wirkungsgeschichte. It wasmentioned above that ‘the time of your visitation’ (e.g. t1n kair1n

77 Cf. Martin Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish FreedomMovement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D., trans. David Smith(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989), pp. 118, 297. For recent work on thecoins see Donald T. Ariel, ‘Identifying the Mints, Minters and Meanings ofthe First Jewish Revolt Coins’, in Mladen Popovic (ed.), The Jewish Revoltagainst Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (JSJSup 154; Leiden: Brill, 2011),pp. 373–97.

78 The text of LXX Isaiah 52, in fact, is part of this reception history, asEvans, ‘From Gospel to Gospel’, p. 664, notes: ‘the LXX’s renderings of thesepassages tend to emphasize the eschatological dimension of Isaiah’s message.’

79 Here Elijah is the ‘messenger of the covenant’ (Mal. 3:1) who will ‘bringgood news of the redemption (atlwag ar?bml) in the last days.’

80 The Tg. intensifies the eschatological sense of the passage, e.g. ‘what shallI do?’ in MT 52:5 becomes ‘now I am about to save’ in Tg. 52:5; ‘the Lordcomforted’ in MT 52:9 becomes ‘the Lord is about to comfort’ in Tg. 52:9.Note also ‘about to gather your exiles’ in Tg. 52:12.

81 Mikeal C. Parsons, ‘The Place of Jerusalem on the Lukan Landscape: AnExercise in Symbolic Cartography’, in Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E.Phillips (eds.), Literary Studies in Luke–Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B.Tyson (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998), pp. 155–73, at 167 callshopes for the restoration of Jerusalem Luke’s ‘thesaurus’.

82 The contrast between redemption and destruction appears again in Luke’sApocalyptic discourse, where the ‘sign’ of Jerusalem’s destruction is not theabomination of desolation in the temple (as in Mark), but rather when theRoman armies ‘surround Jerusalem’ (21:20). Jesus’ description of this futureevent parodies his own ‘peace’-ful entry to the city: cf. 3r0w (21:20 and 19:37),gin0skw (21:20; 19:42, 44), 2gg0zw (21:20; 19:29, 37, 41).




ownloaded from


t8" 2piskop8" sou, 19:44) is a fitting description of the theophanicnature of Isaiah 52.83 But there is more. Other readers employ thesame term when reflecting on Isaiah 52. In Pss. Sol. 11 it appearstwice in just six verses: ‘God became merciful to Israel in visitingthem’ (2n tI 2piskopI a2t8n, v. 1), and ‘Israel will proceed in thevisitation of the glory of their God’ (2n 2piskopI d0xh" qeou~ a2t8n, v.6). So too, in 1 Pet. 2:12, the ‘keep your behavior excellent amongthe Gentiles (2n to8" 7qnesin) . . . so that they may glorify God in theday of visitation (2n 3me#rG 2piskop8")’ is probably an extendedsummary of Isa. 52:5–13, which begins by chastising those whoblaspheme the Lord ‘among the Gentiles’ (2n to8" 7qnesin, v. 5) andthen describes God’s advent.84 Thus, here, 2piskop0 encapsulatesthe narrative action in Isa. 52:5–13. The use of 2piskop0 as asummary description of Isaiah 52 in at least two other texts meansthat, if there was not a traditional linkage between Isaiah 52 and2piskop0, then at least Luke would not be the first to do so in19:41–4.85

4. LUKE 19 AND ISRAEL’S SCRIPTURE

Given such parallels between Luke 19 and Isaiah 52, as well asthe role of Isaiah 52 in Luke’s interpretative milieu, how does thisreading cohere with Luke’s use of Scripture in context? How doesthe intertextuality provide, in the words of Hays, a ‘satisfactory’interpretation and ‘make sense’ of the whole?86

Three points are in order. First, the manner in which Lukerecalls Isaiah 52 would be nothing new stylistically in context, andit would cohere with the findings of others on Luke’s use ofScripture as ‘a plotted script.’87 Of course Luke has absorbedmany intertexts that were present in Mark already, most notably

83 Strauss, Davidic Messiah, p. 299 notes that ‘visitation’ in Luke 19:44

‘remarkably parallels the Isaianic description of the new Exodus: Yahweh him-self comes to his people, delivering them through his messianic envoy.’

