CHAPTER I Outline of Chapter 1 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 1:1–4 Dedicatory Preface 1:5–25 The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold 1:26–38 The Birth of Jesus Foretold 1:39–45 Mary Visits Elizabeth 1:46–56 Mary's Magnificat 1:57–66 The Birth, Circumcision, and Naming of John the Baptist 1:67–80 Zechariah's Prophecy 1:1–4 Dedicatory Preface 1 1 Since^[34] many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers^[35] of the word handed them down to us, 3 it seemed fitting for me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent^[36] Theophilus, 4 in order that you may know^[37] the exact truth^[38] with respect to the matters concerning which you received instruction. Beginning with this section (1:1–4) the notes on Greek words, phrases, and grammatical constructions will be found or indicated at the close of the section. In order to retain something of the flavor of Luke's beautiful and balanced sentence, I have resisted the temptation of cutting it up into several short statements.^[39] In ancient times prologues of this general character were rather common. Thus, Josephus begins his work Against Apion (I.1 3) as follows: In my history of our Antiquities, most excellent Epaphroditus, I have, I believe, made sufficiently clear to any who may peruse that work the antiquity of our Jewish race.& However, since I notice that a considerable number of persons, influenced by the malicious slanders of certain individuals, discredit the statements in my history &I deem it my duty to devote a brief treatise to all these points; in order at once to convict our detractors &to correct the ignorance of others, and to instruct all who desire to know the truth concerning the antiquity of our race. Vol. II of the same work opens as follows: In the first volume of this work [cf. Acts 1:1], most esteemed Epaphroditus, I demonstrated the antiquity of our race.& I also challenged the statements of Manetho, Chaeremon, and some others. I shall now proceed to refute the remaining authors who have attacked us. See also that same historian's introduction to his History of the Jewish War. Compare the prologues with which the following writers begin their accounts: Greek medical men such as Hippocrates, Dioscorides, and Galen; the historians Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius; and the biographer and miscellaneous writer Plutarch.^[40] But although it is true that Luke, as a highly cultured author, writing flawless and elegant Greek, adopts the type of introduction that was customary with writers of that day and age, his prologue is more beautifully balanced than any of the others and also kinder in tone than some of them. A quick comparison with the introductions by Josephus immediately causes this contrast to stand out sharply: Luke's foreword, correctly interpreted, contains no recriminatory remarks. It is the product of divine inspiration! Luke's Preface deals with two matters: (a) Motivation, and (b) Purpose. Motivation So important are the events concerning Jesus that many people have already taken in hand to blend into a narrative the reports concerning these happenings (verse 1). Eyewitnesses have handed down these reports to us (verse 2). I [Luke] have thoroughly investigated all essential matters (verse 3). Purpose Thus equipped, I [Luke] write this Gospel in order that you, Theophilus and others like you may know the exact truth with respect to the matters concerning which you have already received some instruction (verse 4). 1. Since many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the things that have been fulfilled among us & a. Since many have undertaken &it seemed fitting for me also to write. Does Luke mean, Since others have done such a poor job, I will do better? The church historian Eusebius (op. cit. III.xxiv.15) seems to have been of that opinion. He represents Luke as saying, in effect, What others have somewhat rashly attempted I will remedy. I will correct what those others have written. However, unbiased reading of 1:1–4 immediately shows that Luke does not say, I will do better than they, but rather, I will also put my hand to writing a narrative concerning these things. Note verse 3: it seemed fitting for me also, etc. The next question might well be, But if Luke is not finding fault with what others have already done, and perhaps even approves of it, then why does he also wish to write? The answer may well be that though others had written, no one as yet had composed as complete an account as Luke envisioned. Note verse 3: having traced the course of all things accurately from the beginning.& For more on this see Introduction, point V B, and see on 1:3. In this connection it must not be overlooked that when the evangelist wrote these four verses he undoubtedly already had in mind the writing of Acts as well as the Third Gospel. The story beginning with the annunciation of the birth of John the Baptist and extending all the way to the spreading of the gospel from Rome as a center, through the labors of the apostle-prisoner Paul, had never as yet been presented in one beautifully arranged account! Luke writes, Many have undertaken to draw up a narrative. Who were those many? Was Matthew included? The possibility that Luke made use of Matthew's Gospel must not be denied. On this see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 53. Nevertheless, it is possible so to interpret Luke 1:2that here in 1:1 Luke is excluding works by eyewitnesses, like Matthew. Besides, as has become abundantly clear see Introduction, points III A 2, and B 2 a considerable portion of Luke's Gospel reminds one of Mark. It has been shown see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 36–47 that in all probability it was Luke who used Mark's Gospel, not vice versa. Therefore, here in 1:1 Luke may well have been thinking of Mark as one of the many who had undertaken to draw up a narrative. Moreover, since a Hebrew or Aramaic written account certainly underlies Luke's nativity narrative (1:5 2:52) and probably also some of the later sections, the beloved physician most likely also included the author(s) of such materials in his reference to the many who had undertaken to write. And since Luke says many have undertaken to draw up a narrative, the possibility must be allowed that some of these many had failed to complete that which they had begun to do. b. to draw up a narrative concerning the things that have been fulfilled& See footnote 48 on the meaning of the word fulfilled. It is clear from Luke's entire Gospel that he regards history not as the sum total of chance occurrences, or as the result of a series of fortuitous circumstances, but as the fulfilment of the divine plan; hence also of prophecy. This is clear especially from 22:22, but see also 1:45, 54, 55, 69, 70; 2:38; 3:3–6; 4:21, 43; 5:32; 7:20; 9:22, 44; 12:50; 18:31–33; 19:41–44; ch. 21; 24:25–28, 44 49. And for Acts see in that book 2:23; 3:18; 4:28. c. among us. Although this pronoun is broad enough to embrace all those among whom John the Baptist and Jesus walked and even those who were in any way affected by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit the eyewitnesses, those to whom their reports were transmitted, Luke himself, his contemporaries, believers, unbelievers it surely refers especially to the believing recipients of God's grace in Christ. It was to them alone that the birth of the Baptist and that of Jesus had been announced, that Messiah's suffering and death had been predicted, that the risen Christ had appeared. Upon them, them alone, the Holy Spirit had been poured out, etc. 2. &just as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word handed them down to us &Note that Luke does not include himself among the eyewitnesses but among those to whom these eyewitnesses handed down their reports and testimonies. That the term eyewitnesses includes earwitnesses is clear from (I John 1:1. Among these early witnesses one must certainly include the apostles PeterMatt. 16:13–20; Luke 24:34; John 1:40 42; 21:15–23; I Cor. 15:5; I Peter 5:1; II Peter 1:16), and John (John 21:24; I John 1:1); in fact The Twelve (John 15:27); also the brothers of Jesus, his mother and other women (Acts 1:14); furthermore Joseph called Barsabbas, Matthias (Acts 1:21 23), etc. See also Introduction, point III B 6. Luke does not specify whether the reports were handed down in oral or in written form. He leaves room for both types of transmission. These same people, the eyewitnesses, not only received, they also gave: whatever they had seen and heard they proclaimed and handed down to others of their own generation and later ones. They became ministers or servants of the word, that is, of the gospel. It was with a feeling of profound reverence and awe that they handled the messages they had received from the lips of the Savior and the facts about him. They did not place themselves above the word, using it merely as a self-serving tool, but beneath it, becoming its servants. To the two reasons already mentioned (see verses 1 and 2) Luke now adds a third, showing what it was that motivated and qualified him to write: 3. &it seemed fitting for me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the beginning &This shows that Luke wants his treatise to be not only complete but also accurate. Was it perhaps for this very reason that when he draws on Semitic sources (e.g., the nativity narratives) he leaves the phraseology and style virtually untouched, and at times seems to simply translate, almost word for word, from Semitic into Greek? Continued: to write an orderly account &According to the sense of the word orderly used in the original, an orderly account is one in which one says next what should be said next. It is an account which is not confused or haphazard. By no means is it true that the evangelist here promises to write a Gospel in which every event will be related in precisely chronological sequence. Even today history books do not always follow that pattern. One historian, to be sure, in describing the administration of George Washington, will report its important events, of whatever character political, military, social, economic, etc. year by year or even month by month, in exact chronological sequence. Another, having pictured the political events from beginning (1789) to end (1797) will then go back to describe what took place during this period in the economic sphere; for example, the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney (1793). By and large the sequence of events as reported by Luke is chronological. On the other hand, with respect to individual details this is by no means always the case. Study (a) Luke's account of the three temptations (4:3–13), comparing it with that of Matthew (4:3–11); (b) the early place where Luke describes Jesus rejection at Nazareth (4:16–30), comparing it with the far later place in their respective Gospels where Matthew and Mark cover the same event (Matt. 13:54–58; Mark 6:1 6); (c) the problem posed by (Luke 9:51; 13:22; 17:11(three separate journeys to Jerusalem?); and (d) the question raised by Luke 22:19 23John 13:30) as to whether Judas Iscariot partook of the Last Supper. However, these items will be discussed in connection with each of the Lucan passages. For Luke 9:51; 13:22; 17:11see the special study in this commentary, entitled Summary of and Introduction to Luke's Central Section (9:51 18:14), subheading B, pp. 541–545. It will become clear that Luke makes no mistakes. He has his good reasons for writing exactly as he does, as guided by the Spirit. To him a logical or topical connection is frequently more important than precise chronological sequence. Throughout he is writing a truly orderly account, as he promises here in 1:3. Continued: for you, most excellent Theophilus. Who was Theophilus? Even when we grant as we should that Theophilus was a real person, and not a symbol for anyone loved by God, which is the meaning of the name, we still discover that there is a wide difference of opinion regarding the addressee. Here are some of the different views: a. Theophilus was, or had been, a slave owner. One of his slaves had been Luke, who, having won his master's confidence and affection, was given his freedom and even an education.^[41] See also above (Introduction, point I B 2, p. 10). Comment. This is an interesting theory, but unsupported by any evidence. b. He was Luke's patron of letters. Since Theophilus was an influential person and a man of means, and besides a friend of Luke, the latter expected him to defray the expenses involved in the composition and distribution of Third Gospel-Acts.^[42] Comment. If the patron theory is adopted, because it is believed to be in harmony with what was at that time a rather general practice, and if securing such a sponsor is regarded as being in any sense Luke's purpose, this purpose must be thought of as definitely subsidiary to his main objective, clearly stated in verse 4. c. He was a God-fearer; that is, he belonged to that large group of Gentiles who had renounced polytheism, had embraced the ethical monotheism of Judaism, attended the synagogue, but had not promised to obey the entire Jewish law, including its circumcision requirement. The fact that Luke often mentions these God-fearers or semi-proselytes (Acts 13:43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7) points to the conclusion that Theophilus too belonged to this group.^[43] For comment see point (d). d. As pictured in Luke 1:4Theophilus is still a Gentile, for before the third century a.d. the epithet most excellent was never used in connection with believers in Christ. However, since in Acts 1:1the adjective most excellent is dropped and only the name Theophilus remains, the conclusion is warranted that by means of the reading of the Third Gospel Theophilus had become a Christian.^[44] Comment on theories (c) and (d). There is no solid evidence in support of either of these theories. As to (c), it is not clear that Theophilus had arrived at the knowledge of the Christian religion via Judaism. He may have, but we do not know. And as to (d), there may have been any number of possible reasons why Luke dropped the epithet in Acts 1:1. One reason may have been that he regarded Luke 1:1 4as a preamble to both books, as he probably did, and therefore did not consider the repetition of most excellent to be necessary. e. It is impossible for us to ascertain whether Theophilus is here addressed as occupant of a high position in the government, as belonging to the equestrian order, or simply as a person worthy of high honor. Therefore we are unable to say whether the proper rendering [in Luke 1:3] is your excellency (or something similar), or rather highly honored, preeminent, or most noble. In headings or dedicatory introductions the epithet used by Luke occurs rather frequently, at times perhaps as an expression of courtesy. ^[45] Comment. This view makes sense. It does not restrict the possibilities too narrowly. The opinion that Theophilus may have occupied an important position in the Roman government has in its favor that, if this be true, the epithet most excellent would have approximately the same meaning here which it has in Acts 23:26; 24:3; and also in 26:25, in which passages it is applied respectively to the procurators Felix and Festus. But, as Greijdanus also indicates, Theophilus may simply have been a person worthy of high honor, or, as F. F. Bruce states, a representative member of the intelligent middle-class public at Rome. ^[46] Though it cannot be proved that Theophilus was living in or near Rome when Luke perhaps also now at Rome; see above, Introduction, point IV B, p. 33 addressed him, neither is this idea entirely speculative. In (Acts 28:15Luke makes mention of both The Three Taverns and The Market of Appius (Latin: Tres Tabernae, Appii Forum). He mentions these two places without any further elucidation as to where they were located (rather close to Rome, respectively 33 and 43 miles south of the city). On the other hand, Luke is frequently more specific when he mentions places located a long distance away from RomeLuke 1:26; 4:31; 8:26). Therefore, it may not be too risky to infer that the reason for this degree of difference in supplying geographical detail could be that Theophilus was living in or near Rome and was therefore not in need of receiving a more circumstantial report about nearby places.^[47] Having stated the reasons which motivated and entitled him to write this Gospel, Luke now proceeds to mention his purpose: 4. in order that you may know [or: may come to know] the exact truth with respect to the matters concerning which you received instruction. It is clear that Theophilus had already received some perhaps even considerable information in Christian doctrine. To a certain extent the truth of the Christian religion had been dinned into his ears; that is, he had been catechized. However, he is in need of a more thorough grounding in the truth, the facts concerning Jesus and his church. That Luke regards this truth as significant is clear from what he has already said (see especially verse 3). For Theophilus to know (or: come to know) the exact truth was very important. For this there were two reasons: (a) to keep him from falling into error. Think of the many attacks upon the truth constantly being made by both Jew and Gentile (Matt. 19:3–8; 27:63; John 6:42, 52; 7:40–49; 9:24; Acts 26:24; 28:22; I Cor. 1:23); and (b) to obtain salvation in full measure to the glory of God. In connection with (b), the words that you may know [or: come to know] the exact truth remind us of the statement of Jesus, You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (John 8:32). Other significant passages showing the great importance which Jesus and the New Testament writers attach to knowing the truth are John 16:13; 17:17, 19; Gal. 2:5; Eph. 1:13; 4:15; II Thess. 2:10, 12, 13; I Tim. 2:4; 3:15; II Tim. 2:15; II Peter 1:12. And for the Old Testament see especially Hos. 4:6, My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. This brings up the interesting question: Just how are the various elements of Christian experience the intellectual, emotional, and volitional related to each other? Which, if any, is basic and which follows in importance? How do they interact? For the answer, as this commentator sees it, consult N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 10, 11. The concluding lines of the discussion as found there are as follows: The only logical conclusion, in view of these various and (at first glance) seemingly (though never really) conflicting representations, is this: When we speak of knowledge, love, and obedience, we are not thinking of three altogether separate experiences, but of one single, comprehensive experience in which the three are united in such a manner that each contributes its share, and all cooperate unto man's salvation and God's glory. This experience is personal in character. Hence, we can no longer speak of the primacy of the intellect or of the primacy of the emotions or of the primacy of the will, but of the primacy of the sovereign grace of God influencing and transforming the entire personality for the glory of God. It was that result which Luke was striving, by God's grace and power, to bring about in the heart and life of Theophilus, and all those whom he represented.^[48] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 1:1 4 Verse 1 The things that have been fulfilled among us. It is comforting to know that history including that of our own lives is the fulfilment of God's plan. This does not cancel human responsibility. See Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23. Verse 2 Servants of the word. He who rides a hobby is placing himself above God's Word. Verses 2, 3 Eyewitnesses &having traced the course of all things accurately from the beginning. The Christian religion is not a matter of cunningly devised myths (II Peter 1:16), but rests on solid, historical fact. We should thank God for having qualified such men as Luke and the other evangelists, with their varied talents, to write the four Gospels. Verse 3 Most excellent or most noble. The Christian religion does not destroy courtesy or excuse rudeness. Verses 3 and 4 To write &in order that you may know. The believer in this case Luke is deeply concerned about his fellow man and endeavors to bring him to the knowledge of the truth. Verse 4 The matters concerning which you received instruction. The church that neglects catechetical instruction has itself to blame for its waning strength. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 1:1–4 Whenever a Greek word is followed by an asterisk, its New Testament occurrence is confined to the Third Gospel. In a book written by versatile Luke we expect many such words. When the word is followed by a double asterisk, its New Testament occurrence is confined to the Third Gospel and Acts. Verse 1 [Greek] is a strengthened form of [Greek]. The meaning of [Greek] is: inasmuch as, since; or, if the sense is both causal and temporal: since by now. [Greek], third per. pl. aor. indicat. of [Greek], to put one's hand ([Greek]) to, to undertake, seek, attempt. Cf. Acts 9:29; 19:13. [Greek], aor. infinitive of [Greek], to arrange in proper order, draw up, compose. [Greek]; cf. [Greek]; German durchf�hren, Dutch doorvoeren; the meaning of the noun is: account, narrative, with emphasis on a degree of fulness. [Greek], gen. pl. perf. passive participle of [Greek]; from [Greek], full, and [Greek], cf. [Greek], to bring; hence, to bring to fulness, to fulfill, accomplish in full. The verbal form is a synonym of [Greek], which occurs frequently in connection with fulfilment of prophecy (Matt. 1:22; 2:15, 17). This is probably also the meaning here in (Luke 1:1. When [Greek] is used in connection with persons, it has the meaning: to fully convince, persuade; in the passive: to be fully convincedRom. 14:5). There are those who ascribe this meaning also to the word as used here in Luke 1:1, resulting in the meaning: on which there is full conviction among us, or something similar. Some authors seem to waver between this and the meaning mentioned earlier. See A. T. Robertson's rendering in A Translation of Luke's Gospel, New York, 1923, p. 13; and cf. with his rendering in Word Pictures, Vol. II, p. 4. As I see it, because Luke in 1:1 is speaking about things and because of his emphasis on fulfilment of prophecy see the references given in the text the rendering the things that have been fulfilled among us deserves the preference. Verse 2 [Greek], third per. pl. aor. act. of [Greek]. The word has various meanings, to hand over, deliver, betray, commit, commend, allow. Here and in several other cases it is used with respect to tradition (whether written, oral, or both); hence, to hand down, pass on, transmit. [Greek], eyewitness. Cf. autopsy. For synonym see II Peter 1:16. [Greek], from [Greek], under, and [Greek], to row; hence basically under-rower; here servant, minister. Other New Testament meanings: officer, helper, assistant, attendant. [Greek], of the word; that is, of the gospel, the message of salvation centering in Jesus Christ and made possible by him. The phrase of the word modifies ministers, not eyewitnesses. At times the word [Greek] has reference to that which proceeds directly from Jesus lips. For still another meaning see on verse 4. There is no justification for confusing the meaning of [Greek] in the Third Gospel with the Logos idea in John's Gospel, as if also in the Third Gospel [Greek] would refer directly to the Son of God. Verse 3 [Greek], dat. s. m. perfect participle of [Greek], to follow, attend; here: to follow through mentally, to investigate, to trace the course of events (from beginning to end). The perfect tense shows that Luke had done this before he started to write. For a somewhat different meaning of the verb see N.T.C. on I Tim. 4:6; II Tim. 3:10. [Greek], from the beginning; cf. Mark 15:38: from top to bottom. In John 3:3, 7: from above, again. [Greek] = [Greek] and [Greek]. [Greek] in such cases is distributive in meaning; [Greek] from [Greek], fut. [Greek] means having, being after or next to; hence [Greek] here in 1:3 means: one after another; in regular order. To write an account in regular order means to write an orderly account. Related meanings: next, soon afterward (Luke 8:1), place to place (Acts 18:23), point by point (Acts 11:4). [Greek], voc. s. m. of [Greek], the superlative of [Greek]. Verse 4 [Greek], here with full final sense: in order that. Luke is stating his purpose in writing to Theophilus. [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. subjunctive of [Greek]. For this verb see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 502, footnote 482. Also here in Luke 1:4the question is whether the prefix [Greek] in [Greek] has an intensive meaning. Commentators differ widely. A possibility is: that you may come to know, etc. See also R. E. Picirelli, The Meaning of Epignosis, EQ XLVII, No. 2 (April June, 1975), pp. 85–93; and R. Bultmann on [Greek] and related words, in Th.D.N.T., Vol. I, pp. 689–719; especially pp. 703, 704. In the present case the idea exact or thorough knowledge is implied in the combination of the verb [Greek] and its object [Greek]. [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. indicat. passive of [Greek]. Cf. echo, catechize. The truth of the gospel has been sounded down upon Theophilus. He had been instructed in it. Cf. Acts 18:25; Rom. 2:18; Gal. 6:6a. [Greek]. The cognate verb [Greek] means: to cause to totter or fall; hence, the noun means: that which cannot fall; here in 1:4 exact truth, certainty; in (I Thess. 5:3Acts 5:23) safety, security. [Greek], here thing, matter; so also in Acts 8:21; 15:6. Cf. the double meaning of Hebrew dbhr. 1:5–25 The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold 5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea,^[49] there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah. His wife was also a descendant of Aaron,^[50] and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the commandments and requirements of the Lord, blameless. 7 However, they were childless, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years. 8 Once while Zechariah was serving as priest before God, in the appointed order of his division, 9 according to the custom of the priesthood he was chosen by lot to burn incense after having gone into the sanctuary of the Lord. 10 At the hour of the burning of incense the entire assembled congregation was outside, engaged in prayer. 11 Then there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing at the right of the altar of incense. 12 Now when Zechariah saw him, he became troubled and overwhelmed with fear.^[51] 13 But the angel said to him, Do not be afraid,^[52] Zechariah, for your petition has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall give him the name John. 14You will have joy and exultation,^[53] and many will rejoice over his birth; 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. Wine or strong drink he must never touch, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb. 16 Many of the sons of Israel will he turn to the Lord their God. 17 And he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the frame of mind of the righteous, in order to make ready for the Lord a people well-prepared. 18 Then Zechariah asked the angel, How can I be sure of this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years. 19 I am Gabriel, the angel answered. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news. 20 And now, mark well, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their proper time, you will remain silent and not able to speak until the day when these things take place. 21 Meanwhile the people were waiting for Zechariah and wondering why he stayed away so long in the sanctuary. 22 And when he did come out, he was unable to speak to them. Then they realized that he had seen a vision in the sanctuary, for he kept making signs to them but remained unable to speak. 23 And when the days of his service were completed he went back to his home. 24 After these days his wife Elizabeth became pregnant. For five months she kept herself in seclusion, saying, 25 This is the way the Lord has dealt with me in the days in which he looked (with favor) upon me, to remove my disgrace among the people. Luke has promised an orderly account. In his first two chapters he already begins to fulfil this promise. Note the exquisite symmetry, the pleasing parallelism: Two births are promised: that of the herald and that of the One whom that herald is going to introduce to the people. In each case it is the angel Gabriel who foretells the birth. He predicts it respectively to the herald's prospective father Zechariah, and to the Great One's mother-to-be Mary (1:5–38). When and how did Joseph, to whom Mary had been promised in marriage, become aware of her pregnancy? See Matt. 1:18–25. The two narratives Matthew's and Luke's supplement each other. At no point is there conflict. Next in Luke's Gospel the two prospective mothers, Elizabeth and Mary, are seen together, for Mary is visiting her relative Elizabeth, who lives in a town in the hill country of Judah. As Mary enters, Elizabeth exclaims, Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, etc. Mary, in turn, utters her Magnificat (1:39–56). Recorded also are the two births: that of John, born to Elizabeth (1:57), and that of Jesus, born to Mary in Bethlehem of Judea, to which the couple Joseph and Mary traveled from their home in Nazareth (2:1–7). In each case Luke relates the circumstances attending the birth, the circumcision and the naming of the child (1:58–66; 2:21). But now notice the contrast: in the case of John the eighth day incidents are followed by the song of his father Zechariah (1:67–79). In the case of Jesus, however, the song cannot even wait. The universe-shaking birth itself is immediately followed by an announcement to shepherds, the song of an angelic choir, and the resulting visit by the shepherds. These events, including the Glory to God in the highest, etc. (2:8–20), precede the happenings on the eighth day. What a remarkable and meaningful arrangement! The forerunner's life up to the time when he makes his public appearance is summarized in one verse (1:80). Very appropriately in the case of the chief figure, namely, Jesus himself, the evangelist goes into greater detail. We read about the presentation in the temple, Simeon's Nunc Dimittis, Anna's thanksgiving and testimony, the return to Nazareth, and the boy in the midst of the teachers (2:22–52). And see also Matt. 2. It is fitting that Mark, in describing the coming of our Eternal King, begins his Gospel by introducing the King's herald; and that Matthew, in fixing the attention upon our Great Prophet, already in the first chapter (verses 22, 23) and repeatedly afterward makes mention of the fulfilment of prophecy in him, and pictures him as being himself God's Messenger. Think of the Lord's six discourses recorded by Matthew, and of the many dominical sayings.^[54] And so also it is appropriate that Luke, who in his Gospel see Introduction, point V D underscores the very qualities which Scripture also elsewhere associates with our Sympathetic Highpriest (Luke 4:16 27; cf. Heb. 4:14–16; 7:25), at the very outset pictures a priest who enters the sanctuary in order to burn incense. Temple passages peculiar to the Third Gospel are: 1:5–23; 2:22–35, 36 38, 41 51; 18:9–14; 21:37, 38; 24:53. 5. In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah. The days of Herod! This is Herod I, often designated Herod the Great. The date of his birth seems to have been 74 b.c. The period during which he ruled over the Jews is generally dated 37 4 b.c. He did not all at once become the actual ruler of all of Palestine. Rather, he had been nominated king of Judea by the Roman senate in the year 40 b.c. An army was given him. With this army hence, with his own sword he was to carve out a kingdom for himself. In this he gradually succeeded. He is mentioned here (Luke 1:5) and also in (Matt. 2:1–22, but nowhere else in the New Testament. He should not be confused with his son Herod the tetrarch, as Luke sometimes calls that sonMatt. 14:1). Herod the Great, the ruler to whom reference is made here in Luke 1:5, was capable, crafty, and cruel. He was the man who, in order that no one would be able to take away from him, from him alone, the designation the king of the Jews, and to appease his wrath, was going to order all the boy babies of Bethlehem and its surroundings to be murdered. For a further description of this terrible tyrant, see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 155–168; 176 193; and note his Family Tree on p. 189 of that volume. In the appellation king of Judea the term Judea may well indicate the land of the Jews in its entirety. See also on 4:44 and see Acts 26:20. In the days, then, of this diabolical monster there lived a man who, together with his wife, exhibited the very opposite traits of character. Terrible tyrant pious priest, what a contrast! The name of this priest was Zechariah. He must not be confused with any of the thirty other persons of (basically) that same name mentioned in Scripture. That a name meaning Jehovah has remembered should be popular is easily understood. The Zechariah of Luke's story was a member of the priestly course or division of Abijah. During the reign of David the priests had been organized and divided into twenty-four divisions (I Chron. 24:1–6). These divisions were reaffirmed by David's son Solomon (II Chron. 8:14). The eighth division, the one to which Zechariah belonged, was that of Abijah (I Chron. 24:10). Only four divisions returned from Babylon (Ezra 2:36 39). But these four were redivided into twenty-four, and given the old names. Twice a year each division was on duty in the temple, and each time the period of service was one week. His wife was also a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. Her name, too, has a beautiful meaning, namely, God [or: my God] is an oath, that is, is the Absolutely Reliable One. It was indeed a great blessing for a priest to marry a wife of priestly stock.^[55] This was not required by the law, which stipulated only that the wife should be a virgin of his own people (Lev. 21:14). Between Zechariah and Elizabeth there was no danger of incompatibility. The fact that, without benefit of computer (!), this man had married a woman with whom he could live in peace and happiness is clear from Luke 1:60, 63; note the thorough agreement between husband and wife. It appears also in verse 6. Both were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the commandments and requirements of the Lord blameless. What is meant by &were righteous? Apart from the sovereign grace of God revealed basically in the atoning death of Christ no one can ever be truly righteous (Exod. 12:13; Psalms 49:7; Isa. 53:4–6; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 22:19, 20; Rom. 3:21–24; Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:22; I Peter 2:24; Rev. 7:14). Another way of saying this is that basically there is no way in which a person can be truly righteous before God, or blameless, other than by imputation, so that the sinner's guilt is laid upon the Savior, and the Savior's righteousness upon the sinner. Nevertheless, Scripture itself justifies the terminology: righteousness by imputation and righteousness by impartation. To the latter the name sanctification is often given. Although these two should be distinguished, they should never be separated. Though it is true that good works have never saved anybody, it is also true that the person who is conscious of having been saved by grace through faith will put forth every effort to do good works. Eph. 2:8, 9must never be separated from 2:10; nor Titus 2:11from 2:14. The forgiven trespass and the true heart are twins: How blest is he whose trespass Has freely been forgiven, Whose sin is wholly covered Before the sight of heaven, Blest he to whom Jehovah Will not impute his sin, Who hath a guileless spirit, Whose heart is true within. No. Psalms 32 (), first stanza, Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, 1958. At times Scripture makes reference to these two kinds of righteousness almost in the same breath. (Rom. 8:1is a good example. Cf. He breaks the power of canceled sin (in O For a Thousand Tongues, by Charles Wesley). At times the emphasis is on righteousness by imputationRom. 3:24, 28; 5:1; Gal. 2:16; 3:11, 13); at times, as here in Luke 1:6, on righteousness by impartation. The best commentary on righteous in the sight of God is surely the text itself: observing all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. It was in that sense that in the sight of God these two people were blameless. Is it not true that with God honest intention is equal to action? See I Kings 8:18. Commandments and requirements. Cf. commandments and statutes (Deut. 4:1, 40; 6:2). A person who observes both the commandment and the statute is interested not only in the underlying principle but also in its application to concrete life situations. Not only in a very general way does he try to keep the first commandment, You shall have no other gods before me (Exod. 20:3), but he is also fully aware of its corollaries, one of them being, The firstfruits of your soil you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God (Exod. 23:19). He does the same with the sixth commandment, You shall not kill (Exod. 20:13); for example, You shall not oppress a stranger (Exod. 23:9); with the eighth, You shall not steal (Exod. 20:15); for example, You shall not take a bribe (Exod. 23:8); with the ninth, You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (Exod. 20:16); implying, You shall not take up a false report (Exod. 23:1); and so with every commandment. In this connection see also Christ's own treatment of the commandments in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:21–48). Zechariah and Elizabeth, then, were people like Job (Job 1:1) and Simeon (Luke 2:25). So far everything with respect to Zechariah and Elizabeth was wonderful. But now note: 7. However, they were childless, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years. Barrenness was about the worst thing that could happen to a married woman. Across the many intervening centuries we can still hear Rachel saying to Jacob, Give me children, or else I die (Gen. 30:1). It still hurts to read how Hannah suffered because her rival Peninnah, instead of sympathizing with her, maliciously kept reminding her of the fact that the Lord had shut up her womb (I Sam. 1:6). Result: Hannah shed bitter tears. Besides, was not fertility among the blessings of obedience God had promised to Israel? See Deut. 7:14; Psalms 113:9. The trouble was that many people drew the wrong deduction from this promise, as if in any individual case barrenness was an infallible sign of God's disfavor. Unjustly, but all too often, the barren woman would be shunned, looked down upon, despised. For many of these sorrowing wives, however, dreary days and sleepless nights were somewhat brightened by the hope that the situation might still change. But for Zechariah and Elizabeth even this flame of hope had begun to flicker. At last it was extinguished altogether, for by now both were advanced in years. And then a most unexpected event occurred: 8 10. Once while Zechariah was serving as priest before God, in the appointed order of his division, according to the custom of the priesthood he was chosen by lot to burn incense after having gone into the sanctuary of the Lord. At the hour of the burning of incense the entire assembled congregation was outside, engaged in prayer. Each day the various functions of the priesthood were apportioned by lot. The most solemn part of the entire liturgy was the burning of incense. It was then that the priest approached closest to the veil separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. In the economy of the old dispensation did not the Holy of Holies have the golden altar of incense? To be sure, for understandable practical reasons that altar actually stood in the Holy Place (Exod. 30:6, 10). But it belonged to the Holy of Holies (Heb. 9:4). On the Day of Atonement, once a year, was not the incense brought from this altar into the Holy of Holies, and was not the blood that had been sprinkled on the mercy-seat applied also to the altar of incense? See Lev. 16:15–19. Do not the shedding of blood and the rising cloud of incense belong together? Do not redemption and thanksgiving form a pair like cause and effect? It is understandable that to be chosen by lot to burn incense was considered a unique privilege. Only once in a lifetime was a priest allowed to receive this honor. Ever afterward he was considered rich and holy. Numerically speaking, to be chosen by lot to burn incense was a privilege shared by few. Twice a day this incense was offered: in the morning and in mid-afternoon. Some^[56] believe that what happened now occurred in the morning. Others,^[57] basing their view on the fact that according to Luke 1:10on this particular day a multitude of considerable magnitude had entered the temple courts, believe that the incident about to be related occurred in the afternoon. However this may have been, what took place may be introduced as follows: Zechariah proceeds toward the golden altar. He is accompanied by two assistants. One of these men is carrying in a golden bowl burning coals from the altar of burnt-offering, and is spreading them out on the altar of incense. He then withdraws. The other assistant is carrying a golden censer filled with incense. He arranges the incense upon the altar. And now profound silence ensues, for the most solemn action of the ritual is about to occur. A signal is given. The sacred moment has arrived for Zechariah to place the incense upon the coals, causing a cloud to arise, its fragrance rising and spreading. Together with the ascending aroma a fervent prayer, consisting of thanksgiving for blessings received and of supplication for peace upon Israel, now issues from the heart and lips of the priest. The people, gathered outside the sanctuary but inside its courts (Israel's Court, Women's Court, with priests and Levites in evidence especially in the Priests Court; see map, N.T.C. on Mark, p. 488) are also praying, in a prostrate position and with outstretched hands. Then they wait for Zechariah to return from the altar of incense and to proceed eastward to the steps in the front of the sanctuary (Holy Place and Holy of Holies). On these steps Zechariah, accompanied by other priests, is expected to pronounce the Aaronic blessing on the people. This benediction will be followed by songs of praise, public offerings, etc.^[58] The people wait &and wait &and wait. But for minutes that must have seemed like hours nothing happens. Explanation: 11, 12. Then there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing at the right of the altar of incense. Now when Zechariah saw him, he became troubled and overwhelmed with fear. Suddenly the angel is standing there at the right side of the altar; that is, just to the south of it, for directions are indicated from the point of view of a man facing east. The angel, then, would have the golden altar to his left, and the candelabrum to his right and somewhat to the front. See map, as above. It is natural that the sudden, unexpected appearance of a strong, holy, dazzlingly brilliant angel causes a weak, sinful human being to tremble. Fear fell upon Zechariah. See also Judg. 6:22; 13:22; Dan. 10:5–9; Luke 1:29; 2:9; Acts 10:4; and cf. Isa. 6:1–5. 13. But the angel said to him, Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your petition has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall give him the name John. Note the following points: a. Do not be afraid. In other words, Stop being frightened; cheer up. Is it not encouraging to note how very often in Scripture God or Jesus Christ tells his people not to be afraid but instead to take heart? A partial list of passages in which, in some form or other, this exhortation is found would be: Gen. 15:1; 26:24; 46:3; Exod. 14:13, 14; Josh. 1:9; 11:6; Judg. 6:23; II Kings 19:6, 7; I Chron. 28:20; II Chron. 20:15; 32:7; Neh. 4:14; Ps. 49:16; 91:5; Isa. 10:24; 37:6; 41:10, 13, 14; 43:1, 5; 44:2, 8; Dan. 10:19; Zech. 8:13; Matt. 14:27; 17:7; 28:10; Mark 5:36; Luke 1:30; 2:10; 5:10; 8:50; 12:4, 7, 32; John 14:1, 27; 16:33; Acts 18:9; 27:24; Heb. 13:6; I Peter 3:14; Rev. 1:17. And is not Do not be afraid another way of saying, Have faith? Truly salvation by grace through faith is not a Pauline invention. It is firmly rooted in Scripture throughout. b. Your petition has been heard. Which petition? The one which Zechariah had barely finished when the angel suddenly appeared; hence, the supplication that peace in its richest sense salvation might be bestowed upon Israel? Or was the angel referring to the request for a child, a petition that belonged to bygone days? In spite of what certain commentators say to the contrary, it simply is not true that this question can be decided on the basis of grammar (tense of verb). Those who favor the former alternative base their conclusion on the fact that Zechariah had hardly ceased praying for the peace of Israel when the angel appeared. But with at least equal right those who favor the latter alternative point to the very close connection between Your petition has been heard and Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son. As it were in one breath these two statements were made by the angel. If a choice must be made between these two alternatives, this interpreter would choose the latter. But is it absolutely necessary to make this choice? Is there not a very close relation between the two? Is it not true that the son to whom Elizabeth would give birth was destined to be the forerunner of the Messiah, through whom salvation would come for Israel; in fact, for all God's children, whether Jew or Gentile? c. Your wife Elizabeth. The very one whose barren condition was common knowledge would be delivered from her affliction. Through Elizabeth, and not through some other woman, Zechariah would become the father of a child. d. a son. The very sex of the child is already predicted! e. &and you shall give him the name John. See on verses 59, 63. The angel continues: 14. You will have joy and exultation, and many will rejoice over his birth. The heart of Zechariah will be filled with exuberant gladness. Many others will also rejoice because of the birth of this child. Not only will his very birth bring about instant jubilation (1:58) but, as the immediate context (see verses 16, 17) indicates, in the future too when this child has become a man, many people are going to thank the Lord for the fact that John was born. Through his ministry multitudes will be turned from darkness to light; others will at least exclaim, John is or was a prophet (Luke 7:29; cf. Matt. 21:26, 32). Continued: 15. for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. It was about him that Jesus was going to say, Among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11). This would be true not only because John was going to be himself a prophet but also because he was going to be one whose arrival on the scene of history had been predicted. He was destined to become the herald of the Messiah. As such he was going to direct the attention of the people to the long expected One, concerning whom he was going to say, Look, the Lamb of God who is taking away the sin of the world (John 1:29). He was going to emphasize the necessity of true conversion as the only way for the sinner to enter Messiah's kingdom (Luke 1:76, 77; 3:3). And since it is the duty of the herald to recede to the background when the King arrives, so John was going to resist the temptation of calling attention to himself. Instead, in humility of spirit he was going to say, He must increase, but I must decrease (John 3:30). Now in view of the fact that Jesus himself, in describing the nature of true greatness, always links it with humility (Luke 7:6, 9; cf. Matt. 8:8, 10; Luke 9:46 48; cf. Matt. 18:1–5; Mark 9:33 37; and see also Matt. 15:27, 28), is it not altogether probable that this characteristic which was to mark John is also implied here in Luke 1:15? Without humility would it even be possible for anyone to be great, especially in the sight of the Lord? Continuing on this theme of greatness, the angel adds, Wine or strong drink he must never touch, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb. Not with wine but with the Holy Spirit will John be filled. This same implied contrast (filled with wine versus filled with the Holy Spirit) is found also in other passages (Acts 2:15 17; Eph. 5:18). John is not going to derive his strength or inspiration from earthly means but from the Holy Spirit. Filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb. Does this expression imply that something mysterious took place in the heart of John while he was still in his mother's womb? Or is it simply an expression indicating extent of time: from the very beginning to the end of his life John will be filled with the Holy Spirit? Since the chapter contains two more references to John as a babe in his mother's womb (see verses 41 and 44), the discussion of this subject will be postponed until verse 44 is reached. Was John a Nazirite? For the law of the Nazirite read (Numbers 6. Note especially these two regulations: (a) During the period governed by their vow Nazirites were to abstain from wine and other fermented beverages, and (b) no razor was to be used on their head. In connection with Samson both of these restrictions are mentionedJudg. 13:7; 16:17). As to Samuel, we know that his mother Hannah vowed that as a symbol of lifelong consecration to the Lord no razor would ever touch his head (I Sam. 1:11). Abstention from intoxicating drinks is not mentioned in his case. With reference to John the opposite holds: He was to avoid wine and (other) fermented drinks, but nothing is said about a razor. Consequently, some argue that John was not a Nazirite,^[59] others that he was.^[60] In order to reach a conclusion with respect to John it may help us to take note of the fact that according to our present passage (verse 15) during his entire life-span the promised offspring must never drink wine or (other) fermented beverages. In John's case, therefore, this restriction was far more rigid than in the case of priests, who were forbidden the use of these drinks only during the period of their service (Lev. 10:9), and was at least more severe than in the case of the Nazirites, for in their case the prohibition was in force only during the days covered by their vow (Num. 6:4, 5). Therefore, if John was a Nazirite, he must be considered a Nazirite for life. Does not careful reading of Luke 1:15leave the impression that the idea of total, lifelong consecration to special service for the Lord is here emphasized? After what has already been said in connection with verse 14 not much need be added with respect to verse 16. Many of the sons of Israel will he turn to the Lord their God. Instead of sons one can also read children or people. That this prophecy was fulfilled has been shown. One important lesson must not be passed by, however. It concerns the very heart of God. Note that Israel is here pictured in its unturned, that is, unconverted, state. Nevertheless, the angel informs Zechariah that even now God considers himself their God. He is still deeply concerned about them. In this connection read also Psalms 78:1( My people give ear, etc.); Isa. 1:3; Ezek. 16:21. Having made a covenant with his people, the Lord has a special claim on them, and a unique interest in them! That holds even today, for Gen. 17:7finds its echo in Acts 2:38, 39. And in this connection do not forget Luke 13:6 10. The angel concludes his message by giving Zechariah this further description of the relation of the promised child to the Messiah, the effect of his ministry upon family life, and the final purpose of all this: 17. And he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the frame of mind of the righteous, in order to make ready for the Lord a people well-prepared. What we have here is Christ's own commentary on the words of Mal. 4:5, 6. John's public appearance to Israel would precede that of Jesus. But what the text (both in Malachi and here in Luke) offers is more than a chronological item, though that too is clearly implied. Not only will John precede Jesus in time; he will actually be his herald or forerunner. As such he will announce and introduce his Master to the people. Even more: by means of his ministry calling people to conversion he will be an instrument in God's hand in preparing the people for the reception of their Messiah. See Luke 3:4f. Note in the spirit and power of Elijah. Does this mean that John was Elijah? The answer is both No and Yes. Not literally, as is clear from the fact that when John was asked, Are you Elijah? he truthfully answered, I am not (John 1:21). But figuratively, so that Jesus even calls him Elijah (Matt. 11:13, 14; cf. 17:12; Mark 9:12, 13). The solution is given here in Luke 1:17: The spirit and power of Elijah was going to be clearly displayed in John the Baptist. Cf. Elijah's boldness, I have not troubled Israel but you [Ahab] have (I Kings 18:18), with the Baptist's (Matt. 14:4), It isn't right for you [Herod Antipas] to have her [your brother Philip's wife Herodias]. And see also Matt. 3:7; Luke 3:7, 19. Of the words to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the frame of mind of the righteous there are two contrasting interpretations: a. The fathers are the patriarchs. The conversion of many people through John's ministry would cause the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. from their heavenly abodes to look down with favor upon their formerly disobedient but now transformed children. Support for this theory, according to which the souls of the departed are spectators who are constantly looking down upon the arena in which their struggling descendants are still living, is found by its proponents in Heb. 12:1.^[61] Comment. We can understand that this type of interpretation would appeal to those who indulge in fanciful speculations concerning the life hereafter. One author points out its weakness as follows: Some people think this refers to the contrast between a devout ancestry and an apostate posterity. As we see it, this view is incorrect, since on the basis of that interpretation it is impossible to understand how the heart of the fathers, who died long ago, can be turned back to the children. He correctly concludes: We must think of the relation between parents and their children. ^[62] And as to the similarly speculative interpretation of Heb. 12:1, for the correct view read F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Commentary), Grand Rapids, 1964, pp. 345, 346. b. True conversion results, among other things, in revival of harmonious and loving relationships in the home. Comment. This interpretation fits the historical background in Malachi. As a result of mixed marriages (Mal. 2:11) and easy divorce (2:14) family relationships had become disrupted. Conditions of this character continued into the new dispensation, as is clear from Christ's teaching on divorce and remarriage (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). Nevertheless, family life is of the utmost importance, and this not only for the well-being, both spiritual and physical, of parents and children, but also for the true prosperity of the nation, the church, and society in general. From a spiritual point of view the generation gap is often ruinous. To reverse this situation was one of the purposes of Malachi's preaching during the old dispensation, and of John's preaching at the beginning of the new dispensation. Given believing parents and similarly right-minded children, domestic harmony results; consequently also effective witness-bearing. The end result of this ministry of the way-preparer will therefore be the bringing about of a people well-prepared, that is, fit for the Master's use (II Tim. 2:21). As some see it, the explanation given above is in conflict with the statement of Jesus recorded in such passages as (Matt. 10:34 37Luke 12:51 53; 14:26): Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, etc. However, any suggestion of real conflict is baseless. It is, in fact, very easy to conceive of a twofold result of the preaching of the gospel, whether by the Baptist or by Jesus: (a) In many families there would be a sharp division, some siding with the truth, others opposing it. (b) In other families, however, those who had been opposed were going to be converted, so that parents and children would become united in spirit, all serving the Lord. Zechariah's reaction to the cheering words of the angel was disappointing: 18. Then Zechariah asked the angel, How can I be sure of this? For I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years. For this reaction there was no excuse. It was definitely the response of unbelief. In order to lessen the seriousness of the priest's improper question it has been argued that Abraham, Gideon, and Hezekiah reacted similarly to astounding promises. Did not Abraham ask, How am I to know (Gen. 15:8)? Did not Gideon ask for a sign; in fact, for two signs (Judg. 6:36–40)? And did not even King Hezekiah ask for a sign to show that he would indeed be healed (II Kings 20:8–11)? There are differences, however: a. As is clear from Gen. 15:6, Abraham's response was definitely that of faith, not of unbelief. In the light of that passage Gen. 15:8can perhaps best be interpreted as a request for a sign to strengthen his faith. b. The same holds, perhaps, in the case of Gideon. Note also his words of awe and reverence, Let not thy anger burn against me, etc. c. Similarly the very phraseology employed by Hezekiah shows that he was not offering an objection but wanted very definitely to believe God's promise. Over against all this stands Zechariah's response which almost amounted to, I don't believe you, for people as old as we are do not become parents. Besides, what is often passed by in silence is the fact that Zechariah acted as he did in spite of the fact that he had before him all these examples: God's faithfulness to his promise in the case of Abraham, Gideon, Hezekiah, and very many others. For other illustrations of sinful skepticism read Gen. 3:6; II Kings 2:16–18; Luke 24:37, 38; John 20:24, 25; Acts 12:12 15; II Peter 3:4. 19. I am Gabriel, the angel answered. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news. It is true that the angel's I am Gabriel follows Zechariah's I am an old man. Nevertheless, the intended contrast is not thus indicated. The confrontation is rather that between the priest's cold skepticism and the angel's towering certainty, between the former's presumptuous doubt and the latter's profound conviction. Gabriel is conscious of having delivered God's good news, bound to be fulfilled when the appropriate season arrives (verse 20). And because Zechariah has called in question a wonderful gospel promise that sprang from the heart and mind of God himself he deserved to be punished. I am Gabriel. The name Gabriel has been interpreted variously as meaning: man of God, mighty one of God, Mighty (is) God. Elsewhere Gabriel is also mentioned in (Dan. 8:16, where he explains the vision of the ram and the he-goat; in Dan. 9:21f., where he interprets the prophecy of the seventy weeks; and in Luke 1:26 38, where he promises that in a very mysterious manner Mary will become the mother of the long-awaited Messiah. The only other angel mentioned by name in Scripture is MichaelDan. 10:13, 21; Jude 9; Rev. 12:7). Note also the significant words I stand in the presence of God. Partly because of this added qualification several more or less speculative theories have sprung up with respect to Gabriel: a. that he is not a created being but the Holy Spirit; b. that in distinction from the task assigned to Michael and the other angels, it is Gabriel's special function not only to bring but also to interpret God's messages to those human beings for whom they are intended; and c. that Gabriel is one of the seven angels (Rev. 8:2) not to be confused with the seven Spirits (Rev. 1:4) who stand in the presence of God.^[63] There is nothing in the text or context that even remotely suggests theory (a). As to (b), it is doubtful whether this conclusion is supported by sufficient evidence. As to (c), this theory may well be correct. At least the correspondence between Luke 1:19and Rev. 8:2is striking. Both Gabriel and the seven angels are described as standing before God. Absolute certainty is, however, unattainable. Because of Matt. 18:10one might ask, But do not all the angels stand in God's presence, beholding the face of the Father? ^[64] Has the priest asked for a sign? He will receive a sign, but not the one he had asked for. So Gabriel continues: 20. And now, mark well, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their proper time, you will remain silent and not able to speak until the day when these things take place. For his manifestation of unbelief Zechariah is going to be punished. Because he has made wrong use of his tongue, that tongue will be silent. But note how justice is tempered with mercy: You will not be able to speak &until the day when these things take place. That they will occur exactly when their proper time has arrived is certain. When they the birth and God's Justice Tempered with Mercy Sin, Punishment, or Threat of Punishment revealed in the case of Divine Mercy, Patience Gen. 3:16, 19Adam and Eve Gen. 3:15 Gen. 4:7, 11, 12Cain Gen. 4:15 Gen. 6:7The Antediluvians Gen. 6:3b Gen. 18:20, 21Sodom Gen. 18:26–32 Exod. 32:10The People of Israel Exod. 32:32; 33:14 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER II Outline of Chapter 2 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 2:1–7 The Birth of Jesus 2:8–21 Shepherds and Angels The Circumcision and Naming of Jesus 2:22–38 The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple: Simeon's Nunc Dimittis Anna's Thanksgiving and Testimony 2:39, 40 The Return to Nazareth 2:41–52 The Boy in the Midst of the Teachers 2:1–7 The Birth of Jesus Cf. Matt. 1:18 25^[97] 2 1 In those days a decree was issued by Caesar Augustus that a census should be taken of the entire [Roman] world. 2 This, the first census, took place while Quirinius was governor of^[93] Syria.^[94] 3 And all went on their way to be registered, each going to his own town. 4 So from Galilee, out of the town of Nazareth, Joseph too went up, into Judea, to the town of David, which is called Bethlehem. It was because he was of the house and family of David that he went there, 5 to be registered^[95] with Mary, his betrothed, who was pregnant. 6 And while they were there the days were fulfilled^[96] for her to give birth. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son. She wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid him down in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. 1. In those days a decree was issued by Caesar Augustus that a census should be taken of the entire [Roman] world. Luke 1:5made mention of Herod, the king; 2:1 refers to Augustus, the emperor. Malevolent Herod and Benevolent Augustus, to a certain extent how different they were! To be sure, they had in common that they were heathen, and men of superior ability, but that is about where the similarity ended. At the time of the census, mentioned here in Luke 2:1, 2, Herod the Great (or Herod I) was still alive. He must have died shortly afterward. The census was ordered by the emperor. For at least twenty-three years (27 4 b.c.) the reigns of emperor and king overlapped, as shown in the diagram on the following page. Now as to that census. But first something more must be said about the man who ordered it, Emperor Augustus. Getting acquainted with this renowned ruler may help us to understand Luke 2:1f. His original name was Gaius Octavius. For the earlier period of his life (i.e., for 63 27 b.c.) he is popularly known in the English-speaking world as Octavian. As shown on the diagram, he was Roman emperor from 27 b.c. (or a little earlier) until his death in a.d. 14. See what was said about him in N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 158–160, 163, 164. He was a grandnephew of Julius Caesar; that is, Octavian's mother Atia was a daughter of Julia, the sister of Julius Caesar: His granduncle, Julius Caesar, thought highly of him and showered gifts and honors upon him. When the great Roman statesman and general was murdered (44 b.c.), Octavian learned that in his will he, the grandnephew, had been named Caesar's son and heir. He then changed his name to Gaius Julius Caesar. A sister of Octavian was married to Antony, member of The Second Triumvirate (Lepidus, Antony, and Octavian). When Antony left his own wife behind and became infatuated with Egypt's bewitching Queen Cleopatra, and when, in addition, he began to show far greater concern for himself and Cleopatra than for the welfare of Rome, Octavian and the Romans understandably turned against him. In the naval battle of Actium (31 b.c.) Antony was defeated. Both he and Cleopatra shortly afterward committed suicide. Octavian conquered. In the year 27 b.c. the Roman senate conferred on the former Octavian now Gaius Julius Caesar the title Augustus (= majestic, sublime, highly revered). From then on he was known as Caesar Augustus. His character is hard to analyze. During his climb to power he was ruthless. Once in power, however, he mellowed. He became, in fact, a wise administrator and famous organizer, especially of his military forces and of his bodyguard. Cf. Phil. 1:13. By choosing his generals wisely he won many battles. He showed superb tact in dealing with his subjects, and allowed even the conquered provinces to retain a considerable measure of home rule. He respected their customs, religious convictions, and even their laws to the extent to which they did not interfere with Rome's. He caused an ordinance to be passed making adultery a crime. He stimulated the arts and encouraged cleaner literature. He was a great builder. He gave to the world a lengthy period of heretofore unknown peace. He has been called a benevolent ruler, and even the father of his country. After fully 41 years of a predominantly successful rule he calmly passed away in the arms of his wife. Many of the reforms he instituted survived his death. By means of the census he unwittingly contributed to the fulfilment of the prophecy of Mic. 5:2. In saying some good things about Augustus we are contrasting him with Herod I, who, in comparison with Augustus, was worse than a beast. By no means are we saying, Augustus was just about a Christian. Far from it! That he was, after all, a heathen is clear not only from the ruthless manner in which he rose to power but also from various other facts: though by an act of law he made adultery a crime, as stated above, in his own personal life he certainly undermined the sanctity of marriage. When his first wife, Scribonia, failed to produce a son she did give birth to a daughter, Julia he divorced her and married Livia, with whom he had fallen madly in love. He also forced Livia's elder son (by her former marriage), Tiberius, who later became emperor, to divorce his wife and to marry Julia. As to emperor-worship, because Augustus realized how unpopular his adoptive father, Julius Caesar, had made himself by accepting divine honors, he discouraged worship of himself. Nevertheless, he not only accepted for himself the title Pontifex Maximus or Highest Priest, i.e., head of all religious worship, but also insisted on the deification of the murdered Julius Caesar, even building a temple in his honor. Moreover, he did not discourage the erection of temples to Rome and Augustus. All in all, therefore, we are probably justified in saying this about Caesar Augustus: he was certainly better than most Roman emperors and than King Herod I. Yet he was far removed from measuring up to the Christian standard. Augustus was a heathen. Nevertheless by God, in his unsearchable wisdom, this heathen was used for the advancement of God's kingdom. It was the Pax Romana (Roman Peace), to which Augustus contributed liberally, that made it possible for the Christian religion to push forward until, in a very short time, it had spread across the entire Mediterranean world.^[99] Since, as has been indicated, Augustus was a methodical man and a good administrator, who had taken note of the confused state of affairs in the realm entrusted to his care, he ordered a census to be taken of the entire inhabited world, that is, the populated world as far as it was ruled by Rome. The census was ordered in those days, a very indefinite expression, probably referring to the days of Herod (1:5). Something can be said in favor of the interpretation that what the emperor actually ordered was not just one census but a regular system of censuses: a registration with a view to taxation that would occur at equal time intervals. That such periodic enrolments actually occurred can no longer be denied. The very papers, indicating a registration every fourteen years, have been found; namely, those proving that a census must have been taken in the years a.d. 230, 216, 202, 188, 174, 160, 146, 132, 118, 104, 90, 62, 34. There are also indirect references to the censuses of a.d. 48 and 20.^[100] Subtracting 14 from a.d. 20 brings us back to a.d. 6, as having also been a census year. Indirect evidence for the correctness of this date is furnished by Josephus, Antiquities XVIII.26 (see also XVII.355; XVIII.1). He states that a census took place in the 37th year of Caesar's defeat of Antony at Actium. Since we know that this battle occurred Sept. 2 of the year 31 b.c., this yields a.d. 6 as the date for the census that caused a great uprising among the Jews. See Acts 5:37; Josephus, Jewish War VII.253. When we now once more subtract 14 years we arrive finally at the year 8 b.c., for the first census. But does this necessarily mean that in Herod's domain the census was completed in 8 b.c.? This introduces us to verse 2. This, the first census, took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. The sense is clearly that the system of periodic enrolments was put into operation for the first time when Quirinius was governor of Syria.^[101] At this point two difficulties arise, both relating to the date 8 b.c. The first concerns 8 b.c. and Quirinius; the second, 8 b.c. and Jesus. As to the first difficulty, is it not true that according to Josephus (Antiquities XVIII.1) Quirinius was governor of Syria not in 8 b.c. but in a.d. 6, when he arrived &to make an assessment, and when a certain Judas (Acts 5:37) instigated a rebellion? Answer: Inscriptions discovered by William Ramsay show that Quirinius was governor in Syria both before and after the birth of Jesus, though not necessarily in the same sense each time. For more details see the works of Ramsay and of Robertson mentioned earlier (on p. 39, footnote 30); especially Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?, p. 109; Robertson, Luke the Historian, p. 128. In fact, with brief interruptions Quirinius functioned as military governor or commander-in-chief in Syria from 12 b.c. to a.d. 16.^[102] As to the second difficulty, if it be true that the census to which (Luke 2:2refers, and therefore also the birth of Jesus, took place in 8 b.c., then the beginning of Christ's ministry, when he was about thirty years of ageLuke 3:23), must be dated about the year a.d. 22, and the first cleansing of the templeJohn 2:12ff. circa a.d. 23. But this brings us into conflict with John 2:20, according to which that structure, work on which was begun in 19 b.c., had been in the process of building for forty-six years. That forty-six year span brings us to the date a.d. 27 for the first cleansing of the temple, and to the date a.d. 26 for the beginning of Christ's ministry. The date late December of the year 5 b.c., for the birth of Jesus, is therefore not unreasonable. But 8 b.c. would be too early. One reaches the same result by proceeding from the valid assumption that in all probability the birth of Jesus occurred shortly before the death of Herod I (see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 181), on or before April 4, 4 b.c.^[103] How, then, must we account for the apparent discrepancy: census 8 b.c., birth probably 5 b.c., not earlier than 6 b.c.? This remains a problem, though not a serious one. We may probably assume that in Herod's realm the carrying out of the decree was postponed. A few considerations point in this direction: Ever since the events recorded in II Sam. 24the Jews were afraid of a census. All the more were they opposed to one imposed upon them by a foreign power. This was going to become very clear from what happened in a.d. 6 hence, several years after Herod's death in connection with the second census. Herod's hesitancy to execute the emperor's decree is therefore understandable. He may have felt that a precipitous going ahead with the ordered census would mean trouble for him. So supposedly he obtained permission from the emperor to postpone the carrying out of the decree. It has been indicated that Augustus considered the desires of the subjugated nations. Let Herod therefore gradually prepare his people for the census. In his kingdom let the execution of the decree be postponed a while. Postponement, however, does not mean annulment. Being a man of system, order, and determination, Augustus still insists on the census, and this not only elsewhere for example, in Egypt, which has yielded many evidences of a periodic census but also in the kingdom of the Jews. Meanwhile, as has been indicated in N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 158–166; 179 193, Herod's physical, mental, and especially moral condition is beginning to deteriorate, so that he becomes the murderer of those whom he should have loved most dearly. Once before, the emperor had written him, Whereas formerly I treated you as a friend, I will now treat you as a subject. And now, having been informed about Herod's insensate and fiendish atrocities he even caused some of his own sons to be killed! Augustus remarks, It is better to be Herod's swine (hun) than his son (huion). ^[104] So the emperor now refuses to wait any longer. And thus it comes about that the census, originally ordered for 8 b.c., is finally carried out or completed in or about the year 5 b.c. It should be stressed that this attempt to solve the problem 8 b.c. and Jesus is conjectural. A more simple solution might be that the emperor from the beginning left the exact timing of the decree's execution to those immediately in charge. Or one might argue that especially in Herod's domain the taking of a census was time-consuming. Whatever be the real solution, one fact stands out, as mentioned earlier (p. 40), namely, that wherever it has been possible to check Luke's statements, his impeccability as a historian has come to light. Nothing he says has been disproved. It is nice to know this. More important, however, is the fact that the believer approaches Scripture in the firm conviction that it is true. He believes this without even waiting for so-called confirmation from outside sources. 3. And all went on their way to be registered, each going to his own town. In the land of the Jews, accordingly, the enrolment is by households. This was also true in Egypt, as an edict of G. Vibius Maximus, governor of Egypt in a.d. 104, indicates.^[105] 4, 5. So from Galilee, out of the town of Nazareth, Joseph too went up, into Judea, to the town of David, which is called Bethlehem. It was because he was of the house and family of David that he went there, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was pregnant. In N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 106, it was pointed out how important it was for the Jews to know their line of descent, their family tree. Joseph was of the house and family of David, as is clear also from Matt. 1:6, 16. Note house and family. House is here the more comprehensive word; otherwise and family would not have to be added. In (I Sam. 20:6Bethlehem is called David's city. It was here that he was born. It was in the fields around this town that he tended the sheepI Sam. 17:15). In fact, for a long time David and his relatives held a yearly sacrificial feast, a kind of sacred family reunion, in this place, as I Sam. 20:6implies. See also II Sam. 23:15, 16. It may be assumed, therefore, that it was here that the family records were kept. That Mary, who, as has been made clear, was also of the house of David (Luke 1:32, 69), was required by law to be present in person for the purpose of the registration has been denied. But from an enrolment form filled out and handed in by someone living in Egypt the conclusion can be drawn that in that country both husband and wife had to present themselves.^[106] And do not the words Joseph went up &to be registered with Mary suggest that what was true for Egypt applied also to Herod's kingdom? But whether her presence was required or not required, for Mary to remain in Nazareth was out of the question. She would in all likelihood have been exposed to slander. Joseph was too kind a person to allow this to happen. Besides, he wanted to be with her when her child was born. Also, the possibility that these two devout people, both of whom had received angelic messages concerning the One to be born (Matt. 1:20–23; Luke 1:26 37), were acquainted with the prophecy of (Mic. 5:2John 7:42) should not be ruled out. The evangelist calls Mary his [= Joseph's] betrothed. By this time Mary was Joseph's wife, as is clear from Matt. 1:20, 24. But although the two were husband and wife, in one respect the betrothal relationship was continuing, as is clear from Matt. 1:24b, 25, &he had no sexual relations with her until she had given birth to a son. That situation may well have been the reason for Luke's description of Mary as Joseph's betrothed. For Joseph the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem may not have been too strenuous. But for Mary, in the final days of her pregnancy, to ride this considerable distance about 90 miles, by the roundabout way of Trans-Jordan must have been exhausting. And if this trip was made during the rainy season, a possibility we have no right to discount, the stress and strain would have been even greater. Finally the two reached the valley from which they could see the rather steep ridge on which Bethlehem is located. Did they have time to think of David tending the sheep and/or playing the harp? Of Ruth gleaning in the fields of Boaz? But once they reached the town all such thoughts would have to make way for the pressing necessity of finding shelter. 6, 7. And while they were there the days were fulfilled for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son. She wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid him down in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. In connection with this simple yet all-important passage note the following: a. The expression While they were there the days were fulfilled [or: completed] may mean that the two spent a few days in Bethlehem before the child was born. On the other hand, the words may simply place special stress on the fact that Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem: the great event took place while they were there. b. The days were fulfilled. The birth occurred in the fulness of time (Gal. 4:4). In this particular case, however, the meaning may simply be that the birth took place when the normal period between conception and delivery had expired. Even though the conception itself was a miracle, the process of development within the womb was allowed to run its usual course. c. her firstborn son. Note: not her only son, but her firstborn son. The natural explanation is certainly this, that after Mary had given birth to Jesus she continued to bear children. The very names of Jesus brothers are mentioned in the New Testament (Matt. 13:55). The fact that he had brothers is also clear from (Matt. 12:46, 47Mark 3:31, 32; Luke 8:19, 20); John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14. And Matt. 13:56makes reference to his sisters. d. She wrapped him in strips of cloth. Note: she wrapped him. Does this mean that Mary, having just given birth to her firstborn, now immediately with her own hands swaddled her babe? Not necessarily! No more than Herod's statement, John I beheaded (Luke 9:9), means that he in person had wielded the executioner's ax; and no more than Pilate's declaration, I will therefore punish &him (Luke 23:16), means that he intended to do this himself. If we assume that Mary gave the directions, and Joseph (or anyone else) carried them out, we have probably done full justice to the passage. As to the manner in which a little one was swaddled see B. S. Easton's article Swaddle, Swaddling-Band, I.S.B.E., Vol. V, p. 2874, though whether exactly this procedure was followed also in the present case may well be questioned. Let it suffice to say that with strips of cloth the baby was wrapped round and round tightly and securely. More about this in a moment. e. &and laid him down in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. About this inn there are various, sometimes sharply contrasting,^[107] interpretations. Note the following theories: (1) The inn or caravansary was built around the four sides of an inner court. It generally had two stories. On the second story, reached by a primitive staircase, the rooms for the travelers were located. Those who stopped at the inn carried along their own blanket and pillow. If a person had no blanket, he could wrap himself up in his robe. On the ground floor the animals were stabled. Here also the cargoes that were transported along the caravan route could be temporarily stored. And here the servants, in charge of the pack animals (donkeys, camels), found rest for the night. It was in such a stable that Joseph and Mary found lodging when there was no longer any room in the inn proper, the second story.^[108] (2) Akin to this is the explanation of A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, p. 23, who, however, pictures the stables as being on one side of the square, outside the wall. He is careful to point out that the manger in which the child was laid was either connected with the inn or was in a cave. (3) The manger was in a cave, but that cave was definitely part of or at least associated with the inn. (4) The inn was filled to overflowing: the upstairs was filled with weary guests. Even on the roof there was no room left. And downstairs the servants were crowding the courtyard, bedding down the animals for the night. At the suggestion of a villager Joseph and Mary then found shelter in a cave-stable.^[109] (5) The rendering inn is wrong. The right translation is stopping place (thus Lenski), or upper room (thus Christie, I.S.B.E., Vol. III, p. 1470, and several others). Their reasoning is that the original (Greek) word here rendered inn means upper room in (Mark 14:14Luke 22:11); so, if it has that meaning there, why not here? As Lenski sees it, Joseph and Mary tried to find lodging with some relatives, but since all the extra space in their house proper had already been given away, these relatives put their guests up in an adjoining shed, where asses were kept. Comment on theories (1) through (5). Any of the first four theories may be correct. They have in common their support of the rendering inn in 2:7. Why was there no room in the inn? Was it because Bethlehem was overcrowded with people that wanted to be registered? That is the reason often given. It may be right, but is probably wrong or at least incomplete. Deserving of consideration is the fact that the town just now was filled with men charged with the responsibility of taking the census: officials and soldiers of the Roman government. It is well known that since Augustus and those who carried out his decree were aware of the fact that the Jews, because of religious scruples, were terribly afraid of coming into contact with non-Jews, the census officials were to be quartered, as far as ever possible, not in private homes but in public places, in inns for example. It is not surprising, therefore, that it was exactly the inn in which there was no room for Joseph and Mary. This also shows that the rendering inn is probably correct, and that theory (5) is probably defective. For more on this see the note on these verses on page 148. The owner of the inn should not be charged with cruelty. Room was simply lacking, except in the inn-stable or cave-stable. The belief that the travelers from Nazareth took up quarters in a certain cave dates all the way back to Justin Martyr (about a.d. 114 165). See his Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 78. A similar view was expressed by Origen, Against Celsus I.51. Helena, the mother of Constantine, built a church on the presumed site of the nativity. The present church was built by Justinian. In its interior the steps on either side of the altar lead to a cave below, where the supposed birthplace of Jesus is indicated by a star. Did the stable in which the infant was born actually stand there? This can neither be proved nor disproved. It is not very important. One thing is certain: the glitter, splendor, and aroma of the present site do not truly represent the circumstances that obtained when this child was born. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that our Lord was born in a stable and was laid down in a manger, that is, a feeding trough for animals, possibly a niche carved out in the cave wall. Greetings, you highly favored one, the Lord is with you. There was no room for them in the inn. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. She laid him down in a manger. Why these contrasts? The answer is given in II Cor. 8:9: For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, that you through his poverty might become rich. See also John 3:16; Rom. 8:32. It is not enough to be able to give a satisfactory interpretation of the nativity account, the Christmas story. We should be so deeply impressed with the love of God here revealed that we feel what the poet felt when he wrote: For me, dear Jesus, was thine incarnation, Thy mortal sorrow and thy life's oblation; Thy death of anguish and thy bitter passion, For my salvation. Johann Heermann Tr. Robert Bridges The baby was born in a stable, not in a palace. It was laid in a feeding trough for animals, not in a pretty bassinet. All this spells poverty, deprivation. And yet, and yet! There is another side to the story. Love shines through. This infant at least was securely wrapped in pieces of cloth. Not so the child mentioned in Ezek. 16:4. From the very start that little one was thoroughly rejected, left to die in the field if God had not intervened. Also, many children, even today, have no bed to sleep in. Here, on the contrary, it takes but little imagination to see Joseph putting some straw into that manger, so that the baby would be able to rest in comfort. To be sure, as a grownup Jesus would be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. Indescribable agonies would be his portion. Nevertheless, again and again during his ministry a voice would ring out from heaven, Thou art my Son, my Beloved; with thee I am well pleased. So here also this same love is revealed. And in a moment the angels are going to celebrate the infant's birth in song.^[110] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 2:1 7 Verses 1, 2 A decree was issued by Caesar Augustus. When the emperor sent out this order, little did he realize that God was using this decree for the realization of his own purpose with respect to the church. What a comforting passage is Rom. 8:28! Cf. Eph. 1:11. Verses 4, 5 So &Joseph too went up &to be registered with Mary. The One who was going to say, What is due to Caesar render to Caesar, and what is due to God render to God had not yet issued from Mary's womb, yet was already being obeyed: Joseph and Mary never thought of refusing to obey the emperor in a matter that was not contrary to the will of God. Verse 7 There was no room for them in the inn. This was not because the innkeeper was cruel or inhospitable, but because the inn was already overcrowded. So also there are hearts that never welcome Jesus, and this not because they definitely hate him but simply because these hearts are already so overcrowded with thoughts of riches, honor, prestige, pleasures, business affairs, etc., that they have no room for Jesus, no time to reflect on his will, no desire to go out of their way to do his pleasure. In this connection see the beautiful hymn by Emily E. S. Elliott, Thou Didst Leave Thy Throne, ending with the stirring refrain, O come to my heart, Lord Jesus! There is room in my heart for thee. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 2:1–7 Verse 1 [Greek], decree, commandment, ordinance. Cf. dogma (authoritatively affirmed doctrine). [Greek], present passive infinitive of [Greek]: so also in verse 3: continued action indicated in both cases; here in verse 1 there may even be a reference to a regular system of censuses. Contrast this present infinitive with the aor. middle infinitive of the same verb in verse 5 (to get himself enrolled; hence, to be enrolled, a simple statement of fact there; no emphasis on the process). Verse 2 [Greek], basically a writing off, a transcript; here: enrolment or registration (name, address, occupation, marital status, income, etc.) mainly for the purpose of taxation; cf. Acts 5:37. [Greek], gen. s. masc. pres. participle of [Greek], a word with very wide meaning, to be in command, to govern. Cf. hegemony. Verse 4 The fact that [Greek] modifies [Greek] should be clearly brought out in the translation. Even listeners in church must not get to hear that Bethlehem was the town of David because Joseph belonged to the house of David! Verse 5 [Greek]. The point is not that Joseph went up with Mary, but that his purpose was to be registered with Mary. [Greek], (with) the one betrothed to him; hence, his betrothed, dat. s. fem. perf. passive participle of [Greek], to betroth. [Greek], dat. s. fem. of [Greek], pregnant. Verses 6, 7 [Greek], here and in verses 21, 22, third per. pl. aor. indicat. passive of [Greek], alternate form of [Greek]; cf. 1:15, 23, etc., to fill; passive: to be filled, to be fulfilled or completed. [Greek] is the (articular) aor. infinitive; [Greek], the third per. s. 2nd aor. active indicat.; and [Greek] in verse 11, the third per. s. aor. passive indicat. of [Greek], to bear, bring forth. [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. active of [Greek], and in verse 12 [Greek] is the acc. s. neuter perfect passive participle of this verb, meaning to swathe, swaddle, wrap tightly and securely. Cf. spiral. [Greek] in 2:7, 12, 16 means manger, feeding trough; perhaps even feeding place under the open sky; in 13:15 stall. [Greek] (cf. catalyst) is related to the verb [Greek], to loosen, unharness (the pack animals); hence, to rest, take lodging for the night. In (Mark 14:14Luke 22:11) the [Greek] is a guest-room. But this does not mean that in Luke 2:7this word must also mean guest-room. The situations are entirely different. In Mark 14:14and its parallel we are dealing with a house, the very word being mentioned in the text. In Luke 2:7, however, there is no mention of a house at all. In the first instance Jesus and his disciples wish to make use of a room in a house to celebrate the Passover, etc.; in Luke 2:7Joseph and Mary are looking for a place to sleep, etc. Besides, as A. Edersheim already pointed out, the word [Greek] has several meanings (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, two volumes, New York, 1897, Vol. I, p. 185, footnote 1). So, for example, in the Septuagint [Greek] is the Greek translation of no less than five different Hebrew words of widely different meanings. In Exod. 4:24inn is the right translation: the Lord meets Moses in a lodging-place, an inn; so also the Dutch translations herberg (W. H. Gispen, Exodus in Korte Verklaring Kampen, 1932, p. 59), nachtverblijf (Nieuwe Vertaling). Any place that is adapted for rest is a [Greek]. The possibility it is no more than that that there is a reference to an inn or lodging-place near Bethlehem even in the Old Testament (Jer. 41:17) cannot be excluded. The Hebrew word geruth, when used as a common noun, does mean inn, lodging-place. Cf. gr, sojourner. 2:8–21 Shepherds and Angels The Circumcision and Naming of Jesus 8 Now there were shepherds in that region, living in the open fields and by turn keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 Suddenly an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory^[111] of the Lord shone around them, and they were terribly frightened. 10 But the angel said to them, Do not be frightened,^[112] for, behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people; 11 because to you is born this day in the town of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be the sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a manger. 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying: 14 Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men of (his) good pleasure. ^[113] 15 After the angels had left them and had gone into heaven, the shepherds were saying to each other, Without delay^[114] let's go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has taken place, which the Lord has made known to us. 16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and lying in the manger the baby. 17 Having seen this, they made known what had been told them about this child. 18 And all who heard what the shepherds told them were amazed.^[115] 19 But Mary continued to treasure up all these things, mulling them over in her mind. 20 Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, (which were) just as had been told them. 21 Now when eight days were completed for circumcising him, he was called Jesus, the name given him by the angel before his conception in the womb. 8. Now there were shepherds in that region, living in the open fields and by turn keeping watch over their flock by night. During his public ministry Jesus once quoted the following words from Isa. 61:1f.: The Spirit of the Lord (is) upon me, Because he has anointed me To proclaim good news to the poor; To set free the downtrodden, To proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. It is certainly in harmony with this spirit that the very first proclamation of the fact that the Messiah had actually been born was made to poor and downtrodden shepherds. They were indeed a despised class. Not only was it difficult for them, because of the very nature of their occupation, to observe all the regulations of the Mosaic law and especially all the man-made rules superimposed upon that law! but in addition they were suspected of confusing thine with mine. For these reasons they were looked down upon, and were excluded from the company of those who were allowed to give testimony in the courts.^[116] Nevertheless, Luke's narrative makes abundantly clear that these shepherds, the ones to whom the first proclamation of the Savior's birth was made, were different. They were devout men, probably acquainted with Messianic prophecy, and like Simeon, waiting for the consolation of Israel (2:25). Proof: Note how the angel addresses them (2:10–12), and note also their exemplary reaction (verses 15, 17, 20). They were encamped in the open, by turns keeping watch over their flock. Does the sing. flock mean that all these sheep were owned by one person, or does it mean that flocks of several owners had been brought together so as to form one flock? Suffice it to say that all the sheep under their care were regarded as one flock. During the day these animals were out on the grass. In the evening they could, when necessary, be led into crude shelters, pens, or sheepfolds, to protect them against inclement weather, wild beasts, and thieves. Right near them, always watching, were the shepherds. Those men who needed sleep could retire to a hut made of branches. The actual work of keeping watch over the sheep was done by turns, some resting while others watched. Does the presence of these sheep in the fields mean that Jesus cannot have been born in the month of December? Before answering this question let it be definitely affirmed that it is impossible to ascertain in which month Jesus was born. The date December of the year 5 b.c. even more precisely Dec. 25 of that year can never be more than an assumption. But is it true that this date, interpreted even as being wholly tentative, a mere possibility, must be considered unreasonable, ridiculous, impossible? Those who summarily reject it present the following arguments: a. The sheep were at pasture.^[117] b. At this season of the year many roads in that region are impassable. No government would have forced people to travel then to the places where they must be registered.^[118] c. The decision that Christ's birth occurred on Dec. 25 was reached in the fourth century, i.e., during the reign of Constantine, the first Christian emperor (period of reign: a.d. 306 337). It was then that the date of the Savior's birth was made to coincide with Saturnalia, the orgiastic pagan festival celebrating the return of the sun after days of constantly increasing darkness. During that festival gifts were exchanged. Christians did not object to the giving of gifts, especially if they were in the form of donations to the poor. And as for rejoicing because of the sun's victory over the darkness, that too was no problem. According to Malachi's prophecy, reaffirmed by Zechariah (Mal. 4:2; cf. Luke 1:78, 79), is not Christ the Sun who illumines our darkness? The third argument, then, amounts to this: since the determination of the date of Christ's birth was influenced by the Saturnalian Festival, since that date was not fixed until fully three centuries after the birth, and finally, since Christmas, as a festival, was not generally observed until the fourth or even fifth century,^[119] therefore the selection of Dec. 25 as the date does not rest on a solid historical basis. Those who believe that Christ's birth may, nevertheless, have occurred on or about Dec. 25 answer as follows: With respect to (a). Jewish sources support the belief that sheep destined for sacrifices in the temple could be found in these fields even in the winter. Also today flocks of sheep are often seen in Shepherd Field at Christmas time. See N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 182. With respect to (b). The author who on pp. 69, 70 of his book Spoorzoeker uses this weather-and-roads argument to show that the date of Christ's birth was probably not Dec. 25, on p. 68 of that same book informs us that he and his wife traveled from Beirut to Jerusalem and to Bethlehem during Christmas vacation! In a personal letter (found in translation on p. 182 of N.T.C. on Matthew) he adds that the weather (in Jerusalem and Bethlehem) was beautiful. If we assume that the winter of the year when Jesus was born was mild, the rains not torrential, this argument against the possibility of Dec. 25 as the date of Christ's birth might no longer hold. Besides, it is not at all certain that the people were ordered to do their traveling during the rainy season. According to A. Fahling^[120] they were allowed to present themselves any time during the year. Perhaps there were circumstances that prevented Joseph and Mary, traveling together from Nazareth to Bethlehem, from performing this duty in an earlier month. Luke 1:36, 39, 56may shed light on this. With respect to (c). It is true that during the reign of Constantine special enquiry was made with respect to the date of Christ's birth, and that Dec. 25 received official sanction. However, much earlier than this the attention of students was focused on this very date; for example, by Hippolytus.^[121] He was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John.^[122] For an ingenious method of arriving at the date Dec. 25 see A. Fahling, op. cit., pp. 60, 732, 733. This is no endorsement of his theory. Result: that Jesus was born on Dec. 25 can be neither proved or disproved. I fully agree, however, with Lenski's statement, While Dec. 25 is only traditional &it is at least traditional. ^[123] 9. Suddenly an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terribly frightened. It all happened with dramatic swiftness. One moment, except for the sounds always heard during the night, especially when shepherds are by turns watching their sheep, all was quiet. Then all of a sudden it happened: an angel of the Lord, holy, strong, brilliant, stood by them. They had not seen him come. At the same time the glory of the Lord heavenly brightness, rightly regarded as the manifestation of God's presence and power flashed all around them. It is not surprising that the shepherds feared with great fear, were terribly frightened. They were devout men; nevertheless, they were sinners, and what they now experienced had come upon them unexpectedly. 10 12. But the angel said to them, Do not be frightened, for, behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people; because to you is born this day in the town of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a manger. Note the following: a. The exhortation Do not be frightened [or afraid], or Stop being frightened, here naturally in the plural, occurs also in 1:13 and in 1:30 (in both of these cases in the singular). For more on this and its implications see on 1:13. b. I bring you good news. The good news is that of the evangel, the gospel. See also 1:19; 3:18; 4:18, 43; 7:22; 8:1; 9:6; 16:16; 20:1. Though the verb to bring good news was used first in the general sense of bringing good news of any kind, it was later going to be used especially to indicate the bringing of the good news of salvation through Christ (cf. to evangelize). c. of great joy. What greater joy could there be than the realization and wholehearted acceptance of the fact that God himself, through the sacrifice of his own and only Son, had brought about the solution of the world's greatest problem, that of sin? And was not the Son's incarnation the first step in this solution? d. for all the people, that is, all regardless of nationality, age, wealth, fame, social position, sex, education, etc. Even the shepherds are included; all God's people are included. The term all the people here in verse 10 is as wide as is the expression men of his good pleasure in verse 14. The well-meant promise of salvation by grace through faith must be proclaimed throughout the world, but those who reject it cannot experience the great joy here mentioned. That marvelous blessing is only for those who believe. Cf. John 3:16. In view of the fact that the shepherds were believers, the message continued as follows: e. because to you is born this day in the town of David &In the original the word born stands very close to the beginning of the sentence. Literally it reads &because born to you this day, etc. As if to say, long ago promised, promised, promised &now finally born: the promise has been fulfilled. For the town of David see on verse 4. f. a Savior who is Christ the Lord. In order to place all the emphasis on the saving work of Jesus, the article is omitted in Greek; as if to say: above everything he is SAVIOR. Be my Example and my Guide, My Friend, yea everything beside, But first, last, best, whate er betide, Be thou to me my SAVIOR. Attention is at times called to the fact that in all the Synoptic Gospels this is the only place in which Jesus is called Savior. The fact as such is true.^[124] In John's Gospel Jesus is called Savior in 4:42. Cf. also I John 4:14. For the rest, as a designation of Jesus, this term is found especially in the Pastoral Epistles and in II Peter. Also in Acts 13:23; Eph. 5:23; Phil. 3:20. However, from this circumstance the deduction should not be drawn that the New Testament soft-pedals that precious name. Quite the contrary is the truth. Not only, as already indicated, does the angel, in addressing the shepherds, place great emphasis on it, but in other passages, too, the saving work of Jesus is stressed, and this both in the Fourth GospelJohn 3:16, 17; 4:10, 14; 5:25; 6:50, 51; 7:37, 38, etc. and even in the Synoptics. See (Matt. 1:21; 4:15, 16; 12:21; 20:28Mark 10:45); Luke 1:78, 79; 19:10; 22:19, 20. This Savior, moreover, is here introduced as the Christ, that is, the Messiah or Anointed One. He is the One anointed by the Holy Spirit to be his people's Great Prophet, Sympathetic Highpriest, and Eternal King. He is, moreover, the Lord. See on 20:41–44. g. And this will be the sign for you, etc. The angel did not tell the shepherds that they must go and see this child, no more than Gabriel had told Mary that she must visit Elizabeth (1:36). A mere hint sufficed in both cases. Note the sign, not a sign, as the text is at times wrongly translated. Note also that the one sign is this, that the swaddled child is lying in a manger. There may well have been other newly born, swaddled babes in Bethlehem, but this was the only swaddled infant that was lying in a manger. The sign was therefore definite and helpful. 13, 14. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host,^[125] praising God and saying: Glory to God in the highest And on earth peace among men of (his) good pleasure. Surprise follows upon surprise. First one angel had descended and had taken his position in the immediate vicinity of the shepherds. Once he has made his announcement, all of a sudden an entire army of angels descends. These angels are now seen standing with the first angel, therefore also near the shepherds. How considerate of God to arrange matters in such a way that the order was not reversed: first the army and then the one angel. Not until the shepherds have become somewhat used to the celestial brilliance that blazed around them, and had received from the one angel a message of cheer, did the entire host of angels descend. Cf. Ps. 103:14. Did the first Christmas resemble what nativity sets, paintings, exhibits, poetry, and popular fancy have made of it? In some respects it probably did. The humble surroundings of Joseph, Mary, and the child; the love and the tenderness mentioned earlier see p. 146; the shepherds bowing in adoration, these are some of the items in the exhibits, etc., that probably approach reality. If there were no legitimate place for art, why did God order the tabernacle and later on the temple to be made so beautiful? If poetry must be frowned upon, why did it please the Holy Spirit to fill Scripture with so many songs? However, by no means everything actually was or happened as it has been popularly made to appear; for example, we may be sure that the wise men did not meet the shepherds in the stable! This takes us back to these angels in the fields of Ephrathah (Mic. 5:2; Luke 2:8 14). Did they actually look and act as presented by famous artists? And did they really sing something that resembled the Aramaic version of the refrain in the Westminster Carol: Glo..o..o..o..o..ria in excelsis Deo?^[126] Or that resembled a Jewish chant, perhaps? Does the text even say that they sang at all? Granted that the word saying at the end of verse 13 may include singing, and also granted that the lines these angels uttered exhibit a pleasing parallelism: glory versus peace, God versus men, in the highest versus and on earth, and that the possibility must be allowed that these words were sung or chanted, is this the best explanation? More about this in a moment. How did these angels look? Art has pictured the scene. Take, as an example, Plockhorst's painting, Tidings of Great Joy. ^[127] The sheep are huddled together in some kind of pen. Right near them are a few shepherds. Leaning against one of these sturdy men is the faithful shepherd's dog. One of the shepherds is peering into the sky. His eyes are focused upon a descending angel. That heavenly visitor resembles a kindly looking and very pretty young lady. Her hairdo is neat, fairly short, and with bangs! She is dressed in a lengthy white gown. Clutching her robe is a baby angel, and in the background one sees a few additional curly-headed angelets. Looking at this pictorial representation, and then turning to Scripture and reading the words, Do not be frightened, one cannot help asking himself, Who was afraid of whom? As far as the painting is concerned, does one not rather receive the impression that the robust shepherds are shouting to the nice young lady, Come on down; don't be afraid of us; we'll not harm you? And as to the song, did the angelets sing soprano, most of the big angels tenor and alto, allowing the archangels to give body to the oft-repeated (?) refrain by supplying the bass notes? Was it a chant? Is not the following a more scriptural interpretation? These angels, having been associated with Christ in heaven before his incarnation, knew something about his glory, riches, and majesty. See (Isa. 6:1–4; John 12:41. They had also become aware of man's fall. And they had been informed that God had provided a way of salvation for man. Gabriel's announcement to Joseph You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sinsMatt. 1:21) clearly implies this. Did they also know that this work of saving man, while at the same time fully maintaining God's righteousness, meant that the Father would not spare his own Son; that the Son, though he was rich, for his people's sake would become poor, vicariously bearing the curse resting on those whom he came to save; and that the Holy Spirit would condescend to dwell in sinful hearts, applying to them the salvation merited by the Son? We can assume at least that the very birth of Christ in a condition of poverty and deprivation must have caused these angels to stand in awe of God's indescribably marvelous love. Was it not Paul who, when reflecting on this love, cried out, Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift! (II Cor. 8:9; 9:15)? And was not this very love probably included among the things which angels desire to look into (I Peter 1:12), but cannot fully comprehend? Viewed in this light we begin to see that, whether literally song or not, the words of Luke 2:14are above all else an outpouring of adoration. One might perhaps say that, having become informed about the Savior's birth, a birth under such circumstances and with such a self-sacrificing purpose, these angels never before had been so thrilled! No wonder, therefore, that from the bottom of their hearts they shout: Glory to God in the Highest! They desire that all creation shall praise God. They realize that this very Jesus, through the accomplishment of the task which the Father gave him to do, brings peace (John 14:27). That peace is: (a) reconciliation between God and man; (b) the believer's serene assurance that he has a share in this reconciliation. Cf. Rom. 5:1, 2; II Cor. 5:18–21. The more men sincerely praise God for the salvation he has brought about, the more also they possess this peace. If the word song is used in its broadest meaning, not necessarily being a description of words set to music from the very start, but rather of words which because of their parallelistic structure can be adapted to music, then we may speak of The Angels Song of Adoration. What did the angels exclaim or shout? In verse 14 did they use the word eudokia = good pleasure, good will? Or did they say eudokias? The latter means of good pleasure. The Greek texts vary. Some interpreters, having accepted the first reading as being genuine, adopt the first view, according to which the angels said: Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, Good will toward men. (A.V.) Others, having accepted the second reading, adopt the second view, according to which the angels said: Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men of (his) good pleasure. The genitive simply means of good pleasure. Whose good pleasure? Clearly God's. The angels are not glorying in man and his merits but in God and his grace. This is clear also from other references to this same concept (good pleasure). See especially Matt. 11:26; Luke 10:21; Eph. 1:4, 5, 9.^[128] Accordingly, when spelled out in full, the interpretation favored by the second view is this: And on earth peace among men whom God has graciously chosen. His sovereign delight rests on them. With them he is well pleased. Now even those who cannot read Greek but are sound in doctrine know that the second of the two views, rather than the first, is in line with biblical doctrine. True and lasting peace is the portion of those, and only of those, whom God has graciously chosen. See the following passages: Isa. 26:3, 12; 32:17; 48:22(= 57:21); Hag. 2:9; Zech. 9:10; Luke 1:78, 79; John 14:27; 16:33; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:14, 17; Col. 1:20. The entire work of salvation, from start to finish, must be ascribed to him alone: Ps. 32:1; 89:33, 34; 115:1; Ezek. 20:14; Dan. 9:19; John 6:44; 15:16; Eph. 1:4; Rev. 5:9–14; 15:3, 4. Greek students should also read the note on Luke 2:14on page 161. 15. After the angels had left them and had gone into heaven, the shepherds were saying to each other, Without delay let's go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has taken place, which the Lord has made known to us. After the angels had left them. That is always the critical time. What the shepherds should do had been clearly implied. Will they do it? The minister has delivered his sermon. Will the listeners (including himself) take it to heart? The doctor has prescribed medication. Will the patient follow his prescription? By the use of the imperfect tense Luke shows very graphically that these devout men never hesitated. What about the care of the sheep? The shepherds must have found a solution. The angel had said, You will find, etc. So, they must go and search. And they were eager to do so. At this point the original contains a couple words that require special attention. One of them is a little word of two letters. Frequently it means indeed; in the present context it can perhaps best be rendered now or at once, or without delay. There is also the verbal form which basically means Let us go through (to), Let us go over (to). ^[129] This probably implies that these men had to cover an appreciable distance in order to reach Bethlehem. The place was not right next door.^[130] Nevertheless, fully realizing that it was God himself who, through his angels, had spoken to them, they left immediately. 16, 17. So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and lying in the manger the baby. Having seen this they made known what had been told them about this child. They felt constrained to relate their marvelous experience: how first one angel had addressed them, exactly what it was he had said about the child, and the sign he had given them; how that first angel had been followed by an entire army of angels, and what this heavenly host had joyfully proclaimed. These men hid nothing. They told their story to Mary and Joseph, and to many others besides (note in verse 18: and all who heard what the shepherds told them, etc.). So thoroughly convinced were these men of the truth of their story, and so sure were they of its importance, that they were willing to risk disbelief and even ridicule. They remind us of the four lepers of Samaria. They too had made a marvelous discovery. They said: We are not doing right. This day is a day of good news; if we keep quiet and wait until morning light, punishment will overtake us. Come on, and let's go and tell the king's household (II Kings 7:9). We ve a story to tell to the nations, etc. See the hymn by H. E. Nichol. Also the versification of Psalms 78, containing the words: The wonderful story our fathers made known To children succeeding by us must be shown. And cf. Ps. 107:2; Mark 5:33. 18. And all who heard what the shepherds told them were amazed. This is not surprising. Just think of it: all those wonderful happenings an imperial decree, angelic messages, divine directions centering about &an infant lying in a manger, a child born in a stable! One can never appreciate this unless he is able to agree with the words of the poet: Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; Hail th Incarnate Deity. Charles Wesley, lines in Hark! the Herald Angels Sing Now amazement is fine, but it should lead to something better; as, for example, in the case of Mary: 19. But Mary continued to treasure up all these things, mulling them over in her mind. Cf. verse 51. Mary was treasuring, carefully storing away, all these things; such things as the following: what an angel had told Joseph, what Gabriel had told her, what her experience had been upon arriving in Bethlehem, what the shepherds had reported with respect to voices of angels, etc. She was putting them all together in her heart (thus literally), though in such a case as the present English idiom would probably substitute mind for heart. Aside from the nativity narrative Scripture tells us little about Mary's development in faith. Nevertheless, such passages as John 2:5; Acts 1:14show that she became a worshiper of the One to whom, with respect to his human nature, she had given birth. Her prayerful putting together of the things she had experienced, seen, and heard, was blessed by God and in course of time produced the result he had determined from eternity. To be sure, on Mary's part there were missteps along the way, but the end was victory. And as to the shepherds? Their story too ends climactically: 20. Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, (which were) just as had been told them. These men, upon returning, showed that they had not been offended by the low estate of Joseph and Mary. They did not shrink back from acknowledging the child in the manger as being indeed a Savior, Christ the Lord. In fact, their faith was even strengthened when they reflected on the fact that they had found everything to be exactly as they had been told. Instead of complaining, they were constantly ascribing glory and praise to God. Time marches on: 21. Now when eight days were completed for circumcising him, he was called Jesus, the name given him by the angel before his conception in the womb. God had ordained that a son should be circumcised on the eighth day after his birth (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3; cf. Luke 1:59). Therefore when the designated day had arrived the parents saw to it that Jesus received the sign and seal of circumcision. This is not surprising. Was he not an Israelite; in fact, the one and only perfect Israelite, the one in whom Israel reached its climax? The question will be asked, however, But does not the need for circumcision or excision symbolize that there was sin to be cut away? Yet, this child was sinless. See Isa. 53:9b; John 8:46; II Cor. 5:21. Is it not true then that he was exactly the one, the only one, who did not need a new heart? See Ezek. 36:26; Rom. 2:29. The answer is: he had entered the world in order to remove the sins of his people. It was their guilt that rested on him. It was that sin which had to be removed. See Isa. 53:4–6, 8, 10 12; also N.T.C. on Gal. 3:13. The task of Jesus, as the last Adam, was to keep the law which the first Adam had failed to keep. He came into the world to bear the law's curse, thus delivering his people from it. Besides, for Jesus too circumcision was, in a sense, a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11). Perfect trust in his heavenly Father, and the obedience which that trust implies, was the pathway to victory for himself as Savior and for those whom the Father had given him, considered as those to be saved. It was thus that he was to accomplish fully the work which the Father had given him to do (John 17:4). In his willingness to submit to circumcision we see the Savior's passive obedience; in his insistence that he be baptized, his active obedience. Nevertheless, Luke places the emphasis not on circumcision, which is merely implied, but on the naming of the child. The two, however, are closely connected. Submission to circumcision was an element in the Savior's required obedience, and without this obedience he could not be truly Jesus, that is, Savior. For further details on the significance of this name see N.T.C. on (Matt. 1:1, 21; Luke 1:31. It was the name given to him by the angel before his conception in the womb. So important was this name that both JosephMatt. 1:21) and Mary (Luke 1:31) had been instructed to give it to him.^[131] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 2:8 21 Verses 8 10 Great joy. Gaiety, hilarity, festivity, mirth, laughter, in one measure or another these are found in many places throughout the world. But great joy, the joy unspeakable and full of glory (I Peter 1:8) is the portion of God's children, of them alone. This joy is deeply rooted. It satisfies, lasts, and even keeps on increasing, to God's glory. Verse 11 To you is born. Not to the emperor, the king, the highpriest, but to humble, devout shepherds. See Isa. 57:15; Matt. 12:20; Luke 4:18. A Savior, who is Christ the Lord. Without him, so regarded, there is no genuine commemoration of Jesus birth, no real Christmas. Verse 14 Glory to God &peace among men of (his) good pleasure. God is always first; man comes next. That order must never be reversed. Verse 16 They hurried off and found.& The obedience of faith brings blessed results. Contrast what happens when skepticism asserts itself (Gen. 3:6, 8 21, 24; II Kings 2:15–18; Luke 1:20 22; John 20:24, 25, 29). Verse 17 Having seen this, they made known, etc. That is the lesson that has to be learned over and over again. See Matt. 5:14–16; John 15:27a; Acts 4:20. Tell it out. Verse 20 Things &(which were) just as had been told them. The beauty of God's predictions and promises is that they are bound to be completely fulfilled. Verse 21 & when it was time for them to circumcise him. Not to abolish the law did Jesus come but to fulfil it. He was called Jesus. Jesus means Savior. He still bears that same name. For those who trust him this spells hope in every circumstance of life. Reflect on Jean Perry's hymn That Beautiful Name. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 2:8–21 Verses 8, 9 [Greek], nom. pl. masc. pres. participle of [Greek], to live or spend the time in the open fields; from [Greek], field, and [Greek], place or court under the open sky (in one of its meanings); see N.T.C. on Mark 15:16, p. 642, footnote 808. Note cognate accusatives [Greek] after the pres. participle [Greek], and [Greek] after the ingressive aorist [Greek]. This is the kind of style one would expect if Luke is making use of a Semitic original. The plural [Greek] probably indicates that the watching was by turns. [Greek], ingressive, aor. active indicative of [Greek], (suddenly) to stand by, come upon. For more see the note on 10:40 on p. 603. Verse 10 [Greek], sec. per. pl. pres. middle imperat. of [Greek]. Either Do not be afraid or Stop being afraid [or: frightened] will do as a translation. [Greek], I bring you good news. Cf. evangelize. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER III Outline of Chapter 3 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 3:1–20 The Ministry of John the Baptist 3:21, 22 The Baptism of Jesus 3:23–38 The Genealogy of Jesus 3:1–20 The Ministry of John the Baptist Cf. Matt. 3:1–12; 14:1–4; Mark 1:1 8; 6; 14 18; John 1:19 28 3 1 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene 2 and during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to Zechariah's son John, (while he was) in the wilderness. 3 He went into the whole Jordan neighborhood, proclaiming a baptism of conversion with a view to the forgiveness of sins; 4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: A voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make ready the way of the Lord, Make straight his paths. 5 Every valley shall be filled up, And every mountain and hill leveled down; The crooked roads shall become straight, And the rough ways smooth. 6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. 7 He [John] therefore was saying^[161] to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, You offspring of vipers! Who warned you to escape the approaching (outpouring of) wrath? 8 Bear fruit therefore in keeping with conversion; and do not begin to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our father, for I tell you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham out of these stones here. 9 And already the ax is laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 10 So the crowds kept asking him, What then shall we do? 11 He answered, Let the one who has two shirts^[162] share with the one who has none, and let the one who has food do likewise. 12 Tax-collectors too came to be baptized. They said to him, Teacher, what shall we do? 13 He told them, Don t exact more than required. 14 Soldiers too were asking, And we, what shall we do? He replied, Don t extort money by violence,^[163] don't accuse people falsely, and be content with your pay. 15 Now while the people were on tiptoe of expectation, and all were wondering in their hearts about John, whether he might be the Christ, 16 he expressly answered them all, I on my part baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming whose sandal straps I am not fit to untie he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 17 His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will thoroughly clear his threshing floor. He will gather his grain into the granary, but the chaff he will consume with unquenchable fire. 18 Thus, continually exhorting with respect to many and different matters, John was preaching the gospel to the people. 19 But when Herod the tetrarch was repeatedly rebuked by John because of Herodias, Herod's brother's wife, and because of all the (other) evil deeds he had committed, 20 he added this to them all: he locked John up in prison. By the grace of God resting upon him, Jesus, according to his human nature, was being gradually prepared for the task which the Father had assigned to him. His divine nature did not need any preparation, was not even able to experience it, but the human nature was in need of it. This period of preparation (see especially 2:40, 52) was now about to end. Accordingly between chapters 1 and 2, on the one hand, and chapter 3, on the other, there is a marked division. The boy of 12 (2:42) becomes the man of approximately 30 (3:23). The eighteen intervening years are passed by in silence. But before Luke even narrates the events by means of which Jesus public ministry was inaugurated he says something about the forerunner, John the Baptist, for the latter was about to do two things: first, he was to serve as God's instrument in preparing the hearts of the people for the reception of their Messiah (3:1–14); secondly, he must introduce the Messiah to the people (John 1:29) and baptize him (3:21, 22). As Luke does so often see 1:5 f., 2:1 f., and Introduction, point V B so here again he fits the history of redemption into the framework of the contemporary political situation. By means of six chronological items he indicates the time when John began his ministry. One is prone to think that such a broad array of historical data, each a check on the other five, would leave no doubt in anyone's mind as to the exact year when the Baptist started his work. Nevertheless, it is precisely at this point that even today scholars reach diverging conclusions. Bypassing minor theories there are several the two main theories as to the date that marks the beginning of the forerunner's public introduction to Israel are these: a. in a.d. 26. This is the traditional view; and b. in a.d. 28 29. This theory, though not new by any means, has been refurbished in recent years and today enjoys a measure of popularity. In the course of the discussion the two theories will be designated as (a) and (b). At the very outset it should be made clear that the data supplied by Luke are insufficient to prove either theory with finality.^[164] Great scholars have reached opposite verdicts. At the most one can reach probability, not absolute certainty. In verse 1 Luke mentions various political regions into which the country of the Jews had been divided and which existed when John began his public ministry. For their location see the map on p. 196. 1, 2. In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene and during the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to Zechariah's son John, (while he was) in the wilderness. The six chronological items mentioned by Luke will be discussed in the order 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1. This sequence will be followed because, as this author sees it, item 6 sheds light on the proper understanding of item 1. 2. The word of God came to Zechariah's son John when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea. See the chart on p. 136. What happened was this: Herod the Great had made a will which he revised several times. At his death (on or before April 4 of the year 4 b.c.) the Roman government allowed the final revision to be honored. Accordingly Archelaus, a son of Herod the Great by Malthace, was trade ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. See chart of Herod's Family Tree on p. 189 of N.T.C. on Matthew. But because Archelaus was a cruel ruler see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 187, 188 for details he was deposed in a.d. 6. The emperor then appointed a governor to replace Archelaus, and made the triple region, which was now called the province of Judea, a division of the prefecture of Syria, so that to a certain extent the governor was subordinate to Syria's legate. However, in Judea itself the governor exercised unrestricted authority. Governors followed each other in rapid succession. That was true also in the province of Judea. Pontius Pilate was the fifth of these governors. In that capacity he ruled from a.d. 26 to 36. It is clear that both of the theories mentioned above i.e., both (a) and (b) can live with these dates. 3. Herod tetrarch of Galilee. This man, usually known as Herod Antipas, was a full brother of Archelaus. The same event that made Archelaus ethnarch made Herod Antipas tetrarch, namely, of Galilee (and Perea). He continued in that position from 4 b.c. to a.d. 39, when he was banished to Lyons in Gaul. For the events that led to his banishment see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 590. Sometime later the domain that had been taken away from him was added to the kingdom of Herod Agrippa I, who is the Herod referred to in Acts 12. Herod Antipas is the Herod we meet in the GospelsMatt. 2:1 19and Luke 1:5, where the reference is to his father, Herod I or Herod the Great . It is clear that the tetrarch's long reign leaves ample room for theory (a) and theory (b). 4. His brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis. Philip was a son of Herod I by Cleopatra of Jerusalem (not to be confused with the Egyptian Cleopatra). Our information about him we owe largely to Josephus, Antiquities XVIII.106 108. It was he who enlarged and beautified the town of Paneas, located near the Jordan's source, and named it Caesarea. To distinguish that place from the Caesarea on the Mediterranean it began to be called Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:13). He also enlarged Bethsaida, that is, the Bethsaida located near the northern junction of the Lake of Galilee and the Jordan, and called it Bethsaida Julias, in honor of Julia, the daughter of Emperor Augustus, mentioned above (see p. 138). According to Josephus, this Philip was a man of excellent character, one who bestowed much personal care upon his people. He ruled from 4 b.c. until his death, a.d. 34. As far as his reign is concerned either theory (a) or (b) could again be right. 5. And Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene. Luke's statement no longer stands alone, as it did for many years. It has been confirmed in an inscription on a rock west of Damascus.^[165] This inscription states that Lysanius was indeed governor of this region, and at a time which again presents no problem for either theory (a) or (b). 6. And during the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. Annas (or Ananus as Josephus calls him) had been appointed highpriest by Quirinius in the year a.d. 6, and was deposed by Valerius Gratus, about a.d. 15. But though deposed, he remained for a long time the ruling spirit of the Sanhedrin. Five sons and a grandson followed him in the highpriesthood; also a son-in-law, the very one mentioned by Luke, namely, Caiaphas. The latter held the highpriestly office from a.d. 18 to 36. The New Testament refers to Caiaphas in the following passages (Luke 3:2): Matt. 26:3, 57; John 11:49; 18:13, 14, 24, 28; and Acts 4:6; to Annas, also in John 18:13, 24; Acts 4:6. It may seem strange that Luke assigns the beginning of the Baptist's ministry to the highpriesthood not only of Caiaphas but of Annas and Caiaphas. Annas, after all, was deposed from that office in a.d. 15, long before John's ministry began, whether according to theory (a) or (b). That Luke assigns the beginning of John's ministry to the highpriesthood of Caiaphas (a.d. 18 36) we can understand, but why to that of Annas? Nevertheless, Luke is correct. He is thinking of the actual situation, not the merely formal one. The actual situation was that both Annas and Caiaphas were in the driver's seat during the entire period of John's ministry and during the entire length of Christ's ministry; Annas as well as perhaps even more than Caiaphas. For more on these two men see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 162–165, 385 388, 394 401. So here again either theory (a) or (b) may be correct. 1. We now turn to Luke's first chronological item, namely, In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar &the word of God came to Zechariah's son John.& There are those who argue that since John began his ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, and since Tiberius began to reign at the death of Emperor Augustus, Aug. 19 of the year a.d. 14, John's ministry must have started in the year a.d. 28 or perhaps even 29. For a defense of that theory (b) and our counter-arguments see the footnote.^[166] But the traditional view, theory (a), has by no means been overthrown. It rests on grounds such as the following: First of all, In Luke 3:1, 2the analogy with the Annas-Caiaphas reference confirms the conclusion that Luke is thinking of the actual reign of Tiberius, which began with the latter's coregency, and that he is not thinking of Tiberius sole rulership which began at the time of the death of Augustus. ^[167] A couple years before his formal assumption of sole emperorship the Roman Senate had conferred on Tiberius the authority to administer all the Roman provinces conjointly with Augustus. Secondly, according to Josephus, Antiquities XV.380, Herod the Great began to build Jerusalem's temple in the eighteenth year of his reign (which began in 37 b.c.), hence in the year 19 b.c. According to the testimony of the Jews, as recorded in John 2:20, when Jesus attended the first Passover of his public ministry that temple had been in the process of building for forty-six years. This would make the date for that Passover a.d. 27. Therefore the beginning of Christ's ministry could well have been the latter part of a.d. 26, and the Baptist's first public appearance could have occurred a half year earlier. Thirdly, it is agreed by several scholars that the events surrounding Christ's birth as described in (Matt. 2indicate that the birth itself occurred shortly before the death of Herod the Great. That king died on or before April 4 of the year 4 b.c. Therefore acceptance of late 5 b.c. as the date of Christ's birth is not unreasonable. If with this result we compare Luke 3:23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry, we again arrive at the close of a.d. 26 as the date of the beginning of that ministry, and at a date a half year earlierLuke 1:36) for the beginning of John's ministry. A. B. Bruce, though not taking a definite stand in this debate, points out that the date a.d. 26 rather than a.d. 28/29 agrees with Luke 3:23. ^[168] It is true that Luke says, when he was about thirty years Jesus began to teach, but whether about thirty years can be stretched far enough to make it equal to thirty-two is open to question. Though there are various ways in which the force of these arguments can be whittled down, and, as stated earlier, absolute certainty is impossible, I believe it has been shown that up to the present time the traditional view that is, theory (a) has not been annihilated. Before leaving verses 1 and 2 there are two additional matters that require attention. First, the matter of political titles. Literally verse 1 reads, in part, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip being tetrarch &and Lysanius being tetrarch, etc. The participle being [or: ruling as] tetrarch occurs three times in this verse. On p. 195 mention was made of the fact that at the death of the king (Herod the Great) Archelaus was made ethnarch. So the question arises, What is the difference between these three titles? The men so designated were rulers of semi-independent regions within the empire of Rome. In descending order of prestige the terms are king, ethnarch, tetrarch. If a ruler (a) was in control of a territory of considerable size and importance, (b) was able to maintain peace and order in his domain, and (c) managed to collect large revenues for Rome's coffers, he was given the title king. If this did not happen to be the case, he had to be satisfied with the title ethnarch or even tetrarch (originally, ruler of a fourth part), a kind of petty prince. The terms were, however, flexible: any ruler of low rank might be called tetrarch; an ethnarch might be merely a chief; and even in the New Testament a tetrarch is sometimes loosely called a king. Nevertheless, how eager was the wife of a certain tetrarch to have her husband declared a king! See N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 590. The second matter is the lofty, almost majestic, manner in which John, Messiah's herald, is now introduced. In phraseology that occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but in one form or another frequently in the Old, we are told that the word utterance or message of God came to Zechariah's son John, (while he was) in the wilderness. It came to him just as long ago it had come to Abraham (Gen. 15:1), Samuel (I Sam. 15:10), Nathan (II Sam. 7:4), Elijah (I Kings 17:2, 8; 18:1), and, to mention only one more, the closest parallel of all, Jeremiah (Jer. 1:1, 2). Did Luke perhaps deliberately select this Old Testament phraseology in order to impress upon Theophilus and others the fact that John was as genuine a prophet as those addressed by God during the old dispensation? It was while John was in the wildernessLuke 1:80left him that he received the divine message ordering him (a) to awaken the people to the need of basic conversion, and (b) to introduce to them the Messiah (see verses 3, 8, 16). The term wilderness indicates the rolling badlands between the hill country of Judea to the west, and the Dead Sea and lower Jordan to the east, stretching northward to about the point where the Jabbok flows into the Jordan. It is indeed a desolation, a vast undulating expanse of barren chalky soil covered with pebbles, broken stones and rocks. Here and there a bit of brushwood appears, with snakes crawling underneath (see verse 7). It is clear, however, from verse Matt. 3:5 (; John 1:28) that the terrain of John's activity extended even to the east bank of the Jordan. 3. He went into the whole Jordan neighborhood, proclaiming a baptism of conversion with a view to the forgiveness of sins. It is clear from the original that the terrain of John's activity included the entire region around i.e., on both banks of this part of the Jordan, the whole Jordan neighborhood. Conversion indicates nothing less than a radical change of mind and heart that leads to a complete turnabout of life. It includes both (a) repentance, that is, genuine sorrow for sin and an earnest resolution to break with the evil past, and (b) fruit-bearing (see verses 8, 9). A man must already have experienced genuine basic conversion before he can be baptized. That is clearly implied in verses 7 14: there must be genuine sorrow for sin and a true determination to do away with the evil of the past before John is willing to baptize anyone. But it is also true that by means of baptism true conversion is powerfully stimulated. How could reflection on the meaning of the cleansing water of baptism, symbolizing and sealing the cleansing grace and power of God, his forgiving love, have any different effect? For the person who in that spirit receives baptism the outward sign and seal applied to the body, and the inward grace applied to heart and life, go together. I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean &a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you (Ezek. 36:25, 26); buried with him through baptism &raised &so we might walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). Now baptism as such was not something altogether new. Historically proselyte baptism, the administration of this rite to those who from the Gentile world had been converted to the Jewish religion, preceded baptism as administered by John. The Jews regarded all Gentiles as being unclean, and therefore subjected them to baptism when they were won over to Judaism. What was new and startling for the Baptist's audience was that a basic transformation and its sign and seal were required even of the children of Abraham! They too were filthy! They too must acknowledge this openly! Note that according to verse 3 John went into the whole Jordan neighborhood proclaiming literally heralding the need, even for the Jews, of a baptism of conversion with a view to the forgiveness of sins. For proclaiming one may substitute preaching, that is, just so it be understood that genuine preaching or heralding is lively, not dry; timely, not stale. It is the earnest proclamation of news initiated by God. It is not the abstract speculation of views excogitated by man. And what can be more encouraging than the proclamation of conversion with a view to the forgiveness of sins? Such forgiveness means that these sins are sent away to a place from which they can never be recovered. God-fearing people in John's audience knew about the sin-laden goat that was sent into the wilderness never to return (Lev. 16:8, 20 22). They knew the promise of Ps. 103:12, As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us, and they must have experienced the truth of Mic. 7:19, Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. In harmony with that which had already been hinted in verse 2, as explained previously, Luke now clearly indicates that in John prophecy was being fulfilled. 4 6. as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: A voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make ready the way of the Lord, Make straight his paths. Every valley shall be filled up, And every mountain and hill leveled down; The crooked roads shall become straight, And the rough ways smooth. And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. The reference is, of course, to Isa. 40:3f. Matthew (3:3) and Mark (1:3) quote only Isa. 40:3. Luke also quotes verse 4 and to a certain extent even reproduces part of verse 5. The last five lines, therefore, of Luke's quotation hence, the lines beginning with every valley and ending with the salvation of God are in the New Testament found only in Luke. In addition to a minor difference (between the Greek text and the Hebrew original) in the beginning, for which see the footnote,^[169] and a few other small differences farther on, the main variation concerns the close of the quotation. Here the Hebrew text (Isa. 40:5) has: and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it. The Septuagint has: and the glory of the Lord shall he seen [or: revealed], and all flesh shall see the salvation of God; for the Lord has spoken. Luke (3:6) omits and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, but has retained And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. If it be borne in mind that God's, hence also Christ's, glory is revealed most marvelously in the work of salvation (John 12:23, 31, 32; 17:4, 5), it will be clear that there is no essential difference between these three representations. Isa. 40:3 5symbolically pictures the approach of Jehovah for the purpose of leading the procession of Jews who will be returning joyfully to their homeland after long years of captivity. In the Syrian desert, between Babylonia and Palestine, the way must be prepared for the Lord's coming. So, a herald cries out to the people, In the wilderness make ready the way of the Lord, Make straight in the desert a highway for our God. This figure of the herald is in the Gospels applied to John, as Christ's herald. The Baptist, by saying, I am the voice &shows that he agrees with this interpretation (John 1:23). So does Jesus himself (Matt. 11:10). This shows that the deliverance granted to the Jews when, in the latter part of the sixth century b.c. and afterward, they returned to their own country was but a type of that far more glorious liberation in store for all who accept Christ as their Savior and Lord. In other words, Isaiah's prophecy regarding the voice that cried out lacked total fulfilment until both Messiah's forerunner and also the Lord himself had arrived on the scene.^[170] The appropriate application of (Isa. 40:3to John the Baptist is evident from the following: (a) John was preaching in the wildernessMark 1:3; Luke 3:4); and (b) the task assigned to him from the days of his infancy (Luke 1:76, 77), yes even earlier (Luke 1:17; Mal. 3:1), was exactly this, namely, to be Messiah's herald or way-preparer. He was to be the Lord's voice to the people, all of that but not more than that (John 3:22 30). As such he must not only announce Christ's approach and presence but also urge the people to prepare the way of the Lord, that is, by God's grace and power to effect a complete change of mind and heart. This implies that they must make straight his paths, meaning that they must provide the Lord with a ready access into their hearts and lives. They must make straight whatever was crooked, not in line with God's holy will. They must clear away all the obstacles which they had thrown into his path; such obstructions as self-righteousness and smug complacency (Matt. 3:9), greed, cruelty, slander, etc. (Luke 3:13, 14). It is evident that both in Isaiah's and in John's preaching as recorded by the Gospel writers the wilderness through which a path must be made ready for the Lord is in the final analysis the people's heart, by nature inclined to all evil. Though the literal meaning is not absent, it is subsumed into the figurative. The underlying idea is indeed the actual wilderness. But the very sight of this dreary region must have impressed those who listened to John's preaching with the fact that they themselves were spiritually wandering in a desert land where all the streams are dry. It is always difficult to determine exactly to what extent Isaiah's language, as quoted here by Luke, is to be explained figuratively. A thorough-going symbolical interpretation is detailed in the chart below. Symbolical Interpretation of Luke 3:4b 6 The Words of Luke 3:4b 6A Possible (?) Interpretation A voice of one crying in the wilderness: The message of John the Baptist, shouting in the wilderness: Make ready the way of the Lord, Make straight his paths. By means of genuine conversion (Jer. 31:18) make it possible for the Lord to make a straight path to your heart with his salvation. Every valley shall be filled up, And every mountain and hill leveled down; Every manifestation of feigned humility as well as every attitude of pride and arrogance will be and must be removed. The crooked roads shall become straight, Sly, perverse, deceitful habits must be and will be broken. And the rough ways smooth. Indifference, unconcern, and waywardness must and will make way for genuine interest and accessibility. And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. Then people of every clime and nation, viewed in their weakness and need, will experience the salvation provided by God. Cf. Luke 2:32. But it is also possible that such expressions as every valley. every mountain and hill, the rough ways, etc., pertain only to the underlying figure of an approaching King, and have no further significance. The meaning then would simply be, By God's grace remove every obstacle in the way of the entrance of the Lord into your hearts and lives. Be converted. And is not that the central meaning in either case? 7 9. He [John] therefore was saying to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, You offspring of vipers! Who warned you to escape the approaching (outpouring of) wrath? Bear fruit therefore in keeping with conversion; and do not begin to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our father, for I tell you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham out of these stones here. And already the ax is laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. There is very little difference between Luke 3:7 9and Matt. 3:7–10.^[171] Did Luke have before him a copy of Matthew's Gospel, or did both evangelists use a common source? When we combine Matthew's opening sentence with that of Luke we conclude that large crowds, including a goodly number of Pharisees and Sadducees, were coming out to be baptized by John. The Baptist knew, however, that many of these candidates for baptism were insincere. It is in this light that we can understand his stern rebuke, You offspring of vipers. John was acquainted with these desert snakes. Though rather small in size they were very deceptive. At times it was easy to mistake them for dead branches. Suddenly, however, they would strike and cling (Acts 28:3). The comparison was apt. Is not Satan, that deceiver (John 8:44), also called a serpent (Rev. 12:9, 20:2)? Are not these people his tools? John adds, Who warned you to escape the approaching (outpouring of) wrath? In this connection the following ideas deserve attention: First, this wrath, or settled indignation, rests upon unregenerate man by nature (Eph. 2:3). It pertains even to the present (John 3:18, 36; Rom. 1:18). Secondly, the final outpouring of this wrath is reserved for the future (Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6; II Thess. 1:8, 9; Rev. 14:10). Thirdly, this final manifestation of wrath (Zeph. 1:15; 2:2) is connected with the (second) coming of the Messiah (Mal. 3:2, 3; 4:1, 5). Fourthly, without genuine conversion man cannot escape it: Who warned you to escape &? This probably means, Who deluded you into thinking that it is possible to evade God, and encouraged you to try it? Cf. Ps. 139; Jonah 1:3. Fifthly, for the true penitent there is indeed a way of escape: Bear fruit therefore in keeping with conversion. Repentance, if it is to be genuine, must be accompanied by fruit-bearing. A merely outward confession of sin will never do. A mere desire to be baptized, as if this rite were a wonder-working charm, has no positive value. There must be that inward change which expresses itself outwardly in God-glorifying conduct, fruit-bearing in keeping with conversion. According to verses 10 14 this fruit-bearing must include such items as generosity, fairness, thoughtfulness, and contentment; according to Matt. 23:23, justice, mercy, and faith; and in view of the manner in which the Baptist descriptively addresses these people, there must be uprightness. On fruit-bearing see also Matt. 5:20–24; 7:16–19; 12:33; 13:8, 23; 16:6, 11, 12; ch. 23; Luke 13:6 9; John 15:1 16; Gal. 5:22, 23; Eph. 5:9; Phil. 1:22; 4:17; Col. 1:6; Heb. 12:11; 13:15; and James 3:18. The deplorable lack of fruit-bearing on the part of the addressed is evident also from the words: and do not begin to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our father, for I tell you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham out of these stones here. The reason why these people were headed for damnation was that for their eternal security they were relying on their descent from Abraham. Cf. (Gal. 3:1 9and see N.T.C. on those verses. John the Baptist was fully aware of the fact that physical descent from Abraham did not guarantee being a true son of Abraham. He also knew that entirely apart from such pedigree God could give sons to Abraham. The God who was able to create Adam out of the dust of the ground was also able to make true sons of Abraham out of the desert stones to which John probably pointed. Probable symbolical overtone: He can change hearts of stone into obedient heartsEzek. 36:26), entirely regardless of the nationality of these hearts of stone. As far as salvation was concerned, the old distinctions were gradually disappearing. This does not mean that in the order in which this salvation was being proclaimed and in which the church was being gathered there was no distinction. The historical sequence, a reflection of God's plan from eternity, certainly was to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom. 1:16; cf. Acts 13:46; Rom. 3:1, 2; 9:1–5). But the beginning of a new day, a day in which there would be no distinction between Jew and Greek, was dawning. See Matt. 2:1–12; 8:11, 12; 22:1–14; 28:19, 20; Acts 10:34 48; Rom. 9:7, 8; 10:12, 13; I Cor. 7:19; Gal. 3:7, 16, 17, 29; 4:21–31; 6:15, 16; Eph. 2:14–18; Philippians 3:2, 3; Col. 3:11; and Rev. 7:9, 14, 15. As to the impenitent, in verse 9 John the Baptist continues: And already^[172] the ax is laid at the root of the trees. Judgment is at hand. The ax lies right in front of ([Greek]) or, as we would say, at the root, with sinister intent, ready to hew down one tree after another. Right now, therefore, is the proper moment to repent and to believe. In this connection see also Ps. 95:7, 8; Isa. 55:6; Luke 13:7, 9; 17:32; John 15:6; Rom. 13:11; II Cor. 6:2; I John 2:18; Rev. 1:3. Continued: every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. The question might be asked, But was the day of the final manifestation of God's wrath upon the wicked actually that close? Is it not true that many centuries have passed by since the Baptist spoke these words, and still the Lord has not returned for judgment? The following facts should be borne in mind: First, John reminds one of the Old Testament prophet who, in speaking about the last days or the Messianic age, would at times look upon the future as a traveler does on a distant mountain range. He fancies that one mountain top rises up right behind the other, when in reality the two are miles apart. The two comings of Christ are viewed as if they were one. Thus we read, A shoot shall come forth out of the stock of Jesse &and he shall smite the earth (Isa. 11:1–4). Jehovah has anointed me to preach good tidings to the meek. He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and &the day of vengeance of our God (Isa. 61:1, 2). I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.& The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of Jehovah arrives (Joel 2:28 31). Cf. Mal. 3:1, 2. This has been called prophetic foreshortening. Secondly, Jerusalem's fall (a.d. 70) was drawing perilously near, and foreshadowed the final judgment. Thirdly, impenitence has a tendency of hardening a person, so that often he is left in his present lost condition. Without genuine repentance death and the judgment are for him irrevocable and at the door. Fourthly, one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (II Peter 3:8). Fifthly, John was by no means the only one who emphasized the imminence of the judgment and/or the need of becoming converted right now. Therefore, if on this score we find fault with the Baptist we would also have to blame the psalmists, the prophets, the apostles, and even the Lord himself! Surely, no true believer is ready to do this. Sixthly, all this does not necessarily mean that the Baptist himself always saw the present and the future in true perspective. See on 7:18 f. It only means that the Holy Spirit guided him so that in his actual preaching as here recorded he had a perfect right to say what he said. The fire into which the unfruitful trees are cast is evidently a symbol of the final outpouring of God's wrath upon the wicked. See also (Mal. 4:1; Matt. 13:40; John 15:6. Jesus spoke about the Gehenna of fireMatt. 5:22, 29; 18:9; Mark 9:47). This fire is unquenchable (Matt. 3:12; 18:8; Mark 9:43; Luke 3:17). The point is not merely that there is always a fire burning in Gehenna but that God burns the wicked with unquenchable fire, the fire that has been prepared for them as well as for the devil and his angels (Matt. 3:12; 25:41). After having given us this more or less general specimen of John's preaching, Luke reports three questions asked severally by three groups of individuals. Each group wanted to know how, in concrete life situations, they should reveal the genuine character of their conversion: 10 14. So the crowds kept asking him, What then shall^[173] we do? He answered, Let the one who has two shirts share with the one who has none, and let the one who has food do likewise. Tax-collectors too came to be baptized. They said to him, Teacher, what shall we do? He told them, Don t exact more than required. Soldiers too were asking, And we, what shall we do? He replied, Don t extort money by violence, don't accuse people falsely, and be content with your pay. The three groups consisted of: (a) people from the crowd, other than tax-collectors and soldiers; (b) tax-collectors; (c) soldiers. All three groups seem to have been oppressed by a sense of guilt. They realize that true conversion always implies sorrow for sin (repentance) and forsaking the old way of life. Representatives of the first group ask, What then shall we do? John told them to share their clothes and food with those who were in need. The shirt is really the tunic, a garment which by both sexes was worn next to the skin, hence under the outer garment or robe. Either to protect oneself against the cold or to have a spare for future use, a person might own two or even more tunics. The Baptist exhorts those who have two to give one to the person who has none. With respect to food the same course is advocated. Note, however, that John does not say that the state should step in and deprive the rich person of his property though the state does indeed have a duty with respect to the poor and destitute nor does he tell the man without a tunic that he must help himself to the property of his neighbor, nor does he in any way condone refusal to work in order to earn money with which to purchase life's necessities. What he is advocating is voluntary sharing. A very practical lesson indeed! When catastrophe overwhelms the people of any region, and food and clothing are urgently needed, are we at all living in harmony with this exhortation when we refuse to share? Think also of the millions upon millions who, even apart from natural disasters, are living in constant abject poverty. Must they not be assisted?^[174] Next, the publicans or tax-collectors are introduced. The tax-buyers or farmers had paid a fixed sum of money to the Roman government for the privilege of levying tolls upon exports and imports as well as upon whatever merchandise passed through the region. The main tax offices were located at Caesarea, Capernaum, and Jericho. The farmers would sublet their rights to chief publicans (Luke 19:2) who employed publicans to do the collecting. These charged what the traffic would bear, huge sums. So the publican had the reputation of being an extortionist. If he were a Jew, he was regarded by his fellows as being also a renegade or traitor, for he was in the service of the foreign oppressor. The publicans who now address John probably belonged to the bottom rung of their profession. They knew that they had been fleecing the public, and, conscience-stricken, they now also ask, Teacher, what shall we do? They receive the curt reply, Don t exact more than required. The reply is again very definite and uncompromising. There must be immediate, complete, wholehearted obedience. Dillydallying is deadly. Halfway measures work havoc. Sin, being a destructive force, must not be pampered. The right action must be substituted at once for the wrong. Cf. Matt. 5:29, 30; 18:8, 9; Rom. 12:21. And now the third group: those doing military service (thus literally). In connection with registration with a view to taxation these people would often resort to torture, in order by this means to make slaves accuse their masters of understating their holdings. By maliciously informing against the rich and by the use of extortion they would obtain money, and this not only for the government but also for themselves. They were cruel, swaggering, disgruntled. By inhuman and dishonest methods they tried to supplement their earnings. But when these people were listening to the Baptist's awesome thunderings, his vivid descriptions of impending divine judgment, they too quailed. With fear and trembling they approached the preacher of doom with the question, And we, what shall we do? He answered, Do not shake people down (thus literally). He adds, and don't be sycophants [slanderous accusers]. See the note on verse 14 on page 215. Be satisfied with your earnings. In connection with the last two groups note that John does not say that being a tax-collector, even when this profession is practiced in the interest of a foreign government, is wrong as such; nor does he say that doing military service is wrong. What he says is that these occupations, if pursued, must be engaged in for good and not for evil. While John's answer to the first group is couched in positive language, his reply to the second and third groups is stated in negative terms. Nevertheless, these negatives imply strong affirmatives. In fact, at bottom all three answers amount to this: Show genuine love. According to both the Old and the New Testament such love is the fulfilment of the law (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5; Matt. 19:19; 22:34–40; Mark 12:28 34; Luke 10:25 28; John 13:34; Rom. 13:8–10; I Cor. 13; Gal. 5:14). Now apart from Christ and his Spirit the exercise of this love is impossible. Appropriately, therefore, Luke continues by describing John the Baptist in the act of preaching about Christ and his Spirit: 15 18. Now while the people were on tiptoe of expectation, and all were wondering in their hearts about John, whether he might be the Christ, he expressly answered them all, I on my part baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming whose sandal straps I am not fit to untie he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will thoroughly clear his threshing floor. He will gather his grain into the granary, but the chaff he will consume with unquenchable fire. By and large this little paragraph is parallel to Matt. 3:11, 12; cf. Mark 1:7, 8. Peculiar to Luke, however, are the introductory words, Now while the people were on tiptoe of expectation, and all were wondering in their hearts about John, whether he might be the Christ, he expressly answered them all.& That there was indeed a Messianic expectation is clear from such passages as Luke 1:76 79; 2:25, 26, 38. That this hope was not necessarily completely confined to the hearts and minds of devout Israelites but may even have glimmered among heathen who had been in touch with them must be granted. Of late, however, this expectation had been intensified by the many stories that had been spreading, especially those about John. His sudden appearance, rigorous self-denial, stern call to conversion, all these had become matters of deliberation and discussion. But especially his baptizing &of Abraham's children! About this same time a committee was being sent to John with the question, Who are you? &Then why are you baptizing if you are neither the Christ nor Elijah nor the prophet? (John 1:19 25). According to John 1:26, 27it was on this occasion that John uttered the words which, in almost identical form, are found also in Luke 3:16a. There is no reason to question the fact that words which, according to the Fourth Gospel, were addressed to Pharisees were also, in amplified form, spoken to an entire multitude. The people, then, were on tiptoe of expectation. They were wondering whether John, a man who spoke with such conviction and so forcefully, whose words found such a response in their own conscience, and especially, a man who started something new, namely, baptizing Jews, as if they too were unclean, might not himself be the Christ. John now draws a contrast between what he is doing and what One mightier than he is about to do. He tells the people that the qualitative distance between himself and the Coming One, who is mightier than he, is so great that he, John, is not even worthy to untie (Mark 1:7), remove and carry away (Matt. 3:11) that Coming One's sandals. To One so great the Baptist is not even worthy to render the services of a slave; of this he is convinced. John baptizes with water; Jesus will baptize with the Spirit. He will cause his Spirit and the latter's gifts to come upon his followers (Acts 1:8), be poured out on them (Acts 2:17, 33), fall upon them (Acts 10:44; 11:15). Now it is true that whenever a person is drawn out of the darkness into God's marvelous light he is being baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Thus Calvin in his comments on (Matt. 3:11remarks that it is Christ who bestows the Spirit of regeneration, and that, like fire, this Spirit purifies us by removing our pollution. However, according to Christ's own wordsActs 1:5, 8), remembered by Peter (Acts 11:16), in a special sense this prediction was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost and during the era which it introduced. It was then that, through the coming of the Spirit, the minds of Christ's followers were enriched with unprecedented illumination (I John 2:20); their wills strengthened, as never before, with contagious animation (Acts 4:13, 19, 20, 33; 5:29); and their hearts flooded with warm affection to a degree previously unheard of (Acts 2:44 47; 3:6; 4:32). The mention of fire fits this application to Pentecost, when there appeared to them divided tongues of fire, resting on each one of them (Acts 2:3). The flame illumines. Fire cleanses. The Spirit does both. Nevertheless, it would appear from the context (both before and after; see verses 9 and 17) and from Joel's Pentecost prophecy (Joel 2:30; cf. Acts 2:19), considered in its context (Joel 2:31), that the ultimate fulfilment of the Baptist's words awaits Christ's glorious return to cleanse the earth with fire (II Peter 3:7, 12; cf. Mal. 3:2; II Thess. 1:8). Often in Scripture fire symbolizes wrath. But fire is also indicative of the work of grace (Isa. 6:6, 7; Zech. 13:9; Mal. 3:3; I Peter 1:7). It is not strange, therefore, that this term can be used both in a favorable sense, to indicate the blessings of Pentecost and the new dispensation, and in an unfavorable sense, to indicate the terrors of the coming judgment day. It is Christ who both purifies the righteous and purges the earth of its dross, the wicked. Moreover, if the Old Testament prophets would often, by means of prophetic foreshortening, combine the events pertaining to Christ first coming (taken in its comprehensive sense, including even Pentecost) with those of the second, why cannot that same feature be ascribed also to the style of John the Baptist, who resembled these prophets in so many ways? It is clear, therefore, that the case for the interpretation according to which the word fire here in 3:16 refers both to Pentecost and to the final judgment is strong. The reasonable character of the explanation, according to which the baptism with fire includes a reference to the final judgment, is also evident from verse 17, which likewise refers to that great day: His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will thoroughly clear his threshing floor. The underlying figure is that of a threshing floor where winnowing is taking place. Such a floor is either natural or artificial. If the former, it is the surface of a flat rock on top of a hill, exposed to the wind. If the latter, it is a similarly exposed area, about thirty to fifty feet in diameter, which has been prepared by clearing the soil of stones, wetting it down, and then packing it hard and smooth, causing it to slope slightly upward along the rim, and surrounding it with a border of stones to keep the grain inside. First, the sheaves of grain (barley or wheat) that have been spread out in this area are threshed by oxen pulling a sled the bottom of which is studded with stones whereby the kernels of grain are separated from the stalks. The chaff (whatever remains of the kernels hard coat, dust, dirt, small pieces of straw) is, however, still clinging to the kernels. Now the winnowing, to which verse 17 refers, begins. Bunch by bunch the threshed grain is tossed into the air by means of a shovel equipped with two or more prongs; the afternoon breeze, generally sweeping in from the Mediterranean from May through September, blows away the chaff. The heavier grain kernels fall straight down upon the threshing floor. Thus grain and chaff are separated. The work of winnowing does not stop until the threshing floor has been thoroughly cleared. Thus also Christ at his return will thoroughly clear the area where the judgment will take place. No one will escape detection. Even now he is fully equipped with all that is needed to perform the task of separating the good from the bad. He will gather his grain into the granary, but the chaff he will consume with unquenchable fire. The threshed and winnowed grain is brought to the granary; literally, the place where things are put (or: stored) away. It is stored away because it is regarded as being very valuable, very precious. From the underlying figure we proceed to the reality. Even the death of believers is described in Scripture in a very comforting manner. It is precious in the sight of Jehovah (Ps. 116:15); a being carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22); a going to Paradise (Luke 23:43); a blessed departure (Phil. 1:23); a being at home with the Lord (II Cor. 5:8); a gain (Phil. 1:21); better by far (Phil. 1:23); and a falling asleep in the Lord (John 11:11; I Thess 4:13). Then surely the final stage in the glorification of God's children, both body and soul now participating in this bliss, will be most precious: a going to the house with many mansions (John 14:2), a being welcomed to the very presence of Christ ( I will come again and will take you to be face to face with me, in order that where I am you may be also, (John 14:3), a living forever in the new heaven and earth from which every stain of sin and every trace of the curse will have been removed; in which righteousness dwellsII Peter 3:13); in which God will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and he himself shall be with them and be their God, wiping away every tear from their eyes, etc. (Rev. 21:1–5); and in which the prophecy of Isa. 11:6 9( The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, etc.) and of Rev. 21:9 22:5(the new Jerusalem) will reach its ultimate fulfilment. Back to the underlying figure once more. From the grain we now turn to the chaff. This, having dropped down at a place, or places, away from the grain, is collected and burned. So also the wicked, having been separated from the good, will be cast into hell, the place of unquenchable fire. Their punishment is unending. Their worm never dies (Mark 9:48). Their shame is everlasting (Dan. 12:2). So are their bonds (Jude 6, 7). They will be tormented with fire and brimstone &and the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, so that they have no rest day or night (Rev. 14:9–11; cf. 19:3; 20:10). In which sense is this fire to be understood? Answer: though the idea of a fire which in some sense is physical need not be excluded, yet according to Scripture the literal sense does not exhaust the meaning. Everlasting fire has been prepared for the devil and his angels. Yet these are spirits and cannot be hurt by literal fire. Moreover, Scripture itself points the way to the symbolical meaning; i.e., to the divine wrath resting upon the impenitent and, consequently, to their anguish (Deut. 9:3; 32:22; Ps. 11:5, 6; 18:8; 21:9; 89:46; Isa. 5:24, 25; Jer. 4:4; Nah. 1:6; Mal. 3:2; Matt. 5:22; Heb. 10:27; 12:29; II Peter 3:7; Rev. 14:10, 11; 15:2). The Baptist's warning, dire and dreadful though it may seem, is filled with mercy, for its purpose is that men may be converted. Luke closes this paragraph by stating that he has given only a sample of John's preaching. He says: Thus, continually exhorting with respect to many and different matters, John was preaching the gospel to the people. 19, 20. But when Herod the tetrarch was repeatedly rebuked by John because of Herodias, Herod's brother's wife, and because of all the (other) evil deeds he had committed, he added this to them all: he locked John up in prison. As is so often the case, Luke's account here is not chronological. John the Baptist probably began his ministry in the middle of the year a.d. 26, as has been shown in connection with the explanation of 3:1, 2. He may have been imprisoned at the close of the year a.d. 27, and put to death about the beginning of a.d. 29. This would mean that for about a year (late 26 late 27) the ministries of Jesus and of John were concurrent. Luke, not yet having told its anything about Jesus ministry, already mentions John's imprisonment! But though not always chronological, Luke's account is logical. He wishes to bring the story of John's ministry to a close, in order to write the story of Christ's ministry. There surely can be no objection to that. This does not mean that Luke never mentions John again. There are references to the Baptist in 5:33; 9:7, 9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:4, 6; and see especially 7:18–35. But the story of John's active ministry as a free man ends here. Herodias, as shown on the chart (N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 189), was the daughter of Aristobulus, who was a son of Herod the Great by Mariamne I. Herodias had married her half-uncle (her father's half-brother) Herod Philip, a private citizen, son of Herod the Great by Mariamne II. Herod Philip must not be confused with his half-brother Philip the tetrarch. Now Herod Antipas, another half-brother, on a visit to Herod Philip, became infatuated with Herodias. The two illicit lovers agreed to separate from their present marriage partners Herodias from Herod Philip; Herod Antipas from the daughter of Aretas, king of the Nabatean Arabs and to marry each other. This was done. When John the Baptist heard about this he rebuked Herod Antipas. He did this repeatedly. There was good reason for the rebuke, for such a marriage was incestuous (Lev. 18:16; 20:21). Was it not also adulterous (Rom. 7:2, 3)? Of course, Herodias knew very well that whenever John rebuked the tetrarch he was also, by implication, denouncing her. So she insisted by means of constant nagging perhaps? that John be put to death. As to Herod Antipas himself, his attitude to the accuser was not entirely hateful. In fact there were certain qualities in John that he admired. See Mark 6:20. On the other hand, he had to put up with the woman whom he now considered his wife, and whose heart was seething with unmitigated, savage vengeance. Not at all to yield to her wishes seemed impossible. So he compromised. He arrested John, put him in chains, and shut him up in a terrible, deep, and hot dungeon that formed part of the castle-palace at Machaerus. Note that Luke adds that Herod Antipas was also repeatedly rebuked because of all the (other) evil deeds he had committed. What the evangelist is saying, then, is this, that of all the wicked deeds Herod Antipas ever perpetrated, this crime of imprisoning in his mind did Luke add and subsequently murdering? John the Baptist was the most revolting. It was disgusting, loathsome, for it was a crime against John, the gospel, the people, God!^[175] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 3:1 20 Verse 2 The Word of God came to &John. Preachers can be effective only when they are truly ministers of God's Word. Verse 3 Conversion. A person is not saved by outward reformation. What he needs is inner transformation; that is, conversion. Verses 4, 5 Make straight his [the Lord's] paths. It is a terrible thing to cast obstacles into the path of God's approach to heart and life, or even to leave things as they are. Every impediment must be removed. See Ps. 86:11b. Verse 6 All flesh shall see the salvation of God. Rich man, poor man; black man, white man; highly educated, illiterate; male, female; old, young; there is one way for all. See Rom. 3:22–24. Verse 7 Offspring of vipers. John knew that the first step in being saved is always that I must know how great my sins and misery are (quoted from the Heidelberg Catechism). Cf. Rom. 7:24. Verse 10 What then shall we do? In his answer the Baptist places great stress on human responsibility. That is as it should be; just so it is realized that only by the power and grace of God is man able to do what God demands of him. Verse 16 He who is mightier than I. John was truly great in God's sight &because he was truly small in his own sight. Verses 19, 20 Herod &locked John up in prison. And by doing this he was locking himself up in a far more terrible prison, one from which he was never going to escape. The word of God is ever mightier than the sword, even than the executioner's sword. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 3:1–20 Verse 2 [Greek], here probably a particular utterance of God, perhaps even in the sense of a command to proclaim God's message to the people. In our comments it is called the divine message ordering John to awaken the people to the need of basic conversion. Verse 5 [Greek], a ravine, gulley, valley, chasm. Cf. pharynx. [Greek], third per. s. fut. passive indicat. of [Greek], to fill. See also on 2:40. [Greek] (cf. 23:30), hill. It can be associated with the familiar [Greek], [Greek], in the sense of to ascend, though etymological connection with that verb is uncertain. [Greek], another fut. passive indicat.; this one of [Greek], to make low, humble. See the cognate noun in the note on 1:48 on page 111. [Greek], crooked. Cf. scalene (unequal). [Greek], rough, uneven; cf. Acts 27:29. Cf. trachea (windpipe with its rough rings); also rugged Trachonitis. [Greek] (acc. fem. pl. [Greek]), smooth, plain; cf. level. Verse 6 For [Greek] see the note on 2:30 on page 176. Verse 7 [Greek], lizard, viper. [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. of [Greek]; literally: to show under; hence, to suggest. Cf. indicate. Verse 10 [Greek], imperfect, they kept asking. [Greek], deliberative first per. pl. aor. subjunctive. So also in verses 12 and 14. Verse 12 [Greek], tax-collector (= [Greek] plus [Greek], to buy). Cf. toll and vend. Verse 13 [Greek], sec. per. pl. active imperative of [Greek]. Cf. Do not do them in; that is, Do not inflict great injury on them. Verse 14 [Greek], sec. per. pl. aor. active subjunctive of [Greek], to shake thoroughly, harass, extort, deceive. [Greek], same construction as the preceding verb. The word is said to have been derived from [Greek], fig, plus [Greek], to show, to expose; hence [Greek] indicates the action of a person who shows up (informs against) anyone who exports figs out of Attica; and the meaning developed into: to accuse falsely, to slander, cheat. Whether this story of the origination of the verb and of the noun [Greek] (sycophant, defamer) is correct is uncertain. [Greek], wages; from [Greek], cooked food, plus [Greek], to buy; and so: ration, pay, soldier's pay; in I Cor. 9:7a preacher's wages; in Rom. 6:23sin's wages. Verse 15 Note the two genitive absolutes. [Greek], third per. s. pres. optative of [Greek]: whether he might be, whether perhaps he were. In direct discourse the indicative would have been used. Verse 17 [Greek], winnowing shovel. [Greek], cf. Matt. 3:12. The form used by Luke is the effective aor. infinitive of [Greek], to cleanse or clear thoroughly. Cf. catharsis. [Greek], unquenchable; cf. asbestos (with different meaning, however). Verse 19 [Greek], reproved, pres. passive participle of [Greek], to bring to light, expose, reprove, punish. 