H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 1 PREFACE OF THE GOSPELLuk_1:1-4 Luke 1:1 ---Forasmuch as many—Luke introduces his narrative of the earthly life of Jesus by giving in his preface a reason for his writing it. “ Many” had written accounts of the ministry of Jesus; the preaching of the apostles related the history of the earthly life of Jesus, and those who heard them prepared an account for the benefit of others. The “ many” does not include Matthew and Mark, although Matthew was an apostle and an eyewitness, and Mark probably drew his material from what he learned from Peter. John's gospel was not written at this time, and it is not probable that Luke had seen the accounts of Matthew and Mark. Those who had written these accounts to which Luke here refers were uninspired; hence the necessity of Luke’ s giving an inspired and accurate account. have taken in hand to draw up a narrative—The failure of those referred to by Luke and their partial account imposed the necessity on Luke to give a complete record. However, some think that nothing more is meant here by Luke than the simple undertaking of the task before him without any reference to the incomplete work of others. The motive of others was to give to the world the story of Jesus; hence they had drawn “ up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us.” Luke purposes to give to the world a complete history of the facts of the Christian faith; he designs to substitute an inspired account in the place of those accounts written by the “ many” to which he here refers. Luke 1:2 --even as they delivered them unto us,— All the first wit­nesses of these things were apostles, disciples, and others; Luke is a sure witness because he gives a true account of the facts of the gospel as the whole company of the apostles declared them. Luke begins his account with the conception of John the Baptist; but the disciples were eyewitnesses only from the beginning of the ministry of Jesus, when he was about thirty years old; the other information Luke gleaned from the testimony of those persons who were acquainted with the facts, and guided by the Holy Spirit recorded them. “ Eyewitnesses” were those who had seen the events as they occurred, and were the apostles and other disciples of Jesus; they had not been witnesses of the birth and childhood of John and Jesus. These witnesses are referred to as “ ministers of the word” ; some take “ word” here in the sense of eternal word (John 1:1-3), but this specific and peculiar use of the term is used only by John. The gospel is often called the “ word” (Luke 5:1; Acts 6:2). It seems clear from this that Luke was not a disciple from the beginning. Luke 1:3 ---it seemed good to me also,—Here Luke gives his reason for writing; his course is natural. From these motives he thought best to write, since he had a perfect knowledge of these things. He had “ traced the course of all things accu¬rately from the first” ; that is, he had checked on all of the things of which he writes from those who had been eyewitnesses. Luke, guided by the Holy Spirit, was incited to write on this subject because he had peculiar qualifications and facilities for the task; he had the perfect knowledge of all the things relating to his narrative. “ All things” refer to all things of importance, such as Luke deemed by the Holy Spirit essential to his narrative; he had traced all these accounts “ accurately from the first” and was prepared to give them in the order that he follows in his narrative. The word “ accurately” gives the emphasis to what he states as being perfectly reliable; these are given by Luke “ in order” ; that is, they are arranged in his account in their proper connection; he does not mean here that he is going to relate everything in his gospel in chronological order. most excellent ’ Theophilus;—Luke writes to “ Theophilus.” It is a matter which has not been determined whether Theo¬philus was the name of an individual, or whether the name is used to denote all “ lovers of God” or “ friends of God.” The name signifies “ a lover of God” or a “ friend of God.” This name was common for persons at that time; some commentators have interpreted this name to mean all who have dedicated themselves as lovers of God and beloved of him; others think that Theophilus was a pupil of Luke, and that Luke intended through him to give to the world this narrative of Jesus. The epithet “ most excellent” seems to restrict the name to an individual, as it is applied to Festus and Felix. (Acts 24:23 Acts 26:25.) Luke 1:4 ---that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things—This again expresses Luke's purpose of writing this narrative; it was that Theophilus and by implication all others would inform themselves in regard to the origin of these facts and principles on which Christianity was based. This implies that the other accounts referred to in verses 1 and 2 were imperfect narratives, and that no one could get an accurate and connected view of Christ’ s life and ministry. Theophilus as a Christian disciple had already received some instruction in divine things; naturally this instruction would follow the order of a connected narrative. He was to be “ instructed” in all the things recorded by Luke. The original from which “ instructed” comes means “ catechised,” which means to instruct by word of mouth; this is the term used also of Apollos (Acts 18:25) and the Jews addressed by Paul (Romans 2:18) as the representative of the church. This passage shows the insufficiency of oral instruction, and it also shows the habit of the early church, to teach systematically out of these narratives. The Holy Spirit thus through Luke made an inspired history for all to read and study. THE BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST Luk_1:5-25 Luke 1:5 --There was in the days of Herod,—This entire chapter is found in Luke only, and is therefore the only record which we have of these events connected with the birth of John and of Jesus. This Herod, king of Judea, is commonly distinguished as “ Herod the Great.” Luke properly begins with this verse, as the preceding verses constitute what we call the “ Preface.” Matthew uses similar language with respect to Herod. (Matthew 2:1.) Luke recognizes events as being marked by the life or times of some principal man. (Luke 4:25 Luke 4:27.) Judea was a province under the Roman government at this time, and had been for some years. It is probable that the birth of John occurred near the end of the reign of Herod. The title “ king of Judaea” had been decreed to Herod by the Roman senate on the recommendations of Antony and Octavius.a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah:— Luke wastes no words in getting to his subject; he de­scribes minutely the parents of John . “ The course of Abijah” was the eighth course. (1 Chronicles 24:1-10.) David divided the priests into twenty-four classes for their convenience in ministering in the tabernacle worship “ as the duty of every day required.” (2 Chronicles 8:14.) Each course, from this cir­cumstance, seems to have been called a “ daily” course, though the period of its service lasted a week. Abijah received the eighth of the twenty-four classes into which David divided the priests; the head of a course was called the “ chief priests." Zacharias had “ a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.” Elisabeth was a descendant of Aaron and of the priestly tribe; it was a Levitical law that no priest should marry out of his tribe. (Numbers 36:7-8.) John the Baptist was of the tribe of Levi on both sides; his father Zacharias was a priest and his mother Elisabeth of the priestly family; Luke is careful to show that both the father and mother were of the priestly line. Luke 1:6 ---And they were both righteous before God,—Here Luke speaks of the character and circumstances in life of these par-ents of John. “ They were both righteous.” This describes their personal character; they were pious and humble before God; “ righteous” refers to what is just and right in the sight of the law rather than to goodness and benevolence of disposi¬tion, although the two qualities were combined in Zacharias. They walked “ in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” This expresses the habitual daily conduct, including moral precepts and ceremonial rites. Perhaps Luke means to express extraordinary piety, rather than absolute perfection. Such parents are usually chosen of God to be emi¬nently honored and blessed; they were both obedient to the will of God as contained in the Old Testament scripture; they were truly and sincerely living in accordance to the law of Moses; they were blameless according to the imperfect system under which they lived. Luke 1:7 ---And they had no child,—Zacharias and Elisabeth were both very old, “ well stricken in years” ; it seemed from the course of nature that it was impossible for them to have children. “ Elisabeth was barren” ; many of the Old Testament characters were barren. Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Hannah were barren; it was accounted a disgrace among the ancients for a wife to be barren; not that their barrenness was the ef¬fect of sin, but ordained rather by man as a failure to fill the mission that God intended. The wife of Aaron was named Elisabeth (Elisheba), as was the wife of Zacharias. (Exodus 6:23.) Some claim that Zacharias could not have been over fifty years old, as the duties of the priest’ s office could not be performed beyond that age. “ Well stricken in years” does not necessarily mean that he was bowed down and wrinkled with age; it is quite likely that Elisabeth was near the same age of her husband, and if after many years of married life they were childless, their prospects of having children must have been hopeless. Luke 1:8-9 --- Now it came to pass, while he executed the priest’ s office—Zacharias was faithful in performing the duties which pertained to his course; he ministered with others of the course or family of Abijah. One of the priests burned in¬cense, another changed the showbread on the Sabbath day, and another took charge of the fire on the altar for burnt of¬ferings ; in this way their labors were appointed and a more responsible discharge of the various services secured from each individual. Each of the twenty-four courses served in ro¬tation, but those belonging to a course cast lots each day for the service they were respectively to perform. At this time the course to which Zacharias belonged was serving in the sanctuary, and it fell to him by lot to burn incense, which was the most honorable service, and could be performed only once on the same day by any priest, although incense was offered twice each day, at the morning and evening sacrifice. (Exodus 30:7-8.) Luke 1:10 ---And the whole multitude of the people were praying—The people assembled in the courts which surrounded the holy place, and while the priests were within burning incense, the people out in the court were engaged in silent prayer. One of the two priests, whose lot it was to offer incense, brought fire from off the altar of burnt offering to the altar of incense, and then left the other priest there alone, who, on a signal from the priest presiding at the sacrifice, kindled the in¬cense. Reference is had in Revelation 8:3-4 to this service, and the prayers of God’ s people, which were symbolically said to ascend upon the smoke of the incense. Since the people as-sembled for silent prayer at the time of the burning of in¬cense, that hour has been called the hour of prayer. (Acts 3:1.) This hour was at the evening sacrifices which began about three o’ clock. Luke 1:11 ---And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord— While Zacharias was attending to the duties of burning in¬cense the angel Gabriel appeared to him; we do not know the length of time that was spent in burning incense, but it is thought that the angel appeared near the end of his service in the sanctuary. This was no uncommon thing, as there are nu¬merous accounts of divine messengers in the Old Testament. (Genesis 19:1 Genesis 32:1-2.) This angel represented Jehovah; it is an awful thought for weak sinful man, even at his best, to be brought face to face with a spiritual being; the mortal terrors of one’ s own sin and their punishment are enough to frighten one. This angel appeared “ standing on the right side of the altar of incense.’’ The altar of incense stood near the veil in the holy place by the ark of the testimony which was sepa¬rated from the altar by the veil. It was made of acacia wood, overlaid with gold; the length and breadth of it were one cubit and the height two cubits; on the four corners were golden horns and a crown or scroll work of gold ran around the top. The priest placed upon it the censer of burning incense. Luke 1:12-13 --- And Zacharias was troubled when he saw him,— A pious man learned from the Old Testament scriptures (Judges 13:6 Judges 13:21-22), as well as from his own heart, to fear to look upon the celestial beings; the sudden and unusual appearance of the angel terrified or affrighted Zacharias. The angel knew the condition of Zacharias and hastened to reassure him with the usual form of encouragement “ fear not’’ (Daniel 10:12 Daniel 10:19; Revelation 1:17). As Zacharias had given up all hope of a son, this must not be referred to prayer offered at this time, when the angel said “ thy supplication is heard.’’ It is not probable that Zacharias was praying at this time for a son, so the angel referred to the petitions which he and his wife Elisabeth had often made. They had doubtless oftentimes mourned that their prayer was not heard and answered; but now while Zach¬arias had ceased to pray for a son, he had not done this from a rebellious spirit, but in cheerful acquiescence to the di¬vine will, and hence his mind was in a proper state to receive the blessing. “ Thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son” ; this shows the special object of their prayers; the angel was more specific than just announcing that Zacharias should have a son; he even told him what to name the son; “ thou shalt call his name John.” These names of divine appointment were usually symbolical of some blessing or grace accompanying them, of which they were the pledge. “ John” signifies “ given” or “ bestowed graciously of God.” This name was very appropriate, since the child was given, both as denoting God’ s gracious answer to the prayer of Zacharias and the office of John who was to be the forerunner of the Savior of man. Luke 1:14 ---And thou shalt have joy and gladness;—The Greek here is highly intensive; it means literally that there should be a “ leaping for joy.” This is not to be referred to the simple fact that a child was born to him so unexpectedly, but to John’ s piety and evident possession of the divine favor, which would fill his father’ s heart with emotions of joy. Not only should the parents of this promised child “ leap for joy,” but “ many shall rejoice at his birth.” The joy of Zacharias was to be shared by many others; this joy reached its culminating point when thousands flocked to John’ s ministry from all parts of the land. (Matthew 3:5.) There should be rejoicing because John would herald the long-expected Messiah. Luke 1:15 ---For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord,—There was a literal fulfillment of this promise, for Jesus said: “ Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist.” (Matthew 11:11.) This means that among men born up to that time there had been no one so highly favored of God. John’ s greatness consisted in his privilege of announcing the immediate coming of the Messiah, and the gracious zeal and eloquence with which he did it. (John 10:41.) John was to be great “ in the sight of the Lord,” not so much in the sight of men; Zacha rias is here cautioned against supposing that his son’ s greatness would consist in worldly honor or wealth. “ He shall drink no wine nor strong drink” ; he was to be bound with the Nazirite vow. (Numbers 6:1-20.) Samson was also bound with this vow. (Judges 13:2-5.) Wine was the fermented juice of grapes, and God saw fit to restrict the Nazirite and not permit him to drink wine; by such signs all the Jews recognized a man of God, and listened to him with reverence. (Matthew 21:32.) Furthermore, John should “ be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’ s womb.” This is given as the reason why he was to be a Nazirite from his very birth. In the life of a Nazirite, there appears consecrated the strict legal character which John, the close and crowning stone, as it were, of the old dispensation, was called to exhibit. Luke 1:16 ---And many of the children of Israel shall he turn—John’ s success is here predicted. “ The children of Israel” means the descendants of Jacob, called also Israel. (Genesis 32:28.) John was a prophet to the Jews only; he did not preach to the Gen-tiles. We are not told how many were converted under his preaching, but that the number was great is evident, not only from this verse, but from Matthew 3:5-6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:7, and other scriptures, where John’ s ministry and baptism arc referred to. His work is described as turning the people “ unto the Lord their God.” Their sins had separated them from God, and by repentance and obedience, they were brought back to him; John instructed and persuaded the people to do this. Jehovah, in a peculiar sense, was the God of Israel; theirs were “ the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” (Romans 9:4-5.) Luke 1:17 ---And he shall go before his face—John was to go before Christ as a herald precedes a king. The Christ for whom the people waited was soon to come, and this child should anticipate his coming only by a little; these words perhaps refer to Malachi 4:5-6. John should go before Christ like one sent for¬ward by an eastern king to prepare the way and make ready suitable places of reception. He should go “ in the spirit and power of Elijah.” He should have the zeal and energy of the spirit of Elijah, and should inculcate the universal principles of peace, and get the people ready for the coming of the Messiah. The many points of resemblance between John and Elijah are interesting; it should be noted that the angel here quoted scripture. The angels announced “ and on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased” (Luke 2:14) as a characteristic of Christ’ s coming; in John’ s mission this peace was an-nounced. The account of John’ s first preaching to the Jews indicated that all ranks and parties felt, for a time, an inclination to lay aside their differences, and unite to await the Messiah. With the power and spirit of Elijah, John would “ turn the hearts of the fathers to the children” ; this corresponds to the prophecy of Malachi. In turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, he would move them to holy prayer and endeavor for their salvation. Furthermore he would cause “ the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the just.” This would bring men back from the waywardness of their folly and rebellion against God to the true wisdom of seeking the Lord in penitence and prayer. This is summed up in stating that John would “ make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him.” Luke 1:18 ---And Zacharias said unto the angel,—Zacharias, though smitten with great fear, being assured of the angel not to fear, was pleased to hear all that the angel had said to him. He asked the angel, “ Whereby shall I know this?” He wanted to know that the words of the angel were true. A similar ques¬tion was proposed by Abraham (Genesis 15:8; Judges 6:17); Hezekiah asked for a sign (Isaiah 38:22). In the case of Zach¬arias there was so little faith in the message of the angel that the sign of the fulfillment of the promise was also a pun¬ishment of his unbelief. Zacharias gave two reasons showing, as he thought, that it would be impossible to fulfill the prom¬ise ; he said: “ I am an old man,” and his second reason was “ my wife well stricken in years.” He was not like faithful Abraham who “ wavered not through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith.” (Romans 4:18-22. See also Genesis 17:1 Genesis 17:17; Hebrews 11:12.) Zacharias, being a priest, should have be¬lieved on the testimony of the angel. Luke 1:19 ---And the angel answering said unto him,—In reply to Zacharias’ question and in answering his two reasons pro-posed, the angel said: “ I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God.” This should have been enough for the bewildered and doubting Zacharias. The angel condescended to inform Zacharias of his name and angelic dignity. “ Gabriel” means “ man of God” ; he was an archangel sent on a special mission. A Jewish priest should know at once that this name carried with it the authority and presence of God. (Daniel 8:16 Daniel 9:21.) He is represented as the chief archangel, ministering to the infant Messiah. The name “ Gabriel” is made up of two Hebrew words, signifying “ the man of God.” He stood “ in the presence of God” as a dignitary may stand in the presence of a monarch. Our high priest is said “ now to appear before the face of God for us.” (Hebrews 9:24.) Luke 1:20 ---And behold, thou shalt be silent—The word in the Greek may also signify “ deaf” ; because Zacharias believed not the words of the angel, he should be deaf and should not be able to speak. The angel even told him that he should not be able to speak “ until the day that these things shall come to pass” ; it was the eighth day after the birth of the child that the pun¬ishment of his unbelief was remitted, and the power of speech again restored to him. The sentence was pronounced upon Zacharias in terms of severe and expressive fullness. It is specifically declared that unbelief was the cause of his punish¬ment, but we should not lose sight of the love with which his punishment was tempered in that it was a gracious sign of the due fulfillment to the promise. The angel further declared that all that had been promised him would “ be fulfilled in their season.” Every event promised, such as the birth, naming, education, and mission of the child, would all occur in or¬derly succession, and in exact accordance with the prediction made by the angel . Luke 1:21 ---And the people were waiting for Zacharias,—The priest did not usually tarry long within the holy place, lest the peo¬ple, whose representative he was, should be alarmed with the apprehension that divine vengeance had overtaken him for some failure in the discharge of his priestly duty. “ They marvelled while he tarried in the temple” ; they were wondering and anxious about him, for they knew that it was an awful thing to minister before God. Very likely their mode of conducting their service was so regular and exact that any variation was remarkable. They began to reason among them¬selves as to the cause of his delay. We do not know how long the interview lasted with the angel; we have no means of knowing; it was probably of short duration, but was longer than others had remained in the sanctuary. This gives a reason for believing that the angel appeared at the close of the period of the ministry of Zacharias this day, and the conversa-tion with the angel delayed the time and caused the people to be anxious about him; the people had assembled for prayer. Luke 1:22 ---And when he came out, he could not speak unto them:—The people saw at once when Zacharias came out that he had seen a vision; they judged this to be the explanation of his delay, and then of his disturbed looks and his unusual silence when he came out. He was unable to dismiss them with the common benediction, so he “ continued making signs unto them, and remained dumb.” He made signs to inform them that something extraordinary had occurred, and to dismiss them to their homes. Prophecy had been silent now about four hundred years, and now the priesthood had become dumb as a sign of the approaching end of the Levitical ordinances. Luke 1:23 ---And it came to pass, when the days of his ministration—The term “ days” used here means the period of time that Zacharias served; they were the days of the week of the course or lot of the priests of Abijah. The priests during their term of service did not enter their own houses, but remained continually in the enclosures of the sacred hill. At the end of their weeks they returned home; Zacharias could not leave, though he had seen an angel; for the angel had not brought him permission to violate the duties of his office. It is supposed that Zacharias lived in the priestly city of Hebron. The priests were divided into twenty-four courses, and a course came to the sanctuary and ministered for a period of time, usually one or two weeks; but even one course or set was so numerous that it was necessary to make a selection out of it of those who should perform the most solemn parts of the service; this was done by lot. It fell to the lot of Zacha¬rias to burn incense, and this is probably the first time that he had had this exalted duty. What a favored lot he drew at this time! Luke 1:24-25 --- And after these days Elisabeth his wife conceived;—The event here spoken of took place soon after the return of Zacharias to his house. After her conception Elisabeth “ hid herself five months.” She did this for purposes of modesty and constant devotion; she desired probably to await the certain signs of the facts; she withdrew herself wholly from the sight of others, choosing her own place of concealment. Her sense of delicacy may have been heightened in this instance by her age which would subject her to more than usual notice and remark. Again she had been instructed that the child was to be a Nazirite, and Elisabeth wanted to keep herself within the limitations of a Nazirite; she could do this by voluntarily secluding herself; Elisabeth said that the Lord had thus taken away “ my reproach among men.” The hopes of a Messiah to be born of a woman increased in the minds of the Jewish women the natural desire for children. (Psalms 113:9.) Jewish women thought it peculiarly a reproach to be bar-ren; barrenness was in those times also considered as a deep privation of a great blessing. Luke 1:26-27 ---Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel—In this verse we learn the comparative age of Jesus and John; the place of the residence of Joseph and Mary give some light on Matthew 2:23. Reckoning from the time of Elisabeth’ s conception it was six months before the angel Gabriel made his appearance to Mary. John was about six months old when Jesus was born. The angel Gabriel was sent from God to Nazareth, a city of Galilee. Palestine was divided into three divisions— Judea in the south, Samaria in the center, and Galilee in the north. Many have thought that this was about December of our calendar; however, there is no evidence as to the exact time of year when Jesus was born; if he were born in December the angel came to Mary sometime in April. Mary is described as “ a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David.” The tribe of King David was Judah, and Joseph was a direct descendant of the house of David. Some make the phrase “ of the house of David” refer to Mary instead of to Joseph. Mary was “ betrothed” to Joseph; she was engaged to Joseph; this was a sacred agree¬ment between them. Mary was “ a virgin.” Isaiah had proph¬esied that a virgin should become the mother of the Mes¬siah. (Isaiah 7:14.) Luke 1:28-29 --- And he came in unto her, and said,—The angel Ga-briel came to Mary and said: “ Hail, thou that art highly fa¬vored, the Lord is with thee.” This was the salutation with which the angel greeted Mary; he came into her dwelling or the apartment where she then was. “ Hail” is a salutation of honor in Greek and corresponds to the Hebrew form “ peace be unto you.” (Luke 24:36.) The angel sought to encourage as well as honor Mary. He addressed her as one “ highly favored” of God; this means the spiritual blessings already bestowed upon Mary and includes those which would be conferred upon her. She is pronounced as one who is honored by Jehovah. Mary was somewhat troubled as to “ what manner of salutation this might be.” Luke 1:30-33 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary:—In tenderness and assurance the angel Gabriel told her to “ fear not” ; the angel had declared to Zacharias that his prayers were to be answered, but to Mary “ thou hast found favor with God.” This was not from any personal worthiness on her part, or any immaculacy of moral character, but from the abundant grace of God bestowed upon her as upon all others who earnestly seek divine favor and guidance. Special reference is made to the great blessing which was about to be con-ferred upon her in being the mother of the promised Messiah. Mary was about to receive and enjoy a blessing long reserved in store for her. thou shalt conceive in thy womb,—This strange announce¬ment to Mary carried with it an astonishment. She did not understand how all of this would come to pass to her, a lowly maiden of Nazareth. The promise was that she should “ bring forth a son,” and the instruction was that she should “ call his name JESUS.” “ Jesus” means “ Saviour”; this was because he should “ save his people from their sins.” The angel continued to emphasize the character of this Son; “ he shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High.” This does not refer to temporal greatness, but to the glory and power to which he was to be exalted. He should be universally acknowledged as the “ Son of the Most High.” This is a special and definite name as Jesus, Christ, Messiah, and Lord are given to him. “ The Son of the Most High” was evidently a Messianic title, like “ Son of the Blessed.” (Mark 14:61.) The promise was made that he should be given “ the throne of his father David.” This promise of authority and dominion was made primarily and in the lowest sense to Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-13), who was thus the type of Christ; in its higher and spiritual sense, it was prophetically made to the Messiah, who, according to the flesh, was to spring from David (Romans 1:3). It should be noted that Mary, though not actually married, had no difficulty in understanding this angelic message arising from family descent. This shows that she was herself, as many claim, a descendant of David, and fully aware of this distinguished honor, a fact which throws much light on the genealogy of our Lord as given a little later by Luke. (Luke 3:23-38.) he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever;—This verse and the word “ throne” in verse 32 are to be understood as representing a spiritual dominion. “ The house of Jacob” means the Israelitish nation, which, in the Messianic times, was to embrace all who were partakers of the faith of Abraham, whether they were Jews or Gentiles. (Galatians 3:7.) There was to be no end to his kingdom; other kingdoms, like the four spoken of in Daniel 7:14, should end, but this one would never cease from being a spiritual kingdom till he should surrender the redeemed saints to God the Father. (1 Corinthians 15:28; Hebrews 2:8-9.) It could not have been true as a promise to David in a temporal sense, for his kingdom and throne did cease. This kingdom, over which the promised Messiah should reign, extended beyond all generations and could not be limited by political boundaries. Christ will never cease to be King of his people; he will ever be adored as the Lamb of God that was slain to redeem his people from endless death. Luke 1:34 ---And Mary said unto the angel,—Mary did not under¬stand ; nothing of the kind had ever occurred, even as nothing of the kind has ever since occurred; the words of Mary are not those of unbelief, but the outpouring of a childlike spirit, seeking for light on a subjct so manifestly dark and mysterious. The words of the angel replied that the conception should take place immediately, and as she was yet unmarried, she saw not how the promise could be fulfilled. Zacharias was punished for his doubtful attitude toward the message of Gabriel; his was that unbelief; Mary’ s one of inquiry, directed in a childlike spirit which is not to be blamed. Luke 1:35 ---And the angel answered—The miraculous conception of this child Jesus is here assigned as the reason for his being called the Son of God; viewed on the side of his human nature and relations, this cannot be misunderstood. As Christ was the Son of the Father and begotten of him (John 1:14), this must be understood as the divine influence or energy exerted through the agency of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did not create the world, but only moved upon the chaotic mass, bringing order out of confusion, so Christ was not begotten of the Holy Spirit, although the energy and influence of the Spirit was instrumentally employed in the conception of Mary. This is further emphasized by the statement that “ the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee.” The figure used here is borrowed from a cloud; as the shadow of a cloud rests upon and circumfuses the top of a hill or mountain, so the divine influ¬ence was to be exerted and rest upon Mary for the production of the intended effect. This figure or imagery implies nothing gross or material, but simply the operation of the divine en¬ergy in the conception of Christ. wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten—It is emphatically declared here that Jesus was called the “ Son of God” because in his human nature he was begotten of God, and sustained a relation to God such as no one else has ever borne. “ The holy thing,” the neuter gender is here used in accordance with general usage, which withholds the idea of sex from an infant, until it is indicated by name or otherwise. It simply means in the original Greek “ thy holy offspring.” Christ is the Son of God only in his relation to the redemption of man; he is his “ Son” only in that he was born of a woman. He existed with God in eternity and was not the “ Son of God” before he came in the flesh; he was “ in the beginning” a member of the “ Godhead” ; but since he came in the flesh, suffered, died, and was raised from the dead, he is spoken of as “ the Son” of God. His divinity and deity are from eternity. Luke 1:36-38 ---And behold, Elisabeth thy kinswoman,—The angel continued his conversation with Mary and informed her of the condition of Elisabeth. We do not know how closely Mary and Elisabeth were related; she is represented here as “ thy kinswoman,” which does not express the degree of blood relation. Many think that the relation was on the mother’ s side, as Elisabeth was of the tribe of Levi (verse 5), and Mary was of the tribe of Judah; the genealogy was always reckoned on the paternal side. The angel informed Mary that Elisabeth had “ conceived a son in her old age,” and that “ this is the sixth month with her that was called barren.” Elisabeth’ s home was in the mountains of Judea, probably at Hebron, and Mary’ s home was at Nazareth in Galilee, far north from Elisabeth. The mode of communication was not as easy as it is now, and although it had been six months since Elisabeth con¬ceived, Mary, though a kinswoman of Elisabeth, had not learned of it. In this way the mother of the forerunner of Christ and the mother of Christ are brought together by the same angel. For no word from God shall be void—This is the great and crowning reason why Mary was to be assured of the accomplishment of all the things which had been spoken by the angel; although it was apparently so contrary to the natural course of events, yet Mary was to believe that nothing was impossible with God. This should strengthen her faith and prepare her for the great event; with God nothing shall ever be, nothing can ever be impossible. It is the glory of God that, when he wills, he does things impossible to human agen¬cies. Mary’ s soul bowed in sweet confidence and submission to this divinely revealed purpose; she said “ be it unto me ac¬cording to thy word.” THE VISIT OF MARY TO Luk_1:39-56 Luke 1:39-40 ---And Mary arose in these days and went—It seems that Mary did not delay; since the angel had informed her with respect to Elisabeth, she “ arose” and went “ with haste”; we do not know the significance of “ these days” as to the definite time. Some think that Joseph had been informed of Mary’ s condition before her visit to Elisabeth, which might have happened in three or four weeks from the time of her pregnancy; since a betrothed virgin could not travel, whereas, after Joseph had taken her home (Matthew 1:24), she could with propriety visit her kinswoman as here related. Others think that Joseph did not discover Mary’ s condition until the fourth or fifth month of her pregnancy, and therefore her visit to Elis-abeth was before Joseph discovered her condition. It seems that it was the sixth month after Elisabeth’ s conception that the annunciation took place, and as Mary stayed with Elisa¬beth about three months (verse 56), after which time, as is ev¬ident from verse 57, John was born, Mary must have left Naz¬areth almost immediately after the visit of the angel, and no space is therefore found for the three or four weeks, which some think intervened before she left Nazareth for the hill country.That she left very soon after the annunciation is evi¬dent also from the haste with which she prosecuted her journey. When she arrived in the hill country of Judea she en¬tered “ into the house of Zacharias and saluted Elisabeth.” There were various forms of salutations among the ancient Hebrews, such as “ be thou blessed of Jehovah,” “ the blessings of Jehovah be upon thee,” “ may God be with thee,” “ may peace be yours.” (Judges 19:20; Rth 2:4; 1 Samuel 25:26; 2 Samuel 20:9.) We do not know which salutation Mary used. Luke 1:41-45 ---And it came to pass, when Elisabeth heard—When Elisabeth heard the salutation spoken by Mary, “ the babe leaped in her womb”; such a movement often accompanies sudden excitement, yet the reference to it by Luke, and the words of Elisabeth, show that it was to be attributed to a secret and powerful spiritual influence. The verb in the Greek is used to denote the leaping and frisking for joy of young animals, and denotes here something more than the natural movements of the unborn child; this gives weight to the words she uttered in reply to Mary’ s salutation. “ Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,” which shows that her words were inspired, and gives the cause of the sudden motion mentioned; as a pious and just woman, she expressed her joy at the great favor which was done to her youthful kinswoman, and prophesied concerning her. So far as the record shows Mary had only saluted her and had as yet told her nothing; hence Elisabeth learned of Mary’ s condition by inspiration. and she lifted up her voice with a loud cry,—Here follows the inspired utterances of Elisabeth. “ Lifted up her voice with a loud cry” shows that she was excited to great transport of mind by the Holy Spirit with which she was filled. She began her utterance by saying, “ Blessed art thou among women”; this was not an ordinary salutation, but one in the very words employed by the angel Gabriel (verse 28), of whose appearance to Mary Elisabeth was probably yet igno¬rant; it was a salutation prompted by the Holy Spirit and was calculated to encourage Mary in her condition. Furthermore she said: “ Blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” Here again Elis¬abeth must have been enlightened by the influence of the Holy Spirit, for she had no knowledge as yet of Mary’ s conception ; by the Holy Spirit Elisabeth blessed Mary and her unborn child. Some think that this implies nothing but the superiority of the age of Elisabeth over Mary; however, it must imply much else. It was natural for the age of Elisabeth to bless her young friend. And whence is this to me,—Here Elisabeth uses the language of humility; she expressed her wonder that she had been considered worthy of such a visit from Mary; she inquired : “ Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?” This seems to be the first one to speak of Jesus as “ my Lord” ; later it became a common title among the disciples of Jesus. Such utterances made of an un¬born child can be attributed only to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and were the words spoken by Elisabeth who was filled with the Spirit. Elisabeth reveals to Mary that, “ when the voice of thy salutation came into mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy/’ This explains why Elisabeth knew that Mary was to be the mother of the long-expected Messiah. While this knowledge of Elisabeth was the result of divine revelation she, under the influence of the Spirit, refers to it as the effect that Mary’ s salutation had upon her unborn child. And blessed is she that believed;—Elisabeth, by inspiration, recognized that Mary had from the first believed, and was unlike Zacharias, who at that time was still smitten with dumbness. Her language passes from the second to the third person, and must be looked upon in the light of a prayer or invo¬cation of blessings upon Mary. Still speaking by the Holy Spirit, Elisabeth declares that “ there shall be a fulfillment of the things which have been spoken to her from the Lord.’’ There is no evidence that Mary had as yet revealed to Elisa¬beth anything, and Elisabeth was still under the influence of the Holy Spirit when she uttered these unusual words; the ex¬pression, although in form indefinite, is designed to apply di¬rectly to Mary. Elisabeth recognizes that what the angel had spoken to Mary was “ from the Lord.” Luke 1:46-56 ---And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,—Mary is now filled with the Holy Spirit and breaks forth into expressions of joy and thankfulness; she may not have under-stood the full import of her words, yet they are very significant. These verses comprise most of the recorded words of Mary; we have but few recorded words of the mother of Jesus — more of them here than anywhere else. They remind one of the ancient song of Hannah under similar circumstances. (1 Samuel 2:1-10.) They breathe the most delightful recognition of God’ s great mercy, his condescension to their humble es¬tate, his often manifested law of moral administration to exalt the lowly and to abase the proud. Here is a celebration of his glorious fulfillment of a long extant promise to Israel of the Messiah. This speech of Mary’ s is put in the structure of Hebrew poetry. my spirit hath rejoiced in God—Mary rejoiced in the fact that she was elevated from a state of earthly obscurity, but her deepest joy was in the fact that she was to bring the promised Messiah into the world. Verses 48 and 49 show the ground of Mary’ s praise; God had looked upon her favorably and had made her the mother of our Lord; she regarded the blessings of the Messiah’ s advent as reaching to the end of time; she gave utterance to great spiritual truths respecting the true glory of the Messiah’ s reign. She passes to a general song of praise; rising above personal blessings and losing sight of them in the divine glory and goodness of God which are revealed to her at this time. He hath given help to Israel his servant,—In this song of praise Mary is enabled by the Holy Spirit to look back and see all the good things that Jehovah had done for Israel; she was permitted to view the future and the blessings which should come to the world through this Messiah. The language of praise and grateful remembrance of the divine help in behalf of the poor and humble now assumes a more comprehensive and general form. Jehovah had extended mercy as he had spoken unto “ our fathers” and “ toward Abraham and his seed for ever.” God’ s covenant of mercy was not only made with the patriarchs, but declared to them in words of the strongest import, and confirmed with an oath. All the promises that God had made to Israel were now focusing on the babe that she would bring into the world. BIRTH AND OF JOHNLuk_1:57-80 Luke 1:57 ---Now Elisabeth’ s time was fulfilled—Luke now dismissed the history concerning Mary until her journey with Joseph to Bethlehem. (Luke 2:1.) Mary left Elisabeth, it seems, just before the birth of John; she may have done so, wishing to avoid the excitement of the occasion, and the observation of such an assemblage. The birth of John the Baptist was soon after Mary’ s departure, probably in the spring. According to the promise of Gabriel, at the proper time, a son was born to Zacharias and Elisabeth; as the prediction of the angel was fulfilled in this particular, so we may expect every prophecy concerning John to be fulfilled. Luke 1:58-59 ---And her neighbors and her kinsfolk heard—When the kinspeople heard that Elisabeth had brought forth a son, they were ready to congratulate her on being blessed even in her old age; very likely they were more enthusiastic since hope had been lost in her becoming a mother. “ They rejoiced with her” ; it was a happy occasion for Elisabeth and her neighbors and kinspeople with her; thus early began to be fulfilled the prediction of the angel as recorded in verse 14. There was a similar rejoicing at the birth of Obed. (Rth 4:14-17.) “ And it came to pass on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child.” According to the patriarchal custom and the Mosaic law the male child was to be circumcised on the eighth day. (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3.) If the eighth day came on the Sabbath, the rite was not postponed. (John 7:22-23.) According to the Jewish traditional law, ten persons were required to be present as witnesses to the circumcision; hence the presence of relatives and friends. Circumcision was enjoined upon Abraham as a token or covenant sign, and was to be performed upon all his male descendants and upon every male that was admitted within the folds of the Jewish nation. (Genesis 17:9-14.) It was an essential condition of Jewish nationality ; Paul speaks of it also as “ the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision: that he might be the father of all them that believe.” (Romans 4:11.) Circumcision was the attesta¬tion of Abraham’ s justification by faith; it became a type of the cleansing of the heart, as Paul says “ circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter.” (Romans 2:29.) “ For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.” (Philippians 3:3.) Luke 1:60-61 ---And his mother answered and said, Not so;—Evidently Zacharias had in some way communicated to Elisabeth that his name, according to the instruction of the angel (verse 13), should be “ John”; or Elisabeth had received instruction by inspiration as to the name of her son. When the friends persisted at his circumcision in calling him “ Zacharias,” Elisabeth positively refused to sanction the name Zacharias and declared that he should be called John. The custom of naming children after some connection of the family was urged as a ballad of objection against the name John; it was fitting that the harbinger of the new dispensation should have a name not found among his natural connections, as “ Jesus” is not found among our Lord’ s ancestors. It was a common usage then, as in all ages, to name at least one son for the father; this law of usage the neighbors and relatives insisted should be followed; but the Lord had overruled it and had named him John before his birth. “ John” means “ Jehovah’ s gift,” and was a very appropriate name for this child, as he was a gift from Jehovah. Luke 1:62-64 ---And they made signs to his father,—The neighbors and friends were surprised at Elisabeth’ s positive refusal to let him be called Zacharias; she had spoken with such emphasis that they thought it useless to argue with her any longer, so they “ made signs to his father” and asked what his wish was; the fact that they “ made signs” with the head or hands or both shows that Zacharias was deaf as well as dumb. They assumed that the father had a wish in the case, and that his wish would settle the matter. In fact, the original Greek im¬plies that the question was so put as to demand a definite reply; more literally “ they made signs as to what he is”; that is, what is his name. And he asked for a writing tablet,—Zacharias made signs and asked for “ a writing tablet” that he might give answer; he probably asked for that which he had used for nine months as a means of communicating with his wife and others. The instrument of writing then was probably a light board covered with wax and a sharp iron instrument for a pen; the iron was broad and smooth at one end for smoothing the wax and sharp at the other for writing. Zacharias wrote a simple statement—“ his name is John.” This means that the child had already been named and that they had nothing to do with it. The neighbors and friends all “ marvelled.” And his mouth was opened immediately,—Zacharias had been smitten with dumbness from the time the angel Gabriel announced to him that he should have a son; Zacharias had asked for a sign in his unbelief that the angel had truly informed him, and the sign of his dumbness was given. Zacharias had faithfully followed the instruction of the angel and had given his son the name “ John,” and at that eventful moment the tongue of Zacharias was loosed, and his soul was filled with praise and his glad tongue gave it suitable expression. The naming of the child was an evidence of Zacharias’ restored faith; in apprehending the full meaning of the name John, “ one whom God has graciously given/* he accepted in full confidence all that had been foretold. The first use of his recovered speech was not in complaint, nor in conversation with his wife or friends, but in praising or blessing God. He blessed God, not merely for himself, but for the child, and for what God was about to do for his people by the Messiah and his forerunner. Luke 1:65-66 ---And fear came on all that dwelt—“ Fear” means religious awe on account of the evident display of divine power; fear has always been the first effect produced on man by the consciousness that heavenly beings are entering into nearer and unusual intercourse with man. All in the immediate neighborhood of the city of John’ s birth, probably Hebron, were greatly impressed by the scenes which had transpired. “ All these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea*’ ; these things were talked of everywhere and told abroad; this means the circumstances regarding John's birth became the great topic of conversation in all the hill country of Judea, but it seems that they did not reach Jerusalem. The people knew of Zacharias’ affliction of dumbness ; they had heard rumors of the events connected with the birth of John; now Zacharias gives his son an unusual name, which was given by the angel, and now for the first time in nearly a year he breaks his long silence. The people would remember these when John began preaching the gospel of the kingdom. And all that heard them laid them up in their heart,—By this we are to understand that there were certain manifesta¬tions of divine favor toward the child; events which would be noticed by observers living in Hebron, but which Luke did not see fit to record. Many absurd legends were propagated in the early ages of the church concerning the period which intervenes between the births of John and Jesus and their public ministry, but we may be safe in rejecting them; if the inspired writers had seen fit, they could have given them to us. They observed that the hand of the Lord was with him; the guidance, protection, and blessings of God, including the gracious influences of the Holy Spirit, were with John. Luke here gives a glimpse of John’ s early history, intimating both the continued fulfillment of the angel’ s words and also the realization of the expectations awakened among the people at his birth. Luke 67-75---And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit,—The spirit of prophecy had ceased with Malachi, but now, after about four hundred years, it is given again. Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and in a strain of sacred rapture he “ prophesied.” A prophet was one who was used by God as a means of communicating his will, even though he may not predict any future events. (Genesis 20:7; John 4:19.) A prophet was God’ s mouthpiece to the people. Zacharias spoke as the prophets did of old. (2 Peter 1:21.) God generally chose holy men as prophets, yet sometimes he has inspired even wicked men. (Numbers 23:5 Numbers 24:11.) Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel;— The song of Zacharias is a hymn of thanksgiving and a prediction of John’ s relation to Christ; it is Messianic in its character; Christ is its theme, and it is John’ s glory to be forerunner of Christ. Its structure is in the form of Hebrew poetry, and abounds in He¬brew idioms. Zacharias probably committed it to writing, and copies of it were very likely preserved, and Luke had a copy of it. The song consists of two parts: (1) Blessing God for the true spiritual salvation in fulfillment of his promises. (Luke 1:68-75.) (2) Presenting John as the prophet and herald of the Messiah, the one who was to prepare the way for the Christ. (Luke 1:76-79.) “ Blessed be the Lord, the God of Is¬rael.” It seems natural for Zacharias to praise Jehovah; his restored speech is used first in blessing God under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. To bless God is not only to acknowledge and proclaim his infinite and eternal blessedness, but to render to him ascriptions of praise and thanksgiving. As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets—This verse is parenthetical; Mary had ended her song (verse 55) with a parenthetical statement, and Zacharias begins his with such an expression; he alludes to the burden of ancient proph¬ecy ; it seems that Zacharias begins where Mary left off. God spoke through his holy prophets. “ For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21.) The burden of prophecy had been the future Messiah. “ For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” (Revelation 19:10.) Zacharias refers in general to the ancient prophets and most naturally to all who uttered predictions regarding the Christ. The first promise of a Redeemer was made by Jehovah himself in the garden of Eden. (Genesis 3:15.) This was the fountainhead of the stream of prophecy, which flowed down the ages in an ever widening and deepening channel until it ended in the great Redeemer. Salvation from our enemies,—The salvation here is explanatory of and the result of the “ horn of salvation for us,” re¬ferred to in verse 69: the thought in verse 69 is now taken up after the parenthesis. This was a spiritual deliverance from spiritual enemies, since serving God “ in holiness and righteousness before him all our days” (verse 75) was to be the result of this salvation. Zacharias may have connected this with the deliverance from the political oppression of Herod and the Romans, expecting national exaltation with the highest religious prosperity like that in the days of David and Solomon; however it seems that he must, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, have been chiefly speaking of a salvation from the bondage of individual and national sins. To grant unto us that we being delivered—The covenant that Jehovah made was a “ holy covenant” ; it was a “ holy cov¬enant” because it originated in holiness and was productive of holiness in the saved from all injustice and unrighteousness and from every imperfection. (Romans 3:26.) God remem¬bered his oath for the purpose of performing or granting its fulfillment; hence he exercised mercy in remembering his holy covenant and performing his oath to grant deliverance to his people. It was of the greatest importance in the mind of Zacharias that they should serve God “ without fear,” and hence he makes it prominent. Luke 1:76-80 ---Yea and thou, child, shalt be called the prophet—At this point the song of Zacharias begins its second part. After giving vent to his gratitude for the coming and blessing of the Messiah, Zacharias now first mentions his son, whom he ad-dressed in language of great beauty, yet he speaks of him only as the prophet and forerunner of him whose glorious mission and salvation he was now celebrating. John was called here “ the prophet of the Most High” ; he was the messenger of God spoken of by Malachi. John was a prophet not only as a preacher of truth, but also as the foreteller of Christ’ s coming and of the vengeance that should befall the Jewish nation for its impenitence and unbelief. The preeminence of Jesus is here designated by the “ Most High.” John’ s mission is also outlined here when Zacharias said that he should “ go before before the face of the Lord." Luke 1:76 ---the face of the Lord to make ready his ways.” John is likened to one going before an oriental monarch and preparing the way for him. Christ is first, John secondary; Zacharias so recognizes this relation between John and Jesus. There seems to be a clear reference here to the prophecies in Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1. The divine nature of Jesus as the Messiah is brought to view here by the application of the name “ Lord” to him. John was to prepare the way for Jesus by pointing out the sins of the people and leading them to repentance. Luke 1:78 ---To give knowledge of salvation—This expresses the object of John’ s going before Jesus to prepare his way; John awakened in the people a conception of their need of a spiri¬tual emancipation and of the necessity of repentance and reformation of life, and pointed to Jesus as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. John thus taught and heralded the salvation which Christ was to bring, and put the people in preparation for it. This knowledge should lead them unto “ the remission of their sins.” John was to give a knowledge of a salvation consisting in the forgiveness of sins. Before Christ came there was not a clear understanding of the method by which God could grant the full forgiveness of sins, and hence the knowledge of this was the great need of the Jews and of the world. Luke 1:79 ---Because of the tender mercy of our God,—The knowledge of the remission of sins, as well as the salvation from sin, is through the tender mercies of God. It is also through the tender mercy of God that Christ, man’ s Redeemer, should come. “ Whereby the dayspring from on high shall visit us.” Literally, “ dayspring” means “ the rising” of the sun, or “ the dawn of a heavenly day.” We have here a reference to prophetic terms: “ But unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings; and ye shall go forth, and gambol as calves of the stall.” (Malachi 4:2.) This seems to compare the coming of the Christ and the dawn of a better day to the heavenly bodies, which do not come from beneath the horizon, but as it were from the very zenith. With prophetic vision Zacharias saw the dawn already begin-ning and the Messiah coming. Luke 1:79 --To shine upon them—The purpose of the coming of Christ is here given; he was to give light to the people and to illumi-nate all who sat “ in darkness and the shadow of death.” The dark, terrible, and dismal condition in which the people had been wrought by sin was to be removed by dispelling the darkness of spiritual death, and giving light through the Christ. This was to be done by his guiding “ our feet into the way of peace.” They were to be led by Christ into that course of life which is attended with peace of conscience and led to eternal peace. The gospel of Christ shows us the only way to peace with God. The coming of Christ is like the day-dawn that comes to the weary and benighted traveler in the darkness of the most dismal night, and enables him to pursue his journey in paths of peace and safety. The hymn of Zacharias closes grandly with the boundless prospect in the future for eternal and supernal happiness. Luke 1:80 ---And the child grew,—Luke now gives us a glimpse of John’ s private life, his development of both body and mind, his preparation for his peculiar work; the conclusion is similar to that in Luke 2:40 Luke 2:52. Some think that this marks the end of one of those documents which Luke used under the direction of the Spirit. (Verse 3.) “ The child grew” in a physical, mental, and spiritual sense; he was gradually fitted for the great work of preaching repentance to a wicked nation. He remained “ in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel.” “ Deserts” here means sparsely-inhabited districts of southern Palestine; the word “ desert” or “ wilderness” means in the New Testament merely an unenclosed, untilled, and thinly-inhabited district; it was applied to the mountainous regions, to districts fitted only for pasture, and to country remote from towns. John remained in “ the deserts” until the time of his public manifestation, or his entrance into his public ministry, which was about thirty years of age. Some think that his parents died when he was young; he was not taught in the Jewish schools; he did not appear in the service of the temple at an age when he could have done so. (Numbers 8:24; 1 Chronicles 23:27.) This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 Luke was not an eyewitness of the things on which he writes, but they were told him by those who were. In copying down the things told him he would be qualified by inspiration, even as the Spirit guaranteed the accuracy of the memory of the apostles which was promised by Jesus before he left them (John 14:26). 3 So thorough was the report these witnesses gave Luke that he says it caused him to have perfect ("exact" --Thayer) understanding of the whole story. The book of Luke was addressed to Theophilus who was an outstanding, educated Christian, according to the Bible Dictionaries. Being addressed to one individual does not affect its importance for others, any more than does the fact that Paul wrote four of his epistles to individuals do so. 4 The special purpose Luke had in writing to this man was that he might be assured of the instructions he had already received. 5 Luke, like Matthew, begins his record at the time just prior to the birth of Jesus. However, unlike Matthew, he first gives us the history concerning the parentage of John the Baptist. It was in the days of Herod (The Great) who was king of- Judea. Course of Abia is explained at 1 Chronicles 24 in volume 2 of the Old Testament Commentary. All priests had to be descendants of Aaron but that was not required of their wives, hence Luke gives us the added information that Elizabeth was also from Aaron. 6 This couple lived up to all requirements of the law, which proves that it was not physically impossible to do so as some teach. Paul was another who did this according to Philippians 3:6. 7 They had no child, because that Elizabeth was barren. This is a significant statement that contrasts with the practice of some professed Christians who are childless from choice. Such people treat with contempt the first object of marriage by practicing birth control. Not only was Elizabeth barren, but she and her husband were in advanced age as were Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 11:30; Genesis 17:17), yet they did not give up hope (verse 13). 8 Order of his course. (See the comments at verse 5). 9 This custom of the priest's office is described in Exodus 30:7-10. 0 The whole multitude were obeying Leviticus 16:17. 1 The altar of incense was in the first holy room of the temple, and incense was burned on it daily. Right side; on Zacharias's right hand as he stood facing the altar in the service. 2 The people were not permitted to accompany the priest in this place (verse 10), hence the appearance of an angel there caused Zacharias to be disturbed. 3 Prayer is heard and bear thee a son are phrases that are related; he had been praying for a son. This was one thing that caused Luke to say this couple was righteous. Had they been opposed to children and tried to avoid having them, they would not have been righteous. The promise of a son included instructions for his name. 4 Not only was Zacharias to rejoice over this son, but many others would have reason to be glad for his birth because of the great work he was to do in preparing a people for the king of heaven. 5 Great in the sight of the Lord whether the world admired him or not. Drink neither wine nor strong drink was a qualification of a Nazarite under the law (Numbers 6:1-4). During his entire life he was to be under the guidance of the Spirit. 6 This verse shows the fulfillment of Mal 4:6. 7 Elias (Elijah) was a powerful prophet in the Old Testament, and John was to be given a spirit of power like his. Turn the hearts of the fathers, etc., refers to the same as at verse 16. A people prepared for the Lord means the people whom John baptized in preparing a people for Christ. 8 The promise of a child under the conditions seemed so nearly impossible that Zacharias overlooked the evidence of the miracle already before him, that of the presence of an angel in that exclusive spot. 9 This was not merely an angel, but was one of the two who only are named in the Bible. This one was from the immediate presence of God where he usually stood, ready to do the bidding of the occasions as they came up. 0 Zacharias was to receive a sign that would be both an evidence and a mild punishment, because he believed not the words. This dumbness that was to come at once would start the evidence, and when it was completed it would strengthen the meaning. 1 The people waited according to the law, but Zacharias was detained longer than the regular service usually required which caused them to wonder. 2 A vision is defined as something that appears to one either while awake or asleep. As Zacharias had become speechless since he entered the temple, the people realized that something supernatural had occurred. 3 Days of Ms ministration were accomplished. The priests took turns in the service which is explained in the comments at 1 Chronicles 24:6, volume 2 of the Old Testament Commentary. 4 Hid is from which Thayer defines, "to conceal on all sides or entirely, to hide," and he explains his definition, "to keep one's self at home." It is the usual custom for expectant mothers to keep in retirement the last months of the period, but Elizabeth did the reverse. Nothing is said about her continuing the retirement after the five months, hence we would not think the other was done out of false modesty. A reasonable conclusion is that she was still under the feeling that it was "too good to be true," and before telling the good news to her friends, she decided to await the five months which would be the time for life to be evident. 5 After the five months had shown that she was to become a mother, she then commented by saying (last word of the preceding verse) that it was the Lord who had dealt thus with her. In bestowing this upon Elizabeth she commented that it would take away her reproach. To be unable to bear children in those days was considered a reproach, and it is still so considered with those who respect the first commandment regarding the divine object of marriage. 6 Sixth month means the sixth since the conception by Elizabeth. The same angel who appeared to her at the first was sent on a similar mission to Nazareth. 7 A virgin is a person who has not had any relations with the opposite sex. The connection must show in each case whether the virgin is a male or female. Since this one was espoused (engaged) to a man we know it means a female. House is from OIKOS and Thayer defines it at this place, "stock, race, descendants of one," which denotes that Joseph was a descendant of David. 8. Hail is a friendly greeting, indicating that some good news is about to be given to the person addressed. This was to be given to Mary as a special favor peculiar to women, and it was to be from the Lord. 9 Troubled means "agitated," and it was caused by the unexpectedness of the situation, and she was wondering what it all meant. 0 Seeing the disturbed condition of Mary, the angel assured her there was nothing to fear, but that God had selected her as an object of His favor. 1 Womb is from GASTER, and this is the only place where it comes from that Greek word. Also, this is the only place in the Bible where a statement of conceiving is joined with the word womb; this is significant. Matthew 3:9 says that God could raise up children even from the stones. To promise Mary (a single girl) a son might have been taken to mean that God would give, her a son in some miraculous way independent of her own body. Hence it was necessary to tell this virgin that she was to conceive in her womb. The name of the son also was selected for her at this time. 2 Verses 28 and 30 contain all that the angel said by way of praise for Mary. After that he spoke of the greatness to be bestowed upon her son. San of the Highest is the same as calling him the Son of God. Throne of David means the throne which David (his great ancestor) had prophesied should be given him (Psalms 132:11). 3 House of Jacob is a phrase often used to mean the Jewish nation in general, and later referring to the people of God spiritually whether Jew or Gentile. The kingdom of this "son of David" and of Mary was to stand for ever. (See Daniel 2:44.) 4 I know not a man. This cannot mean that Mary had no male acquaintance, for she was even engaged to one. The word know is from GINOSKO, and Thayer says at this place the word means, "the carnal [sexual] connection of male and female." Robinson says virtually the same thing, except that he gives it as his definition of the word at this place. Mary meant that she was not being intimate with any man, which she thought would be necessary to conceive in her womb. We are taught an important lesson in morals here. The fact of being engaged was as binding in Biblical times as the actual marriage as far as obligations towards each other were concerned, but it did not authorize any intimacies until the time of marriage. 5 The Holy Ghost (Spirit) is an invisible, though personal being, and that is why he could enter into and take charge of the womb of Mary without any conscious participation on her part. The germ of life necessary to fertilize that of the female was thus deposited in the proper place by this holy Being, sent directly from God and authorized to represent Him in this union. Therefore, the angel concluded, the person to be brought forth from this union was to be called the Son of God. This is the only instance in which God ever did a thing like this, and that is the reason Jesus is called the ONLY begotten Son of God. From the conception and ever afterward through the period of expectancy, the experience of Mary was like that of all mothers. 6 The Greek word for cousin has an indefinite meaning, and may apply to any relative not as near as brother or sister. Mary had not expressed any doubt of the miracle that the angel just promised. However, he supported the promise by reporting another one along the same line, that her cousin was already six months along in her expectancy, notwithstanding she was called barren. 7 This verse is the angel's explanation of the two miracles of conception. God cannot do anything wrong, but nothing is impossible with Him because it is too hard. 8 This speech of resignation of Mary is one of the sweetest passages ever made. There is no sign of exultation over her special favor, but a meek submission as a handmaid, unto the word of the Lord. The angel delivered his message and departed. 0 It was a sweet and confidential meeting these happy women had with each other. This joy was mutual, but Mary's evidence was only the word of the angel for as yet there was no physical evidence of her conception, while Elizabeth had that of the living child within her own body. 1 It is usual for an unborn babe at that period to manifest a movement of life, but this was a miraculous instance since it not merely moved but leaped. Besides, it occurred as an immediate result of the voice of Mary acting through the ears of Elizabeth. The explanation is in the closing sentence, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. 2 The entrance of the Spirit into Elizabeth inspired her so that the words she spoke from here through verse 45 are those of inspiration. The blessing pronounced on Mary was emphasized by the one upon the fruit of thy womb. 3 Mother of my Lord. Elizabeth could have known this only by having been filled with the Holy Ghost, for the angel said nothing about it as far as we are told. 4 An unborn babe is unconscious, so the physical movement of this one was a reaction to the effect produced in the mind of Elizabeth; it was for joy of hers that caused the stirring of the babe in her womb. 5 She that believed refers to Mary who had no physical evidence as yet. (See the comments at verses 39, 40.) Elizabeth then gave Mary an assurance of the fulfillment of the promises, and that was an expression of her inspired mind. 6 To magnify the Lord denotes a desire to "esteem highly," not that any human being can contribute anything to the greatness of the Lord. 7 Mary is not making any technical distinction between her soul and her spirit. Her entire inner being was filled with praise for the greatness of the Lord. 8 Low estate refers to the humble station in life she had occupied; now she will receive the good esteem of all generations, but not that she would be worshiped. 9 Mary attributes her great favor to the One with a holy name. 0 The mercy will endure continuously to all who fear Him. 1 Since we know that Elizabeth was enabled by the Spirit to speak with supernatural wisdom, we may properly conclude Mary to have been doing the same thing. 2 He hath is general as to tense, and means that God always recognizes humility and rewards it with His favor, but deposes those who exalt themselves. 3 These statements are figurative in form, but teach the same principles as those in the preceding verses. 4 Holpen means helped Israel in remembrance or in view of his wonted mercy. 5 Abraham was the father of the Jewish race, and God had promised him an heir who should bless the world, which Mary was recalling to mind. 6 Mary visited with Elizabeth until the time for the birth of her son, then she returned to her own home in Nazareth in Galilee. 7 Elizabeth gave birth to a son at the usual time after conception. 8 Shewed great mercy refers to the former condition of barrenness that had been overcome. Rejoiced with her is an example of Rom 12:15. 9 The covenant with Abraham as well as the law of Moses required this rite (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:2-3). The law did not specify the age when the child should be named, but custom had established the time of circumcision for it. It happens frequently even today that people outside the family will presume to name the new baby. It was understandable why they would suggest the name of his father as that had long been another custom. 0 Elizabeth did not resent their wanting to pick a name for her baby, only they did not have the right one. 1 These people even argued the question which reminds us of 1 Peter 4:15. 2 It is strange that the father had not been consulted in the first place, instead of waiting until they wanted him to decide a dispute. Made signs means they beckoned by a nod or something similar what they wanted him to do. 3 Zacharias had been dumb since the appearance of Gabriel (verse 20), hence his calling for a writing table which means a tablet. They marveled because Zacharias said the babe's name is John, indicating that the matter had been previously decided, which it had been by the angel (verse 13). 4 Mouth was opened immediately fulfills verse 20. He had two reasons for praising God; the birth of a son and the recovery of his speech. 5 Fear means a general feeling of respectful consideration for the wonderful things that had occurred. These sayings or happenings were reported extensively all through the country of Judea. 6 Laid them up in their hearts denotes that they kept them in mind. What manner of child shall this be! This remark was caused by the unusual circumstances connected with his conception and birth. 7 Being filled with the Holy Ghost made Zacharias' prophecies inspired. 8 This was said in view of the work of John in reforming the Jewish people, preparing them for the work of Christ (See Malachi 4:6). 9 This whole speech of Zacharias was on a theme that combined the work of John and Christ, with the weight of, it in favor of the latter. This priest was happy to be the father of the forerunner of the Saviour of his people. Horn of salvation refers to the power that Christ would have to be able to save the people. 0 Christ had been foretold by the prophets through Old Testament times, in places toa numerous to mention at this place. 1 saved from our enemies has reference to the suffering the Jews were undergoing from the heathen powers, as well as from the influences of sin. 2 This holy covenant pertains to the promise of Christ. 3 This oath to Abraham is recorded in Genesis 12:3; Genesis 18:18; Genesis 22:18. 4 This is the same in meaning as verse 71. 5 Zacharias places salvation on condition of lifelong righteousness. 6 Thou, child, has specific reference to his own son who had just been born. Called the prophet was done by Jesus in Matthew 11:9. Go before . . . to prepare his ways pertains to the work of John in preparing a people for Christ. 7 Knowledge of salvation means to let the people know what would be necessary for salvation. It was to be the remission of sins upon repentance and baptism (Matthew 3:11). This was preached by Jesus also (Mark 1:15). 8 Day spring is a comparison of the coming of Jesus into the world with the sunrising that ushers in a new day for the inhabitants of the earth.- 9 Light and darkness are figurative terms to represent truth and error. The teaching of Jesus was to show mankind the way of peace. 0 This child refers to the babe John, whose birth had occasioned this interesting speech of Zacharias. As the child grew he lived in the deserts. That was appropriate since he was to do his work there, when the time came for him to appear among the people of Israel as the forerunner of Christ. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 2 THE BIRTH OF JESUSLuk_2:1-20 Luke 2:1. Now it came to pass in those days,—The first chapter closed with a brief reference to the growth, development, and private life of John; Luke now returns to a period of time a little after John’ s birth, and relates the birth of Jesus at Beth¬lehem with its attendant circumstances. Matthew’ s account (Matthew 1:18-24) of the angelic appearance to Joseph in a dream seems to come in between this and the preceding chapter. It is the purpose of Luke here to show how Jesus came to be born at Bethlehem, though Mary lived at Nazareth. “ In those days” refers to the events recorded in chaper 1; this is his way of approaching the account of the birth of Jesus. “ There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus”; this Caesar was the first Roman emperor; he was born 63 B.C. and died A.D. 14, at the age of seventy-six, after a long and prosperous reign of forty-four years; he was a nephew of the famous Julius Caesar. His title “ Augustus,” which means “ the venerable,” “ the majestic,” was conferred upon him by the Roman senate, and was applied to his successors. (Acts 25:21 Acts 25:25.) The title “ Caesar” was assumed by him, and also applied to Roman emperors after him; in the New Testament we find it applied to Tiberius (Luke 3:1), to Claudius (Acts 17:7), and to Nero (Acts 25:8 Acts 26:32). that all the world should be enrolled.