Luke

Abstract

Spencer’s Luke, as a contribution to the Two Horizons New Testament Commentary, first and foremost bridges the disciplines of biblical scholarship and systematic theology. As the introduction, “Reading Luke Theologically,” states, the commentary is also interdisciplinary in other respects, in that it is “theologically centered,” “philosophically expanded,” “canonically connected,” “salvifically aimed,” ecclesiastically located,” and “emotionally invested.” The final criterion explains Spencer’s frequent utilization of psychological theory to discuss not only the text’s impact on the emotions, or pathos, of the reader but the inner psychology of the Gospel’s characters, such Mary in Luke 2:19.Following the introduction, the commentary (pp. 25–635) provides a theological interpretation of the Gospel. Spencer divides the text into five major sections highlighting how Luke wishes readers to attain the knowledge of God through: an assurance about the story of Jesus (1:1–4); the “birth and growth of Jesus” (1:5–4:13); the work of the liberating Savior in word and miracles (4:14–9:50); seeing the Savior via his travels (9:51–19:44); and the suffering and resurrection of the Savior (19:45–24:51). Spencer states Luke’s proclamation of Jesus’s liberating message is announced early in the Magnificat and the Benedictus, as well as in Jesus’s initial sermon in Nazareth in 4:14–30. These narratives not only provide the basis of Luke’s understanding of Jesus’s person and significance but also set the agenda of the commentary’s theological program; where Jesus’s person and message not only are important for religious redemption but are also programmatic for social reformation.The commentary focuses on the final form of the text. Redactional and textual issues are not highlighted. Textual issues, however, are not neglected. For example, the textual variants in 22:17–20, 43–44, and 23:34 are discussed in some detail. In fact, eight pages are devoted to 23:34, “Father forgive them.” This attention to a textually questionable text is somewhat surprising. While there may be internal and external reasons for accepting this verse, Spencer nevertheless devotes a surprising amount of space unpacking a doubtful saying.Likewise, as a theological commentary, sparse attention is devoted to historical details. Once again, however, when relevant, such issues are not neglected. For example, in the discussion of 5:1–11, Spencer notes how Antipas’s claim to the produce of the Lake of Gennesaret corresponded to Augustus’s assertion of ownership of the produce of the Mediterranean. The fees for licenses for fishing in Lake Gennesaret would have been suffocating, and the language of Jesus’s call for the disciples to fish for people provides a “new bold path of lordship” which highlights an opposition to the corrupt practices of Rome and its clients (p. 136). Spencer also agrees, probably correctly, with Addison Wright’s classic 1982 Catholic Biblical Quarterly essay on how the story of the widow’s mite (21:1–4//Mark 12:41–44) reflects not a commendation of the widow but a condemnation of the rapacious practices of the temple (pp. 530–32). Spencer’s interpretation of the parable of the persistent widow (18:1–8) as, at least in part, a commentary on Rome’s oppressive colonialism (pp. 448–49), however, likely imposes an agenda on the parable that it cannot bear.Spencer’s greatest contribution may be his understanding of the complexities of Luke’s narrative. Special attention is given throughout the commentary to how Luke uses parallelism in his presentation of Jesus. This is very helpful as it enables the reader to gain an appreciation for the complexities of Luke’s literary art. Also, Spencer recognizes Luke’s nuanced use of characterization. In particular, while Luke’s Jesus is quick to condemn opponents as hypocrites (see 13:15), there are friendly interactions between Jesus and Pharisees, such as when Jesus accepts invitations to dine with Pharisees (see 7:36). Even more striking is 13:31–35, when Pharisees warn Jesus of Antipas’s plot to kill him. Thus, Luke’s presentation of the Pharisees appears more rounded than Matthew’s or Mark’s.Following the commentary is a theological reflection (pp. 637–732). This section has great promise but is somewhat disappointing. Spencer’s theological reflections derive from his self-consciously Baptist heritage, diminishing the ecumenical appeal of this part of the book. Furthermore, his zeal to emphasize the social impact of Luke’s message leads to some unfortunate generalizations, seen when Spencer contrasts Rauschenbusch’s social agenda with Finney’s evangelistic work (p. 706). Unfortunately, Spencer overlooks Finney’s postmillennial commitment to social issues that in many respects prefigured Rauschenbusch’s.When evaluating Spencer’s Luke, we need to be aware of the purpose of the work. As a pastoral resource that encourages teachers and preachers to think holistically about the Gospel of Luke, the work succeeds. Whatever failings the book may derive from its bold attempt to approach the text from a thoroughly interdisciplinary perspective, it attempts to do much. In much, though not all, it succeeds.