84 On the significance of Isaiah for 1 Pet. see Steve Moyise, ‘Isaiah in 1

Peter’, in Isaiah in the New Testament, pp. 175–88.85

11QMelchizedek (¼ 11Q13), which describes the eschatological year ofJubilee (Isaiah 61), may read in lines 15–16: ‘This vi[sitation] [hdqp] is theday of salvation that he has decreed through Isaiah: how beautiful upon themountains are the feet of the messenger . . .’ So Michael Wise, Martin AbeggJr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (SanFrancisco: Harper, 1996), p. 592; Evans, ‘From Gospel to Gospel’, p. 659.However, the text is too fragmentary to be sure.

86 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, pp. 31–2.87 See Hays, Reading Backwards, pp. 55–74. See also Christopher Roy

Hutson, ‘Enough for What? Playacting Isaiah 53 in Luke 22:35–38’, ResQ55 (2013), pp. 35–51, esp. 43–51.




ownloaded from


LXX Psalm 117’s ‘blessed is the one who comes in the name of theLord’ (v. 26), the dual citation from Isa. 56:7 and Jer. 7:11, andpossibly also the messianic Gen. 49:11: ‘Binding (desme0wn) hiscolt (t1n p8lon a2tou) to the vine, and the colt of his donkey to thebranch’ (cf. Luke 19:30 p8lon dedeme#non).88 But the Evangelist hasalso made the scene more intertextually evocative by alluding toZech. 9:9 via three key words (none of which appears in Mark):the disciples take Jesus and ‘set him upon’ (2peb0basan) the colt,they ‘rejoice’ (ca0ronte"), and they call him ‘the king’ (3 basile0").89

This is significant because, unlike Matthew and John, who citeZech. 9:9 explicitly for the reader along with an introductoryfulfilment notice (Matt. 21:4: 6na plhrwqI t1 r&hqe;n di1 tou~ proß0tou;John 12:14–15: kaq0" 2stin gegramme#non), Luke’s more subtlehermeneutic has its own rhetorical eVect: for characters andreaders alike, those with eyes to see and ears to hear discover thefulfilment of Scripture in the narrative itself.90 Here the embed-dedness of Scripture in the narrative action continues Luke’sdi0ghsi" of ‘the things that have been fulfilled among us’ (1:1), and,like Jesus’ reply to the Baptist, appeals to the scriptural resonanceof things ‘seen and heard’ (7:22; cf. Acts 2:33).91 The lexical andthematic connections to Isaiah 52 identified above would be fittingin such a context.

Second, the passages that appear in Luke at this point are notrandom, atomized proof texts. Instead, the larger context of eachpassage is relevant in the immediate situation in Luke andespecially in what is soon to come. This means that theintroduction of Jesus to Jerusalem is at the same time the

88 See Joseph Blenkinsopp, ‘The Oracle of Judah and the Messianic Entry’,JBL 80 (1961), pp. 55–64. Cf. Eusebius, Dem. ev. 8.1.

89 LXX Zech. 9:9: ‘Rejoice (ca8re) greatly, O daughter of Zion, proclaimaloud, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, the King (3 basile0") is coming toyou, just and bearing salvation is he, meek and seated upon (2pibebhk1") adonkey, and upon a young colt.’ Luke uses 2pibib0zw while Zechariah uses2piba0nw, but here still Luke has a closer aural link to Zechariah 9 thanMark. To be sure, Zechariah 9 is probably still latent in Mark even thoughhe lacks these clearer parallels. See already Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 66.2.