3:21, 22 The Baptism of Jesus Cf. Matt. 3:13–17; Mark 1:9 11 21 Now when all the people were baptized, and Jesus was also baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove. And a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my Son, the Beloved; with thee I am well pleased. ^[176] 21. Now when all the people were baptized, and Jesus was also baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened &When the question is asked, Since Jesus was not stained by any sin, and since baptism indicates the washing away of sin, why then did he submit to baptism? writers react in various ways. Some skip the problem entirely. That is the easy way out. Others answer that when Jesus saw people flocking to John to be baptized he joined the crowd, wishing to be identified with them. And still others give the enigmatic answer that Christ's baptism was his priestly inauguration, and then leave this item unexplained. There are, of course, also others who, in one form or another, have given the right answer. Thus S. Greijdanus states that Baptism was the Lord's public assumption of his work as Messiah. ^[177] If what we see here is a jigsaw puzzle, the various pieces can be fitted together so as to form a clear picture as follows: a. The water of baptism signifies the necessity of being cleansed. In a certain sense that was true also in the case of Jesus. He himself was sinless (John 8:46; II Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15). In himself there was nothing that needed to be, or could be, cleansed. But on himself? See the next point: b. According to Scripture's consistent teaching the Messiah took on himself his people's guilt, and vicariously bore (or: was to bear) its punishment (Isa. 53:5, 6, 8, 10, 12; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 22:19, 20; Rom. 3:24, 25; 5:8; 8:1; II Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; Rev. 1:5). c. In order to bring about this vicarious redemption, the Holy Spirit, with all his qualifying power (Isa. 11:2; 48:16; 61:1–3; Zech. 4:6; Luke 4:18, 19), descended on Jesus, qualifying him (according to his human nature) for the task he had taken upon himself. d. For this symbolic public assumption of his task, that of taking away the sin of others, the Father caused his voice of love and approval to be heard from heaven (Matt. 3:16, 17; Mark 1:10, 11; Luke 3:22). e. Shortly afterward the Baptist introduced Jesus to the crowd by saying, Look, the Lamb of God, who is taking away the sin of the worldJohn 1:29; see also verses 30 34 . When these pieces are thus fitted together, do they not produce a picture of the Christ in the act of publicly assuming his task: that of openly taking upon himself, atoning for, and carrying away the sin of the world? As to what actually happened, we have noticed that in Luke 2:21the emphasis was not on the circumcision but on the naming of the child. So here also the emphasis is not on Jesus baptism but on what took place while he was praying, namely, the Spirit's descent upon him and the Father's approving voice. What Luke writes is completely misconstrued when it is changed to something resembling the following: Now after all the people had been baptized, Jesus was also baptized. Even today one actually hears sermons in which the text, so interpreted, is made the basis for a sermon on Christ's humility: he just stood there, stood there, stood there &patiently waiting until all the others were baptized. Only then did he also present himself for baptism! The words, Now when all the people were baptized, and Jesus was also baptized, etc., simply imply that at the height of John's baptizing activity Jesus was also baptized. Note, however, that in this connection Luke does not even mention John's name, though it is clear from verses 2, 15, 16, 20, that it was indeed John who baptized Jesus. See also Mark 1:9; John 1:28 34.Matt. 3:13 15even supplies further details, showing how John's hesitancy to baptize Jesus was overcome. The reason Luke omits the name of the man who baptized Jesus may well have been that this evangelist has now begun to tell us the story of Christ's ministry. He is no longer speaking about John the Baptist. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER IV:1 13 Chapter 4:1–13 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do The Temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness 4:1–13 The Temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness Cf. Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12, 13 4 1 Filled with the Holy Spirit, Jesus returned from the Jordan, 2 and for forty days was led about by the Spirit in the wilderness, where he was being tempted by the devil.^[190] He did not eat anything in those days, and when they were finished he was^[191] hungry. 3 So the devil said to him, Since you are God's Son, tell this stone to turn into bread. 4 Jesus answered, It is written, It is not by bread alone that man shall live. 5 And he led him up (to a high place), and in an instant showed him all the kingdoms of the world. 6 The devil said to him, To you I will give all their domain and splendor, for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. 7 So, if you'll worship me,^[192] all will be yours. 8 Jesus said to him, It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, And him only shall you serve. 9 And he led him to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, Since you are God's Son, throw yourself down from here, 10 for it is written, He will give his angels instructions concerning you, to guard you, 11 and On their hands they will bear you up, Lest you strike your foot against a stone. 12 Jesus answered, It has been said, You shall not put the Lord your God to the test. 13 And when the devil had finished every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time. 1, 2a. Filled with the Holy Spirit, Jesus returned from the Jordan, and for forty days was led about by the Spirit in the wilderness, where he was being tempted by the devil. The Link Between What Precedes and What Follows Thou art my Son, the Beloved, the Father had said in connection with Jesus baptism. So the devil is now going to tempt Jesus with respect to this very declaration. Not only once but, as Luke tells the story, twice Satan is going to introduce his temptations by saying, Since you are God's Son [do this &do that]. See verses 3 and 9. The Spirit had descended upon Jesus, qualifying him for his task as our Great Prophet, Sympathetic Highpriest, and Eternal King. In the present account, as Highpriest he suffers being tempted (Heb. 2:18); as Prophet he thrice appeals to Scripture (verses 4, 8, 12); and as King he gives battle to his chief opponent and triumphs over him. Man's fall was brought about when the first Adam, as mankind's representative, yielded to the temptation of the devil. Thus sin began. So now, as Jesus public ministry was about to begin, it was proper that he, as the last Adam, the representative of all who trust in him, should resist the devil's temptation and render perfect obedience to God. Thus grace would receive an open door. Besides, is it not reasonable to believe that the Lord used these forty days to prepare himself, by prayer and meditation, for the work which the Father had given him to do, and which he, Jesus himself, had voluntarily taken upon himself? Was it not for this reason that the Spirit-filled Savior returned from the Jordan, in which he was baptized, and by the Spirit was led about in the wilderness? Think of Moses on Mount Horeb (Exod. 34:2, 28; Deut. 9:9, 18), of Elijah on his way to that same mountain (I Kings 19:8), and of Paul's retreat in ArabiaGal. 1:17; see N.T.C. on Galatians, p. 56 . The Possibility of the Temptation How was it possible for a sinless Jesus to be tempted? In our attempt to answer this question we should point out first of all that it was his human nature that was tempted. Jesus was not only God; he was also man. Moreover, his soul was not hard as a flint or cold as an icicle. It was a thoroughly human, deeply sensitive soul, affected and afflicted by suffering of every description. It was Christ who said, I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how I agonize until it be accomplished (Luke 12:50). Jesus was able to express affection (Matt. 19:13, 14), sympathy (John 11:35), compassion (Matt. 12:32), anger (17:17), gratitude (11:25), and a yearning for the salvation of sinners (Luke 15; 19:10; John 7:37) to the glory of the Father (John 17:1 5). Being not only God but also man, he knew what it is to be weary (John 4:6) and thirsty (4:7; 19:28). Therefore, it should not really surprise us that, after a fast of forty days, he was very hungry, and that the proposal to turn stones into bread was a real temptation to him; and this all the more so because he knew that he was clothed with power to perform miracles! It remains true, nevertheless, that the possibility and reality of Christ's temptation surpasses our understanding. But is this not true with respect to every doctrine? And what do we really know even about ourselves, about our soul, and about the question how soul and body interact? Very, very little indeed! How then would it be possible for us to penetrate to the depths of Christ's soul and analyze it so thoroughly that we could furnish a completely satisfactory psychological explanation of his temptations? Is Luke's Account of the Temptation in Conflict with Matthew's? A good approach to this question might well be, Is the New Testament infallible? One might also ask, Is the Bible infallible? However, the answer to that question, though substantially the same as the answer to the first one, would require far more space. Besides, in the present connection it is unnecessary. But what about the New Testament, is it infallible? Here one must be careful to define just what is meant and what is not meant by infallibility. There are those who keep clinging to an infallibility concept that is unreasonable. They insist that the King James or any other version from start to finish, including the rendering of every verse, and also including the particular Greek text on which that rendering is based, is without error. We love these devout believers, and are sorry that we must disappoint them by stating that we cannot agree with them. Without realizing it, they are raising what is human to the level of the divine. Unbeknown to themselves, they are engaged in an activity which, though well-intentioned, is not exactly pious. Translations are human, therefore fallible. Inasfar as they truly reflect what God has said they are infallible, for God cannot commit error. And see II Tim. 3:16, 17; II Peter 1:21. But to the extent in which any translation fails to reflect what God has said, it is imperfect. Besides, there is the matter of the underlying Greek text. By and large that text is uniform, in the sense that we need not fear that advances in textual criticism (essentially the study of the manuscripts on which the translations are based) will ever be able to overthrow any article of The Apostles Creed. On the other hand, the very variety of the readings, one reading sometimes clashing with another, shows that they cannot all be correct at every point. They sometimes contradict each other. And this is where the need of calm reflection and comparison arises. Now as to Luke 4:1, 2a, there are those who maintain that the only correct rendering of the last part of this passage is in the desert where for forty days he was tempted by the devil, or, in similar vein, in the desert for forty days, tempted all the while by the devil. It must be granted that this or a similar rendering is indeed possible. The underlying Greek text will allow it. But it will also allow a different rendering. Goodspeed recognized this when he offered the following: &led about in the desert for forty days by the Spirit, and was tempted by the devil; similarly Phillips: &led by the Spirit to spend forty days in the desert, where he was tempted by the devil. See also A.R.V. And note my rendering. Following the words, Jesus returned from the Jordan, I suggest, and for forty days was led about by the Spirit in the wilderness, where he was being tempted by the devil. The difference is this: according to the first view Jesus was tempted by the devil throughout the forty days; according to the second, not necessarily: the constant temptation may have occurred at the close of the forty day fast. Which view deserves the preference? Answer: probably the second. How do we know? Because the one and only detailed temptation account that is definitely arranged in chronological fashion, namely, Matthew's, clearly teaches that the temptation by Satan began at the close of Christ's forty day fast. See Matt. 4:2, 3: After going without food for forty days and forty nights he was famished. The tempter came and said to him, Since you are God's Son, tell these stones to turn into bread, etc. It is clear that with respect to this point Luke's account and Matthew's do not clash but are in beautiful harmony. More important, undoubtedly, is the item that has been pinpointed for bombing attacks by those who reject the position that Luke's Gospel is divinely inspired in the same degree as are the others. That item is this: according to Matthew's Gospel the sequence in which the three temptations occurred is (a) change stones into bread, (b) throw yourself down (from the pinnacle of the temple), (c) worship me; but by Luke (b) and (c) are reversed. At synodical gatherings i.e., gatherings of denominational Assemblies an appeal has been made to this difference, in an attempt to show that Scripture is not infallible. The appeal is groundless. Here, too, we should again proceed from the basic position that it is Matthew's account alone that is chronologically arranged; note the adverbs: then &afterward &then &again &then &then (Matt. 4:1–11). Matthew relates what occurred first, what followed, what came next, and how it all ended. Luke has nothing of the kind. See Luke 4:5, 9. His account is not arranged chronologically. He mentions the three temptations but does not indicate by even a single word that they occurred in that particular time sequence. Any mention of a possible clash or conflict between Matthew and Luke is therefore unreasonable. Why did Luke present these three temptations in a different order than Matthew? A categorical answer is impossible. We simply do not know the reason. Nevertheless, the following approach may be worthy of consideration. Luke is an artist. His arrangement is truly beautiful. He records the fact that in the first and in the third temptation according to the order in which the beloved physician has arranged them the devil starts out by saying, Since you are God's Son. In the second or middle one the devil appeals to the eye rather than to the ear and, having shown the Redeemer all the kingdoms of the world in their splendor, blurts out, To you I will give them if, etc. Also and this is very significant Luke has so arranged his material that his nativity account is climaxed by a scene that takes place in the temple (2:41–52). His entire book also closes with a temple scene (24:53). So why should he not also end with a temple scene the first of the three large sections into which his Gospel can be divided? Luke, let it be borne in mind, more than any other Gospel writer, describes Jesus as Our Sympathetic Highpriest. See Introduction, point V D. Priest and temple go together. Luke's arrangement at this point (4:9–13) is, accordingly, in line with the spirit of his entire book. It harmonizes with his purpose. The Temptation Step by Step First Temptation 2b. He did not eat anything in those days, and when they were finished he was hungry. Luke shows that Christ's fast was complete, not partial. It is certainly not surprising that at the end of forty days of fasting Jesus was (or: became) hungry. The devil naturally selects this moment as his golden opportunity. The story continues: 3. So the devil said to him, Since you are God's Son, tell this stone to turn into bread. It must have been in the spirit of derision that the tempter uttered these words. He probably meant, Since that is what the Father told you at your baptism [3:22], and what you believe, make use of your majestic dignity, and no longer be tortured by hunger. Son of God &hungry. How ridiculous! If, then, you are God's Son, tell this stone to turn into bread. The wilderness was full of stones. Matt. 4:3has the plural of the words stone and bread. Luke uses the singular. Satan probably pointed to a single stone, Tell this stone. It was, of course, a wicked attempt (a) to cause the last Adam (I Cor. 15:45) to fail even as the first Adam had failed, in both cases in connection with food consumption. Was not one of the reasons why the Holy Spirit caused Jesus to be tested exactly this, that, as the Representative and Savior of all his people, he must in their stead triumph over temptation instead of succumbing to it as the first Adam had done? Moreover, on the part of the tempter this was a sinister endeavor (b) to destroy the Son's confidence in his Father's will and power to sustain him. What the tempter was asking Jesus to do was to distrust his Father, and to take matters entirely into his own hands. Though, as has been pointed out, there are depths that we cannot fathom, it cannot be denied that this temptation was a very real one for Jesus. He knew that he was clothed with power to perform miracles. Also, there was an opportunity to use that power in his own behalf. He must have been very hungry by this time. The reality of the temptation and the severity of the trial may perhaps become even more clearly evident when the last Adam's situation is compared with that of the first one. Both were tempted by Satan. But the difference in the gravity of the test appears from the following threefold contrast: a. Nowhere in Gen. 3:1 7do we read that the Old Testament Adam had gone without food for any length of time. Jesus, on the contrary, had been fasting for forty days. He was famished. b. Even had the father of the human race been hungry, he could have easily satisfied that hunger, for he had been told, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat (Gen. 2:16). No such provision had been made for Christ. c. Eve's husband, when tempted, had, as it were, everything in his favor, for he was living in paradise. Jesus, at the time of his temptation, was staying in this horrible wilderness! Nevertheless, he withstood the temptation: 4. Jesus answered, It is written, It is not by bread alone that man shall live. Note the expression, It is written, not only here in verse 4 but also in verses 8 and 10, every time with a reference to the same book, Deuteronomy, which, as is clear, Jesus regarded not as a pious fraud but as the very Word of God. Other passages that give expression to Christ's exalted view of Scripture are Luke 24:25 27, 44 47; John 5:39; and 10:35. For him the Old Testament Scriptures, as interpreted by himself, were evidently the ultimate touchstone of the truth for life and doctrine, the final court of appeal for the reason. The first quotation is from Deut. 8:3. It pictures Moses reminding Israel of God's tender care for his people during the forty years of the wilderness journey. Particularly, it shows how the Lord had fed them with manna, heretofore completely unknown to them and their fathers, that he might teach them that not by bread alone does man live but by everything proceeding out of the mouth of Jehovah does man live. What Jesus means, therefore, may be paraphrased as follows: Tempter, you are proceeding upon the false assumption that for a man, in order to appease hunger and keep alive, bread is absolutely necessary. Over against this erroneous idea I now declare that not bread but the creative, energizing, and sustaining power of my Father is the only indispensable source of my, and of man's, life and well-being. Luke, however, omits the last part of Deut. 8:3, But by every word that comes, etc. Matt. 4:4has these words. Luke frequently omits material, probably in order to have enough room in his Gospel for other topics. On the part of Jesus this reply to Satan's advice was an expression of filial confidence in the Father's care. Certainly the One who, when there was no bread, had provided manna, and who quite recently had said, Thou art my Son, the Beloved, would not fail his Beloved in this hour of trial! Second Temptation (Matthew's Third) 5. And he led him up (to a high place), and in an instant showed him all the kingdoms of the world. Just how we must conceive of this is not explained. Did the devil assume a physical body (Gen. 3:1; cf. John 8:44), and did the two Jesus and the devil walk side by side through the wilderness and reach a mountain from which Satan could show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world? In the vicinity of the Judean wilderness or of Jerusalem, which mountain would that be? Did they glide smoothly through the sky, the devil functioning as a kind of engine? Did they sail along together all the way to Mount Everest? But even then, would not some kind of miracle have been required to enable the devil from there to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, and this not just in dim outline, but very distinctly, do that all their domain and splendor [or glory] would be plainly visible; and again, not little by little during a lengthy period of time, but, as Luke here adds, in a moment? This is not at all a question of believing Scripture or not believing it. It is simply a question of how best to interpret what we fully accept. The writer of this commentary has not been able anywhere to find a solution that satisfies him better than that of Calvin. In his Commentary Calvin remarks: It is asked, was he [Jesus] actually carried to this elevated spot, or was it done in a vision? &What is added, that all the kingdoms of the world were exposed to Christ's view &in one moment &agrees better with the idea of a vision than with any other theory. In a matter that is doubtful, and where ignorance brings no risk, I choose rather to suspend my judgment than to furnish contentious people with an excuse for a debate. Calvin is being very careful. It is clear that he favors the vision idea. On the other hand, he does not wish to press it, leaving room for any other reasonable interpretation anyone might be able to offer. I only wish to add that Scripture contains two comparable passages in which we are told that someone is set on or carried to a high mountain. These two are (Ezek. 40:2and Rev. 21:10. Ezekiel plainly states that this happened in the visions of God. To the seer of Patmos visions were shown while he was in the SpiritRev. 1:10). It was in the Spirit that he was carried away to a mountain great and high. Calvin's view, accordingly, is worthy of very serious consideration. The objection that if the temptations occurred to Jesus during visions they were not real is groundless. Was not Ezekiel's experience real, even though it occurred in a vision? Is John's description of Jerusalem the Golden bereft of value because it too came to him in a vision? Besides, if even a dream call be so vivid that there are said to be cases on record of people dying as a result, shall we then say that the reality of Christ's temptation experiences is diminished in any way because it was in visions that the tempter came to him and addressed him? This view must not be confused with that according to which the temptations were of a merely subjective nature. No, even if it was in a vision that the devil came to Jesus, the great adversary was very real, and it was he, not the Lord, who said, Tell this stone to turn into bread, worship me, throw yourself down. If it was in a vision that the Lord was urged to do these things, we may be sure that what occurred in the vision was as real to his mind as if there had been no vision at all, and everything had taken place with strict literality. From the top of the very high place (whether or not it was in a vision makes no difference) the devil shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. All these are vividly displayed to Jesus in just one very significant moment! To gain some conception of what must have been included in the panorama that was spread out before the Lord, would it not be wise to read carefully the following three paragraphs: II Chron. 9:9–28; Eccles. 2:1–11; and Rev. 18:12, 13? All this wealth is by Satan offered to Christ, all for the price of just one genuflection! If Jesus will but worship the devil, he can have it all. He can have it in his possession and under his authority. 6, 7. The devil said to him, To you I will give all their domain and splendor, for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. So, if you'll worship me [or: if you'll kneel before me], all will be yours. The question has been asked whether Satan was really the possessor of all these things, and whether he was actually in control of all of them to such an extent that he could offer them to anyone he wished. Often this question is answered in the affirmative, with an appeal to Eph. 2:2, where Satan is called the prince of the domain of the air; to 6:12, which speaks about the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places; to I John 5:19, which states that the whole world lies in (the power of) the evil one; and even to the present passage, in which the great adversary pictures himself as the rightful owner of, and ruler over, all. Further substantiation is found in the fact that Jesus in his answer (verse 8) did not in so many words dispute Satan's claim. Do these passages really prove what those who appeal to them are trying to prove? I do not believe they do. The first three merely prove that Satan exercises a very powerful influence for evil over the lives of all those wicked people and spirits that acknowledge him as their master. But such references certainly do not prove that the devil is the ultimate owner and ruler of the nations, with the right and the might to dispose of them and of their wealth as he pleases, so that Christ himself, at least during the present dispensation, would have to take a back seat to him. The contrary is the truth, as is proved abundantly by such passages as (Gen. 3:15; Ps. 2; Matt. 11:27; 28:18; Rom. 16:20; Eph. 1:20–23; Col. 2:15; and Rev. 12; 20:3, 4, 10. If it be argued that some of these passages refer to the power given to Christ in his exaltation, the answer is that even during Christ's humiliation Satan was able to do no more than Christ suffered him to do, as both Matt. 4:11and also the Gospels in general testifyMatt. 12:29; Luke 10:18; John 12:31). And as to Satan's boast here in Luke 4:6, it is too absurd to merit an answer. But if an answer of a sort be demanded, let it be John 8:44. On the surface it may therefore seem as if this temptation was for Christ no temptation at all. Jesus knew that the devil was lying; that is, that the prince of evil had no enchanting kingdoms to give away. No doubt the Lord also knew that even if Satan had possessed them, he would not have fulfilled his promise. In what sense then can we say this attempt of Satan was also a real temptation for Christ? As I see it, only in this way that, although the particular form in which the proposal was made contained nothing that would recommend it to the mind and heart of the Savior, nevertheless the implied suggestion to try to obtain the crown without enduring the cross was able to foment a bitter struggle within him. To be sure, it was not a struggle that involved him in sin or could bring him to the point of committing sin, but it was a state of agony, nevertheless. How else can we explain the words uttered in Gethsemane, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt (Matt. 26:39)? Or, how can we explain Luke 12:50? It is clear, therefore, that for Christ this temptation too was very real. Satan received the answer he deserved: 8. Jesus said to him, It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, And him only shall you serve. The answer reflects (Deut. 6:13.^[193] It also reveals the sharp contrast between Christ, who is ever doing what his Father wants him to doJohn 5:30; 6:38), and Satan, whose purpose is the exact opposite (Gen. 2:17, cf. 3:4; Zech. 3:1, 2; John 8:44; I Thess. 2:18; I Peter 5:8; I John 3:8; Rev. 12; 20:8, 9). Third Temptation (Matthew's Second) 9 11. And he led him to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, Since you are God's Son, throw yourself down from here, for it is written, He will give his angels instructions concerning you, to guard you, and On their hands they will bear you up, Lest you strike your foot against a stone. As has already been explained, worthy of serious consideration is the theory according to which it was in a vision that Luke's third as well as his second temptation perhaps even all three temptations occurred. The present temptation, then, takes place in Jerusalem, to which the devil has led Jesus. Satan has set the Savior on the very pinnacle (literally wing) of the outer wall of the entire temple complex. The exact spot is not given. It may have been the roof-edge of Herod's royal portico, overhanging the Kedron Valley, and looking down some four hundred fifty feet, a dizzy height, as Josephus points out (Antiq. XV.412). This spot was located southeast of the temple court, perhaps at or near the place from which, according to tradition, James, the Lord's brother, was hurled down. See the very interesting account in Eusebius, EcclHist;, II.xxiii. Since you are the Son of God, says the tempter (exactly as in verse 3), throw yourself down. His reasoning was probably along this line, You will thus be able to prove your confidence in the Father's protection. Besides, if Scripture, which you so readily quote, is true, no harm can befall you, for it is written, He will give his angels instructions concerning you. They will not merely arrest your fall. No, they will do more. Very tenderly they will bear you up on their hands, lest you, wearing only sandals, should hurt yourself by striking your foot against one of those sharp-edged stones present in abundance in the abyss below. The passage quoted is from (Ps. 91:11, 12. As rendered here in Luke 4:10, 11, it follows the SeptuagintPs. 90:11, 12). As it is quoted by the devil, there is, however, an omission which some regard as being important, others not. According to the Hebrew, (Ps. 91:11ends with the words to guard you in all your ways. Luke 4:10merely has to guard you. Hence the words in all your ways are left out. When these words are included, God promises to protect the righteous man in all his righteous ways; for these are the ways of the man who dwells in the secret place of the Most High, abides under the shadow of the Almighty and has found his refuge in Jehovah, upon whom he has set his love. They are, accordingly, the ways of the saintProv. 2:8), the good man (Prov. 2:20). It is to such a one that the words apply, He will give his angels instructions concerning you, to guard you in all your ways. When these words in all your ways are omitted, does it not become easier to interpret the passage as if it were a promise of Jehovah to protect the righteous no matter what he does? So read, the passage would seem to correspond more closely with what the devil wants Jesus to do. Nevertheless, this point is probably of minor importance, since what Satan omits amounts to far more than a few words in a quotation. He omits any reference to the scriptural truth that God does not condone but condemns and punishes rashness, a trifling with providence, an impetuous rushing into totally unwarranted danger (Gen. 13:10, 11; Esther 5:14; 7:9, 10; Ps. 19:13; Dan. 4:28–33; 5:22, 23; Rom. 1:30; II Peter 2:10). Obedience to Satan's proposal was tempting, for Jesus knew that he possessed extraordinary powers. Besides, what man is there who, when asked to prove a point he has made, does not feel as if he should immediately comply, instead of first asking himself, What right has my prompter to ask me to prove it? Jesus, however, does not fall into this trap. He realizes that for him to do what Satan is urging upon him would amount to substituting presumption for faith, effrontery for submission to God's guidance. It would have meant nothing less than to risk self-destruction. The false trust in the Father which the devil demanded of Jesus in this temptation was not any better than the distrust he had proposed in the first. It would have amounted to experimenting on the Father. A rabbinical tradition reads, When the king, Messiah, reveals himself, then he comes and stands on the roof of the holy place. ^[194] On the basis of this tradition some commentators are of the opinion that the tempter was trying to suggest that Jesus, by casting himself from the temple's pinnacle, would establish himself as being indeed the Messiah, for, after a miraculous and safe landing, the crowd, having watched the descent with bated breath, would exclaim, Look, he is unhurt. He must be the Messiah! For Jesus, thus the argument continues, this would then be an easy way to success. The cross would be avoided, the crown obtained without struggle or agony. It is an interesting theory. Nevertheless, there is nothing that would lend any further support to it. No spectators are even mentioned in the Gospel accounts. Moreover, Jesus, in his reply, does not refer to anything of the kind. I believe, therefore, that the entire idea should he dismissed. Luke 16:31also argues against it. The reason why Jesus peremptorily rejects the devil's proposal has already been given. It is clearly stated in verse 12. Jesus answered, It has been said, You shall not put the Lord your God to the test. This is a quotation from Deut. 6:16, which reflects the situation of the Israelites described in Exod. 17:1–7, how at a place called Massah and Meribah they made trial of Jehovah and rebelled against Moses because of lack of water. They accused Moses of having cruelly brought them, their children, and their cattle, out of Egypt and into the desert, to destroy them all. They were almost ready to stone him and, instead of in a childlike manner making all their wants and wishes known at the Father's throne, they insolently and provocatively challenged God, saying, is Jehovah among us or not? Jesus knows that similar ill behavior on his part, by unnecessarily exposing himself to danger just to see what his Father's reaction might be, whether the latter would be with him or not, would amount to grievous transgression. He knows that the devil's proposal has nothing whatever to do with humbly trusting in the protecting care promised in Ps. 91. He therefore very appropriately answers the tempter by quoting Deut. 6:16. Daily life all around us affords abundant illustrations of false confidence, similar to that which the devil urged Jesus to exercise. A person will earnestly beseech the Lord to bestow upon him the blessing of health; however, he neglects to observe the rules of health. Or, he will ask God to save his soul; however, he neglects to use the means of grace, such as the study of Scripture, church attendance, the sacraments, living a life for the benefit of others to the glory of God. Again, someone will plead with the Lord for the spiritual as well as physical welfare of his children, but he himself neglects to bring them up in the way of the Lord. A church member, admonished because at a circus he had eagerly rushed into a corrupt side show, defended himself by saying, I cannot deny that I went there, but while I was there I was constantly praying, Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanityPs. 119:37A.V. . You shall not put the Lord your God to the test is the answer to all of this. 13. And when the devil had finished every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time. It was pointed out earlier (p. 39) that the position of Conzelmann, according to which the age or period of Jesus, extending from Luke 4:13through 22:3, is protected from every activity of Satan, is contrary to the facts as reported in that Gospel. See 8:12, 13, 27 f.; 10:18; 11:4, 14 f. (especially 11:18); 13:16. What the present passage means, therefore, is not that Satan desisted for a long time from carrying out his sinister activities, but simply that for the nonce the prince of evil departed. He must have realized that he had been thoroughly defeated. This made him all the more angry. More than ever, therefore, he was determined to attack Jesus and his cause, and to do this at the very earliest opportunity.^[195] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 4:1 13 Verses 1, 2a He was being tempted by the devil. Our Highpriest, having defeated the tempter, can help us in our temptationsHeb. 4:14f. . Verse 2b He was hungry. It was in the sphere of the appetite that man was first tempted. He lost (Gen. 3). The last Adam (I Cor. 15:45), as his people's representative, rendered the obedience which the first Adam, as mankind's representative, had failed to render. Verses 4, 8, 12 It is written (bis), it has been said. Resist Satan by appealing to Scripture, as Jesus did. Verse 13 The devil &departed from him. In his battle against Jesus and his church Satan loses (Gen. 3:15; Job 1:6 12, 20 22; 2:1–10; 19:23–27; 42:10–17; John 10:28; 16:33; Rom. 8:31–39; 16:20; I Cor. 15:55–57; Rev. 12:7f.; 20:1–3, 10). What a comfort! The paragraph considered as a whole. There are those who believe that in these three temptations the devil holds out to Jesus three goals: those of becoming, respectively, a famous Food Supplier, an illustrious World Conqueror, and a Startling Magician. Textual support for this idea is lacking. Far more reasonable is the thought that throughout Satan was tempting Jesus by trying to show him how he could reach the crown without suffering the cross. See Luke 12:50; 22:42; Heb. 5:7, 8. Jesus triumphed. Not for a moment did he leave the path of trust and obedience. He persevered in carrying out the task which the Father had given him to do. For us, too, the practical lesson is Trust and obey. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 4:1–13 Verses 1, 2a In his Translation, p. 157, Robertson calls the position of [Greek] ambiguous. In Word Pictures, Vol. II, p. 48, he states that the expression during the forty days must be connected with led, not with tempted. I agree, for reasons stated in the comments. Verse 2b [Greek] ([Greek]), used as third per. s., 2nd aor. active of [Greek], to eat. [Greek], gen. absolute; fem. pl. because [Greek] represents [Greek]. The verb [Greek] has various meanings in the New Testament; such as, to finish, establish, round out, execute, accomplish, come to an end. The aor. active participle of this verb occurs in verse 13. Verse 3 [Greek], according to Robertson, Translation, p. 30, loaf of bread. But the English word loaf has a meaning that is foreign to the context here. The emphasis in the present connection is rather on the generic idea; that is, on the substance bread, to satisfy hunger. Even if a specific form of bread were meant, bread-cake would be preferable to loaf of bread. Verse 5 [Greek], point of time, moment. Cf. stick. The noun is related to [Greek], to prick. Verses 7, 8 Verse 7 is a future more vivid (third class) conditional sentence. The protasis uses [Greek] with the sec. per. s. (ingressive) aor. subjunctive; the apodosis has the fut. indicative. Another form (sec. per. s. fut. indicat.) of the verb used in the protasis of verse 7 occurs in verse 8. The two forms are [Greek] (verse 7), and [Greek] (verse 8). Verse 9 [Greek], pinnacle. The Greek word, in the New Testament occurring only here and in the parallel account (Matt. 4:5), is related to [Greek], to fly. Cf. feather, pinion; in fact, pinnacle itself is also related. The words that embody Satan's third (according to Luke) temptation are in the form of a simple regular conditional sentence, with aor. imperat. in the apodosis. Verse 10 [Greek], third per. s. fut. indicat. of [Greek], to charge, order, command. [Greek], articular aor. active infinitive of [Greek], to guard. Verse 11 [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. subjunctive of [Greek], to strike against. Verse 12 [Greek], used as third per. s. perf. passive indicative of [Greek] (past action with abiding result): it has been said and therefore stands. Cf. the parallel, Matt. 4:7, it is written. And see John 19:22. [Greek], sec. per. s. fut. indicative of [Greek], to put to the test (to try out, sound out). See also Matt. 4:7; Luke 10:25; I Cor. 10:9. Verse 13 [Greek], for a season; that is, until another favorable opportunity should present itself. Summary of Chapter 4:1–13 Filled with the Holy Spirit, Jesus returned from the Jordan, where he had been baptized. For forty days he was led about by the Spirit in the wilderness. During these days he did not eat, so that when they were finished he was famished. So the devil said to him, Since you are God's Son, tell this stone to turn into bread. The devil also led Jesus to a high place and in an instant showed him all the kingdoms of the world, promising that he would give them all to Jesus if the latter would worship him. The devil repeated the words (of the first temptation), Since you are God's Son, when he set Jesus on the pinnacle of the temple, continuing, throw yourself down from here. He strengthened (as he thought) his challenge by an appeal to Ps. 91:11a, 12. In all three cases Jesus answered the tempter by using the Word as a weapon. He appealed to Deut. 8:3in answer to the first temptation; to Deut. 6:13in answer to the second; and to Deut. 6:16in answer to the third (the terms first, second, and third here referring to Luke's arrangement, which is topical rather than strictly chronological). By his voluntary submission to the rite of baptism and also by his equally voluntary obedience to the Father's will and the Spirit's direction when he was tempted by Satan, Jesus, as the last Adam, fulfilled the law which the first Adam had transgressed. By means of this obedience he was clearly indicating that he had taken upon himself and was taking away the sin of the world. Cf. John 1:29. He was therefore ready to begin his ministry of teaching, preaching, healing, casting out demons, and overarching everything else, suffering and dying for all those lost sheep who would place their trust in him. See Isa. 53:6, 11; John 10:11, 14, 15, 27, 28. The Work Thou Gavest Him To Do Its Progress or Continuation Chapters 4:14 19:27 CHAPTER IV: 14 44 Outline of Chapter 4:14–44 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do A. The Great Galilean Ministry 4:14, 15 Its Beginning 4:16–30 The Rejection of Jesus at Nazareth 4:31–37 The Healing of a Man with an Unclean Spirit 4:38–41 The Healing of Simon's Mother-in-law and of Many Others 4:42–44 Preaching the Good News to Other Towns Also 4:14, 15 The Beginning of the Great Galilean Ministry Cf. Matt. 4:12, 17; 11:2; 14:3–5; Mark 1:14, 15; Luke 3:19, 20; John 3:24; 4:1–3, 43, 44 14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the entire surrounding region. 15 He^[196] was teaching in their synagogues and being praised by everybody. A new section of Luke's Gospel begins here. A chapter division at this point would have been very proper. Luke does not indicate any chronological connection between 4:14, 15 and the preceding material: the account of Jesus baptism and temptation (in this Gospel separated by a genealogy). Between (Luke 4:13and 4:14, 15 there may well have been an interval of about a year, during which the events related in John 1:19 4:42occurred. If so, the date when Jesus returned to Galilee, to begin his Great Galilean MinistryLuke 4:14 9:17), was probably about December of the year a.d. 27 or a little later. See on 3:1, 2, 19, 20. But though thus separated in time from the preceding events, yet what Luke is about to tell us is in material substance closely connected with that which precedes. The preparation for and inauguration of the work which the Father gave Jesus to do is ended. The beginning has been accomplished: After an appropriate introduction (1:1–4) Luke has described (a) Jesus forerunner, and (b) Jesus birth. Luke's account, in both cases, is far more detailed than can be found anywhere else. He has even reproduced the accompanying songs. He has related an incident that occurred when Jesus was 12 years of age, and has summarized his life in Nazareth. He has shown that by means of his baptism the Savior reaffirmed his decision to take upon himself the sin of the world. He has described Jesus triumph over Satan in the desert of temptation. Nothing can now prevent the Christ from carrying forward his task as the Great Prophet, Eternal King, and Sympathetic Highpriest (with emphasis, in Luke, on the latter). He will reveal his sympathy not only to Jews but also to Gentiles, as is implied in Luke 4:16 30; for he is related, as the genealogy has shown, not only to David and Abraham but also to Adam, that is, to mankind in general. Nevertheless, as has been indicated, gospel work in Gentile territory is by Luke largely reserved for the book of Acts. For the return to Galilee, mentioned here in 4:14, there were at least two reasons: (a) to avoid a premature crisis (see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 239–241); and (b) to fulfil prophecy by meeting Galilee's dire need (Isa. 9:1, 2; Matt. 4:15, 16). As Luke here briefly summarizes the Great Galilean Ministry, particularly the teaching in which Jesus was then engaged, it had the following characteristics. It was: a. Spirit endowed: Jesus performed his task as One who was filled with the Holy Spirit, who had descended upon him in connection with his baptism and had been his Guide in the wilderness (3:22; 4:1); b. widely advertised: the news about it and about him was spreading throughout the entire surrounding region; c. synagogue-centered: see Matt. 4:23a, and for the history and importance of the synagogue see N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 74–76; and d. popular. Note the words, and he was praised by everybody. For further confirming evidence showing how the people flocked to hear Jesus teaching (both in the synagogue and elsewhere) see Luke 4:22a, 32; 5:1; cf. Matt. 7:28, 29; 9:35, 36; 13:1, 2, 54; Mark 1:21, 22; 2:13; 4:1; etc. It should be borne in mind, however, that this popularity was by no means unqualified. At times those who at first were filled with enthusiasm became adversely critical and even antagonistic as soon as they began to realize that Christ's teaching conflicted with their prejudices, as this very chapter shows.^[197] A Practical Lesson Derived from Luke 4:14, 15 What was it that made Jesus teaching so popular? Answer: it was lively, authoritative, well-organized, practical, interesting, true. Cf. Matt. 7:28, 29. See also on Luke 4:31, 32. Does not this fact contain a hint that should be taken to heart by present-day preachers? And also a hint for parishioners, so that they may show appreciation to pastors who make this ideal their aim? Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 4:14, 15 Verse 14 [Greek], news, in the New Testament used only here and in Matt. 9:26. Cf. [Greek], to say, affirm. The stem occurs in several English words; such as prophecy, euphemism, fable. Related also is fame, which in the present case, because of the favorable context, can even pass as a translation (see A.V., Weymouth, Berkeley). Verse 15 Whether [Greek] has the intensive meaning he himself depends on the context. In the present case either meaning he or he himself can be defended. The description is vivid, as is clear from the use of the imperfect was teaching and the similarly durative present passive participle being praised. 4:16–30 The Rejection of Jesus at Nazareth Cf. Matt. 13:53–58; Mark 6:1 6 16 He came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and, as was his custom, on the sabbath day entered the synagogue. He stood up to read. 17 The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling the scroll, he found the place where it was written: 18 The Spirit of the Lord (is) upon me, Because he has anointed me To proclaim good news to the poor; He has sent me to proclaim to the captives release; And to the blind recovery of sight; To set free the oppressed; 19 To proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. ^[198] 20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 He started out by saying to them, Today, in your very hearing, this passage of Scripture has been fulfilled. 22 All were speaking well of him and were amazed about the words of grace that were flowing from his lips. They were asking. Isn t this Joseph's son? 23 Jesus said to them, Undoubtedly you will quote to me this proverb, Physician, heal yourself: whatever we heard that was done in Capernaum, do also here, in your hometown. 24 He continued, I solemnly assure you, no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 I tell you truthfully, during the days of Elijah, when the sky was shut for three years and six months, and there was a severe famine in the entire country, there were many widows in Israel; 26 yet Elijah was sent to none of them but to Zarephath in the region of Sidon, to a woman (who was) a widow. 27 And at the time of Elisha the prophet there were many lepers in Israel; yet none of them was cleansed; only Naaman the Syrian. 28 Now when they heard these things, all the people in the synagogue were filled with fury. 29 Arising, they drove him out of town and pushed him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, intending to cast him down headlong. 30 But he walked right through their midst and went on his way. A. Introduction There is no agreement on the question why Luke departs from what was probably the historical sequence, and in his Gospel places the account of the rejection at Nazareth in the forefront of his coverage of the Great Galilean Ministry, while Matthew and Mark give a much later place to it. Some have suggested two rejections at Nazareth. Reasons for accepting the theory that in all three cases the reference is to the same incident: a. The general outline of the story is the same in all three: On a sabbath Jesus enters his hometown. He teaches in the synagogue. Result: astonishment, adverse criticism, rejection. b. Essentially the same dominical saying occurs in all three accounts (Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24). c. The historical background creates no difficulty, since even according to Luke's account (see 4:23) Christ's rejection at Nazareth did not occur at the beginning of Christ's Galilean Ministry but much later. The identification is made easier by the fact that, aside from what is implied in 4:23, there are no time references attached to Luke's account. It is clear from Matt. 13:53, 54that the visit to Nazareth occurred sometime after Jesus spoke his kingdom parables, although how long afterward is nowhere indicated. Did this visit and rejection take place in late a.d. 28? This possibility must be granted. Luke, in his rich coverage 15 verses compared to 6 for Matthew and 5½ for Mark supplies the text and gist of Christ's sermon. In addition to telling us how it was received Luke gives us a much fuller account (than do Matthew and Mark) of the manner in which Jesus answered his critics and of their resulting hostile reaction. But although we do not know why Luke places the rejection at Nazareth so early, the suggestion that he may have done this in order to indicate at once what would be the general trend with respect to the people's attitude to Jesus deserves consideration. That trend would be: first enthusiastic interest and amazement, then rejection. Besides, it should be borne in mind that in chapters 1 3 Luke, in a manner more detailed and emphatic than any other synoptist, has held out bright hopes concerning Jesus(1:30–35, 42, 48, 78, 79; 2:10, 11, 14, 30 32, 34, 40, 52; 3:16–22). It should not surprise us, therefore, that now, without delay, he wishes to indicate that Jesus himself confirmed these expectations (verse 21). And does not the inspired author of the Fourth Gospel also prefix a summarizing paragraph to his narrative about Jesus? See John 1:10 14. B. Jesus enters the synagogue 16a. He came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and, as was his custom, on the sabbath day entered the synagogue. Even though Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:5, 6; Luke 2:4, 15; John 1:45; 7:42; cf. Mic. 5:2), and during a large part of his ministry had his headquarters in Capernaum (Matt. 4:13), he was and remained Jesus of NazarethMatt. 2:23; 21:11; 26:71; Mark 1:24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6; Luke 18:37; etc. . Nazareth, as Luke reminds us (cf. 2:39, 40, 51, 52), was the place where Jesus had been brought up, his hometown. Luke adds that on this particular sabbath day Jesus entered the synagogue. The fact that he attended the synagogue wherever he happened to be, particularly on the sabbath, is clear from several Gospel passages (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 12:9; 13:54; Mark 1:21, 39; 3:1; 6:2; Luke 4:15, 16, 44; 6:6; 13:10; John 6:59; 18:20). However, here alone (Luke 4:16) note the significant addition as was his custom. Though even with respect to his human nature Jesus was far advanced in knowledge, wisdom, etc., above anyone else who imparted instruction in the synagogue, he did not stay away. The example set by Jesus should remind us of such passages as Deut. 12:5; Ps. 84:1–4; 95:2–7; 122:1–4; Isa. 37:1; Matt. 18:20; Luke 2:36, 37; 24:52, 53; Heb. 10:25. It is true, nevertheless, that in nearly all of the Gospel references (Matt. 4:23), we are told that Jesus himself did the teaching or preaching. C. He reads Scripture 1. The material read 16b 19. He stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling the scroll, he found the place where it was written & If sources later than New Testament times are applicable to the period of Christ's earthly sojourn, the sequence of liturgical elements in the synagogue service was probably about as follows: a. Thanksgivings or blessings spoken in connection with (before and after) the Sh�may: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. b. Prayer, with response of Amen by the congregation. c. Reading of a passage from the Pentateuch (in Hebrew, followed by translation into Aramaic). d. Reading of a passage from the Prophets (similarly translated). e. Sermon or word of exhortation. f. The Benediction pronounced by a priest, to which the congregation responded with Amen. When no priest was present a Closing Prayer was substituted for the Benediction. The freedom of the synagogue implied that any person considered suitable by the ruler (or the rulers) of the synagogue was privileged and encouraged to deliver the sermon. Cf. Acts 13:15. It is easy to understand that this provision made it possible for Jesus, and also later on for Paul and other Christian leaders, to bring the gospel to the assembled congregation. Whether here in Nazareth Jesus had been asked to lead, or whether he simply knew that the people expected him to read and preach is not clear. Either is possible. He stood up to read. By the attendant the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. It seems to have been a separate scroll.^[199] Did the first lines of Isa. 61constitute the haphtara (lesson from the Prophets) for that particular sabbath day, or did Jesus himself select these lines? The words, Unrolling the scroll he found the place, etc., seem to point in the direction of the second alternative. We may perhaps also assume that it was Jesus himself who translated the Hebrew into Aramaic. The quotation (Luke 4:18, 19) is from Isa. 61:1, 2a. The close resemblances, as well as the differences, become apparent in the chart below. 2. The explanation The number at the beginning of each of the following paragraphs refers to the identically numbered passage in the three columns: 1. The Speaker throughout is evidently the Messiah himself. Luke 4:21makes clear that this Messiah is Jesus. This shows that the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy, when Israel's remnant returned from the Babylonian captivity, was of a preliminary nature; and that the final fulfilment was ushered in by the incarnation, humiliation, and exaltation of Jesus Christ. A Comparison of Isaiah 61:1, 2a with Luke 4:18, 19 Hebrew Isa. 61:1, 2a translaled into English LXX (Greek Version) of Isa. 61:1, 2a translated into English Luke 4:18, 19translated into English 1. The Spirit of the Lord God (is) upon me, The Spirit of the Lord (is) upon me, The Spirit of the Lord (is) upon me, 2. Because the Lord has anointed me to announce good news to the poor. Because he has anointed me; He has sent me to proclaim good news to the poor, Because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. 3. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted; To heal the brokenhearted, 4. To proclaim to the captives liberty; To proclaim to the captives release; He has sent to proclaim to the captives release; 5. And to those bound opening of eyes; And to the blind recovery of sight; And to the blind recovery of sight; 6. To set free the oppressed; 7. To proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. To announce the year of the Lord's favor. To proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. It was upon him that, by an act of God the Father, the anointing Holy Spirit was caused to rest. See Luke 3:21, 22. 2. This anointing implied that the Savior had been set apart and qualified for a task. Part of that task was to proclaim good news to the poor. The Greek word translated poor occurs also in the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3; Luke 6:20). The Speaker in Isaiah was thinking of the destitute, those who know themselves to be such. Isa. 66:2provides a good commentary, But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and crushed in spirit, and trembles at my word. 3. The words of the Messiah, found in the Isaiah passage, namely, He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, reflected also in the LXX, (He has sent me) to heal the broken-hearted, are omitted in Luke. Why? We can only guess. Possibilities: (a) Luke's intention was not to reproduce the entire haphtara (selection from the Prophets) but only the words used by Jesus as the text for his sermon; (b) correctly interpreted, the reference to the poor to whom the good news must be proclaimed made a further statement about the broken-hearted not absolutely necessary. There may be a better explanation. 4. The underlying figure captives is that of exiles, by the conqueror dragged away from their own homeland and transported into a foreign country where they endure many grievous hardships. This captivity symbolizes enslavement to sin and Satan. But Messiah was divinely commissioned to proclaim and to bring about release from this captivity. See John 8:36. 5. According to Luke's report and compare the LXX Version Jesus also read these words, And (he has sent me to proclaim) to the blind recovery of sight. The parallel Isaiah passage is often rendered, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. It then becomes difficult to understand why the corresponding line in the LXX and in Luke speaks of the recovery of sight. The transition from one idea the opening of the prison to the other the recovery of sight is then explained by pointing out that when men bound in dark dungeons are set free, they again see the light of day, and in that sense their eyes are opened. That explanation sounds reasonable. A quicker way to reach the same result is to adopt for the Isaiah passage the alternate rendering of the words in question, namely, and to those bound opening of eyes. ^[200] One of the purposes for which the Messiah was sent into the world was indeed to open men's eyes, a right claimed by JesusJohn 9:39a . 6. (He has sent me) to set free the oppressed. See also the note on 4:18 on page 260. Neither Isa. 61:1, 2a nor the LXX Version has anything that corresponds to item 6. It can perhaps be viewed as a midrash or comment on the immediately preceding passage. The meaning then would be on this order, When I said that the blind receive recovery of sight, I meant that this takes place when they are set free from the oppression they had been enduring in Satan's dark dungeon. Such a comment seems all the more natural at this point, in view of the fact that Isa. 58:6a passage not far removed from the opening verses of Isa. 61refers to the deliverance of those crushed or oppressed. 7. (He has sent me) to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, or the acceptable year of the Lord (A.V.). The underlying figure is the year of Jubilee, the fiftieth year, when, according to (Lev. 25:8f., the trumpet must be sounded, and liberty throughout all the land must be proclaimed. This is a symbol of the Messianic Age, for it is only by faith in Jesus Christ that true freedom is obtained: freedom from living in constant fear, from obligation to ever so many manmade ordinances, from guilt, pollution, Satan, sin and its results. If therefore the Son will make you free, you will be free indeedJohn 8:36). This is freedom plus. When an accused man is declared not guilty, he is free. Likewise when a slave has been emancipated, he is free. But the judge or the emancipator does not, as a rule, adopt the freed individual as his own son. But when the Son makes one free, he will be free indeed, rejoicing in the glorious freedom of sonship. And how does the Son make one free? Answer: see John 18:12; cf. Isa. 53:5; II Cor. 3:17; Gal. 4:6, 7. If we bear in mind that when this Scripture passage was being read Jesus had already carried on an extensive ministry both in Judea and in Galilee, it becomes clear that to a considerable extent the mission here described had been performed. It was still being fulfilled and was going to be, until it had been accomplished. The poor received, are receiving, are going to receive good news (Luke 6:20; 12:32); captives (to sin and Satan), releaseLuke 13:16; John 8:31f. ; the blind, recovery of sight (Luke 7:21, 22); the oppressed, freedom (Matt. 11:28f.; John 7:37); while for all true believers the acceptable year of the Lord arrives (Luke 7:22; 10:24). In fact, to a certain degree even unbelievers are benefited by its arrival (Luke 17:17).^[201] Moreover, Jesus had come to save the entire man: body and soul. The promised blessings were both physical and spiritual. In every way, therefore, the passage read that day in the Nazareth synagogue was not only informative but also hortatory. The invitation to accept this great salvation is clearly implied. D. He begins his address 20, 21. Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. He started out by saying to them, Today, in your very hearing, this passage of Scripture has been fulfilled. A most interesting passage this! Here Jesus combines the natural and customary with the amazing and unexpected. Jesus rolls up the scroll, returns it to the attendant, and sits down to speak. In all this he did not depart from customary procedure. For a speaker to sit down when he was about to address an audience was natural (Matt. 5:1; Luke 5:3), though there were exceptions, as the easy-to-remember contrast between Acts 16:13and 13:16 indicates. But at this point the unexpected happens. Let us try to visualize the situation: The atmosphere in the probably crowded synagogue is surcharged with curiosity. Everybody in the audience is wondering what their townsman, the former carpenter, about whom they have been hearing so much of late (see verse 23), is going to say in elucidation and application of the Scripture passage he has read a moment ago. He may have read more than Luke reports, but at least he has read that. All is quiet, so quiet that one can hear a feather drop. Every eye is fixed on Jesus. He opens his mouth. He begins his address. Does he start out by reminding the audience of the golden days, now gone forever, when Jehovah stretched out his mighty arm and performed miracles on earth? He does not. Does he begin by entertaining his listeners with bright promises pertaining to the future? Not that either. Instead, he speaks about the here and now! He assures the people with whom he had grown up that the golden age has actually arrived. Today, says he, while you are listening to me, the passage I read to you has been and is being realized. That was true, of course. Were not the blind gaining their sight, cripples walking, lepers being cleansed, deaf people having their hearing restored, and even some of the dead being raised back to life? Was not the good news being proclaimed to the poor? See Luke 7:22& And who was the Servant of the Lord through whom all this was being accomplished? The implication is clear. E. The audience reacts with 1. amazement 22a. All were speaking well of him and were amazed about the words of grace that were flowing from his lips. Jesus had spoken with such inner conviction, freshness, authority, and graciousness that his old acquaintances were struck with astonishment. They were impressed by his wisdom and by the mighty works that were ascribed to him (Matt. 13:54; Mark 6:2). 2. doubt 22b. They were asking, Isn t this Joseph's son? Mark's fuller account of this negative reaction is, Isn t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon? And aren't his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him (Matt. 13:55–57). In order to understand what caused the initial favorable reaction to change into an unfavorable one, it should be borne in mind that Jesus had not only presented an encouraging message about present salvation, but by reading, The Spirit of the Lord (is) upon me, and afterward explaining this to mean Today, in your very hearing this passage of Scripture has been fulfilled, he had also somehow linked himself with the bringing of this salvation. The people liked what he had said about the dawn of the Messianic kingdom, but they resented the implication that Jesus, the carpenter, who grew up among them, was himself instrumental in bringing this about. Familiarity brought contempt. The very fact that the people of Nazareth were so well acquainted with Jesus family caused them to look down upon him. Who did he think he was anyway?^[202] If he wanted them to believe his claims, he ought to prove his greatness by performing here in Nazareth better still, right here in the synagogue? a miracle similar to those he had reportedly worked elsewhere. F. Jesus resumes his address 23 27. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER V Outline of Chapter 5 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 5:1–11 A Miraculous Catch 5:12–16 A Leper Cleansed 5:17–26 The Healing of a Paralytic 5:27–32 The Call of Levi 5:33–39 The Question About Fasting 5:1–11 A Miraculous Catch 5 1 Once while the crowd was pressing upon him, listening to God's word, and Jesus was standing beside the Lake of Gennesaret, 2 he saw two boats lying at the edge of the lake,^[215] but the fishermen had left them and were washing their nets. 3 Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, Jesus asked him to push out a little from shore. Then he sat down and from the boat began to teach the people. 4 When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a haul. 5 Simon answered, Master, all through the night we toiled and caught nothing, but because you say so^[216] I'll let down the nets. ^[217] 6 Having done this, they enclosed such an enormous shoal of fish that their nets started to tear. 7 So they signaled their comrades^[218] in the other boat to come and help them. They arrived and filled both boats, so that they began to sink. 8 When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus knees and said, Go away from me, for I'm a sinful man, Lord. 9 For, because of the haul of fish they had made, amazement had gripped him and all who were with him. 10 This was true also with respect to Zebedee's sons, James and John, who were Simon's partners. Then Jesus said to Simon, Have no fear; from now on you will be catching men. ^[219] 11 So, running their boats ashore, they left everything and followed him. Again, as often, Luke is indefinite as to time. Note, however, the following: (a) we find Jesus still in Galilee; (b) the disciples are still being called there were several steps in this calling (see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 245); (c) it would seem that Levi (= Matthew) has not yet joined the group (Luke 5:27 32; cf. Mark 2:13 17); and (d) The Twelve, as a body, have not yet been chosen and charged (Luke 6:12 16; 9:1–6; and see also Mark 3:13 19; 6:7–13; cf. Matt. 10:1–42). On the other hand, (e) the calling of four fishermen (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16 20) has already taken place. Taken as a unit, the story found here in Luke 5:1 11is peculiar to Luke; it has no parallel.^[220] The incident is meaningful and even thrilling. It is all this because it shows what a wonderful Savior is Jesus. He stands revealed here in a fivefold aspect, each of the five little paragraphs setting forth one phase of his greatness; as follows: A. his practical wisdom 1 3. Once while the crowd was pressing upon him, listening to God's word, and Jesus was standing beside the Lake of Gennesaret, he saw two boats lying at the edge of the lake, but the fishermen had left them and were washing their nets. Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, Jesus asked him to push out a little from shore. Then he sat down and from the boat began to teach the people. It will become clear that Jesus practical wisdom is revealed in these first three verses. The situation was as follows. Jesus was standing on the shore of that body of water which Luke always calls a lake, the other evangelists a sea. In the present instance Luke adds of Gennesaret, the adjoining amazingly fertile plain (to the south of Capernaum) described in N.T.C. on Mark, p. 264. The Speaker, in his own captivating and authoritative manner, was bringing the word or message of God to his audience. That message was the gospel of the kingdom, the reign of God in hearts, lives, and spheres. Cf. Mark 1:14, 15. So huge was the assembled multitude that the One who addressed them was actually being crowded. The people were pressing closer and closer. Does not this remind us of Mark 4:1and especially of Mark 3:9? Just then Jesus saw two fishermen's boats lying at the water's edge. They were empty, their occupants having stepped ashore to wash their nets, to ready them for another try. So, in order to solve his problem, Jesus stepped into one of these boats and asked its owner to push out a little from shore. Having arrived at a spot not too close to nor too far away from the land, the Lord sat down (the usual speaking position) and then began once more, or continued, to teach the people. This was surely a very practical way of solving a problem. There was nothing stiff or inflexible about Jesus method of reaching the people. Within reason almost anything could serve as his pulpit. Many a time he preached or taught at the regular synagogue service, as has already been shown (Luke 4:15, 16), and in Judea also in the temple (Matt. 26:55). But he did not limit himself to synagogue and temple. Sometimes he chose a convenient spot on a mountain as his pulpit (Matt. 5:1), or a houseLuke 5:17f. , or a desert (Mark 8:1, 4), or a cemetery (John 11:38). In the present instance speaking while seated in a fisherman's boat meant not only a more comfortable position but also a better view of the audience and even better acoustics. However, in this case Jesus revealed his practical wisdom also in another way. The owner of the boat from which Jesus now addressed the people was Simon. It was to him that he addressed the request that, with his Master aboard, he push out a little from shore. Upon this very man, Simon, the Lord had already bestowed many a blessing. He had called him, and this not once but twice (John 1:42; then Mark 1:16 18). He had visited his home and had even healed this fisherman's mother-in-law (Luke 4:38, 39). But now he did the very opposite: he asked Simon to render a service to him! Today's preacher, teacher, etc., should take this practical lesson to heart. If you wish to see your church, class, or whatever, grow numerically and spiritually, not only do something for this group but also ask them to do something for the good cause. Get your people involved! B. his penetrating knowledge 4, 5. When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a haul. When Jesus was through speaking to the multitude, he told Simon to bring the boat to a place where the water was deep, and then, with the help of his men, to lower the nets for the purpose of catching fish. Note the change here from the singular to the plural. It took more than one individual to lower the nets. The boat to which Luke refers was probably rather large, with room enough for Jesus and his disciples (Mark 6:7, 30, 32). It is therefore reasonable to assume that also now, together with Jesus and Simon, there were others in this boat. One of them may have been Andrew (Mark 1:16), though in this entire account he is never mentioned by name. The probability must also be granted that Simon and his partners (see verses 7 and 10) had employed a crew of hired men. Cf. Mark 1:20. Humanly speaking, the order which Jesus issued Launch out into the deep, etc. was strange. A carpenter telling an experienced fisherman how to catch fish! He was ordering him to fish at an unlikely place and time, that is, in deep water and in bright daylight. It must be borne in mind that Jesus had already twice addressed the people on the shore, each time presumably at some length (verses 1 and 3). By this time it may well have been around noon, therefore. Accordingly, when Simon receives this order, faith and doubt, trust and misgiving, are battling it out. His fisherman's expertise raises a doubt and whispers to him that he must not obey Jesus. His conscience, illuminated by faith, tells him that he must obey. Faith conquers, though still tempered with some misgiving. Simon answered, Master this is Luke's constant substitute for the term Rabbi of the other Gospels all through the night^[221] we toiled and caught nothing, but because you say so I'll let down the nets. This not, to be sure, all by himself but with the help of his men, so that the translation I'll have the nets lowered can be substituted. Implied in Jesus command is at least the fact that he knew that at the spot where Simon would lower the nets there would be an abundance of fish. How did he know this? Here we are confronted with a mystery. It cannot be denied that even during his sojourn on earth Jesus, according to his divine nature, was omniscient. That he actually knew the whereabouts of fishes is clear not only from our present passage but also from (Matt. 17:27. He also knew where human individuals would be and what they would be doing at this or that particular momentMark 14:13; John 1:47 49). He was even aware of the contents and deliberations of hearts and minds (Luke 5:22; John 2:25). Yet, according to his human nature his knowledge was limited (Matt. 24:36; Mark 11:13; Luke 8:45, 46). How these two natures, each possessing certain characteristics in distinction from the other, could be inseparably united in one divine person is beyond human comprehension. The best we can do, when we contemplate this great mystery, is to derive comfort from our Savior's penetrating knowledge, so that with Simon Peter we cry out, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love theeJohn 21:17b . So far we have referred only to Christ's omniscience. But according to his divine nature he was not only omniscient but also omnipotent. Therefore we cannot rule out the possibility that he not only knew that at a certain moment this enormous shoal of fish would be at a certain definite place, but that he also actually directed them to that place! And if that is what happened, then he naturally knew where they would be. When God created man he gave him dominion over the fish of the sea. To an extent, at least, this dominion was lost when man fell. In Christ it is restored (Gen. 1:28; Matt. 11:27; 28:18; Heb. 2:5–8). C. his lavish generosity 6, 7. Having done this, they enclosed such an enormous shoal of fish that their nets started to tear. So they signaled their comrades [or: partners] in the other boat to come and help them. They arrived and filled both boats, so that they began to sink. So enormous was the quantity of fish caught that the nets started to tear. The meaning cannot be that they actually began to rip apart so that the fish could escape and swim away, but that noises were heard associated with the snapping of a little cord here, a little cord there. Because of this emergency the nets starting to tear, the boat's capacity inadequate Simon and his men signaled their comrades in the other boat to come and help. Note: they signaled. Why did they not shout? It will be recalled that there were two boats (verse 2). One answer, then, might be that the second boat was either still lying ashore or was at least too far away from the first one to be reached by shouting. The first boat was in deep water (verse 4); the second may not have been. Another solution would be that, by reason of their very occupation, fishermen would communicate with each other not by shouts but by signals. Who were those comrades in the other boat? Opinions are divided. According to Lenski (op. cit., p. 180) they were hired men; while Plummer, too (op. cit., p. 146), is not sure whether the signaled men of verse 7 and Zebedee's sons of verse 10 were the same people.^[222] The position that they were the same in both cases, namely, Zebedee's sons, James and John, who were business associates of Simon, a view endorsed by many commentators including Greijdanus and Robertson, is in line with Matt. 4:18, 21; Mark 1:16, 19. It can be considered a reasonable assumption. The summoned men arrived. The holds of both boats were now filled with fish. The result was that the two vessels became so heavy that they went down, down, down, reaching a level that was so near to the surface of the water that they were but barely kept afloat. Here is an example of the lavish generosity of our Lord. When he gives he does not stint. He giveth and giveth and giveth again. See Matt. 14:20, 21; 15:37, 38; also N.T.C. on John 1:16. D. his ineffable majesty 8 10a. When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus knees and said, Go away from me, for I'm a sinful man, Lord. For, because of the haul of fish they had made, amazement had gripped him and all who were with him. This was true also with respect to Zebedee's sons, James and John, who were Simon's partners. Note Simon Peter, his name fully spelled out, as it is also in Matt. 16:16. In both cases this disciple pours out his heart in humble confession and adoration. He fell at Jesus knees. At this point some interpreters experience a difficulty. They cannot understand this posture and suggest that the meaning is probably that Simon fell on his knees before Jesus. The difficulty disappears, however, when Jesus is pictured as sitting down. There was room for Simon to fall as well as there was room for Simon's men to walk around and do their work. The fish were in the hold. When Simon now asks Jesus to depart from him, this must not be interpreted too literally, as if he were requesting Jesus to walk off the boat and into the lake. The words must be viewed as a sincere and humble expression of this disciple's recognition of his own unworthiness as contrasted with Christ's greatness and holiness. Peter stands in awe of his Master and confesses him to be his Lord. Astonishment and fear had seized him, and not only him but also his men (see on verse 4) and his partners, James and John. They have become aware of the fact that Jesus is superhuman; in fact, that he is God! Again and again in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) the title Lord is used as an equivalent of God. Instantaneously, under the impression of the astounding miracle, Simon Peter knew in his heart that his Master was at the same time his Lord, truly worthy of worship and adoration. Over against this Lord Peter was nothing but a sinful man. In the presence of the holy God sinful man trembles. Other examples: Abraham (Gen. 18:27, 30, 32); Manoah and his wife (Judg. 13:20); Job (Job 42:5, 6); Isaiah (Isa. 6:5); the apostle John (Rev. 1:17). This applies even to groups: Israel (Exod. 20:19; Deut. 5:25); the nations (Isa. 64:2). The question may be asked, How is it that this confession fell from Simon's lips now and not before? This, after all, was not the first miracle Simon had witnessed. In fact, Jesus had performed a supernatural healing act right in this disciple's own home (Luke 4:38, 39). The answer is probably that this particular miracle was performed in the very area which Simon regarded as his own, that is, in the sphere in which he considered himself a specialist, fishing! When one is confronted with Jesus, it is impossible to remain neutral. His enemies react to his miracles with hatred and reviling; his true disciples, with homage and reverence. They stoop and worship. E. his profound mission-mindedness 10b, 11. Then Jesus said to Simon, Have no fear; from now on you will be catching men. On Have no fear or Do not be afraid see the explanation of 1:13, including the note on that passage on page 80. Jesus, kind Shepherd that he is, has taken note of Peter's alarmed feeling. It is for this reason that he now puts his disciple's mind to rest. Next, he reveals to him that this is a critical moment, a turning point, in Peter's life. From this moment on the disciple's main vocation will change. Simon has been catching fish. He is going to be catching men. He has been catching in order to kill. He will be catching in order to impart life, that is, to be an instrument in God's hand in doing this. All this may well be implied in the words used in the original, which can also be rendered, From now on you will be catching men alive, implying and for life. Once before Jesus had promised, I will make you fishers of men (Matt. 4:19; cf. Mark 1:17). But this time the words are more definite. It is clearly indicated that this altered stage in Peter's life and he, of course, also represents the other disciples begins here and now; and also that the effort will be crowned with a measure of success: you will be catching men. Moreover, the continuity of the work is stressed: day by day, week after week, month upon month, etc., you will be engaged in this great and glorious task. The reason Jesus wanted to catch men in his gospel net, and wanted his disciples to follow his example, was that this was a very important part of the task the Father had assigned to him. In order to accomplish this assignment he had come to earth (Luke 5:32). To bring about this result he was sent by the Father (John 3:16, 17, 34, etc.; Gal. 4:4; I John 4:9, 10, 14). And he himself eagerly desired to rescue men from death and to impart life to them (Luke 10:2; cf. Matt. 9:36–38; John 4:34, 35), even though he fully realized what would be the cost to himself (Luke 12:50). O the depth of love! Yet his final aim did not center in man but in God, that he (God) might be glorified (Luke 17:18; cf. John 17:1, 4), and the ardent desire of the holy angels (Luke 2:14) might thus be fulfilled. It is understandable, therefore, that in meditating on Jesus promise to his disciples that from now on they would be catching men, we speak of his profound mission-mindedness. For more on this general subject see on verse 32. So, running their boats ashore, they left everything and followed him. Note that this time Peter, James, and John leave everything behind to follow Jesus. Never before had they done this. There had been a call to accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (John 1:35 51); next, a call to become Christ's more steady companions, without bidding farewell to their occupation as fishermen (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16 20). But the present implied call meant that they must leave all. As already mentioned, this call was implied, rather than expressed. It was implied in the promise, From now on you will be catching men. How great was the sacrifice these men were required to make? The answer becomes clear by studying a question raised by Peter sometime later, and especially by pondering Christ's answer to that question. See (Luke 18:28 30Matt. 19:27–30; Mark 10:28 31). To be specific: these men actually left their fish, boats, business, homes, families! Note: They left everything, even though the promise had been made to Simon alone. The other disciples correctly understood that what Jesus had spoken to Peter concerned them also. What became of the fish? Were they simply left to rot? Certainly not. He who was going to see to it that broken pieces of food were gathered (Matt. 14:20; 15:37) would never have allowed that to happen. If Zebedee himself was still alive, he could take charge. Besides, there were the hired men. The rich supply had been intended by the Lord, we may be sure, as food for many. A portion could be sold. Some could be given to the poor. The families of the fishermen could be supplied. But why such an enormous provision? The thought occurs that God Jesus, if one prefers furnished such an immense quantity in order to rid the disciples of any worry about their families, as if to say, Will not he who just now has blessed you abundantly continue to care for you? How great thou art!^[223] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 5:1 11 Many of the practical lessons are found in the explanation. For the rest, note the following: Verse 1 Pressing upon him, listening to God's word. For a successful service the preacher must proclaim God's word; the audience must listen eagerly. Verse 4 Launch out, figuratively speaking, by means of bearing witness by word of mouth, giving moral and financial support, being a living example. Verse 5 At your word I'll let down the nets. This is another way of saying, I'll trust and obey. What a multitude of excuses we can offer to show why the business of spreading the gospel net should be left to others! These excuses will never convince God &or our conscience. Verse 7 They signaled their comrades &to come and help them. In unity there is strength. See Esther 4:16; Phil. 2:2. Verse 8 Depart from me. Is it not wonderful that the Lord did not grant this request? Sermon theme: The Comfort of Rejected Petitions. Other examples: I Chron. 17:4; Mark 1:35 38; 5:19. Verse 10 You will be catching men. This promise still holds. Verse 11 They left everything and followed him. In order to catch men stay close to Jesus! Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 5:1–11 Verse 1 [Greek], pres. infinitive of [Greek], to lie upon, press upon; in 23:23 in the sense of insist. Cf. John 11:38, a stone lying against the tomb; 21:9, a fish lying on a charcoal fire. See also Acts 27:20; I Cor. 9:16; Heb. 9:10. [Greek], unemphatic, he. Luke has not prepared us for the conclusion (Lenski's) that [Greek] here means he too. [Greek], periphrastic imperfect, he was standing. [Greek], a body of water; specifically, the Lake of Gennesaret (Sea of Galilee). In chapters 19 21 of the book of Revelation mention is made of the [Greek] of fire = the second death. The base of [Greek] is li; cf. liquid. Verse 2 [Greek], pl. of [Greek], fisherman; cf. [Greek], salt, the sea. [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. indicat. active of [Greek], to wash. For synonyms and fine distinctions see N.T.C. on Mark, p. 272, footnote 309. [Greek], acc. pl. of [Greek], net. This is the most general word for net. It can refer to any net whatever, even a hunting net or a net for catching birds. In the New Testament, however, it is confined to fishing nets of any description. The sagene is the seine or dragnet. And the amphiblestron is the casting-net. Verse 3 [Greek], 2nd aor. active infinitive of [Greek], lit., to bring or lead up or back (Matt. 21:18); here, in Luke 5:3, 4, to push off from shore, out to sea. Note also the sec. per. s. aor. active imperative in verse 4. Verse 4, 5 [Greek], sec. per. pl. aor. imperat. of [Greek], to let down, to lower; cf. Mark 2:4(a pallet); Acts 9:25and II Cor. 11:33(Paul); Acts 27:17(an anchor); 27:30 (a boat). In verse 5 note the first per. s. fut. indicat. of this verb, perhaps causative here. [Greek], haul, catch (the act of catching); so probably also in verse 9, though it is difficult to separate the act of catching from its result: that which is caught. [Greek], voc. s. of [Greek], master; in Luke always in the vocative (cf. 8:24, 45; 9:33, 49; 17:13). Verse 6 [Greek], third per. pl. aor. active indicat. of [Greek], to enclose; cf. Rom. 11:32and see N.T.C. on Gal. 3:22. [Greek], third per. s. (s. because of neut. pl. [Greek]) imperfect (inchoative) passive of [Greek] (also spelled [Greek]), late form of the old verb [Greek], to break, rend, tear; in 8:29 to snap; elsewhere in the New Testament only in connection with a garment that is torn as a sign of grief or horror (whether real or feigned). See Matt. 26:65; Mark 14:63; Acts 14:14. Verse 7 [Greek] (for synonym see 1:22), third per. pl. aor. active indicat. of [Greek], to signal. For the aor. middle infinitive [Greek] see the note on 1:24 on page 81; and for [Greek] see the note on 2:6 on page 147, and the note on 4:28 on page 261. Something can be said in favor of the position that the difference between [Greek] here, and [Greek] (verse 10) should be preserved in the translation. But the point is not very important. [Greek] is consecutive (indicates result), and is here followed by the present passive infinitive, to submerge, sink; hence here: to be submerged, to sink. See also N.T.C. on I Tim. 6:9. Cf. [Greek], bottom, deep sea; and cf. abyss. Verse 9 [Greek], third per. s. aor. active of [Greek]; lit. to hold all around, to encircle; and so here: to seize, grip. Cf. I Peter 2:6. Verse 10 [Greek], the latter from [Greek], alive, and [Greek], to catch; hence literally: to catch men alive. The periphrastic (continuative) future indicat. is used here: you will (constantly) be catching alive. The verb [Greek] occurs only here and in II Tim. 2:26. See N.T.C. on that passage. For the simple (uncompounded) [Greek] see N.T.C. on Mark, footnote 578 on p. 480. Verse 11 [Greek], nom. pl. masc. aor. participle of [Greek]. With this compare [Greek], to push out to sea (verses 3, 4). The verb used here in verse 11 means the opposite of the one in verses 3, 4. It means: to push away from the sea, to run (a boat) to shore. Both verbs are nautical terms. 5:12–16 A Leper Cleansed Cf. Matt. 8:1–4; Mark 1:40 45 12 While Jesus was in one of the towns, lo and behold, a man full of leprosy! When he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and implored him, Lord, if you will, you can cleanse me. 13 So Jesus stretched out his hand, touched him, and said, I will; be cleansed. And at once the leprosy left him. 14 And Jesus charged him to tell no one, But [he said] go and show yourself to the priest, and for a testimony to them make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded. 15 But all the more the news about Jesus continued to spread, and vast crowds were gathering to hear him and to be healed of their sicknesses. 16 And he^[224] would go away to lonely places to pray. 12. While Jesus was in one of the towns, lo and behold, a man full of leprosy! Jesus was in one of the towns, perhaps on the outskirts, for lepers were not generally seen inside cities and towns. The time and place are indefinite, both here and in the other Gospels. Most natural, however, is the theory according to which this meeting took place during the Galilean circuit to which the more chronologically arranged Gospel According to Mark has just referred (Mark 1:39, 40). If so, the incident occurred shortly before the healing of the paralytic (Luke 5:17 26; cf. Mark 2:1 12), which, in turn, was followed by the call of Levi (Luke 5:27 32; cf. Mark 2:13 17). All this transpired sometime before the calling of The Twelve (to apostleship) and the preaching of the Sermon on the MountLuke 6:12 49; cf. Mark 3:13 19; and for the sermon cf. Matt. 5 7 . For a summary of the Bible's teaching on leprosy see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 388–391. And for a discussion of the question, Was this leprosy? see N.T.C. on Mark, p. 77. A man full of leprosy, and nevertheless approaching close enough to Jesus to be touched by him! It is not surprising, therefore, that Luke prefaces his description of the man by saying lo and behold! The closeness of this man's approach to Jesus is remarkable especially in view of (Lev. 13:45, 46, &Alone shall he dwell; outside the camp shall be his habitation. See also Num. 5:2–4; 12:14, 15; II Kings 7:3. With this compare ten lepers who stood at a distanceLuke 17:12). It is Luke, he alone, who describes this man as full of leprosy, not simply a leper. Of course, it is Luke, the beloved physician, who would have made inquiries concerning the exact physical condition of this individual. His leprosy must have reached a very advanced stage. When he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and implored him, Lord, if you will, you can cleanse me. The man did not know whether the help he craved would be given to him. But there was nothing wrong in asking. He does this in a most humble manner. He drops to his knees (thus Mark), then lowers his face to the ground ( fell on his face, thus Luke), and implores or begs, Lord, etc. By addressing Jesus in this manner he must have meant far more than Sir. Otherwise, how could he have made the confession he actually made, namely, You can cleanse me? Of this power on the part of Jesus he is sure. Of Jesus willingness to cleanse him he is not sure, as is indicated by the fact that he says, If you will. But he submits himself to the Savior's sovereign disposition, hoping eagerly that he too may be the recipient of Christ's healing power and mercy. 13. So Jesus stretched out his hand, touched him, and said, I will; be cleansed. Repeatedly and in varying phraseology the Gospels speak of Christ's healing touch. To (Luke 5:13add 7:14; 22:51; cf. Matt. 8:3, 15; 9:29; 17:7; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 7:33. Sometimes, however, the sick touched JesusLuke 8:44 47; cf. Matt. 9:20, 21; Mark 3:10; 5:27–31; 6:56). Either way the afflicted ones were healed. Evidently in connection with such physical contact healing power issued from the Savior and was transmitted to the person in need of it (Mark 5:30; Luke 8:46). This, however, was no magic! The healing power did not originate in his fingers or his garment. It came straight from the divine and human Jesus, from his almighty will and infinitely sympathetic heart. There was healing power in that touch because he was, and is touched with the feeling of our infirmities (Heb. 4:15). It should not escape the reader that according to Mark 1:41Jesus was moved with compassion when he stretched out his hand and touched the leper. The leper's need and faith found an immediate response in the Savior's eagerness to help. And in this readiness his power and his love embraced each other. It is sometimes said that between the words of the leper and those of Jesus there is perfect correspondence. This is correct in the sense that the two statements do not clash but are in full harmony, revealing even a partial identity of phraseology. One could also say, however, that the words of the Lord excel mere correspondence. To be sure, the leper's you can cleanse me is answered by Christ's I can, indeed! implied in his act of healing. But the leper's if you will is superseded by the Master's swift and splendid I will. Here the will joins the power, and the subtraction of if conjoined with the addition of be cleansed transforms a condition of hideous disease into one of hardy health. And at once the leprosy left him. One moment the man was full of leprosy. The next moment not a speck of the disease was left. The healings brought about by Jesus were complete and instantaneous. Peter's mother-in-law does not have to wait until the following day to be cured of her fever (Luke 4:38, 39). The paralytic immediately begins to walk away, carrying his little bed (5:17–26). The withered hand is restored at once (6:6–11). The demoniac, wild a moment earlier, all at once is fully cured (8:26–39). The same holds with respect to the woman who touched Christ's garment (8:43–48). Even the dead daughter of Jairus is in one moment restored to life, so that she arises and is given something to eat (8:40–42, 49 56). Let the healers of today imitate this! Let them cure every illness immediately. Yes, let them even raise the dead (7:11–17), for if their claim to be able to do what Jesus did and what he commanded his apostles to do is valid, they should certainly also raise the dead (Matt. 10:8). So far, however, they have not succeeded in doing this. In fact, they have not even succeeded in getting rid of death by denying its existence. Continued: 14. And Jesus charged him to tell no one. But [he said] go and show yourself to the priest, and for a testimony to them make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded. Exactly why the cured man was ordered to be silent has not been revealed. Was it in order to forestall a nationalistic movement centering in Jesus? Cf. John 6:15. Was it to prevent a premature crisis? To counteract the taking root of an erroneous conception of the Savior's character and identity, as if he were primarily a thaumaturgist (miracle-worker)? See also above, on 4:40, 41; and N.T.C. on Matt. 8:4and on Mark 1:43, 44. Hand in hand with the prohibition Jesus issued a positive command. The cleansed leper must present himself to the priest, so that he may be restored to full social and religious fellowship with his people. If he passes the inspection, so that the priest considers him cured, he must bring the required offering (Lev. 14:1–7). That offering consisted of two clean, living birds. One had to be killed. In its blood the other bird had to be dipped and then released. The blood of the slain bird was also sprinkled over the healed man; in fact, seven times. He was then pronounced cured. When the priests hear that it was Jesus who had so completely and instantly cured this man, they will have received an irrefutable testimony to Jesus power and love. They will also know that even though Jesus condemns human traditions that make void God's holy law, he does not disobey that law. It is clear from the entire context that the cleansed leper passed the test. Did he and others remain silent, as Jesus had ordered? The answer is given in verses 15, 16. But all the more the news about Jesus continued to spread, and vast crowds were gathering to hear him and to be healed of their sickness. And he would go away to lonely places to pray. The request of Jesus was ignored. What actually happened was the very opposite of that which Jesus had ordered. Instead of silence there were voices. Note all the more. It was as if these voices were saying, Now we'll advertise him more than ever. Moreover, according to Mark 1:45it was the cleansed man himself who took the lead in this activity of disobedience. The result was that vast crowds kept gathering for the twofold purpose of listening to the Master's teaching and being healed of their sicknesses; this probably implies, and having their sick healed. We can be sure of the fact that at least some of this enthusiasm was of an unhealthy nature. So, again and again, Jesus would withdraw himself and steal away to lonely places. This withdrawal also had a positive purpose, namely, to pour out his heart in prayer in order that the reservoirs of his body and soul might be replenished from his Father's inexhaustible resources. It was to be expected that Luke the very evangelist who more than any other stresses the importance of prayer would mention this. See Introduction, point I A 5 b.^[224] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 5:12 16 Verse 13 Jesus stretched out his hand and touched the leper. When Francis of Assisi reflected on the manner in which Jesus had treated the leper, a great wave of pity swept over him and changed his life. Should not Luke 5:12 16and similar accounts have a sanctifying effect on us also? Verses 15, 16 Vast crowds were gathering &to be healed of their sicknesses.& And he would go away to lonely places to pray. Jesus gave us an example by not allowing anything to stand in the way of regular seasons of prayer. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 5:12–16 Verses 12 14 At the end of verse 12 note the future more vivid (third class) conditional sentence, with [Greek] followed by sec. per. s. pres. subjunctive in the protasis, and the sec. per. s. pres. indicat. in the apodosis. Note also the aor. active infinitive [Greek]. For the verb [Greek] see the note on 4:33 on page 267 (a cognate adjective, negative). And see also the cognate noun (positive) [Greek], cleansing, in 5:14 (there in the gen.); and the sec. per. s. aor. passive imperative [Greek] in 5:13. At the end of verse 14 note [Greek], to them. Though no plural antecedent is expressed, it is implied in the priest, for the latter represents the entire priesthood and probably even the people who adhered to its beliefs and instructions. Verse 15 Note the two imperfects: the news was spreading (or: continued to spread) and the crowds were gathering (continued to gather). For [Greek], pres. passive infinitive of [Greek], see the note on 4:23 on page 261. With the gen. pl. [Greek] cf. the cognate pres. participle in 4:40; see the note on that verse on page 271. Verse 16 [Greek], periphrastic imperfect of [Greek]. See also 9:10, to go (or steal) away, withdraw. Cf. anchorite. 5:17–26 The Healing of a Paralytic Cf. Matt. 9:1–8; Mark 2:1 12 17 On one of those days, as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting by. They had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with him for healing. 18 And look, some men were carrying on a bed a man who was paralyzed. They were trying to bring him in and to place him in front of Jesus. 19 Not finding a way to carry him in because of the crowd, they went up the roof and, together with his little bed, let him down through the tiles and into the midst (of the crowd), right in front of Jesus. 20 When he saw their faith he said, Man, your sins are forgiven you. 21 But the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this fellow that speaks blasphemies? Who but God alone is able to forgive sins? 22 When Jesus perceived their (inward) reasonings, he said to them, Why are you reasoning thus in your hearts? 23 Which is easier: to say, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up and walk? 24 But in order that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins (he said to the paralytic), I say to you, get up, pick up your little bed and go home. 25 Instantly he stood up in front of them, picked up what he had been lying on, and went home, glorifying God. 26 Amazement gripped everyone,^[226] and they glorified God. Filled with awe, they were saying, We have seen incredible things today. Through constant repetition this story has become well known. Is it possible to renew interest in it? Perhaps. To this end we have tried a new approach, namely, in connection with the theme: Jesus demonstrates his divine right to forgive sins We have distributed the material contained in Luke 5:17 26under the following five subheadings: a battle is brewing (between Jesus and his opponents), a challenge is flung (by Jesus, before his opponents), an attack is made (by the opponents), a victory is won (by Jesus), and a triumph is celebrated (by the onlookers). We believe that such a treatment is true to the meaning and purpose of the account, and preserves its unity. A. A battle is brewing 17. On one of those days, as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting by. They had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with him for healing. As often, Luke's reference to the time when this incident occurred is very indefinite: on one of those days. But see also on 5:12. As to the place, from Mark's parallel account we learn that it was a house in Capernaum. Some think of Simon's house. But in that case would not Luke's reference to it have been more definite, as in 4:38? The possibility must be allowed that friends had provided Jesus with a house he could use while carrying on his ministry in and around Capernaum. That at this particular occasion the house was crowded is stated in so many words in Mark 2:2and implied also in Luke 5:17, 19. No doubt disciples and friends of Jesus were present, with genuine interest in the truth. Also, there must have been people who were merely burning with curiosity to see what Jesus would say and do. But Luke focuses our attention on still another group, consisting of straitlaced Pharisees and likeminded law-teachers. In Luke's Gospel this is the first reference to the Pharisees, who are mentioned frequently in Matthew (beginning with 3:7) and in Mark (beginning with 2:16). They were a relatively small sect of Separatists. They separated themselves not only from ceremonial impurity, from the heathen, publicans and sinners, but even in a sense from the indifferent Jewish multitudes, whom they derisively dubbed the people who do not know the law (John 7:49). The scribes were the men who studied, taught, interpreted, and transmitted the Mosaic law; that is, generally that law as explained by tradition. In fact, often the real law of God was in their teaching buried beneath tradition. See Matt. 15:6, and take note of the interesting example there given of this evil practice (15:1–5). In the following passages Luke mentions the scribes in one breath with the Pharisees (5:21, 30; 6:7; 11:53; 15:2); and in the following the scribes are linked with the chiefpriests (9:22; 19:47; 20:1, 19; 22:2, 66; 23:10). In the present account (5:17–26) the combination Pharisees and teachers of the law [= scribes] is clear. For more on the scribes see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 382, 383; and on Mark, p. 96; for more on Pharisees and scribes, N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 294, 295, 817 ff.; and on Mark, p. 100. Now these Pharisees and these teachers of the law had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem (probably hyperbole). It is clear from Luke's entire account that these men were anything but open-minded. They seem to have been filled with envy, probably deeply disturbed about the large crowds Jesus was attracting and about the content of his teaching. Significantly Luke adds that the power of the Lord that is, of Jehovah was with Jesus for healing, meaning: enabling him to heal. The healing described in the present story affected both soul and body, as will be shown. Consider, then, these two groupings: on the one side Pharisees and teachers of the law, filled with a desire to destroy; on the other Jesus himself, overflowing with power to heal. Clearly a conflict is in the making, a battle is brewing. B. A challenge is flung 18 20. And look, some men were carrying on a bed a man who was paralyzed. They were trying to bring him in and to place him in front of Jesus. Not finding a way to carry him in because of the crowd, they went up the roof and, together with his little bed, let him down through the tiles and into the midst (of the crowd), right in front of Jesus. When he saw their faith he said, Man, your sins are forgiven you. Wretched indeed was this man. The disease that plagued him is characterized by extreme loss of power of motion, and is generally caused by inability of the muscles to function, due to injury in the motor areas of the brain and/or of the spinal cord. In addition to the parallels in Matthew and Mark see also Matt. 4:24; 8:5–13; Acts 8:7; 9:33. In the present case whatever may have been the parts of the body affected by paralysis and the point to which the sickness had progressed, one fact is clear: the stricken person was unable to move about. He had to be carried. Four men relatives? friends? performed this service for him, as Mark indicates. The courage and resourcefulness of all five the paralytic plus his four helpers particularly also their faith in the success of their venture, hence ultimately their trust in Jesus, must be admired. If the house where the crowd had gathered had an outside stairway, then the four and their precious cargo reached the roof by means of that stairway. If that house did not have an outside stairway but the adjoining house did, then, having reached the top of that other house, they crossed over from roof to roof. In one way or another they reached the place directly above the spot where Jesus was addressing the people. Now to get through the roof! This outside cover of a house was generally flat. It had beams with transverse rafters overlaid with brushwood, tree branches, etc., on top of which was a thick blanket of mud or clay mixed with chopped straw, beaten and rolled. Such a roof was not difficult to unroof. But Luke states that they lowered the man through the tiles. When the nature of these tiles is misconstrued and they are regarded as having been placed in a sturdy framework of very small squares, a difficulty is unnecessarily created. Besides, the roof opening did not have to be as long as the man was tall! By means of skillful manipulation of ropes even a sick man of average size could be gently lowered through a rather small opening. Where there is a will, there is a way. Much has been written about Luke's mention of tiles. He has been accused of introducing non-Palestinian architecture into this passage,^[227] since Palestinian roofs had no tiles. Or he has been described as accommodating himself to the intelligence of his Gentile readers.^[228] Still another view is that proposed by G. C. D. Howley, F. F. Bruce, and H. L. Ellison, in their New Testament Commentary, p. 218, namely, that the term tiles, as used here, simply means roof. That theory has the merit of absolving Luke from any error. However, even this solution may be unnecessary. N. Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 189, probably already pointed in the right direction whew he asked the question, With all the Gentile influence in Palestine at that time, why could not some Jewish homes have tiled roofs? Recent discoveries have confirmed the fact that the tiled roof came into use before New Testament times and that Palestine was by no means excluded.^[229] Having made an opening in the roof, the four lowered the little bed on which the paralytic was lying. Since there were four men who lowered it, ropes had probably been attached to its four corners. Thus it was that the sick man landed right in front of Jesus. The latter, looking down, saw this patient; and glancing up, took notice of the four friends in need who were proving to be friends indeed. We do not read that the four, from their position on top of the roof, shouted anything to Jesus. Nor does any evangelist report that the sick man himself said anything to Jesus. As far as the paralytic is concerned, it is even possible that, due to his condition, he was unable to speak. But though the five did not talk, they trusted! And that was what really mattered. The confidence of the five touched the very heart of Jesus, who now, in accents tender yet firm, said to the paralytic, Man, your sins are forgiven you. It was definitely the faith of the five that caused these words to flow from the Savior's lips. For corroborating passages, showing how very important Jesus regarded faith to be, see Luke 7:9, 10; 8:48, 50; 17:19; 18:42; and see also Heb. 11:32f. From the words of absolution spoken to this man some have concluded that Jesus traced the paralytic's sickness to his sin. This inference is, however, wholly unwarranted. Such passages as (Luke 13:1 5and John 9:1 3clearly show that Jesus rejected the common Jewish error of thinking that a sorely afflicted individual must have sinned grievouslyJob 4:7; 22:5–10; and for a similar belief among non-Jews see Acts 28:3, 4). Jesus never took sin lightly. He never told people, Do you have a sense of guilt? Forget about it. On the contrary, he regarded sin as inexcusable departure from God's holy law (Luke 10:25 28), as having a soul-choking effect (John 8:34), and as being a matter of the heart and not only of the outward deed (Luke 6:45; 8:15). But he also offered the only true solution. He was well aware of the fact that the advice, Get rid of your guilt feelings; a little cruelty, promiscuity, infidelity is not so bad, creates more problems than it solves. He also knew that it was entirely impossible for a person to rid his soul of the sense of guilt by trying to offset his sins by good deeds. He knew that this philosophy would lead but to tragic failure and appalling despair. Instead, he had come to proclaim no, not only to proclaim but first of all to provide the one and only solution, namely forgiveness, and this on the basis of his own atonement for sin (22:20). Cf. (John 1:29. When he therefore now says to the paralytic, Forgiven are your sins, he is not only conveying to this man the news of God's forgiveness, as Nathan had done to penitent DavidII Sam. 12:13); he is also in his own right canceling the paralytic's debt. He blots out his sins completely and forever. Cf. Ps. 103:12; Isa. 1:18; 55:6, 7; Jer. 31:34; Mic. 7:19; John 1:29. Moreover, such forgiveness never stands alone. It is ever pardon plus. In Christ, God dispels the invalid's gloom and embraces him with the arms of his protecting and adopting love. Cf. Rom. 5:1. By saying Forgiven are your sins (thus literally), Jesus had not only lifted a burden from the soul of this sin-burdened sufferer, but had also proclaimed that the cleansing of the soul was even more important than the healing of the body. He had done one more thing: he had claimed for himself the divine prerogative of pronouncing and actually bringing about freedom from guilt. To his opponents, therefore, he had thrown down the gauntlet. Will they take it up? If not openly, then at least in their hearts and minds? C. An attack is made 21. But the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this fellow that speaks blasphemies? Who but God alone is able to forgive sins? In the hearts of the scribes who had come here to find fault with Jesus there was no room for participation in the joy of this grievously stricken man who at this moment heard words of encouragement and cheer. In a highly derogatory manner these enemies are saying something decidedly unfavorable. However, they are not saying it out loud, only within their hearts. But hearts are very important. Are they not the mainsprings of dispositions as well as of feelings and thoughts? Does not a man's heart show what kind of a person he really is? See Mark 3:5; 6:52; 7:14–23; 8:17; 11:23; 12:30, 33; Eph. 1:18; 3:17; Phil. 1:7; I Tim. 1:5. Cf. Prov. 23:7A.V. In their hearts, then, the scribes are attacking Jesus. They are accusing him of speaking blasphemies. They are carrying on a dialogue, throwing thoughts back and forth. What they are saying is: Who is this fellow that speaks blasphemies? Who but God alone is able to forgive sins? Jesus is claiming for himself a prerogative that belongs to God alone. The scribes were right in considering the remission of sins to be a divine prerogative (Exod. 34:6, 7a; Ps. 103:12; Isa. 1:18; 43:25; 44:22; 55:6, 7; Jer. 31:34; Mic. 7:19). To be sure, there is a sense in which we too forgive, namely, when we earnestly resolve not to take revenge but instead to love the one who has injured us, to promote his welfare, and never again to bring up the past (Matt. 6:12, 15; 18:21; Luke 6:37; Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). But basically, as described, it is God alone who forgives. It is he alone who is able to remove guilt and to declare that it has actually been removed. But now the thinking of the scribes arrives at the fork in the road, and they make the wrong turn. Either: (a) Jesus is what by implication he claims to be, namely, God, or (b) he blasphemes in the sense that he unjustly claims the attributes and prerogatives of deity. The scribes accept (b). Not only do they commit this tragic error, but, as the following context indicates, they compound it by reasoning somewhat as follows, It is an easy thing for him to say, Your sins are forgiven, for no one is able to disprove it, since no one can look into his neighbor's heart or enter the throne-room of the Almighty and discover his judicial decisions as to who is, and who is not, forgiven. On the other hand, to tell this man, Get up and walk would be far more difficult, for if no cure results, as is probable, we are all here to witness his embarrassment. As they see it, therefore, Jesus is both blasphemous and flippant. D. A victory is won 22 25. When Jesus perceived their (inward) reasonings, he said to them, Why are you reasoning thus in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up and walk? But in order that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins (he said to the paralytic), I say to you, get up, pick up your little bed and go home. Instantly he stood up in front of them, picked up what he had been lying on, and went home, glorifying God. Jesus perceived in his spirit what these scribes were thinking. Their inner deliberations were not concealed from him. Cf. (Matt. 17:25; John 1:45, 48; 2:25; 21:17. Had he not been God he would not have been able to penetrate so deeply into their secret cogitationsPs. 139; Heb. 4:13). By means of questioning these men Why are you reasoning thus? he sharply reprimands them. Their dialogue was wicked (Matt. 9:4), for they were accusing him falsely. They themselves were the evil ones. Was it not in order to find fault with Jesus that they had come here today, with the ultimate purpose that they might destroy him (Mark 3:6)? Let them then examine their own hearts. As to which was easier to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven, or Get up and walk, do not both in an equal measure require omnipotent power? Jesus decides, however, that if, as the scribes reason, a miracle in the physical sphere is required in order to prove to them his authority (right plus power) in the spiritual realm, then let them see this miracle! So to the paralytic he addresses the words, I say to you, get up, pick up your little bed and go home. Obedience to this command will prove that he, the humble yet all-glorious Son of man, has the divine authority on earth hence, before the door of grace is closed to forgive sins. Here for the first time in Luke, the term Son of man is found. In all it occurs twenty-five times in this Gospel. It is Jesus self-designation. As such it emphasizes the fact that its bearer is not the nationalistic Messiah of Jewish dreams but, in a sense, the Savior of the world (John 4:42; I John 4:14; cf. I Tim. 4:10). He himself is unique among men. He is the Son of man. He is the man of sorrows, but this very path of sorrows leads to the crown, to glory. Moreover, this glory is revealed not only when he comes with the clouds (Dan. 7:13), but reaches back through his entire life on earth and through every redemptive act. He is always the glorious Son of man. For more on the title Son of man see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 403–407. The glory of the Son of man is evident also in the present account. Jesus, as Son of man, had commanded the paralytic to get up, pick up his little bed, and go home. The man believed that he who had so ordered would also enable him to obey the order. So, in full view of all the onlookers, he at once got up, started to carry the very object on which he had been carried, and went home. In fact, he went home in high spirits, glorifying God, that is, Jehovah. In heart and mind the scribes and Pharisees had made an attack on Jesus. It had been a murderous assault, for inwardly they had accused him of speaking blasphemy, and they knew very well that according to the law the blasphemer must be put to death (Lev. 24:10–16). But by means of this astounding miracle Jesus had demonstrated that he was clothed with divine authority and majesty. This being true, he also had the right and the power to forgive sins. His victory was therefore complete. O that everyone present would have taken it to heart! E. A triumph is celebrated 26. Amazement gripped everyone, and they glorified God. Filled with awe, they were saying, We have seen incredible things today. All three Synoptics report how jubilantly the onlookers reacted to what they had just now witnessed. Mark reports the people's astonishment. Never in all their past experience had they witnessed anything similar. According to Matthew the crowd was awestruck. Luke here relates that amazement gripped everyone. This can also be rendered, All were seized with astonishment. He adds, Filled with awe, they were saying, We have seen incredible things today. Common to these three Gospel writers is the remark that the people glorified God: all (thus Mark and Luke) ascribed to God the honor and splendor due to him. This all, as often, is very general, and does not mean that scornful and faultfinding scribes suddenly experienced a genuine change of heart and mind. That men of this type remained hostile and became more and more hardened is clear from Luke 5:30; 6:7, 11; 11:15, 53; 13:17; 15:1, 2; 19:47; etc. Nevertheless, the response of glorifying God was sufficiently general to warrant the use of the word all. And no doubt among the many who did exalt him there were those upon whom Christ's words and deeds had made a lasting and saving impression. It is clear that Jesus had triumphed completely over his enemies. In the process of doing this he had imparted inestimable spiritual and physical blessings to a sorely afflicted man, and had cheered the four friends. Most of all, he had publicly demonstrated his divine right to forgive sin(s). He had proved himself to be The Savior.^[230] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 5:17 26 Verse 17 And the power of the Lord was with him for healing. If even Jesus, in his state of humiliation, was deeply conscious of the need of this power (John 5:19, 30), as was Paul (I Cor. 4:7; II Cor. 4:7; Phil. 4:13), should not we be also? Is not this an incentive to prayer? Verse 19 They went up the roof and &let him down through the tiles. Is not this our weakness, that so often we are willing to help the other man if this can be done without sacrifice and exertion? Contrast these four men. Even better: II Cor. 8:9. Verse 21 Who is this fellow that speaks blasphemies? If these critics had made a thorough and prayerful study of Isa. 35:5, 6; 42:8, 9; 61:1, 2, etc., they would have known better. This shows why earnest, systematic, prayerful Bible study is required. Verses 25, 26 He &they glorified God. If such ascription of glory to God is not merely a work of the lips but of the heart, it is exactly what is needed. I Cor. 10:31should be our motto, as it was Paul's. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 5:17–26 Verse 17 Hebraistic [Greek] can be translated now it happened, or can be skipped in translation, it being implied. [Greek] is unemphatic, simple he, not he himself. The immediately preceding [Greek] (cf. Hebrew waw in such cases) may be rendered that or as. Note also the periphrastic and vividly descriptive he was teaching, and they were sitting by. It is clear that Luke is not trying to be specific with respect to the time when this event took place. The word [Greek], pl. [Greek], is confined to Christian writers. It refers to teachers or doctors of the (Mosaic) law. Cf. (Acts 5:34; I Tim. 1:7. Synonyms are scribeLuke 5:21) and law-expert (10:25). [Greek], periphrastic pluperfect. Does Luke mean that these men had come out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem? See A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. II, p. 74. Or even out of every city of &Jerusalem? See Robertson's Translation, p. 37. The question arises, Did Jerusalem have villages and even cities? Also grammatically possible is the rendering, out of [or: from] every village of Galilee and (from) Judea and Jerusalem. [Greek], to be healing or for healing. The healing activity in which Jesus engaged was the result of the presence within him of Jehovah's power. [Greek] is the present infinitive of [Greek]. See the note on 4:23 on page 261 (Healer, Physician). Verse 18 A [Greek] is a bed of any kind; in the present case (Mark 2:4) a pallet, that is, a poor man's bed, perhaps a thin, straw-filled mattress or even a mat. [Greek], periphrastic passive pluperfect. The man had been, and was still, paralyzed. [Greek], third per. pl. conative imperfect active indicative of [Greek]: they were seeking or trying. Note the two aor. infinitives that follow this verb. Verse 19 [Greek] represents [Greek], literally by what way, hence, and not finding by what way they might carry him in. [Greek], a tile. Cf. ceramics. [Greek], third per. pl. aor. active indicat. of [Greek], to let down (Acts 9:25; 10:11; 11:5), should not be confused with the verb [Greek] in verse 25, which is third per. s. imperfect indicat. of [Greek], to lie down, recline; see also 5:29; 7:37; elsewhere in the New Testament found in Mark, John, Acts, and I Cor. [Greek] (also in verse 24), diminutive of [Greek]; hence, little bed. Verses 20 23 In verses 20 and 23 note [Greek], third per. pl. Doric perfect passive indicat. of [Greek], here in the sense of forgive, where the parallels in Matthew (9:2, 5) and Mark (2:5, 9) use the present passive. But whether one says are forgiven or have been and remain forgiven, the result is the same: the man's sins are no longer reckoned against him. They are forgiven. In verse 21 the aor. infinitive [Greek] stresses the fact of forgiveness as such, apart from any time reference. By contrast, the pres. active infinitive [Greek] in verse 24 has reference to the continuing forgiving activity of the Son of man. For the forms of the verb [Greek], to reason, in verse 21 (pres. infinitive) and in verse 22 (sec. per. pl. pres. indicat.) and for the noun [Greek] (acc. pl. in verse 22), see the detailed discussion and chart in N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 283–289. Verse 24 As to verse 24, does not the occurrence of very similar style, including even the mid-sentence parenthesis, in both (Mark 2:10and its parallelsMatt. 9:6; Luke 5:24), point in the direction of literary dependence? See the discussion of the Synoptic Problem in N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 6–54. Literally the closing statement of verse 24 (Jesus command to the paralytic) can be translated as follows, I say to you, get up, and having picked up your little bed, go to your house. Verse 26 For [Greek] see the note on 4:28 on page 261. With [Greek] (amazement) cf. ecstasy; and with [Greek] (incredible things) cf. paradoxes. 5:27–32 The Call of Levi Cf. Matt. 9:9–13; Mark 2:13 17 27 After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax-collector, named Levi, sitting at the tax-collector's booth; and he said to him, Follow me. 28 So he left everything behind, got up and followed him. 29 Then, at his own house, Levi gave a big dinner^[231] for him. There was a large crowd of tax-collectors and others who were reclining at table with them. 30 But the Pharisees and their scribes were grumbling against Jesus disciples, saying, Why are you eating and drinking with the tax-collectors and sinners? 31 Jesus answered them, It is not those who are healthy that need a doctor but those who are ill. 32 I have not come to call righteous people to conversion but sinners. As Matt. 9:9indicates, the healing of the paralytic was followed closely by the call of Levi. That is the sequence reported in all three Synoptics. The present narrative may be conveniently divided into four paragraphs, in harmony with its four movements: A. Levi leaves everything behind and follows Jesus 27, 28. After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax-collector, named Levi, sitting at the tax-collector's booth; and he said to him, Follow me. So he left everything behind, got up and followed him. Again, as before, when he had called the first four disciples, Jesus was walking along the Sea of Galilee (or Lake of Tiberias, as Luke would call it). See Mark 1:16. It is not surprising that out of an uncomfortably crowded house the Master directed his steps to the refreshing breezes of the shore. As Mark 2:13, 14indicates, it was in the vicinity of the seashore that Levi received the call to become one of Jesus disciples. Mark and Luke call this man Levi. For explanation of the name see (Gen. 29:34. He calls himself MatthewMatt. 9:9). Besides, in all the lists of the apostles he is called Matthew (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER VI Outline of Chapter 6 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 6:1–11 The Son of Man Asserting His Authority as Lord of the Sabbath A. 6:1–5 Picking, Rubbing, and Eating Grain on the Sabbath B. 6:6–11 Healing a Shriveled Hand on the Sabbath 6:12–16 The Choosing of The Twelve 6:17–19 Jesus Power to Heal The Sermon on the Mount 6:20–26 I. Four Beatitudes and Four Woes 6:27–45 II. The Standard of Life Demanded by the King A. 6:27–38 The Light of Love He Commends B. 6:39–45 The Darkness of Sin He Condemns 6:46–49 III. Application: The Parable of The Two Builders The Son of Man Asserting His Authority as Lord of the Sabbath A. 6:1–5 Picking, Rubbing, and Eating Grain on the Sabbath Cf. Matt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23 28 6 1 Once on a sabbath, when Jesus happened to be passing through fields of standing grain, his disciples were picking and eating the heads of grain, rubbing them with their hands. 2 Some of the Pharisees asked, Why are you doing what is not permitted on the sabbath? 3 Jesus answered, Have you not even read what David did when he and those with him were hungry: 4 how he entered the house of God, took and ate the consecrated bread which only the priests were allowed to eat, and gave some to those who were with him? 5 And he said to them, Lord of the sabbath is the Son of man! One of the chief areas of conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders concerned the proper observance of the sabbath. It is not surprising, therefore, that Mark and Luke at this point report two sabbath controversies. Matthew also reports these two but not until much later in his Gospel. In both Mark and Luke the story of these controversies follows Jesus remarks about fasting. Nevertheless, there is probably no close chronological connection: the inquiry about fasting was made a little later, after the choosing of The Twelve and the preaching of The Sermon on the Mount. See above, p. 307. Worthy of consideration is the theory that three sabbath controversies (the first described in John's Gospel; the second and third in the Synoptics) took place in rather close succession during the spring to midsummer of the year a.d. 28. The three were: the argument about the healing at the pool at the time of the Passover (John 5:1 18); this was followed by the controversies concerning the picking of heads of grainLuke 6:1 5and parallels , and concerning the healing of the man with the withered handLuke 6:6 11and parallels . The third of these three controversies seems to have been followed by the choosing of The Twelve and the preaching of The Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:12 49; cf. Mark 3:6, 13 19). But although no close chronological connection between (a) Jesus teaching on fasting and (b) the sabbath controversy reported here in Luke 6:1 5is indicated, Mark and after him Luke may well have had in mind a logical connection. According to the teaching of Jesus, those who are living in close fellowship with him, the Bridegroom, should be feasting instead of fasting; they must rejoice rather than mourn. And this manifestation of gladness instead of sadness must characterize even the manner in which the sabbath is kept. That is probably the connection and accounts for the order in which these events are here related. For the slight differences in the manner in which this incident has been reported by the synoptists see N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 104, 105. Though there are these differences, there are no discrepancies or contradictions. From this point on we shall simply follow Luke's account, referring to the other Gospels only when necessary for elucidation. The material here presented can be logically arranged under the following two subheadings: 1. By implication the Pharisees accuse the disciples of sabbath desecration 1, 2. Once on a sabbath, when Jesus happened to be passing through fields of standing grain, his disciples were picking and eating the heads of grain, rubbing them with their hands. Some of the Pharisees asked, Why are you doing what is not permitted on the sabbath? Grain is evidently ripening. Jesus, accompanied by his disciples, is walking through the grain fields. The translation fields of standing grain is justified by the context. Literally the meaning is that which was sown. It is the sabbath (verses 1, 6, 7, 9) and the disciples are hungry (Matt. 12:1). So they pick some heads or ears of grain. They rub them between the palms of their hands, and eat them. Did not the law (Deut. 23:25) clearly state that a person was permitted to do this? Yes, but &on the sabbath? Suddenly some Pharisees arrive. Where they came from is not indicated. One moment they are absent; the next, there they are! Or had they been nearby all the while, spying from around the corner perhaps? The fact that this question is not answered makes the story the more dramatic. Why are you doing what is not permitted on the sabbath? they ask. The underlying reasoning of the Pharisees was as follows: Was not work forbidden on the sabbath day (Exod. 20:8–11; 34:21; Deut. 5:12–15)? Had not the rabbis drawn up a catalogue of thirty-nine principal works, subsequently subdivided into six minor categories under each of these thirty-nine, all of which were forbidden on the sabbath? In accordance with this list was not plucking the heads of grain reaping?^[235] And was not rubbing them with the hands threshing? Here were these disciples engaged in this forbidden activity, and Jesus was doing nothing about it! Obviously, what was happening was that Christ's enemies were burying the real law of God which did not in any sense forbid what the disciples were now doing under the mountain of their man-made, foolish traditions (Luke 11:37 52; 20:45–47; cf. Matt. 15:3, 6; 23:23, 24; Mark 7:8, 9, 12, 13; 12:38–40). 2. Jesus defends them and asserts his authority as Lord of the sabbath 3 5. Jesus answered, Have you not even read what David did when he and those with him were hungry: how he entered the house of God, took and ate the consecrated bread which only the priests were allowed to eat, and gave some to those who were with him? Have you not even read? As if to say, You pride yourselves in being the very people who uphold the law, and your scribes deem themselves to be so thoroughly versed in it as to be able to teach others; yet are you yourselves unacquainted with the fact that even this very law allowed its ceremonial restrictions to be ignored in case of need? See (Mark 2:25: &what David did when he was in need? Have you not read about David and the showbread? The reference is to consecrated bread, bread of the Presence, in Hebrew le%em happn�mExod. 25:30). This showbread consisted of twelve loaves placed on a table three feet in length, one and a half feet wide, two feet three inches high. The table was overlaid with pure gold, surrounded by a molding of gold, and equipped with four rings of gold, a ring at each corner, through which poles were passed, so that the table could be carried. The description of this article of tabernacle furniture is found in Exod. 25:23, 24. In ancient times this table was standing in the Holy Place, not far away from God's special dwelling-place: the Holy of Holies. The showbread was laid on the table in two rows. The twelve loaves represented Israel's twelve tribes and symbolized the constant fellowship of the people with their God. The Israelites were, so to say, guests at his table, were consecrated to him, and by means of the offering of these presentation loaves gratefully acknowledged their indebtedness to him. Every sabbath the old bread was exchanged for fresh loaves (I Sam. 21:6). The old loaves were eaten by the priests. They were for Aaron and his sons, that is, for the priesthood, definitely not for everybody (Lev. 24:9). Yet when hungry David entered the house of God, the court of the sanctuary in Nob, which was the shrine where the ark was kept, he was given this consecrated bread. See I Sam. 21:1–6; 22:9, 10. He took and shared it with his equally hungry companions. They all ate of it, even though by divine law it had been designated as food for the priests, for them alone. The point is this: if David had a right to ignore a divinely ordained ceremonial provision when necessity demanded it, then would not David's exalted Antitype, namely, Jesus, God's Anointed in a far more eminent sense, have a right, under similar conditions of need, to set aside a totally unwarranted, man-made sabbath regulation? After all, to a considerable extent the rabbinical sabbath regulations amounted to misapplications of God's holy law. That was true also in the present case. And he said to them, Lord of the sabbath is the Son of man! Since all authority had been given to the Son (Matt. 11:27; 28:18), who is one with the Father (John 10:30), with whom the Father is well pleased (Luke 3:22), and who was sent into the world by the FatherLuke 4:18, he has sent me , it is clear that the Son of man is indeed Lord of the sabbath. As sovereign Lord he possesses the authority to lay down principles governing that day. For Son of man see on Luke 5:24.^[236] Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 6:1–5 Verse 1 With [Greek] &[Greek] (Once on a sabbath while he happened to be passing through a rather free translation) compare the Hebrew wayehi ( And it came to pass, etc.). In translation this can often be omitted. For the textual question, including the strange reading reflected in A.V., on the second sabbath after the first, see Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. II, p. 80. [Greek], the sense of this imperfect may be either progressive (they were picking) or inchoative (they began to pick). [Greek], nom. pl. masc. pres. participle of [Greek], to rub. This verb may be related to others constructed on the [Greek] base, and indicating such activities as twitching the strings of a musical instrument. Cf. psalm. Verse 3 [Greek], not even. An affirmative answer is expected when [Greek] or [Greek] is used; yet, the implication is that they (the Pharisees) had not even read what David did. To bring out the full force of the question, one might render the original thus: You have surely read what David did, have you not? See Gram. N.T., p. 1157; and Gram. N.T. (Bl.-Debr.), par. 427, p. 220. [Greek], sec. per. pl. 2nd aor. indicat. of [Greek]; for an analysis of this verb see the note on 4:16 on page 260. Verse 5 Note emphatic position of [Greek]. B. 6:6–11 Healing a Shriveled Hand on the Sabbath Cf. Matt. 12:9–14; Mark 3:1 6 6 On another sabbath, when he entered the synagogue and was teaching,^[237] a man whose right hand was shriveled^[238] was present. 7 The scribes and the Pharisees, in order that they might find a charge against Jesus, were watching him closely (to see) whether he would heal on the sabbath. 8 But he knew their thoughts and said to the man with the shriveled hand, Rise and stand here in front. So he got up and stood there. 9 Then Jesus said to them, I am asking you, Is it right on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it? 10 Then he looked around at them all and said to the man, Stretch out your hand. He did, and his hand was restored.^[239] 11 They, however, were filled with senseless rage and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus. This is another illustration of the Son of man's assertion of authority in the sphere of sabbath observance. For a composite account, combining the records of the three Synoptics and indicating similarities and variations, see N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 113, 114. 1. A Tense Situation 6 8. On another sabbath, when he entered the synagogue and was teaching, a man whose right hand was shriveled was present. The scribes and the Pharisees, in order that they might find a charge against Jesus, were watching him closely (to see) whether he would heal on the sabbath. As Luke tells the story, the conflict between Jesus and his opponents is beginning to intensify. In verses 1 5 it was against the disciples rather than against Jesus himself that the Pharisees launched their attack; in verses 6 11, however, their attention is riveted on Jesus himself. In the preceding section it is not entirely certain whether the religious authorities had arrived with the express purpose of finding fault. The possibility must be granted that they just happened to be on the scene when they caught the disciples in the act of transgressing sabbatical regulations. This time, however, they have come in order to find grounds for an accusation against Jesus. It was another not necessarily the next sabbath.^[240] Jesus has entered the synagogue, probably the one in CapernaumMatt. 12:9cf. 11:23; with Mark 3:1cf. 2:1 . Here on this day there happened to be a man with a shriveled hand. The hand was paralyzed, due perhaps to muscular malfunction or atrophy. How this had come about is not made clear and it is useless to speculate. More important is the fact that it was the right hand, as Dr. Luke (Col. 4:14) informs us, that was thus affected. The apocryphal Gospel According to the Hebrews states that the man was a stonemason who pleaded with Jesus to heal him that he might not have to spend his life as a beggar. Be that as it may, the point is that this is a sabbath, and though there may well have been a difference of opinion between the disciples of Shammai, with their stricter interpretation of sabbath observance, and those of Hillel, with their more lenient view the more rigorous position prevailing in Jerusalem, the more lenient in Galilee the rule that only in such cases in which a man's life was actually in danger would it be permissible to heal him on the sabbath was widely endorsed.^[241] Would Jesus dare to oppose this rule, by the Pharisees regarded as a well-established and basic principle which must not be violated? Very closely and insidiously do the scribes and Pharisees watch Jesus. By this time they had already become his enemies. As they saw it, had he not arrogated to himself the exclusively divine authority to forgive sins (Luke 5:20, 21; cf. John 5:18)? Did he not eat and drink with publicans and sinners (Luke 5:30 32)? Had he not previously transgressed the sabbath regulations held in honor by them (John 5:1 18; then Luke 6:1 5)? Besides, surely this case could wait. The man's life was not in danger. Here, then, so reason the scribes and the Pharisees, is their chance to build up a charge against Jesus. But he knew their thoughts and said to the man with the shriveled hand, Rise and stand here in front. So he got up and stood there. In this tense situation the Lord takes the offensive. He knows their thoughts. See above, on 5:4, 5. He then tells the man to get up and stand where everybody can see him. Jesus insisted on performing his miracles out in the open, so that every suspicion of deception and trickery would be excluded. Contrast with this the under-the-table, hidden-button, lights-out operations of later-day media! Besides, Jesus may also have wished to elicit the sympathy of the audience for this seriously handicapped man. 2. An Astounding Miracle 9, 10. Then Jesus said to them, I am asking you, Is it right on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it? Then he looked around at them all and said to the man, Stretch out your hand. He did, and his hand was restored. The question was reasonable and to the point. Were not the Pharisees and the scribes the very people who were always claiming that they knew what was permitted, lawful, and therefore right? Let them therefore give their expert opinion. Of course, the answer to Christ's question was so obvious that a child could have given it. If it is right to do good for which see also Luke 6:33, 35; I Peter 2:14, 15, 20; 3:6, 17; 4:19; III John 11on any ordinary day of the week, would it not be right to do good on the sabbath? Besides, in the Old Testament was it not exactly doing good, both with respect to God (loving, serving, and delighting oneself in him) and with respect to man (delivering him from bondage, feeding and clothing him), which God had required and even emphasized? And this in a context of fasting and sabbath observance? How strange that these adverse critics had not recalled the clear and definite teaching of Isa. 56:6; 58:6 14! The Lord had urged Israel to use the sabbath for the very purpose for which Jesus was here, now, and always using it. Nevertheless, it was with him that men who were supposed to be experts in the law were finding fault. However, Jesus probed even more deeply. He exposed the perversity of the critics even more unequivocally; for not only did he ask whether it was permitted on the sabbath to do good and to save life, but he also added, or to do harm and to destroy it? Certainly, if it was improper to do harm and to destroy life on the other six days of the week, was it not very improper to engage in this sinister business on the day specifically set aside for honoring God and showing sympathy to man? Nevertheless this doing harm and destroying was exactly what these enemies were right now engaged in! In which sense was it true that they were doing harm and destroying? Some answer that they were doing this by refusing to allow this man to be healed. Though that too may have been implied, is it not clear that something far worse was happening? The hearts and minds of these self-righteous scribes and Pharisees, who were finding fault with Jesus for wanting to deliver this man from his handicap, were engaged in killing the Messiah! For proof see verse 11; cf. Mark 3:6. See also Matt. 5:21, 22; I John 3:15. What Jesus is saying, therefore, amounts to this: Is it right on the sabbath to do good and to save life, as I am doing; or to do harm and to destroy, as you right now are doing? The confrontation was as sharp, dramatic, and bold as imaginable. Then, looking around at them all (that is, at all these opponents), and in anger, being deeply grieved at the hardening of their heart (Mark 3:5), he said to the man, Stretch out your hand. The cure was instantaneous and complete. Cf. I Kings 13:6. In a manner too mysterious for any mortal to comprehend, the Savior had concentrated his mind on the plight of this poor man, and by means of his power and compassion, had willed and performed the cure; and this not in a dark corner but in the sight of everyone present. 3. A Sad but Logical Reaction 11. They, however, were filled with senseless rage and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus. Filled with madness were these scribes and Pharisees. They were boiling over, being beside themselves with fury. Jesus had given them a chance to answer his question: whether on the sabbath one should do good or inflict harm, save life or destroy it. Only one satisfactory answer was possible, but that answer would have exposed to ridicule their entire philosophy of life. So they had remained silent. Before the public they had been shown up for what they really were: leaders who set a higher value on their harsh, hairsplitting rules than on God's law of love, and were more concerned about their traditions than about the health and happiness of a tragically handicapped fellow man. And if their self-inflicted silence had already made them angry, the actual miracle Jesus performed made matters even worse for them. O that even now they had repented and confessed their wickedness! But no, they discuss back and forth, among themselves, what they might do to Jesus! Mark 3:6indicates that they were trying to find a way to kill him, and chose as their co-plotters &of all people, the thoroughly unholy friends of Herod Antipas and his family. To such depths of degradation sin leads, unless grace intervenes.^[242] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 6:1 11 Verses 2 and 11 Why are you doing what is not permitted on the sabbath? &They, however, were filled with senseless rage. Illustration of a legalistic view of sabbath observance in later years: A sabbath in winter, snowdrifts blocking roads and highways. The only way in which a certain village pastor can get from his parsonage to the church is by skating over the frozen canal. This he does. Upon his arrival the consistory is not pleased. Was not what he had done tantamount to joyriding on the Lord's Day? After lengthy deliberation the decision is reached to demand of the pastor that he answer this question: Did he enjoy his skating trip? If the answer is Yes, he must be censured; if No, the case can be dropped, and the pastor's action can be charitably regarded as a work of necessity. Verses 5 and 9 Lord of the sabbath is the Son of man.& Is it right on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it? On the sabbath Jesus, the Lord of the sabbath, regularly attended worship, taught, and performed works of mercy. See also Isa. 58:6–14. The lesson is clear. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 6:6–11 Verse 6 [Greek]. This is indefinite (on another sabbath) and does not necessarily indicate the sabbath immediately following the one of 6:1. Verse 7 [Greek], third per. pl. middle imperf. indicat. of [Greek] (= [Greek], cf. parallel, and [Greek]), to watch. The underlying picture is that of a person standing by the side of another, so that he can watch him closely. To watch closely is also the meaning in 14:1 and in 20:20. Note [Greek] in verse 7 and contrast with untranslatable [Greek] in verse 9. The first [Greek] is in an indirect question; the second, in a direct question. [Greek] introduces purpose clause; [Greek], third per. pl. 2nd aor. active subjunct. of [Greek]. Cf. Eureka! [Greek], present infinitive (durative) of [Greek]; cf. [Greek], against, and [Greek], forum, assembly; [Greek], to speak, harangue; hence, to speak against in the assembly, in court; and thus, to accuse, denounce. Verse 8 [Greek], see the note on 2:35 on page 177, and the note on 5:22 on page 301. Derived from [Greek] are [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. imperative; and [Greek], third per. s. 2nd aor. (ingressive) indicat. Verse 9 [Greek] = [Greek] and [Greek]; literally, I put a question to (you), I am asking (you). Note the four punctiliar aor. active infinitives: to do good, to do harm; to save, to destroy. Verse 10 [Greek], aor. participle of [Greek], to look around; elsewhere in the New Testament used only in Mark's Gospel. See N.T.C. on Mark, p. 116, footnote 105. [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. act. imperat. of [Greek]. [Greek], third per. s. aor. pass. (effective) indicat. of [Greek], to set down again, to bring back, to restore; see also Matt. 12:13; 17:11; Mark 3:5; 8:25; 9:12. In Acts [Greek] means restoration. Verse 11 Note emphatic [Greek], They, however.& For [Greek] see the note on 4:28 on page 261. [Greek] = plus [Greek]; literally lack of understanding; in the present context senseless fury, madness. The Dutch (Nieuwe Vertaling) reproduces the sense of the original beautifully: Zij raakten volkomen hun verstand kwijt; i.e., They completely lost their mind (so angry they were). For [Greek] see the note on 1:65 on page 120. [Greek], third per. pl. aor. optat. (here deliberative) of [Greek]. The deliberative optative of the direct question is retained in the indirect question. 6:12–16 The Choosing of The Twelve Cf. Matt. 5:1; 10:1–4; <a href="/bible/parallel/MRK/3/13" class="green-link">Mark 3:13 19 12 Now it was during those days that he went out into the mountain to pray, and he spent the entire night in prayer to God. 13 When day came he called his disciples to him, and from among them he chose twelve, whom he also designated apostles: 14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James and John, and Philip and Bartholomew, 15 and Matthew and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, 16 and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. 12. Now it was during those days that he went out into the mountain to pray, and he spent the entire night in prayer to God. During those days, the mountain. Which days? Which mountain? Luke clearly is not the writer of a modern chronology. We are becoming used to his indefinite time and place indications (1:5, 24, 39; 2:1; even 3:1–3 to a certain extent; 3:15; 4:1, 14, 16, 31; 5:1, 12, 17, 27; 6:6). So also here in 6:12. The favorable aspect of this peculiarity is the fact that any actual discrepancy or conflict between Luke's account and that of synoptic parallels, which at times are more definite, is thus avoided. But though the expression during those days is indefinite, it does say something. In the present instance the very broad interpretation sometime during Christ's earthly ministry is unwarranted. As has already been shown, the choosing of The Twelve probably occurred shortly after the sabbath controversies related in 6:1–11. The definite article ( the mountain, not just a mountain), unless the reference is to the mountain region in general, probably indicates that a well-known mountain is meant. Was it the Horns of Hattin, named thus because its peaks resemble two horns when seen from afar? This elevation is located about six and one-half kilometers west of the Sea of Galilee and about thirteen kilometers southwest of Capernaum. Or was it even closer to, and in the same direction from, Capernaum? If so, the reference could be to the gentle, grassy slope just west of Tabgha.^[243] Jesus went into the mountain to pray. In fact, he spent the night in prayer to God. On the subject of Jesus prayer habits and the prominence of prayer in Luke's Gospel see Introduction, point I A 5 b; 3:21; 5:16. If, as may be assumed, one of the items included in that prayer was the petition for wisdom in selecting a group of intimate followers, this would shed interesting light on the ways of God, especially when we bear in mind that the men who were selected were, at least mostly, run-of-the-mill individuals (I Cor. 1:26). The group included even the man who was going to become a traitor, in order that, without in any way canceling human responsibility, God's counsel regarding the salvation of his people might be carried out. See Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23. 13. When day came he called his disciples to him, and from among them he chose twelve, whom he also designated apostles. The connection between this account of the choosing of The Twelve and the preceding paragraphs is probably closer than may appear on the surface. It has become clear that the enemies of Jesus were increasing in numbers and in the intensity of their opposition (5:21, 30; 6:2, 7, 11). The idea of doing away with Jesus was already being discussed (Mark 3:6; John 5:18). Jesus knew this. He also knew that according to God's eternal decree the preaching of the gospel must continue, the gathering together of the elect must not cease. For that reason he was about to surround himself with a little band of witnesses, so that through their testimony this important task might be carried out after his own death and departure to heaven. He himself, the gloriously exalted Christ, through his Spirit, was going to continue to work and to teach by the agency of these followers. See Acts 1:1 8. When day came he called his disciples to him. A disciple is a pupil, a learner. He is, however, more than a bookworm, or even than a student. Rather, he is an adherent, a follower. Between him and his Master there exists at least should exist a close personal fellowship. For more on the concept disciple see the note on this verse on page 333. In the present case, as also in such passages as Luke 6:17; John 6:60, 66, the term disciple is used in the general sense of follower. It refers to any member of a large circle of adherents. From this wider group Jesus selected twelve men. He called them to him, and they came. Luke makes a special point of the fact that Jesus also designated these men apostles. An apostle is a person who has been sent, commissioned. As such he represents his Sender, being clothed with authority, over life and doctrine, derived from him. In the New Testament the term apostle is used both in a looser and in a stricter sense. According to the broader application of the term such men as Barnabas, Epaphroditus, Apollos, Silvanus, and Timothy are all called apostles. They all represent the cause of Christ. In doing so they may at times also represent certain definite churches whose apostles they are. See Acts 13:1, 2; II Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25. In the narrow and fuller sense, the term apostle is in the New Testament restricted to The Twelve and Paul. In the present context Paul is not yet in the picture. The reference is to the twelve men chosen at this time to be the constant followers of Jesus, the ones who, after having been taught by him, are going to be sent out on their important missions. The idea, found in much present-day literature, according to which the authority of an apostle, if any, depends entirely on his charismatic gifts, lacks scriptural support. The authority is derived entirely from the Sender, and is real. See Matt. 10:1, 5, 14, 15, 20, 40; 16:19; John 20:21; Rom. 1:1; II Cor. 10:13; etc. The apostleship is an office, a divinely instituted commission with authority to carry it out. The fact that Jesus appointed exactly twelve men, no more and no less, indicates that he had in mind the new Israel, for ancient Israel had twelve tribes and twelve patriarchs. The new Israel was going to be gathered from among all the nations, Jews and Gentiles alike (Matt. 8:10–12; 16:18; 28:19; Mark 12:9; 16:15, 16; Luke 4:25 27; John 3:16; 10:16; Rev. 21:12, 14). It was the continuation, in a new form, of the one and only kingdom of God that spans both the old and the new dispensation, as does the church, represented at times by the twelve patriarchs and the twelve apostles (Rev. 21:12, 14). In the New Testament the names of The Twelve are listed four times (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16 19; Luke 6:14 16; Acts 1:13, 26). Acts 1:15 26records the manner in which Judas Iscariot was replaced by Matthias. With that exception the twelve names undoubtedly indicate the same persons in each of the four lists. Omitting the one given in Acts, the lists are as follows: Lists of The Twelve in the Synoptics Matthew Mark Luke Simon, Andrew, James, John; Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew; James (A), Thaddaeus, Simon (C), Judas Iscariot Simon, James, John, Andrew; Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas; James (A), Thaddaeus, Simon (C), Judas Iscariot Simon, Andrew, James, John; Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas; James (A), Simon (Z), Judas (J), Judas Iscariot 14 16. Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James and John, and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. Simon, whom he named Peter. He was a son of Jonas or John. By trade he was a fisherman, who with his brother Andrew first lived in Bethsaida (John 1:44), afterward in Capernaum (Mark 1:21, 29). Both Mark and Luke report that it was Jesus who gave Simon the new name Peter. For details of this event see (John 1:42. This new name, meaning rock, was a description not of what Simon was when called, but of what by grace he was to become. At first, and for some time afterward, Simon was anything but a model of steadfastness or imperturbability. On the contrary, he was constantly swaying from one position to its opposite. He turned from trust to doubtMatt. 14:28, 30); from open profession of Jesus as the Christ, to rebuking that very Christ (Matt. 16:16, 22); from a vehement declaration of loyalty, to base denial (Matt. 26:33–35, 69 75; Mark 14:29 31, 66 72; Luke 22:33, 54 62); from By no means shalt thou wash my feet ever, to Not my feet only but also my hands and my head (John 13:8, 9). See also John 20:4, 6; Gal. 2:11, 12. Nevertheless, by the grace and power of the Lord this changeable Simon was transformed into a true Peter. In every list of the apostles Simon's name is always mentioned first. From here on Luke calls him Peter, no longer Simon; but see 22:31; 24:34. For his significance in the post-resurrection church see N.T.C. on Matt. 16:13–20. Accordingly, when Jesus at this early date for Luke 6:14reflects John 1:42assigned to Simon his new name, that was an act of love, a love that was willing to overlook the present and even the near future, and to look far ahead. Wonderful and transforming grace of our loving Lord! Two New Testament books are by tradition accredited to this apostle: I and II Peter. And even Mark's Gospel owes something to Peter, for Mark has not unjustly been called Peter's interpreter. His brother Andrew. It was he, also a fisherman, who brought Peter to Jesus (John 1:41, 42). For other references to Andrew see Mark 1:16, 17, 29; also study Mark 3:18; 13:3; John 6:8, 9; 12:22; Acts 1:13. See also below under Philip. James and John. Luke mentions these two fishermen not only here and in 5:10 (see on that passage) but also later on (Acts 1:13). There are also several references to them in the other Gospels. Probably because of their fiery nature Jesus called these two brothers Boanerges, sons of thunder (Mark 3:17). That the two did indeed have a fiery nature may perhaps be inferred from (Luke 9:54 56. Cf. Mark 9:38. James was the first of The Twelve to wear the martyr's crownActs 12:2). While he was the first to arrive in heaven, his brother John was in all probability the last to remain on earth. On the life and character of John, considered by many (I believe correctly) as being the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20), see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, pp. 18–21. Five New Testament books have by tradition been assigned to John: his Gospel, three epistles (I, II, and III John), and the book of Revelation. Philip was at least for a while a fellow townsman of Peter and Andrew, that is, he too was from Bethsaida. Having himself responded to the call of Jesus, he found Nathanael, and said to him, The one about whom Moses wrote in the law and about whom the prophets wrote, we have found, Jesus, son of Joseph, the one from Nazareth (John 1:45). When Jesus was about to feed the five thousand he asked Philip, How are we to buy bread-cakes that these (people) may eat? Philip answered, Bread-cakes for two hundred denarii would not be sufficient for them so that each might get a little something (John 6:5, 7). Philip apparently forgot that the power of Jesus surpassed any possibility of calculation. To deduce from this incident the conclusion that Philip was a coldly-calculating type of person, more so than the other apostles, would be basing too much on too little. In the Gospels Philip generally appears in a rather favorable light. Thus, when the Greeks approached him with the request, Sir, we would see Jesus, he went and told Andrew, and these two, Andrew and Philip, brought the enquirers to Jesus (John 12:21, 22). It must be admitted that Philip did not always immediately understand the meaning of Christ's profound utterances did the others? but to his credit it must be said that with perfect candor he would reveal his ignorance and ask for further information, as is also clear from (John 14:8, Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be content. He received the beautiful and comforting answer, &He who has seen me has seen the FatherJohn 14:9). Bartholomew (meaning: son of Tolmai) is clearly the Nathanael of John's Gospel (1:45–49; 21:2). It was he who said to Philip, Out of Nazareth can any good come? Philip answered, Come and see. When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him he said, Look, truly an Israelite in whom deceit does not exist. This disciple was one of the seven persons to whom the resurrected Christ appeared at the Sea of Tiberias. Of the other six only Simon Peter, Thomas, and the sons of Zebedee are mentioned. Matthew. This disciple has already been discussed in some detail (see above on 5:27–32; also N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 92–97; 421 426; and on Mark, p. 95). Thomas. The various references to Thomas indicate that both despondency and devotion marked this man. He was ever afraid that he might lose his beloved Master. He expected evil, and it was hard for him to believe good tidings when they were brought to him. Yet when the risen Savior in all his tender, condescending love revealed himself to him it was he who exclaimed, My Lord and my God! For more information on Thomas see N.T.C. on John 11:16; 14:5; 20:24–28; 21:2. See also Acts 1:13. James the son of Alphaeus. By Mark (15:40) he is also called James the Less, which by some is interpreted as meaning James the younger, but by others as James small in stature. About him we have no further positive information. It is probable, however, that he is the same disciple who is referred to in Matt. 27:56; Mark 16:1; and Luke 24:10. If this be correct, his mother's name was Mary, one of the women who accompanied Jesus and stood near the cross. See N.T.C. on John 19:25. The Alphaeus who was the father of Matthew should probably not be identified with Alphaeus the father of James the Less. Simon who was called the Zealot. Mark uses the expression Simon the Cananaean, this being an Aramaic surname which likewise means enthusiast or zealot. In all probability this name is here given him because formerly he had belonged to the party of the Zealots, a party which in its hatred for the foreign ruler, who demanded tribute, did not shrink from fomenting rebellion against the Roman government. See Josephus Jewish War II.117, 118; Antiquities XVIII.1 10, 23. Cf. Acts 5:37. Judas the son of James. He is called Thaddaeus in Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; and Lebbaeus in certain variants. He is in all probability Judas not Iscariot of John 14:22(see on that passage); cf. Acts 1:13. From what is said about him in John 14it would seem that he wanted Jesus to show himself to the world, probably meaning: to get into the limelight. Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. His name is generally interpreted as meaning Judas the man from Kerioth, a place in southern Judea. The Gospels refer to him again and again (Matt. 26:14, 25, 47; 27:3; Mark 14:10, 43; Luke 22:3, 47, 48; John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26, 29; 18:2–5). He is at times described as Judas who betrayed him, Judas one of the twelve, the betrayer, Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, or simply Judas. This man, though thoroughly responsible for his own wicked deeds, was an instrument of the devil (John 6:70, 71). While other people, when they felt that they could no longer agree with or even tolerate Christ's teachings, would simply disassociate themselves from him (John 6:66), Judas remained, as if he were in full accord with him. Being a very selfish person he was unable or shall we say unwilling? to understand the unselfish and beautiful deed of Mary of Bethany, who anointed JesusJohn 12:1ff. . He was unable and unwilling to see that the native language of love is lavishness. It was the devil who instigated Judas to betray Jesus, that is, to deliver him into the hands of the enemy. He was a thief; yet it was he who had been entrusted with the treasury of the little company, with the predictable result (John 12:6). When, in connection with the institution of the Lord's Supper, the dramatic moment arrived forever commemorated in Scripture (Matt. 26:20–25; John 13:21 30) and emblazoned in art (Leonardo da Vinci, etc.) in which Jesus startled The Twelve by saying, One of you will betray me, Judas, though having already received from the chiefpriests the thirty pieces of silver as a reward for his promised deed (Matt. 26:14–16; Mark 14:10, 11) had the incredible audacity to say, Surely not I, Rabbi? Judas served as guide for the detachment of soldiers and the posse of temple police that arrested Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. It was by means of perfidiously kissing his Master, as if he were still a loyal disciple, that this traitor pointed out Jesus to those who had come to seize him (Matt. 26:49, 50; Mark 14:43 45; Luke 22:47, 48). As to the manner of Judas self-inflicted demise, see on Matthew 27:3 5; cf. Acts 1:18. What caused this privileged disciple to become Christ's betrayer? Was it injured pride, disappointed ambition, deeply entrenched greed, fear of being put out of the synagogue (John 9:22)? No doubt all of these were involved, but could not the most basic reason have been this, that between the utterly selfish heart of Judas and the infinitely unselfish and outgoing heart of Jesus there was a chasm so immense that either Judas had to implore the Lord to bestow upon him the grace of regeneration and complete renewal, a request which the traitor wickedly refused to make, or else he had to offer his help to get rid of Jesus? See also Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 4:28. One thing is certain: The shocking tragedy of Judas life is proof not of Christ's impotence but of the traitor's impenitence! Woe to that man! What points up the greatness of Jesus is that he took such men as these, and welded them into an amazingly influential community that would prove to be not only a worthy link with Israel's past but also a solid foundation for the church's future. Yes, he accomplished this multiple miracle with such men as these, with all their faults and foibles. Even when we leave out Judas Iscariot and concentrate only on the others, we cannot fail to be impressed with the majesty of the Savior, whose drawing power, incomparable wisdom, and matchless love were so astounding that he was able to gather around himself and to unite into one family men of entirely different, at times even opposite, backgrounds and temperaments. Included in this little band was Peter the optimist (Matt. 14:28; 26:33, 35), but also Thomas the pessimist (John 11:16; 20:24, 25); Simon the one-time Zealot, hating taxes and eager to overthrow the Roman government, but also Matthew, who had voluntarily offered his tax-collecting services to that same Roman government; Peter, John, and Matthew, destined to become renowned through their writings, but also James the Less, who remains obscure but must have fulfilled his mission. Jesus drew them to himself with the cords of his tender, never-failing compassion. He loved them to the uttermost (John 13:1), and in the night before he was betrayed and crucified commended them to his Father, saying: I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me, and they have kept thy word.& Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, in order that they may be one, even as we are one.& I do not make request that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Consecrate them in the truth; thy word is truth. Just as thou didst send me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world. And for thy sake I consecrate myself, in order that they also may be truly consecratedJohn 17:6 19, in part .^[244] Practical Lesson Derived from Luke 6:12 16 He spent the entire night in prayer to God. What an amazing power there is in earnest prayer. How tremendous are the results! After this All-Night Prayer Vigil Jesus accomplished the following: 1. By calling to himself his disciples and from among them choosing The Twelve so that they might become his apostles (verses 13 16) he a. organized the church in its New Testament manifestation, making it an institution for the good of mankind; b. laid the foundation for world-wide missionary enterprise, a work that is still continuing. 2. He also c. healed ever so many sick people (verses 17 19), thereby setting an example for all time of showing sympathy to and providing help for those in need; and d. preached an unforgettably beautiful sermon (verses 20 49), one that has been a source of blessing to many throughout the centuries and continues to hold its place among the most quoted portions of sacred literature. All this to God's glory (Luke 2:14; cf. 17:18; 19:38; cf. Matt. 5:16; John 17:4). Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 6:12–16 Verse 12 [Greek], aor. infinitive of [Greek], to pray, a verb occurring also in 1:10; 3:21; 5:16; 6:28; etc. Note cognate noun [Greek] (here dat. [Greek]). For synonyms see R. C. Trench, Synonyms, par. 51. [Greek], third per. s. periphrastic imperf. of [Greek], to pass or spend the night. English lacks a one-word equivalent. In 6:12 cf. Latin pernoctaret. Verse 13 [Greek], third per. s. aor. act. indicat. of [Greek], to call to oneself (Acts 22:2); to appeal to (23:20); to address, speak to, call out to (Matt. 11:16; Luke 7:32; Acts 22:2). In the New Testament the term [Greek] is confined to the Gospels and Acts. In round figures it is found more than 70 times in Matthew, almost 50 times in Mark, almost 40 times in Luke, almost 80 times in John, and almost 30 times in Acts. Even when a few disputed occurrences are subtracted, it occurs about 260 times in the New Testament. At times it is used without reference to any specific master (Matt. 10:24, 25; Luke 6:40). Or the reference may be to the disciples of: John the Baptist (Matt. 9:14a; 11:2; Luke 7:18, 19; John 3:25); John and the Pharisees (Mark 2:18); the Pharisees (Matt. 22:16); Moses (John 9:28); Paul (Acts 9:25). In the great majority of cases the disciples of Jesus are indicated. Sometimes, as here in 6:13a, a large circle of followers or adherents is indicated. More often the reference is to The Twelve or to one or more men belonging to that inner group. Basically a [Greek] is a learner. Cf. this noun with the verb to learn, [Greek]. The root of such and similar words in Greek and related languages, including English, is MAN: to think. Has not man been called a thinking animal? Modifications of this same basic root are mind, mental, monition, monster, monument, medicine, mathematics, etc. Note also in the Greek New Testament [Greek], ignorant; [Greek], to consider carefully; [Greek], to make a disciple, to teach; [Greek], to become a disciple; [Greek], a woman-disciple; [Greek], fellow-disciple. It would be a mistake, however, to think that mere mental understanding or intelligence makes a person a true disciple of Jesus. It is part of the picture, an important part even, but only a part. The truth learned must be put into practice. It must enter into the very being of the person involved. The true disciple lives in close fellowship with his Master. This is true because the Master has chosen him, not vice versa (John 15:16). Jesus called him, and by God's grace this person has responded to that call. If he remains loyal to Jesus and his word, he is truly Christ's disciple (John 8:31). On the meaning of the word disciple see also K. H. Renstorf's article on [Greek] &[Greek] and related words (Th.D.N.T., Vol. IV, pp. 390–461). [Greek], nom. s. masc. aor. middle participle of [Greek], to pick out (for oneself), select, elect, choose. Cf. [Greek], election. [Greek], apostle, one who is sent, commissioned. See John 13:16; 20:21–23. In the Third Gospel this noun occurs 6 times (6:13; 9:10; 11:49; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10); in Acts 28times (1:2, 26, etc.). In Matthew it is found only in 10:2; in Mark probably twice (3:14, if authentic; 6:30); in John once (13:16). It also occurs at least once in each of the remaining New Testament books, with the exception of II Thessalonians, Philemon, James, and the three epistles of John. On the term apostle see also N.T.C. on Gal. 1:1. In the Gospels the more usual name for the small group of constant followers with whom Jesus surrounded himself, whom he taught and sent out to preach, to heal, to cast out demons, etc. is The Twelve. See Matt. 10:5; 26:14, 47; Mark 4:10; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; 11:11; 14:10, 17, 20, 43; Luke 8:1; 9:1, 12; 18:31; 22:3, 47; John 6:67, 70; 20:24. Verse 16 [Greek] (cf. [Greek], to give before, to betray), betrayer, traitor. Judas became a traitor. He was not a traitor when Jesus called him. 6:17–19 Jesus Power to Heal Cf. Matt. 5:1, 2 17 Then he went down with them and stopped on a level place where there was a huge crowd of his disciples and a vast throng of people from all over Judea and Jerusalem and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon. 18 They had come to listen to him and to be cured of their diseases. Those who were trouble by unclean spirits were being healed. 19 And all the people were trying to touch him, because power was going out from him and was curing everybody. 17, 18. Then he went down with them and stopped on a level place where there was a huge crowd of his disciples and a vast throng of people from all over Judea and Jerusalem and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon. They had come to listen to him and to be cured of their diseases. Those who were troubled by unclean spirits were being healed. According to Luke's account Jesus had gone into the mountain to pray and had chosen The Twelve. To this the evangelist now adds that together with this intimate band of followers the Master went down until he stood on a level place. This may well have been a large level tract that coincides with the far larger gentle, grassy slope west of Tabgha, not far from Capernaum. We see Jesus standing here surrounded by The Twelve, a huge crowd of other followers disciples in the broader sense of the term (see on verse 13), and a vast throng of other people not only from the south (Judea, including Jerusalem) but even from the northwest, the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon. Is it not natural to see in this event a fulfilment, however partial, of Psalms 87:4(LXX, 86:4)? All these people had come to Jesus. Writing, no doubt, in general terms, Luke says that their purpose was twofold: (a) to listen to Jesus, and (b) to be cured of their diseases. a. to listen Their desire for a message from his lips did not meet with disappointment, for it was to them and on this very occasion that Jesus addressed words that were bound to live forever, that is, to be repeated over and over again throughout the centuries and in ever so many languages and dialects all over the world. Are we correct in regarding what is reported in Luke 6:20 49as Luke's report of the same sermon recorded by Matthew in his chapters 5 7? But according to the Third Gospel this sermon was preached on a level place, whereas according to Matt. 5:1, 2it was proclaimed from a mountain. However, this surely is no discrepancy. The problem, if it can even be considered such, disappears when we grant that the level place may well have been part of the mountain. It was the elevation beyond which Jesus did not now descend. He remained standing, or stopped here.^[245] Besides, as reported by Luke the sermon is introduced as follows, Then he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said.& Compare this with Matthew's, And he opened his mouth and began to teach them, saying.& Luke's ending (7:1) reads, After Jesus had concluded all his words in the hearing of the people.& With this compare Matthew's, Now when Jesus had finished these sayings.& In addition, the train of thought is to a considerable extent the same in both Gospels: beatitudes, supremacy of love, the two builders. It is admitted that the two reports are not identical. Matthew's coverage is more than three times as extensive as Luke's. This shows that the Gospel writers were not mere copyists. Each wrote in accordance with his own background, character, and endowment. Perhaps even more important: each wrote in harmony with his own specific purpose. Thus it is not surprising that Matthew includes various matters that were of special interest to his Jewish readers whom he was trying to reach for Christ (for example, 5:17–42; 6:1–6, 16 18). Since Luke was not primarily writing for Jews he omits such matters. On the other hand Luke's account contains material (e.g., 6:24–26, 38 40) not found in that identical form in Matthew, or not included by him in this sermon at all. It is not only possible but very probable that many of the sayings found in The Sermon on the Mount were repeated by the Lord as he traveled from place to place. b. to be cured Note how carefully Luke distinguishes between the obviously sick who were cured of their diseases and the troubled who were delivered of unclean, that is, evil, spirits. For demon possession and expulsion see on 4:33–37. In each classification there must have been a good many people who were healed at this time. Something similar had happened before (4:40, 41), and was to happen again (7:21, 22). Add to this the many healings that are separately reported in the Gospels (here in Luke see 4:38, 39; 5:12, 13, 24, 25; 7:10; 8:44, etc.). And do not forget John 21:25. It should be borne in mind, moreover, that to the tenderly loving heart of Jesus people were not merely cases. Each human being was the object of special treatment, such as was suitable for him, for him alone. Into each person's circumstances the Savior wholly entered with his sympathetic heart. See Luke 7:13; cf. Matt. 8:17; 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; John 11:35. 19. And all the people were trying to touch him, because power was going out from him and was curing everybody. In connection with 5:13 something was said about Christ's healing touch and about the people's desire to touch Christ. Obviously we are here concerned with the latter. All the people were trying to touch Jesus because healing power was constantly proceeding from him. That is clearly what the passage says, and we should not try to change it to something else. In fact, the truth here expressed is not confined to this single passage. The fact that our Lord at times sensed that healing power was proceeding from him is also expressed in (Luke 8:46; cf. Mark 5:30. Probably with noble intentions to guard against magical qualities being attributed to the garments or fingers of Jesus? some prefer a different rendering for the last part of verse 19. They conceive of the words that follow the comma as constituting a compound clause, to be translated as follows, because power was going out from him and he was curing everybody. ^[246] The vast majority of translators and commentators, however, have accepted the single clause rendering (power was going out from him and was curing) and this with good reason: (a) it harmonizes best with the passages cited earlierMark 5:30, see also verse 29; Luke 8:46); (b) if Luke had intended to introduce another clause into this short sentence, he would probably have done so without leaving any room for doubt. Since the evangelist states that the outgoing power was issuing from Jesus himself, making it clear that it was Jesus who was accomplishing the cure, there is no real difficulty. It is not claimed that the faith of the people that caused them to rush toward Jesus so as to be able to touch him was necessarily free from all foreign elements. In many a case it may well have been mixed with superstition. But that is not Luke's emphasis. He wants us to rivet our attention on Jesus, whose power was enabling him to heal all, and whose heart, filled with sympathy, was impelling him to do just that!^[247] Practical Lesson Derived from Luke 6:17 19 They had come to listen to him and to be cured.& Power was going out from him and was curing everybody. Jesus satisfies every need. See Fanny J. Crosby's A Wonderful Savior Is Jesus My Lord. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions 6:17–19 Verse 17 [Greek], third per. s. 2nd aor. indicat. of [Greek]. Jesus stopped or remained standing here, did not descend any farther. [Greek], gen. s. of [Greek] ([Greek], [Greek]), level, flat. Cf. [Greek], a plain, a place convenient for travel by feet; cf. pedestrian. [Greek], gen. of [Greek] (supply [Greek], the seacoast, coastal region), from [Greek], by, and [Greek], sea. Note the [Greek] series of words in verses 17, 18, 19, including [Greek], probably originally crowded; hence annoyed, troubled; pres. pass. participle of [Greek]; cf. Heb. 12:15. Verses 18, 19 [Greek], aor. act. infinitive of [Greek], to hear, to listen to. When there is a distinction in meaning between this verb followed by the gen. and the same verb followed by the accusative, the former indicates hearing sounds; the latter, understanding words. See Gram. N.T., p. 506; also Acts 9:7; contrast Acts 22:9. But owing to the gradual intrusion of the accusative into the territories of the other cases, a process already apparent in the Koine, this rule is by no means inflexible. See also Robertson, Word Pictures, Acts, p. 118. Note, in verses 18, 19, [Greek] &[Greek]; the first being the aor. passive infinitive; the second, the third per. s. middle imperfect, of the verb [Greek]. There is little, if any difference in meaning between the two verbs for healing here used. On [Greek], third per. pl. imperfect (progressive, descriptive) of [Greek] see also the note on 4:23 on page 261. In John's Gospel this verb is found once; in Mark 5times; in Matthew 16times, while Dr. Luke (in the Fourth Gospel and Acts) uses it 19 times. It is natural that the beloved physician took a deep interest in the therapeutics practiced by the Great Physician. As presented by Luke, The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:1), in which the gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 4:23) is set forth, may be divided as follows: I. Four Beatitudes and Four Woes with reference, respectively, to those inside and those outside the kingdom (6:20–26) II. The Standard of Life Demanded by the King (6:27–45) A. The Light of Love He Commends (6:27–38) B. The Darkness of Sin He Condemns (6:39–45) III. Application: The Parable of The Two Builders (6:46–49) Note resemblance between this Outline and the Sermon Summary found on pp. 262, 263 of N.T.C. on Matthew. In connection with this essential similarity note also the variety of presentation. 6:20–26 I. Four Beatitudes and Four Woes For the Beatitudes cf. Matt. 5:1–12 20 Then he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said: Blessed (are) you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. 21 Blessed (are) you who now are hungry, for you shall be fully satisfied. Blessed (are) you who now weep, for you shall laugh. 22 Blessed are you when men hate you; when they exclude you, heap insults upon you,^[248] and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of man. 23 Exult in that day and leap for joy, for great, indeed, is your reward in heaven; for in just the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets. 24 But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your consolation in full. 25 Woe to you who now are well-fed, for you shall go hungry. Woe (to you) who now are laughing, for you shall mourn and weep. 26 Woe (to you) when all men speak well of you, for in just the same way their fathers used to treat the false prophets. Our Lord's Beatitudes as Reported by Luke and by Matthew Luke's Beatitude No. 1 Blessed (are) you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Matthew's Corresponding Beatitude No. 1 Blessed (are) the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Luke's Beatitude No. 2 Blessed (are) you who now are hungry, for you shall be fully satisfied. Matthew's Corresponding Beatitude No. 4 Blessed (are) those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, for they shall be fully satisfied. Luke's Beatitude No. 3 Blessed (are) you who now weep, for you shall laugh. Matthew's Corresponding Beatitude No. 2 Blessed (are) the mourners, for they shall be comforted. Luke's Beatitude No. 4 Blessed are you when men hate you, etc. for great, indeed, is your reward in heaven, etc. Matthew's Corresponding Beatitude No. 8 Blessed (are) those persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven, etc. Thus, while, broadly speaking, Matthew has a beatitude corresponding to each of Luke's, Luke has no parallel to Matthew's third, fifth, sixth, and seventh (respectively concerning the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers). Correspondence between Beatitudes and Woes as reported by Luke Beatitude No. 1 Blessed (are) you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Woe No. 1 But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your consolation in full. Beatitude No. 2 Blessed (are) you who now are hungry, for you shall be fully satisfied. Woe No. 2 Woe to you who now are well-fed, for you shall go hungry. Beatitude No. 3 Blessed (are) you who now weep, for you shall laugh. Woe No. 3 Woe (to you) who now are laughing, for you shall mourn and weep. Beatitude No. 4 Blessed are you when men hate you .................... for in just the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets. Woe No. 4 Woe (to you) when all men speak well of you, for in just the same way their fathers used to treat the false prophets. Those who, comparing Matthew's report of this sermon with Luke's, see a contradiction, will find it difficult to prove this. In each case what has been preserved of this sermon is a summary. Would it not be unrealistic to believe that Jesus spoke less than fifty minutes? Nevertheless, it takes the average reader only about seven minutes to read Matt. 5:3 7:27, and only about two minutes to read Luke 6:20 49. As long as what each reporter has left us is what was actually said, main points being accurately reflected, there is no real problem, no conflict. In view of John 20:30, 31; 21:25it is unreasonable to demand something corresponding to a complete tape recording of every spoken word. In the time it took Jesus to deliver this heart-searching address he had ample opportunity to utter the eight Beatitudes reported by Matthew and the four Beatitudes plus four Woes reported by Luke, all the more so when we bear in mind that with respect to the Beatitudes there is overlapping between the two reports. For more introductory material on the Beatitudes see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 264–268. A. 6:20–23 Four Beatitudes 20. Then he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said: Blessed (are) you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Jesus looked meaningfully at his disciples. Who were these disciples? The word may indicate the wide circle of followers to which reference was made in verse 17. Even then, however, the words, Blessed are you poor, were most suitable for The Twelve, whom the Master had chosen a little earlier this same day (verses 13 16), and who had given up everything to follow him (18:28). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER VII Outline of Chapter 7 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 7:1–10 The Faith of a Centurion Rewarded by Jesus 7:11–17 The Raising of the Widow's Son at Nain 7:18–35 The Doubt of John the Baptist and The Manner in Which Jesus Dealt with It The Parable of Children Sitting in the Market Places 7:36–50 Jesus Anointed by a Penitent Woman The Parable of The Two Debtors 7:1–10 The Faith of a Centurion Rewarded by Jesus Cf. Matt. 8:5–13 7 1 After Jesus had concluded all his words in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. 2 Now a certain centurion's servant, who was very dear to his master, was sick, at the point of death.^[277] 3 The centurion, having heard about Jesus, sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, saying, He is worthy that you grant him this (favor), 5 for he loves our nation and he built the synagogue for us. 6 So Jesus went with them. Now when Jesus was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, Do not trouble yourself, Lord, for I am not fit for you to come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you; but speak the word and my boy will be cured. 8 For I myself am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me, and I say to one, Go, and he goes; to another, Come, and he comes; and to my servant, Do this, and he does it. 9 Now when Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him; and turning to the crowd following him, he said, I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith. 10 And when those who had been sent out returned to the house, they found the servant in good health. A. Introduction 1. After Jesus had concluded all his words in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. Jesus sermon, briefly summarized in Luke 6:20 49, has ended. Very properly a new chapter begins at this point. Nevertheless, between the final paragraph of Chapter 6 and the opening paragraph of Chapter 7 there is a close connection. In fact, that connection is threefold: (a) geographical, that is, if, as has been assumed, the distance between the locale of the sermon and Capernaum, which Jesus now enters, was not great; (b) chronological, for when Luke writes, After Jesus had concluded all his words &he entered Capernaum, he probably means shortly afterward. Though it is true that the word here translated after is indefinite, and can indicate a longer or shorter period, in the present case there are no reasons to believe that the intervening period was substantial; besides, Capernaum was nearby and was still in a sense Christ's headquarters. The connection is, however, also (c) topical. This third item should be stressed, for, as is well known, topical or thematic connections abound in Luke's Gospel. In the final paragraph of Chapter 6 Jesus had, by means of a parable, driven home the lesson that faith in himself should be unshakable, like a house founded on rock. It should be genuine, so that the words of Jesus, having been heard, will not be ignored, but translated into action. In the opening paragraph of Chapter 7 the evangelist now exhibits a prize example of such faith. B. What the people particularly the elders of the Jews thought of a certain centurion: He is worthy. 2 6a. Now a certain centurion's servant, who was very dear to his master, was sick, at the point of death. The centurion, having heard about Jesus, sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his servant. When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, saying, He is worthy that you grant him this (favor), for he loves our nation and he built the synagogue for us. So Jesus went with them. The records of this miracle (Matt. 8:5–13; Luke 7:1 10) should not be confused with the story found in John 4:46 54. That story has to do with a royal officer's son; this, with a centurion's servant. John 4:46 54places Jesus in Cana; in Luke 7:1the Savior is entering Capernaum. The supplicant mentioned in John 4could not immediately conceive of Jesus power to heal at a distance; the centurion, on the other hand, took the initiative in declaring that Jesus had this power. The centurion of Luke's (and Matthew's) story was an officer in the pay of Herod Antipas. Strictly speaking, as the very name implies, a centurion was a commander of a hundred soldiers. But then, as also today, military terms were flexible in meaning, so that a centurion might not actually be in charge of exactly one hundred men. We might say that his rank and authority ranged between that of a decurion (officer in command of ten soldiers) and that of a chiliarch (military commander of a thousand men). He was what we might call an army captain. Centurions were generally men of good reputation. Scripture has many good things to say about them. At Calvary, after Jesus had breathed his last, a centurion exclaims, Surely, this was God's Son (Matt. 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47). The centurion also tells Pilate the truth about the body of Christ (Mark 15:44, 45). Another centurion, Cornelius, is described as devout and God-fearing, together with his entire family &held in high regard by all the Jews, etc. (Acts 10:1, 2, 22, 33, 44 48). See also (Acts 21:32; 22:25, 26; 23:17, 23; 24:23. Not many are the instances in which the New Testament records any flaw on the part of a centurionActs 10:25, 26). There is also Acts 27:11, but even that centurion, Julius, was well-disposed toward Paul (27:1, 3, 43). But among all the fine things Scripture says about centurions highest praise is reserved for the one of our present account. This man had a servant call him slave if you prefer, but see what follows who was seriously ill. His physical condition was indeed desperate. According to Matt. 8:6he was bedridden with paralysis, suffering terribly, fearfully tormented. Was this a case of progressive paralysis with muscular spasms dangerously affecting his respiratory system? Whatever it was, according to Luke's report the illness had brought the servant to the very portals of death. Was there no hope for recovery? Yes, there was, for the centurion had heard about Jesus. In view of the fact that many of the mighty works of our Lord had been, were being, and were going to be performed in this very city, it is not surprising that the centurion, here stationed, had heard about Jesus. Having heard about The Great Physician and what he had done for others, the centurion now pleads that the same mercy be shown to his own servant. The man's heart is in his plea, for so very dear (Luke 7:2) is the servant to his master that the latter calls him my boy (verse 7).^[278] According to Matthew it was the centurion himself who informed Jesus about the crisis that had arisen. On the other hand, Luke here states that the officer had sent some elders of the Jews to Jesus with the request, Come and heal my servant. This involves no contradiction. He may have done both. On the other hand, more simple is the explanation that it was through the elders that the centurion's plea was made known to Jesus. Matthew may simply be abbreviating the story. However, according to Luke's account (see verses 4, 5), the elders were more than mere transmitters of a message. As, through them, the centurion was interceding for his boy, so the elders, in turn, were interceding for the centurion. They said, He is worthy that you grant him this (favor), for he loves our nation and he built the synagogue for us. Note: He loves our nation &and he built our synagogue (a possible translation). This may imply that Capernaum at this time had only one synagogue, the very one whose construction had been financed by this centurion. If that inference should be correct, the relation between the Lord and this centurion becomes even closer, for it then appears that the construction of the very place of worship where Jesus had already revealed his miracle-working power (Luke 4:31 37; cf. Mark 1:21 28) had been financed by this officer. With respect to Capernaum and its synagogue see also on Luke 10:15. Though this centurion was not a Jew (see verse 9) and may well have been a Roman, the very fact that he gave the Jews their synagogue probably indicates that he was rich, generous, and kind. Does it also show that he had said farewell to pagan polytheism and was inclined to favor may even have adopted Jewish monotheism? It will become clear, however, that by God's grace he had advanced much farther than this in the one and only true religion, namely, in his faith in Jesus, God's Son. He is worthy, said the Jewish elders. Worthy of what? Of receiving as a favor from Jesus the healing of this desperately ill servant? However well-meant this appraisal may have been, it smacks of the doctrine of human merits. It should be borne in mind that those who spoke thus were Jewish elders! The true doctrine is quite different. See Luke 18:13; Rom. 3:20, 23, 24; 7:18, 24; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 3:4–9. So Jesus went with them. A very short sentence indeed, but how full of meaning. According to Matt. 8:7, as Jesus started out on his way toward the home of the centurion he even said, I will come and heal him. He did not refuse the fervent request. He did not say, Why did this request not come earlier? Nor, Since the man who makes this request (whether directly or indirectly) is not even a Jew, and in fact represents the oppressor (the hated power of Rome), I will do nothing. Nor, Since you, elders, seem to think that I owe him that favor because he built your synagogue, I must turn down the request. Nothing of the kind. Without adding any if's or but's Jesus wends his way toward the house where his help is needed. In reading this story the temptation is to concentrate our attention entirely upon the wonderful centurion. Well, by God's grace, he was indeed wonderful. But we should fix our attention especially on the marvelous grace of our loving Lord. For the love of God is broader Than the measure of man's mind; And the heart of the Eternal Is most wonderfully kind. F. W. Faber, lines taken from There's a Wideness in God's Mercy C. What he (the centurion) thought of himself: I am not worthy. 6b 8. Now when Jesus was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, Do not trouble yourself, Lord, for I am not fit for you to come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you; but speak the word and my boy will be cured. For I myself am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me, and I say to one, Go, and he goes; to another, Come, and he comes; and to my servant, Do this, and he does it. He is worthy, the elders had said. But the centurion, on hearing that Jesus was on the way to his home, in fact was already nearby, becomes overwhelmed with the sense of his own unworthiness. After all, who is he in comparison with this Exalted One, this personal embodiment of majestic authority, all-embracing power, and condescending love, a love that bridges every chasm and overleaps every obstacle of race, nationality, class, and culture? Who is he to cause this kind Master to commit an act that would put him in conflict with the time-honored custom of his own people, according to which a Jew does not enter the house of a Gentile lest he be defiled (Acts 10:28; 11:2, 3; cf. John 18:28)? As Luke makes clear, however, the difficulty with which the centurion struggled was not limited to his unwillingness to embarrass Jesus because of certain Jewish scruples or ritual taboos. If that had been all, the officer could have added, But though I do not want you to ceremonially defile yourself by entering my home, I myself will go out to you. I will approach you, close enough so you can address me. Instead, what he adds is this, I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. It is clear that this man is filled with a sense of personal unworthiness. He is deeply convinced of his own insignificance in comparison with Jesus. Let Jesus therefore simply speak the word of healing! That is all that will be necessary to bring about a complete recovery. The centurion reasons: If, though I am but a military officer with very limited authority and power, an officer who must himself obey his superiors, even my orders are nevertheless immediately carried out by both soldier and servant, and this regardless of where I am when I issue them, then certainly he, this Great One, exercising independent authority and holding the universe in his all-powerful grasp, can command, and whatever it is that he desires will be done. When he says, Go, sickness will go; when he says, Come, health will arrive; and when he tells the body of my boy, Do this, it will immediately respond. Here again, the fact that according to Luke this message was not addressed to Jesus directly but was on the Lord's approach conveyed to him by the centurion's friends, can, with Augustine and many after him, be explained as in the previous instance; see above, on verses 3 5. We are justified, perhaps, in assuming that the centurion, having gone outside, and having seen Jesus approaching, hurriedly sent his friends to him. The message was in any case the centurion's own answer to Jesus, which is what both Matthew and Luke are saying.^[279] The centurion is deeply convinced that the personal presence of Jesus is not required. All that is necessary is that he speak the word. He says, I am not fit, not worthy. For more about this word fit or worthy see the note on 7:6 on pages 380, 381. To return again to Jesus. At the beginning of the story the centurion had asked him to come (verse 3). But now that the Lord has almost arrived, the officer says the very opposite, Do not trouble yourself [to come]. It would seem, therefore, that the more, in the meantime, the centurion reflected on the greatness of Jesus, on his power, exalted majesty, holiness, and willingness to help, the more also he was ashamed of himself and impressed with the fact that his previous request had been unnecessary. So great is Christ! D. What Jesus thought of him: Not even in Israel have I found such great faith. 9, 10. Now when Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him; and turning to the crowd following him, he said, I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith. And when those who had been sent out returned to the house, they found the servant in good health. Jesus was astonished, and for a reason contrary to that mentioned in Mark 6:6. To make sure that his words would be understood he turned toward the crowd that was following him, including undoubtedly the centurion's friends (verse 6), and to them all he revealed that the faith of this officer of Gentile race surpassed in excellence anything he had found even among the Jews, in spite of their special privileges. To be sure, also in Israel Jesus had found faith (Luke 5:5, 8 11; 6:20–23, 47, 48), but not a combination in one person of a love so affectionate, a considerateness so thoughtful, an insight so penetrating, a humility so outstanding, and a trust so unlimited. In many cases was not what Jesus had found little faith? According to Matt. 8:13Jesus now told the centurion again by means of that officer's friends? to re-enter his home. The Lord's message conveyed to him was, Go home; as you believed, so let it be done for you. Matthew adds that from that very moment the boy was cured. Accordingly, when the friends whom the centurion had sent to Jesus returned to the officer's home, they found the servant in good health. What lesson does Luke 7:1 10teach? Is it this, that Luke was indeed a great historian, one who, once having announced his theme the opening of the gospel door to non-Jew as well as Jew never departs from it? That observation, made by many, is accurate. In addition to 7:1–10 see also 4:25–27; 10:33–37; 17:16; 24:45–47; Acts 10:28, 34, 35; 11:17, 18; 13:44–48, etc. Sometimes it is added that Luke's favorable mention of the elders of the Jews, who thought very highly of a man who was a Gentile by birth and who showed a friendly and even reverential attitude to Jesus, was made in order to facilitate the entrance of non-Jews into church and kingdom. But when we say no more than this have we not missed the main lesson? Do not these same passages, and many others besides, show us what a wonderful Savior is Jesus? Do they not point to him as the One who not only bids all men to embrace him by faith, to God's glory, but even praises them when they do so (Luke 7:9), even though he knows that this faith is not of their own making but is God's gift to them? A wonderful Savior is Jesus my Lord, A wonderful Savior to me, etc. Fanny J. Crosby^[280] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 7:1 10 Verses 3 6 Elders of the Jews &[said], He is worthy. &So Jesus went with them. The greatness of Jesus appears from the fact that: (a) though the centurion waited until it was almost too late (the servant was at the point of death), and (b) not being a Jew, belonged to a different ethnic group, and (c) though the ground on which the elders pleaded (he is worthy) was doctrinally unsound, nevertheless the Master started out at once to answer the call. What a comfort! But also: what an example for us to follow, to the extent to which by his power we are able to do so. Verse 6 I am not fit. Cf. I am no longer worthy to be your son (15:19); O God, be merciful to me, the sinner (18:13); and sinners &foremost of whom am I. What is the lesson? Let not conscience make you linger, Nor of fitness fondly dream; All the fitness he requireth Is to feel your need of him. This he gives you, this he gives you; Tis the Spirit's glimmering beam. Lines from Come Ye Sinners, by Joseph Hart Verse 9 Not even in Israel have I found such great faith. Did the faith of this man consist only in this, that he was firmly convinced of the Master's power to heal a deathly sick servant from a distance? That this ingredient of his faith was indeed in the foreground is clear from the close connection between 7:6b 8 and verse 9. But was that the complete picture? Did not the centurion's faith also include warm affection for his slave, generosity toward a conquered nation, and consciousness of his own unworthiness? And does not great faith always include a changed attitude to Christ, others, and self? Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 7:1–10 Verse 2 For [Greek] see the note on 5:31 on page 306. [Greek], pres. infinit. of [Greek], to die; cf. [Greek], end, limit, goal. [Greek], very dear, cf. held in honor, respected, esteemed. See also 14:8; cf. Phil. 2:29; I Peter 2:4, 6. Verse 3 [Greek], third per. s., aor. subj. act. of [Greek], to restore to health, heal. Verse 4 [Greek], nom. pl. masc. 2nd aor. participle of [Greek], to be by the side of, to come, arrive. [Greek], sec. per. s. fut. middle of [Greek], to grant, render, offer, confer. Verses 4 and 7 The cognates [Greek] (verse 4) and [Greek] (verse 7) are derived from the base [Greek], to lead, bring, etc.; hence, to bring down the scale; that is, to be of sufficient weight; and so, to be worthy, deserving. Though the idiomatic English equivalent of [Greek] is not always worthy, or even deserving, nevertheless the meaning in any context can easily be traced to the basic concept of being worthy. This holds also for the verb [Greek] of which [Greek] in verse 7 is the first per. s. aor. indicat. Limiting ourselves to Luke's writings, note the following examples of [Greek] from the Third Gospel: fruits worthy of (i.e., in keeping with) conversion (Luke 3:8). He is worthy (7:4). The laborer is worthy of (deserves) his wages (10:7). things worthy of (things that called for) a beating (12:48). I am no longer worthy (15:19, 21). nothing worthy of (nothing that deserves) the death penalty (23:15). We are getting what we are worthy of (what we deserve, 23:41). The same holds for the examples of [Greek] in Acts (13:25, etc.). This is also true with respect to the verb [Greek]: I did not even consider myself worthy (Luke 7:7). Paul did not consider it worthy (right, fitting, suitable) to take along, etc. (Acts 15:38). We consider worthy (We desire) to hear from you (Acts 28:22). Verse 5 [Greek], here third per. s. pres. indicat. of [Greek]. For the synonyms [Greek] and [Greek] see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 494–500, footnote 306. Verse 6 For [Greek] see the note on 6:24 on page 346. [Greek], sec. per. s. pres. imperat. middle of [Greek], to skin, flay, vex, trouble. Cf. skin, Scylla (and Charybdis). [Greek]. In the Gospels this word has the following meanings: a. able, fit, worthy (Matt. 3:11; cf. Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; also Matt. 8:8; cf. Luke 7:6). b. large, considerable (Matt. 28:12, a large sum of money; Mark 10:46; Luke 7:11, 12). c. long (Luke 8:27; 20:9; 23:8). d. enough (Luke 22:38). e. many (Luke 8:32; 23:9). f. In combination with [Greek] the word [Greek] acquires the meaning to satisfyMark 15:15. Cf. the Dutch genoegdoening, meaning satisfaction; literally doing enough . In addition to the 10 occurrences in the Third Gospel Luke uses the word [Greek] 18 times in Acts; therefore 28 times in all, more than twice as often as all other New Testament writers combined. In Acts, too, as well as in the Third Gospel, the meaning varies. Verse 7 [Greek], literally speak with a word, where we would say, speak the word. [Greek], third per. s. aor. imperat. passive of [Greek]. See also the note on 5:17 on page 300. Verse 8 [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. imperat. of [Greek], to go. Verse 10 [Greek], nom. pl. masc. aor. participle of [Greek], to turn back, return. [Greek], nom. pl. masc. aor. pass. participle of [Greek]. [Greek]; see the note on 5:31 on page 306. 7:11–17 The Raising of the Widow's Son at Nain 11 Soon afterward Jesus went to a town called Nain. His disciples and a large crowd went along with him. 12 Now when he approached the gate of the town, look, a dead person was being carried out. He was his mother's only son, and she was a widow. A sizable crowd from the town was with her. 13 When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her and he said, Weep no more. 14 Then he came forward and touched the stretcher, and the men who were carrying it came to a halt. And he said, Young man, I say to you, get up! 15 Then the dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother. 16 Fear took hold of them all, and they glorified God, saying, A great prophet has appeared among us, and God has come to look after his people. 17 And this report about Jesus spread throughout the country of the Jews^[281] and the surrounding region. Our attention will be centered consecutively on God, the Widow, Jesus, and the Crowd. A. God 11, 12. Soon afterward Jesus went to a town called Nain. His disciples and a large crowd went along with him. Now when he approached the gate of the town, look, a dead person was being carried out. He was his mother's only son, and she was a widow. A sizable crowd from the town was with her. Note connection with the immediately preceding account: (a) the miracle recorded here in 7:11–17 occurred soon after the healing of the centurion's servant (verses 1 10); and (b) that servant was at the point of death when Jesus healed him, but the widow's son had actually died. Nowhere else in Scripture is Nain mentioned. It was probably the present Nein. The location is scenic. Picture it as situated ten kilometers southeast of Nazareth; i.e., forty kilometers southwest of Capernaum. To the north is Mt. Tabor, to the southeast Mt. Gilboa. Nain, then, was nestled on the northwest slope of the hill of Moreh, in a region that used to belong to the tribe of Issachar. When Jesus drew near to this Galilean town he was by no means alone. Not only were his disciples with him but so were many others. Again and again the Gospels picture Jesus as surrounded or followed by crowds. This was true especially during the early part of his earthly ministry (John 6:66). The people wanted to hear him, for his messages were different (Matt. 7:28, 29). They wanted to see him, for his eyes were filled with deep earnestness and sympathy. They would bring their sick, handicapped, and demon-possessed to him, for he healed the troubled and oppressed. They wanted to be with him, for by his love he drew them. In the Gospel of Luke see also 4:42; 5:29; 6:17–19; 9:37; 14:25. This time, just as Jesus approached Nain's gate something happened on which the evangelist, by writing look, wishes to fix our special attention: a funeral procession was corning out; coming out of the gate because no burial was allowed inside a Jewish city. Jesus entering, or about to enter; and simultaneously this procession leaving: was this the hand of God or a mere coincidence? Is not the Bible and any person's life full of facts and happenings that are often described as mere coincidences? When Abraham needed a sacrifice as a substitute for Isaac, there, in the very neighborhood, was a ram (Gen. 22:13). Later, Abraham's most trusted servant is sent to Mesopotamia in order to bring back from there a wife for Isaac. Arriving in that strange country, the servant prays that God may direct him. Before his prayer is even finished there is Rebecca, the young lady he is looking for (Gen. 24:15). Gideon needs courage in order to fight the Midianites. So, at God's direction, late in the day he and his servant sneak into the border of the enemy's camp. By the light of the campfires they are able to see. What they see is frightening: hostile forces like locusts for multitude. But at that very moment Gideon hears a Midianite telling his dream to a comrade, the dream about the cake of barley-bread that tumbled into the camp, struck it, and overturned it. The dreamer's comrade interprets this as proof positive that Midian is about to be defeated by Gideon. Thus encouraged, Gideon and his three hundred triumph gloriously (Judg. 7:9–25). Ruth, the Moabitess, starts out one morning for a field to gather some of the leavings of the harvest. And she happened to come to the part of the field belonging to Boaz. That was exactly the right man &her future husband, although at the moment she did not know it (Ruth 2:3). Jeremiah is cast into a cistern, where he is beginning to sink into the mire. Is there no one to rescue him? When the need is highest, God is nighest. The prophet is rescued by an Ethiopian, who arrives just in timeJer. 38:7; 39:1ff. . And it just so happens that when the Jews are very sure that their enemy, Paul, will not be able to escape them, so sure that more than forty of them even bind themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they have murdered their enemy, Paul's nephew hears about the plot, and Uncle Paul is rescued (Acts 23:12 24). Was the intervention of the eavesdropper (?) the hand of God, or mere coincidence? One day a minister, needing some time for relaxation after a heavy day's work, parks his car and strolls into a railroad depot. At that time travel by rail was still rather brisk. It is interesting to watch the trains come in, stop, unload their passengers, reload, and leave again. So it is also on this day. One of the many new arrivals, having entered the depot, looks around quizzically. Everyone in the huge crowd is a stranger to him. Suddenly he heads for the minister. Why just for him? I'm looking for a Mr. A. [he mentions the name], but I have lost his address. Could you perhaps help me find it? The minister answers, Come along with me and step into my car. I'll be glad to take you to our good friend, that wonderful lay home missionary, whose work is being sponsored by two neighboring churches. I am the pastor of one of those churches. I will let the reader guess who that minister was. So here also, at the very moment when the funeral procession is going out the city gate, Jesus is about to enter. Are these strange concurrences actually mere coincidences? From a human point of view they are, for man did not so plan them. And even Scripture at times uses phraseology that is thoroughly human; for example, By chance a priest was going by that road (Luke 10:31). Nevertheless, from the divine point of view all these remarkable coincidences must be regarded as having been included in God's plan, and in such a manner that man's responsibility is never canceled. The fact that these coincidences were indeed included in God's eternal, wise, all-comprehensive, immutable, efficacious plan is clearly taught in Scripture (Ps. 31:15; 33:11; 39:4, 5; 119:89–91; 139:16; Prov. 16:4, 33; 19:21; Dan. 4:34, 35; Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; 17:26; Rom. 8:28; Eph. 1:4, 11). What a comfort! Ere into being I was brought Thine eye did see, and in thy thought My life in all its perfect plan Was ordered ere my days began. Versification of Ps. 139:16. The poetic lines are part of No. 289 of the Psalter Hymnal, Centennial Edition, of the Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1959. B. The Widow The dead person who was being carried out was his mother's only son, and that woman was a widow. In this connection note also Luke's reference to another only son (9:38), and to an only daughter (8:42). With the death of this only son the woman's final source of support and protection is gone and the hope of perpetuating the family line has vanished. Is this death, after the earlier death of her husband, also a severe trial for her faith in a God who loves and cares? Though the text does not indicate this, we must at least consider this possibility. Her condition is indeed tragic. It is true that both Old and New Testament place special stress on everyone's obligation to show kindness to widows and to help them in their distress. See N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 167, 168. But is it not possible that the constant repetition of this admonition shows that widows were sometimes being neglected? See on Luke 20:47. On the other hand, we must not lose sight of the fact that the very mention of a sizable crowd shows that this widow's distress was being shared, namely, by those who knew her best. Cf. John 11:19. But our attention should not be too exclusively fixed on this widow and this only son. Instead, it should be concentrated on God's only son. When he steps into the picture, can the death of an earthly only son any longer be considered hopeless? C. Jesus 13 15. When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her and he said, Weep no more. Note the title the Lord. That Luke recognized Jesus as Lord is clear also from earlier passages (5:8, 12; 7:6). But there the evangelist introduces other people who address Jesus as Lord. In 6:46 he quotes Jesus, who in turn quotes others who call him Lord, Lord. And in 6:5 Lord of the sabbath is Christ's self-designation. The present passage (7:13) is the first in which the evangelist himself uses the term the Lord to describe Jesus. He does this also in 7:19; 10:1, 39, 41, etc. As to Mark's use of the term see N.T.C. on Mark 11:3. In all probability there was a special reason why Luke, in this particular context, called Jesus Lord, namely, that in the present instance the Savior revealed himself as Lord and Master even over death! First Jesus addressed the widow, who in all probability headed the funeral procession. His heart went out to her. This may well be one of the best translations of the original. It was adopted by Phillips, N.E.B., N.I.V. Another equally excellent rendering is, His heart was moved with pity for her (Williams). See the note on 7:13 on page 390 for more on this. Jesus was deeply touched by this woman's sorrow. Yet, it must have sounded strange to all the listeners that at an occasion that generally called for weeping, so that mourners were even hired, Jesus told the one person who had more reason to weep than did anyone else, Weep no more, or, as the original can also be rendered, Cease weeping. It would seem to be a sensible command only if the One who spoke these words would remove the cause of the widow's tears. But who can remove death? What was very clear, however, was this comforting fact, namely, that the heart of Jesus went out to this widow in her deep distress. Did Jesus sympathy resemble human sympathy in general? Was his compassion like ours? That there is and was indeed a resemblance is clear from such passages as John 11:33, 35; Heb. 4:15. But is it not rather the difference or contrast that stands out? Note the following items: a. Among sinful men sympathy is often faked, not genuine. Think of the people who take special pleasure in making lengthy visits to the sick, thinking, Now he (she) is my captive. He (she) will have to listen to all the details of my recent operation. On the other hand, when Jesus sympathized, he really meant it. His compassion was genuine and deep. He was concerned about the sick, the sorrowing, the bereaved. So concerned that of him it is written: He has taken our infirmities upon himself And carried our diseases. (Isa. 53:4; Matt. 8:17) b. Merely human sympathy is often helpless. The compassion shown by our Lord really helped. It was effective. In the present instance this is made very clear: Then he came forward and touched the stretcher, and the men who were carrying it came to a halt. And he said, Young man, I say to you, get up! Then the dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother. No one asked the Lord to do anything. He acted on his own initiative. What was there to ask? The man was dead, was he not? In connection with fever (4:38), leprosy (5:12), and paralysis (Matt. 8:6) there was always a glimmer of hope, some reason to ask for help, but surely not when death had entered. It is not surprising, therefore, that no one asked Jesus to restore to the mourning widow what she had lost. The case was regarded as absolutely hopeless. One is reminded of Luke 8:49. And yet, for the Lord of life and death, the One who holds the keys of Death and Hades (Rev. 1:18), the situation even now was not hopeless. Cf. Luke 8:50. So Jesus touched the stretcher on which the enshrouded corpse was lying. But on the basis of Num. 19:11 22(see especially verse 16) could it not be argued that touching a dead body or even the stretcher was defiling? However, to the pure all things are pure (Titus 1:15). The One who was able to eat and drink with tax-collectors and sinners without becoming contaminated would not suffer pollution either by touching this frame. On the contrary, instead of becoming defiled he was now in the process of conquering death and defilement! The pallbearers took the hint and stood still. Jesus then said, Young man, I say to you, get up. In two other cases recorded in the Gospels the Lord also spoke to the dead (Luke 8:54; John 11:43). Cf. Ps. 33:6. Can we not assume that the very moment the Lord began to address the dead they revived? In a manner too mysterious for us to understand, his word of power spelled victory over death. In the present case the young man who had been dead sat up and began to talk, showing that he was really and fully alive. The three restorations to life ascribed to Jesus that of the widow's son, the ruler's daughter, and Lazarus are unique. Nothing exactly similar had ever happened before or was going to happen during the period of Christ's earthly ministry.Matt. 27:52, 53was different. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 975, 976. To be sure there are other revivification stories for example, by Apollonius, by Joseph Smith, etc. but the circumstances surrounding these miracles (?) render further discussion superfluous. Different, though not in every respect, are also the resurrection accounts found in the Old Testament.II Kings 13:20, 21involves no living prophet, it does not engage our interest here. In some respects the five resurrections two in the old dispensation, three in the new are similar: a. God was the Author of all. See I Kings 17:22; II Kings 4:33; implied also in Luke 8:50; John 11:40, 41; and acknowledged here in Luke 7:16. b. In every case the bringing back to life of the individual is associated with the restoration of family ties. In the old dispensation the children who were raised from the dead are given back to their mothers. In the new, the command to give the ruler's daughter something to eat was probably directed to her parents; Lazarus is restored to loving fellowship with his sistersJohn 11:1with 12:1, 2 ; and in our present account we read the beautiful words, And Jesus gave him back to his mother (Luke 7:15). With this compare the almost exactly similar words of I Kings 17:23; and see also II Kings 4:36. In other words, God loves the family. He is let it be borne in mind always the God of the covenant, that is, of Abraham and his seed, not merely of Abraham. He wants the family to be a closely-knit unit. The children belong to him; they are his children, for he has a special claim on them. In his great love he tells them, My son (daughter) give me your heart (Prov. 23:26). The answer of each should be: Take my life and let it be Consecrated, Lord, to thee. Take my moments and my days; Let them flow in endless praise. Take my love; my God, I pour At thy feet its treasure store. Take myself, and I will be Ever, only, all for thee. Stanzas from a hymn by Frances R. Havergal. For more on the biblical doctrine of the covenant of grace see Gen. 17:7; 18:19; Deut. 6:7; Josh. 24:15; Ps. 78:4; 103:17; 105:8; Ezek. 16:21; Acts 2:38, 39; I Cor. 7:14. See also the author's book, The Covenant of Grace, Grand Rapids, 1932. And read What Jesus Did for the Family, N.T.C. on Mark, p. 385. But in one important respect what happened here at Nain and also what occurred in connection with the other two persons whom Jesus raised from the dead is in sharp contrast with the resurrections recorded in the Old Testament. Note the agonizing struggle of Elijah before the child's soul returns to its body: He cried to the Lord &and he stretched himself upon the child three times &and cried to the Lord (I Kings 17:20–22). More strenuous still and perhaps even longer is Elisha's struggle (II Kings 4:32–35). Compare all this with Luke 7:14b, 15a, And Jesus said, Young man, I say to you, get up. Then the dead man sat up, etc. There is no preliminary protracted conflict, no arduous wrestling. There is simply the word of majesty, and the young man is alive and talking! Reason: Jesus is God. Nothing less! His victory over death is immediate and complete. D. The Crowd 16, 17. Fear took hold of them all, and they glorified God, saying, A great prophet has appeared among us, and God has come to look after his people. And this report about Jesus spread throughout the country of the Jews and the surrounding region. Those who witnessed this miracle were awestruck. They recognized that God alone can raise the dead. So they properly ascribed glory to God. All this is understandable. Imagine that we ourselves should see a corpse suddenly come to life, get up, and start to talk. What would be our reaction? At first astonishment would probably prevent us from saying anything. Next, realizing that we had just now witnessed one of God's mighty doings, would we not exclaim, How great thou art? The spectators saw more than God's power. They also bore testimony to his loving concern. They even understood that, by bringing this young man back to life so that he could be reunited with his mother, God was revealing his deep concern, his gracious help, to his people in general. Note their expression, God has come to look after his people. Cf. Ruth 1:6; I Sam. 2:21; Luke 1:68, 78; cf. James 1:27. As to their attitude toward Jesus, here we must be careful. The people were convinced that it was through Jesus that God had performed this unforgettable deed. By declaring, A great prophet has appeared among us, they showed that, in their estimation, Jesus had acted as God's agent and representative. And is it not true that Jesus was, is, and ever will be God's Great Prophet? See Deut. 18:15; Luke 24:19; Acts 3:22, 23; 7:37. Nevertheless, in the light of other passages such as Matt. 16:13, 14; Mark 8:28; Luke 9:18, 19it becomes clear that these crowds failed to see the true greatness of this Prophet. The very manner and degree in which this great deed surpassed in splendor all that had ever happened before, as has been shown, should have opened their eyes to the fact that standing in their midst was not just one of the old prophets risen from the dead, not even merely a great prophet, but the one and only Son of God himself, the long promised Messiah. But this they did not understand or acknowledge. They underestimated the majesty of Jesus. Cf. Isa. 53:4, 8; Luke 9:45; 18:34; John 1:11. But Jesus performed his marvelous deeds of power and compassion not because of the recognition he received, but in spite of the fact that he failed to receive what was his due. This enhances his greatness. It causes his glory to shine forth even more brilliantly. Nevertheless, even in the estimation of those who failed to accord him the full measure of honor he should have received from them, so striking had been the miracle that they began to spread the news. Result: without newspaper, radio, or TV the report concerning the miracle, and concerning him, circulated throughout the country of the Jews and the adjacent regions. It is still circulating. It is performing its mission in the hearts and lives of all who take these inspired accounts seriously. It strengthens their faith and draws them closer to their Savior: a Prophet infinitely greater than any before him, a Highpriest exuding genuine and effective compassion, and a King who triumphs even over death. To him be the glory forever!^[282] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 7:11 17 Verse 13 His heart went out to her. There are various ways of showing kindness to widows, one of them being assigning to those who are physically able and mentally alert an important kingdom task. See N.T.C. on I Tim. 5:9, 10. Verses 13, 15 His heart went out to her.& He gave him back to his mother. What deep compassion! Verse 13 Weep no more. Thus Jesus promoted an atmosphere of calm. What infinite wisdom! Verse 14 He &touched the stretcher, thus ordering the procession to stop. And he said, Young man &get up, thus commanding Death to surrender its prey. What limitless authority! Verse 15 Then the dead man sat up.& Christ's word of command immediately restores the young man to life. What amazing power! Deep compassion, infinite wisdom, limitless authority, amazing power! Hallelujah, what a Savior! On the Day of Resurrection it is he who will welcome his own. See Job 19:23 27; John 14:19; I Cor. 15:20; Phil. 3:20, 21. For by far the most of them the Welcome Home! will be experienced even earlier, namely, at the moment of death. See Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; II Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 7:11–17 Verse 11 [Greek], supply [Greek] (according to what is probably the best text); literally, in the following time period; hence, soon afterward. Even if the reading [Greek] (supply [Greek]) should be correct, the difference in meaning would be small. Verse 12 [Greek], third per. s. imperf. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to carry out. [Greek], nom. s. perfect active participle of [Greek], to die. [Greek] = [Greek] and [Greek]; hence, only son born (to his mother); hence only. In connection with Jesus cf. John 3:16, 18, only begotten son (A.V.). Verse 13 [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. pass. of [Greek]. See also N.T.C. on Philippians, p. 58, footnote 39. The heart of Jesus went out to the sorrowing widow. Verse 14 [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. middle of [Greek], to touch, fasten. Cf. aptitude, adapt. [Greek], a portable frame on which a corpse is placed. The many attempts to find a suitable modern English equivalent have produced the following results: a. coffin. However, archaeologists maintain that coffins were unknown at least unusual in ancient Israel. b. open coffin. This introduces us to the modern funeral parlor, where friends of the departed meet mourning relatives and view the body. This obviously cannot be the meaning here. c. litter. This is technically correct. However, to many moderns is not a litter simply a number of puppies or of kittens born at the same time? Is the term litter in the sense of stretcher, a meaning it certainly also has, still sufficiently familiar? d. hearse. Does this suggest a horse-drawn funeral carriage? (At the time of our story the automobile had not yet been invented.) To be sure, the term has other meanings also, but would not the one just given be the first to suggest itself? But the portable frame of Luke 7:14was moved by men, not by horses. e. bier. This would be my second choice. It has been adopted by most translators and commentators. In its favor is the fact that the word has a wide meaning, indicating a frame of any kind on which either a corpse or a coffin is placed. It can therefore be considered technically correct. Nevertheless, as Williams implies (see the footnote in his translation), bier can hardly be considered an up-to-date English equivalent. Some even call it archaic. f. stretcher. When the object to which reference is made in 7:14 is described as a frame consisting of two long poles connected crosswise by hands on which the corpse is laid; and a stretcher is defined as a frame, generally light, used for carrying injured, sick, or dead persons, the conclusion would seem to be justified that stretcher may well be the best rendering. It is my first choice. It should be borne in mind, however, that the portable frame of 7:14 may have been somewhat heavier in construction: perhaps a flat board equipped with staves and poles. A &striking peculiarity is that the dead person was not buried in a coffin. On the contrary, when the corpse had been shrouded it was carried out on a stretcher. That the reference is not to a coffin is clearly evident from the resurrection at Nain. The Savior touched the stretcher, and at his word the dead man sat up and began to talk. (A. Sizoo, De Antieke Wereld en Het Nieuwe Testament, Kampen, 1948, p. 48. The Dutch word for which I selected, and the dictionary allows, the English equivalent stretcher, can also be rendered bier. ) See also M. M., p. 581; and J. Reiling and J. L. Swellengrebel, A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Luke, Leiden, 1971, p. 300. Little, if any, help can be derived from Josephus, Antiquities XVII.197, since the bier on which the body of King Herod the Great was borne to Herodeion had a cover of purple over it, and differed therefore from the simple and obviously open stretcher to which reference is made here in Luke 7:14. [Greek] nom. pl. masc. pres. active participle of [Greek]. The verb [Greek] occurs more than twenty-five times in the New Testament. It is especially common in the Gospels and in Acts. It is used in connection with carrying a water-jar (Mark 14:13; Luke 22:10), a stretcher (Luke 7:14), stones (John 10:31), money (John 12:6), a corpse (John 20:15), a yoke (Acts 15:10), a man: Paul (Acts 21:35), and a woman (Rev. 17:7). In (Gal. 6:2Rom. 15:1) it can best be taken in the figurative sense of carrying each other's burdens, lightening each other's loads of difficulty and grief. For a slightly different metaphorical sense see Gal. 5:10(bear one's judgment, pay the penalty). We should not allow the exceptional sense which the word has in Rev. 2:2(tolerate, put up with) to determine the meaning elsewhere. [Greek], sec. per. aor. imperative passive (intransitive) of [Greek], to arouse; hence here arise!, get up! In verse 16 note third per. s. aor. passive of the same basic verb. The form there used means has appeared. Verse 16 For [Greek] see the note on 1:68 and on 1:78 on page 131. God has visited his people is perhaps a little too weak. Better is, God has come to look after his people, meaning: has shown his concern for [or: interest in] them, has come to help (or rescue) them. Cf. Dutch (Nieuwe Vertaling), God heeft naar zijn volk omgezien. Verse 17 For [Greek] see the note on 4:44 on page 275. 7:18–35 The Doubt of John the Baptist and The Manner in Which Jesus Dealt with It The Parable of Children Sitting in the Market Places Cf. Matt. 11:2–19 18 John's disciples told him all these things. Summoning two of his disciples, 19 he sent them to the Lord, to ask, Are you the Coming One, or must we look for someone else? 20 When the men came to Jesus, they said. John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, Are you the Coming One, or must we look for someone else? 21 Now at that very time Jesus cured many people of diseases, sicknesses, and evil spirits, and on many blind persons he graciously bestowed sight. 22 So he gave this answer to the messengers, Go back and report to John the things you have seen and heard: (the) blind^[283] are gaining their sight, (the) cripples are walking, (the) lepers are being cleansed, and (the) deaf are hearing, (the) dead are being raised, (the) poor are having good news preached to them. 23 And blessed is he who is not repelled by me. 24 When John's messengers had left, Jesus began to say to the crowd concerning John: What is it you went out into the wilderness to took at? A reed swinging in the wind? 25 But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft garments? Surely those who are gorgeously appareled and live in luxury are (to be found) in royal palaces. 26 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, even more than a prophet. 27 This is the one of whom it is written: Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way before thee. 28 I tell you, Among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. 29 Now all the people, even the tax-collectors, when they listened (to him), vindicated God's righteous requirements by submitting to John's baptism.^[284] 30 But the Pharisees and the law-experts rejected God's concerning them by refusing to be baptized by John. 31 To what, therefore, shall I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like? 32 They are like children sitting in the market places and calling out to one another: We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; We sang dirges, and you did not weep. 33 For John the Baptist has come, neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, He has a demon. 34 The Son of man has come, eating and drinking, and you say, Look, a glutton and a drinker, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners. 35 Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children. A. John's Doubt 18 20. John's disciples told him all these things. Summoning two of his disciples, he sent them to the Lord, to ask, Are you the Coming One, or must we look for someone else? When the men came to Jesus, they said, John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, Are you the Coming One, or must we look for someone else? In the preceding paragraph Luke has related the story of the raising of the widow's son. In the present paragraph he quotes the words of Jesus, Dead people are being raised. The connection is therefore clear. The news concerning the great miracle at Nain had spread far and wide, also reaching the prison where the Baptist was being kept. Result: the latter's question. According to (Luke 3:19, 20see explanation of these verses John the Baptist had been taken into custody by King Herod Antipas. He had been locked up in the gloomy fortress of Machaerus, modern Khirbet Muk�wer, located about eight kilometers east of the Dead Sea and twenty-four kilometers south of its northern tip. The prison was part of one of the Herodian palaces,^[285] which explains the possibility of the action recorded in Mark 6:25 28. Though his imprisonment must have been a very grim ordeal, John was allowed to receive visitors, including his own disciples. From these he had learned about the activities of Jesus, the very One about whom the Baptist had said so many wonderful thingsMatt. 3:11; Luke 3:16; John 1:15 18, 26, 27, 29 36; 3:28–30; 10:41; Acts 18:25; 19:4). So, the imprisoned herald may have been wondering, If Jesus is that powerful, why does he not do something about my incarceration? But especially: as John saw it, the gracious words that fell from the lips of the Savior and the miracles of mercy he performed did not harmonize with the manner in which he, the Baptist, had pictured him before the public. He had presented him as One who had come to punish and destroy (Matt. 3:7, 10; Luke 3:7, 9). John's word had been true and inspired, the very word of God (Luke 1:76; 3:2). What Christ's herald missed, however, was this: he failed to discern that this prophecy of doom would go into fulfilment not now but at Christ's second coming. He had not seen the present and the future in true perspective. John made a very wise decision when, instead of keeping his difficulty regarding Jesus to himself, or talking it over with others but not with the right person, he took it to Jesus. Owing to the fact that the Baptist was himself in prison, so that he was unable to go and see Jesus in person, he sent word by two of his (the Baptist's) disciples. This does not mean, however, that the interpretation according to which it was not John himself who doubted but only his disciples who did, and that John now sends these men to Jesus so that the Savior may solve their problem, is correct. It is definitely incorrect. Why otherwise would Jesus have said, Go and report to John (verse 22)? There is no question about it: It was John himself who had a problem. It was he who wondered whether or not Jesus was the Coming One. ^[286] Due, perhaps, to the importance of the matter, the arrival of the two disciples is reported as is also John's question, in its exact original form. B. The Manner in Which Jesus Dealt with It 1. His message to John 21 23. Now at that very time Jesus cured many people of diseases, sicknesses, and evil spirits, and on many blind persons he graciously bestowed sight. So he gave this answer to the messengers, Go back and report to John the things you have seen and heard: (the) blind are gaining their sight, (the) cripples are walking, (the) lepers are being cleansed, and (the) deaf are hearing, (the) dead are being raised, (the) poor are having good news preached to them. The emissaries of John the Baptist arrived exactly at the right time, just when Jesus was demonstrating his healing love and power. Note the word many: Jesus cured many people &on many blind people he graciously bestowed sight. This was, accordingly, another season of multiple healings. Cf. 4:40, 41; 6:17–19. First, mention is made of diseases or illnesses, a term indicating any unhealthy condition of body or mind. This is followed by sicknesses, literally scourges, with emphasis on the painful nature of these afflictions. As to the expulsion of evil spirits (cf. 4:33, 34) see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 436–438; on Mark, pp. 64, 65. The blind come in for special mention. We see, therefore, that all three classes were the objects of Christ's compassion and were affected by his healing power: the sick, the demon-possessed, and the handicapped, the latter here represented by the blind. Again and again the Gospels make mention of blind people. In Luke see 4:18; 6:39; 14:13, 21; 18:35–43. There must have been many thus afflicted. These were days when knowledge of the causes of blindness was about at the zero level, when the importance of sanitary conditions was not as yet appreciated, and when preventive measures had not as yet been discovered. All this indicates how great a Savior was, and is, Jesus. Just how he cured all diseases, sicknesses, etc., we do not know. It cannot be explained in terms of physical science. We joyfully accept it by faith. So John's emissaries are told to go back and tell John what they themselves have witnessed (seen and heard): blind (people) are gaining their sight, cripples are walking, etc. The very omission of the article causes all the emphasis to rest on the tragic condition of these people. Dead (people) are raised echoes what happened at Nain. This surely is the climax; here the sentence must end, for there can be no greater work than that of raising the dead. So we might reason. But the inspired evangelist, who is reporting Christ's words, knows better. Raising the dead is not the climax. There is something even greater, namely, the poor are having good news preached to them. That is the greatest work of all. All these things must be reported to John, so that his doubts may vanish. In which sense was this answer reassuring? Is it not true that John already knew all this (Matt. 11:2), and that the very fact that he knew it had contributed substantially to his doubt? True indeed, but the wording was new &Or was it? It was new in the sense that friends who had been reporting Christ's activities to John had not used this type of formulation. On the other hand, the message as phrased by Jesus had a familiar ring. It must have reminded John of certain prophetic predictions, namely, Isa. 35:5, 6and 61:1: Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the crippled [or: lame] man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing for joy.& The spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me, because Jehovah has anointed me to preach good news to the poor [or: meek]. It is as if Jesus were tenderly saying to John, Do you remember these prophecies? This, too, was predicted concerning Messiah. And all this is being fulfilled today, namely, in me. In connection with these prophetic words and their fulfilment in Jesus two additional facts should be noted: (a) Isaiah had referred both to miracles and preaching; Christ's message to John also contains a reference to both; and (b) the fulfilment in Christ was even better than the prediction, for in the latter not a word had even been whispered with reference to cleansing the leper and raising the dead. The message addressed to John ends with the words: And blessed is he who is not repelled by me. How very gentle this rebuke. Jesus does not scold John for having asked, Are you the Coming One, or must we look for someone else? Instead, he reminds his wavering follower that a special blessing awaits him who does not fall into this trap but continues by God's grace to trust. For more on the word repelled see the note on verse 23 on page 403. The Lord treats John as tenderly as he did the man born blind, the woman caught in adultery, Peter, Thomas, etc. In view of the fact that Jesus immediately proceeds to praise John publicly and to rebuke those who were finding fault both with this herald and with the One to whom he bore witness (verses 24 35), and also in view of such passages as Mal. 3:1; 4:5, 6; Luke 1:15 17, 76, 80; Phil. 1:6, it must be considered certain that the message of Jesus had the desired effect on John. But it is the wisdom and tenderness of Jesus that stand out in this message of reassurance addressed to John. 2. His message to the people The tender love of Jesus is also shown in his defense of John, upholding his honor before the crowd. By now John's messengers have left, at least are going away (Matt. 11:7). Then Jesus asks the crowd a series of questions concerning their relation to John in former days, as compared to now. These questions have been correctly described as quasi-satirical (F. W. Danker, op. cit., p. 97). 24 27. When John's messengers had left, Jesus began to say to the crowd concerning John: What is it you went out into the wilderness to look at? A reed swaying in the wind? Here Jesus corrects the erroneous conclusion which some of the people were apt to draw with respect to John because of the question in which he had revealed his doubt concerning the very One whom he had formerly pointed out as the Messiah. The conclusion against which, by implication, Jesus warns is that the Baptist is a fickle, vacillating person. In the paragraph, taken as a whole, the Master is saying that it is wrong to condemn a person on the basis of one deviation from the straight course. In order to form a true opinion about a man his entire life, past as well as present, must be taken into consideration. In the case of John that past had been glorious. The crowd should reflect on the tremendous impact the Baptist had made on them during his earlier appearance in the wilderness of Jordan. What was it, says Jesus as it were, that made you travel all the way from Galilee to the Judean wilderness? Was it perhaps to look at a man who resembled a reed swaying in [literally: being swayed by] the wind on the banks of the Jordan? Of course, that could not have been the reason. The person about whom everybody had been talking was like a sturdy oak, not like a trembling reed. Jesus takes for granted that the answer to the question voiced in verse 24 is Indeed not. We definitely did not go out into the wilderness to look at a reed swaying in the wind. So he continues: But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft garments? Again the answer is a firm negative, as Jesus makes clear by continuing, Surely those who are gorgeously appareled and live in luxury are (to be found) in royal palaces. As to John's actual garments see Matt. 3:4. Those who wear soft garments are the people without backbone, sycophants who readily kowtow to those in authority and are rewarded with a high office in the king's palace, a position that enables them to be gorgeously appareled and to live luxuriously in harmony with the high station in life to which they have attained. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER VIII Outline of Chapter 8 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 8:1–3 Ministering Women 8:4–8 The Parable of The Sower 8:9, 10 The Purpose of the Parables 8:11–15 Explanation of the Parable of The Sower 8:16–18 Various Sayings of Jesus 8:19–21 The Mother and the Brothers of Jesus 8:22–25 A Tempest Stilled 8:26–39 In the Land of the Gergesenes: Helpfulness over against Heartlessness 8:40–56 the Restoration to Life of Jairus Daughter and The Healing of the Woman Who Touched Christ's Garment 8:1–3 Ministering Women 8 1 Soon afterward Jesus was traveling from town to town and from village to village, preaching and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve (were) with him, 2 as (were) also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had been expelled,^[296] 3 and Joanna wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod's household;^[297] Susanna, and many others. Out of their own resources these women were helping to support him. It will be recalled that after ministering to large multitudes (Luke 6:17 19) Jesus preached what is generally known as The Sermon on the Mount (6:20–49). He climaxed his sermon by demanding unshakable faith in himself, a faith that would demonstrate its genuine character by means of actions (6:46–49). This faith was exemplified by the centurion whose servant was at the point of death when Jesus healed him (7:1–10). Already dead, however, was the son of the widow of Nain, but Jesus brought him back to life (7:11–17). He performed many other deeds in which not only his power but also and emphatically his sympathy was revealed (7:22). John the Baptist, however, had predicted the fast approaching outpouring of wrath (3:7). He had pictured the Messiah as the One whose winnowing shovel is in his hand and who would thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor (3:17). It is entirely possible that hearing about Jesus deeds of mercy had something to do with the question John now asked, Are you the Coming One, or must we look for someone else? (7:18–20). How Jesus dealt with him is related in 7:21–35. By this time the Master had gained the reputation of being indeed a great prophet (7:16). But was he, indeed, what he was reputed to be? It may well have been in order to discover the answer to this question that a certain Pharisee, named Simon, now invited Jesus to dinner. In connection with that dinner the Great Physician of soul and body, the Merciful Highpriest, was anointed by a penitent woman. He pronounced her pardon, and (partly) by means of a parable administered a rebuke to self-righteous Simon (7:36–50). The story of this woman, who had become a follower of Jesus, connects easily with that of other women who likewise had been befriended by him and had surrendered their lives to him (8:1–3). All the material that has been briefly summarized here (Luke 6:17 8:3) is lacking in Mark's Gospel. Beginning with the parable of The Sower (8:4) Luke returns to Mark. 1. Soon afterward Jesus was traveling from town to town and from village to village, preaching and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. As often, Luke is indefinite about time and place. He merely says (a) Soon afterward, that is, soon after the incident related at the close of the previous chapter; and (b) from town to town and from village to village, evidently in Galilee. When the trip to Jerusalem is about to take place, Luke will make specific mention of this (9:51). It is true that this time, in contrast with 4:15, Luke makes no mention of synagogues. Does this mean, then, that, due to the opposition of the Jewish leaders, the opportunity to preach in the synagogue had been taken away from Jesus, so that he was now forced to do his speaking under the open sky? In view of several passages especially John 18:20this would seem to be an unwarranted conclusion. Not everything has to be spelled out. Wherever possible Jesus availed himself of the opportunity offered by the freedom of the synagogue. Besides John 18:20see also Matt. 12:9–14; 13:54–58; Mark 6:1 6; Luke 4:15 30, 31 37; 6:6–11. But he was not limited to this means of communication. What is important is the fact that wherever it was that Jesus spoke, in whatever town or village, whether in a house, a synagogue, or outside, he was with enthusiasm and earnestness proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God for this concept see on 4:43. Over against the yoke of bondage to all kinds of man-made regulations, he was heralding the realm of grace in which God is King, and salvation is his free gift to all who trust in him. The twelve (were) with him &This time mention is made not only of Simon (Peter), as in 4:38; 5:3–5, 8; or of Simon, James and John, as in 5:7–10; of Levi (= Matthew), as in 5:27–29, but of all twelve, as in 6:13–16. The question is often asked, How were the physical needs of these thirteen men Jesus and The Twelve supplied? Shall we answer: Peter and Andrew, James and John, being fishermen, must have had some means of support; and Matthew, having been a tax-collector (publican), was probably well-to-do? But does this answer do justice to such passages as (Luke 5:11, 28? Perhaps their familiesMark 1:20) continued to provide for them? The only real answers we have are contained in such passages as Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7, and here in: 2, 3. (The twelve were with him) as (were) also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had been expelled, and Joanna wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna, and many others. Out of their own resources these women were helping to support them. These women, then, had been the objects of Christ's special care. Jesus had cured them of (a) evil spirits and (b) diseases. Note how carefully Dr. Luke distinguishes between the two, and see further on 4:33, 34. See also N.T.C. on Matt., pp. 436–438; and on Mark, pp. 64, 65. It is important to observe that while Socrates, Aristotle, Demosthenes, the rabbis, and the men of the Qumran community held women in low esteem, Jesus, in harmony with the teaching of the Old Testament, assigns a place of high honor to them. Moreover, it is especially in the Gospel According to Luke that the Savior's tender and profound regard for women is emphasized. See Introduction, point V D. First among the women here mentioned is Mary called Magdalene; that is, Mary of Magdala (meaning The Tower) located on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee and south of Capernaum. She figures very prominently in all the four Passion accounts. She was one of the women who later: (a) watched the crucifixion (Matt. 27:55, 56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25); (b) saw where Christ's body was laid (Matt. 27:61; Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55); and (c) very early Sunday morning started out from their homes in order to anoint the body of the Lord (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10). Besides, she was going to be the first person to whom the Risen Christ would appearJohn 20:1 18; see also Mark's disputed ending, 16:9 . The item about the seven demons that had been expelled from Mary Magdalene has led to the wholly unjustifiable conclusion that she was at one time a very bad woman, a terribly immoral person. But there is not even an inkling of proof for the supposition that demon-possession and immorality go hand in hand. Weird and pitiable mental and/or physical behavior are, indeed, often associated with demon-possessionLuke 4:33, 34; 8:27–29; 9:37–43, and parallels , not immorality. As to Joanna wife of Chuza, manager of Herod's household, she, too, was among the women who were to hear the glad tidings, He is not here, but is risen (Luke 24:6, 10). The significance of Luke's reference to her has already been pointed out. See Introduction, points III B 6 and V D. It is Luke alone who refers to her (8:3; 24:10). About Susanna, mentioned only here in Luke 8:3, nothing further is known. Her name should not be forgotten, however. Her deeds of kindness toward her Lord and his disciples were pure and fragrant and accordingly resemble a beautiful lily (the meaning of her name). We are happy to read that in addition to the three women here mentioned there were many others. What we have here, therefore, is a genuine Ladies Aid. The New Testament records the attitudes and deeds of certain foolish and sometimes even wicked girls and women, real or imagined (Matt. 10:34, 35; 14:1–12; 25:2, 3; Acts 5:1, 2, 7 11; Rom. 1:26; II Tim. 3:6, 7; Rev. 2:20–23), so that the statement sometimes made, namely, that females never took a stand against Jesus or his cause is in need of careful circumscription. Nevertheless, it is a fact that, with very few exceptions, the girls and women mentioned or referred to in the New Testament were on the side of the Lord. By and large it is true that though Peter denied Christ, and Judas betrayed him, and Herod mocked him, and Pilate condemned him, the women honored him and ministered to his and to his disciples needs. To the extent to which they did this, the comforting words of Matt. 25:34 40are certainly applicable to them.^[298] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 8:1 3 In general the following three applications are immediately apparent: 1. Mention of Joanna, wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod's household, teaches us that the gospel should be brought to the manor as well as to the market place, to those in high positions as well as to those who perform menial tasks. Cf. Eph. 6:5–9; Phil. 4:22. 2. Scripture assigns a vital role to women, namely to be helpers, to serveActs 9:36; 16:14, 15, 40; 18:26; Rom. 16:1, 2; Phil. 4:2, 3; II Tim. 1:5. See also N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 105–114, 132, 133, 172 179 . To overestimate the value of a properly functioning Ladies Aid is almost impossible. 3. Women who had been cured &were helping to support the little group consisting of Jesus and The Twelve. Just as the rain that descends upon the earth to bless it leaps up again through the action of the sun and forms the clouds, so also the spiritual cycle the one mentioned in Ps. 50:15; cf. 116:3–6, 12 14must be kept going. Blessings that descend from heaven must be returned in the form of sincere and humble thanksgiving! Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 8:1–3 Verse 1 [Greek], see the note on 1:3 on page 62. [Greek], third per. s. imperf. of [Greek], to travel through. [Greek], distributive use, as also in verse 4. Verse 2 [Greek], third per. pl. perf. pass. periphrastic of [Greek], on which see the note on 4:23 on page 261. The participle, considered by itself, is nom. pl. fem. [Greek], third per. s. pluperf. of [Greek]. Verse 3 An [Greek] (cf. the verb [Greek]) is someone to whom a responsibility or task has been turned over or entrusted; hence, depending on the context, a manager, steward, foreman, or guardian. See also Matt. 20:8; Gal. 4:2. [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. indicat. act. (here progressive) of [Greek], to serve, wait on, care for; here, help to support; sometimes: serve as a deacon (I Tim. 3:10). See the note on 4:39 on page 271. Cf. Rom. 15:25; Heb. 6:10. Note partitive use of [Greek], followed by a noun in the genitive. Since the verb [Greek] (see also verse 41) means to be, to be present, to be available or at one's disposal, it is not strange that [Greek] would indicate that which is at someone's disposal; hence, his goods, property, possessions. Moreover, those who speak about substance or economic underpinnings should experience no difficulty with the word [Greek] = [Greek] and [Greek]. In the Third Gospel see also 11:21; 12:15, 33, 44; 14:33; 16:1; 19:8; cf. Acts 4:32; elsewhere in the New Testament see Matt. 19:21; 24:47; 25:14; I Cor. 13:3; Heb. 10:34. 8:4–8 The Parable of The Sower Cf. Matt. 13:1–9; Mark 4:1 9 4 Now when a large throng was gathering and people from town after town^[299] were coming to Jesus, he said by way of parable: 5 The sower went out to sow his seed. As he was sowing, some (seed) fell by the side of the path. It was trodden under foot, and the birds of the air gobbled it up. 6 Some fell on rock. As soon as it sprang up, it withered away because it had no moisture. 7 Some fell in the midst of the thorns. They shot up along with it and choked it off. 8 And some fell into good soil, grew up, and bore fruit, a hundredfold. While saying these things, he was crying out,^[300] He who has ears to hear, let him hear. Women had placed their trust in Jesus and his cause (8:1–3). In their case the Master's message had evoked the response of gratitude. One might say, The seed sown had fallen into good soil. But could this be truly affirmed with respect to everyone who listened to Jesus as he spoke the words of life and beauty? In 8:4–8 the evangelist shows how Jesus himself answered that question. The paragraph before us shows how plenary, organic, verbal inspiration operates. On the one hand it produces a beautiful and understandable report, free from all error and in thorough harmony with its parallels in Matthew and Mark. On the other hand it permits the human author to use his own style, in harmony with his own mental and spiritual equipment and purpose. Though throughout there is not even an inkling of real conflict between the three accounts (Matt. 13:1–9; Mark 4:1 9; Luke 8:4 8), yet in not a single case does a verse in Luke exactly duplicate the corresponding verse in either of the other Gospels. Thus in verse 4 Luke omits the place where this parable was spoken (from a boat near the shore, according to Matthew and Mark). In this same verse, for in [or: by means of] parables Luke substitutes by way of parable. In verse 5 it is Luke alone who omits the introductory interjection Behold (thus literally), and at the end of that sentence adds his seed. In the next line of that same verse it is Luke alone who quotes the Master as telling the audience that the seed which fell along the path was trodden under foot, and that the birds of the air gobbled it up. In verse 6 the beloved physician represents Jesus as saying that the seed which fell on rock withered away for lack of moisture, and in verse 7 that the thorns there mentioned shot up along with the seed. Finally, in verse 8 Luke mentions only the hundredfold yield. He omits any reference to smaller yields. There is no contradiction: Luke does not quote the Master as saying that all of that seed yielded a hundredfold! As happens repeatedly throughout this Gospel, the author abbreviates. 4. Now when a large throng was gathering and people from town after town were coming to Jesus &Again a large crowd. Cf. 4:40, 42; 5:1, 3, 15, 19; 6:17–19; 7:11. In view of the Master's unique style of preaching and in view of his miracles, including even the raising of the dead, the gathering of this huge crowd is understandable. The people had come from town after town. Today we would probably say, from ever so many places. Continued: he said by way of parable &From a boat near the shore Jesus, making use of parables, addresses the vast multitude. This was not the first time Jesus made use of an earthly story with a heavenly meaning. Luke 6:47 49is also a parable. For parables and parabolic sayings see also 4:23; 5:10, 31, 34 39; 6:38, 39, 41 45; 7:24, 25, 31 35. The words of our Lord were always sparkling with figures of speech, proverbs, similes, metaphors, etc. But this time the parabolic form began to predominate; see Matt. 13:34; Mark 4:34. As Matthew 13indicates, Jesus at this particular occasion delivered a series of kingdom parables. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 21–25, for their number, character, and classification. First, basic, and probably most important of all was the parable of The Sower, also called that of The Four Kinds of Soil. 5. The sower went out to sow his seed. As he was sowing, some (seed) fell by the side of the path. It was trodden under foot, and the birds of the air gobbled it up. The scene must have been familiar to most of the people in the audience, perhaps to all. It was customary for wheat, barley, etc., to be sown by hand. But it made all the difference in the world how that seed was received. As this man was sowing, it was unavoidable that a portion of his seed would fall on or along the path which he was treading. Human footsteps had hardened this part of the ground, so that it was impossible for the seed to enter into the soil. It had no chance at all. It was trodden down, and a little later down (see the original) it went into the alimentary canals of the air's feathered creatures. 6. Some fell on rock. As soon as it sprang up, it withered away because it had no moisture. It is typical of Palestine now Israel and its surroundings that a considerable portion of its tillable soil is found on top of layers of rock. Often the rocky layer reaches up so near the surface that the soil above it has hardly any depth. In such a situation the seed, in the process of sprouting, has only one way to go, namely, up. So, instead of becoming firmly rooted, it springs up immediately. However, not having roots to draw water from the soil, and the soil itself being very inadequate, the little plant soon withers away for lack of moisture. This process of withering is hastened by the sun's scorching rays (Matt. 13:6; Mark 4:6). 7. Some fell in the midst of the thorns. They shot up along with it and choked it off. Since each patch of ground had room for only a definitely restricted amount of plant life, and nothing grows faster than that which is not wanted, soon the thorns outgrew the noble grain and choked it to death. Not all was lost, however. 8a. And some fell into good soil, grew up, and bore fruit, a hundredfold. There was also some perhaps even a considerable amount of good soil; that is, soil not hardened by human footsteps, nor lacking in depth, nor infested with weeds, but wholly suitable for healthy plant growth. Here the seed yielded an abundant crop. Matthew (13:8) and Mark (4:8) make mention of thirtyfold and sixtyfold (as well as hundredfold) yields. Luke, bypassing these smaller results, refers only to the maximum yield, namely, a hundredfold, one grain of seed producing a hundred grains. Cf. Gen. 26:12. 8b. While saying these things, he was crying out, He who has ears to hear, let him hear. Loudly perhaps even again and again Jesus cried out these words. Ears must be used to hear, that is, to listen closely and take to heart. In all of Christ's teaching, both on earth and from heaven, it would be difficult to discover any exhortation that he repeated more often, in one form or another, than the one of verse 8b. See also 8:18 in both Mark and Luke; 13:9 in both Matthew and Revelation; further: Matt. 11:15; 13:43; Mark 4:23; Luke 14:35; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22. This repetition is not surprising. Is not lack of receptivity that which, if persisted in, leads directly to the unpardonable sin? The results of unwillingness to hear, or of hearing but not heeding, are set forth in Jesus own explanation of the parable (verse 12 14). For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 431–435. 8:9, 10 The Purpose of the Parables Cf. Matt. 13:10–17; Mark 4:10 12 9 His disciples were asking^[301] him what this parable meant. 10 He said, To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest I speak in parables, that: seeing, they may not see; and hearing, they may not understand. 9. His disciples were asking him what this parable meant. The connection is again almost unforgettable, for it is natural to assume that the disciples The Twelve and those who happened to be with them (Mark 4:10) would ask Jesus what the parable meant. Sowing and at a later time fruit-bearing presuppose a gradual and time-consuming process, one which the disciples, often impatient, may not have expected with respect to the kingdom. 10. He said, To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God. The word mystery is very interesting. Outside of Christendom, in the realm of paganism, it referred to a secret teaching, rite, or ceremony having something to do with religion but hidden from the masses, and known (or practiced) only by a group of initiates. In the LXX (Greek) translation of (Daniel 2, where the word occurs no less than eight times (as a singular in verses 18, 19, 27, 30, and 47b; as a plural in verses 28, 29, and 47a), it refers to a secret that must be revealed, a riddle that must be interpreted. In the book of Revelation, where it occurs four times (1:20; 10:7; 17:5, 7), it is perhaps best explained as being the symbolical meaning of that which required explanation. The word occurs twenty-one times in Paul's epistlesRom. 11:25; 16:25; I Cor. 2:1, 7; 4:1; 13:2; 14:2; 15:51; Eph. 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9; 5:32; 6:19; Col. 1:26, 27; 2:2; 4:3; II Thess. 2:7; I Tim. 3:9, 16). There it can be defined as a person or a truth that would have remained unknown had not God revealed him or it. This same general definition of mystery, namely that it is a divinely disclosed secret, fits very well into the context of the present passage of Luke's Gospel (8:10) and its parallels (Matt. 13:11; Mark 4:11), the only Gospel instances of its use. Here the mystery is the powerful manifestation of the reign of God in human hearts and lives; this reign, in connection with Christ's coming, was attended by mighty works in both the physical and the spiritual realms. Jesus declares that this mystery that it was indeed God who was doing all these things, not Satan had been given, that is, graciously disclosed to those who were with him at this time; in fact, to all who had accepted him by genuine faith. To the true followers of Jesus, then, the fact that he speaks in parables will not be hurtful. In fact, it will be helpful, for not only will the stories, etc., readily fix themselves in their minds but the Author is their Lord, Savior, and Friend, and will be glad to give them the needed explanations. Continued: but to the rest I speak in parables, that: seeing, they may not see; and hearing, they may not understand. The rest of the people are obviously those who had not accepted Jesus by genuine faith but had hardened themselves. Self-righteous scribes and Pharisees had shown increasing hostility to Jesus. See Luke 5:21, 30; 6:2, 7, 11; 7:30, 44 46. They had many followers. When Luke writes, that seeing, they may not see, etc., he is reproducing the words of Isa. 6:9, 10in greatly abbreviated form. One might also say, Luke, having before him Mark's already abbreviated reproduction of Isaiah's words, abbreviates them still further. The most complete quotation is found in Matt. 13:13–15. There is a difference, however, between Matthew's reproduction and that of Mark-Luke. Matthew states that Jesus made use of parables because the people's heart had become dull, their ears hard of hearing, etc. Mark-Luke changes this because or for into that or in order that. Which report is right, Matthew's or Mark-Luke's? The answer is: Both are correct. It was because by their own choice these impenitent Pharisees and their followers had refused to see and hear, that, as a punishment for this refusal, they are now addressed in parables, that [or in order that] seeing, they may not see; and hearing, they may not understand. They must endure the blame of their own blindness and hardness (Calvin on this passage). God had given these people a wonderful opportunity; but they had refused to avail themselves of it. Result: it is God's sovereign will to remove what man is unwilling to improve, to darken the heart that refuses to hearken. He hardens those that have hardened themselves. If God even surrenders to the lusts of their hearts the unenlightened heathen when they hold back the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18, 26), will he not punish more severely the impenitents before whom the Light of the world is constantly confirming the truthfulness of his message? And if he blesses those who accept the mysterious, will he not curse those who reject the obvious? It is evident, therefore, that Matt. 13:13is in harmony with Mark 4:12and Luke 8:10; in fact, the because of the former helps to explain the that or in order that of the latter. When, of their own accord and after repeated threats and promises, people reject the Lord and spurn his messages, then he hardens them, in order that those who were not willing to repent will not be able to repent and be forgiven. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 431–435. 8:11–15 Explanation of the Parable of The Sower Cf. Matt. 13:18–23; Mark 4:13 20 11 Now this is the (meaning of the) parable: The seed is the word^[302] of God. 12 Those along the path are the ones who heard it; then the devil comes and snatches away the word from their hearts, that they may not believe and be saved. 13 Those on rock are the ones who when they hear the word receive it with joy, but they have no root. For a while they believe, but in time of trial^[303] they fall away. 14 As for that which fell among the thorns, those are the ones who have heard, but they are being progressively choked by the cares, riches, and pleasures of life. So they never mature. 15 But as for that in good soil, those are the ones who, having heard the word with an honest and good heart, cling to it and by persevering produce a crop. 11. Now this is the (meaning of the) parable. Jesus now gives a more specific answer to the question asked by his followers (see verse 9). He says, The seed is the word of God. It is the message coming from God, in the present instance clearly by the mouth of Jesus. This also answers the question with respect to the identity of the sower. That sower is, of course, the Speaker, namely, Jesus. See also Matt. 13:37, The one who sows the good seed is the Son of man, and anyone who truly represents him, any genuine Christian witness-bearer. See Luke 10:16. What is meant by the soil? Clearly man's heart. This is definitely implied in verse 12, &from their hearts. Cf. Matt. 13:19a. In each of the four instances recorded in the parable the ground or soil, that is, the heart, hence the person, is different. One might speak of the unresponsive heart (Luke 8:12), the impulsive heart (verse 13), the preoccupied heart (verse 14), and the good, responsive, or well-prepared heart (verse 15). The heart indicates the person or hearer as he is in his inner being. The following is therefore correct: What, then, is the lesson? The Savior has given us the answer in his own interpretation of the story. The seed is the word of God, or the word of the kingdom; and the soil is human hearts: so that, reduced to a general law, the teaching of the parable is, that the result of the hearing of the gospel always and everywhere depends on the condition of heart of those to whom it is addressed. The character of the hearer determines the effect of the word upon him. ^[304] Unresponsive Hearts Jesus continues: 12. Those along the path are the ones who heard it; then the devil comes and snatches away the word from their hearts, that they may not believe and be saved. Meaning: the people that are represented by seed sown along the path (see verse 5) are the kind that allow the devil, the great adversary, to snatch away the message that has been sown in them. By no means does Jesus excuse these people, as if only the devil and not they themselves were responsible for what happened to the divine message that had been spoken to them. Verse 12 does not cancel verse 8b or verse 18a! But here in verse 12 these frivolous hearers are being told that in treating the word of God so lightly they are co-operating with the prince of evil, whose purpose is to prevent them from believing and being saved! These people do nothing with the message. They do not use it to good advantage. Immediately after they have heard it, any favorable effect it might have had on them is annihilated. What accounts for their negative reaction? Perhaps it is ill will toward the messenger. Or perhaps hostility with respect to this particular message. Or they do not wish to be inconvenienced (Acts 24:25). The spirit of indifference may have crept into them, perhaps little by little until it was total, their hearts having become as hard as the path on which the seed of the parable was scattered. The Lord, addressing Ezekiel, gave this description of the prophet's audience: You are to them like a lovely song, sung with a beautiful voice, and played well on an instrument; for they hear your words, but refuse to practice them (Ezek. 33:32). Cf. Luke 6:49. The following lines may also be appropriate in this connection: And I always came to his church before my Sally were dead, And I heard him a bumming away like a buzzard clock over my head; And I never knew what he meant, but I thought he had something to say, And I thought he said what he ought to have said, and I went away. Impulsive Hearts 13. Those on rock are the ones who when they hear the word receive it with joy, but they have no root. For a while they believe, but in time of trial they fall away. These are the emotional people. Now it is a good thing to be emotional. Did not the penitent woman described in 7:37–50 weep because of sorrow for her sins, and probably also because of gratitude for the salvation she had found in Christ? Did not Paul shed tears on more than one occasion? See (Acts 20:19, 31; Phil. 3:18, and the section on Paul's Deeply Emotional Nature, N.T.C. on Philippians, p. 181. See also Acts 20:37. Did not Jesus himself weep at the grave of LazarusJohn 11:35)? However, the trouble with the people symbolized by seed that fell on rock is that their emotions are superficial, not based on deep-seated convictions. These people have no root. They are impulsive. After the sermon especially, perhaps, when it is delivered by a visiting pastor they rush (Matt. 13:20; Mark 4:16) toward the preacher to tell him how his message gripped them. They are overwhelmed, moved to tears. In fact, they may even faint. The orator would do well, however, not to congratulate himself too readily. She performs that little trick every once in a while; then goes back to her old sinful ways, was the way the conduct of a certain individual was described by those who knew her well. In any given case, how does one know whether marked emotional behavior is the evidence of genuine faith? The answer is, It is, if it can endure testing. See James 1:12. The people described in Luke 8:13cannot. In time of trial they fall away. Of course, such people never really belonged to Christ's flock. I John 2:19describes their situation exactly, They left us, but they never really belonged to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have stayed with us. See also John 10:27, 28; Phil. 1:6. Preoccupied Hearts 14. As for that which fell among the thorns, those are the ones who have heard, but they are being progressively choked by the cares, riches, and pleasures of life. So they never mature. This parable is truly striking. Each group of people differs from the one described before. Those belonging to the first category, represented by the seed that fell along the path, never respond in any way to the preaching of the word. They are and remain callous, insensitive. Those of the second group respond immediately and enthusiastically &and as quickly drop out. Those belonging to Class No. 3 also perish, but more gradually. At the outset these individuals show some interest in the message of the kingdom. We think of Herod Antipas who actually used to enjoy listening to John the Baptist and was greatly perplexed. However, his entanglements spelled his ruin. That characterizes the group: extraneous matters soon begin to crowd out whatever good plans or intentions these people may have had. See Mark 6:20. As his message is summarized by Luke in verse 14 Jesus warns especially against three dangers: First, the cares or worries of life. We speak of corroding cares, that is, worries that eat away one's soul little by little. Worry not only breaks down resistance to disease and therefore shortens life, but also prevents one from concentrating on the blessings God is constantly providing. Jesus said many fine things on this subject (Luke 12:4 12, 22 34; cf. Matt. 6:25–34; 10:19, 20, 28 31). The second danger to the development of spiritual life one might say the second thorn is riches, the craving for wealth and/or the inordinate yearning to cling to it, come what may. A good example is that of the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18 24). See also the unforgettable parables of that notorious character, The Rich Fool (Luke 12:13 21), and of The Show-off and The Beggar, i.e., The Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19–31). Thirdly, there are the pleasures of life. These, too, if a person does not watch out, may become soul-ruining entanglements. They are of two kinds: (a) those that are wrong in themselves: drunkenness, drug addiction, gambling, sexual vice, etc.; (b) those that are wrong when a person over-indulges in them: games, sports, entertainments, etc. Like a proliferating cancer gradually killing the body, or a destructive parasite little by little destroying its host, so also these thorns slowly but surely choke the souls of those people who extend a welcome to them. Such individuals never mature. They never produce fruit for everlasting life (John 4:36). Demas has deserted me, because he fell in love with the present world (II Tim. 4:10; cf. I John 2:16). Nevertheless, not all the sowing had been in vain (Isa. 55:11): Responsive Hearts 15. But as for that in good soil, those are the ones who, having heard the word with an honest and good heart, cling to it and by persevering produce a crop. These people receive the message with an open, unprejudiced mind, as did the Bereans described in Acts 17:10 12. Their prayer is that of Ps. 119:18, Open thou my eyes, that I may contemplate the wonders of thy law. Moreover, they keep clinging to it. How do they do that? Of course, by giving away this precious message, proclaiming it everywhere, and this not only by means of their words but also, and most of all, by consecrated lives. Finally, by means of their perseverance these people produce a crop; for example, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control (Gal. 5:22, 23), unto their own inner joy, the conversion of souls, and God's glory. The real lesson of the parable is not grasped unless its clear implication is understood. On the basis of 8:8, Matt. 13:9 (; Mark 4:9), that lesson is, Examine yourself to discover to which group you belong. If you belong to any one of the first three groups, be converted! Not, of course, by power residing in yourself but by God's sovereign grace! Even if you should belong to the fourth group, ask yourself the question, Am I sufficiently fruitful? The parable is therefore really An Exhortation to Self-examination, leading either to Basic Conversion or else to further Sanctification. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 431–435. 8:16–18 Various Sayings of Jesus Cf. Mark 4:21 25 Also For verse 16 cf. Matt. 5:15; Luke 11:33. For verse 17 cf. Matt. 10:26; Luke 12:2. For verse 18a cf. Matt. 11:15; 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9; Luke 14:35; and see above: the explanation of Luke 8:8b. For verse 18b cf. Matt. 13:12; 25:29; Luke 19:26. 16 No one lights a lamp and covers it with a vessel or puts it under a bed. On the contrary, he puts it on a lampstand in order that those who enter may see the light. 17 For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known and brought to light. 18 Take care, therefore, how you listen. For whoever has, to him (more) will be given, but whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken away from him. Though the connection between the parable of The Sower (8:4–8, 11 15) and the present little paragraph, containing other sayings of Jesus, is not clear, it may have been as follows: Soil must be productive; that is, hearts must be fertile. Now fertile hearts resemble shining lamps, witness-bearing, hence fruit-bearing. Cf. (Matt. 5:16. The word or message of God is symbolized by a seed that is sownLuke 8:11). It is also called a lamp (Ps. 119:105). It was that seed and that lamp which the rabbis were hiding under an elaborate load of human traditions and hypocritical actions. That seed must reveal its power once more. The lamp must shine forth again in all the pristine purity of its light, in order to be a blessing to men. So Jesus says: 16. No one lights a lamp and covers it with a vessel or puts it under a bed. On the contrary, he puts it on a lampstand in order that those who enter may see the light. The bed, to which reference is made here, was a kind of mattress which, when not in use, was rolled up. No one, says Jesus, would think of first lighting a lamp and then covering it up with this or that vessel or placing it under a rolled-up mattress. A lit lamp belongs on the lampstand. Then only will it serve its purpose for those who enter the house. As to the lamp, it was often a terra cotta saucer-shaped object with a handle on one end; on the other end there was a nozzle-shaped extension with a hole for a wick. In the lamp's upper surface there were two holes, one for adding oil, the other for air. The lampstand was generally a very simple object. It might be a shelf extending from the pillar in the center of the room, or a single stone projecting inward from the wall, or even a piece of metal conspicuously placed and used for the same purpose. The point is, of course, that believers, too, must let their light shine. Cf. Matt. 5:14–16; Phil. 2:15. They must permit the word of God to be in full control of their lives. It is God's intention that the mystery given to his children be disclosed. It is hidden only from those who continue to harden themselves against its appeal. Thus, while the teaching of 8:10b is not retracted, the emphasis is now on that which must happen first of all: the seed must be sown; the lamp must shine; the mystery must be disclosed, not concealed. But whether revealed or concealed, whatever is done with it will not go unnoticed: 17. For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known and brought to light. Men may try to cover up things, but they will be unsuccessful, for God brings everything out into the open. One day whatever is now concealed will be revealed. See Eccles. 11:9; 12:14; Matt. 10:26; 12:36; 16:27; Mark 4:22; Luke 12:2; Rom. 2:6, 16; I Cor. 4:5; Col. 3:3, 4; Rev. 2:23; 20:12, 13. Men may think that they can get away with their evil thoughts, plans, words, and actions. God, however, will expose all this. It is therefore not surprising that, as reported by Luke, Jesus continues: 18. Take care, therefore, how you listen. With respect to men's responsibility in the matter of hearing or listening, three things are stressed in the Gospels: a. That they should hearLuke 8:8b , the emphasis being on hearing over against refusing to hear; b. What they should hear (Mark 4:24), over against what not to hear; and c. How they should hear (Luke 8:18), attentively, judiciously, over against how not to hear. As to Take care, Take heed, or Be on your guard, see also Luke 21:8. Continued: For whoever has, to him (more) will be given, but whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken away from him. In line with the preceding context (see especially verse 15), the meaning must be: whoever with due attention and a yearning for salvation listens to the message and by means of the exercise of faith obeys it, yielding fruit, will receive the blessings of salvation in an ever-increasing measure. In matters spiritual, standing still is impossible. A person either gains or loses; he either advances or declines. Whoever has, to him will be given. The disciples (exception Judas Iscariot) had accepted Jesus. With reference to them he was later on going to say to the Father, They have kept thy word (John 17:6) and They are not of the world (17:16). To be sure, this faith was accompanied by many a weakness, error, and flaw. But the beginning had been made. Therefore, according to heaven's rule, further progress was assured: an advance in knowledge, love, holiness, joy, etc., in all the blessings of the kingdom of heaven, for salvation is an ever deepening stream (Ezek. 47:1–5). Every blessing is a guarantee of further blessings to come (John 1:16). He shall have abundantly. The theory according to which Jesus (or Luke) was referring only to an increase of knowledge or even insight is improbable. Such discernment is, to be sure, included, but there is nothing in the context that would limit so rigidly the blessing here promised. On the other hand, whoever does not have, from him shall be taken away even that semblance of knowledge, that superficial acquaintance with matters spiritual, which he once had or thought he had. Is there not an analogy of this in the realm of knowledge on a level below the strictly spiritual? Is it not true that the person who has learned enough music to play a few simple melodies, but not really enough to be able to say, I have mastered this or that instrument, and then stops practicing altogether, will soon discover that the little skill which he had at one time has vanished? The man who refuses to make proper use of his one talent loses even that (Matt. 25:24–30).^[305] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 8:4 18 Verses 4 8, 11 15 Some (seed) fell by the side of the path&. Some on rock&. Some in the midst of thorns &some into good soil. Let the preacher be encouraged by the fact that at least some of the seed (the message) falls into good soil (well-prepared hearts). Verse 10 To you it has been granted to know the mystery of the kingdom of God. By no means has this mystery been revealed to all. That it was made known to us was pure grace. Hence, all the more we should, with gratitude to God, share what we have freely received. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel (I Cor. 9:16). Verse 16 No one lights a lamp and covers it with a vessel or puts it under a bed, etc. Lighting a lamp and then deliberately covering it up is ridiculous. Becoming enlightened (Heb. 6:4) and then concealing this Light from others is ruinous. Verse 18 Take care, therefore, how you listen. Some people listen hardly at all (Isa. 40:21). Some listen merely to be entertained (Ezek. 33:31, 32). Some listen in order to find fault (Mark 12:13; Luke 11:54). Some listen in order to obtain true wisdom and to put it to good use (Acts 17:10, 11). Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 8:4–18 Verse 4 Does this verse present (a) two co-ordinate genitive absolutes: Now a large throng gathering, and people from town after town resorting to him [i.e., to Jesus]? Or (b) should the translation be, Now when a large throng was gathering, namely, of those who &? Either is possible. If (a) is correct, then the large throng could be folks from nearby Capernaum, and the people from town after town, those from the surrounding places. If (b) is chosen, we are simply being told that the crowd was large because many a town contributed its quota of individuals. For [Greek] see the note on 9:18 on page 509. Verse 5 Note the following four words, all based on the same stem: [Greek], sower; [Greek], articular aor. act. infinitive of purpose; [Greek], cognate accusative (seed); and [Greek], articular pres. infinitive active, where we would probably expect a participle. But such an infinitive is not unusual, especially by reason of Hebrew or Aramaic influence. The basic verb is [Greek]. Note also that C [Greek] (verse 5) is followed by [Greek] in verses 6, 7, and 8. Some insist that [Greek], being neuter, cannot refer to [Greek], which is masc. The question might well be asked, To what then does it refer? To an implied portion ([Greek], [Greek]) perhaps? But even then, it would be a portion of the seed the sower was scattering. But the concord between words and their antecedents was not nearly as rigid as it is sometimes represented to have been. See N.T.C. on Ephesians, p. 123, footnote 61. The translation some &some, etc. L.N.T. (A. and G.), p. 315 is correct. Verse 6 [Greek] should probably be interpreted generically; hence, not the rock, but rock. [Greek], nom. s. neut. 2nd aor. pass. participle (ingressive) of [Greek], to grow, germinate, spring up. Cf. physical. [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to dry up, wither. Cf. xerox, a duplicating machine operating by means of a dry electric process. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], moisture. Verse 7 [Greek], nom. pl. fem. aor. pass. participle (intransitive) of [Greek], in the pass.: to grow up with. This is a compound of [Greek] (verse 6). [Greek], third per. pl. aor. (effective) act. of [Greek], to choke off. See also verse 33. Cf. pneumonia. See related form in verse 14. Verse 8 [Greek], third per. s. imperf. indicat. act. of [Greek], to call, call out, cry out. Cf. telephone, symphony. Verse 9 [Greek], third per. s. pres. optat. in an indirect question after a verb in the past (here imperf. indicat. act.) tense. In direct discourse the verb would have been [Greek]. Verse 10 [Greek], third per. s. perf. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to give. [Greek], aor. act. infinitive of [Greek]. This verb refers to a knowledge by recognition, observation, or experience, as distinguished from [Greek], which indicates a knowledge by intuition, reflection or insight. [Greek], that, or in order that. In the present case it expresses purpose. What follows [Greek] is clearly a quotation from Isa. 6:9, 10, which expresses purpose, as the context there plainly indicates; note: lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, etc., meaning, in order that they may not see with their eyes, etc. The very fact that Jesus connects parabolic teaching with the citation from Isa. 6:9ff. shows that he considers the arcane parables to be indeed a judgment on deliberate unbelief, stubborn hardness of heart. Accordingly, assigning a weakened sense to [Greek] as here used see, for example, H. Sch�rmann, Das Lukasevangelium (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament), Freiburg, etc., 1969, Vol. I, pp. 460, 461 is questionable. A. T. Robertson, in his Translation, pp. 52, 176, ascribes the consecutive sense to [Greek] as used here. But cf. his Word Pictures, Vol. II, pp. 112, 113. Favoring the telic or purposive sense (that, in the sense of in order that) are also the following, among others: John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Grand Rapids, 1949 ff., Vol. II, p. 129; S. Greijdanus, Korte Verklaring, pp. 202, 203; A. Plummer, op. cit., p. 220; R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., pp. 282, 283; C. R. Erdman, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, Philadelphia, 1929, p. 83; F. Godet, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 370, 371; N. Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 243; and E. E. Ellis, op. cit., p. 128. See also on [Greek], L.N.T. (A. and G.), p. 378. Others, though accepting the theory that [Greek], both here and in Mark 4:12, expresses purpose, are convinced that Jesus himself could never have taught this, and that the error (as they see it) must be ascribed to whoever was responsible for these Gospels in the form in which they have been transmitted to us. See, for example, S. M. Gilmour, op. cit., pp. 148, 149. Cf. W. Manson, op. cit., p. 90; and J. De Zwaan, Het Evangelie van Lucas, Tekst en Uitleg, Groningen, Den Haag, 1917, p. 84. But there is no reason whatever to doubt the genuine character of these words as ascribed to Jesus. They are in complete harmony with the Isaiah passage. For the rest, see the explanation in this commentary. Verse 12 [Greek] &[Greek], telic again, &that they may not (believe and) be saved. The verb is third per. pl. aor. subjunct. pass. of [Greek], to save. Verse 13 [Greek], third per. pl. pres. middle of [Greek]. Cf. apostasy, apostatize. Verse 14 Note [Greek] &[Greek], [Greek]: that which fell &these are. Not strictly grammatical? What matters is that the sense is clear: that which fell among the thorns represents those who, etc. [Greek], that which divides (cf. [Greek], to divide; [Greek], piece) the mind; that which makes one go to pieces, care, worry. Hence [Greek] means by the cares. [Greek], wealth, riches. Cf. plutocrat. [Greek], pleasure. Cf. hedonist. [Greek], third per. pl. pres. indicat. pass. of [Greek]. See also verse 42 and cf. Matt. 13:22; Mark 4:7, 19, to crowd together, press upon; by an easy transition the word develops (in the passive) into to choke. For the construction of [Greek] see the article by S. Zedda, Poreuomenoi sympnigontai (Lc. 8, 14), Eunt Dec. 27 (1 2, 1974), pp. 92–108. Zedda argues convincingly that [Greek] is a descriptive participle, marking the transition from one action to another. In the LXX (by which Luke was influenced) such a construction indicates continuity and progression. Here the thought conveyed is that the seed that fell among the thorns represents those people who are being progressively choked by the cares, riches, and pleasures of life, until at last they are completely suffocated and perish. [Greek], third per. pl. pres. indicat. act. of [Greek], lit. to bring to maturity; here: to mature. Cf. [Greek], end, goal. Verse 15 [Greek] (= [Greek] and [Greek]), to hold down, hold fast, cling to. Cf. Rom. 1:18. Verse 16 [Greek], lamp; [Greek], lampstand. Cf. light, luminous. [Greek], aor. participle of [Greek]; in act., to light, kindle; in middle, to touch, take hold of, cling to. See on 7:14. Verse 17 [Greek], hidden, concealed. Cf. cryptic. [Greek], hidden away. Cf. apocryphal books. Those were the ones that were hidden away from i.e., were not to be read to the assembled congregation, because they were not considered authentic but spurious. Note the emphatic negative [Greek] preceding the third per. s. aor. subjunct. pass. ([Greek]); i.e., everything will most certainly be made known. Verse 18 [Greek], third per. s. fut. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to take up, pick up, lift up, take (snatch or sweep) away, take along, remove, destroy; here in passive: will be taken away. In John 10:24(with [Greek] ) the meaning is to keep (us) in suspense. 8:19–21 The Mother and The Brothers of Jesus Cf. Matt. 12:46–50; Mark 3:31 35 19 And Jesus mother and his brothers came to (see) him, but they could not get near him because of the crowd. 20 And it was told him, Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see you. 21 But he answered them, Mother to me and brothers to me are those who are listening to the word of God and are putting it into practice. ^[306] Matthew and Mark place this incident before the parable of The Sower. Luke, without in any way indicating when it occurred, places it here, perhaps because it embodies a concrete illustration of that parable and its appended sayings. Note: But as for that in good soil, those are the ones who, having heard the word with an honest and good heart, cling to it and by persevering produce a crop (Luke 8:15). Take care, therefore, how you listen (8:18). And now 8:21: Mother to me and brothers to me are those who are listening to the word of God and are putting it into practice. All these passages emphasize the fact that those, those alone, belong to Christ's true family, who not only hear the message but also live in accordance with it. As happens so often, Luke here again abbreviates. Comparing his account with Mark's we notice that Luke omits any reference (a) to the person who was sent to Jesus to call him, (b) to the question Jesus asked, and (c) to the fact that Jesus looked around at those who were sitting in a circle about him. Also, Matthew's item about Jesus stretching out his hand over his disciples (12:49) is not found in the Third Gospel. 19. And Jesus mother and his brothers came to (see) him, but they could not get near him because of the crowd. Just why the mother and the brothers of Jesus were trying to contact him has not been revealed. It is probable, however, that Mark 3:21, 22sheds some light on this question. If so, then the most charitable and probably also the most natural explanation would be that disturbing remarks about Jesus for example, that his opponents regarded him as being demon-possessed and that even his friends thought he was out of his mind had induced Mary and Jesus brothers, out of natural affection and concern, to try to remove him from the public eye and to provide for him a haven of rest and refreshment. As to the identity of these brothers, the evidence favors the position that Jesus and these men had issued from the same womb. For arguments in favor of this view see above: the explanation of 2:7. In their attempt to reach Jesus these people encounter a difficulty: the huge crowd (cf. 8:4) makes direct access to him impossible. 20. And it was told him, Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see you. Mark 3:32supplies the details which Luke omits. One can almost see and hear how the message is being passed from Jesus mother and brothers to the special messenger, from him to the people sitting closest to the Master, and from them to Jesus himself. In a very natural and thoroughly human way Jesus has now received the information that his mother and brothers are looking for him and wish him to come out to them. 21. But he answered them, Mother to me and brothers to me are those who are listening to the word of God and are putting it into practice. What Jesus means is that spiritual ties supersede physical ties. Not as if physical ties are unimportant. On the contrary, the relation between Jesus and his earthly mother was a close one, so close that even when he was suffering the agonies of hell on the cross he thought of and tenderly provided for her (John 19:25 27). In fact, subsequently both the mother and the brothers came to believe in him as their Savior (Acts 1:14). But what the Master so strikingly teaches at this time is that the will of his heavenly Father must be obeyed. The Son of man must do the work which the Father gave him to do (John 17:4). Interference cannot be tolerated. Therefore, those who not only listen to the word of God but also actually obey it are to be considered Christ's mother and brothers. All who have taken to heart the messages of Jesus, and have translated them into lives rich in fruits to God's glory, belong to the spiritual family, a family far more important than any merely physical family could ever hope to be.^[307] Practical Lesson Derived from Luke 8:19 21 Verse 21 Mother to me and brothers to me are those who are listening to the word of God and are putting it into practice. Loyalty to one's spiritual family see N.T.C. on (Eph. 3:15should transcend all other loyaltiesLuke 9:59 61; 14:26). Observing this rule is also the best service we can render to our earthly family. The great importance which Jesus attached to listening to the word or message of God is also clear from this passage. Even more: the necessity of putting into practice what is heard. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 8:19–21 Verse 19 [Greek], third per. s. 2nd aor. indicat. of [Greek]. It is sing. because of the closest noun in the compound subject. The plural of this verb is implied in connection with and his brothers. See also the note on 7:4 on page 380. [Greek], 2nd aor. infinitive of [Greek] (= [Greek] plus [Greek], to meet with), to get near, approach. Verse 20 [Greek], third per. s. 2nd aor. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to announce, declare, proclaim, tell (back); here in pass.: it was told (him). See also the note on 8:36 on page 453. [Greek], third per. pl. 2nd perf. indicat. of [Greek], they have taken their stand; hence, are (still) standing. Verse 21 Though [Greek] is the subject, note emphatic position of the predicate, which can be reflected in the translation. 8:22–25 A Tempest Stilled Cf. Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35 41 22 Now it came about on one of those days that Jesus^[308] got into a boat with his disciples; and he said to them, Let us cross over to the other side of the lake. So they set out. 23 Now as they were sailing he fell asleep. Then a furious squall^[309] descended upon the lake, and they began to be swamped and to be in danger. 24 So they came to him and woke him up, saying, Master, Master, we're perishing! He got up and rebuked the wind and the surge of the water. They subsided and there was a calm. 25 Then he said to them, Where (is) your faith? Awestruck and filled with amazement they asked one another, Who then is this, that he commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him? A. Departure by boat to the lake's eastern shore 22. Now it came about on one of those days that Jesus got into a boat with his disciples; and he said to them, Let us cross over to the other side of the lake. So they set out. Mark 4:35 (makes clear that this incident occurred during the evening of the day when Jesus addressed the multitudes by means of parables, including the one of The Sower. Luke, on the other hand, by writing, on one of those days, shows that he is not interested in the exact time when this event took place. If he had been, he probably would not have placed this account right after the one concerning the mother and the brothers of Jesus. See Matt. 12:46–50; Mark 3:31 35. In both of these places that story precedes the report concerning the kingdom parablesMatt. 13; Mark 4). All Luke is interested in is to show how Jesus revealed himself, his power and his love, during a violent storm. For the relation between Luke's account and the somewhat more detailed coverage of this event in Matthew and Mark see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 409–413; and on Mark, p. 175. It had been a very busy day for Jesus. From a boat offshore he had been speaking, probably somewhat at length. Afterward at home (or: in a house) he had been giving private instruction to his disciples. It is not surprising that when evening arrived he was tired and exhausted. So back to the shore he went, and said to the disciples, Let us cross over to the other side of the lake. Since Jesus was not only thoroughly divine but also thoroughly human, he was in need of rest. He needed to get away from all those people: not only did they crowd the shore; they even surrounded him in boats, as Mark 4:36shows. Though Mark states that the disciples took Jesus along with them in the boat, it was he who took the initiative by issuing the order, Let us cross over.& But they were the boatsmen, the navigators. So up the sea they went. We must not forget that divine guidance was operative here, as always: Jesus must be on these waters in order, by means of an astounding miracle, to strengthen the faith of his disciples. He must land on the eastern shore because there a demon-possessed man needs him (8:26–39). To what extent Jesus, according to his human nature, was aware of these matters is not revealed. B. A furious tempest 23. Now as they were sailing he fell asleep. Do not these words create the impression that the Master fell asleep as soon as (or almost as soon as) the boat had left the shore? Soon he was sound asleep, showing how very tired he must have been; also showing that his trust in the heavenly Father his own Father was unfaltering. Then a furious squall descended upon the lake, and they began to be swamped and to be in danger. To describe this violent atmospheric disturbance Mark and Luke speak of a lailaps, that is a whirlwind (Job 38:1; Jonah 1:4) or storm that breaks forth in furious gusts, a fearful squall or series of squalls. Matthew calls it a great shaking or sea-quake. It must have been a very violent upheaval, a howling tempest. Suddenly this lailaps came down upon the lake. What caused this storm? The opinion has been expressed that Satan had a hand in it.^[310] In support of this theory the following arguments have been presented: 1.Job 1:12, 19suggests that it was Satan who caused a great wind to come up from the desert. 2. In the present account it is made clear that in the region toward which the group was sailing there were many demons (see verse 30). 3. Verse 24 states that Jesus rebuked the wind, etc. Cf. Mark 4:39, Be muzzled. These expressions imply that he was addressing an animate object. However, this line of argumentation is rather weak, because: 1. According to Job 28:25it is God, not Satan, who is in control of the winds. See also Ps. 48:7; 78:26; 104:3; 107:25; 135:7; 147:18; 148:8; Isa. 11:15; Jer. 10:13; Amos 4:13; Jonah 1:4; 4:8. 2. That these demons had anything to do with bringing on the storm is not stated. 3. See on verse 24. Far more reasonable, therefore, is the theory according to which it was God who made use of physical forces he had himself brought into being, employing them for the realization of his own purpose. The so-called laws of nature are, after all, his laws. In this connection note the following: The sea of Galilee is located in the north of the valley of the Jordan. It is about thirteen miles in length and seven and one-half miles in width. It lies approximately six hundred eighty feet below the level of the Mediterranean. Its bed is a depression surrounded by hills, especially on the east side with its precipitous cliffs. When cool currents rush down from Mt. Hermon (9,200 feet) or from elsewhere and through narrow passages between the steep hills collide with the heated air above the lake basin, this downrush is impetuous. The violent winds whip the water into a fury, causing high waves that splash over bow, side rails, etc., of any vessel that happens to be plying the water surface. In the present instance the fishing craft, swamped by towering billows, was becoming water-logged, the toy of the raging elements. When Luke says, They began to be swamped, he means Their boat did. From a human point of view the little group was certainly in great danger. C. A frantic outcry 24. So they came to him and woke him up, saying, Master, Master, we're perishing! The disciples were thoroughly frightened. This shows that the present storm must have been something out of the ordinary. After all, these veteran fishermen were used to this lake and its erratic behavior. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER IX:1 17 Outline of Chapter 9:1–17 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him To Do 9:1–6 The Charge to The Twelve 9:7–9 Herod's Anxiety 9:10–17 The Feeding of the Five Thousand 9:1–6 The Charge to The Twelve Cf. Matt. 10:5–15; Mark 6:7 13 9 1 Jesus called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all the demons and to cure diseases. 2 And he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. 3 He told them, Take nothing for the journey: neither staff nor traveler's bag nor bread nor money nor (even) have two tunics. 4 And whatever house you enter, there remain and leave from there. 5 And wherever they do not welcome you, when you leave that town shake the dust from your feet as a testimony against them. 6 They departed and went about from village to village preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. 1, 2. Jesus called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all the demons and to cure diseases. In Mark's Gospel the story about the double miracle (Matt. 9:18–26; Luke 8:40 56) is followed by Christ's rejection at NazarethMark 6:1 6a , which, in turn, is followed by the mention of his teaching tour (6:6b). There follows a brief account of the sending forth of The Twelve on a mission tour (6:7–13). The teaching tour and sending out of The Twelve are combined also in that same order in Matt. 9:35 10:4. It will be recalled that the appointment of these men to be Christ's disciples and apostles had occurred a little earlier, namely, just previous to the preaching of The Sermon on the Mount. See Luke 6:12, 13, 17, 20. And now, somewhat later, during that same summer (of the year a.d. 28?) the Master sends out these men on a mission assignment. These men were to be Christ's official ambassadors or apostles, men clothed with authority to represent their Sender. That exactly twelve men, no more, no less, receive this assignment must mean that the Lord designated them to be the nucleus of the new Israel, for the Israel of the old dispensation had been represented by twelve patriarchs. Cf. Rev. 21:12, 14. It is Mark alone who relates that the men were sent out two by two. Why were they sent out at this time? A good guess may well be that the Master knew that his Great Galilean Ministry was rapidly approaching its end. Note that the Master equipped The Twelve with both power and authority; that is, with both the might and the right to carry out the mandate he assigned to them. And he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. In committing this task to them the Master called these men together (Luke 9:1) and to himself (Matt. 10:1; Mark 6:7). The mandate given to them, according to (Luke 9:1, 2, consisted in these two functions: healing and heralding. The healing comprised both the expulsion of demons and the cure of the sick. The Gospels sharply distinguish between demon-possession and physical illnessLuke 4:40, 41; Mark 1:32 34; 6:13). As to preaching, this has been described in connection with the explanation of 3:3. And the essence of the kingdom of God has been set forth in connection with 4:43. Preaching of the kingdom of God means therefore the lively proclamation of the reign of God in human hearts unto salvation full and free. For many of the listeners what they heard must have been surprising and heartening. They were now learning that people are saved not by means of strict adherence to hairsplitting rabbinical stipulations but by the entrance of the God of love and grace into their hearts and lives. 3. He told them, Take nothing for the journey: neither staff nor traveler's bag nor bread nor money nor (even) have two tunics. Note these five items: staff. In non-biblical Greek it refers at times to a magic wand. Other meanings are: fishing rod, rodlike streak of light from the sun, etc. In (Ps. 23:4(LXX 22:4) the word refers to the shepherd's rod. Cf. Mic. 7:14. In the New Testament the rod is at times an instrument of punishmentI Cor. 4:21), a meaning which easily connects with the rod of iron of (Rev. 2:27; 12:5; 19:15. Then there is also the ruler's scepterHeb. 1:8); the rod that gives support so that one can lean on it (Heb. 11:21); and Aaron's rod that budded (Heb. 9:4). But here in Luke 9:3and its parallels it is the traveler's staff that is meant. traveler's bag. This was a kind of knapsack, a bag for the road or for traveling. It is a bag that, before leaving, a person would fill with supplies which he thinks he might need while traveling. bread. Here and in Mark 6:8the word is used generically. money. Basically this word means silver, but according to the context the reference must be to silver coins, small change. two tunics. The tunic was an undershirt worn next to the skin. It reached almost to the feet and was equipped with arm holes. Cf. Matt. 5:40; 10:10; Mark 6:9; Luke 3:11; 6:29. Luke does not even mention sandals (Matt. 10:10; Mark 6:9). The Master, then, tells The Twelve that on this trip (Luke 22:36) they must not take along more than is absolutely necessary. In this connection there is a little problem. According to Mark 6:8Jesus told his disciples to take along a staff, but according to Luke 9:3he instructed them not to do this. For a possible solution of this problem see N.T.C. on Mark, p. 229. The conclusion there reached is that Jesus is saying: an extra tunic, extra pair of sandals, and extra staff must not be taken along. 4. And whatever house you enter, there remain and leave from there. How the disciples must decide in which home to stay is answered in Matt. 10:11. It is the duty of the hearers to extend hospitality. All the more so when the travelers enrich the people with the pearl of great price. And the visitors themselves must show a co-operative spirit. They must not be so fastidious that whenever some small detail is not to their liking in one home, they immediately leave and enter another where the facilities seem to be more desirable and the food more palatable. The spread of the gospel has the priority over personal likes and dislikes. Hence the missionaries not only traveling but also probably lodging two by two; see Mark 6:7must remain in the home that is kind enough to extend hospitality to them. When they leave the town, they must leave from that home. A very practical lesson! 5. And wherever they do not welcome you, when you leave that town shake the dust from your feet as a testimony against them. After traveling through heathen territory Jews had the custom of shaking the dust off their sandals and clothes before re-entering the Holy Land.^[323] They were afraid that otherwise in their own country levitically clean objects, as well as they themselves, might be rendered unclean. What Jesus is here saying, therefore, is that any place whatever note wherever be it a house, village, city, hamlet, that refuses to accept the gospel must be considered unclean and must be treated as such. The inhabitants of such a place must be looked upon as being not any better than Gentiles! Paul and Barnabas obeyed this commandment when a persecution was organized against them in the Jewish district of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:50, 51). A heavy load of guilt rests on such a place. See Matt. 10:15. The symbolic action shaking the dust from the feet is a public declaration of the divine displeasure that rests on a place that has refused the gospel. It amounts to a testimony against such a place and its people, its purpose being that they may repent. Cf. Rev. 16:9. It is a revelation of God's marked disapproval, for the spreaders of the good tidings are his ambassadors. They are bringing his word. By rejecting them, these wicked people are rejecting God, hence also Christ. 6. They departed and went about from village to village preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. This passage indicates that the disciples must have covered a considerable territory in Galilee. They did as Jesus had told them to do (see verses 1, 2). They did the very kind of work Jesus too had been doing and was doing. See Luke 4:40, 43; 6:19; 8:1, etc. In fact, one might say that Jesus was carrying out his ministry through them. See Acts 1:1. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 482–485. 9:7–9 Herod's Anxiety Cf. Matt. 14:1–12; Mark 6:14 29 7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all the things that were happening. And he was perplexed because by some it was said that John had risen from the dead, 8 by others that Elijah had appeared, and by still others that one of the ancient prophets had come back to life. 9 But Herod said, John I beheaded. Who, then, is this man about whom I am hearing such things? And he was trying^[324] to see Jesus. 7a. Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all the things that were happening. Note that while Mark calls Herod Antipas a king (6:14, 22, 25 27), and Matthew designates him either as king (14:9) or tetrarch (14:1), and all three at times simply speak of Herod (Matt. 14:3, 6; Mark 6:16 22; 8:15; Luke 3:19b; 9:9; 13:31; 23:7, 8, 11, 12, 15; cf. Acts 4:27), Luke, whenever he ascribes a title to this ruler, calls him tetrarch (Acts 13:1). In a sense both king and tetrarch are correct: king as popular title, tetrarch as official appellation. Officially or technically this man was not a king and was never going to become one. From 4 b.c. a.d. 39 he was tetrarch over Galilee and Perea. For more on this see above, on 3:1, 2. For the Family Tree of Herod The Great, the father of Herod Antipas (and others), see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 189. It is not strange that when at Christ's word even hopelessly sick people were suddenly and completely healed, lepers cleansed, storms hushed, demons expelled, and even the dead brought back to life (a widow's son, Jairus daughter), as the preceding sections of Luke's Gospel have shown, the fame of the One who accomplished all this, and who now was even performing remarkable miracles through his apostles, was brought to the attention of the tetrarch. Herod did not know what to make of all this. He was puzzled, perplexed even. The explanatory reports that reached him were threefold: 7b, 8. And he was perplexed because by some it was said that John had risen from the dead, by others that Elijah had appeared, and by still others that one of the ancient prophets had come back to life. a. Some people were convinced that Jesus was John the Baptist restored to life. This may seem somewhat odd, since Scripture nowhere ascribes any miracles to the Baptist. But it is probable that by this group John was held in such high esteem that the ability to perform miracles was attributed to him. b. Another group said, Elijah has appeared. Had not Elijah's return, as Messiah's forerunner, been predicted by Malachi (4:5)? Cf. (Isa. 40:3; and see above, on Luke 1:76; 7:27Mark 1:1 3). c. The third group, not wishing to be very definite, was convinced, nevertheless, that in the person of Jesus one of the ancient prophets had come back to life. See also on verses 18, 19. 9a. But Herod said, John I beheaded. Who, then, is this man about whom I am hearing such things? Note that Luke does not report what the tetrarch thought of suggestions (b) and (c). Herod may have reflected on these answers briefly, and then dismissed them from his mind. It would seem that, after some hesitation, he was always coming back to suggestion (a). John I beheaded, that is, John the Baptist I caused to be beheaded. The evangelist does not state how Herod answered the question, Who, then, is this man &? That answer is found, however, in (Matt. 14:2Mark 6:16). The ruler, a man with a terribly disturbed conscience, and filled with haunting superstitions and dark forebodings, arrived at the conclusion Jesus is John risen from the dead. Though Luke does not say this, he surely leaves room for it. 9b. And he was trying to see Jesus. Probably to be confirmed in his belief and to satisfy his curiosity. When at last Herod's desire to see Jesus was fulfilled, he, the hardened sinner, mocked the Silent Sufferer (Luke 23:8 12). For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 482–485. 9:10–17 The Feeding of the Five Thousand Cf. Matt. 14:13–21; Mark 6:30 44; John 6:1 14 10 The apostles came back and reported to Jesus all they had done. Then he took them with him and withdrew privately to a town called Bethsaida. 11 But the crowds learned about it and followed him. He welcomed them and began to speak to them about the kingdom of God, and to heal those in need of healing. 12 As the day began to decline, the twelve came up to him and said, Send the people away that they may go to the villages and farms round about, get lodging, and find food, because here we are in a lonely place. 13 He said to them, You give them to eat! They replied, We have only five bread-cakes and two fishes, unless we go and buy provisions^[325] for all these people. 14 For there were about five thousand men. But he said to his disciples, Have them recline in groups of about fifty each. 15 They did so and had them all recline. 16 He took the five bread-cakes and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven gave thanks for them,^[326] broke them, and kept giving them to his disciples to set before the people. 17 They all ate and were filled.^[327] And what they had left of the broken pieces was picked up, twelve baskets (full) of broken pieces. A. Setting indicated 10a. The apostles came back and reported to Jesus all they had done. All four evangelists relate this event. The similarities and differences are summarized in N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 244–246. Having accomplished their mission tour (verses 1 6), The Twelve are gathered around Jesus. Here and also in 6:13; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10 Luke calls these men apostles. They must be regarded as men through whom Jesus Christ himself is accomplishing his work on earth. They are his official ambassadors, having been commissioned by him to carry out certain specific tasks: preaching, healing, and casting out demons. He who rejects them rejects Christ himself (Matt. 10:40; Luke 10:16; John 13:20). It is in their capacity as apostles that they have been at work on the tour that is now ended. The report these men brought back to Jesus must have been exciting: They reported to Jesus all they had done. Much had been happening during the last months: John had been cruelly murdered. His decapitated body had been buried. Jesus had been informed about this (Matt. 14:1–12; Mark 6:14 29). Herod Antipas had become greatly disturbed when he heard about the miracles performed by Jesus, whether directly or through his apostles. All kinds of rumors had been going the rounds as to the identity of Jesus. As a result the tetrarch had said, John I beheaded. Who, then, is this man about whom I am hearing such things? The disciples-apostles had been sent on their mission tour and had now returned. All this had taken time. It is not strange, therefore, that the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, described here in 9:10–17, took place when Passover, probably April of the year a.d. 29, was already approaching, as is clear from John 6:4. The Great Galilean Ministry, probably extending from about December of a.d. 27 to about April of a.d. 29, was drawing to its close. B. Rest needed 10b. Then he took them with him and withdrew privately to a town called Bethsaida. Working without resting, being busy without ever taking a vacation, performing all the arduous duties pertaining to ministerial or missionary activity and not making a retreat for relaxation, discussion, prayer, and meditation, will never do. Even Jesus, because of the heavy burden he had taken upon himself, needed periods of withdrawal (4:42). So did the disciples. It was for this reason that he invited them to come away with him to a remote place, where they would be able to rest up. What made the need even more urgent, as Mark 6:31indicates, was the fact that a boisterous and demanding crowd, with people constantly coming and going, was making even eating impossible. Result: Privately, that is, all by themselves, Jesus, The Twelve, but no one else, take off for Bethsaida Julias, located on the northeast shore of the Lake of Gennesaret (= Sea of Galilee). For the debate about its location see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, pp. 216, 217. Actually, the little group was not headed for the town itself but for a quiet and secluded spot in its vicinity (see verse 12). C. Rest curtailed 11a. But the crowds learned about it and followed him. As soon as the people from the Capernaum side of the lake became aware of the fact that Jesus was leaving them and crossing over by boat to the opposite shore, they started to run around the northern edge of the water in order to be with Jesus again. Were they afraid, perhaps, that, due to the tetrarch's hostile attitude toward the true religion he had already killed John the Baptist their Great Teacher might never return to them? The most natural interpretation of Matt. 14:13, 14; Luke 9:11; and John 6:3, 5is that Jesus disembarked before the arrival of the crowd from the western shore. And it is impossible to prove that Mark 6:33contradicts this conclusion. See N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 248–250. The fact deserving special attention is this: the rest and relaxation which the Master and his disciples were seeking is to a large extent denied them. Not entirely, for Jesus and The Twelve seem to have been together for a little while (John 6:3), but this breathing-spell is considerably curtailed. How does Jesus react to this interruption of his rest? The answer is found in: D. Compassion shown 11b. He welcomed them and began to speak to them about the kingdom of God, and to heal those in need of healing. Had Jesus been an ordinary human individual seeking rest and relaxation, he would probably have addressed the crowd as follows, We came here to find peace and quiet; so please go home. We are tired; see us some other time. But Jesus was and is different. He actually welcomes those who had come to disturb his rest, for his heart went out to them (Mark 6:34). The needs of people, sick, ignorant, disconsolate, and also hungry (Luke 9:12, 13) meant far more to him than his own convenience and ease. So he began to speak to them about the kingdom of God. See on 4:43. For people living under the oppressive yoke of Pharisaism and rabbinism the teaching of Jesus according to which man's salvation is not basically a result of human effort and strict obedience to regulations but a product of God's gracious reign in human hearts must have been truly startling. For constant fear Jesus substituted fortitude (Luke 11:9 13); for put-on sadness, gladness (Matt. 6:16–18); for spiritual night, light (Matt. 4:16); for antipathy, sympathy (Luke 10:36, 37); for egoism, altruism (Luke 6:32 36); for pomposity, humility (Luke 18:9 14); and for the Pharisaic You must, the truly Christian I trust (Mark 7:1 5; Luke 12:22 32). Once the kingdom or kingship of God is established in hearts and lives, everything undergoes a radical change. The world is turned upside down (Acts 17:6). In line with this is the fact that the establishment of the kingdom of God affects not only the soul but also the body: &and to heal those in need of healing. When anyone, conscious of the need of being healed, approached Jesus, the latter healed him. It should not escape our attention that there is an exact correspondence between verse 11b and verse 2: whatever the Master had been doing through his disciples, he was also doing personally. E. Hunger anticipated 12. As the day began to decline, the twelve came up to him and said, Send the people away that they may go to the villages and farms round about, get lodging, and find food, because here we are in a lonely place. Christ's teaching and healing activity must have consumed a considerable amount of time. And now, though the sun has not yet set, it is already late in the afternoon: the day is drawing to a close. By means of his teaching and miracles of healing the Lord has so captivated the crowds that even now they are not departing. If they are to eat, they must leave; and if they are going to leave, they must be told to do so. Besides, the multitude is in need of lodging for the night. But as yet no one is even stirring. It is at this point that the disciples, probably in a body, approach Jesus with the advice that he dismiss the people, so that they might find food and lodging in the surrounding villages and farms. They give as their reason, because here we are in a lonely place. In other words, this is not a city, containing all kinds of bazaars within easy reach, where food may be bought; it is a desolate region. Also, to go to any of the surrounding villages or farms to buy food will take time, and the day is already drawing to a close (Mark 6:35). F. Orders issued 13a. He said to them, You give them to eat! Such an order comes as a surprise to them. They are confused. They must have thought, How can we provide food for all these people? What did Jesus mean by saying, You give them to eat? It may be impossible to give a fully satisfactory answer to this question. A few things can be pointed out, however: a. Jesus means that these men must not be so quick to shake off responsibility. As the Gospels picture them, they were often ready to do this very thing, and to say, Send the people away (here in verse 12); Send her [the Syrophoenician woman] away (Matt. 15:23). They even rebuked those who brought little children to Jesus that he might touch them (Luke 18:15). See also 9:49, 50. Don t bother the Master and don't bother us, was too often their slogan. In the light of this evidence it is safe to say that Jesus wants to remind these men of the fact that simply trying to get rid of people in need is not the solution. It is certainly not God's way of doing things (Matt. 5:43–48; 11:25–30; Luke 6:27 38; John 3:16). b. He wants them to ask, seek, and knock (Matt. 7:7, 8); in other words, to claim God's promise for themselves, and to go to him who is able to supply every need. He who, when there was a shortage, supplied wine (John 2:1 11), can he not also supply bread? c. In view of the fact that bread, as the term is used in this account (see verses 13, 16), while referring to be sure to that which supplies a physical need, is also symbolical of Jesus as the Bread of Life (John 6:35, 48), is he not also telling these fishers of men that they must be the means in God's hand to supply the spiritual needs of the people? 13b, 14a. They replied, We have only five bread-cakes and two fishes &According to John 6:8, 9, it is Andrew who conveys the information, There is a lad here who has five barley-cakes and two fishes. However, in desperation he immediately adds, But what are these for so many? And as Andrew speaks so they all reason. All join in calling Christ's attention to what they consider the totally insufficient amount of presently available food: unless we go and buy provisions for all these people. The evangelist adds the explanatory remark: For there were about five thousand men. As they see it, this suggested solution is entirely impracticable. Where would they get all that food? And where the money to buy such a huge quantity? Food for a crowd consisting of five thousand adult males, not even to mention the women and children who, after all, must also be fed (Matt. 14:21). The trouble with these disciples was that they concentrated all their attention on the vast, hungry crowd. They were forgetting about Jesus, his power and love. This forgetfulness on their part was inexcusable: a. Earlier in the day Jesus had already asked Philip, How are we to buy bread-cakes that these people may eat? Philip and the other disciples had had sufficient time to reflect on the ability of Jesus to supply whatever was needed. See John 6:5. b. Jesus had this very day manifested his miracle-working power (see verse 11b). Without even rebuking his disciples Jesus now provides the solution: 14b, 15. But he said to his disciples, Have them recline in groups of about fifty each. They did so and had them all recline. Jesus issued this command to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. (Mark 6:39states that the crowd reclined upon the green grass. There was, accordingly, this strikingly colorful arrangement of people dressed in their bright garments, reclining under the blue vault of heaven on the grassy slopes. While according to Mark they reclined in hundreds and in fifties (6:40), here in Luke they are said to have reclined in groups of about fifty each. If they reclined in a hundred rows of fifty each, the two accounts would be in perfect harmony. Not only that, but the total of (about) five thousand men (women and children being left uncounted), a figure mentioned in all four accountsMatt. 14:21; Mark 6:44; Luke 9:14; John 6:10), would result. The grouping was very practical. It made distribution of bread and fish, and also counting, easier. It has been suggested^[328] that this grouping may be an echo of ancient practice in Israel. See Exod. 18:21; Deut. 1:15. And is not the true Israel of the old dispensation continued in the true church of the new? See Gal. 6:16. Cf. Ps. 125:5; II Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:14–22. G. Miracle performed 16, 17a. He took the five bread-cakes and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven gave thanks for them, broke them, and kept giving them to his disciples to set before the people. Jesus took the five bread-cakes and the two fishes. He looked up to heaven. For this lifting heavenward of the eyes in prayer see also Ps. 25:15; 121:1; 123:1, 2; 141:8; 145:15; John 11:41; 17:1; I Tim. 2:8.^[329] Looking up to heaven Jesus blessed, thus literally. The same verb is also found in the Synoptic parallels (Matt. 14:19; Mark 6:41). John, on the other hand, has having given thanks (6:11). Solution: blessed in this instance means gave thanks, and can be thus translated. When a person blesses or praises God is he not giving thanks to him? It was the custom of the Jews to thank God before starting a meal. However, since it is abundantly clear from the Gospels that our Lord never spoke as did the scribes, that is, that his words were always characterized by freshness and originality (Matt. 7:29), we may well believe that this was true also on the present occasion. Then from the bread-cakes Jesus began to break off fragments of edible size. He kept giving these to his disciples who carried them (in baskets collected here and there from the crowd?) to the people. With the fishes the procedure was somewhat similar. Mark says, He &divided the two fishes among them all. The striking beauty of the account is heightened by the fact that only a few simple words are used to relate the miracle of the multiplication of the fragments. One might even say that the miracle is implied rather than expressed. They all ate and were filled. Exactly when were the bread and the fish multiplied? Under his hands? Probably, but even this is not stated. All we really know is that there was plenty of bread and fish in fact, plenty and to spare for everybody. At some point of time between the breaking or dividing and the reception of the fragments by the people the miracle must have occurred. All ate and were filled, that is, had all they wanted, were fully satisfied. H. Leftovers collected 17b. And what they had left of the broken pieces was picked up, twelve baskets (full) of broken pieces. Even though the Lord would have been able to supply food whenever needed, he did not want leftovers to go to waste. These, too, were to be regarded as good gifts coming down from the Father of lights (James 1:17; cf. I Tim. 4:3, 4). For today's world, in which some nations have an oversupply while others suffer scarcity, is there not a lesson here? Good use could be made of the twelve baskets full of broken pieces. There were many poor and hungry people. In this story it is the wonder-working power of Jesus that stands out. He is the One whose ability to supply every need is unlimited. In the old dispensation he was foreshadowed (I Kings 17:16; II Kings 4:43, 44. See also Deut. 18:15–18; cf. John 6:14; and see John 6:32). What, however, stands out just as clearly, if not even more so, is Christ's tender compassion. He was deeply concerned about the spiritual welfare of these people; so, he taught them. And about their physical needs; so, he fed them. It is Luke's Gospel that similarly (a) pictures a Savior whose heart goes out to Nain's grieving widow (7:13); (b) contains the parable of The Samaritan Who Cared, being an example to all (10:33, 37); and (c) in unforgettable language portrays the tender love of a father symbol of the Heavenly Father for his penitent, returning son (15:20)! In close connection with the preceding, what the abundant leftovers proved was the Master's regal lavishness, his uncalculating generosity. Before performing this miracle did Jesus say to himself, Exactly so much is needed to feed a multitude of this size. So I will give them exactly so much, but no more? Not at all! Moreover, as John 14:9makes clear, what is true of Jesus holds for God Triune. With the account of The Miraculous Feeding of the Five Thousand Luke's coverage of The Great Galilean Ministry ends. Matt. 14:22–33; Mark 6:45 52; and John 6:15 21contain the report of the return to the western shore. During the course of this crossing Jesus, who had sent The Twelve ahead and had himself remained behind to pray, surprised his disciples by his sudden appearance, walking toward them on the water during a violent storm. In (Matt. 14:34 36and Mark 6:53 56the story of the landing at and healings in Gennesaret follows. It is probable that from there Jesus and The Twelve proceeded to Capernaum, where he delivered the discourse on The Bread of LifeJohn 6). It may have been about the same time and place that the event described in Matt. 15:1 20and Mark 7:1 23, namely, the clash between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding Ceremonial versus Real Defilement, took place. See pp. 492, 493 for an answer to the question, Why does Luke pass by what is found in Mark 6:45 8:26? ^[330] Practical Lessons Derived from 9:1–17 Verses 2, 11 He sent them out to preach the kingdom of God.& He &began to speak to them about the kingdom of God. Preaching the kingdom (or: kingship, rule) of God means no less than proclaiming God's absolute sovereignty in every sphere: heart, mind, life, family, village, city, state, nation, world; education, industry, commerce, art, science, politics, etc. Cf. I Cor. 10:31; II Cor. 10:5. Verse 2 And to heal the sick. A life in harmony with the rule Trust and obey produces blessings for both body and soul. We should thank God, both privately and publicly, not only for Christian pastors, missionaries, lay evangelists, but also for Christian doctors, nurses, etc. Verse 6 They &went about from village to village. The Christian ministry must be carried out not only in cities but also in villages; not only in spacious auditoriums but also in chapels. Did not Spurgeon ascribe his conversion to a sermon preached (with God's blessing) in a small chapel by a layman? What is small in the eyes of man may be very important, indeed, in the eyes of God. See Mic. 5:2; Zech. 4:10; John 1:46; I Cor. 1:26–29. Verse 7 He was perplexed. In spite of wealth and prestige, Herod was a very unhappy man. Oppressed by a guilty conscience, he did not follow David's example. Therefore he did not prosper. See Ps. 32:5; Prov. 28:13. Verse 9 He was trying to see Jesus. Cf. 23:8. So was Simeon (2:26–30); and so were: the mother and brothers of Jesus (8:20), Zacchaeus (19:3, 4), and some Greeks (John 12:21). The results varied. Why? What is the lesson? Verse 13a You give them to eat! In our constant emphasis on Christian liberty, are we forgetting Christian responsibility? Verse 13b We have only five bread-cakes and two fishes. What were they forgetting? Verse 17 They all ate and were filled. Examples of divine generosity: Gen. 22:15–18; I Kings 3:2–15; Ps. 81:10b; 91:14–16; 116:12; Isa. 1:18; 55:1–3, 6, 7; Mic. 7:18–20; Luke 6:38; 15:20–24; John 1:16; 3:16; Rom. 5:6–11, 16 19; 8:31–39; I Cor. 3:21–23. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 9:1–17 Verse 1 For [Greek], pres. act. infinitive of [Greek], to cure, heal, render service, see the note on 4:23 on page 261. Cf. therapy, therapeutics. Verse 2 [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. act. of [Greek], to send (someone or something), to commission, delegate. Note, as objects, after he sent (them), the infinitives of purpose: to preach and to heal. See the note on 5:17 on page 300; also N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 308–310. Verse 3 The four words [Greek], staff; [Greek], traveler's bag; [Greek], bread (generic sense), and [Greek], tunic, are also found in Mark 6:8, 9. For Mark's [Greek], copper coin, Luke substitutes [Greek], silver. In both cases the contextual meaning is money, small change. [Greek], have. Greek at times uses the infinitive where we would use the imperative. In the present case this use is not difficult to understand. One might construe the original to mean, He told them &not to have two tunics. In other cases, where such a word of saying or commanding is absent, the question whether such an infinitive with the sense of an imperative must be viewed as a case of ellipsis is in dispute. Cf. Gram. N.T., pp. 943, 944 with Gram. N.T. (Bl.-Debr.), pp. 196, 197 (par. 389). Verse 5 [Greek], third per. pl. pres. subjunct. middle, after indefinite relative pronoun with [Greek] and negative particle. The verb is derived from [Greek], to take, accept, receive, welcome. Cf. toe, digit. [Greek], dust; cf. [Greek], [Greek]. Note incinerate. See also Matt. 10:14; Luke 10:11; Acts 13:51; 22:23. [Greek], sec. per. pl. pres. imperat. act. of [Greek], to shake off. See also Acts 28:5. Verse 6 [Greek] &[Greek], departing, they went about (or: were going through). Note also the present durative modifiers. Distributive use of [Greek] here, as in 8:1. Verse 7 [Greek], third per. s. imperf. of [Greek] (= [Greek] plus [Greek]), literally, to be thoroughly ([Greek]) without a resource ([Greek], ford, means of crossing a river; hence, in general, a way, means, resource); and so: to be at a loss what to do, to be perplexed. Verse 8 [Greek], third per. s. 2nd aor. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to shine, bring to light, appear. Cf. phantom, phenomenon. Verse 9 Note emphasis: John I myself beheaded; or: As to John, I myself ordered him to be beheaded. The verb is the first per. s. aor. indicat. act. of [Greek] ([Greek] plus [Greek]). [Greek], I am hearing, pres. progressive. Verse 10 For [Greek] see the note on 8:39 on page 453. [Greek], they did, where we would say, they had done. [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. of [Greek]; see the note on 5:16 on page 292. Verse 11 Besides its occurrence here in Luke 9:11, in the New Testament the noun [Greek], in the sense of healing, is found only in Rev. 22:2, where the healing is to be understood in a figurative sense: and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. It is also found in Luke 12:42, but there it has the meaning [Greek], household, or [Greek], the servants. For [Greek] see the note on 6:18, 19 on page 337. Verse 12 [Greek], began to decline; i.e., to wear away (A.V.). The sun was beginning to set. Cf. recline, incline, decline. Note also in verse 14 [Greek], have them recline; from [Greek]; and note [Greek], a (reclining) group. [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. imperat. act. of [Greek], to release; here in the sense of to send away, to dismiss. See also the note on 2:29 on page 176. In the New Testament the word [Greek], ring, circle (cf. cycle), is not used as a noun but adverbially: sitting around (Mark 3:34); going around (Mark 6:6); so also in Rom. 15:19: Paul preached the gospel from Jerusalem and round about even to Illyricum. On that passage see John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (International Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids, 1965, Vol. II, pp. 213, 214, including footnote 23. Preceded by an article, the word is used as an adjective here in Luke 9:12, to the villages and farms round about, or to the surrounding villages and farms. Cf. Mark 6:36. Finally, it occurs as a preposition in Rev. 4:6; 5:11; 7:11, around the throne. [Greek], third per. pl. aor. subjunct. act. of [Greek], to loosen (cf. catalyst, loose, analysis), to unharness (the pack animals); hence, to rest, to take lodging for the night. The same verb also has other, closely related, meanings: to throw downLuke 21:6, etc. , to destroyActs 6:14, etc. . For the cognate noun, [Greek], lodging place, inn, guest-room, see the note on 2:7 on page 148. [Greek], acc. [Greek], supplies, provisions, victuals, food. Cf. [Greek], grain, wheat, flour, foodLuke 3:17; 12:18, etc. . Cf. parasite. Verse 13 [Greek], sec. per. pl. aor. imperat. act. of [Greek]. Cf. donation. Note emphatic [Greek]! [Greek], unless; in the protasis of a fut. more vivid (third class) conditional sentence, followed by [Greek], first per. pl. aor. subjunct. act. of [Greek], to buy; cf. [Greek], market placeLuke 7:32, etc. . Verse 14 Note [Greek], men, in distinction from women; Lat. viri. Cf. German Mann, not Mensch; Dutch man, not mens. In both of these languages, with numerals, the singular can be used for the plural. For [Greek], from [Greek], and for [Greek] (here acc. pl. [Greek]), see on 9:12. Verse 16 [Greek], vivid iterative imperfect, he kept giving them. [Greek], 2nd aor. act. infinitive of [Greek], to set before. Related meanings: to set before (or: to present) in teaching (Matt. 13:24, 31); to entrust, commit, with various shades of meaning, depending on the context in each caseLuke 12:48; 23:46; I Tim. 1:18; II Tim. 2:2, etc. . Verse 17 For [Greek], third per. pl. aor. pass. of [Greek], see the note on 6:21 on page 345. Summary of Chapter 9:1–17 Chapter 8 closed with an account of three astonishing miracles performed by Jesus: a (humanly speaking) hopeless demoniac was cured, a woman whom the physicians of that day regarded as incurable was instantly restored to health, and a dead child was brought back to life. We can imagine how such happenings must have strengthened the disciples power of witnessing. This was the proper time to send them out on a mission tour. Besides, the Master knew that his Great Galilean Ministry was rapidly approaching its close. If more was to be done, more territory to be covered, it must be done now. So Jesus sends out these men. He issues directives. They must take along no more than is absolutely necessary. God will provide. The Twelve must place their trust in him. To this may be added Matt. 10:10b: upon those who hear the gospel rests the obligation to provide for those who bring it (9:1–6). The result is twofold: First, the tetrarch, Herod Antipas, hears what Jesus and The Twelve have been doing. His conscience is aroused, so that when he hears rumors, including the one according to which Jesus was actually John the Baptist risen from the dead, he exclaims, John I beheaded. Who, then, is this man about whom I am hearing such things? (verses 7 9). Secondly, the disciples, having returned from their mission tour, are in need of rest. So, together with them, Jesus crosses the lake and withdraws to Bethsaida Julias on the northeastern shore. When the Galileans learn about this departure they hurry on foot around the upper part of the lake in order to be with Jesus again. Surveying this huge crowd, his heart goes out to them. He welcomes them and speaks to them about the kingdom of God. Those in need of healing he heals. When evening arrives, instead of dismissing the hungry crowd (as the disciples had requested), he performs the miracle of making five bread-cakes and two fishes do for five thousand adult males, not counting women and children. Twelve baskets full of leftovers are collected after everyone has had plenty to eat (verses 10 17). CHAPTER IX:18 50 Outline of Chapter 9:18–50 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do B. The Retirement Ministry 9:18–20 Peter's Confession 9:21–27 The First Prediction of the Passion and Resurrection 9:28–36 The Transfiguration of Jesus on the Mountain 9:37 43a The Healing of an Epileptic Boy 9:43b 45 The Second Prediction of the Passion (and the Resurrection) 9:46–48 Who Is the Greatest? 9:49, 50 He Who Is Not Against You Is for You 9:18–20 Peter's Confession Cf. Matt. 16:13–19; Mark 8:27 29 18 Once while Jesus was praying in private (only) his disciples were with him he asked them, Who do the people^[331] say I am? 19 They replied, John the Baptist; and others (say) Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has come back to life. ^[332] 20 He asked them, But you, who do you say I am? Peter answered, The Christ of God. The theme of the Synoptics, including Luke, we may conceive to be The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do. The first division under this theme is Its Beginning or Inauguration (Luke 1:1 4:13). The second is Its Progress or Continuation (4:14 19:27). The first subdivision of this second part, namely, The Great Galilean Ministry (4:14 9:17), has now been completed. The second subdivision, The Retirement plus Perean Ministries, begins at this point (9:18) and continues through 19:27. Reasons for this kind of outline, as also a brief description of the main contents of each division and subdivision, can be found on pp. 8–10 of N.T.C. on Matthew. Tentative dates (certainty is impossible) are as follows: Retirement Ministry a.d. 29, April to October; Perean Ministry a.d. 29, December, to a.d. 30, April. For the intervening Later Judean Ministry, October to December, see especially the Gospel According to John (7:2 10:39). Luke 9:18 50 (covers events that occurred during The Retirement Ministry. The shift to this ministry from the one that preceded it is not abrupt and radical but rather a matter of emphasis. For example, during the lengthy period which to a large extent Jesus had spent in Capernaum and vicinityLuke 4:14 9:17) he was often surrounded by crowds. Now too (9:18–50) he does not escape those multitudes (9:37). But there is a difference in emphasis: generally he is now seen in the presence not of crowds but of his disciples. He is teaching them (9:18–27, 43b 50). He fully realizes that the cross cannot be far away. Accordingly, he is expounding to The Twelve the lessons of the cross (9:22, 43b, 44). This continues even into the Perean Ministry (18:31, 32). In order to be able to impart this important information effectively Jesus is seeking places of seclusion, apart from the busy centers. A considerable amount of time is spent in predominantly Gentile territory. If allowance is made for areas of relative uncertainty, the map (p. 491) showing Christ's Retirement Ministry (Luke 9:18 50, but reported more fully in Mark 7:24 9:50) may be helpful. There may, however, have been trips not reported in the Gospels. Cf. John 20:30, 31; 21:25. In the Gospel According to Mark fourteen sections cover events that occurred during this period of retirement. It is suggested that the following paragraph be studied with the aid of the map on p. 491. In Mark's Gospel we are shown that: 1. In the vicinity of Tyre the Syrophoenician woman's faith was rewarded (7:24–30). 2. In the Decapolis region a deaf-and-dumb man was healed (7:31–37), and 3. Four thousand people were fed (8:1–10). 4. At Dalmanutha the Pharisees, craving for signs, were rebuked (8:11–13). 5. While crossing over to Bethsaida Julias, Jesus told his disciples to be on guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod (8:14–21). 6. At Bethsaida Julias he healed a blind man who saw people as if they were trees walking around (8:22–26). For all these six sections except the last there are parallels in Matthew. The striking fact is that none of the six are clearly paralleled in Luke.^[333] In fact, as was pointed out on p. 481, Luke's omission of Marcan material begins even earlier, namely, at Mark 6:45. Accordingly, Luke omits what is found in Mark 6:45 8:26. (Still following the map on p. 491) we note that Luke begins to parallel Mark again in connection with the story of 7. Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27 30; cf. Luke 9:18 20). Parallel and identical in sequence are also the accounts concerning: 8. The first prediction of the passion and the resurrection (Mark 8:31 9:1; cf. Luke 9:21 27). 9. Jesus transfiguration (Mark 9:2 13; cf. Luke 9:28 36). 10. The healing of an epileptic boyMark 9:14 29; cf. Luke 9:37 43a . 11. The second prediction of the passion and the resurrection (Mark 9:30 32; cf. Luke 9:43b 45). Here, however, Luke omits any reference to the resurrection. 12. Question and answer concerning greatness (Mark 9:33 37; cf. Luke 9:46 48). 13. Jesus answer to John's implied question (Mark 9:38 41; cf. Luke 9:49, 50). At this point Luke's story takes a sharp turn and ceases to follow the sequence of Mark; that is, Mark's 14. And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, etc. (9:42–50), is not paralleled in Luke 9:51f. but in 17:1, 2. The question, then, is, Why, after closely following Mark's sequence up to and including Mark 6:44, does Luke bypass the material found in Mark 6:45 8:26, resume his parallel account at Mark 8:27, and break it off again at Mark 9:41? Many answers have been given, including the following: a. Luke has planned his Gospel in such a manner that, within the compass of a single papyrus roll, he will have room for the inclusion of much material especially many strikingly beautiful parables not found in the other Synoptics. b. Having already reported several examples of Christ's teaching and healing during The Great Galilean Ministry, the beloved physician, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided that this sufficed for the attainment of his goal. c. Specifically, having already reported one miraculous feeding, that of the five thousand (Luke 9:10 17; cf. Mark 6:30 44), Luke did not deem it necessary to report still another, that of the four thousand (Mark 8:1 10). Besides, that miracle took place in predominantly Gentile territory, and, as stated earlier (see on 2:39), on the whole Luke reserves for the book of Acts the account of work among the Gentiles. d. Luke did not think that Mark's lengthy account concerning ceremonial versus real defilement, including a sharp denunciation of the Pharisees (Mark 7:1 23), was appropriate in a Gospel intended mainly for Gentile readers. Unquestionably, these explanations are valid, but more should be added, for up to this point the last part of our question namely, Why does Luke resume his parallel account at Mark 8:27, and break it off again at Mark 9:41? has not yet been answered. It is exactly in connection with this question that the real beauty and importance of the Third Gospel becomes evident. There is nothing haphazard about Luke's inclusions and omissions. What we have here is a step-by-step answer to the question of Mark 8:27; Luke 9:18, Who do the people say I am? That is why at this particular point the evangelist resumes his policy of paralleling Mark. Stated even better: Luke is simply following his own plan. At 9:18 Mark 8:27 30 () Luke is in the midst of a process of answering the question touching the identity of Jesus. Note the evangelist's own climactic arrangement: a. Beginning at Luke 9:7 9Herod asked, Who, then, is this man about whom I am hearing such things? b. By means of the miraculous feeding of the five thousand (verses 10 17) Jesus starts to give an answer to the question of his identity. This is true especially in the light of such parallel passages as John 6:14, This is really the Prophet who is to come into the world, and 6:35, 48, I (myself) am the bread of life. c. Next, Luke reports that the people were divided in their opinion about Jesus. Their answers were threefold: (He is) John the Baptist &Elijah &one of the ancient prophets come back to life (verses 18, 19). d. Peter's answer is brief and striking, (Thou art) the Christ of God (verse 20). In this connection Jesus points out that being the Christ that is, the long-awaited Messiah of prophecy means the cross for himself, and in a sense even for all his true followers; some of whom, however, will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God (verses 21 27). e. The climax is reached in the answer given by the Father, as recorded in the account of the transfiguration (verses 28 36). It is as follows, This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him (verse 35). f. Once having reached this climax, and having again described the sense in which Jesus is the Messiah (verse 44) and who his true followers are, a group from which no one must be arbitrarily excluded (verses 46 50), Luke had, for the time being, accomplished his purpose. He could then concentrate his attention on those precious materials (parables, etc.) that are, to a large extent, not found in the other Gospels. Truly Luke's Gospel is not a hodgepodge. It stands on its own feet, evincing an organic beauty and unity of its own. 18. Once while Jesus was praying in private (only) his disciples were with him he asked them, Who do the people say I am? As to both place and time when this incident occurred, Luke, in harmony with the plan of his Gospel (see p. 178), is very indefinite. From Matt. 16:13and Mark 8:27we learn that the place was the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi. By Philip the tetrarch this place had been enlarged, beautified, and named in honor of Caesar Augustus. Near it was a sanctuary to the pagan god Pan, which gave rise to the name Paneas to mark the general site where Caesarea was subsequently located. The designation Pan is still reflected in Bniys, as it is called today. To distinguish this Caesarea from its namesake, the important seaport south of Mt. Carmel, and to indicate its founder, the more northern city was called Caesarea Philippi. Situated near one of the sources of the Jordan River, with 9,232 feet high majestic Mt. Hermon, snow-covered throughout most of the year, in the immediate background, it was truly a landscape of unforgettable picturesqueness, a place exactly suited to the purpose for which Jesus wished to use it, namely, for private prayer, as here stated, and for imparting instruction to his disciples. Having been strengthened through fellowship with his heavenly Father cf. Luke 3:21; 5:16; 6:12Jesus now asks his disciples, Who do the people say I am? Already Jesus knew that at the appropriate moment, that is, after the disciples reply, he would ask an even more important question, the one found in verse 20. What had been veiled heretofore must now come out into the open; not as yet for announcement to the general public, but so that the disciples may know who this Jesus really is and what is going to happen to him. Afterward, when the dramatic events do actually take place, these men will not remain as thoroughly perplexed as would have been the case had they not been preinformed about them. Cf. John 14:29; 16:1, 4, 33. 19. They replied, John the Baptist; and others (say) Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has come back to life. The answer, similar to the reports Herod the tetrarch had been hearing (verses 7, 8), was that some were of the opinion that Jesus was John the Baptist risen again. This seems to have been the most general opinion. But others held Jesus to be Elijah. These first two groups may have viewed Jesus as a forerunner of the Messiah. Finally, there were those who considered Jesus to be neither John the Baptist nor Elijah but simply one of the ancient prophets come back to life. Jeremiah perhaps? See Matt. 16:14. Note that in this connection the opinion that Jesus might himself be the Messiah is here not even mentioned. See, however, John 6:14. But even if, as a result of the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, the idea that Jesus was the Messiah had taken root in the minds of some, it was the earthly, political Messiah of Pharisaic hope whom they then imagined to see in him, as is clear from John 6:15. 