—“ All the world” here means all the provinces of the Roman Empire which at that time embraced nearly all the civilized and known world, and which was very commonly spoken of as “ all the world.” The phrase seems to have been used sometimes in a restricted sense; it was originally used by the Greeks to denote the land inhabited by themselves in contrast with barbarian countries; afterward, when the Greeks became subject to the Romans, it was applied to the entire Roman world, and still later it was made to include “ the whole inhabited world.” In the New Testament this is the more common usage, though, in some cases, this is conceived in the mold of the Roman Empire. (Acts 11:28 Acts 19:27.) Jesus used it in giving the commission when he said that the gospel should be preached “ in all the world” (Matthew 24:14); and Paul in the prediction of a general judgment (Acts 17:31); and one time it is used to denote “ the world to come” (Hebrews 2:5). “ Enrolled” means properly to register or enter in a list; commentators are not agreed as to whether it refers to an enrollment for taxation, or for ascertaining the population, as the word may be used in either sense. Luke 2:2 ---This was the first enrolment made—From this it may be inferred that there was another census under Quirinius, which was indeed the case, about ten years later. The full name of this Roman official was Publius Sulpitius Quirinius; he died at Rome A.D. 21. “ Syria” was then a Roman province, whose boundaries are somewhat uncertain; its general boundaries were the Euphrates on the east, the Mediterranean on the west, Palestine on the south, and Cilicia and Mount Amanun on the north. After the banishment of Archaelaus, A.D. 6, Judea was added to the province of Syria by request of the governor of Judea. According to Josephus (Antiq., 17: 13, 15; 18: 1, 1) Quirinius became governor of Syria A.D. 6, when he took a census in Judea, which excited the opposition related by Luke in Acts 5:37. It appears that Luke here refers to a census about ten years later, which was commenced during the last days of Herod the Great, before Palestine became a Roman province. Some think that Quirinius was twice gover¬nor, and that this enrollment came during his first term in office. There seems to be some confusion as to when this census was made; profane historians are not agreed. When such is the case, believers in the Bible take the record as found in the inspired book, and leave all conflicts and difficul¬ties in profane records to be worked out by those who be¬lieve those records. Luke 2:3-5 ---And all went to enrol—All the people of Palestine, and especially those of the Jews, had to go the city of their ancestors; the census was taken, in part at least, after the Jewish method; each Jew went to the headquarters of his family to be enrolled, where the ancestral records were kept; hence “ Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem.” Joseph was of the family of David, and Bethlehem was David’ s ancestral home. Luke’ s reason for mentioning this census appears to have been to show how it was that Jesus was born in Bethlehem; Caesar, prompted by God’ s purpose, directed the census. Each had to go “ to his own city”; this was a prac¬tice that the Jews had followed for some time. Joseph “ went up”; this is the usual expression in speaking of going from Galilee to the more elevated region of Jerusalem and Judea; with this physical elevation may be associated the idea of greater political, social, and spiritual privileges and standing. “ Bethlehem” signifies “ house of bread”; it was fitting that the name where “ the Bread of Life” was born should be called Bethlehem, or “ house of bread.” It was a small town about six miles south of Jerusalem, and about seventy-six miles south of Nazareth. The earliest mention that we have of it is in Genesis 35:16-20, when Jacob was bereaved of his beloved Rachel. It is called “ the city of David” because it was his birthplace and the seat of his ancestral home. (1 Samuel 16:1.) Bethlehem was the scene of the touching story of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz; it lay to the east of the main road from Jerusalem to Hebron, and was situated on a high hill. It was an-ciently located in the tribe of Judah (Judges 17:9 Judges 19:1; 1 Samuel 17:12), and its earliest name was Ephrath or Ephratah. to enrol himself with Mary,—This may mean either that Joseph went up to be registered, accompanied by Mary, or that Mary went up to be registered as well as Joseph. The Greek can be rendered “ went up with Mary,” denoting merely the fact of her accompanying him; or “ to enrol himself with Mary,” implying that both their names must be registered. It seems that Mary would not have made the trip in her condition, had she not been required to go, unless she knew the prophecy that the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem, and knew that her time for delivery was near at hand and that she should be in Bethlehem at the birth of her son. We have no way of knowing whether Mary went up to Bethlehem just in order to fulfill the prophecy; the natural and easy way of looking at it is that she was required by the “ decree” to go to Bethlehem and register. Luke 2:6-7 ---And it came to pass, while they were there,—Joseph and Mary came the long distance from Nazareth to Bethle¬hem and were waiting either for the proper officer to register them or till their own turn came to be registered. We do not know how long they had to wait, but evidently not very long, as they were occupying a temporary lodging place. While they were waiting “ the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered.” The child was born and Mary “ brought forth her firstborn son.” The question whether Mary had other children is in itself a matter of little concern, except as the Catholics have argued and decreed her perpetual virginity. That she afterwards had other children seems to be highly probable. (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:20.) These references seem clear enough that Mary had other children, and hence Luke refers to Jesus as “ her firstborn son” ; the Greek literally reads “ her son, the firstborn.” she wrapped him in swaddling clothes,—In this verse and in verse 12 of this chapter only do we find the word “ swaddling” ; it is often found in medical writing. “ Swaddling clothes” were bands of cloth which were wrapped around infants at their birth; the language indicates that Mary did this herself. After wrapping the babe with these bands she “ laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.” Luke is the only writer that mentions his being placed in a manger. The “ manger” was a hollow place for food, a feeding trough in a stable. (Isaiah 1:3.) It was sometimes spoken of as a “ crib.” The reason given for laying him in a manger is “ because there was no room for him in the inn.” “ The inn” as used here implies that there was but one in the small city of Bethlehem; it was very much unlike our modern hotel. It was probably but little more than a large enclosure where the traveler might sleep, stable his beasts, and deposit his goods, furnishing his own bed and food. Such inns were common in the East. Sometimes there were separate stables for cattle in the rear under a shed running all along behind the walls; some supposed that it was in one of these rear sta¬bles that Joseph and Mary were compelled to lodge on that eventful night. It was perfectly natural after finding no lodging place within the inn, to have found it in one of the stables or outhouses. Luke 2:8-9 ---And there were shepherds in the same country—Shepherds were common among the Jews; one of their chief occu-pations was that of herding sheep, goats, and cattle; the business was an honorable and humble calling. Biblical literature is enriched by figures of speech taken from the occupation of shepherds. The patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his twelve sons were shepherds; David was a shepherd, as were some of the prophets. The calling and office of shepherds have been highly honored; Christ styled himself “ the good shepherd” (John 10:11), and he is called “ the great shepherd of the sheep” (Hebrews 13:20), and the “ Lamb of God” (John 1:29.) The region near Bethlehem was a fertile country and a fine pasture land. These shepherds were “ abiding in the field, and keeping watch by night over their flock.” They were “ abiding” in the field; that is, they were remaining or living in the open field, after the custom of shepherds. Some think that these shepherds were living in the tower “ Migdal Eder” which means “ tower of the flock,” or “ a watchtower,” which was not far from Jerusalem; it is claimed that this tower was built for herdsmen in watching and guarding their flocks. The prophet Micah mentions this tower and Bethlehem with Messianic expectation. (Micah 4:8 Micah 5:2.) The shepherds do not appear to have been in this tower at this time. They were probably on one of the neighboring hills, where shepherds and flocks frequently remained. keeping watch by night—Literally this means that they were keeping watches of the night over their flocks; that is, they were taking their turns at the several nights’ watches. The night was at this time divided into four watches. (Matthew 14:25.) The Jews first divided the night into three “ watches,” a “ watch” being a period of the night spent by soldiers, in keep-ing awake, to guard against enemies, or to prevent the escape of prisoners; finally it came to mean any division of the night. The Roman custom was to divide the night into four “ watches” ; these watches began at six, nine, twelve, and three o’ clock. And an angel of the Lord stood by them,—“ An angel” came to the shepherds and “ stood by them”; the angel appeared in a visible form standing by them; the meaning is that the angel appeared suddenly and unexpectedly. (Luke 24:4; Acts 23:11.) The surpassing brightness of the angel was such that “ the glory of the Lord shone round about them” ; this usually accompanied the presence of angels. (Exodus 24:16; Numbers 14:10; Matthew 17:5). The shepherds were overshad¬owed and surrounded with the divine effulgence. The effect upon them was that they “ were sore afraid.” Literally this means that “ they feared with a great fear.” There was a glory attending the angel beyond anything that Zacharias or Mary had seen; the supernatural and the holy produced an awe in them that is common to one who sees a representative of Jehovah. (Exodus 20:19 Exodus 33:20; Judges 13:22; Matthew 17:6.) Luke 2:10-14 ---And the angel said unto them,—The angel knew that they were “ sore afraid,” and assured them that they should not be disturbed; “ be not afraid” were the assuring words of the angel. They should not be frightened, for the angel was a messenger, not of bad, but of good tidings; hence there was no need of cringing fear. “ I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people.” The Greek when taken strictly literal means “ I evangelize to you a great joy.” An angel is the first to announce to the world that the Messiah had actually come. The good tidings would not only bring great joy to the shepherds, but to the whole people, and espe¬cially to all Israel who were expecting the Messiah. The shepherds later made known the good tidings to others; while the message is limited here, the blessings of it are general. for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour,—The city of David was Bethlehem, David’ s native city and Christ’ s promised birthplace. (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:5-6.) “ A Saviour” means one who is to save; he was called Jesus, which means Savior, “ who is Christ the Lord.” Jesus saves men from the power and penalty of sin; “ Christ” is the official name of Jesus and is the Greek for “ anointed,” and corresponds with the Hebrew “ Messiah.” It was common for the Jews to apply this name to the expected deliverer. (Psalms 2:2; Daniel 9:24-25; John 1:41 John 4:25.) He was the anointed Prophet, Priest, and King of spiritual Israel, or the kingdom of God. “ Lord” means “ ruler or governor” ; the Jews thought the name Jehovah too sacred to pronounce and substituted for it in their oral reading a term which the Greek translators of the Old Testament rendered by this word “ Lord.” Sarah called Abraham “ lord” (Genesis 18:12) ; Joseph is called “ lord” of the country (Genesis 42:33) and is addressed by his brethren as “ my lord” (Genesis 42:10). This term is applied to God also. (Genesis 18:27; Exodus 4:10.) In the New Testament it is a name for God. (Matthew 1:20 Matthew 1:22 Matthew 1:24 Matthew 2:15; Acts 11:16 Acts 12:11 Acts 12:17.) And this is the sign unto you:—As in the case of Mary (Luke 1:36), the sign is promised where none was asked; God anticipated their necessity; they were to be witnesses and proclaimers of the wonderful event; hence they are qualified by divine guidance in bearing this witness. The sign that was given them was that they should “ find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger.” There would be but one babe so poorly provided for in Bethlehem; the angel did not tell them everything, but left something for faith to supply. They were to believe the angel, and were to follow the instruction which they received; they believed, went, and found. This babe would be found “ lying in a manger” ; the fact that it would be wrapped in swaddling clothes was not the sign, for that was common— all newborn babes were wrapped in swaddling clothes; but the fact that this babe would be found in a manger was the sign to the shepherds. This lowly birth and all of its surroundings were in keeping with him who was to be the “ man of sorrows,” “ the friend of the poor,” and without even a place to lay his head; his lowly condition was adapted to dispel any fears which these humble shepherds might have in approaching a newborn king and excite their sympathy for one so great in nature and yet so humble in earthly estate. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude—Only one angel appeared to the shepherds and announced to them the birth of Jesus; but “ suddenly,” just as the angel had fin-ished speaking, “ a multitude of the heavenly host” appeared. There was a celestial army which came swiftly to impress the message which the angel had delivered. Some have thought that the “ heavenly host” was present while the angel was talking to the shepherd, but the context seems to imply otherwise. A host of angels is represented in the Old Testament as form¬ing the bodyguard of Deity. (Psalms 103:21; Daniel 7:10.) The glory of the Lord (verse 9) was the first token to the shepherds of the divine presence; next the angelic hosts which appeared praising God emphasized God’ s presence. These an¬gels or “ army of angels” were “ praising God” by saying “ Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased.” This praise was a proclamation of the newborn king and the confirmation of the glorious tid¬ings to the shepherds, and through them to all men. Angels shouted for joy at creation (Job 38:7), ministered at the giv¬ing of the law (Deuteronomy 33:2; Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19) and now, with more reason than ever, exult at the advent of the Savior. Their message is confirmed by the proclamation of peace; the “ Prince of Peace” is born, and he brings peace to all who ac¬cept him. Chronology of the birth of Christ.—The exact day and year of the birth of Jesus cannot be ascertained with certainty. The “ Christian era” should properly begin with the year Jesus was born; that was the intention of the one who arranged our pres-ent calendar. By the “ Christian era” is meant the system upon which calendars are constructed, and by which historical events are now dated in practically all the civilized world. Dionysius Exiguus, an abbot of Rome, in the year A.D. 532, arranged the scheme of counting dates from the birth of Jesus. He calculated that the year of Jesus’ birth was 753 from the founding of Rome. It has long been admitted that Dionysius made an error of at least four years. Jesus was born before the death of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1 Matthew 2:19), which took place about the year of Rome 753; this is defi¬nitely fixed by an eclipse of the moon which is mentioned as occurring a little before the death of Herod; this eclipse, by astronomical calculation, took place in the year of Rome 753, or four years before our common era; but Jesus was born somewhat earlier. The error Dionysius Exiguus made was not discovered until many years afterwards, and no attempt has been made to correct the error. Luke 2:15 ---And it came to pass, when the angels went away—It seems that immediately upon the departure of the angels the shepherds resolved to go to Bethlehem; the angels “ went away from them into heaven” which was their abiding place, and the shepherds, while under the holy influence of the sacred scene, said: “ Let us now go even unto Bethlehem.” The expression indicates that they were a little distance from the city, and it may imply that Bethlehem was not their home. At any rate, they determined to go and “ see this thing that is come to pass.” The words of the shepherds are not those of doubt, but of belief and obedience; they were assured that what the angel had told them was true, and they wanted to see this wonderful babe of Bethlehem. We have no evidence that the angel commanded them to go, but the angel told them where they would find the babe, and this carried with it the force of commanding them. They were anxious to see the one who had been expected for so long a time. Luke 2:16-17 ---And they came with haste,—We may judge that they did not delay after the angel left them, for they “ came with haste” to Bethlehem. They came before the night was over, leaving their flocks to the care of providence, showing how strong their faith was. When they arrived they found every¬thing as the angel had described; they found “ both Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in the manger.” How they found the Messianic babe is not told us; we need not suppose, with some, that the stable belonged to these shepherds, nor, with others, that the angel gave them minute directions regarding it. We only know that their faith was strong enough and their desire great enough to cause them to search and find the babe. “ Mary and Joseph” were found with and protecting the babe; Mary is mentioned first as chief in honor; both Mary and Joseph may have been humiliated by the humble surroundings, but they were comforted and cheered by the unex¬pected visit of these shepherds, and the news that the heav¬enly hosts were rejoicing over the birth of the Savior. And when they saw it,—When the shepherds saw the child and Mary and Joseph, they knew that the angel had described accurately the babe, and that the Messiah had come. The shepherds were satisfied with the sign which the angel gave them and their faith strengthened in the divine arrangement which had been revealed to them. The shepherds not only told Mary and Joseph what the angel had announced and what “ the heavenly host” had sung with respect to the child, but they “ made known concerning the saying which was spo¬ken to them about this child” to all who would believe them. They gave a full account of the scene as it had occurred. It seems that it was not intended that the report of the birth of Jesus should then be spread abroad, like that of John, in “ all the hill country of Judaea.” Luke 2:18-20 ---And all that heard it wondered—The effect of this glorious intelligence upon all those that heard caused them to wonder; they were amazed, astonished at hearing so strange an account, for they had not looked for the Messiah to come in such a humble way; they could not reconcile these humble circumstances with their conception of the coming of the Messiah. While others were wondering in amazement about these things, “ Mary kept all these sayings, pondering them in her heart.” Mary laid them up in her mind and compared the things which the shepherds had told her with what the angel had announced to her when he first visited her. The silent pondering of Mary contrasts strongly with the wonder of those mentioned in the preceding verse. They may have soon forgotten many of the incidents, but Mary kept all of them in her heart. It is noticeable that Joseph is not now mentioned, but he doubtless participated in Mary’ s feelings and hopes. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God— The shepherds returned to their flocks; the wonderful revelation did not withdraw them from their common duties, but rather caused a joyful attention to them. They glorified and praised God; like the angelic host, they give glory to God, assured that they had seen the fulfillment of the angel’ s prediction and that the child was indeed the Messiah. It is probable that Mary and Joseph related to the shepherds some things regarding the babe, and that this also confirmed the faith of the shepherds. Luke says that they glorified and praised God for “ all the things that they had heard and seen, even as it was spoken unto them.” This could include what they had learned from Mary and Joseph. Luke’ s account of the birth of Jesus bears upon every line the evidence of simple, honest truth in striking contrast to the imaginary legends of the spurious accounts given by others. Uninspired men would have written differently about the birth of the Son of God, but God’ s word comes in the majesty of simple truth. THE AND OF JESUSLuke 2:21-40 Luke 2:21 ---And when eight days were fulfilled—The law required that the first-born male be dedicated to Jehovah. (Leviticus 12:1-8.) This was to be done on the eighth day, or when the child was eight days old; these days were required for the preparation of the ceremony of circumcision; at this time the child officially received its name. The angel at the annuncia¬tion had told Mary that she should call “ his name Jesus.” (Matthew 1:21; Luke 1:31.) The construction in the Greek is such that the naming of Jesus is made the principal subject, and the rite of circumcision being alluded to, merely denotes the time and occasion of the bestowal of that name; hence, Mary was faithful to the instruction of the angel and named him Jesus. Luke is very specific about this name, and says that it was given to the child “ before he was conceived in the womb.” Luke 2:22-24 ---And when the days of their purification—The mother of a child was unclean for forty days after the birth of a son, and for eighty days after the birth of a daughter; the time for a son was forty days from his birth, or thirty-three days after the circumcision. When the days were fulfilled for the purification, “ they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord.” Women on errands commonly rode to the temple on oxen; they did this because the body of an ox was so large that it increased the space between the woman and the ground to prevent any chance of further defilement from passing over any unclean thing on the road. as it is written in the law of the Lord,—The word “ law” occurs in this chapter five times; this is more times than in all the rest of the Gospel of Luke. Luke emphasizes the fact that Jesus was “ born of a woman, born under the law” (Galatians 4:4), and accordingly he elaborates the details of the fulfillment of the law by the parents of both John and Jesus. There are dif-ferent expressions for the law of Moses; it is called “ law of Moses,” “ the law of the Lord,” and “ the law.” (Nehemiah 8:1 Nehemiah 8:3 Nehemiah 8:7-8 Nehemiah 8:14 Nehemiah 8:18; Mark 7:10.) From the day when the first born of Egypt had been smitten by the destroying angel, the first born of Israel among the male were consecrated to the Lord. (Numbers 3:13.) However, God ordained and accepted, as a substitute for the first born, the tribe of Levi, which was set apart for his special service. (Numbers 3:12.) But as the number of the first born exceeded that of the tribe, a redemption price of five shekels was to be paid to the priests (Numbers 3:46-47), which was ordained to be paid for all the first born (Numbers 18:15-16). This is why the first born was called “ holy.” to offer a sacrifice according to that which—This verse is joined to verse 22, but separated by a parenthetical statement in verse 23. The law prescribed the sacrifice to be a lamb one year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or turtle¬dove for a sin offering; but in case the poverty of the mother forbade the offering of a lamb, two turtledoves or young pi¬geons were permitted as a substitute; one of these was for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. (Leviticus 12:6-8.) The fact that Mary offered “ a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons” shows that she was poor, for she would not have made the offering of the poor, if she had not been poor. This fact also denies the legend that she was a rich heiress. God had made provision for the poor; his service has always been reasonable. While the lamb for this offering would probably cost about two dollars, the doves would cost about sixteen cents. Luke 2:25-26 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem,—This man’ s name was Simeon; some have thought that Simeon was the celebrated rabbi of that name, and the father of Gamaliel; there is no evidence that this supposition is true. It was not the design of Luke to refer to the worldly standing of Simeon, but only his religious attainments. Luke describes Simeon as being “ righteous and devout.” The Greek for “ devout” is used only by Luke; it means circumspect or cautious; hence Simeon was a person who took hold of things carefully; he was cautious and careful to observe all the ordinances of the law; he was righteous in that he kept the commandments of the law. Simeon was one who was “ looking for the consolation of Israel.” “ Consolation of Israel” is the same as “ hope of Israel.” (Acts 28:20.) He was looking for the Messiah. There was a common form of adjuration among the Jews which said, “ so may I see the consolation.” Simeon was filled with the Holy Spirit; whether he was filled just at this time or at some previous time, we are not told. And it had been revealed unto him—The original bears the interpretation that it was having been revealed; that is, it “ stood” revealed while he waited for the fulfillment of the rev-elation. We are not informed as to what manner it was re¬vealed to him. Some have inferred that it was revealed to him in a dream as it was to Joseph and to the wise men (Matthew 1:20 Matthew 2:12-13 Matthew 2:19); but the distinct reference made twice to the Holy Spirit would lead one to suppose that it was made to him in a vision while he was in a state of prophetic ecstasy. It was revealed to him “ that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’ s Christ.” In Matthew 16:28 we have the statement, “ shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” Taste and sight are often put figuratively for the actual experience of a thing. Simeon was promised that he should not die before he saw “ the Lord’ s Christ”; this means the Christ, the anointed of the Lord. (Psalms 2:2.) There is a beautiful and striking antith¬esis between the words “ see death” and “ see the Lord’ s Christ.” Luke 2:27-32 ---And he came in the Spirit into the temple:—The Holy Spirit prompted Simeon to go to the temple at this time; the Holy Spirit moved Simeon to come to the temple at the op-portune moment when Joseph and Mary brought the child Jesus, just as the Holy Spirit brought Philip and the eunuch together on the road to Gaza. (Acts 8:26-31.) Simeon was brought into the court of the women of the temple; women were not permitted to enter the temple proper; hence we are to understand that they went into the court where women were permitted. Here Joseph and Mary are spoken of as “ the parents” of “ the child Jesus.” Luke has made his record clear that Joseph was not one of “ the parents” of Jesus; he is spoken of as a “ parent” of him, because he was the husband of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus. They brought Jesus to the temple “ that they might do concerning him after the custom of the law.” “ After the custom” means “ according to that which was usually done”; “ custom” or “ to be accustomed” are used more frequently by Luke than any other writer ; they are words which are common in medical writings; hence Luke, who was a physician (Colossians 4:14), uses frequently medical terms. Reference is here made to the payment of the redemption price. then he received him into his arms,—Simeon required no in-formation in regard to the incidents attending the conception and birth of the child; it had been revealed to him that before his death he should see the long-expected Messiah; he had gone to the temple by the direction of the Holy Spirit, and when Mary entered with the babe, he recognized her child as the promised Messiah. He then took the child and “ blessed God.” His act first was one of thanksgiving; then his aged eyes were permitted to rest on the long-expected and hope-for Messiah; he prayed for a speedy and peaceful departure from the toils and sorrows of life. He said: “ Now lettest thou thy servant depart, Lord, according to thy word, in peace.” Simeon regarded the sight of the promised Messiah as the consummation of his earthly life, and hence it was to him an assurance that his earthly labors were now about to end. For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,—This was the ground of his assurance; he had been permitted to see the Messiah, which was equivalent to seeing the salvation of Jehovah, for “ salvation” is to be interpreted as “ Saviour”; this salvation in the vision of Simeon had been prepared “ before the face of all peoples.” “ All people” primarily include the Jews which had been scattered all over the world, and in a comprehensive sense it embraces all people of the earth. For this Savior was to be “ a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.” “ A light” is put here with the meaning of “ a lamp.” The Messiah was to be the Savior of the world; he was to be the moral light of the Gentiles, revealing to them the ways of God, and the true and only method of salvation through his atoning blood. The blessings of the Messiah’ s reign are promised here conjointly to the Jews and the Gentiles, and although Simeon spoke this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, there can be no doubt of the belief of such pious Israelites as Simeon and others who had studied carefully the Messianic prophecies that the Gentiles were to participate in some degree in the same blessings. There was much doubt and mystery with respect to the nature and extent of his kingdom, and it cost much effort on the part of our Lord to teach his disci¬ples the true conception of his mission to earth. Light is promised here to the Gentiles and glory is promised to Israel; the Gentiles were regarded as in darkness and ignorance, and the Messiah would attain the true and highest glory of Israel.Luke 2:33-35 ---And his father and his mother—Again we have Joseph spoken of as “ his father” ; this is done only in the sense that he was regarded legally as his father, since Joseph was the legal husband of Mary. God was the father of the Christ. Joseph and Mary marveled “ at the things which were spoken concerning” Jesus by Simon. Although they had been prepared by the previous wonderful manifestations for the remarkable destiny of the child, yet they were doubtless very far from having attained to a full and just conception of the glorious reality; they can hardly realize that the child so help¬less and dependent is the manifested Messiah; hence when re-minded of this by the words of the shepherds and of Simeon, they wonder at the marvelous event almost as though they had then heard of it for the first time. Simeon blessed them,—While the plural is used here, the blessing seems to be directed to Mary; some think that the “ them” includes Joseph, Mary, and the babe Jesus. In speaking to Mary, Simeon said; “ Behold, this child is set for the falling and the rising of many in Israel.” He was the “ falling” of some because he would be a stumbling block to many. (Isaiah 8:14; Matthew 21:42 Matthew 21:44; Acts 4:11; Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 1:23.) He was the “ rising” of many because many would be raised up through him to life and glory. (Romans 6:4 Romans 6:9; Ephesians 2:6.) He was also to be “ a sign which is spoken against.” This expression does not voice a prophecy, but describes an inherent characteristic of the sign, a sign of which is the character to experience contradiction from the world. In the beginning as a babe Jesus was endangered at the hands of Herod, and all through his earthly ministry and even on the cross, he suffered many things and was spoken against by all who refused to believe him. yea and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul;—Strictly speaking, this means a large broad sword; the original is used in the Septuagint of the sword of Goliath. (1 Samuel 17:51.) This is a strong figure of Mary’ s pang when Jesus her son was nailed to the cross, and while she stood at a distance and witnessed the dying agonies of her son. All the manifestations of Jesus before men would have the result of revealing many hearts; hence Simeon said “ that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.” When Jesus stood in the presence of men he could look into their hearts and see what was in them; his presence became a searching test of real character. When Jesus came among men some hailed him with joy as one who brought the light of God from heaven to their needy, longing souls; but others hated this light, re¬pelled it because it rebuked their evil deeds; those who refused to accept Jesus hardened their hearts and deepened their own damnation. Luke 2:36-38 ---and there was one Anna,—Anna is another one of those who were prayerfully waiting with hopeful, longing ex-pectation for the coming of the Messiah; she was guided on the present occasion by the same spirit and came at the same time that Simeon came to the temple to behold the Messiah. She was well advanced in years; she was a prophetess, “ the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher.” The particularity with which her parentage and lineage is given shows that she was a person whose family as well as personal history was well known to the public. She had married in her young maidenhood, and had lived with her husband seven years; after her husband’ s death she lived eighty-four years, making in all ninety-one years since her marriage; on the supposition that she was twenty years old when she married, she was at this time one hundred eleven years old. She was regular in her worship, for she “ departed not from the temple, worshipping with fastings and supplications night and day.”And coming up at that very hour she gave thanks—Like Simeon she gave thanks to God that her aged eyes had been spared to see the infant Messiah; she knew by the Holy Spirit that the child Jesus was the long-expected Messiah; she “ spake of him to all them that were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.” Anna not only gave thanks to God, but she spoke to all others who in their hearts were waiting for the Messiah; it is not to be understood that she gave public utterance, but that she spoke to the pious ones who were with her in the temple waiting for the Messiah. “ Looking for the redemption of Jerusalem” is equivalent to “ looking for the consolation of Israel.” (Verse 25.) “ Jerusalem” here stands for the race or nation of the Jews. Anna is to be classed with Simeon, Zacharias, and the shepherds. All of these were in a state of prayerful expectation of the Messiah. Luke 2:39 ---And when they had accomplished all things—After the presentation of the child in the temple, Joseph and Mary returned “ into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.” According to the record given by Matthew (Matthew 2:1-12), it seems that they returned to Bethlehem, where they were visited by the Magi, and afterwards took their flight into Egypt (Matthew 2:13-23). The portion of Luke’ s record is parallel to Matthew 2:22-23, and serves to explain what is there left out of sight, that Joseph and Mary with the babe returned to Nazareth, because it was “ their own city.” Matthew refers to this only to show that Jesus was brought up in that despised city; Luke, whose plan led him to speak of the previous dwelling place and condition of Joseph and Mary, refers to Nazareth as their place of abode before and after the birth of Jesus. Luke 2:40 ---And the child grew, and waxed strong,—This shows that Jesus had a human body and that he was capable of increasing in wisdom and knowledge. The childhood life of Jesus followed the normal law of the race, growth of both body and mind; the facts were peculair to him and he had the great grace of God upon him and his wisdom was noticeable. The Jews marked the stages of a child’ s development by seven different terms; the newborn babe (Isaiah 9:6); the suckling (Isaiah 11:8); the suckling beginning to ask for food (Lamentations 4:4); the weaned child (Isaiah 28:9); the child clinging to its mother (Jeremiah 40:7); the child becoming firm and strong (Isaiah 7:14) ; the youth becoming free and independent (Isaiah 31:8). Jesus passed through all of these stages in his human development. THE BOYHOOD OF JESUS; HIS VISIT TO AT AGE OF TWELVELuk_2:41-52 Luke 2:41---And his parents went every year—The law required all males above the age of twelve to attend three annual feasts; these feasts were held first where the tabernacle was pitched, and next in Jerusalem when the temple was built. The at-tendance of females was not forbidden; they were left free to attend if they wished. (1 Samuel 1:7 1 Samuel 1:22 1 Samuel 1:24.) The school of Hillel made it obligatory upon women to attend the Passover. It is not to be inferred here that Joseph and Mary went up to no other yearly feasts than the Passover, but that upon this feast they were in constant attendance. It seems that the fear of the child being harmed had passed; that the Roman author¬ities had either forgotten about the incident of the newborn king, or had not given much attention to it, possibly thinking that it was a superstition of the Jews. the feast of the passover.—The Passover was held on the fourteenth day of month Nisan, which came some time in our month of March. It commemorated the death angel passing over the Israelites in Egypt and sparing the first born of the Israelites, but destroying the first-born males of the Egyptians. It was held annually, and was eaten with the lamb, called the paschal lamb. (Exodus 12:1-48.) It had to be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs; those who ate it had to be ceremonially clean. Luke 2:42-45 ---And when he was twelve years old,—At the age of twelve a boy was regarded as “ a son of the law,” and came under obligation to observe the ordinances of the law personally. It seems clear that this was the first time that Jesus accompanied Joseph and Mary to the Feast of the Passover. How little did the multitudes which filled Jerusalem on that occasion think that the real Lamb, who was to be offered for the redemption of the world, the antitype of the lamb slain at the paschal feast, was present there! Joseph and Mary “ went up after the custom of the feast” which required its celebra¬tion at Jerusalem. Before the erection of the temple the feast was kept at he place where the tabernacle was raised. and when they had fulfilled the days,—The Passover re-quired but one day, but the feast of unleavened bread, which immediately followed the Passover, continued for seven days. Since the Passover was the beginning of the feast of unleav-ened bread, the names have been used interchangeably, the Passover being applied to the feast of unleavened bread and the feast of unleavened bread to the Passover. (Exodus 12:15 Exodus 12:17 Exodus 23:15; Leviticus 23:4-8.) At the expiration of these days Joseph and Mary with their kinspeople began their journey homeward, not aware that Jesus was tarrying behind, but sup¬posing that he was with the company made up of their neigh¬bors and friends. These incidental circumstances show the method of travel from remote localities to the great city to at¬tend the great feasts. supposing him to be in the company,—This explains why they thought that Jesus was along with them; there was a great crowd of neighbors and kinspeople, and as they were traveling along engaged in religious exercises, they supposed that Jesus was along with them. Either they had committed him to some friend or relative, or they thought that he was old enough to take care of himself as they journeyed along, hence no attention was given to him until they arrived where they would spend the night. We are not to infer that Joseph and Mary were negligent with respect to Jesus. “ They went a day’ s journey” before they discovered that the boy Jesus was not in the company. The length of “ a day’ s journey” depended somewhat upon the distance they had to go in order to encamp where there was a supply of good water. From twenty to thirty miles is probably a fair estimate of an average day’ s journey with baggage, animals, and women and children. “ A day’ s journey” (Numbers 11:31; 1 Kings 19:4; John 3:4) was far different to a “ sabbath day’ s journey,” which was about three-fourths of a mile. The company started early on their journey and usually made it a point to stop for the night before it was dark in order to prepare their evening meal and be ready for an early start on the morrow. and when they found him not, they returned—They turned back on the following morning; as they had made a day’ s journey from Jerusalem, it would require another day to re¬turn to Jerusalem. It seems that they sought for him all their way back to the city; they supposed that he had started with the company, hence they diligently searched for him along the way. Not finding Jesus during the entire day, nor at the place of rest for the night, they returned to the city anxiously seeking him. Luke 2:46-47 ---And it came to pass, after three days—Some have counted the three days from the time that they arrived in Jerusalem ; others think that it was three days from their separation, two days being spent in travel from and back to Jerusalem, and one day spent in searching for him in the city. It is a little difficult to determine the exact length of time, as the Jews were not accurate in counting time as we are today. It seems that one day was spent in their journey, another in returning to the city, and the third day he was found in the temple. He was “ in the temple,” in one of the apartments of the main building, where the Jewish doctors of the law held their schools. He was “ sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them, and asking them questions.” It was the custom for students to sit on the floor at the feet of their teachers, who sat on raised benches of a semicircular form; Jesus was sitting in the company of the others. The “ teachers” were the “ doctors” of the law; these were the Jewish rabbis, a class of men who, after the captivity, expounded the law in the temple and synagogues; they were consulted on doubtful points of the law and held public lectures and discussions wherever they could find auditors. and all that heard him were amazed—Jesus was “ both hearing them, and asking them questions.” He was not “ disputing” with them, but sat in their presence and asked questions of them, and answered their questions. We must think of Jesus even at the age of twelve as being humble and respectful ; his questions were not those of a pert and spoiled child, but of a youthful mind, a modestly searching after truth, and seeking from the lips of age and wisdom a solution of difficulties, which he had already met in meditating upon the law of God. It was the custom in the Jewish schools for the scholars to ask questions of their teachers, and much of the books of the rabbis consisted of the answers of the rabbis to such questions. All the doctors and others who were present were “ amazed at his understanding and his answers.” He manifested more intelligence in asking questions and in answering their questions than the ordinary scholar; his degree of intelligence was such that all were astonished at his understanding of the law. It will be noticed here that Jesus at the age of twelve is not occupying the place of a teacher, but is sitting in the circle among the doctors and their hearers. Luke 2:48-50 ---And when they saw him, they were astonished;— When Joseph and Mary saw Jesus engaged in this study or conversation with the rabbis, “ they were astonished” ; the original Greek uses a very strong verb here, which means “ to strike out or drive away from”; hence the meaning is “ to drive out of one’ s senses”; “ amazed” is to throw into a “ maze” or labyrinth, and is closely akin to the Greek word used here. It seems that Mary should have paused before she spake to him in the manner of reproof that she used; she should not have been so “ astonished” when she remembered all the supernatural events connected with his conception, birth, and divine protection. She said: “ Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us?” “ Son” here means “ child,” as the original means a word which implies passive or dependent relation. There is a rebuke in Mary’ s language. She adds that “ thy father and I sought thee sorrowing.” Joseph was not his father, but this shows that he had been taught to regard Joseph as his real father. Up to this time Joseph had been called by Jesus “ father,” but from this time on never does he speak of Joseph as his father, neither does Mary, henceforth, speak of Joseph as the father of Jesus. The original means that they had “ sought” or “ were seeking with sorrow.” Mary seems to be going over in mind the process of the long search that they had made for him. And he said unto them,—With mental anguish which amounted to distress of body, hour after hour Joseph and Mary had searched without success for the missing child; hence the rebuke that Mary gave to Jesus. However, Jesus replied: “ How is that ye sought me?” This is the first recorded saying that we have of Jesus; they are spoken to his mother. He means why have you been searching for me; the words of Jesus do not imply a rebuke, as some have affirmed, but are words of anxious solicitude for his mother’ s anxiety. His reply has reference to the state of mental distress with which they sought him as is shown from his next words. He said: “ Knew ye not that I must be in my Father’ s house?” The word “ must” here means “ it is necessary” or “ it behooves.” Jesus often used this word concerning his own ap¬pointed work, and expressed both the inevitable fulfillment of the divine counsels and the absolute constraint of the princi¬pal duty upon himself. (Matthew 16:21 Matthew 26:54; Mark 8:31; Luke 4:43 Luke 9:22 Luke 13:33 Luke 24:7 Luke 24:26 Luke 24:46; John 3:14 John 4:4 John 12:34.) “ In my Father’ s house” means that he must be doing those things of God. Mary’ s question was not as to what her son had been doing, but as to where he had been; Jesus answers her by asking: Where is the child to be found but in his Father’ s house? And they understood not the saying—It seems to us strange that after the revelations that had been made to Mary and Joseph (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:32 Luke 1:35) that they should have been at a loss to understand Jesus’ reply; but the years of his infancy and childhood passing away without any strik¬ing incident, it may be that they lost sight in part of the wondrous circumstances attending his birth. They may never have understood fully the depth of meaning, which, in the light of the New Testament, we find no difficulty in attaching to these declarations. It is certain that this consciousness of Jesus as to his divine nature threw Joseph and Mary into the profoundest reflection as to the full meaning of the words that he uttered. Luke 2:51 ---And he went down with them,—The geographical direction from Jerusalem to Nazareth is “ down,” hence Jesus went with Joseph and Mary down to Nazareth. We do not hear any more of Jesus until the time for his baptism; eighteen years of silence is spent at Nazareth, as he was about thirty years old at his baptism. We are told that “ he was subject unto them.” The original in the Greek denotes “ habitual, continuous” subjection. He had been subject to them even before this, and this is mentioned here when it might seem that he could by this time have exempted himself from obedience to any human authority. It was a great honor to the home of Mary to have Jesus sojourn as her son in it; no such honor has been bestowed upon angels. We learn that Joseph was a carpenter. (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3.) It is a very clear inference that Jesus also learned and followed that trade. As no further mention is made of Joseph, it is thought by many that he died soon after the visit to Jerusalem. However it is not strange, when we consider his relation to Jesus as only his reputed father, that no further mention should be made of him by any inspired historian. “ And his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.”Luke 2:52 ---And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature,—This verse covers the eighteen years of silence in the life of Jesus; these years intervened between his first visit to Jerusalem and the beginning of his public ministry. During this time his mental powers were constantly enlarging and strengthening; his physical growth was uninterrupted by sickness or disease. Some understand the word “ stature” as to mean advanced in wisdom as he advanced in age; however, this is not justified by the original. “ In favor with God and men” means that he grew in divine favor, that every step of his development was pleasing to God. Some have raised the question that if Jesus was always pure and sinless, how could he increase in holi¬ness. which is implied in his advancement in the divine favor. Verse 1 This chapter details the birth of Christ (Luke 2:1-7), the annunciation to the shepherds (Luke 2:8-20), ceremonies of the law of Moses observed on behalf of Jesus (Luke 2:21-24), the prophecy of Simeon (Luke 2:25-35), the thanksgiving of Anna (Luke 2:36-39), episode when Jesus was twelve years old (Luke 2:40-51), and a one-sentence summary of some eighteen years of Jesus' life (Luke 2:52). Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled. (Luke 2:1) Augustus ... "This is the title given by the Roman Senate on January 17,27 B.C., to Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (63 B.C.-14 A.D.)."[1]All the world ... was "a technical term used freely to refer to the Roman Empire,"[2] which was indeed, at that time, the whole civilized world. Should be enrolled ... Critical allegations denying that such enrollments were made have been proved false. As Barclay said: Such censuses were taken every fourteen years; and from 20 A.D. to 270 A.D., we possess actual documents from every census taken ... Here is an instance where further knowledge has shown the accuracy of the New Testament.[3][1] Encyclopedia Britannica, 1961, Vol. 2, p. 686. [2] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974), p. 36. [3] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), p. 15. 47 Verse 2 This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.The second census under Quirinius was in 6 A.D. (Acts 5:37); and the words "the first" in this passage refer to the census fourteen years earlier in 8 B.C., but which was delayed in Palestine until the time coinciding with the birth of Christ in 6 B.C. Quirinius was twice governor and presided over both. Robertson said: Luke is now shown to be wholly correct in his statement that Quirinius was twice governor, and that the first census took place during the first period. A series of inscriptions in Asia Minor show that Quirinius was governor of Syria in 10-7 B.C., and again in 6 A.D.[4]Regarding some of the inscriptions mentioned by Robertson, these included those which were found in the autobiography of Augustus Caesar inscribed on the inner walls of the ruined temple of Augustus at Ankara. These were published in the New York Times in 1929; and these refer to the two censuses, even giving the numbers of those enrolled and naming Quirinius in both as governor of Syria. Luke is therefore quite accurate in his record. ENDNOTE: [4] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 266. Verse 3 And all went to enroll themselves, every one to his own city.Here again we must take notice of the carping allegations that Luke erred in supposing that the enrollments were taken in the native cities of the citizens. Barclay called attention to the existence of a document of the Roman government with instructions pertaining to this great periodical census and with the edict. It is necessary to compel all those, who for any cause whatsoever are residing outside their own districts to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census, and may also diligently attend the cultivation of their allotments.[5]In the light of such documentation, Gilmour's imaginative comment that "It is improbable that any Roman census would require a man to report to the home of his ancestors"[6] appears contrary to established fact. Whether or not documented proof is available in every instance, Luke has been repeatedly proved to be far more dependable than any writer from the non-Christian community of that period. [5] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 15. [6] S. MacLean Gilmour, The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952, Vol. VIII, p. 50. Verse 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house of David.Luke's design in this chapter was to show how it came about that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, despite the fact of Joseph and Mary's residence in Nazareth, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Mic 5:2. The only reason cited by Luke for this journey to Bethlehem was the decree of Caesar and the necessity for Joseph's obedience to it. However, it does not appear to be certain that Mary was required to make this journey. Clarke stated that "It was not necessary for Mary to have gone to Bethlehem";[7]that is, it was not necessarily a requirement of Caesar's decree that she should have gone. The priority of the decree as the reason for the journey is plain, for it was the only reason Luke mentioned; but there were doubtless other considerations also. Childers too believed that "Neither Roman nor Jewish law required Mary to accompany Joseph for this registration."[8] He assigned, as reasons why she did so, (1) the fact of their love for each other, (2) Mary's desire that Joseph should be with her for her delivery, and especially (3) the leading of the Holy Spirit; nor may we leave out of sight the presumption that Mary knew of Micah's prophecy and, guided by God's Spirit, moved toward fulfillment of it. Elizabeth had already identified Mary's unborn Son as the Messiah (1:43). However, her faith might not have been sufficiently strong to have caused her to go to Bethlehem without the occasion of Caesar's decree. There is a possibility, at least, that under the circumstances they had decided to move to Bethlehem. Some elements of the sacred accounts, such as their remaining in the area after Jesus' birth, "indicate that when Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem, they were considering it a permanent move."[9] Harmonizing with this suggestion is the fact that after going to Egypt, they intended to return to "the land of Israel"; but upon learning that another Herod was on the throne, and in obedience to God's warning in a dream, they went instead to Galilee (Matthew 2:21-23). Summers pointed out that "Bethlehem was the historical headquarters of the stonemason's guild,"[10]an association that included "tektons" of at least three classes of workers. These were carpenters, stonemasons, and certain kinds of farmers. Luke omitted a number of events related by Matthew, not only because they were already well known from the "many" sources used by all the Gospels, but because they did not fit into the particular design of his Gospel. Here, the big point is that the fulfillment of the prophecy of Christ's birth in Bethlehem was accomplished by the pagan lord of the empire, Augustus Caesar, whose census was the immediate cause of it. Bethlehem ... means "place of bread," and it was appropriate that the Bread of Life should have been born there, and that the Son of David should have been born in the village so intimately associated with the history of David the shepherd king of Israel. [7] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1829), Vol. V, p. 369. [8] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 445. [9] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 37. [10] Ibid. Verse 5 To enroll himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child.Who was betrothed to him ... indicates that the relationship between Joseph and Mary was still that of an unconsummated marriage; although, of course, they had been living together since the command to Joseph by the angel in a dream (Matthew 1:20). Being great with child ... suggests that, since the time of delivery was near, the most urgent considerations had induced Mary to accompany Joseph on this trip. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 1, Section 1, verifies this statement of Luke. The reader may consult this historical passage for his own information, which I will not take the space to copy here. 3 His own city. Most countries are divided into smaller units, each with a center of jurisdiction at which the birth lists of citzens are kept on record, such as the county unit in the United States. The Jews had a similar custom of keeping their records according to the family groups to which one belonged, and such records were stored in the city that was attribuated to that family. 4 Joseph descended from David, hence he went to Bethlehem to register because that little city was known as the city of David. (See 1 Samuel 16:1.) 5 A wife would not have to leave home to pay her taxes, but she would need to appear in person to be placed upon the enrollment of citizens according to the Roman procedure. His espoused wife is explained at Matthew 1:25. Her condition of expectancy though engaged only to Joseph is explained at Matthew 1:18-20. 6 While they were there. Many of the Lord's plans seem to have been done just "as occasion suggested." They may look that way to man, but God knows all about the future and can regulate it as He sees fit. It had been determined that Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem and the prophets predicted the same ( Micah 5:2; Psalms 132:6). The Lord foresaw this edict of Caesar and planned the conditions with Joseph and Mary to coincide with it for the birth of the royal babe. 7 Laid him in a manger. The birth had taken place elsewhere on a birthstool, a seat so constructed that the mother could be seated while giving birth; this is what is meant by the "stools" in Exodus 1:16. When Rachel proposed to let her maid "bear upon her knees" (Genesis 30:3), she meant that her knees could be used instead of the birthstool. After Jesus was orn, the mother found no suitable place for him as a crib, hence she put him in a manger. The lodging places in that country were combinations of bedrooms for people and stalls for their beasts of service, just as some hotels are provided with garage space for the automobiles. The word "inn" should be rendered "guestcham-ber" (the same word is so rendered in chapter 22:11), where the guests would be gathered usually as they do in the lobby or waiting rooms in hotels. It was a time of large crowds on account of the decree of Caesar calling for all the people to come to the proper headquarters for registration. So the words no room for them in the inn have no reference to the attitude of the public towards these "humble, poor people," as a popular but .erroneous statement of sentimentality represents. 8 The shepherds were guarding their flocks from robbers and wolves. 9 Sore afraid means they were greatly frightened by the unexpected appearance of a person out there in the darkness of the night. 0 The angel calmed their fears by telling them he was there to bring them good news. The thing he was going to tell them was a matter that concerned all people, not merely any certain race or nationality. 1 Unto you denotes that it was for their benefit the birth had occurred. The announcement of it was about the same as was predicted in Isaiah 9:6. 2 All newborn babes look very much alike, hence some mark of recognition was necessary for the information of the shepherds. This was done by two unusual facts; the way the babe was clothed and the place used for his crib. He was bound round with a strip of cloth only, indicating that the birth had very recently taken place, and a manger was not the place where babes were generally placed as a crib. 3 The "shock" was eased by the appearance of only one angel. Then suddenly a multitude of the angel band of the heavenly army appeared shouting praises to God. 4 Moffatt renders in the highest, "in high heaven," and good will toward men, he renders, "for men whom He favors." 5 Let us go even unto Beth-lem, shows the shepherds understood that the "city of David," which the angel named, meant that place. 6 They found the parents near the babe that was lying in the manger. 7 That circumstance verified what the angel had told them. Doubtless they were well pleased at the combination of circumstances and reported it publicly. 8 The people .wondered about the coincidence. These shepherds could not have merely guessed at what had taken place for there were too many details in the case. 9 To ponder means to think or meditate, wondering over the great happiness that had been poured down upon her. 0 The shepherds praised God for the combination of events with the statement of the angel, thereby constituting a verifying weight of evidence. It was such a strong evidence of divine truth they could not refrain from rejoicing. 1 See the comments at chapter 1:59 as to naming a child at the same time with the rite of circumcision. According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, "the name Jesus signifies saviour," which made it an appropriate one to give this child. 2 See the law on this subject in Leviticus 12:1-6. 3 To be called holy to the Lord means to be regarded as His, hence the reason for presenting him to the Lord at Jerusalem where the temple was located. 4 In verse 8 of the chapter in Leviticus cited, it can be seen that a woman was permitted to offer these birds only in case she was not financially able to offer a larger sacrifice, such as a four-footed animal of the clean description. 5 Various men were inspired in Biblical times when God wished to have some message spoken, and this good man Simeon was one of those persons. The consolation means the blessing that God had promised to Israel (and all the world) through the seed of Abraham (Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18). 6 A special promise had been made to Simeon that he would live to see the Lord's Christ, which means the Anointed One. 7 The Spirit in this verse is the same as the Holy Ghost in the preceding one. It was by this Spirit that Simeon was caused to come into the temple at the same time the parents of Jesus came in. 8 Simeon blessed God for letting him live to see Jesus. 9 Simeon was willing to die since the great wish of his last years had been realized, and if he had been called to die then he would have had "a peaceful hour to die," for his last thoughts would have been on the Saviour of the world. 0Have seen thy salvation means the salvation provided of God. 1 Host prepared denotes the plans and prophecies that had been formulating through the centuries, and now brought to a climax in the birth of this child. 2 Gentiles is from a Greek word that means "nations," and that was what God promised to Abraham as recorded in Genesis 18:18. While all nations were to be blessed through Jesus, the people of Israel were especially honored since he was a Jew. 3 His mother means the mother of Jesus; she and her husband looked on and listened to the many things being done with the admiration of fond parents. 4 Simeon then directed his prophecies toward Mary concerning the child. To be set means "to be destined or appointed," indicating that. Jesus would be the cause of the results about to be mentioned. This fall and rising is the same as Jesus taught in Matthew 23:12. A sign spoken against refers to the opposition that. Jesus would encounter among the people who would not like his teaching. 5 Sword shall pierce through thy own soul refers to the sorrow that Mary was to have at seeing her son suffering on the cross (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25). Jesus was to exalt or abase men according to whether the thoughts of their hearts were good or evil, for he would be able to read and expose those thoughts. 6 From her viginity means from the time she was of marriageable age. She married at that time but her husband lived only seven years after this marriage. Women were inspired in Old Testament times as well as in the New. (See Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14.) 7 This woman was a good example of the widow described in 1 Timothy 5:5. 8 Spake . . . looked for redemption in Jerusalem. Only an inspired person could speak on this subject with any authentic assurance, hence this good woman used her qualification as a prophetess for that purpose. 9 Luke omits the flight into Egypt from Judea before the return to Nazareth. Matthew 2:13-15 should be read in connection with this verse. 0 The body of Jesus was human as well as divine, and was subject to the same law of growth or development as that of any other child. His spiritual or inner man, therefore, would have to develop in accordance with his body. However, since the work to be accomplished by him was of such special importance, his Father favored him with wisdom that was "beyond his years." This will account for the beautiful story we are about to read in some following verses. 1 The law required all the males of the Jews (others might if they wished) to appear at Jerusalem at the three yearly feasts (Exodus 23:14-17; Deuteronomy 16:16). 2 Joseph took his wife and child Jesus with him on the occasion when the child was twelve years old. Whether they always went with him we are not told. 3 Fulfilled the days refers to the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month and the seven days immediately following (Leviticus 23:4-8). Jesus began to manifest the "special wisdom" referred to at verse 40, and he remained at Jerusalem after his parents departed. There being a large group traveling together toward Galilee, the child was not missed for a while. 4 It was the next day before the parents of Jesus observed that he was not in their family unit. They next made a search for him among acquaintances and relatives but did not find him. 5 The parents returned to Jerusalem where they had last seen their son. 6 It was three days before they found their son. The doctors were the teachers in the law of Moses. Hearing and asking questions shows that Jesus was conducting what is sometimes termed a "forum" in which questions and answers may be exchanged between the people in the assembly. 7 Understanding refers to his ability to ask proper questions. for a person needs to know something about a subject to be able to ask intelligent questions about it. His answers refers to the questions these doctors (teachers) were asking Jesus about the things that pertained to the business of God. 8 The mother of Jesus told him that she and his father had been searching for him. She meant his earthly foster father, for he it was who would need to search. 9 About my Father's business is rendered "in the affairs of my Father" by the Englishman's Greek New Testament. The wisdom mentioned in verse 40 taught Jesus that he was destined to perform some special work in the world that pertained to God. The temple was the official headquarters of the system of religion then in force for the Jews, hence Jesus was found in that building where his parents should have looked first. 0 This verse will help to explain why the parents were so disturbed about the disappearance of their son. They understood not because they did not have that special wisdom that he had, mentioned and commented upon at verse 40. 1 Whatever object God wished to accomplish in the temple at this time by this 12-year-old boy, was done, and he was then left to accompany his parents to their home. Jesus furnishes an important example of obedience to parents that all other children should imitate. Although he possessed wisdom that was given him in a special manner (which no boy or girl today can have), yet he realized his duty to his parents. All of the things that were happening were wonderful to his mother, and she kept them in her heart or held them as a cherished subject of meditation in her young motherly affections. 2 This verse is virtually the same in thought as verse 40. H.Leo Boles Commenary On Luke 3 THE OF JOHN THE BAPTISTLuk_3:1-20 Luke 3:1-2 ---Now in the fifteenth year of the reign—Luke is a true historian; he defines very accurately the time when John began his ministry. It was the fifteenth year of the reign “ of Tiberius Caesar.” Luke does not refer to some one great epoch like the birth of Christ, which is followed throughout the civilized world, for then no such epoch for the world had been established. He dates from the year of the reigning Roman emperor, and adds also the name of the governor of Judea, and then the tetrarchs of the adjacent provinces, and the high priests then in office. Tiberius Caesar succeeded Au¬gustus in A.D. 14, according to very reliable historians; his fifteenth year (and John’ s entrance upon his ministry) were in A.D. 29. As Jesus was six months younger than John, and about thirty years of age (verse 23) when he began his minis¬try, it follows that John began to preach not far from one and a half years before the baptism of Jesus. Pontius Pilate became governor of Judea in A.D. 25 or 26. The name “ tetrarch” was originally given to one who ruled a fourth part of a province; that is, one province having been divided into four parts. Pontius Pilate was a bold, heartless ruler; his first act was an outrage on the feelings of the Jews; he sent within the city of Jerusalem a body of soldiers to winter there. The Jews obtained their removal after many efforts to get them out of the holy city. Luke very aptly fixes this date as the time for the beginning of John’ s ministry. Herod was tetrarch of Galilee at this time. This was Herod Antipas, son of the monster, Herod the Great; he had been left by his father as ruler of the province of Galilee. “ Tetrarch” originally meant the fourth part, but came to be used to signify the part of a kingdom over which the man ruled. John the Baptist was slain by this Herod and our Sav¬ior was mocked by him; his brother Philip also received a third part of the kingdom of Herod. “ Philip” was “ tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis” ; “ Ituraea” was a district in the northeast of Palestine and east of the Jordan; it received its name from Jetru, one of the sons of Ishmael. (Genesis 25:15; 1 Chronicles 5:19.) It had been subdued by Aris- tobulus, who compelled the people to submit to the rites of the Jews. “ Trachonitis” was the region bordering upon Ituraea and east of the Jordan. The name signifies a rough mountain¬ous country. Philip had received it on a promise to drive out the people who had dwelt there some time. “ Lysanias” was “ tetrarch of Abilene” ; nothing is known of him ; “ Abilene” was named from “ Ablia,” which was the principal city in the re¬gion lying northwest of Damascus. in the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,—According to the Jewish law there could be but one high priest at a time. Luke, as a historian, is not stating what should have been, but only what constituted the facts in the matter. He is taking up important names as he found them in order to fix the date of his history. He found these two men serving as high priest at that time. Caiphas was son-in-law to Annas, who was actually serving as high priest. Annas was a man of very great influence. He had been deposed as high priest, but was serving on the Sanhedrin. As Annas had been unjustly deposed by the Roman authorities, it may be that, in the opinion of the Jews, he was still termed the high priest, and a degree of power put into his hands that made him equal in authority to Caiaphas. Luke fixes the date of the beginning of the ministry of John by an emperor on one side, by a petty governor on the other, by two high priests who were serving at the time. At this date so clearly and fully defined the historian, Luke, now proceeds to narrate facts as he has collected them. It is to be remembered always that he is guided by the Holy Spirit in writing his history. “ The word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.” Luke has now fixed defi-nitely the time for the beginning of John’ s work. Like the prophets of old, John was specially directed to utter the divine message to the people and to baptize. (Jeremiah 1:2; Ezekiel 6:1.) This marked the beginning of John’ s ministry as is evident from the whole account, not some later appearance of John which was the cause of his imprisonment, as some have sup¬posed. “ In the wilderness” of Judea describes the barren, hilly, and sparsely-settled region between Hebron and the Dead Sea. The word “ wilderness” or “ desert” in the New Testament denotes merely an untilled, unenclosed, and thinly- inhabited country. The “ fulness of the time” (Galatians 4:4) has now arrived. Luke 3:3-6 ---And he came into all the region—The populous Jordan valley was a field of labor for John the Baptist. The burden of his message was a call upon men to repent and be baptized as the condition of their forgiveness; hence John came “ preaching the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.” “ Preaching” means publicly announcing; as he traveled over the country, he delivered his brief message to individuals, families, and small companies wherever he found them, and then afterward to great crowds who flocked to hear him. “ Baptism” is the Greek “ baptisma” transferred into our lan-guage with its final letter dropped; it means literally “ a plunging and immersion.” All lexicographers bear testimony and agree to this; its figurative meaning is based on this meaning, and always expresses an idea of immersion. (Luke 12:50.) It is only with the literal meaning that we have here to do. The baptism of John was a new rite; it was not founded on the immersions of the old dispensation, under which persons performed the ceremony of bathing or immersing the whole body, not on others, but on themselves. (Leviticus 15:6 Leviticus 16:4.) The immersion of one person by another, as a divinely appointed act, is peculiar to Christianity, and was first introduced by John: baptism was not practiced among the Jews nor heathens. John himself declared that he received his commission to baptize directly from God. (John 1:33.) Jesus intimated that the right was revealed to John from heaven. (Luke 20:4.) As baptism was a new rite it distin-guished John’ s ministry from all other prophets; hence he is called “ the Baptist.” (Luke 7:20.) John’ s preaching is very specifically designated as that of “ baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.”as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah—The preaching and baptism of John were the fulfillment of certain prophetic conditions; Luke recognizes the authority of the Old Testament. “ The book of the words of Isaiah” means the roll or scroll of linen, papyrus, or parchment, the ancient form of a volume, written inside and unrolled for reading. “ The words” of Isaiah means his prophetic discourses. Isaiah began to prophesy under the reign of Uzziah, about 759 B.C., and continued the prophetic office about sixty years under Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. (Isaiah 1:1.) The predictions here quoted are found in Isaiah 40:3-5 Isaiah 52:10. John also applies it to himself. (John 1:23.) The figure here used is founded on the eastern custom of sending persons to prepare the way for the march of a king through the country. John is described as “ the voice of one crying in the wilderness,” and his message is to “ make ye ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” It is not John, but his preaching and mis¬sion which are made prominent here; his preaching was in¬deed a “ voice of one crying” aloud, of short duration, but by its great earnestness excited attention. Every valley shall be filled,—The great oral purpose of John’ s preaching was so well defined in the prophecy of him by Isaiah that Luke quotes the prophecy in full; everywhere in earnest tones, John called upon the people to prepare the way for the Greek King, leveling down the mountains, filling up the valley gorges, straightening all crooked ways, and making the rough places smooth. This is the way the royal road was prepared for the coming king. In a moral sense men must put away their sins, humble their proud spirits, and so make the way ready for the redeemer of man. All this as it stood before Isaiah’ s mind was to introduce the glorious reign of the Messiah by means of which “ all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” So remarkable and conspicuous would be the preparation and march of the King upon the straight and smooth highway that the whole human race should “ see the salvation of God,” which the Messiah would bring. Luke 3:7-9 --He said therefore to the multitudes—Luke now begins to record what John said to the multitudes “ that went out to be baptized of him.” John was a prophet, guided by the Holy Spirit, and the forerunner of the Messiah; it was his mission to get the people ready for the Messiah. The multitudes came from various quarters of the land. Matthew 3:7 says that “ many of the Pharisees and Sadducees” came to his baptism, and that John addressed them as “ ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” As Luke was writing for Gentiles, there was no need of his referring to these religious classes among the Jews; hence he addressed them as “ ye offspring of vipers.” It may be that some had come through curiosity, others were envious and jealous, and some, especially of the Sadducees, were sneering at the dan¬gers impending in a future life; all seemed to be aroused and anxious. As John was filled with the Holy Spirit he could see at a glance their selfish and wicked motives in coming to him, and he at once addressed them as “ offspring of vipers,” per-sons both deceitful and malignant, and holding pernicious doctrines and principles. The viper was a very poisonous ser-pent. (Acts 28:3-6.) who warned you to flee—“ Warned” literally means “ to show secretly”; the word implies a private or confidential hint or reminder. (Luke 12:5; Acts 9:16 Acts 20:35.) “ Who” did not call for the names of the man or persons, but rather called their thought to the point that someone ought to have warned them to flee from the impending wrath of God. John had no word for men not in earnest to escape God’ s wrath. It was a Jewish maxim that no circumcised person could ever be lost, but John warns them of a “ wrath to come.” The impending wrath was to be visited upon those who rejected the kingdom of heaven and neglected preparation. The Jews expected troublous times in connection with the coming of the Messiah. (Isaiah 60:12 Isaiah 63:1; Malachi 3:1 Malachi 4:5.) John here referred in a prophetic way to the wrath which would come upon the Jew¬ish nation at the destruction of Jerusalem and upon all the wicked at the general judgment. (Matthew 24:21 Matthew 24:38-39; 1 Thessalonians 1:10.) Bring forth therefore fruits—Matthew here uses “ fruit” instead of “ fruits” as used by Luke. John demanded no merely emotional and selfish fear, but such works and conduct as would show sincerity; they were to bring fruits “ worthy of repentance” ; if they came professing repentance then they should bring forth fruits in harmony with such a profession; they should not even think that they had Abraham as their father or they should not think that because they were descendants of Abraham they did not need repentance. The reason assigned is that “ God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”And even now the axe also lieth at the root—“ The axe laid at the root of the tree” is a proverb that was common among the Jews. The meaning is that the axe is ready to be applied for use, and not only were the branches to be pruned, but the axe was to be applied to the root of the tree. The object of the axe was to cut down “ every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit.” Men are to be judged, not by their birth or their professions, but by their hearts and lives. Without delay all barren trees were to be cut down immediately and “ cast into the fire.” This was unquenchable fire. (Verse 17; Hebrews 6 Hebrews 8.) In this way John would prepare the people for the coming of Christ by awakening within them a sense of their true condition and of their spiritual need. Expecting a temporal deliverer, they would, without this, most certainly reject Jesus. Luke 3:10-15 ---And the multitudes asked him,—John certainly aroused the people and stirred them to action; some of them received John’ s teaching and became his disciples; others were aroused to opposition. They asked: “ What then must we do?” They saw that being the seed of Abraham was not sufficient and that their keeping the traditions of the law not satisfactory; hence their question, “ what then must we do?” They “ asked” indicates the frequent repetition of their question, so the original indicates. John’ s preaching moved them to press their inquiry; what are the fruits meet for repentance which they were to do, is what disturbed them. John’ s an¬swer to these questions was as emphatic as was his preaching. And he answered and said—John’ s first answer impressed the duties of practical life—give to those who are more destitute. “ He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none.” A second coat no man could want if his neighbor who had none wanted his first; two coats were sometimes worn, one of them for ornamentation or luxury; in such case the one who had two coats could very well spare one to those who had none. This explains what John meant when he said: “ Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance.” It also partially answers their question as to what they should do. Avarice and selfishness characterized at this time many of the Jews. (James 4:1-4 James 5:1-6.) Furthermore, “ he that hath food, let him do likewise.” The “ coat” and “ food” represent the physical necessities of man; these should not be hoarded, but generously given to those who had need. And there came also publicans to be baptized,—“ Publicans” were collectors of Roman taxes; the Roman officials often farmed out the direct taxes and customs to capitalists on their payment of certain sums into the public treasury, hence they were called “ publicans.” Sometimes this sum, being greater than any one person could pay, was paid by a company; under these were “ submagistri,” living in the provinces; and under these again were the “ portitores” or actual customhouse officers, who are referred to in the New Testament. They were often chosen from the low and wicked class of people and were so notorious for their extortions that they were habitually included in the same class with harlots and sinners. And he said unto them, Extort no more—“ Extort” means “ exact”; the word is used of the exaction of legal tribute, and excessive exaction is expressed by the following words: John would hardly have commanded them to extort in any case. John does not demand that they give up their employment, but that they should be honest in the performance of their duties. If these publicans truly repented, they would indeed ex¬hibit other fruits, but this in their case was absolutely necessary ; without it there could be no true repentance. And soldiers also asked him,—The soldiers asked the same question that the multitudes and publicans asked; hence here are three classes who have asked what they should do to “ bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance.” The “ soldiers” were probably Jewish troops; for if they had been Gentiles, John would doubtless have enjoined upon them the worship of God: such worship is here taken for granted. However, we cannot know just who they were; they could have been Jewish soldiers of the Roman province of Judea; it matters not who they were; they came under the class of bearing fruit worthy of repentance. John’ s answer was adapted to their sins and temptations; they were prone to in¬dolence, violence, malice, and insubordination. Hence, John told them that they should “ extort from no man by violence, neither accuse any one wrongfully; and be content with your wages.” “ Extort” “ by violence” literally means “ to shake violently,” and “ to vex and harass” in order to extort money for some selfish end. Neither were they to accuse “ wrongfully” anyone in order to receive a bribe or a reward. They are further admonished to be “ content” with their wages. “ Wages” literally means something purchased to eat with bread; hired soldiers were at first paid partly in rations of meat, grain, and fruit; hence the word came to mean rations, “ wages,” or stipend. Luke 3:15-17 ---And as the people were in expectation,—The people were anxious for John to declare himself, hence “ all men rea¬soned in their hearts concerning John” ; they were anxious to determine whether he was “ the Christ.” Such preaching as John did was so out of the ordinary that the people wondered as to whether he was the Messiah. John was filled with the Holy Spirit; hence his teachings were far different from those of the scribes and Pharisees. The people were anxious to know who this wonderful prophet and teacher was. When the time came John answered them and said: “ I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I.” To baptize “ with water” and only “ with water” described John’ s work, but there would come another who was so much greater than John, as great as they thought John was, that John was not “ worthy to unloose” “ the latchet” of his shoes. The language used by John implies that this “ Mighty One” was already in the midst of them. Jesus was mightier than John in his nature, office, wisdom, power, and aims. (Matthew 28:18; John 5:27 John 10:30 John 10:41.) Yet none greater than John had arisen. (Matthew 11:9-11.) “ The latchet” of the shoe was a strap which fastened the sandal to the feet. The “ shoes” as used here means sandals which covered only the bottom of the feet. They were taken off and laid aside on entering a house; the tying and untying the sandals was the work of the most menial servant. Yet Christ was so mighty a personage that even this work John felt himself unworthy to perform. Since John had aroused the whole Jewish nation, how great then must be the Messiah! Christ would arouse the world, his power would be felt by everyone. he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:—Luke gives the same form of expression that Matthew did. (Matthew 3:11.) The baptism “ in the Holy Spirit and in fire” must not be referred to water baptism in any sense, for Christ never baptized in water, but left that to his disciples. (John 4:2.) Neither does this baptism refer to the common influences of the Holy Spirit which are peculiar to the work of the Spirit. (John 20:22.) It must refer to the sending of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, which was peculiarly the work of Christ. (John 16:7; Acts 1:5 Acts 11:16.) Many think that “ in fire” has reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, because “ there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them.” (Acts 2:3.) But this was not a baptism “in fire,” for these “ tongues” were not “fire,” but only “like as of fire” ; and these tongues only sat upon the apostles, but did not immerse them in the tongues “ like as of fire.” There seems to be two baptisms mentioned here that Christ would administer; one was the baptism “ in the Holy