90 Contra Fitzmyer, Luke, p. 1244: ‘Luke has not the slightest reference to(Zech 9:9).’ On similar strategy elsewhere in Luke see Joel B. Green, TheTheology of the Gospel of Luke (New Testament Theology; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 24–8.

91 Marcion’s tendentious excisions, then, got the point, as noted byEpiphanius: ‘(Marcion) falsified the section about the ass and Bethphage—and the one about the city and the temple, because of the scripture . . .’ SeePan. 42.11 in The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, ed. and trans. FrankWilliams (Leiden: Brill, 1987), p. 285.




ownloaded from


introduction of those key prophetic texts that will soon run theircourse in the passion, death, and resurrection of the Messiah.92

Zechariah 9:9 comes from an eschatological prediction of thearrival of Jerusalem’s humble king—quite fitting for Luke 19—and Jesus will evoke Zech. 9:11 at the last supper (Luke 22:20).LXX Psalm 117:26 comes from a well-known Song of Ascent usedfor Passover pilgrimages—appropriate for the time and location ofLuke’s triumphal entry—and Jesus will conclude his Parable ofthe Wicked Tenants (20:9–19) with the quip about the rejectedstone becoming the cornerstone (117:22; cf. Acts 4:11). It issignificant, then, that Isa. 52:6–10 is not only from an oracle aboutthe climactic arrival of God’s ‘messenger’ to Jerusalem; it is thebeginning of the fourth Servant Song (52:13 – 53:12), whichundergirds Luke’s Passion Narrative even more than Mark andMatthew’s (cf. Luke 9:22, 44; 18:31–3; 22:37; 23:3, 4, 9, 24–5, 32,47; 24:25–6; cf. Acts 3:13–14, 18; 8:32–5).93 Luke will later reflecton the Jerusalem denouement and its Isaian subtext with theEmmaus travellers, when Jesus asks the rhetorical question ‘Was itnot necessary (7dei) that the Messiah should suVer these things andthen enter into his glory (e2" t1n d0xan a2tou~)?’ (Luke 24:26, also

92 John 12, which includes the triumphal entry of Jesus, is a fascinatingparallel in this regard. There are a series of allusions to Isa. 52:10 – 53:1:(i) Greeks desire to ‘see’ Jesus in John 12:21 and Isa. 52:10 anticipates thatthe ends of the earth will ‘see’ God’s salvation, a connection argued byJohannes Beutler, ‘Greeks Come to See Jesus, (John 12,20f)’, Bib 71 (1990),pp. 333–47; (ii) Jesus then says the hour has come to ‘be glorified’ (doxasqI)and in Isa. 52:13 the servant ‘is glorified’ (doxasq0setai, notice also 3ywq8 inJohn 12:32 and 3ywq0setai in Isa. 52:13); (iii) John 12:38 cites explicitly Isa.53:1 (‘who has believed our report?’). All three points show that the authorused the triumphal entry scene and its aftermath to evoke this key Isaianicintertext as a prelude to Jesus’ final experiences in Jerusalem. Craig A. Evanshas even argued that John 12:1–43 is ‘a midrash’ on Isa. 52:7 – 53:12 in‘Obduracy and the Lord’s Servant: Some Observations on the Use of theOld Testament in the Fourth Gospel’, in Craig A. Evans and W. F.Stinespring (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis (W. H. BrownleeFestschrift; Homage 10; Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1987), pp. 221–36, esp. 232–6. Should Luke and John be independent, then, the upshot may be this: theuse of Isaiah 52 to highlight the theological significance of Jesus’ entry toJerusalem was not a Lukan idea, but was rather something that the Thirdand Fourth Evangelists found in earlier tradition and used in diVerent ways.