20. He asked them, But you, who do you say I am? In the original the pronoun you is very emphatic. Jesus wants his disciples to make an open confession of their faith. That, in turn, would enable him to purify that faith; that is, to tell them that he was not the Messiah of popular expectation but the One who, in harmony with Isa. 53, etc., would suffer, be rejected, killed even &and on the third day raised up. See verse 22. Peter answered, The Christ of God. Since the question had been put to all, that is, to The Twelve, and none objected to the answer, we may safely assume that here, as well as in the parallel passages (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29), Peter was the spokesman for all. He often acted in this capacity (Matt. 15:15, 16; 19:27, 28; 26:35, 40, 41; Mark 1:36; Luke 8:45; 9:32, 33; 12:41; 18:28; John 6:67 69; Acts 1:15; 2:14, 37, 38; 5:29). Before leaving this subject, special attention should be called to the fact that the words of Jesus, But you, who do you say I am? convey a very important lesson, namely, that a true believer is one who is willing, whenever necessary, to fly in the face of popular opinion and openly to express a conviction that is contrary to that of the masses. In the best sense of the term, the believer is willing to stand up boldly in the interest of the truth. Conformity with the world, compromise on basic issues, the unwillingness to be distinctive, is strongly condemned in Scripture (Rom. 12:2; II Cor. 6:14; I John 2:15 17). When the sons of God marry the daughters of men (Gen. 6:1, 2), the result is the deluge. When Israel worships a golden calf, three thousand Israelites lose their lives (Exod. 32:28). When Israel, with the purpose of being like other nations, demands a king, the final result is shameful defeat in a battle in which that king commits suicide (I Sam. 31:4). When the compromiser Jeroboam institutes calf-worship at Bethel and Dan, he is leading the people into a path that finally results in shameful deportation into a pagan countryI Kings 12:26–30; 14:16, 19, 26, 31; II Kings 3:3; 10:29, 31, etc. . Not being of the world (John 17:16), believers are shining lights in the midst of the world (Matt. 5:14; Phil. 2:15). They are spiritually different from the world, in order to be a blessing to the world. So also here in Luke 9:19, 20, while everybody else is saying that Jesus is but a man whether John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the (other) prophets, it makes no essential difference, for all these were but men the true follower of Jesus answers, (Thou art) the Christ of God. The importance of this momentous confession can hardly be exaggerated. It implies that The Twelve here acknowledge Jesus to be no less than the long-awaited One, God's Anointed, the Messiah. For more on this see N.T.C. on Matthew 16:13 19, pp. 641–652. What the confession does not imply, however, is that The Twelve, or even Peter himself, understood in what sense Jesus was the Christ. It would take these men a very long time to learn this. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 508–511. 9:21–27 The First Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection Cf. Matt. 16:21–28; Mark 8:31 9:1 21 But he warned and commanded them to tell this to no one. 22 And he said, It is necessary that the Son of man suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised up. 23 Then he said to all: If anyone wishes to come behind me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me. 24 For whoever would save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake, he shall save it. 25 For what good does it do a man to gain the whole world and yet lose or forfeit his life? 26 For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and in that of the Father and of the holy angels. 27 Moreover, I tell you truly, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God. 21. But he warned and commanded them to tell this to no one. Possible reason for this strict order: The people would have interpreted the term Messiah = Christ in the political sense (John 6:15). This might have fanned the flames of enthusiasm about him, as a potential Deliverer from the Roman yoke, to such an extent that the opposition and envy roused by such widespread attention might have brought his public ministry to an untimely end. This must not happen. When an open announcement must finally be made to the Jewish religious authorities, Jesus himself will make it (Matt. 26:63, 64; cf. Luke 22:66 70). We should also bear in mind that it would not have been proper for Jesus, during the days of his humiliation, to encourage public acclaim. That must be postponed until after his death and resurrection (Matt. 17:9). See also on (Luke 5:14. The very fact of this death, followed by resurrection and ascension, will shed light on the character of Jesus messiahshipActs 2:36; I Peter 1:3). 22. And he said, It is necessary that the Son of man suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised up. Characteristically Jesus calls himself the Son of man, a self-designation very fitting indeed, especially when the Master speaks about his coming suffering, death, and resurrection. See on 5:24. The present prediction is the first of three recorded in the Synoptics. For the second see (Luke 9:43b 45Matt. 17:22, 23; Mark 9:30 32); and for the third, (Luke 18:31 34Matt. 20:17–19; Mark 10:32 34). The first prediction regarding Messiah's rejection, etc., has the following characteristics: a. This prediction was necessary. When the disciples, by the mouth of Peter, had confessed Jesus to be the Christ of God (verse 20), Jesus, by not contradicting this statement, had obviously assented to it. And in view of the fact that messiahship was by many interpreted in an earthly and political sense, it was necessary that the disciples be taught what it meant to be the Christ. b. It was startling. The Son of Man, the very Messiah, actually to suffer and die; yes, to be killed, it was almost unbelievable. Even more shocking was this announcement in view of the fact that Jesus reveals that he, the Messiah, must be subjected to suffering and must be killed. This was true because of the Father's will (John 3:16; Rom. 8:32), the Son's own promise (Ps. 40:7), prophecy (Isa. 53), and the demands of the law (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12–21; II Cor. 5:21). He must do what he himself also wanted to do (John 10:11; II Cor. 8:9; Gal. 2:20). In this first prediction all the emphasis is on necessity. However, note also: on the third day he must be raised up. See (Isa. 53:10; Luke 24:26, 27. In view of Luke 18:34Mark 9:32) it is very doubtful whether this optimistic climax was appreciated by those who heard it. c. It was revealing. Elders, chief priests, and scribes, the men who were supposed to protect and promote the religious interests of the people, those from whose circles the Sanhedrin was chosen, are actually going to kill Israel's own Messiah! Who, exactly, were these three groups? As to elders, by this time the term had come to mean the lay members of the Sanhedrin. They were generally members of the highly privileged patrician families in Jerusalem. The chief priests were members of the highpriestly families including the highpriest himself. The scribes were the trained and ordained theologians of the day, the men versed in the Torah, the rabbis. Their task was to study, interpret, transmit, copy, and teach the law. d. It was kind and wise. In order to spare the feelings of the men who were so dear to him, Jesus did not at this time convey to them the details of his gruesome approaching passion. Cf. John 16:12; Ps. 103:12–14. e. It was clear. Earlier Messiah's suffering, death, etc., had been indicated prophetically (Ps. 22; 69; 118; Isa. 53; Zech. 9, 11) and figuratively (Luke 2:35). Jesus himself, too, had spoken about it in a veiled manner (Mark 2:20; John 2:19). Now, however, he speaks plainly (Mark 8:32). There is a sense in which Christ's suffering and his death are unique. It is alone he pays the ransom for sin (Isa. 53; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; II Cor. 5:20, 21; Gal. 3:13; Eph. 2:8–10; Phil. 3:7–9; Titus 3:4 7). Over against every human claim to self-merit, be it the tiniest, this truth must be stressed and stressed and stressed. It was alone the Savior prayed In dark Gethsemane; Alone he drained the bitter cup And suffered there for me. Alone, alone, He bore it all alone; He gave himself to save his own, He suffered, bled and died alone, alone. Ben H. Price Equally scriptural, however, is the truth that believers are sharers in Christ's suffering, as they are also in his glory. So closely-knit are Christ and his people that it is difficult to think of the one apart from the other. This unity in love and consequently also in grief and glory, pain and pleasure, reproach and rejoicing, is taught in such passages as Matt. 10:22, 24, 25; 25:40; Luke 10:16; John 16:33; 17:21–24; Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14; Rom. 8:17; II Cor. 1:5; Gal. 6:17; Phil. 3:10; II Tim. 2:12; I Peter 4:13, to mention only a few. It is also taught in the passage which immediately follows, beginning with the words: 23. Then he said to all & As Mark 8:34shows, at this point Jesus calls to himself the multitude, for the earnest exhortation which follows is of significance to all; in fact, is for all a matter of life or death, of everlasting life versus everlasting death. Hence, all not only The Twelve must hear what follows. Continued: If anyone wishes to come behind me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me. To come behind means to attach oneself to Jesus as his disciple. The figure is based on the fact that Christ's followers not only The Twelve but also many others often accompanied the Master, and frequently literally came on behind him. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER X Outline of Chapter 10 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 10:1–12 The Charge to the Seventy-two (or Seventy) 10:13–16 Woes Pronounced on Impenitent Cities 10:17–20 The Return of the Seventy-two (or Seventy) 10:21–24 The Rejoicing of Jesus 10:25–37 The Parable of the Samaritan Who Cared 10:38–42 Mary of Bethany Makes the Right Choice 10:1–12 The Charge to the Seventy-two (or Seventy) 10 1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two^[363] others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go. 2. He said to them, The harvest (is) plentiful but the laborers (are) few. Pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to thrust laborers into his harvest. 3 Go! Listen! I am sending you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 4 Carry no purse, no traveler's bag, no sandals, and do not greet anyone on the road. 5 With respect to whatever house you enter, first say, Peace (be) to this house! 6 And if a lover of peace^[364] is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you. 7 Remain in that very house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker is entitled to his wages. Do not keep moving about from house to house. 8 And with respect to whatever town you enter and in which you are welcomed, eat what is set before you. 9 Heal the sick who are there and tell them, The kingdom of God has come near to you! 10 But whenever you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11 Even the dust from your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless, know this, that the kingdom of God has come near. 12 I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom in that day than for that town. After hearing about the three would-be followers (9:57–62) it is a delight to read about a large group of sincere and enthusiastic disciples of Jesus, men who offered no excuses when called to serve. Without reservation they answered the call and, to a considerable extent, were successful in their mission (see verse 17). Chapter 10 is clearly divisible into two parts. In Part I (verses 1 24) we are told that Jesus sent out seventy or seventy-two men to announce and prepare the people for his own coming, and with that in view to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom of God (see verse 1b). As shown in the summary on p. 533, these twenty-four verses can be divided into four paragraphs, as follows: (a) the appointment of these men and the charge given to them (verses 1 12); (b) the punishment awaiting those who reject their and/or their Master's message (verses 13 16); (c) the report of the missionaries upon their return, a report filled with joyful enthusiasm (verses 17 20); and (d) Jesus own rejoicing voiced in praise addressed to the Father, and his assurance, given to the returned witnesses, that they had been privileged above many prophets and kings (verses 21 24). 1. After this the Lord appointed seventy-two [or seventy] others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go. Note the following: a. After this. This probably means: after Jesus started on his journey to Jerusalem, as recorded in 9:51. b. The Lord. Elsewhere see N.T.C. on Mark, p. 435 it has been shown that the title Lord was given to Jesus long before his bodily resurrection, and that not only Luke and John but also Matthew and Mark use this appellation with reference to him. It is true, nevertheless, that Luke calls Jesus by this name far more often than do any of the other evangelists. It ascribes to the Savior ownership, authority, majesty. c. &appointed seventy-two.& Textual evidence (both here and in verse 17) is insufficient to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, whether seventy or seventy-two is correct. Even aside from this, for every argument in favor of seventy there is a counter-argument in support of seventy-two. The debate might run somewhat as follows: Brown Seventy is right, for it is clear that Jesus is here pictured as the Antitype of Moses, who, at God's command, appointed seventy elders to assist him. On these seventy the Spirit rested. See Num. 11:16–25. Smith You are forgetting Eldad and Medad, on whom God's Spirit also rested (Num. 11:26), making seventy-two in all. Brown But by entering Trans-Jordan Jesus and these missionaries, who were sent ahead to prepare the way for him, were coming into the largely non-Jewish world. The people of that day believed that the world contained seventy nations; see the Hebrew text of Gen. 10. So Jesus appointed seventy missionaries, as it were one for each nation. Smith But the Septuagint, i.e., Greek, text of Gen. 10has seventy-two names of ancestors who gave rise to nations. Luke, himself a Greek, must have been aware of the analogy between the seventy-two nations of Gen. 10and the seventy-two men whom Jesus appointed as his ambassadors. Brown But the Jerusalem Sanhedrin had seventy members. Smith Why should this have influenced Jesus in deciding on the number of heralds he appointed at this time? Besides, exactly seventy Sanhedrin members is probably not even correct, for you are forgetting the presiding officer, who certainly was also a member. So far the debate on this rather unimportant matter. I, for one, do not have the answer, though I lean toward seventy-two. Jesus may well have chosen twelve disciples (Luke 6:13 16; 9:1) to continue the line of the twelve patriarchs and twelve tribes, thereby indicating that Israel was being continued in the church of the new dispensation. Thus conceived, the number twelve would have symbolical significance. In harmony with this is the fact that in the book of Revelation the heavenly Jerusalem is described as having twelve foundation stones and twelve gates made of twelve pearls. There were twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes. And the city itself was 12,000 stadia in length, width, and height. See (Rev. 21:12–21. As to multiples of 12 think of the 24 thrones on which 24 elders were sittingRev. 4:4, 10; 11:16; 19:4), of the 1260 days during which the two witnesses prophesy (11:3), and of the 144,000 sealed individuals (7:1–8). Now seventy-two is the multiple of 12 and 6. The number seventy-two would therefore be in harmony with this entire scheme of twelves. It would proclaim that our Lord appointed not only twelve leaders but also 6 [Greek] 12 = 72 other ambassadors, so that the gospel might be published far and wide. Again, this is no proof. A good argument can also be advanced for seventy (= 7 [Greek] 10). d. &two by two.& It has been shown that Luke 9:51 18:14stands by itself, in the sense that as a rule it no longer parallels Mark. Here, however, there is a tiny exception. (There are going to be a few more exceptions before we reach 18:14.) It is Mark he alone who relates that also when The Twelve were charged, they were sent out two by two (6:7). When the question is asked, Why two by two? practical considerations such as: to help and encourage each other (Eccles. 4:9); and to be valid witnesses (Num. 35:30; Deut. 19:15; Matt. 18:16; John 8:17; II Cor. 13:1; I Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28) occur to the mind immediately. The same practical considerations undoubtedly also explain why the seventy-two were sent out two by two. Did not also John the Baptist send two of his disciples to Jesus with an important question (Luke 7:19)? At a later time we notice that Peter and John bring their united testimony (Acts 3:1; 4:1, 13, 19); that Barnabas and Saul are sent out together on their missionary journey (Acts 13:1 3); and that afterward Paul and Silas are together commended by the brothers to the grace of God (15:40). And let us not forget Barnabas and Mark (15:39), Judas and Silas (15:27), Timothy and Silas (17:14), and Timothy and Erastus (19:22). e. (He sent them on ahead of him) &into every town and place where he himself was about to go. Why all these heralds? Because the amount of work still to be accomplished was vast, the time during which it must be completed short, and the cause important beyond comprehension. Besides, does not the mention of these seventy or seventy-two stress the fact that kingdom work is not limited to the few; for example, to Jesus and The Twelve, but that every believer should participate? Note: first there was Jesus; then also The Twelve, now also the seventy-two; and these, in turn, are told to pray that the Lord may send forth (still more) laborers into his harvest. There is a task for everyone. There is a task for me. Finally, it is important to realize that when Jesus himself arrives, he must be welcomed properly! See Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1. 2. He said to them, The harvest (is) plentiful, but the laborers (are) few. Pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to thrust laborers into his harvest. As Jesus had done when he called The Twelve (Matt. 9:37, 38), and at least on one other occasion (John 4:35), so also now he tells his disciples in the present case the seventy or seventy-two that the harvest is plentiful but the laborers are few. He exhorts them to beseech the Lord of the harvest to thrust laborers into his harvest. Note the following: a. For more on God's well-meant, yes even urgent, offer of salvation see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 441, 442. The Savior's deep and tender concern for man's everlasting welfare, as this reveals itself in Luke's Gospel, is clear also from the following passages: 10:21, 33 37; 11:42; 12:7, 32; 13:6; 17:17–19; 19:10. b. This tender concern is present even though the territory Jesus was about to enter contained many Gentiles. Christ's love was by no means limited to Jews. Samaritans and Gentiles were also the objects of his loving concern. c. As it was then, so ever increasingly is it true today that the field is large it is the world! (Matt. 13:38) the laborers are few. Hence, all the more the present passage applies to present-day conditions. The need is there always: hence also now! Especially now! d. Note the beautiful balance maintained here between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. It is God, he alone, who is able to endow men with the qualities necessary to carry out the mission mandate. It is God who sends out sometimes almost forcefully, thrusts out, for not all are immediately willingExod. 4:10, 13; I Kings 18:7–16; Esther 4:9 17; Jer. 1:4 7equips, qualifies, ordains. On the other hand, this by no means renders superfluous human prayer and exertion. The seventy or seventy-two must pray that it may please God to send out laborers. e. Laborers &not loafers. Let every minister, evangelist, missionary, etc., take note! f. These laborers must work in his i.e. God's harvest. Those people whom we try to win for the Lord do not belong to us, to do with as it may please us; they are his harvest. This must always be borne in mind. 3. Go! Listen! I am sending you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. Since Jesus is about to make a statement of a most startling character, he introduces it by saying Go! Listen! There follows the saying describing the situation of the men that are being sent out. They will not be resting on a bed of ease. On the contrary, they will be as lambs in a somewhat similar context Matt. 10:16reads sheep in the midst of wolves. Does this not spell utter helplessness? Extreme danger? So it seems. But note the emphatic I in I am sending you out. It is no one less than their Shepherd who is speaking. Apart from him, to be sure, they are, and will be, in a hopeless situation. But commissioned by him, as his apostles, the opposite is true. Will he not gather the lambs in his arms and carry them in his bosom? See Isa. 40:11. Let them then depend on him &entirely. So conceived the continuation is natural: 4. Carry no purse, no traveler's bag, no sandals, and do not greet anyone on the road. No purse or money bag, no traveler's bag or knapsack (see on 9:3) will be needed. No sandals either; that is, as has been explained in N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 457, 458, and on Mark, p. 229, no extra pair, just those they are wearing. Place your trust entirely in God. He will supply all your needs, is what the Savior means. Moreover, since the business of the King is urgent, no time must be wasted in (typically Eastern) time-consuming greetings along the way. At this point critics have raised an objection. They have pointed out that this so-called Charge to the Seventy-two, which Luke, he alone!, reports, bears such a close resemblance to The Charge to The Twelve, recorded in Matt. 10(see also 11:21–23), that it must be regarded as fiction, merely a product of Luke's mind, with no basis in fact. Note the following resemblances: Luke Matthew 10:3 10:16 10:4 10:9, 10 10:5–7 10:11–13 10:9a 10:8a 10:10–12 10:14, 15; 11:24 10:13–15 11:21–23 10:16a 10:40 The answer is: (a) Luke evidently regarded the two charges the one to The Twelve and the one to The Seventy-two as different, for he reports both (9:1 ff., 10:1 ff.); (b) it is entirely reasonable to believe that Jesus, confronted with a task so comprehensive and to be accomplished within such a short period of time, would appoint seventy-two additional missionaries; and that, since the nature of their work was the same in substance as that of the smaller group, there would also be a close resemblance between the instructions imparted to each of the two groups. 5, 6. With respect to whatever house you enter, first say, Peace (be) to this house! And if a lover of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you. When the men enter any house they must first pronounce their greeting upon it. They must say, Peace be to this house! This reminds us of the familiar formula, Peace to you, a customary greeting then (Gen. 43:23; Judg. 6:23; 19:20; I Sam. 25:6; I Chron. 12:18; Ps. 122:8; Dan. 4:1; 6:25; 10:19; Luke 24:36; John 20:19, 21, 26), as even today. Nevertheless it makes a difference who says it. In the mind of an unthinking person it may be no more than a conventional phrase. Among friends it was and is undoubtedly the expression of a sincere wish. In the present instance, however, Peace be to this house is far more than a wish. In the name of their Sender these apostles not only wish peace but actually bring it. Cf. Num. 6:24–26. Yet, there was nothing magical about this. The special blessing was for those who by grace were worthy to receive it, not for others. If the home is undeserving your peace &will return to you, says Jesus; that is, in that case no blessing will be bestowed. 7. Remain in that very house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker is entitled to his wages. Do not keep moving about from house to house. Each missionary pair must remain in the house which had proved itself worthy by extending a warm, hearty welcome. Having entered such a home, the men must consider it their headquarters until they leave that town for another place. For a possible reason for this instruction see on 9:4, where the same rule is laid down for The Twelve. We might add that the missionaries would, of course, not wish to impose too heavy a burden on any one family by staying too long. When they leave, what then? Move to another home in the same place? No, indeed! The King's business is urgent. When the time to leave the home has arrived, the men must move &not to another home in the same place, but to another place! Cf. Mark 1:36 38; Luke 4:42, 43. Now while staying at this home Christ's ambassadors do not need to have any compunctions of conscience about getting free lodging and eating free meals. Are they not doing this home a great favor? The worker, after all, is worthy of, entitled to, his wages. The principle Jesus here announces is rooted in the Old Testament. See Deut. 25:4, quoted first in I Cor. 9:8–12, later in I Tim. 5:18: For the Scripture says, A threshing ox you shall not muzzle, and worthy of his pay (is) the worker. To every worker, therefore, whether that worker be an ox, a common laborer, or a minister of the gospel, God has given the right to partake of the fruits of his work. For more on this see N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 179–182. 8, 9. And with respect to whatever town you enter and in which you are welcomed, eat what is set before you. It must be borne in mind that the men who were being sent out on this mission at least most of them, we may well assume were Jews. But, as has been stated previously, as heralds of Jesus they were entering Trans-Jordan, a region where many Gentiles lived. That might create a problem with respect to food. So the Master tells these seventy-two men to go right ahead and eat whatever is placed before them, without asking any questions. Cf. I Cor. 10:25, 27. This directive was entirely in line with the rest of Christ's teaching about matters clean and unclean. See Mark 7:14, 15, 19, and N.T.C. on these passages. Continued: Heal the sick who are there &Jesus instructed and empowered this large group of heralds to heal the sick. In other words, they were to be busy doing his work, the very activity in which he himself was constantly engaged (Matt. 4:24; 8:16; Mark 1:29 32; 6:53–56; Luke 4:40; 7:21–23), and which he had also assigned to The Twelve (Matt. 10:8; Luke 9:2). However, equally important perhaps even more so was the work that must constantly accompany the healing of the sick, namely, preaching: &and tell them, The kingdom of God has come near to you. As has been shown previously see on 4:43 that kingdom is God's kingship, rule or sovereignty, recognized in the hearts and operative in the lives of his people, and effecting their complete salvation. In verses 8, 9, Jesus has indicated the blessings that are in store for the town that welcomes his missionaries: the gospel will be proclaimed to its inhabitants and their sick will be healed. But what happens when the town refuses to welcome these men? For this we turn to verses 10 12. But whenever you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, Even the dust from your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. This symbolic action shaking the dust from the feet was a public declaration of the divine displeasure resting on any place that refused the gospel. For more on this see above, under 9:5. Continued: Nevertheless, know this, that the kingdom of God has come near. By means of these words the grievous character of rejecting the good tidings must be impressed upon the minds and hearts of the people. They must be told that in rejecting Christ's messengers they are rejecting him &in fact, they are shutting themselves out! The kingdom cannot be stopped. But rejecters will bring down upon themselves its curse. Let this be proclaimed to them loudly and clearly, in order that they may still repent. Directly addressing the seventy or seventy-two Jesus concludes his charge by saying: I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom in that day than for that town. As there are degrees of glory (I Cor. 15:41, 42), so there are also degrees of punishment (Luke 12:47, 48). Sodom, to be sure, sinned grievously (Gen. 13:13; 19:9, 13; Isa. 3:9; Lam. 4:6; II Peter 2:6, 7; Jude 7); but the cities selected by the Lord Jesus Christ for receiving the very special privilege of having his personal representatives sent to them with a pleading and urgent appeal will have sinned even more grievously if they reject their golden opportunity. Therefore, in the day of the final judgment their sentence will be even more terrifying than that which will then be pronounced on Sodom. What is often ignored, in this connection, is that the message Jesus orders the seventy or seventy-two men to deliver to these cities if they should refuse to welcome his ambassadors is really meant not only for the wicked rejecters but even for the missionaries themselves; namely, in this sense, that it underscores and enhances the importance of Christ's gracious invitation. The effect upon these men must surely have been that they became more thoroughly convinced than ever about the significance of their mandate, so that, as a result, they exerted themselves all the more to be their Master's loyal representatives. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 585–590. 10:13–16 Woes Pronounced on Impenitent Cities 13 Woe to you Chorazin! woe to you Bethsaida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But for Tyre and Sidon it will be more tolerable in the judgment than for you. 15 And you Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? To Hades you shall be thrust down!^[365] 16 He who listens to you listens to me; but he who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me. These Woes on the impenitent cities were first pronounced during the middle or latter part of The Great Galilean Ministry. See N.T.C. on Matthew (11:20–24), p. 494. If their presence here in Luke is viewed as an indication that they were also included in Christ's Charge to the Seventy-two, as is probably correct (see on verse 21), then Jesus must have repeated these solemn words at this time. There can be no objection to that. Do today's speakers (including preachers!) never repeat themselves? One thing is certain: the topical connection with the immediately preceding is clear. Having indicated what will be the result of possible future impenitence (verses 10 12), Jesus now directs the attention of those whom he is addressing to the destiny of people who have already hardened their hearts. 13. Woe to you Chorazin! woe to you Bethsaida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. It is probable that Chorazin and Bethsaida were situated very close to Capernaum, which is mentioned last of all, namely, in verse 15. The ruins of present-day Kerazeh, northwest of the Sea of Galilee, and two and one-half miles north of what used to be Capernaum, are all that is left of ancient Chorazin. The Bethsaida here mentioned could be either Bethsaida Julias, located just southeast of the point where the Jordan River, coming from the north, flows into the Sea of Galilee, or else another Bethsaida, situated closer to Capernaum.^[366] In view of the mention of Chorazin and Capernaum in this very connection, the latter would seem to be probable. If so, it was the Bethsaida located in the plain of Gennesaret (Mark 6:53), which stretches northwest from the Sea of Galilee. It was the home town of Philip, the place where Andrew and Peter also originally came from (John 1:44). It is easily understood that since Capernaum was for a long time Christ's headquarters, his mighty deeds would have been performed not only inside this city but also in the nearby towns of Chorazin and Bethsaida. Jesus states that if the mighty works done in the two last-named cities had been done in Tyre and Sidon, these Phoenician cities, situated more northerly, along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, would have repented long ago. Yet, from (Isa. 23and Ezek. 26 28 one receives the definite impression that the commercial seafarers and colonizers who inhabited these cities were proud, money-mad, and cruel. Amos denounced the Tyrians for selling Israelites into slavery to the EdomitesAmos 1:9). The Phoenicians also sold the children of Judah and the children of Jerusalem to the Greeks (Joel 3:6). In the description of pleasure-mad, arrogant, presumptuous Babylon of Rev. 17 19 there is much that brings back to mind the heathen center of wickedness and seduction, Tyre. The assertion, therefore, that had Tyre and Sidon been favored in a manner similar to Chorazin and Bethsaida, the people of these Phoenician cities would have repented long ago shows with what revulsion the Lord views those who were far more highly privileged but had remained impenitent. The woe pronounced upon them amounts to a curse. Tyre and Sidon would have repented in sackcloth and ashes, says Jesus. Since the material of which sackcloth was made was a coarse kind of cloth, dark in color (Rev. 6:12), it was especially appropriate as a symbol of mourning. The sackcloth worn by mourners was actually a kind of shirt, with openings for neck and arms, slit down the front, and cast about the loins. It could be worn over an undergarment (Jonah 3:6) or directly over the skin (I Kings 21:27; II Kings 6:30; Job 16:15; Isa. 32:11). This symbolic reference to sorrow is even strengthened by the addition of and ashes. Continued: 14. But for Tyre and Sidon it will be more tolerable in the judgment than for you. For explanation see on verse 12. The Lord now turns to the very heart and center of his activity, namely, Capernaum: 15. And you Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? To Hades you shall be thrust down! Capernaum can mean village of Nahum. Even so, it is not at all certain that the place was named for the Old Testament prophet who predicted Nineveh's overthrow. Originally the reference may have been to some other Nahum. Or, since Nahum, in turn, means compassionate, the name may also be interpreted as village of compassion or of consolation. No one knows. What is established, however, is that at one time Matthew, the author of the Gospel named after him, had his office at this place. He was a publican, that is, a tax-collector or revenue officer. It was in the vicinity of this town that Jesus had called his first disciples (John 1:35 42). For details (including geography) see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, pp. 92, 93, 102 108. It was here also that Peter and Andrew, James and John were subsequently invited to become fishers of men (Matt. 4:18–22; Luke 5:10). Capernaum became the center of Christ's activities, his headquarters during The Great Galilean Ministry. It was here that Jesus performed many miracles (Luke 4:23, 31 37; 7:1–10; John 2:12), customarily attended the synagogue, and delivered several messages, including the address on The Bread of Life (John 6:24 65). Matthew even called Capernaum Christ's own city (9:1). The ruins of a Capernaum synagogue have been unearthed. It has been partly restored. That structure dates back to the second or third century a.d. It is thought that an older house of worship, probably the very one that had been provided by the centurion who loved the Jewish nation (Luke 7:5, 6), and where Jesus taught, lies buried beneath the foundation of the one uncovered. It is evident that a detachment of soldiers was garrisoned at Capernaum. The story about the royal officer whose son Jesus healed (John 4:46 54) may indicate that Capernaum was also a center of political administration. In the year 1905 excavations were started at Tell Hum on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee. They were completed by the Franciscans, who supplied evidence to show that Tell Hum is the site of ancient Capernaum, situated about two-and-a-half miles west of the place where the Jordan River, coming from the north, enters the sea. For Jesus and his disciples the location was strategic, for from this point in (what used to be) the Zebulun-Naphtali territory, most of the towns and villages of Galilee and surroundings were easily accessible. They could be reached either by land for Capernaum was situated on the rather thickly populated shore and on the trade route that connected Damascus and the Mediterranean or else by sea. By and large the population of Capernaum had remained impenitent in spite of all the labor of love which Jesus had bestowed upon it. It is for this reason that he now addresses this center of his activity in terms that remind one of (Isa. 14:13, 15, where the king of Babylon is pictured as boasting that he will ascend into heaven, and is then described as actually descending into Sheol's lowest depth. In a question full of dramatic emphasis Jesus, accordingly, asks, And you Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? In other words, You don't really expect to be exalted to heaven, do you? As far as the form is concerned, the question is so phrased as to expect a negative answer.^[367] This is irony, for Capernaum expects to be thus exalted. Swift as an arrow from a bow comes the answer, To Hades you shall be thrust down! Note position of Hades (before the verb) in this answer, making this curse-filled prediction all the more emphatic, an emphasis that is lost in many of the renderings. HereMatt. 11:23), as probably everywhere in the Gospels, but not everywhere in the entire New Testament, Hades means hell. Note how sharply it is contrasted with heaven. Hades is here the place of torments and of the flame (Luke 16:23, 24). See also N.T.C. on Matt. 16:18.^[368] And see below, on Luke 16:23, 24. That the utter ruin here predicted for the people of Capernaum also implied the destruction of their city is clear. As to the destruction of the city itself, what occurred here was so shocking that for centuries even Capernaum's site was a matter of dispute. Similarly, the punishment which was visited upon the people of Sodom and Gomorrah included the loss of their city. Nevertheless, in both cases it is the curse upon the people that is primary. It is as a result of their sin that the city too is destroyed, not vice versa. 16. He who listens to you listens to me; but he who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me. The importance of this dominical saying can hardly be exaggerated. Jesus assures these seventy-two men that when they speak, he speaks. When the people listen to them, they are listening to him. Not only that but, since he was sent by the Father and always faithfully represents him, it follows that those who, with a receptive heart and surrendered will, cup their ears to the message of Christ's ambassadors are paying attention to Christ's Sender. However, the emphasis of the passage now before us falls rather on the counterpart of this truth, namely, on the fact that anyone who rejects those who are commissioned by the Savior is rejected by the latter's Sender. And what could be more serious than that? Now all this places a heavy burden of responsibility on men; not only on all prospective listeners but also on the seventy-two missionaries. It is clear that if they do not in word and deed truly represent their Lord, the comforting assurance imparted in verse 16a no longer holds for them. On the other hand, on the assumption that a prayerful, consistent, and vigorous effort is being made by any servant of Christ whether he be a teacher, evangelist, minister, missionary, elder, deacon, or lay witness to impress the message of his Lord and Savior on the hearts and lives of people, on that assumption it is Christ himself who is speaking through that messenger. Moreover, it is not only Jesus who is being accepted or rejected but God Triune, who reveals himself in and through the Mediator. A generation or so ago much was being said and written about Christus Mysticus; that is, Christ and those who by sovereign grace are his own united by means of an invisible bond. What a comfort this Spirit-wrought, organic, vital, transforming, personal union, definitely presupposed in the present passage! We find its echo not only in one or two other passages e.g., Matt. 10:40and John 13:20but also, whether completely or in part, in the following references: Zech. 2:8; Matt. 10:25; 18:5; 25:40; John 10:27 30; 15:5, 18 21; Acts 9:4, 5(22:7, 8; 26:14, 15); Rom. 8:38, 39; II Cor. 1:5; 4:10; Gal. 1:16; 2:20; 6:17; Eph. 4:15, 16; 5:23–32; Col. 1:24, to which others could easily be added. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 585–590. 10:17–20 The Return of the Seventy-two (or Seventy) 17 The seventy-two^[369] returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons were subject to us in thy name! 18 He said to them, I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. 19 Look, I have given you authority to step on snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will in any way hurt you. 20 Nevertheless, it is not this in which you should rejoice, that the spirits submit to you, but this, that your names are recorded in heaven. 17. The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons were subject to us in thy name! How long it took the seventy-two to accomplish their mission and at which place they returned to Jesus has not been revealed. What we do know is that they returned with joy and expressed their elation over the fact that even the demons had been subject to them in Christ's name. Evidently they had been successful in their mission: probably both in their preaching and in their healing and, what surprised them because as far as we know it had not even been included in the task that had been assigned to them (see verse 9) also in the matter of demon-expulsion! 18. He said to them, I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. Of this passage there have been several interpretations: a. Jesus meant, I saw Satan's original fall, his expulsion from heaven. b. He meant, In my victory over the devil during the wilderness temptation I saw his fall. The trouble with both of these interpretations is that they are not contextual. The right view is undoubtedly that expressed by Godet (op. cit., Vol. II, p. 24) in these words: [Jesus meant] While you were expelling the subordinates [the demons] I was seeing the master [Satan] fall. While in the present passage Jesus speaks about Satan's sudden fall sudden and startling because the disciples had not expected this victory; perhaps even because the devil himself had not anticipated it elsewhere the Master refers to the prince of evil's ejection (John 12:31, 32), and this in connection with Christ's own activity of drawing all men to himself. To this falling and being cast out should be added one more symbolic expression, that of binding the strong man, Beelzebul (Matt. 12:27, 29). In the interpretation of Rev. 20:1 3we should certainly give these passages their due. A good exegetical rule is always to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture! One important item should be added to this interpretation: in all probability the Master's exalted language, I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning, was not only a reference to this one event, namely, the success of the seventy-two, but rather to all similar events that would take place afterward. In other words, Jesus viewed the triumph of these seventy-two as being symptomatic of ever so many other victories over Satan throughout the course of the new dispensation, triumphs accomplished through the work of thousands of other missionaries. He was looking far into the future (Matt. 24:14). He saw the ultimate discomfiture of the ugly dragon and all his minions. Continued: 19. Look, I have given you authority to step on snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will in any way hurt you. These words have frequently been quoted in close connection with Mark 16:18. A literal interpretation is then given to both passages. At times Acts 28:3is also cited. But Paul did not deliberately pick up a venomous snake nor did he step on it. As to the authenticity of Mark 16(16:9–20) see N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 682–687. In the passage now under discussion, namely, Luke 10:19, the figurative explanation is almost certainly the correct one. Note the following: a. Jesus often made use of figurative language, though such language was frequently interpreted literallyMatt. 16:6–12; Luke 8:52, 53; John 2:19 21; 3:3, 4; 4:13–15; 6:51, 52; 11:11–13, etc. . b. In the immediately preceding passage (verse 18) the Lord had used symbolical language when he spoke of seeing Satan falling from heaven like lightning. c. If elsewhere Satan is called dragon and serpent (Rev. 12:9; 20:2), why should it be strange if also here in Luke 10:19the domain of the prince of evil is called that of snakes and scorpions? Is it not Satan's intention to poison the minds of men and to impart the sting of death to all who oppose him? d. There is no record of any literal fulfilment of this statement. e. The true interpretation is also supported by the explanatory expression (I have given you authority over) &all the power of the enemy. For explanation see Rom. 16:20, The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. As to the promise, And nothing will in any way hurt you, see John 10:27, 28; Rom. 8:28–39. Jesus took delight in the joy of the seventy-two. However, he did more than that: he purified that joy by telling them: 20. Nevertheless, it is not this in which you should rejoice, that the spirits submit to you, but this, that your names are recorded in heaven. Jesus does not mean that these men erred in rejoicing over their God-given power over demons. Did not their ability to cast them out redound to God's glory? Did it not also result in delivering the enslaved from the powers of darkness? What the Master must have meant was that authority over demons was, after all, insignificant in comparison with having one's name recorded in heaven's book of life. Cf. Isa. 4:3; Dan. 12:1; Rev. 3:5; 20:12, 15. Casting out demons ceases when life here on earth ends. But right standing with God, resulting in everlasting salvation to his glory, never ends. Besides, authority over demons does not guarantee salvation. It is entirely possible that even upon Judas had been bestowed the ability to cast out demons. See Luke 9:1. But that did not make him a saved man! For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 585–590. 10:21–24 The Rejoicing of Jesus Cf. Matt. 11:25–27; 13:16, 17 21 At that time Jesus rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, I praise thee Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and learned (people) and didst reveal them to babes; yes Father, for such was thy good pleasure. 22 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 23 And turning to his disciples he said privately, Blessed (are) the eyes that see what you are seeing! 24 For I tell you that many prophets and kings wanted to see what you are seeing, but did not see it, and to hear what you are hearing, but did not hear it. The beginning of this paragraph so closely resembles what is found in Matthew's Gospel that the opinion of many, namely, that the same event is being described in Matt. 11:25ff. as here in Luke 10:21ff., may well be correct. That event was the return of the seventy, or perhaps better, as has been indicated, the seventy-two. Verses 1 24 of Luke's tenth chapter are clearly a unit: the charge to the seventy-two (verses 1 12), the serious consequences of rejecting their (hence their Savior's) message (verses 13 16), their return and exuberant report (verses 17 20), and Jesus own rejoicing coupled with the benediction he pronounced on the seventy-two (verses 21 24) belong together. 21. At that time Jesus rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, I praise thee Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and learned (people) and didst reveal them to babes; yes Father, for such was thy good pleasure. At that time here indicates at the time of the return of the seventy-two and the report they brought. By mentioning the fact that Jesus rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit Luke means that this Spirit, by which the Savior had been anointed (4:18), was the cause and originator of his joy and thanksgiving. As was indicated in the Introduction, point I A 5 d, one of the many things which Luke and Paul have in common is their stress on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Filled, then, with the Holy Spirit, and rejoicing because of the report brought by the seventy-two, Jesus lifts up his heart and voice to his Father, and says, I praise thee Father, etc. Jesus does not say Our Father, the form of address he taught his disciples to use, but Father, and in verse 22 my Father, and this because the One who had sent him was and is his Father in a unique sense. Altogether fitting is also the next title of address, Lord of heaven and earth. As such the Father is the sovereign Ruler, whose decisions must not be criticized. The question may be asked, But how could Jesus praise the Father not only for revealing to some matters touching salvation, but even for concealing them from others? Perhaps the context supplies the answer, at least as far as an answer is possible. Jesus says, (I praise thee Father &that thou didst hide these things) from the wise and learned people. The reference seems to be to those who were wise in their own conceits (Rom. 11:25; cf. 12:16). Is not he the One who resists the proud but imparts grace to the humble (James 4:6)? That the Lord actually is thinking about conceited people as contrasted with those who are humble seems to follow also from the words and didst reveal them to babes. In the spiritual sense babes are those who have no confidence in self but are conscious of their complete dependence on the might and mercy of the heavenly Father, in whom they have placed their trust: For thus says the high and lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also who is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite (Isa. 57:15). It is as if the Mediator wishes to linger for a moment on this comforting thought, for in reverence and adoration he now continues, Yes Father, for such was thy good pleasure. Says H. Bavinck, In a certain sense the fall, sin, and eternal punishment are included in God's decree and are willed by him. But this is true in a certain sense only, and not in the same sense as grace and salvation. These are the objects of his delight; but God does not delight in sin, neither does he take pleasure in punishment. ^[370] Whatever the sinner needs Jesus has at his disposal. He has all and knows all. 22. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. This statement varies slightly, but not at all essentially, from its parallel in Matt. 11:27. The Son has whatever the sinner needs. He has whatever is necessary for carrying out his mediatorial task. He was endowed with the Spirit of Jehovah, that is, with the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, counsel and might, knowledge and the fear of Jehovah (Isa. 11:1, 2). All these spiritual qualities and many more have been entrusted to the Mediator by the Father, in order that from him as the Fountain they might flow out to others. Can anything be lacking in the Son's saving power? No, indeed, for so inexhaustible are his resources that the Father alone knows the Son. It is the Father alone who is able to penetrate to the depths of the Son's essence, his infinite treasures of wisdom, grace, power, etc. In order to be saved and to live to the glory of God Triune, does the sinner need to know the will of the Father? No one knows who the Father is except the Son &and now notice the significant and very comforting addition: and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Truly Thou, O Christ, art all I want; More than all in thee I find. Charles Wesley Up to this moment Jesus has been addressing the seventy-two, to be sure (see especially verses 18 20), but in the presence of other people. Now he turns definitely to the large group of returned missionaries, and away from whatever crowd may have been present. This little touch, graphic and interesting, shows that Luke must have received his information from eyewitnesses. How otherwise would he have known this? Of course, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We read: 23, 24. And turning to his disciples he said privately, Blessed (are) the eyes that see what you are seeing! For I tell you that many prophets and kings wanted to see what you are seeing, but did not see it, and to hear what you are hearing, but did not hear it. In substance these words with slight variation; for example, righteous persons instead of kings as here had also been addressed to The Twelve. See Matt. 13:16, 17. But now they are being spoken to this far larger group of witnesses. What a difference between, on the one hand, many prophets and kings, namely those living on earth during the old dispensation; and even then not all the kings but such devout monarchs among them as David, Hezekiah, and Josiah; and, on the other hand, these seventy-two ambassadors! To be sure, even to the saints of the old dispensation glimpses of coming glory were given at times, even while these men were still living on earth. Thus, with the eyes of faith the prophet Isaiah in a vision saw Messiah's glory and spoke of him (John 12:41). King David in the Spirit ascribed to the coming Messiah the name Lord (Ps. 110:1; cf. Matt. 22:44; see also Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42, 43; Acts 2:34, 35; Heb. 1:13). But none of these prophets and kings, while still on earth, saw the incarnate Christ. None heard his words. None witnessed his miracles. They all died in faith, not having received the fulfilment of the promisesHeb. 11:13, cf. verse 39 . That better thing (Heb. 11:40), the fulness of Messianic blessing, had been reserved for believers of the new day. And among all these believers The Twelve and the Seventy-two had been among those closest to Jesus. How blessed they were!^[371] Practical Lessons Derived from 10:1–24 Verse 2a The harvest (is) plentiful. That was true then. How much more now! Verse 2b Pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to thrust laborers into his harvest. Though all depends on God, he accomplishes his work by human means. Does this amount to saying, God has no hands but our hands? Verse 5 First say, Peace (be) to this house! Having entered the home, do not wait for those who live there to start the conversation. It is you who should start. And let your approach be positive, not negative. Verse 7 The worker is entitled to his wages. Congregations and denominations should take this to heart. Those who devote themselves entirely and wholeheartedly to religious work ministers, missionaries, etc. should not be regarded as objects of charity. The congregation or denomination owes them a living. Verse 14 But for Tyre and Sidon it will be more tolerable in the judgment than for you. Responsibility varies with opportunity, and over the course of the centuries how these opportunities have increased! Verse 16b He who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me. What requirements must a minister satisfy before he has a right to believe that he has been or is being unjustly rejected? What standards must a congregation meet before it has the right to feel aggrieved because of its minister? Verse 18 I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. The believer is comforted by the assurance that by grace the victory belongs to him. It is his because it is Christ's. Verse 20 Nevertheless, it is not this in which you should rejoice, that the spirits submit to you, but this, that your names are recorded in heaven. How often men rejoice in earthly honors or accomplishments! How little in heavenly blessings, past, present, and future! Verse 24 Many prophets and kings wanted to see what you are seeing, but did not see it. The poorest Christian is richer by far than the richest worldling! Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 10:1–24 Verse 1 The textual evidence is evenly balanced between seventy and seventy-two. Note distributive use of [Greek]; cf. 9:14. [Greek], lit. before his face (A.V.), the word face again, as in 9:51–53, used in Semitic sense. Verse 2 The word [Greek], harvest, occurs three times in this verse; nominative, genitive, and accusative; nowhere else in Luke. It is found also in Matthew, Mark, John, and Revelation. At times this word refers to harvest-time and harvesting (Matt. 13:30). There, as also in (Rev. 14:15, harvest-time indicates the final judgment. But here in Luke 10:2John 4:35) the people are viewed as a crop or field that is ripe for the harvest. Cf. thermometer. Harvest-time generally comes during the latter part of the heat season ([Greek]). Verse 3 [Greek], lambs, acc. pl., as if from [Greek], but the nominative was no longer in use. See, however, [Greek]; and in the New Testament [Greek] (John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; I Peter 1:19). Verse 4 [Greek], purse; [Greek], traveler's bag; [Greek], sandals; acc. forms of, respectively, [Greek], [Greek], and [Greek] ([Greek], under, plus [Greek], to bind; hence, underbinding, a sole fastened to the foot with thongs). [Greek], sec. per. pl. aor. middle subjunct. of [Greek], to greet. Verse 6 [Greek], son of peace, probably again a Hebraism, meaning only that it occurs with greater frequency in Hebrew than in Greek. It indicates that the person or thing so described stands in some relation to the object mentioned after son of. That relation may be one of quality, resemblance, derivation, destiny, etc. See the diagram on p. 588. In Eccles. 12:4notice even daughters of music. Musical sounds perhaps? Or simply songbirds? See J. F. A. Sawyer, The Ruined House in Ecclesiastes 12: A Reconstruction of the Original Parable, JBL 94 (1975), p. 530. See p. 588 for diagram. [Greek], third per. s. fut. indicat. middle of [Greek], to rest upon; in Rom. 2:17, to rely upon. Cf. pause. Note the two prefixes [Greek] and [Greek]; hence, as if to lean back upon. [Greek], third per. s. fut. indicat. act. of [Greek], basically: to bend back; in the New Testament (Luke 10:6also Matt. 2:12; Acts 18:21; Heb. 11:15), to turn back, to return. Verse 7 [Greek], sec. per. pl. pres. (durative) imperative (here in a prohibition) of [Greek], to go or move from one place to another. Verse 8 [Greek], acc. pl. neut. pres. pass. participle of [Greek], to set before. Cf. 9:16. Verse 9 [Greek], third per. s. perf. indicat. act. of [Greek], to approach, come near; so here and in verse 11: has come near. Cf. [Greek], near, as to relationship, place, or time. Verse 10 [Greek], wide avenue, street; from [Greek], broad, wide. Cf. place, plateau. Verse 11 [Greek], acc. s. masc. aor. pass. participle of [Greek], to stick, adhere to, unite with. Cf. colloid. There may even be a distant connection between this Greek word and glue. [Greek], first per. pl. pres. indicat. middle of [Greek], to wipe off. The Probably Hebraic Expression son(s) of Reference Phrase son or sons of Probable Meaning 1 I Sam. 14:52bravery brave men 2 II Sam. 3:34wickedness wicked people 3 II Sam. 7:10violence violent men 4 &5 I Sam. 26:16; Psalms 79:11death men doomed to die or deserving to die 6 Matt. 23:15hell man worthy of and bound for hell 7 Mark 3:17thunder men of fierce disposition 8 Luke 10:6peace lovers of peace 9 Luke 16:8a this world worldly people 10 Luke 16:8b the light people who possess the light of wisdom, holiness, joy, etc. 11 John 17:12 perdition man doomed to perish, utterly lost (Judas) 12 Acts 4:36exhortation (or encouragement) expert in imparting encouragement 13 &14 15 Ephesians 2:2& 5:6; Col. 3:6disobedience disobedient people 16 I Thess. 5:5light and of day same as No. Luke 16:8b 17 II Thess. 2:3perdition same as No. John 17:12 (), but now with reference to the Antichrist. Verse 12 [Greek], more tolerable (so also in verse 14), comparat. of [Greek], [Greek], [Greek]. Cf. [Greek], to hold up under, put up with, endure, bear, tolerate. See the note on 9:41 on page 524. Verse 13 [Greek], adverb indicating past time; here: long ago. [Greek], dat. s. of [Greek], ashes. [Greek], third per. pl. aor. indicat. of [Greek], to undergo a basic change, to be converted; here, because of context note in sackcloth and ashes to repent. For more on this verb see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 196, 197; on Mark, pp. 57, 58. Verse 15 [Greek], sec. per. s. fut. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to cause to descend; hence, in pass.: to be made to descend, to be thrust down. However, the reading is in doubt. The variant [Greek] (Matt. 11:23) may be correct also here in Luke 10:15. If so, the meaning would be, To Hades you shall descend. Verse 16 [Greek], nom. s. masc. pres. act. participle of [Greek] ( and [Greek]), to set aside, reject. Note also the third per. s. [Greek]. Each form occurs twice in this verse. Verse 18 Here [Greek] is first per. s. imperf. indicat. act. of [Greek], not third per. pl. though the form is the same. The meaning is: to observe, watch; hence here I was watching. On this verb and its synonyms see also N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, p. 85, footnote 33. [Greek], lightning, but in Luke 11:36shining brightness. Verse 19 [Greek], pres. act. infinitive of [Greek], to tread. Cf. path. [Greek], serpent; here gen. pl. [Greek]. Cf. ophidian. Note also the strong negative, which may be rendered nothing at all, nothing in any way. Verse 20 [Greek], third per. s. perf. indicat. pass. of [Greek], in the New Testament occurring only here and in II Cor. 3:2, 3, to record, write in. The names have been, and thus remain, recorded. Once written, they stand. Cf. engrave. Verse 21 For [Greek] (cf. 1:47), third per. s. aor. indicat. middle of [Greek], to leap or thrill with joy, to rejoice greatly, see the note on 1:14 on page 80. [Greek], first per. s. pres. indicat. middle of [Greek], here and in Matt. 11:25in the sense of: to praise, to give thanks. For more detailed discussion of this verb see N.T.C. on Matthew, footnote 477 on pp. 497, 498. [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. indicat. act. of [Greek] (= [Greek] and [Greek]), to hide (away), conceal. Cf. Apocrypha. [Greek], gen. pl. of [Greek]; cf. [Greek], to send together. The reference is to those who are able to put two and two together, that is, to the intelligent or learned people. Note the last four words of verse 21; literally, for so it was [or: became] good pleasure before thee, another marked Semitism. [Greek], good pleasure. Sometimes this noun is used with reference to human delight, good will, pleasure, or resolve (Rom. 10:1; Phil. 1:15; II Thess. 1:11). So it is also with the verb [Greek] (Rom. 15:26, 27; II Cor. 5:8; 1Thess. 2:8; 3:1; II Thess. 2:12). When the reference of the noun is to God's good pleasure or delight the contexts are as-follows: Those with whom God is delighted (Luke 2:14); God's delight in choosing a people for himself (Eph. 1:5, 9) and in the fact that, by means of the strength imparted by God, believers are working out their own salvation (Phil. 2:13). As to the verb, the action positively expressed, the references are to the Father's delight in the Son (Matt. 3:17; 12:18; 17:5; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22; II Peter 1:17), to his good pleasure in (a) giving his children the kingdom (Luke 12:32), (b) the salvation of his people through the preaching of the gospel (I Cor. 1:21), (c) revealing his Son in Paul (Gal. 1:15), and (d) the decision that in Christ all the fulness should dwell (Col. 1:19). Negative references: God is not delighted with unbelievers (I Cor. 10:5), with burnt-offerings (Heb. 10:6, 8), and with those who shrink back (Heb. 10:38). Verse 22 According to Lenski's Interpretation of St. Luke, p. 373, the aorist [Greek] refers to the incarnation. The tense itself, however, says nothing whatever about the length of time in which the indicated action took place, nor does it tell us when it took place. In the immediately preceding context (verse 21), however, there was a reference to the Father's sovereign good pleasure ([Greek]) regarding the revelation of the matter of salvation to babes. This good pleasure (same word in the original), used in a similar connection, is by Paul linked with the election and foreordination in Christ that took place before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4, 5). What was decided from all eternity was realized in timeEph. 1:7ff. . It would seem, therefore, that also here in Luke 10:22it is not necessary or even advisable to connect the action indicated by [Greek] with one particular moment in Christ's existence, for example, with the incarnation. The entire process what happened in eternity, at the incarnation, at the baptism, and even later may well be indicated by the verb. The use of the aorist is no obstacle. See also N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, p. 125, footnote 64. [Greek], third per. s. pres. subjunct. of [Greek], with the Son as subject. The meaning of the verb is: to be willing. 10:25–37 The Parable of The Samaritan Who Cared 25 And behold, a certain law-expert stood up to test him. Teacher, he asked, What must I do to inherit^[372] everlasting life? 26 He answered, What is written in the law? How do you read (it)? 27 He answered, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself. 28 Jesus replied, You have answered correctly; keep on doing this, and you shall live. 29 But he, wishing to justify himself, said, And who is my neighbor? 30 Taking him up on this, Jesus said: A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers. They stripped him, struck him blow upon blow, and went off, leaving him half dead. 31 Now a priest happened to be going^[373] down that road, but when he saw him, passed by on the opposite side. 32 So too a Levite came to the place, and when he saw him passed by on the opposite side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came down to him, and upon seeing him his heart went out to him. 34 So he approached him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he mounted the man on his own beast, took him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper and said, Take care of him, and whatever more you spend I myself will duly repay you when I return. 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into (the hands of) the robbers? 37 The law-expert replied, The man who took pity on him. Jesus said to him, Go and keep on doing likewise. A. A preliminary conversation between Jesus and a law-expert The connection, if any, between the immediately preceding account (10:21–24) and the one here introduced is unclear. In the Summary (p. 533) a mere possibility has been suggested. It is true that a digest of the law, similar to the one found here in verse 27, also occurs in Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:29 31, but the two accounts Matthew-Mark's and Luke's do not describe the same incident: a. In Matthew-Mark it is Jesus himself who summarizes the law; in Luke the law-expert does this. b. In Matthew-Mark the summary is given in answer to the question, Which is the great commandment in the law? In Luke it is given in response to, What is written in the law? How do you read (it)? c. In Matthew-Mark Jesus has something good to say about the scribe. In Luke the description given with respect to the law-expert is not nearly as favorable. d. The incident reported in Matthew-Mark occurred on Tuesday of Passion Week; the one related here in Luke occurred earlier. 25. And behold, a certain law-expert stood up to test him. Teacher, he asked, What must I do to inherit everlasting life? Though certainty is lacking with respect to the precise circumstances that gave rise to this question, the following reconstruction is probably not wide of the mark: Jesus has been teaching the people. Before he leaves, a law-expert rises. For a description of the group to which he belonged see on 5:17. Supposedly well-versed in the Pentateuch, this man attempts to embarrass Jesus. He tries to show him up before the public. It is clear both from verse 25 and verse 29 that this man's motives were far from honorable. The question he asked must have sounded innocent, commendable even: What must I do to inherit [or: obtain possession of] everlasting life? Everlasting life, how beautiful the term, and how superlatively precious the essence indicated by it! It refers to the kind of life that is not only endless in duration but also priceless in quality. It embraces such treasures as the love of God shed abroad in our hearts (Rom. 5:5), the peace of God that surpasses all understanding (Phil. 4:7), joy inexpressible and full of glory (I Peter 1:8), and fellowship with God the Father and with his Son (John 17:3). It is not suggested that this law-expert was aware of the full significance of the term he used, but it must be admitted that he was making inquiries about a most important matter. On the other hand, does not the very fact that everlasting life is such a glorious commodity make a wrongly motivated question about it all the more reprehensible? 26. He answered, What is written in the law? How do you read (it)? Note how marvelously Jesus parries the question. Instead of answering it, he asks the lawyer a counter-question. By implication he is also immediately informing the questioner that he, Jesus, is not teaching a new doctrine; he is adhering strictly to the basic principles of God's holy law. Cf. Matt. 5:17. 27. He answered, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself. The law-expert's answer was a correct restatement of Deut. 6:5and Lev. 19:18. These passages imply that the very essence of all true religion is love, outgoingness; that this love must have both God and the neighbor as its objects; that in relation to God it must be exercised by all the faculties with which God has gifted man, and must be wholehearted note the fourfold with all and that with respect to the neighbor it must be neither less in extent than nor inferior in quality to the love for self. 28. Jesus replied, You have answered correctly; keep on doing this, and you shall live. The answer is clear. If any human being would actually fulfil this law of love to perfection, he would indeed obtain everlasting life. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XI Outline of Chapter 11 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 11:1–13 Christ's Teaching on Prayer including The Lord's Prayer and The Parable of The Troubled Host 11:14–23 Christ's Miracles: Proof of Beelzebul's Dominion or of His Doom? 11:24–26 The Parable of The Return of The Unclean Spirit 11:27, 28 True Blessedness 11:29–32 The Craving for Signs Rebuked 11:33–36 The Light of the Body 11:37–54 Six Woes 11:1–13 Christ's Teaching on Prayer 11 1 Now it happened that while he was in a certain place, engaged in prayer, when he stopped, one of his disciples said to him, Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples. 2 He answered, When you pray, say: Father, Hallowed be thy name, Thy kingdom come. 3 Give us each day our daily bread; 4 And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive every one who is indebted to us; And lead us not into temptation. 5 Then he said to them, Who of you shall have a friend, and shall go to him at midnight and say, Friend, lend me three bread-cakes, 6 because a friend of mine, on a journey, has come to me,^[377] and I have nothing to offer him; 7 and he from inside shall answer, Don t bother me; the door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed; I can t get up and give you (anything)? Suppose one of you has a friend, and goes to him at midnight, and says, Friend, lend me three bread-cakes, 6 because a friend of mine, on a journey, has come to me,^[377] and I have nothing to offer him; 7 then will the one inside answer, Don t bother me; the door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed; I can t get up and give you (anything)? 8 I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him (anything) because he is his friend,^[378] yet, because of the man's persistence, he will get up and give him whatever he needs. 9 So I say to you, Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. 10 For whoever asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to him who knocks, it shall be opened.^[379] 11 What father is there among you who, when his son asks him for a fish, will give him a serpent? 12 Or also (if the son) asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If, therefore, you, evil though you are, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him! Loving the neighbor (10:25–37), listening to the Lord's words (10:38–42), and now praying (11:1–13), these clearly belong together. The present section has two subdivisions: (a) The Lord's Prayer (verses 1 4) and (b) The Parable of The Troubled Host (verses 5 13). A. The Lord's Prayer 1. Now it happened that while he was in a certain place, engaged in prayer, when he stopped, one of his disciples said to him, Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples. With respect to both place and time Luke is very indefinite. For a possibility see above, p. 544. It is certain that at least one of Christ's disciples was so deeply impressed with the manner in which Jesus prayed that he said to him, Lord, teach us to pray, and he added, just as John taught his disciples. Who this disciple was we do not know. It has been suggested that he may have been a member of that larger group of Christ's followers who did not belong to the company of The Twelve. The existence of this much larger group is clear from several passages, including (Luke 6:13. He may even have been one of the seventy-two specially appointed missionariesLuke 10:1 12, 17 20). On the other hand, the possibility that this disciple was one of The Twelve must not be excluded. As to the manner in which The Lord's Prayer, as recorded here in Luke 11:2 4, differs from the earlier one found in Matt. 6:9 13(part of The Sermon on the Mount), this becomes clear when the two versions are placed side by side: The Lord's Prayer in Matt. 6:9 13and in Luke 11:2 4 Matthew Luke Invocation Our Father who art in heaven, Father, First Petition Hallowed be thy name, Hallowed be thy name, Second Petition Thy kingdom come, Thy kingdom come. Third Petition Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth. Fourth Petition Give us this day our daily bread; Give us each day our daily bread; Fifth Petition And forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors, And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive every one who is indebted to us; Sixth Petition And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. And lead us not into temptation. Conclusion [For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.] It is clear that the prayer as recorded in Luke is shorter than the one included in The Sermon on the Mount. In the Third Gospel the invocation or address consists of just one word, Father. By the omission of the third petition ( Thy will be done, etc.) the number of petitions has been reduced from six to five. The reason for the omission is probably that Matthew's third petition is essentially included in the second, for how can the Father's kingdom be established in the hearts and lives of men unless his will is being obeyed? For a similar reason the second clause of Matthew's sixth petition is omitted in Luke; for it, too, is implied in the immediately preceding line. In what in Matthew is the fifth petition the word debts has in Luke been changed to sins, and the next clause has been reworded, though not with any essential change in meaning. Finally, Luke's version has no conclusion or closing doxology. This variety is pleasing. It teaches us that it was never Christ's intention to demand that time after time exactly the same words be spoken. Certainly the exhortation, 2. He answered, When you pray, say, here in Luke, suggests that, for a start, these very words may be used. But in The Sermon on the Mount Jesus said, This, then, is how you should pray. This shows that The Lord's Prayer is essentially the model prayer. It should serve as a model or pattern for our devotions. As to the meaning of the prayer, see the full interpretation in N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 324–340. Here, in the treatment of Luke 11:1 4, it is not necessary to repeat all this. A summary should suffice. Some writers are of the opinion that the prayer's primary reference is to matters that pertain to the end of the age; in other words, that the prayer is eschatological in character. Thus Thy kingdom come would mean, May Israel be delivered from its enemies, and by a single divine act may this age be ended. Similarly Lead us not into temptation would mean, Grant that we may be delivered from Satan's final onslaught. ^[380] However, in the language used by Jesus, whether as recorded by Matthew or by Luke, there is nothing that suggests this unnatural meaning and application. Briefly, then, the sense is as follows: 1. Father. This shows that the prayer is for believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, apart from faith in whom no one can come to the Father (John 14:6). Accordingly, the believer begins his prayer in the humble and cheering consciousness that God is his Father, and that he, the suppliant, is that Father's child and heir (Rom. 8:15–17; Gal. 4:6, 7). 2. Hallowed be thy name. The name represents the being; in this case God himself, viewed as he has revealed himself in his work of creation and redemption. By uttering this petition the person who by grace has been brought into fellowship with the Father calls upon everyone to share this experience with him and to exalt this glorious God. He is saying, as it were, O magnify Jehovah with me, and let us exalt his name together (Ps. 34:3). 3. Thy kingdom come. Meaning: May thy rule be established more and more, both extensively and intensively, in order that thy will may be done on earth as it is in heaven. 4. Give us each day our daily bread. Meaning: Since we are in constant need, continue to supply us, day by day, with the portion needed for the day in being. Here bread indicates whatever is necessary to sustain physical life. Note our bread. Cf. Gal. 6:10. 5. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive every one who is indebted to us. Meaning: not that our forgiving disposition earns God's pardon; rather, God's pardoning grace is based solely on Christ's merits graciously applied to us. Thus our sins are laid upon Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. See Isa. 54:4–6; Rom. 3:24; II Cor. 5:20, 21; Eph. 1:7; Rev. 7:14. But an unforgiving heart is not in a condition that can accept forgiveness. 6. And lead us not into temptation. Meaning: If it be thy will, do not permit us, weak as we are and prone to sin, to enter into situations which in the normal course of events would expose us to temptation and to a possible fall; but whatever be thy way with us, deliver us from the evil one. Grant that we may remain watchful at all times, and that at last we may triumph completely. See Eph. 5:15, 16; II Thess. 1:11, 12; I Tim. 6:11–16. B. The parable of The Troubled Host The structure of verses 5 7 presents a problem. All agree that Jesus starts out by asking a question, namely, Who of you shall &? However, as concerns the continuation, it has been stated that the interrogation is lost in the prolongation of the sentence (E. Plummer, op. cit., p. 298). It is for this reason that many translators (N.A.S., Williams, N.E.B., N.I.V., Robertson, Moffatt) begin their translation with Suppose, and omit the question mark entirely. That is one way of treating the problem. Others, again, favor a more literal rendering, beginning with Which of you.& They place a question mark at the end of verse 6. Thus A.V. and Weymouth. And still others regard verses 5 7 as a unit and as being one long rhetorical question. Accordingly, they place the question mark at the close of verse 7. Thus A.R.V., R.S.V., Beck, Lenski, Geldenhuys, Harrington, etc. Without implying that the first two methods are wrong, I, too, am following this last course. I do so because: (a) The unit is introduced as a question, with Who of you &placed at the beginning. (b) The question Jesus is asking, the situation he pictures, does not end with the last word of verse 6. It very definitely includes verse 7; in fact the emphasis is on that verse. (c) In verse 8 Jesus answers his own question, the question of verses 5 7. This too indicates that he viewed verses 5 7 as a unit, a single, indivisible question. Even so, there are two possible renderings, one, the more literal, for which see the left column on p. 607; the other, less literal but perhaps somewhat easier to the ear, shown in the right column. From here on I shall follow the right column. 1. A man facing a midnight emergency 5, 6. Then he said to them, Suppose one of you has a friend, and goes to him at midnight, and says, Friend, lend me three bread-cakes, because a friend of mine, on a journey, has come to me, and I have nothing to offer him & It is late in the evening. Suddenly a friend appears at your door. He is tired from the trip he has been making. In order to escape the heat of the day he has been traveling at night. But now, tired and hungry, he stops at your house. He expects hospitality: food and lodging. But there is no more food in the house. The cupboard is bare. So in your predicament you go to another friend of yours. When you arrive at his home it is midnight. You awaken him and say, My friend, kindly lend me three [flat, round] bread-cakes, because a friend of mine stopped in and I have nothing to set before him. 2. Will his friend refuse to help him? 7. then will the one inside answer, Don t bother me; the door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed; I can t get up and give you (anything)? The meaning is somewhat as follows: Will the man who, bedded in for the night in this one-room house, and now suddenly awakened, then answer, Stop pestering me. Don t you realize that my children are sound asleep, lying here on their mats? If I get up, walk across the floor, and remove the huge bolting bar from the door, the hubbub will scare them out of their sleep. Sorry, but I just can t get up to give you anything. Jesus asks, Is that how the friend is going to react? 3. Christ's answer We can already anticipate Christ's answer to his own question. It will be along this line, The one inside will definitely not say& I can t get up.& Or (shaping the answer in accordance with the question in the left column on p. 613) the answer will be, None of you will receive such a refusal from a friend to whom you go for help. All this is, of course, implied. But the actual answer Jesus gives is even better, for it is phrased positively, as follows: 8. I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him (anything) because he is his friend, yet because of the man's persistence,^[381] he will get up and give him whatever he needs. Jesus says that the friend will certainly get up and give this person the three bread-cakes for which he asked; in fact, he will give him whatever he needs. As to the donor's motive, that's another question. Perhaps he gives because he is a true and sympathetic friend. But if not, then he gives because the other man keeps on asking. Some people might be ashamed to repeat their request, but not this man. The point is this: if even an earthly friend would certainly extend help, whatever be his motive, then will not the heavenly Father, about whose motivation there can be no question, generously answer our petitions? 4. The parable's lesson 9, 10. So I say to you, Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For whoever asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to him who knocks, it shall be opened. Jesus here continues to emphasize the effectiveness of prayer. Linked with this is another lesson, namely, the importance of perseverance in prayer. It is not surprising therefore that the words of Matt. 7:7, 8are now repeated. A threefold exhortation accompanies a threefold promise. The threefold exhortation is as follows: ask, seek, knock. Note also the emphatic So I say to you which here in Luke begins the sentence. First, then, the words of command or exhortation: Ask, seek, KNOCK. Clearly the three are arranged in a rising scale of intensity. Ask Asking implies humility and a consciousness of need. The verb is used with respect to a petition which is addressed by an inferior to a superior. The Pharisee of the parable (Luke 18:10 13) asks nothing. He tells the Lord how good he is. The publican asks, that is, pleads, God be merciful to me, the sinner. Asking also presupposes belief in a personal God with whom man can have fellowship. When one asks, he expects an answer. Hence, this implies faith in a God who can, does, and will answer, that is, faith in God the Father. Having such a faith makes the prayer warm and personal. Such a supplicant would not be able to say, O God, if there be a God, save my soul if I have a soul. Seek Seeking is asking plus acting. It implies earnest petitioning, but that alone is not sufficient. A person must be active in endeavoring to obtain the fulfilment of his needs. For example, one should not only pray for a deep knowledge of the Bible but should also diligently search and examine the Scriptures (John 5:39; Acts 17:11), attend the services (Heb. 10:25), above all strive to live in harmony with God's will (Matt. 7:21, 24, 25; cf. John 7:17). Knock Knocking is asking plus acting plus persevering. One knocks again and again until the door is opened. In reality, however, perseverance is probably already implied in all three imperatives, since all are in the present tense; hence, a possible rendering would be continue to ask, to seek, to knock. This all the more in view of Luke 18:1, 7; cf. Rom. 12:12; Ephesians 5:20; 6:18; Col. 4:2; I Thess. 5:17. But what is probable for all three is a certainty with respect to the last, the very idea of biblical knocking already implying perseverance. One continues to knock at the door of the kingdom-palace until the King, who is at the same time the Father, opens the door and supplies whatever is needed. As to the promise that is fulfilled when the command is obeyed, in each instance the correspondence between command and promise is exact: hence, ask is followed by given; seek by find; and knock by opened. Note that in verses 9 and 10 this promise, in one form or another, occurs no less than six times. The first three promises, those of verse 9, are virtually repeated in verse 10, and even strengthened by the introductory word whoever, the inclusiveness of which is re-emphasized by the one who and to him who, as if to say: of those who obey the command not a single one will be disappointed. An answer to the kind of prayer that is accompanied by seeking and knocking is promised to every sincere follower of the Lord. The certainty that persevering prayer accompanied by the activity of faith will be rewarded is strengthened by an argument from the less to the greater. Though in essence the argument as worded in Matthew is similar to that in Luke, the form differs somewhat, as follows: Matt. 7:9 11Luke 11:11 13 Or what man is there among you, who, when his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or also (if the son) asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If, therefore, you, evil though you are, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! What father is there among you who, when his son asks him for a fish, will give him a serpent? Or also (if the son) asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If therefore, you, evil though you are, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him! For points of grammar, etc., see the notes on these verses on page 616. If a son asks his father for a fish, the father will certainly not give him a snake! Or if the son asks for an egg, it is inconceivable that the father would instead give him a dreadful scorpion, with stinging tail that pricks its victim into insensibility. Now if even an earthly father, though by nature evil (Ps. 51:1–5; 130:3; Isa. 1:6; Jer. 17:9; John 3:3, 5; Rom. 3:10; Eph. 2:1), provides his children with nothing but good things, and not with things that could harm them, how much more will not the heavenly Father lit. the Father from heaven who is free from all evil and is, in fact, the source of all goodness, give &what? Here Matthew's version has good gifts, while Luke's has the Holy Spirit. These two are in perfect accord, for is not the Holy Spirit the very Source of all that is good? Significantly both Matthew and Luke end the sentence with to those who ask him, thus beautifully re-emphasizing the main thrust of the entire passage, namely, Ask, and it shall be given to you &whoever asks receives!^[382] Practical Lessons Derived from 11:1–13 Verse 1 Lord, teach us to pray. Which of the following is right? Or wrong? a. Children should memorize a prayer and then pray it over and over again; b. We should not assist children to pray, but allow them to pray their own prayers; c. Any other suggestion? Verse 2 When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be thy name. The notable prayers recorded in Scripture have this in common, that in all of them God's glory is the ultimate aim. See, for example, the prayers of Solomon (I Kings 8:23–53), David (Ps. 51), Agur (Prov. 30:7–9), Daniel (Dan. 9:4–19), Paul (Eph. 3:14–21), and most of all, Jesus Christ himself (John 11:41, 42; John 17). Verses 2 4 The Lord's Prayer. What gives this prayer its power? It ne er says mine but our. Why does it grip me thus? It ne er says me but us. What may its beauty be? It ne er says I but we. It humbles me, but why? It ne er says my but thy. Does the element of truth certainly embodied in these poetic lines need modification? Verses 5 7 The parable. The lesson this parable teaches is so powerful and striking because with God it is never midnight; he never lacks anything; he is never bothered when any humble child approaches him; and he is never taken by surprise. Verse 13 How much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit. People sometimes complain because God did not give them exactly what they asked. But did they ask for the Holy Spirit and the grace he imparts, grace sufficient to cause us to rejoice in the midst of our sorrows and afflictions? Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 11:1–13 Verses 1 and 2 [Greek] &[Greek], periphrastic pres. (durative) infinitive. [Greek], pres. infinitive of [Greek], to pray. [Greek], sec. per. pl. pres. subjunct. (after [Greek]). [Greek], third per. s. aor. imperat. pass. of [Greek], to consecrate, sanctify, hallow, set apart to be revered. The aor. is timeless; this is true also with respect to [Greek], third per. s. 2nd aor. imperat. of [Greek]. Verse 3 For the meaning of [Greek] see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 332, 333. Note [Greek], pres., hence request for continued giving, where Matthew has [Greek], aor., emphasis on giving as such. Verse 4 [Greek], sec. per. s. 2nd aor. imperat. of [Greek]; see the note on 6:42 on page 364. [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. act. subjunct. (in a prohibition) of [Greek]. As is generally true, the exact meaning of the verb and its translation into English depend on the specific context in which it is used; in the case of [Greek] the result will be about as follows: a. to lead, bring, or carry into (Matt. 6:13; Luke 11:4; I Tim. 6:7; Heb. 13:11). b. to bring to (Acts 17:20). c. to bring or carry in (Luke 5:18, 19). d. to drag in (Luke 12:11). For the construction of verses 5 7 see p. 610. [Greek] and [Greek] are deliberative future indicatives; and [Greek] (both here and in verse 7) is a deliberative aor. subjunctive. [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. imperat. of [Greek], to lend. However, the verb here used differs in meaning from [Greek] (Luke 6:34, 35), to lend money, generally in order to earn interest on it. Illustrations of the verb used here in (Luke 11:5are I Sam. 1:28I Kings 1:28), where Hannah is said to have lent her child (Samuel) to the Lord; and Josephus, Jewish War III.359, We will lend you a right hand and a sword. Verse 6 [Greek], to me, or to my house. Verse 7 [Greek]; Don t bother me; literally: Do not cause troubles [or difficulties] for me. The verb is sec. per. s. imperat. act. of [Greek], to bring about, cause. [Greek], third per. s. perf. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to close, lock, shut. Cf. verse 52, where the acc. of [Greek], key, is used. Cf. clef. Verse 8 [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek]. [Greek] = a sense of shame; so [Greek] means lack of a sense of shame, shamelessness; here: in making requests; and so, persistence, perseverance. [Greek], third per. s. pres. indicat. of [Greek], to need, want; cf. [Greek], useful, good, gracious. Note chrestomathy (a collection of passages useful for learning). Verses 9, 10 [Greek], sec. per. pl. pres. imperat. of [Greek], to knock (at a gate or door); [Greek], dat. s. masc. pres. participle. [Greek] = to him who knocks. For the verb [Greek] see the note on 1:64 on page 120. Here in (Luke [Greek] is third per. s. 2nd fut. pass of [Greek], to open; and in verse 10 [Greek] is third per. pres. indicat pass. of the same verb. It is possible, however, that in verse 10, as in verse 9, the reading [Greek]. 7:7, 8) is correct. Verses 11, 12 Note the anacoluthon: [Greek] is the object of his son asks; and the unmentioned but implied [Greek] is the subject of will give him. [Greek], egg. Cf. ovum, ovary. The longer (three contrasts) reading, reflected in A.V., probably resulted from conflation with Matthew's text. Verse 13 The Father from heaven is the heavenly Father. Heaven is his dwelling place, and it is from there that he pours down his blessings. 11:14–23 Christ's Miracles: Proof of Beelzebul's Dominion or of His Doom? Cf. Matt. 12:22–30; <a href="/bible/parallel/MRK/3/22" class="green-link">Mark 3:22 27 14 And Jesus was expelling a demon who had deprived a man of the power of speech.^[383] When the demon had gone out, the man who had been deprived of the power of speech spoke, and the crowds were amazed. 15 But some people said, It is by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, that he casts out demons. 16 Others, tempting (him), were demanding of him a sign from heaven. 17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, Any kingdom divided against itself is on the way to ruin, and a house divided against a house fails. 18 Moreover, if Satan is divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? (I say this) because you are asserting that I expel demons by Beelzebul. 19 Now if it is by Beelzebul that I cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 20But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 21 When a strong man, armed to the teeth, guards his own house, his possessions are secure. 22 But when someone (who is) stronger than he comes and overpowers him, he carries off the armor in which the man trusted, and distributes his goods as spoils. 23 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 14. And Jesus was expelling a demon who had deprived a man of the power of speech. When the demon had gone out, the man who had been deprived of the power of speech spoke, and the crowds were amazed. Between the three previous accounts there is a very close connection: being a neighbor to those needy ones who by divine providence have been placed in our path (10:25–37), eagerly listening to the words of the Lord (10:38–42), and, in turn, addressing him in prayer (11:1–13), these three form an unbreakable chain. But now suddenly there seems to be a break. Enters Satan! See what has been said about this apparent lack of connection on p. 534. Perhaps Cowper's familiar lines will assist us in remembering the relation between prayer and the evil one: And Satan trembles when he sees The weakest saint upon his knees. On demon possession and expulsion see what has been said previously (on 4:33). Between the three accounts in which this demon-expulsion is related (see heading) there are no conflicts; that is, none of the three evangelists affirms what one or both of the others deny, or denies what is affirmed by the other(s). There are variations in reporting: Matthew relates that the demoniac had lost the power not only of speech but also of vision; Luke is indefinite about the identity of Christ's attackers; Matthew calls them Pharisees; Mark, scribes. That these three designations are readily reconciled does not need to be demonstrated. For the rest, see N.T.C. on Mark, p. 134, footnote 128. As is clear from the parallel accounts, the demon-expulsion here related occurred during The Great Galilean Ministry. A demoniac was brought to Jesus, who cured him instantly and completely, so that the man who had been grievously afflicted was now no longer demon-possessed. Also, he was able to talk. Unsurprisingly the crowds who witnessed this miracle were astonished. A feeling of amazement, coupled no doubt with a measure of fear in the presence of the One who had performed this miracle, took possession of them. Matthew even reports that the people were saying, Surely, this cannot be the Son of David? However, not all was harmony: 15. But some people said, It is by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, that he casts out demons. As Mark 3:22shows, scribes had come down from Jerusalem. The Great Sanhedrin, with its headquarters at that place, had become worried. It had become clear to that body that Jesus was able to expel demons and to perform other works of power. How was it that he had this power? By this time the Jewish authorities had become well aware of the fact that on some points which they regarded as important Jesus teaching was not in line with theirs. So they must have drawn the conclusion that the mysterious powers exercised by the prophet of Galilee were anything but God-given; no doubt they were satanic. An investigation was certainly in order, so they thought. They seem not to have considered the possibility that they might be mistaken about the source of the Nazarene's power. Now they had come from Jerusalem to prove their theory, namely, that what was going on in Galilee was the work of Beelzebul. Soon after they arrived on the scene, they were pronouncing their verdict, It is by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, that he casts out demons. But who was Beelzebul? To discover the answer we must go back to the Old Testament. It was as Baal-zebub (II Kings 1:2, 3, 6) that Baal was worshiped at Ekron. King Ahaziah, who sent messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub whether he would recover from the results of his fall, was told that because of this disloyalty to Jehovah he would die. The New Testament passages substitute Beel[=Baal]zebul for -zebub. Beelzebul means lord of the dwelling. The reason for the change in spelling is not clear. It may have amounted to no more than an accident of popular pronunciation. Another explanation is that there is here a play on words, for -zebul resembles zebel: dung. Thus, those who despised the Baal of Ekron were able, by means of a slight change in pronunciation, to heap scorn upon him by conveying the thought that he was nothing but a lord of dung. But, however this may be, in New Testament usage Beelzebul is definitely the prince of the demons, as Luke 11:15, 18proves. Beelzebul is Satan. What these men are saying, then, is this: Not God but the devil has given Jesus the power to cast out demons. Mark's parallel account even adds a second charge, namely, He has Beelzebul, that is, He is possessed by Beelzebul, by Satan. Cf. John 7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20. It is indeed hard to understand how the very One who became incarnate in order to heal the oppressed (Acts 10:38), to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10), and who, in order to achieve his purpose, was willing to undergo agonies that are beyond human description and comprehension, was by these religious experts described as being possessed by Satan and as performing miracles, including that of expelling demons, by Beelzebul's power. That this terrible hatred continued for some time among the Jews, especially among their leaders, is clear from an examination of the sources mentioned in the following footnote.^[384] In the brief summary here given, the books and articles to which reference is made are listed in the note. Both Justin Martyr (ch. 117) and Eusebius (Book II, ch. 3) make mention of the phenomenal growth of the church during the apostolic and post-apostolic era. It is easy to understand that this fact did not please the Jews. They did not deny the reality of the miracles Jesus had performed, but ascribed them to magic, sorcery, help furnished by Satan. See, for example, the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43a (Baraitha), and Justin Martyr, ch. 69. They regarded the fact that Jesus was crucified as proving that God had rejected him (Matt. 27:43). This hostile attitude of the Jews toward Jesus is also clear from their view of the minim, that is, those of their own race who had become Christians. (See minim titles in footnote.) In this connection something should be said about the Shemoneh Esreh. The word means eighteen, in the present context referring to the eighteen-item prayer, according to tradition composed by the men of The Great Synagogue. It was intended to be prayed three times a day. It is a very impressive prayer, beginning and ending with Blessed art thou, Lord. In this prayer the worshiper not only praises God for blessings received, but also asks for an increase in the knowledge of his law, for forgiveness of sin, healing, peace, favor to be bestowed on proselytes, etc. But what happened to this prayer? It was soon felt that it should contain an imprecation against the minim. The following formula was adopted, May the Nazarenes and the minim perish and be exterminated in a moment. The inclusion of this item gave rise to the remark of Justin Martyr, in your synagogues you curse those who believe in Christ (ch. 16; cf. ch. 96). So intense was this Jewish hostility toward Jesus and his followers that, while it was willing to overlook the error of the synagogue leader who, in reciting the Shemoneh Esreh, inadvertently skipped one or two petitions, it ruled that he who skipped the imprecation touching the minim must lose his position. It is only fair to state that in the course of the centuries this terrible item was gradually modified, so that today no one surely can find fault with the petition, May all wickedness vanish. The terrible words, It is by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, that he casts out demons, show how intensely these critics hated Jesus. They despised him because of the crowds that were always gathering around him; because he claimed divine prerogatives; did not honor their traditions about the sabbath, fasts, and ablutions; associated with publicans and sinners; exerted what they considered a baneful influence upon the people; and was their opposite. To be sure, not all the Pharisees and scribes hated Jesus, but many did. In their heart of hearts Christ's enemies must have realized that Jesus was infinitely better than they were. His humility (Luke 22:27) stood in sharp contrast with their pomposity (Matt. 23:5–7); his sincerity (John 8:46) with their hypocrisy (Mark 7:6); his sympathy (Luke 7:13) with their cruelty (Matt. 23:13). 16. Others, tempting (him), were demanding of him a sign from heaven. They demanded a sign, as if the double miracle triple, according to (Matt. 12:22was insufficient evidence in support of the question asked by some of the people, Could this be the Son of David?Matt. 12:23). Who were these sign-seekers? Answer: Some of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 12:38). What did they want? That he would cause fire to come down from heaven? Unwilling to acknowledge that God's great Sign (Luke 2:34; 11:29, 30) was standing in their very midst, they asked for a sign! In fact, they were always asking for signs (I Cor. 1:22) &and wondering how to destroy the Sign by God sent down from heaven to earth! Christ's answer to their demand is found in 11:29–32. For the present Jesus annihilates their wicked assertion: It is by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, that he casts out demons. His refutation of their contention is found in verses 17 22. Luke's report of this answer begins as follows: 17 20. But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, Any kingdom divided against itself is on the way to ruin, and a house divided against a house fails. Moreover, if Satan is divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? (I say this) because you are asserting that I expel demons by Beelzebul. Now if it is by Beelzebul that I cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Jesus knew exactly what was going on in the minds of his critics. Cf. 5:22; 6:8; 9:47; John 2:25; 21:17. He then, in substance, answers them as follows: a. If what you say were true, Satan would be destroying his own work. No kingdom divided against itself survives. No house or family either.Matt. 12:46, 47; John 7:5. But see also Acts 1:14. Clearly the family of Jesus did not remain divided, mother against brothers, but became united at last. Jesus argument continues as follows: b. It is inconsistent for you, my critics, on the one hand to approve of the work your sons probably followers are doing when they presumably cast out demons, and, on the other hand, to condemn my demon-expulsions. Will not your sons, sensing this inconsistency, be your judges? c. The very fact that the envoys of Satan, God's archenemy, are being expelled proves that it is by God's finger his power (Exod. 8:19) that I am driving them out. It shows that God's royal dominion has reached you, that here and now the divine sovereignty is revealing itself in works of power and mercy. The Savior's argument continues as follows: 21, 22. When a strong man, armed to the teeth, guards his own house, his possessions are secure. But when someone (who is) stronger than he comes and overpowers him, he carries off the armor in which the man trusted, and distributes his goods as spoils. Here Jesus compares Satan to a fully-armed, strong man. As long as no one attacks this powerful tyrant he is secure in the possession of the souls and bodies of his demon-possessed victims. But when Someone who is stronger than he overpowers him, the Stronger One renders him powerless as far as his victims are concerned. The armor in which he had placed his trust is carried away by the victor. The Stronger One is Jesus himself. See Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:7, 8; Luke 3:16. In the desert of temptation had he not proved himself to be indeed mightier than the tempter? The Stronger One, having conquered, distributes the goods formerly Satan's, but now Christ's as spoils. Here Ps. 68:18(LXX 69:19) comes to our mind. That is the passage of which Paul, in Eph. 4:8–10, makes such excellent use. See N.T.C. on Ephesians, pp. 189–191. The spoils are distributed. They become gifts to men. A good illustration is found in (Luke 8:38, 39Mark 5:19, 20). That passage too, like verse 14 here in Luke, concerns a man who a little earlier was a demoniac. It reads as follows: Now the man from whom the demons had gone out kept begging to go with him. But Jesus sent him away, saying, Return home, and tell what great things God has done for you. So he went away, proclaiming all over town what great things Jesus had done for him. That man, previously numbered among Satan's goods, became one of the gifts distributed by Christ. The preceding has made very plain that Jesus and his critics are diametrically opposed. The critics are saying, It is by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, that he casts out demons. But there are other people in the audience who are wondering whether Jesus could perhaps be the Christ (Matt. 12:23). Are there also some who would like to be on the side of both Jesus and his critics? Or on neither side? Is neutrality possible? That question is answered with a strong negative in verse 23. He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. In the struggle between Christ and Satan neutrality is impossible. See also Matt. 12:30; Mark 9:40. If a person is not on the side of Christ, he is down on, that is, against Christ. Compromise fails. When the sons of God marry the daughters of men, the result is the Flood (Gen. 6:1, 2, 13). When King Saul brings God an offering of partial obedience, he is rejected (I Sam. 15:1–23). By subordinating the true religion of Jehovah to selfish political interests Jeroboam brings a curse upon himself, his family, and his nation (I Kings 12:25–30; 13:4, 5; 14:6–16). And when Peter, in a moment of weakness, compromises the doctrine of salvation solely by grace, he deserves the rebuke administered by Paul (Gal. 2:11–21). The policy of fearing Jehovah and worshiping one's own gods (II Kings 17:33) never succeeds. Joshua knew this (Josh. 24:15), and so did Elijah (I Kings 18:21). Moreover, the sinister policy of half-covenanting with the world, the attempt to compromise, confuses and therefore scatters the sheep (Matt. 9:36); while steadfast loyalty gathers them (Isa. 40:11; John 10:16). For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 632–635. 11:24–26 The Parable of The Return of the Unclean Spirit Cf. Matt. 12:43–45 24 Now when the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it wanders through waterless places, seeking rest; and, finding none, it says, I will return to my house that I left. 25 It goes and finds it swept clean and put in order. 26 Then it goes and fetches^[385] seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they come and live there. And the final condition of that person becomes worse than the former. Verse 24 may seem to introduce an entirely new subject. More probable, however, is the theory according to which the entire rather lengthy section, beginning with verse 14 and extending at least through verse 36 and in a sense even to the end of the chapter, forms a unit. In verse 16 some people are asking for a sign; not until verse 29 does Jesus reflect on this request. Also (Luke 11:14, 15speaks about a demon and demons, and verse 24 similarly about the unclean spirit. Finally, in an almost exact parallelMatt. 12:43–45) and its context the expression evil generation occurs in both verse 39 and verse Luke 11:29 ().^[386] With this as background, we arrive at the conclusion that the gist of (Luke 11:24 26, in its context, is this: Some people Pharisees, scribes, and their followers have accused Jesus of being allied with Satan, even of being demon-possessedMark 3:22; cf. John 7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20). Jesus is now stating that these enemies are themselves repossessed, and not just by one but by eight demons. Religiously things had not always been as bad as they were now. There had been a time when the positive note, Be converted, sounded by John the Baptist, had gained many followers (Matt. 3:5; Luke 3:7). A little later the same admonition proceeding from the lips of Jesus (Matt. 4:17), together with his other very positive teaching, had been greeted with enthusiasm (John 3:26). It may have seemed for a while as if a demon had been driven out of the Israel of that day. But under the influence of scribes and Pharisees, envious men, the picture was even now rapidly changing. At this very moment these wicked leaders are plotting Christ's destruction (Matt. 12:14). And at last the Jewish people as represented in front of the cross will cry out, Crucify, crucify (Matt. 27:20–23; Luke 23:21, 23). They will do so prompted by their leaders (John 19:6, 15, 16). The one demon was being replaced by eight. Understood in this light, the illustration Jesus uses becomes clear. The connection is seen to be very close. 24, 25. Now when the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it wanders through waterless places, seeking rest; and, finding none, it says, I will return to my house that I left. It goes and finds it swept clean and put in order. Questions arise; for example, Why is this unclean spirit described as wandering through waterless places? Possible answer: If we are accustomed to associate the good angels with places in which order, beauty, and fulness of life prevail, does it not seem natural to link evil angels with regions where disorder, desolation, and death dominate? And what about the house that is left empty? That kind of condition may well describe Israel during the days of the Baptist's active ministry and shortly thereafter. Many people seem to have been scared of the axe already lying at the root of the tree. They were frightened sufficiently to accept baptism, and were perhaps even willing to stop committing some of their gross sins. But harmlessness is not the same as holiness. An empty house is not a warm, welcoming home. Desisting from doing wrong differs by a whole heaven from being a blessing. What Jesus demands is the entire devotion of the heart, so that it will render spontaneous thanksgiving to God and for his sake will be a blessing to the neighbor. Nothing less than this is required. The fig tree that produces nothing but leaves is cursed even though it produces no rotten fruit (Matt. 21:19). The man who buried his pound (Luke 19:22, 23) is rejected. Those who during the present life have done nothing for the hungry, thirsty, etc., never enter the halls of glory (Matt. 25:41–46). Cf. James 4:6. It was for this very reason that there was bound to be a collision between Jesus and his critics. Kindness began to clash with coldness, broadmindedness with clannishness, outgoingness (love) with selfishness. Moreover, the Pharisees and scribes had their many followers among the people in general. Jesus too had many disciples. As his enemies saw it, that made matters worse. So they hated him even more. Their condition got to be like the one pictured in the parable: the once-possessed individual became repossessed: 26. Then it goes and fetches seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they come and live there. And the final condition of that person becomes worse than the former. Do these words seem rather harsh perhaps? In reality they are not. They reveal the truth. Besides, do we not detect a summons to conversion? See such passages in this chapter as verses 9 13, 20, 23, 28, 32, 35, 41, 42, and the implied warning in this very verse (26b). For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 632–635. 11:27, 28 True Blessedness 27 Now when he was saying these things, a certain woman from the crowd lifted up her voice and said to him, Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed! 28 But he said, Yes, but better still, blessed are those who listen to the word of God and observe it! 27. Now when he was saying these things, a certain woman from the crowd lifted up her voice and said to him, Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed! It is not surprising that it was Luke, he alone, who recorded this exclamation. One of the outstanding characteristics of his Gospel is that again and again it introduces incidents showing with what tenderness and love Jesus treated women, and also, as in the present case, how women responded to him. For details see Introduction, point V D. It is clear that this lady was standing in the audience that had gathered around Jesus. She listened and listened. At last she became so deeply impressed and carried away by the force, truthfulness, and wisdom of his words that the thought struck her: How truly blessed his mother must be! She could not restrain herself. Suddenly, in the hearing of all, she cried out, Blessed is the womb that bore you, etc. Of course, she was right. Had not Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, pronounced a similar blessing on both Mary and the fruit of her womb? See 1:41, 42; cf. verse 48. Yes, what she said was good. It was wonderful &but not complete, as Jesus is about to show: 28. But he said, Yes, but better still, blessed are those who listen to the word of God and observe it! Jesus did not deny what this lady had said. In fact, he confirmed it. But he also broadened its scope and in that sense perfected it. He widened the sphere of true blessedness so as to include not only Mary but all genuine believers. After all, Mary's personal blessedness did not consist exclusively or even primarily in the fact that she had given birth to the Messiah but in this, that she had listened carefully to the word of God and had surrendered herself to his will. Confronted with mystery, she had said to Gabriel, Behold, the handmaid of the Lord. May it be with me according to your word! Though she erred at times (John 2:3, 4), there can be no question of the fact that her faith conquered every obstacle (John 2:5; 19:25; Acts 1:14). And that, after all, is what counts, namely, listening to the word of God and observing it. Thus also Luke 6:47, 48; 8:21; cf. Matt. 7:24; 12:50. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 632–635. On the basis of Matt. 12:23; Luke 11:14b 16, picture the composite 11:29–32 The Craving for Signs Rebuked Note the almost verbal parallel, especially that between Matt. 12:42and Luke 11:31; and that between Matt. 12:41and Luke 11:32. Since this chart appears in a commentary on Luke, its sequence has been followed. Matthew 12 (Mark 8:12) Luke 11 Verse 38 Verse 16 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you. Others, tempting (him), were demanding of him a sign from heaven. Verse 39 Verse 29 Answering, he said to them, An evil and adulterous generation is looking for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except that of Jonah the prophet. Now as the crowds were increasing, he said, This generation is a wicked generation. It seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except that of Jonah. Verse 40 Verse 30 For as Jonah was in the belly of the sea-monster three days and three nights so also shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. For as Jonah became a sign for the Ninevites, so also shall the Son of man be for this generation. Verse 42 Verse 31 The queen of the South shall arise in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it, for she came from the end of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. The queen of the South shall arise in the judgment with the men of this generation and shall condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. Verse 41 Verse 32 Men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; but look, something greater than Jonah is here. Men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; but look, something greater than Jonah is here. scene: A large and constantly increasing crowd surrounds the Savior. Deeply impressed with his miracles, including the double one mentioned in Luke 11:14, some of the people wonder whether Jesus could be the Christ. Scribes and Pharisees, on the contrary, ascribe his miracle-working power to satanic influence. While some are trying their level best to convince the people that this is the solution to the problem of the remarkable things they have been witnessing and about which everybody is talking, others are already urging Jesus to bring about a sign from heaven. And no doubt there were many curious onlookers, wondering what was going to happen next. Whatever it was, they did not wish to miss it. For the explanation of verse 16 see above, p. 620. Then Jesus responded. 29. Now as the crowds were increasing he said, This generation is a wicked generation. It seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except that of Jonah. As to this sign, what the people wanted was something thrilling, exciting, sensational, a sign from heaven. Well, just what did they mean? Did they want Jesus to cause the heavenly constellations to change places in the zodiac? Did they want him to make the Bull (Taurus) catch up with the Giant Hunter (Orion)? Must he perhaps blaze his name across the sky in enormous letters of gold? Was he expected to produce in the sky above them a vision of Michael suddenly leaving his celestial abode and coming forth to deliver the Jews from the galling yoke of the Romans? Their demand was wicked, for in addition to being insulting and impudent it was also hypocritical, for they felt sure that what they had asked Jesus to do he could not do anyway. Jesus begins by calling these sign-seekers wicked. Matthew adds adulterous, that is, unfaithful to Jehovah, Israel's Husband. See Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:8, 20, 21; 31:32; Ezek. 16:35ff.; Hos. 2:1ff., and cf. II Cor. 11:2. Wicked or evil was not too strong a term, for it must be constantly borne in mind that this request for a sign was made (a) at the very moment when a multiple sign had just been performed; (b) in spite of the fact that all kinds of signs miracles of healing, demon-expulsions, even the raising of the dead had already occurred; and (c) all of this and much more for example, those marvelous discourses in clear fulfilment of prophecy! It is not surprising therefore that Jesus refuses to give these enemies, the Pharisees and scribes and their adherents, the sign for which they are asking. He (and the Father in connection with him) will give then his own sign, a sign in which he will triumph completely over them, to their everlasting dismay, namely, the sign of Jonah the prophet, the latter's recovery from the three days and three nights in the belly of the sea-monster. The point is that as Jonah was swallowed up by the sea-monster, so Jesus will be swallowed up by the earth; and as Jonah was delivered from his imprisonment, so also Jonah's great Antitype will arise from the grave. Rescued Jonah and Resurrected Jesus are signs. Luke, however, expresses himself very briefly. On p. 626 cf. Matt. 12:40with Luke 11: 30. For as Jonah became a sign for the Ninevites, so also shall the Son of man be for this generation. The idea of some, namely, that the authentic preaching of the word of God, first by Jonah, later by Jesus, is what Luke has in mind when he speaks of a sign, is clearly inadequate. This is true especially in view of the parallel passage, Matt. 12:40, which cannot be set aside, as if these two evangelists, Matthew and Luke, were referring to different matters. For the Ninevites the sign was clearly the miraculous reappearance of the man thought to be dead. Had he not been cast into the sea during a raging storm, and even swallowed by a great fish? Yet, here he was, alive and well! For Christ's contemporaries the sign was going to be his glorious resurrection; see not only Matt. 12:40but also John 2:18(the request for a sign) and verse 19 (Christ's answer). Though all this is true, there is perhaps an even better way of saying it; at least another way, one which, on the basis of Scripture, must receive recognition. It is this: Jonah and Jesus are themselves signs. Take a good look at rescued Jonah. Does he not signify the amazing power of God, his ability to rescue a man who, in the normal course of events, should certainly have died? And does he not also signify the grace or, if you prefer, love of God, his willingness to use a man who, by going west when God had directed him to go east, and by his attempt to hide from God(!), as if that were possible, had stubbornly defied God's command? And rivet your attention on Christ, resurrected from death! Is not he also a sign? Does he not signify in his very person the might of God? And also his covenant faithfulness to all those precious Messianic prophecies and promises? Read again what was said on p. 126 in explanation of Luke 1:72, 73. Jesus Christ, crucified and then risen from the dead, himself God's Sign! Is not that also what Simeon said in so many words? He said, Mark well, this child is destined &to be a sign. Did not Jesus point away from himself, viewed separately, to The Triune God, his Sender? Or, if one prefers, to the Father, as representing the Trinity? Can one even think The Scribes and Pharisees and The Queen of the South Scribes and Pharisees and Their Followers: The Queen of the South (I Kings 10; II Chron. 9) a. For them the truth is near at hand, within easy reach (Luke 22:53). a. She braved the hardships of a lengthy journey over difficult terrain. She probably came from what today is Yemen, in the southwestern part of the Arabian peninsula, on the Asian shore of the Red Sea, opposite Ethiopia (Africa). Her trip must have covered about 2000 kilometers. b. They have access to One wiser, better, and greater by far than Solomon. b. She came from what was then considered the ends of the earth, to listen to Solomon's wisdom, in connection with the name of the Lord, even though the truth concerning God was but very imperfectly reflected in Solomon. c. They give nothing, but are plotting to take away Christ's very life. c. She gave Solomon of her treasures, an enormous present (I Kings 10:10). d. They have enjoyed many religious advantages. d. She had merely heard reports. e. They have been invited, urged even, to accept Jesus, and the truth in him (Matt. 11:28–30; cf. 22:1–5; Luke 14:15 24). e. It is not reported that she had received any invitation at all. rightly about Jesus, crucified and risen again, without also thinking of God's faithfulness to his covenant promise?^[387] Jesus now continues what he began in verse 29, namely, to emphasize the wickedness of the people of his generation. He does this now by contrasting his own contemporaries with the queen of the South. The reference is to the Queen of Sheba. 31. The queen of the South shall arise in the judgment with the men of this generation and shall condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. Jesus tells his audience that in the final judgment, when this queen will arise alongside the men of his generation who are rejecting him, she will condemn them. In the eyes of the Judge her case will be far more favorable than theirs. Similar is the next contrast: 32. Men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; but look, something greater than Jonah is here. Comparison Between Those Whom Jesus Addresses, and Ninevites Scribes and Pharisees and their followers: Ninevites: See the book of Jonah a. It is the Son of God himself, one greater than Jonah, who addresses them again and again, and bids them to be convertedLuke 5:32; 13:3; etc. . a. It was a minor prophet who preached to them. b. This Christ is completely sinless (John 8:46), filled with wisdom and compassion (Matt. 11:27–30; 15:32; I Cor. 1:24). b. This prophet was a sinful, foolish, and rebellious personJonah 1:3; 4:1–3, 9b . c. He presents the message of grace and pardon, of salvation full and free (Luke 19:10; John 7:37). c. His message was one of doom. Though a call to repentance and conversion was certainly implied, the emphasis was on Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown (Jonah 3:4). d. This message is being fortified by miracles in which prophecy is being fulfilled (Luke 4:16 21; cf. Isa. 35:5, 6; 61:1–3). d. There were no miracles or other authenticating signs to confirm Jonah's message. e. It is being brought to a people who have enjoyed ever so many spiritual advantages (Deut. 4, 7, 8; Ps. 147:19, 20; Isa. 5:1–4; Amos 3:2a; Rom. 3:1, 2; 9:4, 5). e. Jonah's message was addressed to a people with none of the advantages that scribes, Pharisees, and their followers had enjoyed. Yet Ninevites repented; most of the Israelites do not (John 1:11; 12:37). Less enlightened people obeyed less enlightened preaching, but more enlightened people refuse to obey the Light of the world. The question is asked, But was this repentance of Ninevites genuine, that is, unto salvation? The answer, often given, is that it was not, otherwise Nineveh would not have been destroyed. Objection: The destruction of this great city occurred about the year 612 b.c., that is, about a century and a half after Jonah's preaching. It is therefore unjust to charge Ninevites of Jonah's day with the sins of a much later generation. Scripture nowhere claims that the repentance of all Ninevites was genuine, but neither does it leave the impression that none of them were saved; rather the opposite. That there were indeed genuine conversions in Nineveh, perhaps many of them, seems to be implied both in the prophetic book and here in (Luke 11:32. The idea that the repentance of Ninevites was not genuine, that it was merely from vice to virtue, is open to objections: (a) in Luke 10:13 15Nineveh is not included in the list of Old Testament impenitent cities; and (b) if the repentance referred to here in Luke 11:32is not genuine it is hard to explain the statement, Men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it. It should be noted that concerning these men of Nineveh it does not say, as it does in the case of those of Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon, that in the judgment it will be more tolerable for them, but that, like the queen of the SouthLuke 11:31), they shall stand up in the judgment and shall condemn this generation, that is, the generation of the scribes and Pharisees and their followers. Since it is the teaching of Scripture (Dan. 7:22; Matt. 19:28; I Cor. 6:2; Rev. 15:3, 4; 20:4) that God's children are going to participate in the final judgment (for example, by praising God in Christ for his judgments?), this statement of Jesus about the role of certain Ninevites in that Great Assize is understandable, especially if their repentance was genuine. Again the Pharisees and scribes are reminded of the greatness of their sin in rejecting and blaspheming the Christ, the One far more exalted than Jonah. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 632–635. 11:33–36 The Light of the Body Cf. Matt. 5:15; 6:22, 23 33 No one, after lighting a lamp, puts it in a cellar or under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand, in order that those who come in may see the light. 34 Your eye is your body's lamp. When your eye is sound, your whole body will be illumined; when it is in poor condition, your body will also be darkened. 35 Therefore watch out that the light within you may not be darkness. 36 So, if your whole body is full of light, no part of it being darkened, it will be entirely illumined, as when the lamp illumines you with its shining brightness. The resemblance between (Luke 11:33and 8:16Matt. 5:15; Mark 4:21) is apparent at once. But this should present no problem. Why should it be wrong for a speaker to use the same, or a similar, saying on more than one occasion? In the case of Luke 11:33and its parallel in Matthew contextual study even shows that the two passages do not have the same purpose. In the Matthew context the meaning is, Be witnesses. Here in Luke the basic sense is rather, Permit the light to shine into your own hearts. Do not obstruct it. It is true that the broader purpose to allow the light to illumine others is also present. However, as the sequel clearly shows, that is not here the main thought. Besides, a moment's study immediately reveals that the Lucan paragraph harmonizes beautifully with the preceding context. Christ's enemies have been slandering him. They have been saying, It is by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, that he casts out demons (verse 15). Also they have been demanding a sign from heaven (verses 16, 29 32). What all this amounts to is that they have been saying, It is your fault that we do not believe in yon. It is therefore most appropriate that Jesus now shows them that the actual situation is the other way around; to put it colloquially, that the shoe is on the other foot. It is not Jesus who is at fault but his enemies are to blame. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XII Outline of Chapter 12 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 12:1–3 Pharisaism Exposed 12:4–7 Fear Not; God Cares 12:8–12 Fear Not; The Son of Man Will Acknowledge You The Holy Spirit Will Help You 12:13–21 Interruption by Someone from the Crowd Jesus Answer, including The Parable of (The Notorious One) The Rich Fool 12:22–34 Warning Against Earthly Anxiety 12:35–48 The Parable of (The Noble Ones) The Watchful Servants Interruption by Peter Jesus Answer, including The Parable of The Faithful versus The Unfaithful Servant 12:49–53 Jesus the Divider 12:54–56 Knowing How to Interpret the Weather versus Knowing How to Interpret the Time 12:57–59 Becoming Reconciled with the Accuser 12:1–3 Pharisaism Exposed Cf. Matt. 10:26; 16:6; Mark 4:22; 8:15; Luke 8:17 12 1 In the meantime, when a crowd of so many thousands had gathered that they were trampling on each other, he began to say first of all to his disciples: Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2 Nothing is concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be made known. 3 Wherefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and whatever you have whispered^[395] behind closed doors^[396] will be proclaimed from the housetops. In the previous chapter Jesus was speaking to Pharisees and scribes. He now speaks about them, to his disciples (see verses 1, 22) and to the crowds (see verse 54). He warns against hypocrisy and other evils. The first part of the discourse, though delivered before a huge audience the luncheon is over, and Jesus is outside again is meant especially for the disciples, while the final part is directed specifically to the multitudes. For details see on verses 13, 14, 16, 22, 54. It is probably best to consider the contents of the entire chapter as consisting of one connected discourse. With two exceptions it is Jesus who is speaking throughout. The two exceptions may be considered interruptions. Or they may have been words addressed to Jesus when he for the time being ceased speaking. The first interruption was by a man from the crowd. He desired to have an inheritance dispute settled in his favor, and he took for granted that Jesus could bring about the desired result. The second interruption was by Peter. He wanted the Master to tell him whether the words he had just spoken were meant for the disciples or for everybody. As indicated in the Outline, the chapter can be subdivided into nine parts. It contains some of the most often quoted sayings of Jesus (verses 6, 7, 22 28, 31, 32, 34, 47, 48); also three well-known parables. 1. In the meantime, when a crowd of so many thousands had gathered that they were trampling on each other, he began to say first of all to his disciples: Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. In the meantime is a very indefinite expression. The events of 11:14–36, relating to The Great Galilean Ministry, are no longer in view. With 11:37 ( Now or Once, after he had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited Jesus to eat at his home ) time and place have changed. Even the warning against the yeast of the Pharisees, recorded in Mark 8:15(noted above this chapter merely for comparison), and referring to an incident that occurred during The Retirement Ministry, is not a true parallel to Luke 12:1 3; that is, it does not cover the same event. This becomes very clear when the two stories are placed side by side. What took place as related by Luke here in 12:1–3 probably occurred somewhat later, perhaps during The Perean Ministry. That ministry, let it be borne in mind, is the framework of Luke's Central Section, though the author frequently departs from it; namely, when he sees a good topical or logical connection with a happening that took place at another point of time during Christ's earthly sojourn. The true situation, then, is as follows. This is a continuation of the story begun in Luke 11:37. Jesus and his disciples are no longer in the Pharisee's house. Outside, a huge crowd has gathered around the Master. Among the reasons for the size of this multitude ( many thousands, see the note on this verse on page 658) there may well have been these two: (a) interest in Jesus as spellbinder and miracle-worker; (b) curiosity aroused by the controversy between Jesus and his Pharisaic opponents (11:37–54). So, everybody wants to hear what the Prophet is now saying. Since modern equipment was not available, the only way for people to hear was to get near enough to the speaker. No wonder that they were trampling on each other. Jesus, then, directs his message first of all to his disciples. On this first of all see the note on this verse on pp. 658, 659. The word disciple, however, must not be taken in too narrow a sense. In addition to The Twelve, Jesus had many other followers (John 6:60, 66). Besides, he knew, of course, that his words would also be heard by the crowds in general, and that is what he wanted. But primarily he was now addressing his disciples. He begins his message by issuing a warning against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. This warning is closely linked with that which the Master had said a moment before, while he was still in the house (Luke 11:39 44, 46). Hypocrisy means play-acting. It refers to the evil habit of hiding one's real self behind a mask. It amounts to insincerity. Hypocrisy is dishonesty, deception. Implied, of course, is the exhortation, Be sincere! 2. Nothing is concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be made known. Not only is hypocrisy dishonesty, it is also folly. As is stated over and over again in Scripture: the truth will come out, perhaps already in this life; but if not, then certainly on the day of the final judgment. See (Eccles. 12:14; Matt. 10:26; Rom. 2:16; I Cor. 3:13; 4:5. The books will be openedRev. 20:12). The Dutch have the following proverb: Al is de leugen nog zo snel, De waarheid achterhaalt haar wel. The meaning is: E en though the lie runs e er so fast, The truth her overtakes at last. Having stated the general truth, Jesus now applies it particularly to his disciples. He says: 3. Wherefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and whatever you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops. Says the Psalmist: Even the darkness hides not from thee, The night shines as the day; The darkness and the light are both alike to thee (Ps. 139:12). Therefore the Revealer of the secrets of men (Rom. 2:16) will experience no difficulty in bringing out into the open whatever men, including the disciples of Jesus, have done or said in secret. Are there certain things which have been whispered into the ear in inner rooms? The word inner rooms, used in the original, has reference to enclosures (generally within the homes of the well-to-do) where treasures were kept, and where at times top secret conferences were held. Today the expression whispered behind closed doors is considered more idiomatic than spoken in the ear in the inner chambers (A.R.V.) or &in closets (A.V.). What Jesus is saying, then, is that whatever was at one time whispered behind closed doors will be publicly proclaimed. Since radio and TV had not yet been invented, and since the nearest thing to present-day broadcasting was at that time making something known by shouting it from the flat roof of a house, the latter figure is here used. Implied in the lesson, Hypocrisy is folly, is the command, Be wise! For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 657–661. 12:4–7 Fear Not God Cares Cf. Matt. 10:28–31 4 I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have nothing more they can do. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear. Fear him who, after killing, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him! 6 Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God's sight. 7 In fact, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Have no fear; you are of more value than any number of^[397] sparrows. We have seen that hypocrisy is dishonesty and folly. It also signifies inability, lack of power. Those who worship at its shrine are weaklings. 4. I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have nothing more they can do. Note emphatic I tell you: here and again in verse 8. Also note my friends, used here alone in the Synoptics. However, does not John 15:14, 15imply that Jesus made frequent use of this term? For its implications see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 306, 307. The disciples must take to heart the fact that the enemies are powerless. They are unable to inflict permanent injury. They cannot kill the soul. Killing the body is definitely all they can do. Their power to hurt God's children does not go beyond that. For that reason Jesus urges his disciples not to be afraid of these bitter opponents. The implied directive is Be strong! Jesus continues: 5. But I will show you whom you should fear. To be sure, Jesus wants his disciples to fear, but the object of that fear must be God (definitely implied). And the nature of that fear? It amounts to a standing in awe of the majesty and holiness of God. In our own day it is getting to be the custom of some to address God as if he were a chum or pal or hail-fellow well met. Such surely was not the attitude of Isaiah when in a vision he saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up (Isa. 6:1–4). The prophet's response was, Woe is me, for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for my eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts. Cf. Rev. 1:17. It is those, those alone, who, by sovereign grace, have learned to pay such subdued, filial reverence to God, that can also enter into the sweetness of fellowship and friendship with him. Those who are able to lift up their hearts to God and say: O God, how wonderful thou art, Thy majesty, how bright! How beautiful thy mercy-seat In depths of burning light! O how I fear thee, living God, With deepest, tenderest fears, And worship thee with trembling hope And penetential tears. They have a right to add: Yet I may love thee too, O Lord, Almighty as thou art; For thou hast stooped to ask of me The love of my poor heart. F. W. Faber Continued: Fear him who, after killing, has power to cast into hell & The sense of the passage is this: the power to bring about momentary physical death is certainly not to be compared with the power to cast into never-ending punishment! Stand in awe, therefore, in the presence of him who is able to bring about this indescribably agonizing retribution. Note the repetition, adding emphasis: yes, I tell you, fear him! In other words, Be reverent! The term rendered hell is Gehenna. It comes from G-HinnMm, that is, the land of Hinnom, a valley belonging originally to Hinnom and later to his sons. One can find this valley on any good map of Jerusalem (just south of the city and curving toward the west). Originally, no doubt, this was a beautiful valley. But it did not remain so. It was in this valley that a high place was built. It was subsequently called Tophet, meaning, according to some, place of spitting out or abhorrence; according to others, place of burning. Either interpretation would fit very well. It would seem that in the top of this high place there was a deep hole in which much wood was piled, and that this wood was ignited by a stream of brimstone (Isaiah 30:33). The wicked kings Ahaz and Manasseh actually made their children pass through this terrible fire as offerings to the gruesome idol Moloch (II Chron. 28:3; 33:6; cf. Lev. 18:21; I Kings 11:7). Others copied their wicked example (Jer. 32:35). Jeremiah predicted that the divine judgment would strike Tophet; God would visit the terrible wickedness that occurred in G-HinnMm with such mass destruction that the place would become known as the valley of slaughter (Jer. 7:31–34; 19:6; 32:35). God-fearing King Josiah defiled this idolatrous high place, and stopped its abominations (II Kings 23:10). Afterwards Jerusalem's rubbish was burnt here. Hence, whenever a person approached the valley, he would see those rubbish-burning flames. Now by adding these various ideas represented by G-HinnMm namely, ever-burning fire, wickedness, abomination, divine judgment, slaughter it is easily seen that this G-HinnMm became a symbol for the everlasting abode of the wicked, namely, hell. G-HinnMm becomes (in Greek) Gehenna, the place of never-ending torment. The required awe and reverence do not amount to alarm, however. They must be combined with trust, for God is not only majestic and holy; he also loves and cares. And so in this very heart and center of Luke's Gospel how many verses precede and how many follow? we turn now to the central passage concerning the heart of God. It begins thus: 6, 7. Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? Sparrows and other small birds were caught, killed, skinned, roasted, and consumed. They were considered delicacies, as is still the case in certain countries. They were (and are) an article of commerce. The price at the time when Jesus spoke these words was two for an as [or assarion] (Matt. 10:29), a Roman copper coin worth only about a sixteenth of a denarius. We might call the as a cent or penny; hence, two for a penny. Our present passage shows that for the price of two pennies an extra sparrow was thrown in; hence, five for two cents. But even though sparrows were cheap in comparison with other articles, Jesus assures his disciples: Yet not one of them is forgotten in God's sight. Not even the most insignificant of God's creatures lies outside the sphere of his loving care. Jesus adds, In fact, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. God knows how many there are and pays attention to each and to all. Does not each hair belong to one of his children? Jesus adds, Have no fear; you are of more value [or: are worth more] than any number of sparrows. The implication is Be fearless, trusting. Note these last words: any number of sparrows. Literally the original reads many sparrows. Several translators and commentators prefer this rendering, which is certainly correct. The same idea expressed somewhat more picturesquely would be a flock of sparrows, many flocks of sparrows, hundreds of sparrows, a great many sparrows. All of these renderings have been suggested, and there is merit in them all. I can see no valid objection to any of them. Two other attempts are sparrows ( you are worth far more than sparrows, Moffatt) and any number of sparrows; see explanation in N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 473; also N.E.B. Why these last two? Probably to avoid a misunderstanding, as if Jesus were saying, You are worth more than many but not worth more than all sparrows. But all this is a minor matter. The main lesson is this: Jesus is assuring his disciples that God's tender love and care will never fail them, not even in the hour of death. Cf. Rom. 8:31–39. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 657–661. 12:8–12 Fear Not The Son of Man Will Acknowledge You; the Holy Spirit Will Help You Cf. Matt. 10:32, 33; 12:32; 10:19, 20 8 I tell you, whoever shall confess me before men, the Son of man will also confess him before the angels of God. 9 But he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God. 10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. 11 And when they are bringing you before^[398] synagogues, rulers, and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves^[399] or what you will say, 12 for in that very hour the Holy Spirit will teach you what you should say. 8, 9. I tell you, whoever shall confess me before men, the Son of man will also confess him before the angels of God. But he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God. The disciples must not fear men. They must trust God. That was the essence of the exhortation found in verses 4 7. In close connection with this, verse 8 now indicates: (a) the reward of trust that reveals itself in confessing Christ; and (b) the punishment that will follow fear of men, a fear expressing itself in disowning Christ. It is clear, therefore, that even though Jesus has uttered a similar saying previously (Matt. 10:32, 33), he may very well have repeated it here, in somewhat altered form. The saying, in whichever form, fits beautifully into either context. Note that where Matthew has I, Luke writes the Son of man, proving that the term the Son of man is Christ's self-designation. For Son of man see also on 5:24. Further, note that where Matthew has before my Father who is in heaven Luke has before the angels of God. In view of Dan. 7:10; Mat. 16:27; 25:31, this presents no difficulty. Where the Father is, there are also his holy angels. Jesus promises that he will confess or acknowledge before the angels of God those who confess him. This word confess or acknowledge shows that the message to be brought by the disciples must not be coldly objective, a mere recitation of memorized words. On the contrary, the hearts of these men must be in their message. Their preaching must be witness-bearing. It should include their personal testimony (Ps. 66:16). Jesus, then, promises that he himself will acknowledge those true witnesses to be his own. He will confess them before the angels of God. In this connection read especially Matt. 25:34–36, 40. The lesson is Be outspoken in the defense of the faith! On the other hand, those who deny or disown him will be denied before these same angels. See Matt. 25:41–43, 45. In this case Jesus is not quoted as saying, I will deny them. What we read is they will be denied [or disowned]. This change was made, perhaps, to emphasize all the more strongly the sorrowful lot of those who will be thus rejected. 10. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Having spoken about the Father and his care, and about the Son of man and his public acknowledgment of those who are his own, it is but logical that Jesus should now also speak about the Holy Spirit. First, in comparison with the Son, and then with respect to his relation to the disciples. Is not that a very logical order? That those who sinned against the Son of man are, upon repentance, forgiven, is clear from many passages, including, for example, Matt. 27:44; cf. Luke 23:42, 43. The question is, How is it to be understood that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable? As to other sins, no matter how grievous or gruesome, there is pardon for them. There is forgiveness for David's sin of adultery, dishonesty, and murder (II Sam. 12:13; Ps. 51; cf. Ps. 32); for the many sins of the woman of (Luke 7; for the prodigal son's riotous livingLuke 15:13, 21 24); for Simon Peter's triple denial accompanied by profanity (Matt. 26:74, 75; Luke 22:31, 32; John 18:15 18, 25 27; 21:15–17); and for Paul's preconversion merciless persecution of Christians (Acts 9:1; 22:4; 26:9–11; I Cor. 15:9; Eph. 3:8; Phil. 3:6). But for the man who speaks against the Holy Spirit there is no pardon. Why not? Here, as always when the text itself is not immediately clear, the historical context must be our guide. See Luke 11:15, 18; Mark 3:22; cf. John 7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20. From it we learn that the bitter opponents of Jesus have been ascribing to Satan what the Holy Spirit, through Christ, was achieving. Moreover, they were doing this willfully, deliberately. In spite of all the evidences to the contrary they were still affirming that Jesus was expelling demons by the power of Beelzebul. Now to be forgiven implies that the sinner be truly penitent. Among the opponents such genuine sorrow for sin was totally lacking. For penitence they substituted hardening; for confession, plotting. Thus, by means of their own criminal and completely inexcusable callousness, they were dooming themselves. Their sin was unpardonable because they were unwilling to tread the path that leads to pardon. For a thief, an adulterer, and a murderer there is hope. The message of the gospel may cause him to cry out, O God be merciful to me, the sinner. But when a man has become hardened, so that he has made up his mind not to pay any attention to the promptings of the Spirit, not even to listen to his pleading and warning voice, he has placed himself on the road that leads to perdition. He has sinned the sin unto death (I John 5:16; see also Heb. 6:4–8). For anyone who is truly penitent, no matter how shameful his transgressions may have been, there is no reason to despair (Ps. 103:12; Isa. 1:18; 44:22; 55:6, 7; Mic. 7:18–20; I John 1:9). On the other hand, there is no excuse for being indifferent, as if the subject of the unpardonable sin is of no concern to the average church member. The blasphemy against the Spirit is the result of gradual progress in sin. Grieving the Spirit (Eph. 4:30), if unrepented of, leads to resisting the Spirit (Acts 7:51), which, if persisted in, develops into quenching the Spirit (I Thess. 5:19). The true solution is found in Ps. 95:7b, 8a, Today O that you would listen to his voice. Harden not your hearts! Cf. Heb. 3:7, 8a. This warning regarding the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not mean that he is someone to be avoided at all cost. On the contrary, not only does the Father tenderly care for his own (verses 4 7), and the Son assure them that he will acknowledge them as his very own (verse 8), but also the Holy Spirit will help them in their hour of need: 11, 12. And when they are bringing you before synagogues, rulers, and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for in that very hour the Holy Spirit will teach you what you should say. On the synagogue, its history, functions, importance, see N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 74–76. Being brought to trial before synagogues could be a frightening experience. But not only does Jesus mention synagogues, he also speaks of rulers and authorities. These might be either Jewish or Gentile. How to conduct oneself before such judges, not excluding governors and kings, how to address them and what to say to them in defense, might well fill the minds and hearts of unlearned disciples of Jesus with apprehension and horror. Nevertheless, Jesus tells his followers, Do not worry, that is, Whenever worry raises its head, knock it down at once. Reason: in that very hour the Holy Spirit will teach you what to say. As is clear from 21:14, 15 and from Matt. 10:19, 20, what Jesus means is: at the very moment when you need to know what to say, then and not before, the Holy Spirit will work within you in such an effective manner, illumining the mind and sharpening the power of speech, that you will know exactly what to say. That this prophecy too was gloriously fulfilled is evident from the speeches of Peter, or Peter and JohnActs 4:8 12, 19, 20, with the effect upon the audience described in 4:13, 14 , and from those of Paul (Acts 21:39 22:21; 23:1, 6; 24:10–21; 26:1–23).^[400] Practical Lessons Derived from 12:1–12 The Lesson Summary is: be sincere, wise, strong, reverent, fearless, trusting, outspoken. Verse 2 Nothing is concealed that will not be revealed. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. Attributed to A. Lincoln. See chart on page 658. Verses 6, 7 Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? &Have no fear; you are of more value than any number of sparrows. Biblical Examples of Hypocrisy and Its Results Name(s) of the Person(s) Guilty of Hypocrisy Description of the Deed Read: Result Read: Jacob Gen. 27:1 33Gen. 27:41 Absalom II Sam. 15:1 3II Sam. 18:9, 14 Jeroboam I Kings 14:1 4I Kings 14:5–17 Gehazi II Kings 5:20 25II Kings 5:26, 27 Judas Iscariot Matt. 26:49Matt. 27:3–5 Ananias and Sapphira Acts 5:1, 2, 7, 8Acts 2:3 6, 9, 10 Said the robin to the sparrow, I should really like to know Why those anxious human beings Rush about and worry so. Said the sparrow to the robin, Well, I think that it must be That they have no heavenly Father Such as cares for you and me. The Prairie Pastor Verse 10 But anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. The essence of the sin against the Holy Spirit can be condensed into, just one word i m p e n i t e n c e. If anyone is truly sorry for his sins, he cannot at the same time be guilty of the sin against the Holy Spirit, the unpardonable sin, for true sorrow is the work and fruit of the Holy Spirit, and shows that this Spirit is dwelling in the heart of that penitent. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 12:1–12 Verse 1 [Greek], in the midst of which; that is, in the meantime. To begin a new paragraph with a relative was in harmony with classical usage. Note gen. absolute construction: a crowd of so many thousands having gathered, etc. [Greek], gen. pl. aor. pass. participle of [Greek], to gather, assemble. [Greek], gen. pl. of [Greek], basically ten thousand. The word is used in that sense in Acts 19:19, where five ten thousands means fifty thousand. Secondary meaning: innumerable multitude, pl. thousands or even thousands upon thousands. Cf. myriad. Greijdanus constructs [Greek] with [Greek], be on your guard. His argument is that, later on in the chapter we do not read that Jesus subsequently began to speak to others (Korte Verklaring, Vol. I, p. 328). Geldenhuys agrees, op. cit., p. 350. Well, that construction makes sense, and these authors may be right in favoring it. Nevertheless, is it correct to say that in the entire chapter Jesus is not represented as addressing another group? What of verse 54? That verse has convinced me that the more generally accepted rendering he began to say first of all to his disciples has a slight edge. [Greek] &[Greek], put your mind (supply [Greek] ) on avoiding, etc.; that is, be on your guard against, etc. Verse 2 [Greek], third per. s. perf. pass. periphrastic of [Greek], to cover up completely, conceal. [Greek], third per. s. fut. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to uncover, reveal. See also 2:35; 10:21, 22; 17:30. Verse 3 [Greek]. Robertson (Translation, pp. 75, 195) offers because as English equivalent. It is difficult, however, to understand how the statement Whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light can indicate the cause of the far more general truth Nothing is concealed that will not he revealed. But, as I have shown in my dissertation The Meaning of the Preposition [Greek] in the New Testament, pp. 26, 27, 40, the solution is that [Greek] does not always mean because. It can also mean wherefore. An interesting example is the one from the Rosetta Stone: &wherefore the gods gave you health, victory, strength, and all other good things. Of course, one is not limited to the word wherefore. Any true synonym will do; e.g., therefore, accordingly, so, so then, etc. Among those translations that show that the authors have correctly grasped the connection between verses 2 and 3, and the true meaning here of [Greek], are the following: A.V., A.R.V., N.A.S., N.E.B., Berkeley Version, Moffatt, Weymouth, Norlie, Jerusalem Bible, Good News for Modern Man, Lenski, Dutch (both Statenvertaling and Nieuwe Vertaling). Even the omission in English of any connecting word, such as wherefore, cannot be considered incorrect, since the omission at this point will almost certainly convey to the reader the same idea as wherefore. In the group of correct translations the following must therefore also be included: R.S.V., Beck, Phillips, Amplified, N.I.V. Now everything runs smoothly: because the general proposition holds, namely, that nothing is concealed that will not be revealed, it follows that the far more restricted proposition is also true: Whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light. [Greek], dat. pl. Of [Greek]; here: inner room; in verse 24: storeroom. For an obvious reason (Matt. 6:19, 20) a storeroom for precious commodities was generally an inner room. Verses 4 7 We should distinguish carefully between the various forms of the verb [Greek] here used: [Greek] (verses 4a, 5a), sec. per. pl. aor. subjunct. middle (verse 4a, in a prohibition). [Greek] (twice in verse 5), sec. per. pl. aor. imperat. middle, in a command. [Greek] (verse 7), sec. per. pl. pres. imperat. middle, in a prohibition; durative: have no fear. Note also in verse 6 the nom. pl., and in verse 7 the gen. pl. (because of [Greek]) of the noun [Greek], sparrow. A few more words two in verse 6, three in verse 7 merit comment: [Greek], third per. pl. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to sell. Note also the sec. per. pl. aor. imperat. act. form of this verb in verse 33. Cf. monopoly. [Greek], periphrastic third per. s. perf. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to forget; pass., as here: to be forgotten, to escape notice. [Greek] (see also the note on 1:60 on page 119) is not always an adversative particle; it can also be ascensive. When this is true the meaning will vary according to context. The following translations have been suggested: in fact (here in 12:7), why (16:21), in addition [or besides] (24:22), yes (Phil. 1:18). [Greek], third per. pl. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to number. [Greek], sec. per. pl. pres. indicat. of [Greek]; lit. to carry in different directions, or: to carry through (Mark 11:16); to differ (I Cor. 15:41); and here in Luke 12:7to differ favorably; that is, to excel; so also in verse 24. Verses 8 10 For [Greek], third per. s. aor. subjunct. act. of [Greek], to confess, acknowledge; see also N.T.C. on Matthew, footnote 477 on pp. 497, 498. The phrase [Greek] can be regarded as an Aramaism. [Greek] &[Greek]. There is an anacoluthon here, for [Greek] refers to [Greek] which, however, the Greek allows to remain in the nominative, [Greek] &[Greek] being a nominative absolute. Note somewhat similar anacolutha in verses 9 and 10. [Greek], nom. aor. (timeless)'s. participle of [Greek], to deny, disown. A compound form of the same verb is [Greek], third per. s. fut. pass. of [Greek]. [Greek] (twice in verse 10), third per. s. fut. indicat. pass. of [Greek], here meaning: to forgive (impersonal use of verb in both cases). For various meanings of this verb see the note on 4:39 on page 271, and the note on 6:42 on page 364. [Greek], dat. s. masc. aor. act. participle of [Greek]. When, as here, this verb is used with the Deity as its object, the meaning is: to blaspheme; when men are the objects, the sense is: to revile, insult. Verse 11 [Greek], third per. pl. pres. subjunct. (after [Greek], when or whenever) act. of [Greek], to bring in. [Greek], sec. per. pl. aor. subjunct. (in a prohibition) of [Greek] (lit., to divide the mind), to be anxious, to worry. We have already met this verb in 10:41; see the note on that verse on page 603. And now in chapter 12 forms of this verb are found also in verse 22 ([Greek]), sec. per. pl. pres. imperat.; in verse 26, same form but now pres. indicat.; and in verse 25 ([Greek]), pres. participle. Aside from these occurrences in Luke, the New Testament use of this verb is confined to Matt. 6:25 34(6 times); 10:19; I Cor. 7:32 34(4 times); 12:25; and Phil. 2:20; 4:6. [Greek], sec. per. pl. aor. subjunct. (deliberative) middle of [Greek], to defend oneself. Cf. apology. 12:13–21 The Parable of (The Notorious One) The Rich Fool 13 Someone from the crowd said to him, Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me. 14 He answered, Man, who appointed me judge or arbitrator in your case? 15 Then he said to them, Watch out! Be on your guard against greed of every description, for a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. 16 And he told them a parable, saying: The ground of a certain rich man produced bumper crops. 17 So he carried on a dialogue within himself, saying, What shall I do, for I have no space where I can store my crops? 18 Then he said, This is what I'll do: I will tear down my barns^[401] and I will build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years. Take it easy; eat, drink, and have a good time. 20 But God said to him, You fool! This very night your soul is being demanded of you, and the things you have prepared (for yourself), whose shall they be? 21 So it goes with one who hoards up riches for himself but is not rich in God's sight. ^[402] Jesus has been emphasizing the folly of worry. He has been saying, Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God's sight.& Have no fear; you are of more value than any number of sparrows. One would think that in view of such words of encouragement the reaction of everyone would be, How rich we are! Upon one listener, however, the words of Jesus seem to have made no impression whatever. Someone has said, When there is an inheritance 99 percent of the people become wolves. 13. Someone from the crowd said to him, Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me. The person who made this request could think of only one thing: the inheritance! He was convinced that he was being cheated. To be sure, regulations concerning the division of an inheritance could be found in Deut. 21:15–17; see also Num. 27:8 11and ch. 36. But it is possible that in the present case justice was not being done. So, at least, it seemed to the complainant. Was he, perhaps, the younger of two brothers, and was his brother totally unwilling to share the inheritance with him? But why did he urge Jesus to intervene in this dispute? The reason may have been that he took this Teacher to be a rabbi, and, knowing that rabbis at times settled matters of this nature, therefore asked him to bring this quarrel to a conclusion favorable to himself, the younger brother. 14. He answered, Man, who appointed me judge or arbitrator in your case? Jesus definitely refuses to comply with the request; this probably for two reasons: (a) he did not wish to ignore the authorities who were supposed to take care of such matters; and (b) he himself had been appointed to shoulder a task far more important and sublime, namely, to seek and to save the lost (19:10). The Master knew very well that the petitioner's preoccupation with strictly mundane affairs had its root in cupidity. Therefore he now issues a warning, addressed not only to this man but to the entire multitude: 15. Then he said to them, Watch out! Be on your guard against greed of every description. This is a most earnest warning. Let every listener take it to heart. Let him begin to take inventory. Let him make it his serious business to ask himself again and again, Am I perhaps a greedy individual? Do I experience joy in giving, in helping along good causes? Or am I, perhaps, a selfish person? Do I have an inordinate yearning for material possessions? For honor, prestige? For power and position? Briefly, am I greedy? The Greek word for greed is very descriptive. Literally it means: the thirst for having more, always having more and more and still more. It is as if a man in order to quench his thirst takes a drink of salt water, which happens to be the only water that is available. This makes him still more thirsty. So he drinks again and again, until his thirst kills him. In this connection think also of one of the German words for greed: die Habgier; cf. the Dutch: hebzucht, the uncontrolled yearning to have &have &have &more &and &more &and still more. Jesus tells these people and is telling us today not to become enslaved to this demon of greed, and he adds: for a man's life [the life that really matters] does not consist in the abundance of his possessions, his earthly goods. In order to drive home this point, there follows: 16. And he told them a parable, saying: The ground of a certain rich man produced bumper crops. What was wrong with this farmer? The fact that he was successful? Of course not. Nowhere does Scripture condemn success of riches as such. God never rebuked the following because they were rich: Abraham, Solomon, Job, Joseph of Arimathea (Gen. 13:2; I Kings 3:10–13; Job 42:12; Matt. 27:57). What then? Had he acquired his wealth by dishonest means? There is nothing in the text that points in that direction. On the contrary, we are given the distinct impression that this man had become rich because God had blessed the labors of his hands and had caused his soil to be so fertile that it produced bumper crops. What was really wrong becomes clear from the following verses: 17 19. So he carried on a dialogue within himself, saying, What shall I do, for I have no space where I can store my crops? Then he said, This is what I'll do: I will tear down my barns and I will build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years. Take it easy; eat, drink, and have a good time. Note the following: First of all, the rich man shows that he does not know himself. He fails to realize that his body is mortal and will not necessarily live on for many years: Also, he does not take account of the fact that the ample goods in which he rejoices cannot satisfy the soul. His soul has nothing! Secondly, he does not figure with the needs of others. He is thoroughly selfish. Both in the Greek original and in my translation the words I and my occur an even dozen times. There are 8 I's and 4 my's. He should have realized that there were other people who were in need of some of his grain. He missed the joy of generous giving. All he could think of was tearing down the old barns or granaries in order to build bigger ones, in which to store for himself his grain, etc. Applying this to the present-day situation, we may well ask ourselves whether we are doing all we should for the hungry and poverty-stricken. Consider the population explosion. It is estimated that at the time when this parable was spoken there were about one-fourth of a billion people living on earth. Not until the year a.d. 1830 did the number reach one billion, a century later two billion. Today (1978) the estimated world population is over four billion. These people need food. They need healthy bodies. In certain regions of the earth there are hundreds of thousands of children with bloated abdomens, toothpick arms, and bulging eyes! Indeed, the outline of their ribs is visible on their chests! In addition to the population explosion there are other reasons for this deplorable situation. Some of them are: unfavorable climatic and/or soil conditions, lack of sanitation, crude farm implements, lack of technical skills, and, let us not forget, superstition. Thus, to a Hindu the cow is the most sacred of animals. It is not an article of food. What the hungry people of the earth need, therefore, is technical skill, knowledge and application of the rules of hygiene, of crop-raising and soil cultivation and irrigation, in some instances better seed, and a sufficient number of good doctors. All these needs are urgent. They must not be underestimated. But what they need above all else is the gospel of the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ! Shall we, whose souls are lighted With wisdom from on high, Shall we to men benighted The lamp of life deny? Salvation! O salvation! The joyful sound proclaim Till earth's remotest nation Has learned Messiah's Name. R. Heber, third stanza of From Greenland's Icy Mountains Thirdly, the rich man does not thank and glorify God. For all practical purposes this man is an atheist. In view of his abundant harvest we were justified in expecting him to exclaim, Bless Jehovah, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits! Who am I that thou hast brought me so far? What shall I render to the Lord for all his benefits toward me? But no, he says nothing of the kind. What he does say in his soliloquy is, Take it easy; eat, drink, and have a good time! The grim awakening follows: 20. But God said to him, You fool! This very night your soul is being demanded of you, and the things you have prepared (for yourself), whose shall they be? God calls this man Fool, and a fool he was indeed, for he seemed to think that he had no need of God whatever, that he himself was in control of his life, soul and body both, that he was the master of his fate and the captain of his soul. Now God tells him that his soul will be required of him not after many years but this very night. God himself will demand it of him. Note that the fool was wrong not only in thinking that he was in control of life's ending. He was also wrong in forgetting that he did not even know when it would be terminated. He should have reminded himself of the words of Ps. 39:4 6(in part), Jehovah, let me know how frail I am.& Surely every man is mere breath.& He heaps up riches, and knows not who shall gather them. See also Ps. 90:10and 103:15, 16. How the heirs trust have laughed as they were dividing the things he had so studiously heaped up &for himself! And while they were doing this, where was he? Read Ps. 73:19, 20. Jesus sums up the parable's main lesson as follows: 21. So it goes with one who hoards up riches for himself but is not rich in God's sight. Jesus has reference to the man who lives only for himself and does not figure with God. To be sure, a man should, in thorough consciousness of his dependence on God, and in gratitude to him, try to supply his own needs and those of his family. (Prov. 6:6( Go to the ant, you sluggard, etc.) was not written in vain; neither was the advice Joseph gave to PharaohGen. 41:25–36). Just so one does not forget the principle laid down so clearly here in (Luke 12:21. And is not this the same, in essence, as that which the Lord also established in Matt. 6:33, But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be granted to you as an extra gift? It's a matter of selecting the right item to be placed first on our list of priorities. It should be his kingdom and his righteousness. Delight yourself in Jehovah, and he will give you the desires of your heartPs. 37:4). See also I Cor. 10:31. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 671–675. 12:22–34 Warning Against Earthly Anxiety Cf. Matt. 6:19–21, 25 34; 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 11:41; 18:22 22 And he said to his disciples, Therefore I say to you, Do not be anxious about your life, what you are going to eat; or about your body, what you are going to wear. 23 Life is worth more than food, and the body than clothes. 24 Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap; they have neither storeroom nor granary;^[403] yet God feeds them. How much more valuable you are than the birds! 25 And who among you is able, by worrying, to add even one cubit to his life-span? 26 Since, then, you cannot do this very little thing, why are you anxious about the rest? 27 Consider the lilies, how they grow. They neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his splendor did not dress himself like one of these. 28 Now if God so clothes the grass in the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, how much more will he clothe you, O men of little faith! 29 You surely must not set your heart on what you will eat or what you will drink, nor must you live in a state of constant worry. 30 For all of these matters are the very things worldly people^[404] are constantly craving. Besides, your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 31 But seek his kingdom, and these things will be granted to you as an extra gift. 32 Fear not, little flock, for your Father takes pleasure in giving you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions and give to charity. Provide for yourselves purses that will never wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never give out, where no thief can reach and no moth ravage. 34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. 22, 23. And he said to his disciples, Therefore I say to you, Do not be anxious about your life, what you are going to eat; or about your body, what you are going to wear. Life is worth more than food, and the body than clothes. At this point it is clear that Jesus addresses himself again particularly to his disciples. He starts out by saying, Therefore, etc. In other words, worry about what to eat and what to wear ill befits the person who realizes that his life and his body are under God's constant care, and that it is God, he alone, who determines the length of anyone's life-span (see verses 6, 7, 20). Moreover, he who has provided the greater, namely, life and the body, will he not also furnish the lesser, namely, food and clothes? To anyone who is acquainted with The Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6) it is immediately clear that the part of the discourse recorded here in Luke 12:22 34is a repetition, with variations, omissions, and additions, of a section of that famous sermon, namely, of Matt. 6:25–34. And would it not have been a great loss if these precious passages had been spoken only once during Christ's earthly ministry? Continuing, then, with passages from The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says (he may have been pointing upward to a flock of ravens or as others Similarities Between Luke 12and Matthew 6 Verse in Luke 12Key to Content Verse(s) in Matthew 6 22 Do not be anxious about your life &your body 25a 23 Life is worth more than food, and the body than clothes 25b 24 Consider the ravens [the birds of the air] 26 25 Who is able, by worrying, to add one cubit to his life-span? 27 27 Consider the lilies, how they grow 28b, 29 28 If God so clothes the grass. etc. 30 29 You &must not live in &constant worry, etc. cf. 31, 34 30 All these things worldly people are craving cf. 32 31 Seek his kingdom [Seek first his kingdom] 33 33b &where no thief can reach and no moth ravage cf. 19, 20 34 Where your treasure is, etc. 21 interpret the word crows : 24. Consider the ravens; they neither sow nor reap; they have neither storeroom nor granary; yet God feeds them. How much more valuable you are than the birds. These ravens were merely birds. Besides, they knew nothing about farming; that is, they neither sowed nor reaped. Also, they neither owned nor had at their disposal storerooms or barns to which they could bring their goods. To top it all, they were even counted among the unclean birds (Lev. 11:13–19). Nevertheless, they were well taken care of, for God himself fed them. Jesus implies: then why should you worry? How much more valuable you are than the birds! The senselessness of worry is evident also from the following: 25, 26. And who among you is able, by worrying, to add even one cubit to his life-span? Since, then, you cannot do this very little thing, why are you anxious about the rest? The word I have translated life-span may refer either to age or to height or stature. Thus Zacchaeus was small in stature (Luke 19:3), but Sarah was long past the age of conceiving (Heb. 11:11). The man born blind, healed by Jesus, had reached the age of legal maturity (John 9:21, 23). Here in Luke 12:25A.V. has stature. But in the present context this meaning is improbable, and this for two reasons: (a) adding this amount is here represented as being a very little thing. Adding a cubit to a life-span of seventy or eighty years would not amount to much, but actually becoming taller by forty-six centimeters can hardly be considered an altogether insignificant accomplishment; and (b) who, except perhaps a dwarf or a midget, would impatiently desire to add that amount to his height? A man may worry himself to death; he cannot worry himself into a longer span of life. See also Ps. 39:4–6. The Lord now turns to another example from nature. Paralleling what he has said about the ravens (verse 24), he now turns to the lilies (verses 27, 28). In line with his teaching regarding the divine provision of food so that a person may keep alive (verse 24), he now shows that God will also provide clothes so that this person's body may be covered. Jesus says: 27. Consider the lilies, how they grow. They neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his splendor did not dress himself like one of these. Consider that is, notice carefully, study closely the lilies. Exactly what kind of flower the Lord had in mind when he said lilies cannot be determined. Some guesses are: irises, narcissi, Turk's cap lilies, and gladioli. In the light of the context it is very well possible that Jesus, instead of referring to any particular kind of flower, was thinking of all the beautiful flowers that were adding their splendor to the landscape at that time of the year. How they grow must mean, as the context indicates: without any toil whatever on their part, nor any care being bestowed on them by any human individual, how easily and freely, and yet how gorgeously. Though the lilies do not spin a single thread, yet even Solomon in all his splendor did not dress himself like one of these. Is not this true in at least this respect, namely, that Solomon's finest apparel was at best but a mimicry and derivative of that which in nature comes fresh from the hand of God? Pristine beauty cannot be matched! Yet the simultaneous outburst of flowers in the spring of the year just as suddenly vanishes: today these flowers are fully alive and adorn the fields; tomorrow this grass in the field, that is, this sum total of uncultivated (in contrast with cultivated) plants, serves as fuel for the domestic oven, in a land where fuel was not plentiful. 