Spirit,” which was literally fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4) and at the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:44 Acts 11:15-18). The baptism in the Spirit of these two groups of persons has brought blessings to all mankind; the one on Pentecost brought blessings directly to the Jews, and the one at the house of Cornelius brought blessings to the Gentiles; hence the baptism in the Holy Spirit has resulted in blessings to the entire human family. whose fan is in his hand,—The figure used here was taken from the custom of threshing grain in the East by treading it out with oxen (Deuteronomy 25:4), or a threshing machine was drawn over the grain (Isaiah 41:15; Amos 1:3). The grain and chaff were mingled; in this condition both were thrown up against the wind with a shovel; the chaff was thus blown away, while the grain fell in a heap; in this way the wheat and the chaff were separated; the chaff was burned and the wheat was gathered into the garner. The figure as used by John represents the Messiah as separating the evil from the good, according to the tests of his kingdom and his gospel; the worthy are to be received into his kingdom and given a rich reward, while the unworthy are to be destroyed. There is a sharp contrast not only between the wheat and the chaff, but the destiny of the two classes. The fire that burns the wicked is “ unquenchable,” which means never extinguished; the doom it describes is eternal. Luke 3:18-20 ---With many other exhortations—Luke here gives a synopsis of John’ s preaching by saying “ with many other exhortations” he preached “ good tidings unto the people.” John rebuked sin, called upon the people to repent, and to manifest it by a thorough change of heart and life; proclaimed the Messiah approaching with blessings and salvation to the righ¬teous, the believing, and judgments and destruction to the wicked, the unbelieving. In this way John prepared the way for Christ; some hearts were ready to receive him when he came. (John 1:37 John 1:41 John 1:43.) The warnings and admonitions of John extended to every class of people; he made no distinction in his condemnation of sin. Luke here gives a brief ac-count of John’ s ministry, and, by way of anticipation, refers to the imprisonment of John, which occurred several months after the baptism of Jesus. (Matthew 14:3; Mark 6:17.) but Herod the tetrarch, being reproved—Herod had taken “ Herodias his brother’ s wife”; Herodias was the wife of Philip ; she was the granddaughter of Herod the Great, the daugh¬ter of Aristobulus, and niece of Herod Antipas. She married Philip, a son of Herod the Great, who lived in private life, having been disinherited by his father. Herodias, preferring royalty, left Philip and married Herod Antipas, who, to make way for her, divorced his own wife, daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia, supposed to be the one mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:32. Notwithstanding that Herodias had left her husband and married Antipas, she was “ his brother’ s wife.” (Mark 6:17-20.) John not only reproved Herod for this one crime, but “ for all the evil things which Herod had done.” He condemned his revelings, his debaucheries, and his murders. According to Jewish testimony, Herod Antipas was very wicked and slew many of the wise men of Israel. In addition to all these evils, he “ added this also to them all, that he shut up John in prison.” It is generally understood that John was imprisoned in the fortress of Machaerus, on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea. John was imprisoned about a year after the baptism of Jesus. He remained in prison until he was beheaded; we do not know the exact time. THE BAPTISM OF JESUS Luke 3:21-22 Luke 3:21 ---Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized,—There are three accounts of the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22); Matthew’ s account is the fullest; he gave the conversation of John and Jesus before the baptism. Matthew and Mark give the place, the river Jordan, where he was baptized; these writers also state that Jesus came from Galilee to John. Mark is specific and states that he came from Nazareth. The main points mentioned by Luke are the visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit descend¬ing upon Jesus in the form of a dove, and the voice from heaven proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God. Each of the writers records the descent of the Holy Spirit and the audible voice endorsing him as the Son of God. “ All the people were baptized” does not mean that every one in all Judea was baptized, but it means a great number. The baptism of Jesus forms the climax of John’ s ministry; it was the great crowning act, for he came baptizing in water that Jesus might be manifested to Israel. (John 1:31-34.) From this time John began to decrease, but Jesus to increase; all the people were no longer gathering to hear John, but to see and hear Jesus. The disciples of Jesus were baptizing more than John. (John 4:1-2.) Jesus was baptized at the time when the people were baptized; some think that John’ s work ceased when he baptized Jesus. John had a double function; he was to get the people ready for Jesus, and then to point him out to the people. He did this soon after he bap¬tized Jesus. (John 1:29-34.) Luke 3:22 ---Thou art my beloved Son;—The Holy Spirit came upon Jesus “ in a bodily form, as a dove.” There was a sudden and visible parting asunder in a portion of the sky; Jesus saw it (Mark 1:10) and John also witnessed it (John 1:32) ; we do not know whether anyone else saw this visible manifestation. This manifestation was “ as a dove” or like a dove. Some understand this to mean that the Holy Spirit descended in the manner of a dove which descends gently and swiftly. It has been a question whether the comparison here is between the descent of the Holy Spirit and that of a dove, or whether the comparison is between the visable appearance of the Spirit and the shape of a dove. Nothing is to be gained by disputing on this point. The dove was a fit emblem of the pure, gentle, and peaceful character of Jesus and his work. (Isaiah 61:1-3; Matthew 10:16 Matthew 11:29 Matthew 12:19-21.) The descent of the Holy Spirit was also a token of the Messiah to John. (John 1:33.) There is some variation in the record given by Matthew and Luke; Mark agrees with Luke. Matthew expresses this statement in the third person—“ this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”— but Mark and Luke state it in the second person—“ thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” Mark and Luke record this as God speaking to Jesus, while Matthew expresses it as God speaking to John or some other Jesus was not only the “ Son” of God, but emphatically he is “ the beloved Son.” The voice from heaven added “ in thee I am well pleased.”THE OF JESUS Luke 3:23-38 Luke 3:23-38 ---And Jesus himself, when he began to teach,—The meaning here is that Jesus was “ about thirty years of age” when he began to teach. Luke had already specified the date of the beginning of John’ s ministry, and now he states the age of Jesus when he began to teach. Soon after his baptism Jesus began to teach. Luke says that he was “ about thirty years of age” ; it is very common for Luke to use the word “ about” with a specification of time. (Luke 1:56 Luke 9:28 Luke 22:59 Luke 23:44; Acts 2:41 Acts 4:4 Acts 5:36 Acts 10:3 Acts 19:7.) “ About thirty” is not here a round or general number, referring to any year within two or three years of thirty, but a specific designation of time, meaning a few months below or rather above thirty. The meaning appears to be that Jesus began his min¬istry when he was more than thirty and less than thirty-one. This agrees with what we know of the time of our Lord’ s birth and baptism. Thirty was also the age when Levites en¬tered upon their public services (Numbers 4:3 Numbers 4:47; 1 Chronicles 23:3), and when scribes were accustomed to enter upon their office as teachers. The people would not have been disposed to recognize the authority of a teacher who had not attained that age. It was God’ s purpose that the Messiah should not enter upon his public duties until he had arrived at the age of thirty. being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, —It has always been regarded a very difficult task to harmonize the genealogical tables given by Matthew and Luke. Matthew’ s design was to trace our Lord’ s genealogy from Abraham down to his reputed father, Joseph, in order to furnish legal evidence to the Jews, that Jesus of Nazareth was, through his male ancestry, the lineal descendant of David and of Abraham. Luke traces his genealogy from Joseph, “ as was supposed,” father of Jesus, on back through David and Abraham to Adam. The difficulty seems to lie in the fact that Luke diverges from Joseph, and pursues the lineal descent of Jesus through a different series to David. How is it that Joseph is in the one case declared to be the son of Jacob and in the other the son of Heli? Many attempts have been made to answer this question; many of the attempts are not satisfactory. If Heli was Mary’ s father, it is clear that Joseph was his son-in-law; the assumption that this relationship is here designated agrees with the facts of the case, or at least is not contradicted by them. The words “ as was supposed,” although immediately referable to the following words, “ the son of Joseph,” yet indicate that Luke had in mind the real parentage of Jesus, first as being the Son of God (Luke 1:35), and then of David, through the line of his maternal ancestry, which alone was true and real. It is as though Luke intended his readers mentally to supply in the next clause the words “ but in reality (according to the flesh) the son of Heli.” If it be asked why Luke did not openly express this idea, by putting the name of Mary in place of Joseph, and writing, “ which was the daughter of Heli,” the answer is furnished in the almost invariable usage of the ancients, especially the Jews, to reckon one’ s genealogy through the paternal rather than the maternal line. But unless Luke, after his reference to our Lord’ s sup-posed relationship to Joseph, passed over to his real ancestry, his genealogical table would be according to his own showing, one that was fictitious. The complete list of names back to Adam would rest on that of one who was only the “ reputed” father of our Lord. It is natural to expect a genealogy somewhere in the gos¬pels which would verify to the very letter the prediction that Christ was to be of the seed of David and of Abraham. The ancestry of Joseph, who was only his reputed father, would not answer this demand. It might be adduced in the way of legal proof to the Jew that Jesus had this mark of the Messi- ahship, but does not satisfy the conditions of the prophecy that he was to be a real descendant of David. The fact that Luke had this in mind is strengthened by the proof that he gives in tracing the true lineage of Jesus back to David and Abraham in his genealogical table. The fact that Luke car¬ries his record back to Adam, who was declared to be the “ Son of God.” shows clearly that it was designed to subserve a different purpose from that of Matthew. We are forced to the conclusion that Joseph was Heli’ s son by the marriage of his daughter, and perhaps also by adoption, and that this genealogy of Luke was designed to furnish proof that our Lord “ was born of the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Romans 1:3.) Verse 1 In this chapter lies the record of the emergence of John the Baptist (Luke 3:1-6), the message he delivered (Luke 3:7-14), his announcement of the Christ (Luke 3:15-17), the conclusion of John's ministry and the baptism of Jesus (Luke 3:18-21), and the genealogy of Jesus as traced through Mary (Luke 3:23-38). Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Iturea and Trachinitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.(Luke 3:1-2) The fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius ... On Sept. 17,14 A.D., this ruler ascended the throne of the Roman Empire.[1]; Luke 3:23 of this chapter states that Jesus, very near this time, was "about thirty years of age." This was the consideration that led to the mistake in our present calendar of dating Jesus' birth at the beginning of our era in the year 1. It is now known, however, that Tiberius was reigning at the beginning of the year 11 A.D. The Encyclopedia Britannica has this: From the beginning of 11, when he celebrated a magnificent triumph, to the time of the emperor's death in 14, Tiberius remained almost entirely in Italy, and held rather the position of joint-emperor than that of expectant heir.[2]All of the provincial affairs of the empire were in the hands of Tiberius from the date 11 A.D.; and, as Robertson noted, "Luke would naturally use the provincial point of view."[3] This dates the emergence of John the Baptist and the beginning of the ministry of Christ, the latter being in 26 A.D., and John's ministry having been prior to that, with the two overlapping somewhat, as detailed in John's Gospel. This harmonizes with a date of April 6,30 A.D. for Jesus' crucifixion, as recently determined scientifically through computer studies.[4] It is further corroborated by Matthew's Gospel, which definitely placed the birth of Christ prior to the death of Herod the Great (4 B.C.). The calculation based on John 2:20, where Jesus' enemies affirmed that the temple had been under construction for forty-six years, also confirms this. "The temple was begun the year the emperor came to Syria; and this was in 20 or 19 B.C."[5] Adding the forty-six years brings us to the year 26 A.D. in which the first passover of our Lord's ministry occurred. Any more exact determination of the date would appear to be impossible at this time, as the many contradictory opinions of great scholars indicate. It will be noted that Luke cited no less than six notable persons in high office with the Roman empire and also with the Jews, nailing down the historical context of this record with the most dogmatic certainty. This student has an impression that Luke's citing so many names here was prompted by some uncertainty on his part with regard to the exact meaning of "fifteenth year of Tiberius," knowing perhaps that it could have been counted from either 11 A.D. or 14 A.D. Here is a list of the dates history has assigned to the periods when each of the notables Luke here mentioned exercised his authority: Pontius Pilate, Roman Governor of Judaea (26 A.D. to 36 A.D.). Herod (Antipas), tetrarch of Galilee (4 B.C. to 39 A.D.). (Herod) Philip, tetrarch of Iturea (4 B.C. to 34 A.D.). Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene (not certainly known).[6] Annas and Caiaphas, high priests in Jerusalem: Annas was high priest from 7 B.C., and although deposed in 15 A.D., continued to be recognized by the Jews as the true high priest. Caiaphas was only one of five sons and sons-in-law of Annas, among whom the high priesthood was rotated during New Testament times.[7] Caiaphas was named high priest, perhaps briefly, in 18 A.D.; and Dummelow stated that he was appointed "before 26 A.D., being deposed in 37 A.D."[8] Significantly, Luke regarded Annas and Caiaphas as joint-high priests, corresponding exactly with statements in John. The date of 26 A.D., as accepted in this commentary for the baptism of Jesus, is not denied by any of the dates noted in the table. The word of God came to John ... It is not related just how the word of God came to John, for God spoke of old to the fathers by the prophets in various ways (Hebrews 1:1). [1] Jack P. Lewis, Historical Backgrounds of Bible History (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1971), p. 143. [2] Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1961), Vol. 22, p. 177. [3] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 264. [4] Roger Rusk, "The Day He Died," article in Christianity Today (Vol. 18, No. 19, March 1974). [5] A. T. Robertson, op. cit., p. 265. [6] The dates of all four of these secular rulers are from the Encyclopedia Britannica. [7] H. C. Hervey, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 18, Acts I, p. 123. [8] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Macmillan Company, 1837), p. 708. Verse 3 And he came into all the region around the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins.This was an extensive area evangelized by John, some sixty-five miles in a straight line from Galilee to the Dead Sea, but as the river runs, more than twice that. Baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins ... This baptism was a new rite, "not founded on the immersions of the old dispensation, but a divinely appointed act, peculiar to Christianity, and first introduced by John."[9] It is one of the seven baptisms mentioned in the New Testament.[10] It consisted of the immersion of the penitent in water by the administrator, requiring John to preach where there was "much water" (John 3:23); and, coupled with repentance, it was "unto the remission of sins." John's baptism was, in fact, "God's baptism"; and those who rejected it rejected God (Luke 7:30). It was the only baptism ever submitted to by the apostles of Christ (Paul excepted) and was the only baptism in force until Pentecost. Those baptized by John and who followed on to receive the Spirit of Christ experienced the new birth, being born of water and of the Spirit, as Jesus commanded (John 3:1-5). Significantly, the new birth, which requires a birth of water (baptism) and a birth of the Spirit (receiving the Holy Spirit as promised in Acts 2:38), could not be experienced until after Jesus was risen from the dead (John 7:39). From this it is clear that "the remission of sins" was a blessing which John promised prospectively, the actuality of it being necessarily deferred until Pentecost. For an extensive discussion of the new birth, see my Commentary on John, chapter 3. Only a very few of the proud Jewish leaders submitted to John's baptism, a failure on their part which issued finally in their total rejection of the Lord. Christ brought the rite of baptism over into Christianity, making it mandatory for all who would be saved (Mark 16:15-16); but, the tragic pattern of rejection, as in the case of John's baptism, has been continued under the new covenant; and those who reject it should take note of the consequences in the people who rejected baptism under John. Repentance ... is a change of the human will that issues in reformation of life. It may occur in a moment, but the best results of it last a lifetime. Jesus allowed that repentance may occur seven times in a single day (17:4), and this shows that it may not last a lifetime! However, it is admitted by all that it should. It is the basic condition of God's forgiveness; and, as long as one is under the probation of life, the need of repentance is constant. [9] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on the Gospel according to Luke (Nashville, 1940), p. 76. [10] James Burton Coffman's Commentary on Matthew, p. 29. Verse 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, And every mountain and hill shall be brought low; And the crooked shall become straight, And the rough ways smooth: And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.This great prophecy is from Isaiah 40:3 ff, the same being God's promise of a mighty prophet who would precede the coming of the Messiah, the imagery being that of a herald going before an ancient king to make his journey easier. Josephus relates how Vespasian marched into Galilee, with his men going before him to prepare the way, thus: (They) were to make the road even and straight and if it were anywhere rough and hard to be passed over, to plane it, and to cut down the woods that hindered their march, etc.[11]Of course, it was no such thing that John the Baptist would do for Christ. The preparation needed for the rising of the Sun of righteousness was a moral improvement of the people. The conceit that physical descent from Abraham would entitle them to Messiah's blessing, the foolish notion that the Messiah would be a secular king like Solomon, the conviction that he would drive out the Romans and execute a vindictive and punitive judgment against their Gentile enemies, and the widespread hypocrisy and immorality of the people, the selfishness and hardheartedness of the rich, and the greedy gouging of the people by the concessioners in the temple itself, the gross ritualism and secularism that had buried God's true law under the priestly traditions - all these cried out to God for correction; and thus it was no small task that challenged the son of Zacharias! All flesh shall see the salvation of God ... Isaiah's great prophecy should have alerted the Jews to the inclusion in God's plans of salvation for the Gentiles; but the leaders of the people were set adamantly against any such idea. The chosen people were destined to find in this concept the impossibility of their accepting Christ, which resulted in their own rejection and judicial hardening. ENDNOTE: [11] Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, translated by William Whiston (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), p. 717. Verse 7 He said therefore to the multitudes that went out to be baptized of him, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?THE OF JOHN THE BAPTISTThis was addressed to the insincere, those who were willing to submit to a rite, but whose lives bore no fruit of repentance. Farrar is credited with the statement that "Only teachers of transcendent holiness, immediately inspired by God with fervency and insight, may dare to use such language." Verse 8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.The usual response to any demand that the Israelites of that day should repent was to the effect that they did not need to repent, since they were sons of Abraham. The fact that all the promises were not to Abraham's fleshly descendants, but to his spiritual seed (the people who were of the character and faith of Abraham), was unknown to the Israel of that generation. Paul spelled it out in Romans; but here, the nigh impossible task of enlightenment fell on John the Baptist. He succeeded in such instances as John the apostle, and others who became followers of Jesus; but the majority of fleshly Israel only scoffed at the truth. Verse 9 And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.Axe ... at the root ... This was a prophetic vision of the destruction of the Holy City which would ensue as a result of the rejection of Christ by Israel. The metaphor is that of a farmer who chops down an unfruitful tree and burns it. Too long Israel had been barren, as far as any fruits of righteousness were concerned; and her day of grace at the time John spoke was growing short. Verse 10 And the multitude asked him, saying, What then must we do?In general, John's message was that the people should live moral and upright lives, with unselfishness toward the hungry, poor, and the naked, as stated in the next verse. Verse 11 And he answered and said unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath food, let him do likewise.See under preceding verse. Verse 12 And there came also publicans to be baptized, and they say unto him, Teacher, what must we do?The significance here is that a class of persons utterly despised by the Israelites because of their work as tax collectors for the hated Romans, accepted John's baptism, conforming their lives as he directed; but there was an additional affront to Israel in the very theory that such persons could please God while still in the employ of the Romans. Significantly, John did not suggest that they resign their jobs. Verse 13 And he said unto him, Extort no more than that which is appointed you.Not tax collecting, but dishonest extortion was viewed as sin. Verse 14 And soldiers also asked him, saying, And we, what must we do? And he said unto them, Extort from no man by violence, neither accuse anyone wrongfully; and be content with your wages.Even soldiers, just whose soldiers is not clear, were not considered beyond the bounds of redemption. They were not commanded to leave the army but to exhibit attitudes of restraint, truthfulness, and contentment. If these were Roman soldiers, the implications of these words from John must have been extremely distasteful to Israel. Verse 15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men reasoned in their hearts concerning John, whether haply he were the Christ.JOHN THE BAPTIST THE CHRISTThis denotes the widespread, sensational success of John's preaching, and the wonderment on the part of many if, perhaps, this was indeed the Messiah. Such impressions reached Jerusalem, as we read in John; and the Pharisees sent a delegation to ascertain the facts. However, John denied that he was the Christ (John 1:18-28). Verse 16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptized you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am unworthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire.Who are those to be baptized in the Holy Spirit? and in fire? The conviction here is that John spoke of the two classes of humanity to be "baptized" by Jesus, his followers to be guided by the indwelling of the Spirit, and the unbelievers to go away into eternal fire (Matthew 25:41); and the fact of the two general divisions of mankind being in view is proved by the next verse. Verse 17 Whose fan is in his hand, thoroughly to cleanse his threshing-floor, and to gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire.Israel was the Lord's threshing-floor; the wheat to be gathered into the granary was the true spiritual seed who would accept Christ and be saved. The chaff represented the unbelievers who would reject and crucify the Lord. The unquenchable fire is a metaphor for the everlasting punishment which shall be meted out to the wicked. Although, in this first context, Israel is the portion of humanity in focus, the teaching here is actually to all men of all ages, regardless of race or any other human distinction. Verse 18 With many other exhortations therefore preached he good tidings unto the people; but Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his brother' s wife, and for all the evil things which Herod had done, added this also to them all, that he shut up John in prison.THE OF JOHN'S This concluded John's ministry, Luke not pausing to recount the story of John's death; but there is a suggestion in this account which reveals Herod's treatment of John as the worst of all his crimes. With many other exhortations ... Luke gave only a brief summary of John's message, but it is sufficient. Characteristic of Luke's writings is his pursuit of the narrative about John to its conclusion and then returning to relate a significant event which took place somewhat earlier. Verse 21 Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.THE BAPTISM OF JESUSJesus being baptized, and praying ... Many have pondered the reasons why Jesus was baptized; and among reasons that might have entered into his submission to that rite are the following: (1) The reason that he himself gave, "thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15), indicates that it would have been unbecoming, even of the sinless Christ, to have withheld obedience to God's commandment. The message for all men in this is plain. (2) By so doing, he indicated the adoption of the rite of baptism to be the initiatory ceremony by which men are inducted into Christianity. (3) Through this obedience he "fulfilled" God's command. (4) His baptism, as revealed in the Scriptures, prefigured the importance of the ceremony in the true religion under the new covenant. Jesus' baptism announced the importance of it for all men. (5) His baptism symbolized the true meaning of the ordinance in Christianity: (a) one is not a child of God until he is baptized, just as God recognized Christ as his beloved Son immediately AFTER his baptism; (b) prayer, though not denied to anyone, is in many special ways the peculiar privilege of Christians, a privilege contingent upon their baptism; hence Luke indicated Christ's praying, immediately AFTER his baptism; (c) the Holy Spirit is a gift to Christians, contingent upon their being (among other things) baptized (Acts 2:38); and significantly, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descended and remained upon Jesus AFTER his baptism. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the baptism commanded in the great commission (following faith, repentance, and confession) isPRIOR to the convert's becoming a child of God, receiving the Holy Spirit, and entering into the more exalted prayer-privileges pertaining only to Christians; and we do not hesitate to add that baptism is a precondition to his ever being so endowed. In this connection, one of the reasons that may not be assigned to Christ's baptism is this, that he was baptized to set us an example how we might follow him in baptism, since it is impossible for believer's baptism to correspond to Christ's. It was not necessary for him but it is necessary for men. He was baptized at about the age of thirty, and that is far longer than any mortal's baptism should be delayed. Believer's baptism is "for the remission of sins"; but Christ's was to fulfill all righteousness. Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove ... This was the heavenly portent by which John the Baptist recognized the Messiah (John 1:33). Appropriately, the dove was a clean creature under the Mosaic law, acceptable in the holy sacrifices as an offering to God, an emblem in all ages of peace, gentleness, and innocence, a monogamous creature, possessing no gall, and used as a messenger.[12]Voice out of heaven ... Thou art my beloved Son ... It should be noted that John the Baptist is not the subject of the paragraph, and where his conversation is recorded, it was necessary for Matthew to record it as addressed in the third person in order to avoid misunderstanding. See more under Mark 1:11 in my Commentary on Mark. Three persons of the Godhead are in evidence here: Christ coming up out of the water, the Spirit as a dove descending upon him, and the voice of the Father out of heaven. ENDNOTE: [12] G. Gordon Brownville, Symbols of the Holy Spirit (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1945), p. 19. Verse 23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat ... THE OF JESUS THROUGH MARYThirty years of age ... On the bearing this has with reference to dating the birth of Jesus, see under Luke 3:2. We shall not undertake any exhaustive "harmonization" of the two separate genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and here. It is now and has been this student's conviction for many years that Luke's genealogy cannot possibly be for Joseph's line at all, since Luke spelled out in the most emphatic manner the fact that Joseph had no physical connection whatever with Jesus; and in this fact disappears any reason why Luke might have written a genealogy of Joseph. It is incumbent upon us, however, to demonstrate that the interpretation preferred in this commentary is valid. (1) Many of the most illustrious and competent scholars who ever lived have accepted 'this as Mary's line, not Joseph's. This fact is offered, not for the sake of proving this position by human testimony, because many other great scholars deny it; but it is presented to show that the greatest weight of scholarly evidence tends to the view accepted here. "Among the many modern scholars who accept it are Professor Godet and Dean Plumptre."[13] Robertson affirmed that the theory of this being Mary's line "seems the most plausible," citing the following as concurring in that view: Luther, Bengel, Olshausen, Lightfoot, Wieseler, Robinson, Alexander, Godet, Weiss, Andrews, Broadus, and many recent writers.[14](2) The solid evidence that supports this is in the Greek text itself, where the article "the" is omitted before the name of Joseph, and yet is found before all the names in the long list without exception, save for this solitary omission. What does it mean? Godet said: "The omission of the article puts the name (Joseph) outside of the genealogical series."[15] Robertson said, "This would indicate that `Joseph' belongs in the parenthesis ... (it should) read thus, `being son (as supposed of Joseph) of Heli, etc.'"[16] Jesus was thus the grandson of Hell, "grandson" being an absolutely legitimate meaning of "son" as used in Jewish genealogies. As a matter of fact, the word "son" in such tables also had the meaning of "son by creation" (as in Luke 3:38), and sometimes even "son-in-law." It is the context that must determine the meaning. In no case would the name of Mary have appeared in the direct line of such genealogies, being contrary to Jewish custom. This necessitated the listing of Jesus as the "son (grandson) of Hell." It certainly cannot be proved that this interpretation is incorrect. (3) And was Jesus actually the grandson of Heli? The writers of the Jewish Talmud have a passage concerning the pains of hell with the statement: Mary, daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering the horrid tortures. (After quoting this Haley said) This statement illustrates, not only the bitter animosity of the Jews toward the Christian religion, but also the fact that, according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Hell; hence that is her genealogy that we find in Luke.[17]Those who would make Joseph the son of Hell would thus make him the husband of his own sister, besides denying the truth stated by Matthew that Joseph was "begat" by Jacob! (4) There are other ways of reconciling the two accounts of the genealogy of Jesus, but this is the most plausible and convincing. This is an extensive question, debated for centuries, and it must be confessed that human knowledge is by no means complete with regard to it. Perhaps the most persuasive fact related to the genealogies is that when the enemies of Christianity, such as Celsus and Porphyry, sought to discredit the faith, none of them ever alleged any contradiction in the genealogies. If people who lived when the genealogical tables were still preserved did not dare to allege any contradiction, those who dare to do so nineteen centuries later stand on the most tenuous and uncertain ground. But what is the point of the genealogy? Surely some attention should be given to that! Once, when this writer was a minister of a great congregation in New York City, a group of students from one of the universities visited him, asking, "But don't you really believe that the whole Jesus story is a myth?" It happened, when this occurred, that this writer had only recently memorized all seventy-seven names in this list, and he quoted it rapidly, and in full, to the astonished group of students; and then he said: "Now, will any of you brilliant young people give the genealogy of Santa Claus, or of Paul Bunyan, or of Beowulf?" The point was dramatically made. Jesus Christ was no myth! His genealogy is the only one ever constructed that reaches all the way back to God himself. Since then, this preacher has quoted the genealogy before assemblies of college students and congregations throughout America, because the central message is devastating to any alleged mythological explanation of Jesus of Nazareth. Some have asserted that Luke ignored Abraham; but that is not true. Abraham is in the genealogy; the story of Abraham's bosom is found only in Luke (Luke 16:19 ff); and one of the strongest statements with reference to that patriarch in the entire New Testament is Luke 13:28. By taking the genealogy back to Adam, Luke stressed the fact of Jesus' being the Saviour of all men, not merely of Jews. Matthew's genealogy through Joseph was given for the purpose of showing that Christ, through his legal father Joseph, was the legitimate heir to the throne of David. In the very nature of the God-Man, it was inherent that two genealogies should be provided, one showing his legal status in the eyes of men, and the other giving his true physical descent. The Messianic title, "Son of David," as applied to Jesus required a dual proof: (1) that he was entitled to the throne, as proved by Matthew's genealogy, and (2) that he was literally descended from David, as proved by Luke's genealogy. The fundamental "rightness" of this approach to the problem will commend itself to any careful student of the Scriptures. Also, Matthew wrote from Joseph's standpoint, Luke from Mary's. A NOTE ABOUT THE VIRGIN MARYAs this commentary was being written, the writer taught a Bible class each Sunday, the lesson being based on the previous week's studies. Reference was one day made repeatedly to "the Virgin Mary," and, after class, a lady objected to the expression on the grounds that the title thus used tended to support the theory of the virgin's perpetual virginity. However, this is clearly an incorrect view. Matthew referred to "Simon the Leper" (Matthew 26:6) without any implication that he still had leprosy when Jesus was in his house for dinner; in the same manner, a reference to the Virgin Mary implies nothing of her virginity during the period after the birth of our Lord. [13] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 71. [14] A. T. Robertson, op. cit., p. 261. [15] Ibid. [16] Ibid. [17] John W. Haley, Examination of Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible (Nashville: B. C. Goodpasture, 1951), p. 326. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 31. What important man is about to be introduced? 2. Who was governor of Judea? 3. At what place did he Tule? 4. What position did Philip hold? 6. Who were priests at this time? 6. In what section did John work ? 7. What did he preach? 8. What was it for? 9. State what prophet wrote concerning this. 10. What did he call John? 11. Tell what he was to prepare. 12. How were valleys and mountains to be affected 13. What other effects were to be accomplished? 14. Tell what all were to see. 15. State John’ s question to multitudes who came. 16. What did he command them to produce? 17. Tell what boast he headed off. 18. God was able to do what? 19. Where is the ax applied? 20. Which tree is to be felled? 21. What done with it then? 22. State the question the people asked. 23. And his answer. 24. State his answer to the publicans. 25. Why had they come to John? 26. What other class asked for instructions? 27. Tell his reply. 28. What were the people expecting? 29. Tell what they were musing in their hearts. 30. Who was able to read their thoughts? 31. With what element did John baptize? 32. How did this contrast with the one to come? 33. How much was he to be mightier than John ? 34. What will be in his hand? 35. Tell the use of this instrument. 36. How will the wheat be disposed of? 37. And how the chaff? 38. Was this John’ s only subject in preaching? 39. Why was Herod angry with John? 40. How did he show his anger? 41. What noted person did John baptize? 42. Tell what he was doing at time of his baptism. 43. What opened up to him? 44. Tell what descended. 45. In what form? 46. What else came from heaven? 47. Repeat its words. 48. How old was Jesus at this time? 49. Whose son was he supposed to be? 50. To what man does Joseph’ s pedigree reach? 1 According to some facts of history it would seem that the.fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar is too late for the other things mentioned in this verse. The difficulty is made clear by a statement in Webster's Ancient History, page 447. "Of the successors of Augustus, the first, and by far the ablest, was his stepson, Tiberius. His merits as a soldier and administrator were well known to Augustus, who, even during his own lifetime, granted Tiberius a share in the government." The fifteen years of Tiberius mentioned by Luke includes the three years he reigned jointly with Augustus. 2 Joh 18:13 calls Annas the father-in-law to- Caiaphas the high priest. There was no provision made in the law of Moses for more than one high priest to be in office at the same time, but in the days of Christ the secular government was taking much part in the affairs of the Jews. In that arrangement Annas was president of the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas was high priest for religious activities. Chapter 1:80 leaves John in the wilderness, and the present verse says the Lord called him by His word. 3 At the Lord's call, John came out of his retirement and began preaching in the region of the Jordan. Baptism of repentance means baptism that is preceded and prompted by repentance or a turning away from the practice of sin. For remission of sins denotes that repentance and baptism was in order to the remission of sins. 4 Esaias is the same as Isaiah, and this prophecy is in that book, chapter 40:3; 4. Make his paths straight is explained at Matthew 3:3. 5 This verse is a figurative description of preparing the path mentioned in the preceding verse, which was to be accomplished by adjusting the conditions in the lives of men to suit them for the service of Christ who was to follow soon. 6 All flesh signifies that the Gentiles as well as the Jews were to receive the benefits of salvation through the work of Christ. 7 This verse is explained at Matthew 3:7. 8 Fruits worthy of repentance means to show by a reformation of life that they had repented. For further comments on this verse see those at Matthew 3:9. 9 Ax is laid means it will be done at the proper time which will be at the judgment day. However, the way for them to avoid that "ax" was being pointed out by John, and it required the people to bring forth a life of righteousness. 0 John had been preaching in general terms, now the people wished him to specify some of the things they would be expected to do. 1 This verse pertains to the duty that one owes to another, in sharing his good things of life with those who do not have them. 2 The publicans are described by comments on Matthew 9:10. 