93 Key studies include: Vincent Taylor, The Passion Narrative of St. Luke,ed. Owen E. Evans (SNTSMS 19; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1972), p. 138; Joel B. Green, ‘The Death of Jesus, God’s Servant’, in D. D.Sylva (ed.), Reimaging the Death of Jesus (BBB 73; Frankfurt: Anton Hain:1990), pp. 1–28; Mallen, Transformation of Isaiah.




ownloaded from


9:32; Acts 3:13; cf. d0xa in Isa. 52:13).94 Thus, Isaiah 52 in thetriumphal entry is a fitting introduction to the Passion Narrativeas a whole, and quite consistent with Luke’s use of biblicalintertexts nearby.95

Thirdly, this study assumes that Luke’s ‘dialectical imitation’ ofIsaiah 52 is achieved by juxtaposing this positive oracle ofrestoration with the sober realities of coming judgement.Precisely the same juxtaposition, and even via the same prophetictexts, appear in the temple action where Jesus cites Isa. 56:7 (froman idealistic sketch of the role of the temple in the end-time) andJer. 7:11 (from Jeremiah’s ‘temple sermon’, which announcedimminent destruction). For Luke it is clear that Isa. 56:7 issomething that Jesus fulfils in his actions (‘it is written, and myhouse will be a house of prayer’ [ge#graptai� ka1 7stai 3 o9k0" mouo9ko" proseuc8"]),96 as the temple does in fact become a house of‘prayer’ (Acts 3:1), and ‘eunuchs’ (cf. Isa. 56:3–4) are later madepart of God’s people (Acts 8:27–38).97 But it is also clear that

94 Luke connects the e2aggeliz0meno" of Isaiah 52 with the violent end inJerusalem in Acts 10:34–43. The Servant Songs have traditionally been dividedinto four: 42:1–4 (5–8); 49:1–6 (7–9a); 50:4–9 (10–11); 52:13–53:12 since thefamous work of Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja (HKAT; 4th edn.;Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). But not all ancient readersthought this way. A few corroborating points of evidence: (i) In the greatIsaiah scroll (1QIsaa), a paragraph break follows Isa. 52:13 (‘my servant willprosper . . . be glorified . . .’), thus grouping together 52:7–13; (ii) Paul in Rom.10:15 and Tg. Isa. understand the ‘report’ in 53:1 to be the ‘gospel’ pro-claimed in 52:7; (iii) Justin Martyr, Dial. 13, begins citing the ‘SuVeringServant’ passage at 52:10.

95 Relevant here is Koet, Five Studies, pp. 141–3, who discusses ‘systematicinterpretation’ in Luke–Acts, e.g. sustained interaction with large blocks ofscriptural material. His key example is is the citation of Isa. 40:3 up to v. 5

when introducing John the Baptist (Luke 3:4–6).96 It is not, as in Mark, in the form of a condemning question that further

indicts the temple: ‘is it not written that my house will be called a house ofprayer for all the nations?’ (o2 ge#graptai 7ti 3 o9k0" mou o9ko" proseuc8"klhq0setai pa'sin to8" 7qnesin;). In general, the temple action has been softenedby Luke: Mark’s withered fig tree has been omitted entirely, and in the templeJesus merely casts out the pwlou~nta" and begins teaching (Mark: casts outsellers and buyers, overturns tables of moneychangers and seats of the dove-sellers, stops people carrying objects). Cf. Craddock, Luke, pp. 229–30. ContraBock, Luke, pp. 1578–9.

97 The omission of ‘for all the nations’ is explained by the ensuing missionto the Gentiles beginning from Jerusalem, as well as the fact that, in Luke’sday, the temple was destroyed and hence could not function as such. SeeChance, Jerusalem, pp. 56–8; Christopher F. Evans, Saint Luke (London:SCM, 1998), p. 688. On Luke’s temple action as an act of restoration, seeMiller, Luke, p. 138; Weinert, ‘Abandoned House’, p. 71; James M. Dawsey,‘The Origin of Luke’s Positive Perception of the Temple’, PRSt 18 (1991),




ownloaded from


Luke, like Mark and Matthew, anticipates the temple’s destruc-tion with the allusion to ‘den of brigands’ from Jeremiah.98 Thus,we have in the temple both an act of fulfilment (from Isaiah), and aprophetic demonstration of judgement (from Jeremiah).99 Thisparallels the lament over Jerusalem, where we have the embodi-ment of Isaiah 52 but also the prediction of the city’s destructionin prophetic language that features Jeremiah prominently (esp.Jer. 6:6, 15; 10:15; 26:18; cf. also Isa. 29:3; Ezek. 4:2), especially inthe detail of Jesus weeping (cf. Jer. 9:1; 13:17; 14:17).100

5. HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

The final pillar of this argument is the history of interpretation.For in spite of the impression left by modern commentarialliterature, the author is not, in fact, the only reader to be put inmind of Isaiah 52 by Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem. Testament ofZebulun 9:7–8 reads:

7 And after these things (tribulation and pain) you will remember theLord, and you will repent, and He will return to you, for He ismerciful (2le0mwn 2st1) and compassionate . . . 8 And after thesethings the Lord himself will arise to you (2natele8 3m8n a2t1" 3

k0rio") the light of righteousness, and healing and compassion willbe on his wings. He will redeem (a2t1" lutr0setai) all the captivesons of men (pa'san a2cmalws0an u38n 2nqr0pwn) from Beliar, andevery spirit of deceit will be trampled; and he will return all thenations (p0nta t1 7qnh) to be zealous for him, and you will see Godin human form in the Temple (5yesqe qe1n 2n sc0mati 2nqr0pou 2n naJ)the one whom the Lord will choose, Jerusalem for his name’s sake.

pp. 5–22, at 11; Culpepper, Luke, p. 373; Ganser-Kerperin, Das Zeugnis desTempels, pp. 163–7.

98 Note that Stephen will later cite the ‘temple sermon’ to similar eVect(Acts 7:42; cf. Jer. 7:18). For a similar use of Jeremiah 7 in Josephus, seeTucker S. Ferda, ‘Jeremiah 7 and Flavius Josephus on the First Jewish War’,JSJ 44 (2013), pp. 158–73.

99 It is worth noting here the argument of Daniel F. Miner, ‘A SuggestedReading for 11QMelchizedek 17’, JSJ 2 (1971), pp. 144–8 that 11Q13 II, 17

alludes to Isa. 56:7 immediately after the citation of Isa. 52:7 (the ‘messenger’here is Melchizedek), linked by Gezerah Shavah on <yrhh. This would meanthat Isa. 52:7 and 56:7 were linked prior to Luke in a description of eschato-logical redemption. But this reading is contested, and the line is so fragmen-tary it is diYcult to know who is right. It is an interesting possibility, then, atmost.

100 Cf. Tiede, Prophecy and History, p. 82; Fisk, ‘See my Tears’, pp. 162,174. On Jesus weeping see Nolland, Luke, pp. 930–1 (‘especially reminiscent ofJeremiah’); Culpepper, Luke, p. 372.




ownloaded from


And your wicked words will anger him, and he will cast you out untilthe time of completion.

This passage exhibits many connections to Isaiah 52, including‘mercy’, ‘the Lord himself’ (cf. the adjectival intensive 2g0 e2mia2t0" in Isa. 52:6), ‘redeem’, ‘captive’, ‘all the nations’, and thuspresupposes the same eschatological interpretation of Isaiah 52

found in the fourth section above. But it also serves as an earlyexample of linking Isaiah 52 imagery with the arrival of Jesus atJerusalem, since the Christian writer or redactor of this text (thedebate matters little here)101 took the Isaiah 52 imagery andparticularly the ‘sight’ language (cf. 5yontai in 52:8) and identi-fied ‘seeing’ God approach the city (52:8) with seeing Jesus, or, ashe says, ‘God in human form.’102