28. Now if God so clothes the grass in the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, how much more will he clothe you, O men of little faith! There is a double argument here, as follows: a. from the less to the greater: if God provides for the short-lived grass, he will surely provide for his children, destined for eternal glory. b. from the greater to the less: If God decks the wild flowers with such very beautiful garments, then he will certainly clothe his children with the ordinary garments which they need. Jesus calls his worrying followers men of little faith. The various passages and the contexts in which he makes use of this description are as follows: Matt. 6:30and its parallel here in Luke 12:28(worry about clothes) Matt. 8:26(the disciples fear of drowning during a storm at sea) Matt. 14:31(Peter's similar fear) Matt. 16:8(the disciples failure to remember the lesson they had received in connection with Christ's miracle-working power). Based upon these passages, it would seem that the description refers to the fact that those so characterized were not sufficiently taking to heart the comfort they should have derived from the presence, promises, power, and love of Christ. So far in this section Jesus has shown that worry or earthly anxiety is inconsistent with his disciples position as the crown of God's creation (verses 22 24, 28, 29), and that it is also thoroughly useless (verses 25, 26). In verses 29, 30 he adds as a further argument against worry the fact that it is inconsistent with the disciples position as believers over against unbelievers, worldlings. Are not Christ's followers the children of the heavenly Father, that is, of him who knows their needs and will therefore supply them? Jesus says: 29, 30. You surely must not set your heart on what you will eat or what you will drink, nor must you live in a state of constant worry. For all of these matters are the very things worldly people are constantly craving. Besides, your heavenly Father knows that you need them. Note the marked emphasis on you over against others! What Jesus is stressing is that God's children must not behave like the nations of the world. They must be distinctive in their thinking, speaking, acting. It would be difficult to exaggerate the significance of the passage before us. What Jesus is saying is that believers must differ in their inner yearnings, must set their hearts on different things, must be controlled by different ideals, and must be motivated by a different love. When church members hardly differ at all from outsiders in the ambitions they cherish, in the goals they try to achieve, in the manner in which they react to the disappointments and adversities of life, in the way they conduct their social events and parties, in the kind of literature they prefer to read, in the songs they prefer to sing, in their choice of friends with whom they feel at home, etc., there is something very wrong. What Jesus here teaches is entirely in line with the rest of Scripture. A few passages must suffice: It is a people that dwells alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations (Num. 23:9). If Jehovah be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him (I Kings 18:21). Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers (II Cor. 6:14). To be real, religion must be vital. It is easy to recite the Apostles Creed, and in doing so to say, I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, but to realize in one's heart of hearts that this heavenly Father actually knows that we need food and drink, and will take care that we have it, to be convinced of this even though we may be unemployed &that is another matter. But that is exactly what Jesus here teaches. Note also that Jesus refers not only to eating but also to drinking. The reason for this may well be that he knew and figured with the fact that there and then water especially water fit to drink was not always and everywhere easily obtainable. Jesus has been speaking in negative terms. He has been saying, Do not be anxious about your life (verse 22) and Do not set your heart on what you will eat or what you will drink. He now changes to the positive approach and says, 31. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be granted to you as an extra gift. For the meaning of the term the kingdom of God see on 4:43. Christ's disciples are being urged, therefore, to see to it that the rule of God is being established more and more in their own lives and in the lives of others. The reward of grace is this, that while they are concentrating all their attention on establishing God's kingdom everywhere, their heavenly Father sees to it that they do not only have an abundance of spiritual blessings, but also, in addition, food and clothing. The necessities of daily living will not be lacking to them. For further elucidation see I Kings 3:10–14; Mark 10:29, 30; Luke 22:35; and I Tim. 4:8. Very tenderly Jesus now adds, 32. Fear not, little flock [a form of address found nowhere else in the New Testament], for your Father takes pleasure in giving you the kingdom. Though small in number, the flock is dear to the Father! Jesus a moment ago (verse 31) told his disciples that they must seek the kingdom, making it an object of continuous search. Now he calls the kingdom a gift. Nevertheless, these two ideas are not contradictory. An example from nature will clarify this. Of itself a tree has no power to maintain itself. Its roots are, as it were, empty hands stretched out to the environment. It is dependent on the sun, the air, the clouds, and the soil. It does not even have the strength to absorb the nourishment it requires. The sun is the source of its energy. But does this mean that the tree is therefore inactive? Not at all; its roots and leaves, though completely receptive, are enormously active. For example, it has been estimated that the amount of work performed by a certain large tree in a single day to raise water and minerals from the soil to the leaves is equal to the amount of energy expended by a person who carries three hundred buckets full of water, two at a time, up a ten-foot flight of stairs. The leaves too are virtual factories. They too are tremendously active. The same holds also with respect to the citizens of the kingdom. They receive the kingdom as a gift. Yet, after the new principle of life has been received, the recipients become very active. They work very hard, not by means of anything in themselves but by the power that is being constantly supplied to them by the Lord's Spirit. They work out their own salvation, and are able to do this because it is God who works in them both to will and to work for his good pleasurePhil. 2:12, 13. See also Matt. 7:13; cf. Luke 13:24; 16:16b . They trust in God's promises, pray, spread the message of salvation, and out of gratitude perform good works to benefit men and to glorify God. And the gift increases with the search! A second thought on which the emphasis also falls is this: the One whom Jesus tenderly calls your Father does not bestow the kingdom upon the disciples grudgingly. On the contrary. It is his good pleasure to do so. It is with keen delight that he does it. Because of the past tense of the verb to take pleasure there are those who insist on the rendering, It did please the Father, etc., or The Father has been pleased to give you, etc. This may be correct. On the other hand, in connection with this particular verb the past tense can be used even to indicate present action. See, for example, 3:22. The difference is minor. God is from everlasting to everlasting, and he is unchangeable. So, when he took pleasure he also takes pleasure and will take pleasure. What was his delight is still his delight and will ever remain so. It is therefore possible to say that the rendering Your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom is correct, and so is the translation Your Father is pleased to give you the kingdom. The main fact on which the passage rivets our attention is that when the Father gives, he gives unstintingly, a marvelous truth confirmed also by such passages as Isa. 55:6, 7; Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; Hos. 11:8; Matt. 23:37; Luke 2:14; 13:34, 35; Eph. 1:5, 9, etc. The Father gives. His children should do the same, in their own limited way, but from the heart and generously: 33a. Sell your possessions and give to charity. Verses 32, 33a are not duplicated in (Matt. 6. Nevertheless, broadly speaking, the philosophy of the contents of 12:33a can be found in The Sermon on the MountMatt. 5:7; 6:3). For a somewhat closer parallel one would have to turn to such passages as Luke 11:41; and see also 18:22Matt. 19:21; Mark 10:21: Christ's command to the rich young ruler . As to the meaning of the passage, it has at times been grossly misinterpreted, as if Jesus said to all his followers, Sell all your possessions and give the entire proceeds to the poor. The result would be that very soon the church would become a burden to society. A text must be explained in the light of its context. A moment ago Jesus told the parable of that notorious individual, The Rich Fool (verses 16 21). That man kept everything for himself. It is that selfish spirit which Jesus is here combating. The true interpretation of what the Master says here in Luke 12:33a can be found in such passages as I Cor. 16:2, 3; II Cor. 8:1–9; and Gal. 6:10. Broadly parallel with a passage from Matt. 6is Luke 12:33b. Provide for yourselves purses that will never wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never give out, where no thief can reach and no moth ravage. For the nature of that treasure in heaven see such passages as Matt. 10:41, 42; 25:34–46; and cf. Luke 16:9; 19:17–19. That treasure can indeed be symbolized by purses that never wear out. Moreover, it never gives out. There is always more and more and still more. And, to top it all, the riches of the heavenly life, in principle begun already on earth but in fulness reserved for heaven, will be completely out of reach for thieves and moths. That the heavenly treasures are moth-proof and burglar-proof, in other words, that they endure forever in all their sparkling luster, as the irremovable possession of the children of the heavenly Father, is the teaching of Scripture throughout, for it tells us about: a faithfulness that will never be removed (Ps. 89:33; 138:8), a life that will never end (John 3:16), a spring of water that will never cease to bubble up within the one who drinks of it (John 4:14), a gift that will never be lost (John 6:37, 39), a hand out of which the Good Shepherd's sheep will never be snatched (John 10:28), a chain that will never be broken (Rom. 8:29, 30), a love from which we shall never be separated (Rom. 8:39), a calling that will never be revoked (Rom. 11:29), a foundation that will never be destroyed (II Tim. 2:19), and an inheritance that will never fade out (I Peter 1:4, 5). 34. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The sentence introduced by For states the reason why the exhortations of verses 32, 33 should be obeyed. Naturally, if a person's real treasure, his ultimate aim in all his striving, is something pertaining to this earth the acquisition of money, fame, popularity, prestige, power then his heart, the very center of his life (Prov. 4:23), will be completely absorbed in that mundane object. All of his activities, including even the so-called religious, will be subservient to this one goal. On the other hand, if, out of sincere and humble gratitude to God, he has made God's kingdom, that is, the joyful recognition of God's sovereignty in his own life and in every sphere, his treasure, then there is also where his heart will be. Money, in that case, will be a help, not a hindrance. The heart cannot be in both of these places at the same time. It is an either-or proposition! See 16:13.^[405] Practical Lessons Derived from 12:13–34 Verses 13, 15 Tell my brother to share the inheritance with me. Be on your guard against greed. Let us say that, in connection with an inheritance, you received a bum deal. The trouble is that you make so much fuss about it that it begins to look as if all your happiness depends upon the solution, in your favor, of this injustice. You are not putting first things first. Better examine yourself and repent. Verse 20 This very night your soul is being demanded of you. Does not this parable imply that our real riches consists in that which is stated so beautifully in Rom. 8:31 39? Verses 24, 27 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XIII Outline of Chapter 13 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 13:1–5 Be Converted or Perish 13:6–9 The Parable of The Barren Fig Tree and The Magnanimous Vineyard-Keeper 13:10–17 The Healing of a Crippled Woman on the Sabbath 13:18–21 The Parable of The Mustard Seed and The Parable of The Yeast 13:22–30 Strive to Enter by the Narrow Door 13:31–35 Jerusalem Characterized and Lamented 13:1–5 Be Converted or Perish 13 1 Now at that very time there arrived^[410] some people who informed Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 He answered, Do you think that because these Galileans suffered like this they were greater sinners than all (the other) Galileans? 3 I tell you, No; but unless you are converted, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen people on whom the tower at Siloam fell, killing them, do you think that they were more guilty than all (other people) living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, No; but unless you are converted, you will similarly perish. 1. Now at that very time there arrived some people who informed Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. Between the close of chapter 12 and the beginning of chapter 13 there is a twofold connection: (a) topical: the necessity of conversion is stressed both here and there; (b) temporal; note at that very time, therefore probably during Christ's final trip to Jerusalem. It is impossible to be more specific. Neither Josephus nor any other writer, sacred or secular, relates this incident. All we really know is what Luke tells us here, namely, that while some people who lived in Galilee and had made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem were busily engaged in offering their sacrifices in the temple, they were suddenly cut down, upon orders of Pilate. Consequently, in some sense, the blood of these Galileans was mingled with their sacrifices. That Pilate was cruel we know. See on 3:1 and on 23:1. Exactly when this gruesome event had taken place and why the governor had caused them to be murdered is not stated. To be sure, all kinds of elaborations have been attempted. We are told, for example, that the reported incident must have occurred in connection with the Feast of Dedication, and that the reason Pilate had done this was that these men from Galilee were zealots, members of a nationalistic party that was openly and aggressively opposed to Roman rule. But all this is theory. What is clearly implied is only this: the informers and/or the people who were crowding around Jesus did not interpret this incident as an illustration of Pilate's cruelty such, at least, was not their main purpose but rather as an evidence of the divine displeasure with the slaughtered Galileans. Their reasoning was: the victims of Pilate's wrath must have been very wicked, indeed; otherwise God would not have allowed them to be put to death in this fashion. Thus interpreted, the next two verses become understandable: 2, 3. He answered, Do you think that because these Galileans suffered like this they were greater sinners than all (the other) Galileans? I tell you, No; but unless you are converted, you will all likewise perish. The notion that personal disaster is the result of personal sin was deeply rooted in the consciousness of the Jew; see, for example, Job 4:7; 8:20; 11:6; 22:5–10; John 9:2. Jesus not only refuted it but also emphasized that without genuine conversion no one is saved; all perish. Note especially the word likewise and in verse 5 similarly. These words can be regarded as accurate English equivalents of the original. In both cases (original and English) they are somewhat ambiguous. The meaning could conceivably be either: (a) in the same manner, or (b) also. If (a) is correct, Jesus would be saying, If you are not converted, you will perish in the same horrible manner, or perhaps just as suddenly. Some of those who accept that interpretation link the Master's words with the terrible massacre of the Jews in the year a.d. 70. More reasonable, however, it would seem to me, is (b), according to which Jesus is simply telling the people that unless they experience a complete and radical change they also will perish. Not for a moment should they imagine that they can escape the judgment of God just because they happen to be the seed of Abraham. See Luke 3:7, 8. Jesus makes very plain that what he has just now affirmed applies not only to Galileans but also to everybody else, including even the inhabitants of Jerusalem: 4, 5. Or those eighteen people on whom the tower at Siloam fell, killing them, do you think that they were more guilty than all (other people) living in Jerusalem? I tell you, No; but unless you are converted, you will similarly perish. The tower of Siloam was the one built inside the southeast portion of Jerusalem's wall. It was located near the pool of Siloam. The water from the spring Gihon was carried to the pool within the city. See L. H. Grollenberg, op. cit., map 33, plate 327 (pp. 114, 115). See also N.T.C. on John 9:7, Vol. II, pp. 75, 76. Further: Neh. 3:15, 26; Isa. 8:6; Josephus, Jewish War V.145. Evidently there had been an accident. The tower of Siloam had fallen, crushing eighteen people to death. Jesus points out, however, that these eighteen people were not more guilty more highly indebted to God than the rest of the Jerusalemites. Every man in the audience should examine his own heart and life, and should ask himself the question, Has the basic change, from Satan to God, from darkness to light, from sin to holiness, taken place in my own life? Have I truly repented and do I really place all my confidence in God, serving him alone? In other words, Am I converted? If not, let him ask God to enable him to take that important step. Says Jesus, Unless you are converted, you, too, will perish. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 697–698. 13:6–9 The Parable of The Barren Fig Tree and The Magnanimous Vineyard-Keeper 6 And he told this parable: A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7 So he said to the vineyard-keeper, Look here! For three years now I've been coming, constantly looking for fruit on this fig tree, but I do not find any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil? 8 But he replied, Sir, leave it alone this year also, while I dig around it and put on manure. 9 Then if it bears fruit afterward; but if not, you may cut it down. If the central lesson of verses 1 5 is Be converted, then that of verses 6 9 is Be converted NOW. Do not delay! The parable, as such, is as follows: 6. And he told this parable: A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it, but did not find any. It generally takes a long time for a fig tree to bear fruit.^[411] This tree had been planted in the owner's vineyard, as was not unusual, for that generally meant that the tree would be given the best care. Finally the time arrived when it was reasonable to expect fruit on this tree. On this kind of tree fruit is not visible from a long distance. It is generally hidden beneath the foliage, so that one must come and look for it. This the owner did, but he did not find any. The following year he kept looking again, with the same result. So also the third year. 7. So he said to the vineyard-keeper, Look here! For three years now I've been coming, constantly looking for fruit on this fig tree, but I do not find any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil? As the owner saw it, this tree was worse than useless: not only did it fail to produce fruit but it also occupied space that could be put to better use, and by means of its strong roots it was drawing from the soil moisture and minerals needed by other plants. Therefore the owner said to the vinedresser or vineyard-keeper, Cut it down, etc. 8, 9. But he replied, Sir, leave it alone this year also, while I dig around it and put on manure. Then if it bears fruit afterward; but if not, you may cut it down. The vinedresser was visibly disturbed when he heard these words. It would appear that this fig tree had become an object of his special interest. And now the owner had ordered him to cut it down! Everything within him rebelled at the thought. He therefore begged for permission to dig around the tree, thereby loosening the soil so that both the sun and the clouds could perform their separate tasks more effectively with respect to this tree. Also, he wanted to enrich the soil by spreading manure around the tree. The man became emotional, as appears from the words, Then if it bears fruit afterward.& At this point there was, as it were, a lump in his throat, so that he could not even finish the sentence. Finally, a few additional words issued from his lips: but if not, you may cut it down. At this point of the commentary you are reading the author must put in a remark that has nothing to do with exegesis. This particular story is of special interest to me. When we (my wife and I) settled in Boca Raton, Florida, we planted several fruit trees around our house, one of them being a very small tangelo tree. Not long after planting it, it was doing so poorly that everybody told us the tree had died and should be pulled out of the ground and replaced by something more promising. Though we are certainly no arborists, we could not think of accepting the advice of our well-meaning friends. So we did something similar to what the vinedresser of this parable received permission to do. We dug around the tree and applied fertilizer. The result? Ever since that time the tree has been doing very well. In fact, this past fall we picked no less than four hundred large delicious tangelos from that tree! Purposely the Lord does not state whether the fig tree of this parable ever bore fruit. The answer is left to the hearers &and readers. Let each supply the answer in his own life, and may that answer be favorable! The one main lesson has already been stated: Turn to the Lord without delay! Since the role of the magnanimous vineyard-keeper is very significant, a subsidiary truth can now be added: God is very patient. However, his patience does not last forever. One day God alone knows when that day will arrive the opportunity to be saved will be withdrawn. The procrastinator will die in his sins and be lost forevermore. If the fig tree, planted in a vineyard, has symbolical significance (and it probably does see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 773–775), it would refer to highly privileged Israel.^[412] As a nation it did not turn to the Lord. Result? Read Luke 20:16; 21:20–24. The challenge presented to everyone is clear: Seek Jehovah while he may be found; call upon him while he is near: let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to Jehovah, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. ^[413] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 13:1 9 Verses 2 4 Do you think &they were greater sinners &more guilty? Unless you are converted, you will all likewise perish. Jesus teaches that when calamity strikes we should ask, What lesson is there in this for me? Verse 5 Unless you are converted, you will similarly perish. The doctrine of salvation by grace through faith by no means cancels human responsibility. Verse 8 Sir, leave it alone this year also. It is good to derive comfort from the doctrine of God's patience with us, but are we imitators of God in this respect? See Eph. 5:1. Verse 9 But if not, you may cut it down. Someone wrote: There is a line by us unseen That crosses every path, The hidden boundary between God's patience and his wrath. O where is that mysterious bourne By which our path is crossed, Beyond which God himself has sworn That he who goes is lost? How far can one go on in sin? How long will mercy spare? Where does grace end and where begin The confines of despair? An answer from the sky is sent: Ye who from God depart, While it is called today repent, And harden not your heart. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 13:1–9 Verse 1 [Greek], at that very time. For [Greek] see the note on 12:56 on page 690. [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. of [Greek], to mingle. Cf. mix. Verse 2 [Greek], third per. pl. 2nd perf. indicat. of [Greek], to suffer. Cf. passion. Verses 3 5 Note third class (future more vivid) conditional sentence in verses 3 and 5, with (in both cases) [Greek] followed by sec. per. pl. pres. subjunct. of [Greek] in the protasis, and sec. per. pl. fut. indicat. middle of [Greek] in the apodosis. For the verb [Greek] see the note on 10:13 on page 588; also the detailed discussion in N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 196, 197, and on Mark, pp. 57, 58. In verse 4 note [Greek], nom. pl. of [Greek], debtor, guilty person, sinner. Cf. [Greek], to owe, be indebted, deserve. Verse 6 [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], fig tree. Cf. sycamore. [Greek], third per. s. imperf. of [Greek], to have. [Greek], acc. s. fem. perf. pass. participle of [Greek], to plant, modifies [Greek]. Cf. neophyte, spermatophyte. [Greek], dat. s. of [Greek], vineyard. Verse 7 [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek] ([Greek] plus [Greek]), vineyard-worker or -keeper, vinedresser. [Greek], for three years since the time when = for three years now. [Greek]. Note progressive action emphasis: I've been coming, constantly looking for. [Greek], sec. per. aor. imperat. act. of [Greek]; literally, to cut out, where we say: to cut down. Note sec. per. s. fut. (volitive) indicat. act. of the same verb in verse 9. [Greek] = [Greek], in order that what; or: for what reason; even more briefly: why. [Greek], third per. s. pres. indicat. act. of [Greek], here in the sense of to wear down, to render useless, to use up. In the New Testament this verb is used 25 times by Paul; for the rest, only here and in Heb. 2:14. For the meaning of this verb in Paul's epistles see N.T.C. on Galatians, pp. 137, 139; and on I and II Thessalonians, p. 183. Verse 8 Note the first per. s. aor. act. subjunctives (after [Greek] ) [Greek], from [Greek], to dig (cf. scoop), and [Greek], from [Greek], to throw, put (cf. hyperbole). [Greek], acc. pl. of [Greek], manure, dung. Verse 9 [Greek] (= [Greek] ) [Greek] &[Greek]. Here note the sudden breaking off of a statement, allowing the listener or reader to complete it. For other examples of aposiopesis see Mark 11:32; Luke 22:42; Acts 23:9. 13:10–17 The Healing of a Crippled Woman on the Sabbath 10 Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. 11 And look, a woman who had an evil spirit in her that had kept her in a state of infirmity for eighteen years!^[414] She was bent double and could not straighten up at all. 12 When Jesus saw her, he called her to him and said to her, Woman, you are released from your infirmity. 13 Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she was raised upright and began to glorify God.^[415] 14 But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant because on the sabbath Jesus had performed an act of healing, responded by saying to the crowd, There are six days on which work must be done. So come on those days and be healed, and not on the sabbath. 15 The Lord answered him, saying, You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the stall and lead it away to water it? 16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound for no less than eighteen years, be released from this bond on the sabbath day? 17 As he said this, all his opponents were being put to shame,^[416] but all the people were rejoicing over all the glorious deeds that were being done by him. A. The Miracle The previous section ended with But if not, you may cut it down; that is, if genuine conversion does not result, doom follows. The present section indicates that Christ's opponents, instead of turning to the Lord in sorrow for their sins (i.e., in true repentance) and in faith, became all the more hardened. The scene is that of Jesus teaching in a synagogue, probably for the last time during his earthly ministry. At least this is the last recorded instance of such synagogue teaching by our Lord. 10. Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. Just where this was is not stated, nor when the incident occurred. A reasonable assumption is that the place was somewhere in Perea, and the time on some sabbath during the last few months of Christ's earthly ministry; hence, not long before his death by crucifixion. As the story develops it becomes clear that particular emphasis is placed on the fact that it was on the sabbath that this miracle took place. 11. And look, a woman who had an evil spirit in her that had kept her in a state of infirmity for eighteen years! She was bent double and could not straighten up at all. The vividness of the original is retained by omitting a verb in the first part of this sentence; hence, And look, a woman &! It would seem, therefore, that this woman entered the synagogue while Jesus was teaching. Poor woman! Her condition was pitiable. If she was not actually demon-possessed the expression having a spirit of infirmity would seem to favor the suggestion that she was at the very least, she was demon-influenced. And this to such an extent that during a period of no less than eighteen years (repeated in verse 16) she had suffered from an infirmity which was apparently spondylitis deformans.^[417] This, as the same authority informs us, implies that the bones of her spine were fused into a rigid mass and that she was bent double and could not straighten up at all. Her ailment must also have been very painful, as such conditions affecting the spine generally are. We are told that this affliction had already lasted for eighteen years. This period of eighteen years should be taken literally. This must be emphasized in view of the fact that there are those who claim that the note of time is merely Luke's rhetorical device to aid the memory. They reach that conclusion because in the same chapter the evangelist also tells us that the tower of Siloam fell on eighteen people (verse 4). Well, rhetorical devices and memory aids are fine, but they do not cancel historical accuracy. There is no reason to doubt Luke's word (verse 11) and that of the Lord himself (verse 16). 12, 13. When Jesus saw her, he called her to him and said to her, Woman, you are released from your infirmity. Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she was raised upright and began to glorify God. Though Jesus was busily engaged in teaching, the entrance of this woman did not bother him. On the contrary, he saw in it an opportunity to make happy, to heal, to save. And we may well add, also an opportunity to show what kind of activities were right and proper on the sabbath! Picture the scene. The woman, upon hearing that Jesus was going to be teaching in the synagogue, went there. Perhaps the news that Jesus was going to be teaching there that day had reached her late. Having arrived, she takes her place in the back of the auditorium, and, of course, on the side where the women sat. Jesus, busily engaged in speaking the words of life, sees what is taking place. His heart goes out to this woman. Gently he calls her to the front. Then, in accents firm and tender he addresses her, uttering the most wonderful words she had ever heard, Woman, you are released from your infirmity. Simultaneously, putting his hands on her, he exerts his divine power and heals her immediately, completely, and permanently. In full view of the entire assembled congregation she is now standing upright and is glorifying &God, fully realizing that it was by the power of God and not of Satan or any of his underlings power working through Jesus, that she had been cured. She had been delivered not only from her physical affliction but also from Satan (see verse 16). In a situation such as this one would expect that at once every eye would fill with tears of joy and that the entire assembly, at the suggestion of the leader, would rise to sing or shout a doxology. But what actually happens? B. The Criticism 14. But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant because on the sabbath Jesus had performed an act of healing, responded by saying to the crowd, There are six days on which work must be done. So come on those days and be healed, and not on the sabbath. The following items require attention: 1. This man was responsible for the maintenance of order at the service and for the selection of those who would perform its various functions; such as, leading in prayer, Scripture reading, and preaching. He was probably the head of the local board of elders in charge of the synagogue. See on 8:41. 2. He was indignant. Why? Perhaps because his authority had been bypassed? Judging only by what he actually said, we might conclude that his anger resulted from the fact that, as he saw it, the sabbath had been desecrated. He must have thought that man was made for the sabbath (Mark 2:27, 28). 3. The ruler responded; that is, he reacted to the situation. 4. He was a hypocrite, for though he was angry with Jesus, he criticized the crowd. He probably lacked the nerve to attack Jesus personally. 5. He misinterpreted the divine sabbath commandment. To be sure, he was literally correct when he said, There are six days on which work must be done. See Exod. 20:9, 10; Deut. 5:13. But he evidently ignored such interpretative passages as Gen. 2:1–3; Isa. 58; and Micah 6:8. C. The Answer to the Criticism 15, 16. The Lord answered him, saying, You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the stall and lead it away to water it? Then should not this woman, a daughter, of Abraham, whom Satan has bound for no less than eighteen years, be released from this bond on the sabbath day? Note the plural: hypocrites, you and all those in agreement with you. For the essence of this hypocrisy see point (4) above. Besides, though this ruler professed to be so thoroughly concerned about keeping the law, his real concern was to discredit the Great Benefactor! Next, Jesus points out how very inconsistent his opponents are. They hold that on the sabbath it is entirely proper to lead an animal away from its stall in order to water it &provided, however, that the animal carry no burden on the sabbath!^[418] If, then, the needs of animals may be supplied even on the sabbath, must not human needs be met, on every day of the week, including certainly the sabbath? Is this daughter of Abraham of less importance than an ox or a donkey? Besides, is it really true that Satan must be allowed to keep this woman in bondage for still another day on top of the eighteen years during which he has already held her a captive just because it happens to be the sabbath? Is not the sabbath the very day when more than ever one should exert himself to the utmost to destroy the works of the devil? D. Result 17. As he said this, all his opponents were being put to shame, but all the people were rejoicing over all the glorious deeds that were being done by him. So crushing had been Christ's argument, and so effective his rebuke, that all the adversaries this ruler of the synagogue and those who had sided with him were silenced and were hanging their heads for very shame. At the same time the people in general continued to rejoice, and this not only because of this one striking miracle but because of all the glorious deeds that were being done by the Savior. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 711–716. 13:18–21 The Parable of The Mustard Seed and The Parable of The Yeast Cf. Matt. 13:31–33; Mark 4:30 32 18 He said therefore, What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I compare it? 19 It is like a mustard seed which a man took and planted in his garden; and it grew to be a tree, and the birds of the air lodged in its branches. 20 Again he said, To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? 21 It is like yeast which a woman took and put into^[419] three measures of wheat flour, until the whole batch had risen. ^[420] A. The Mustard Seed 18. He said therefore, What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I compare it? As the very phrase He said therefore indicates, there is a connection between the immediately preceding section and this one. The nature of that connection has been indicated. See p. 537. To this it might be added that not only did the healed woman glorify God, but all the people were rejoicing over all the glorious deeds that were done by Jesus (13:17). Even though some of that rejoicing may have been of a superficial nature, it is not necessary to suppose that all of it was. The kingdom was growing &like a mustard seed. What we have in verse 18 is an oratorical question to arouse interest. Note the striking resemblance in form to the similarly double question found in Isa. 40:18and to the one in Luke 7:31. Such a question was a device to sharpen the interest of the audience. Speaking, then, about the growth of the kingdom, Jesus continues: 19. It is like a mustard seed which a man took and planted in his garden; and it grew to be a tree, and the birds of the air lodged in its branches. Though the same parable occurs also in Matthew (13:31, 32) and in Mark (4:30–32), the emphasis is different. In these other Gospels there is a much stronger emphasis on the contrast between the tiny seed and the huge shrub than there is in Luke. To be sure, even here in Luke that contrast is implied, but now the attention is focused more definitely on the size of the full-grown plant. In fact, in Luke the diminutive size of the seed is not even mentioned. The plant resulting from the mustard seed grows and grows until it becomes as tall as a tree. In actual life the mustard plant reaches ten feet, sometimes even fifteen (hence, may reach as high as from three to four and one-half meters). In the fall of the year when the branches have become rigid, birds of many species find here a shelter from the storm, rest from weariness, and shade from the heat of the sun. Similarly the kingdom of God, once established, expands and keeps on expanding. As to the birds finding shelter in the shade of the tree (Ezek. 17:22–24; Dan. 4:20, 21), does not this indicate that the kingdom becomes a blessing for men of every clime, race, and nation? Within forty years of Christ's death the gospel had reached all the great centers of the Roman world, and ever so many out-of-the-way places besides. Since that time it has been spreading, gaining people of every race. It is doing this today. From vict ry unto vict ry his army shall be lead. Cf. Matt. 24:14. B. The Yeast 20. Again he said, To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? For explanation see on verse 18. The similar manner in which these two little parables the one of the mustard seed and the one of the yeast are introduced points to the fact that Jesus considered them to be a pair. This conclusion would tend to support the theory according to which the first of the pair symbolizes the outward growth of the kingdom; the second, its inner expansion. 21. It is like yeast which a woman took and put into three measures of wheat flour, until the whole batch had risen. With respect to this parable there is wide diversity of interpretation. R. W. Funk, op. cit., pp. 56, 64, 68, believes that the theory according to which each parable has one main point must be scrapped. The right way in parable interpretation, as he sees it, is away-from-here. He interprets the three measures of meal (verse 21) to mean the sacramental power of the kingdom, the festive occasion of an epiphany. By all means read his interesting book. Lenski, op. cit., p. 468, is of the opinion that the woman in this parable symbolizes the church. And G. C. Morgan, in The Parables and Metaphors of Our Lord, pp. 59–65, reasons that the yeast is something evil, the principle of disintegration. I, the author of this commentary, disagree, though I appreciate the many fine things all these three authors have written. I again urge the readers to study Funk's, Lenski's, and Morgan's books. One should never depend merely on what someone else writes about the ideas of such stimulating and thought-provoking writers. Besides, along the way one can pick up many fine ideas even in the writings with which one cannot fully agree. As to Funk, it is my belief that the restoration of the allegorical method of parable interpretation will open a Pandora's Box of fanciful interpretations. Besides, what is so strange about the three measures of flour? To be sure, it is a large batch, but not unusual. See Gen. 18:6; Judg. 6:19; I Sam. 1:24. And is it not true that the very size of the batch serves to bring out the tremendously effective penetrating and transforming power of the rule of God in hearts and lives? As to Lenski, is it not altogether natural that the person who produces homemade bread is a woman? There is no need to introduce the church at this point. And as to Morgan, nowhere does Scripture even hint that when yeast is used as a leaven in baking bread it is evil! What we should do is practice economy in interpretation. The point Jesus is making in this parable is this: the reign of God, introduced into human hearts and lives from without, once having entered, exerts a wholesome, penetrating, and transforming influence within and from within outward, upon hearts and lives. It leads men onward toward the goal of perfection God has set for them. In doing so, it favorably affects every sphere of life in which they move. For the meaning of the word measures (original sata, pl. of saton) see the note on 13:21 on page 714. The believer's purpose is not merely to get to heaven when he dies, or only to be an instrument in God's hand to bring others there, but everywhere to bring every thought of whatever kind into submission to, and therefore harmony with, the mind and will of Christ (II Cor. 10:5); that is, to demand that not only every tongue but also every domain of life shall exalt him. Therefore Christ's true follower actively promotes such causes as the abolition of slavery, the restoration of women's rights, the alleviation of poverty, the repatriation, if practicable, of the displaced (if not practicable then help of some other kind), the education of the illiterate, the reorientation of fine arts along Christian lines, etc. He promotes honesty among those who govern and those who are governed, as well as in business, industry, and commerce. He does all this not apart from but in connection with, in fact as part and parcel of, the evangelization of the world. That this yeast of the rule of Christ in human hearts, lives, and spheres has already exerted a wholesome influence in thousands of ways, and that this influence is still continuing, is clear to all who have eyes to see. All one has to do is to compare conditions for example, the treatment of prisoners of war, of women, of workmen, of the underprivileged in countries where Christ's rule has not yet become acknowledged to any great extent with those existing in nations where this principle has already been operative for some time on a generous scale. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 711–716. 13:22–30 Strive to Enter by the Narrow Door Cf. Matt. 7:13, 14, 21 23; 8:11, 12; 19:30; 25:10–12, 41 22 Now he was traveling through cities and villages, teaching and making his way to Jerusalem. 23 Someone asked him, Lord, will the saved be few in number? He said to them, 24 Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 When once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock^[421] on the door, saying, Lord, open (the door) for us, he will answer and say to you, I do not know where you come from. 26 Then you will begin to say,^[422] We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets. 27 But he will reply, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you wrongdoers. 28 There shall be weeping and grinding of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 And they will come from east and west, and from north and south, and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. 30 Moreover, note well, there are some (now) last who will (then) be first, and there are some (now) first who will (then) be last. 22. Now he was traveling through cities and villages, teaching and making his way to Jerusalem. The beginning of this journey was indicated in 9:51. It would seem that Jesus was not in a hurry. He stopped at the cities and villages along the way. In fact, he lingered long enough at these places to be able to teach there. For a possible connection between verses 22 30 and the immediately preceding section see p. 537. 23a. Someone asked him, Lord, will the saved be few in number? According to a widely-held Jewish opinion, endorsed by the rabbis, Israel as a whole would be saved.^[423] On the other hand, according to the teaching of Jesus the line of demarcation between saved and unsaved was not nationalistic but distinctly spiritual. See Luke 4:25 27; 6:20–38, 46 49; 7:9; 8:4–15; 11:29–52. It is not surprising that someone asked Jesus whether the saved were few in number. Is it not true that wherever Jesus went he proclaimed that only those whose hearts were comparable to good soil, only those who were willing to deny themselves, only those who not only heard his teaching but also were putting it into practice, would be saved? That left out a great many. Was not the inference legitimate, then, that only a few would enter the gate to the palace of salvation? 23b, 24. He said to them, Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. Jesus handled this question as he had handled Peter's (12:41, 42). He did not give a direct answer, but did something far more important and necessary: he told the inquirer, and also the entire assembled multitude note plural you that everyone should strive to enter through the narrow door. The verb to strive, as it occurs in the original, has given rise to our English verb to agonize. It places us not on the battlefield but in the arena or in the wrestling-ring. The struggle is fierce. Our opponents are Satan, sin, self (the old, sinful nature). To strive means to exert oneself to the full, to strain every nerve in our struggle with these opponents. The narrow entrance door mentioned here reminds one of Matt. 7:13, 14: Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad the way that leads to destruction, and many are those that enter by it. For narrow is the gate and constricted the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it. The words, Many &will seek to enter and will not be able, are an earnest warning to all to leave the ways of wickedness and unconcern at once and to accept the Savior and the salvation he offers as a free gift. On the other hand, these words were not meant to scare God's children. They do not mean that entrance into the palace of salvation is only for those who are without sin. All those who struggle in obedience to the command, Strive to enter will enter. Another misconception must be removed. The command, Strive to enter, does not imply that salvation is, after all, the product of human exertion and not of grace. It is all of grace, enabling grace. The true situation is described in Phil. 2:12, 13, With fear and trembling continue to work out your own salvation, for it is God who is working in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure. 25. When once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock on the door [or: and you stand outside and knock on the door], saying, Lord, open (the door) for us, he will answer and say to you, I do not know where you come from. There comes a time when the owner Jesus himself; see verse 26b of the palace of salvation will shut the door. Those who have refused to strive will then be standing outside, furiously knocking on the door in order to get in. The scene here pictured reminds us of Matt. 25:1–13; see especially verses 10b, 11 of that parable. 26, 27. Then you will begin to say [or: Then you will say], We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets. But he will reply, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you wrongdoers. The Final Judgment Dialogue Between Jesus and The Lost The Dialogue The Lost Explanatory Remarks Lord, open the door for us. Those who during their life on earth never acknowledged him as their Lord call him Lord now &but in vain. Jesus I do not know where you come from. Where were they when the door was still open? They were always elsewhere, not where they should have been. The Lost We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets. Did some of these people perhaps eat of the miraculously multiplied bread-cakes? As if the presence and teaching of Jesus in their streets would be sufficient for salvation! Did they even go out of their way to hear Jesus? But if they did, at least they did not believe and act on his message. Merely outward contact with Jesus has never saved anybody. A vital change is needed. Jesus I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you wrongdoers. Wrongdoers: Literally workers of unrighteousness. Even at this very moment they are proving that they are indeed workers of unrighteousness, for they are urging Jesus to break his own word by opening the door for them. For the terrible word Depart see also Ps. 6:8; 119:115; 139:19; Matt. 7:23; 25:41. What we have in verses 25b through 27 is a description of the final judgment as it affects the lost. In immediate connection with the thought of verse 27, Jesus now tells his audience 28, 29. There shall be weeping and grinding of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. And they will come from east and west, and from north and south, and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For the expression weeping and grinding of teeth see also Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30. In Luke it occurs only in this one passage. Somewhat similar is Rev. 18:19. The weeping is that of inconsolable, never-ending wretchedness, and utter, everlasting hopelessness. The accompanying grinding or gnashing of teeth is that of frenzied anger, unmitigated rage. For this weeping and grinding of teeth there are three causes: a. They see (are made aware of the presence of) Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God; that is, the kingdom in its final consummation. b. They also take note of the fact that ever so many others, including (converted) Gentiles, from every region of the earth east, west, north, and south are participating in the Messianic banquet (Matt. 8:11, 12). c. They themselves are thrown out; that is, not only was admission refused, but also they were forcefully expelled. 30. Moreover, note well, there are some (now) last who will (then) be first, and there are some (now) first who will (then) be last. In connection with the immediate context, referring to the contrasted conditions of the saved and the lost, the last who will then be first may refer to those people who at first lacked the means of grace, but when they received them, joyfully accepted them. Similarly, the first who will then be last may indicate those who from the very first had these means of grace but ignored them. In line with this interpretation, among the last who will then be first there will be many a Gentile. Among the first who will then be last there will be many a Jew. We must, however, be careful. In view of the fact that Scripture clearly teaches that there are not only degrees of suffering in hell (Luke 12:47, 48) but also degrees of glory in the restored universe (I Cor. 15:42), the possibility must not be excluded that Jesus means that even among those ultimately saved there will be those who were first in honor, prestige, etc., here, but who will be last in degree of glory there. Similarly that among those ultimately saved there will be those last in reputation here, who will be first there. Note should also be taken of the fact that Jesus does not say that all those who are first now will be last then; only some. The same applies to those who are last now. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 711–716. 13:31–35 Jerusalem Characterized and Lamented Cf. Matt. 23:37–39 31 At that very time some Pharisees came and said to Jesus, Get out and move on from here, for Herod wants to kill you! 32 He replied, Go and tell that fox, Look, I am casting out demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I reach my goal. 33 But I must continue on my way today, tomorrow, and the next day, because it would never do for a prophet to meet his death outside Jerusalem! 34 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those that are sent to her! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you would not! 35 Behold, your house is abandoned to you. And I tell you, You will certainly not see me until the time arrives when you will say, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. A. Characterized In spite of the earnest and well-meant words of warning Jesus had uttered (see verses 24 30) there were those who wanted, above everything else, to do away with him, as again becomes evident: 31. At that very time some Pharisees came and said to Jesus, Get out and move on from here, for Herod wants to kill you! Herod Antipas was the tetrarch who held sway over Galilee and Perea, the very region through which Jesus had been and was still traveling. It will be recalled (see on 3:1) that this ruler started his reign in the year 4 b.c., and was going to continue in that capacity until a.d. 39. Now some Pharisees inform Jesus that Herod wants to kill him and that he therefore should depart from the Galilee-Perea region. An obvious way for Jesus to do this would be to go to Judea as quickly as possible. Was it not friendly and considerate of these Pharisees to issue this warning? Nevertheless, Jesus does not thank them. Why not? This will become clear as the story proceeds: 32. He replied, Go and tell that fox, Look, I am casting out demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I reach my goal. The very fact that Jesus sends these Pharisees to Herod with a message would seem to indicate that he knew that there was a close relationship between his informers and the tetrarch. To be sure, basically Herod and the Pharisees were opposed to each other. Religiously they stood far apart; that is, outwardly. Also, did not Herod represent Rome, the hated oppressor? Nevertheless, in their attitude to Jesus, Herod and the Pharisees were friends. For evidence read Mark 3:6; 12:13. And, of course, Jesus knew this. Both wanted Jesus to go to Judea. Herod, perhaps because he was afraid that the Jesus movement might cause political trouble for him. Perhaps also because Jesus reminded him too much of John the Baptist. It would seem that the presence of Jesus in Galilee or in Perea bothered Herod's conscience. See Luke 9:7 9. By his wife (?) Herod had been tricked into murdering the Baptist. He probably did not care to become responsible for another murder of this kind. But if he could get rid of Jesus by threatening him, all might work out well. So he seems to have thought. As for the Pharisees, they also wanted Jesus in Judea, specifically in Jerusalem; and the sooner the better. Reason: they realized that in Judea their influence was far more potent than anywhere else. Jesus told the Pharisees, Go and tell that fox, etc. Why did he call Herod a fox? According to some, to indicate Herod's insignificance. That is possible. The more commonly held view that it was because of the tetrarch's slyness or craftiness agrees better with the context. Jesus saw through Herod's trick: making use of others to try to scare him away from the territory under Herod's control, and suggesting that they give him a friendly warning, while, all the time, Herod himself remained in the background! Further, by informing Herod, via these Pharisees, that he, Jesus, is casting out demons and performing cures, Jesus is reminding the fox of the fact that from Jesus he really has nothing to fear. Jesus is helping Herod's subjects. He certainly is not hurting them in any way. But Jesus reminds Herod also that not the tetrarch's timetable but God's will be carried out. On the third day that is, on the divinely appointed day, not a day earlier nor a day later I will reach my goal, says Jesus. What a glorious way of describing his death. By means of that death he would be reaching his goal, that goal being the redemption of his people. See Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45. 33. But I must continue on my way today, tomorrow, and the next day, because it would never do for a prophet to meet his death outside Jerusalem! How ironic this statement, yet how true! In Jerusalem the Sanhedrin gathered, deliberated, made decisions, and was going to condemn Jesus to death. It was Jerusalem that killed the prophets. So Jesus must continue on his way today, tomorrow, and the next day; every day in exact accordance with God's plan from eternity, until he reached Jerusalem, also according to the divine counsel; and until he was crucified &in fulfilment of prophecy. Jerusalem, the holy city? Rather, Jerusalem who kills the prophets. B. Lamented Did Jesus utter this lament twice: now, on his way toward Jerusalem, and a little later, during the week of the Passion (Matt. 23:37–39)? Or is Luke incorporating some material from Matthew (or from some other source) into his Gospel, since it fits into the present context so very neatly? I accept the latter alternative. If these words were spoken earlier than the almost exactly similar ones found in Matt. 23:37–39, I do not understand how at this earlier time Jesus would have been able to say, You will certainly not see me until, etc. But note how beautifully inspiration operates. The same evangelist, namely, Luke, who has been inserting notes of time ever so often (10:21; 11:27, 37, 53; 13:31) omits every indication of time at the beginning of 13:34. Therefore, there is no problem at all. 34. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those that are sent to her! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you would not! This outpouring of grief is addressed to Jerusalem because this city, being the capital, Israel's very heart and center, symbolizes the spirit or attitude of the nation as a whole. Intense emotion, unfathomable pathos, finds its expression in the repetition of the word Jerusalem. Cf. altar, altar (I Kings 13:2), Martha, Martha (Luke 10:41), Simon, Simon (Luke 22:31), and such multiple repetitions as O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! if only I had died for you, O Absalom, my son, my son! (II Sam. 18:33); and Land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord (Jer. 22:29; cf. 7:4). That the nation was indeed guilty of killing and stoning God's official ambassadors is clear from Matt. 5:12. See N.T.C. on that passage. Proof for How often would I have gathered your children together is found first of all in the Gospel of John (2:14; 5:14; 7:14, 28, 37; [8:2]; 10:22, 23). Incidentally, this statement of Jesus also shows that even the Synoptics, though stressing Christ's work in and around Galilee, do bear testimony to the extensive labor which Jesus had performed in Jerusalem and vicinity. Bearing in mind, however, that Jerusalem represented the nation, it should be pointed out that Christ's sympathy and yearning love had by no means been confined to the inhabitants of this city or even of Judea. It had been abundantly evident also in the northern regions. See Matt. 9:36; 11:25–30; 15:32; Luke 15; etc. The simile Jesus uses is unforgettable. A chicken hawk suddenly appears, its wings folded, its eyes concentrated on the farmyard, its ominous claws ready to grasp a chick. Or, to change the figure, a storm is approaching. Lightning flashes become more frequent, the rumbling of the thunder grows louder and follows the electrical discharges more and more closely. Raindrops develop into a shower, the shower into a cloudburst. In either case what happens is that with an anxious and commanding cluck, cluck, cluck! the hen calls her chicks, conceals them under her protecting wings, and rushes off to a place of shelter. How frequently, says Jesus, I have similarly yearned to gather you. But you refused to come. Did they really think that his threats were empty, his predictions of approaching woe ridiculous? The result of these constant refusals, this hardening of heart, is described in verse 35. Behold, your house is abandoned to you. And I tell you, You will certainly not see me until the time arrives when you will say, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Your house does not merely indicate your temple, but your city. Nevertheless, the temple is certainly included. For fulfilment see on 21:20, 24, 28. The meaning of You will certainly not see me, etc., is that after the week of the passion Jesus will not again publicly reveal himself to the Jews until the day of his second coming. Except for a brief transitionperiod (Acts 13:46), the day of special opportunity for the Jews is past. At Christ's return upon the clouds of glory every eye shall see him (Rev. 1:7). Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Luke 19:38) will then be on every lip. Those who repented before they died will then, at that glorious coming, proclaim Christ joyfully; the others ruefully, remorsefully, not penitently. But so majestic and radiant will be Christ's glory that all will feel impelled to render homage to him. Cf. Isa. 45:23; Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:10, 11.^[424] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 13:10 35 Verses 15, 16 Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox.& Should not this woman &bound for no less than eighteen years, be released &? The sabbath must be observed, to be sure. Jesus never advocated sabbath laxity. On the other hand, when sabbath rules and regulations become so rigid that the dictates of both mind (verse 15) and heart (verse 16) are left unheeded, we are on the wrong track. Works of charity and works of necessity are not only allowed; they are required. Study Isa. 58; John 5:17. Verse 19 It [the kingdom of God] is like a mustard seed which &grew to be a tree. Real growth or progress is the product not of evolution but of the reign of God in human hearts and lives. And such progress is not limited to one nation for example, the Jews but affects Jew and Gentile alike. There is no other hope for the world. Verse 21 It [the kingdom of God] is like yeast which a woman took and put into three measures of wheat flour, until the whole batch had risen. The difference between the social gospel and the teaching of this parable is that the former focuses its attention solely on society as a whole, neglecting the needs of individual hearts and lives, while the latter, by first of all radically changing hearts and lives, works from within outward, thus creating better conditions all around. Contrast the effectiveness of Rome's spurts of philanthropic endeavor with the effects of Paul's conversion! Verse 23 Lord, will the saved be few in number? Much time wasted in vain speculation could be put to better use in gospel proclamation. Verse 24 The narrow door. Yes, the door is narrow, but it is wide enough to admit the chief of sinners. See Eph. 3:8; I Tim. 1:15. Chief of sinners though I be, Jesus shed his blood for me; Died that I might live on high, Lives that I may never die. William McComb Verse 32 And on the third day I reach my goal, that is, I will have accomplished my mission. We, too, are in this life to reach a goal, to accomplish a mission. What is that goal or mission? See I Cor. 9:22; 10:31; Phil. 1:19–21. Verse 34 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets. The holy city &a prophet-killer! At last it killed the greatest Prophet of all. And he, symbolized by a hen gathering her brood under her wings, reveals his tender compassion. Hallelujah, what a Savior! However, if even now Jerusalem does not repent, then doom comes at last, for it cannot be denied that verse 35 reveals the wrath of the Lamb. Cf. (Rev. 6:16. By and large, Jerusalem did not repent. It killed Jesus. The wrath was poured out (a.d. 70), and on the day of the final judgment will descend on all impenitentsII Thess. 1:8, 9). Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 13:10–35 Verse 11 [Greek], third per. s. periphrastic imperf. of [Greek], to be bent double. [Greek], aor. act. infinitive of [Greek], to raise oneself, bend back, straighten up. In 21:28 to look up. [Greek], at all; in Heb. 7:25to the uttermost (A.V.). Verse 12 [Greek], sec. per. s. perf. indicat. pass. of [Greek] ([Greek] plus [Greek]), to release; in pass., to be released. See the note on 2:29 on page 176. Verse 13 [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. pass. of [Greek] ([Greek] plus [Greek]); in the pass., as here, to be straightened out, raised upright, set straight. Verse 14 [Greek], nom. s. masc. pres. participle of [Greek], to be indignant. Cf. Matt. 20:24; 21:15; 26:8; Mark 10:14, 41; 14:4; II Cor. 7:11. [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. act. of [Greek], to heal. Derived from the same verb is [Greek], sec. per. pl. pres. imperat. pass. See the note on 4:23 on page 261. Verses 15, 16 From the very common verb [Greek], to loosen, release, untie, are derived [Greek], third per. s. pres. indicat. act., to untie (verse 15); and [Greek], aor. pass. infinitive, in the passive (verse 16) to be released. Verse 17 [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. pass. of [Greek]; in pass. to be put to shame. Luke uses this verb only here, but it occurs 10 times in Paul's epistles, beginning with Rom. 5:5; also in I Peter 2:6; 3:16. [Greek], over all the glorious deeds. Cf. 7:25, in gorgeous apparel; I Cor. 4:10, you are honored!; the church radiant (in purity). Verse 19 [Greek], dat. of [Greek], seed. In all the Synoptic passages in which this word occurs (Matt. 13:31; 17:20; Mark 4:31; Luke 13:19; 17:6) the reference is to the [Greek], mustard seed. John 12:24mentions a grain or kernel of wheat; I Cor. 15:37, a grain of wheat or of something else. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], garden. By some this word is held to be related to [Greek], to dig (a garden). Elsewhere in the New Testament this word is found only in John's Gospel, 4 times: 18:1, 26; 19:41 (twice). [Greek], dat. pl. of [Greek], branch; from [Greek], to break in pieces. This is the only Lucan passage in which the word occurs. But it is found also in Matthew (13:32; 21:8; 24:32), Mark (4:32; 13:28); and Romans 11(verses 16 21, 5 times in these few lines). Verse 21 [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. act. of [Greek], to hide in, or put into, mix into. [Greek], gen. of [Greek], wheat flour; cf. [Greek], to grind. By some this word is connected with the stem [Greek] ([Greek] = [Greek]); cf. English mill; German mahlen; Dutch malen, to grind. [Greek], acc. pl. of [Greek], derived from Hebrew seah, about one and one-half peck. Cf. Hag. 2:16; Josephus, Antiquities IX.85. Three measures of wheat flour is by N.E.B. considered the equivalent of half a hundredweight of flour. Verse 22 Note descriptive and continuative (durative) tenses: the imperfect, he was traveling, and the present, teaching and making his way.& [Greek], distributive, as in 8:1; 9:6, 23; 11:3, etc. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], journey, in the New Testament occurring only here and in James 1:11, where the meaning of the pl. of this noun is in dispute, being variously rendered: ways, undertakings, pursuits, business, etc. The connection between the noun [Greek] and the verb [Greek] is obvious. Verse 23 [Greek], interrogative particle; here, as often, particularly in the kind of Greek that is influenced by Hebrew and Aramaic, introducing a direct question. [Greek]: nom. pl. masc. pres. pass. participle of [Greek], to save. Is the reference to those who are being saved or to those destined to be saved? According to Robertson, Translation, Luke, pp. 83, 301, the latter. But see also commentaries on Luke 13:23and on Acts 2:47. And see L.N.T. (A. and G.), and it will become clear that those who are to be saved and those who are being saved are both possible. Perhaps, in view of the present context, here in Luke 13:23the questioner was thinking of the total number of those who would ultimately be saved. Verse 24 [Greek], sec. per. pl. pres. imperat. of [Greek], to fight, struggle, strive, strain every nerve. Cf. agonize. [Greek], third per. pl. fut. indicat. of [Greek], a verb of which Luke is fond. He uses it 8 times in his Gospel, 6 times in Acts; hence 14 times in all, as often as all the rest of the New Testament together (4 times each in Matthew and Mark, once each in John, Galatians, Philippians, Hebrews, James, and Revelation). The meaning is basically: to be strong; hence, to be in good health, to have value, be valid; and, as here, to be able. Verses 25, 26 [Greek], supply [Greek]; hence, from the moment when, or when once. In verse 25 note the aor. subjunct. middle, and in verse 26 the future indicat. middle, of the verb [Greek], to begin. But this verb may be redundant. See the note on 11:53 on page 647, and see L.N.T. (A. and G.), p. 113. Verse 27 [Greek], sec. per. pl. 2nd aor. imperat. intransit. of [Greek], to depart. Verse 28 [Greek], weeping. Cf. [Greek], to weep. It is probable that our English verbs to claim, exclaim, and also to cry, as well as the Dutch and German klagen (to lament, complain), are derived from the same stem. [Greek], gnashing, grinding; cf. [Greek], to gnash the teeth (Acts 7:54). The combination weeping and grinding of teeth is found also in Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30. Verse 29 [Greek], third per. pl. fut. indicat. pass. of [Greek]; in the pass. as here, to recline. For use of this verb in the active voice see 2:7 and 12:37. Verse 32 [Greek], dat. s. of [Greek], fox. See the note on 9:58 on page 565. [Greek]: I am performing cures. [Greek], acc. pl. of [Greek], cure; see also Acts 4:22, 30, and the note on 4:23 on page 261. [Greek], first per. s. pres. (here prophetic or futuristic) indicat. pass. of [Greek], to bring to the goal, or: to completion. Hence, the passive [Greek] means I am being brought to the goal; in other words, I reach my goal. Verse 33 [Greek] &[Greek]; lit.: It is necessary for me to be journeying. Somewhat freer translation: I must continue on my way. [Greek], it is not accepted or permitted. This rendering does justice to the basic verb [Greek], to accept, receive. The rendering It would not do (Berkeley), It would never do (Phillips), It will not do is not only technically correct but also retains the cutting irony in this exclamation. This holds also for It is unthinkable (N.E.B.). Verse 34 Note sharp contrast between [Greek], first per. s. aor. indicat. in the middle of verse 34, and [Greek], sec. per. pl. aor. indicat. at the close of the verse. Both are forms of [Greek] or [Greek], to be willing, wishing, desiring. [Greek], in the New Testament only here and in Matt. 23:37, bird; specifically hen. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], brood of young birds; classical [Greek], literally new ones. Cf. new, novice. [Greek], acc. pl. of [Greek], wing. See also Matt. 23:37; Rev. 4:8; 9:9; 12:14; and for the related [Greek] see the note on 4:9 on page 242. Verse 35 [Greek], third per. s. pres. (linear) indicat. pass. of [Greek]; here, to abandon. For more on this verb see the note on 4:39 on page 271. Summary of Chapter 13 See p. 537. 410 Or: were present. N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary 411 Dr. H. Mulder, who spent many years in the region where figs are grown, states this fact in his very interesting description of the tree and its growth. See his book Spoorzoeker in Bijbelse Landen, p. 92. 412 The attempt to discover a symbolical meaning for each or for most of the items mentioned in the parable leads to confusion. Thus, according to one expositor the three years represent the whole course of the history of Israel; according to another, the three years of Christ's ministry; and according to still another, the period beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist. Similarly, the fig tree that was planted in a vineyard indicates Jerusalem located in Israel, but according to several others, Israel in the midst of the world, etc. In my own interpretation I have tried to remain true to the principles of parable interpretation set forth on pp. 550–555. 413 Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 13:1–9 begin on page 697. 414 Literally: a woman having a spirit of infirmity for eighteen years. 415 Or simply: and glorified God. 416 Or: were humiliated. 417 Thus A. Rendle Short, Modern Discovery and the Bible, p. 91. But cf. Index, Women, f. 418 See Shabbath 5:1. 419 Or: hid in, mixed into. 420 Literally: was leavened. 421 Or: and you stand outside and knock. 422 Or: Then you will say. 423 Sanhedrin 10:1. 424 Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 13:10–35 begin on page 713. A.V. Authorized Version (King James) N.E.B. New English Bible L.N.T. (A. and G.) W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature CHAPTER XIV Outline of Chapter 14 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 14:1–6 The Healing, on a Sabbath, of a Man Afflicted with Dropsy 14:7–14 A Lesson for Guests (The Parable of The Reserved Seats) and A Lesson for the Host 14:15–24 The Parable of The Rejected Invitation (or, of The Great Supper) 14:25–33 The Cost of Discipleship. The Parables of The Rash Builder and The Reasonable King 14:34, 35 Useless Salt 14:1–6 The Healing, on a Sabbath, of a Man Afflicted with Dropsy 14 1 Now it happened on a sabbath, as Jesus went to eat in the house of one of the leading Pharisees, that they were watching him closely. 2 And right there in front of him was a man afflicted with dropsy. 3 Jesus reacted by asking the law-experts and Pharisees, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath or not? 4 But they were silent. And he took hold of the man, healed him, and let him go.^[425] 5 Then he asked them, Who of you, if his son^[426] or his ox falls into a well on the sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out? 6 And they could not return an answer. 1. Now it happened on a sabbath, as Jesus went to eat in the house of one of the leading Pharisees, that they were watching him closely. If there is any topical connection between this and the preceding chapter, it could be one of the following: a. The hostility of Christ's adversaries and their followers (13:14, 17, 31 35) is continued in chapter 14:1 f. b. The healings to which Jesus refers in 13:32, an example of which is recorded in 13:10–17, are continued in 14:1–6. Chapter 13 records the cure of a woman; chapter 14 that of a man. c. The sabbath controversy between Jesus and his adversaries (13:10–17) is continued in 14:1–6. A prominent Pharisee invites Jesus for dinner. For earlier occasions when an invitation to eat with a Pharisee was extended to Jesus see 7:36; 11:37. But the invitation now recorded was different: it was a request to recline at table with the Pharisee and the other guests for the important sabbath day dinner. All preparations had been made the day before, of course. The important Pharisee at whose home the festive meal was given seems to have been well supplied with earthly goods (read verse 12). We feel inclined to say, How kind of this prominent Pharisee to extend such an invitation to Jesus! However, the evangelist adds, They were watching him closely. The purpose of inviting Jesus was that they the host plus the fellow Pharisees and law-experts he had invited by closely watching Jesus, might discover a ground for an accusation against him. 2. And right there in front of him was a man afflicted with dropsy. Had this man been planted there? Had they brought him in to serve as a trap into which, they hoped, Jesus would fall? Some interpreters favor this view. The possibility cannot be excluded, but it is by no means certain. In these regions and at that time it was not at all unusual for people to walk in uninvited. See on 7:37, 38. The poor man was afflicted with dropsy. This abnormal accumulation of fluid is not only serious in itself but is also a sign of illness affecting the kidneys, liver, blood, and/or heart. Moreover, the rabbis were of the opinion that the person so afflicted had committed a grievous sin.^[427] It would seem that up to this point the guests had not yet reclined at table. Since we already know that the heart of Jesus was ever filled with sympathy and that he had power to heal, we can predict what is about to happen. 3. Jesus reacted by asking the law-experts and Pharisees, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath or not? It is becoming clear that another sabbath controversy is in the making. For earlier clashes of this nature see on 6:1–5; 6:6–11; and 13:10–17, the final two dealing with healings on the sabbath (the withered hand and the crippled woman). When Jesus now asks his critics whether a work of healing is permitted on the sabbath day, he is repeating in essence what he had asked in connection with the healing of the man with the withered hand (6:9). In both cases he asked the question before effecting the cure. The prevailing opinion among the rabbis was that healing of the sick and/or handicapped is not allowed on the sabbath unless there is a distinct probability that delay will be fatal. As had happened in the case recorded in chapter 6 so also now Christ's critics remained silent: 4. But they were silent. Since they did not avail themselves of the opportunity to object, they had no ground to stand on if they would later try to accuse Jesus before the authorities. And he took hold of the man, healed him, and let him go. The passage reads as if for Jesus healing this sorely afflicted man was the easiest thing in the world. In a sense it was. He did not have to overexert himself. He had power enough and to spare. In another sense, however, it was not easy. See Matt. 8:17and N.T.C. on that passage. 5. Then he asked them, Who of you, if his son or his ox falls into a well on the sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out? Even in all the massive Jewish sabbath regulations I have not been able to discover any that forbids a sabbath day rescue of a son or of an ox^[428] that had fallen into a well. With respect to the Qumran people the situation was different. The following regulation is found in The Damascus Document XIII, Let not a man help an animal to give birth on the sabbath day, and if she lets her young fall into a cistern or ditch, let him not lift it out on the sabbath. Among the Jews in general, however, no one would hesitate to hurry to the rescue. Note especially the word immediately; that is (in this case) without waiting until the end of the sabbath. 6. And they could not return an answer. Compare: But they were silent (verse 4) with And they could not return an answer (verse 6) In the first instance they did not want to answer; in the second they were not able to do so. They could not because they were unwilling to admit that they were wrong. The majesty of Christ and his triumph over his enemies stands out clearly. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 726–729. 14:7–14 A Lesson for Guests (The Parable of The Reserved Seats) and A Lesson for the Host 7 Noticing how the guests were picking out the places of honor at the table, he spoke this parable to them: 8 When you are invited by anyone to a wedding feast, do not recline in the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited by him. 9 If so, the one who invited both you and him will come and say to you, Make room for this man. Then with embarrassment you will be taking and keeping the lowest place. 10 Instead, when you are invited, go and recline in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he will say to you, Friend, move up higher. Then you will be honored in the eyes of all your fellow guests. 11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted. 12 Then, also (addressing) his host, he said, When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not habitually invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or your rich neighbors, lest they invite you back and you receive a return payment. 13 On the contrary, when you give a reception,^[429] make it a practice to invite poor people, crippled, lame, blind, 14 and you will be blessed, since they cannot repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous. A. A Lesson for Guests: The Parable of The Reserved Seats And now the invited guests are beginning to take their places at table: 7. Noticing how the guests were picking out the places of honor at the table, he spoke this parable to them: If rabbinic sources written somewhat later furnish a true description of dinner habits that prevailed during Christ's sojourn on earth, as they probably do, then in the room where the festive dinner was to be held the couches for three were arranged each in the shape of a U around a low table. The central position (think of the U's curved base) of table No. 1 was considered the place of highest honor. To the left of the most highly honored person the one second in honor would be reclining; to the right of the most highly honored one the third in honor would take his place. On the three-person couch (the triclinium) to the left of the first couch the order of reclining would continue as follows: central, fourth; left of central, fifth; right of central, sixth; and so also for the third couch (the one to the right of the first couch); central position, seventh; left of central, eighth; right of central, ninth, etc.^[430] What Jesus noticed was this, that when the moment arrived for the guests to recline at table there was an unseemly scramble for the places of honor. This was definitely a violation of proper table etiquette. The person in charge let us call him the host acting on orders of the owner of the house, though often owner and host were the same person, had reserved the select seats. Not in the sense that he had placed a huge sign on them, reading R E S E R V E D, but in the sense that he wanted these places to be occupied by certain definite guests, and not by other people. The fact that, in the sense indicated, these places were indeed reserved and not meant for just anybody is clear from verse 9. But to the mind and heart of Jesus what was happening was not merely a violation of table etiquette but a manifestation of lack of humility, as verse 11 proves. It is for this reason that the contents of 14:8–11 are called, and actually are, a parable. 8, 9. When you are invited by anyone to a wedding feast, do not recline in the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited by him. If so, the one who invited both you and him will come and say to you, Make room for this man. Then with embarrassment you will be taking and keeping the lowest place. Jesus now shows what can be expected to happen when at a wedding feast (in connection with which rules were rather stringent) someone rushes to occupy a place not intended for him. The host, seeing what has happened, will come and, accompanied by another invited guest, will tell the usurper, Give your seat to this man, a man who, as the host regards him, is more distinguished. The result will be that the bold and presumptuous guest will then, in painful embarrassment, have to vacate his seat and take and keep the lowest place. But why the lowest? Probably for one of two reasons: (a) because by this time all the other places are occupied; or (b) because even if there are still several vacant places, the humiliated individual will wisely take the very lowest seat, for he will not wish to experience a second humiliation. 10. Instead, when you are invited, go and recline in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he will say to you, Friend, move up higher. Then you will be honored in the eyes of all your fellow guests. The meaning is clear enough. What is somewhat surprising is that the Pharisees and the experts in the law were in need of hearing these truths. They should have known better. After all, what Jesus was saying came close to being a repetition of what Prov. 25:6, 7had taught long ago (freely translated): Do not give yourself airs in the presence of a king. Do not occupy the place reserved for important people. It is better to have someone say to you, Come up here, than to be forced to a lower place in the presence of a prince. And now the key sentence, the one that shows that the words of verses 8 10, though certainly descriptive of that which actually took place, constitute a parable: 11. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted. Very appropriately these same words are also found in the conclusion of the parable of The Pharisee and The Tax Collector (18:14) and in Matt. 23:12. See also Job 22:29; Prov. 29:23; James 4:6; I Peter 5:5. The meaning is clear. It will probably stand out even more clearly when some biblical examples are given. What happened to those who exalted themselves? Do you remember Nabal? This bread and water are my own. They are not David's, mine alone. His heart then died. Twas like a stone. Read that man's story in I Sam. 25:3, 10, 11, 36 38. Do you recall Jezebel? Her boastful words, her lying tongue? How she was out the window flung, Her body then reduced to dung? For the report on her, turn to I Kings 21:7, 23; II Kings 9:30–37. And Nebuchadnezzar? He said, This is the place I built. His heart with ugly pride was filled. God intervened: his pride was killed. Be sure to study Dan. 4:30–33, but do not stop there. In fairness to Nebuchadnezzar read also verses 34 37. And Herod Agrippa I Now look at him, so richly groomed, And listen to him &but he's doomed: His body by the worms consumed. Acts 12:20 23contains the story. But now the other side of the picture: what happened to those who humbled themselves? First of all, Hannah In sorrow she did not rebel. Humbly she prayed, as God could tell. He gave her little Samuel. Read I Sam. 1:12–20. Next, Mary, the mother of Jesus My soul doth magnify the Lord, She said, her heart in full accord With God, by heaven and earth adored. For the full story read Luke 1:26 56. Then the tax collector or publican, in the parable of The Pharisee and The Tax Collector O God be merciful to me, He said, the sinner though I be. And fully justified went he. Be sure to study Luke 18:9 14. Last of all, there was Paul. His life was Christ. Twas not a dream. We re saved by grace, that was his theme: God sent his Son us to redeem. Among the many passages that could be cited to prove Paul's humility and how the grace of God was magnified in his life some of the most important are the following: I Cor. 15:9; II Cor. 12:9; Gal. 2:20; 6:14; I Tim. 1:15. Moreover, Scripture is full of passages in which the necessity of humility is held before us: Ps. 10:17; 69:32; Prov. 26:12; Isa. 14:12–15; 57:15; Matt. 18:4; 20:25–28; 23:12; Luke 22:27; John 13:1 15; Phil. 2:5–8; and the already mentioned James 4:6; I Peter 5:5(to which can now be added verse 6). Christ's teaching on humility is one of the most important and constantly recurring subjects in the entire New Testament. Does it not harmonize beautifully with the doctrine of salvation by grace alone? Without fear of successful contradiction one can state that humble trust in God and grateful eagerness to carry out his will are stressed throughout Scripture. Where then is the glorying [or boasting]? It is excluded! (Rom. 3:27). B. A Lesson for the Host 12 14. Then, also (addressing) his host, he said, When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not habitually invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or your rich neighbors, lest they invite you back and you receive a return payment. On the contrary, when you give a reception, make it a practice to invite poor people, crippled, lame, blind, and you will be blessed, since they cannot repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous. The parable has ended. But Jesus still has a word for the host. The Master had undoubtedly observed that most of the guests were important people. But if the rich socialize only with the rich, the learned only with the learned, the influential only with the influential, what happens to the rest of society? Jesus does not forbid normal social life. Birds of a feather will indeed flock together. That is natural and good. But rigid restrictions along those lines are not in keeping with the spirit of the gospel. The words of Jesus were and are very wise indeed. His order should be obeyed. Note the following: a. By constantly inviting only those who are able to invite you in return, where is there any room for putting into practice the biblical requirement that hospitality be shown to those in need? See Rom. 12:13; I Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8; I Peter 4:9. b. If such selfishness is practiced, where is the reward at the resurrection of the righteous, for which see the beautiful words of Matt. 25:34 40? The righteous not as they are in themselves but as pronounced by God, on the basis of Christ's atonement. c. Even in the present life those who associate only with the people of their own set miss the thrill resulting from generous sharing, the joy beaming from the eyes of those who have been blessed. Somehow, not only for Christmas But all the long year through, The joy that you give to others Is the joy that comes back to you. And the more you spend in blessing The poor and the lonely and sad, The more of your heart's possessions Return to make you glad. John Greenleaf Whittier d. Selfish people are cheating themselves also in other ways. To give an example: What minister cannot bear testimony to the fact that some of the finest lessons he ever learned were given to him by the poor, the dull, the small, the sick, the handicapped, the dying? Therefore, by failing to heed Christ's command one is not only cheating others but even himself &and dishonoring God, the God who loves those who without that love would have perished everlastingly (John 3:16; II Cor. 8:9).^[431] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 14:1 14 Verse 5 Who of you, if his son or his ox falls into a well on the sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out? Evidently, then, there are certain things that may not be left undone on the sabbath. Who &will not immediately pull him out? But are we as concerned about the spiritual welfare of our children as we are about their physical safety? If we are, we should insist on providing a thorough Christian education for them. Verse 10 Go and recline in the lowest place. The glory of taking the lowest place is that from there the only direction one can go is up. Verse 13 Invite poor people. To be sure, this advice was revolutionary. But the revolution here advocated permits no violence. It does not amount to taking from the rich to give to the poor. Those who have are admonished of their own accord to share with the have-nots. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 14:1–14 Verse 1 Note [Greek] &[Greek]: it happened &that. The style here is based on Hebrew. [Greek], third per. pl. periphrastic imperf. middle indicat. of [Greek], to watch closely; in the present case with evil intent. Whether the pronoun is emphatic here is by no means certain. In Koine Greek [Greek] does not always indicate special emphasis. Verse 2 [Greek] (from [Greek], dropsy; cf. [Greek], water), afflicted with dropsy. Etymologically related are water, dropsy, hydrant, hydrangea. Dropsy consists of excessive accumulation of fluid in body tissues. Verse 3 [Greek], nom. s. masc. aor. participle of [Greek]. Although in very many cases this Greek verb corresponds to English answer, reply, indicating an answer to a question that was asked, this is by no means always the case. Frequently the Greek verb introduces a response or reaction to a situation. See the following passages: Luke 1:60; 5:5; 7:40; 8:21, 50; 9:41, 49; 11:45, etc. So also here. [Greek], here occurring in a question and meaning, Is it proper or lawful? Verse 4 [Greek], third per. pl. aor. indicat. of [Greek], to be quiet. In accordance with the specific context in which this verb occurs it acquires the following meanings: They were quiet; i.e., offered no further objection (Acts 11:18; 21:14). Paul instructs certain excitable individuals to be ambitious about living calmly; i.e., leading a quiet life (I Thess. 4:11). The women who saw the tomb and how the body was laid in it were quiet that is, they rested on the sabbath (Luke 23:56). [Greek], nom. s. masc. 2nd aor. middle participle of [Greek], to take hold of; so also in (I Tim. 6:12. Further, to lay hold onLuke 20:20); to seize (23:26, etc.); and to take to oneself, be concerned about, help (Heb. 2:16). Verse 5 [Greek]. That this is an anacoluthon is clear, for we have to look ahead all the way to the subject of [Greek] to find the antecedent on which this pronoun depends. Literally the sentence reads, Whose son or ox of you shall fall into a well, and he [the father of the son, and owner of the ox] will not immediately pull him up (even) on the sabbath day? It makes little difference whether on the sabbath day is combined with fall into a well or with pull him up, since obviously both actions take place on that day and in immediate succession. In thought, at least, on the sabbath day belongs to the entire question. Although there is some degree of doubt regarding the reading son or ox instead of the variant donkey or ox, the textual evidence would seem to favor the former. In an early copy did a scribe unwittingly write donkey, because he was reminded of the somewhat similar passage, Luke 13:15? And was his error also partly due to the close resemblance between the two words [Greek], son, and [Greek], donkey, when written in abbreviated uncials? [Greek], well. Cf. The well is deep and Jacob &gave us this well (John 4:11, 12). In Rev. 9:1, 2the reference is to the shaft of the abyss. [Greek], third per. s. future indicat. middle of [Greek], to fall. [Greek], third per. s. future indicat. act. of [Greek], in the New Testament used only here and in Acts 11:10, to pull or draw up. Cf. space. Verse 6 [Greek]. Note double compound ([Greek] and [Greek]), aor. infinitive of [Greek]. The only other New Testament instance of this compound is Rom. 9:20, to talk back. In my thesis I have shown that in Luke [Greek] has the meaning in return. Cf. Matt. 22:34and Syriac rendering of <a href="/bible/parallel/LUK/14/6" class="green-link">Luke 14:6, They were not able to give answer. In Rom. 9:20, on the other hand, the prefix [Greek] indicates opposition, to argue against, as is clear from the entire context there. Forms of [Greek] in verses 7 24 Verses 7 14 contain a lesson for guests (the parable of The Reserved or Best Seats) and a lesson for the host. Verses 15 24 present the parable of The Slighted, and therefore in a sense Rejected Invitation (also called that of The Great Supper or The Great Banquet). It is understandable that material of this kind would contain several references to invitations. In fact, in verses 7 24 forms of the verb [Greek], to call, but here especially in the sense to invite, occur no less than 12 times. It may be helpful to treat these twelve as a group, beginning with the most simple or basic form. 1. [Greek] (verse 16), third per. s. aor. indicat. act.: A man &invited many guests. 2. A &[Greek] (verse 9), nom. s. aor. act. participle: the one having invited or the one who invited. Compare this with No. 8. 3. [Greek] (verse 13), sec. per. s. pres. imperat. act., invite, meaning, you must invite. 4. [Greek] (verse 7), acc. pl. of [Greek], perf. pass. participle: those who had been invited; in the present context the guests, for it is clear that the individuals to whom reference is made here had accepted the invitation that had been extended to them, and were actually present. 5. [Greek] (verse 17), same form as the immediately preceding except that (a) here we have the dat. pl.: (to tell) those who had been invited, and (b) the invited individuals had responded negatively to the invitation; hence, were not guests. 6. [Greek] (verse 24), again the same but now gen. pl.: of those &invited. 7. [Greek] (verse 8), third per. s. perf. pass. subjunct. periphrastic: a &person may have been invited. 8. A [Greek] (verse 10), nom. s. masc. perf. act. participle: the man who has extended the invitation, the host. Compare this with No. 2. 9. [Greek] (verse 12), same as the immediately preceding, but now in the dat.: &he said &to the one who had invited him, or simply, to the host. 10, 11. [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. subjunct. (after [Greek]) pass.: when you are invited (thus both in verse 8 and verse 10). 12. [Greek] (verse 12), third per. pl. aor. subjunct. (after [Greek]) of [Greek]: lest they invite you back. Verses 7 9 (from here on minus [Greek] forms) [Greek], pres. act. participle of [Greek], to hold toward, fix attention (with [Greek] understood) on, notice. [Greek], place of honor; acc. pl. [Greek] in verse 7; acc. s. [Greek] in verse 8. See also Luke 20:46; Matt. 23:6; Mark 12:39. [Greek], third per. pl. imperfect (descriptive or progressive) middle of [Greek], to choose. Cf. elect, and see the note on 6:13 on page 333. [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. subjunct. (in a prohibition) pass. of [Greek], to recline at table. See the note on 7:36 on page 411; and for this verb and its synonyms see the note on 11:37 on page 645. In order to understand the grammatical construction of verses 8, 9 it is probably best first of all, without regard to what sounds best in modern English, to translate the original literally. The result would be as follows: When [or: whenever] you are invited by anyone to a wedding feast, do not recline in the place of honor, lest [Greek] one more distinguished than you may have been invited by him, and (lest) the one who invited both you and him come and say to you, etc. The question then arises, since both [Greek] and [Greek] are dependent on [Greek], how is it that the first is in the subjunctive, the second in the future indicative? The answer is that there is, and always has been, a very close relation between the future indicative and the subjunctive. Both may express contingency, relative uncertainty, possibility rather than certainty. See A. T. Robertson's excellent discussion in Gram. N.T., p. 846 and especially pp. 926–928. For another illustration of this interchange between subjunctive and future indicative see 12:58. [Greek] &[Greek]. This aorist has been called punctiliar, impressive, authoritative. It surely is all that. It indicates a brusque command, one that anticipates immediate compliance. While [Greek] (sec. per. s. aor. subjunct. middle of [Greek]) may simply indicate a change of action, the pres. continuative infinitive [Greek] indicates that the embarrassed person takes and keeps the lowest place. Verse 10 [Greek], sec. per. s. 2nd aor. imperat. of [Greek]; see the note on 11:37 on page 645. [Greek] most naturally goes with [Greek]: so that he will say to you. [Greek], sec. per. s. 2nd aor. imperat. of [Greek], to move up. Verse 11 [Greek] and [Greek] are nom. s. masc. pres. act. participles; and [Greek] and [Greek] are third per. s. fut. indicat. passive verbs. Meaning: For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted. Verse 12 [Greek], sec. per. s. pres. (durative) subjunct. act. of [Greek], to do, make, produce, but in connection with meals, such as breakfasts, luncheons, etc., to give, arrange. [Greek], luncheon. See also the note on 11:37 on page 645. [Greek], dinner, supper, the day's principal meal; sometimes banquet. See M. M., p. 139. [Greek], note pres. tense; hence, do not keep inviting, do not habitually invite. Similarly in verse 13 [Greek] is pres. tense, make a practice of inviting. [Greek], acc. pl. of [Greek], neighbor; from [Greek], in the sense of land; hence, a person from the same land or region and thus a neighbor. [Greek] &[Greek], lest they invite you back and you receive a return payment (lit. and a return payment or repayment come to you). Acceptable also is the somewhat freer rendering, if you do, they may invite you back, etc. For a different construction and translation, one I cannot accept, see Robertson, Translation, Luke, p. 86. Jesus is not explicitly warning against a wrongly motivated invitation, but against a wrong social attitude, the ignoring of the underprivileged. Verse 13 For [Greek], s. acc. of [Greek], see the note on 5:29 on page 306. [Greek], acc. pl. m. of [Greek] (also spelled [Greek]), here and in verse 21, maimed or crippled. According to some the prefix [Greek] means all the way up. This is possible. 14:15–24 The Parable of The Rejected Invitation or of The Great Supper^[434] 15 Now when one of those reclining at table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, Blessed is the man who will partake of the feast^[432] in the kingdom of God. 16 Jesus said to him: A certain man was arranging a big dinner and invited many guests. 17 At the time fixed for the dinner he sent out his servant to tell those who had been invited, Come, for everything is now ready. 18 But they all alike began to make excuses. The first one said to him, I have just bought a piece of land,^[433] and I must go out and look it over; consider me excused. 19 Another said, I just bought five teams of oxen, and I'm on my way to try them out; consider me excused. 20 And still another said, I just got married; that's why I can t come. 21 So the servant came and reported these answers to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and said to his servant, Hurry out into the streets and alleys of the town, and bring in the poor, crippled, blind, and lame. 22 The servant answered, Sir, what you ordered has been done, but there is still room. 23 Then the master told his servant, Go out into the highways and hedgerows and compel people to come in, that my house may be full; 24 for I tell you that not one of those men who were invited shall taste my dinner. The reference Jesus made to the resurrection of the righteous and the blessedness connected with it produced an enthusiastic comment by one of the guests: 15. Now when one of those reclining at table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, Blessed is the man who will partake of the feast in the kingdom of God. Some commentators view this exclamation as the expression of commendable yearning for the kingdom of God in its final stage. Others interpret it to have been a superficial ejaculation from a self-righteous Pharisee. It is not necessary to choose sides in this dispute. As to describing the eschatological blessedness pertaining to the kingdom of God under the symbolism of a heavenly banquet, this representation is not at all unbiblical. In fact, Scripture often pictures the joy of the new heaven and earth as that of guests reclining together on couches at a table loaded with food and drink (wine, for example), and communicating with each other and with the host in a spacious banqueting hall flooded with light. Elements of this representation can be found in such passages as Ps. 23:5; Isa. 25:6; Matt. 8:11, 12; 22:1ff.; 26:29; Mark 14:25; Rev. 3:20; 19:9. The question is always: to what extent should these elements be interpreted literally, to what extent figuratively? When we answer, Symbolism probably predominates, this should not be interpreted to mean that the blessedness and the joys will be unreal. They will be very real indeed, but it is useless to speculate, and it is unjustifiable to be positive where Scripture sheds little or no light. As Jesus saw it, the far more important question for everyone to answer is this, Have I really accepted the invitation to enter this house of feasting? Does my life show that I have accepted it and am on the way to this blessed experience, enjoying a foretaste of it even now? This may well be considered the introduction to the parable Jesus now tells: 16, 17. Jesus said to him: A certain man was arranging a big dinner and invited many guests. At the time fixed for the dinner he sent out his servant to tell these who had been invited, Come, for everything is now ready. First there was the preparatory invitation. It would seem that in the present case all who were invited accepted. There is no mention of any who declined. Then, shortly before the beginning of the feast, the host sent a servant to tell the invited people, Come, for everything is now ready. The custom of double invitation, as here, was not at all unusual among the Jews. This appears not only from Esther 5:8; 6:14but also from the boast of the men of Jerusalem that none of them went to a banquet unless he were invited twice. ^[435] 18 20. But they all alike began to make excuses. The first one said to him, I have just bought a piece of land, and I must go out and look it over; consider me excused. Another said, I just bought five teams of oxen, and I'm on my way to try them out; consider me excused. And still another said, I just got married; that's why I can t come. It should be stressed that all these people had already promised to come. However, now all go back on their earlier promises. In view of the huge amount of work involved in getting everything ready for the guests, that cancellation of commitments was an offense. It proved that they had been insincere. They had said Yes, when they meant No. Besides, how shallow were the excuses offered! The man who said, I have just bought a piece of land, and I must go out and look it over, and who, on that ground, begged to be excused, knew very well that he had not bought that field sight unseen. Also, if he wanted to examine it more carefully, he would have every opportunity to do so afterward. Similarly, the fellow who had bought the five yoke of oxen knew he was stretching the truth when he said that on that account he would not be able to attend the banquet. I'm on my way to try them out, he said. Well, if he had entertained any serious doubts about the excellence of these animals he would not have paid out his money for them. And as to trying them out, that could easily be done at a later time. The third fellow's excuse was as lame as were the others. Even Deut. 24:5, which during the first year of his married life exempted a man from military service and from being charged with any public business, did not at all deprive him of the right to attend a banquet. In fact, it rather encouraged the exercise of this right; note the words at the end of that passage: he shall cheer up his wife whom he has taken. Taking her along to the feast would have cheered her up, indeed! And if, before doing so, he had told the host about his marriage, that warmhearted person would have said, By all means take her along! What we have here, therefore, is a series of trifling subterfuges, empty pretexts. Thus also, from the beginning until now, ever so many people had offered alibis for refusing to accept from the heart and hand of God salvation full and free. The prophets had spoken. The people had said No! (Isa. 53:1; 65:2). And now, during Christ's ministry, they were saying No! once more (Luke 13:34). 21. So the servant came and reported these answers to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and said to his servant, Hurry out into the streets and alleys of the town, and bring in the poor, crippled, blind, and lame. When the master heard his servant's report he was angry. Was the banquet to be called off now? No indeed! It was going to be held, and at the time previously determined. So, in order that guests might not be lacking, the servant is now sent into that part of the city where the underprivileged people were living: the poor, crippled, blind, and lame, the very people already mentioned in verse 13. They must now be invited; rather, they must be taken by the hand and brought in. This was probably necessary, not so much because, for example, the blind would not have been able to find the banqueting hall unless they were taken by the hand and led, but rather because all of the groups here mentioned might well entertain serious doubts with respect to the question whether a sumptuous banquet could really be for them. 22, 23. The servant answered, Sir, what you ordered has been done, but there is still room. Then the master told his servant, Go out into the highways and hedgerows and compel people to come in, that my house may be full & Not only has the owner of the house definitely decided that there shall be a banquet and that it shall be held on the date originally planned, but also he wants his house filled with guests. He is that kind of person, very bighearted and generous. He loves to make people happy, especially those down and out. So into the major roads outside the city he now sends his servant. Along the outside highways here and there some people are living, foreigners perhaps. The very poor people and the kind of folks who, were they living in another part of the world, would be called untouchables had constructed some kind of shelters for themselves amid the rows of shrubs and bushes lining those highways. These highway and these hedgerow people must now be compelled to come to the banquet; compelled not physically but by the force of powerful and loving persuasion. And what about those people who had been invited first of all, had first accepted the invitation but at the last moment had refused, advancing all kinds of shallow excuses? The answer is found in verse 24. for I tell you that not one of those men who were invited shall taste my dinner. The little word for should not be left untranslated. There is indeed a causal connection here. The meaning is: since I want my house to be full, and since none of those first invited shall taste of my dinner, therefore people must be gathered from the highways and the hedgerows. Who is meant by the pronoun I in I tell you? The master? But when the master speaks to his servant he uses the second person singular. What we have here is the plural: you. Probable, therefore, is that here the parable stops. Its central lesson surfaces. Jesus himself is saying to all present at that dinner, including the man who uttered the exclamation (verse 15), and further to everyone who reads or hears this parable down through the ages, that refusal to accept God's gracious invitation of salvation by grace through faith will result in being excluded from the blessings and joys of the new heaven and earth, the kingdom in its consummation, the church triumphant. When Israel, as a whole, rejects Christ (verses 18 20), God's plan is not abandoned. Even among the Jews in the old dispensation and during the period of Christ's earthly ministry there were genuine believers (verse 21). There was always that little remnant (I Kings 19:18; Isa. 14:32; 29:19; Luke 6:20; Rom. 9:27; 11:5). But now something very wonderful happens, already predicted, to be sure, in the Old Testament (Isa. 54:2, 3; 60:1–3; cf. Ps. 72:8f.; 87): the church, present even during the old dispensation, now begins to expand among the Gentiles. It now becomes universal, international (see above, verses 22, 23), the body of Christ consisting of both Jew and Gentile. Cf. Eph. 2:14, 18. The old Israel, that is, those who rejected God's gracious invitation, extended first by the old dispensation prophets and afterward by Jesus himself and his apostles (see verses 16, 17), perishes. Not one of the rejecters is saved (verse 24). The new Israel, consisting of both Jew and Gentile (Gal. 6:16), lives on. There can be neither Jew nor Greek; there can be neither slave nor freeman; there can be no male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus, says Paul (Gal. 3:28). In all this the bountiful character of God's love is revealed: There's a wideness in God's mercy, Like the wideness of the sea; There's a kindness in his justice That is more than liberty. For the love of God is broader Than the measure of man's mind; And the heart of the eternal Is most wonderfully kind. F. W. Faber Positively stated, then, the one central lesson of the parable is: ACCEPT GOD S GRACIOUS INVITATION. DO IT NOW! For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 738–740. 14:25–33 The Cost of Discipleship. The Parable of The Rash Builder and The Reasonable King For 14:26, 27 cf. Matt. 10:37, 38 25 Now huge crowds were traveling with Jesus; and he suddenly turned and said to them, 26 If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters yes, and even his own life he cannot be my disciple. 27 Anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me^[436] cannot be my disciple. 28 For who of you, wishing to erect a tower,^[437] does not first sit down and figure out the cost, (to see) whether he has enough money to complete it? 29 Lest perhaps, when he has laid a foundation but is unable to complete the building, all the onlookers poke fun of^[438] him, 30 saying, This fellow began to build but was not able to finish. 31 Or what king, setting out to wage war with another king, does not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet in battle the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if he is not able, then, while the other king is still a long way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. 33 Similarly, therefore, no one of you who does not give up all that belongs to him can be my disciple. A. The Cost of Discipleship 25, 26. Now huge crowds were traveling with Jesus; and he suddenly turned and said to them, If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters yes, and even his own life he cannot be my disciple. The topical connection between this and the preceding section is close; see pp. 538, 539. On his way toward Jerusalem, through Perea, huge crowds are following Jesus. All at once he turns to them and addresses them in words which in substance, though not exactly, are found also in Matt. 10:37. He tells the people that devotion to himself must be so wholehearted that even attachment to parents and to the other members of one's family must not be allowed to stand in the way. What has bothered many people is the word hate which Jesus uses here. Does the Master really mean that a true disciple must dislike, detest, abhor, loathe his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters? A good rule to follow is always this one: Let Scripture be its own interpreter. The two parallel passages should be placed side by side. Matthew 10:37Compared with Luke 14:26 Matt. 10:37Luke 14:26 He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters &he cannot be my disciple. Clearly, then, the meaning of hate in the Lucan passage is to love less. In all things Christ must always have the pre-eminence (Col. 1:18). Other arguments in support of this view: a. The word hate has the same meaning to love less in Gen. 29:31, Jehovah saw that Leah was hated. The explanation of hated is given in the immediate context, verse 30, Jacob &loved Rachel more than Leah. In other words, he loved Leah less than Rachel. It was in that sense that he hated Leah. b. That the word hate in (Luke 14:26cannot have the meaning which we generally attach to it is clear also from the fact that Jesus tells us to love even our enemiesMatt. 5:44). Then we should certainly love and not hate members of our immediate family. What the Savior demands in Luke 14:26and other passages is complete devotion, the type of loyalty that is so true and unswerving that every other attachment, even that to one's own life, must be subjected to it. When an alien wishes to become a citizen of the United States of America he must renounce allegiance to his native land and take an oath of loyalty to the country of his choice. This does not mean that he cannot continue to think highly of the nation to which he has said Farewell, but it does mean that from now on he must serve the land of the free and the home of the brave. Even far more absolute and unconditional must be the loyalty which citizens of the kingdom of God sustain toward their heavenly country and its Lord of lords and King of kings. If a person is unwilling to tender that unconditional devotion, then, says Jesus, he cannot be my disciple. That same expression is found also in the next verse: 27. Anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. Cf. Matt. 10:38. This negative statement is implied in its positive parallel, found in 9:23. For the meaning see on that passage. B. The Parable of The Rash Builder One might also call this The Parable of The Reasonable Builder, for that reasonable or sensible man is certainly implied in the words, Who of you does not first sit down and figure out the cost, etc. But though that title must be allowed, it remains true that in this little illustration more is said about the rash builder than about his opposite. 28 30. For who of you, wishing to erect a tower [or farm building] does not first sit down and figure out the cost, (to see) whether he has enough money to complete it? Lest perhaps, when he has laid a foundation but is unable to complete the building, all the onlookers poke fun of him, saying, This fellow began to build but was not able to finish. The lesson is Look Before You Leap. Here is a man who is thinking about building a tower. What kind of tower? The original does not make this clear. Perhaps a watchtower for his vineyard, so that he can be protected against pillagers, etc., and will have a place or an extra place for storage, and even for temporary residence. Or the tower of which the text speaks may have meant an entire farm building. Whatever it be, the point is that before a man starts to erect the structure he should count the cost. If he does not, he will become a laughingstock, an object of ridicule. Similarly, before one decides to be Christ's follower, he should realize that being a Christian is not a bed of roses. Did not Jesus make this very clear? See (Matt. 7:14; Luke 13:24; cf. John 16:33; II Tim. 3:12. To be sure, a true believer is never lostJohn 10:27, 28; I John 2:19), but there are many people who seem to have cast their lot with Christ and then &fall away. Think of Demas and of Judas. What, then, is the solution? Perhaps I can remain neutral? Read on: C. The Parable of The Reasonable King 31, 32. Or what king, setting out to wage war with another king, does not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet in battle the one coming against him with twenty thousand? And if he is not able, then, while the other king is still a long way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. No, you cannot remain neutral. You must leap. The title The Parable of The Reckless King is based upon the fact that such a king is indeed implied, one who does not first sit down and consider, etc. But, again, though that title is applicable, the emphasis is on the reasonable, sensible king. This king is not in the same position as the builder of the preceding parable. That man was free to act or not to act, to build or not to build. The king, however, is being attacked. Someone is coming against him with twenty thousand soldiers, but he himself has only ten thousand. So he must make a decision. That decision will probably be to send a delegation and make peace with the attacker. The illustration is apt. The foe is formidable. See I Peter 5:8; I John 2:16. The sinner too must act. Neutrality is impossible. What, then, should he do? He should become reconciled with God. That is the wise, sensible, reasonable thing to do. And is not that exactly what Jesus has been saying all along? See 12:57–59; 13:3, 5, 24, 34. Cf. II Cor. 5:20, 21. The two little parables form a unit. Look before you leap. But be sure to leap &in the right direction! Jesus is nearing the cross. Now is the critical hour. Today, O that you would hear his voice! (Ps. 95:7). Jesus sums it all up in these words: 33. Similarly, therefore, no one of you who does not give up all that belongs to him can be my disciple. Wholehearted devotion, all-out loyalty, complete self-denial, so that one places himself, his time, his earthly possessions, his talents, etc., at the disposal of Christ, is what Jesus asks. But we never can prove the delights of his love Until all on the altar we lay; For the favor he shows, and the joy he bestows, Are for them who will trust and obey. Trust and obey, for there's no other way To be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey. Rev. J. H. Sammis For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 738–740. 14:34, 35 Useless Salt Cf. Matt. 5:13; Mark 9:50 34 Salt, indeed, is good; but if even the salt becomes tasteless, what will restore it?^[439] 35 It is fit neither for soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. Jesus has been emphasizing that his followers must be wholeheartedly devoted to him. They must not be merely nominal disciples. They should be genuine salt, salt that has not lost its flavor: 34, 35. Salt, indeed, is good; but if even the salt becomes tasteless, what will restore it? It is fit neither for soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. As to the underlying figure, it is easy to understand that salt is good. It is good because it preserves (combats deterioration) and imparts flavor. However, salt may lose its flavor and become tasteless. The salt from the marshes and lagoons or from the rocks in the neighborhood of the Dead Sea easily acquires a stale or alkaline taste, because of its mixture with gypsum, etc. It is then literally useless. It cannot fertilize the soil, and throwing it on the manure pile will not help any. Jesus, as he walked on earth, saw many Pharisees and scribes, people who advocated a formal, legalistic religion in the place of the true religion proclaimed by the ancient prophets in the name of the Lord. Thus by and large the salt had lost its flavor in the religious life of Israel. Many sons of the kingdom would be cast out (Matt. 8:12). The implication is clear. Just as salt having lost its saltiness cannot be restored, so also those who were trained in the knowledge of the truth but who then resolutely set themselves against the exhortation of the Holy Spirit and become hardened in their opposition are not renewed unto repentance (Matt. 12:32; Heb. 6:4–6). Because unswerving loyalty to Jesus Christ, and thus to God Triune, is not at all in harmony with the natural cravings of sinful human nature, and yet is absolutely necessary, Jesus concludes with the words He who has ears to hear, let him hear. For explanation see on 8:8b.^[440] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 14:15 35 Verses 18, 24 But they all alike began to make excuses. Not one of those men who were invited shall taste my dinner. Not for a moment was the host fooled by the excuses. Here are some modern alibis: I always have a headache on Sunday. Did you know that many more babies are born on Sunday than on any other day of the week? (an excuse by an M.D. for skipping so many services). There are too many hypocrites in church. Verse 33 No one &who does not give up all that belongs to him can be my disciple. If this sacrifice seems too great, compare it with Christ's sacrifice for us (II Cor. 8:9; and cf. Rom. 8:32). Though what was demanded of the rich young ruler is not required of everyone, in one way or another God wants each of us to surrender himself with body and soul to him, serving him wholeheartedly according to the talents he has given us. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 14:15–35 Verses 18, 19 It is uncertain which word to supply after [Greek]. The following have been suggested: [Greek], [Greek], [Greek]. Probably safe would be all alike. Note [Greek] in verse 18, [Greek] in verses 18 and 19. These are forms of the verb [Greek] (= [Greek] plus [Greek]), to beg off, to make excuses. The first is the pres. infinitive; the second is the acc. s. masc. perf. pass. participle. The various shades of meaning of this verb may be classified as follows: to make excuses, to excuse oneselfLuke 14:18a ; consider me excused, or: please excuse me (Luke 14:18b, 19); to shun or have nothing to do with (I Tim. 4:7; Titus 3:10); to refuse (Acts 25:11; Heb. 12:25); to refuse to place on the list (I Tim. 5:11); to reject (II Tim. 2:23). In Heb. 12:19the meaning of the entire clause seems to be, They begged that no further message be given them. Verse 20 [Greek], first per. s. aor. indicat. of [Greek], to marry. Cf. bigamy. Verse 21 [Greek], nom. s. masc. aor. pass. participle of [Greek]; in the pass. to become angry. Cf. orgy. [Greek], acc. pl. of [Greek], found also in Matt. 6:2; Acts 9:11; 12:10, alley. More than one attempt has been made to explain the origin of this Greek word. By some it is traced to the flow or rush (cf. [Greek], [Greek]) of an object, leaving a trail or lane behind it, and this easily leads to the meaning narrow street, alley. But the very fact that etymologists do not agree would seem to indicate that this is no more than a guess. Verse 24 [Greek], gen. pl. of [Greek]. This shows that, as far as the parable is concerned, the invitation had been extended to, and refused by, the men (males), as those held responsible for attendance. Verse 28 [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek]. This word reminds one of German Burg and of Dutch burcht. The meaning is stronghold, citadel, fortress, farm building, tower. See also 13:4; Matt. 21:33; Mark 12:1. [Greek], third per. s. pres. indicat. of [Greek], used here and in Rev. 13:18(there third per. s. aor. imperat. is used). A [Greek] is a pebble. At one time pebbles were used in counting. So, the verb means: to count, calculate. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], cost, expense; probably from [Greek], to consume, devour, tear. What we spend devours what we have. For this verb see also on 15:14. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], for completion. Verses 29, 30 [Greek] (occurs once in each verse), aor. infinitive act. of [Greek] ([Greek] perfective, plus [Greek]), to carry out to the very end; hence, to finish. [Greek], third per. pl. aor. subjunct. middle (after [Greek]) of [Greek]. [Greek], pres. infinitive of [Greek], to play like a child ([Greek]); hence, to make sport of, poke fun of. [Greek]. Either (all the onlookers) poke fun of him, or begin to poke fun of him is possible. In other words, [Greek] may be redundant here, but this is not certain. Verse 31 [Greek], aor. infinitive (here ingressive), with perfective prefix [Greek], of [Greek]. This verb may have the following meanings. The precise sense depends in each case on the context: a. to mull overLuke 2:19; see the note on that passage on page 162 . b. to throw words together (with someone); hence, to converse (Acts 4:15; 17:18). c. to co-operate, be of assistance, help (Acts 18:27). d. to fall in with, meet (Acts 20:14). e. here in Luke 14:31(with [Greek] ), to engage in battle, wage war. [Greek]. Note the two prefixes: [Greek] and [Greek]. As to the first, if any of its former force is left, it probably indicates that the verb it here introduces describes a motion toward a certain goal; cf. our expression to undertake something. As to the second, namely, [Greek], in the present passageMatt. 8:28; 28:9; Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27, etc., where this prefix indicates local oppositeness; such as coming face to face with someone, meeting that person the reference is definitely to spiritual opposition, hostility, as the context indicates. The two kings are confronting each other with the purpose of destroying each other. The form here used is the aor. infinitive of [Greek], to meet in battle. Verse 32 [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek]; in the New Testament occurring only here and in 19:14, delegation, embassy. Verse 33 [Greek], third per. s. pres. indicat. of [Greek], to lay aside, give up, take leave of, say good-bye to. With but little variation in meaning it occurs here and also in (Mark 6:46; II Cor. 2:13; for the rest, only in Luke's writingsLuke 9:61; Acts 18:18, 21). Verse 34 [Greek], third per. s. aor. subjunct. pass. of [Greek], to show to be foolish (I Cor. 1:20), to become fools (Rom. 1:22). Cf. moron, sophomore. But here in (Luke 14:34Matt. 5:13) in the pass., to become tasteless. [Greek], third per. s. fut. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to season. Verse 35 [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], manure pile. [Greek]. This pl. is probably simply a Semitism. See the note on 12:20 on page 673. For a different explanation see Robertson, Translation, Luke, pp. 88, 204. Summary of Chapter 14 See pp. 538, 539. 425 Or: sent him away. 426 Some manuscripts read donkey. 427 S.BK., Vol. II, pp. 203, 204. N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary 428 For the variant donkey or ox see the note on this verse on page 727. 429 Or: banquet. 430 S.BK., Vol. IV., p. 618. 431 Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 14:1–14 begin on this page. Gram. N.T. A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research M. M. The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan 434 This parable is peculiar to Luke. Matt. 22:1 14is not a true parallel. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 21–23. 432 Literally, who will eat bread, etc. 433 Or: a field, a farm. 435 P. A. Micklem, St. Matthew, with Introduction and Notes, London, 1917, p. 210. 436 Or: and come behind me. 437 Or: farm building. 438 Or: begin to poke fun of. 439 Literally: wherewith shall it be seasoned? (A.V. and A.R.V.). 440 Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 14:15–35 begin on this page. CHAPTER XV Outline of Chapter 15 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 15:1–7 The Parable of The Lost Sheep 15:8–10 The Parable of The Lost Coin 15:11–32 The Parable of The Lost Son 15:1–7 The Parable of The Lost Sheep Cf. Matt. 18:12–14 15 1 Now the tax-collectors and the sinners were all in the habit of gathering^[441] around Jesus in order to hear him. 2 But the Pharisees and the scribes were constantly grumbling, saying, This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them! 3 So he told them this parable: 4 What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he has found it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders, 6 and on reaching home calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost. 7 I tell you that similarly there will be joy in heaven over one sinner who is converted (more)^[442] than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need conversion. With respect to the connection between this and the preceding chapter see p. 539. To many people Luke's Gospel is a closed book. But that does not apply in equal measure to such portions as chapter 2; 10:30–37; and chapter 15. Even children will ask to have these sections read to them, or will themselves read them. In the realm of literature there is nothing finer. The present chapter contains three closely related parables, that of The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin, and The Lost Son. The second and the third are peculiar to Luke. Of the first Matt. 18:12 14gives an abbreviated parallel. The three have one central theme, namely, The Father's Yearning Love for the Lost. It is that theme on which the emphasis is placed throughout. The shepherd seeks the one lost sheep. The woman searches carefully until she has found the one lost coin. The father's heart goes out to his lost son. When he sees him, he welcomes him back to his heart and home. We do not need to investigate diligently in order to find the one leading thought. It is there for all to see in verses 7, 10, 20b 24, 32. Why did Jesus tell these parables in the order: lost sheep, lost coin, lost son? It has been suggested that the sequence is one of proportion from the smallest to the largest as follows: first parable: one sheep out of a hundred is lost; second parable: one coin out of ten is lost; third parable: one son out of two is lost. But whether this has any significance is not clear. It must be admitted, however, that the parable of The Lost (or Prodigal) Son, being the longest of the three and also the most touching, forms a fitting climax. 1. Now the tax-collectors and the sinners were all in the habit of gathering [or: were all gathering] around Jesus in order to hear him. As the Pharisees and the scribes saw it, tax-collectors were extortioners and traitors, as has been explained in connection with 3:12. But here and in 5:30; 7:34 these publicans are mentioned in one breath with sinners, that is, all other people of bad reputation, people who did not even try to live in accordance with the standards established by the rabbis. To associate with people of this class was considered contaminating; to eat with them, outrageous! Yet Jesus was often seen in their company. He had even selected a tax-collector to be one of The Twelve, and did not hesitate to dine with publicans (5:27–29). Was not this in accordance with his own instructions? See 14:12–14. He associated with publicans and sinners, meeting them on their own level, in order to deliver them from their sinful ways and to raise them to the level of genuine holiness, the holiness required by God's law (Lev. 19:2). In reality, therefore, it was Jesus, rather than the rabbis, who was honoring the law. Tax-collectors and sinners, in turn, were not slow to recognize the contrast between Christ's attitude toward them and that of the Pharisees and scribes. So they regarded Jesus as their Friend and were in the habit of gathering around him to hear him, which was exactly what, according to 14:35, they were supposed to do. 2. But the Pharisees and the scribes were constantly grumbling, saying, This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them. On a previous occasion these opponents of Jesus had found fault with his disciples for eating and drinking with publicans and sinners (5:30). Now, having grown bolder, they criticize Jesus himself for doing this. Contemptuously they refer to him as this fellow. Clearly they had not taken to heart the lesson Jesus had taught them (5:31, 32). They refused to believe that it was for the very purpose of seeking and saving the lost that he had come into the world (19:10). 3, 4. So he told them this parable: What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? In order to expose the terrible mistake the Pharisees, etc., were making and the horrible wrong they were committing, and at the same time to convince them of this, that even now they might turn from their wicked attitude toward those who were in need of compassion and help, Jesus tells this parable. Since the country through which Jesus was passing was a region where the shepherd tending his sheep was not an unfamiliar sight, Jesus made use of this fact in order to illustrate what, according to God's will, must be done with a lost sheep. Must it be ignored, neglected, despised, as was the attitude of Pharisees toward the people whom they regarded as wayward and lost? Was that the way a good shepherd dealt with a lost sheep? Besides, many people in the audience and presumably especially the Pharisees and scribes were familiar with precious Old Testament passages concerning the shepherd and his sheep; for example: Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not lack (Ps. 23:1); He will feed his flock like a shepherd; he will gather the lambs in his arms, carry them in his bosom, and will gently lead those that have their young (Isa. 40:11); I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep &I will seek that which was lost (Ezek. 34:15, 16). So Jesus says, What man of you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not &go after the lost sheep? He means, Every good shepherd would do this. Moreover, his search would not be halfhearted, not merely a token search. No, he would leave behind the ninety-nine and look for that one lost sheep until he finds it! 5, 6. And when he has found it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders, and on reaching home calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost. Even though the search was time-consuming and physically exhausting, once having found his sheep, the shepherd, in typically Mid-Eastern fashion, places it over his two shoulders, with its stomach against the back of his neck, and with its four feet tied together in front of his face.^[443] Loaded down thus heavily, he returns to his home in the village. The shepherd rejoices, and this not simply because of the recovery of a physical loss. No, he loves that sheep. His shepherd's heart rejoices because the sheep was not devoured or did not perish in some other way. The shepherd even invites his male friends and neighbors to rejoice with him. Result: a joyous stag party. And now Jesus makes the application, drives home the parable's one main lesson: 7. I tell you that similarly there will be joy in heaven over one sinner who is converted (more) than [or: rather than] over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need conversion. What kind of people did Jesus have in mind when he spoke of those ninety-nine righteous persons? See the footnote for views I reject.^[444] Several commentators skip the problem entirely. There can be no question about the fact that the ninety-nine sheep have symbolical significance. They do not merely belong to the fringes of the parable. The words of Jesus, clearly identifying the ninety-nine sheep with the ninety-nine righteous persons (cf. verse 4 with verse 7), cannot be ignored. In harmony with several other interpreters^[445] I am convinced that the meaning of verse 7 is, I tell you that similarly God [perhaps also angels see verse 10 and the redeemed?] will rejoice over one sinner who becomes converted, and not over ninety-nine self-righteous people. Undoubtedly, in mentioning the ninety-nine, Jesus was thinking of the Pharisees, scribes, and their followers. This explanation does justice to the introduction of this parable (verses 1, 2). The ninety-nine sheep represent the grumblers. They were the ones who were erecting the palace of their hope and security on the frail foundation of their own vaunted righteousness (18:9). The two main objections to this interpretation are easy to answer. The answers will also show why the other interpretations, those summarized in footnote 444, are incorrect. Objection No. 1. The passage states that there will be more joy over one sinner who is converted than over ninety-nine righteous persons, etc. This implies that there must be some joy also over the ninety-nine. But this could not be true with reference to Pharisees and scribes. Therefore it must apply to others; such as faithful covenant members, sincere Israelites, or angels. Answer. The original says no more than this: There will be joy in heaven over one sinner who becomes converted [or, if one prefers, who repents] than over ninety-nine righteous persons, etc. The word to be supplied before than can be either rather or more. See also the note on this verse on page 751. If the implied word is rather, the meaning is that there will be joy in heaven over the convert, but not over the ninety-nine. See the explanation of 18:14. But even if here in 15:7 we allow the rendering more than to stand, the result is still the same. What we are dealing with here is the same ironic language that is still being used by ourselves and by others. When a teacher tells her pupils, I am more pleased with students who study diligently than with those who have all the answers, she means, I am pleased with students who study diligently, but not with those who refuse to study because they think, they know it all. Jesus used human language just as we do today, with all its nuances and figures of speech. The difference is that what he said was always important and always true, a statement which cannot be predicated of our speech. If we fail to accept this fact, we introduce into our explanation of Christ's words all kinds of strange elements; such as, that heaven is far happier about a sudden convert than about those who serve God all their lives, and also rejoices far more over that sudden convert than it does over the good angels, etc. Is it not strange that, according to Taylor's explanation, of the one hundred sheep, ninety-nine would symbolize angels, and one would refer to a human being? What a mixture, that flock! Objection No. 2 Jesus refers to righteous persons. The phrase in their own estimation is not in the text. Answer. It does not need to be. In (John 9:39Jesus calls his opponents those who see. Verses 40, 41 make clear that he had in mind those who think they see, namely, the Pharisees. Similarly, in Luke 5:31Jesus describes the Pharisees and scribes as those who are healthy, and in verse 32 he calls them righteous people. However, the context shows that he was thinking of those who thought they were healthy and righteous. They were righteous in their own estimation. Something very similar happens in Matt. 9:13; Mark 2:17. Jesus had reference to those people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and looked down on everybody elseLuke 18:9). We have spent sufficient time explaining the ninety-nine. Christ's emphasis, however, was on the one that was lost, searched for, found, and cheered. Even more emphatically, what Jesus is saying is this: if even a human shepherd will leave the ninety-nine to find the one sheep that was lost, how much more will the Great Shepherd do to seek and reclaim the lost sinner! And how much greater will be his joy! Implied in all this is the thought: should not you Pharisees and scribes, imitate God in this respect and try to find and restore the lost? Would not that course of action be much better than to keep yourselves at a distance from publicans and sinners and to despise them? For The Twelve too this was a valuable lesson. And for the people of low reputation it was an encouragement. Besides, the illustration is unforgettable. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 749–751. 15:8–10 The Parable of The Lost Coin 8 Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins^[446] and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she has found it, she calls in the other women: her friends and neighbors, and says, Celebrate with me, for I have found the coin I lost. 10 Similarly, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who is converted. Here we are introduced to peasant life: 8. Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? The silver coin here mentioned, like the Roman denarius, amounted to a day's wages for a common laborer (Matt. 20:2). The woman may have worn the ten drachmas on a chain around her neck, or, more likely, she may have tied them up in a little rag. The chain may have broken or the knot may have worked loose, with the result in either case that she lost one of her coins. The home of a person of the poorer classes, such as this woman, was generally small. It had a dirt floor and either no windows or very small ones. Therefore, once the coin had slipped out and fallen to the floor it was not easy to find. So, because the house was rather dark she lights a lamp and starts sweeping. She sweeps every nook and cranny of the house and &there it is! She finds it. What a joy! 9. And when she has found it, she calls in the other women: her friends and neighbors, and says, Celebrate with me, for I have found the coin I lost. How these women celebrate! Over and over again the woman who lost the coin and found it again recounts all the details of what actually happened. In the preceding parable the men were celebrating; here the women. What is the meaning of all this? I have come across the following explanations: a. The woman symbolizes the Holy Spirit. A process of logical elimination leads some expositors to this conclusion. There are three Persons in the Trinity. The second Person, the Son, has already been symbolized, namely, in the parable of The Lost Sheep. Is not Jesus the Good Shepherd? The first Person is clearly represented by the father in the parable of The Lost (or Prodigal) Son (verses 11 32). Only the Holy Spirit, the third Person, is left. Therefore the woman in the second of the three parables of chapter 15 must symbolize the Holy Spirit. Not all agree, however. For example, Lenski (op. cit., p. 506) does not hesitate a moment to make the woman a symbol of the Church. b. The lamp indicates the gospel. c. The broom yes, even the broom is not spared! signifies the law, so we are told. As to myself, I cannot find any of this in the parable. I believe that the one and only point, the central lesson, of the parable is indicated by Jesus himself when he brings the parable to a beautiful and very comforting conclusion with these words: 10. Similarly, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who is converted. Does this passage mean that the angels rejoice when a sinner is converted? There can be no question about the fact that God's holy angels take a deep interest in our salvation. See Matt. 18:10; 25:31; Luke 2:10 14; I Cor. 13:1; I Peter 1:12; Rev. 3:5; 5:11; 14:10. They may know more about it than we imagine, for they dwell in God's immediate presence. Hence, their rejoicing over a sinner's conversion must not be ruled out. But that is not exactly the teaching of our passage; at least, that is not its main point. That main point is this: God, who has his dwelling in the presence of the angels, seeks sinners, and rejoices over even one of them who repents or is converted. So, should not you, Pharisees and scribes, be concerned about those people you now despise? Should you not do all in your power to help them? On the subject of God's deep interest in sinners and his joy in their conversion and salvation see also the following beautiful passages: Isa. 62:5; Jer. 7:13(and its many parallels in that book); 32:41; Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; Hos. 11:8; Zeph. 3:17; John 3:16; Rom. 5:6–11; 8:32; II Peter 3:9.^[447] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 15:1 10 Verse 2 This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them. From the point of view of the Pharisees the situation was even worse; and from the point of view of faith, even better, as will become clear. There are at least four different attitudes one can assume toward the lost: a. hating them b. regarding them with indifference c. welcoming them when they come to you d. seeking them. The Pharisees were accusing Jesus of being guilty (as they saw it) of (c). Actually Jesus not only welcomed sinners (c) but even sought them (Matt. 14:14; 18:12–14; John 4:4f.; 10:16). I sought the Lord, and afterward I knew He moved my soul to seek him, seeking me; It was not I that found, O Savior true, No, I was found, was found of thee. Anonymous Verse 4 Until he finds it. Many years ago someone signed up for a correspondence course. He had to pay in advance. Upon completing the course and receiving his diploma, he asked those who gave the course, How is it that you are able to charge so little for this course? You must have lost money on it. The answer came back, Because so few complete it. It is comforting to know that our Great Shepherd never stops seeking his sheep until he finds it (Phil. 1:6). Verses 6, 9, 32 In each case the one who finds shares his joy with others. There is a fellowship of rejoicing. Cf. Phil. 2:17; II Tim. 4:7, 8. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 15:1–10 Verse 1 [Greek] &[Greek], third per. pl. periphrastic imperf. indicat. of [Greek], to draw near to, come to, gather around. The tense here employed may mean either: (a) that the tax-collectors and the sinners were at a particular occasion coming to Jesus, or (b) that they were in the habit of doing this. With A. B. Bruce (Expositor's Greek Testament, Vol. I, p. 577) I leave room for both views, though with Calvin (Harmony, Vol. II, p. 340) and Godet (op. cit., Vol. II, p. 143) I agree that the second theory probably deserves the preference. Forms of [Greek] in verses 4 32 The verb [Greek], which in various forms occurs repeatedly in this chapter, is derived from [Greek] plus [Greek]; hence, basically means: to destroy completely. As is true of prefixes generally, the full force of [Greek] is not always in evidence. In the New Testament [Greek], act., has such meanings as: to destroy, put to death, kill, ruin, lose; middle: to be destroyed, to be killed, to perish, die, be lost, pass away. Etymological relationship between [Greek] and the English word abolish has not been firmly established. On the other hand, Apollyon (Rev. 9:11) is definitely related, and means Destroyer. 1. [Greek] (verse 4a), nom. s. masc. aor. act. participle: having lost. 2, 3. [Greek] (verses 4b, 6), acc. s. neut. 2nd perf. participle: the lost (sheep), the sheep that was lost. 4. [Greek] (verse 8), third per. s. aor. subjunct. act. (after [Greek]): if she loses. 5. [Greek] (verse 9), first per. aor. indicat. act.: I lost. 6. [Greek] (verse 17), first per. s. pres. (linear) indicat. middle: I am perishing. 7, 8. [Greek] (verses 24, 32), third per. s. periphrastic (intensive) past perf., expressing existing state in the past: he was lost. Cf. Gram. N.T., p. 904. Verses 4 32 (from here on minus [Greek] forms) For [Greek] see the note on 1:30 on page 92. Note the following forms of this verb in chapter 15: [Greek], third per. s. aor. subjunct. act. (after [Greek]), verses 4, 8. [Greek], nom. masc. s. 2nd aor. act. participle, verse 5. [Greek], same, except fem., verse 9. [Greek], first per. s. aor. indicat. act., verses 6, 9. [Greek], third per. aor. indicat. pass., verses 24, 32. [Greek], acc. pl. of [Greek], shoulder, in the New Testament occurring only here and in Matt. 23:4. Cf. humerus. Verse 6 Note both in verse 6 and verse 9 [Greek] href="/bible/parallel/MRK/15/16" class="green-link">Mark 15:16</a>in the New Testament confined to Luke's writings , and [Greek] (Luke 1:58; I Cor. 12:26; 13:6; Phil. 2:17, 18). Verse 7 $, a particle indicating comparison, but here (I Cor. 14:19) occurring without preceding comparative. Meaning more than or perhaps rather than. Verses 8, 9 [Greek], acc. pl. of [Greek], drachma, a Greek silver coin, about equal in value to the Roman denarius, a common laborer's daily wage. Note acc. pl. in verse 8, and acc. s. in both verses. See Matt. 17:24for double drachma. [Greek], third per. s. pres. indicat. act. of [Greek] (for earlier [Greek]), to sweep. See also the note on 11:25 on page 634. 15:11–32 The Parable of The Lost Son 11 And he said, A certain man had two sons. 12 Now the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me my share of the estate. So he divided his property between them. 13 Not many days afterward the younger son gathered all he had and went away to a distant country, and there he squandered his wealth by living extravagantly. 14 When he had spent everything, a severe famine arose throughout that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to^[448] a citizen of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 And he was longing to fill his stomach with the carob pods which the pigs were eating, but no one was giving anything to him. 17 But when he came to his senses he said, How many of my father's hired men have more than they can eat, and here I am dying of hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men. 20 So he arose and went to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him, and his heart went out to him. The father ran, threw his arms around his son's neck, and kissed him fervently. 21 And the son said to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son. ^[449] 22 But the father said to his servants, Quickly bring a robe, the best one, and put it on him. Put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring on the fattened calf and kill it, and let's eat and celebrate, 24 because this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to celebrate. 25 Meanwhile his older son was in the field. And as he was returning and approaching the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And having called one of the servant boys to him, he began to inquire what this could be. 27 So he told him, Your brother has arrived, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has received him back safe and sound. 28 But the older brother became angry and refused to go inside. Then his father came outside and began to plead with him.^[450] 29 However, he answered and said to his father, Look, these many years I've been slaving for you, and never did I disobey your command; yet to me you never gave (even) a young goat, so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours, who devoured your property with prostitutes, came home, for him you killed the fattened calf. 31 My child, the father answered, you're always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we just had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive; he was lost, and is found. A. His Departure from Home The general theme The Father's Yearning Love for the Lost, a theme which, as has been pointed out, covers all three parables, continues; in fact, now more conspicuously than ever. 11, 12. And he said, A certain man had two sons. Now the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me my share of the estate. So he divided his property between them. The younger of the two sons became tired of staying at home. As has been the case with certain young people ever since (and the situation is deplorable even today), this young man desired to be free from parental restraint. He was convinced that being by himself, away from the eyes of his parents (though the mother is never mentioned in this parable), he would be able to do whatever he wanted, and this freedom would make him happy. Of course, to carry out his plan he needed money. He probably knew that according to the law of Deut. 21:17one-third of the parental estate would be his when his father died. But he wanted that portion now. He could not wait. Now it must be granted that a father did at times make gifts to his children while he was still alive (Gen. 25:6), but this young man was not satisfied with a mere gift. He wanted his entire portion, and he wanted it here and now. Entirely aside from the fact that in all probability this meant that the entire estate had to be broken up a considerable portion of the holdings sold and converted into cash and that as a result whatever was left would be seriously affected, did he at all consider how what he was doing would grieve his father? What an insult it was to him? As if the young man's freedom would actually be better for him than the loving care and advice he was constantly receiving from his father at home! But, sorely as the unreasonable request must have grieved the father, he gave in, so that one-third of the property, converted into cash, was given to the younger son, leaving two-thirds for the older one, who, however, did not take actual possession until the father's death. 13. Not many days afterward the younger son gathered all he had and went away to a distant country & We are told at times that what this young man did was not at all unusual. Is it not true that ever so many Jews were moving away from their own country, so that, while only about half a million remained in Palestine, four million were living in the Diaspora? Granted, but what we have in our parable is not the case of a family moving away but of a conceited young man moving away from his family. Note also into a distant country! Apparently as far away from his home as he dared to go. Does not this folly remind one of the prophet Jonah who seems to have thought that by boarding a ship for Tarshish he could get away from God? B. His Life Abroad Continued: and there he squandered his wealth by living extravagantly. How utterly foolish this conduct of his! First he gathered all he had, leaving nothing behind in case his plan should not work out and he should wish to return home; and now, in addition, he spent money right and left until in no time there was nothing left. But things went from bad to worse: 14. When he had spent everything, a severe famine arose throughout that country, and he began to be in need. His money is gone; the famine arrives. Moreover, this new disaster has struck not only the place where he happened to be living at that time, but the entire country! He himself had nothing left and he could not expect help from anyone else. 15. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. A Jew feeding pigs, unclean animals (Lev. 11:7), how degrading! How humiliating! Was not this saying current among the Jews: May a curse come upon the man who cares for swine? 16. And he was longing to fill his stomach with the carob pods which the pigs were eating, but no one was giving anything to him. Hunger was added to humiliation. He was hungry all the time, as the original implies, so hungry that his stomach was aching for something, just anything, to eat. Hornlike pods of the carob tree were being devoured by the pigs. He yearned to eat some of this food himself. We ask, Well, why did he not take it? We do not know. It has been suggested^[451] that though he himself tended the animals while they were in the field (see verse 15), they were fed by others after returning from the field. However that may be, we are definitely told that no one gave anything to him. Did he steal enough to keep alive? And now to humiliation and hunger there is added homesickness: 17. But when he came to his senses he said, How many of my father's hired men have more than they can eat, and here I am dying of hunger! In the midst of his misery this young man begins to think of the home he left. Literally the original says, When he came to himself, that is, when he began to reflect on all that had happened since he left home, and on the question whether he himself was not, perhaps, to blame for what he was undergoing. Serious and perhaps prolonged meditation resulted in his awakening to the fact that even the condition of his father's hired men was far better than his own condition. Note this term hired men. In the Near East one does not hire a teacher or an engineer. In fact, one does not even hire a regular full-time servant. One hires a day-laborer.^[452] Well, even these hired men have plenty to eat and to spare. He himself is starving to death. And all this owing to his own foolish and sinful departure from home! Continued: 18, 19. I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men. Though I respect K. E. Bailey's works, I differ with him here. I believe that the prodigal's confession was not shallow, and that it meant more than an expression of sorrow for money lost, and a request that he might be accepted as a hired servant, so as not to be eating his brother's bread. See his The Cross, pp. 46–50; P &P., pp. 174–180. My own interpretation of the prodigal's confession is as follows: He arrives at the conclusion that his decision to leave home was what? Simply unwise? A practical error? No, definitely a sin, nothing less. A sin committed against whom? Against his father? Well, first and most of all against heaven, that is, against God (Hebrews often substituted the word heaven for God). It was God who had given him a wonderful, kind, and loving father; hence against heaven and in your sight (or: against you). He now realizes how ungrateful and selfish he has been. No longer has he a right to be called a son. He will go to his father and tell him, I have sinned &make me as one of your hired men. What a change in this young man. How penitent he has become. C. His Return 1. Warmly welcomed by his father 20. So he arose and went to his father. Many pious resolutions are never carried out. This young man did what he had resolved to do. He started out and kept going. It must have been a long journey, for he had gone to a distant country (verse 13). Moreover, in his weakened condition the return trip must have been difficult. But he persevered. Continued: But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him, and his heart went out to him. The father ran, threw his arms around his son's neck, and kissed him fervently. It is clear that the father had never lost interest in his wayward son. Again and again he must have been on the lookout for him. And now &there he sees him in the distance. What does the father do? Each of his four actions deserves comment: he sympathizes deeply, runs, embraces, and kisses. And all this before the son has even said a word! Such marvelous love! a. He sympathizes. I can think of no better rendering than his heart went out to him. As the distance between father and son diminishes, the former sees more and more clearly how tired and wretched his son is looking. He pities him. He interprets the return of his boy in the most favorable sense: the lad has repented. He is sorry for what he has done. How intensely this father loves his son. Shall we say, Now, more than ever? b. He runs. The father cannot have been very young anymore; yet, he runs. In that part of the world it was generally not considered dignified for an elderly man to run; yet, he runs. Nothing can keep him from doing so. c. He throws his arms around his son's neck. Passionately he embraces his son. Does not this very fact indicate that the father has already in his heart granted forgiveness to his son? d. He kisses him again and again, tenderly, fervently. 21. And the son said to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son. That is what the son had intended to say. But he had also intended to say even more, namely, Make me as one of your hired men (verse 19). He never said it. The father never gave him a chance to say it. Marvelous! 22 24. But the father said to his servants, Quickly bring a robe, the best one, and put it on him. Put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. Bring on the fattened calf and kill it, and let's eat and celebrate & Note these brisk commands. So boundless is the father's joy and so all-out his forgiveness that he wishes to have his son treated as an important person. Therefore his servants must bring the best robe, a status symbol, and they must put it on him. On his hand they must put a ring, probably a signet ring (Gen. 41:42), an indication of authority. Sandals must be tied on his feet, for he is not a slave but a freeman. There was also a fattened calf, intended to be slaughtered for some special occasion when important guests were expected. Well, could there be a more appropriate occasion for the use of this calf than right now? Of course not. So the father orders it killed that there may be a jubilant celebration. The father states the reason for the celebration in these words: because this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. The four words: dead, alive; lost, found note the sharp double contrast must be interpreted in a spiritual sense, of course. See Eph. 2:1and Luke 19:10(in that order). The father's orders were obeyed, with the result: and they began to celebrate. 2. Petulantly rejected by his brother 25 27. Meanwhile his older son was in the field. And as he was returning and approaching the house, he heard music and dancing. And having called one of the servant boys to him, he began to inquire what this could be. So he told him, Your brother has arrived, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has received him back safe and sound. For the theory according to which verses 25 32 did not originally belong to this parable there is no evidence whatever. Nor is there the least bit of proof for the notion that a second parable begins at this point. Anyone who reflects for a moment on the reason for this parable (see verses 1, 2, 7, 10) will understand why these closing verses were necessary. To bring out the meaning of his story illustration Jesus wanted to make clear that the penitent son, though warmly welcomed back by his father, was rejected by his brother. How terrible such a rejection! While the party is in progress, the older son comes in from his work on the farm. He hears music and the rhythmic sound of dancing feet. The noise is coming from the house. And he does not know anything about it! His suspicion is aroused. He asks a servant, What's happening? Undoubtedly the servant congratulates himself on the fact that to him has been accorded the privilege of being the one who can impart the electrifying news to the inquirer. Full of enthusiasm he shouts, Your brother has arrived, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has received him back safe and sound. Note your brother. That was correct; cf. verse 32. However, as will appear in a moment, the older brother does not at all appreciate hearing these two words. Even less does he appreciate the news in general. 28 30. But the older brother became angry and refused to go inside. Then his father came outside and began to plead with him. However, he answered and said to his father, Look, these many years I've been slaving for you, and never did I disobey your command; yet to me you never gave (even) a young goat, so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours, who devoured your property with prostitutes, came home, for him you killed the fattened calf! Several items require attention: a. Note forward position of to me and for him, for emphasis. b. Though in his anger the older brother refused to enter the house, his father graciously leaves the house to talk to him. Cf. Gen. 4:6, 7. c. I've been slaving for you. That was the spirit in which this grouch had been doing his work all these years. No wonder he was unhappy. d. Never did I disobey your command. He is self-righteous through and through, and apparently does not realize that more than merely outward obedience is expected of a son. e. Yet to me you never gave, etc. Not only had two-thirds of the estate already been assigned to him, but also his father would have been happy to grant him anything reasonable. f. Note the derisive epithet this son of yours, instead of my brother. g. who devoured your property. That was untrue, for the money had been given to him as his share of the inheritance. h. with prostitutes [or harlots]. This was slander. 31, 32. My child, the father answered, you're always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we just had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive; he was lost, and is found. Note how tenderly the father treats also this son. He addresses him as My child. By saying, All that is mine is yours, he confirms the division of the estate agreed on earlier (verse 12). All the same, he does not end the celebration. Instead of admitting that it was wrong or unwise, he does the very opposite. He tells his son, We just had to celebrate. In other words, to celebrate was a must. It was the only right and proper thing to do. Over against this son of yours, the expression used by the older son (verse 30), the father places this brother of yours, thus reminding the self-righteous son that the one who returned was still his brother and should be treated as such. And he repeats what he had said earlier to the servants, namely, that the one who had been dead was now alive, and that the one who had been lost was now found. Beautifully Jesus does not tell us what became of these two sons. He wants us to see them reflected in our own lives, so that we will all draw the proper lesson from this parable. What, then, is the central lesson? Clearly the father symbolizes the heavenly Father, representing the Holy Trinity, God in all his yearning love. The lost son in his penitent return indicates the penitent sinner; hence, certainly also the publicans and sinners who had found in Jesus their Savior and Friend, and were now eagerly listening to him. And the older son clearly points to the self-righteous Pharisees and scribes, just as did also the ninety-nine sheep of the first parable. The central theme is, therefore, The Father's Yearning Love for the Lost. The Father seeks them, brings them back and rejoices in their Spirit-wrought conversion. That is the thrust of all three parables. How marvelously they describe who God really is, and also what he wants us to be and to do. And it should ever be borne in mind that if Jesus had not himself been the very image of the Father, he could never have composed this unforgettably touching series of parables. They should make it easier for every sinner to surrender his heart to God. Also, they should make it easier for everyone to see what should be done about those lost in sin.^[453] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 15:11 32 Verses 20 24 Quickly bring a robe, the best one, etc. Note the intensity of the joy resulting from the successful search. Add similar passages such as Isa. 5:1–4; 55:6, 7; Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; Hos. 11:8; Matt. 11:28–30; John 7:37; 13:1. Is not the material found in Luke 15, as well as that contained in the references mentioned just now, very suitable for meditation during the week previous to the celebration of the Lord's Supper, or on the very Sunday of communion? One of the lessons taught in this chapter is surely this, that without conversion there is no salvation. But the main point is surely: In tenderness he sought me, weary and sick with sin, And on his shoulders brought me back to his fold again, While angels in his presence sang Until the courts of heaven rang. Oh, tbe love that sought me! Oh, the blood that bought me! Oh, the grace that brought me to the fold, Wondrous grace that brought me to the fold! W. Spencer Walton Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 15:11–32 Verse 12 [Greek], acc. s. neut. pres. (futuristic) participle of [Greek]: the portion of the estate that is falling to me, or less literally, my share of the estate. This is perhaps as good a place as any to show how verbs, while always retaining at least a trace of their original or basic sense, will branch out into various shades of meaning. Various meanings of the verb [Greek] are shown in the chart on the opposite page. Classification of the Meaning of the Verb [Greek] in the New Testament lay [hands] on, seize put a patch on dash into lay [their garments] on reflect on (?) fall to put [one's hand] to throw [a noose] over throw [dust] on Matt. 26:509:16 Mark 14:464:37 11:7 14:72 (uncertain) See N.T.C. on Mark Luke 20:195:36 15:12 9:62 21:12 John 7:30 7:44 Acts 4:3 5:18 12:1 21:27 I Cor. 7:35 Rev. 18:19 [Greek], third per. s. 2nd aor. indicat. act. of [Greek], to divide; so also in I Cor. 12:11. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], life; but here and in verse 30 means of living, substance, property. For the distinction between [Greek] and [Greek] see R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, par. xxvii; also N.T.C. on Mark, footnote 612 on pp. 507, 508. Verse 13 For not many days afterward see also Acts 1:5. [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. of [Greek], to travel away from one's [Greek], people, country. Cf. 20:9; also Matt. 21:33; 25:14, 15; Mark 12:1. [Greek], same construction as the preceding verb; basically to scatter (here: his property), and to do so [Greek], all around; hence, to squander, waste. This verb also occurs in Luke 1:51; 16:1; and in Matt. 25:24, 26; 26:31; Mark 14:27; John 11:52; Acts 5:37, though not always in exactly the same sense. [Greek]. Perhaps basically this adverb marks the action of someone who, if he so continues, cannot be saved ( plus [Greek]). Another interpretation that has been suggested is that it characterizes the person who cannot save. It should be borne in mind, however, that although derivations and word histories are helpful since they shed some light on meanings, actual use of a word in a given context is far more important. The context in the present case proves that the younger son was living extravagantly. He squandered his wealth. In a dissolute, unrestrained manner he allowed his impulses to exercise control over himself. Good translations of the adverb are: extravagantly, recklessly, dissolutely. Verse 14 Note gen. absolute [Greek]. The aor. participle is from [Greek], to spend; cf. Mark 5:26; Acts 21:24; II Cor. 12:15; James 4:3; and for the cognate noun [Greek] see the note on 14:28 on page 739. [Greek], pres. middle and pass. infinitive of [Greek], to be or fall behind, be in need, to lack (Matt. 19:20; Mark 10:21; Luke 22:35; Phil. 4:12). Verse 15 [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. pass. of [Greek], for which see the note on 10:11 on page 587. Meaning: he glued or attached himself to, hired himself out to. [Greek], gen. pl. of [Greek], citizen. See also 19:14; Acts 21:39; Heb. 8:11. The word is derived from [Greek], city, town. Cf. political. [Greek], pres. (continuative) infinitive: day in, day out he was feeding the swine. Verse 16 [Greek]. Some call this imperf. (of [Greek]) inchoative or ingressive: he began to crave. But another possibility is he was craving or longing. In fact, the descriptive or progressive imperfect fits beautifully into this context. This verb is used by Luke (Acts 20:33); by his companion Paul (Rom. 7:7; 13:9; I Cor. 10:6; Gal. 5:17; I Tim. 3:1); and, for the rest of the New Testament, only twice by Matthew (5:28; 13:17) and once each by the author of Hebrews (6:11), and by James (4:2), Peter (I Peter 1:12), and John (Rev. 9:6). For a word study of the cognate noun [Greek] see N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 271, 272, footnote 147. For [Greek], aor. pass. infinitive of [Greek] see the note on 6:21 on page 345. [Greek], gen. pl. of [Greek], little horn; hence pod (resembling a little horn) of the carob tree. [Greek]. Note imperf. tense: no one was giving. Verse 17 [Greek], nom. pl. masc. of [Greek], hired servant; cf. [Greek], pay, wages. For gen. pl. of [Greek] see verse 19. [Greek], lit. they abound in bread [or bread-cakes]. They are, as it were, surrounded and engulfed by this commodity. They have bread enough and to spare, far more than they can eat. Verse 20 Note gen. absolute [Greek], while he [the son] was &a long way off. [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. pass. of [Greek]; see the note on 7:13 on page 390, and N.T.C. on Philippians, footnote 39 on p. 58. The father was filled with compassion; or, perhaps even better, the father's heart went out to him. [Greek], used as nom. s. masc. 2nd aor. participle of [Greek], to run. Cf. dromedary. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], neck. Cf. trachea, the (Luke 3:5) windpipe. [Greek], kissed (him) fervently, eagerly, tenderly, repeatedly; perfective force of [Greek]. Verse 21 The words, Make me like one of your hired men, are probably not authentic here. Did a scribe mistakenly insert them, wishing to create complete harmony between the proposed speech (verses 18, 19) and the actual one (here in verse 21)? Verse 22 [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], robe. This noun also occurs in 20:46; in Mark 12:38; 16:5, and in several passages of the book of Revelation. Basically such a robe is a long flowing outer garment, going down all the way to the feet. Though the English rendering stole would not be wrong, this word is rather ambiguous, since it can also denote the narrow cloth band which priests and bishops wear around their neck, and which descends from their shoulder. In fact, the English word can even mean an article of feminine apparel: a long wide scarf. [Greek], the first, here in quality; hence, the best. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], ring. Cf. [Greek], finger. See the note on 11:20 on page 633. Verses 23, 24 [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek] (Heb. 9:12, 19; Rev. 4:7). The etymological derivation of this word is disputed. It seems to refer basically to a young shoot or twig, and so also to the young or offspring of men, and, as here, of animals; hence, calf, heifer, bullock. [Greek], verbal adj. of [Greek], to feed with wheat; hence, to fatten. We have already met [Greek] in 3:17; 12:18; and will meet it again in 16:7; 22:31. [Greek], accordingly, means the fattened calf. [Greek], sec. per. pl. imperat. act. of [Greek], not here in the more usual sense, to sacrifice (Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7; Acts 14:13, 18) but in the sense to kill. So also in verse 27. Note the following words, all based on the verb [Greek]: pass. to be merry, rejoice in, celebrate (derived from [Greek], well, and [Greek], mind). It is a verb which in this Gospel we have met first in 12:19, and will meet again in 16:19, and which also occurs in Acts 2:26; 7:41; Rom. 15:10; II Cor. 2:2; Gal. 4:27; Rev. 11:10; 12:12; 18:20: [Greek], first per. pl. aor. subjunct. pass., verse 23, let's celebrate. [Greek], pres. middle infinitive after [Greek], verse 24, to celebrate. [Greek], first per. s. aor. subjunct. (after [Greek]) pass., verse 29, (so) I could celebrate. [Greek], aor. pass. infinitive (in thought after [Greek]), verse 32, to celebrate. [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. of [Greek], to come to life, be alive again, and is alive again, verse 24. Verse 25 [Greek], gen. of [Greek] ([Greek], together or in harmony with, plus [Greek], sound; hence, sound-harmony), music. Cf. symphony. [Greek], gen. pl. of [Greek], dancing (accompanied by music). Cf. chorus, choir. Verse 26 [Greek], third per. s. imperf. (probably inchoative) of [Greek], to inquire, investigate; in Acts 23:34to ascertain in answer to inquiry, to understand. [Greek], third per. s. pres. optat. of [Greek], the form of the direct question retained in the indirect. On Luke's use of the optative, an indication of his deferential style (Moulton), and on the optative in general, see Robertson's excellent discussion (Gram. N.T. pp. 320, 325 327, 935 940, 1044). Verse 27 Although [Greek], strictly speaking, is in the pres. tense (third per. s. indicat. act.), it has the meaning of a perfect and must be rendered has arrived or has come. Note the third per. s. aor. indicat. actives [Greek] and [Greek], in English probably best rendered has killed and has received (him) back. [Greek], acc. s. masc. pres. act. participle of [Greek], to be in health, safe and sound, hale and hearty. Cf. hygiene. Verse 28 Note the ingressive imperfect [Greek], he became angry, and see the note on 14:21 on page 739. Note the three vivid imperfects: the older brother became angry, was not willing (hence, refused) to enter, and his father &either began to plead with him, or kept urging him. Verse 29 [Greek], first per. s. pres. (continuative or progressive; cf. [Greek], slave), to work like a slave, to slave. [Greek], first per. s. 2nd aor. indicat. of [Greek], basically to come to the side of; hence, simply to come, pass by, and so disappear; also, in a more figurative sense: to bypass, ignore, neglect, disregard, and so (as here) disobey. All these meanings are closely related. But one never really understands a word without taking time to live with it for a little while. Then, how interesting it becomes! Note how this Greek verb develops from one meaning to another: For the basic sense, to arrive by the side of or simply to come, see Luke 12:37, having come, or: at his coming. Here also belongs Luke 17:7, Come at once. True to this etymological sense are also such passages as Matt. 8:28, No one could pass by along that road; Mark 6:48, He was about to pass them by; Luke 18:37, Jesus of Nazareth is passing by; and perhaps even the controversial Acts 16:8. By L.N.T. (A. and G.), p. 631, the verb, as used in that passage, is interpreted as meaning through. Reason given for this view is that passing by is impossible in this case. But is it really? Does not the theory merit consideration that here, as frequently, we are dealing with abbreviated expression (see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, p. 206), the meaning fully spelled out being in going through they passed by (Mysia); i.e., without stopping to do evangelistic work there they headed straight for Troas? The line of demarcation between the literal and the figurative sense is at times almost invisible. We speak of people passing by. Can we not also think of things passing by? For example time? It may be conceived as coming to us out of the past, stopping for a very brief moment and then departing again until it seems to have vanished. Luke mentions the Fast that is, the Day of Atonement as having gone by (Acts 27:9). The disciples tell Jesus, The time has gone by; that is, it is already late in the day (Matt. 14:15). Peter also speaks of time that has gone by (I Peter 4:3). So also suffering can be conceived of as an entity that passes by, preferably without touching us. Such passages as Matt. 26:39, 42; Mark 14:35, Let this cup pass me by; i.e., Let it be spared me, fall under this category. When a vehicle has passed by, it finally becomes a mere speck, has no longer any significance for us. So also a word or message may be conceived of as losing significance, becoming invalid. That this will not happen in the case of God's law or in the case of the words of Jesus is clearly stated in (Matt. 5:18b; 24:35b; Mark 13:31b; and Luke 21:33b. On the other hand, the universe, in its present form, will indeed pass by and away, vanishMatt. 5:18a; 24:35a; Mark 13:31a; Luke 16:17; 21:33a; II Peter 3:10; Rev. 21:1). So also the old order of things has passed by and away for the person who has become a new creature (II Cor. 5:17). And the rich man should bear in mind that he too will pass by and away like a wild flower (James 1:10). Jesus, however, assures his disciples that this generation the Jews as a nation? will not pass away until all these things, such as the preaching of the gospel to all the nations, have taken place (Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32). Finally, one may bypass someone's word or command by ignoring and thus disobeying it, a sin which the elder brother in the well-known parable had never committed, if you can believe his assertionLuke 15:29; and cf. 11:42 . [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], kid; Matt. 25:32: goat. Verse 30 [Greek], nom. s. masc. 2nd aor. participle of [Greek], to devour. See explanation of 8:5. [Greek], gen. pl. of [Greek], prostitute, harlot. Cf. fornication, pornography. Verse 31 Note [Greek], separately expressed and placed forward for emphasis. Verse 32 Note the two aor. pass. infinitives [Greek] and [Greek]. For the first see on verses 23, 24. As to the second, to rejoice, this can be traced back to the basic word [Greek], not only indicating grace but also joyful thanksgiving. For more on this see the note on 2:40 on pp. 181, 182. Summary of Chapter 15 See p. 539. 441 Or: were all gathering. 442 Or: (rather). 443 K. E. Bailey, The Cross, p. 23. 444 (a) They are faithful covenant members who have not wandered away from God; e.g., Timothy. These people have already begun to regulate their lives by the standards of the divine law. They need no repentance because they already have it. With respect to them there is constant, steady joy, while over the others, represented by the one lost sheep that was found, there is a sudden shout of joy; hence more joy. For this opinion, with minor variations, see Lenski, op. cit., pp. 504, 505; John Calvin, Harmony, Vol. II, pp. 341, 342; F. Godet, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 147; W. P. Van Wyk, My Sermon Notes on Parables and Metaphors, Grand Rapids, 1947, p. 79. (b) They indicate the good angels. Thus W. M. Taylor, op. cit., p. 313. 445 Among them, with minor variations, are the following. All of them either accept the view which I share or lean in this direction: C. R. Erdman, op. cit., p. 143; A. Fahling, op. cit., p. 469; S. Greijdanus, Korte Verklaring, Vol. II, p. 56; A. Plummer, op. cit., p. 369; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. II, p. 206; J. W. Shepherd, The Christ of the Gospels, Grand Rapids, 1946, p. 417; J. Van Oosterzee, volume on Luke (in Lang's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures), Grand Rapids, no date, p. 235. 