3 The quotation cited at the preceding verse shows that the publicans were assigned the duty of collecting the taxes from the people. Many of them had taken advantage of their appointment to demand more than the government levied, then putting the difference in their own pockets. 4 A soldier has no right to oppress the citizens just because he is a military man. To accuse falsely means to extort money from the people to be used on their own gratification. Be content with your wages. Dissatisfaction with one's wages does not make it right to use violence against the government or other employer. 5 Mused is properly rendered "reasoned, or debated" in the margin. The people were considering the reasons for and against the question whether John were the Christ predicted in the Scriptures. 6 John answered. The people had done their reasoning in their hearts, hence John had to be inspired to answer them. He did so by telling some of the differences between himself and "the Christ." The first one he gave was the baptism each performed. John baptized with water only but the one coming next would baptize with the Holy Ghost (Spirit) and with fire. The first one by Jesus took place on the day of Pentecost and the subjects were the apostles. The second one will take place after the judgment and the subjects will be the disobedient persons of the earth. What he says about the shoes is to illustrate his sense of inferiority to Christ. 7 Fan is explained by the comments on Matthew 3:12. 8 John not only' preached the truth to the people, but he exhorted them, which means to "insist on doing a known duty." 0 For the information on this see Matthew 14:3-5 and comments. 2 The reader should see the comments on Matthew 3:13-17. 3 As was supposed is from NOMIZO and is defined by Thayer, "to hold by custom or usage, own as a custom or usage." The people in general did not understand the whole story of Jesus and Joseph, hence Luke inserts the clause in order to make his record conform to the facts. Matthew (chapter 1) records the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham, down through David's son Solomon until he gets to the same Joseph of our chapter, who was the son-in-law of Heli, the father of Mary. Then, beginning his genealogy of Jesus on his real mother's side, Luke records it from her and her father Heli up on that side and joins the genealogy with that of Matthew when he gets to Nathan who was the full brother of Solomon. From there on Luke records the same genealogy as Matthew until he gets to Abraham, the plate where Matthew begins his, but Luke goes on up until he gets to Adam who was the first man. Before going any further here, the reader should carefully consult the comments on Matthew 1:1-2. 8 I have grouped these verses into one paragraph because they have been virtually all considered in the preceding one. In ancient times certain names were used even by more than one person in the same family. If the reader observes some that he thinks he has read elsewhere he should not become confused. To clarify the subject for a final comment, let it be understood that Matthew gives the genealogy of Christ on his foster father's (Joseph) side of the house, while Luke gives it on his mother's side, both blood streams being joined in David. H.Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 4 THE OF JESUS Luke 4:1-13 Luke 4:1-2 ---And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit,—An account of the temptation is given by Matthew (Matthew 4:1-11), Mark (Mark 1:12-13), and Luke. Matthew and Luke give the account more in detail ; Mark makes only a brief reference to it. The third temp¬tation with Matthew is the second with Luke. The order as given by Matthew is generally accepted as the order of occurrence. Matthew and Luke state generally that Jesus was “ led in the Spirit,” and Mark states that “ the Spirit driveth him forth” into the wilderness. Matthew has “ stone” and “ bread” in the plural, while Luke has these in the singular. Some explain this as though the devil had first commanded “ these stones” to be made into bread, and later only commanded one particular stone to be made into bread, and that Matthew records one of the statements of the devil and Luke records the same statement made a little later. The quotation from Deuteronomy 8:3 is given more fully by Matthew than by Luke, but the quotation from Psalms 91:11-12 is fuller in Luke than in Matthew ; however the meaning is the same in both. Luke gives the language of Satan more at length than Matthew. Jesus received the Holy Spirit at his baptism and was thus “ full of the Holy Spirit.” The temptation of Jesus was the last step in the preparation for his public ministry. Under the influence of the Spirit he was brought to the place of trial, and the temptation, in a large part, was the suggestion to use for selfish ends the divine powers of which he was conscious, and to forget his filial relation to his father; he was tempted to rebel against God. He was “ driven” or “ led” into the wil-derness, probably the wilderness of Jordan west of Jericho. Mark describes Jesus in the wilderness “ with the wild beasts” ; he remained there “ during forty days.” He was tempted during this time, but the full force of the temptation came with its crisis at the end of the forty days. Luke 4:3-4 ---And the devil said unto him,— Some have looked at the temptation of Jesus as being one with a threefold part; others have looked at it as being three distinct temptations. They are treated here as three temptations. The first one was to get Jesus to turn a stone or stones into bread. “ If thou art the Son of God” then you have the power to make bread out of these stones. Some have looked at the clause “ if thou” as expressing a doubt; however “ if” seems to have the force of “ since,” which would express no doubt. It is claimed by some that the devil wanted Jesus to prove himself as the Son of God. The devil challenges Jesus to prove his claim to be the Son of God by a miracle; a good motive is suggested to Jesus and the sinfulness of the act is skillfully disguised by the devil. There seems to be a twofold nature to this temptation; he is tempted to satisfy his hunger and to prove himself to be the Son of God. And Jesus answered unto him,—Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3. These words, “ it is written,” are the first upon record that were spoken by Jesus after his entrance into his public ministry ; hence his first words are a declaration of the authority of the scriptures. Jesus met every temptation by a quotation of scripture. Man must have bread; Jesus does not deny the place and value of “ bread” in sustaining life, but he does place the emphasis on things more important. Jesus here shows his reliance on his heavenly Father, and equally shows his determination to seek no means to sustain life but such as are ap-proved of God. To create bread out of stones contrary to God’ s will, and in obedience to Satan, would be to die, not live. Jesus makes no reference to his divine Sonship; he was not called upon to prove that to Satan. Luke 4:5-8 ---And he led him up, and showed him all the kingdoms—Matthew records this temptation as the third, but Luke puts it second. We need not speculate as to why this change is made; no one knows, and no one now can know. We have it as a fact that this change in the order has been made. It seems that Luke follows the order and position of the places — the desert, the mountain, and the temple. Here he is “ led” upon the mountain and showed “ all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.” The word in the Greek literally means “ a mark made by a pointed instrument, a dot” ; hence, a point of time. Jesus was given a vision of the inhabited world, “ all the kingdoms of the world”; he not only saw Palestine, but also the heathen world, over which Satan exercised spiritual dominion; from the lofty elevation the kingdoms or tetrarchies of Palestine and adjacent regions could be seen, and the more distant empires of the world might be suggested by the tempter. There was something supernatural in this act which enabled Jesus to see these in a “ moment of time” ; the suddenness of the view added much to the power of the temptation. All these were promised to Jesus on the condition that he would “ worship before me.” The kingdoms and the glory of them were held before Jesus as a temptation. Many think that these kingdoms did not belong to the devil, and hence he could not have fulfilled his promise even if Jesus had worshiped him. The devil here asked Jesus to transfer his allegiance from God to the devil; Jesus is tempted to acknowledge the supremacy and sovereignty of the devil; to do this would be to acknowledge a falsehood, for the devil was not supreme, neither was he a sovereign. And Jesus answered and said unto him,—Here again Jesus quoted scripture. He said: “ It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” Matthew records Jesus as saying, “ Get thee hence, Satan,” but Luke omits that. In righteous indignation Jesus denounced Satan as the archenemy of God his Father. In this temptation the devil threw off the mask and appeared to Jesus is his real character; hitherto Jesus had dealt with him according to his assumed character, but now he repulsed him with abhorrence. Jesus added: “ Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” Here Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:13. Luke 4:9-12 ---And he led him to Jerusalem,—This is the second temptation according to Matthew. We are not told how the devil took Jesus to Jerusalem and to the pinnacle of the temple ; it may have been as the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. (Acts 8:39.) Jesus permitted Satan to exercise great power over him; the language here seems to require an actual going from place to place, and yet it does not necessarily determine whether the devil did or did not transport him through the air. He brought him “ to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple.” This was some high point of the temple building well known by the Jews at that time. The Greek word translated “ temple” means literally a “ winglet,” and is applied to a wing-shape or pointed structure, a gable or pointed roof. The word translated “ temple,” both here and in Matthew, means the whole sacred enclosure or temple buildings. This time the devil said to him: “ If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence.” This temptation also seems to have a twofold meaning, appealing to the natural feeling and to the Messianic aspiration; since Jesus is the Son of God and is now upon the high pinnacle of the temple and can do nothing up there for the salvation of man, he is com-manded to cast himself down. And Jesus answering said unto him,—Again Jesus replied to Satan by quoting the scripture: “ Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God.” In this application of the scripture, Jesus intimates that he must not put God on trial by exercis¬ing a presumptuous confidence or by needlessly testing his veracity. To attempt to put God to the test would show unbelief, while display of power would be opposed to humility. Jesus did not, as some have, accuse the devil of misquoting scripture; neither did he deny the promise referred to in the scripture which the devil quoted; he simply replied by giving another quotation. The quotation that Jesus here used interprets the one quoted by the devil, but does not refute that quotation. Jesus meant to say that the quotation of the devil was a scriptural quotation and applicable to himself and would be fulfilled in due time, but to throw oneself into unnecessary danger in order to “ tempt” God would be a sin, and especially when it was done at the command of the devil. Luke 4:13 ---And when the devil had completed every temptation,— This means that the devil had used every available kind of temptation; he was “ tempted in all points” as we are, but “ without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15.) The first temptation was in the sphere of bodily appetite; Jesus was urged by Satan to trans-form a stone into bread; the second temptation was in the sphere of earthly ambition; it consisted in an offer of unlim¬ited human power. The last temptation was in the sphere of intellectual curiosity; it suggested to Jesus that he should see for himself what would be the experience of one who should cast himself from a great height and then, by angel hands, be kept from harm. “ He departed from him for a season”; the devil had ex-hausted his power, hence “ he departed from him for a sea¬son.” The scene closed with Jesus victorious, and “ the angels ministered unto him.” (Mark 1:13.) Jesus had triumphed, and later he taught through James: “ resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” (James 4:7.) “ Angels came and ministered unto him” (Matthew 4:11) ; some think that angels brought him food, as Elijah was fed by angels after he had fasted forty days (1 Kings 19:5.) The original from which we get “ ministered” means “ were ministering”; it signifies to attend as a servant; angels waited on him as human friends might have waited on one whom they found hungry, weary, lonely. JESUS AT Luke 4:14-30 We cannot determine accurately the length of his ministry in Galilee; it cannot be determined whether it began in sum¬mer or late autumn; if the feast of Joh 5:1 was a Passover or there is an unknown Passover, the Galilean ministry lasted at least sixteen months, for it closed when another Passover was near. (John 6:4.) Otherwise we should not certainly know that it lasted more than six or eight months. There is no doubt that the two subsequent periods of our Lord’ s ministry each lasted six months; but here we have to admit much uncertainty as to the time; after all, a determination of the time employed would be a matter of very little importance with respect to the study of this period. The immense amount of material in this period would seem to favor the idea for a length of time longer than a year. Throughout this ministry in Galilee, and the periods that will follow after, the reader may trace carefully the progress of the history along several lines: (1) the Savior’ s progressive self-manifestation; (2) the gradual training of his twelve apostles who were to carry on his teaching and work after his death; (3) the deep¬ening and spreading hostility of the Jewish influential classes and official rulers. By constantly observing these parallel lines of progress, it will be seen that the history and teachings of our Lord exhibit a vital growth, moving on to an end by him foreseen (Luke 12:50), when the hostility of the rulers will culminate as he before the Sanhedrin avows himself to be the Messiah, and his twelve apostles will be almost prepared to succeed him in his work. Luke 4:14-15 ---And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit—Sev-eral months intervened between the preceding paragraph and this one; during the intervening months, Jesus was busy in his ministry in Judea. John (John 1:15 to 3:36) alone gives an account of this ministry. Luke passes over in silence his min¬istry in Judea and gives attention to his Galilean ministry. Jesus had left Galilee (Luke 3:21) to be baptized of John; he had made the two returns to Galilee, and Luke here may be understood to make a general statement that includes both of them. So after the marriage feast at Cana (John 1:43 John 2:1) and after John was cast into prison (Matthew 4:12; John 4:1-3), Luke begins to relate Jesus’ activities in Galilee after John’ s imprisonment (Luke 3:19-20). Jesus “ in the power of the Spirit” came into Galilee, under the full influence of the Holy Spirit, which descended upon him at his baptism, attended him in the wilderness of temptation, and continued with him in his ministry. And he taught in their synagogues,—“ Taught” in the original means “ he himself taught,” which verifies the favorable report about himself in person. He was not only known by reports of his words and acts, but in his own person and by his teaching. All glorified him because of his teachings. Jesus taught in the synagogues as Jewish teachers or rabbis taught; he expounded the scriptures and instructed the people. “ Synagogue” means “ assembly, congregation,” and is applied both to a religious gathering having certain judicial powers (Luke 8:41 Luke 12:11 Luke 21:12; Acts 9:2), and to the place where the Jews met for their public worship on ordinary occasions (Luke 7:5.) There were many synagogues for the Jews; in all cities and villages where there were at least ten Jews, there was found a synagogue. It is said that there were more than four hundred synagogues in Jerusalem. The Jews met in their synagogues on the Sabbath, feast days, and afterward on the second and fifth days of the week. Luke 4:16-17 ---And he came to Nazareth,—He came to Nazareth, the home of his childhood and youth; here he was with the people who had known him almost from his birth. “ Nazareth,” according to some authorities, means “ a branch.” which was an appropriate name of the place where the branch should live and grow up. (Isaiah 11:1; Zechariah 3:8 Zechariah 6:12.) Others think that it signifies “ the one guarding or guarded” from the hills which surrounded it. New Testament writers always speak of Nazareth as a city and never as a village. According to Josephus the population of Nazareth was above fifteen thousand; it is not mentioned in the Old Testament. It was located in lower Galilee, about seventy miles north of Jerusalem, and nearly halfway from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. “ As his custom was,” he went into “ the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read.” This shows that Jesus attended regularly the services in the synagogue on the Sabbath. This appears to have been the first Sabbath after his return to Nazareth. He “ stood up to read.” In the syna¬gogue the law and the prophets were read and expounded by the ruler of the synagogue and others; the scriptures, except Esther, which might be read sitting, were read standing, while sitting was the posture of teaching. (Matthew 5:1; Luke 4:20.) When Jesus “ stood up to read” he indicated as was the custom in the synagogue his desire to read, and probably the audience stood while he read. According to the custom of the Jews, seven were allowed to read every Sabbath— a priest, two Levites, and four Israelites; the law was read first and then the prophets. And there was delivered unto him the book—When Jesus stood up in the synagogue, indicating his desire to read, there was brought to him the “ book of the prophet Isaiah” ; probably the law had already been read that Sabbath, and, accord¬ing to custom, they were ready for the usual reading of the prophets. Some think that he may have called for this particular book. The books of the ancients were “ rolls” of parchment, papyrus, linen, or other flexible material, which were rolled upon a stick, and upon reading were gradually rolled around another of equal size. “ And he opened the book, and found the place where it was written.” He unrolled the scroll; this was no accident or mere chance that he “ found the place” where he wanted to read; he unrolled the volume until he found this Messianic prophecy, yet with no seeming effort or searching for it. Luke 4:18-20 ---The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,—This passage is quoted from Isaiah 61:1-2, and the clause, “ to set at liberty them that are bruised,” seems to be added from the Septuagint of Isa 58:6. The Jews generally understood this proph¬ecy to refer to the Messiah; it was very appropriate for Jesus to read this passage in the beginning of his teachings in Nazareth; he thus appears before them, not so much as a miracle worker, as a teacher, but as the Messiah of prophecy. “ The Spirit of the Lord” means that the Holy Spirit was abid¬ing with him and hence his qualification for teaching and saving the lost. (John 3:34.) He was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism “ to preach good tidings to the poor.” The time had now come for him to announce that the Messiah had come. It was customary for those who were designated to do public work to be anointed, but Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit, while others were anointed with the “ anointing oil.” The “ poor” means the spiritually poor; those who are “ poor in spirit.” (Matthew 5:3.) The Messiah was to release the captives, those who were in the bondage of sin. “ Captives” as used here in the original meant those who were “ conquered or taken in war” ; hence, prisoners of war. On the first day of the year of jubilee, the priests went through the land proclaiming with sound of trumpet the blessings of the opening year. (Leviticus 25:8-17.) Jesus here proclaims the time of his public ministry and his Messiahship. And he closed the book,—Luke gives a very vivid picture of the manner of Jesus in the synagogue of his own village; calmly and quietly Jesus rolled up the scroll and gave it again to “ the attendant” who had brought it to him; then he “ sat down.” He now assumed the posture of a teacher; the cus¬tom was to stand while reading and to sit while teaching. Jesus is now ready to teach. “ The eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him.” The verb or participle in the original here denotes continuous, steadfast attention. All looked intently and steadily upon him; there was something in his manner, and perhaps tone of voice, which riveted their attention on him and aroused their expectation that he was about to speak. Luke 4:21 ---And he began to say unto them,—These words do not necessarily denote his first words, but they do indicate a sol¬emn and weighty opening. “Today hath his scripture been fulfilled in your ears.” Now, at this very time, in their ears they heard the glad tidings which Jesus had announced that he was the Messiah. Since the Jews generally understood this scripture to refer to the Messiah, Jesus declares that he is a fulfillment of it; there can be no doubt but that they under¬stood him ; however, they did not believe him. Luke 4:22-24 ---And all bare him witness,—All who listened to his discourse gave favorable testimony to the subject and manner of it; there was no false reasoning in it, neither were there any false or unfounded assumptions; no fallacy of argument or erroneous statement could be detected in the whole dis¬course ; hence they “ wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth.” Their wonder and admiration soon began to yield to a feeling of contempt for his preten¬sions. and they asked: “ Is not this Joseph’ s son?” They wondered that their own townsman and one whom they had known as a workman among them should thus speak. Joseph was a man of humble circumstances; his family had occupied no distinguished place; Joseph was supposed to be the father of Jesus. Jesus had received no training from the rabbis; how could he so speak? How could he, whom they had known as a humble workman in their midst, be the Messiah? There was unbelief mingled with their admiration; they wanted more evidence. And he said unto them,—Jesus knew their thoughts and he may have heard their question; hence he replied both to their thoughts and their question. He said: “ Doubtless ye will say unto me this parable, Physician, heal thyself.” This was a common proverb or adage among the Jews, and meant “ pursue the course which you would have another pursue, making similar claims; give the evidence, perform the miracles, which you yourself would require of another.” This meaning is reinforced by a further interpretation of their thoughts, as Jesus said they were thinking that he should have done “ here in thine own country” “ whatsoever we have heard done at Capernaum.” Jesus had healed the nobleman’ s son at Capernaum. (John 4:46-54.) Capernaum was about sixteen miles from Nazareth; the news could come in a day; Jesus had performed no miracle in Nazareth. At his second rejection he healed a few sick people. (Mark 6:5.) No prophet is acceptable in his own country.—Jesus here answered the desire of the people of Nazareth in wanting him to work some miracle as he had in Capernaum by giving another proverb. He states a general fact in this proverb; all other things being equal, one who has been familiar to us from early life is treated with less reverence than one who has not been thus familiar; if they honor him less, they must ex¬pect less attention. This proverb was repeated with a slight variation on his subsequent visit to Nazareth. (Matthew 13:57.) Jesus does not mean that this proverb should become an infallible rule. Luke 4:25-27 ---But of a truth I say unto you,—Here Jesus recites some Old Testament examples to show that his conduct was in harmony with that of two of their greatest prophets, who were divinely directed not to act according to the proverb, “ Physician, heal thyself,” and whose miraculous power was exerted on strangers, while these prophets performed their miracles on those that had need. There were many “ widows in Israel in the days of Elijah,” and Elijah did not visit and bless all of them. There was a famine of “ three years and six months’ ” duration, “ when there came a great famine over all the land.” (1 Kings 18:1; James 5:17.) It stated that the third year Elijah was commanded to show himself to Ahab with the promise of rain; during this famine Elijah had so¬journed with a woman of Zarephath, in the land of Sidon. In the great famine of Elijah’ s time (1 Kings 17:1-9) there were hundreds of suffering widows in Israel, but Elijah was sent only to one in the heathen city of Sidon. Also “ there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet.” Lepers were in abundance in Israel when Elisha was prophet and performing numerous miracles, but not one of them was healed except Naaman, who was not an Israelite. (2 Kings 5.) Luke 4:28-30 ---And they were all filled with wrath in the synagogue,—That Sabbath Jesus showed those assembled in the synagogue their danger, and instead of being warned they were enraged. He could do no miracle because of their unbelief ; he would go to other places as their prophets had done. The indignation of the people of Nazareth was general, and they were all filled with wrath, and “ they rose up, and cast him forth out of the city.” In their wild excitement, without any reverence for the place, the day, or the occasion, they rushed upon Jesus like mad men, as they did against Stephen. (Acts 7:57-58.) By force they “ led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built.” “ Brow” in the original is the word used in medical language both of eyebrows and of other projections of the body. This is the only place that this word in the original is used in the New Testament. It would naturally occur to a physician, especially since the same epithets were applied to the appearance of the eyebrows in cer¬tain diseases as were applied to hills. It should be remembered that Luke was a physician. Jesus was led to this hill “ that they might throw him down headlong.” They meant to cast him down and kill him. This was not the usual mode of punishment among the Jews, but they sometimes did rash things. (2 Kings 9:33; 2 Chronicles 25:12.) It was contrary to a Jewish canon to inflict punishment on the Sabbath; the peo¬ple of Nazareth had become at this time a furious mob; they demonstrated the truth that a prophet was not honored among his own people. But he passing through the midst—Some think that Jesus escaped by his composure and self-control while the confusion reigned among the crowd; others think that the majesty and divinity of Jesus so awed them that they made a way for him to pass; and still others think that he exerted some miracu¬lous influence upon them, such as affecting their sight, rendering himself invisible or restraining them. It is true that Jesus did not work miracles merely for self-preservation, neither did his apostles; yet it seems at times that the divinity within Jesus shown forth with all-producing power. (John 8:59 John 10:39 John 18:6.) He “ went his way”; he departed from Naza¬reth. In this account we have an explanation of Matthew’ s brief allusion, “ and leaving Nazareth.” (Matthew 4:13.) We see why he left Nazareth and made Capernaum his chief place of residence. AT Luk_4:31-44 Luke 4:31-32 ---And he came down to Capernaum,—How Jesus escaped from the people of Nazareth we are not told, but the fact is recorded clearly that he did escape and went “ down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee.” Nazareth was on a high elevation, and Capernaum was on the Sea of Galilee, which was about six hundred feet lower than the Mediterranean Sea, and was much lower than Nazareth. Jesus had been at Caper¬naum before for a short time (John 2:12), but now he comes to make it his place of residence. “ Capernaum” was the name of a fountain and a town situated on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, on the boarders of the tribes of Zebulum and Naphtali; it was on the road from Damascus to the Mediterranean. It was suited as the principal residence of Jesus during the three years of his ministry. It is called his “ own city.” (Matthew 9:1.) It was also the residence of Andrew, Peter, James, and John, who were natives of Bethsaida (John 1; 44), and probably the home of Matthew. And he was teaching them on the sabbath—Jesus preached repentance and the gospel of the kingdom of God. (Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:14-15.) He availed himself of every opportunity to teach the people when they assembled for worship. His teaching had a great effect on the people, for they were “ astonished at his teaching”; the reason assigned by Luke for the astonishment was “ for his word was with authority.” They were astonished both at what he taught and the manner in which he taught them. He never expressed a doubt; he knew the Father’ s will and taught that with authority. (Matthew 7:28-29.) Some think that reference is here made to the mira¬cles which he wrought to witness that he was from God. Luke 4:33-37 ---And in the synagogue there was a man,—A parallel record of the healing of “ a demoniac in the synagogue” is found in Mark 1:23-28. Luke’ s account is briefer than that of Mark, and with enough difference to show the independence of his account. According to Mark 1:16-22, this miracle fol-lowed the calling of the four disciples, Peter and Andrew, James and John. Jesus performed miracles as proof of his di¬vine mission. (John 2:22 John 9:3-5 John 10:25 John 10:37.) The Jews ex¬pected their Messiah to work miracles. (Matthew 12:38; Luke 11:16; John 7:31.) The miracles of Jesus were variously designated. When they were specially regarded as evidence of his divine mission (Luke 8:11; John 2:11), they were called “ signs” ; when they manifested his supernatural power, they were called “ mighty works”; when as extraordinary phenomena, exciting astonishment or terror, they were called “ wonders” (Mark 13:22; John 4:48; Acts 2:22) ; and when viewed still more generally, as something completed, they were called “ works” (John 7:3; John 7:21). And Jesus rebuked him,—Jesus commanded the demon to cease bearing testimony; Jesus did not need, neither would he accept, the testimony of demons. The faith that people had in him must come from the testimony which God furnished and not from demons. Jesus commanded two things: “ Hold thy peace” and “ come out of him.” The demon is commanded to be silent and to obey Jesus. Two distinct personalities are here recognized; the demon is treated as a person as much as the man. The personality of the demon is further shown by his crying out, convulsing the man, and coming out of him. “ And when the demon had thrown him down in the midst, he came out of him, having done him no hurt.” Mark records (Mark 1:26) that “ tearing him” the demon came out of the man “ crying with a loud voice.” Luke being himself a physician knew that this was not a case of insanity or mental hallucina¬tion ; he describes the case and never hints that it was a case of insanity, but that it was a case of two distinct personalities in direct conflict with each other. And amazement came upon all,—The effect of this miracle is vididly presented by Luke; a general amazement took pos¬session of the people which led them to discussion and to cer¬tain conclusions. “ They spake together, one with another saying, What is this word?” They meant what power or au¬thority his word carried; even the demons heard and obeyed him. Mark records them as asking: “ What is this? a new teaching!” (Mark 1:27.) No one could doubt what was done. They were not ready to accept Jesus as the Messiah, and yet they could not account for such extraordinary deeds being done by him. As a result of this miracle “ there went forth a rumor concerning him into everyplace of the region round about.” This was a popular rumor concerning what he did and taught; he became a common topic of conversation among the people in Capernaum and Galilee. Luke 4:38-39 ---And he rose up from the synagogue,—Parallel records of this miracle are found in Matthew 8:14-17 and Mark 1:29-34. Of them Mark and Luke give about the same record. Mark tells us that this was the house of Simon and Andrew; he also records that James and John were present. This miracle was a domestic scene— a miracle in the home of his earliest disciples, and in the presence of two others. The home of Peter and Andrew was originally in Bethsaida, which was a suburb of Capernaum. This miracle must have been encour¬aging to his disciples. Peter’ s wife’ s mother was sick of a fever; Luke, as a physician, diagnoses the case, and says that she was “ holden with a great fever.” Jesus came and “ stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her.” There was no delay; she was healed immediately and was able to minis¬ter unto them at once. Luke 4:40-41 ---And when the sun was setting,—Luke has recorded the two miracles of healing the demoniac and Peter’ s wife’ s mother; he now proceeds from these two particular miracles, the one public, the other private, to the statement that his miracle-working power was very largely and wonderfully exercised at that time and place. Near sunset the day became cooler, and the people brought many who were sick to Jesus. The news of his presence in the city and his wonderful cure in the synagogue had been spread until all heard about his wonderful power. Since one of his miracles was performed on the Sabbath and in the synagogue where the people had come to worship, it gave great opportunity to broadcast his power to heal. Jesus healed diseases of others, but he was never sick. He “ himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases.’’ (Matthew 8:17.) And demons also came out from many,—Jesus exercised his power over the demons, and when they were cast out they came out crying and said: “ Thou art the Son of God.” Jesus rebuked them and would not let them bare testimony of him; Luke is clear on stating that “ they knew that he was the Christ.” They had supernatural wisdom and recognized Jesus as being the Son of God. Demons were not to be witnesses and messengers to proclaim the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. His own disciples were to do this, and he would furnish them all the evidence that they needed. (John 5:32 John 5:39 John 5:46-47 John 20:30-31.) The time had not arrived for Jesus to make the full announcement that he was the Son of God, and would not permit the demons to bare such testimony. Luke 4:42-43 ---And when it was day, he came out—After healing Peter’ s wife’ s mother and many others, Jesus “ went into a desert place,” that is, an uninhabited and unfrequented place near Capernaum. He went there for quite meditation and prayer. (Mark 1:35.) However, he was not permitted to remain there very long, for “ the multitudes sought after him, and came unto him, and would have stayed him, that he should not go from them.” From Mark’ s account of this it appears that Peter and his party sought and found Jesus, and reported to him that all the people were seeking him (Mark 1:36-37); before Jesus had time to return with Peter and his company, the multitudes searched with such diligence that they found him and attempted to prevent his going from them. At Nazareth the people drove him out of their city, but at Capernaum they seek to retain him there; what a contrast! But he said unto them,—The reply that Jesus made showed that he had other work to do, and that the people did not un-derstand his mission. Jesus said: “ I must preach the good tidings of the kingdom of God to the other cities also.” There was a moral necessity based upon the word “ I must”; he must proclaim the news of the kingdom to others. Luke does not use “ kingdom” so often as Matthew; “ the kingdom of God” here is the same as “ the kingdom of heaven” in Matthew 3:2. “ The kingdom of heaven” has special reference to its central locality, while “ the kingdom of God” shows to whom the king¬dom belongs. The same thing is expressed by “ kingdom of Christ,” or simply “ kingdom.” (Ephesians 5:5; Hebrews 12:28.) The kingdom, reign or administration of the Messiah is spiritual in its nature (John 18:36; Romans 14:17), and is exercised over, and has its seat in, the hearts or believers (Luke 17:21). It exists on earth (Luke 13:18-19, Lukel 13:41, 47); it extends to another state of existence (Luke 13:43; 26:29; Philippians 2:10-11); and will be fully consumated in a state of glory (Matthew 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:24; 2 Peter 1:11.) This kingdom embraces the entire mediatorial reign or government of Christ on earth and in heaven, and includes in its subjects all the redeemed. (Ephesians 3:15.) Luke 4:44 ---And he was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee.—Jesus continued his preaching, going throughout Galilee and meeting with the people in the synagogues; Mark adds that he also was “ casting out demons.” (Mark 1:39.) This is a brief account of the first general preaching tour throughout Galilee. The many things which occurred show that in Galilee his reception among the common people was most wel¬come ; his fame went throughout the whole country, and the enthusiasm was great. Verse 1 This chapter has Luke's account of the temptation of Christ (Luke 4:1-14), his preaching at Nazareth (Luke 4:15-30), the cure of a demoniac at Capernaum (Luke 4:31-37), the healing of Peter's wife's mother (Luke 4:38-39), the mention of many healings (Luke 4:40-41) and Jesus' withdrawal from Capernaum, to preach throughout Galilee (Luke 4:42-44). THE And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led in the Spirit in the wilderness during forty days, being tempted of the devil. And he did eat nothing in those days: and when they were completed, he hungered. (Luke 4:1-2) Full of the Holy Spirit ... The Holy Spirit dwelt without measure in the sinless Christ; and his being "led in the Spirit in the wilderness" is a reference to the fact that God intended the temptation to take place just as it was recounted here. Led in the Spirit ... exactly the same meaning as Mark's "the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness" (Mark 1:12). See fuller comment on this in my Commentary on Mark. Being tempted of the devil ... One should not fail to see in the placement of this phrase the subtle hand of critical scholarship. The placement here seems to indicate that the temptation was continuous throughout forty days; but a glance at Matthew 4:1-4 shows that this was not the case. Satan came to Christ after the forty days of fasting ended. Advocates of the rendition here evidently had the purpose of making Luke agree with Mark against Matthew to support the Markan theory of synoptic criticism; but this rendition is incorrect. As Lamar said: The punctuation recommended by many of the learned, and adopted by the Bible Union is as follows: And he was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan, and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him (Mark 1:13). And he was led in the Spirit in the wilderness forty days, tempted by the devil (Luke 4:1-2). As Lachman said, "In this way even the appearance of a discrepancy between Matthew and Luke, in regard to the actual point when the temptations began, is avoided." This view is justified by the language of both Mark and Luke, and expressly taught by Matthew.[1] THE OF CHRISTThe view that Christ COULD HAVE SINNED is expressed by the word ; the view that it was impossible for him to have sinned is expressed byI. The view here is that the capability of Jesus to commit sin was a necessary and inherent result of the incarnation, in exactly the manner as was his mortality. "Temptation in Christ indicated the possibility of sin."[2] If it was impossible for Christ to sin, how could there have been any temptation? No man can be tempted to do that which it is impossible for him to do; but Christ was tempted in "all points" like as we are tempted (Hebrews 4:15). The emotional treatment of this subject by some who hold the contrary view is represented by the words of Best, "A peccable Christ would mean a peccable God";[3] but this is not logical, being equivalent to saying that a mortal Christ is equivalent to a mortal God. See more extensive treatment of this subject in my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 4:14. Forty days ... There are many examples of men fasting for forty days, and some even longer; and thus there is no reason to suppose any supernatural support of Jesus during this period. There was indeed supernatural support, but it came afterward. The number "forty" was significant in Israel's history, that being the number of days Moses fasted (Deuteronomy 9:9), the time Elijah fasted (1 Kings 19:8), the number of days of uncleanness following childbirth (Leviticus 12:1-4), and the number of years Egypt was to suffer (Ezekiel 29:11). The devil ... The proper name of this being is Satan; and he must be understood, not as a mere principle of evil, nor as a personification of iniquity, but as a malignant creature of the highest order, and one who is the conscious enemy of God and man. Ezekiel 28:11-19 appears to speak of the origin of Satan, designated there as "King of Tyre," who was at one time "the anointed cherub that covereth," and who had "been in Eden the garden of God," and whose eternal overthrow was prophesied. "And never shalt thou be any more." See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 4:1. Satan's malignant hatred of humanity, first manifested in Eden, has continued unabated throughout history, his purpose as the destroyer having been evident in every case in which the holy Scriptures have given any knowledge of it (see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 8:32); and his strategy of opposing Jesus the Son of God was discernible throughout the whole life of the Saviour. Satan attempted to murder the Christ child, made another attempt to kill him in this very chapter, and finally, with God's permission accomplished his death on Calvary. Regarding a more extensive view of the satanic strategy against Christ, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:39. The prayer Jesus taught his disciples to pray closes with the line, "Deliver us from the evil one." Thus there is universal witness to the personality and malignancy of Satan. The wilderness ... mentioned here cannot be exactly located. It could have been anywhere on the western side of the Jordan river. "Tradition locates the place as Quarantania, a mountain just west of Jericho."