A similar intertextuality undergirds Methodius’ (d. 311 CE)reflection on ‘blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord’ inhis Oration on the Palms.103 He notes that, during the templeaction and triumphal entry, ‘chief priests and Pharisees’ did notassign Christ the honor due him, and in response Jesus

calls the Scriptures to remembrance in front of them, he brings for-ward testimony (proßŒrei martur0a") about the things done (t8n tel-oumŒnwn), and he does not reject interrogation. Therefore he says, Didyou not hear about me before through the prophet saying, ‘Then youwill know that I am the one speaking, I myself am present?’ (S0tegnÞsesqe, 7ti a2t1" 2g1 3 lal8n p0reimi;), nor again, ‘Out of themouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praiseagainst your enemies?’104

While Isa. 52:6 (‘you shall know that I am he that speaks’) is ofcourse not directly cited in any gospel, Methodius here treats thepassage as if it were as straightforward as Jesus’ use of Ps. 8:3(‘out of the mouths of infants’), which appears in Matt. 21:16.Even more significant is that, like the thesis of this article,Methodius oVers a ‘dialectical’ reading of the Isaianic text: for

1019:8 is the clearest Christian element in the entire Test. Zeb., and it is

present in only three Greek manuscripts (b, d, g). The rest, along with theArmenian translation, have a shorter paragraph, but it still contains allusionsto Isaiah 52. See David A. DeSilva, ‘The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchsas Witnesses to Pre-Christian Judaism: A Re-Assessment’, JSP 22 (2013), pp.21–68, at 26–7.

102 There may be a parallel case in Test. Ben. 9:2–3 (‘the Most High willsend forth His salvation in the visitation of an only begotten prophet’[2poste0l: t1 swt0rion a2tou~ 2n 2piskopI monogenou~" proß0tou]), but the linksto Isaiah 52 are not as straightforward.

103 This Oration may be pseudepigraphical.104 Methodius, Or. palm. 7 (PG 18, p. 396c [my translation]).




ownloaded from


Isaiah says ‘the people will know’ but Methodius’ Jesus makesthe oracle an indictment of his interlocutors by implying theyfail to keep in step with the Scripture.

It is further possible that a fourth- or fifth-century exegetenamed Titus—whose work has not survived in full—oVerscorroboration. Aquinas records his reflections in his Catena asfollows: ‘They who had tied the ass are struck dumb, because ofthe greatness of His mighty power, and are unable to resist thewords of the Saviour; for ‘the Lord’ is a name of majesty, and as aKing was He about to come in the sight of all the people (rex enimerat venturus in conspectu multitudinis).’105 Mention of ‘the Lord’and ‘about to come in the sight of all the people’ sounds like Isa.52:10: ‘The Lord has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all thenations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of ourGod.’ It is not clear whether or not Titus intended thisconnection, though we know from later medieval sources thatsome Christians read details like these as prophecies of Jesus. Forexample, the thirteenth-century Dominican Nicholas of Gorranrecalls ‘they lift up their voice’ from Isa. 52:8 (levaverunt vocem) toexplain the actions of the disciples during the triumphal entrypraising ‘strenuously’ (feruenter),106 and one anonymous Jewishapologist even critiqued such readings with the question, ‘whendid Jesus rule in Zion and then leave it that the verse can speak ofhim as returning to it?’107

Most explicit is the nineteenth-century Presbyterian ministerand professor Melancthon Jacobus. He remarks when reflectingon the ‘stones crying out’ in Luke 19:40:

There is besides an allusion to the prediction of Isaiah, ch. 52, whichrefers also to this coming of the gospel messenger and deliverer, withhis feet seen upon the mountains, (as here the Mount of Olives,) andapproaching the city for his redeeming work. In Isaiah 52:9, thewastes, or rather the ruins of Jerusalem are summoned to breakforth into joy and singing—the very foundations are bidden to break

105 For English translation see Catena Aurea: Commentary on the FourGospels Collected out of the Works of the Fathers, vol. 3: St. Luke, trans.John Henry Newman (repr. Southampton: Saint Austin, 1997), p. 639.