446 Literally: ten drachmas. 447 Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 15:1–10 begin on page 750. Gram. N.T. A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research 448 Or: attached himself to. 449 Make me like one of your hired men is found in some manuscripts; a few of them early. It is probably unauthentic, merely copied from verse 19. 450 Or: kept urging him. 451 By S. Greijdanus, Korte Verklaring, Vol. II, p. 61. 452 See K. E. Bailey, The Cross, pp. 46, 47. 453 Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 15:11–32 begin on this page. N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary L.N.T. (A. and G.) W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature CHAPTER XVI Outline of Chapter 16 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 16:1–13 The Parable of The Shrewd Manager 16:14–18 Pharisaic Errors Rebuked 16:19–31 The Parable of The Show-off: A Rich man and The Beggar: Lazarus 16:1–13 The Parable of The Shrewd Manager For 16:13 cf. Matt. 6:24 16 1 He continued to speak, now to his disciples, There was a rich man who employed a manager. This manager was accused to him of squandering his possessions. 2 So he called him in and asked him, What is this I am hearing about you? Surrender the account books, for you can no longer be manager. 3 The manager said within himself, What am I going to do, since my master is taking away from me my position as manager? I'm not strong enough to dig; I'm ashamed to beg. 4 I know what I'll do, so that when I'm discharged from my position, people will welcome me into their homes. 5 So one by one he called in his master's debtors. He asked the first, How much do you owe my master? 6 A hundred measures of oil, he replied. The manager told him, Take your account, sit down quickly, and write fifty. 7 Then he said to another, And how much do you owe? A hundred measures of wheat, he replied. The manager told him, Take your account and write eighty. 8 The master praised the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world, in dealing with their own kind, are more shrewd than the people who have the light.^[454] 9 And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the mammon of unrighteousness,^[455] so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into everlasting habitations. 10 He who is trustworthy in a very small matter is also trustworthy in an important one; and he who is untrustworthy in a very small matter is also untrustworthy in an important one. 11 So if you have not been trustworthy in (the use of) the unrighteous mammon, who will entrust the true riches to you? 12 And if you have not been trustworthy with respect to someone else's property, who will give you what is your own? 13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and look down on the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. For possible connection between chapters 15 and 16 see p. 539. To this may be added the following: a. Chapters 15 and 16 may be viewed as forming a pair: the first exposes the wrong attitude toward people; the second opens with a section on the sinful use of wealth. But note squander both in 15:13 and 16:1. b. Chapter 15 was meant especially for the Pharisees and the scribes (see 15:2, 3); 16:1–13 was addressed to Christ's disciples (16:1), though also heard by and meant for the Pharisees (16:14). As shown in the Outline, chapter 16 consists of three easily recognized parts (as did also chapter 15), two of them being parables. The parable of The Shrewd Manager begins as follows: 1, 2. He continued to speak, now to his disciples, There was a rich man who employed a manager. This manager was accused to him of squandering his possessions. So he called him in and asked him, What is this I am hearing about you? Surrender the account books, for you can no longer be manager. The word disciples probably indicates the wider circle of followers, more than just The Twelve. See 6:13; 10:1. The rich man of this parable was probably the owner of a landed estate. He had a manager to take care of the estate's business affairs. The debtors were probably renters. They paid their rent by giving the owner a fixed amount of the yearly produce. We must assume that the rich man or owner was a man of integrity. The manager appointed by him was not a slave but a freeman. Accordingly, when this man loses his job the punishment he receives is not that which would be meted out to a slave. Contrast You can no longer be manager with and shall cut him to pieces (12:46). The rich man's manager was accused of squandering or wasting his employer's holdings. This points to mismanagement, not necessarily to fraud. The verb is the one used in connection with the parable of The Lost Son (15:13). So the owner calls him in and demands an explanation. When it is evident that the manager cannot clear himself, the owner fires him and naturally demands that he surrender the account books, so that a successor will be able to take over. This leaves the impression that at this point in the story the manager had not been guilty of fraud or embezzlement, for in that case legal action would probably have been instituted against him. Also, the fired manager is given an opportunity to make the necessary arrangements for his departure. He does not have to leave immediately. He may get his books in order before he hands them to his master. 3, 4. The manager said within himself, What am I going to do, since my master is taking away from me my position as manager? I'm not strong enough to dig; I'm ashamed to beg. I know what I'll do, so that when I'm discharged from my position, people will welcome me into their homes. Note that the manager remains silent when the owner charges him with being guilty of mismanagement. He does not loudly assert his innocence. He must have been guilty, as charged. The man realizes, however, that he is in a terrible predicament. He is not strong enough to dig, meaning perhaps to undertake manual labor of any kind, and he has too much self-respect to go begging. He thinks and thinks.& All of a sudden we hear him saying, I've got it! I know exactly how to feather my nest for the time when I'll be out of a job. 5 7. So one by one he called in his master's debtors. He asked the first, How much do you owe my master? A hundred measures of oil, he replied. The manager told him, Take your account, sit down quickly, and write fifty. Then he said to another, And how much do you owe? A hundred measures of wheat, he replied. The manager told him, Take your account and write eighty. This was clearly a scheme to make these renters personally indebted to him, and to achieve his purpose in such a manner that they would not complain or refuse hospitality to him after he has lost his position as manager. One by one he calls in those who owed debts. Only two examples are given of that which happened next, but these two represent all the others he must have called in. When the first man arrives, the manager asks him, How much do you owe my master? Note my master, as if he had not been fired. The answer is, A hundred measures of oil, amounting in all to somewhat less than 1000 probably about 875 gallons. The manager then takes from a drawer, strongbox or whatever, the document which the debtor had himself drawn up and in which he had promised to pay that amount of oil. He hands that account or promissory note to the renter and tells him to sit down quickly and to change the figure, so that, instead of owing a hundred measures of oil, he will now be owing only fifty measures. Why did he order the renter to sit down quickly, etc.? Could it be because he was afraid that the owner might suddenly enter and see what was going on? However that may be, the debtor quickly complied and handed the manager the new account. With the next debtor, who owed a hundred measures of wheat, that is, about a thousand bushels of that commodity, and who was told to change his account to eighty measures, he deals similarly. Did the debtors realize that the manager was dishonest, and was asking them to co-operate in a shady business transaction? Probably not. As K. E. Bailey has convincingly shown see his P. &P., p. 100 the debtors assumed that the note-changing was legitimate. They probably thought that the manager had talked the owner into reducing the amounts. Reducing such account figures sometimes because of unfavorable weather conditions affecting the crops was not at all unusual. The manager, the books now in order, hands them back to the owner. What is the owner's reaction? He realizes, of course, that the renters, and the people of the village in general, are already celebrating, praising both the manager and the owner. If the owner should now tell these people what has really happened and should change the figures back to where they were originally, his reputation will go down to zero. This he cannot risk. So, he makes the best of the situation. He must have said to himself, What a clever crook! 8, 9. The master praised the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. It should be stressed that the master praised the (now discharged) manager not for being so dishonest but for being so clever, so astute, so shrewd. In other words, for feathering his nest, seeing to it that his physical needs would be supplied for a long time to come, perhaps for the rest of his life. At this point a question arises. In verse 8, to whom does the expression kurios (master, lord) refer? Is the reference to the owner or to the Lord Jesus Christ? The answer must be to the owner of this huge landed estate. The Greek word kurios occurs also in verses 3 (once) and 5 (twice). In all three cases the reference is to the human owner, the master, not to Jesus. There is, accordingly, no reason to assume that a different meaning must be assigned to the identical word here in verse 8. Jesus is telling this parable. It is he who is saying that the master or owner praised the dishonest manager. The owner praised him not because he had been so crooked but because he had planned ahead. Jesus agrees that looking ahead is the thing to do, and adds, For the people of this world, in dealing with their own kind, are more shrewd than the people who have the light. And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the mammon of unrighteousness, so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into everlasting habitations. I am in agreement with Danker^[456] when he expresses surprise that this comment caused so much perplexity. He regards this as one of the curiosities in the history of interpretation. And so it is. Jesus is not telling us that we should become worldly-minded or crooked. He is stating the obvious fact that in worldly matters worldly people often show more astuteness or shrewdness than God's children do in matters affecting their everlasting salvation. For the term sons of light (people who have the light) see the note on 10:6 on page 587, and the diagram on p. 588, No. 10. Jesus wants his people similarly to look ahead and by means of the mammon of unrighteousness so to support all good causes and needy people that when the givers die, there will be a grand welcome for them. Those heavenly inhabitants who, while still on earth, benefited by the kindness of these big-hearted ones will then be welcoming the new arrivals. They will with gladness usher them into their heavenly habitations. For the term mammon of unrighteousness see the note on 16:9 on page 779. With respect to this interpretation, accepted by most commentators, where is there a problem? There is none, unless we ourselves create it. The objection is raised, at times, Surely, no honest individual would ever praise a crook; yet, here the owner is actually doing this. Worse even, Jesus joins in bestowing praise on this fellow. We ask, And why not? Neither the owner (or master) nor Jesus is praising the crook for his crookedness, only for his shrewdness, for the fact that he looks ahead and makes provision for his future needs. What is wrong with that? Nothing, of course. When, in spite of ever so many precautions and burglar protection devices, a bank is robbed, and the newspapers describe how it was done, people will remark, How clever! This surely does not mean that they are recommending the burglars for a Distinguished Service Medal! Far from it. They want those criminals to receive the sentence they deserve. But it is, nevertheless, consistent to say, Would that all true believers were as clever in spiritual matters as are these crooks in plying their trade. There are two other explanations of 16:4–8 that deserve brief consideration. One is described by W. J. Harrington, op. cit., pp. 198–200, who, however, does not accept it; and by L. Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke, Grand Rapids, 1974, pp. 245, 246, who seems to favor it. Briefly it amounts to this: Jews were not permitted to take interest of fellow Jews (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:36; Deut. 23:19). But there was a way to evade this law, namely, by reasoning that it was intended to protect only the poor. Therefore, if it could be shown that the debtor was not really poor, the law would not apply. So in many cases, including the one of this parable, the owner would add a considerable amount of interest (really usury) to the sale price of his goods. Hence, what the action of the steward in the present parable amounts to is this: he returns the promissory notes to the debtors, and requests that they write new ones which would show that they owed the principal minus the illegally added interest. In gratitude to him the debtors would welcome him into their homes. The owner, learning what had happened, could not very well repudiate the steward's action without exposing himself as being a man who accepted usury. Evaluation. One would think that if the transaction was so complicated, there would at least have been a hint of this in the text. Also, in that case would not the steward deserve the name the honest steward instead of the dishonest or unjust steward? On the basis of this theory, was he not honest in forcing the amounts of the bills back to what they should have been in the first place (principal with no interest added)? He seems to have been honest, unless the previously mentioned squandering of his master's goods implies that he had been guilty of fraud, embezzlement. But it has already been shown that this is improbable; at least, that it cannot be proved. Also, if this theory were correct, would not the owner have been the dishonest fellow? The other theory is that proposed by E. Trueblood. See his very interesting book The Humor of Christ, New York, 1964, pp. 98–110. He reasons that when Jesus exhorts his listeners to make friends by means of the unrighteous mammon, he means the very opposite of what he actually says. In other words, Trueblood regards the words of Jesus as a bit of humorous banter. Evaluation. The author has not shown to my satisfaction that the usual explanation the one I share with very many others is unreasonable. We should be very careful before we interpret some of the words of Jesus as bits of humorous banter. Probably to prevent the very misunderstanding that still persists, as if Jesus were praising dishonesty, he now continues: 10. He who is trustworthy in a very small matter is also trustworthy in an important one; and he who is untrustworthy in a very small matter is also untrustworthy in an important one. It is clear from these words that Jesus did not approve of, did not even excuse, dishonesty, unfaithfulness. If a person can be trusted in handling a matter of small importance, he can also be trusted with important matters; if he cannot be depended on in connection with the first, it would not be safe either to entrust to him the second. Everything depends on the quality of the person's invisible being, call it his soul or whatever you wish. That soul is not divided. What is meant becomes even more clear in what follows in verses 11, 12. So if you have not been trustworthy in (the use of) the unrighteous mammon, who will entrust the true riches to you? And if you have not been trustworthy with respect to someone else's property, who will give you what is your own? In this parallelism the unrighteous mammon = someone else's property; the true riches = your own. The meaning, then, is this: if you have not been trustworthy in the use of material wealth, which, after all, is not really yours but belongs to Someone Else, namely, to God, then who will entrust to you the true, heavenly riches, your own possession, the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world (Matt. 25:34)? What is stressed here, therefore, is that what we fondly call our money, our house, our bonds, our stocks, our bank certificates, etc., is not really our own. It is a trust handed to us to use in such a manner that God can be pleased. Nabal, who said, Shall I then take my bread and my water and my meat that I have killed for my shearers, and give it, etc. (I Sam. 25:11), forgot this. So did the rich fool (Luke 12:16 21), and so did also the manager of our present parable. To be sure, he wisely had an eye for the future. So far, so good. But only for his earthly future. The believers rule is expressed beautifully by Paul in these words: We fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is not seen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is not seen is everlasting (II Cor. 4:18). The person who experiences a difficulty in connection with the parable of The Shrewd Manager, erroneously thinking that either the master in the parable, or Jesus himself, or both, is (are) commending dishonesty, should read on, also studying verses 10 12. Then his difficulty will vanish; his problem will be solved. Entirely in line with what immediately precedes is also verse 13. No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and look down on the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. It is immediately evident that Jesus is here repeating the words he used in The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6:24). And why not? Such a precious saying is certainly worthy of being repeated. Besides, the passage fits very neatly into the context in both places. It simply means that it is psychologically impossible for anyone to give his wholehearted devotion to two masters. The object of devotion will be either God or mammon. It cannot be both. The psychological tension that is built up in the soul of a person who imagines for a while that he will be able to love and serve both masters becomes so severe and unendurable that in attitude, word, and deed he will sooner or later begin to show where his real allegiance lies. Either the one master or the other will win out, actually has been on top all the while; though, perhaps, the individual in question was not fully aware of this. In the crisis the agitated soul, out of love for the one master, will begin to show that he hates the other, perhaps even to the point of being willing to betray him. Think of Judas Iscariot. Was it not mammon that led him to deliver Christ into the hands of the enemy? See Luke 22:3 6; John 12:6. And on the other hand, think of Paul. There came a time in the life of this former persecutor when he began to look down on whatever of personal merit, earthly possessions, and prestige he at one time had prized so highly. Whatever used to be gain had now become lossPhil. 3:7ff. . His slogan became that in all things Christ might have the pre-eminence. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 776–781. 16:14–18 Pharisaic Errors Rebuked With 16:16 cf. Matt. 11:12, 13; with verse 17 cf. Matt. 5:18; and with verse 18 cf. Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12 14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, had been listening^[457] to all this, and began to sneer at him. 15 So he said to them, You are the people who justify^[458] yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for that which before men is highly regarded is disgusting in God's sight. 16 The law and the prophets (were proclaimed) until John. Since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is being preached,^[459] and everybody is vigorously pressing forward into it. 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the tiniest hook on a letter of the law to lose its force. 18 Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries the woman who is divorced from her husband (also) commits adultery. 14. Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, had been listening to all this, and began to sneer at him. Even though the Lord had directed his message especially to his disciples, others too had been listening. Among them were the Pharisees. They had heard whatever Jesus had said about a person's attitude toward, and use of, material possessions, and about the impossibility of being devoted to both God and goods. They had, however, not appreciated this teaching, for they were lovers of money. So, their pride had been injured. Jesus had touched their sore spot. Yet, they did not dare to contradict the Master openly. Had they done so, they would have exposed themselves as money-grubbers. So what they did was this: they turned up their noses that is, they sneered at him. 15. So he said to them, You are the people who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for that which before men is highly regarded is disgusting in God's sight. Knowing exactly what was happening, Jesus unmasked these hypocrites. What he told them amounted to this: You are the people who pass yourselves off before men as if you were living in harmony with God's holy law. But your righteousness is only a fa�ade. On the inside you are the very opposite of what you want people to believe you are. However, God has your number. He knows that your religion is sham. For, what men see of you and admire is an abomination in God's sight. Jesus continued: 16. The law and the prophets (were proclaimed) until John. Since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everybody is vigorously pressing forward into it. The Pharisees seemed to have been of the opinion that they could enter the kingdom of God by circumventing the law. The most glaring examples of this are found in Matt. 15:1–9; 23:16–26. But what is necessary is that men vigorously press forward into the kingdom, and this is exactly what since the days of John the Baptist courageous men had been doing. Entrance into the kingdom requires genuine self-denial, earnest endeavor, untiring energy, utmost exertion. What is the meaning of the statement that this has been going on since the days of John? Before that time God had revealed himself in the law and the prophets; that is, in what we now call the Old Testament. That revelation was preparatory. With John the Baptist the new dispensation, that of fulfilment, arrived, as is clear from the fact that John pointed to the Christ as being actually present (John 1:29, 36). With John, therefore, a new stage in the history of God's kingdom had arrived (Mark 1:1 4; Acts 1:22; 10:37), and the gospel of the reign of God in hearts and lives was being proclaimed by message and confirmatory signs. Everyone who wishes to belong to this sphere of light and love will have to enter that kingdom in the manner indicated; that is, by vigorously entering into it. There is no other way. And was not that also exactly what Jesus had previously stated, using different words, namely. Strive to enter through the narrow door (13:24)? The energy to do this comes from God, of course, but that does not remove the factor of human responsibility (Phil. 2:12, 13). Over against the Pharisaic method of circumventing the law Jesus now declares 17. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the tiniest hook on a letter of the law to lose its force. Regardless of Pharisaic attempts at circumvention and evasion, the moral law (cf. verse 18) retains its force. It would be easier for heaven and earth to cease to exist than for even one little letter-hook of the law to become devoid of authority. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew letters. The hook or keraia is a very small projection that distinguishes one Hebrew letter from another. Thus the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the one called beth, in English corresponding to b or bh, has a slight extension at the lower right hand corner, to distinguish it from the letter kaph, corresponding to English k or kh. Beth is written [Greek], kaph is [Greek]. In the present context the meaning, then, is this, that not even in the slightest respect will the moral law be invalidated. In fact, the gospel, by showing how marvelously, by means of the work of Christ, God has blessed men, makes the believer all the more eager to obey God's law out of gratitude. Hence, instead of weakening the demands of the law, it strengthens them. Jesus now gives us an example of the abiding character of the moral law, over against Pharisaic attempts at evasion: 18. Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries the woman who is divorced from her husband (also) commits adultery. These words are clear. However, Pharisees made light of God's marriage ordinance (Gen. 1:27; 2:24). See N.T.C. on Matt. 5:31, 32(pp. 304–306), and on Matt. 19:1 9(pp. 713–717). So, for example, the famous rabbi Hillel, who flourished during the last half century b.c., hence during the reign of King Herod I, taught that a husband had the right to divorce his wife if she served him food that had been slightly burned, and rabbi Akiba (fl. about a.d. 110) even permitted a husband to divorce his wife if he found someone prettier. Over against the attempts to circumvent God's law (Deut. 24) Jesus declares that whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and that the man who marries a divorc�e also commits adultery. In Matt. 5:32the Lord mentions the one exception to this rule, namely, infidelity on the part of one of the contracting parties (literally, on the part of the wife, but the principal applies, of course, to both of the contracting parties; see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 305, footnote 295). In our own day the error of the Pharisees, their attempt to get out from under the implications of God's marriage ordinance, is being repeated. All kinds of excuses are being offered in order to show: a. that the evangelists were mistaken when they wrote that Jesus taught this; b. that the word occurring in the exceptive clause of Matt. 5:32and signifying fornication, and in this case marital infidelity, is broad enough to cover all manner of unpleasant traits in a spouse; and c. that Jesus did not mean that this rule should hold for society in general. Thus eisegesis (reading one's own ideas into a text) is being substituted for exegesis. But God's Word does not change.^[460] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 16:1 18 Verse 8 The people of this world &are more shrewd, more forward looking with respect to making provision for their physical needs than some church people are in providing for their spiritual needs. For example, some who have made profession of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ will go all out for sports but are lukewarm with respect to kingdom causes. This parable is a warning for them. Verse 10a He who is trustworthy in a very small matter is also trustworthy in an important one. The sum total of things pertaining to this earthly life can be considered the very small matter; the important matter would then be whatever pertains to the life hereafter. But even with respect to so-called earthly things a distinction can be made between less important and more important. Also in this area those who are trustworthy in a very small matter can be depended upon to discharge their important duties faithfully. Examples: (a) the child who never forgets to say Thank you for favors received; (b) the young lady (or any other family member) who, in making use of the telephone, is considerate of others who may also wish to use the line, and of the person on the other end for whom time is precious; (c) the family that is always in church on time, etc. All things being equal, these are the people upon whom one can depend when something very important has to be decided or has to be done. Verse 10b And he who is untrustworthy in a very small matter is also untrustworthy in an important one. The Dutch have a proverb which reads: Wie het kleine niet eert/Is het grote niet weerd. A rather free translation would be: If you don't have respect for whatever is small,/You re not worthy to handle the big things at all. Verse 13 You cannot serve God and mammon. Not You must not but You cannot. No more than you can turn right and left at the same time. Some have tried it: Ananias and Sapphira, Demas, Judas. It never works. Give me the single eye Thy name to glorify, O Lord, my God Most High, With heart sincere. Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church (Centennial Edition), No. 164, last 4 lines of stanza 5; based on Ps. 86:11. Verse 15 That which before men is highly regarded is disgusting in God's sight. With this compare I Sam. 16:7; 17:42–51; Luke 18:10 14; 21:1–4; Acts 12:22, 23. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 16:1–18 Verse 1 [Greek], imperf. tense: he continued to speak, but this time especially: [Greek], to the disciples, instead of to the Pharisees and the scribes (mentioned in 15:2). [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek] (from [Greek], house, household, plus [Greek], to manage), household manager, or simply manager. Cf. economist. [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to accuse, whether slanderously (see Josephus, Antiquities VII.267) or justly, as presumably in the present case. In connection with the use of this verb in the unfavorable sense note diabolic, devil. The root idea is that of throwing words back and forth. For [Greek], nom. s. masc. pres. participle of [Greek], to squander, see the note on 15:13 on page 760. For [Greek], his possessions, see the note on 8:3 on page 421. Verse 2 As to [Greek], here one must choose between: a. What is this, etc.? and b. Why do I hear this, etc.? Cf. Acts 14:15. Since indignant surprise is more natural here than innocent request for information, theory (a) is probably correct. [Greek], sec. per. s. 2nd aor. imperat. act. of [Greek], to give, surrender. Hence [Greek] probably means: surrender the account book. Cf. give, account or something similar, in Matt. 12:36; Acts 19:40; Rom. 14:12; Heb. 13:17; I Peter 4:5. In I Peter 3:15the preferred rendering is reason ( Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you to give a reason, etc.). Verse 3 [Greek], third per. s. pres. (linear) indicat. middle of [Greek], to take away, remove; as in 1:25; 10:42. See the note on 10:42 on page 604. [Greek], pres. (linear) infinitive of [Greek]; in the New Testament only here and in 6:48; 13:8; see the note on 13:8 on page 698. [Greek], pres. (linear) infinitive of [Greek] = [Greek] plus [Greek]; hence, to ask favor upon favor, or: to ask again and again, more and more; and so: to beg. In the New Testament only here and in 18:35. Verse 4 [Greek], first per. s. 2nd aor. indicat. act of [Greek], here probably in the sense of suddenly arriving at a solution, suddenly getting to know what to do. Cf. vernacular, I've got it. Such an aor. may truly be called timeless. (In a broader sense that is true, of course, of every aorist, as the very name indicates.) It has also been called ingressive and dramatic. [Greek] is first per. s. For the rest, it is either aor. subjunct. or fut. indicat. In this case the forms are the same. The very close relation between the subjunctive and the future indicative has been discussed earlier. See the note on 14:7–9 on page 729. [Greek], first per. s. aor. subjunct. pass. of [Greek] = [Greek] plus [Greek]; hence, to bring about a change of position; in the present context: to remove (from office), to discharge; here, in the passive, when I'm discharged. As always, in such cases, the exact rendering varies with the context. Thus in Acts 13:22; I Cor. 13:2, to remove; in Acts 19:26, to turn away or astray; and in Col. 1:13, to transplant. Cf. metastasis. Verse 5 [Greek], gen. pl. of debtor, on which see the note on 7:41 on page 412. In the New Testament the word occurs only in these two passages (Luke 7:41; 16:5). Verses 6, 7 [Greek], acc. pl. of [Greek], a transliteration of the Hebrew word [Greek] (bath), a measure of fluids (e.g., oil or wine). It corresponds to an ephah of dry measure. A bath (Ezek. 45:11, 14) has been variously estimated as amounting to anywhere from 8½ to 10 gallons, liquid measure, to which verse 5 refers. [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. imperat. of [Greek], here meaning to take into one's hand. Note that this brief word of command occurs twice, once in verse 6, and once in verse 7. On [Greek], lit. writings, or somewhat less literally papers, see J. D. M. Derret, Take Thy Bond &And Write Fifty (Luke 16:6): The Nature of the Bond, JTS, 18 (1972), pp. 438–440. Attempts at translation of this term have resulted in: promissory note, note, acknowledgment, obligation, bill, account, statement of indebtedness; all this in addition to writings and papers. These renderings are correct at least to some extent. The reference is to a written promise to pay the stipulated amount. Therefore such a rendering as account may well be among the best. The rendering bond in the sense of written obligation to pay a specified sum is certainly correct. However, since today, the term bond is often immediately interpreted as referring to an interest-bearing certificate, it may be best to avoid it in the present connection. [Greek], acc. pl. of [Greek], transliteration of Hebrew [Greek] (kor), in the present instance clearly a unit of dry measure, about 10 bushels. Bath, (a little less than) ten gallons; kor, ten bushels is easy to remember. Verse 8 For the descriptive genitives [Greek], [Greek], etc., see the diagram and the discussion on pp. 587 and 588. A manager of unrighteousness or of dishonesty is an unrighteous or dishonest manager. [Greek], shrewdly; here in the sense of providently, exercising foresight. With this adverb compare the adjective [Greek], which in the New Testament occurs no less than 14 times, beginning with Matt. 7:24. The second [Greek] in verse 8 can be rendered for, meaning, this is true as is clear from the fact that, or simply showing that. Verse 9 [Greek], gen. s. of [Greek], wealth, riches, here personified. Cf. El Dorado, Plutus, Fortuna. The term used here in Luke 16:9, 11, 13and in Matt. 6:24is of uncertain derivation. Its meaning is, however, not uncertain. Note that the same descriptive genitive modifier [Greek] that was used in verse 8 with respect to this manager occurs in verse 9 with reference to mammon. [Greek], third per. s. 2nd aor. subjunct. (after [Greek]) act. of [Greek], lit. to leave off; hence, to run out, fail. Aside from Heb. 1:12(in a quotation from the Old Testament), this verb is in the New Testament used only by Luke (16:9; 22:32; 23:45). [Greek], third per. pl. aor. subjunct. (after [Greek]) of [Greek], to receive, welcome. Verse 10 [Greek], dat. s. neut. elative superlative (the nom. being [Greek]) of [Greek] small. Hence, [Greek] means in a very small matter. Verse 11 [Greek] refers here to the true riches, as the context clearly indicates. What we have here is a simple or first class conditional sentence; with [Greek] and sec. per. pl. 2nd aor. indicat. middle of [Greek] in the protasis; and a question, third per. s. fut. indicat., in the apodosis. Verse 12 On the basis of the data supplied in the textual apparatus of Grk. N.T. (A-B-M-W) the reading [Greek] is to be preferred to [Greek]. Besides, the second per. pl. implied in the verb [Greek] and expressed in the pronoun [Greek] harmonizes best with [Greek], your own. Verse 13 [Greek], cf. Acts 10:7; Rom. 14:4; I Peter 2:18, is derived from [Greek], house, household. The reference is accordingly to a household servant, or simply servant. [Greek], third per. s. fut. indicat. middle of [Greek], to cling or adhere to, be devoted to. As is clear from the chiastic parallelism of the synoptic passages (Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13), in which this verb is explained by [Greek], and is contrasted with [Greek] and [Greek], the meaning of [Greek] is to be devoted to. Here the [Greek] or face-to-face relationship is one of love. [Greek], third per. s. fut. indicat. of [Greek], lit. to think (or look) down on; hence, to hate, scorn, despise. Verse 14 Note (progressive) imperfect [Greek], probably best rendered were listening (with N.A.S.) or had been listening (with Robertson and Williams). [Greek], pl. of [Greek], lovers of money, is found also in II Tim. 3:2; while [Greek] occurs in I Tim. 6:10. [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. indicat. act. of [Greek], derived from [Greek] plus [Greek], the nose; hence lit., to turn out (where we would say up) the nose at, to sneer at, mock. Cf. mucus. In the New Testament this compound is found only here and in 23:35. The simple verb occurs in Gal. 6:7, God is not mocked. Verse 15 [Greek], nom. pl. masc. act. participle of [Greek], to justify. It is possible that in the present instance the verb must be considered conative. If this be true, the proper rendering would be try to justify. For more on this verb see the note on 18:14 on pp. 824, 825. [Greek], high, lofty, exalted, highly regarded. Luke also uses this word in Acts 13:17, a high arm, that is, mighty power. Elsewhere in the New Testament the word occurs in Matt. 4:8; 17:1; Mark 9:2; Rev. 21:10, in all these instances in connection with a mountain, describing it as being high. A high wall is mentioned in Rev. 21:12. Christ's exaltation to his position of majesty in the heavens hence on high is described in Heb. 1:3; 7:26. Finally, in Rom. 11:20(see also 12:16) and I Tim. 6:17Paul warns his readers not to be highminded (A.V.). It is to be regretted that, in the sense of arrogant, proud, haughty, this word highminded is becoming, or perhaps has already become, obsolete. The Germans still use hochm�tig; the Dutch hoogmoedig. [Greek], a detestable thing; hence disgusting, abominable. Cf. Prov. 11:1. Disgusting, loathsome, abominable things are mentioned also in Rev. 17:4, 5; 21:27. Think of scandals, shameful things and actions. For an explanation of the term the abomination of desolation or the desolating sacrilege see N.T.C. on Matt., pp. 857, 858; and on Mark, pp. 524–528. Verse 16 [Greek], third per. s. pres. (continuative and progressive) indicat. pass. of [Greek], to bring, proclaim, or announce good news, to preach the gospel. In the New Testament this verb is used especially by Luke 10 times in his Gospel, 15 times in Acts and by Paul, about 20 times. It occurs once in Matthew (11:5), twice in Hebrews (4:2, 6), also twice in Revelation (10:7; 14:6), and 3 times in I Peter (1:12, 25; 4:6). Cf. evangelize. [Greek], third per. s. pres. indicat. middle of [Greek], a verb which in the New Testament occurs only here and in Matt. 11:12. See the discussion of this verb in N.T.C. on Matthew, footnote 469, p. 489. In harmony with its meaning in the Matthew passage the sense to press forward vigorously (into it; that is, into the kingdom of God) seems to be required here. Verse 17 [Greek], comparative of [Greek]; hence easier. In the New Testament this adjective is always used in the comparative degree. It also occurs in 5:23; 18:25; Matt. 9:5; 19:24; Mark 2:9; 10:25. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek]. In the New Testament this word occurs only here and in Matt. 5:18. It probably indicates the little hook that distinguishes one Hebrew letter from another. See further explanation in the commentary. Verse 18 [Greek], occurring twice in this verse, is third per. s. pres. indicat. of [Greek], to commit adultery; cf. [Greek]. The New Testament use of this verb (and of the very similar [Greek], [Greek]) may be briefly summarized as follows: a. literal sense in a quotation from the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18): Matt. 5:27; 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 13:9; James 2:11a. b. other uses of this verb in its literal sense: Matt. 5:32(twice); 19:9 (twice); Mark 10:11, 12; the present passageLuke 16:18twice ; John 8:4; Rom. 2:22(twice); James 2:11b. c. other than strictly literal sense: adultery of the heart and eye (Matt. 5:28); unfaithfulness to God: Rev. 2:22. From this last passage, viewed in its context (Rev. 2:20–22), it appears that there is a very close relationship between [Greek], fornication, and [Greek], adultery. Though originally [Greek] may have been limited to adultery involving a married person, while [Greek] indicated all unlawful sexual intercourse outside of the bond of marriage, the term [Greek] gradually expanded in meaning, so that in the New Testament it may refer to any and all illicit sexual relationships. So, for example, in Matt. 5:32; 19:9a wife's marital unfaithfulness, surely [Greek], adultery, is called [Greek]. In the New Testament, then, the verb [Greek] and its cognate noun [Greek] may refer to immorality in general, any phase of it, whether inside or outside of marriage. Thus [Greek], adultery, is always [Greek], fornication, immorality; but not all [Greek] is [Greek]. 16:19–31 The Parable of The Show-off: A Rich Man; and The Beggar: Lazarus 19 Once there was a rich man who was in the habit of dressing up in purple and fine linen and living in dazzling splendor day in, day out. 20 And a certain beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores, had been laid at his gate. 21 He was eager to be fed with the scraps that fell from the rich man's table. Yes, even the dogs used to come and lick his sores. 22 In course of time the beggar died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and he was buried. 23 And in Hades,^[461] being in torment, he lifted up his eyes. He sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus by his side.^[462] 24 And he cried out and said, Father Abraham, take pity on me and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame. 25 But Abraham answered, Son, remember that during your lifetime you received in full your good things, and similarly Lazarus (received) the bad things. Now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a vast chasm has been fixed, in order that those who want to cross from this side to you would not be able to do so, and that those who would pass over from there to us would (also) not be able. 27 He answered, Then I beg you, father, that you send Lazarus to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers, lest they too come into this place of torment. 29 But Abraham said, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them. 30 No, father Abraham, he replied, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will be converted. 31 He said to him, If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead. First a few introductory remarks. Is there any connection between 16:1–18 and this parable? It might seem at first that there is none. Careful examination reveals, however, that there is indeed a connection, a rather close one. As has been pointed out, chapter 15 exposes the wrong attitude toward people; chapter 16 opens by showing us the sinful use of material possessions. The parable found in verses 19 31 is as it were a climax, combining these two. It describes the terrible result of the wicked handling of people and wealth. The rich man of this parable completely neglected to make friends for himself by means of the mammon of unrighteousness (16:9). He was the kind of person who, because of his wealth, must have been highly regarded by men, but because of his selfishness was disgusting in God's sight (16:15). He was, moreover, the very opposite of The Samaritan Who Cared (10:30–37). For the connection see also pp. 539, 540. The section (verses 19 31) can be conveniently divided into two very unequal parts. In the first part (verses 19 22) we are shown the rich man and the poor beggar in this life; in the second (verses 23 31) we see them again, but now in the hereafter. A. In This Life 19. Once there was a rich man who was in the habit of dressing up in purple and fine linen and living in dazzling splendor day in, day out. He was rich. Well, so was Abraham and so was Joseph of Arimathea. Nowhere does the Bible blame them for being rich. But with reference to Abraham and Joseph we do not read what is said further in the description of the rich man of this parable, namely, that he was in the habit of dressing up in purple and fine linen. Obtaining purple dye from the shellfish was an expensive process. It is not surprising, therefore, that a purple outer garment, such as worn by the rich man of this parable, was often reserved for royalty. Think of the expression royal purple. In addition to this purple outer garment or robe, this man wore a fine linen undergarment. Add to this the fact that he was living in dazzling splendor day in, day out, and it becomes apparent that what is stressed here is not so much that he was rich but something else. He was not just rich. He belonged to that class of people to whom the epithet filthy rich is often applied, and not without reason. His living day by day in dazzling splendor marks him as a show-off, a strutting peacock. He wanted everybody to know that he was rich. He was in love &with himself. That he was utterly selfish will become clear as the parable moves along: 20, 21. And a certain beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores, had been laid at his gate. He was eager to be fed with the scraps that fell from the rich man's table. Yes, even the dogs used to come and lick his sores. Here is the test, the opportunity for the opulent swaggerer to show whether, after all, he has a heart. A very, very poor man, one in need of everything, is lying at the gateway (Matt. 26:71; Acts 10:17) of the rich man's mansion, having been laid there, this evidently indicating that he was unable to walk. He was a beggar, and his name was LazarusJohn 11:2f. . This name is Latin and is derived from the Greek Lazaros (from Eleazaros), which, in turn, represents the Hebrew name Eleazar, meaning God has helped. There is a difference of opinion with respect to the question whether this name was given to him simply because, as the story develops (see especially verse 24), this man needed a name, or whether Jesus purposely gave the man this name in order to indicate that the beggar, in all his distress, placed his trust in God. Cannot both be true? Not only was Lazarus a begger, totally unable to provide for his own needs, he was also covered with sores. Here, then, was an opportunity for the rich fop to show pity, for whenever he went into or out of the gateway, he could not help seeing Lazarus. Besides, the beggar was eager to be fed with the scraps that fell from the rich man's table. The parable does not say that he received these scraps. Does not that omission leave the impression that he must have received very little? One thing is certain: the rich exhibitionist paid no attention to the beggar, did not himself help him in any way, lived only for himself. What must have made the poor man's condition even worse was that the big, unclean, pesky pariah dogs were in the habit of coming to him and licking his sores! 22. In course of time the beggar died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and he was buried. The beggar's misery ended at last. He died. Whether he was also buried is not even mentioned. If there was a real burial, it must have been so obscure and dismal that it better be passed by in silence. On the other hand, what happened to the soul of Lazarus is all-important. He for man's soul or spirit is the real person was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. Two expressions here merit special attention: First of all the angels. According to Scripture ANGELS ARE: A. ttendants of Christ (II Thess. 1:7), their exalted Head (Eph. 1:21, 22; Col. 2:10). B. ringers of good tidings concerning our salvation (Luke 2:14; 24:4–7; Acts 1:11; I Tim. 3:16). C. horisters of heaven (Luke 15:10; I Cor. 13:1; Rev. 5:11, 12). D. efenders of God's children (Ps. 34:7; 91:11; Dan. 6:22; 10:10, 13, 20; Matt. 18:10; Acts 5:19; II Thess. 1:7–10; Rev. 12:7), though the latter outrank them and will judge them (I Cor. 6:3; Heb. 1:14). E. xamples in obedience (Matt. 6:10; I Cor. 11:10). F. riends of the redeemed, constantly watching over them, deeply interested in their salvation, and rendering service to them in every way, including executing the judgment of God upon the enemy (Matt. 13:41; 25:31, 32; Luke 15:10; 16:22; I Cor. 4:9; Gal. 3:19; II Thess. 1:7; Heb. 1:14; I Peter 1:12; Rev. 20:1–3). Next, Abraham's bosom. The fact that Lazarus was by the angels carried to Abraham's bosom certainly proves that he had been true to his name. While on earth he had placed his trust in God as his Helper, and now God had ordered the angels to take his soul to Paradise. He who had yearned to receive crumbs and scraps is now reclining at heaven's table, where a banquet is being held. Moreover, to recline in Abraham's bosom, as the apostle John was going to recline in the bosom of Jesus, indicates special favor, as has been shown in connection with (Luke 14:7; see on that verse. See also John 1:18. We should not forget, in this connection, that Abraham is regarded in Scripture as being not only the great patriarchHeb. 7:4) but also the father of all believers (Rom. 4:11). The rich man also died and was buried. It must have been a splendid burial. Note the meaningful contrast: nothing is said about the beggar's burial; on the other hand, nothing is here said about the rich man's soul, as to what happened to it at the moment of death. B. In the Hereafter 23, 24. And in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes. He sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus by his side. And he cried out and said, Father Abraham, take pity on me and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame. A few matters stand out: a. The rich show-off is pictured as being in Hades. The popular view, according to which the term Hades in the entire New Testament is the abode of all the dead, believers and unbelievers, is certainly incorrect. As far as the Gospels are concerned^[463] the following is true: In the present parable Hades is clearly the place of torments and of the flame. It is hell. So also hell may well be the correct rendering of Hades in Matt. 11:23and in Luke 10:15, for there Hades is sharply contrasted with heaven, and should probably be understood in the figurative sense of thorough ruin. In Matt. 16:18the thought may well be that not even all the demons streaming forth out of the gates of hell will ever be able to destroy Christ's true church. b. The condition of the dead and the communication between them is represented here in very literal, earthly terms, so that a vivid impression is created. It should be clear, nevertheless, that much of what is here conveyed cannot be interpreted literally. For example, we read about the lifting up of the eyes, of seeing people afar off, of a finger and of a tongue, even though we have been told that the rich man had been buried. This does not take away the fact, however, that certain definite truths concerning the life hereafter are conveyed here, one of them being that the departed ones are not asleep but fully awake; another, that some are saved, others are suffering. c. If all this is understood, it will have become clear that the one great truth here emphasized is that once a person has died, his soul having been separated from his body, his condition, whether blessed or doomed, is fixed forever. There is no such thing as a second chance. Therefore opportunities to help those in need and, in general, to live a fruitful life to the glory of God should be seized now. These preliminary remarks should guard us against taking literally what was never meant to be so interpreted. With all this in mind, note that the rich man of the parable is here represented as being in torment, a condition which is not relieved by the fact that in the distance he sees Abraham and Lazarus by his side. Very respectfully he now addresses the arch-patriarch as Father Abraham, and asks him to take pity on him. Such pity he, the rich man himself, had never shown when he had the opportunity to do so. He requests that Abraham dispatch Lazarus, so that the latter, having dipped the tip of his finger in water, might cool the sufferer's tongue. I am in agony in this flame, he adds. Note the word flame. That hell is a place of fire or of the flame is the language of Scripture throughout (Isa. 33:14; 66:24; Matt. 3:12; 5:22; 13:40, 42, 50; 18:8, 9; 25:41; Mark 9:43 48; Luke 3:17; Jude 7; Rev. 14:10; 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8). This fire is unquenchable. It devours forever and ever. Yet, hell is also the abode where darkness dwells. For some it is the place of outer darkness (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). It is the region where the evil spirits are kept in everlasting chains under darkness (Jude 6; cf. Jude 13). But if hell is a place of fire, how can it also be a place of darkness? Are not these two concepts mutually exclusive? Well, not always necessarily. For example, by means of a certain form of radiation people have been seriously burned even though when it happened they were in a dark room, Nevertheless, it is advisable not to speculate. Everlasting fire has been prepared for the devil and his angels, yet these are spirits. It should be sufficient to conclude from all this that such terms as fire and darkness should not be taken too literally. Each in its own way indicates the terrors of the lost in the place from which there is no return. Note that the rich man's character has not changed any. He still views Lazarus as his servant, and is not a bit ashamed to ask for a favor from the very person who never received a favor from him! Also, he expects Abraham to send Lazarus, even though he, the show-off, never tried, during his life on earth, to imitate Abraham's faith. 25, 26. But Abraham answered, Son, remember that during your lifetime you received in full your good things, and similarly Lazarus (received) the bad things. Now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a vast chasm has been fixed, in order that those who want to cross from this side to you would not be able to do so, and that those who would pass over from there to us would (also) not be able. Abraham answers in a friendly manner, even calls him son, for the rich man has called Abraham father. Besides, is not the sufferer a child of Abraham, biologically speaking? In his answer Abraham intends to indicate that for two reasons the request cannot be honored: to grant it would be (a) improper and (b) impossible. It would be improper, contrary to the requirements of justice During your lifetime you received &your good things; that is, those things you considered good, namely, being dressed in purple and fine linen, and living in dazzling splendor day in, day out. Those matters were first on the list of your priorities. Implied is: to help poor Lazarus and, in general, to live a life of being useful to your fellow men and of glorifying God was not at all your aim. Now, then, you receive what is coming to you. On the other hand, Lazarus received the bad things, not his bad things. He did not bring them upon himself. (On the contrary, he was true to his name.) Now he is being comforted and this, again, is as it should be. It would also be impossible. Abraham tells the doomed man that there is a vast chasm, a yawning gorge a typically Palestinian figure, for the country where this parable was spoken has many of these ravines (see the note on 16:26 on page 789) separating the lost from the redeemed. Crossing over from one side to the other is, therefore, forever and absolutely impossible. This is a very graphic and unforgettable symbolical representation of the irreversibility of a person's lot after death. The chasm was intended for rendering crossing over impossible. 27, 28. He answered, Then I beg you, father, that you send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers, lest they too come into this place of torment. Here, for the first time in this parable, the man who used to be rich reveals a bit of sympathy. But even this interest in others may have been mixed with selfishness. He wants his five brothers to be warned so that they may stay out of hell. The most favorable construction one can put on this request is that it issued from love for his brothers. Other possibilities that have been suggested by commentators are: (a) He is trying to say, If I myself had only been warned, I would not be here today, and (b) He does not want his brothers to join him for fear they will blame him for the bad example he gave them. However that may be, note that even now he is not asking that anything be done for people in general, only for his five brothers. And even now he seems not to be able to get rid of the notion that Lazarus is his messenger boy! 29. But Abraham said, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them. This passage does not always receive the attention it deserves. Why did Jesus insert it in the parable? The obvious reason is that if the doomed man himself had only read and taken to heart Moses and the Prophets, and if his brothers would only do the same, they would not be lost. Why not? What is the point? Is it not this, that it is precisely in the books of Moses and in the writings of Isaiah, etc., that the life which is the exact opposite of that which the rich man had lived is commended? Trust in God, self-denial in the interest of others, kindness, help for the needy, for widows and orphans, the humble, etc., is constantly being urged. To give but a few examples: MOSES: Gen. 50:21; Exod. 2:17; 22:22, 25; 32:32; Lev. 19:10; 25:25–47; Deut. 10:18; 14:29; 15:4; 16:11, 14; etc. THE PROPHETS: Isa. 14:32; 25:4; 29:19; 57:15; Dan. 4:27; Amos 2:6, 7; 4:1; 5:11, 12; Jon. 4:11; Mic. 6:8; Zeph. 3:12; Zech. 7:10, 11. Besides, did not both Moses (Deut. 18:15, 18) and the ProphetsIsa. 42:3; ch. 53 point forward to him who would give himself as a ransom for many? 30. No, father Abraham, he replied, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will be converted. How wrong he was! Someone from the dead did actually appear to the people. And his name was Lazarus (though not the Lazarus of the parable). The story is found in (John 11. Was the result that everybody was converted? Not at all. The result was that Christ's enemies planned to put to death the risen LazarusJohn 12:10), and were more determined than ever to destroy Jesus (John 11:47 50). 31. He said to him, If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead. Jesus rose from the dead. But those who refused to believe Moses and the Prophets were not convinced, and certainly not converted. Read Matt. 28:11–15. The important lesson is: Accept Scripture as the Word of God and, by God's grace, live the kind of life it demands and which, in the person of Jesus Christ, it illustrates. Cf. Eph. 4:32 5:2.^[464] Practical Lesson Derived from Luke 16:19 31 Verses 19, 23 A rich man &living in dazzling splendor &in torment, he lifted up his eyes. One great lesson to be learned from this parable: no sin, whether of omission or of commission, ever stands alone: the chord one touches here vibrates there. You dial a number in New York, the phone rings in San Francisco. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 16:19–31 Verse 19 [Greek], third per. s. imperf. middle of [Greek], to dress. Cf. Mark 15:17, They dressed him in a purple robe. In middle, as here in Luke 16:19, to dress oneself. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], purple garment or robe. Cf. Rev. 17:4; 18:12. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek]; cf. Hebrew [Greek], butz, byssus, fine yellow flax and the linen cloth and undergarment made from it. The outer robe was of purple; the inner garment, of fine linen. [Greek], nom. s. masc. pres. middle participle of [Greek]. See the note on 15:23 on page 762. Here, in Luke 16:19, the meaning to make merry fits the context. Add [Greek], brilliantly (cf. lamp), and the result is: he made merry brilliantly; that is, he was living in dazzling, ostentatious splendor. He was a rich show-off, a dandy or coxcomb. Verse 20 [Greek], third per. s. pluperf. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to throw, put, lay. There are those who think that the verb here used implies that Lazarus had been flung there. But it is a well-known fact that the verb [Greek] also has weakened meanings, as indicated. [Greek], perf. pass. participle of [Greek], to make sore, to cause ulcers; hence, in the pass. as here: covered with ulcers. The acc. pl. of the noun [Greek] is used in verse 21. The English word ulcer is related to the Greek [Greek]. Verse 21 For [Greek], as also in 15:16, aor. pass. infinitive of [Greek], see the note on 6:21 on page 345. The meaning is to feed; in the pass., as here, to be fed. [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. of [Greek], to lick. Verses 22, 23 [Greek], aor. pass. infinitive (after [Greek]) of [Greek] (Mark 15:1; Acts 19:12; I Cor. 16:3; Rev. 17:3; 21:10), to carry away. [Greek] acc. s. of [Greek], bosom, breast, place of closest friendship and fellowship. In verse 25 note dat. pl., with perhaps no essential difference in meaning, unless it be that of placing even greater emphasis on the striking contrast between the blessedness of Lazarus and the wretched condition of the rich man. For the meaning bosom see also (John 1:18; 13:23. A related meaning is lap, formed by the fold of a garment and providing room for things to be stored and carriedLuke 6:38). There is also the connotation bay (Acts 27:39), with its bosom-resembling shape. With [Greek] cf. gulf. [Greek], third per. s. 2nd aor. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to bury; in pass., as here, to be buried. See the note on 9:59, 60 on page 566. [Greek], dat. s. of [Greek], Hades. See also 10:15; then Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Acts 2:27, 31; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13, 14. [Greek], nom. s. masc. aor. act. participle of [Greek] ([Greek] plus [Greek]), to lift up, raise. [Greek], lit. in torments, dat. pl. of [Greek]; cf. gen. s. in verse 28, agony, torment, torture. Cf. basanite and see the note on 8:28 on page 452; and N.T.C. on Mark, footnote 288 on p. 260. [Greek], third per. s. pres. (dramatic) indicat. act. of [Greek], to see. Verse 24 [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. subjunct. (after [Greek]) act. of [Greek], to dip; so also in John 13:26and in Rev. 19:13, where dyed (in blood) has been suggested. [Greek], top, tip; also in Heb. 11:21. In Matt. 24:31and Mark 13:27the meaning is end, extremity, farthest reach. Cf. acropolis. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XVII Outline of Chapter 17 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 17:1–10 A Warning Issuing in The Parable of The Coldly Calculating Servant 17:11–19 A Miracle: The Cleansing of Ten Lepers, Only One of Whom Returned to Give Thanks 17:20–37 A Prophecy: The Coming of the Kingdom 17:1–10 A Warning Issuing in The Parable of The Coldly Calculating Servant For 17:1, 2 cf. Matt. 18:6, 7; Mark 9:42; For 17:3b, 4 cf. Matt. 18:21, 22; and for 17:5, 6 cf. Matt. 17:20; 21:21 17 1 He said to his disciples, Temptations are bound to come, but woe to him through whom they come. 2 Better is it for him if, with a millstone hung around his neck,^[465] he has been hurled into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin. 3 Constantly be looking out for one another.^[466] If your brother commits a sin, reprove him; and if he repents, forgive him. 4 Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you, saying, I'm sorry, you must forgive him. 5 The apostles said to the Lord, Increase our faith. 6 The Lord replied, If you have faith as (small as) a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, Be uprooted and planted in the sea, and it would have obeyed you. 7 Who among you, if he has a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he comes in from the field, Come at once and recline at table?^[467] 8 Will he not rather say to him, Prepare my supper, dress up properly so you can wait on me^[468] until I finish eating and drinking, and after that you may eat and drink? 9 Does he thank the servant because the latter did what he had been ordered to do?^[469] 10 So you also, when you have done everything you were ordered to do, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have (merely) done our duty. ^[470] A. The Warning For a possible connection between chapters 16 and 17 see p. 540. Another possible link is as follows: Hell (16:23, 24) is terrible. Once there, escape is impossible (16:26–31). The disciples of Jesus should be on their guard, therefore, lest through their words or actions others are led astray and perish everlastingly (see 17:1). As was true with respect to chapters 15 and 16, so also chapter 17 can be conveniently divided into three parts. See the Outline. Part I contains an earnest warning and ends with a parable (verses 1 10). Part II reports a miracle (verses 11 19). Part III is, to a large extent, a prophecy (verses 20 37). 1. He said to his disciples, Temptations are bound to come, but woe to him through whom they come. Though in the opinion of many exegetes there is no topical or any other connection between the various parts of chapter 17, this verdict is not necessarily true. There are connections, though the one which this or that interpreter sees may not have been the one which the evangelist had in mind. The notion that the sayings are wholly disconnected flies in the face of 1:3. Luke has given us an orderly account. His thoroughly inspired report is not a hodgepodge. The Pharisees had been treating with disdain the tax-collectors and sinners who crowded around Jesus (15:1, 2). The rich show-off of the parable had treated Lazarus similarly (16:19–21). By means of this attitude spiritual harm could easily be done to the neglected and/or despised people. Jesus now warns his disciples not to commit a similar sin; that is, in their case, not to be an occasion of stumbling for the outcasts who had turned to the Savior for refuge. It is, however, impossible in this present realm of sin to put an end to every temptation, every enticement to sin. Temptations are bound to come. Cf. Matt. 18:7; I Cor. 11:19; I Tim. 4:1. It is of the very nature of sin that it spreads. It would be easier to stop water hyacinths from clogging the waterways of Florida than to prevent temptations from clogging the tracks of the human race, including even the church. But though it is impossible to eradicate temptations, by God's grace it is possible to prevent oneself from belonging to the company of the tempters. And a wrong attitude on the part of a disciple could easily tempt the despised one to sin by returning evil for evil. It is understandable that Jesus continues: 2. Better is it for him if, with a millstone hung around his neck, he has been hurled into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin. What a terrible thing it is to place in the path of even the least of Christ's disciples a temptation; that is, an enticement to sin, a beguiling allurement, a trap. The millstone of which Jesus speaks is the top stone of the two between which the grain is crushed. The reference is not to the handmill but to the much heavier stone drawn by a donkey. In the middle of the topstone there is a hole through which grain can be fed so as to be crushed between the two stones. The presence of this hole explains the phrase a millstone hung around his neck. With such a stone around the neck to have been hurled into the sea makes drowning doubly sure. Note these little ones. How dear they are to the Savior! Because the sin of leading others astray is so terrible, Jesus may have added the admonition, Be constantly watching yourselves, so as not to become involved in this sin. This interpretation makes the connection with the immediately preceding clear. However, the original can also be rendered: 3. Constantly be looking out for one another. Thus construed these words easily link with what immediately follows: if your brother commits a sin reprove him; and if he repents forgive him. Jesus continues: 4. Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you, saying, I'm sorry, you must forgive him. Just as it is wrong for disciples to entice others into sin, so also it would be wrong for them not to be forgiving when others sin against them. They should reprove the offender, and if he repents they should be quick to forgive him. Moreover, as in his answer to Peter's question, recorded in Matt. 18:21, 22, so also here Jesus emphasizes that the spirit of forgiving love recognizes no boundaries or limitations. What Jesus means, therefore, is Forgive the penitent without ever stopping. This double requirement, namely, on the one hand, to steer clear from causing others to stumble, and on the other, always to be ready to forgive, requires strength from above. And believing that such strength will be given to them in answer to their prayers requires more faith than the disciples feel they now have. This situation explains verse 5. The apostles said to the Lord, Increase our faith. Note the encouraging reply: 6. The Lord replied, If you have faith as (small as) a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, Be uprooted and planted in the sea, and it would have obeyed you. As the note on 17:6 on pp. 801, 802 shows, this probably means, If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, and if you would constantly put it into practice, you would say to this mulberry tree, etc. In other words, no task assigned by the Lord, including even causing a mulberry tree to be uprooted and planted in the sea, would be impossible for you to accomplish, as long as you remain in trustful contact with God. Thus also a mustard seed, be it ever so small, because of its vital and uninterrupted contact with its nourishing environment, grows and grows until it becomes a tree so tall that the birds of the air come and lodge in its branches. Cf. Matt. 17:20. The apostles, strengthened by this assurance, will now supposedly begin to perform marvelous works. But in what spirit? With what attitude of mind and heart? That this makes a difference is clear from 10:17, 20, and from the paragraph which now follows: B. A Parable 7 10. Who among you, if he has a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he comes in from the field, Come at once and recline at table? Will he not rather say to him, Prepare my supper, dress up properly so you can wait on me until I finish eating and drinking, and after that you may eat and drink? Does he thank the servant because the latter did what he had been ordered to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were ordered to do, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have (merely) done our duty. Wrong interpretations of this parable have led to various difficulties. Questions such as the following have been asked: a. Does not Jesus contradict himself when he says that no master would ever tell his servant, when he comes in from the field, to recline at table, with the implication that he, the master, would wait on him; while in 12:37 Jesus promises to do that very thing? b. Why would servants, who have done everything they had been ordered to do, be called unprofitable? c. What moved Luke, immediately after reporting this parable, to go all the way back to the beginning of the journey he is describing, and thus picture Jesus as traveling along the border between Samaria and Galilee? See 17:11. With the right interpretation of this parable everything falls into line and the difficulties vanish. It is clear that we are dealing here with the owner of a small farm. This farmer has only one servant. Some insist that the word used in the original namely doulos a word which sometimes means slave, sometimes servant, must here be rendered slave. We should remember, however, that Jesus is addressing his message primarily to his disciples (verse 1). He is saying, Who among you &? Is it not probable that some of these disciples had servants rather than slaves? See Mark 1:20. Further, we should understand that what the parable is picturing is that which does not happen in the realm in which God is consistently recognized as King. In fact, the very opposite takes place here. The servant pictured in this parable does only what he has been ordered to do, and the spirit of a slave has taken possession of him. All day long he has been plowing or tending sheep. When he comes in from the field, his boss orders him to wait on him while he, the master, is eating and drinking. The servant is told, When I'm finished, you can eat. The servant obeys. He does exactly what he was told to do, no less but also certainly no more. Why does he do it at all? Probably because he does not want to lose his job. After all, he has to eat. So, grudgingly he finishes his chores. Are we becoming guilty of exaggeration when we picture this coldly calculating servant as looking out of the corner of his eye every once in a while to see how the farmer is doing, whether he is not almost finished with his meal? However that may be, we believe that Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. II, p. 227, has interpreted the parable correctly when he states, The slavish spirit gains no promotion in business life or in the kingdom of God. Naturally the master of this coldly calculating servant would not even think of waiting on such a servant. What the parable means, therefore, is this: a. In the kingdom of God the realm in which God's sovereignty is gladly recognized matters are entirely different. To be sure, here, too, God's children aim to do his will, but they do it with gladness of heart, in the spirit of love and gratitude. b. In their case the promise of Luke 12:37(the Lord waiting on them) will be realized. See the explanation of that passage. c. And now, too, we begin to understand what may well have been the reason why the evangelist, after reporting this parable, immediately proceeds to tell the story about the ten lepers who were cured by Jesus. All ten were ordered to show themselves to the priests. All ten, in obedience to the command, go on their way. One, however, returns. He is the exact opposite of the coldly calculating servant. He praises God and thanks Jesus. He does more than he had been ordered to do. And he does it exuberantly. Luke has indeed given us an orderly account. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 799–803. 17:11–19 A Miracle: The Cleansing of Ten Lepers, Only One of Whom Returned to Give Thanks 11 Now as Jesus was going on to Jerusalem, he was traveling along the border between Samaria and Galilee. 12 And as he was entering a certain village, there met him ten leprous men, who stood at a distance 13 and lifted up their voices, saying, Jesus, Master, take pity on us. ^[471] 14 When he saw them he said to them, Go and show yourselves to the priests. And as they were going they were cleansed. 15 Then one of them, upon seeing that he was cured, turned back and in a loud voice praised God, 16 and fell on his face before Jesus feet, thanking him. And he was a Samaritan! 17 Jesus asked, Were not all ten cleansed? Where, then, (are) the nine? 18 Were none found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner? 19 And he said to him, Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well. 11. Now as Jesus was going on to Jerusalem, he was traveling along the border between Samaria and Galilee. The probable reason why Luke turns back in his story to what happened earlier, that is, at the very beginning of the journey to Jerusalem by way of Perea, has already been given. See on verses 7 10. For the translation along the border between Samaria and Galilee see the note on 17:11 on page 803. As we see it, then, Jesus, in the company of his disciples, was traveling along the border between Samaria and Galilee, probably taking the road which near Bethshean crosses the Jordan into Perea. See map, p. 854. 12, 13. And as he was entering a certain village, there met him ten leprous men, who stood at a distance and lifted up their voices, saying, Jesus, Master, take pity on us. The exact place where the miracle took place is not indicated, and is of little importance. The ten lepers were of mixed nationality (verses 16, 18); this is not a strange phenomenon where two provinces meet. Besides, misery loves company, and when one is afflicted with leprosy nationality ceases to be a barrier to fellowship: Jew and Samaritan unite. For more on leprosy see on 5:12–16. In view of Lev. 13:45, 46; Num. 5:2–4; 12:14, 15; II Kings 7:3it is not surprising that these ten leprous men stood at a distance. When Jesus was entering the unnamed village the ten cry out their voices still enabling them to do so Jesus, Master, take pity on us. 14. When he saw them he said to them, Go and show yourselves to the priests. How different this act of healing leprosy from the one described in 5:13. In the present case Jesus does not touch the ten. In fact, he does not even say, Be cleansed, or anything similar. He simply tells them to go and show themselves to the priests. This was required by the lawLev. 14:1f. . Besides, once the priests had pronounced them healed, they would be restored to full social and religious fellowship with the rest of the people. And as they were going they were cleansed. Note in how many respects these ten men were alike: (a) all were afflicted with the dreadful disease; (b) all were determined to do something about it; (c) all had heard about Jesus, and believed that he might be able to cure them, at the very least would take pity on them; (d) all appeal to Jesus, acknowledging him as Master or Rabbi; (e) all, in obedience to Christ's command, proceed on their way to the priests; and (f) all are healed. But at this point the similarity ends. The evangelist must have been happy to be able to record that not all the ten were like the unprofitable servant of the immediately preceding parable, who did only what he had been commanded to do. It must have grieved the beloved physician that he was unable to report that what was true of the one was also, in every respect, true of the nine. Here is Luke's report: 15, 16. Then one of them, upon seeing that he was cured, turned back and in a loud voice praised God, and fell on his face before Jesus feet, thanking him. And he was a Samaritan! While the ten had started on their way to the priests, a current of health and vigor was rushing through every tissue of their bodies. They were completely cured and they knew it. But suddenly one of the ten only one turned around and walked back to Jesus. It may be assumed that he had not as yet arrived at the headquarters of the priests. The account leaves the impression that the ten had not walked very far away from their Healer before this one man returned. Nothing prevented him from seeing the priests a little later. As he returned he praised God, thereby publicly acknowledging him as the One to whom he owed the great blessing he had just now received. Also, he fell on his face and thanked Jesus, for in the Master he recognized God's Representative, God's power and love operating through Jesus. That at least! How this man loved Jesus! Was not his humble gratitude born of love? It is with marked emphasis that the evangelist adds, and he was a Samaritan! As if to say, Think of it, a Samaritan! A man belonging to a race hated by the Jews. Were not Jews and Samaritans enemies? See 9:52, 53; cf. (John 4:9. Did not the Jews look down on the Samaritans because this mixed race was not sound in its theology? But this Samaritan is different; by God's grace, of course. He thanks &a Jew! When the present passage is added to such other Lucan references as 4:25–27; 7:9Matt. 8:10–12); 11:30–32, does it not become clear that what Luke is saying is this: an international church, consisting not only of Jews but certainly also of non-Jews, is gradually being established? 17 19. Jesus asked, Were not all ten cleansed? Where, then, (are) the nine? Were none found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner? And he said to him, Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well. It is clear that Jesus was grieved because only one of the ten cleansed lepers returned to give praise to God. Think of it: only one out of ten, and that one not a Jew but a Samaritan! This shows that although the Jews, as a nation, had been blessed far above any other nation (Ps. 147:20; Isa. 5:1–4; Amos 3:2), yet here a group of Jews allow a Samaritan to surpass them in praising God and giving thanks. There must have been an argument. It is hard to believe that without revealing his intentions the Samaritan had suddenly left the group to return to Jesus. The probability almost certainty is that he had urged the others to return with him. But no, they refused. Yes, the refusal of the nine pained Jesus. What is often overlooked is the humility revealed in his double question, Where, then, are the nine? Were none found &? Jesus asks, Were none found to return and give praise to God &? He does not even add, and to thank me. He is deeply concerned about the fact that his Father in heaven did not receive the praise due to him. He says nothing about himself. The Most High &is kind to the ungrateful and wicked (6:35). He causes his sun to rise on evil (people) and good, and sends rain on righteous and unrighteous (Matt. 5:45). Common blessings, to be sure. But no common gratitude! Jesus, having received the offering of a thankful heart and thankful lips, dismisses the Samaritan with the familiar words they occur also in 7:50; 8:48; 18:42; and cf. Matt. 9:22; Mark 5:34; 10:52Your faith has made you well. See on 7:50 for explanation.^[472] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 17:1 19 Verse 2 These little ones. The same Savior who, when he himself was afflicted, opened not his mouth was filled with indignation when anyone tried to hurt his little ones. Verse 4 Even if he sins against you seven times &you must forgive him. The way of the world is entirely different. Gen. 4:24places the world's sevenfold vengeance over against the Savior's sevenfold forgiveness. Verse 10 When you have done everything you were ordered to do, say, We are unprofitable servants. Not how much we do but in what spirit we do it is what counts: Cain and Abel both brought an offering. The Pharisee and the publican both entered the temple to pray. In each case, what a difference! Verse 18 Were none found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner? It is not how much light we have received that is the most important, but what we have done with the light we received. In the present case the Samaritan, though less enlightened than the Jews, used what he received to better advantage. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 17:1–19 Verses 1, 2 [Greek] &[Greek]: lit., it is impossible (that temptations) should not come; i.e., they are bound to come. The idea that they will not arrive is (lit.) inadmissable, unacceptable. Note -privative plus [Greek]. [Greek], acc. pl. of [Greek]. See the note on 7:23 on page 403. Note the verb [Greek], third per. s. aor. subjunct. act. of [Greek], to cause to sin, to lead astray. [Greek], third per. s. pres. indicat. of [Greek] = [Greek], to pay, plus [Greek], taxes (cf. toll); hence, in general this verb came to mean: to pay; imperson., it pays; it is profitable; followed by ", it is more profitable &than; or simply, as here, it is better &than. For [Greek], s. acc. of [Greek], neck, see the note on 15:20 on page 761. [Greek], third per. s. perf. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to hurl. Some see a connection between this Greek verb and English rip. A connection with Germ. werfen and Dutch werpen (both meaning: to throw, hurl) has also been suggested. Note graphic change from pres. to perf. tense: if a millstone is hung around his neck and he has been hurled (thus literally). Verse 3a [Greek]. Some prefer the translation Watch yourselves. The preceding context harmonizes well with this rendering, and with Be constantly watching yourselves. It is a well-known fact, however, that the Greek reflexive pronoun is used at times with reciprocal sense. In the present case this reciprocal meaning suits the immediately following conditional sentences (verses 3b, 4). It is best, therefore, to leave room for both possibilities, reciprocal and reflexive: Constantly be looking out for one another and Be constantly watching yourselves. Verses 3b, 4 The three clauses introduced by [Greek] are third class (or future more vivid) conditional directives. In each case the [Greek] protasis is followed by an aor. subjunct. As to the apodoses in the first and second cases reprove him, forgive him the verb is sec. per. s. aor. imperat. The action must be immediate, definite, incisive. In the third case you must forgive him the verb is sec. per. s. fut. (volitive) indicat. act., again very definite and positive: you must forgive him! Verse 5 As some see it, the words [Greek] mean, Add faith to us, that is, Give us faith in addition to other things. So, for example, Robertson, Translation, pp. 97, 210. Similar is the rendering suggested in L.N.T. (A. and G.), p. 726, Grant us faith. And so also Maurer in his article on [Greek], Th.D.N.T., Vol. VIII, pp. 167, 168, Lord confer faith on us. On the whole, however, translators and commentators are not in agreement with this view. They favor the translation, Increase our faith. They do so for good reasons: a. The verb used in the original, [Greek], sec. per. s. 2nd aor. imperat. act. of [Greek], does not necessarily have to refer to the addition of things different in character from those already possessed. It can also indicate an increase in that which one already has. See II Chron. 28:13; LXX Psalms 70:14; and in the New Testament see Matt. 6:27; Luke 12:25. b. Nowhere does Jesus state that his disciples, considered as a group, had no faith. He affirms the very opposite (John 17:6 8, 25). They had faith, but it was little faith (Matt. 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; Luke 12:28), faith in need of being increased. The prayer of the father of the epileptic boy I do believe; help my unbelief would have befitted the little group of Christ's constant and immediate followers also. c. The present context, according to which the Master requires of the disciples a sincere manifestation of the loving and forgiving attitude (see verses 3, 4), may well have alerted them to the realization of the fact that much was still lacking in their faith. In view of all this, the rendering Increase our faith, or something similar e.g., Give us more faith is undoubtedly the best. Before proceeding any farther it should be pointed out that in the New Testament the verb [Greek] occurs in still another sense, in harmony with Hebrew usage. In that case its English equivalent may be an adverb. So, for example, [Greek]. [Greek] means, Again he told a parable. This can also be rendered, He proceeded to tell a parable (19:11). Similar is, He proceeded to send (20:11, 12). Verse 6 After the introductory words [Greek] A [Greek], there follows a mixed conditional sentence, with a simple or first class protasis, indicating reality in this case with [Greek] followed by pres. indicat. [Greek] and a compound apodosis. This apodosis or conclusion consists of: a. the imperf. indicat. [Greek] with [Greek] in its first member, implying present unreality; and b. the aor. indicat. [Greek] with [Greek] in its second member, implying past unreality. The correct translation is therefore, If you have faith as (small as) a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, Be uprooted and planted in the sea, and it would have obeyed you. However, this rendering, accepted in substance also by Robertson (Translation, p. 97), may not sound right to some. What is probably expected, in English, is something like, If you had faith &you would say, or If you have faith, you will [or can] say. Several translators have adopted one of these alternatives. But the first of these attempts ignores the fact that in the original the protasis indicates reality; the second attempt overlooks the fact that the compound apodosis is one of unreality. The solution is probably this: what we have here is another instance of abbreviated discourse. See N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, p. 206, a type of idiom that is far more frequent, both in literature and in daily conversation, than we sometimes realize. The complete thought, including what is expressed and what is implied (as the context indicates), is probably this, If you have faith as (small as) a mustard seed, and if you would constantly put it into practice, you would say to this mulberry tree, etc. Jesus did not deny that these men had faith. He reprimanded them because of their little faith. It should be noted that also in the parallel passage (Matt. 17:20) Jesus did not use a protasis of unreality. The protasis there is that of a future more vivid or third class conditional sentence. As was noted in the explanation of that passage, No task assigned by the Lord is going to be impossible to perform when the person who receives the mandate is and remains in trustful contact with God. For [Greek] (here acc. s. [Greek]) [Greek], mustard seed, see the note on 13:19 on page 713. [Greek], dat. s. of [Greek], the sycamine or black mulberry tree, not to be confused with the [Greek], sycamore tree, or with the [Greek], fig tree. The two verbs in verse 6 that have not yet been mentioned are sec. per. s. aor. imperat. pass. forms, respectively of [Greek], to uproot, and [Greek], to plant. Verse 7 [Greek], acc. s. masc. pres. participle of [Greek], to plow. See I Cor. 9:10. Cf. arable. For [Greek] sec. per. s. 2nd aor. imperat. of [Greek], to fall backward to recline for a meal and its synonyms, see the note on 11:37 on page 645. Verse 8 [Greek], first per. s. fut. indicat. of [Greek], to eat, sup. Lit. Get ready what I shall eat, i.e., in the present context, Prepare my supper. See also the note on 14:12 on page 729. [Greek], nom. s. masc. aor. middle (causative) participle of [Greek], to fasten one's belt by binding it around oneself; hence, to dress up properly. [Greek], first per. s. 2nd aor. subjunctives (after [Greek]), respectively of [Greek], to eat, and [Greek], to drink. [Greek], both sec. per. s. fut. (here volitive) indicat. middle forms, respectively of [Greek] and [Greek]; Koine for classical Greek [Greek] and [Greek]; lit. and afterward you may eat and drink. Verses 9, 10 [Greek] expects a negative answer. It can be translated correctly in more than one way. See the translation and suggested alternative on p. 793. [Greek] &; = does he thank &? [Greek] = to be thankful to someone; also: to express this gratitude, to thank. [Greek] (twice), acc. pl. neut. aor. pass. participle of [Greek] , to assign, order, charge. [Greek] ( plus [Greek]), useless, unprofitable, unworthy. Verse 11 [Greek]; lit. through the middle of, and so probably along the border between, that border being indeed in the middle, with Galilee to the north, and Samaria to the south. Jesus was traveling through this middle line. For a different view see Robertson, Word Pictures, pp. 227, 228. Was that author's view influenced by his theory discussed above, on p. 542, according to which what he considers Luke's three journeys must be identified with John's three? Verse 13 [Greek], third per. pl. aor. indicat. act. of [Greek], to lift up, raise. Related meanings in Luke's Gospel: to take, carry (9:3) to take along (22:36) to take out, withdraw (19:21, 22) to bear up (4:11) to pick up (9:17) to take up (9:23) to get (17:31) to take away, remove (6:29, 30; 8:12, 18; 11:22, 52; 19:24, 26; 23:18). Verse 14 [Greek], third per. pl. aor. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to cleanse; pass., as here, to be cleansed; same form in verse 17. See also 4:27; 5:12, 13; 7:22; 11:39. Verse 18 [Greek] ([Greek] plus [Greek]), man of another nation (or race), foreigner. In the temple at Jerusalem this word was included in a warning, addressed to non-Israelites, to proceed no farther toward the interior than the Court of the Gentiles. The inscription in Greek and Latin reads: Let no man of another nation enter inside the barrier and the fence around the temple. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame that his death follows. 17:20–37 A Prophecy: The Coming of the Kingdom Cf. Matt. 24:23–28, 37 41 20 Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied by saying, The kingdom of God does not come with outward display; 21 nor will people say, Look, here (it is)! or There (it is)! for, note well, the kingdom of God is within you. 22 And he said to the disciples, The days shall come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of man, but will not see it. 23 And they will say to you, Look, here! or Look, there! Do not go running off after them. 24 For as the lightning lights up the sky from one end to the other, so will the Son of man be in his day.^[473] 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26 And just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of man: 27 People were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, right up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 So also it was in the days of Lot: People were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building. 29 But on the day Lot went out of Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 So it will be on the day the Son of man is revealed. 31 On that day let him who happens to be on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not go down to get them. Similarly, let not the person who is in the field turn back. 32 Remember Lot's wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep his life shall lose it, hot whoever loses (his life) shall preserve it. 34 I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken, the other left behind. 35 Two women will be grinding together; one will be taken, the other left behind. ^[474] 37 They asked him, Where, Lord? He told them, Wherever (there is) a corpse, there also the vultures will gather. Such qualities as gratitude and faith, with love implied (17:15–19), are not man-made but result from the dynamic operation of the rule or kingship of God in human hearts and lives. Very logically, therefore, the evangelist, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, proceeds now to the discussion of this very basic theme: the kingship or kingdom of God. In order to understand what follows it should be borne in mind that in the Greek original the word basileia sometimes means kingdom, sometimes kingship (rule, reign, sovereignty). Unless this fact is kept in mind, one will experience some difficulty in understanding verses 20, 21. Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied by saying, The kingdom of God does not come with outward display; nor will people say, Look, here (it is)! or There (it is)! for, note well, the kingdom of God is within you. The Pharisees and their many followers were looking forward to the arrival of an outward, earthly, visible kingdom, one in which the Jews would occupy a very prominent place. They were hardly able to wait for its arrival. So anxious were they to know when it would be established that they were willing to obtain information with respect to this subject from any source whatever &even from Jesus. Jesus, however, in his answer indicates that they harbor a misconception concerning the nature of the kingdom, as if it would arrive with loud proclamations, prancing horses, marching armies, martial music; briefly, with outward show. If that were true, people would be greeting its arrival by shouting, Here it is, There it is. Over against all this, Jesus declares that the kingdom or here preferably kingship, reign, rule of God is basically spiritual in its essence. It is within, or, if one prefers, inside a person. Wherever God is truly recognized and honored as King, there one finds his kingdom or kingship. Note that little word within or inside. See the defense of this translation in the note on 17:20, 21 on page 810. Either within or inside (of) is also favored by A.V., Williams, A.R.V. (in the text), N.I.V. (in the text), Phillips, Norlie, Weymouth, Goodspeed, Good News for Modern Man, Lenski, Robertson (very strongly), etc. The context certainly favors it: the kingdom-kingship Jesus has in mind here is not an outward, visible entity, so that people would be able to point to it and exclaim, There it is, but consists of inner qualities, such as righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17), qualities that exist wherever God is recognized as King. An objection has been advanced against this interpretation, however. We are told that Jesus is answering the Pharisees (verse 20), and that he certainly could not have told these people, his bitter opponents, The kingdom of God is within you. He must, therefore, have meant, The kingdom of God is among you, for I am here and my disciples are scattered here and there among you. The answer to that objection lies ready at hand. The pronoun you (whether's. or pl.) has more than one meaning. The most common meaning is the person(s) addressed. But another and not at all uncommon meaning, both in Greek and in English (and other languages), is a person or one. For example, You don't know what love is unless you have experienced and practiced it, meaning A person does not know, etc. The contextual interpretation stands, therefore. Although Jesus has been speaking about his spiritual entrance into hearts, lives, and spheres, that is, about God's spiritual kingdom or kingship, he never denies that there will also be a glorious visible manifestation of God's kingdom at the close of the new dispensation: 22 25. And he said to the disciples, The days shall come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of man, but will not see it. And they will say to you, Look, here! or Look, there! Do not go running off after them. For as the lightning lights up the sky from one end to the other, so will the Son of man be in his day. But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. The Pharisees are out of the picture now. These words are spoken to Christ's followers, both then and down through the ages. Note the following: a. The expression The days shall come means, The time will arrive. b. The word one in one of the days may be a Semitism for the first (of the days). See John 20:1. c. The phrase the days of the Son of man probably signifies the Messianic era at the close of the world's history. See S.BK., Vol. 11, p. 237. d. For the expression the Son of man see the explanation of 5:24. He is the Son of man in his character as the One who through suffering attains to glory, but, in a sense, was glorious all the while, even from eternity. For his ultimate manifestation in glory see also Dan. 7:13, 14; Matt. 26:64. e. Believers will long to see the beginning of this Messianic era. Today we would say, They will yearn for the second coming of Christ, because the days immediately preceding that time of fulfilment will be days of severe oppression and persecution. f. The words, &but will not see it. And they will say to you, Look, here! etc., indicate that there will be people who, in their nervous excitement, will believe that the Son of man has already arrived but is hiding somewhere. Jesus warns his followers not to go running after them, The time of arrival will not be known in advance (Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32); and the actual return, when it occurs, will be visible all over the world. It will be as lightning which, flashing suddenly and brilliantly, lights up the entire sky, from one end to the other. g. However, long before the second coming takes place the Son of man must suffer. It is a must, for the decree of God from eternity must be carried out, prophecy must be fulfilled, those chosen from eternity must be ransomed. He must suffer many things. The gruesome details of this suffering are here lovingly withheld. h. The words and must be rejected by this generation show that Jesus was pointing to Calvary. Having spoken about his second coming and about his suffering that was to occur much earlier, Jesus now pictures how people will be living during the days just before his return: 26, 27. And just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of man: People were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, right up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. The very suddenness of the coming points up the necessity to guard against unpreparedness and carelessness. During the days of Noah that is, when this preacher of righteousness was building the ark (Gen. 5:32 7:5) and warning the people (II Peter 2:5) they refused to take to heart what he was doing and saying. They were unconcerned. They continued to live as always, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage. The question might be asked, What is wrong with these activities? The answer is, Nothing at all. In fact, by means of them men are able to glorify God (I Cor. 10:31). But when the soul becomes entirely wrapped up in them, so that matters such as these become ends in themselves, and spiritual tasks are neglected, they are no longer a blessing but have become a curse. They have become evidences of gross materialism, false security, and often cold selfishness. The men of Noah's day failed to realize their perilous situation until it was too late. Suddenly the cataclysm the word used in the original came. For them it was indeed a washing down, which is the basic meaning of the word. The flood destroyed them all. Cf. I Thess. 5:3. Continued, with another example from history: 28 30. So also it was in the days of Lot: People were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building. But on the day Lot went out of Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. So it will be on the day the Son of man is revealed. The people of Lot's day were also engaged in the ordinary affairs of life: eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. Again, there was nothing wrong with that. What was definitely wrong, though, was the fact that their minds and hearts were entirely absorbed in these matters. They took no time to satisfy their souls needs. They were utterly self-centered. Lot lived among them, as a righteous man who was distressed by their filthy lives (II Peter 2:7, 8). Sodom's inhabitants paid no attention to him. Even when, at God's command, Lot left Sodom, the people in general went right ahead in their business as usual manner. Then fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. The question occurs, Why did Jesus select Noah and Lot as examples of men who took heed? Certainly, in view of Gen. 9:20, 21, with reference to Noah, and of Gen. 19:30–38, with reference to Lot, these two Old Testament characters were not exactly paragons of virtue. The point is, however, that both heeded God's warning. Noah built an ark an action which must have seemed to many to be the most foolish thing he could possibly do. Cf. Gen. 6:14; 7:5. And as to Lot, when God ordered him to leave Sodom, he did, though with a degree of hesitancy. Cf. Gen. 19:14–16. While these two made the necessary preparations in obedience to God's commands, the indifferent multitudes perished. In both cases sudden destruction overtook them. The water drowned them. The fire (and sulfur) consumed them. So, says Jesus, it will be also on the day the Son of man at his coming is revealed in all his glory. 31. On that day let him who happens to be on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not go down to get them. Similarly, let not the person who is in the field turn back. In Matt. 24:17, 18and its parallel Mark 13:15, 16, this warning is applied to the days just previous to Jerusalem's fall (a.d. 70). The meaning of these passages is that the man who is on the flat roof of his house from which by means of an outside ladder he can descend in order as quickly as possible to flee to the hills must not, after descending, enter his house in order to rescue any of his goods. Similarly, the laborer, dressed only in his tunic and thus working in the field, must not before his flight to the hills go back into his house to get his coat. Both of these men should flee at once, without trying to rescue any possessions, whether a coat or anything else. In connection with the present passage any thought of fleeing is, of course, out of the question. Nevertheless, the passage as such is entirely appropriate. It means that in connection with Christ's return the only proper attitude both then and now is wholehearted surrender to him and his word. Such complete devotion should be placed above all worldly interests. To this admonition Jesus adds an illustration, showing what is the tragic result of looking back with yearning to possessions that have been left behind: 32. Remember Lot's wife! The story is told in Gen. 19:17, 26: And when they [two angels] had brought them [Lot, his wife, and two daughters] out, they said, Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley. Flee to the hills, lest you be consumed. &But Lot's wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. The sad thing about Lot's wife was, however, not what many think it was. It was not, at least not primarily, that she turned into a pillar of salt (however one may wish to interpret this), but that in her scale of values she placed earth above heaven, material things above spiritual. What Jesus holds before his followers, then, is that they should be so prepared for his return that in their thoughts, words, and deeds, they always assign the pre-eminence to him, doing everything out of love for him, and thus for God Triune. In complete harmony with this interpretation is what follows in verse 33. Whoever tries to keep his life shall lose it, but whoever loses (his life) shall preserve it. For explanation see on 9:24 which, in slightly different phraseology, conveys the same meaning. In the present context those who are represented as trying to hang on to their life, and losing it, are the earth-bound people of Noah's day and of Lot's day, including definitely also Lot's wife, and all those similarly minded. That they are indeed losers will become apparent especially on the day of Christ's return. On that day the preservation and victory of the people who have shown the opposite attitude, that of self-denial and self-sacrifice, out of love for their Savior, will also become publicly manifest. At Christ's return mankind splits in two, in line with the spiritual division that had occurred earlier. Cf. Matt. 25:31–46. This thought is emphasized in verses 34, 35. I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken; the other left behind. Two women will be grinding together; one will be taken, the other left behind. Physical nearness will neither save nor damn anyone. Also, once the final day arrives, every opportunity to be saved is gone forever. The door is shut for those who have not taken advantage of the opportunity to be saved. See Matt. 25:10. Of two people in one bed either two men, or perhaps husband and wife; the original permits either view one will be taken; the other left behind. Similarly, of two women grinding together, one will be taken, the other left behind. Verse 34 pictures what happens during the night; verse 35 what takes place during the day. This is very logical, for if the Son of man arrives in the air above a place where it is night, it will be day on the other side of the globe; and vice versa. What does taken mean? The answer is found in I Thess. 4:17, They shall be caught up in clouds to meet the Lord in the air. See also Rev. 14:14–16. And what does left behind signify? It signifies left to their doom. For further details see Matt. 13:41, 42; II Thess. 1:7–9; Rev. 14:17–20. 37. They asked him, Where, Lord? He told them, Wherever (there is) a corpse, there also the vultures will gather. Meaning: wherever there are those who are spiritually dead, there the final judgment will overtake them. Cf. Matt. 24:28. Vultures (not eagles) swoop down upon a carcass.^[475] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 17:20 37 Verse 21 The kingdom of God is within you. Throughout the Gospels Jesus is emphasizing the importance of that which is within the heart (Matt. 12:34; 13:52; 15:18; Luke 6:45). Those who maintain that it was Paul (Rom. 14:17) but never Jesus who viewed God's kingdom as being spiritual in nature seem never to have read such passages as Matt. 5:3; 6:10; 13:33; Mark 10:15; Luke 10:9; 11:2; John 18:36. Recognition of the important truth that what is within man's heart is what matters, not what man is on the outside, would do much to relieve interracial (and also many other) tensions. Verses 27, 29 Then the flood came and destroyed them all &fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. Life is short. Therefore opportunities to make our lives shine for Jesus should be grasped. In this connection there is a Dutch hymn which stresses this very thought. I refer to Grijp toch de kansen door God u gegeven. My free translation of the first stanza in which for the Dutch word kansen, meaning opportunities, I have selected the English equivalent doors (Rev. 3:8) is as follows: Enter the doors which to you God is giving; Few are your days and the time rushes on. What, would you say, will be left of your living? Only whate er out of love you have done. Nothing abideth, nothing abideth. Life and its beauty, twill wither away, But what was done out of love for the Savior That lasts forever; its mem ry will stay. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 17:20–37 Verses 20, 21 [Greek], nom. s. masc. aor. pass. participle of [Greek], to ask; here, in pass., being asked. [Greek], gen. s. of [Greek] (cf. [Greek], to observe closely), with outward observation or display. [Greek], within, inside (of). There is no justification for the rendering among. See the following sources on which this conclusion is based: the use of the word in Matt. 23:26 and in such passages as LXX Isa. 16:11, where the word in question appears as a synonym of my heart, and I Macc. 4:48, the inner parts of the house. See also A. Deissmann, op. cit., pp. 426–428, and L. E. Wright, The Oxyrhynchus Sayings of Jesus, JBL (1946), p. 177. Verse 23 Note sec. per. pl. aor. subjunctives [Greek], [Greek], respectively from [Greek] and [Greek]. Lit.: Do not go (away) after nor follow (them); that is, Do not go running off after them. Verse 24 [Greek], lightning. See the note on 10:18 on page 589. [Greek], nom. s. fem. pres. participle of [Greek], to flash. After [Greek] the word [Greek], region or part, should be mentally inserted, since it is clearly implied. A rather literal translation would be, For as the lightning, flashing from one part under the heaven, shines to the other part under heaven, so will be the Son of man in his day. Less literal but probably better: For as the lightning lights up the sky from one end to the other, so, etc. Verse 25 [Greek], sec. aor. infinitive of [Greek], to suffer. [Greek], aor. pass. infinitive of [Greek], to reject (after examination). The prefix [Greek] of the Greek verbal compound is reflected in the German prefix ab; for example, in abweisen, and in the Dutch prefix af, as in afkeuren. In English the prefix re in reject, to throw away or back, as not being wanted, has the same significance. Verse 27 [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], ark; of Noah here and in Matt. 24:38; Heb. 11:7; I Peter 3:20; of the covenant, (a) in the Holy of Holies on earth, Heb. 9:4; (b) in the sanctuary of heaven, Rev. 11:19. Very effectively the four imperfects they were eating, etc. are followed by three aorists: Noah entered, the flood came, destroyed all. Verses 28, 29 A similar dramatic contrast is pictured here: the six imperfects of verse 28 people were eating, were drinking, were marrying, etc. are climaxed by the three aorists of verse 29: Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and sulfur &(which) destroyed all. For [Greek] see the note on 7:38, 44 on page 411. Verse 30 [Greek], third per. s. pres. (prophetic and futuristic) indicat. pass. [Greek], to reveal; in pass., as here, to be revealed. Verse 31 [Greek], third per. s. 2nd aor. imperat. (in a prohibition) of [Greek], to go down. This verb occurs with great frequency in the four Gospels, Acts, and Revelation; but in all of Paul's epistles only four times, and once in James. Verse 32 [Greek], sec. per. pl. pres. imperat. act. of [Greek], to remember. Though in Luke's Gospel this verb occurs only here for a synonym see Luke 1:54, 72; 16:25, etc. it is also found in Matthew, Mark, John, Acts, Paul's epistles, etc. On the other hand, the little sentence, Remember Lot's wife, is found only in Luke 17:32. Verse 33 See the commentary on 9:24, since the present passage (17:33) is, to some extent, a repetition of the earlier one. Here, in 17:33 tries to keep is substituted for would save of 9:24; and shall preserve for shall save. There is no essential difference. [Greek], aor. middle infinitive of [Greek], cf. Acts 20:28; I Tim. 3:13, to acquire or use for oneself, to keep. [Greek], third per. s. fut. indicat. act. of [Greek]; cf. Acts 7:19; I Tim. 6:13, to endue with life, preserve alive, preserve. Verses 34, 35 Here are two third per. s. fut. indicat. passives, each occurring twice, once in each verse. The first, [Greek], is a form of [Greek]; in the pass. to be taken; the second, [Greek], is a form of [Greek], here in the sense of to be left behind. See the note on 6:42 on page 364. [Greek], third per. pl. periphrastic fut. act. indicat. of [Greek], in the New Testament occurring only here and in Matt. 24:41, to grind. Verse 37 [Greek], nom. pl. of [Greek], here and in (Matt. 24:28probably vulture; elsewhereRev. 4:7; 8:13; 12:14) eagle. [Greek], third per. pl. fut. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to gather; in pass., as here, to be gathered. But there is little or no essential difference between there the vultures will be gathered or &will gather. Either translation can be considered correct. For the verb used by Luke see the note on 12:1 on page 658. Summary of Chapter 17 See p. 540. 465 Literally, if a millstone is hung around his neck, etc. 466 Or: Be constantly watching yourselves. 467 Or: and sit down to eat. 468 Or: fasten your belt and wait on me. 469 Or: He does not thank the servant &does he? 470 Or: what we were obliged to do. 471 Or: have mercy on us. 472 Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 17:1–19 begin on page 800. L.N.T. (A. and G.) W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Th.D.N.T. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, and translated from the German by G. W. Bromiley N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary 473 Some manuscripts leave out in his day. 474 There is insufficient manuscript support for verse 36, Two men will be in the field; one will be taken, the other left behind. But see Matt. 24:40. A.V. Authorized Version (King James) A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version N.I.V. New International Version of The New Testament S.BK. Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch 475 Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 17:20–37 begin on page 810. JBL Journal of Biblical Literature CHAPTER XVIII:1 14 Outline of Chapter 18:1–14 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 18:1–8 The Parable of The Widow Who Persevered 18:9–14 The Parable of The Pharisee and The Tax-Collector 18:1–8 The Parable of The Widow Who Persevered 18 1 Moreover, Jesus told them a parable to show that they should always pray and not lose heart. 2 He said, In a certain city there was a judge who had no reverence for God nor respect for people. 3 There was also a widow in that city. She kept coming to him, saying, Grant me justice against my opponent. 4 For a while he was unwilling but at last he said to himself, Though I have no reverence for God nor respect for people, 5 yet, because this widow keeps on bothering me, I'll grant her justice, lest she finally wears me out by her continual coming. 6 Then the Lord said, Listen to what the unrighteous judge said. 7 And will not God see to it that justice is done for his elect, who continue to cry to him day and night? Will he be slow to help them?^[476] 8 I assure you that he will see to it that justice is done for them, and quickly. But still, when the Son of man comes, will he find that faith^[477] on the earth? For the obvious link between chapters 17 and 18 see p. 541. The two parables of 18:1–14 are closely related. Prayer should be both persevering (verses 1 8) and humble (verses 9 14). The first parable can be divided into two parts, as will be indicated: A. The Parable 1. Moreover, Jesus told them a parable to show that they should always pray and not lose heart. We may assume that Jesus is still addressing his disciples, in the broader sense of that term (17:22). He tells them that during the lengthy and increasingly difficult period of time before the Son of man returns (see 17:22, 23), his followers down through the ages, instead of losing heart, should persevere in prayer. But will their prayers avail? Will the supplicants be vindicated? To answer this question Jesus tells a parable. Its purpose is to show that if even a worldly judge, a very wicked man, finally gives a persevering widow her due, how much more will not the just, holy, and loving Father vindicate his elect who continue to cry to him day and night? 2. He said, In a certain city there was a judge who had no reverence for God nor respect for people. Jesus links this judge with a city probably because that is where the audience expected a judge to function. This judge was anti-God and anti-people. He did whatever he pleased, never asking himself, What does God want me to do? or even What do the people in general approve or disapprove? He was nothing but a hateful egotist. Here, then, is a judge without any love for justice. And as to sympathy for the oppressed and satisfaction because, in his capacity as judge, he might be able to help them, he did not know what sympathy was. Tender feelings were completely foreign to him. 3. There was also a widow in that city. Strikingly beautiful is what Scripture teaches with reference to widows, how God protects them, how he urges people to show kindness to them, blessing those who help them and punishing those who hurt them. See such passages as Exod. 22:22, 23; Deut. 10:18; Ps. 68:5. For a longer list of references see N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 167, 168. Moreover, it has been pointed out that it is especially Luke who pictures Jesus as being filled with love for the underprivileged, including widows. See Introduction, point V D. The judge and the widow are living in the same city. This leads to a confrontation: She kept coming to him, saying, Grant me justice against my opponent. This widow had been unjustly treated. Someone may have deprived her of the little she had, or may have prevented her from receiving that to which she was entitled. So she went to the judge, hoping that he would confirm her claim and give her whatever justice demanded. This would probably also imply punishment for the opponent, but the emphasis is rather on the urgent request by the wronged widow that she receive her due. The rude judge flatly refused to have anything to do with her. She went home disappointed, for she knew that her cause was just. So a little later she tried again &with the same result. And again &and then again &and so on. At last the judge was sick and tired of her: 4, 5. For a while he was unwilling, but at last he said to himself, Though I have no reverence for God nor respect for people, yet, because this widow keeps on bothering me, I'll grant her justice, lest she finally wears me out by her continual coming. Evidently the judge knew that the widow's claim was just. But he probably also knew that she was not able to bribe him and had little or no influence in the city. However, her persistence was what finally toppled him. So he said to himself, I'll grant her justice, lest she finally wears me out, etc. Was he afraid, perhaps, that the widow would become so furious that she would fly at him and give him a black eye? Well, probably not, but see the note on 18:5 on page 823. At any rate, the widow's request was finally granted and she received whatever was due her. B. The Lesson 6, 7a. Then the Lord said, Listen to what the unrighteous judge said. And will not God see to it that justice is done for his elect, who continue to cry to him day and night? See what has already been said about this in connection with verse 1. In addition, note that Jesus uses the significant title his elect to describe believers. Certainly God will not let his chosen ones down. From before the foundation of the world he has, of his sovereign will, elected them unto service and salvation, for his glory. He has loved them with an everlasting love (Jer. 31:3). Therefore he will surely see to it that they are fully vindicated. God and the wicked judge are opposites. What God demands is that his people persevere in opening their hearts to him. He answers the supplications of those who continue to cry to him day and night. Moreover, the wicked judge finally granted the needed help: the holy God will do so quickly: 7b, 8a. Will he be slow to help them? I assure you that he will see to it that justice is done for them, and quickly. The question may be asked, Does not this word quickly clash with the fact that the return of the Son of man to judge has not yet occurred? The answer must be, The Lord is not slow in fulfilling his promise, as some understand slowness, but is patient [or long-suffering] with you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should be converted (II Peter 3:9). Once the proper time has arrived, the Lord will move very quickly. It is interesting to observe with what speed the various eschatological events will take place. Believers who have not yet died will be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye (I Cor. 15:51, 52). The entire company of the saved will be caught up [or snatched away] &in clouds, to meet the Lord in the air (I Thess. 4:17). Earth and sky flee from his presence (Rev. 20:11; cf. 6:14). Certainly the present passageLuke 18:8a note especially and quickly is in harmony with all this. When the question is asked, Why will the Son of man see to it that justice is done for his own quickly? the answer must be that he loves so very deeply those who, by sovereign grace, have placed their trust in him. The contrast between him and the unrighteous judge of the parable is indescribably sharp. And does not the depth of that love guarantee that in the lives of all those children of God who throughout the centuries before the Son of man's return suffer persecution all those precious promises described in such passages as Ps. 34:19; Isa. 43:2; Rom. 8:28; I Cor. 10:13; II Cor. 4:17, will be fulfilled? 8b. But still, when the Son of man comes, will he find that faith on the earth? For this rendering see the note on this verse on page 823. There can be no question of the fact that there will still be believers on earth when the Son of man returns (Matt. 24:44–46; Luke 12:37; 17:34, 35; I Thess. 4:13–18). But will there be that faith, the faith that perseveres, as did that of this widow? The question is asked for the purpose not of speculation but of self-examination. Let each answer for himself. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 821–825. 18:9–14 The Parable of The Pharisee and The Tax-Collector 9 Now to some self-righteous persons, those who trusted in themselves^[478] and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10 Two men went up to the temple to pray; one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and was directing a prayer to himself, as follows: O God, I thank thee that I am not like the rest of the people robbers, cheats,^[479] adulterers or even like this tax-collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I pay the tithe on all my income. 13 But the tax-collector, standing at a distance, did not even venture to lift up his eyes to heaven, but kept beating his breast, saying: O God, be merciful to me, the sinner. 14 I say to you, this man, and not the other,^[480] went home justified;^[481] for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, while he who humbles himself will be exalted. A person should pray and not give up (Luke 18:1 8). Also, he should pray with the right attitude of mind and heart: 9. Now to some self-righteous persons, those who trusted in themselves and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable. There is no reason to doubt that Jesus addressed this parable to a group of Pharisees. That is the plain meaning of Luke's statement. See the note on this verse on pp. 823, 824. Exactly when it was spoken, whether immediately after the parable of The Widow Who Persevered, or at another time, has not been revealed and is not very important. What is clear is that the two parables belong together. Jesus addressed this story-illustration to those who trusted in themselves and were of the opinion that everybody else amounted to nothing. That this description was not an exaggeration but a true picture of what was wrong with the Pharisees of that day cannot be doubted. The parable presents two men, two prayers, two results. A. Two Men 10. Two men went up to the temple to pray; one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-collector. The temple was used not only for public religious transactions, for the bringing of sacrifices, and for teaching, but also for private devotions. It is not strange, therefore, that we see a Pharisee entering the temple for that purpose. Whether or not this took place at one of the regular hours of prayer, as seems probable, or at some other time, is not certain. At any rate, we more or less expect to see a Pharisee entering the temple to pray, for those belonging to this sect were at least were looked upon as being, and also considered themselves to be very pious. Praying at places where they could be seen was one of their hobbies (20:47). What is striking, however, is that a tax-collector also enters, and for the same purpose, namely, to pray. See what has been said about these publicans in connection with 3:12, and cf. 5:27–30; 7:29, 34; 15:1. B. Two Prayers 11, 12. The Pharisee stood and was directing a prayer to himself, as follows: O God, I thank thee that I am not like the rest of the people robbers, cheats, adulterers or even like this tax-collector. I fast twice a week; I pay the tithe on all my income. Note the following: a. Boldly the Pharisee takes his stand. Praying in a standing position, with hands and eyes uplifted, was riot at all unusual. In the case of a Pharisee we would even expect this. See N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 103, 104, for a description of the various prayer postures mentioned in Scripture. Just where, in this temple complex, does the Pharisee stand? We are not told, but a comparison with verse 13 may indicate that he stands as close as possible to the actual sanctuary, with its Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. b. Whom does he address? Outwardly he addresses God, for he says, O God. But inwardly and actually the man is talking about himself to himself. See the note on 18:11 on page 824. Moreover, having mentioned God once, he never refers to him again. Throughout his prayer the Pharisee is congratulating himself. That this is the true state of affairs follows also from the fact that nowhere in his prayer does the man confess his sins. Nowhere does he ask God to forgive him what he has done amiss. Now if he had had any sense of the divine presence, would he not also have had a sense of guilt? See Isa. 6:1–5; Luke 5:8. c. He begins by comparing himself with other people. Not, however, with truly devout men like Samuel (I Sam. 1:20, 28; 2:18, 26) or Simeon (Luke 2:25 32), but with those of bad reputation. He says that he is not a robber &as if he were not at that very moment robbing God of the honor due to him. He is not a cheat or dishonest person &as if he were not cheating himself out of a blessing. And he is not an adulterer. Well, probably not literally, but was not this proud Pharisee departing from the true God, and thereby making himself guilty of the worst adultery of all (Hos. 1:2; 5:3)? d. Of a sudden the attention of the Pharisee is drawn to the tax-collector, who is pounding his breast and crying to God for mercy. So he includes also this publican in his prayer, by adding or even like this tax-collector. Little did he realize that the man he so despised was on his way to heaven, a place the Pharisee would never see unless a very basic inner change would take place in his heart, a total transformation. e. A Pharisaic prayer, dating from about the time Jesus told this parable, runs as follows: I thank thee, Jehovah my God, that thou hast assigned my lot with those who sit in the house of learning, and not with those who sit at street corners. For I rise early and they rise early: I rise early to study the words of the Torah, and they rise early to attend to things of no importance. I weary myself and they weary themselves: I weary myself and gain thereby, while they weary themselves without gaining anything. I run and they run: I run toward the life of the age to come, while they run toward the pit of destruction. ^[482] Another typical example of the same Pharisaic self-righteousness. f. On the positive side, the Pharisee in his prayer mentions some works of supererogation he is performing. Is he not doing even more than the law requires? I fast twice a week, he says. See on 5:33. This man does not fast only once a year, as (Lev. 16:29suggests, or only in certain months; no, he fasts twice a week (probably on Monday and Thursday). And when it comes to tithing, also in this respect he goes all out, way beyond the law's requirementsDeut. 14:22, 23). He tithes even garden herbs (Luke 11:42). Do you remember the nursery rhyme ending with &And he said, What a good boy am I? 13. But the tax-collector, standing at a distance, did not even venture to lift up his eyes to heaven, but kept beating his breast, saying, O God, be merciful to me, the sinner. a. He stands at a distance. To be sure, he must be in the temple, for it is there that, in a special sense, God dwells. He desperately needs God, the God of pardoning love! But having arrived in the temple, he stands away, far away from the sanctuary. b. He is ashamed of his sins; hence, ashamed of himself, and therefore stands with downcast eyes. c. He keeps beating his breast, in self-accusation and near-despair. d. Being deeply conscious of God's presence, he takes hold of God in prayer (Isa. 64:7), and from the very depths of his being cries out, O God, be merciful to me, the sinner. He is earnestly and fervently begging God to be propitiated. He is hungering and thirsting for the one great blessing, namely, that God's anger may be removed and his favor obtained. His prayer is entirely in the spirit of: Nothing in my hand I bring, Simply to thy cross I cling. Lines from Rock of Ages by A. M. Toplady e. Was the Pharisee thinking only of himself? The tax-collector, too, singles himself out from all of mankind, but in an entirely different way. He does not place himself above others. He does not say, for example, O God, I thank thee that I am at least better than most other tax-collectors. Nothing of the kind. He singles himself out as &THE sinner! A little later the great apostle to the Gentiles was going to do the same thing. He was going to say, Christ Jesus came into the world sinners to save, foremost of whom am I (I Tim. 1:15). C. Two Results 14. I say to you, this man, and not the other, went home justified & It is with great emphasis that Jesus continues, I say to you, etc. He asserts, this man rather than the other, clearly meaning and not the other. The tax-collector went home justified. Here the word is used in the forensic sense. God himself has pronounced this publican to be righteous. Yes, he is righteous in the eyes of the Almighty. The man's sins have been blotted out. See (Ps. 51:1, 2. His transgressions have been removed as far as the east is from the westPs. 103:12). They have been cast into the depths of the sea (Mic. 7:19). And the penitent has himself been adopted into the family of God. He goes home now. From his heart the storm has been removed. All is peace now, for he is deeply convinced that God's approval rests upon him. The Pharisee also goes home, but he has &nothing! He might as well have stayed home that day, and never gone to the temple. In fact, this might have been better for him. To all this the very appropriate words of Luke 14:11are added: for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, while he who humbles himself will be exalted. See on 14:11; also on 1:52, 53. And do not forget Isa. 57:15. Thus, very touchingly, ends Luke's Central Section.^[483] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 18:1 14 Verse 1 Always pray and do not lose heart. Possible reasons why prayers are not always answered at once: a. To teach us patience and other virtues. b. To increase our thanksgiving when we finally receive the blessing. c. Because God has a greater blessing in store for us. See John 11:5, 6. d. For reasons that lie (or lie partly) outside the sphere of human experience. See Job 1:6 12. e. For other reasons known to God but not to us. God does not owe us an explanation for the riddles of life. Verse 7 And will not God see to it that justice is done for his elect &? The comforting doctrine of election was not invented by Paul. Is it not encouraging to know that at the root of our salvation lies God's election, not our innate (?) goodness? Verse 8 When the Son of man comes, will he find that faith on the earth? Self-examination is good for the soul. When the answers to our riddles are not readily available, we still should trust. Careless seems the great Avenger; history's pages but record One death-grapple in the darkness twixt old systems and the Word; Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own. J. R. Lowell, The Present Crisis Verse 13 O God, be merciful to me, the sinner. Old Testament, New Testament; David, the tax-collector, Paul; all unite here, in ascribing salvation, from start to finish, to the mercy (God's love revealed to those in misery) and grace (God's love shown to the undeserving) of God. See Ps. 51:1; Luke 18:13; Eph. 2:8; Titus 3:5. The despised publican's theology was sound; his attitude of heart was the best, all of this originating in God himself. Soli Deo Gloria. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 18:1–14 Verse 1 [Greek], pres. infinitive of [Greek], to lose heart, to become weary. See also II Cor. 4:1, 16; Gal. 6:9; Eph. 3:13; II Thess. 3:13. Verses 2 5 From the verb [Greek], to turn oneself to another person with respect or deference, here middle voice, are derived [Greek] (verse 2), nom. s. masc. pres. participle; and [Greek] (verse 4), first per. s. pres. indicat. And from [Greek], to avenge someone; i.e., to procure justice for a person by protecting him from his opponent, are derived [Greek] (verse 3), sec. per. s. aor. imperat. act.; and [Greek] (verse 5), first per. s. fut. indicat. act. [Greek] (verse 3), third per. s. imperf. (iterative) indicat. of [Greek]. [Greek] (verse 5), yet. [Greek] &[Greek] (verse 5), articular pres. act. infinitive, to furnish trouble, to bother. [Greek] (verse 5), acc. of general reference. [Greek] (verse 5), third per. s. pres. subjunct. (after [Greek] ), lit. to strike (a person) under the eye; here, because of the tense, probably: to wear (a person) out; in I Cor. 9:27, to buffet or beat. Verse 6 [Greek], judge of unrighteousness, unrighteous judge. For similar forms and their explanation see the note on 10:6 on page 587, also the diagram there; and see the note on 16:8, 9 on pp. 778, 779. Verse 7 [Greek], third per. s. pres. indicat. of [Greek], generally to have patience (Matt. 18:26, 29; I Cor. 13:9; I Thess. 5:14). But in Heb. 6:15to wait patiently. See also James 5:7. It is clear, therefore, that the connotation to be patient has its ramifications; probably such as: to wait, postpone, delay, put off, be slow (to do something). Here in Luke 18:7b the contexts, both preceding the unrighteous judge was very slow to act; contrast God and following and this quickly require a rendering on the order of Will he be slow to help them? or Will he keep putting them off? or Will he postpone helping them? The difficulty of the passage must be admitted. Verse 8 [Greek] &[Greek]; probably But still. [Greek]. Since it is a known fact that in Greek the article often precedes the name of a virtue such as faith or hope or love where in English the article would generally be omitted, the rendering, Will he find faith on the earth? or even simply on earth? is not necessarily wrong. However, it may well be questioned whether in the present context this rendering is the best. Even many of the very commentators who allow it to stand hasten to add that Jesus was not referring to faith in general but to the kind of faith exercised by this widow. Others, in keeping with the context, give the Greek article its full due, and translate the faith or even that faith. The context would seem to justify this rendering. Verse 9 [Greek] &[Greek]. I can see no good reason, with Ridderbos, to translate [Greek] with respect to. The phrase [Greek] occurs very frequently in Luke, and means He said to. See 1:13, 18, 28, 34; 2:34, 48, 49; 17:1, 22; 19:5, 8, etc. The fact that in 18:1 [Greek] is used in a different sense has nothing to do with its meaning here in 18:9, since the construction in verse 1 ([Greek] followed by the art. infinitive) is entirely different. [Greek], acc. pl. masc. 2nd perf. participle of [Greek], to persuade; in the perfect, as here, to be confident, to trust. [Greek], acc. pl. masc. pres. act. participle of [Greek], lit. to treat as amounting to nothing ([Greek] = [Greek]), to look down on, scorn, despise, treat with contempt. See also 23:11, and elsewhere: Mark 9:12; Acts 4:11; Rom. 14:3, 10, etc. Verse 11 On the reasonable assumption that the phrase [Greek] is authentic there is a variant that omits it and that it modifies the verb [Greek], and not the participle [Greek], the question remains Just what does it mean? The following renderings can all be found: with, to, about, by, and for (himself). I favor to, since, after verbs of asking and praying, [Greek] followed by the acc. generally has that meaning. See L.N.T. (A. and G.), pp. 717, 718. So also Goodspeed, Godet, Greijdanus; also B. Reicke, art. [Greek], Th.D.N.T., Vol. VI, p. 723. Robertson has to in Translation, p. 102 (not in Word Pictures). Though the Pharisee's prayer was indeed addressed to God note O God, I thank thee, etc. it never reached God. The man was actually talking to himself, congratulating himself. A possibility worthy of consideration (my second choice) is with (A.V., A.R.V., R.S.V., etc.). Verse 12 [Greek], first per. s. pres. indicat. of [Greek], to get; not (with A.V.) to possess, which would be perf. tense [Greek]. Verse 13 [Greek], nom. s. masc. perf. participle of [Greek], having taken his stand, and thus standing. [Greek] &[Greek], two negatives; was not willing even, etc. Note the imperfects that make the story very graphic: the progressive and descriptive [Greek], he was not willing, did not venture; and the iterative [Greek], he kept beating. [Greek], aor. act. infinitive of [Greek], to lift up, raise; see the note on 16:23 on page 789. [Greek], breast, chest. Cf. stethoscope (= chest-viewer). [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. imperat. pass. of [Greek], to render propitious, gracious; to appease, to cause to become favorably inclined; in pass., as here, to be merciful. In Heb. 2:17this verb means: to make atonement for, to expiate. When God is appeased, man's sins are expiated. The two go together. See also on this verb L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, 1949, p. 374; and Büchsel on [Greek], [Greek], Th.D.N.T., Vol. III, pp. 314–318. [Greek], (to me) the sinner. Verse 14 [Greek], nom. s. masc. perf. pass. participle of [Greek], to declare or adjudge righteous. The verb ending [Greek] generally expresses causation. See W. D. Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York, 1941, p. 14. [Greek], alongside of; i.e., compared to; here: rather (than), the idea being that the Pharisee had not received the grace of justification, the publican had. Summary of Chapter 18:1–14 See p. 541. The Perean Ministry (continued) 18:15 19:27 CHAPTER XVIII:15 43 Outline of Chapter 18:15–43 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 18:15–17 Jesus and the Children 18:18–30 The Peril of Riches and The Reward of Sacrifice 18:31–34 The Third Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection 18:35–43 The Healing of a Blind Beggar near Jericho 18:15–17 Jesus and the Children Cf. Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13 16 15 Now they were bringing even infants to him, for him to touch. When the disciples saw this they began to rebuke (those who brought) them. 16 But Jesus called them to himself, saying, Let the little children come to me, and stop hindering them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 17 I solemnly declare to you, whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall never enter it. Beginning with 18:15 Luke and Mark run parallel again. Now in Mark Jesus sayings regarding marriage (10:1–12), children (verses 13 16), and property (verses 17 31) follow each other in that order. Matthew 19has the same sequence. Luke, however, here omits the first subject, probably because he has already reported Christ's teaching on marriage (16:18). So he starts at once with Jesus and the children. Besides, Luke may well have had in mind a thematic connection between the present section (verses 15 17) and the immediately preceding one (verses 9 14). If so, he is reporting that, according to the mind of Christ, it is not by means of boasting about one's good works, as did the Pharisee, but by trustfully committing oneself to God and his love, as did the tax-collector, thereby revealing the attitude of a humble, trustful little child, that the kingdom is entered. 15. Now they were bringing even infants to him, for him to touch. Note complete absence of time or place indications. On the basis of Luke 9:51; 13:22; 17:11, a reasonable assumption is that the incident here reported took place in a house in Perea while Jesus and The Twelve were traveling south toward Jerusalem. Little children were brought to Jesus. Even infants, says Luke, were included. They were brought presumably by their parents or other close relatives, perhaps including bigger children. The purpose was that Jesus might touch the little ones, meaning: might place his hands on them while asking the Father to bless them. Cf. Matt. 19:13; Mark 10:13, 16. There was nothing magical about Christ's touch. It should he considered part of the blessing the little ones received. When the disciples saw this they began to rebuke (those who brought) them. Were the disciples standing in the doorway of the house and with angry gestures shooing away those who approached holding little ones by the hand or carrying infants in their arms? The reaction of the disciples was rather characteristic of them. They did not want the Master to be bothered by such unimportant (?) creatures as infants! For somewhat similar manifestations of unkindness on the part of the disciples see 9:49, 50; Matt. 15:23. But this certainly was not Christ's attitude, or God's. See Matt. 5:43–48; 11:25–30; Luke 6:27 38; John 3:16. 16. But Jesus called them to himself, saying, Let the little children come to me, and stop hindering them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. The reason Jesus gives for ordering the disciples to allow the little ones to come to him and to stop hindering them is to such belongs the kingdom of God. For the meaning of kingdom of God see on 4:43. In the present case the verse means that in principle all the blessings of salvation belong even now to these little ones, a fact that was to be realized progressively here on earth and perfectly in the hereafter. 17. I solemnly declare to you, whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall never enter it. The meaning is: the only possible way to enter the kingdom is by receiving it readily and trustfully as a child accepts a gift. A child is not too proud to accept a gift! For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 845–849. 18:18–30 The Peril of Riches and The Reward of Sacrifice Cf. Matt. 19:16–30; Mark 10:17 31 18 And a certain ruler asked him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life? 19 Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except One God. 20 You know the commandments: You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother. 21 He said, All these things have I observed ever since I was a child. 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, One thing you still lack; sell all you have and distribute (the proceeds) to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me. 23 When he heard this, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, How hard it is for those who possess wealth to enter the kingdom of God. 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. 26 Those who heard (this) asked, Then who can be saved? 27 Jesus replied, What is impossible with men is possible with God. ^[484] 28 Peter said, Look, we have left all we had and followed you. 29 He said to them. I solemnly declare to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who shall not surely receive many times as much now in this time, and in the age to come everlasting life. According to the teaching of Jesus entrance into the kingdom of God (see on 4:43) or obtaining possession of everlasting life is God's free gift. It cannot be earned by human exertion. That truth was made very clear in the preceding section (see 18:17). This was a lesson which many of Jesus contemporaries had to learn, as is emphasized here in 18:18 ff. For the slight differences between the three reports (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 18) see N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 386–389. Though there are these variations, there are no conflicts. 18. And a certain ruler asked him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life? The stranger here introduced is by Matthew called a young man (19:20), by Luke a ruler (here in 18:18), and is by all three synoptists described as a very rich person, one who owned much property (Matt. 19:22; Mark 10:22; Luke 18:23). Therefore the composite title rich young ruler is generally applied to him. He was probably one of the officials in charge of the local synagogue. Mark's description of this ruler's action is the most vivid of the three accounts. As he tells it, not only did this young man run up to Jesus, he also dropped to his knees in front of him. Luke, as often, abbreviates, and simply states that a certain ruler asked Jesus a question. In view of his highly emotional state, shown by his running and dropping to his knees, he may well have been gasping out the question that was disturbing his heart and mind. He addresses Jesus as Good Teacher. Since his manner of addressing Jesus is intimately linked with the latter's reply (verse 19), I shall for the moment reserve any further comments on it. The young man continues: &what shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life [or, according to the order of the words in the original, life everlasting]? Exactly what the anxious inquirer meant by everlasting life we do not know. In order to discover what it may have meant to him it should be borne in mind that he had undoubtedly been instructed by the Pharisaic scribes. The best informed among them knew that the concept life everlasting had its origin in what we now call the Old Testament. Dan. 12:2mentions it in connection with the resurrection of God's faithful children: And many that shall sleep in the dust of the earth shall awaken, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And, to give but one example from apocryphal literature, II Macc. 7:9 states, The King of the world shall raise us up &unto an everlasting renewal of life. It may be taken for granted, therefore, that by those who were well acquainted with Jewish religious literature the term life everlasting was associated with the resurrection. The rich young ruler's question can therefore perhaps be paraphrased as follows, What must I do in order to become a partaker of salvation at the close of the age? Coupled with this was undoubtedly the yearning to gain assurance in the here and now that he was indeed headed in the right direction toward that ultimate destiny. For the moment at least he seemed to be willing to do most anything that was necessary to reach this goal. He wanted peace of mind for the present and never-ending blessedness for the future.^[485] It is time now to return to the manner in which this rich young ruler opens the conversation. It has been mentioned that he addresses Jesus as Good Teacher. The designation Teacher or Master was entirely proper. Jesus was and is indeed The Teacher (Matt. 26:55; Mark 14:49; Luke 11:1; John 3:2; 7:35; Acts 1:1). To a certain extent this fact was even acknowledged by his opponents (Matt. 22:16). He was indeed The Prophet sent from God. See also N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 82, 83. According to Luke's report, however, the enthusiastic inquirer attaches an adjective to the noun: he addresses Jesus as Good Teacher. Of course, this too was true, but evidently not in the sense meant by the young man. At least, as will now be shown, Jesus is not at all satisfied with the manner in which the man addressed him. 19. Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except One God. Does Jesus by means of this statement disclaim goodness and deity? Does he mean, You should not have called me good, for God alone is good. I am not God; therefore I am not good? Many have so interpreted Christ's answer. They have concluded with variations in minor details that Jesus is here drawing a tacit contrast between the absolute goodness of God and his own goodness. My own view is this: Jesus knew that the rich young ruler, in addressing him as Good Teacher, was being very superficial. If this young man had really believed with all his heart that Jesus was good in the highest sense of the term, he would have obeyed the command the Lord was about to give him (see verse 22). That same shallowness is evident also from the praise he bestows on himself (verse 21). The Master knew very well that if this inquirer was going to be saved, he must be confronted with the absolute standard of goodness, namely, the perfect law enacted by The Perfect One, God. So Jesus continues as follows: 20. You know the commandments: You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother. Just why it was that in all three accounts Honor your father and your mother is made the last of the regular Decalog commandments we do not know. Was there a special reason why in this particular case Jesus placed this commandment at the very close (except for the summary in Matthew)? Neither do we know why Jesus mentioned only the commandments of the second table. To the many guesses I wish to add one more: It was not necessary for Jesus to include the commandments relating to man's duty with respect to God, for failure to observe the second table implies failure to observe the first: He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen (I John 4:20). Another question to which we do not know the answer is, Why does You shall not commit adultery here precede You shall not kill, and why is You shall not covet omitted? There may well be some truth in Lenski's position, namely, that Jesus shows that he is not bound either by the exact wording of the commandments or by their order in the Decalog, and simply indicates how very much the law requires before it grants life everlasting.^[486] It is understandable that in answering the young man's question Jesus starts out by referring him to the law of God, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20; cf. Gal. 3:24). We have met with a similar situation before; see on 10:25–28. However, the law does not make us conscious of our sins if we fail to discern its real meaning, its depth, as set forth by Jesus in Matt. 5:21–48. That the young man's attitude to God's holy law was of a superficial character is clear from his answer: 21. He said: All these things have I observed ever since I was a child. One can also translate: from my youth. According to some he means, since I became a bar mitzvah, that is, a son of the law, the name given to a Jewish boy who has reached the age of religious responsibility. Others interpret the expression in a more general sense, from childhood on. We might ask, But if the rich young ruler is convinced that he has kept the whole law, why is he still so perturbed? It is clear that he is trying hard to make himself believe that he had indeed been living in harmony with all God's commandments. He may have been encouraged in this attempt by rabbis who had deceived themselves into thinking that spiritual perfection was indeed attainable in this life.^[487] But has this young man really loved his neighbor as himself? Living among people some of whom must have been desperately poor, has he performed his full duty? Why, then, this lack of peace of heart and mind that made him rush to Jesus with a question born of anxiety? We can somewhat appreciate the young man's struggle, especially in the light of what we know about someone else who was going to experience a similar agony, but found the right answer (Rom. 7:7 8:1; Phil. 3:1–16). What this young man needs to learn is to surrender himself completely to the mercy of God and to accept from him as a free gift that which he cannot earn. Jesus will show him the way: 22. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, One thing you still lack; sell all you have and distribute (the proceeds) to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven & The question may be asked, But by thus instructing the young man was not Jesus endorsing the salvation by good works doctrine? Should he not rather have told him, Trust in me? The answer is that Trust completely in me was exactly what the Lord was telling him, for certainly without complete confidence in and self-surrender to the One who was issuing the order, the rich young ruler could not be expected to sell all he had and give the proceeds to the poor. This was the test. If he sustains it he will have treasure in heaven. The reference is to all those blessings that are heavenly in character, are in full measure reserved for God's child in heaven, and of which we experience a foretaste even now. For more about this concept see N.T.C. on Matt. 6:19, 20. It is important to note that Jesus adds and come, follow me. Jesus implies that in following him, to be accompanied by and to prepare for active witness-bearing, the young man must learn to deny himself and take up his cross, in complete self-surrender. The young man's response was tragic. It showed that Christ's command had been the arrow that wounded his Achilles heel, his most vulnerable spot: love of earthly possessions: 23. When he heard this, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. The young man was bitterly disappointed. His countenance fell (Mark 10:22). As enthusiastic as he had been at first, so sad he was now that he departed sorrowful and aggrieved, probably thinking, This requirement is not fair. None of the other rabbis would have demanded this much of me. The demand which Jesus had made on this bewildered man was suited to his particular circumstances and state of mind. The Lord does not ask every rich person for example, Abraham (Gen. 13:2), or Joseph of Arimathea (Matt. 27:57) to do exactly this same thing. There are those opulent individuals who, by and large, are living for themselves. What they contribute to the cause of others is wholly out of proportion to what they keep for themselves. There are other wealthy persons, however, who are willing to go all out in helping others, including even the ungenerous (Gen. 13:7–11; 14:14); and who, motivated by gratitude, are constantly building altars and bringing offerings to God (Gen. 12:8; 13:18; 15:9, 10; 22:13). The young man was extremely rich. He owned much property. He had it; it had him, holding him tightly in its grasp. It is clear that this young man needed exactly the treatment Jesus gave him. Did the rich young ruler persist forever in his deplorable refusal? The answer has not been revealed. Some reason as follows: Scripture tells us that Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21). God loves the elect, no one else. Conclusion: this young man must have become converted. But this amounts to superimposing an erroneous theological idea upon the text. If those who cling to it would be satisfied with the proposition that God loves in a peculiar way all those who place their trust in him (Ps. 103:13; I John 3:1), their teaching would be on firm ground. But when they go beyond this and deny that there is a love of God which extends beyond the sum total of the elect, we must part company with them. See Ps. 145:9, 17; Matt. 5:45; Luke 6:35, 36. And since this is true, there is no basis whatever for believing that the rich young ruler must have become a believer before he died. Instead of speculating about what may or may not have happened, the lesson of Luke 13:23, 24should be taken to heart. It is in that vein that Luke's account now continues: 24. Jesus looked at him and said, How hard it is for those who possess wealth to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus looked at the deeply disappointed young man. He saw him leaving (Matt. 19:22; Mark 10:22). Now picture the scene. The rich young ruler has left. Jesus and The Twelve are by themselves once more. Turning to them (Mark 10:23) he impresses upon them the fact that it is indeed hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. Attachment to God requires detachment from the world, and that is not easy. 25. Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. It is, of course, entirely impossible for a camel, hump and all, to pass through the eye of a needle. Think of it: a camel, Palestine's largest animal, passing through the very tiny opening of a needle! Ridiculous! It cannot be done. The reason Jesus expressed himself in such a dramatic fashion was that he wanted the disciples to take notice. He wanted the truth of human total inability to sink in.^[488] To explain what Jesus means it is useless and unwarranted to try to change camel into cable see Matt. 23:24, where a real camel must have been meant or to define the needle's eye as the narrow gate in a city wall, a gate, so the reasoning goes, through which a camel can pass only on its knees and after its burden has been removed. Such explanations (?), aside from being objectionable from a linguistic point of view, strive to make possible what Jesus specifically declared to be impossible. The Lord means that for a rich man in his own power to try to work or worm his way into the kingdom of God is impossible. So powerful is the hold which wealth has on the heart of the natural man! He is held fast by its bewitching charm, and is thereby prevented from obtaining the attitude of heart and mind necessary for entrance into God's kingdom. See Luke 16:13; cf. I Tim. 6:10. It should be noted that Jesus purposely speaks in absolute terms. A moment ago we used the phrase in his own power. Though in view of verse 27 this qualification does not need to be retracted, yet it should be pointed out that here in verse 25 Jesus does not thus qualify his assertion. He speaks in absolute terms in order all the more to impress upon the minds of the disciples that salvation, from start to finish, is not a human achievement. The fact that man's extremity is God's opportunity is reserved for later (see verse 27). 26. Those who heard (this) asked, Then who can be saved? Jesus startling remark had the desired effect. It shocked those who heard him, so that they cried out, Then who can be saved? They probably reasoned as follows: what Jesus said about rich men he said about all, for though not all are rich, even the poor yearn to become rich. In this connection also notice that the rich man had inquired about inheriting everlasting life (verse 18). Jesus had answered in terms of entering the kingdom of God (verse 25). And the hearers probably mostly disciples (see verses 15, 28) had interpreted their Master's remark as indicating that no one could be saved (verse 26). It is clear, therefore, these three designations are synonymous, all describing the same blessing, but each viewing it from a different angle. 27. Jesus replied, What is impossible with men is possible with God. In this dramatic moment the eyes of Jesus, as he fixed them on his disciples (Mark 10:27), must have been filled with deep earnestness and tender love. When he now tells them, What is impossible with men, he means exactly that. At every point, beginning, middle, end, man is completely dependent on God for salvation. Of himself man can do nothing. If he is to be saved at all he must be born again or from above (John 3:3, 5). In order to reach out to God by faith God-given faith! (Eph. 2:8) man must be enabled and supported every day, hour, minute, and second by God's omnipotent grace. For the religion of the rich young ruler (see verses 18 and 21), which was the religion current among the Jews of that day and age, there is no room here. Whatever detracts from the sovereignty of God in the salvation of men stands condemned. Glory be to God, however: there is a way out. What is impossible with men is possible with God. It is he who, through Christ, is able to save to the uttermost (Heb. 7:25). His grace extends even to the determined and relentless persecutor Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:1; 26:9–11; I Cor. 15:8–10; Gal. 1:15, 16; I Tim. 1:15). Just how, through the Mediator, this salvation is brought about, Jesus has already begun to reveal (Luke 9:22 27; 9:43, 44). He will continue to do so with increasing clarity (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). Peter is still thinking about the words Jesus had addressed to the rich young ruler (see verse 22). Jesus had asked him to sell all he had and to distribute the proceeds among the poor, promising that if he did this he would have treasure in heaven. So the story continues: 28. Peter said, Look, we have left all we had and followed you. According to Matt. 19:27Peter added, What then shall we have? Had The Twelve not done exactly what Jesus had asked the young man to do? Had they not left everything and followed Jesus? See especially Luke 5:2 11, 27 38; cf. Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:14; and to a lesser degree Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16 20. The answer, then, would seem to be obvious, namely, that The Twelve would have treasure in heaven. Nevertheless, Peter seems not to have been entirely certain about this, for the Master had also declared that with men it is impossible to be saved, and that it is God, he alone, who imparts salvation (verses 24 27). In all probability Peter was speaking not only for himself but as the representative of The Twelve. He says We have left all, etc. He often was their spokesman. See especially (Matt. 16:13–16; 26:35; John 6:67 69; Acts 1:15; 2:14, 37, 38; 5:29; and perhaps also Matt. 15:15, 16; 17:4Mark 9:5; Luke 9:32, 33). And so, we may well believe, also here in (Luke 18:28Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28). Confirmation of this theory, namely, that Peter was speaking representatively, is also found in the fact that Jesus, in answering Peter, addresses the entire group. He uses the plural: 29, 30. He said to them, I solemnly declare to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not surely receive many times as much now in this time, and in the age to come everlasting life. It is clear that this promise is for all true followers of the Lord, not just for The Twelve or for the larger circle of believers living at the time of Jesus sojourn on earth. It is for all who have chosen Christ above all else, even above their dearest relatives and choicest earthly possessions. They made the sacrifice for the sake of the kingdom of God, or, as Mark reproduces the thought of Jesus, for my sake and for the gospel's sake. These loyal disciples of the Lord are promised that they will be reimbursed many times over. Even in the present time, that is, before the great day of judgment, and for each believer before his death, these loyal followers receive the blessings indicated in such passages as Prov. 15:16; 16:8; Matt. 7:7; John 17:3; Rom. 8:26–39; Phil. 4:7; I Tim. 6:6; Heb. 6:19, 20; 10:34; I Peter 1:8. In spite of the persecutions which they will have to endure, they will be able to enjoy even their material possessions far more than the ungodly enjoy theirs. Reason? See Isa. 26:3; contrast 48:22. For the sake of the kingdom has it become necessary to forsake close relatives? New relatives will now be theirs (Luke 8:19 21; see also Matt. 12:46–50; Mark 3:31 35; and cf. John 19:27; Rom. 16:13; I Cor. 4:15; Gal. 4:19; I Tim. 1:2; 5:2; II Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; I Peter 5:13), relatives that belong to the household of the faith (Gal. 6:10), the Father's family (Eph. 2:19; 3:15). In the age to come believers are going to receive life everlasting. In principle they have it here and now, for in a very real sense the age or eon to come has already arrived; that is, believers have tasted the powers of the age to come (Heb. 6:5).^[489] Do they not even now possess the peace of God that surpasses all understanding (Phil. 4:7), joy unspeakable and full of glory (I Peter 1:8), the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ (II Cor. 4:6), and the love of God poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5)? In the age to come all these blessings that constitute life everlasting will become the believers treasure in an even much fuller sense. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 845–849. 18:31–34 The Third Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection Cf. Matt. 20:17–19; Mark 10:32 34 31 Jesus took the twelve aside and said to them, Listen, we are now going up to Jerusalem, and everything (that is) written through the prophets about the Son of man will be fulfilled. 32 For he shall be handed over to the Gentiles and mocked and insulted and spit upon. 33 They shall scourge him and kill him, but on the third day he shall rise again. 34 But they understood none of this; in fact, the (meaning of this) statement had been concealed from them, and they did not (even) begin to grasp what was said. Peter had called the attention of Jesus to the sacrifice he and the other disciples had made (verse 28). Jesus now rivets the attention of the group on the infinitely greater sacrifice he is about to make: 31. Jesus took the twelve aside and said to them, Listen, we are now going up to Jerusalem, and everything (that is) written through the prophets about the Son of man will be fulfilled. Though the time and place are indefinite, it is becoming clear that the long journey from Galilee through Perea is nearing its end. Jericho is almost in sight (see verse 35; 19:1). Jerusalem (and its environs) is next (19:11, 28, 41). Matters are becoming more and more serious now. So, in order to impress upon the disciples the gravity of the events that are about to take place, Jesus takes The Twelve aside. He tells them, We are going up to Jerusalem. Going up to Jerusalem (John 2:13; 5:1; 11:55; Acts 11:2; 25:1, 9; Gal. 2:1) must be understood as having reference not only to physical ascent, Jerusalem being situated on higher ground, so that from whatever side one approaches it, that approach is always an ascent; it is far more than that. It must be interpreted as a matter not just pertaining to the feet (Ps. 122:2), but also in fact especially to the heart (Ps. 84:5). In Jerusalem was God's temple! When in connection with the great feasts pilgrims wended their way to Jerusalem, they were going there to worship, and this included the bringing of an offering. Jesus, too, is now going up to Jerusalem, to bring himself as an offering for the sin of the world. See Isa. 53:10; John 1:29. Having taken The Twelve aside, Jesus makes a very important announcement. To indicate its importance he prefaces it by saying Behold, or, in the present case because of the context, Listen. He then directs their mind to the fact that they are now going up to Jerusalem, this time not from some distant place or region, but from nearby. In other words, he tells them that this is the beginning of the end of the road. This is it! He adds that everything that was written in ancient days and now therefore stands written, with reference to the Son of man (see on 5:24), will be fulfilled. Cf. 24:26, 27. See also Luke 22:22, 37; John 2:4; 7:6; 19:30, and it will become evident that Jesus definitely looked upon his life as part of the realization of the divine plan; that is, of God's eternal counsel. The things concerning the Son of man were written by the Lord, through the prophets (Matt. 1:22), though here in Luke 18:31only the agent is mentioned. 32, 33. For he shall be handed over to the Gentiles and mocked and insulted and spit upon. They shall scourge him and kill him, but on the third day he shall rise again. We generally speak of three main predictions of Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection: (a) Luke 9:21 27; cf. Matt. 16:21–28; Mark 8:31 9:1; (b) Luke 9:43b 45; cf. Matt. 17:22, 23; Mark 9:30 32; and (c) Luke 18:31 34; cf. Matt. 20:17–19; Mark 10:32 34. Of these three, this is the third or last. If one wishes to include in the count every veiled or figurative reference to the approaching passion, etc., the number of predictions would be substantially increased. In Luke, for example, see also 5:35; 12:50; 13:32, 33; 17:25. Limiting ourselves to the three main ones, we note that Mark lists seven items for the third prediction. These seven are: 1. The Son of man will be betrayed into the hands of chief priests and scribes, 2. They will condemn him to death, 3. And will hand him over to the Gentiles, 4. Who will mock him, spit upon him, 5. Scourge him, 6. And kill him. 7. Three days later he will rise again. Matthew has a similar arrangement. There are minor differences; e.g., Matthew has crucify for kill. Luke, who often abbreviates, here mentions only the last five; hence items 3 7. Since the Romans did not allow the Jews to carry out the death sentence, the Jewish authorities were going to hand Jesus over to the Gentiles, that is, in the present case to Pilate and those who carried out his commands. Jesus predicted that these Gentiles would mock him and spit upon him. The scourging of which Jesus speaks was a prelude to the killing by crucifixion. This prediction, as well as previous ones, ends on a note of triumph: he shall rise again. The question now arises, How must we conceive of this very detailed passion announcement? Was it really a prediction? Or was it rather, at least to a certain extent, a vaticinium ex eventu, that is, a prophecy arising out of and therefore made after the event to which it refers? That it was the latter is the opinion of many. In one way or another, the suggestion is offered that although Jesus in a very general way did indeed predict his suffering, death, and resurrection, he did not predict them in this detailed form. The question arises, Why not? He who knew beforehand exactly where a certain fish would be swimming at a definite moment of time and what it would have in its mouth (Matt. 17:27), how often a strange woman whom he had never met before had been married (John 4:17, 18), where a colt would be and what its owners would say to those who tried to untie it (Luke 19:29 33), and what kind of pitcher-bearer two disciples would meet as they entered the city of Jerusalem (22:10); he who was able to forecast the very manner of Jerusalem's fall (Matt. 21:40–43; 22:7; 23:37, 38; 24:1, 2, 15; Mark 13:1, 2; Luke 19:41 44), and the victorious march of the gospel along the path of the centuries (Matt. 24:14), would he not have been able to predict the details of his own imminent passion, especially after two messengers from heaven had discussed these matters with him (Luke 9:31)? I take it that what is here presented as prediction was exactly that. A prophecy that grows out of an event is no prophecy at all! It would be inexcusable to close the treatment of this precious passage (18:31–34) without showing what it implies with respect to the majesty of Christ's love. The prediction is far more detailed than the previous ones. The gradual revelation of the approaching events had a pedagogical purpose. But the possibility must also be granted that even in the human consciousness of our Lord the feel of the approaching horror was little by little becoming more real. There was nothing static about the mind of Jesus. See Luke 2:52; Heb. 5:8. Even this third prediction, though indeed very comprehensive and detailed, does not necessarily prove that in the mind of Jesus the image of impending distress was already as vivid as it would be in Gethsemane. Nevertheless, even now the horror must have been very real and very terrifying. See (Luke 12:50. The man of sorrows sees it coming toward him. He already senses something of the perfidy, the hypocrisy, the calumny, the mockery, the pain, and the shame which like an avalanche threatens to overwhelm him. Yet, he does not retreat or even stand still. With unflinching determination he walks right into it, for he knows that this is necessary in order that his people may be saved. Having loved his own &he loved them to the uttermostJohn 13:1). 34. But they understood none of this; in fact, the (meaning of this) statement had been concealed from them, and they did not (even) begin to grasp what was said. The Twelve understood neither the prediction as a whole, nor its separate items. The reason for this dullness on their part may well have been that they cherished other ideas with respect to the Messiah and his course of life on earth. This appears clearly from such passages as Matt. 16:22; 17:10; John 20:25; Acts 1:6. That did not make these predictions useless. By means of their fulfilment these predictions would come back to their minds, and their faith would be strengthened. Cf. John 16:4. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 845–849. 18:35–43 The Healing of a Blind Beggar near Jericho Cf. Matt. 20:29–34; Mark 10:46 52 35 Now it came about that as Jesus was approaching Jericho,^[490] a blind man was sitting by the roadside, begging. 36 When he heard a crowd going by, he began to inquire what this was. 37 They told him, Jesus of Nazareth is passing by. 38 So he shouted, Jesus, Son of David, take pity^[491] on me. 39 Those in front started to warn him to be quiet, but he cried out all the more, Son of David, take pity on me. 40 So Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him. When he came near, Jesus asked him, 41 What do you want me to do for you? He said, Lord, I want to regain my sight. ^[492] 42 Jesus said to him, Regain your sight; your faith has made you well. 43 Immediately he regained his sight and began to follow Jesus, glorifying God. When all the people saw it, they also gave praise to God. If the disciples had listened carefully and had been thoroughly versed in the Old Testament for example, in the Hebrew Psalter, the prophecies of Isaiah, and the contents of the book of Daniel they would have understood, at least to some extent, that by means of the third prediction of the passion and the resurrection (verses 31 34) Jesus not only identified himself as the Messiah but also indicated in what sense he was indeed the Promised One. This identification and this characterization are also set forth in the story of the blind beggar, by Mark called Bartimaeus. Jesus was now approaching Jericho. The road from the fords of the Jordan to Jerusalem passed through this city. One might say that the ascent to Jerusalem began here. Since many Galilean pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem to attend the Passover would travel through Perea in order to avoid Samaria, it is understandable that at Jericho, a very important stopping place, Jesus and The Twelve would be surrounded by a large crowd. Beggars would take advantage of the favorable opportunity thus afforded them. 35a. Now it came about that as Jesus was approaching Jericho & This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XIX:1 27 Outline of Chapter 19:1–27 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 19:1–10 Jesus and Zacchaeus 19:11–27 The Parable of The Pounds 19:1–10 Jesus and Zacchaeus 19 1 Then he entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 Here there was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax-collector and was wealthy. 3 He was trying to see who Jesus was, but being small in stature was unable to see him on account of the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree to see him, since Jesus was about to pass through that way. 5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, Zacchaeus, hurry down, for today I must stay at your home. 6 So he hurried down and welcomed him joyfully. 7 But on seeing (this), all the people began to grumble, He has gone to be the guest of^[498] a sinner. 8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, Listen, Lord! Here and now I'm giving half of my possessions to the poor, and if I've cheated anybody out of anything, I'm giving back four times as much. 9 So Jesus told him, Today salvation has come to this home, because even this man^[499] is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of man came to seek and to save what was lost. The connection between the closing paragraph of chapter 18 and the opening paragraph of chapter 19 is almost unforgettable; for (a) both events took place in Jericho land, and (b) in the first instance a poor man became a follower of Jesus; in the second, a rich man did. 1. Then he entered Jericho and was passing through. Even before the reign of Herod I Jericho was already a little paradise, with its palm trees, rose gardens, etc. Herod the Great and his son Archelaus had made it even more beautiful. A grand winter palace had been built there, also a theater and a hippodrome. Some of the streets were lined with sycamore trees. The climate was delightful. Had not Mark Antony given the city to the Egyptian Queen (Cleopatra) as a token of his affection? 2. Here there was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax-collector and was wealthy. This is the only place in the New Testament where a chief tax-collector is mentioned. The system of collecting taxes has been explained in connection with 3:12; see on that passage and also on 5:27. Zacchaeus, then, must have been considered a very prominent individual. He had been placed at the head of the entire tax district of Jericho and vicinity, one of the three main Palestinian tax offices, the other two being located at Caesarea and Capernaum. Now one of the things for which Jericho was famous was the balm derived from the balsam tree. Josephus (Antiquities XV.96) calls balsam the most precious thing there is. It was fragrant, soothing, and highly regarded for its healing qualities. The trade in this commodity and in other commodities abounding in the Jericho region yielded high taxes for the Roman government. Besides, Jericho was at the heart and center of a vast trade route network, as is clear from the map on p. 854. The city had trade connections with Damascus, Tyre, and Sidon to the north, Caesarea and Joppa to the west, and Egypt to the south, as well as with many other cities and countries in every direction. An important man, therefore, this Zacchaeus! However, by the Jews publicans (certainly including chief publicans) were regarded as traitors and crooks. This man's name, however, means the righteous one. ^[500] 3, 4. He was trying to see who Jesus was, but being small in stature was unable to see him on account of the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree to see him, since Jesus was about to pass through that way. Being small he was unable to catch a view of Jesus. Nevertheless, so deep was his interest in the Master that he was willing to do almost anything to see him. So, knowing where Jesus was going, he quickly ran ahead of the crowd and then, important man though he was, climbed into a sycamore tree, one of those that had been planted by the roadside. It is also called sycamore fig tree, and is highly prized for the shade it provides. Moreover, since some of its branches extend from the trunk close to the ground, even a man like Zacchaeus, small in stature, could easily climb it. 5, 6. When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, Zacchaeus, hurry down, for today I must stay at your home. So he hurried down and welcomed him joyfully. It is especially significant to note that although Zacchaeus was certainly very eager to see Jesus, it was Jesus, not the chief tax-collector, who took the initiative in arranging a personal contact between the two. It was Jesus who was seeking and saving (see verse 10). It is also significant that Jesus does not say to the man in the tree, Will it be convenient for you to have me visit you? He says, Zacchaeus, hurry down, for today I must stay at your home. And the Lord knew very well that the huge surrounding crowd would be less than pleased by these words. Jesus must stay at the chief publican's home because that was in keeping with the Savior's calling, in line with the purpose for which he had become incarnate. Never had Zacchaeus descended from a tree more quickly than now, and never with greater joy. 7. But on seeing (this), all the people began to grumble, He has gone to be the guest of a sinner. It is clear that the people note all the people (that is, the people in general) hate Zacchaeus. In view of what has been pointed out earlier namely, that they regarded publicans as being extortionists and traitors that is understandable, though not excusable. What, however, makes their grumbling all the more wicked is the fact that again and again during his ministry, which by now has almost ended, Jesus had explained why such a hateful attitude toward publicans was so thoroughly reprehensible (Matt. 9:11, cf. Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30; Matt. 11:19, cf. Luke 7:34; Luke 15). Nevertheless, the people continue in their loveless way! They are in the process of hardening their hearts. 8. But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, Listen, Lord. Here and now I'm giving half of my possessions to the poor, and if I've cheated anybody out of anything, I'm giving back four times as much. We must assume that Jesus has now entered the home of the chief publican. Is it not natural to believe also that to all those gathered there he spoke the words of life? The loving concern Jesus had shown for Zacchaeus made the latter a changed man. So deeply impressed is he that, in response, he rises, and states that here and now he is giving half of his possessions to the poor. That is his thank-offering. Has he at times been guilty of (directly or indirectly) exacting too much money from anybody? He has. See the note on this verse on page 864. So, in the presence of all he now declares that he is returning whatever he has unlawfully taken away. Not only that, he is going to add something to it. The law (Lev. 6:1–5; Num. 5:7) required that in certain cases one-fifth of the unjustly obtained amount in the present case one-fifth of the overcharge had to be added when making restitution. In other cases double restitution had to be made (Exod. 22:4, 7, 9).^[501] Zacchaeus, however, has just now decided to restore not double but fourfold the amount overcharged. Incidentally, does not that fourfold amount plus half of my possessions (the latter for the poor) tend to prove that Zacchaeus cannot have been grossly dishonest? Otherwise would he have been able to make such a generous restitution? 9. So Jesus told him, Today salvation has come to this home, because even this man is a son of Abraham. Note salvation, nothing less. Does this not mean emancipation from the greatest evil and being placed in possession of the greatest good? Does it not mean everlasting life? Today Jesus had called the chief publican out of that tree and had with blessing entered his home. Today, therefore, the great spiritual miracle had taken place. The Great Shepherd had found his sheep. Note also to this home, apparently not just to one individual in that home. The covenant is still in effect. See Gen. 17:7, 9; 18:19; Ps. 103:17, 18; Luke 1:72 75; Acts 2:38, 39. As is clear from all these passages, this by no means excludes the necessity of living faith on the part of the children. It very definitely requires such faith on the part of all who have reached the years of discretion. When Jesus now declares that Zacchaeus is indeed a son of Abraham, he is, of course, not merely declaring that the chief publican is a physical descendant of the arch-patriarch. He is using son of Abraham in a spiritual sense. Cf. Gal. 3:9, 29. The chief publican was a son of Abraham in the same sense in which the Syrophoenician woman was a true Israelite. See N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 625. Very appropriately Jesus adds: 10. For the Son of man came to seek and to save what was lost. Zacchaeus had not sought Jesus. Jesus had sought &and found Zacchaeus. Cf. Luke 15:1 7. In a few days the Good Shepherd was going to lay down his life for the sheep, including Zacchaeus. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 863–866. 19:11–27 The Parable of The Pounds Resemblances and Differences Between Two Parables: that of The Talents (Matt. 25:14–30) and that of The Pounds (Luke 19:11 27) 11 Now while they were listening to these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and because the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: A certain nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself and (then) to return. 13 So he called in ten of his servants, gave them a pound apiece, and said to them, Do business with these^[502] until I come (back). 14 But his subjects hated him, and sent a delegation on his heels, saying, We don't want this man to become king over us. 15 But he was made king and returned home. Then he ordered these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be summoned before him,^[503] that he might learn what each had gained by doing business. 16 The first one came and said, Sir, your pound has earned ten more. 17 His master said to him, Splendid, my good servant! Because in a very small matter you have been faithful, be in authority over ten cities. 18 The second came and said, Your pound, Sir, has made five pounds. 19 So he said similarly to him, Be in charge of five cities. 20 Then another servant came and said, Sir, here is your pound, which I have been keeping wrapped up in a napkin. 21 For I lived in constant fear of you, because you are a stern man: you withdraw what you did not deposit, and you reap what you did not sow. 22 His master said to him, Out of your own mouth do I judge you, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a stern man, withdrawing what I did not deposit, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Then why didn't you put my money in a bank, so that on my return I could have collected it with interest? 24 Then he said to the bystanders, Take his pound away from him and give it to him who has the ten pounds. 25 But they said to him, Sir, he (already) has ten pounds! 26 (He replied), I tell you that to everyone who has, (more) will be given, but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and cut them down in my presence. Resemblances: In each case the chief character, before leaving on a journey, entrusts a certain sum of money to his servants. When he returns, he calls them to account. Also in each case the first two servants who report are rewarded for their diligence, the third is punished for his negligence. Differences: In the parable of The Talents the entrusted amount is huge, and the servants receive different amounts. In that of The Pounds the entrusted amount is relatively small, and each receives the same amount. Also, in the parable of The Talents there are only two parties, a businessman and his servants. In that of The Pounds there are three: the nobleman-king, the servants, and the citizens. The idea of a nobleman going abroad in quest of a kingdom is absent from the parable of The Talents. Proof for the proposition that at one time these two parables were one and the same is lacking. In the parable of The Pounds four movements are clearly in evidence: A. A nobleman, in quest of a kingdom, entrusts a pound apiece to ten servants, and then leaves 11. Now while they were listening to these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and because the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. While those present in the home of Zacchaeus were listening to Jesus describing himself as the One who had come to seek and to save the lost, he proceeded to tell a parable. He did this in order to correct certain harmful ideas that were being spread; especially the notion that now the kingdom of God was immediately going to appear, the kingdom of outward, earthly, Jewish splendor. That the people in general were constantly looking for such a kingdom is clear from John 6:15. That even the minds of The Twelve continued for a long time to be filled with such expectations can be learned from Mark 10:35 45(the request of the sons of Zebedee) and Acts 1:6. It was especially the Passover Festival, with its many reminders of the glorious deliverance from Egypt, that fanned the embers of the revolutionary spirit. Moreover, the closer these pilgrims drew to Jerusalem, from which leadership in any such upheaval was expected, the more also the hope of instant deliverance rose. And now that they had arrived at Jericho, Jerusalem was just around the corner. The distance from Jericho to Jerusalem was only 27 kilometers (17 miles); in fact, only 24 kilometers (15 miles) when Bethany is figured in with Jerusalem, as is sometimes done. To counteract these harmful views Jesus is going to show that: a. the kingdom he proclaims is not confined to one particular nation: nowhere in the parable is there even a hint of obtaining political freedom; b. its outward manifestation is not a matter of the immediate future (see verse 12); and c. everyone should be faithful in the performance of his God-given duties. On the day of the final judgment it is faithfulness that will be rewarded, unfaithfulness punished (verses 15 27). 12. He said: A certain nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself and (then) to return. There are those who think that Jesus was referring first of all to Archelaus, the cruel son of a cruel father, who more than thirty years earlier had gone to Rome to have his claim to the throne confirmed. However, it is not at all certain that the Master was referring especially or exclusively to him. It was not at all unusual for someone to go to Rome in order to obtain a kingdom. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 158, 164. What Jesus was really telling his audience, in symbolical phraseology, was probably this, that he himself, at the conclusion of his suffering, would ascend to the Father in heaven; that the Father, as a reward upon the Son's accomplished mediatorial work, would cause him to sit at his right hand, thereby bestowing on him rulership over the entire universe in the interest of his church (Eph. 1:20–23); and that from heaven he would return to earth after a long (but indefinite) time, symbolized by the far country to which the nobleman of the parable was wending his way. The idea that the Son of man will not return at once is stressed also in certain other passages, two of the clearest being Matt. 25:5( While the bridegroom tarried, A.V.), and Matt. 25:19. See also Matt. 24:14; II Thess. 2:2, 3; II Peter 3:4–9; Rev. 20:1–3, 7 11. 13. So he called in ten of his servants, gave them a pound apiece, and said to them, Do business with these until I come (back). Literally the passage reads, Having called his [or: his own] servants, he gave them ten minas, etc. A mina was a Greek coin worth 100 drachmas, the drachma being a laborer's daily wage. This could well be the best description of the value of the mina. Among other attempts at expressing the value of one mina in English terms are the following: a. about three months wages. By working and earning wages also on the sabbath? b. five pounds. At today's currency value? c. $10, $17, $20, $100. Each of these has been suggested. But the exact value, expressed in British pounds or in American dollars, is of no importance to the understanding of the parable. Far more important is the fact that in this parable each of the servants receives the same amount, namely, one mina. If, with many translators e.g., A.V., A.R.V., R.S.V., N.E.B., Weymouth, Jerusalem Bible, A. T. Robertson, Dutch (both Statenvertaling and Nieuwe Vertaling: pond), etc. we call this mina a pound, and stress the fact that this was a pound of very high value (not a deflated one), a pound so high in value that it amounted to the standard earnings which the ordinary laborer would receive for 100 days of actual work, we need say no more. With that pound each of these servants must do business. That is the point of the parable. Those who have heard the gospel must proclaim it! They must conduct themselves in such a manner that through their word and example sinners are brought to the Lord, believers are strengthened in the faith, they themselves grow in every Christian virtue, and every sphere (social, economic, political, educational, etc.) is brought under the influence of the gospel, all this to the glory of God. That is the one important task for each and every one. Having entrusted a pound apiece to each of ten servants, the nobleman then goes on his way to secure a kingdom for himself. B. The citizens try to prevent him from achieving his purpose 14. But his subjects hated him, and sent a delegation on his heels, saying, We don't want this man to become king over us. As applied to earthly rulers, this too was happening again and again; for example, when the attempts of Alexandra's sons (Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus) were frustrated; again, when, on account of a citizen's embassy to Rome, Archelaus became ethnarch instead of king, and later, as a result of still another embassy, was deposed (a.d. 6). And something similar was going to happen in the case of Herod Antipas. His attempt to receive the royal title and authority was frustrated by Herod Agrippa I. For more details read N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 158, 187, 188, 590, and the literature on p. 159, footnote 163 in that commentary. But Jesus is ultimately speaking about an attempt at frustration which was not successful. Ultimately he is pointing to the stone which the builders rejected but which became the cornerstone (Ps. 118:22, 23; Matt. 21:42). He is speaking about himself! C. Having succeeded, he returns and calls his servants to account 15 19. But he was made king and returned home. Then he ordered these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be summoned before him, that he might learn what each had gained by doing business. The first one came and said, Sir, your pound has earned ten more. His master said to him, Splendid, my good servant! Because in a very small matter you have been faithful, be in authority over ten cities. The second came and said, Your pound, Sir, has made five pounds. So he said similarly to him, Be in charge of five cities. The attempt to prevent the nobleman from receiving his kingdom failed. So also every attempt to frustrate the Son of man's plans will fail. He ascends to heaven and receives his kingdom, as has already been indicated. The nobleman's return and session with his servants symbolizes Christ's glorious second coming, when he will demand of his servants that they render an account of the manner in which they have dealt with the gospel; and, in this connection, with the gifts and opportunities for service that were placed at their disposal. In the parable the first servant reports that he has turned his pound into ten pounds. Nevertheless, he does not thus express himself. With becoming humility he says, Your pound has gained ten more. So also the second servant, whose pound has gained five pounds. The nobleman, now king, praises both servants and assigns control over cities to both, to each in exact proportion to the profit made. Similarly, the Lord Jesus Christ, at his glorious return will praise his faithful servants and will reward them in proportion to the degree of faithfulness they have shown. They will be given an opportunity to render even greater service in the new heaven and earth. Note (verse 17) in a very small matter, for how small are our tasks here and now compared to our responsibilities in the new heaven and earth! 20, 21. Then another servant came and said, Sir, here is your pound, which I have been keeping wrapped up in a napkin. For I lived in constant fear of you, because you are a stern man: you withdraw what you did not deposit, and you reap what you did not sow. Though one fine commentator calls this lazy fellow a believer, I disagree. He was a Christian only in a nominal sense; that is, in reality he was not a believer at all. When he says, Sir, here is your pound, is he not implying, I kept your property intact. You should be thankful for that? Even rabbinical law frowned upon keeping a deposit wrapped up merely in a napkin. And the proverbial saying he uses you withdraw what you did not deposit, etc., in other words, you are a grossly unfair, austere man, who is, as it were, trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip shows how wicked he is. 22, 23. His master said to him, Out of your own mouth do I judge you, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a stern man, withdrawing what I did not deposit, and reaping what I did not sow? Then why didn't you put my money in a bank, so that on my return I could have collected it with interest? His master is, as it were, saying to him, Your own words convict you; for if you were so sure that I was austere, you should have exerted yourself all the more. The least you could have done would have been to put my money in a bank, so that, on my return, I could have received it back with interest. Literally, what the nobleman, now king, said to him was, Why didn't you put my money on the (moneylender's) bench? Since moneylenders paid interest on money deposited with them, which in turn they would lend out at a higher rate of interest, it follows that our modern banking system had its origin here, the very word bank being derived from this word bench. Here again we should not lose sight of the real or ultimate meaning of the parable, namely, that we must put forth every effort to make the best possible use of the good tidings of salvation proclaimed to us. When Christ returns, he will severely punish those who have not done so: 24 26. Then he said to the bystanders, Take his pound away from him and give it to him who has the ten pounds. But they said to him, Sir, he (already) has ten pounds! (He replied), I tell you that to everyone who has, (more) will be given, but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.^[504] It cannot very well be questioned that the bystanders who are ordered to take the pound away from the wicked servant and who interject, Sir, he (already) has ten pounds, are persons present in the parable and not people who are listening to the parable. Also, it should not be open to doubt that the one who states, I tell you that, etc., is the nobleman-king. It should be added, however, that since this exalted individual represents the Son of man coming to judge, this last item is of minor importance, for whichever way these words are taken, in the final analysis they indicate the mind of Jesus. A superficial glance at the rule here expressed might cause sharp disagreement and perhaps even resentment. One might ask, What? Does Jesus actually justify taking from the poor in order to give to the rich? However, in the light of the entire context and of other passages, such as Luke 9:23, 24; 17:33; cf. Matt. 10:39; 16:26; Mark 8:34 38; and John 12:25, 26, one soon discovers the true meaning. It is this: the man who through diligent use of the gospel has enriched himself and others, will, by continuing in this course, become richer and richer. On the other hand, from the person who has become poor because he has neglected his duty in this respect, even whatever little he once had shall be taken away. For the rest, see the explanation of the almost identical passage, Luke 8:18. D. He orders the destruction of his opponents 27. But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and cut them down in my presence. As concerns the parable itself, those who receive the punishment here described are the haters of verse 14. For the severe treatment they receive there are numerous examples in ancient history.^[505] As to the parable's ultimate meaning, the reference is to what will happen to Christ rejectors when he returns. If one is filled with revulsion at the thought that such vengeance is ascribed to a Savior whose love and tenderness are beyond all imagination and description, might not the solution be that these very attributes make hating and rejecting such a Savior worthy of supreme retribution?^[506] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 19:1 27 Verses 8, 9 Zacchaeus said, Here and now I'm giving half of my possessions to the poor& Jesus told him, Today salvation has come to this home. Good works do not earn salvation, but a saved man does not want to do without them. A converted person is a changed person, a new creation (II Cor. 5:17). He is the kind of individual who likes to sing F. R. Havergal's songs: Lord, speak to me and Take my life, and let it be. Verse 10 The Son of man came to seek and to save what was lost. That description is, indeed, very general. It includes people of each sex, race, nationality, age group, vocation, degree of education, rank, etc. For snobbery there is no room in the Christian religion. Verse 14 We don't want this man to become king over us. Whoever wants Jesus to be his Savior must first of all recognize him as his Lord and King. He must ardently desire that all his aspirations, thoughts, words, and deeds, shall be under the control of Christ's will. Verse 17 His master said to him, Splendid, my good servant! The Lord takes delight in rewarding his children, not in punishing the wicked. Cf. Ezek. 18:23, 32. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 19:1–27 Verse 1 [Greek], third per. s. imperf. (progressive) of [Greek], to pass through. In verse 4 note pres. infinitive of the same verb. Verse 3 [Greek], dat. s. of [Greek], here physical stature, height; in 12:25 life-span, age. Verse 4 [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], sycamore tree. Verses 5, 6 [Greek], nom. s. masc. aor. participle of [Greek]. See the note on 18:41–43 on page 849. [Greek] (once in each verse), nom. s. masc. aor. participle of [Greek], to make haste, hurry. Cf. speed. [Greek] (verse 5), sec. per. s. 2nd aor. imperat.; and [Greek] (verse 6), third per. s. aor. indicat., are forms of [Greek], to come down. Verse 7 [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. (descriptive and progressive) of [Greek], to mutter, grumble, is clearly an onomatopoeia (sound-imitation). In the New Testament this compound verb is found only here and in 15:2. For the simple form see Matt. 20:11; Luke 5:30; John 6:41, 43, 61; 7:32; I Cor. 10:10. [Greek], aor. act. infinitive of [Greek] to unloose; hence, to lodge. For more on this verb see the note on 9:12 on page 485. Verse 8 If I've cheated anybody, etc., is a first class or simple conditional sentence (statement assumed to be true). Its protasis has [Greek] with aor. act. indicat., followed by pres. infinitive; its apodosis, the pres. indicative act. For [Greek], first per. s. aor. indicat. act. of [Greek], here in the sense of to cheat, see the note on 3:14 on page 215. [Greek], acc. s. neut. of [Greek], fourfold, four times as much. Verse 9 [Greek], used here to introduce a direct quotation; so also in verse 42. Verse 10 [Greek], the lost; i.e., what was lost. See the note on 15:4b, 6 on page 750. Verse 11 [Greek], he proceeded to tell (a parable). The Greek idiom has been explained in the note on 17:5 on page 801. [Greek], pres. middle or pass. infinitive of [Greek], to bring to light; in middle or pass., as here, to appear; in Acts 21:3, to come in sight of. Verse 12 [Greek], lit. wellborn (I Cor. 1:26); here in Luke 19:12and also in Acts 17:11, noble. Verse 13 [Greek], acc. pl. of [Greek], mina. For details see the commentary. [Greek], sec. per. pl. aor. imperat. of [Greek], to transact business, to trade. Cf. [Greek], thing, matter, affair, transaction. [Greek], lit. while I am coming; hence, during my absence and until I return. Verse 14 [Greek], nom. pl. of [Greek], subject. See also the note on 15:15 on page 760. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], delegation, as in 14:32. Verses 15, 16 [Greek], upon his return. Note articular (2nd aor.) infinitive of [Greek] (for which see the note on 10:35 on page 602), followed by the acc. of general reference [Greek], the entire expression meaning literally on the return as to him, i.e., on his return. [Greek], for [Greek], third per. s. pluperf. act. of [Greek], to give. [Greek], third per. pl. aor. indicat. of [Greek], to gain by doing business. [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. act. of [Greek], to work up in addition, to earn. Verse 17 [Greek], note [Greek]. To bring out the full emotional force of this exclamation Splendid &! is probably even better than Well done &! [Greek] &[Greek], sec. per. s. periphrastic pres. imperat. of [Greek]; hence, be having, i.e., have and keep on having (authority), be (in authority). Verse 19 [Greek], sec. per. s. pres. (durative) middle imperat. of [Greek], Be and remain (in charge). Verse 20 [Greek], here first per. s. imperf. indicat. of [Greek], to have, hold, keep; I have been keeping. [Greek], acc. s. fem. (agreeing with [Greek]) pres. pass. participle of [Greek], with sense of perf. pass. of [Greek], to be laid up; elsewhere in somewhat similar sense, laid up, stored up (Col. 1:5; II Tim. 4:8), appointed (Heb. 9:27). [Greek], dat. of [Greek], from Lat. sudarium; here napkin; cf. Acts 19:12handkerchief; John 11:44; 20:7sweatband. Verses 21, 22 The word [Greek], stern; cf. austere, is found in both verses. This holds too for the four verbs: to withdraw, deposit, reap, sow. [Greek], to withdraw (for this sense and other meanings see the note on 17:13 on page 803); in verse 21 sec. per. s. pres. indicat. act.: you withdraw; in verse 22 nom. s. masc. pres. participle: withdrawing. [Greek], to deposit; in verse 21 sec. per. s. aor. indicat. act., preceded by [Greek]: you did not deposit; in verse 22 first per. s. aor. indicat. act., preceded by [Greek]: I did not deposit. [Greek], to reap; in verse 21, sec. per. s. pres. indicat. act.: you reap; in verse 22 nom. s. masc. pres. participle: reaping. [Greek], to sow; in verse 21 sec. per. s. aor. indicat. act. preceded by [Greek]: you did not sow; in verse 22 first per. s. aor. indicat. act., preceded by [Greek]: I did not sow. Verse 23 [Greek], lit. on the bench (of the moneylender); hence, in the bank. [Greek], dat. of [Greek], from [Greek], to bear; hence, offspring, interest. [Greek] &[Greek], I could have collected, first per. s. aor. indicat. of [Greek], in the apodosis of a second class (contrary to fact) conditional sentence, with If you had put my money in a bank in the implied protasis. Verse 24 [Greek], dat. pl. masc. 2nd perf. act. participle of [Greek], to stand by; hence, to the bystanders. Verse 27 [Greek], sec. per. pl. aor. imperat. of [Greek], to cut down, slay, slaughter. Summary of Chapter 19:1–27 The story as Luke tells it (in verses 1 10) turns from poor Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46), whose sight Jesus restored (Luke 18:35 43), to rich Zacchaeus, chief tax-collector, who, being a small man, had climbed into a sycamore tree so as to be able to see Jesus. Jesus told him, Zacchaeus, hurry down, for today I must stay at your home. When the Lord entered the home of the chief publican, the latter, by his words and actions the gift of half of all his property to the poor, fourfold restitution of overcharges proved that he had become a saved man. Luke's report ends with a striking quotation from the lips of Jesus, Today salvation has come to this home, because even this man is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and to save what was lost. In the parable of The Pounds (verses 11 27) Jesus teaches that not only Zacchaeus but everyone should prove the sincerity of his convictions and the genuine character of his faith by his actions. He should use to the best advantage the precious gift of the good tidings of salvation. He can do this by striving to win others for Christ, etc. He has no right to allow that gospel to remain unused. On the day of the final judgment Jesus, as King of kings and Lord of lords, will recompense each person according to the faithfulness he has shown, or the lack of it. The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do Its Climax or Culmination Chapters 19:28 24:53 CHAPTER XIX:28 48 Outline of Chapter 19:28–48 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do A. The Week of The Passion 19:28–44 The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem 19:45–48 The Cleansing of the Temple Palm Sunday 19:28–44 The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem Cf. Matt. 21:1–11; Mark 11:1 11; John 12:12 19 28 After Jesus had said these things, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. 29 As he approached Bethphage and Bethany near the mount^[507] that is called Olivet, he sent two of his disciples, 30 and said, Go into the village opposite (you), and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied, on which no one ever sat. Untie it and bring it here. 31 And if anyone asks you, Why are you untying it? you must say,^[508] The Lord needs it. 32 So those who had been sent went away and found it just as he had told them. 33 As they were untying the colt, its owners said to them, Why are you untying the colt? 34 They said, The Lord needs it. 35 And they brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt, and set Jesus on it. 36 And as he went along, people were constantly spreading their cloaks under him on the road. 37 As he was now approaching the descent of the Mount of Olives, the entire multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles they had seen, 38 saying: Blessed (is) the Coming One, The King, in the name of the Lord!^[509] In heaven peace, And glory in the highest. 39 Then some of the Pharisees from the throng said to Jesus, Teacher, rebuke your disciples. 40 He answered, I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out. 41 Now when he approached (Jerusalem), he came in sight of the city and burst into tears over it, 42 saying, Would that on this day you, even you, had known the things that pertain to peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a palisade^[510] against you, encircle you, and hem you in from all directions. 44 They will dash to the ground you and your children along with you, and will not leave in you one stone on another,^[511] because you did not recognize the season when God (in his grace) visited you. ^[512] The account of The Perean Ministry has ended, and so has the entire second division of Luke's story concerning the work the Father gave the Mediator to do. The evangelist has told us all he, guided by the Holy Spirit, wanted to relate concerning the Progress or Continuation of Christ's work. At this point, therefore, the narrative of The Week of the Passion begins. It covers Luke 19:28 23:56, and is followed by the story of The Resurrection and Ascension, chapter 24. Luke 18:35 19:27 (described what Jesus did when he was in the Jericho region. From Jericho the little party continued on its way toward Jerusalem (19:28). On reasonable grounds it may be assumed that Bethany, about two miles from JerusalemJohn 11:18), was reached before sunset on Friday, that on the sabbath (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset) Jesus enjoyed the sabbath rest with his friends, that on Saturday evening a supper was given in his honor at the home of Simon the leper (Mark 14:3 9), and that the next day, being Sunday, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem occurred. From this point on the day by day events recorded in Luke's Gospel are found in the following passages: Sunday 19:28–44 Monday 19:45–48 Tuesday & 20:1 22:6 Wednesday Thursday (including the night from Thursday to very early Friday) 22:7–71 Friday Chapter 23 Saturday No events reported in Luke, but see Matt. 27:62–66 Sunday 24:1–49 forty days later 24:50 Acts 1:1 5 () In the preceding section (19:11–27) there has been constant reference to the kingdom and the king (verses 11, 12, 14, 15, and 27). And now the king not, however, the kind of king the people wanted, but the very opposite (Matt. 21:5) comes riding into Jerusalem. 28. After Jesus had said these things, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. The triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem was an event of outstanding significance. Note the following: 1. By means of it Jesus deliberately evokes a demonstration. He fully realizes that, as a result, the enthusiasm of the masses will enrage the hostile leaders at Jerusalem, so that they will desire more than ever to carry out their plot against him. 2. Jesus forces the members of the Sanhedrin to change their timetable, so that it will harmonize with his (and the Father's) timetable. The enthusiasm of the crowds with respect to Jesus will hasten the crisis. 3. By means of this triumphal entry Jesus fulfils the Messianic prophecy of Zech. 9:9. See Matt. 21:4, 5. When the people hail him as the Son of David, i.e., the Messiah, he does not try to restrain them. 4. However, he also shows the crowds what kind of Messiah he is, namely, not the earthly Messiah of Israel's dreams, the One who wages war against an earthly oppressor, but the One who came to promote and establish the things that make for peace (Luke 19:42), lasting peace: reconciliation between God and man, and between a man and his fellow man. Accordingly, Jesus enters Jerusalem mounted on a colt, the foal of an ass, an animal associated not with the rigors of war but with the pursuits of peace, for he is the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6). But the people in general, their minds filled with earthly ideas concerning the Coming One, do not understand or appreciate this. In hailing him as the Messiah, the people are right; the Pharisees, chief priests, and scribes (Matt. 21:15, 16; Luke 19:39, 40) are wrong. But in expecting this Messiah to reveal himself as a political, earthly Messiah the Hosanna shouters are as wrong as are their leaders. Those who in every way reject Jesus are committing a crime, but those who outwardly accept and cheer him are also doing him a gross injustice, for they do not accept him for what he really is. Their tragic mistake is committed with dire results for themselves. It is not surprising therefore that Luke pictures a weeping King in the midst of a shouting multitude (19:39–44), nor is it strange that, a little later, when the crowds begin to understand that Jesus is not the kind of Messiah they had expected, they, at the urging of their leaders, are shouting, Crucify (him)! It is clear from verse 28 that Jesus was taking the lead, in proceeding with his little band of disciples, from Jericho to Jerusalem. Cf. Mark 10:32. After a while they have reached a point from which Jesus is going to issue a command: 29, 30. As he approached Bethphage and Bethany near the mount that is called Olivet, he sent two of his disciples, and said, Go into the village opposite (you), and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied, on which no one ever sat. Untie it and bring it here. Bethany is situated on the eastern slope of Mt. Olivet, and Bethphage exact location unknown has by tradition been located northwest of Bethany. It would seem that from Bethany or, if one prefers, from Mt. Olivet's eastern slope Jesus this Sunday morning sends two of his disciples to Bethphage. His instruction is, Go into the village opposite [or: over against] you, hence, just ahead of you. He assures them that upon entering the village they will find a colt tied up. What kind of colt? Of a camel, a horse, a donkey? It is natural to expect of a donkey. Cf. Gen. 49:11; Judg. 10:4; 12:14. Besides, from Matt. 21:5we know that this answer is correct and in harmony with the prophecy of Zech. 9:9(according to the Hebrew). See N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 764, footnote 722. And for a discussion of the problem that arises from the fact that Matthew mentions two animals, Mark and Luke only one, see the same commentary, pp. 763, 765. It will be a colt upon which no one ever sat, hence, an unbroken or unbacked colt, by God reserved for sacred use. Cf. (Num. 19:2; Deut. 21:3; I Sam. 6:7. Is not this in line with the fact that Mary too was still unusedRom. 1:26, 27), still a virgin, when Jesus was conceived within her womb and even at his birth? See (Matt. 1:25; Luke 1:34. The tomb too in which the body of the dead Jesus was laid had never been usedLuke 23:53). We notice, therefore, that there is nothing haphazard about the triumphal entry. Everything has been carefully planned and is orderly and appropriate, exactly as it should be. How did Jesus know that the two disciples would find everything as he had predicted? The possibility that this knowledge had come to him in a very natural way, the owners of the colt having conveyed it to him whether directly or indirectly, cannot be entirely ruled out. Nevertheless, in view of the somewhat similar prediction recorded in 22:10, the theory that this bit of information had reached Christ's human consciousness in a supernatural manner may well be preferable. Note also that verse 33 can be interpreted as meaning that there had been no previous understanding with respect to this incident between Jesus and the owners of the colt. However that may be, the fact as such that Jesus did at times receive information in ways which surpass human comprehension is clear from such passages as Matt. 17:27; John 1:48; 2:4, 25. See also on Mark 10:33, 34. The two disciples are told to untie the colt and bring it to Jesus. 31. And if anyone asks you, Why are you untying it? you must say, The Lord needs it. From this we are able to conclude that the owners (verse 33) were friends of Jesus. They must have been people who recognized Jesus as their Lord. Therefore, by giving the two disciples these instructions Jesus has taken care that they will not experience any difficulty in obtaining the colt. For a discussion of the problem in connection with the use of the title Lord in Mark 11:3see N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 433–435. 32 34. So those who had been sent went away and found it just as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners said to them, Why are you untying the colt? They said, The Lord needs it. The two men found everything exactly as Jesus had predicted (see verse 30). As they started to unhitch the colt, the owners understandably protested. They asked, Why are you untying the colt? But when, in accordance with Christ's instruction (verse 31), the disciples were heard to say, The Lord needs it, objections quickly vanished. The mere mention of the fact that Jesus needed the colt was enough to secure immediate and unqualified assent. A very important practical application must not escape our attention. It is clear from this passage and from many others; e.g., Luke 6:13; 10:1; cf. Mark 15:40 16:1; John 12:19; 19:38 20:1that in addition to The Twelve Jesus had many other disciples, men and women who stood ready to serve him in various ways. There must have been a large number of supporters in Judea, Galilee, Perea, and wherever the Lord went. Whether it was a place of lodging, a colt, a room in which to celebrate the Passover, or even at last a tomb, whatever it was that he needed, if they had it these friends were ready to provide it. That one word, The Lord needs it, was all that was required. Today, too, a broad body of true followers of the Lord and supporters of his causes is urgently needed, and this not only to follow directions that are handed down to them from the top, the ecclesiastical authorities, but also to act independently: to pray, to study, to guide, to support the poor by word and deed, to encourage the fearful, to bear testimony concerning the goodness of God in providing salvation for sinners, etc., etc. These tasks should be performed willingly and eagerly. 35, 36. And they brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt, and set Jesus on it. And as he went along, people were constantly spreading their cloaks under him on the road. The two disciples now (a) brought the colt to Jesus; (b) in conjunction perhaps with the other ten disciples placed their long, thin, quadrangular robes on the colt so as to provide as comfortable a seat as possible for Jesus; and (c) mounted him on the colt. By this time a large crowd, accompanying Jesus from Bethany, not wishing to be outdone by The Twelve, began to carpet the road with their outer garments. 37, 38. As he was now approaching the descent of the Mount of Olives, the entire multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles they had seen, saying: Blessed (is) the Coming One, The King, in the name of the Lord! In heaven peace, And glory in the highest. At this point it is important to take note of the fact that the crowd that accompanied Jesus as he started out from Bethany does not remain the only one that participates in the activities pertaining to the triumphal entry. A caravan of pilgrims had arrived at Jerusalem previously. Having heard that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead and was now on his way toward the city, these people came pouring out of the eastern gate to meet him. With fronds cut from palm trees they go forth to welcome Jesus (John 12:1, 12, 13a, 18). Having done so they turn around and, as it were, lead Jesus down the western slope of the mount of Olives and so into the city. The crowd from Bethany continues to follow. As this huge crowd is descending toward the city they are praising God joyfully and with a loud voice. What an excitement! What exuberance! Not only did the people shout praises to God; they were also busily talking to each other. There was one topic which especially absorbed the interest of everybody, namely, those miracles Jesus had performed. What a wide variety to choose from: (a) those mentioned in Luke (4:23, 31 41; 5:1–26; 6:6–11; 7:1–17; 8:22–56; 11:14; 13:10–17; 14:1–6); (b) those reported in the other Gospels but not in Luke; (c) specifically, the very recent restoration of sight to Bartimaeus (Luke 18:35 43); and (d) last but by no means least, the (also rather recent) resurrection of Lazarus (John 11). It was this sign which, as John 12:17shows, especially excited the masses. Surely one who was able to raise the dead would also be able to deliver the Jews from all their enemies and restore them as a great and independent nation! As reported by Luke, the anthem of praise consisted of these lines: a. Blessed (is) the Coming One. This is a quotation from (Ps. 118:26. All the four Gospels include this line in their report of the triumphal entryLuke 19:38see also Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9; John 12:13). It is a quotation from one of the Hallel Psalms sung during Passover. It is also one of the Psalms most often referred to in the New Testament. The others are Psalms 2, 22, 69, 89, and 110. It is a distinctly Messianic Psalm, which speaks about the stone which the builders rejected and which became the cornerstone. As the combination (Matt. 21:9) with the Son of David shows, Blessed (is) the Coming One should be regarded as a reference to the Messiah.^[513] This Messianic implication is also clear from the next line: b. The King, in the name of the Lord. Clearly what the seething multitudes were proclaiming was the restoration at this time of the kingdom of David, implying deliverance from the yoke of Rome and Israel's re-establishment as a great and independent nation. Of course, all this would also mean: c. In heaven peace. It meant, as these people saw it, that God was at peace with the human race, particularly with Israel, which, in turn, would redound to his glory; hence: d. And glory in the highest. What joy, elation, exuberance, unity &well, not without exception, however. There was a fly in the ointment: 39, 40. Then some of the Pharisees from the throng said to Jesus, Teacher, rebuke your disciples. He answered, I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out. It is not difficult to understand why the Pharisees, most of whom were enemies of Jesus, were disgruntled. Not that they loved the Romans or had ceased to yearn for independence from Rome. But they disapproved of any abortive attempt to cast off the yoke, realizing what such an unsuccessful move would mean for the nation as a whole and for the security of their own position. Besides, they hated Jesus and resented this outpouring of praise in which he shared honors with God. But for the moment Jesus was so popular that the Pharisees did not dare to silence the people directly. So they asked Jesus to do it for them! It is Luke, he alone, who reports this incident. It is also he who reports Christ's answer. In the full realization that he is indeed the Messiah, and that the time has finally arrived for everybody to know this, Jesus answers that if his disciples would become silent, the very stones would cry out. For a somewhat similar saying see Hab. 2:11.^[514] This seems to have been a proverbial saying. Does this mean, then, that Jesus approved of that which was taking place? He approved of it only to the extent to which one great truth was being proclaimed, namely, that of his messiahship. But he was terribly displeased with the people's inexcusable misunderstanding of that messiahship. And he wept when he thought of the punishment in store for Jerusalem for the great sin of actually rejecting him. This becomes clear from the next four verses, beginning with 41, 42. Now when he approached (Jerusalem), he came in sight of the city and burst into tears over it, saying, Would that on this day you, even you, had known the things that pertain to peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. Jesus has reached a spot from which the city, its magnificent temple, many peaceful dwellings, etc., are clearly visible. At one time Jerusalem had been the joy of the whole earth (Ps. 48:2, 12 14; 137:6). As the city lies there, stretched out before his view, the Master's prophetic eye beholds a sharp contrast: on the one hand, Jerusalem as it is, to a certain extent, even now; on the other, a smoldering, hideous ruin, thousands upon thousands of the city's inhabitants and visitors doomed to meet death in a gruesome manner; other thousands assigned to a lot in many cases deemed even worse than death. Bursting into tears Jesus laments, Would that on this day you, even you, had known the things that pertain to peace! Cf. 11:47–51; 13:33–35. But up to now the opposite course had been followed. Instead of penitence there had been hardening; instead of conversion, apostasy. And, as always, when sinners harden themselves, God, in turn, hardens them; note, But now they are hidden from your eyes. To be sure, even now the door of grace is not entirely closed, but it is rapidly closing. In Jesus, on that day, Israel recognized its Messiah. No doubt in that huge crowd there were some truly converted people: those who had, by God's grace, accepted Jesus as their Messiah in the spiritual, biblical sense. Also, Matt. 21:15, 16tells us about children shouting in the temple. Undoubtedly their hosannas were far more pure in spirit than those of most of the older people. (It is hard to imagine that the hearts and minds of children were as filled with chauvinistic dreams as were those of the middle-aged and the elderly.) All this was wonderful. But by and large what Israel wanted was its own kind of Messiah, a Messiah of the earth, a political deliverer. And that was deplorable. No wonder Jesus was weeping. He saw very clearly how wicked these people were, and what would be the result. For this materialistic attitude there was no excuse whatever. Even in the Old Testament the only Bible these people knew the Messianic prophecies had placed the emphasis on spiritual rescue. See Isa. 53:10, 12; Jer. 23:6; 31:34; Mic. 5:2; 7:18–20; Zech. 13:1; Mal. 3:1–6. And when the Savior himself arrived, even though he was indeed a perfect Redeemer, with blessings for both soul and body, his emphasis too had been very strongly on the spiritual. A few examples will prove this. Even when we limit ourselves entirely to Luke's Gospel note the following passages: 4:4, 8; 5:20, 32; 6:20–49; 7:47–50; 8:4–15; 9:23–26; 10:20–24, 38 42; 11:1–4, 40 42, etc., etc. The stress had been on salvation from sin, conversion to holiness of life, spiritual fruitfulness. Unless even now Jerusalem repents, dreadful punishment will be inflicted upon it. God's wrath will be poured out. This, sad to say, is what actually happened. Think of a.d. 70, Jerusalem's fall, with all its attendant horrors. And for each impenitent the moment of vengeance arrived at the close of his earthly life; in a sense even before, for There is no peace, says my God, for the wicked (Isa. 57:21). 43, 44. For days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a palisade against you, encircle you, and hem you in from all directions. They will dash to the ground you and your children along with you, and will not leave in you one stone on another, because you did not recognize the season when God (in his grace) visited you. See Introduction, point IV A on this passage. For the rest, note the following: a. a palisade or embankment. This was for the purpose of protecting oneself and launching an attack. b. encirclement. This left no room for any escape. Many of those who tried to flee were crucified. c. annihilation of population (dashing to the ground). A horrible blood bath! d. not one stone on another. The demolition was complete. The meaning is made clear by the manner in which this prophecy was fulfilled. See Josephus, History of the Jewish War, books IV VI. Here are two quotations: While the sanctuary was burning &neither pity for age nor respect for rank was shown. On the contrary, children and old people, laity and priests alike were massacred (VI.271). The emperor ordered the entire city and the temple to be razed to the ground, leaving only the loftiest of the towers &and the portion of the wall enclosing the city on the west.& All the rest of the wall that surrounded the city was so completely razed to the ground as to leave future visitors to the spot no reason to believe that the city had ever been inhabited (VII.1 3). See also the note on 19:43, 44 on pp. 883, 884 for the meaning of separate words. The inspired writer also reports Christ's concluding words, indicating that this severe retribution would be reaped by the city and its inhabitants because, by and large, a favorable response to the manner in which God in his compassion had visited Israel, by sending his Son into the world, had been lacking. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 881–884. Monday 19:45–48 The Cleansing of the Temple Cf. Matt. 21:12–17; Mark 11:15 19 45 And having entered the temple area, Jesus began to drive out those who were selling. 46 He said to them, It is written: My house shall be a house of prayer. but you made it a robbers den. 47 And he was daily teaching in the temple. The chief priests, the scribes, and the leading men among the people were trying to destroy him. 48 But they could not find anything they might do, for all the people were hanging on his words.^[515] The New Testament reports two temple cleansings. The one here reported cannot be identified with that described in John 2:13 17. That one occurred at the beginning of Christ's public ministry, this one at the close. Moreover, the words spoken in connection with the second cleansing bear no resemblance to those spoken at the first. Of the second cleansing Luke presents a very abbreviated account. For the far more detailed report one should read Mark 11:15 19, and N.T.C. on that paragraph. See also the description of the temple, together with the diagram on pp. 446–452 of that volume. Luke does not even state when this cleansing occurred. However, Mark 11:11, 12, 15makes clear that it took place on Monday of the week of the passion. 45. And having entered the temple area, Jesus began to drive out those who were selling. Jesus, then, has entered the temple area; that is, the Court of the Gentiles. What a sorry spectacle greets his eyes, ears, and even nostrils! He notices that the court is being desecrated. It resembles a market place. Business is booming, lucrative too. Some men are selling oxen and sheep. At this time of the year, with Passover so close at hand and pilgrims crowding into the court from everywhere, there are many buyers. They pay high prices for these sacrificial animals. True, a worshiper can bring in an animal of his own choice. But if he does that he is taking a chance that it will not be approved. The temple merchants have paid the priests generously for their concession. Some of this money finally reaches the coffers of sly, wealthy Annas and of clever Caiaphas. It is therefore understandable that the tradesmen and the priestly caste are partners in this business. As Jesus enters he notices the hustle and bustle of all these buyers and sellers; also the noise, filth, and stench produced by all the animals. Could this, in any sense whatever, be called worship? It is not difficult to picture the righteous indignation that must have flashed from the eyes of Jesus when he drove out all who were engaged in this nefarious business. Whether also at this time, as in the first temple cleansing, he made a whip out of cords that were lying around and then let fly with that scourge, we do not know. One thing is certain: Jesus revealed himself as being indeed Lord of the temple (Matt. 12:6). 46. He said to them, It is written: My house shall be a house of prayer, but you made it a robbers den. Mark's more complete report has: &a house of prayer for all the nations. The words in italics are not in Luke. The quoted words are found in Isa. 56:7b, and signify that for all the nations [or peoples] the temple was intended to be a sanctuary for quiet spiritual devotion, prayer, and meditation. See also I Kings 8:29, 30, 33; Ps. 27:4; 65:4; cf. I Sam. 1:9–18; Luke 18:10; Acts 3:1. The second part of the statement, But you made it a robbers den is Christ's comment, in which he contrasts the divine ideal for worship as described in Isa. 56:7b with the present situation, a condition that reminded Jesus of Jer. 7:11, which he quotes. In the days of Jeremiah, too, as is proved by that prophet's famous Temple Discourse, the Jews were oppressing aliens, stealing, murdering, etc. Nevertheless, they continued to offer their sacrifices in the temple; as if such merely formalistic worship of Jehovah would do any good, and as if the very presence of the temple would protect them from the outpouring of God's wrath. It was then that Jeremiah had said, Do not trust in lying words, saying, The temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah, is this. &Has this house that is called by my name become a den of robbers in your eyes? In the days of Christ's sojourn history was repeating itself: the temple had again become a cave of thieves, an allusion, perhaps, to the rocky caves in the hills of Judea, where thieves and robbers would often assemble. The thieves were crowding out the Gentiles or nations. The lessons taught by this cleansing of the temple can be summarized as follows: a. Jesus punished degradation of religion and insisted on reverence. b. He rebuked fraud, in the present connection especially religious (?) racketeering, and demanded honesty. c By declaring that the temple must be a house of prayer for all the nations, he gave his endorsement to the wonderful cause of Christian missions. Cf. I Kings 8:41–43; Matt. 28:19. d. By means of all this he glorified his heavenly Father. Was not the temple his Father's house? If it be true that even in general vastness inspires awe, and beauty is conducive to worship, the conditions for awakening both of these feelings being amply present in the temple complex as has been shown, then all the more, in view of the fact that by the Lord this area had been specifically set aside for the purpose of prayer and devotion, it was not at all the proper place to conduct a business enterprise, a fraudulent one at that. So Jesus cleansed it. 47, 48. And he was daily teaching in the temple. The chief priests, the scribes and the leading men among the people were trying to destroy him. But they could not find anything they might do, for all the people were hanging on his words. In spite of the fact that by means of the temple cleansing Jesus had made the temple authorities very unhappy, in fact, so thoroughly upset that they were trying to kill him, he calmly continued his day by day teaching in those very precincts. So eagerly did the people listen to Jesus that for the time being, in spite of the fact that the decision to do away with him had already been reached (John 11:53), the authorities did not dare to lay hands on him.^[516] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 19:28 48 Verse 31 The Lord needs it. Cf. (needs) &you &me, etc. This expression is at times used rather carelessly, as if God cannot do without us. In this connection it is well always also to read Esther 4:14. That should make us humble. It remains true, however, that we need God. Verse 41 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XX Outline of Chapter 20 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 20:1–8 Christ's Authority: Question and Counter-Question 20:9–19 The Parable of The Wicked Tenants, and Its Sequel 20:20–44 Captious Questions and Authoritative Answers also Christ's Own Question 20:45–47 Denunciation of the Scribes Tuesday and Wednesday The exact point (before 22:7) where one day ends and the other begins is uncertain 20:1–8 Christ's Authority: Question and Counter-Question Cf. Matt. 21:23–27; Mark 11:27 33 20 1 One day, while Jesus was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the good news,^[517] the chief priests and the scribes, together with the elders, came up to him 2 and said, Tell us by what authority you are doing these things, or who it is that gave you this authority. 3 He replied, I will also ask you a question. Tell me: 4 John's baptism, was it from heaven or from men? 5 They reasoned among themselves, If we say, From heaven, he will say, Why, then, didn't you believe him? 6 But if we say, From men, all the people will stone us to death, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet. 7 So they answered that they did not know where John's baptism came from.^[518] 8 Jesus said to them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 1, 2. One day, while Jesus was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the good news, the chief priests and the scribes, together with the elders, came up to him and said, Tell us by what authority you are doing these things, or who it is that gave you this authority. On Sunday evening after the triumphal entry Jesus had entered the temple (Mark 11:11). He entered it again on Monday and cleansed it (Mark 11:15; cf. Luke 19:45, 46). And now, probably on Tuesday morning, though Luke is very indefinite, Jesus enters it once more. We find him perhaps in the Stoa Basilica or (John 10:23) in Solomon's Porch. He is surrounded by a group of people and is teaching them. While this teaching is going on his opponents are approaching. Do they wait until he is through teaching? We don't know. One thing is certain, however: these men are in an angry mood. Who are they? Three groups are mentioned: the chief priests and the scribes and the elders, the three component parts of the Sanhedrin. The chief priests constituted a group or order consisting of the present ruling highpriest, those who had formerly occupied this high office, and other dignitaries from whose ranks the highpriest was generally selected. The custody of the temple had been entrusted to these people, mostly Sadducees. It is not strange that the scribes, mostly Pharisees, are also mentioned, for these were the men who studied, interpreted, and taught the law. Their teaching was done in both temple and synagogue. The elders, too, were present. In ancient Israel an elder was the head of a tribe or of a tribal division. In fact, every city or town of any importance soon had its ruling elders. With the establishment of the Sanhedrin the more prominent local elders became members of this august body. We might call them the Sanhedrin's lay members. It is possible that in approaching Jesus, all these men acted independently and unofficially. Far more reasonable, however, is the assumption that they acted in an official capacity, having been delegated by the Sanhedrin. Their question is clear. They want to know by what authority Jesus was doing these things, that is, who had given him the right. They were saying, Show us your credentials! It was an attempt to embarrass Jesus. If he admitted that he had no credentials the people could be expected to lose respect for him. On the other hand, if he considered himself authorized to do the things he had been doing, was he not arrogating to himself rights that belonged only to God? Could he not then be accused of being guilty of blasphemous behavior? By not assaulting him directly, for example, by having him arrested, they reveal that they are afraid of him because of his following. But what do they mean by these things? They must have been referring to recent or present activities, that is, to things he had done on Sunday or on Monday, or to what he was doing now. Among commentators there is general agreement that the cleansing of the temple was included in these things. This opinion is undoubtedly correct (John 2:18). That action was in all probability uppermost in their minds. But was this the only thing to which these enemies of Jesus referred? There is a wide difference of opinion among commentators. Some would include Sunday's royal entry into Jerusalem. And if we bear in mind the fact that Christ's enemies ascribed his miracles to the power of Beelzebul, even the deeds of kindness to the blind and the lame (Matt. 21:14) may have been included, and also Christ's present teaching and gospel preaching in the temple. 3, 4. He replied, I will also ask you a question. Tell me: John's baptism, was it from heaven or from men? When a person is verbally attacked whether directly, or, as in verse 2, by implication he often denies the charge, downgrades the crime, starts arguing, or produces an accusation. There are times when the best thing to do would be to admit the wrong, ask forgiveness, and make amends. For Jesus this was, of course, entirely out of the question, for he had committed no wrong. What then? At times a charge can be effectively met by complete silence, or perhaps by a counter-charge, or, as in the present case, by a counter-question. It has been pointed out by several interpreters that the method of answering a question by means of a counter-question was rather common in rabbinical discussions. True, but when Jesus employs this method he in every instance vanquishes his opponents, and this certainly was not true with respect to rabbis in general. To see for himself that the statement just made is true, let the reader view the following Lucan accounts. In each of them Christ's opponents attack him, sometimes directly, then again in a veiled manner, by half-concealing their disgust inside the wrapper of a question. In each case Jesus crushes their attack. Also, his answer, in each of these cases, begins with, or contains, a counter-question. The opponents attack Jesus answer 5:21 5:22–24 5:33 5:34–39 6:2 6:3–5 11:15 11:17–22 20:27–33 20:34 Mark 12:24 () 20:1, 2 20:3–8 Now by means of the counter-question The baptism of John, was it from heaven or from men? Jesus was by no means evading the question that had been asked him, for an honest and correct answer to his question would unmistakably have pointed to himself as the Greater One whom John had proclaimed, and would therefore have meant that Jesus right or authority to do these things had come from God. It was by God that Jesus had been commissioned (Luke 9:48; cf. Matt. 10:40; Mark 9:37). It was while John was baptizing that he had proclaimed Jesus as being his superior (Luke 3:16f.; cf. John 1:26, 27), and it was soon after the Lord's baptism by John that the latter had described Jesus as the Lamb of God who is taking away the sin of the world (John 1:29). By means of Christ's question his enemies had been driven into a corner. Obviously they did not want to answer, The baptism of John had a heavenly source, for they knew very well that the reply would be, Why, then, did you not believe him? On the other hand, were they to give a response which reflected what most of them probably believed, or at least wanted to believe, namely, that the baptism of John was from men, the general public perhaps especially the crowds of pilgrims that had come from Galilee would become definitely hostile toward them, and, as here indicated, might even stone them. Did not these people consider John a prophet? So these dignitaries start reasoning among themselves as to what to answer. Their decision was dishonest, though not surprising. They do not say, We don't want to answer that question, a response which would at least have been honest, but We do not know. Given this background, verses 5 8 require little further explanation. 5 8. They reasoned among themselves, If we say, From heaven, he will say, Why, then, didn't you believe him? But if we say, From men, all the people will stone us to death, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet. So they answered that they did not know where John's baptism came from. Jesus said to them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I am doing these things. An important practical lesson is taught here. Christ's opponents failed to see the truth because they hardened themselves against it. The reason why many people know so little about Jesus and about the joy of living the Christian life is that they refuse to submit themselves to his will. The prayer of everyone should be: Teach me to do thy will, for thou art my God (Ps. 143:10). For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 896–898. 20:9–19 The Parable of The Wicked Tenants, and Its Sequel^[522] Cf. Matt. 21:33–46; Mark 12:1 12 9 Then he proceeded to tell the people this parable: A man planted a vineyard, leasing it to sharecroppers,^[519] and went abroad for a considerable period. 10 At the proper time he sent a servant to the sharecroppers, that they might give him a share of the vintage. But the share-croppers beat him up,^[520] and sent him back empty-handed. 11 Then he sent another servant; but him also they beat up and treated disgracefully and sent back empty-handed. 12 He sent still a third, and this one they wounded and flung out. 13 Then the owner of the vineyard said, What shall I do? I will send my son, my beloved. Perhaps they will respect him. 14 But on seeing him the sharecroppers began to carry on a dialogue with one another,^[521] saying: This is the heir; let's kill him, that the inheritance may become ours. 15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and kill those sharecroppers and give the vineyard to others. When the people heard this, they said, May this never be! 17 But Jesus looked straight at them and said, What then is this that is written: The stone the builders rejected, This became the cornerstone? 18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be smashed to pieces; and he on whom it falls it will crush him. 19 The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on him that very hour, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them, but they were afraid of the people. A. Agreement Between Owner and Tenants; Owner's Departure 9. Then he proceeded to tell the people this parable: A man planted a vineyard, leasing it to sharecroppers, and went abroad for a considerable period. By wicked leaders Jesus had been attacked (verses 1, 2). He now proceeds, by means of a parable, to warn the people against these very men (see verse 19). To understand this parable it must be borne in mind that the upper Jordan Valley, the western and northern shores of the Sea of Galilee, and even a considerable portion of Galilee itself, contained vast estates owned by foreigners, men who lived far away from their holdings. They had given the care of their farms and vineyards into the hands of local people. The absence of the landlords implied that those who ran the estates enjoyed a considerable measure of independence. However, this was not an unmixed blessing for either party. For the vinedressers it meant that when there were problems unexpected expenses, bad harvests, marauders, etc. the owner could not be consulted. For the owner it meant that for his share of the yield of the soil he was dependent not only on natural conditions (weather, soil) but also on the honesty and co-operation of the tenants or sharecroppers. In this parable Jesus introduces an owner who has planted a vineyard (Isa. 5:1–7), has made a contract with the sharecroppers, stipulating that at the time of the vintage he shall receive a specified share of the harvest, and typically has gone away to some distant place, with the intention of remaining absent for a considerable period of time. B. Mistreatment of Owner's Servants 10 12. At the proper time he sent a servant to the sharecroppers, that they might give him a share of the vintage. But the sharecroppers beat him up, and sent him back empty-handed. Then he sent another servant; but him also they beat up and treated disgracefully and sent back empty-handed. He sent still a third, and this one they wounded and flung out. When the proper time arrived, not any sooner, the owner commissioned one of his servants to collect and carry back to the owner's home the portion of the vintage which, according to contract, belonged to him. But not only did the tenants refuse to carry out the terms of their contract, they even maltreated the servant. When another servant was sent, he received similar treatment. And a third one was treated worse. Not only did he return empty-handed; he had even been grievously wounded, having been thrown out of the vineyard. C. Killing of Owner's Son 13 15a. Then the owner of the vineyard said, What shall I do? I will send my son, my beloved. Perhaps they will respect him. But on seeing him the sharecroppers began to carry on a dialogue with one another, saying, This is the heir; let's kill him, that the inheritance may become ours. So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. The parable now reaches its dramatic climax. The owner says, I will send my son, my beloved. What intense feeling, love, pathos is implied in this decision! Is it even possible to read this passage without thinking immediately of such passages as John 3:16; Rom. 8:32; Gal. 4:4; II Cor. 9:15? But what happens? When the wicked tenants see the son approaching they begin to plot. They reason, This is the &what? The son? No, what they actually say is, This is the heir. They seem to take for granted that the owner has died, and that, accordingly, the person who is approaching, being the heir, is now the owner. According to a then existing law, under certain conditions if the owner died, leaving no heir, whoever were the first to claim the estate, particularly the occupants, were allowed to have it. Therefore, by killing the heir, they will be able to lay claim to the inheritance. So they think. The fallacy in this line of argumentation was, of course, that they had no reason to think that the owner had died! The villains carry out their wicked plan. When the son arrives, they take him, cast him out of the vineyard, and kill him. D. Punishment Awaiting the Murderers 15b, 16a. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those sharecroppers and give the vineyard to others. Note that in Matt. 21:41the question here asked is answered by the audience, Jesus himself as the subsequent context shows being in thorough agreement with that answer. In Mark and Luke the answer is represented as having been given by Jesus himself. There is no essential difference. It is clear that not the sharecroppers but the owner of the vineyard triumphs in the end. And so does his son. Here the meaning of the parable is surfacing. The owner is God, and his Son is Jesus, the Christ. The remainder of the parable now also becomes clear. Note the following: God did indeed send his servants often called by this very name to his people Israel. In various ways these prophets were scorned, wounded, and rejected (Matt. 23:29–37; Luke 6:23; 11:49–51; 13:31–35; Acts 7:52). See also N.T.C. on Matt. 5:12. But even then did God actually send his only-begotten, beloved SonJohn 3:16; Rom. 8:32; etc. . He sent him first of all to Israel (Matt. 10:5, 6; 15:24). He too was rejected by the Jews (Mark 15:12, 13; John 1:11; 12:37–41; Acts 2:23; 4:10); exception: the believing remnant destined for everlasting glory (John 1:12; Rom. 11:5). The threatened destruction of the wicked sharecroppers points not only to a.d. 70 but also to everlasting punishment for every rejector. The vineyard, i.e., the privileged position, once granted to Israel, was subsequently transferred to the church universal (Matt. 21:41; 28:19; Acts 13:46), a truth whose realization was already foreshadowed when Jesus walked on earth (Matt. 8:11, 12; 15:28; John 3:16; 4:41, 42; 10:16; 17:20, 21). The parable, accordingly, is not an abstraction. It pictures reality. E. The People's Reaction to the Parable 16b. When the people heard this, they said, May this never be! So certain are the people, however, that the privileges of the Jews will never be given to others that when they sense that this is what Jesus means, they cry out in horror, May this never be, or, in their own idiom, God forbid. See also the note on this expression on page 898. F. The Manner in Which Jesus Applies This Parable 17. But Jesus looked straight at them and said, What then is this that is written: The Stone the builders rejected, This became the cornerstone? Here, again, for the linguistic aspects of these lines see the note on page 898. The underlying figure is that of a huge building block, one of those that were used in the building of Solomon's temple. When the builders examined this particular stone, they rejected it. In doing this they erred. Subsequently this rejected stone became the cornerstone. The words quoted are taken from Ps. 118(LXX 117):22. The quotation as here reproduced is from the Septuagint, which, in turn, for this passage faithfully reproduces the Hebrew original. It will be recalled that the parable reached its climax when the wicked tenants were described as casting the owner's son out of the vineyard and killing him. They had utterly rejected not only the servants but even the son! They had done this in order to enrich themselves. The son was gone now, so they thought, so his inheritance would be theirs. Jesus now surprises them by reminding them about this passage from the psalms. Here a very similar transaction had been described: builders had rejected a stone; ultimately meaning: prominent men had rejected, despised, scoffed Israel. Nevertheless, Israel had become in a very true sense the head of the nations (Ps. 147:20). This, moreover, had not happened because of Israel's own intrinsic moral and spiritual excellence or because of its own power. On the contrary, by the Lord this wonderful thing had been accomplished. Jesus now shows that the words of Ps. 118reach their ultimate fulfilment in the owner's son, that is, in himself, the true Israel. He is that stone that was being rejected by the chief priests, scribes,^[523] elders, and at Calvary, by the nation as a whole. See John 1:11. But something marvelous was going to happen: the rejected stone would become the cornerstone: Christ crucified would rise again triumphantly. And what about the nation, namely, the old unconverted Israel, the rejectors of the Messiah? From you, says Jesus, the kingdom of God, that is, the special kingdom privileges the special standing in the eyes of God which this people had enjoyed during the old dispensation, to which had now been added the blessed words and works of Jesus will be taken away. Why? Because they had not lived up to their obligations. They had been like the sharecroppers who at the time of the vintage had refused to render to the owner that portion of the vintage that was his due. So, in the place of the old covenant people there would arise was it not already beginning to happen? a nation producing its fruit, a church international gathered from both Jews and Gentiles. Briefly, therefore, the thrust the one main lesson of the parable can be expressed in the words of Ps. 2:12: Kiss [or: pay homage to] the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way; for soon shall his wrath be kindled. Blessed are all those who take refuge in him. As to the separate items in this parable, it has now become clear that: a. The vineyard reminds us immediately of Israel. See (Isa. 5:1–7, on which the parable is clearly based. Also cf. Deut. 32:32; Ps. 80:8–16; Isa. 27:2, 3; Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 15:1–6; 19:10; Hos. 10:1. Nevertheless, not the nation as such but the special advantages and opportunities which were given to the people as the chosen seed, and in virtue of God's covenant with them (W. M. Taylor, op. cit., p. 140) is what is signified, for we are told that the vineyard will be given to a nation producing its fruitMatt. 21:43). b. The one who planted and owns the vineyard is God. c. The wicked sharecroppers or tenants are especially Israel's leaders: chief priests, scribes, elders, though their followers (hence, the nation as a whole) need not be entirely excluded. d. The servants who were sent to collect the portion of the vintage that could be rightfully claimed by the owner, and who were treated shamefully, are the prophets, as has been shown. e. As already indicated, the owner's son is Jesus Christ himself. An additional word, in conclusion, should be said about Jesus as the stone which the builders rejected. ^[524] Other references to this stonePs. 118:22, 23and the present passage [Luke 19:17, 18] are Isa. 28:16; Acts 4:11; Rom. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; and I Peter 2:6. The cornerstone of a building, in addition to being part of the foundation and therefore supporting the superstructure, finalizes its shape, for, being placed at the corner formed by the junction of two primary walls, it determines the lay of the walls and crosswalls throughout. All the other stones must adjust themselves to this cornerstone. Such is the relation of Christ to his church. By his glorious resurrection, ascension, and coronation he has become highly exalted, and from his place at the Father's right hand sends out the Spirit to dwell in the hearts of his followers and to rule over the entire universe in the interest of the church, to the glory of God Triune. 18. Everyone who falls on that stone will be smashed to pieces; and he on whom it falls it will crush him. Meaning: Anyone who persists in opposing Christ is going to be pulverized (Luke 3:17). If Christ strikes him with his judgment, the person so stricken will be crushed. In other words, if people reject Christ, not he but they will be the losers, both now and especially in the day of the final judgment. Cf. Isa. 8:14, 15; Dan. 2:34, 35. G. The Reaction on the Part of the Scribes and the Chief Priests 19. The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on him that very hour, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them, but they were afraid of the people. As has been pointed out, the parable was based on Isa. 5:1–7, which states in so many words, The vineyard of Jehovah of hosts is the house of Israel. Also, it was not difficult to believe that when Jesus quoted Ps. 118, he was equating the builders there mentioned with the religious leaders among his own contemporaries. And, of course, the scribes and chief priests who were among those who heard Jesus speak this parable knew very well that in his mind they were the ones who had been, and still were engaged in, rejecting him. There had been too many clashes to doubt this. Result: so filled with hatred were they that they tried to lay hands on Jesus that very hour. What prevented them from carrying out their plan at this particular moment is stated in these words: But they were afraid of the people. That is not very surprising, for: a. these people held Jesus to be a prophet (Luke 7:16; cf. 24:19); b. on the preceding Sunday they had been shouting in his honor (19:37, 38); c. on a previous occasion they had tried to make him their king (John 6:15); d. for many, Passover Week was a period during which political enthusiasm ran high, and hero worship would be difficult to control; and e. very recently many believers whether their faith was genuine or whimsical had been added to the ranks of those who sided with the Prophet of Galilee, for he had brought back to life Lazarus, who had been dead four days (John 11:39, 43, 44; 12:10, 17 19).^[525] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 20:1 19 Verses 6, 7 All the people &are persuaded that John was a prophet. &[The chief priests, etc.] answered that they did not know. Does not this passage show that at times the judgment of the laity is better than that of the clergy? The lesson is this: Though it is indeed wrong for a congregation to indulge, without very good reason, in the habit of being adversely critical of their minister(s), in the final analysis every member, with the help of God's Spirit, should make up his own mind. Heresy often begins at the top! An excellent example to follow is that of the Bereans (Acts 17:11). Verses 10 15 The sharecroppers beat him up and sent him back empty-handed.& This one they wounded and flung out.& They threw him [the son] out of the vineyard and killed him. Note how, step by step, the cruelty of these tenants increases. That is not at all unusual, except when grace intervenes. See this increase in wickedness exemplified in Cain, Herod I, Herod Antipas, etc. The lesson is: Principiis obsta: Resist the beginnings! Watch out for the first misstep. Every further advance into sin will be easier than the previous step. Verse 16 He will come and kill these sharecroppers and &what? take it back? &destroy it? &forget about it? No, and give the vineyard to others! Isn t that wonderful? The blessings are not completely withdrawn. They are simply removed from the Jews as a nation and given to the church universal consisting of both Jew and Gentile. In other words God substitutes a greater blessing for the one that is withdrawn. The river bed of God's grace is widened! How great thou art! Think of Lam. 3:23; John 1:16; Eph. 3:14–19; James 4:6. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 20:1–19 Verse 1 [Greek], third per. pl. aor. (ingressive) indicat. act. of [Greek]; here: to confront; i.e., to come up to a person boldly, defiantly. For more on this verb see the note on 10:40 on page 603. Verse 3 [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], a word with a great variety of meanings; such as, word, Word (the Christ), message, prayer, prophecy, account, reason, motive, etc. In each case the exact sense is determined by the context. Here and in the parallel passages the meaning is obviously question. Verses 5, 6 [Greek], third per. pl. aor. indicat. of [Greek], to reason (together). The reciprocal idea, already present in the verb, is expressed also by [Greek]. The clauses introduced by [Greek] are conditions of the third class (future more vivid). In each verse [Greek] is followed by [Greek], first per. pl. subjunct. of [Greek], used as 2nd aor. of [Greek], in the protasis; and a third per. s. future indicat. (respectively [Greek] and [Greek] [from [Greek], to stone down, stone to death]) in the apodosis. [Greek] &[Greek], (having been and therefore) being persuaded, periphrastic perfect of [Greek], to persuade. Note indirect discourse: [Greek]: John to be a prophet; that is, that John was a prophet. Verse 9 [Greek] &[Greek], he proceeded (or: went on) &to tell. [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. act. of [Greek], to plant. See also 17:6, 28, and the note on 13:6 on page 698. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], vineyard, as in 13:6 and I Cor. 9:7. [Greek], third per. s. 2nd aor. (ingressive) middle of [Greek], to lease, let out. [Greek] (from [Greek] plus [Greek]), lit. worker of the soil; specifically: John 15:1, vinedresser II Tim. 2:6and James 5:7, farmer. In the present parable the [Greek] is clearly a tenant farmer, one who works the land in this case a vineyard for a share of the crop. He is therefore a sharecropper. For [Greek], he went abroad, see the note on 15:13 on page 760. [Greek], for a considerable period of time, for a long time. Here pl.; in 8:27 s. but with little, if any, difference in meaning. Verse 10 [Greek], at the proper time. For the distinction between [Greek] (verse 9) and [Greek] (verse 10) see the note on 12:56 on page 690. [Greek], third per. pl. fut. indicat., where aor. subjunct. would be more usual. This can be explained either as showing the close relationship between the subjunctive and the future indicative, or as being a means to add to the vividness of the story. [Greek], nom. pl. masc. aor. participle of [Greek], basically meaning: to skin, flay, but here: to beat (up). See also the note on 12:47, 48 on page 688. Verses 11, 12 For the idiom (in both verses) [Greek], here followed by [Greek], see the note on 17:5 on page 801. Verse 13 [Greek], third per. pl. fut. indicat. pass. of [Greek]; act. meaning: to make someone turn in on himself; i.e., to make him ashamed; pass., as here, with middle sense: they will turn in on themselves, will be ashamed out of respect for someone; in the present context: they will respect him. German: Vielleicht, wenn sie den sehen, werden sie sich scheuen. Dutch: Dien zullen zij wel ontzien. Verses 14, 15 [Greek] means about the same thing as [Greek] in verse 5. [Greek], first per. pl. subjunct. (volitive) act. of [Greek], to kill; hence, Let us kill. [Greek], third per. pl. aor. indicat. act. of the same verb. Beginning at 9:22 this verb appears frequently in this Gospel. [Greek], third per. s. 2nd aor. subjunct. after [Greek], indicating purpose: that the inheritance may become ours. Verse 16 [Greek], third per. s. 2nd aor. optat. of [Greek]. May it never be! In view of the fact that the people spoke Aramaic, what they actually said may well have been, God forbid! Cf. Gen. 44:7, 17; Josh. 22:29; 24:16; I Sam. 12:23; 14:45; 20:2; Job 27:5. Verse 17 [Greek], nom. s. masc. aor. (ingressive) participle of [Greek], to look straight at, fix one's gaze on. The antecedent [Greek], which, being the subject of became the cornerstone, would normally be in the nom., has been attracted to the case of [Greek], the relative. This is not what happens normally. It is called inverse attraction. See Gram. N.T., pp. 717, 718. For quotation of the same Old testament passage but with [Greek] instead of [Greek] see I Peter 2:7. Note [Greek]; as if This became for a cornerstone. The New Testament in Modern Greek omits this [Greek]. Its inclusion may be considered a Hebraism (Ps. 118:22), though it is not entirely absent even from Greek secular literature. This [Greek] shows that something (here the stone) passes from one state (that of being rejected) to another (that of being honored as cornerstone). In English [Greek] in such a context is generally omitted. German, however, has &ist zum Eckstein geworden; Dutch, &is tot een hoeksteen geworden. Frisian also has retained the little word (ta), and so has Danish (til), but South African and also Swedish omit it. Verse 18 [Greek], third per. s. fut. indicat. pass. of [Greek]?). In the New Testament this word occurs in this one passage, unless Matt. 21:44should be authentic (an improbability). Meaning: to dash to pieces. The same is true with respect to [Greek], to crush. Verse 19 [Greek], aor. (ingressive) act. infinitive of [Greek]; here: to lay hands on, seize. For a complete summary of the meaning of this word in the New Testament see the note on 15:12 on page 759. 20:20–44 Captious Questions and Authoritative Answers also Christ's Own Question verses 20 26 Cf. Matt. 22:15–22; Mark 12:13 17 verses 27 40 Cf. Matt. 22:23–33; Mark 12:18 27 verses 41 44 Cf. Matt. 22:41–46; Mark 12:35 37 20 Now they watched (him) closely and sent spies, who pretended to be honorable men. Their purpose was to lay hold on something he might say, so as to hand him over to the control and authority of the governor. 21 So the spies questioned him, saying, Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right and show no partiality but truthfully teach God's way. 22 Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar or is it not? 23 But he saw through their craftiness and said to them, 24 Show me a denarius! Whose image^[526] and inscription does it bear 25 Caesar's, they told him. He said to them, Well then, what is due to Caesar render to Caesar, and what is due to God render to God. 26 So they were unable to get a handle on him^[527] because of what he had said in the presence of the people, and amazed by his answer they became silent. 27 Next, some of the Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection, came up and asked Jesus, 28 Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, that man should take the widow and raise up children for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife and died childless. 30 The second 31 and then the third took her, and similarly all seven, and they died leaving no children. 32 Last of all the woman herself died. 33 Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will the woman be, since all seven had her as wife? 34 Then Jesus said to them, The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age, even to the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage: 36 for they can no longer die, because they are like the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. 37 But that the dead are raised up even Moses disclosed in the passage about the bush, when he calls the Lord: the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. 38 He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all are alive to him. 39 Some of the scribes answered, Well said, Teacher. 40 For they no longer dared to ask him any more questions. 41 Then Jesus said to them, How can people say that the Christ is the Son of David? 42 For David himself in the book of Psalms declares: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand 43 Until I make your enemies your footstool. ^[528] 44 David therefore calls him Lord. How then can he be his son? Without any indication as to time or place Luke here begins to present his report with respect to captious questions put to Jesus during the week of The Passion. The place, however, must have been the temple (Mark 12:35). As to the time, note that even when we reach (Luke 22:1Mark 14:1) the story has not advanced beyond Tuesday. This does not mean, however, that some of what Luke 20:21ff. relates may not have taken place a little later, say on Wednesday.^[529] Subsuming the events here recorded under the caption TUESDAY-WEDNESDAY, as we have done, should suffice. We now proceed at once to the first of the two captious questions reported by Luke. A. Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar or is it not? 20. Now they watched (him) closely and sent spies, who pretended to be honorable men. Their purpose was to lay hold on something he might say, so as to hand him over to the control and authority of the governor. It is necessary to keep the context in mind. The Sanhedrists had bluntly questioned Jesus authority. This attack had failed. By means of a counter-question Jesus had silenced them. Not only that, but by means of the parable of The Wicked Tenants he had predicted their doom. So, more than ever they were determined to kill him. But they were afraid of the people (20:19). So they now decided to use the opposite method. For implied accusation they substituted adulation, flattery. At the same time they probably figured that their clever device would result in discrediting their enemy in the estimation of the people, at least of a large group. Therefore the enemies of Jesus sent a committee to him. The committee consisted of Pharisees and Herodians (Mark 12:13). These men pretended to be honorable. They, especially the Pharisees, acted as if they were deeply troubled by a question of conscience, and were seeking his advice. Meanwhile their real purpose was to see whether they could make him say something that could serve as a reason for accusing him before the Roman governor. With the Herodians going along as witnesses, the governor, so they hoped, might be willing to take Jesus off their hands, condemning him. Very clever &and wicked! The honorable men were in reality tricky, prying spies. 21. So the spies questioned him, saying, Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right and show no partiality but truthfully teach God's way. As to Teacher, this form of address was certainly correct. Not only do the evangelists constantly describe Jesus as such, but so do also many othersMark 4:38; 5:35; 9:17, 38; 10:17, 20, 35; John 3:2; etc. . In fact, Jesus himself stated that teaching was one of his main activities (Mark 14:49; cf. Matt. 26:55; Luke 21:37; John 18:20). He was the greatest Teacher ever to walk the earth. Being God's true Prophet he taught men as the Father had taught him (John 1:18; 3:34; 8:28; 12:49). It was a pity that those who now addressed him as Teacher did not accept his teaching. And now the flattery. These men tell Jesus that he speaks and teaches what is right, that is, he truthfully teaches God's way. The word way, as here used, indicates the manner in which God wants people to think and to live. It is his will for man's heart, mind, and behavior. They are saying, therefore, You are a teacher on whom people can depend; you faithfully declare the will of God for doctrine and life. In further explication of what they have in mind they say, You are not partial to anyone; literally, You do not look on anyone's countenance. They mean, No matter to whom you speak, what you say is still the same. You do not allow yourself to be swayed by rich or poor, learned or unlearned, master or slave.& ^[530] Thinking, perhaps, that by means of their kind (?) words they have completely disarmed Jesus, having dispelled any suspicion which he might otherwise have entertained with respect to their motives, they now spring their question, 22. Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar or is it not? The tribute to which the present passage refers was a poll tax which, after the deposition of Archelaus (a.d. 6), was collected by the procurator from every adult male in Judea, and was paid directly into the imperial treasury. Since this coinage bore the image of the emperor, who ascribed divinity to himself and claimed to possess supreme authority not only in political but even in spiritual affairs, and since, in addition to this, it reminded the Jews that they were a subject nation, it is understandable that payment of this personal tax was very distasteful to many freedom-loving, devout Jews. It was in connection with the introduction of this imposition that Judas of Galilee had vehemently proclaimed, Taxation is no better than downright slavery. He had blasted it as being no less than high treason against God. See Acts 5:37; Josephus, Jewish War II.117, 118; Jewish Antiquities XVIII.1 10. The question put to Jesus was therefore a very clever scheme. If he answered affirmatively, he would be alienating ever so many devout, patriotic Jews; but a negative reply would be exposing himself to the charge of rebellion against the Roman government (Luke 20:20; 23:2). 23 25. But he saw through their craftiness and said to them, Show me a denarius! Whose image and inscription does it bear? Caesar's, they told him. Jesus was fully aware of their wickedness (Matt. 22:18), unscrupulousness, or craftiness, their readiness to do anything, no matter how wicked, to attain their purpose. Their question, after an introduction of honeyed words, sounded like a pious request for direction in deciding what to do in a difficult matter of ethics, but their real intention was the destruction of Jesus. Their action was diabolical. While feigning innocence, they thought they had lured their enemy into a trap from which, as they saw it, he would not be able to escape. So Jesus asked them to show him a denarius. This was a small silver coin equal to a laborer's average wages for one day's work. It was the amount fixed by law for the payment of the poll tax. It is held by many that Christ's asking for this coin implied that he himself was so poor that he did not possess that much. To this observation some add that it showed that even his disciples did not have a denarius. But perhaps this is reading into the account something that is not really there. One could, for example, advance an entirely different explanation for this request, namely, that Jesus wanted the coin to come from the pockets of his opponents, so as to impress upon them the fact that they themselves were using this coinage, were benefiting from its use, and had accordingly accepted the resulting obligations. That explanation has in its favor that it fits into the succeeding context. But this point need not be pressed. Jesus question, Whose image and inscription does it bear? was easily answered. Caesar's, of course. A denarius from the reign of the then ruling emperor Tiberius pictures on its obverse side the head of that ruler. On the reverse side he is shown seated on a throne. He is wearing a diadem and is clothed as a highpriest. The inscriptions, with abbreviations as indicated and with V representing our present U, are as follows: Obverse TICAESARDIVI AVGFAVGVSTVS Translated: TIBERIUS CAESAR AUGUSTUS SON OF THE DIVINE AUGUSTUS Reverse PONTIF MAXIM Translated: HIGHEST PRIEST The tension must have been very high when He said to them, Well then, what is due to Caesar render to Caesar, and what is due to God render to God. Explanation: a. Jesus was not evading the issue, but was clearly saying, Yes, pay the tax. Honoring God does not mean dishonoring the emperor by refusing to pay for the privileges a relatively orderly society, police protection, good roads, courts, etc., etc. one enjoys. At this particular time the Roman Empire had brought peace and tranquility to the people under its sway, and this to a degree seldom if ever experienced either before or afterward. Such a blessing implies a responsibility. Cf. I Tim. 2:2; I Peter 2:17. Thus, no truthful charge of sedition could be made against Jesus. b. He was qualifying his yes answer by stating that the emperor should be paid (given back) only what was his due. Hence, the divine honor which the emperor claimed but which is due to God alone must be refused. How could the Pharisees find any fault with that? Besides, this word was a warning to all from the most exalted emperor to the subject lowest in rank not to claim undue honors. Cf. II Kings 18:19 19:37II Chron. 32:9–23; Isa. 36, 37 ; Dan. 4:28–32; 5; Acts 12:20 23. c. By adding and what is due to God render to God Jesus was stressing the fact that all the service, gratitude, glory, etc., due to God should be constantly and gladly accorded to him. Nothing must be withheld. See, for example, Ps. 29; 95; 96; 103 105; 116; John 17:4; Rom. 11:33–36; I Cor. 6:20; 10:31; 16:1, 2; II Cor. 9:15. One does not give God what is his due by plotting to destroy his beloved Son! But this was exactly what these spies and their teachers were trying to do. d. By drawing a distinction between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God Jesus was rejecting the very claim of Caesar, a claim made on the coin and elsewhere, to the effect that his was not only a physical kingdom but also a spiritual one. Cf. (John 18:36. Naturally God is Sovereign over allDan. 4:34, 35), even over the emperor. Cf. John 19:11. The emperor, to be sure, should be respected and obeyed whenever his will does not clash with the divine will. See Rom. 13:1–7. But when there is a clash the rule laid down in Acts 5:29must be followed. By means of this answer Jesus had discomfited his enemies. We are not surprised to read: 26. So they were unable to get a handle on him because of what he had said in the presence of the people, and amazed by his answer they became silent. The spies had not expected this kind of answer. Jesus had frankly and courageously answered their question. The answer implied, Yes, the tax must be paid. There must be an adequate response to privileges enjoyed. But though the emperor must receive his due, he must not receive more than that; that is, he must not receive the divine honor he claims. At the same time, God must receive all glory and honor. Who could find fault with this answer? Certainly no one. So the spies were reduced to silence. They left (Matt. 22:22). B. At the resurrection whose wife will the woman be? 27, 28. Next, some of the Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection, came up and asked Jesus, Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, that man should take the widow and raise up children for his brother. Who were these Sadducees?^[531] How this party originated we do not know. They loved to trace their name and origin back to Zadok, the man who during David's reign shared the highpriestly office with Abiathar (II Sam. 8:17; 15:24; I Kings 1:34), and was made sole highpriest by Solomon (I Kings 2:35). Whether they were right in so doing cannot be proved, but they may well have been. That there was indeed, even during the days of Christ's sojourn on earth, a close relationship between priesthood, temple, and Sadducees is not open to doubt. It is clearly implied in Acts 4:1; 5:17. Let the reader see for himself. As to doctrinal beliefs, the Sadducees accepted only the written word; not, like the Pharisees, also oral tradition. So much is clear from Josephus, Antiquities XIII.297. Also, they denied the soul's immortality. As they saw it, the soul perishes along with the body (Antiquities XVIII.16, 17). They said, There is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit (Acts 23:6 8). They rejected the eternal divine decree or as they called it fate and accepted the freedom of the will (Antiquities XIII.171 173). Politically they supported the status quo, were satisfied to have matters remain as they were. They were not a popular party, as were the Pharisees, but were in favor with the wealthy (Antiquities XIII.298). In so many respects did they differ from the Pharisees that, at first glance, it may seem strange that at times Pharisees and Sadducees co-operated (Matt. 16:1), and that Jesus warned against the teaching of both, mentioning them in one breath (Matt. 16:6, 11). But this co-operation was, after all, not so strange. In the final analysis both of these parties tried to obtain their feeling of security by their own efforts whether this sense of ease and salvation was based on material possessions on this side of the grave, as with the Sadducees, or on imagined spiritual possessions on the other side, as with the Pharisees, who were striving with all their might to work their way into heaven. It should not be a surprise, therefore, that when Jesus, with his emphasis on the sincere religion of the heart and on God as the sole Author of salvation, appeared upon the scene of human history, he was rejected by both groups: by the Pharisees, who resented his exposure of their hypocrisy, and by the Sadducees, who considered him a threat to their status quo. Besides, both parties envied Jesus (Matt. 27:18) because of his miracles and the crowds he attracted. When the Sadducees now come up to Jesus they probably intend to strike a double blow. By exposing to ridicule Christ's belief in a bodily resurrection would they not also triumph over the Pharisees who likewise accepted the doctrine of a life after death? If we are permitted to assume that news of the victory of Jesus over the Pharisees (and their allies) soon reached the ears of the Sadducees in view of Matt. 22:34not an unreasonable assumption may we not also assume that the latter were already saying to each other, We ll show the Pharisees that we can do better? Were they perhaps already chuckling over the prospect of killing two birds with one stone, that is, of exposing to ridicule both Jesus and the Pharisees? For their word of address, Teacher, see on verse 21. They continue with an appeal to the great lawgiver Moses. It should be borne in mind that the Sadducees regarded the Pentateuch as being higher in value than the other books of the Old Testament. They now make (Deut. 25:5, 6the springboard of their question. In that passage the law of levirate^[532] marriage is given to Israel. According to this law, if a wife loses her husband before any male child has been born, the brother of that husband or else the nearest of kin must marry the widow, so that the first child born of this marriage may be counted as a child of the deceased, and the latter's line may not die out. Disobedience to this command was frowned uponDeut. 25:7–10). The halfhearted obedience of Onan, who was willing to marry the widow but not to raise offspring by her since such a child could not be counted as his own, was punished with death (Gen. 38:8–10). For an interesting application of the law of levirate marriage see Ruth 4:1 8. To what extent this law was still being obeyed during Christ's sojourn on earth is not clear. The Sadducees, then, make use of this commandment in order to show how thoroughly absurd, as they see it, is belief in the resurrection of the body. Whether the story which they are about to relate was a report on an actual event, as some commentators believe; or whether it was suggested by the apocryphal book of Tobit (3:8, 15; 6:13; 7:11); or finally, whether from start to finish it was their own fabrication; let the reader judge for himself. Continued: 29 33. Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife and died childless. The second and then the third took her, and similarly all seven, and they died leaving no children. Last of all the woman herself died. Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will the woman be, since all seven had her as wife? Provided that their opponent (in this case, Jesus) accepted the basic assumption that married life continues in the hereafter, two husbands would have been sufficient to prove the Sadducees point. But seven makes the story more interesting and might also make belief in the resurrection seem even more absurd. Think of it: when the dead arise, this woman husband-killer? will have seven husbands! Of course, that cannot, must not, be. She is allowed to have only one, but which one? It is clear, of course, that the entire representation was absurd. It was atrociously unfair; for Jesus, though believing in the doctrine of the physical resurrection, did not believe that the state of marriage would continue after the resurrection. What the opponents were doing, therefore, was setting up a man of straw, to be bowled down very readily. Not the doctrine of the resurrection but the assumption from which the Sadducees were proceeding was false. In fact, it was grotesquely fictitious. And now Christ's answer: 34 36. Then Jesus said to them, The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age, even to the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they can no longer die, because they are like the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. Meaning: Those who live in this world marry and are given in marriage. But those who, apart from any merit of theirs but only by virtue of God's sovereign grace, are considered worthy of partaking in the glories of the coming age, the new heaven and earth, so as to be sharers in the resurrection of the righteousJohn 5:29a , neither marry nor are given in marriage. Reason: they do not die; therefore marriage with a view to the perpetuation of the race will not be necessary. With respect to marriage they are like the angels, who also do not marry. The redeemed in glory are sons of God, being born of God and being, in a sense, like him (John 1:13; I John 3:2), and thus also sharers in the resurrection unto life. For the sons of expressions see the note on 10:6 on page 587 and the diagram (of some of these forms) on page 588. Continued: 37, 38. But that the dead are raised up even Moses disclosed in the passage about the bush, when he calls the Lord: the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all are alive to him. It is true that the Sadducees did not have the New Testament, which mentions or implies the resurrection (whether of Jesus himself or of his people, or even of all the dead) again and again. But even the Old Testament is not lacking in references to the bodily resurrection. Clearest, perhaps, are (Ps. 16:9 11Acts 2:27, 31) and (Dan. 12:2. Worthy of consideration are also Job 14:14; 19:25–27; Ps. 17:15; 73:24–26; Isa. 26:19; Ezek. 37:1–14; Hos. 6:2; 13:14I Cor. 15:55); these are passages which, though not always directly teaching the resurrection of the body, may well imply belief in this truth. Take, for example, (Ps. 73:24–26, which clearly teaches the blessed after-death existence of the believer's soul in heaven. Does not this very existence of the soul in the intermediate state demand the resurrection of the body? Two facts certainly point in that direction: (a) the creation of man as body and soulGen. 2:7), and (b) this very passage, He is not the God of the dead but of the living. Note also that Abraham surely believed in the possibility of a physical resurrection (Heb. 11:19). Jesus, however, refers to another passage, I am the God of Abraham &, and implies that since God is not the God of the dead but of the living, the conclusion is that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still alive, and are awaiting a glorious resurrection. Luke (Mark 12:26) represents Jesus as tracing the saying to Moses, that is, to the Pentateuch, the very book which by the Sadducees was esteemed above all others. More precisely, Jesus points out the very place in the Pentateuch where the quoted words are found, namely, in the passage about the bush, that is, the burning bush that was not consumed. The reference is, of course, to Exod. 3:1ff.; see verse 6 and cf. verses 15, 16. Attempts have been made to rob Christ's argument of its value. It has been said, for example, that the expression the God of Abraham simply means that while Abraham was on earth he worshiped Jehovah. However, a study of the context in which (Exod. 3:6and all similar passages occur quickly proves that the One who reveals himself as the God of Abraham &is the unchangeable, eternal covenant God who blesses, loves, encourages, protects, etc., his people, and whose favors do not suddenly stop when a person dies but go with that person beyond deathPs. 16:10, 11; 17:15; 73:23–26). Another fact must be mentioned in this connection. The men with whom the immutable Jehovah (Exod. 3:6, 14; Mal. 3:6) established an everlasting covenant (Gen. 17:7) were Israelites, not Greeks. According to the Greek (and afterward also the Roman) conception, the body is merely the prison house of the soul. See N.T.C. on I and II Thessalonians, pp. 110, 111. The Hebrew conception, product of special revelation, is entirely different. Here God deals with man as a whole, not only with his soul or merely with his body. On the contrary, when God blesses his child he enriches him with physical as well as spiritual benefitsDeut. 28:1–14; Neh. 9:21–25; Ps. 104:14, 15; 107; 136; and many similar passages . He loves him body and soul. He is going to send his beloved Son in order to ransom him completely. The body, accordingly, shares with the soul the honor of being the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 6:19, 20). The body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body (I Cor. 6:13). God loves the entire person, and the declaration, I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob (note the triple occurrence of the word God, mentioned separately in connection with each of the three to stress personal relationship with each), certainly implies that their bodies will not be left to the worms but will one day be gloriously resurrected. The God of the covenant is not the God of dead bodies but of living people! Those dear ones who have exchanged this life for the life hereafter may seem dead to us, but to God they are very much alive. The vital and glorious relationship between himself and them cannot be broken. See Rom. 8:35–39. Hence, he will not forget their bodies! The burden of proof is entirely on the person who denies this. See also H. W. Robinson, The People and the Book, Oxford, 1925, p. 353 f. 39, 40. Some of the scribes answered, Well said, Teacher. For they no longer dared to ask him any more questions. These scribes were probably Pharisees, and believed in a bodily resurrection. On this particular question they, accordingly, stood with Jesus, and were happy that their enemies, the Sadducees, had been defeated. The Sadducees, realizing that they had been worsted, did not again venture to ask Jesus a question. C. Jesus own question: Whose Son is the Christ? 41. Then Jesus said to them, How can people say that the Christ is the Son of David? The blind beggar had called Jesus the Son of David (18:38). The multitudes had shouted Hosanna to the Son of David (Matt. 21:9). Jesus, by accepting these praises without protest, and by fulfilling the prophecy of (Zech. 9:9, had indicated, though indirectly, that he was indeed the very Son of David that was to come. The direct and open affirmation would follow a little laterLuke 22:69, 70). However, in what sense was he the Son of David? For the sake of man's salvation unto God's glory that question must be answered. Especially now, with the cross so very, very near, and deadly error prevailing on every side. We might say, therefore, that there were three propositions Jesus wanted everyone to accept, and this with heart and mind: a. David's Son is not merely David's descendant; he is David's Lord. b. Being David's Lord, he is the Son of God. c. Since he is the Son of God, everyone should place his trust in him. It is for this reason that Jesus now asks the all-important question, How can people [the scribes, Mark 12:35, and their followers, people in general] say that the Christ is the Son of David? Jesus is asking as it were, Is he merely David's descendant? In which sense is he Son? How does David himself answer that question? 42 44. For David himself in the book of Psalms declares: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. David therefore calls him Lord. How then can he be his son? We return, then, to proposition (a): David's Son is not merely David's descendant; he is David's Lord. Jesus ascribes this Psalm (110) to David, and is saying that it is a Messianic Psalm. Note that the Christ, etc. (verse 41). It was so regarded also by Peter (Acts 2:34, 35), by Paul (I Cor. 15:25), by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1:13; cf. 10:13), and, during New Testament times, by the rabbis.^[533] The words, David himself in the book of Psalms &calls him Lord. How then can he be his son? cannot mean, The Messiah is not David's son. They must mean, He cannot be David's son merely in the sense of his descendant. He is far more than that. He is the root as well as the offspring of David (Rev. 22:16; cf. Isa. 11:1, 10). He is David's Lord. The figure Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool is that of an enemy lying in the dust so that the conqueror's feet can be placed on his neck. Cf. Josh. 10:24. Complete triumph over every foe is assured to David's Lord. This brings us to proposition (b): Being David's Lord, he is the Son of God. In this psalm David is making a distinction between YHWH (Jehovah) and Adonai. YHWH is addressing David's Adonai; that is, God is addressing the Mediator. He is promising that Mediator such pre-eminence, power, authority, majesty as would be proper only for One who, as to his person, from all eternity was, is now, and forever will be GOD. See Eph. 1:20–23; Phil. 2:5–11; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 5:1–10; 12:5. The clear implication is surely proposition (c): Since he is the Son of God, hence also himself God, everyone should place his trust in him. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 911–915. 20:45–47 Denunciation of the Scribes Cf. Matt. 23:1–36; Mark 12:38 40; Luke 11:37 54 45 Now while all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples: 46 Beware of the scribes, who relish parading about in long, flowing robes, and who love formal salutations in the market places, chief seats in the synagogues, and places of honor at the banquets. 47 They devour widows houses, and for a show^[534] offer lengthy prayers. Such men will receive a heavier sentence. 45. Now while all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples: Having now attacked the doctrine of the scribes and their allies, Jesus next exposes their corrupt practice. From the Woes against the Scribes, as recorded at length in (Matt. 23Mark 12:38 40), Luke selects a representative few. Note that the scribes are not addressed directly. Any reference to them is in the third person. If from this fact someone wishes to draw the conclusion that they were no longer present, or, if present, then only sparsely, he can hardly be blamed. What must not escape us is the fact that the Master, fully realizing that the scribes had a large following, warns his audience against them, out of love for all who were prone to be easily led astray. To be sure, the descriptions of the enemies of the truth are not mild, but underneath throbs a loving heart! 46, 47a. Beware of the scribes, who relish parading about in long, flowing robes, and who love formal salutations in the market places, chief seats in the synagogues, and places of honor at the banquets. They devour widows houses, and for a show offer lengthy prayers. Note the six items of criticism, followed by the statement of condemnation: A. Items of Criticism a. who relish parading about in long, flowing robes. These men were putting on airs; they walked around attired like kings or priests about to perform official functions. b. formal salutations in the market places. Cf. 11:43b. Though the word for salutation that is here used can indicate a friendly spoken greeting, or a written message of regards (I Cor. 16:21; Col. 4:18; II Thess. 3:17), here it has a more formidable connotation, as the immediate context in the parallel passage, Matt. 23:7, indicates ( &the formal salutations in the market places, and to have the people address them as rabbi. ). What the men who are here described were always longing for was not a mere token of friendliness but rather a demonstration of respect, a public recognition of their prominence. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XXI Outline of Chapter 21 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 21:1–4 A Widow's Offering 21:5 ff.: Christ's Discourse on The Last Things 21:5–7 The Occasion. The Temple's Destruction Foretold 21:8–19 The Beginning of Woes or Birth Pains 21:20–24 The Destruction of Jerusalem Foretold 21:25–28 The Coming of the Son of Man 21:29–33 The Lesson from the Fig Tree and All the Trees 21:34–38 Exhortation to Watch Summary of Final Days in the Temple and Nights on the Mountain 21:1–4 A Widow's Offering Cf. Mark 12:41 44 21 1 Looking up, Jesus saw the rich dropping their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow drop in two very small coins, 3 and he said, Truly I say to you, this poor widow dropped in more than all the others. 4 For all these people out of their abundance dropped in (something) among the gifts, but she out of her poverty dropped in all she had, her whole living. 1. Looking up, Jesus saw the rich dropping their gifts into the temple treasury. The connection between the present paragraph and the preceding is twofold. First of all, it is temporal. It seems reasonable to infer that after Jesus had delivered his Fifth Great Discourse, the Seven Woes (Matt. 23), briefly summarized in Luke 20:45 47, he would take a brief rest. It was during that rest that, looking up from the bench on which he was probably sitting, he saw the rich dropping their gifts into the temple treasury. It is clear, therefore, that we must picture Jesus as being seated somewhere in the Women's Court, with its thirteen trumpet-shaped chests, that is, receptacles for gifts and dues. See map of the Temple on p. 924. Secondly, the connection is topical, and this in a twofold sense: (a) Having just now exposed the hypocrisy of the scribes (20:45–47), Jesus proceeds to reveal the sincerity of a certain widow. He places her genuine religion over against the sham religion of the law-interpreters. (b) Just as important: Jesus has just now denounced the scribes for devouring widows houses (20:47). So now, by his own example, he shows how widows should be treated. The connection widows poor widow (20:47; 21:2) must not be missed. It must have been intentional. One should help and encourage widows and, wherever this can be done, one should hold them up as examples. As Jesus was looking he noticed that the rich were dropping their gifts into the temple treasury, that is, into its receptacles, separately marked for different purposes. Some of these rich people were dropping in large amounts (Mark 12:41). Of course, there was nothing wrong with that. Nevertheless, as Jesus saw it, it was not the amount of the gift that mattered most but the heart of the giver. This becomes clear from the following verses: 2. He also saw a poor widow drop in two very small coins. The original says two lepta. How much was this? It took two lepta to make one quadrant (Mark 12:42); four quadrants or eight lepta to equal one as or assarion; and sixteen of the latter to reach the value of one denarius. It will be recalled that the denarius was a common laborer's daily wage (Matt. 20:9, 10). So if a denarius was worth sixteen American pennies, then an assarion would be worth one penny, and a lepton one-eighth of a penny; hence the two lepta the widow contributed would amount to one-quarter of a cent. However, we cannot really figure this way, for the purchasing power of money is constantly changing. All we can safely say, therefore, is that, by human standards, what the widow gave did not seem to amount to much. Far more important, however, was the value Jesus placed on her gift: 3, 4. and he said, Truly I say to you, this poor widow dropped in more than all the others. For all these people out of their abundance dropped in (something) among the gifts, but she out of her poverty dropped in all she had, her whole living.^[537] By human calculation what this widow gave was insignificant. Measured by the divine standard, however, her contribution was priceless. Note the following: a. What this widow did was so important in the eyes of Jesus that, according to Mark 12:43, he summoned his disciples, in order to rivet their attention upon it. This calling to himself of The Twelve had happened before, that is, on very important occasions, and this was another. b. In line with this is the fact that the Master introduced his teaching by saying, Truly I say to you, showing that what he was about to say was of great significance and should be taken to heart by them. c. This poor widow dropped in more than all the others, said Jesus. In his estimation the two copper coins were sparkling diamonds. One might even say: they resembled talents which over a period of time doubled in value (Matt. 25:20, 22); yes, doubled and redoubled, for her deed and Jesus comment have inspired thousands of people to follow her example. d. When the question is asked, What was it that made her gift so precious? the answer is that all the others had given out of their abundance, she out of her poverty, her want or lack. Shall we say that she might at least have kept one of these small, thin copper coins for herself? But no, she gave both. In fact, she, knowing that God would not fail her, sacrificed everything. These two coins represented all she had to live on. Total commitment to God and his cause is the lesson she has taught us. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 933–936. 21:5 ff. Christ's Discourse on The Last Things 21:5–7 The Occasion. The Temple's Destruction Foretold Cf. Matt. 24:1–3; Mark 13:1 4 5 Now while some were talking about the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and votive offerings,^[538] he said: 6 As for these things you are admiring, days will come when there will not be left one stone upon another that will not be thrown down. 7 Teacher, they asked him, when then will this happen, and what will be the sign when this is about to take place? A. The Temple Admired 5. Now while some were talking about the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and votive offerings & Matthew (24:1) and Mark (13:1) point out that Jesus left the temple, and that it was while the little band Jesus and The Twelve was in the process of walking away from that magnificent building complex that the remarks recorded here in Luke 21:5and parallels were made. One of Christ's disciples (Mark 13:1), deeply impressed with the size and beauty of the temple, was unable to suppress an exclamation. Others followed until probably all joined in (Matt. 24:1; Luke 21:5). They made remarks to Jesus about its huge stones and magnificent buildings. Luke's report has goodly stones and votive offerings. In order that we may be able to enter somewhat into their thoughts and emotions a brief description of the temple and its history is in order. It was David who conceived in his heart to build a temple for the Lord. But for the reason stated in (I Chron. 28:3not to David but to his son Solomon was given the privilege to build it. He began to do so in the fourth year of his reign, hence in or about the year 969 b.c. See I Kings 6:1. It was finished seven years laterI Kings 6:38). Cedar and cypress wood from Lebanon, and white hard limestone were used in its construction. Because the level area of Moriah, on which it was built, was too small, the foundation had to be laid very deep and the space between hilltop and outer wall filled in. For an account of the furniture of this temple and of the manner in which it was dedicated see I Kings 6 8. This temple experienced stress and strain. In the course of the centuries it was plundered, renovated, desecrated, purged. See (I Kings 14:26; 15:18; II Kings 14:14; 15:35; 16:17f.; 23:4f. Its treasures were carried to BabylonII Kings 24:13). Finally, about the year 586 b.c. the Chaldean army destroyed Jerusalem, including Solomon's beautiful temple. About fifty years later, at the return of a remnant from Babylonian captivity, an altar for a new temple was immediately built (Ezra 3:3). Sometime later work was begun in earnest on the building itself. It was completed about twenty years after the return. However, since it became clear that it would not be nearly as imposing and beautiful a structure as that of Solomon, the older people, who had known that first building, wept (Ezra 3:12, 13). It was this temple that was plundered and desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 b.c. Approximately three years later it was cleansed and rededicated by Judas Maccabaeus. Pompey captured and entered this temple but did not destroy it. However, Crassus deprived it of its treasures in 54 53 b.c. Herod the Great altered and enlarged the temple complex. He expanded and beautified it to such an extent that the result could be called a new temple, though devout Jews probably refused to consider it such. In an eloquent address to the people the king, if we can trust Josephus, divulged his plan to make a thankful return, after the most pious manner, to God, for the blessings I have received from him, who has given me this kingdom, and to do this by making his temple as complete as I am able. He began to build it about the year 19 b.c. Long after his death it had not yet been entirely completed. See John 2:20. The grandeur and beauty of the temple which Herod started to build and on which he had made very considerable progress is evident from Luke 21:5, 6; cf. Matt. 24:1, 2; Mark 13:1, 2. See also Matt. 4:5; Luke 4:9. It is interesting to note that this elaborate structure was not finished until &just a few years before it was destroyed by the Romans, a.d. 70. Here follows a brief description of Herod's temple complex. It should be studied in connection with the diagram. The entire huge area on which it stood a square measuring not much less than a thousand feet on each side was enclosed by a massive outer wall. Those coming from the north for example, from the suburb of Bethesda could enter by the north gate. The east wall overlooked the Kidron Valley. By way of what in later years was called the Golden Gate one was able from the temple area to cross the brook, and thus go to the Garden of Gethsemane, Bethany, and the Mount of Olives; or vice versa. See Mark 11:1, 11; John 18:1. See also on Mark 11:16. Coming from the south for example, from the Lower City it was possible to reach the Court of the Gentiles by means of the two Gates of Huldah. One of these was a double, the other a triple gate. Of all the gates that led from or to the outside these were the most widely used. Finally, from the Upper City one was able, by means of the four western gates, to enter the temple area. Very useful also were the two bridges with which two of these western gates were linked. Their remnants have been preserved to this very day. Lining the outer wall were rows of high pillars. Each consisted of a single block of pure white polished marble. On the east, west, and north there were three parallel rows of columns, on the south four. This meant that three sides had two parallel halls, while the Royal Porch, where according to tradition the palace of Solomon used to be, had three. John 10:23states, It was winter, and Jesus was walking inside the temple, in Solomon's Porch [Portico or Colonnade]. This covered porch probably derived its name from the fact that of the temple which that king had built, this was in the days of Jesus the only remaining part. Cf. Acts 3:11; 5:12. It is understandable that the various ample and beautiful colonnades provided every opportunity for teachingMark 12:41 44and parallels; Luke 19:47, etc. . Beyond these colonnades that is, farther away from the outside wall there was the very spacious Court of the Gentiles, also extending all around. It was paved with variegated marble of the finest quality. This court was given its name because, though both Jews and Gentiles were welcome here, the latter were not allowed to proceed any farther toward the interior. In order to remind them of that restriction, the smaller area immediately enclosed by the Court of the Gentiles was surrounded by a 4½ ft. high balustrade furnished with slabs on which was written, both in Greek and in Latin, this warning: Let no man of another nation enter inside the barrier and the fence around the temple. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame that his death follows. For a picture of part of a slab with Greek lettering see Kollek and Pearlman, Jerusalem, A History of Forty Centuries, New York, 1968, p. 124, Proceeding westward from Solomon's Porch the person privileged to do so would, after crossing a portion of the Court of the Gentiles, via the Beautiful Gate enter the Women's Court. Men as well as women were allowed here. Just as Court of the Gentiles meant that Gentiles were not permitted any closer to the interior, so Women's Court was thus named in order to indicate that this was as far as women were allowed to go. It was equipped with large chambers and gave access to treasure vaults. Against the walls stood thirteen trumpet-shaped chests for gifts and dues. (Luke 21:1 4Mark 12:41 44) and John 8:20come to mind at once. Male Israelites were allowed to proceed even farther, namely, into Israel's Court, a relatively narrow one. Between that and the Priests Court there was only a low partition, so that by some authors these two are considered one. It was the Priests Court that encompassed the inner sanctuary with its Holy Place and Holy of Holies. To the east of it stood the very large altar of burnt-offering. Nearer to the sanctuary and a little farther to the south could be seen the laver, a colossal brazen reservoir that rested on the back of Ground Plan of the Temple in the Days of jesus^[539] H = Holy Place with Table of P = Porch Showbread, Incense Altar, and Candelabrum N? = Nicanor's Gate (location disputed) H of H = Holy of Holies B = Burntoffering Altar B G = Beautiful Gate L = Laver (Washbasin) G G = Golden Gate twelve big lions. Finally, there was the sanctuary itself. As to measurements, Josephus states that its ground floor was sixty cubits in height, the same in length, and twenty cubits in breadth. But the sixty cubits of its length were again divided. The first portion [the Holy Place] was partitioned off at forty cubits &the innermost recess [Holy of Holies] measured twenty cubits. This magnificent sanctuary must have been a marvelous sight to behold, since it was built of white marble, richly set off with gold on its front and sides. It was entered by means of a huge double-winged porch or vestibule, as indicated on the diagram. In front of the doorway to the Holy Place hung a beautifully colored Babylonian veil or curtain. There was also the second veil, the one that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. See Matt. 27:51; Heb. 6:19; cf. 9:3; 10:20. As it was during the old dispensation so also now, the Holy Place contained A lampstand, a table, and an altar of incense, thus again Josephus, who adds, But in this [that is, in the Holy of Holies] stood nothing at all.& The candelabrum or seven-branched lampstand was among the temple treasures which by Titus and Vespasian were displayed in the triumphal procession which they conducted in Rome after the fall of Jerusalem, a.d. 70. See the picture in the aforementioned book, Jerusalem, A History of Forty Centuries, p. 131, and in many other sources. I have purposely left to the last for special emphasis one very important point, namely, the height of the various parts. Now before proceeding any further it is only proper to call attention to the fact that we cannot be entirely certain about the dimensions mostly length and breadth given thus far. The Bible furnishes no information on this point. Josephus and the Mishnaic tractate by no means always agree. It is not surprising, therefore, that the secondary sources even our best textbooks disagree among themselves on several points. See W. S. Caldecott and James Orr, The Temple of Herod, I.S.B.E., Vol. V, 2937 2940. The general picture is clear enough; conjecture sometimes probable, sometimes improbable or at least fruitless enters into the determination of many details. This holds also with respect to the height of the various parts. With that reservation, it can now be pointed out that there were especially three features that made this temple unforgettable: a. Its vastness From east to west or northwest the temple complex increased in height. From the Court of the Gentiles to that of Women there was an ascent of fourteen steps; from there to the Court of Israel a rise of fifteen steps. A few more upward steps would bring one to the Priests Court; and twelve more, to the entrance of the sanctuary. Accordingly, highest of any of the buildings of this entire complex was the temple or sanctuary. It soared high above the vast Court of the Gentiles. Some of the stones in the building were forty-five cubits [67½ feet] in length, five [Greek] in height, and six [9] in breadth (Josephus). The sanctuary, moreover, occupied the most elevated ground, and was buttressed by very formidable substructures. Its height was no less than sixty feet, compared to forty-five for the temple of Solomon (I Kings 6:2). To this should be added another sixty feet for the upper chamber that covered the entire sanctuary. The whole temple, with the exception of the porch, was covered with a gabled roof of cedar wood. From its summit protruded sharp golden spikes to prevent birds from settling upon and polluting the roof (Josephus). From all this it follows that the best pictorial map of Herod's vast temple complex is the three-dimensional. See, for example, the reconstruction by the Conte de Vogue (Jerusalem, p. 100) or the Schick model, reproduced in several English and other language encyclopedias and archaeological texts, or Lazar Halberthal's colorful drawing. Vastness, by reminding man of his littleness, inspires awe. b. Its beauty Says Josephus, The exterior of the building lacked nothing that could astonish either the soul or the eyes. For, [the exterior] being covered on every side with massive plates of gold, the sun had no sooner risen than it radiated so fiery a flash that those straining to look at it were forced to avert their eyes as from the solar rays. To approaching strangers it appeared from a distance like a snow-clad mountain, the reason being that whatever was not overlain with gold was purest white (Jewish War V.222). Though the rabbis were not at all in love with Herod I, nor with those who followed him, they had to admit, He who has not seen Jerusalem in her splendor has never in his life seen a desirable city. He who has not seen the temple in its full construction has never in his life seen a glorious building. ^[540] Beauty is conducive to worship. c. Its purpose That purpose is clearly stated in (I Kings 8:13, 31 61; 9:3; and especially in Isa. 56:7, for even though these passages pertain to the temple of Solomon, they clearly have meaning also with respect to the temple as it existed in the days of Jesus. Even the child Jesus called it my Father's houseLuke 2:49). And during his earthly ministry Jesus, quoting from Isaiah, declared the temple to be a house of worship. He said, Is it not written: My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations &? The reason why just at this particular moment these men were thinking of the temple may well have been that Jesus had just said, Behold, your house is left to you a deserted place (Matt. 23:38; cf. Luke 13:35). Though it is probable that the expression your house meant Jerusalem, its temple was certainly included. It is as if the disciples were saying, Is it true that also this glorious structure is going to be entirely deserted? In substance Jesus answers, Not only deserted but totally destroyed. After what has already been said about the temple's huge and goodly stones, no more need be added. The (votive) offerings were in the form of presents, probably on top of the walls and decorating them. Such offerings were, for example, the golden vines which Herod had donated, with grapeclusters as tall as a man (Josephus, Jewish War V.210). There must have been several such gifts, all very beautiful and clearly visible from the outside. B. The Temple To Be Destroyed Continued: he said, 6. As for these things you are admiring, days will come when there will not be left one stone upon another that will not be thrown down. As to the fulfilment, when the Jews rebelled against the Romans, Jerusalem was taken by Titus, son of the emperor Vespasian (a.d. 69 79). The temple was destroyed. It is believed that more than a million Jews, who had crowded into the city, perished. As a political unit Israel ceased to exist. As a nation specially favored by the Lord it had reached the end of the road even long before the beginning of the Jewish War. An ex-combatant and eyewitness, Josephus, almost immediately after the struggle between the Jews and the Romans had ended, began to write his History of the Jewish War. On the whole his narrative may be described as trustworthy, although a definitely pro-Roman bias cannot be denied. An excerpt from Josephus may illumine the fulfilment of 21:6: That building [the temple at Jerusalem], however, God long ago had sentenced to the flames; but now in the revolution of the time periods the fateful day had arrived, the tenth of the month Lous, the very day on which previously it had been burned by the king of Babylon.& One of the soldiers, neither awaiting orders nor filled with horror of so dread an undertaking, but moved by some supernatural impulse, snatched a brand from the blazing timber and, hoisted up by one of his fellow soldiers, flung the fiery missile through a golden window.& When the flame rose, a scream, as poignant as the tragedy, went up from the Jews &now that the object which before they had guarded so closely was going to ruin (VI.250 253). The words, There will not be left one stone on another that will not be thrown down, are probably to be interpreted as a hyperbolic prophecy of the thorough character of the destruction that would take place. See also on verse 24. When the cleansing of the temple did not bring about genuine repentance, its destruction must follow. Nevertheless, in his wrath the Lord remembered mercy (Hab. 3:2). Over the ruins of the earthly temple another temple was being established, that of Christ's body (John 2:20), the church consisting of both Jew and Gentile. Doom came at last, but even that sentence of doom opened the door to blessing, and this for both Jew and Gentile. And throughout the ages the ancient prophecies would be going into fulfilment: Gen. 12:3; Ps. 87; Isa. 54:2, 3; 60:3; 65:1; Jer. 31:31f.; Mal. 1:11, all this unto God's glory. C. When Will This Happen? 7. Teacher, they asked him, when then will this happen, and what will be the sign when this is about to take place? A little later, when Jesus and The Twelve had arrived on the Mount of Olives, four disciples namely, Peter, James, John, and Andrew (Mark 13:3) stepped up to the Master and voiced the question which undoubtedly was in the minds of the entire little company, namely, When will this happen, and what will be the sign when this is about to take place? In a parallel passage (Matt. 24:3), this question is framed somewhat differently, Tell us, when will this happen, and what (will be) the sign of thy coming and of the end of the age? It is clear that, as these men interpreted the Master's words, Jerusalem's fall, particularly the destruction of the temple, would mean the end of the world. In this opinion they were partly mistaken, for a lengthy period of time would intervene between Jerusalem's fall and the culmination of the age, the second coming. Nevertheless, they were not entirely wrong: there was indeed a connection between the judgment to be executed upon nation and temple, on the one hand; and on the other hand, the final judgment on the day of the consummation of all things. The first was a type of the second. Jesus, in a very general way, answered their question, and told them about the sign to look for. He did this in his Discourse on The Last Things, which begins at this point. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 933–936. 21:8–19 The Beginning of Woes or Birth Pains Cf. Matt. 24:4–14; Mark 13:5 13 8 He said to them, Take care that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, saying, I am he, and The time is near. Do not follow them. 9 And when you hear of wars and insurrections, do not panic,^[541] for these things must happen first, but (that is) not immediately the end. 10 Then he said to them, Nation will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences, and there will be dreadful portents and great signs from heaven.^[542] 12 But before all this they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for my name's sake. 13 This will furnish you with an opportunity to testify.^[543] 14 So fix it in your hearts not to plan your defense beforehand, 15 for I will give you such wisdom of speech as all your adversaries combined will be unable to withstand or contradict. 16 Indeed, you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 And you will be hated by everybody for my name's sake. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 By means of your endurance you will win your souls. 8 11. He said to them, Take care that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, saying, I am he, and The time is near. Do not follow them. And when you hear of wars and insurrections, do not panic, for these things must happen first, but (that is) not immediately the end. Then he said to them, Nation will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences, and there will be dreadful portents and great signs from heaven. Jesus now proceeds to correct his disciples mistaken inference. He shows them that not everything that seems to be a sign of the end of the world is in reality such a sign. In other words, there are also signs which only in a very general sense are deserving of that name. Whenever these separate happenings are interpreted as being infallible indications that the end of the age is immediately in sight, they deserve the name mistaken signs. Thus Jesus predicts the coming of those who will say, I am he, and The time is near. Jesus adds, Do not follow them. This also holds true with respect to wars and insurrections. When Jesus speaks these words, the Roman empire has been enjoying a long era of peace. But about four decades later political turmoil will upset the great realm from one end to the other, so that Rome will see four emperors in one year: Galba, Otho, Vitellus, and Vespasian. But these violent revolts and insurrections cannot by any stretch of the imagination constitute definite indications that the Lord will return immediately. So Jesus adds, Do not panic, for these things must happen first, but (that is) not immediately the end. This is evident at once when one considers the fact that wars and insurrections did not cease with Jerusalem's fall. Throughout the centuries the prophecy attains fulfilment: nation will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom (verse 10). One author counted three hundred wars in Europe during the last three hundred years. And these wars are increasing in intensity. It is perfectly clear that when any particular war is singled out as a help for date-fixers, another mistaken sign has been produced. Jesus also speaks about great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences (verse 11). As was true with respect to other predicted events, so it is here. These disturbances in the physical realm are indeed foreshadowings and portrayals of that which, on a much more extensive and intensive scale, will take place in the realm of nature at the end of the age; but except in that very general sense they cannot be correctly termed signs. Not any single one of them could ever give anyone the right to make predictions with reference either to the date of Jerusalem's fall or to the time of the Parousia (Christ's second coming). It is true that during the period a.d. 60 80 famine, pestilence, fire, hurricane, and earthquake ravaged the empire, as Renan points out in l Antichrist. Vesuvius erupted violently in the summer of 79, destroying Pompeii and its surroundings. But, as is already clear from the preceding sentence, these catastrophes were not limited to the decade preceding the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70. Moreover, throughout the centuries there have been violent earthquakes. Ancient historians, geographers, and philosophers such as Thucydides, Aristotle, Strabo, Seneca, Livy, and Pliny describe similar seismic phenomena in their days. And as early as the year 1668 Robert Hooke wrote his work bearing the title, Discourse on Earthquakes. A certain author counted no less than seven hundred disturbances of this nature, great and small, which had occurred in the nineteenth century! Famines and pestilences, too, occur constantly. So do dreadful portents and great signs from heaven. Such things as comets, meteors, and even eclipses have always terrified people. But Jesus includes all such signs under the general caption of things that do not indicate that the time is near. In spite of this clear warning which our Lord gave to his disciples, many present-day church members are filled with admiration for the minister or evangelist who speaks learnedly about The Signs of the Times, and strives to show his audience that this or that terrible battle, serious earthquake, devastating famine, or threatening comet on the basis of prophecy is the infallible sign of Christ's imminent return. To be sure, the events here indicated have significance. They are steppingstones leading to the final goal. By means of them the end of the age is both foreshadowed and brought closer, and God's eternal plan is being carried forward. Moreover, when we realize that toward the end of the present dispensation the indicated disturbances will occur together (Matt. 24:33), will probably be more numerous, extensive, and fearful than ever before (Luke 21:11, 25, 26), and are going to take place in connection with the great tribulation that will usher in the Parousia, we may conclude that it would not be unreasonable to call the final outbreak of these terrors concurrent or accompanying signs. 12. But before all this they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for my name's sake. Note before all this. Predictions mentioned in the preceding lines, such as Nation will rise up in arms against nation, kingdom against kingdom, great earthquakes, etc., would be fulfilled throughout the entire new dispensation. On the other hand, being handed over to synagogues would occur only at the very beginning of this period, for after a.d. 70 (Jerusalem's fall) the synagogue would lose most of its persecuting power against Christians. Substantiation for the fulfilment of this prophecy, as concerns persecution by the synagogue, during these very early days of the church, is found in such passages as (Acts 9:1; 22:19. The latter passage shows that these early believers were flogged, and that one of those persecuters who caused believers in Christ to receive this horrible punishment was Saul (= Paul) of Tarsus. After his conversion he himself was going to be similarly tortured. He was going to write, From the Jews five times I received forty lashes less oneII Cor. 11:24). This also implied imprisonment of Christians, as that same apostle shows by writing, I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and flog, etc. (Acts 22:19). As to kings and governors who figured in the persecution of the early church, think of such kings as (a) Herod Agrippa I, who killed James (son of Zebedee), brother of the apostle John (Acts 12:1), and (b) Herod Agrippa II before whom Paul made his defense. Even (c) Herod Antipas, who technically was not a king, is given this title at times (Mark 6:14, 22, 25 27; Luke 23:6 12). And as to governors who took an active part in the persecution of Christ and/or his disciples, think of such procurators as Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus. What is important is that Jesus says that this persecution will take place for my name's sake. When anyone persecutes Christ's disciples he is persecuting Christ himself, a fact that was stamped so indelibly on the mind and heart of Paul that, however much the accounts of that apostle's conversion may vary, the words, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? are found in all three (Acts 9:4, 5; 22:7, 8; 26:14, 15). The persecuted one was maltreated because of his loyalty to Jesus. And no one was ever able to separate him from Christ's love and from the comfort imparted to him by that knowledge. Jesus continued: 13. This will furnish you with an opportunity to testify. How richly this prophecy was fulfilled. Christ's disciples testified by word of mouth (Acts 4:5 12, 19, 20; 9:15, 16; 22:1–21; 23:1, 6, 11; 24:10–21; 26:1–29; 27:21–26; 28:23–28); by personal conductII Cor. 6:1–10; 11:22–32; Phil. 1:12ff. ; and even by means of their songs (Acts 16:25; cf. Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). In days of sore trial and persecution, lying in dungeons perhaps, having been unmercifully beaten, etc., the followers of Jesus might be wondering what they should say when they are brought to trial. So Jesus here essentially repeats the promise of 12:11, 12. He says: 14, 15. So fix it in your hearts not to plan your defense beforehand, for I will give you such wisdom of speech as all your adversaries combined will be unable to withstand or contradict. Comparison with the earlier promise (12:11, 12) shows that what the Holy Spirit does Jesus does also. From his position at the Father's right hand in glory he will, through his Spirit, impart to his dear ones the ability to say the right thing at the right time. In fact, by stating all your adversaries combined will not be able to withstand or contradict you he is even strengthening the promise of 12:11, 12. That this prediction was gloriously fulfilled is clear from the book of Acts. See the references mentioned in the explanation of verse 13. So frightful will be the hatred against believers because of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that even some of their relatives will join the opposition: 16, 17. Indeed, you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. And you will be hated by everybody for my name's sake. In a passage reminding one of Matt. 10:21, 22and Mark 13:12Jesus predicts that hatred against himself and his cause will in some cases overcome ties of blood and of friendship. That because of fundamental religious difference note for my name's sake hostility not infrequently arises between members of the same family is clear not only from such general statements as are found in (Ezek. 38:21and Mal. 4:6but also from such actual examples as are recorded in Gen. 4:8Heb. 11:4) and Gen. 27:41. Does not this fact help to explain the stern demand Jesus makes in Luke 14:26, 27? Some believers would even be put to death through the mediation of nearest relatives and/or former friends. The expression You will be hated by everybody or by all means by men in general, regardless of rank, station, race, nationality, sex, or age. Is not the same true also with respect to the use of all in such passages as Mark 1:37; 5:20; 11:32; Luke 3:15; John 3:26; I Tim. 2:1; and Titus 2:11? Because the world hates Christ it also hates his representatives, the Christians. The paragraph ends on a note of comfort: 18, 19. But not a hair of your head will perish. By means of your endurance you will win your souls. But is not this a contradiction? After saying They will put some of you to death (verse 16), how can Jesus almost immediately add, But not a hair of your head will perish (verse 18)? But certainly Jesus would not, in one and the same breath, utter two violently conflicting sayings! And Luke did not think it necessary to offer an explanation. The solution, it would seem to me, is rather easy for anyone acquainted with the teaching of Jesus. All one has to do is to turn back to Matt. 10:29, 30. He will then see that what Jesus meant was that nothing, not even our hairs, is excluded from the domain of God's tender care, so that we may be assured that if any hair perishes it is by his will and for his purpose. And that purpose is always the promotion of our salvation, to God's glory. See such passages as Rom. 8:28; Phil. 1:19; I Peter 4:11; 5:10. What is necessary, however, is that God's children persevere. They must never lose courage, but should remain faithful no matter how fierce the persecution may get to be. Their endurance by God's strength-imparting grace, of course is the instrument the Lord uses to give them the ultimate victory. Cf. Luke 18:1, 8.^[544] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 21:1 19 Verse 4 She out of her poverty dropped in all she had, her whole living. The deed was beautiful because it was Christlike. Cf. II Cor. 8:9. Appropriate songs, in this connection, are: H. B. Grose, Give of your best to the Master. F. R. Havergal, I gave my life for thee. There are different varieties of giving: a. The flint gives off sparks when struck hard. b. A lemon yields juice when it is squeezed. c. The rose, orange blossom, jasmine, gardenia, and mint (to mention only a few) release fragrance of their own accord. Should not every person ask himself, To which of these groups do I belong? Verses 5, 6 The temple &adorned with goodly stones.& There will not be left one stone upon another that will not be thrown down. Herod's temple was very beautiful and costly &but not destined to last. God's temple, the church universal, is destined to last and last and last. See Matt. 16:18; II Cor. 4:18. Someone wrote: All things that are on earth shall surely pass away Except the love of God, which shall live and last for aye. Verse 13 This will furnish you with an opportunity to testify. What a refreshing way to regard trial and persecution! Moreover, that was exactly what the leaders and many of the followers too, of course in the early church did with these experiences. Note, for example, what Stephen did when he was being stoned (Acts 7:54 60); what Peter did (Acts 4:1 12); and Paul (Phil. 1:12–18). Verse 19 By means of your endurance you will win your souls. Endurance is pertinacity, stick-to-itiveness. An old illustration: A man drives a tunnel a mile long through strata he is sure contain gold. Not finding it, he gives up. He then sells his property, including the tunnel, for a very modest sum. The buyer extends the tunnel a yard farther &and finds gold! He that endures to the end, he will be saved (Matt. 10:22). It can be done through God's grace (I Cor. 15:10). Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 21:1–19 Verse 1 The term [Greek] (or [Greek]) consists of two parts: [Greek], Persian for treasure, and [Greek], guard, safeguard; hence a chest into which treasures or gifts could be dropped and guarded; i.e., safely kept. Verse 2 [Greek], fem. acc. s. of [Greek], needy, poor. Cf. penury. [Greek], acc. pl. of [Greek], peeled, small, light, thin; hence, a very thin (leafy) copper coin. The value of &18frac; of a penny is at times ascribed to it, but whether or not this is correct depends on the buying power (at a particular time) of the coins that are being compared. Verse 3 [Greek], begging, depending on others for support, poor. See Trench, Synonyms par. xxxvi. Verse 4 [Greek], lit. of what was overflowing to them; hence, of their abundance. See also N.T.C. on Ephesians, p. 84, footnote 25. [Greek], gen. s. of [Greek], lack, need, deficiency, poverty. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], here: (means of) living. See the note on 15:12 on page 760. [Greek], third per. s. imperf. (descriptive) of [Greek], to have. [Greek], probably (they dropped it) among the gifts; so Beck, and cf. Dutch (Nieuwe Vertaling), bij de gaven. Verse 5 Note gen. absolute: while some were talking. [Greek], that, where we say how. [Greek], dat. pl. of [Greek], votive offering. According to S.BK., Vol. III, p. 260, in the terminology of the Septuagint the word [Greek] indicates anything which by God or in God's name has been devoted to destruction and ruin. The rabbinical herem is a broader concept, inasmuch as it comprises whatever is devoted to God, not only that which is devoted to him for destruction. The same distinction is carried over into the New Testament, where the noun [Greek] href="/bible/parallel/LUK/21/5" class="green-link">Luke 21:5</a>, according to the best reading means that which has been devoted to God as a votive offering, naturally with no curse implications; while [Greek] (Acts 23:14; Rom. 9:3; I Cor. 12:3; 16:22; Gal. 1:8, 9) refers to that which is devoted to God without hope of being redeemed; hence, that which, or he who, is doomed to destruction, accursed. [Greek], third per. s. perf. pass. indicat. of [Greek], to adorn. Verse 6 Note acc. of general reference: As for these things you are admiring. [Greek], sec. per. pl. pres. indicat. act. of [Greek], observe, contemplate, admire. For synonyms see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, footnote 33 on p. 85. [Greek], third per. s. fut. indicat. pass. of [Greek]; see the note on 4:39 on page 271. [Greek], third per. s. fut. indicat. pass. of [Greek]; here: to throw down. For related meanings see the note on 9:12 on page 485. Verses 8, 9 [Greek], sec. per. pl. aor. subjunct. pass. of [Greek], to deceive, lead astray, cause to wander; here pass.: to be deceived. Cf. planet, a wandering star. The verb occurs very frequently in the New Testament, especially in Matthew and Revelation; in Luke only here. [Greek], third per. s. perf. indicat. of [Greek], to come near. See the note on 10:9 on page 587. [Greek] &[Greek], sec. per. pl. aor. subjunctives (ingressive and volitive), respectively of [Greek], to go, and of [Greek], to terrify; in the New Testament only here and in 24:37. Verse 11 [Greek], a play on words, famines and pestilences; cf. paucity and plague. [Greek], nom. pl. of [Greek], in the New Testament only here, something that produces fright, terror (cf. [Greek], fear; [Greek], to frighten). [Greek], acc. pl. masc. pres. pass. participle of [Greek], to lead away. Though the tense of the participle is pres., the time indicated is that of the principal verb, hence future. Verse 13 [Greek], third per. fut. indicat. middle of [Greek], to step off, disembark (Luke 5:2), and here: to result, turn out, lead (to). Cf. Phil. 1:19. Verse 14 [Greek], sec. per. pl. aor. act. imperat. of [Greek]; here: to put, place, fix. [Greek], pres. act. infinitive of [Greek], to plan beforehand. [Greek], aor. pass. (ingressive) infinitive of [Greek], to defend oneself (against an accusation); see also the note on 12:11 on page 661. In Acts 19:33 26:24Luke uses this verb six times. Paul uses it in Rom. 2:15; II Cor. 12:19. The cognate noun [Greek] occurs in Acts 22:1; 25:16, while Paul uses it five timesI Cor. 9:3, etc. , Peter once (I Peter 3:15). Cf. apology. Verse 15 [Greek], a mouth and wisdom. Here mouth is metonomy for what the mouth utters, hence eloquence, speech. The entire expression is probably hendiadys for wisdom of speech. Cf. Deut. 19:15; Luke 19:22. Note the three [Greek]: withstand, contradict, adversaries. As I have shown in my dissertation, all three belong to that subdivision of [Greek] which may be considered o(pposition, oppositeness) m(etaphorical). [Greek], 2nd aor. act. infinitive of [Greek]; [Greek] is used as 2nd aor. act. infinitive of [Greek]; and [Greek], nom. pl. masc. pres. participle of [Greek], lit. to be lying (situated) against. The participle indicates opponents, adversaries. Verse 16 [Greek], third per. pl. fut. indicat. of [Greek], to put to death. In Luke this verb is used only here. It is used also by Matt. (10:21, etc.), Mark (13:12; 14:55), PaulRom. 7:4, etc. , and Peter (I Peter 3:18). Cf. euthanasia, thanatopsis. Verse 17 [Greek], sec. per. pl. periphrastic (durative) fut. pass. infinitive: you will be hated. Verse 19 [Greek], sec. per. pl. fut. (ingressive) indicat. middle of [Greek], to get, gain. For this verb see also the note on 18:12 on page 824. 21:20–24 The Destruction of Jerusalem Foretold Cf. Matt. 24:15–21; Mark 13:14 19 20 When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, then understand that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those (who are) in Judea flee to the hills. And let those inside the city get out, and let not those in the country enter the city. 22 For these are days of retribution, that whatever is written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who nurse babies in those days, for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath against this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and will be carried off as captives into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down^[545] by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 20, 21. When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, then understand that its desolation is near. Then let those (who are) in Judea flee to the hills. And let those inside the city get out, and let not those in the country enter the city. To a large extent the problems that confront anyone who tries to explain Matthew's or Mark's parallel accounts, with their highly symbolic language and manifestations of prophetic foreshortening, are absent from Luke's report. The latter could almost be called a commentary on that of Matthew and Mark. Having summarized what, according to Christ's prediction, would happen primarily and emphatically before Jerusalem's fall although verses 8 19 also have their implications for the post a.d. 70 period Luke now in clear language reports what Jesus predicted concerning that fall. He predicts that Jerusalem is going to be surrounded by armies. When that happens, says Jesus, then you should recognize it as the sign for which you have been asking (verse 7), the sign of Jerusalem's impending destruction and desolation. For more on the sign see on verse 27. Concerned about the welfare of the people he loves, Jesus issues three succinct orders: (a) Those who are in Judea must flee to the hills; (b) those within the city must get out; and (c) those outside the city must stay out. According to many commentators the people who heeded Christ's command finally found refuge in Perean Pella. See map on p. 854. To substantiate their opinion these commentators appeal to the statement of Eusebius, On the other hand, the people of the Jerusalem church were commanded by an oracle, given by revelation before the war to those in the city who were worthy of it, to depart and dwell in one of the cities of Perea which is called Pella (Eccl. Hist. III.v.3). And according to Epiphanius the exit from Jerusalem and the flight to Pella began just before the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem (Ag. Her. XXIX.7). But other commentators have raised doubts about the historicity of this flight to Pella. The debate has by no means ended. See the footnote.^[546] What is important, in this connection, is that Jesus never told the endangered ones to flee to Pella. He ordered them to flee to the hills. Besides, what we are at least should be most interested in is not how this order was carried out but that it was issued at all. Think of it, just a few days before he suffered the agonies of hell, Jesus is thinking about the safety not of himself but of his disciples, including even of those who would not be living in these parts until many years later. What marvelous love! For hardened unbelievers, however, the days to come would be days of wrath: 22. For these are days of retribution, that whatever is written may be fulfilled. The expression days of retribution reminds us immediately of (Luke 11:50, 51. Jesus had been sent from heaven to earth, with a message of God's grace. But by ever so many, especially by the leaders, he and his message had been rejected. See 19:44; 20:17. As a result, prophecies of vengeance, predictions of woe, were going to be fulfilled. We think especially of Jer. 18:9–11; Dan. 9:27; Zech. 11:6; Mal. 3:1, 2. Some of these prophecies were destined to have more than one fulfilment. To be sure, God is love, but he is also a consuming fireHeb. 12:29), namely, for those who consistently reject that love. 23. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who nurse babies in those days, for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath against this people. What shines through very clearly in this passage is that even though Jesus predicts the outpouring of wrath, he does not take delight in it. The fact that he is thinking about pregnant women and nursing mothers reveals this. What a vast difference between Menahem and the Messiah! The former was the cruel monster who, after seizing Israel's vacant throne, razed a city that refused to acknowledge him as the new ruler, and ripped open all its pregnant women (II Kings 15:16; cf. 8:12; Amos 1:13). Jesus, on the other hand, carried the burdens of women in such and similar conditions on his heart. He still does! 24. And they will fall by the edge of the sword and will be carried off as captives into all the nations & What happened, in fulfilment of this prophecy, was as follows: Even several years before the outbreak of the Jewish War the Roman yoke was becoming more oppressive than ever. Action produced reaction, with the result that Jewish hatred of their heathen oppressors rose to the point of organized rebellion. By no means every Jew was in sympathy with this movement, but after a while the warnings of the moderates were drowned out by the voices of the Zealots. Emperor Nero sent his famous general Vespasian to Galilee, which was soon overrun. But, due to the forced return to Rome of this general and Nero's suicide, the conquest of Galilee was short-lived. A period of confusion followed in Rome, with four emperors in one year. See on verses 8 11. The Jews took advantage of this situation, so that the rebellion began to make some headway again. But then Vespasian, now emperor, having restored order, sent his son Titus (who himself later on became emperor, a.d. 79 81) to Jerusalem with a large army. The siege began in April of the year a.d. 70, while Jerusalem was still filled with Passover pilgrims. For the terror that ensued one should read Josephus, Jewish War, especially Books IV to VII. After a siege of about five months the Romans finally overwhelmed the entire city. According to Josephus the total number of prisoners taken throughout the entire war was 97,000, while 1,100,000 perished during the siege (Jewish War VI.420). Even though these figures may be exaggerated, the number must have been enormous. The war was inexcusably cruel. Not only was the temple given up to the flames but the entire city except three towers and a portion of the western wall was razed. By the thousands aged men, women, regardless of their physical condition, and even little children were murdered. Some of the prisoners were subsequently thrown to the wild beasts, others were sold into slavery into all the nations, while a select number of the strongest and best-looking captives figured in the triumphal procession which Rome gave to the conquerors, and which Josephus describes in such elaborate detail, as if the terrible slaughter were really something to be proud of. For many, many years no Jew was allowed to reside in or even to visit Jerusalem, which was made a pagan city. But enough has been said to show in what manner Christ's prediction, recorded in Luke 21:24a, was fulfilled. Continued: and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. S. Greijdanus explains this passage as probably meaning that the time of oppression for Jerusalem will last to the end of the centuries, the coming of the final judgment and the return of Christ in glory, the very theme to which the Lord now [in verses 25 28] turns. Lenski similarly states that the seasons here meant continue from the destruction of Jerusalem to the time of the Parousia. ^[547] With this judgment I am in agreement. The claim that the time of the Gentiles ended May 14, 1948, when Israel became an independent state, and that the Jews have returned to their country in fulfilment of prophecy is contradicted by the following facts: a. Even today only about one out of every five Jews is living in Israel. b. Even today the very existence of Israel and of Jerusalem as an independent Jewish city is still being threatened. c. The great majority of Jews do not regard Jesus as their Lord and Savior. For much more on this see my book Israel in Prophecy, Grand Rapids, 1972. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 945–948. 21:25–28 The Coming of the Son of Man Cf. Matt. 24:29–31; Mark 13:24 27 25 And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the surging sea. 26 People will be fainting from fear and apprehension of the things that will happen to the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud, with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things are beginning to occur, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. 25, 26. And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the surging sea. People will be fainting from fear and apprehension of the things that will happen to the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. In connection, then, with Christ's return (see verse 27) there will be signs in the heavenly bodies, etc. The parallel passage (Matt. 24:29; cf. Mark 13:24) states, The sun will be darkened, the moon will not give her light, and the stars will fall from the sky. Luke also mentions the roaring of the surging sea, and indicates that, as a result of the shaking of the powers of the heavens, people will be fainting from fear and apprehension. That, at least with respect to sun, moon, and stars, this picture is deeply rooted in Old Testament prophecy has been shown in N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 862. The total picture is indeed very vivid. All at once the sun becomes darkened. Naturally the moon now also ceases to impart its light. And since sun and moon exert a potent influence on our planet think, for example, about the moon and the tides it is not surprising that the sea also is deeply disturbed. Terrifying sounds are heard. Result of all this: People are frightened. They are fainting from fear. Until this prophetic panorama becomes history we shall probably not know how much of this description must be taken literally and how much figuratively. That at least some of it must be taken literally is clear from (II Peter 3:10. There will indeed be a new heaven and earthRev. 21:1). For the fourfold change that will take place conflagration, rejuvenation, self-realization, and harmonization see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 863, 864. And now the second coming itself: 27. And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud, with power and great glory. This they must mean all mankind, cf. Rev. 1:7. Matt. 24:30states, And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in the sky, but both Mark and Luke leave out the word sign. They simply represent Jesus as declaring that men will see the Son of man coming majestically. Probable solution: the very appearance of the Son of man upon clouds of glory is itself the sign, the one great final sign from the point of view of the earth. Christ's brilliant self-manifestation will be the sign or signal that he is about to go forth to meet his people, while they ascend to meet him in the air. He comes to deliver the oppressed elect people (see verse 28). In fact, he will gather all the elect both the survivors and those who have previously fallen asleep to himself, to be with him forever. This appearance of the Son of man in majesty is a sign in still another respect: the glorious manner of his appearance corresponds exactly with the prediction of (Dan. 7:13, 14; cf. Mark 14:62. The glory that marks the Son of man's sudden and brilliant manifestation is a definite proof of the Father's delight in his Son and of the justice of the cause of him who was once a man of sorrows and acquainted with griefIsa. 53:3). Note the Son of man see on Luke 5:24; and note also with power and great glory. That power is evident from what happens at his coming; see verses 25, 26; add Rev. 14:14–16; also 20:11. And great glory, for at his coming all his attributes power, wisdom, holiness, love, etc. shine forth brilliantly. As to coming with a cloud, in Scripture the presence of God is often indicated by the mention of a cloud (Exod. 13:21; 16:10; 40:35; I Kings 8:10; Neh. 9:19; Ps. 78:14; Rev. 14:14, 16). And since Jesus is himself fully divine (John 1:1; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:3), his coming in a cloud is altogether proper. It is Luke alone who has preserved the very comforting word of Jesus: 28. Now when these things are beginning to occur, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. These things, that is, those mentioned in verses 25, 26, are the very things that will fill the hearts and minds of the rest of mankind with alarm. But for the followers of Christ who will then be living on earth these very things will be foreshadowings of imminent deliverance. For them the coming of these terrifying disturbances in the heavenly bodies and in the waters will mean that the days of their suffering will soon be over and gone. To be sure, no human being will ever know beforehand exactly when Jesus will return (Matt. 24:36), but God's children will know that the final tribulation will be of very brief durationMatt. 24:22; Rev. 11:9–11; 20:3b , to be followed immediately by Christ's glorious return. Together with this return will come their redemption. That redemption, which will already have been merited for them on the cross, and which they have already experienced in their souls, will then also be imparted to their bodies. Together with those children of God who have died earlier and whose souls will then be reunited with their wonderfully transformed bodies, they will ascend to meet Jesus in the air, to remain with him forevermore, now in the full possession of their salvation, to God's glory (I Thess. 4:17). For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 945–948. 21:29–33 The Lesson from the Fig Tree and All the Trees Cf. Matt. 24:32–35; Mark 13:28 31 29 And he gave them this illustration:^[548] Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30 As soon as they sprout leaves, seeing (it) you know for yourselves that now the summer is near. 31 Similarly, when you see these things taking place, know then^[549] that the kingdom^[550] of God is near. 32 I solemnly declare to you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all has taken place. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. The three synoptic accounts of this lesson are almost identical. The differences that should be briefly noted are as follows: a. Luke reads, Look at the fig tree and all the trees, as if to say, What holds with respect to the fig tree is basically true also with respect to other fruit trees. b. Instead of &know then that it is near, at the very gates, Luke offers &know then that the kingdom [or kingship, rule] of God is near. c. When Luke writes these things (verse 31), this expression should be understood in the light of Luke's own context; that is, in the light of verses 25, 26, which, as has been indicated, relate to what is going to happen in connection with Christ's second coming. To state it differently, Luke makes things a bit easier for us. He clearly differentiates between Jerusalem's fall and the final judgment. Contrast Matthew. In 24:15 f. that evangelist clearly refers to woes in connection with Jerusalem's fall. Note then let those in Judea flee to the hills (verse 16). In this connection he also mentions great tribulation (verse 21). But in verse 29 he writes, Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun shall be darkened, etc. This indicates that in Matthew's account the term great tribulation has a double reference, namely, to what happened at the time of Jerusalem's fall, and also to what will happen in connection with the Parousia. In Luke, however, we do not encounter that same difficulty. In verses 21 24 the destruction of Jerusalem is foretold. At the close of verse 24 the evangelist quotes Jesus prediction that Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. That brings us to the end of the age, that is, to the second coming, including the signs accompanying it. So there is not really any great difficulty in explaining the words these things in verse 31. They naturally refer to the things mentioned in verses 25, 26. 29 31. And he gave them this illustration: Look at the fig tree and all the trees. As soon as they sprout leaves, seeing (it) you know for yourselves that now the summer is near. Similarly, when you see these things taking place, know then that the kingdom of God is near. For the use of the word parable here meaning illustration in the original see on 4:23–27, pp. 256–257. The branch of a fig tree becomes soft and tender because of the sap that is swelling within it. It is not surprising, therefore, that soon this branch is generating leaves, and still more leaves. Now when this happens to a fig tree or, for that matter, to fruit trees in general^[551] the disciples realize that the summer is near. Similarly when the things mentioned in the present context (verses 25, 26, signs in sun, moon, and stars, etc.) take place, believers then living must recognize that the kingdom of God in its final manifestation is at the very door. Christ's royal reign in the new heaven and earth is at hand. And no longer will the dragon and his allies (Rev. 12:3; 13:1, 11) be able to do any damage. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XXII Outline of Chapter 22 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 22:1–6 The Plot of the Chief Priests and Scribes to Kill Jesus and The Agreement Between Judas and the Plotters 22:7–13 The Preparation of the Passover 22:14–23 Passover and the Institution of the Lord's Supper 22:24–30 The Dispute About Greatness 22:31–34 Peter's Denial Foretold 22:35–38 You did not lack anything, did you? 22:39–46 On the Mount of Olives: The Prayer of Jesus and His Exhortation to Pray 22:47–53 The Betrayal of Jesus and His Reaction 22:54–62 Peter's Threefold Denial 22:63–65 The Mocking and Beating of Jesus^[553] 22:66–71 The Early Morning Trial Before the Sanhedrin 22:1–6 The Plot of the Chief Priests and Scribes to Kill Jesus and The Agreement Between Judas and the Plotters Cf. Matt. 26:1–5, 14 16; Mark 14:1, 2, 10, 11; John 11:45 53 22 1 Now the feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching. 2 So the chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to do away with Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the twelve. 4 He went off and discussed with the chief priests and the captains of the temple guards how he might betray Jesus to them. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He, in turn, consented, and began to look for a good opportunity to hand him over to them in the absence of a crowd. 