[4] Wherever it was, it was a howling wilderness, alive with wild beasts (Mark 1:12 f), and contrasting vividly with the garden of Eden where the first Adam succumbed to the wiles of Satan. Satan seemed to have that encounter in mind, as indicated by his approach to the second Adam with regard to eating, the same strategy that had succeeded in Eden, and reinforced here by circumstances much more favorable to the evil one. He hungered ... Luke here recorded the condition of Jesus after the forty days had ended; and, by his doing so before relating the series of temptations, plainly indicated that the temptation was not continuous throughout the forty days, but was the climactic aftermath. "It was more in keeping with the wily cunning of Satan to wait until his intended victim was enfeebled with hunger."[5][1] J. S. Lamar, New Testament Commentary, Vol. II, Luke (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1871), p. 74. [2] Ibid. [3] W. E. Best, The Impeccable Christ (Houston, Texas: Park Place Grace Church, n.d.), p. 4. [4] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 79. [5] J. S. Lamar, op. cit., p. 74. Verse 3 And the devil said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, command this stone that it become bread.One may only marvel at the type of thinking (!) which sees the word "stone" here as in any way contradictory of "stones" as recorded by Matthew, both words meaning exactly the same thing. The writer once asked a freight yard attendant what was in a certain car, and he replied, "It was 57,000 pounds of stone!" It was, in fact, crushed granite, probably several million "stones"! Thus there is no need to "harmonize" the accounts; but, as Boles noted: Some explain this as though the devil had first commanded "these stones" to be made into bread, and later commanded only one particular stone to be made into bread, and that Matthew recorded one of these statements of the devil, and Luke the other made a little later.[6]Boles' explanation is, of course, absolutely valid, if one insists on seeing differences in what Matthew and Luke recorded. Such variations are positive, infallible proof that the Gospels are independent records; and, if they did not appear, the same critics who profess such dismay at the "variations" would make their absence the grounds of denying the independence of the sacred records. If thou art the Son of God ... This could be taken as an effort on the part of Satan to create a doubt in Jesus' mind; but Boles is more likely correct in the view that "IF seems to have the force of SINCE, which would express no doubt."[7] If this is allowed as correct, then Satan already knew that Jesus was the Messiah, admitting it in this suggestion. It does not appear, however, that Satan at this point actually recognized Jesus as "God come in the flesh," a recognition that was to come later. If Satan had known at the time, it seems unlikely he would have tried to accomplish Jesus' murder through the citizens of Nazareth (Luke 4:29). Command this stone that it become bread ... The temptation here was that of suggesting that Jesus should use his own miraculous power to meet his daily needs. Both Satan and Jesus knew that the Lord had ample power to do this; but, if Jesus had done it, it would have indicated a failure to rely on the Father. It would have been taking things into his own hands. Here appears one of the most enticing aspects of temptation. The need which the situation required to be met was genuine, legitimate, and altogether honorable; but Christ did not fall into the error of meeting legitimate need by illegal and forbidden means. If Christ had met his own physical need by such a miracle as Satan suggested, it would have given Christ an unfair advantage not enjoyed by all other mortals, thus compromising the intent and purpose of the incarnation itself. Furthermore it would have pointed away from Jesus' purpose of saving men from their sins, and toward the alleviation of their earthly and physical needs. As Ash said, "Jesus did not come to supply bread for humanity but to answer their deeper needs."[8][6] H. Leo Boles, A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1972), p. 91. [7] Ibid., p. 92. [8] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972), p. 81. Verse 4 And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone.It is written ... As the first recorded words of Jesus' ministry on earth, this appeal to the Old Testament indicated Jesus' trust of it as God's word, his acceptance of it as divine authority, and his reliance upon it as the only thing needed to thwart the purpose of the devil. Man shall not live by bread alone ... Important as physical needs assuredly are, man is spiritual, and not merely physical; therefore, if man should take a forbidden course in the fulfillment of his physical needs, without regard to his spiritual nature, he forfeits life in the highest and best sense. The passage cited here wasDeuteronomy 8:3. Materialism concerns itself only with bread; but God never intended this to be the exclusive goal of humanity. Verse 5 And he led him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.The question of whether the temptation was a subjective experience of Christ; with Satan presenting cunning and subtle suggestions to his mind, or if it was an objective event with Satan appearing in the form of another human being may not be certainly known. The view here inclines toward that of Ash who said: This was probably a visionary experience rather than a case of bodily transport, since Satan would not have control of the movement of Jesus' body and since there was no one physical locale from which all the world's kingdoms could be seen.[9]ENDNOTE: [9] Ibid. Verse 6 And the devil said unto him, To thee will I give all this authority, and the glory of them: for it hath been delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will give it.Satan indeed exercises a great authority on earth, but it is illegal and usurped authority, dramatically contrary to the implication of what he said here to Jesus. The conviction of this student has ever been that this satanic promise was merely a big lie. If Jesus yielded, he would not have won the kingdoms of the world, he would have lost them; and redemption for mankind would have been thwarted. God rules in the kingdoms of human beings (Daniel 4:26); Satan is a liar and the father of liars (John 8:44); and, despite the fact that there was a tawdry, carnal sense in which Satan is indeed the "god of this world," his arrogant boast here was totally false. Christ answered him without regard to the truth or falsity of Satan's promise, because it actually had no solid significance. Verse 7 If thou therefore wilt worship before me, it shall be thine.That Christ was tempted to worship the devil, and yet without sin, has the meaning that temptation itself is not sinful; it is only when temptation is yielded to that sin occurs. The arrogance of Satan in such a proposal as this is staggering. Here indeed the prince of evil appeared "as a roaring lion," the guise in which he often assails men. He is designated the devil, the beast, and the false prophet (Revelation 20:10). He appears in three guises: a serpent (Revelation 20:2), a lion (1 Peter 5:8), and an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). These three guises of Satan, thus arranged, are in the ascending order of power, exactly the order in which Luke presented the temptations. Matthew's presentation followed another order, apparently not related to Satan but to environment: the wilderness, the temple, the mountaintop. Jesus was alone in the first, in a great city in the second, and having a view of all kingdoms of the earth in the third. Significantly, neither Matthew nor Luke stated the exact chronological order of the three temptations. Speculations to the effect that either writer was incorrect are false. In this series of temptations Satan appeared as a serpent in the first, as a lion in the second, and as an angel of light in the third. Verse 8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.It is written ... Jesus took no notice of the extravagant promise of the devil, rejecting it out of hand as being merely something which God had forbidden in the sacred Scriptures. The reference was to Deuteronomy 6:13. By his ignoring the promise, disregarding either its truth or falsity, Jesus' reply had the effect of saying, "Even if what you say is the truth, my answer is the same; I will not do what God has forbidden." In a world so filled with evil, and with the power of Satan admittedly a fearsome thing, which even an archangel dared not take lightly (Jude 1:1-9), the devil's arrogance in the claim that he could help wicked men achieve their goals certainly had an element of truth in it, as far as men are concerned. Many a man, through the sacrifice of principle, has moved into some position of power or authority, only to find that the true power lay with Satan and not himself. What was true of many men, however, was in no wise true of Christ. Verse 9 And he led him to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: For it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, to guard thee: And on their hands they shall bear thee up, Lest haply thou dash thy foot against a stone.The pinnacle ... It is not known exactly what part of the temple was meant by this, but it was evidently a very high portion of it. The essence of the temptation was the presumption that would have been required to act upon it. Christ did not dispute the passage Satan quoted, nor accuse him of misapplying it; it was simply the truth as stated. It would have been sinful, however, to test willfully, in any such manner, a promise of the Father. The Scripture cited by Satan is Psalms 91:11-12; and it was Satan's quotation of it here that led Shakespeare to make Antonio say, "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."Acts 1, Scene 3.">[10] This is a caution that all should heed; for it is still true that many an evil purpose has been supported by the same method. Regarding the probable scene of this temptation, Josephus described the south elevation of the temple in Jerusalem: It was encompassed by a deep valley along the entire south quarter; ... this valley was very deep, and its bottom could not be seen. If you looked from above into the depth, this further vastly high elevation of the cloister stood upon the height insomuch that if anyone looked down from the top of the battlements, or down both those altitudes, he would be giddy, while his sight could not reach to such an immense depth.[11]There is something in this temptation of Jesus that brings to mind the impulse which comes to many persons at such places as the top of the Empire State building in New York, or on the brink of Niagara Falls, where elaborate precautions have been taken to thwart such impulses of self-destruction. In the case of Christ, that somewhat natural impulse was reinforced by the devil's suggestion that the Saviour would survive if he jumped. Acts 1, Scene 3.">[10] William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Acts 1, Scene 3. [11] Flavius Josephus, Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whiston (New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston), p. 474. Verse 12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God.The passage quoted by Jesus is Deuteronomy 6:16; and by such an appeal to other Scriptures relating to the one Satan quoted Jesus set forth the proper manner of understanding Biblical quotations, all of which must be understood in the light of all the Scriptures bearing upon the subject considered. A failure to heed this divine pattern has resulted in countless misunderstandings and errors. Lamar paraphrased Jesus' meaning by this quotation thus: "The suggestion must be wrong; for nothing, under any circumstances, can be right that is contrary to the written word."[12] No individual, nor any church or religious fellowship, is authorized to go beyond the things which are written (1 Corinthians 4:6); and the violation of this principle is always of the evil one. ENDNOTE: [12] J. S. Lamar, op. cit., p 77 Verse 13 And when the devil had completed every temptation, he departed from him for a season.Chaplain Branham of the U.S. Army had a favorite sermon that he liked to preach from this text, entitled "The Devil's Vacation." Satan does not assail mortals with a state of constant, invariable pressure, but varies it in order to achieve advantage through surprise. Departed from him for a season ... These words actually mean, however, "until a season," that is, "a favorable season." Many have referred this to the hour in Gethsemane. Dummelow said: The conflict foretold so precisely can be none other than Gethsemane. "This is your hour and the power of darkness," Jesus said at that very time (Luke 22:52); and a few moments before, he had said, "The prince of this world cometh" (John 14:30).[13]This does not mean, of course, that Christ was free of temptation except for the two crisis temptations here and in Gethsemane. Temptation came again when the multitude tried to crown him king by force, and upon many other occasions. Nothing in the New Testament would limit the temptation of Christ to the events here and in Gethsemane. He was tempted "in all points" (Hebrews 4:15). Spence said that the words rendered "every temptation" would have been more accurately rendered "every kind of temptation."[14] Nevertheless, the event recorded here by Luke was the decisive battle between Christ and Satan. These three temptations in their basic appeal to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life (1 John 2:16), repeated the pattern of the temptation of the first Adam, and are, in essence, the sum of all temptations. By his magnificent triumph over Satan in this confrontation, Jesus made certain the final victory. When all the keys of a piano have been struck, the total capacity of the instrument is revealed; and when every note in the chromatic scale has been sounded, its total content is presented; and, in the same manner, when Satan tested Jesus in the three basic areas of temptation, his true character was fully revealed, with no necessity whatever for every conceivable instance of temptation to have been confronted by him. In testing a piano, there is no need to play every conceivable melody upon it; just strike all the keys; and, here, Satan struck all the keys of temptation. [13] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Macmillan Company, 1937) p. 745. [14] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 88. Verse 14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and a fame went out concerning him through all the region round about. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all.And a fame went out concerning him ... These verses are the Lukan summary of the fame that came to Jesus at the beginning of his ministry. It is not related how many synagogues he visited, or how many towns and villages received him. A typically Lukan summary, this passage sets the stage for a more detailed account of the dramatic synagogue meeting in Nazareth, where Jesus announced himself as the Messiah, and the villagers responded by trying to kill him, such events being related next in Luke's Gospel. Glorified of all ... This doubtless included the recognition by many that Jesus was indeed the Christ, a recognition that came at the very beginning of Christ's ministry, as more fully evident in John. Ash pointed out that "Luke recorded three miracles showing that Jesus did have messianic power. They are found in reverse order to the temptations."[15]ENDNOTE: [15] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 83. Verse 16 And he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up: and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read.JESUS AT We may not identify this rejection of Jesus by Nazareth with the later rejection recorded by Matthew (Matthew 13:54 ff). In his comment on that later rejection, Robertson said: There is no sufficient reason to identify this visit to Nazareth with that described by Luke. That was at the very beginning of the great ministry of Galilee, and this near its close. The details are quite different. It is perfectly natural that after a long interval he should give the Nazarenes another opportunity to hear his teaching, etc.[16]As his custom was ... The regular habit of attending formal, public worship was a vital element in the character of the Son of God; and it is simply impossible for any man to "follow in his steps" without doing likewise. The old virtue of church attendance has been maligned and slandered; but the equivalent of it marked the life of Christ. Let all of his servants exhibit the same virtue. And stood up to read ... As Dummelow noted, "The Jews permitted the law and the prophets to be read only with the reader standing. Jesus stood to read, sat to expound."[17][16] A. T. Robertson, Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 77. [17] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 745. Verse 17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And he opened the book and found the place where it was written,The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor: He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised, To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down: And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened upon him. Opened the book ... This was a roll, similar to those that may be seen in Jewish synagogues until this day. The place where it was written ... This was Isaiah 61:1 f, wherein the great prophet had foretold the coming of Messiah's kingdom in the appealing metaphor of these words read by Jesus. There are two ways of misunderstanding this prophecy: (1) by those who view Christianity as being merely a revolutionary movement intent on emptying jails and raising economic standards, and (2) by those who fail to accept the Christian fundamentals of aiding the poor and relieving the afflicted. Nevertheless, the great stress of the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, the "poor" including even the rich who know not the Lord, "captives" being primarily those who are taken captive by the devil to do his will (2 Timothy 2:26), and "the blind" having certain references to such people as the secular and materialistic Pharisees, of whom Jesus said, "I came into this world, that they that see not may see" (John 9:39). To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord ... This is a reference to the times of the Messiah, as proved by the word "anointed," used earlier in the passage. Closed the book ... The attendant to whom Jesus gave the roll, after reading from it, was a minor official of the synagogue, a kind of factotem who performed many services. The eyes ... fastened upon him ... The intense interest that focused upon Jesus after the reading from Isaiah was probably induced by the choice of the passage read, and the manner of Jesus' reading it. Verse 21 And he began to say to them, Today hath this Scripture been fulfilled in your ears.This was a dogmatic affirmation on the part of Jesus, declaring himself as the Messiah, the Spirit-filled, anointed of the Lord, sent to save the people from their sins and to usher in the new age. The first reaction of the audience was favorable, as shown in the next verse; but this first impression was due to audience failure, at first, to realize the significance of the declaration. Verse 22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth: and they said, Is not this Joseph's son?The more the people thought of what Jesus said, the less they appreciated it. The son (as they supposed) of the local carpenter, the Messiah? Such a monstrous proposition as that appeared to be was utterly beyond their comprehension. They totally rejected it. Verse 23 And he said unto them, Doubtless ye will say unto me this parable, Physician, heal thyself, whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thine own country. And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is acceptable in his own country.These remarks of Jesus were his response to unfavorable murmurings that developed in the audience as the meaning of his declaration began to take effect. Until this day, audiences in Jewish synagogues talk freely out loud during the services. Besides this, Christ freely read the thoughts of his hearers. Physician, heal thyself ... This slander by the people of the Saviour never diminished throughout his ministry, reverberating against the cross itself, his enemies saying, "He saved others; himself he cannot save" (Matthew 27:42). We have heard it done at Capernaum ... This is a reference to wonders wrought in that city which were not recorded, but were alluded to in Matthew 11:23. No prophet is acceptable in his own country ... Plutarch said, "You will find that few of the most prudent and wisest of mankind have been appreciated in their own country."[18] Familiarity breeds contempt for that which is commonplace or well known, the same being a most unfortunate characteristic of men. This writer lived awhile in Washington, D.C.; and during the cherry blossom festival made a trip through Arkansas, the peach orchards in that state being in full flower at the time. He stopped at a lone filling station surrounded on both sides of the road a mile in both directions by one of the largest orchards in Arkansas, then blazing with one of the most fantastic color displays to be seen anywhere on earth; but the station operator had just been reading an account of the cherry blossom spectacle in Washington; and he said, after a glance at the license plates, "Oh, I would give anything to see the cherry blossoms in Washington." What a pity it is that a man living in the very midst of 10,000 acres of magnificent bloom probably spent the rest of the morning dreaming about the far-off cherry blossoms in the tidal basin of the Capitol City. What a far greater shame it was for the citizens of Nazareth to despise the Christ of the ages because they were familiar with the surroundings where he grew up. But there was more to Nazareth's rejection than a mere failure to appreciate Jesus; there was also a jealous hostility deriving from his working wonders in Capernaum instead of their town. Were not its citizens, at least some of them, the Israel of God? Thus, it was that here in microcosm the racial conceit of the chosen people erupted against Jesus. God indeed loved Israel, but he also loved Gentiles; and Jesus promptly cited two examples from the sacred Scriptures of Israel to demonstrate a truth they should have already known. For a sermon on the unbelief at Nazareth, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 13:56. ENDNOTE: [18] Ibid., p. 746. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 4 Power is from DUNAMIS which means might or ability that belongs to an individual as a part of his own personality. Jesus possessed such a faculty which he exercised through the instrumentality of the Spirit. This enabled him to perform many miracles which caused him to become famous throughout all Galilee. 5 Synagogues is explained at Matthew 4:23. To glorify is defined in the lexicon, "to praise, extol, magnify, 'celebrate." This honor was bestowed upon Jesus because of his wonderful teaching. (See Matthew 7:28-29.) 6 Nazareth was the "home town" of Jesus to which he was paying a visit. When he stood up in the synagogue it was a signal to the one in charge that he was ready to do some reading, that being the main purpose of the synagogues. 7 Observing the position of Jesus, the ruler of the synagogue handed him the book of Isaiah. Being divinely inspired, Jesus did not need the copy to know what it said, but it was a mark of respect for "the written word" for him to read it, and he had no trouble in locating the place he wished to read which is quoted next verse. 8 This passage is in Isaiah 61:1-3, and Is a prediction of the spiritual mission of Jesus into the world. However, some of the statements have reference also to the miraculous cures he was to perform. 9 Acceptable year denotes one in which the most desirable and beneficial experiences would be offered to all who would accept them. 0 Thayer defines the original for minister as "an attendant." It was customary, after the reading had been done, for the reader or someone else to offer some comments if it was his desire (Acts 13:14, etc.). All eyes were fastened on him. They were wondering if this famous man would also become their "guest speaker." 1 He did, and this verse is the introduction to his remarks. By applying the passage to himself, Jesus raised a stir within the audience, at least in their minds, to begin with. 2 The first reaction was not so unfavorable but it caused them to begin to wonder in their minds. Is this not Joseph's son? The idea was whether this humble native could speak such wonderful things. 3 Jesus was aware of the reasoning the people were doing, whether he heard them with his fleshly ears or not. He knew they would wonder why he did not perform the same amount of wonderful deeds there that he was reported to have done in other countries such as that in the vicinity of Capernaum. Physician, heal thyself was a prediction that was fulfilled at the cross (Matthew 27:40), but. the other words of the verse were being fulfilled while Jesus was speaking. 4 This verse explains why he did not go any farther with his work while in the neighborhood of Nazareth. It was because the people would not appreciate it on the principle that no prophet is accepted in his own country. 5 This verse merely shows that the condition of dependency was very general in the days to which Jesus will soon refer in remarks about who was favored. 6 Elias is the same as Elijah in 1 Kings 17:8-16. 7 Eliseus is the same as Elisha in 2 Kings 5:1-14. 8 The people saw the point that Jesus was making. If those old prophets passed over so many people and bestowed their favors upon a few humble cases, it was because they were considered worthy of the benefits. Hence, these people in the home community of Jesus were not going to receive very much attention from him because they were not considered as being entitled to it, having given him "the cold shoulder" because he was an old home product. When they saw this lesson in the teaching of Jesus it made them to be filled with wrath. 9 Jesus did not resist their force until it was necessary to preserve his life. It was not time for him to die and hence he used his superior might to escape his enemies. However, he did not use force but escaped by a miraculous movement. 0 This movement enabled him to go on his way without harming them. 1 Capernaum was the other city which Jesus had previously adopted as a residence (Matthew 4:13). 2 This verse means exactly the same as Matthew 7:29, because the word for power is EXOUSIA, which is the word for "authority" in that passage. 3 Unclean means in regard to moral character, and this was one of the fallen angels that sinned and' were cast down to hell (2 Peter 2:4), which is explained in the notes at Matthew 8:28-29. 4 The note cited in the preceding paragraph explains why the devil said I know thee who thou art, and also why he asked to be let alone. 5 These devils had superhuman power and could injure human beings unless restrained. Jesus suffered this one to throw the man down but not hurt him otherwise. 6 An interesting feature of this verse is the use of both authority and power in one connection. The first comes from EXOUSIA and its first definition is the word by which it is here rendered; the second is from DUNAMIS and is properly rendered in this place. The thought is that Jesus had the right to give orders to the devils, and also had the ability to execute the orders. 7 Jesus was not performing his deeds merely to gain notoriety, but such a result was inevitable because of the natural trait of interest in the unusual things. 8 This was Simon Peter (Matthew 4:18) whose mother-in-law was sick. We observe that Peter was married, although the Romanists forbid their clergy to marry, and yet claim that Peter was the first pope. 9 All miraculous cures were immediate as this one was. 0 By evening the fame of Jesus had reached so far that many afflicted persons had been gathered together, and when they were brought to him he healed them all. 1 Jesus would not suffer the devils even to confess him, because he did not want to be supported by such unworthy characters. Besides, their confession would not have been a matter of faith for they knew that he was the Christ. 2 Wherever Jesus went the crowds followed. Stayed him means they detained him; not by force to be sure, but by earnest requests. 3 Jesus was kind and did not want to disappoint the people, so he explained that other places should have the preaching of the kingdom given them also. 4 With such an explanation, Jesus left this eager crowd and preached in the same general territory, but in the synagogues where other people would be assembled. H.Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 5 THE CALLING OF THE FIRST Luk_5:1-11 Luk 5:1 ---Now it came to pass,—Parallel accounts of this are found in Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20. Some think that this portion of Luke’ s narrative should be placed between the thirty- first and thirty-second verses of chapter 4; Luke often departs from the regular order of events, anticipating some things and passing by others; others think that this call of Peter and his friends is different from the one recorded in Matthew 4:18 and Mark 1:16-20. Matthew and Mark do not record Jesus’ preaching from the boat, hence some conclude that this is a different occasion; the order of events is also advanced as another reason against accepting this account as being the same as that given by Matthew and Mark. However no argument can be adduced that will justify making this account given by Luke as another one different from that recorded by Matthew and Mark. We have here a brief account of the multitude that gathered around him and heard “ the word of God” as he preached from “ the lake of Gennesaret.” This body of water is called by four names in the Bible; it is an expansion of the river Jordan, about twelve miles long and six miles broad. It is called “ sea of Galilee,” “ lake of Gennesaret,” “ sea of Chinnereth” (Numbers 34:11), “ Chinneroth” (Joshua 11:2; 1 Kings 15:20), and “ Tiberias” (John 6:1 ; John 21:1). Luke 5:2-3 ---and he saw two boats standing—These boats were used for fishing. As is common Peter is made prominent; one of these boats belonged to Peter. The boats were empty at this time as the owners had “ gone out of them, and were washing their nets.” The servants or the hired men may have been doing this. (Mark 4:20) It seems that they had finished their fishing and that it had been an unsuccessful night’ s labor. Jesus entered one of these boats and asked Peter to push it out “ a little from the land.” This was done that he might have a better place to teach the multitude that was pressing upon him. The boat being pushed out from the shore and anchored would give him a good pulpit from which to preach to the multitude without being pressed upon and disturbed. He “ sat down and taught the multitudes out of the boat.” It was usual for the teacher to sit and teach; Jesus followed this custom here as he did in preaching the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5:1.) Jesus here assumed his usual posture in teaching. (Luke 4:20.) Luke 5:4-5 --- And when he had left speaking,—When Jesus ceased speaking to the multitude from the boat, he may have dis¬missed the people; it appears that he had finished his discourse with a proper ending and then began his conversation with Peter. Jesus commanded that they “ put out into the deep,” and when they had done this, he commanded further that they “ let down your nets for a draught.” Jesus addressed the others as well as Peter; he seems to have addressed the fishermen collectively. He stated why he wanted them to let down their nets; it was in order to take the fish from the water. This was a trial and test of Peter’ s faith. The fishermen had hung out their nets to dry, and were dis¬couraged by their failure to catch any that night. And Simon answered and said,—Peter is the spokesman here as he was on several other occasions. He said: “ Master, we toiled all night, and took nothing.” The word from which “ Master” is translated is used only by Luke. (Luke 8:24 Luke 8:45 Luke 9:33 Luke 9:49 Luke 17:13.) He always applies it to Jesus; he never uses “ Rabbi” as does John. “ Toiled” means “ suffering, weariness,” and indicates exhausting toil. Peter stood the test, for after expressing himself and telling that they had failed in their efforts during the entire night, but “ at thy word I will let down the nets.” “ At thy word” means relying on, or on the ground only of thy word I will do as you command. Peter sacrificed his own practical knowledge as a fisherman to the authoritative word of Jesus; his faith was not great, as the sequel shows, but he had the spirit of obedience. Peter was not expecting a miracle and probably, at the best, but a small haul of fish. Peter ’ s act was one purely of faith. Luke 5:6-7 ---And when they had done this,—Here the entire company is included; Peter was the leader and directed the others. They cast out their nets with as much care and skill as they had done the preceding night when they had toiled without success. They enclosed such a large number of fish, “ a great multitude of fishes,” is the way Luke describes it, that “ their nets were breaking.” Portions of the net gave way, but although through the rents some fishes made their escape, yet those taken were sufficient to fill their boat and the boat of their partners to a sinking condition. Such a wondrous draught of fishes surely filled Peter and others with amazement. and they beckoned unto their partners—It seems that Peter and Andrew, James and John were all partners. The other boat was either so far from the one in which Peter was as to be unable to be heard, or Peter was so filled with astonishment at the miracle, that “ they beckoned” to their partners to come to their rescue. Some have thought that they were all so amazed that they were incapable of speaking and therefore “ beckoned unto their partners.” They came and filled their boats until they “ began to sink.” The boats were on the point of sinking from the weight of the fishes. Luke 5:8-10 But Simon Peter, when he saw it,—Peter was an impul-sive man; he takes the lead in nearly everything; here he ex-presses his deep feeling which also expressed the feelings of others. The draught was so far beyond anything he had ever seen or heard of that he is overwhelmed with amazement and with a conviction of the superhuman power of Jesus. “ Peter” means “ stone”; he was so named when he was first introduced to Jesus. (John 1:42.) It was fitting for Luke here to speak of him as “ Simon Peter” when relating this deep religious experience which was so essential to his usefulness and character as one of the foundation stones in the spiritual kingdom of Christ. When Peter saw what was done he “ fell down at Jesus’ knees” in homage and worshiped. For he was amazed,—Peter and the servants who were with him were all amazed; even James and John shared in the amazement. The mention of James first here and elsewhere leads to the conclusion that he was the elder brother; John had probably before believed in Jesus as the Messiah; he was doubtless the one who went with Andrew to the dwelling place of Jesus. (John 1:39.) He did not at that time give up his occupation, but may have been much with Jesus. Jesus addressed Simon personally and said: “ Fear not; from hence-forth thou shalt catch men.” James and John were partners with Peter and Andrew. The original from which we get “ partners” means “ fellowship” and here denotes a common in¬terest and a very close association. “ Thou shalt catch men” means literally “ thou shalt be catching” men. Luke 5:11 ---And when they had brought their boats—When these four had brought their boats to land, they forsook their nets, the ships, the fishes, their friends, hired servants, and their work, and “ followed him.” They showed their faith in him and their willingness to pursue their spiritual calling in his kingdom; they forsook all, not merely in form, but in heart. (2 Timothy 3:5.) Jesus had a great work for these men in sav¬ing the lost; they were called under such surrounding circumstances that they showed their faith in following him without a moment’ s hesitation. The promptness with which they obeyed the call showed their willingness to sacrifice all for him. JESUS A LEPER Luke 5:12-16 Luke 5:12 ---And it came to pass,—Parallel records of this healing are found in Matthew 8:2-4 and Mark 1:40-45. While Jesus was “ in one of the cities,” a man “ full of leprosy” came to Jesus and “ fell on his face,” and said, “ Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.” Among all the diseases to which human flesh is heir, leprosy is one of the worst; it is more tenacious in its grasp, most defiant of treatment, most infectious, more loathsome. Leprosy enforces almost utter seclusion from society, and from all that makes life pleasant and happy. Frequently this disease came under the notice of Jesus and his healing hand. “ Leper” is derived from “ Lepis,” which means “ a scale”; it is so called because the disease shows itself in dry, thick scales, or scabs, which are white in com¬mon leprosy. (Exodus 4:6; Numbers 12:10; 2 Kings 5:27.) The spots are usually about the size of a dollar. This man was “ full o( leprosy”; his body was thoroughly infected with the disease; the disease was in its worst form. Luke 5:13 ---And he stretched forth his hand,—Jesus stretched forth his hand and touched him; it was considered a dangerous thing to touch a leper; the leper was unclean, and the one who touched him became unclean, but Jesus touched him with the healing power. When he touched him Jesus said: “ I will; be thou made clean.” The leper had thrown himself on the mercy of Jesus, and had faith strong enough to prostrate himself at the feet of Jesus; hence Jesus said, “ I will.” Some think that Jesus violated the law of Moses when he stretched forth his hand and touched the leper; however we may look for an interpretation of the law in the divinity of Jesus; the law had been given for those who were subjects to the law, but Jesus was himself the lawgiver. The man was healed immediately ; “ and straightway the leprosy departed from him.” The cure was instantaneous; the leprosy, the cause of his defilement, “ departed from him” at the very moment that Jesus spoke. John 5:14-16 ---And he charged him to tell no man:—Jesus frequently gave this prohibition. (Mark 5:43 Mark 7:36.) The reasons for this may vary according to the circumstances. Jesus was not wanting to create a sensation, in the enthusiams of the blessing received, the recipient often forgot or disregarded the command not to tell what had been done. The excitement of the people needed to be repressed so that greater good could be done; again they did not know enough about Jesus to bear intelligent testimony about him ; sometimes it was not wise be¬cause the one who had received the blessing might be so enthusiastic that the enemies of Jesus would do harm to the one who espoused his cause. Jesus did not wish to arouse undue excitement (Mark 1:45), nor would he expose himself or the cleansed leper to the charge of violating the law. He was commanded to show himself “ to the priest, and offer” for his “ cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.” There were two stages in the ceremonial or purification of the leper (Leviticus 14:1-32); the purifying ceremonies and offerings were united with confessions of sin and pollu¬tion, and with grateful acknowledgment of God’ s mercy. But so much the more went abroad the report—Jesus had commanded the cleansed leper to “ tell no man’ but the report of what Jesus had done “ went abroad,” and “ great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed of their infirmities.” The unintentional disobedience of the man who had been healed in telling about his cure caused the great multitude to come together “ to hear” Jesus and “ to be healed of their infirmities.” Another result recorded by Mark (Mark 1:45) was that he could no longer enter into any city, both because it had become known that he had touched a leper and the crowds and excitement might attract the suspicious notice of the authorities. Jesus was forced for a time to go into desert places. When he “ withdrew himself in the deserts” he spent much