106 Nicholas of Gorran, In quatuor Evangelia commentarius, ed. J. Pesselius(Antwerp: Joannes Keerberg, 1617), p. 743.

107 See Ni_z

_za

_hon Vetus 97 in David Berger, The Jewish–Christian Debate in

the Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Ni_z_za

_hon Vetus with an Introduction,

Translation, and Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society ofAmerica, 1979), p. 114.




ownloaded from


out into praise on account of the glory that awaited the Holy City.And so, indeed, the very stones might properly cry out, and would, ifthe people desisted.108

Of the probable connections to Isaiah 52 in Luke 19 noted in thesection above, Jacobus’s interesting suggestion here about theruins of Jerusalem did not make the list. But it is a corroboratinginterpretation nonetheless, as he notes other more likely parallelssuch as the ‘messenger’ and ‘the mountains.’ Jacobus’s commentsfind parallel in the early twentieth-century commentary on Isaiahby Owen Whitehouse.109

As a final point, it is worth mentioning that there havebeen quite similar interpretative approaches to Isaiah 52 andLuke 19 if not overt connections made between the texts.Many readers, ancient and modern alike, have understoodthe Third Evangelist to have shaped the entry of Jesus toJerusalem as a proleptic parousia—especially in the light of Jesus’prediction in 13:34–5.110 Many others have understood Isaiah 52

to describe the triumphant return of Christ.111 So there is a

108 Melancthon W. Jacobus, Notes on the Gospels: Critical and Explanatory;Incorporating with the Notes, on a New Plan, the Most Approved Harmony ofthe Four Gospels, vol. 2: Mark and Luke (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board ofPublication, 1853), pp. 271–2 (italics orig.).

109 Owen C. Whitehouse, Isaiah, vol. 2: Isaiah XL–LXVI (rev. edn.; TheCentury Bible 15; Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1905–9), p. 191: ‘Perhapsthe reply of Jesus, on the occasion of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, inresponse to the protests of the Pharisees . . . ..was based on a reminiscence ofthis passage where the triumphal entry of Yahweh into His own ruined anddesolated city is the theme.’

110 Gregory Nazianzen, Cat. 15.1 (NPNF27, p. 104: ‘as at His first coming

we said, Blessed is He that cometh in the Name of the Lord, so will we repeatthe same at His second coming . . .’ [italics orig.]); Hermann Olshausen,Commentary on the Gospels, vol. 3: Biblical Commentary on the Gospels, trans.Thomas Brown and John Gill (2nd edn.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark; NewYork: J. Wiley, 1854), p. 141 (‘the type of what he is one day to do’); JohnPeter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal andHomiletical, vol. 16: Luke, ed. and trans. Philip SchaV (repr. Grand Rapids,MI: Zondervan, 1950), p. 296; Nolland, Luke, p. 742 (19:38 an ‘anticipation’ ofthe final denouement); Fisk, ‘See my Tears’, p. 168 (a ‘preview comingeschatological attractions’).

111 Cf. e.g. John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, vol.3, trans. William Pringle (repr. Calvin’s Commentaries 8; Grand Rapids, MI:Baker, 2009), p. 101; John Gill, Gill’s Commentary, vol. 3: Psalm XXIII toIsaiah, ed. William Hill (repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980), pp. 975–6;Johannes Fichtner, ‘Jes. 52:7–10 in der christlichen Verkundigung’, in ArnulfKuschke (ed.), Verbannung und Heimkehr: Beitrage zur Geschichte und TheologieIsraels im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Tubingen: Mohr, 1961), pp. 51–66, at62–5.