1. Now the feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching. For the manner in which the three final chapters of the Synoptics parallel each other see N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 549–552. A reasonable assumption is that Jesus was crucified in the year a.d. 30, when the fourteenth day of Nisan fell on Thursday, and the fifteenth on Friday. In Israel the first appearance of the new moon marked the beginning of the new month. It was marked by the blowing of trumpets, sacrifices, celebrations, suspension of ordinary business, and wherever necessary by signal fires (Num. 10:10; 28:11–14; Ps. 81:3–5; Amos 8:5, 6). The important days of the month for example, the tenth of the month Nisan, when the Passover lamb was selected, the killing of the lamb on the fourteenth, etc. were figured from the first day, or day of the new moon, as a base. See the detailed regulations in Exod. 12:1–14; Num. 9:2–14; Deut. 16:1; cf. Esther 3:7. There is no good reason to believe that Jesus and his disciples ate the lamb and celebrated Passover either earlier or later than on the appointed day. The fourteenth of Nisan was the day when the lamb had to be sacrificed (Luke 22:7). It is also clear that immediately after the eating of the lamb and the institution of what has come to be known as the Lord's Supper Jesus and his disciples (John 13:30) went to Gethsemane (Mark 14:32; Luke 22:39; John 18:1). Here, during what we would call the night from Thursday to Friday Jesus was taken into custody. Early Friday morning the Sanhedrin took counsel against Jesus to put him to death (Matt. 27:1; Luke 22:66 71). He was led to Pilate that same morning and crucified that same day (Mark 15:1, 25; Luke 23:1, 33). It is clear, therefore, that Jesus was crucified on Friday, the day before the sabbath (Mark 15:42, 43; Luke 23:46, 54; John 19:14, 30, 42). It was early in the morning of the day after the sabbath hence on Sunday, the first day of the week that some women went to the tomb and heard the startling news, He is risen (Matt. 28:1, 6; Mark 16:2, 6; Luke 24:1, 6; John 20:1). Therefore, the theory according to which Jesus was crucified on Thursday is opposed by the evidence of the Gospels.^[554] The day on which the lamb was killed was followed by the seven-day feast of the Unleavened Bread,^[555] celebrated from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of Nisan. So close was the connection between the Passover meal proper and the festival of the Unleavened Bread which followed immediately that the term Passover is sometimes used to cover both, as clearly here in Luke 22:1.^[556] Since the feast of the Passover, etc., was approaching (Luke 22:1), two days off (Mark 14:1), it must have been Tuesday when Christ's enemies held their meeting for the purpose of plotting how to bring about the arrest and death of Jesus. Such a meeting, for which see Matt. 26:3, is not mentioned in Mark and Luke, only in Matthew, but is probably implied in verse 2. So the chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to do away with Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. The plotters were the chief priests and the scribes; according to Matt. 26:3also the elders of the people. A description of the three groups has been given in the explanation of Luke 20:1, 2. The plan to kill Jesus was of long standing, as is clear from such passages as Mark 3:6; 11:18; 12:7, 12; John 5:18; 7:1, 19, 25; 8:37, 40; 11:53. In Luke see especially 19:47; 20:19. In fact the present passage (22:2) is virtually a repetition of 19:47, 48 and 20:19, for in all three passages it is either stated or implied that the plotters were afraid of the people. It must be borne in mind that Jesus had many followers, especially among the Galileans who had come to the feast. Add to this the fact that especially during Passover the thought of deliverance from the Roman yoke was uppermost in the minds of many, and it will be evident that there was sound basis for the fear in the hearts of Christ's opponents. According to Matt. 26:57the plotters met in the palace of Caiaphas the highpriest. Does this mean, then, that it was Caiaphas who was mainly responsible for the plot against Jesus? Well, John 11:47 53may seem to point in that direction, and undoubtedly that conclusion may well be correct, at least to some extent. Caiaphas must have played a very important role. On the other hand, is not the theory justified that back of Caiaphas stood Annas? See N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 385–388. 3, 4. Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the twelve. He went off and discussed with the chief priests and the captains of the temple guards how he might betray Jesus to them. The connection with the immediately preceding context is very close. Christ's enemies were looking for an opportunity to arrest him without creating a riot. See also John 11:57. Judas makes matters easier for them by volunteering to deliver their enemy to them secretly; that is, without public disturbance. Why did Judas do this? Answer: because Satan had entered his heart. Full justice must be done to this fact, mentioned also by John (13:27). The active part played by Satan in the events of Passion Week must not be ignored. See also Gen. 3:15; Luke 4:13; 22:31, 32. All this, however, does not clear Judas from blame. See (Luke 22:22. Judas was guilty because he failed to resist the devilI Peter 5:8, 9). For more on the reasons which may have prompted Judas to yield to the influence of Satan and to betray Jesus, see above, on 6:16, under the heading Judas Iscariot. For his shockingly loathsome deed there was no excuse whatever. Judas was, after all, a specially privileged person. He was one of the twelve, as all four evangelists take the trouble to point out (Matt. 26:14; Mark 14:10; Luke 22:3; John 6:70, 71). For many months Judas had been living in Christ's immediate presence, had been eating, drinking, and traveling with him. He had noticed the strength in the Master's voice when he stilled the storm, cursed the barren fig tree, and rebuked those who devoured widows houses. But Judas had also become aware of the tenderness of that same voice when it pleaded with sinners, including Judas(!), to come to him and rest. He had listened to the Savior's marvelous discourses and to the decisive and authoritative answers he had given to the many questions that had been hurled at him, sometimes with the intention of ensnaring him. Judas had watched the Great Physician in the act of tenderly restoring the handicapped, or bending down mercifully over the sick and healing them &and then even adding (at times), Your faith has made you well. Yes, Judas had witnessed all this and much more. Cf. Matt. 13:17. And then he decided to deliver this unsurpassably powerful, wise, and compassionate Benefactor into the hands of cruel men &for thirty pieces of silver. We are not at all surprised to read: 5, 6. They were delighted and agreed to give him money. He, in turn, consented, and began to look for a good opportunity to hand him over to them in the absence of a crowd. The chief priests and captains of the temple guard were delighted. Their problem was solved. So the price was agreed on and paid. It is Matthew alone who mentions the amount of money the traitor received (26:15). This too was fulfilment of prophecy. See N.T.C. on that passage in Matthew's Gospel. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 965–969. Thursday and Friday 22:7–13 The Preparation of the Passover Cf. Matt. 26:17–19; Mark 14:12 16; or, including the Passover itself, Cf. Matt. 26:17–25; Mark 14:12 21; John 13:1 30 7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying (to them), Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover. 9 They asked him, Where do you want us to prepare it? 10 He replied, Just after you enter the city a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house to which he is going, 11 and say to the owner of the house, The Teacher asks, Where is my guest room in which I may eat the Passover with my disciples? 12 And he will show you a large upper room, furnished. There make ready. 13 So they went away and found (everything) just as Jesus had told them; and they prepared the Passover. 7, 8. Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying (to them), Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover. Finally the first day of the festival arrived, Thursday, the fourteenth of Nisan. It was the day when the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Cf. Exod. 12:6; Lev. 23:5, 6. Luke does not say anything about the purchase of the lamb. We may assume that this had been attended to a few days earlier. See (Exod. 12:3. Further preparations had to be made, however. During the afternoon the lamb must be killed in the forecourt of the templeExod. 12:6). A room of sufficient size must be obtained, and everything in connection with this room and its furniture must be arranged. Besides, purchases must be made: unleavened bread, bitter herbs, wine, etc. The lamb must be made ready for use, the sauce must be prepared. Since by now it was probably Thursday morning, there could be no delay. The words the day &on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed are probably added by Luke for the sake of his Gentile readers. So, in answer to the question of his disciples, Where do you want us to go and prepare the Passover Supper? (Mark 14:12), Jesus gives instructions to two disciples, namely, to Peter and John, as Luke alone informs us. He orders them to go and make preparations for the feast. 9 12. They asked him, Where do you want us to prepare it? He replied, Just after you enter the city a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house to which he is going, and say to the owner of the house, The Teacher asks, Where is my guest room in which I may eat the Passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room, furnished. There make ready. It is clear that the directions given are in a sense very definite; in another sense very indefinite. They are definite enough so that the two men will experience no difficulty in finding the place where the supper is to be held. Yet, they are indefinite enough for the present to conceal the name of the owner of the house and the location of his home. The indefiniteness may very well have been due to the fact that not until evening must Judas know where the Passover is kept. Jesus must be able before his arrest to observe the feast with his disciples, must have time to institute what has come to be known as the Lord's Supper, to deliver his touchingly beautiful Supper Room Discourses (John 14 16), and to pray his Highpriestly Prayer (John 17). If early in the day Judas had known where Jesus would be in the evening, he could have informed the chief priests, etc., who could then have arrested Jesus without any crowd being present, since the people in general would be eating the supper at that time, group by group in ever so many separate homes. Cf. Exod. 12:3, 4. The two disciples will have no difficulty in locating the place. What they will see upon entering the city will be something rather strange: a man carrying a jar or jug of water. Men usually carried water in a skin; women in a jar. Peter and John are directed to enter the house where this man is going. The man who carries this jar must not be confused with the owner of the house which he enters. The exact relation of the water carrier and the owner is not known. He may have been the owner's servant, relative, or friend. It is reasonable to assume that at least the owner the other man also? was a disciple of Jesus, ready to serve the Master in every possible way. In answer to their question this owner will show Peter and John a large upper room, furnished. The original uses a word that has the basic sense spread. When this is taken literally, it is sometimes interpreted to indicate such things as couches with coverings spread over them. Thus Moffatt offers the translation a large room upstairs with couches spread. Others accept the rendering paved with tile. But an unfurnished, merely paved, room would not serve the purpose for which Jesus wanted to use it. And since, in the process of time, words often acquire meanings other than (but often related to) their original sense, it is entirely possible that the interpretation given to this word by most English translators, namely, furnished (perhaps with carpets, couches, and table) is correct. It was in that room that Peter and John must prepare the Passover. 13. So they went away and found (everything) just as Jesus had told them; and they prepared the Passover. In this connection the question has been asked, How did Jesus know that the two disciples would, upon entering the city, have exactly these experiences? A previous detailed agreement between Jesus and the owner of the house has been suggested.^[557] Others, however, mention supernatural knowledge on the part of Jesus.^[558] And does not the very fact that Luke includes verse 13, as if he is recording something wonderful, something that must not escape the attention of the reader, confirm the second theory? What we have here should probably be regarded as in a class with such other passages as Matt. 17:27; John 1:47 50; 2:24, 25; 21:17; and perhaps also Luke 19:29f., all of them either stating or at least implying that Jesus would at times draw upon the omniscience which he, as the Son of God, shared with the Father and the Holy Spirit. In connection with and they prepared the Passover it is probably necessary to assert once again that Jesus partook of the Passover and instituted the Lord's Supper at the regular time, namely, on what we would call Thursday. It was on that day, the fourteenth of Nisan, that the lamb had to be slaughtered and the preparations for the feast had to be made. It is true that by Jewish time reckoning the new day began at sunset, so that when the feast was proceeding it was already the fifteenth of Nisan. All four Gospels support the theory: Passover and institution of the Lord's Supper, Thursday; crucifixion, Friday (still the fifteenth of Nisan). The question may be asked, however, Is not this theory in conflict with John 18:28, according to which early Friday morning Christ's bitter enemies they hated Jesus in order that they might not be defiled but might eat the Passover, did not enter the governor's residence? Answer: there is no conflict. For what may well be the solution of this problem see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 401–404. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 965–969. 22:14–23 Passover and the Institution of the Lord's Supper For 22:14–20 cf. Matt. 26:26–30; Mark 14:22 26; John 13:31 18:1; I Cor. 11:23–25 For 22:21–23 cf. Matt. 26:21–25; Mark 14:18 21; John 13:21 30 14 Now when the hour had come Jesus reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 He said to them, I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you that I shall never eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 Then he received a cup, gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I assure you that from now on I will not drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. 19 Then he took (some) bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my body given for you. This do in remembrance of me. 20 And in the same way after supper (he took) the cup, saying, This cup (is) the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you.^[559] 21 But look! The hand of the man who is betraying^[560] me is with me on the table. 22 For the Son of man is going as it has been decreed, but woe to that man by whom he is being^[561] betrayed! 23 Then they began to discuss among themselves which of them it might be who was going to do this. A few preliminary matters require our attention first of all: a. Much has been written about the question whether verses 19b through 20 (beginning with given for you, verse 19, and ending with poured out for you, verse 20) are genuine. Did Luke write them or did he not? This question is discussed in the note on verses 19 21 on pp. 968, 969. My answer is that the verses are indeed authentic, part of God's inspired Word. The reasons for taking this position are given in that note. b. It is well-nigh impossible to enter into the meaning of the present section without some knowledge of the nature of the Jewish Passover Feast, especially the manner in which the various elements of the Passover meal followed each other. So here is a brief description, based on the best available sources: The Order of The Passover Feast^[562] The main elements were as follows: 1. A prayer of thanksgiving by the head of the house; drinking the first cup of (diluted) wine. 2. The eating of bitter herbs, as a reminder of the bitter slavery in Egypt. 3. The son's inquiry, Why is this night distinguished from all other nights? and the father's appropriate reply, either narrated or read. 4. The singing of the first part of the Hallel (Psalms 113, 114), and the washing of hands. The second cup. 5. The carving and eating of the lamb, together with unleavened bread. The lamb was eaten in commemoration of what the ancestors had been commanded to do in the night when the Lord smote all the first-born of Egypt and delivered his peopleExod. 12and 13 . The unleavened bread was in commemoration of the bread of haste eaten by the ancestors. 6. Continuation of the meal, each eating as much as he liked, but always last of the lamb. The third cup. 7. Singing of the last part of the Hallel (Psalms 115 118). Fourth cup. c. Luke's account, though not strictly chronological, is certainly orderly. Verses 14 38 can be divided as follows: (1) Jesus addresses The Twelve, informing them that this is his final Passover until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God (verses 14 16). (2) He partakes of the Passover with his disciples (verses 17, 18). (3) In connection with the conclusion of the Passover meal he institutes the Lord's Supper (verses 19, 20). (4) Having briefly indicated what Jesus, during this evening and night, did for his disciples and (by means of the institution of the Lord's Supper) for the Church at large, Luke now shows how they, in turn, are reacting to Jesus and his teaching. He shows this in connection with Judas (verses 21 23), The Twelve (verses 24 30), Simon (verses 31 34), and again, the little group as a whole (verses 35 38). And in each case they Judas, etc. are not in control of the situation. He, the Lord, is. His word is final! 14 16. Now when the hour had come Jesus reclined at table, and the apostles with him. He said to them, I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you that I shall never eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. Reclining at table with The Twelve the soul of Jesus is surcharged with deep emotion, to which he gives utterance in words preserved by Luke alone. Note the following: a. I have eagerly desired. Cf. I am overwhelmed (12:50). b. Not only to eat this Passover, but to do so with you. Does not this remind us of John 13:1, having loved his own, he loved them to the uttermost? Jesus knew what his death, within a matter of hours, would do for them (taken as a group), and of course for millions of others also. He loved them with a love inexpressible in words. c. &before I suffer. But the Lord realized that this suffering would not be the end. It would be the means of achieving glory for his disciples and for himself. It is for this reason that he immediately adds: d. &I shall never eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God, that is, I shall never eat it again until its typical and symbolical meaning has become fully realized in the new heaven and earth. It is there that the deliverance of his people, not from Egypt, but from all sin and evil, will have been fully accomplished. It is there that they will at last have been fully redeemed. It is there also that the fellowship between himself and all the redeemed will have been perfected (Rev. 3:21). 17, 18. Then he received a cup, gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I assure you that from now on I will not drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. It is natural to assume that the cup here mentioned was the very first one, the one that followed the opening prayer. See No. 1 under The Order of The Passover Feast. The drinking of this cup was definitely a part of the Passover meal. Note the giving of thanks that preceded the drinking of the wine. By ordering the contents of the cup to be divided among all those present, Jesus, acting as the Host, emphasizes the unity which, when conditions are as they should be, exists among and is experienced by all the partakers. Cf. Ps. 133. As the cup is being passed around Jesus repeats the prediction of verse 16b. We should be sure, however, to interpret these words correctly, that is, optimistically. Jesus is not really saying, This is the end. After tonight we'll never see each other again. What he is saying is rather this, Though our continued fellowship here is about to end, it will be renewed gloriously in the kingdom to come, a kingdom of light and love, of triumph and praise, and this throughout all eternity. What a fulfilment, what a reunion that will be, when the meaning of this Passover will be experienced in all its fulness, when the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest, and when the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea (Job 3:17; Isa. 11:9)! It was probably in connection with point 6 of The Order of The Passover Feast (see pp. 959, 960) that the Lord's Supper was instituted. Here Passover passes over into the Lord's Supper. It was while, toward the close of the Passover meal, the men were all eating freely that Jesus instituted the new sacrament that was to replace the old. This also explains why both Luke (verse 20) and Paul (I Cor. 11:25) speak of the cup after supper. 19, 20. Then he took (some) bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my body given for you. This do in remembrance of me. And in the same way after supper (he took) the cup, saying, This cup (is) the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you. For the authenticity of 19b, 20 see the note on this passage on pp. 968, 969. A few more hours and the old symbol, being bloody for it required the slaying of the lamb will have served its purpose forever, having reached its fulfilment in the blood shed on Calvary. It was time, therefore, that a new and unbloody symbol replace the old. Nevertheless, by historically linking Passover and the Lord's Supper so closely together Jesus also made clear that what was essential in the first was not lost in the second. Both point to him, the only and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of his people. Passover pointed forward to this; the Lord's Supper points back to it. Having taken from the table a thin slice or sheet of unleavened bread, Jesus gave thanks and then started to break up the slice. The words which the Lord used in this thanksgiving have not been revealed. To try to reconstruct them from Jewish formula prayers would serve no useful purpose. How do we even know that our Lord availed himself of these prayers? The breaking of the bread, to which reference is made in all four accounts, must be considered as belonging to the very essence of the sacrament. This becomes clear in the light of that which immediately follows, namely, This is my body given for you. To interpret this to mean that Jesus was actually saying that these portions of bread which he handed to the disciples were identical with his physical body, or were at that moment being changed into his body, is to ignore (a) the fact that in his body Jesus was standing there in front of his disciples, for all to see. He was holding in his hand the bread, and giving them the portions as he broke them off. Body and bread were clearly distinct and remained so. Neither changed into the other, or took on the physical properties or characteristics of the other. Besides, such an interpretation also ignores (b) the fact that during his earthly ministry the Master very frequently used symbolical language (Mark 8:15; John 2:19; 3:3; 4:14, 32; 6:51, 53 56; 11:11). It is striking that in all of the instances indicated by these references the symbolical or figurative character of our Lord's language was disregarded by those who first heard it! In each case also, the context makes clear that those who interpreted Christ's words literally were mistaken! Is it not high time that the implied lesson be taken to heart? Finally, there is (c): when Jesus spoke of himself as being the vine (John 15:1, 5), is it not clear that he meant that what a natural vine is in relation to its branches, which find their unity, life, and fruit-bearing capacity in this plant, that, in a far more exalted sense, Christ is to his people? Is it not clear, therefore, that the vine represents or symbolizes Jesus, the genuine Vine? Thus also he calls himself or is called the door, the morning star, the cornerstone, the lamb, the fountain, the rock, etc. He also refers to himself as the bread of life (John 6:35, 48), the bread that came down out of heaven (John 6:58). So, why should he not be, and be represented and symbolized by, the broken bread? Accordingly, the meaning of the broken bread and the poured-out wine is correctly indicated in a Communion Form which represents Christ as saying: Whereas otherwise you should have suffered eternal death, I give my body in death on the tree of the cross and shed my blood for you, and nourish and refresh your hungry and thirsty souls with my crucified body and shed blood to everlasting life, as certainly as this bread is broken before your eyes and this cup is given to you, and you eat and drink with your mouth in remembrance of Me. ^[563] Jesus adds, This do in remembrance of me. It was the desire of our Lord that by means of the supper, here instituted, the church should remember his sacrifice and love him, should reflect on that sacrifice and embrace him by faith, and should look forward in living hope to his glorious return. Surely, the proper celebration of communion is a loving remembrance. It is, however, more than that. Jesus Christ is most certainly, and through his Spirit most actively, present at this genuine feast! Cf. Matt. 18:20. His followers take and eat. They appropriate Christ by means of living faith, and are strengthened in this faith. With respect to And in the same way after supper (he took) the cup, etc., note the following: Jesus says, This cup (is) the new covenant in my blood. But why does he speak of a new covenant? Do not such passages as (Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:8, 9, 29clearly teach that the old covenant, the one made with Abraham, the father of us all, is still in force? They certainly do. Nevertheless, there has been a tremendous change, a change so significant that even Jeremiah (31:31), looking into the future, could speak of a new covenant. That newness consists in this, (a) that for believers in the new dispensation the law is no longer written on tables of stone but on their hearts, the Holy Spirit having been poured out into these hearts; and (b) that the covenant is no longer almost exclusively between God and Israel but between God and all believers, regardless of race or nationalityRom. 10:12, 13). Note also the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you. In all four accounts (I Cor. 11) a relation is established between Christ's blood and his covenant. As reported by Matthew and Mark, Jesus said, my blood of the covenant; here in Luke with little if any difference in meaning the new covenant in my blood. The expression goes back to such passages as (Exod. 24:8; Jer. 31:31–34. See also the significant passage Lev. 17:11. And note: Apart from the shedding of blood there is no remissionHeb. 9:22; cf. Eph. 1:7); therefore also no covenant, no special relation of friendship between God and his people. Reconciliation with God always requires blood, an atoning sacrifice. And since man himself is unable to render such a sacrifice, a substitutionary offering, accepted by faith, is required (Isa. 53:6, 8, 10, 12; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 3:16; 6:51; Rom. 5:19; 8:32; II Cor. 5:20, 21; Gal. 2:20; 3:13; I Peter 2:24). As Luke reports it, Jesus said, &my blood, poured out for you. Both Matthew (26:28) and Mark (14:24) read poured out for many. There is no conflict. Christ's true disciples (The Eleven) were included in the many. As was shown in our little summary on p. 960, having briefly indicated what Jesus, during this evening and this night, did for his disciples (while still in the upper room), Luke now describes how they, in turn, reacted to Jesus and his teaching. In this connection the evangelist returns to what happened before the institution of the Lord's Supper; in other words, to what took place while the Passover meal was still in progress: 21. But look! The hand of the man who is betraying me is with me on the table. That in all probability what is here recorded took place before the institution of the Lord's Supper is confirmed by the following facts: a. In the somewhat more chronologically arranged Synoptics, Matthew and Mark, the institution of the Lord's Supper follows the announcement concerning the betrayer. Cf. Matt. 26:26 29with 26:20–25; and Mark 14:22 25with 14:17–21. b. In John's parallel report concerning the exposure of the traitor, Judas leaves the upper room immediately after Jesus told him, What you are doing, do it faster (John 13:21 30). Think of it: The hand of the man who is betraying me is with me on the table, or as Mark has it, I solemnly declare to you, one of you will betray me: one who eats with me (14:18), and, even more sharply and dramatically, one of the twelve, one who is dipping (his hand) into the bowl with me (verse 20). Jesus continues: 22. For the Son of man is going as it has been decreed, but woe to that man by whom he is being betrayed. For the Son of man see on 5:24 and on Matt. 8:20. Jesus, the One who via the path of humiliation attains to glorification, and in fact was glorious from the very beginning, goes, that is, lives on earth, suffers, dies, all this not as a victim of circumstances, but as it has been decreed, hence as predicted by the prophetsIsa. 53, etc. and established in God's eternal decree. It was necessary for the Master to emphasize this truth once again, for it was so very difficult for the disciples to reconcile themselves with the idea of a Messiah who would die. Besides, when, on the day of tomorrow by Jewish reckoning today he dies on the cross, let the disciples reflect on this solemn statement, that they may know that this death does not mean the triumph of his enemies but rather the realization of God's gracious, sovereign, and ever victorious plan. However, nowhere in Scripture do predestination and prophecy cancel human responsibility. So also here: the cry of sorrow and pity, Woe to that man by whom he is being betrayed, fully maintains the guilt and establishes the doom of the traitor. We know that he did not truly repent. Hence he faces everlasting damnation (Matt. 25:46). What makes his guilt all the heavier is the fact that he not only planned the treachery and took the next step volunteering to deliver Jesus to the enemy and the next accepting the thirty pieces of silver but even now, in spite of Christ's impressive warnings, goes right ahead. Continued: 23. Then they began to discuss among themselves which of them it might be who was going to do this. It is clear that here, as so often, Luke summarizes. For a more detailed account one should consult the parallels in the other Gospels. Very briefly: Christ's shocking announcement evoked three responses, in the form of questions, as follows: (a) a question of wholesome self-distrust, Surely not I? That was the reaction on the part of all the disciples with the exception of Judas Iscariot. In Mark's Gospel the question in this form is found in 14:19; Christ's answer in verses 20, 21. There was also (b) a question of loathsome hypocrisy, Surely, not I, Rabbi? That, probably after considerable hesitation, was Judas reaction. For both his question and Christ's answer see Matt. 26:25. Finally, there was (c) a question of childlike confidence, Lord, who is it? That was the way in which John, prompted by Peter, expressed himself. The question in this form, the events relating to it, Christ's response, and the disciples reaction to that response are recorded only in John 13:23 30, which also (in verse 30) mentions the traitor's departure. One more fact should be stressed. As has been indicated, Jesus was himself the Host. All the others were eating his food. That very fact, especially in the Near East, a region where accepting someone's hospitality and then injuring him was considered most reprehensible, should have tied the hands of all. It should have made it impossible for any of The Twelve to take any action against their Host. Think of Ps. 41:9. And in addition to what Jesus did for The Twelve this night, how many (in fact very many) other favors had not the Lord bestowed upon them, including Judas, during all these months of their association with him? Nevertheless, we should not rivet our attention solely on Judas. We should fix it on Jesus! In a treacherous and humiliating manner he, the Lord of glory, is being handed over to his enemies. It is very important that we see this. Our reflection on the story of Christ's Passion should not become lost in all kinds of details regarding Judas and Peter and Annas and Pilate. It is, after all, the story of his suffering. It centers in him, and we should never forget to see him at the very center of the developing events. The present little paragraph (verses 21 23) shows again that Jesus was in full control of the situation. He was not taken by surprise. He knew exactly what was happening and what was going to happen, the very details. And the fact that he reveals this to his disciples will prove to be a support to them when they subsequently discover that everything actually develops exactly as he had foreseen! What a wonderful Savior!^[564] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 22:1 23 Verse 3 Then Satan entered Judas. Scripture emphasizes the role of Satan in the affairs of men. See, for example, Gen. 3:15; Job 1:6; 2:1; Zech. 3:1f.; Matt. 16:23; Luke 4:1f.; 10:18; 13:16; 22:31, 32; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; Rom. 16:20; I Cor. 5:5; 7:5; Eph. 6:12, 13; I Peter 5:8, 9; Rev. 20:2, 7. To make our children more keenly aware of the activity of Satan, and of their duty to resist him and his temptations, would it not be advisable to teach them, when they pray the Lord's Prayer, to say, And deliver us from the evil one? Especially since that is probably what Jesus meant when he taught his disciples this prayer. See N.T.C. on Matt. 6:13. Verse 5 They were delighted. This was not the only time in the history of the world when religious leaders, such as priests and scribes, have with relish endorsed wicked plans. The fact that a meeting is opened and closed with prayer, that Scripture is read, and hymns are sung, does not necessarily mean that God places the stamp of his approval on such a meeting. It is the heart that counts. Verse 13 So they &found everything just as Jesus had told them. Divine omniscience, how comprehensive (Ps. 139), and how comforting (John 21:17). Verses 19, 20 My body given for you &my blood, poured out for you. This do in remembrance of me. Therefore: According to thy gracious word, In meek humility This will I do, my dying Lord: I will remember thee. When to the cross I turn mine eyes, And rest on Calvary, O Lamb of God, my sacrifice, I must remember thee. Stanzas from According to Thy Gracious Word by J. Montgomery Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 22:1–23 Verse 1 (see also verses 7, 8) [Greek], gen. pl. of [Greek] (= plus [Greek]), without leaven, unleavened. Hence, here the entire expression is the feast of Unleavened Bread. [Greek] means unleavened bread. The reference is to the unleavened, flat bread-cakes; see verse 7. [Greek], from Aramaic [Greek], is related to a verb meaning to pass over. See Exod. 12:13, 27. The word [Greek] occurs in the following senses: a. the Passover festival on the fourteenth of Nisan, but in popular usage covering also the festival of Unleavened Bread from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of that month. That is the meaning here in 22:1. b. the paschal lambMark 14:12a . c. Christ, the Lamb (I Cor. 5:7). d. the Passover meal (Matt. 26:19; Mark 14:12b; 14:16). Verse 2 [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. (either descriptive or iterative) of [Greek], to seek, look for. [Greek] introduces indirect question; cf. verse 4. [Greek], third per. pl. 2nd aor. (effective) subjunct. (deliberat.) of [Greek], to take up, destroy. See also 23:32. Verse 4 [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. of [Greek], to talk or discuss with. See 9:30; Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4. [Greek], dat. pl. of [Greek]; also in 22:52; Acts 4:1; 5:24, 26, captain of the temple guard. [Greek], third per. s. aor. subjunct. (deliberat.) act. of [Greek], to give or hand over, deliver up, betray. So also in verses 6, 21, 22, 48. Other meanings: to commit, yield (up), hazard, etc. See also the note on 1:2 on page 61: to hand down. Verse 5 [Greek], third per. pl. 2nd aor. (ingressive) indicat. pass. of [Greek], to be glad, delighted. This verb is related to [Greek], on which see the note on 2:40 on pp. 181, 182. [Greek], third per. pl. 2nd aor. (ingress.) middle of [Greek], to place together, agree. Cf. John 9:22; Acts 23:20. Verse 6 [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. of [Greek], to say the same thing, agree, consent. See the note on 10:21 on page 589; also N.T.C. on Matthew, footnote 477 on pp. 497, 498. [Greek], from, without, in the absence of; in the New Testament only here and in verse 35. Verse 7 (see also verse 1) [Greek], pres. pass. infinitive of [Greek], to sacrifice. See the note on 15:23 on page 762. Verse 8 See verse 1. Verse 9 [Greek], first per. pl. aor. subjunct. (deliberat.) act. of [Greek], to prepare. Note absence of [Greek] before the subjunct. Verse 10 Note gen. absolute you having entered = after you enter. [Greek], diminutive of [Greek], pitcher, jar. Cf. ceramics. Verse 11 [Greek], dat. s. of [Greek], owner of the house. The modifier [Greek] has been called pleonastic since this idea is already implied in the noun it modifies. Is it possible that it was added because the sense of the house as part of the compound noun had faded? [Greek], here guest room, but see also the note on 2:7 on page 148. [Greek], first per. s. 2nd aor. subjunct. (futuristic after [Greek]). See also verse 16. The present uses [Greek], to eat. Verse 12 [Greek], upper room; so also in Mark 14:15, the only New Testament instances of its use. [Greek], acc. s. neut. perf. pass. participle of [Greek], to spread; here probably: to furnish. Verse 15 Note Hebraism With desire I have desired (A.V.), meaning I have eagerly desired. Also note before the suffering with respect to me, meaning before my suffering or before I suffer. In this one verse Hebrew and Greek style are combined, Luke being well-versed in both. [Greek], 2nd aor. infinitive of [Greek], to suffer. Cf. passion. Verse 16 [Greek], strong negative: certainly not; never. As in verse 11 [Greek] is futuristic. Note [Greek] followed by the gen. of a neut. relat. pronoun = until. Therefore: Futuristic aor. subjunctive is also this [Greek]. And so is third per. s. pass. [Greek], from [Greek], to make full, fulfil. Verse 17 [Greek], sec. per. pl. aor. imperat. act. of [Greek], to divide into parts ([Greek] plus [Greek]; cf. [Greek], part), to distribute. See also the note on 11:17 on page 633. Verse 18 With [Greek] cf. [Greek] in verse 16; and with [Greek] cf. [Greek] in that same verse. Verses 19 21 The words beginning with [Greek] and ending with [Greek] are rejected by many. Reasons for rejection: a. They are lacking in Codex Bezae and certain Latin and Syriac witnesses. b. If the longer text was the original, how can the shorter text be explained? Is it not easier to explain how a short text would be unjustifiably expanded than how a long text would be shortened? c. The shorter text, which fails to ascribe any redemptive significance to the outpouring of Christ's blood, makes it easier to understand why Luke did not include in his Gospel the ransom passage found in (Mark 10:45Matt. 20:28). The answer might be as follows: a. The type of text which includes the disputed words (verse 19b and all of verse 20) is more often than not regarded as being superior to the other or Western text, with its many additions and (sometimes) subtractions. b. Explaining the rise of the shorter text may not be so difficult after all. It may have arisen because a second-century copyist failed to understand why, after the mention of a cup in verse 17, there would be mention of still another cup in verse 20. Neither Matt. 26:27nor Mark 14:23makes mention of more than one cup. So it is possible that this scribe was not well acquainted with the complicated ritual of the Jewish Passover, with its many at least four cups. See S.BK., Vol. IV, p. 75. c. Referring to Luke's omission of (Mark 10:45and its parallel, without also taking note of Acts 20:28 and of Acts 8:32Isa. 53), is hardly fair. d. Adopting the shorter text leads us into the following dilemma: (a) if the cup (verse 17) is regarded as part of the Lord's Supper, we must accept a sequence (cup-bread) that is in conflict with Matt. 26:26, 27; Mark 14:22, 23; (b) if the cup is regarded as part of the Passover (probably correct), we must conclude that in the Lord's Supper only bread was used. Neither position is tenable. See also B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 50. I have found no sound reason, therefore, to reject the longer text. [Greek], nom. s. neut. pres. (futuristic) pass. participle of [Greek]; cf. the basic form [Greek], to shed, pour out. See also the note on 5:37 on page 313, and the note on 11:50 on page 647. The pres. act. participle [Greek] in verse 21 is also futuristic. Verse 22 [Greek], acc. s. neut. perf. pass. participle of [Greek], to set limits to, determine, decree, appoint. This verb is found also in Acts 2:23; 10:42; 11:29; 17:26, 31; Rom. 1:4; Heb. 4:7. For the related [Greek] see N.T.C. on Eph. 1:5. Cf. horizon. [Greek], third per. s. pres. (futuristic) indicat. of [Greek], for which see on verse 4 above. Verse 23 [Greek], pres. infinitive of [Greek], to seek, discuss, talk with someone else; to discuss (together); sometimes, as in Mark 8:11; 9:14, 16, to argue, dispute. Here in Luke 22:23the subordinate clause, including an indirect question, is introduced by [Greek]. [Greek], third per. s. pres. optat. of [Greek]. 22:24–30 The Dispute About Greatness 24 There also arose a dispute among them as to which one of them was considered to be the greatest. 25 So Jesus said to them, The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who exercise authority over them are styled Benefactors. 26 But you (are) not (to do)^[565] so. On the contrary, let the greatest among you become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. 27 For who is greater, the one who reclines at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? However, I am among you as one who serves. 28 But you are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 Moreover, I on my part am assigning to you, even as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and may sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Though this section, considered as a unit, has no parallel, its individual passages or combinations of certain passages do have parallels; some close, some not so close: With verse 24 cf. Matt. 18:1; Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46. With the combined verses 25 27 cf. Matt. 20:25–28; Mark 10:42 45. With verse 26 (considered by itself) cf. Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35. With verse 27, similarly, cf. John 13:1 17. With verse 28 cf. John 6:66 69; 17:6c, 8, 12, 14. With verse 29 cf. Luke 12:32; Rev. 3:21; 5:10; 17:14; 20:4. With verse 30 cf. Matt. 19:28. 24. There also arose a dispute among them as to which one of them was considered to be the greatest. The little summary on p. 960 shows that from Judas Luke now turns to The Twelve (verses 24 30). The evangelist does not indicate just when, during that memorable night, the dispute about greatness occurred. Nevertheless, the other Gospels strongly suggest a background for it. It probably took place at the very beginning of the feast. The occasion may well have been the question, Just how will the thirteen be arranged around the table? Who will occupy the positions of honor, and in what order of rank? See what has been said about this in connection with 14:7 f. Or again, Which disciple should wash the feet of the other disciples and of the Master? See John 13:1f. We observe therefore that even though the other Gospels do not parallel this Lucan account, they certainly suggest a background for it. Picture the scene. Here was Jesus, about to lay down his life for these men, centering his attention on their needs, loving them very tenderly and intensely. For proof that this was indeed the situation that very night read such passages as John 13:1; 17:6–19. And do not the following passages imply as much: Rom. 5:6–11; 8:31–39; Gal. 2:20? Yet, while his heart goes out to them, they are quarreling about the question, Who of us is the greatest? What made their attitude even more reprehensible was that they had been reprimanded before with respect to this selfish attitude. See Matt. 18:1–5; Mark 9:34 37; Luke 9:46 48. Had they forgotten so quickly? 25. So Jesus said to them, The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who exercise authority over them are styled Benefactors. Jesus again showed these men that their egotism was a worldly, pagan trait. It reminded one of the self-centeredness of the kings of the Gentiles. These men, while exercising their authority ruthlessly, nevertheless took delight in being called Benefactors! How very true! On a denarius was not Augustus called god? On a copper coin was not Tiberius described as one who deserved to be adored? But, more to the point, had not the very title Benefactor (or Welldoer), Euergetes, been ascribed to both Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II? Continued: 26, 27. But you (are) not (to do) so. On the contrary, let the greatest among you become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. For who is greater, the one who reclines at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? However, I am among you as one who serves. Jesus wants his disciples to be of an opposite mind, and therefore also to show the opposite disposition. Therefore he tells them that the greatest among them the one who so regards himself or is so regarded by others should become like the &youngest; that is, like the one least in honor. This mention of the youngest, where we might have expected the least, is in line with the fact that under normal conditions the Bible, as these men knew it (our Old Testament), regarded old age as honorable and to be held in respect. See (Lev. 19:32; Job 32:6, 7; Prov. 16:31; 20:29. What happened to Rehoboam when he rejected the counsel of the aged and followed that of the youngI Kings 12) had not been effaced from their memory. Jesus, then, wants the greatest to become like the youngest, the one least in honor. He wants the leader to serve. Appealing to something these men know very well, so that from the known he may proceed to the unknown or less well known and appreciated, he asks his disciples, Who is greater, the one who is dining or the one who is waiting on him? Of course, the former is generally regarded as the greater. Yet, does true greatness really consist in having someone wait on you? Jesus answers this question by stating, But I am among you as one who serves. Was he not literally serving them, perhaps even at this very moment, or at least close to this moment, in a manner never to be forgotten? Read the story in John 13:1 11(Jesus washing the feet of his disciples). In fact was not his entire earthly sojourn a life of rendering service to others in ever so many ways? Was not this the essence of his purpose in coming to earth? Who, in this connection, can forget Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45? 28 30. But you are those who have stood by me in my trials. Moreover, I on my part am assigning to you, even as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and may sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And now, ignoring the many character defects these men have exhibited, in fact even this very night, the Merciful Highpriest praises them for the faithfulness they have shown throughout his many trials. It was true that while others, by the score and perhaps even at times by the hundreds, had left the Savior (John 6:66), these men Judas excepted had remained loyal to him. Had not this loyalty been expressed beautifully by Peter as their spokesman (John 6:67 69), and by Thomas (John 11:16)? So Jesus assigns to them a kingdom. The word kingdom should probably be interpreted here in the sense of royal rule, though the idea of domain cannot be entirely excluded, as the phrase in my kingdom indicates. Jesus reminds his disciples that to him, too, a kingdom had been assigned, namely, by his Father. For proof see Luke 1:32, 33. Therefore, when he now assigns a kingdom to them, he means that they will share in his royal rule. Cf. Rev. 3:21; 20:4. He is referring to the kingdom in its final manifestation. As has been pointed out several times, such expressions as eating and drinking in my kingdomMatt. 8:11and on 22:2 are part of the symbolism of the joys which God's children will experience in the new heaven and earth. As to judging the twelve tribes of Israel, a repetition of the promise Jesus had made earlier (Matt. 19:28), in all probability he was thinking of the restored new Israel. Whether, as such, the term Israel indicates the total number of the elect gathered out of the twelve tribes of the Jews from the beginning to the end of the world's history (Rom. 11:26), or even all the chosen ones of both the Jews and the Gentiles (Gal. 6:16), in either case it must refer to those who have been regenerated, for into the reborn universe to which (Matt. 19:28refers nothing unclean will ever enterRev. 21:27). The Twelve, who have followed Jesus here, having remained loyal to him in his trials (Luke 22:28), are going to receive the special reward that among all the members belonging to the new Israel they will be pre-eminent in reflecting the glory of their Lord and Savior. Those who have been closest to Jesus here will also be closest to him there. See also II Tim. 2:11, 12; Rev. 3:21; 20:4. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 977–980. 22:31–34 Peter's Denial Foretold Cf. Matt. 26:31–35; Mark 14:27 31; John 13:36 38 31 Simon, Simon, watch out! Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not utterly fail; and you, once you have returned (to me), strengthen your brothers. 33 But he replied, Lord, with you I am ready to go even to prison and to death. 34 But Jesus answered, I tell you, Peter, a rooster will not crow today before you deny three times that you know me. 31, 32. Simon, Simon, watch out! Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not utterly fail; and you, once you have returned (to me), strengthen your brothers. As shown in the summary on p. 960, from The Twelve Luke now turns to Simon Peter. There are commentators who believe that this discussion between Jesus and Simon must have taken place after the group had left the upper room. They base this conclusion on Matt. 26:30 33and on John 13:31 38. Others, however, hold that it is entirely possible that the Master started to warn Peter even while the group was still in the upper room, and that the discussion between that disciple and Jesus was continued afterward. Note the following: a. Jesus calls this disciple Simon, not (that is, not until verse 34) Peter, the Rock. If any significance can be attached to this fact, it may well be that the Master wishes to fix the attention of this leader upon the fact that in himself he is a weak creature, not at all a man of stability, no rock. b. The repetition indicates emphasis and deep concern. For other instances of this stylistic form see on 10:41. c. Jesus says, Behold or Take note, Pay attention, Watch out, whichever rendering one may prefer. Simon will never be able to say that he was not warned. d. Satan. We seldom realize that beyond the struggle that goes on within the heart, and the conflict between opposing forces on earth, there is the probably even more intense encounter in the spiritual world. In the present case the ardent desire of Satan, his insistent demand, had been counteracted by the Savior's prayer for Simon's salvation. For other instances of this superterrestrial warfare see Job 1:6 12; 2:1–6; Zech. 3:1–5. e. Satan has desired to sift &as wheat. This sifting of wheat basically refers to the repeated, swift, and violent shaking of the wheat in a sieve. Someone often a woman grasps a sieve in both hands, and begins to shake it vigorously from side to side so that the chaff will rise to the surface. This is then thrown away. Next, she puts that sieve through a teeter-totter motion, raising now this and then that side, and blowing over it, so that what still remains of the chaff gathers in an easily removable pile. The purpose is, of course, to save the wheat, now separated from chaff and other unwanted materials. What Jesus is saying, then, is this: the disciples too will be subjected to a severe trial. That trial is going to happen this very night, and probably often afterward in their lives. But the emphasis is upon the events of this night. f. Although Jesus is here addressing one individual, namely, Simon, he is predicting what is going to happen to the entire group: note Satan has desired to sift you. g. Satan has desired &that is, has asked to have for himself. We are again reminded of the story of Job, how Satan demanded that he be given a free hand with respect to that eminent child of God. h. But I have prayed for you. Note here the singular you, namely Simon. Not as if Jesus did not also pray for the other disciples. He prayed for them this very night (John 17:6 19), and must have prayed for them many times previously. But in the present passage the reference is to the intercession of Jesus for Simon, for him alone. Why this was we do not know. Was it perhaps because Simon was the recognized leader, a man who could be expected to exert influence on the others? Other suggestions that have been made are: because Simon was very headstrong, impetuous, a hard case therefore. i. The substance of Christ's prayer was that your faith may not utterly fail, in other words, that in the end your faith may prevail. j. This interpretation also harmonizes with the words and you, once you have returned [or: have retraced your steps], strengthen your brothers. To be sure, considered in and by itself, Simon's fall was bad, very bad, tragic. Yet, once it had occurred, Simon must make good use of this bad fall. He must use it to strengthen his fellow disciples. 33. But he replied, Lord, with you I am ready to go even to prison and to death. It is clear from this that Simon did not know himself. The heart is deceitful above all things; it is exceedingly corrupt; who can know it? Simon should have prayed the prayer of Ps. 139:23, 24. 34. But Jesus answered, I tell you, Peter, a rooster will not crow today before you deny three times that you know me. Cf. Matt. 26:34; Mark 14:30; John 13:38. The threefold denial will accordingly take place before the early morning hours. The reference to the crowing of the rooster does double duty: (a) It indicates the shallow character of Simon's boast. Within just a few hours, yes, even before dawn, Peter will publicly disown his Master! Yet, (b) this very rooster-crowing will also serve as a means of bringing Peter back to repentance, for Christ's reference to it becomes firmly embedded in that disciple's mind, so that at the appropriate moment this hidden memory will suddenly pull the rope that will ring the bell of Peter's conscience. See 22:60–62. Note that here, in verse 34, Jesus, by exception it never happened before or afterward calls this disciple Peter, as if to remind him of his duty, namely, to be a rock, a duty which he was about to neglect so shamefully. For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 977–980. 22:35–38 You did not lack anything, did you? 35 Then Jesus asked them, When I sent you out without purse or bag or sandals, you did not lack anything, did you? They replied, No, nothing. 36 He said to them, But now let him who has a purse take it along, and also a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his coat^[566] and buy one. 37 For I tell you, what has been written must be fulfilled in me: And he was numbered with the transgressors. Yes, that (passage) about me is reaching its fulfilment. 38 They said, Lord, look, here are two swords! He said to them, Enough of that! ^[567] The discussion between Jesus and his disciples is resumed at this point. See the summary on p. 960. In all probability by now Judas has already left. See on verse 39 and cf. John 13:30. It is Jesus himself who starts the conversation with the remaining Eleven (verse 35a). It is he also who brings it to a conclusion (verse 38b). And throughout it is he who is in control. Yet, they are not merely listeners. Twice their reactions are recorded (verses 35b and 38a). Jesus opens the discussion by informing The Eleven that they are about to be confronted with a situation totally different than heretofore. Up to now he had fully assumed the responsibility of caring for them. And the enemies had aimed their poisoned arrows mainly at him. From now on things would be different. For this change they must prepare themselves. The contrast between the two situations is brought out sharply in verses 35, 36. Note the wide gap between these two verses. Jesus had been providing for them (verse 35). From now on they must provide for themselves (verse 36). Of course, that is not true in an absolute sense. The disciples had not been entirely passive until now, and from now on Jesus, from his position on the Father's right hand in heaven, would certainly still bless and keep them. But in a relative sense it is definitely true, for in just a little while Jesus will be taken away from these men and they will no longer be able to walk by his side, asking him questions and listening to his answers. Also, once Jesus has been crucified, the wrath of the opponents will be directed against Christ's disciples. It is they who will then be persecuted. 35. Then Jesus asked them, When I sent you out without purse or bag or sandals, you did not lack anything, did you? They replied, No, nothing. Though it is true that the terminology purse, bag, sandals corresponds more precisely with the charge to the seventy (or seventy-two) than with that to The Twelve (cf. 10:4 with 9:3), yet, as Matt. 10:10; Mark 6:8, 9make clear, there is no essential difference. In both cases precautionary measures with a view to what might happen on the journey had been ruled out. So now the Lord asks the disciples whether under these circumstances they had suffered lack of anything. When they answer that they had not, 36. He said to them, But now let him who has a purse take it along, and also a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his coat [or robe] and buy one. That the situation in which Christ's apostles would find themselves after his departure would indeed be different from what it was before follows also from the words found in the highpriestly prayer (John 17:11 13). From now on these men will have to take the initiative. They will need to cultivate courage to a degree not expected of them before. Making provision for missionary travels, such as taking along a purse and a traveling bag, will now be necessary. Up to this point the reader experiences no great difficulty. But the puzzling statement Let him who has no sword sell his coat and buy one has led to all kinds of interpretations. Chief among them are the following: a. Jesus was speaking of a literal sword, for protection against robbers, brigands, etc. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XXIII Outline of Chapter 23 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do 23:1–5 Jesus Brought Before Pilate and Questioned by Him 23:6–12 Jesus Before Herod 23:13–25 Jesus Sentenced to Die 23:26–43 Calvary: The Crucifixion of Jesus 23:44–49 Calvary: The Death of Jesus 23:50–56 The Burial of Jesus 23:1–5 Jesus Brought Before Pilate and Questioned by Him Cf. Matt. 27:2, 11 14; Mark 15:1b 5; John 18:28 38 23 1 Then the entire assembly rose and brought him to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We have found this man misleading our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king. 3 So Pilate asked Jesus, You are the king of the Jews? Answering, he said to him, It is as you say. 4 Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, No crime^[580] whatever do I find in this man. 5 But they kept on insisting, He stirs up the people, teaching throughout the entire country of the Jews, starting from Galilee and (continuing) even to this place. 1. Then the entire assembly rose and brought him to Pilate. The entire assembly means the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:7). The reason the assembly did this was that for the Jews to carry out the sentence of execution would have been a violation of Roman law.^[581] Pontius Pilate^[582] was the fifth procurator of Samaria and Judea. He was under the authority of Syria's legate. Many reports have come down to us about him. Estimates of his character range all the way from that of Philo who, quoting a letter from Agrippa I to Caligula, calls him inflexible, merciless, and obstinate, a man who repeatedly inflicted punishment without previous trial and committed ever so many acts of cruelty; to that of the Copts and Abyssinians who rank him among the saints! One thing is certain: he exercised little common sense in handling the delicate problem of the strained relations between the Jews and their Roman conquerors. In fact, it would almost seem as if he enjoyed annoying the Jews: using the temple treasure to pay for an aqueduct, bringing Roman standards into Jerusalem, and even defiling the temple with golden shields inscribed with the images and names of Roman deities. Add the incident recorded in Luke 13:1f. The occasion which led to Pilate's removal from office was his interference with a mob of fanatics who, under the leadership of a false prophet, were at the point of ascending Mt. Gerizim in order to find the sacred vessels which, as they thought, Moses had hidden there. Pilate's cavalry attacked them, killing many of them. Upon complaint by the Samaritans, Pilate was then removed from office. He started out for Rome in order to answer the charges that had been leveled against him. Before he reached Rome, the emperor (Tiberius) had died. An unconfirmed story, related by Eusebius, states that Pilate was forced to become his own slayer. From the Gospels we gather that he was proud (John 19:10), and cruel (Luke 13:1). He was probably just as superstitious as his wife (Matt. 27:19). Above all, as all the accounts of the trial of Jesus before him indicate, he was a self-seeker, wishing to stand well with the emperor. He thoroughly hated the Jews who, as he saw it, were always causing him trouble upon trouble. That he was utterly devoid of any remnant of human sympathy and any sense of justice cannot be proved. In fact, there are passages which seem to point in the opposite direction. At any rate, though his guilt was great, it was not as great as that of Annas and Caiaphas; cf. John 19:11. By combining the Gospel accounts one gains the impression that from start almost to finish Pilate did everything in his power to get rid of the case respecting Jesus. He had no love for the Jews. He hated to please them and to grant their request. Yet, on the other hand, deep down in his heart he was afraid of them and of the possibility that they might use their influence to hurt him. Up to a point he was willing to do what justice demanded, but only up to a point. When his position was threatened, he surrendered. In harmony with this attitude on the part of Pilate the story begins to unfold as follows: Pilate asks those who have brought Jesus to him, What charges do you prefer against this man? They answer, If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over to you. In other words, Don t ask any questions, just confirm the sentence we have passed. But Pilate refuses to bestow this favor on them. When they fail to bring any charges, he tries to return the prisoner to them: Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your own lawJohn 18:29 31a . However, the Jews then make clear that they desire nothing short of the prisoner's death. The Jews now understand that they will have to present a formal bill of indictment. They will have to make definite charges. So they quickly advance three of them: 2. And they began to accuse him, saying, We have found this man misleading our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king. It is clear that though the Sanhedrin had accused Jesus of blasphemy, before Pilate the Jewish leaders do not immediately press this charge. They must have been of the opinion and rightly that a more definitely political accusation would have a better chance to be considered legally valid from the aspect of Roman jurisprudence. Besides, they may have felt that a strictly religious charge would make little impression on a pagan. This does not mean, however, that the religious charge played no part in the trial. It did play a part, but not immediately. It was reserved for later (John 19:7). The first item in what may be regarded as a threefold charge was rather vague. It may perhaps be viewed as the introduction to the next two items. So construed, the total charge would be, We have found Jesus to be a man who has been misleading our nation by forbidding people to pay taxes to Caesar and by claiming that he himself is the Messiah, and, as such, a king. As to forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar, this was a downright lie, as is clear from Luke 20:21 26(see especially verse 25). And as to saying that he himself is Christ, a king, meaning in the political sense, another lie, for that Jesus never wanted to be king or Messiah in that sense is clear from John 6:15, as well as from his entire ministry with its strong emphasis on such qualities as humility, service, self-denial. Besides, Pilate knew very well that the Jews were not so deeply in love with Rome and with Roman rule that they would have been hankering for the execution of someone who uttered anti-Roman sentiments. He was well aware of the fact that the real reason for the demand that he confirm the death sentence which the Sanhedrin had already passed was envy (Matt. 27:18). 3. So Pilate asked Jesus, You are the king of the Jews? Pilate asked this question for his own protection, not because he believed the charge. The pronoun You is not only spelled out but heads the question. Great emphasis is placed on it, as if the procurator were saying, You &king of the Jews? How ridiculous! Answering he said to him, It is as you say. As Matt. 26:25; John 18:36, 37clearly show, the answer Jesus gave was an affirmation. Luke abbreviates. According to John 18:33 38Jesus explained to Pilate in what sense he was indeed a king, namely, not in any political sense but in a very real spiritual sense, king over all those who pay homage to the truth. At this point Pilate steps outside and from the porch of the praetorium addresses the rapidly gathering crowds and their leaders: 4. Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, No crime whatever do I find in this man. This should have ended the matter. Jesus should now have been acquitted and released; that is, as far as human justice was concerned. We know, of course, that in a deeper sense this was not to be, for Jesus had to die for our sins. But that fact does not at all remove the guilt of the Sanhedrin and of Pilate (Acts 2:23). The story continues as follows: 5. But they kept on insisting, He stirs up the people, teaching throughout the entire country of the Jews, starting from Galilee and (continuing) even to this place. As these words were being spoken Pilate listened very carefully. Teaching throughout the entire country of the Jews. To be sure, the original says throughout Judea, but, as has been shown earlier see the note on 4:44 on page 275 at times Judea means Palestine, the country of the Jews. The present passage is one of these instances, for Galilee seems to be included in Judea here. But what must have especially aroused the interest of Pilate was something else. According to the charge that was now being made, Jesus hailed from Galilee. Galilee's king not really; he was merely a tetrarch, but the term king was popularly ascribed to him was Herod Antipas. And right at this moment that ruler was staying in Jerusalem! As Pilate saw it, this was surely a marvelous coincidence and possibly &a way out for the procurator! For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 1013–1015. 23:6–12 Jesus Before Herod 6 Now when Pilate heard this, he asked if the man was a Galilean.7 And when he learned that Jesus belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him up to Herod, who also was in Jerusalem at that time. 8 Now Herod was highly pleased when he saw Jesus, because, having heard about him, he for a long time had been eager to see him, and now he was hoping to see him perform some sign. 9 So he questioned him at some length, but Jesus gave him no reply whatever. 10 Meanwhile the chief priests and the scribes were standing there, vehemently accusing him. 11 Then Herod, together with his soldier, having treated Jesus with contempt and having mocked him, put a gorgeous robe around him^[583] and sent him back to Pilate. 12 0n that very day Herod and Pilate became friends, for before this they had been enemies. 6, 7. Now when Pilate heard this, he asked if the man was a Galilean. And when he learned that Jesus belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him up to Herod, who also was in Jerusalem at that time. The accusers must have regarded their remark that Jesus was a man from Galilee as being a coup de ma�tre (master stroke). Was not Galilee always the very hotbed of revolution? Think of Herod the Great's battle against the guerrillas (N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 159), and of the Zealots and the patriots who since that time were always making trouble for the Roman government. Well, that was the region to which Jesus belonged, and he himself was one of the troublemakers! Little did they realize that exactly when they thought they had scored a point against Jesus and had probably persuaded Pilate to take the necessary action, they, at least for the time being, were being defeated. For Pilate, consistent with his purpose almost to the very end of the trial, saw in this link between Jesus and Galilee the very opportunity he was looking for to get rid of this annoying case. We can, as it were, hear him say, Well, since this man is from Galilee, and since Roman law allows an accused person to be tried either in the province where his crime is said to have been committed [which in the present case could be anywhere from Galilee to Jerusalem] or in the province to which he belongs, and finally since the ruler of this Galilean is right now in Jerusalem, I remand his case to the ruler of Galilee, namely, Herod (Antipas), for adjudication. 8. Now Herod was highly pleased when he saw Jesus, because, having heard about him, he for a long time had been eager to see him, and now he was hoping to see him perform some sign. To understand what now takes place it is necessary to give a brief review of the story of Herod Antipas up to this point. It will be recalled that in the year 4 b.c., upon the death of his father, Herod Antipas had been made tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (Luke 3:1). Later on, while visiting his half-brother, Herod Philip, he had become infatuated with the latter's wife, Herodias. The two illicit lovers had eloped. For the sin of having his brother's wife he was sternly and repeatedly rebuked by John the Baptist (3:19, 20). But instead of repenting, the tetrarch imprisoned John. At the occasion of his birthday celebration Herod Antipas foolishly promised to give the daughter of Herodias whatever she might ask, so fascinated was he with her dancing exhibition. Instructed by her mother she asked for and received the head of John the Baptist on a platter (Matt. 14:6–12; Mark 6:21 29; Luke 9:7 9). Afterward, when Herod heard about the marvelous deeds of Jesus, he exclaimed, This is John the Baptist, risen from the dead (Matt. 14:1, 2). He was eager to see Jesus (Luke 9:9). Toward the close of Christ's ministry certain Pharisees warned Jesus, Get out and move on from here, for Herod wants to kill you! Did the presence of Jesus anywhere within the realm of the tetrarch bother his conscience? Whatever may be the answer, now Jesus, as a prisoner, is being brought before this same impenitent, restless, inquisitive, superstitious Herod Antipas. The latter is still as wicked as he was before. Though he had been repeatedly warned, there is no evidence whatever of even an inkling of repentance. He simply wants to be entertained by Jesus. He is hoping to see him perform a miracle. 9, 10. So he questioned him at some length, but Jesus gave him no reply whatever. Meanwhile the chief priests and the scribes were standing there, vehemently accusing him. Though Jesus did not perform any miracle in the presence of Herod, the latter seems to have thought that the captive would at least talk to him, would certainly answer his questions. But he did not, not at all. This is significant. To be sure, other silences on the part of the Savior are also reported. There was a time when he was silent before Caiaphas (Mark 14:60, 61), before Pilate (Mark 15:4, 5), and again before PilateJohn 19:9b . But these silences were balanced by testimonies. In the case of Herod it was different. He never heard Jesus say anything at all! This man had had his full opportunity. He had been talked to and reasoned with again and again and again (Mark 6:20). But he had ignored all these warnings. And even now his only interest in Jesus was that born of perverse, contemptuous curiosity. He received no answer and deserved none. But when Jesus refused to speak, his enemies, the chief priests and the scribes, talked all the louder and the more incessantly, vehemently accusing him before Herod. Were they afraid that Herod might pronounce Jesus innocent and might even release him? They need not have feared, for although Herod, too, could find no basis for any charge against Jesus, he did not set him free. On the contrary, being utterly disgusted with him, he made him the object of ridicule: 11. Then Herod, together with his soldiers, having treated Jesus with contempt and having mocked him, put a gorgeous robe around him and sent him back to Pilate. Herod was probably too scared to condemn Jesus to death. His conscience had not allowed him to forget what he had done to another innocent person, John the Baptist. He was filled with haunting superstitition. But also, he was probably too angry with Jesus to acquit him, for his curiosity had not been gratified. Jesus had refused to perform a miracle or even to answer any of his questions. So he and his bodyguard started to treat the manacled prisoner with contempt and ridicule. They dressed him in a brilliant robe, as if he were already an earthly king, and sent him thus arrayed back to Pilate. From the Hasmonean Palace, where Herod was probably staying,^[584] the procession returned to Pilate and the Praetorium. 12. On that very day Herod and Pilate became friends, for before this they had been enemies. From this brief note we learn that Herod and Pilate had been mutual enemies. The reason for this is not stated. Some point to Luke 13:1, which reports that in a very gruesome manner Pilate had ordered some of Herod's subjects (Galileans) killed. For another theory see P. L. Maier, op. cit., pp. 171–177. But all we know is what is stated here in Luke 23:12: the former enemies had become friends. Pilate had honored Herod by sending Jesus to him for adjudication. Herod had reciprocated in kind. The fact that both treated Jesus, and caused or permitted him to be treated, in a most shameful manner indicates that this type of reconciliation of former enemies contrasts sharply with the laudable one to which Paul refers in Eph. 2:14–18.^[585] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 23:1 12 Verse 2 (cf. verse 5) And they began to accuse him, saying, We have found this man misleading our nation, etc. You have not intentionally been hurting anybody. Yet you are being slandered. Remember, then, that this happened, too, to Jesus. Derive comfort from this and from such passages as Matt. 5:10–12; John 16:33. Verse 7 And when Pilate learned that Jesus belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him up to Herod. Why did Pilate do this? Because he did not wish to become involved. Where have we heard this before? What do you think of it? Verse 8 Now Herod &for a long time had been eager to see Jesus. At another occasion the Greeks, too, were eager to see Jesus (John 12:21). But what a difference! God looks at the heart. He discerns the motive. Two people are eager to do kingdom work. Wonderful. But the question is Why? Verse 11 Herod &treated Jesus with contempt and &sent him back to Pilate. Herod as well as Pilate did not find any justification for the charge that had been advanced against Jesus. Pilate declared, several times, Not guilty. Herod said this too. So did even the penitent robber. Yet Jesus was condemned to death. And God Almighty allowed this to happen. Is it not logical to conclude that what Luke is bringing out is that, as far as God was concerned, Jesus was being punished for the sins of others? See Isa. 53. Verse 12 On that very day Herod and Pilate became friends, for before this they had been enemies. Friendship based on evil is worthless. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 23:1–12 Verse 1 [Greek], nom. s. neut. 2nd aor. participle of [Greek], to raise; in middle and, as here, 2nd aor., to rise. Verse 2 [Greek], pres. infinitive of [Greek], to accuse (also in verses 10, 14); and see 6:7; 11:54. [Greek], acc. s. masc. pres. act. participle of [Greek], to turn away, pervert, mislead; and see 9:41; Acts 13:8, 10; 20:30; Phil. 2:15. [Greek], to pay taxes, as in 20:22. Verse 3 [Greek], you said (it); or: it is as you say. Verse 4 [Greek], acc. s. neut. of [Greek], cause, reason, reason for punishment, crime, guilt, basis for a charge. See also verses 14, 22; cf. Acts 19:40. Verse 5 [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. (iterative) of [Greek], to grow strong, urge, insist. [Greek], third per. s. indicat. act. of [Greek], to shake or stir up, instigate. Verse 7 [Greek], nom. s. masc. 2nd aor. (effective) act. participle of [Greek], to come upon (or arrive at) the knowledge concerning a matter, to learn, perceive, recognize. [Greek], gen. s. of [Greek]; here, jurisdiction. [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. act. of [Greek], to send up to a higher authority; or, as here, to send up to the proper authority; in verses 11 and 15: to send back. See also Acts 25:21and Philem. 12. Verse 8 [Greek], third per. s. 2nd aor. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to rejoice, be pleased; see on 19:37. [Greek], highly, exceedingly. For [Greek] see the note on 8:27 on page 452. [Greek], third per. s. imperf. (progress.) indicat. of [Greek], to hope. Verse 9 [Greek], the construction is the same as for [Greek]. [Greek], in a considerable number of words; hence, at some length. Verse 10 [Greek], third per. pl. pluperf., with sense of imperf., of [Greek], which in perf. and pluperf. is intransitive, to stand; hence here: were standing. [Greek] ([Greek] plus [Greek]), lit. stretching themselves well or strenuously; hence simply strenuously, vigorously, vehemently. Verse 11 [Greek], nom. s. masc. aor. act. participle of [Greek], to regard as amounting to nothing, to treat with contempt; see also on 18:9. [Greek], dat. pl. of [Greek], armed force; in pl. troops, soldiers. [Greek] (same construction as the preceding verbal form), to mock. See also 14:29; 18:32; 22:63; 23:36. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], clothing, robe. Cf. vestment. [Greek], [Greek], [Greek], bright, shining, gorgeous; here fem. acc. s. Cf. lamp. Verse 12 [Greek], third per. pl. periphrastic imperf. of [Greek], to be formerly; in the New Testament only here and in Acts 8:9. 23:13–25 Jesus Sentenced to Die Cf. Matt. 27:15–26; Mark 15:6 15; John 18:39 19:16 13 Then Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, 14 and said to them, You have brought this man to me as one who incites the people to rebellion. But look, having examined him in your presence I have found nothing in this man to substantiate the charges you bring against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us. And, indeed, nothing that deserves the death penalty was done by him. 16 I will therefore punish and (then) release him. ^[586] 18 But all together they cried back,^[587] Away with this man! Release Barabbas for us! 19 Now Barabbas was a man who had been thrown into prison because of an insurrection that had occurred in the city, and for murder. 20 Then Pilate, wishing to release Jesus, once more appealed to them. 21 But they kept yelling, Crucify, crucify him! 22 For the third time he spoke to them: Why? What wrong has he done? No basis whatever for the death penalty have I found in him. I will therefore punish and (then) release him. 23 But they continued to press upon him with loud voices, demanding that he be crucified, and their voices prevailed.^[588] 24 So Pilate pronounced sentence that their demand should be granted. 25 He released the man they were asking for, the one who because of insurrection and murder had been thrown into prison, but Jesus he surrendered to their will. 13 16. Then Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, and said to them, You have brought this man to me as one who incites the people to rebellion. But look, having examined him in your presence I have found nothing in this man to substantiate the charges you bring against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us. And, indeed, nothing that deserves the death penalty was done by him. I will therefore punish and (then) release him. When Jesus had been returned to Pilate, the latter summoned not only the members of the Sanhedrin but also the people in general, for he wished to make a public announcement. The suggestion that he included the people because he thought that in their presence the Sanhedrin would not have the courage to insist on crucifixion is hard to prove or disprove. In connection with the charge that Jesus was a revolutionary, Pilate declares, I have examined him in your presence. This would indicate that Luke has been giving us only a summary of what had taken place, for in his account we read little (at the most verse 3) about such a public examination. Even Matt. 27:11–14; Mark 15:2 5are probably mere summaries of that which had already occurred. Then Pilate makes the startling announcements: I have found nothing in this man to substantiate the charges you bring against him. And, indeed, nothing that deserves the death penalty was done by him. Two very remarkable statements. Add to them those found in verses 4 and 22 of the present chapter and those recorded in John 18:38; 19:6, and it will be clear that on no less than five occasions did Pilate publicly declare Christ's innocence! In the present speech he even added the implied testimony of Herod. That ruler, by having returned Jesus to Pilate, and having done this without condemning the prisoner, had clearly reached the same conclusion, namely, Jesus is innocent with respect to the charges that were brought against him. We have a right to expect that Pilate will now say, I will therefore release him. Why did he not say this? In all probability, as his later conduct shows (John 19:12 16), because he was afraid of what the Sanhedrin and the crowds that had allowed themselves to be persuaded by that body might do to him. He was being motivated not by principle but by political expedience. So what Pilate actually says is, I will therefore punish him and release him. The word used in the original and here rendered punish can mean scourge. It may have that meaning here. It has been suggested, however,^[589] that in this particular case the reference is to a punishment lighter than scourging. Even so, how thoroughly unfair! As to verse 17 see above, p. 1015, footnote 586. 18, 19. But all together they cried back, Away with this man! Release Barabbas for us! Now Barabbas was a man who had been thrown into prison because of an insurrection that had occurred in the city, and for murder. Pilate was beginning to become desperate. He was eager, very eager, to get rid of this case, to shake it off. First he had tried to return Jesus to the Sanhedrin, but that did not work. Next he had endeavored to let Herod make the decision. Again, no success. Now he had made an attempt to compromise the issue: first punish Jesus and then release him. That too did not satisfy the crowd. A new opportunity for the solution of Pilate's problem now seemed to present itself. Since here, once more, Luke abbreviates, let us turn, for elucidation, to Mark's parallel: Now at a feast it was customary to release to the people any one prisoner whom they asked for. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas [meaning son of the father ]. So the crowd came up and asked (Pilate) to do as he had been accustomed to do for them. Pilate asked them, Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews? For he was aware that because of envy the chief priests had handed him over (to him). But the chief priests stirred up the mob (to get) him to release to them Barabbas instead (of Jesus) (15:6–11). The release of a prisoner as the result of a shouted request of the populace was not unknown in the Roman world of that day, as a papyrus document has shown.^[590] For information about the particular form which this request for, and granting of, release took among the Jews we are dependent upon the Gospels. As was indicated, Mark spells this out in some detail: the request had to be made at a feast. The Passover feast only or any of the great religious festivals? This is not clear. At this particular occasion it was the crowd that took the initiative. They asked Pilate to do as he had been accustomed to do for them. Pilate, anxious to get rid of the case regarding Jesus, immediately saw an opportunity to reach his goal. He already knew that it was because of envy that the chief priests had delivered Jesus to him, envy aroused by the Nazarene's popularity. So he probably reasoned as follows: I will give the people a choice between Jesus and a dangerous criminal, namely, Barabbas. Surely, they will choose to have Jesus released. Why, even the leaders cannot with any consistency ask for the release of a violent, murderous insurrectionist, since just a little while ago they were accusing Jesus of insurrection! And as to the crowd, I know how they will vote. With them Jesus is very popular, as was shown even a few days ago (in connection with the triumphal entry). Nevertheless, Pilate was wrong. The people chose not Jesus but Barabbas: Away with this man! Release Barabbas for us! was their response. What was it that prompted the people to make this choice? Among the reasons may well have been the following: a. The triumphal entry had not turned out the way many of the Jews had hoped. They wanted a political Messiah, a Strong Man who would deliver them from the Roman yoke, not one who was meek and lowly, who wept and predicted punishment for them. b. As the people saw it, the choice was not so much between Jesus and Barabbas as it was between the will of Pilate and the will of their own Sanhedrin. They knew that Pilate hated them. He had already proved it in many ways. So they were not about to please Pilate. The fact that he wanted the release of Jesus was one big reason why they did not want it. c. The temporary absence of Pilate to study the message he had received from his wife (Matt. 27:19, 20) gave the members of the Sanhedrin the opportunity to move among the people in order to influence them to ask for the release of Barabbas and the destruction of Jesus. 20, 21. Then Pilate, wishing to release Jesus, once more appealed to them. But they kept yelling, Crucify, crucify him! Why was Pilate so determined on releasing Jesus? Was it because even in the heart of this Gentile there was a remnant of a sense of justice, perhaps even justice and sympathy? Was it because he realized that Jesus was at least a far more noble person than were his accusers? Was it because he hated the Jews so thoroughly that it was almost impossible to yield to their wishes? Was it because he had become filled with superstitious fear because of Christ's claim to divinity? See John 19:7, 8. Or was his reluctance due to a combination of some or all of these factors? The mob, constantly being prompted by the leaders this must be borne in mind! screamed back, Crucify, crucify him! What these people demanded was nothing less than torture. They refused to be satisfied with mild punishment for Jesus. Crucifixion is what they insisted on, nothing less. Crucify, crucify him! Over and over again these terrible words were being yelled until they became a monotonous refrain, an eerie, ominous chant. The crowd was becoming a riotous mob, an emotion-charged, screaming rabble. 22. For the third time he spoke to them: Why? What wrong has he done? No basis whatever for the death penalty have I found in him. I will therefore punish and (then) release him. There are those who experience some difficulty with the phrase For the third time. They argue that even if the report found in John's Gospel is left out of consideration, is not this the fourth appeal to the people? Count these appeals and declarations of innocence: verses 4, 15, 20, and now 22. Were there not four of them, not just three? It has been suggested that the four can be reduced to three by regarding verse 15 as being a reference to Herod's view. To me it seems more natural to interpret the phrase For the third time as meaning three times in succession, namely, the three appeals that were made by Pilate after the return of Jesus from Herod. The reference then would be to what is found in verses 15 (really 13 16), 20, and now 22. Since the rest of verse 22 is virtually a repetition of what Pilate said earlier, no further comment is needed. This is true with one slight exception: this time Pilate frankly asks the audience, What wrong has he done? He implies, He has committed no wrong; at least, no wrong that would require the death penalty. The words, I will therefore punish and release him, show that Pilate is again violating the demands of justice, for surely Jesus deserved no punishment at all, not even mild punishment. By this time, however, the people have become fully aware of the fact that if they but persist in their demand they can bend and break obstinate Pilate: 23. But they continued to press upon him with loud voices, demanding that he be crucified, and their voices prevailed. As a translation their voices began to prevail is also possible. The meaning then alight be that, due to constant prompting by the chief priests, scribes, and elders, the screams of the mob demanding that Jesus be crucified became louder and louder until at last they drowned out whatever opposition there may have been. But in connection with either translation the end result is the same: victory for the screamers, for the Sanhedrin, for cruel injustice &but also for the overruling providence of God and his people's salvation! 24, 25. So Pilate pronounced sentence that their demand should be granted. He released the man they were asking for, the one who because of insurrection and murder had been thrown into prison, but Jesus he surrendered to their will. The stubborn insistence of the fanatical mob, louder and louder in its demand that Jesus be crucified, coupled with the implied threat, If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar (John 19:12), brought about the surrender of weak-kneed Pilate, so that he pronounced sentence that Jesus was to be crucified. This pronouncement, made by a judge who again and again had declared that Jesus was innocent, was the most shocking travesty of justice history has ever recorded. In order to make this injustice stand out all the more glaringly the evangelist here highlights the contrast between the release of the rebel-murderer and the sentence of death pronounced upon the Savior. Luke omits the story of the scourging and mockery to which Jesus was now subjected. For that report we must turn to Matt. 27:27–31; Mark 15:16 20; and John 19:1 3. What Luke does say is this, But Jesus he surrendered [or delivered up] to their will. How significant this formulation! We cannot help thinking of Isa. 53:6, 12(LXX), And the Lord [i.e. Jehovah] delivered him up for our sins; his soul was delivered up to death. We should never forget that Luke was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That very Spirit is therefore telling us that the One who was delivered up is the fulfilment of prophecy, the Messiah, the Savior from sin. Hallelujah!^[591] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 23:13 25 Versus 14 16 I have found nothing in this man to substantiate the charges.& I will therefore punish and (then) release him. Is it ever right to do what is morally wrong (in this case punishing the Innocent) in order to avoid committing a greater wrong (sentencing him to death)? Could this be compared with the decision to try to shorten a war by dropping atom bombs on millions of civilians without giving them previous warning? Does the end justify the means? Verses 18, 19 But all together they cried back, Away with this man! Release Barabbas for us. Now Barabbas was a man who had been thrown into prison because of an insurrection that had occurred in the city, and for murder. If we could believe the reasoning of the rulers, we would have to conclude that they wanted Jesus destroyed because they regarded him to be an insurrectionist. But this charge had not been proved. Yet they wanted a proved and convicted insurrectionist and murderer to be released. Does not this inconsistency show that they were deceivers and that their real motive was indeed envy (Matt. 27:18)? Children and young people should be warned against giving in to this evil. Tell them the oft-repeated story of the two athletes. A huge statue had been erected for the winner. That made the loser so envious that evening after evening he would go out and chisel away at the statue, to cause it to fall. And it did &on top of him, crushing him to death. On the positive side, we should encourage our children and young people to congratulate all who accomplish things worthy of praise, and to do this from the heart. In fact, everyone, both old and young, should pray to be delivered from the demon of envy and to receive grace and energy to accomplish great things for his family, his country, his church and/or school, and for God! Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 23:13–25 Verse 14 [Greek], acc. s. masc. pres. act. participle of [Greek], to turn away (people from their loyalty to the emperor), to incite to rebellion. See synonym in verse 2: the sense is similar, not the same. [Greek], nom. s. masc. aor. (effective) act. participle of [Greek], to examine closely. [Greek], for [Greek], the relative attracted to the case of the implied antecedent. Verse 15 [Greek], third per. s. periphrastic perfect pass. indicat. of [Greek], to do, commit; cf. practice. Verse 16 [Greek], nom. s. masc. aor. act. participle of [Greek], from [Greek], child; hence, to instruct and discipline a child; and, in connection with criminals, to punish; so also in verse 22. Verse 18 [Greek], third per. pl. 2nd aor. indicat. act. of [Greek]; see also on 4:33; 8:28 (= [Greek] plus [Greek]), to cry back or out. [Greek], all together. [Greek], sec. per. s. pres. imperat. act. of [Greek], to take away (by killing). For summary of meanings of this verb see the note on 17:13 on page 803. [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. imperat. act. of [Greek], here in the basic sense of to release. Other meanings: to divorce, forgive, send away, dismiss, permit, etc. Verse 19 [Greek], third per. s. periphrastic aor. (effective) indicat. pass. of [Greek], to throw. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], an uprising, insurrection. Cf. German Aufstand, Dutch opstand. Verse 20 [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. of [Greek], to call out (to), to appeal (to); cf. 7:32; Acts 22:2. Sometimes this verb has the meaning to call to oneself (6:13). Verse 21 [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. (iterat.) of [Greek] (Acts 12:22; 21:34; 22:24), to cry out loudly, to yell, scream, shout. [Greek], sec. per. s. pres. imperat. act. of [Greek], to crucify. Verse 22 The language of verses 14 16 is substantially repeated here. [Greek], reason for the death penalty; see above, on verse 4. Verse 23 [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. indicat. of [Greek] (cf. 5:1), to lie upon, press upon. [Greek], aor. (ingressive) pass. infinitive of [Greek], see on verse 21. [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. indicat. of [Greek] ([Greek], down; plus [Greek], to be strong, have power), to bear down on with strength, to prevail. In the New Testament this verb is found only here and in 21:36; Matt. 16:18. If the imperf. here is ingressive, the meaning is began to prevail, but this is not certain. Verse 24 [Greek], third per. s. aor. (effective) act. of [Greek], to pronounce or give sentence. It would seem that the contextual meaning, supported by the parallel passage John 19:13 16, is not merely decided but decreed, passed judgment on. I agree here with Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. II, p. 283, as against several translators and some lexicons. [Greek], request, demand. Cf. the cognate verb ([Greek]) in the immediately preceding and in the immediately following verse. Verse 25 [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], murder. [Greek], acc. s. masc. perf. pass. participle of [Greek]. [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. middle (iterat. or progress.) of [Greek], to ask (for themselves). [Greek], third per. s. aor. (effect.) act. of [Greek], to hand over or deliver up; to surrender. Cf. 9:44; 18:32; 20:20; etc. 23:26–43 Calvary: The Crucifixion of Jesus Cf. Matt. 27:32–44; Mark 15:21 32; John 19:17 27 26 Now as they led him away, they caught hold of a certain Cyrenian named Simon, who was coming in from the country. On him they placed the cross, to carry it (as he walked) behind Jesus. 27 There was following him a huge crowd of people, and of women who were beating their breasts^[592] and lamenting him. 28 Jesus turned to them and said, Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For note well days are coming when people will say: Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed! 30 Then they will begin to say^[593] to the mountains, Fall on us, and to the hills, Cover us. 31 For if men do this to the green wood, what will happen to the dry? 32 Along with Jesus two others, criminals, were being led away to be executed. 33 And when they came to the place called Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals, one on his right, the other on his left. 34 Then Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing. ^[594] And they cast lots to divide his clothes among them. 35 Meanwhile the people were standing by, looking on. And even the rulers were sneering at him, saying, Others he saved; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One. 36 The soldiers also, coming up, mocked him, offering him sour wine, 37 and saying, If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself. 38 And there was also a superscription over him: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS 39 One of the crucified criminals began to hurl abuse at^[595] him, saying, Aren t you the Christ? Save yourself and us. 40 But the other one, rebuking him, replied, Don t you even fear God, since you're under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we are getting what we deserve.^[596] But this man has done nothing out of place. ^[597] 42 Then he said, Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom. 43 Jesus said to him, I solemnly declare to you, today you will be with me in Paradise. 26. Now as they led him away, they caught hold of a certain Cyrenian named Simon, who was coming in from the country. On him they placed the cross, to carry it (as he walked) behind Jesus. As was customary and according to law, the execution was carried out outside the city (Lev. 24:14; Num. 15:35, 36; 19:3; I Kings 21:13; cf. John 19:20; Heb. 13:12, 13). Those condemned to be crucified had to carry their own cross. Commentators are divided on the question whether this refers to the crossbeam alone, the upright having already been set in place on Golgotha, or the entire cross. Jesus too carried his own cross (John 19:16, 17), but not for long. Sheer physical exhaustion made it impossible for him to carry it very far. Consider what he had already endured within the last fifteen hours: the tense atmosphere of the upper room, the betrayal by Judas, the agonies of Gethsemane, the desertion by his disciples, the torture of a totally hypocritical trial before the Sanhedrin, the mockery in the palace of Caiaphas, the denial by his most prominent disciple, the trial before an unjust judge, the pronunciation of the death sentence upon him, the terrible ordeal of being scourged, and the seven-itemed abuse by the soldiers in the praetorium! Humanly speaking, is it not a wonder that he was able to carry the cross any distance at all? When Jesus succumbed beneath his load, the legionaries, exercising their right of requisitioning or making demands on people, forced Simon, a Cyrenian or man from Cyrene located on a plateau, ten miles from the Mediterranean Sea, in what is now Libya (west of Egypt) to carry Christ's cross for the rest of the distance. The theory that Simon could not have been a Jew, because he gave his sons Greek names (Mark 15:21), is without merit, since marry Jews followed that practice. Besides, in Cyrene there was a large colony of Jews (Acts 2:10; 6:9; 11:20; 13:1). The further speculation that the man must have been a farmer, because on this particular Friday morning he came from the country, is also without any basis. Even today many people besides farmers have business or social connections in the country. Some even live there! The following reconstruction, though not certain, is, however, probable. Simon, a Jew, has come to Jerusalem to attend one of the great festivals (in this case Passover), as was the custom of many Jews, including those from Cyrene (Acts 2:10). There was even a Cyrenian synagogue in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9). Now on this particular Friday, returning to the city from a visit to the country, Simon is pressed into service by the soldiers who are leading Jesus to Calvary, perhaps (but this is by no means certain) along the Via Dolorosa (Sorrowful Way), and are just now coming through the gate out of the city. So reluctantly at first? Simon carries Christ's cross, arrives at Calvary, and witnesses what happens there. The behavior of Jesus and his words from the cross leave such an impression on Simon that he becomes a Christian. Subsequently he and his family are living in Rome. He may have been living there before, but in any event he was a Cyrenian by birth. (Acts 11:20; 13:1.) Mark, writing to the Romans, mentions Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, as if to say, people with whom you, in Rome, are well acquainted. Paul, in his letter to the Romans (16:13), writes, Greet Rufus, outstanding in the Lord, and his mother and mine. Evidently the mother of Rufus hence, the wife of Simon had rendered some motherly service to Paul. If this reconstruction is factual, then the service which Simon rendered, though initially forced, turned out to be a genuine blessing for himself, his family, and many others. 27. There was following him a huge crowd of people, and of women who were beating their breasts and lamenting him. The preceding verses see especially verse 23 may have left the impression that just about everybody in Jerusalem was opposed to Jesus. We now discover that this was not at all the case. There continued to be those who were his loyal followers. And then there were those who at least sympathized with him. In that huge crowd that was following Jesus there were women who felt very sorry for the Master. They may have been members of a Jerusalem society of charitable women. As with great difficulty Jesus was moving on, and they noticed his bruised features, his utterly tired appearance, they wept. Their hearts were going out to him in genuine sympathy. In fact, they were beating their breasts and lamenting him. It is not surprising that Luke he alone records this incident. We have come to expect this of him. See Introduction, point V D. These daughters of Jerusalem must not be confused with women such as Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, etc., who out of their own substance had helped to support Jesus and The Twelve. Those women were disciples of Jesus; the daughters of Jerusalem were not. This fact also explains what immediately follows: 28. Jesus turned to them and said, Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me but weep for yourselves and for your children. As to Jesus, though right now he is agonizing and though during the next several hours he will be suffering the torments of hell, his future is secure. But unless these women repent, theirs is not. Neither is that of their children. By and large Jerusalem's population consisted of unregenerate people (Luke 13:34, 35; cf. Matt. 23:37, 38). Moreover, God does not permit impenitence to go unpunished, and this both now and in the hereafter. The troubles in connection with the fall of Jerusalem would be a terrible prelude to everlasting woe: 29. For note well days are coming when people will say: Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed! Such terrible woes would befall the city that women would be considered blessed if they were childless. The enemy would destroy Jerusalem's inhabitants without showing any regard for sex or age. See above, on 21:24. 30. Then they will begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us, and to the hills, Cover us. With variations this saying occurs three times in Scripture. It is found first of all in Hos. 10:8. So appalling would be the divine judgment against Samaria that in deathly agony people would yearn but in vain to be covered by toppling mountains and overturning hills. In our present passage (Luke 23:30) the scene is, if possible, even more horrible, as anyone who has studied the writings of Josephus knows. This time it is the fall not of Samaria but of Jerusalem, in the year a.d. 70, that is in view. For Mountains, cover us, and hills, fall on us, the reverse, namely, Mountains, fall on us, and hills, cover us, is now substituted. This is probably merely a stylistic change. But for the impenitents the final cry of anguish will be the most hopeless of all. It will be uttered on the great day of judgment. In that connection the wording is, Mountains and rocks, fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the day of their wrath is come, and who is able to stand? (Rev. 6:16, 17). Continued: 31. For if men do this to the green wood, what will happen to the dry? Jesus is making use of a rather common proverb.^[598] He is drawing a contrast between green (that is, moist) wood and dry wood. Dry wood burns and is consumed readily; when the wood is still green and wet this is not the case. Therefore if even green wood is made to burn, then surely dry wood will burn and be consumed. The green wood represents Jesus; the dry wood, his impenitent opponents; one might say the Jews in their impenitent state. J. Schneider, in his excellent article on this word (Th.D.N.T., Vol. V., pp. 37–41), points out that if God has not spared Jesus, then the divine judgment will fall in full and undiminished severity on the Jewish people if they persist in unbelief and disobedience. This is a very logical explanation and in harmony with the context, for, as has been explained, in the immediately preceding verse Jesus has predicted the punishment that would be inflicted upon Jerusalem. John Calvin was right when he interpreted verse 31 as follows, We know that dry wood is generally thrown into the fire first; but if what is moist and green be burned, much less shall the dry be ultimately spared.& The lamentation of the women is foolish, if they do not likewise expect and dread the awful judgment of God which hangs over the wicked (Harmony, Vol. III, pp. 294, 295). This explanation makes good sense and also shows that the rendering tree in Luke 23:31must be considered an error. The passage has nothing to do with any tree; it has to do with wood in its green (moist) condition contrasted with wood in its dry state. To be sure, Jesus suffered the agonies of hell especially on Calvary, but when that suffering was finished he sat down at the right hand of the Father, full of glory, honor, and power. But for the impenitents the suffering will never end: Jerusalem's fall will be only a foretaste of their everlasting damnation. Or, to quote Greijdanus, Jesus was innocent. Now if he, the Innocent One, was made the object of such ill treatment and plunged into suffering, what will happen to those who are guilty? (Korte Verklaring, Vol. II, p. 264). See also Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 604. Justice is not done to this passage unless it is added that the entire address of Jesus to the daughters of Jerusalem (verses 28 31; note especially, Weep not for me but weep for yourselves and for your children ) is an unforgettable manifestation of the Savior's complete lack of self-pity and of his ardent desire, even now, that the impenitent may repent and be saved. 32, 33. Along with Jesus two others, criminals, were being led away to be executed. And when they came to the place called Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals, one on his right, the other on his left. The Greek word for Skull is Kranion (cf. cranium). In the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin version of the Bible) Kranion was rendered Calvaria; cf. Calvary. Why was this name given to the place? Because it looked like a skull? Because a skull was found there? We can only guess. Precisely where was Calvary? Is it possible to point out its exact location today? All we really know is that Jesus was crucified outside the city wall. This is definitely stated in (Heb. 13:12, and probably implied also in such passages as Luke 20:15; 23:26. But which wall? The first wall, that built by David and Solomon, would no longer be applicable. The third wall, that begun by Herod Agrippa I, was not built until after the time of Christ. The reference must therefore be to the second or northern wall. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or somewhere very near to it, is favored as the site by tradition. It has become clear by now that the spot it occupies was at that time just outside this wall. Calvary was near the city, and in its immediate vicinity there was a gardenJohn 19:20, 41).^[599] Note how few words in the original only three: &there they crucified him are used to indicate this enormously significant event! With this marvelous restraint we might compare the manner in which Scripture tells the story of the creation of the billions of stars: and the starsGen. 1:16b . The pronoun they refers to the soldiers, as is clear from the parallel passages in Mark 15:16, 24. The mode of execution to which reference is made existed in many nations, including the Roman Empire. Rome generally (not always!) reserved this form of punishment for slaves and those who had been convicted of the grossest crimes. It has been well said that the person who was crucified died a thousand deaths. Large nails were driven through hands and feet (John 20:25; cf. Luke 24:40). Among the horrors which one suffered while thus suspended (with the feet resting upon a little tablet, not very far away from the ground) were the following: severe inflammation, the swelling of the wounds in the region of the nails, unbearable pain from torn tendons, fearful discomfort from the strained position of the body, throbbing headache, and burning thirst (John 19:28). In the case of Jesus the emphasis, however, should not be placed on this physical torture which he endured. It has been said that only the damned in hell know what Jesus suffered when he died on the cross. In a sense this is true, for they too suffer eternal death. One should add, however, that they have never been in heaven. The Son of God, on the other hand, descended from the regions of infinite delight in the closest possible fellowship with his Father (John 1:1; 17:5) to the abysmal depths of hell. On the cross he cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mark 15:34). It was a gross injustice that Jesus was crucified between two criminals, as if he too were a criminal. Nevertheless, viewed in the light of God's providence, it was also an honor. Is it not true that Jesus came to earth in order to seek and save the lost (19:10)? Was he not the Friend of publicans and sinners (Matt. 11:19)? See also N.T.C. on John 3:16and on I Tim. 1:15. By causing Jesus to be crucified between these two culprits did Pilate intend to insult the Jews even more? Did he intend to say, Such is your king, O Jews, one who is not any better than a bandit, and therefore deserves to be crucified between two of them? However that may have been, one thing is certain, the prophecy of Isa. 53:12He was reckoned with the transgressors was here being fulfilled. And, in view of Luke 23:39 43, fulfilled gloriously. 34a. Then Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing. On the omission of these words from certain manuscripts see the note on this passage on page 1040. In all probability what we have here is the first of The Seven Words of the Cross: a. From 9 o clock until noon: (1) Father, forgive them: for they do not know what they are doing (Luke 23:34). (2) I solemnly declare to you, Today you shall be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:43). (3) Woman, look, your son! &Look, your mother! (John 19:27). b. The three hours of darkness: from noon until 3 o clock; no words reported. c. About 3 o clock: (4) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mark 15:34). (5) I am thirsty (John 19:28). (6) It is finished (John 19:30). (7) Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit (Luke 23:46). It is certainly in keeping with the spirit of Luke's Gospel that the three words in which the love of God as reflected in the Son is most emphatically set forth are found here (words 1, 2, and 7). It is deplorable that so much opposition has arisen against this first saying. Some would exclude it entirely, and others try to tone it down. The reasoning of some is as follows: those who killed Jesus were reprobates. God does not in any sense bless reprobates. Therefore Jesus cannot have asked that they be forgiven. Besides, the verb here used has a very wide meaning (this, by the way, is true). Conclusion: Jesus must have meant, Father, hold back thy wrath; do not immediately pour out the full measure of thy fury. The true meaning of the earnest supplication is probably as follows: a. Forgive them means exactly that. It means Blot out their transgression completely. In thy sovereign grace cause them to repent truly, so that they can be and will be pardoned fully. b. That this is the meaning is clear from the fact that the grammatical construction is exactly the same as in 11:4, And forgive us our sins, and as in 17:3, If he repents, forgive him. c. Is it even conceivable that he who insists so strongly that his followers must forgive every debtor, and that they must even love their enemies, should not exemplify this virtue himself? d. When Stephen, at death's portal, clearly in imitation of the dying Christ, prayed, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge, was he not giving us the truest interpretation of Christ's supplication, Father, forgive them? e. Take special note of the word Father. What trust, what love! We are reminded of Though he slay me, yet will I trust himJob 13:15, A.V. . f. Is it not marvelous beyond words that Jesus, in his earnest intercession for his torturers, even presents to the Father a special plea, an argument, as it were, for the granting of his petition, namely, for they do not know what they are doing? It was true: the soldiers certainly did not know. But even the members of the Sanhedrin, though they must have known that what they were doing was wicked, did not comprehend the extent of that wickedness. Did the Father hear and answer this prayer? Part of the answer may well be the fact that Jerusalem's fall did not occur immediately. For a period of about forty years the gospel of salvation full and free was still being proclaimed to the Jews. Not only that but also: many were actually led to the Lord. On the day of Pentecost three thousand were converted (Acts 2:31, 42); a little later thousands more (Acts 4:4). Even a large number of priests became obedient to the faith (Acts 6:7). Not the people as a whole, but many families and individuals were converted. g. By offering this prayer Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Isa. 53: Yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. See also on Luke 22:37. 34b. And they cast lots to divide his clothes among them. Having crucified Jesus, the legionaries, as was their custom, divided his garments by casting lots. In all probability by means of throwing of dice the four pieces headgear, sandals, belt, and outer garment were divided among the four (John 19:23) soldiers. The seamless tunic, all of one piece, woven all the way from top to bottom, was also put into the lottery, all of this in accordance with the prophecy of Ps. 22:18(LXX Ps. 21:19), which Luke may well have had in mind. Poor, poor soldiers! How much did they take home from Calvary? A few pieces of clothing! No truly penitent hearts, no renewed visions, no changed lives, no Savior? Even today, how much or how little do some people carry home with them from the church service, the Bible class, the hymn sing, the revival meeting? Each individual should answer this question for himself. 35a. Meanwhile the people were standing by, looking on. Thousands upon thousands of people must have gathered in and around Jerusalem for the feast. And now here they stand, looking on. What a contrast between Jesus and his tormentors. He was not even angry, though he suffered indescribable agonies. In fact, he even prayed for those who had brought these woes upon him. Are some of the people even now beginning to have second thoughts about the propriety of their shouts, Crucify him? Are they starting to recall his words of majesty, his earnest pleadings, and his deeds of power and compassion? But see also N.T.C. on Matt. 27:39, 40. 35b. And even the rulers were sneering at him, saying, Others he saved; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One. The rulers or Jewish leaders chief priests, scribes, and elders (Matt. 27:41) were not satisfied with the mere fact that they had triumphed over Pilate and, as they thought, over Jesus. They also reveled in their victim's misery. They gloated over his apparently helpless condition. Casting overboard all decency and decorum that is generally associated with men of their rank, they were actually sneering at their enemy. They were shouting that he who saved others should save himself if he were indeed the Messiah (Luke 22:67 70), God's Chosen One (Isa. 42:1; Matt. 12:18). Note also that in their hatred of him they did not even deign to address him. They considered that beneath their dignity. Not once, in the narrative of Christ's crucifixion, do the leaders address Jesus directly. Each time they talk about him, never to him. When according to Luke they implied, and according to Matthew and Mark they actually said, He cannot save himself, they were right; that is, in a sense. They were also terribly wrong. They thought that it was weakness that kept him nailed to the cross. Actually it was power, the power of his love, love for others, that he might save them, sacrificing himself as their Substitute, voluntarily surrendering himself to fathomless agonies in order that all who repose their trust in him might be saved (John 3:16). 36, 37. The soldiers also, coming up, mocked him, offering him sour wine, and saying, If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself. The incident here recorded cannot very well refer to the drugged wine offered to Jesus when he arrived at Golgotha, and which he refused (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23). It must refer either to an incident reported only by Luke, or otherwise to that found also in John 19:28, 29. Closely connected with the latter is what is found in Matt. 27:47–49. It will be recalled that when the end was fast approaching Jesus cried out, I am thirsty. One of the soldiers, having dipped a sponge into a vinegar vessel, brought the liquid to the mouth of Jesus, so that it might bring some relief to his lips and throat. As Matthew reports, this happened while other soldiers, the heartless ones, were mocking. If this was what Luke had in mind, he would once again be departing from the chronological order of events. But how can there be any objection to that? The evangelist is still writing in an orderly fashion. After reporting what the people did, and the rulers, he now turns to the soldiers to describe what they did, without in any way stating exactly when it was that they did it. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XXIV Outline of Chapter 24 Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do B. The Resurrection and Ascension 24:1–12 Christ's Resurrection Revealed to Women Disciples 24:13–35 The Appearance of the Risen Christ to Cleopas and His Companion 24:36–49 The Appearance of the Risen Christ to the Apostles, etc. 24:50–53 Christ's Ascension Easter Sunday and Afterward 24:1–12 Christ's Resurrection Revealed to Women Disciples Cf. Matt. 28:1–10; Mark 16:1 8; John 20:1 10 24 1 But on the first day of the week at early dawn the women, taking with them the aromatic spices they had prepared, went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but on entering they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were perplexed about this, two men, dressed in garments that flashed like lightning, stood beside them. 5 But as the women were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, Why are you seeking the living among the dead? 6 He is not here but is risen.^[608] Remember how he told you while he was still in Galilee 7 that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, must be crucified, and on the third day rise again. 8 Then they remembered his words. 9 Now when they returned from the tomb, they reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Those who told these things to the apostles were, among other women companions, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. 11 But these words seemed to the apostles to be nonsense, and so they continued to disbelieve the women. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Stooping down, he saw^[609] the strips of linen (lying) by themselves, and he went home wondering about what had happened. 1. But on the first day of the week at early dawn the women, taking with them the aromatic spices they had prepared, went to the tomb. Finally the day of all the best had arrived. But for the women (see verse 10; also 23:49) this day did not start out as one of special joy. There was deep sorrow and there was work to do. In this particular climate decomposition of the body was rapid. So these women went to the tomb in order to anoint the body of Jesus with the aromatics, that is the spices and perfumes, they had prepared (see 23:56). What they did certainly demonstrated their love and devotion, but also their lack of faith. They should have reminded themselves of the Savior's repeated promises of his resurrection on the third day. But would we have done any better? As to the time when these women came, much has been written about this. Mark says when the sun was risen (16:2); Matthew at dawn (28:1); Luke at early dawn (here in 24:1); and John while it was still dark (20:1). Possible solution: although it was still dark when the women started out, the sun had risen when they arrived at the tomb. 2, 3. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but on entering they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. Apparently the women had not heard about the sealing of the tomb and the posting of a guard (Matt. 27:62–66). The evangelist Mark reports that on the way to the tomb the women had been worried about the stone. We read, And they were saying to each other, Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb? However, they need not have worried. As Mark and Luke both report, they suddenly noticed that the stone had already been removed. John 20:1, 2relates the reaction of Mary Magdalene when she saw that the stone had been taken away. And Matthew tells us how this had been accomplished: Suddenly there was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven, stepped forward, rolled away the stone and was sitting on it (28:2). Though Mary Magdalene hurried away to blurt out her story to Peter, the rest of the women entered the tomb, but did not find the body of Jesus. Very little information about the sepulchre, in addition to what has already been supplied (see above, on 23:53, 54), can be added. The New Testament nowhere furnishes a detailed description. It has been suggested that it had an antechamber which by means of a low doorway at the rear note and as he stooped down (John 20:5) gave access to an inner chamber in which the body had been placed.^[610] But whether this particular tomb actually had two chambers has not been revealed. Not every first-century tomb followed this precise pattern. The same holds with respect to the exact appearance of the spot where the body of Jesus had been placed. It has been suggested that there was a declivity in the floor, and that at the foot-end and at the head-end the rock was left somewhat elevated, to provide seats. This would explain Mark 16:5and John 20:12. But see footnote 610 on Smith's article. The really important fact, however, far outweighing any detail regarding the construction and appearance of the tomb, was that upon entering, the women did not find the body of the Lord Jesus! The tomb was empty. 4. While they were perplexed about this, two men, dressed in garments that flashed like lightning, stood beside them. Suddenly two men, dressed in robes that were absolutely dazzling, were standing beside the women. Matthew mentions one angel (28:3, 5); Mark, a young man dressed in a white robe (16:5); and John, two angels (20:12). Sometimes those addressing the women are represented as standing, then again as sitting. Sometimes they are reported as saying one thing; then, as saying something else. Though we do not know exactly how all of these facts dovetail, this should not be a hindrance to faith. Rather the very opposite. The variation indicates that one evangelist was not simply copying what another had said or written. There were different sources, but all were reliable. It should also be borne in mind that if one angel was spokesman for both, a reporter could truthfully use either the singular or the plural in referring to the speaker(s). Again, as to angel or young man, this is not the only instance in Scripture in which angels appear in the form of men (Heb. 13:2). As to sitting or standing, is it impossible that at one moment these heavenly visitors were sitting, at another moment standing? And as to difference in the messages that were spoken, why should it be regarded as impossible that the messengers spoke more than once? That the garments of these men flashed like lightning is not strange, for they belonged to and had descended from the realm of beauty, splendor, and purity. Cf. 9:29. 5 7. But as the women were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, Why are you seeking the living one among the dead? He is not here but is risen. Remember how he told you while he was still in Galilee that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, must be crucified, and on the third day rise again. It is not surprising that these women, who after all were sinful human beings, were frightened, and that out of fear and respect they inclined their faces to the ground. Besides, they really had no business to be here for the purpose of anointing a corpse. They meant well but were badly in error. The heavenly messengers therefore asked them why they were seeking the living among the dead. They followed this up by gently but firmly reminding them of the predictions which the Savior, while still in Galilee, had trade to them, namely, that he would (a) be delivered into the hands of sinful men; (b) be crucified; and (c) on the third day rise again. For these predictions see Matt. 16:21; 17:22, 23; 20:17–19; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33, 34; Luke 9:22, 44; 18:31–34. 8. Then they remembered his words. What a wonderful thing is memory! We generally take it or at times its absence for granted. But no one as yet has been able to show exactly how it operates and what makes it possible. Generally the most celebrated specialists are also the first to admit its unsolved mysteries. In the case of these women there were especially two things that aided the memory: (a) the fact that they had been emotionally involved in the happenings of the last several days. How they, friends and followers of Jesus as they were, active supporters, indeed, had suffered when their Master had been surrendered into the hands of sinful men! And as to his crucifixion, having been present at Calvary, never would they be able to forget what they had seen and what, consequently, they themselves had undergone. And (b) the fact that Jesus had told the disciples not only once but at least three times in fact, if one adds all the figuratively phrased language, far more often what was going to happen to him and how he of his own accord would lay down his life for his sheep. And since we know that these women could often be seen in the very company of the disciples, the conclusion that from the start they were also in on the Lord's important predictions follows naturally. And now the messengers from heaven link these two things together the dramatic events that had transpired and of which, to a large extent, the women too had been the witnesses, and the words, the predictions. Yes, the women knew that Jesus had not only referred to his approaching cross but also to his resurrection on the third day. They now remember. They now realize that the Master had not been speaking about the resurrection at the last day but about that which by now had actually occurred. If they needed any additional memory aid, the empty tomb and the confirming message proceeding from the lips of these heavenly visitors supplied that need, and fully. 9. Now when they returned from the tomb, they reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Note how Luke abbreviates. Such interesting Easter stories as are related in Matt. 28:8–10, 11 15; John 20:10 18, 24 29; ch. 21 cannot be found in his Gospel. But, on the other hand, who would want to miss the material contained in Luke 24:13 53, which, to a large extent, is peculiar to the evangelist? The women reported to The Eleven, and even to as many of the other disciples of Jesus as they could reach, what had happened. They did what they had been told to do (Matt. 28:7; Mark 16:7). And they were rewarded by meeting the risen Lord himself (Matt. 28:9, 10). 10. Those who told these things to the apostles were, among other women companions, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The first two have been discussed in connection with 8:2, 3. And as to Mary the mother of James (the Less), she was probably the wife of Clopas, as a comparison between Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40; and John 19:25would seem to indicate. See N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, p. 431. Of course, these women were not the only ones who had found the tomb to be empty, and who were addressed by the two men dressed in garments that flashed like lightning. Verse 10 reads among other women companions or even more literally, and the other women with them. These women, then, reported their experiences to the apostles. How was their exciting news received? The answer is found in verse 11: 11. But these words seemed to the apostles to be nonsense, and so they continued to disbelieve the women. What makes the Easter story so convincing is that the disciples of Jesus did not at all expect Jesus to arise from the grave. In fact they considered the reports of the women to be sheer nonsense. Yet, after a while, these very men all of them but especially Peter and John are proclaiming the startling news to all and sundry and are willing to face any opposition they may encounter. For more on 24:11 see on verse 24. 12. Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Stooping down, he saw the strips of linen (lying) by themselves, and he went home wondering about what had happened. Some translations e.g., R.S.V. and N.E.B. in their texts omit this passage. It should be retained. On this question see the note on this verse on page 1058. For the full story see John 20:1 10, and for comments consult N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 447–451. Alerted by Mary Magdalene, Peter ran to the tomb. When he entered it he noticed that everything was orderly. Though the body of the Lord was no longer present, it was clear that no disciple had been there to remove it, nor had any enemy pillaged it. In either case no bandages or strips of linen would have remained in the sepulchre. Could it be that the Lord had himself removed these wrappings, had in a very orderly fashion placed the linen strips here and the sweatband there, after having neatly folded it (John 20:7); that next he had provided for himself a garment such as is worn by the living, and had then departed from the tomb gloriously alive? Luke does not say that Peter immediately drew that conclusion. Neither can we find this in the story as reported by John. All we know is that Peter went home wondering about these things.^[611] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 24:1 12 Verses 3 and 6 They did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. He is not here but is risen. The comfort of Christ's resurrection includes the following items: a. The believer knows that his sins are forgiven, for if the Father had not been satisfied with the atonement rendered by his Son for our sins he would not have raised him from the dead. b. He knows that he has a Savior who lives evermore to intercede for him, watches over him, governs him by his Spirit, and will one day return to him. c. He knows that his body, too, will one day rise gloriously, or else will be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. Verse 7 The Son of man must be &crucified, and on the third day rise again. Some people make it a habit to come to church once a year, namely, on Easter. Are they forgetting that Christ's resurrection has no value apart from his crucifixion? Only he who, by God's grace, has learned to glory in Christ's death can truly glory in his resurrection. The cross and the crown must not be separated. Now cheerful to the house of prayer Your early footsteps bend; The Savior will himself be there, Your Advocate and Friend. Once by the law your hopes were slain, But now in Christ ye live again. Lines from a hymn, How Calm and Beautiful by T. Hastings Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 24:1–12 Verse 1 [Greek] (John 8:2and related forms in Luke 21:38; 24:22), gen. of [Greek], dawn. Cf. origin. [Greek], gen. of [Greek], deep. The entire expression [Greek] means at deep [= early] dawn. For [Greek] see also John 4:11; Acts 20:9; Rev. 2:24; and for the related verb Luke 6:48. [Greek], synonym of [Greek]; see next verse. Verse 2 [Greek], acc. s. masc. perf. pass. participle of [Greek], to roll away. Cf. Matt. 28:2; Mark 16:3. Cf. cylinder. See also N.T.C. on Mark, p. 679, including footnote 844. [Greek], gen. s. of [Greek], tomb, considered as a memorial; related to [Greek], to remind. For the noun (tomb) see also verse 9; 11:44, 47; 23:55; 24:2, 12, 22, 24. It occurs several times in each of the other Gospels and once in Acts (13:29). See also N.T.C. on Mark, p. 671, footnote 836. Verse 3 With this verse a lengthy list of so-called Western non-interpolations in Luke 24begins. First is the phrase of the Lord Jesus, which is omitted by the Western text (Codex Bezae = D, and including also certain Old Latin Version manuscripts). Other similar Western omissions which those who originally called them Western non-interpolations really considered Neutral interpolations are found in verses 6, 9, 12, 36, 40, 52, 53. On this entire subject one should consult A. T. Robertson, An Introduction to The Textual Criticism of The New Testament, New York, 1925, pp. 225–237; and also B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 132 f., 162, 213 f. Robertson's final verdict (p. 236) was that when the Western text is compared with the Neutral, the Western is right perhaps one time in ten, the Neutral is right nine times in ten. Metzger informs us that the Western text is usually considered to be the result of an undisciplined and wild growth of manuscript tradition and translational activity (p. 213). He states that today extreme positions regarding the Western text find little favor and that most scholars recognize that all of the pre-Koine forms of text deserve a hearing (p. 214). As will become clear, as far as faith in the inspired Word of God is concerned, there is no real problem here, for most if not all of these Western omissions relate to words or phrases which, as to essence, are found in the undisputed passages of one or more of the other Gospels or of the book of Acts. I have not been able to find any solid reasons to exclude from the text of 24:3 the phrase of the Lord Jesus. Verse 4 For the stylistic form [Greek] followed by an infinitive, a mode of expression that reminds one of Hebrew writing, see also verses 15 and 30. [Greek], pres. pass. infinitive of [Greek] ([Greek] plus [Greek]), literally: to be without a way, means, or resource, to be at a loss what to do, to be perplexed. Cf. [Greek] in 21:25. [Greek], third per. pl. aor. (ingress.) indicat. of [Greek], suddenly to stand by or come upon. See the note on 2:9 on page 160, and the note on 10:40 on page 603. This verb occurs very frequently in Luke Acts. [Greek], dat. s. of [Greek], robe, garment, clothing. Cf. 23:11. [Greek], dat. s. fem. pres. participle of [Greek], to flash like lightning. The entire expression means in flashing [or dazzling] apparel. See also 17:24. Verse 5 Note genitive absolute: the women being frightened and bowing their faces to the ground. Here [Greek] is gen. pl. 2nd aor. middle participle of [Greek]; and [Greek] is gen. pl. of [Greek], terrified, frightened. Cf. verse 37; also Acts 10:4; 24:25; Rev. 11:13. Verses 6 and 8 Whatever opinion may prevail with respect to He is not here but is risen, another so-called Western non-interpolation, note the same expression in undoubtedly genuine Matt. 28:6; Mark 16:6. [Greek], third per. s. aor. pass. of [Greek]; in the pass., to be risen. [Greek], sec. per. pl. aor. (ingress.) imperat. pass. of [Greek], to be reminded of, to remember. For this verb see also on 1:54, 72; 16:25; 23:42. Here, in ch. 24, the third per. pl. aor. indicat. pass. of this verb occurs in verse 8. Verse 7 [Greek], 2nd aor. act. infinitive of [Greek], trans. to raise; intrans., as here, to rise. Verse 9 [Greek], nom. pl. fem. aor. participle of [Greek], to return, a verb occurring very often in Luke's writings, very seldom in the rest of the New Testament. For [Greek] see above, on verse 2. [Greek], third per. pl. aor. indicat. of [Greek], to announce, proclaim, report, tell. Verse 11 [Greek], third per. pl. 2nd aor. pass. indicat. of [Greek], to cause to appear, bring to light; in pass. as here: to appear, seem. [Greek], nonsense. Cf. Dutch larie (same meaning). [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. indicat. of [Greek], to disbelieve. See also verse 41. The same word occurs also in Mark's disputed section (16:11, 16), and in Acts 28:24; Rom. 3:3; II Tim. 2:13; and I Peter 2:7. Verse 12 This verse is another Western omission or non-interpolation. It is by some regarded to be a later addition, formulated after John 20:2f. But in that case why is not John's name also mentioned here in Luke 24:12? Is it not more likely that the omission of John's name caused some copyists to reject the passage? But, again, whatever be the truth with respect to Luke 24:12, in any case what is here reported actually took place, as John 20:2f. shows. Besides, the textual attestation in favor of the retention of Luke 24:12is by no means weak, as the textual apparatus shows. [Greek], nom. s. masc. aor. participle of [Greek], to stoop beside or down. See also John 20:5, 11; James 1:25(to look intently); I Peter 1:12(to look into). [Greek], third per. s. pres. indicat. act., to see. [Greek], acc. pl. of [Greek], linen cloth, bandage. Cf. John 19:40; 20:5–7. [Greek], alone; i.e., by themselves. [Greek] (probably modifies [Greek]), to himself = to his home. 24:13–35 The Appearance of the Risen Christ to Cleopas and His Companion 13 Now it so happened that on that very day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about eleven kilometers^[612] from Jerusalem. 14 They were conversing with each other concerning all these things that had taken place. 15 While they were conversing and discussing together, Jesus also himself drew near and began to walk along with them, 16 but their eyes were being kept from recognizing him. 17 He asked them, What are these words that you are exchanging with each other as you are walking along? They stood still, looking glum. 18 Finally one of them, named Cleopas, asked him, Are you the only one so strange in Jerusalem that you did not get to know the things that have occurred there these days? 19 What things? he asked. They told him, The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in word and deed, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be sentenced to death, and crucified him. 21 But we were hoping that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. Moreover, besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place. 22 Some of our women, though, startled us.^[613] They went to the tomb early this morning, 23 and not finding his body, they came and were saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who affirmed that he was alive. 24 Then some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it exactly as the women had said, but him they did not see. 25 Jesus said to them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe everything that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. 28 Then they drew near to the village to which they were going, and he acted as though he would go farther. 29 But they strongly urged him, saying, Stay with us, for it is (getting) toward evening, and the day is almost over. So he went in to stay with them. 30 Now as he was reclining at table with them, he took the bread,^[614] blessed it, broke it, and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were instantly opened, and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight.^[615] 32 And they said to each other, Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the way, while he was opening the Scripture to us? 33 At once they got up and went back to Jerusalem, and they found the eleven and those with them gathered together, 34 saying, The Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon. 35 Then the two themselves began to relate what had happened on the way, and how Jesus had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread. Did the Resurrected Savior appear in Jerusalem, in Galilee, or in both places? The problem arises from the circumstance that while Matt. (see 28:7, 10, 16 20), Mark (see 16:7), and John 21(see verses 1 23) picture Christ's appearances as having occurred in Galilee, on the other hand Luke (24:13–43 or even 24:13–53), John 20(see verses 11 29), and Acts (see 1:4–9) mention only Jerusalem and its vicinity as the place where the appearances occurred. The conclusion has been drawn that these conflicting (?) accounts are based on two irreconcilable traditions. If the one is chosen, the other must be rejected. The Galilee theory has been endorsed by C. H. Weisse, T. Keim, C. von Weizsäcker, W. Brandt, P. Rohrach, A. von Harnack, P. W. Schmiedel, A. Meyer, K. Lake, etc.; the Jerusalem theory by A. Hilgenfeld, F. Loofs, F. Spitta, Joh. Weiss, A. Schweitzer, F. C. Burkitt, etc. However, as has been pointed out by several authors, the theory of conflict is open to serious objections, including the following: a. Matt. 28:9shows that this Gospel recognizes at least one appearance that occurred in the Jerusalem region. b. The early church allowed both John 20and 21 to stand, without seeing any conflict. c. Luke, as so often, abbreviates. Besides, limitation of space may have prevented him from writing more than he did. There was, after all, a limit to the length of a papyrus roll. So he may have restricted himself to appearances in the Jerusalem region. But is it certain that all of 24:13–53 refers to Jerusalem? Could not some of 24:44–48 have been spoken in Galilee? d. Neither Acts 1:3nor I Cor. 15:1 8forces us to believe that the appearances of the Risen Lord were confined to any one particular city or region. They rather confirm the view that he appeared to a very wide circle and perhaps even in more than one place. Though several articles have been written on this controversy, I shall mention just one treatise, the best of them all, as far as I can judge. It is the doctoral dissertation on this very question by H. Holtrop, De Verschijningen Onzes Heeren Te Jeruzalem En in Galilea, Amsterdam, 1947. See especially pp. 22, 65, 71, 137, 138, 143, 194, 231, and 234. Holtrop, too, sees no real conflict. A. Easter Tragedy 13, 14. Now it so happened that on that very day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about eleven kilometers [about seven miles] from Jerusalem. They were conversing with each other concerning all these things that had taken place. Up to this point Luke has reported the empty tomb, the message of the two men in dazzling robes, and Peter's visit to the tomb. He has not yet reported any appearance of the Risen Christ. Such an account follows now. It is a stirring and vivid report of the appearance of the Risen Savior to two men who belonged to the wider circle of disciples. On the day of the resurrection these two were walking from Jerusalem (see verse 33) to their home in Emmaus. Although it is not specifically stated that they lived there, this can be considered a reasonable inference from verses 28, 29. Except for the statement in the text that Emmaus was located sixty stadia from Jerusalem, the location of this place is unknown. The identification of Emmaus with Anwas, more than thirty kilometers (about nineteen miles) WNW of Jerusalem is highly improbable, since it is hard to imagine that the two men covered twice that distance on foot that afternoon-evening. As they were walking, they were talking to each other about all the things that had taken place; that is, about Jesus crucifixion and the report of some women that had been to the tomb, had found it empty, and had received a message from angels, who affirmed that he was alive (verse 23). 15, 16. While they were conversing and discussing together, Jesus also himself drew near and began to walk along with them, but their eyes were being kept from recognizing him. Suddenly footsteps were heard behind them, those of Jesus. He was catching up with them and presently was walking alongside of them. In a manner not here explained Jesus appearing in another form? (Mark 16:12); divine restraining action? the two men were being kept from recognizing the stranger. Cf. Matt. 28:17; John 20:14; 21:4. 17. He asked them, What are these words that you are exchanging with each other as you are walking along? They stood still, looking glum. The unrecognized intruder now asked them a question. During his public ministry Jesus had often used this method of approach (6:3, 9; 8:30; 9:18; 18:40, 41; 20:3, 4, 41 44; 22:35, etc.). He did not ask because he lacked knowledge. He asked to arouse interest, so that he would have an opportunity to explain what those questioned needed to know. When the two men heard this question, they stood still, as if the question, if not even highly improper, certainly was very unexpected. They looked sad, for the happenings of the last few days had filled their hearts and minds with sorrow and a feeling of disappointment. 18. Finally, one of them, named Cleopas, asked him, Are you the only one so strange in Jerusalem that you did not get to know the things that have occurred there these days? Probably after an embarrassing pause one of the two men started to answer. His name was Cleopas, but there is not any good reason to identify him with the Clopas of John 19:25. His answer was in the form of a counter-question. He wanted to know whether the intruder was the only stranger in, or visitor to, Jerusalem who had managed to remain completely uninformed about matters that were on everybody's lips. 19, 20. What things? he asked. With marvelous psychological tact Jesus gives Cleopas a full opportunity to unburden himself. Continued: They told him, The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in word and deed, and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be sentenced to death, and crucified him. Here note the following: a. Jesus of Nazareth. Cleopas and his companion were convinced that the stranger who had joined them was very uninformed. So, the mere answer Jesus would not do. After all, there must have been several people by that name, living at that very time, earlier or later. There was, for example, Jesus BarabbasMatt. 27:16reading , Jesus the son of Sirach, etc. In certain ethnic communities even today not a few boys are called Jesus. So, they deemed it necessary to add of Nazareth. b. a prophet mighty in word and deed. They were certainly right in so describing Jesus. See Deut. 18:15, 18; Luke 7:16; John 4:19, 44; 9:17; Acts 3:22; 7:37. c. how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up. Not how Pilate and the Romans did this. The two men placed the main blame exactly where it belonged, namely, on the chief priests and rulers of the Jews. This is not anti-Semitism. It is simply a true reflection of historical fact. To be sure, both the Jewish leaders and the Romans were guilty, but the chief responsibility and therefore also the heavier guilt rested on the Jews (John 19:11). The speech continued as follows: 21. But we were hoping that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. There are those who interpret this to mean: We were hoping that he was the one who would bring about the redemption of Israel by the payment of a ransom of blood; that is, by his death. It may well be doubted, however, that these men note how Jesus describes them in verse 25 were so far advanced in their theology. Besides, words have histories. The basic meaning deliverance through the payment of a ransom does not necessarily remain the only meaning. Probably the most favorable construction we can place on the words of Cleopas and his companion is this: We were hoping that he was the one who, in some way, would deliver Israel from its woes, both spiritual and political. Cf. 1:74. They were hoping, but the flame of hope had almost been extinguished, as is clear from the continuation: Moreover, besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place. As if to say, Even after Jesus was crucified we entertained some hope that God might suddenly intervene and send deliverance. But it did not happen, not on the first day, nor on the second, and now it is already the third day, and still no change for the better &and yet, and yet here a tiny flicker of hope begins to drive away the night of total darkness and despair: 22 24. Some of our women, though, startled us. They went to the tomb early this morning, and, not finding his body, they came and were saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who affirmed that he was alive. This shows that the report of the women to The Eleven had already been spreading. There must have been a rather close relationship between the inner and the wider circle of disciples. And no wonder, when the news was so startling. It was too exciting not to be told. Continued: Then some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it exactly as the women had said, but him they did not see. The two men were probably thinking of Peter and John, for they were the ones who had gone to the tomb and had found everything exactly as the women had reported, but had not seen the Risen Savior. See above, on verse 12 and see also John 20:1 10. Cf. N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 468–470. So now Cleopas and his companion are bewildered. They don't know what to make of it. When we now briefly review the situation that existed very early on Easter morning and continued well into the day, we notice that despair had taken over; yes, despair and bewilderment. 1. The Women See these women trudging sorrowfully through the streets of Jerusalem very early Sunday morning. While The Eleven are in deep mourning and despair, Thomas resembling a man who is caught in the midst of an earthquake, the very ground under his feet caving in; Peter overwhelmed with remorse; John tenderly caring for the woman with the tempest-tossed soul (Mary); while night was settled upon these eleven men, what are these women going to do? Is it their design to welcome the Risen Lord? Not in the least. The cross has blasted their hopes. The grave has buried them forever. They come &to anoint a dead body, the corpse of Jesus of Nazareth, their Friend and Helper. Never was there a more dejected, disappointed, crushed group of women! Their experience is, perhaps, best described in that well-known poem: Now he is dead, far hence he lies In that lorn Syrian town; And on his grave with shining eyes The Syrian stars look down. 2. Mary, the Mother of the Lord She too was in the grip of cold winter. A sword was piercing through her soul (Luke 2:35) as she saw her own son, her first-born, dying the death of a condemned criminal. A feeling of overwhelming sadness takes possession of a person whenever he reads the lines of that ancient hymn describing Mary's tears, Stabat Mater. See pp. 170, 171. For her, too, the Cross was the Farewell to Hope, and this in more ways than one. 3. The Eleven Their Master &gone. Their friend and what a Friend! departed. Their plans wrecked. Their hopes shattered. They are perplexed, baffled. They despair. Like men whose none too sturdy vessel is frozen solid in the Arctic ice pack, with ice, ice, ice, cold, bleak, barren, stretching in every direction for hundreds of miles. Ice, screeching, roaring, grinding. Will they ever see their dear ones again? Abandon hope, all ye who enter here! Or to change the figure they resemble individuals who have been condemned to die and are pining away in some gloomy, dreadful prison hole, knowing that the best they can expect is the arrival of the executioner. See John 20:19, their doors were shut for fear of the Jews. Jesus of Nazareth &Crucified &that was the Farewell to hope! Am I exaggerating? Was there not so much as a ray of hope shining through the clouds of gloom and despair? A half-conscious expectation that somehow light would arise out of darkness, that the night would make room for the dawn, that &perhaps &the Master might even &rise again? Read the account for yourself: And the &women &told these things to the apostles. But these words seemed to the apostles to be nonsense, and so they continued to disbelieve the women. The other disciples therefore said to Thomas, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. Not one of The Eleven expected Jesus to arise from the grave. That thought was farthest removed from their minds. Jesus was dead. He was gone! Those happy days of close fellowship and intimate association with the Great Prophet of Nazareth would never return. 4. Cleopas and His Companion These two friends of Jesus are returning to Emmaus. It is springtime. Yet they hear not the singing of birds. They see not the awakening of Nature. With lagging feet, under leaden skies, they continue on their way home &home from a funeral! A dear one has been buried. Jesus of Nazareth. Yes, stranger, we hoped that he was the One who would redeem Israel. We hoped [past tense] but now all hope is gone. B. Easter Triumph 25, 26. Jesus said to them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe everything that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory? The emphasis is on two words: everything and necessary. The trouble with the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus day was that, on the whole, in reading the Old Testament they saw only the glory and victory of the Messiah, not the fact that the path to these blessings was one of suffering.^[616] At times they would even go so far as to apply to the Messiah the references (Isa. 52:13 53:12) to the Servant's glory, but to apply to Israel the references to the Servant's suffering.^[617] Now there was no excuse for this. It must be borne in mind that the people of Jesus day not only had the Old Testament. They also had in their midst the Lord Jesus Christ, who was constantly interpreting it for them, by what he was, what he did, and what he taught. That for the Messiah it is the way of suffering that leads to glory is basically already pointed out in (Gen. 3:15(in the process of bruising Satan's head, Messiah's own heel will be bruised). Did not Jesus interpret this prophecy, for example, in John 12:31, 32, where he teaches that when he himself is lifted up from the earthJohn 3:14; 8:28), the prince of this world is cast out and all men are drawn to himself? This being lifted up certainly includes the cross. Another Old Testament passage clearly teaching the same lesson that for the Messiah it is the path of suffering that leads to glory is Ps. 118; see especially verse 22, with reference to the rejected stone, which becomes the cornerstone. And did not Jesus also interpret this figure as having reference to himself? See Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17. Then there is (Isa. 53(or 52:13 53:12). Jesus himself stated in so many words that this prophecy referred to himLuke 22:37).^[618] In fact, even some of the words spoken from the cross were quotations (sometimes modified) and interpretations of phrases taken from the Old Testament. Moreover, we may be sure that the teaching of Jesus recorded in the Gospels is only a fraction of all he actually taught, just as the recorded miracles are only a fraction of those performed (John 20:30; 21:25). All this should suffice to prove that the two men who were on their way to Emmaus deserved to be called foolish or dull for failing to believe that for Christ the way to glory was and had to be through suffering. 27. And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Jesus may have interpreted such passages as Gen. 3:15; 9:26; 12:3; 22:18; 49:10; Exod. 12:13; Num. 24:17; Deut. 18:15, 18; II Sam. 7:12, 13; Ps. 2:2; 22:1, 18; 45:11; 68:18; 69:20, 21; 72:8, 9; 110:1; 118:22; 132:11; Isa. 2:4; 7:14; 8:8, 10; 9:1, 2, 6, 7; 11:10; 25:8; 28:16; 35:5, 6; 42:1; 49:6; 52:14; ch. 53; 55:4; 59:16; Jer. 23:5; Ezek. 17:22; Dan. 2:24, 35, 44; 7:13, 14; 9:25; Mic. 5:2; Hag. 2:6–9; Zech. 3:8; 6:12f.; 9:9; 11:12; 12:10; 13:7; Mal. 3:1. But the Old Testament picture of the Messiah is not confined to a number of specific passages. As I have shown earlier (see above on 1:70), there are, as it were, four lines, which, running through the Old Testament from beginning to end, converge at Bethlehem and Calvary: the historical, typological, psychological, and prophetical. It is reasonable to believe that our Lord, in interpreting in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself, showed how the entire Old Testament, in various ways, pointed to himself. See also Acts 10:43. 28, 29. Then they drew near to the village to which they were going, and he acted as though he would go farther. But they strongly urged him, saying, Stay with us, for it is (getting) toward evening, and the day is almost over. So he went in to stay with them. When the three neared Emmaus Jesus acted as though he would go farther. And he would have done so, had they not prevailed upon him to stay with them. The plan of God for our lives does not cancel decision-making on our part. Traveling late in the evening involved danger from various sources: robbers, obstacles upon the path, perhaps even wild animals. Moreover, the darkness was no help. But undoubtedly the main reason why the two men urged Jesus to stay with them was that they had become enamored of him. At the moment when the Savior had first joined them, they were probably not at all pleased to have this stranger intrude on them. But by now, for a very understandable reason, they could not think of letting him go. So, he allowed himself to be persuaded. And having entered their home, the two even honored their unknown but very remarkable guest by asking him to perform the duties of a host. 30, 31. Now as he was reclining at table with them, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were instantly opened, and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. How was it that in the breaking of the bread they suddenly recognized him? Did they see the marks of the nails in his hands? Was it the manner in which he broke the bread and gave it to them that opened their eyes? Or was it the way he spoke to his Father that refreshed their memories? Whatever may be the answer, the body of his resurrection now possessed qualities enabling him to appear at will and also, as here, to vanish at will. So, almost before they fully realized what had happened, he was gone. 32. And they said to each other, Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the way, while he was opening the Scriptures to us? Their exclamation is understandable. They reflect on the manner in which their hearts had been warmed, their spirits illumined, their hope revived when the man who was now no longer a stranger had explained to them that which before they had never understood. Also, now they know that the women had been right after all. Far from talking nonsense, they had spoken the truth. And how kind, how absolutely wonderful was it that the Christ had singled them out for receiving the privilege of having the Scriptures opened to them, so that they now understood as they had never understood before. So filled are these two men with joy that they must needs tell others. Have they already walked seven miles? Then seven more miles. Was it dark and dangerous? All of that means nothing now. This news is so electrifying and reassuring that the other disciples must know about it. Not tomorrow but tonight. 33 35. At once they got up and went back to Jerusalem, and they found the eleven and those with them gathered together, saying, The Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon. Then the two themselves began to relate what had happened on the way, and how Jesus had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread. Note the following: a. The resolution to start out at once on their seven-mile return trip to Jerusalem, because the news they wished to share with others was so astounding, reminds us of the four lepers of Samaria who said, We are not doing right. This day is a day of good news &now therefore let us go and tell &(II Kings 7:9). b. And they found the eleven. The expression the eleven is a technical term for the group. It does not mean that all eleven were actually present. We know that one, namely Thomas, was not (John 20:24). c. What had brought the inner circle of disciples together was probably the report of the women and Christ's appearance to Peter. d. It is remarkable that the two men of Emmaus knew exactly where they could find The Eleven. That confirms our opinion, expressed earlier, that there was a very close relation between the inner and the wider circle of disciples. e. Note the drama of the situation. We picture it as follows: The two men, having completed their seven-mile trip was it about 9 o clock by now? arrive at the door of the room in which The Eleven (and probably others with them) are gathered. When the door opens, they are ready to shout the news. But before they even get a chance they hear the blessed tiding, The Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon. Cf. I Cor. 15:5. f. Finally, they too get a chance to tell their story. What an asking and answering of questions! What ecstasy! What a foretaste of joy unspeakable and full of glory! A new beginning! Light in the darkness! Life conquering death! The Lord is risen indeed! Here all changes. The Cross, the very instrument of despair, becomes an object of glory. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the source of a living hope. Listen to the message of exuberant joy, praise, and thanksgiving. Hear it from the lips of one who experienced the deepest darkness of despair and remorse. Says Peter: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy gave us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (I Peter 1:3). Gave us new birth into a living hope. Now Peter can smile again. We can all be happy once more. A living hope, living, real, a desire plus expectation plus conviction that our lives here are not in vain. A hope not based upon legend or fancy but upon the immovable Rock of Christ's resurrection from the grave. The apostles proclaim the resurrection because they cannot do anything else. The proof was too clear! He lives. Hence, life is worth living. Hence, all things work together for good to them that love God. Hence, we too shall live. Hence, the curse is going to be removed from the universe and we expect a new heaven and a new earth. All the darkness is dispelled. Hope lives again. A stream of light descends from veiled skies: an angel mighty and terrible arrives. His appearance is as lightning and his garments white as snow. And the angel says: Don t you be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here, for he has been raised just as he said (Matt. 28:5, 6). He is risen &and hope is revived. The bodily resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact. How absurd are the theories of those who deny it: a. The disciples stole the body. See Matt. 28:11–15. That this attempt to solve the problem of the empty tomb is indeed absurd has been shown in N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 995–996. b. An enemy removed it. But in that case it would have been easy to disprove the claim of the Christians. The opponents of Christ and of the Christian religion could then have produced the body, to show that Jesus had not risen from the grave. c. The first so-called witnesses were afflicted with mass hallucinations. The question is whether such mass hallucinations are even possible. Besides, it should be emphasized that none of the disciples expected Jesus to rise from the grave. Therefore, they were not psychologically prepared for hallucinations of this nature. They did not expect a resurrection. When they heard that it had occurred, they refused to believe it &until the evidence became so strong that they were willing to sacrifice their very lives in the defense of this great truth. Many actually did. There is only one solution which satisfies, being in accord with all the other known facts and circumstances, and which also helps to explain the strength and rapid growth of the church. That solution is: the Gospels are telling the truth. Hallelujah, Christ arose!^[619] Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 24:13 35 Verses 17 and 25 They stood still, looking glum. O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe everything that the prophets have spoken. These men missed the joy of salvation because they failed to pay enough attention to, and to believe, the word of prophecy in its entirety. Those who neglect the study of God's Word do not realize how much they miss. No wonder they look glum. See Ps. 119:77, 103, 119. Verses 27 and 32 He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the way, while he was opening the Scriptures to us? Only when we see how all the Scriptures are centered in Christ, as the revelation of the Triune God, so that in the Old Testament everything points forward to him, and in the New everything proceeds from him, will we be able to understand the Bible. Verse 33 They found the eleven and those with them gathered together. The fellowship of God's children should be encouraged. Verse 34 The Lord has risen indeed! Spiritual appropriation of the comfort imparted by the doctrine of the resurrection leads to exclamations, doxologies, and songs of praise. It is by means of such expressions that the church grows inwardly and outwardly. Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 24:13–35 Verses 14, 15 [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. (vivid, progress.) indicat. of [Greek], to be associated with, converse with; only here in verses 14, 15; and in Acts 20:11; 24:26. Cf. homiletics. [Greek], gen. pl. neut. perf. participle of [Greek], to step together; hence, to occur, happen. For [Greek] see the note on 22:23 on page 969. [Greek], third per. s. imperf. (here inchoat.) of [Greek], to come, go, or walk along with. See also 7:11; 14:25; Mark 10:1. Verse 16 [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. (iterat. or progress.) indic. pass. of [Greek], to be strong, lay hold on, hold, hold back, restrain; pass., as here, to be held back, be restrained, be kept (from). [Greek] may be considered a redundant negative, after a verb of hindering. [Greek], 2nd aor. act. infinitive of [Greek], here in the sense of to recognize; so also in verse 31, where the third per. pl. aor. (effect.) indicat. act. is used. Verse 17 [Greek], sec. per. pl. pres. indicat. of [Greek], to throw in turn, throw back and forth, to exchange (words). There is no good reason to interpret [Greek] here as meaning against. The verb belongs to that group of [Greek] compounds in which the prefix indicates substitution in its most comprehensive sense; here with submeaning of reciprocity: they are throwing words back and forth like a ball. [Greek], third per. pl. aor. indicat. pass. of [Greek], to cause to stand, place; in pass., as here, to stand. [Greek], nom. pl. masc. adj. of [Greek], gloomy, glum. See also Matt. 6:16. The word is derived from [Greek] plus [Greek]; hence: of a gloomy countenance, or, as we would say: looking glum. Verse 18 [Greek], alone, pred. adject. here; as if are you dwelling alone &? [Greek], sec. per. s. pres. indicat. of [Greek] (= [Greek] plus [Greek]), to occupy a house by the side of, to reside as a stranger or alien, to sojourn. In the New Testament this verb is found only here and in Heb. 11:9. Abraham sojourned. He lived as an alien, a stranger in a strange land. For a cognate noun see Acts 7:6; Eph. 2:19; I Peter 2:11; and for still another see Acts 13:17; I Peter 1:17. [Greek], sec. per. s. 2nd aor. indicat. act. of [Greek], to know. The aor. may be accounted for as follows: Have you not heard, ascertained, found out, discovered? Hence, Did you not get to know? Verse 20 [Greek], sentence; see the note on 23:40 on page 1041. Verse 21 Note emphatic [Greek]: we ourselves, we on our part. [Greek], first per. pl. imperf. (progress.) indicat. of [Greek], to hope. [Greek], pres. middle infinitive of [Greek], to redeem (by or for oneself). [Greek] &[Greek], note heavy use of particles: moreover, besides all this. For a somewhat similar heaping up of particles see N.T.C. on Phil. 3:8(p. 162, footnote 140 in that volume). Note idiomatic use of impersonal [Greek]; perhaps in the sense of to spend or to keep. The exact meaning here is difficult to determine; perhaps: One is keeping this, the third day. The resultant meaning must be something on the order of This is now the third day. Verse 22 [Greek], third per. pl. aor. act. of [Greek], to knock out (of their senses), to astonish, amaze, startle. [Greek], lit. having been early ones (at the tomb). We would say, They went to the tomb early this morning. Cf. 24:1. Verse 23 [Greek], nom. pl. fem. 2nd aor. act. participle of [Greek], to find. [Greek], same, except pres. instead of 2nd aor., to say. [Greek], perf. infinitive of [Greek], to see. [Greek], pres. infinitive of [Greek], to live. Hence, literally: The women, not having found his body, came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels, who are saying that he is alive. Verse 25 [Greek], not knowing, unintelligent, foolish. Cf. Gal. 3:1, O foolish Galatians. [Greek], nom. pl. masc. of [Greek], slow, stupid. Verse 26 [Greek], third per. s. imperf. of [Greek], it is necessary (that), one must, has to. So here, preceded by [Greek], Was it not necessary &? Note the two 2nd aor. infinitives: [Greek] (from [Greek], to suffer) and [Greek] (from [Greek], to enter); the first progressive, the second ingressive. Verse 27 [Greek], third per. aor. (effect.) act. indicat. of [Greek], to interpret, explain. Cf. hermeneutics, Hermes (Acts 14:12). Verse 28 [Greek], third per. pl. aor. indicat. of [Greek], intrans., to approach. [Greek], third per. s. aor. indicat. middle of [Greek], to make or act as though. Verse 29 [Greek], third per. pl. aor. indicat. of [Greek]; in the New Testament only here and in Acts 16:15(cf. [Greek], force), to strongly urge, constrain, prevail upon. [Greek], sec. per. s. aor. imperat. of [Greek], to stay, remain, abide. This is a word of frequent occurrence in the New Testament, especially in the writings of Luke and John. [Greek], acc. s. of [Greek], evening. Cf. vesper. It is also found in Acts 4:3; 28:23. [Greek], third per. s. perf. indicat. act. of [Greek], trans., to bend, bow, lay down; intrans., to be far spent, be almost over (of the day), the sun having nearly gone down. Cf. incline, decline. Verse 30 For the idiom [Greek] followed by infinitive see above, on verse 4. For synonyms of the verb [Greek] see the note on 11:37 on page 645; also see the note on 9:12 on page 484. [Greek], third per. s. imperf. (inchoative) indicat. act. of [Greek], to give (something to someone). In Acts 27:15to give up or surrender to (the wind), to allow oneself to be driven (by the wind). Verses 31, 32 Note the two forms of the verb [Greek]: in verse 31 the third per. pl. aor. indicat. pass.; in verse 32 the third per. s. imperf. indicat. act. Their eyes were opened &he was opening the Scriptures. Perhaps basically the verb meant: to open up through and through (note prefixes [Greek] and [Greek]). But in the course of time such prefixes began to lose some of their force. In the New Testament, with one exception (Mark 7:34), this verb is confined to Luke Acts. [Greek], third per. s. periphrastic imperf. indicat. middle of [Greek]; here and in 12:35, to burn; in Matt. 5:15, to kindle. In the remaining New Testament passages the idea of burning or consuming something with fire predominates. Cf. caustic, holocaust. [Greek], third per. s. imperf. indicat. act. of [Greek], a sound-imitation (onomatopoeia) resembling the inarticulate attempt of babies to communicate and the chirping of birds; hence, basically to chatter; then, in general, to talk, speak. Cf. lullaby. The word occurs in every New Testament book except Galatians, II Thessalonians, II Timothy, and Philemon. Verse 33 [Greek], acc. pl. masc. perf. (here predicate) pass. participle of [Greek], to collect, gather; realted to [Greek], noise. Cf. drone, threnody. Verse 34 [Greek], really, indeed, surely. See the note on 23:47 on page 1041. [Greek], third per. s. aor. pass. indicat. of the very common verb [Greek], to see; in pass. to be seen, to appear, seem. The same form occurs here in 24:34 as in 1:11 and in 22:43. Here, in 24:34, it is the Risen Lord who appears; in the other two passages it is an angel. Verse 35 [Greek], third per. pl. imperf. (probably inchoat.) indicat. middle of [Greek]. This verb is composed of [Greek] plus [Greek]; therefore basically: to lead out or lead off (the conversation or the narrative), to relate, recount, narrate, tell. Cf. exegesis. [Greek], dat. of [Greek], breaking; cf. [Greek], to break. 24:36–49 The Appearance of the Risen Christ to the Apostles, etc. Cf. Mark 16:14(part of The Ending); John 20:19 23^[622] 36 Then, while they were saying these things, he himself stood among them and said to them, Peace (be) with you. ^[620] 37 Startled and frightened, they thought they were seeing a ghost. 38 But he said to them, Why are you troubled, and why are doubts arising in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see me having. 40 After he had said this he showed them his hands and his feet.^[621] 41 And while they continued in a state of disbelief for joy, and were filled with amazement, he said to them, Do you have anything here to eat? 42 So they gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 And he said to them: These (are) my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all that is written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled. 45 Then he opened their minds to (enable them to) understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead on the third day, 47 and that conversion and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 Moreover, note well, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; but remain in the city until you are clothed with power from on high. Does what is found in Luke 24:36 49pertain to one appearance, namely, on Easter evening, or must this section be divided (perhaps at verse 44), with the resulting conclusion that what is found in verses 36 43 pertains to that Sunday evening, but what is found in verses 44 49 pertains to a later appearance, or later appearances? Opinions are rather sharply divided, Geldenhuys being among those who favor the division of the section at verse 44. According to this view, from that verse on Luke records a number of important announcements made by the Risen Lord to his disciples during the forty days before his ascension (op. cit., p. 641). Lenski, on the other hand, favors the opposite view, on the basis of what he considers the correspondence of John 20:21 23with this passage [verses 44 49] in Luke (op. cit., p. 755). I find it rather difficult to decide this question. The reason I incline toward the view of Geldenhuys is that I cannot see that there is such a close correspondence between these particular verses (44 49) in Luke and John 20:21 23. Also I do see a very close resemblance between Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4, which reports that moments before Jesus ascended to heaven, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised. If this be correct, we could indeed with Geldenhuys view verses 44 49 as containing various sayings of our Lord to be ascribed indefinitely to the forty days before the ascension, and then possibly assign the last of these verses (verse 49) to the final day, the very day of the ascension. But, interpreted either way, verses 44 49, as well as those immediately preceding, must be considered as being very precious sayings of our Lord, worthy of diligent study. Luke has arranged his account climactically. In verses 1 12 he has reported the empty tomb and the message of the angels, He is risen. In verses 13 35 he has related the appearance of Jesus himself to the men who were walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus, and (separately) to Simon Peter. Now, here in verses 36 49 he describes the appearance of the Risen Lord to an entire group. 36. Then, while they were saying these things, he himself stood among them and said to them, peace (be) with you. It is Easter Sunday, late in the evening. Ten of the apostles, the men from Emmaus, and perhaps others, are gathered in a house somewhere in Jerusalem. For fear of the Jews the doors are locked (John 20:19). All of a sudden Jesus is standing right in their midst. How he entered we do not know. All we know is that the resurrection body must have certain properties which do not pertain to the body of humiliation. On this see also I Cor. 15:35–38. Not only is the Risen Lord standing here, right among them, but he also, to put them at rest, says, Peace (be) with you. When these words flow from his lips they must not be interpreted as a mere How do you do? The reference is to the peace which Jesus had obtained for all his people by his death on the cross. See Eph. 2:14–18; Phil. 4:7. 37. Startled and frightened, they thought they were seeing a ghost. One might ask, But how can it be explained that the men from Emmaus were so startled and frightened, since only a few hours ago they had been conversing with Jesus? And how was it that Peter, to whom the Lord had also already appeared this very day, was so surprised and so filled with fear? The sudden character of the appearance, and the fact that no one had seen Jesus enter the room all at once, there he was, as if he had materialized out of thin air may well account for these reactions on the part of the disciples. 38 40. But he said to them, Why are you troubled, and why are doubts arising in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see me having. after he had said this he showed them his hands and his feet. When Jesus notices that these men are still filled with fear and doubt, he directs their attention to his hands and feet. He shows them these bodily members. John has his hands and his side. What Jesus wants them to see is undoubtedly the stigmata, the marks of his crucifixion. It is, of course, impossible for us, who do not as yet possess the resurrection body, to understand how it was possible for the body of Jesus to be, on the one hand, so unlike our present bodies that he was able to enter a room without opening either a door or a window; yet, on the other hand, so similar to our present bodies that the very scars resulting from his crucifixion were still showing. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/