Sinners and Sinfulness in Luke: A Study of Direct and Indirect References in the Initial Episodes of Jesus’ Activity

Abstract

This revised doctoral thesis examines the literary meaning and function of references to sin and sinners in Luke’s initial presentation of Jesus’s public ministry (Luke 5:1–6:11). Szkredka engages in a preliminary examination of Luke 1–4 and notes that this section of Luke prepares the reader for the fact that God’s intervention to address human sin is underway in the coming of God’s messianic agent. This messianic agent has the divine authority to challenge how others perceive their sinfulness and to provide release from sin.Szkredka examines five discrete pericopes that highlight sin and sinfulness. He notes that Jesus’s calling of Simon Peter models “the realization that sinfulness can be properly understood only on Jesus’s terms. Having asserted a distance between himself and Jesus on account of his own sinfulness, Simon ultimately submits to Jesus’s call, indirectly recognizing Jesus’s authority to cross and eliminate the alienation caused in Simon’s mind by his sin” (p. 64). While Luke narrates nothing directly about sin or sinfulness in the next scene, where Jesus heals a leper, Szkredka says that the leper “indirectly confessed his illness” when he, like Peter, falls at the feet of Jesus and so “the issues of sinfulness and alienating disease . . . become related and mutually illuminating” (p. 77). At the very least, the reader sees that Jesus is able to eliminate both sin (with Peter in 5:1–11) and illness (the leper in 5:12–16). Jesus’s healing of the paralytic (5:17–26) works well for Szkredka’s argument, as Jesus heals the man but also provides for his release from sin. Ironically, the Pharisees and scribes’ labeling of Jesus as a sinner demonstrates their inadequate understanding of sin and sinners. The story of Jesus’s calling of Levi and offer of release from sin (5:27–32) further expands on this theme when Israel’s leaders complain over Jesus’ table fellowship with sinners and tax collectors. Their “refusal to believe in Jesus is now indirectly characterized as something sinful. . . . Such a Christological expansion of the content of sinfulness makes faith in Jesus an act of the highest religious import, since the refusal of that faith amounts to sin” (p. 99, 105). The final pericopes Szkredka examines are the Sabbath disputes between Jesus and Israel’s leaders in 6:1–11. There are no direct references to sin in this episode, but Szkredka suggests that their refusal to submit to Jesus means they are characterized as foolish.Szkredka presents a helpful synthesis of his conclusion on pp. 128–31. He argues that Luke’s portrait of Jesus refocuses the question toward “who are the sinners in the eyes of Jesus?” Further, Luke’s view of sin is thoroughly relational, meaning that sinners are “depicted in relation to Jesus. Sinners are those whose sinfulness Jesus sees, whose recognition of sinfulness he triggers, whose recognition of sinfulness he invites, whose sins he forgives in response to faith in him” (p. 128). Therefore, the theme of sinners and sinfulness ultimately highlights the authority of Jesus and his mission.Szkredka makes a helpful contribution to an underappreciated theme in the Gospel of Luke. His argument that Luke uses strategies to align the reader with the perception of Jesus as the one who determines sin is persuasive but probably not too controversial (though I confess I am unsure whether it is appropriate to refer to “indirect” references to sin in Luke 5:12–16 and 6:1–11). The argument is, however, quite slender and at times underdeveloped. I understand his desire to focus on Luke’s literary themes and strategies, but a more robust interpretation would have gone further in situating this theme within the notion of sinfulness and sinners in Second Temple Judaism. This would allow the reader to appreciate Luke’s distinct contribution within his literary environment. Likewise, there is very little discussion of the actual meaning of sin—both in Luke’s Gospel and in the broader Jewish environment. Finally, a small quibble perhaps, but the author index contains only a very tiny fraction of the authors he engages throughout his study.