ownloaded from


parallel here.112 Others have tracked interpretative threads inLuke which are so similar to those identified in this article thattheir comments could be cited without prelude. William Mansonrecalled Isa. 52:7 in his commentary on Luke 13:34–5 to explainthe disappointment Jesus there expresses: ‘If anywhere a welcomeshould have been accorded to the messengers of the Kingdom, itwas in Jerusalem.’113 And when Theodor Zahn reflected on thetriumphal entry in his old Commentary on Luke, he said ‘Mitdem Kommen des verheißenen Konigs schien die Zeit desZurnens Gottes uber Jerusalem ihr Ende erreicht zu haben unddie Zeit des Friedens gekommen zu sein’, and he cited Isa. 52:7 asone of his prooftexts.114

It is to the benefit of this article’s thesis, then, that the readingoVered here is not entirely ‘new’.115

CONCLUSION

Should this thesis prove convincing, it would mean that theentry of Jesus into Jerusalem is another case in Luke where thefulfilment of Scripture is manifest, yet not grasped as such or justplain rejected. After all, Jesus began his public career byannouncing his interpretation of Isaiah 61’s ‘year of the Lord’s

112 Though Johann Wilhelm Petersen, Das Zeugniß Jesu, aus demKouniglichen Propheten Iesaiae (Frankfurt: Sand, 1719), p. 594, believed thetext prophesied both the coming of Jesus to Zion and the final end in hiscomments on 52:6: ‘Wir schliessen zwar die Zeit nicht aus / da Christus selbstin Person in die Welt kam / und zu Zion redete.’

113 Manson, Luke, p. 170.114 Theodor Zahn, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 3: Das Evangelium

des Lucas (4th edn.; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1920), p. 633. See also GerhardSchneider, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (OTK 3; Gutersloh: GutersloherVerlagshaus Mohn; Wurzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1992), p. 388: ‘Jesus kommt,vom Olberg herabreitend, der Stadt naher . . . Jesus, der vor den Toren derStadt steht, sollte ihre gnadige Heimsuchung durch Gott bedeuten (V 44).Doch Jerusalem hat dies nicht erkannt.’

115 I would submit that Paul’s citation of Isa. 52:7 in Rom. 10:15 helps toexplain why there are not more exegetes in the history of interpretation whomake this connection to Jesus in Luke 19. For Paul makes the messenger ofIsa. 52:7 plural (‘the feet of those proclaiming’) in reference to post-Easterpreachers of the Gospel, and his innovation, which even impacted laterMSS of the LXX (see Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language ofScripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and ContemporaryLiterature [SNTMS 74; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992], pp.134–41), caused many to understand Isaiah 52 as a prophecy not about Jesusbut the apostles. E.g. Irenaeus, Dem. ev. 86; Origen, Comm. Jo. 1.51; Eusebius,Dem. ev. 6.24; John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 32.9; Gregory Nazianzen, Or.42.1; 45.19; Procopius of Gaza, Comm. Isa. ad loc. (52:7); anonym. (Strabo),Gloss. ord. ad loc. (Isa. 52:7); etc.




ownloaded from


favor’, but was nearly thrown oV a cliV (4:16–30). Readers alsorecall that Jesus talked about hypocrites who ‘know how tointerpret the appearance of earth and sky, but (do not) know howto interpret the present time (t1n kair0n . . . tou~ton)’ (Luke 12:56),for Jerusalem in Luke 19 is like that. The holy city needs thelesson of Emmaus road: despite the impression that Jesus was notthe one to ‘redeem Israel’, he did, in fact, fulfil what the prophetshad declared (24:25–7).116 Thus the triumphal entry is reason toweep because Jesus, like Stephen’s Moses, ‘supposed that hiskinsfolk would understand that God was giving them salvation(d0dwsin swthr0an a2to8") through him, but they did not under-stand’ (Acts 7:25).

116 Luke 24:25: ‘Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believeall that the prophets have declared!’




ownloaded from


"Reason to Weep: Isaiah 52 and the Subtext of Luke's Triumphal Entry," Journal of Theological...

Documents

Transcript of "Reason to Weep: Isaiah 52 and the Subtext of Luke's Triumphal Entry," Journal of Theological...