time in prayer. Luke signifies in his record continuous com¬ing together of the multitudes so that Jesus could not do his most effective work. JESUS HEALING THE PALSIED MANLuk_5:17-26 Luke 5:17 ---And it came to pass on one of those days,—Luke is in¬definite and says that these things “ came to pass on one of those days.” Mark is more definite with respect to the place, as it was in Capernaum. Parallels of this account are found in Matthew 9:2-8 and Mark 2:1-12. Mark and Luke are much fuller than Matthew; Matthew records only the principal fea¬tures of the event, while Mark and Luke give the efforts made to get the sick man into the presence of Jesus. Jesus “ was teaching” ; this was his mission. There were present “ Pharisees and doctors of the law”; they had come “ out of every village of Galilee and Judaea and Jerusalem.” The “ Pharisees” were a religious party or sect which originated about 0150 years before Christ; their name means “ separatists”; they were those who separated themselves from all impurities, as they claimed. To become a member of the Pharisaic association one had to agree to set apart all the sacred tithes and re¬frain from eating anything that had not been tithed. They held strictly to their oral law or traditions, attaching more im¬portance to them than to the written law. (Matthew 15:1-6.) Jesus often classed them with the hypocrites. “ Doctors of the law” were teachers of the law. They were supposed to be men of learning and ability to expound the Jewish law; they were “ law-teachers,” lawyers, scribes. Distinguished hearers of the Pharisees and teachers of the law were “ sitting by” in their dignity while the people stood; there seems to have been a general assembly of them from “ every village of Gali¬lee and Judaea and Jerusalem.” Luke 5:18-20 ---And behold, men bring on a bed a man—This man was a paralytic; he was paralyzed, having lost the power of muscular motion; he had very likely been in this condition for some time; Mark states that he was “ borne of four,” each holding a corner of the bed on which he lay. He was brought to the house where Jesus was. (Mark 2:1.) They were unable to get very close to Jesus with the man on account of the multitude which filled both the house and the doorway. However, they were not to be outdone, but were determined to bring the palsied man into the presence of Jesus; so when they could not find any way to get into the presence of Jesus, “ they went up to the housetop, and let him down through the tiles with his couch into the midst before Jesus.” We are not told how they went “ up to the housetop”; they probably went up the stairs on the outside or up a ladder; some think that they went up the stairs within an adjoining house, and passed from its roof to the roof of the house where Jesus was. The roofs of the houses were commonly flat; they removed that portion of the roof which was just above Jesus, and then they let the man down on his bed into the presence of Jesus. Jesus saw their faith and commended it. When Jesus saw their faith he said: “ Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.” It was encouraging for Jesus to address the sick man; he spoke in an encouraging way. We have only two recorded occasions that Jesus said “ thy sins are forgiven”; this case and another recorded in Luke 7:48. Luke 5:21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason,— These were the religious leaders and they began to say “ within themselves,” not aloud; the word in Mark here means “ held a dialogue with themselves.” They reached the conclusion that Jesus was a blasphemer, but were not courageous enough to accuse him of blasphemy to his face; in their reasoning they came to the conclusion that he was speaking words of blasphemy, because no man could forgive sins except God. Their reasoning was logical, if their premises were true. Their argument was: “ It is blasphemy for any but God to claim to forgive sins”; this man claims the power to forgive sins; therefore he is a blasphemer. If Jesus is not what he claimed to be, he is a blasphemer. Luke 5:22-24 ---But Jesus perceivimg their reasonings,—Jesus knew their thoughts and answered their accusation. They must have been greatly surprised when Jesus asked: “ Why reason ye in your hearts?” Jesus knew the hearts of men; he did not need “ that any one should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man.” (John 2:24-25.) He asked further: “ Which is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise and walk?” Again they must have been surprised. Jesus asked them these questions, showing that he knew what was in their hearts. The one who could say with authority, arise and walk, could say with effect, thy sins are forgiven; both were possible only for God, but impossible for man. But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority—Jesus proposes to give them evidence that they cannot doubt, evidence that they must accept or stultify their own in¬telligence. To perform a miracle is as much the work of God as to forgive sins; Jesus proposes to perform the miracle as proof of his power to forgive sins; hence he said: “ That ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins (he said unto him that was palsied), I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go unto thy house.” Jesus wrought the miracle by his own divine power; he did not have a delegated power, but used his own power as the Messiah. The scribes rightly understood Jesus as acting by his own authority, and thereby claiming divine honor to himself. The “ scribes” were the learned men who preserved, copied, and expounded the law and their traditions. (Ezra 7:12; Nehemiah 8:1; Matthew 15:1-6.) It was God in Christ manifesting his glory, and hence a proof that Jesus could forgive sins. Luke 5:25-26 ---And immediately he rose up before them,—All eyes were fixed on the paralytic and were anxiously awaiting to see the results. If Jesus was what he claimed to be, he could heal this man or could forgive sins; if he were not what he claimed to be, he could do neither. Jesus calmly commanded the sick man, not only to arise, but to take the bed or couch upon which he lay and bear it away. The man immediately obeyed Jesus, took up his bed, departed out of the house, “ glorifying God.” The man in the presence of all, not only stood up, but showed that he was fully restored by immediately tak¬ing up his bed and departing from the house and going to his own house, praising God as he left. The evidence of the power of Jesus was manifested in the presence of all. And amazement took hold on all,—The effect of the miracle on the people was great; literally “ amazement took hold on all”; they were brought into a state of wonder, fear, and dread. Very likely the scribes and Pharisees had never given Jesus the credit of working a real miracle; or if they had, they had never carried out in thought this reasoning: he who can work a miracle must have divine power, and therefore the right to forgive sins. Now they had both the fact and the inference to dispose of in their thought. If they had been honest minded before God, they must have come at once to the conclusion that Jesus was really divine, and therefore the Messiah who was to come. They had never seen or heard of anything that could compare to what Jesus was teaching and doing; their conclusion should have been in his favor. THE CALL OF LEVI Luke 5:27-32 Luke 5:27---And after these things he went forth,—Parallel records of this account are found in Matthew 9:9-13 and Mark 2:13-17. This “ publican,” or tax collector, here called Levi and by Mark “ Levi, the son of Alphaeus,” is undoubtedly the man otherwise known as Matthew. The usual explanation of this diversity in name, not a discrepancy, is that he had two names, of which Levi was more used before his call, and Matthew after his call. He is the writer of the first book of the New Testament that bears his name. It is very probable that he had seen and heard Jesus before and was prepared to accept this call and to obey it. He was busy at the time Jesus called him. “ Matthew” in Hebrew means “ the gift of God”; “ Levi” means “ joined,” and was the name of the third son of Jacob by Leah. Two of the ancestors of Jesus as given by Luke bore this name. (Luke 3:24-29.) Matthew was “ sitting at the place of toll” when Jesus came by and said: “ Fol¬low me.” The place of receiving custom may have been a regular customhouse or a temporary office. Luke 5:28 ---And he forsook all,—Jesus had said: "Follow me.” He had addressed Philip, James and John, Peter and Andrew, and others in the same way. (Matthew 4:19-21; Matthew 9:19; John 1:43.) To follow Christ was then as now the highest calling that one could have. The promptness and obedience of Levi is to be noted. “ He forsook all, and rose up and followed him.” Like Andrew and Peter (John 1:40-42), he left every¬thing. We are not to understand by this that he left his office without making satisfactory arrangements with the proper au¬thorities ; he did not abruptly leave his office and the funds which he had collected without proper arrangements; this would have been unfair to the Roman government. Luke 5:29 ---And Levi made him a great feast—A record of this feast is found also in Matthew 9:10-17 and Mark 2:15-22. This feast gives rise to two conversations, one in regard to eating with publicans and sinners, and the other in regard to fasting. Some think that there was much time that intervened between Matthew’ s call and this feast, while others would put the in¬tervening time between the discourse about eating with publicans and sinners and that about fasting. It is not probable that the feast occurred on the day that Matthew was called, but possibly soon after, and occasioned the discourse. It was proper for Matthew to give this feast as a kind of farewell meal to his business associates, and to show that he not only arranged and settled up matters, but that he still held property of his own. Matthew himself prepared and gave this reception and entertainment “ in his house”; it is designated as a “ great feast” because of its extensive preparation and abundant provision for a large company. Many publicans and others were present. Luke 5:30 ---And the Pharisees and their scribes—This does not mean merely the Pharisees and scribes who belonged to Capernaum, but those who may have belonged to the sect or party of the Pharisees. They “ murmured against his disciples’'; with a spirit of cowardice, they did not go to Jesus, but to his disci¬ples. We are not to suppose that the Pharisees were present at the feast, but since it was such a large feast, their attention was called to the fact that Jesus with his disciples sat down with publicans and sinners at the feast. Matthew and Mark both give the question as aimed at Jesus; “ Why eateth your Teacher with the publicans and sinners?” The fault with him implied guilt with his disciples. Persons regarded as the bas¬est and most depraved by the self-righteous scribes and Pharisees were called “ sinners.” That Jesus should call Mat¬thew, a publican, to be a disciple, and then should attend a feast with publicans, was an occasion for the scribes and Pharisees to criticize him. At another time they said: “ This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them” (Luke 15 Luke 2.) Luke 5:31-32 ---And Jesus answering said unto them,—Jesus had ei-ther overheard the question they had asked his disciples or his disciples had told him. (Mark 2:17.) Jesus here used a very familiar statement or proverb—“ they that are in health have no need of a physician; but they that are sick.” His great mission as a physician was to heal the great disease of sin; if any were really righteous, as the Pharisees imagined they were, then they did not need his healing power; the fact that these publicans and sinners were admittedly vile and wicked in the estimation of the scribes and Pharisees was proof that they were very “ sick” and needed a physician. This justified the conduct of Jesus and condemned the scribes and Phari¬sees. Jesus then added the purpose of his mission to earth; “ I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” ABOUT FASTING Luke 5:33-39 Luke 5:33 ---And they said unto him,—Other records of this may be found in Matthew 9:14-17 and Mark 2:18-22. This question as recorded in Matthew was asked by the disciples of John, while Mark records that both the disciples of John and those of the Pharisees asked it; Luke represents it as being proposed by the scribes and Pharisees. Some think that the scribes and Pharisees were responsible for John’ s disciples joining them in asking the question. “ The disciples of John fast often, and make supplications.” The original for “ often” as used here and in Acts 24:26 and 1 Timothy 5:23 means “ close-packed” as a thicket, or the plumage of a bird. The language indicates what was their practice. The only fast required by the law of Moses was that of the great day of atonement. (Leviticus 16:29.) Other fasts were added after the destruction of the temple. (Zechariah 7:5 Zechariah 8:19.) Luke 5:34-35 ---And Jesus said unto them,—Jesus here makes his de-fense and answers the question which was asked; in his reply he presented three illustrations showing that it would be unbecoming for his disciples to fast at that time. The first illustration is taken from the familiar marriage ceremonies. He asked: “ Can ye make the sons of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?” The friends of the bridegroom were called “ sons of the bridechamber” because they had access to it during the bridal feast. (Judges 14:10-11.) But the days will come;—There was no occasion for his dis-ciples to fast while he was with them to comfort them; but the time would come when he would leave them, then they would fast and mourn. The time would arrive when the circumstances would be changed and fasting would be in order then. Luke 5:36 ---And he spake also a parable unto them:—The second illustration that Jesus uses in answering the question as to why his disciples did not fast is here given. It is drawn from the familiar practice of patching a garment; he points out what no one of his hearers would think of doing. Luke calls this “ a parable,” and he gives a fuller account of it than either Matthew or Mark. The cloth used at that time was not “ shrunk” ; no one would think of taking a new piece of cloth which had not been shrunk and put it upon an old garment which had been shrunk. If such should be done, “ the piece from the new will not agree with the old.” This thought is closely connected with the preceding thought, and is intended to enforce the same principle. If the disciples of Jesus had fasted, as did John’ s disciples and those of the Pharisees, they would have done that which was unsuitable to the spirit of the new dispensation. Luke 5:37-39 ---And no man putteth new wine into old—The third illustration that Jesus uses is taken from the use of handling wine. These illustrations were very appropriate since garments and wine were very prominent at feasts. A “ wineskin” was prepared by taking the skin off an animal and by some process fix the skin so that it would hold a liquid and using the skin as a vessel. To put “ new wine” into an old wineskin would cause it to burst and the wine would be lost and the skin would be of no value. Old wineskins had been stretched to their utmost capacity; if new wine, which ferments and expands, is put into the old wineskin, it would burst the skin and all would be lost. Jesus reminds his hearers of this which they knew to be true. “ New wine must be put into fresh wine-skins” so that when the wine expands the wineskin can expand with it. This illustrates the same thought as the other two illustrations. Verse 1 Events narrated in this chapter are the wonderful draught of fishes (Luke 5:1-11), the healing of a leper (Luke 5:12-16), the cure of the man carried by four men (Luke 5:17-26), the call of Matthew (Luke 5:27-28), complaints by the Pharisees and following discussion (Luke 5:29-31). The call of some of the apostles is also woven into the above narratives. Now it came to pass, while the multitude pressed upon him and heard the word of God, that he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret; and he saw two boats standing by the lake: but the fishermen had gone out of them, and were washing their nets. (Luke 5:1-2) THE CATCH OF FISHThe dramatic scene here is emphasized by the last two clauses. It had been an unsuccessful night of fishing, and the men who were about to be called to the apostleship were cleaning up the gear and getting ready to store it against the next fishing trip. With marvelous insight, Jesus accomplished several things at once. By using one of the boats as a pulpit, he could avoid the press of the throng; and, by means of the great catch a little later, he could provide further insight for the men about to be called to accompany him as apostles. Luke did not record the sermon Jesus preached on that occasion; and thus we should look to what Jesus did, rather than to the unrecorded message. Like the apostle John, Luke recognized the deeply spiritual overtones of such an event as this. Of course, it is incorrect to suppose that this miracle was the same as the one John recorded and which took place after Jesus' resurrection. Verse 3 And he entered into one of the boats, which was Simon's, and asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the multitudes out of the boat. And when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Put out into the deep, and let your nets down for a draught.Put out into the deep ... The KJV has "Launch out into the deep"; and Jesus would follow up this command, intended to be obeyed literally, with another just like it in the spiritual sector when he invited them to "follow." Their acceptance of the call was a launching out into the deep on a far grander scale than anything they could have done in Peter's boat. Every Christian and all churches still need this commandment to "put out into the deep." The miracle here is unique to Luke. Verse 5 And Simon answered and said, Master, we toiled all night and took nothing: but at thy word I will let down the nets.Peter's objection against the thing Jesus commanded was well founded from the earthly viewpoint. It was not a good time to fish; the men were tired; they were cleaning up; and it could not have been an altogether welcome command from Jesus, who said, in effect, "Come on, let's go fishing!" Peter's response here, while obedient, was clearly petulant, and not spontaneous at all. Grudgingly agreeing to do it, he nevertheless made his displeasure known. Verse 6 And when they had done this, they enclosed a great multitude of fishes; and their nets were breaking.One cannot help agreeing with the KJV which translated "net" (singular) in the preceding verse; and, although this is contrary to the Greek, there certainly seemed to be some insufficiency in the number of nets let down, raising a question whether or not Peter had fully complied with the Lord's command to let down the nets (plural). If there was any such deficiency on the disciples' part (and the Greek Text does not support the view that there was), it was surely rebuked by the size of the catch. Verse 7 And they beckoned to their partners in the other boat, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink.Such an astounding wonder was a fitting prelude to the call of these fishermen to become "fishers of men." The element of cooperation should not be overlooked. The great things are always accomplished by men working together. Verse 8 But Simon Peter, when he saw it, fell down at Jesus' knees saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.I am a sinful man ... Thus Peter confessed the sin which had been evident earlier in his grudging obedience a little earlier; and here is an admonition to all who follow Christ. Mere obedience, attended by a critical, complaining attitude, is not true obedience. Those who follow the Saviour should do so with joy, and without any of the reservations and grumbling complaints which seem to mark the service of some. Ours is a privileged and joyful service; our lives are directed by the Lord whose love and blessing are without limit; our personal judgments and reluctant attitudes should be utterly abandoned; and there is for the child of God no happiness like that of doing exactly what the Lord commanded. Fell down at Jesus' knees ... This spontaneous act of worship on Peter's part should be noted. Christ received his worship, the reception of such a thing being an implicit claim of deity on the Saviour's part; and Luke's record of it here is significant as a further proof that all of the apostles concurred in thus hailing Jesus as God among human beings. Verse 9 For he was amazed, and all that were with him, at the draught of fishes which they had taken; and so were also James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon, And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.It may well be supposed that Andrew was also present; but Luke's purpose here was evidently that of detailing the circumstances under which the "inner circle" of the apostolic group were called. This, of course, was not the first time these had met Jesus, as more fully explained in John. However, this was the instant of their being called into a new and higher relationship with Jesus as apostles. Elements which aided their decision were (1) the consciousness of Jesus' miraculous power, (2) a vision of something greater, "thou shalt catch men," and (3) a consciousness of sin. Only Peter acknowledged sin here; but it may be that the others were equally guilty of the same attitude. Verse 11 And when they had brought their boats to land, they left all, and followed him.Luke reported that Christ's call was directed particularly to Simon; but both Jesus and the men called understood it as including others in addition to Simon. Verse 12 And it came to pass, while he was in one of the cities, behold, a man full of leprosy: and when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.THE HEALING OF A LEPERThe dreadful disease of leprosy left its victim in a totally pitiable condition without hope of any earthly cure. The fact that one so afflicted sought Jesus' aid indicated the popular conception that Jesus was a man of supernatural power. This dreaded malady was a type of sin in the Old Testament; and, although there were instances of its being sent as punishment for sin (2 Kings 5:27), it also occurred independently of sin. Significantly, Luke recorded the fact of the man worshipping Jesus. Verse 13 And he stretched forth his hand and touched him, saying, I will; be thou made clean. And straightway the leprosy departed from him.To touch a leper resulted in the ceremonial defilement of the one who touched; but Jesus did not hesitate to incur such defilement on behalf of those whom he came to deliver. In a similar way, he touched the bier of the dead (Luke 7:14). As often noted, Christ's cures were instantaneous, performed without physical effort on his part, and free of the type of incantations, ostentatious prayers, and hysterical behavior associated with so-called "healings" today. His were real, immediate, and designed to demonstrate his own heavenly power. Verse 14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go thy way, and show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.Offer for thy cleansing ... Old Testament passages detailing the specific offering for such a sacrifice are Leviticus 13:40 and Leviticus 14:2 ff. In honoring such regulations, Christ made clear his intention not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. Verse 15 But so much the more went abroad the report concerning him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed of their infirmities.The development in view here was the pressing unto him of such vast concourses of people with their incessant demands so much that it became physically impossible for Christ to continue. The foreknowledge of such a situation might have been one of the reasons underlying his charge that the leper should "tell no man." He apparently spread the word anyway; and, as a result, Christ found it necessary to depart, as related in the next verse. Verse 16 But he withdrew himself into the deserts and prayed.Deserts ... In Biblical times, these were merely uninhabited places, not arid desolations in the same sense the word is used today. And prayed ... The reliance of Jesus upon God, and his constant dependence upon the Father's will appear throughout the New Testament in the vigorous pursuit of prayer which marked his holy life. THE HEALING OF THE MAN CARRIED BY FOUR MENA fuller treatment of this wonder is given in my Commentary on Mark, Mark 2:1-12. It is mentioned only briefly in Matthew 9:2, Luke's account being the most graphic. Verse 17 And it came to pass on one of those days, that he was teaching; and there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, who were come out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was with him to heal.Here is a glimpse of the astounding effect the words and works of Jesus had already produced. The religious hierarchy were by this time fully alerted to the challenge of Jesus' life and teaching; and their hostility made itself evident at every opportunity. Nevertheless, the mighty works of Jesus continued unabated. Verse 18 And behold, men bring on a bed a man that was palsied: and they sought to bring him in, and to lay him before him.Mark related that there were four of these who bore their friend to Jesus and recorded their breaking of the tiles. Such urgency on the part of a sufferer could have been caused only by the most overwhelming conviction on their part that Jesus could indeed heal him. Verse 19 And not finding by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went up to the housetop, and let him down through the tiles with his couch into the midst before Jesus.The amazing independence of the synoptic narratives is dramatically proved by the variations. All three recounted this event, but each brought to it his own contribution of significant detail. There is no reasonable doubt that a genuine event lay behind the Gospel records. Verse 20 And seeing their faith, he said, Man, your sins are forgiven thee.Not the faith of the sufferer, but the faith of those who bore him, is in focus here. Christ never followed any stereotyped pattern in the discharge of his glorious mission. It is a safe conjecture, of course, that no sufferer would have allowed such inconvenience to himself and his friends unless he too had faith that Jesus would heal him; nevertheless, it was the faith of the group, not that of the individual, that Jesus noted. Man, thy sins are forgiven thee ... Christ no doubt intended this to be a challenge of the religious doctors present in such large numbers; and, therefore, upon grounds fully known to himself alone, he announced the man's pardon of all transgressions, no doubt foreseeing the objections that would come of it, and the eventual healing of the man's body afterward. Verse 21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this that speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?Speaketh blasphemies ... The reasoning of the Pharisees was a syllogism: Only God can forgive sins. This man is not God (deity). Therefore, he is blaspheming by saying that he forgives sins. Their second, or minor premise, was wrong; and therefore their conclusion was wrong. Jesus indeed was, and ever is, God; but this they did not believe. It is not amiss, however, to notice that their major premise, to the effect that only God can forgive sins, was absolutely correct. Matthew's revelation that this type of thinking against Jesus was in the inward thoughts of the Pharisees, rather than an open allegation against him, is not contradicted by Luke's statement that "they began to reason." Both Mark and Matthew mention the fact of Jesus' reading their thoughts in this situation; and the same is evident a little later here in Jesus reply (Luke 5:22). Verse 22 But Jesus perceiving their reasonings, answered and said unto them, Why reason ye in your hearts?From this it is clear that Christ was reading the thoughts of his audience. Verse 23 Which is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise and walk?The implications of this statement by our Lord are profound. Here, Jesus admitted that the so-called granting of absolution is on an absolute parity with performing a miracle. Anyone who can do either can do both; and he who cannot do both can do neither! It does seem that with such a proposition so boldly stated here, there should be an end of men saying, "I absolve thee? Verse 24 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins (he said unto him that was palsied), I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go unto thy house.Christ thus gave the most dramatic proof of his authority both to heal men's bodies and to forgive their sins. Verse 25 And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his house, glorifying God.Thus, a second time in this chapter, Jesus directed the most visible and convincing proof of his oneness with the Father toward the community of scribes and Pharisees, making every effort to enlist them as believers in his holy mission. From John it is learned, however, that they had already rejected him and were merely stalking him with a view of putting him to death (John 5:18). That prior evil decision on their part was the true reason why they did not believe in this circumstance. Glorifying God ... The healed man was aware that only God could have wrought such a wonder; and the same conclusion should have been made by Jesus' enemies. Verse 26 And amazement took hold on all, and they glorified God; and they were filled with fear, saying, We have seen strange things today.On all ... Luke's use of these words in not absolute. For example, he said in another place, "And all the people ..." were baptized "of John's baptism; but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized of him" (Luke 7:29). Therefore, it may be assumed that the same group refused to glorify God in this instance. We have seen strange things ... Indeed, how strange it was! That Almighty God should have become a man, concerning himself with the pitiful ailments of the flesh, and forgiving the sins of his fallen children. It is the strangest, most wonderful thing that has ever happened. THE CALL OF MATTHEWThe balance of this chapter is related to the call of Matthew and discussions that arose at the dinner he made for Jesus. Verse 27 And after these things he went forth, and beheld a publican, named Levi, sitting at the place of toll, and said unto him, Follow me. And he forsook all, and rose up and followed him.Levi ...This son of Alphaeus was a Hebrew with two names, a common thing in Galilee at that time. Mark and Luke speak of him as Levi, but Matthew himself used the name that has been loved throughout the Christian era.[1]The speculation that Jesus gave Levi the name "Matthew," meaning "gift of God," is not unreasonable; for Jesus also gave Simon the name "Peter." Publican ... is a word applied to tax collectors; and, in Palestine at that time, the occupation itself was hated by the Jews. They particularly despised any of their own race who consented to such work for Roman usurpers. John the Baptist implied that the work of a tax collector was not in itself evil (Luke 3:13); but there is little doubt that the vast majority of holders of such an office enriched themselves through extortion and oppression. There is no hint that Matthew was like them. Implicit in Jesus' call of such a social outcast was his purpose of redeeming all men. Jesus did not look upon outward appearances but at the genuine character of men. Never did the genius of the Son of God show more clearly than here. Matthew was a "gift of God" indeed to the Christian faith. His scholarly knowledge of the Old Testament, his intimate understanding of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and his ability to penetrate the sham of the religious hierarchy of that era fully endowed him with unique gifts which enabled the writing of the first Gospel. The integrity and sincerity of this great apostle were quickly evidenced by the dinner which he gave in honor of the Lord and for the purpose of introducing others to the Master. He forsook all ... and followed ... Just as Luke passed over without mention the prior contact of Simon, James, and John with Jesus, the assumption that he did the same thing here is justified. The amazing restraint of all the sacred writers regarding themselves is apparent; and there is a remarkable sameness in the three synoptic accounts of the calling of Matthew. ENDNOTE: [1] Herbert Lockyer, All the Men of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), p. 231. Verse 29 And Levi made him a great feast in his house: and there was a great multitude of publicans and of others that were sitting at meat with them. And the Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with the publicans and sinners? And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are in health have no need of a physician; but they that are sick. I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.For additional comment on this episode, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 9:9. One of the very best ways to begin Christian service is the method chosen here by Matthew. He gave a big dinner, invited many, and introduced the Saviour, thus committing himself publicly and irrevocably to the new way of life. No man can sneak into the service of God; and inevitable failure attends all who try to do so. Matthew did it right! They that are in health have no need of a physician ... This was not an admission by Jesus that the Pharisees were "in health" spiritually; for truly their moral sickness was the scandal of that age. Of course, they viewed themselves as righteous; and thus the argument is an "ad hominem" statement based on their prejudice. They that are sick ... It was the glory of our Lord that he came to heal the moral and spiritual sickness engulfing all people; and the Pharisees themselves were included in this if they had only been able to appreciate it. Jesus' deep thrust in this context has elements of humor in it. The very idea that the evil priests "had no need" of spiritual healing was such a preposterous thing that the people who heard Jesus' words must have laughed aloud. Verse 33 And they said unto him, The disciples of John fast often and make supplications; likewise also the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink. And Jesus said unto them, Can ye make the sons of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come; and when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, then will they fast in those days.This was an effort by the Pharisees to open a conflict between Jesus and John the Baptist; but Christ's inspired reply made use of John's statement regarding Christ as "the bridegroom," and extending it a little with the effect of saying, "Look, this is a wedding; and all of the rules on fasting are suspended!" The background of this answer included the notorious behavior of the Pharisees themselves whose gluttonous conduct at weddings was a public scandal. There is no way that such a thrust by Jesus could have failed to precipitate a storm of laughter. It was a center shot; and the Pharisees were completely vanquished by it. When the bridegroom shall be taken away ... Jesus however, was not amused. Those vicious enemies would yet nail him up to die, and he knew it; thus, there is this plaintive reference to the time when the bridegroom shall be taken away. This was a clear prophecy of his Passion. Verse 36 And he spake also a parable unto them: no man rendeth a piece from a new garment and putteth it upon an old garment; else he will rend the new, and also the piece from the new will not agree with the old. And no man putteth new wine into old wineskins; else the new wine will burst the skins, and itself will be spilled, and the skins will perish. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. And no man having drunk old wine desireth new; for he saith, The old is good.There are three comparisons: (1) new cloth on an old garment, (2) new wine in old wineskins, and (3) no man having drunk old wine desires new. The meaning is very similar in all three, and they stress Jesus' unwillingness to make the ceremonial fasts of the Old Testament a large feature of the new kingdom, the necessity of finding new "wineskins" (disciples) who would be able to receive his new teaching (as in the call of Matthew), and Jesus' understanding of the fact that many of John's disciples (though not all) would prefer the old ways to the new methods of the approaching kingdom. The variations between Matthew and Luke derive from Luke's fuller report. Whereas Matthew mentioned patching the old garment with "new cloth," Luke has the fuller account of the "new cloth" having been rent from a "new garment." Matthew abbreviated the discussion, even omitting altogether the third analogy given by Luke. Regarding the fundamental reasons for such variations, they resulted from: (a) The fact that Jesus himself varied his parables, illustrations, and teachings from place to place and time to time. There is no more unfounded assumption possible than the premise of some in the critical schools to the effect that Jesus gave, for example, the beatitudes, or the prayer he taught the disciples to pray, in one form only and upon only one occasion. Never! In a ministry that lasted perhaps fifty months and covered literally hundreds of villages and cities, it is absolutely mandatory to assume that Jesus' teachings were frequently varied as to their exact words. The opposite view is disproved by the variations reported in the sacred Gospels as well as by the common practice of speakers in all generations. Anyone following the speeches of a candidate for public office has observed the variations which always mark "the speech" given in many different localities. Common sense demands the supposition that Jesus' teaching, repeated hundreds of times, made use of countless variations and subtle changes to bring out additional truth or avoid the inevitable misunderstandings that would have resulted from a robot-like repetition of the same words over and over. The view that Jesus taught always in the same "verbatim et literatim" style is preposterous. Even when he quoted the inspired prophets of the Old Testament, he did nothing like that. (b) Another source of variations in the Gospels was in the choice of materials by sacred authors, some selecting parables, some sayings, etc., not found in the others; and also in the particular stress or emphasis intended by the authors. They also wrote from diverse viewpoints. John gave the seven great signs; Matthew the seven great woes against the Pharisees; and Luke a vast body of material of particular interest to Gentiles, etc., etc. The diversity in the Gospels is so extensive as to deny, absolutely, any possibility of their being in any sense copies one of another. Inherent in the threefold analogies of the kingdom Jesus gave at Matthew's dinner party is the fact of the "newness" of the kingdom of Christ. It was not to be merely a patch imposed upon Judaism, nor a mere refilling of old forms with vital new truth. "New wine ... new garment ..." Here was a glimpse of the truth stressed by the apostles, "Behold all things are become new!" (2 Corinthians 5:17). Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 51. Why did the people throng Jesus? 2. Where was he standing? 3. Tell what he observed on the lake. 4. Which ship did he enter ? 5. Tell the use he made of it. 6. After the discourse what did he request? 7. What report did Simon give him? 8. But what confidence did he express ? 9. Tell of the success. 10. How great was the catch ? 11. Relate Peter’ s prayer to Jesus. 12. What caused the astonishment? 13. Who also were filled with astonishment? 14. What was their business relation to Simon? 15. Tell the change of occupation Jesus announced? 16. State their response to his call. 17. What afflicted man saw Jesus? 18. State his action. 19. And his remarks. 20. What did Jesus do and say? 21. When were the results obtained? 22. What did Jesus charge the man ? 23. And what was he to do? 24. How would this be a testimony? 25. Did the man observe the secret? 26. State the result. 27. What two things did the people seek? 28. To what place did Jesus withdraw? 29. What did he do? 30. What class sat by him as he taught? 31. Tell what power was present. 32. Who was brought to Jesus ? 33. How did they get to Jesus? 34. Whose faith did he observe? 35. To whom did he speak? 36. What favor was given him? - 37. Of what did the Jews complain? 38. Was it done aloud? 39. State the question Jesus asked them. 40. Is one more difficult than the other ? 41. Which one would be visible ? 42. What would the visible one prove? 43. State the outcome on the afflicted man. 44. How were the people impressed? 45. Whom did Jesus call next? 46. What was his occupation? 47. How did he honor Jesus? 48. Who were the guests? 49. Why did the Pharisees murmur? 50. What illustration did Jesus use in reply? 51. Tell whom he came to call to repentance. 52. What question was asked on fasting? 53. Who is the bridegroom of 34th verse? 54. State the days meant in 35th verse. 55. Who will fast then ? 56. Would fasting be appropriate before those days? 57. How was appropriateness taught by a garment ? 53. What else was used for such lesson ? 1 Gennesaret was another name for the Sea of Galilee. The people were the ones meant by the common people in Mark 12:37. They were not prejudiced as were the priests and scribes, and manifested a hunger to hear the teaching of Jesus. 2 When a boat is said to be standing it means it is stationary in a certain spot. These two ships were thus being held while their owners were out washing their nets after a night's use in the sea. 3 Simon's full name was Simon Peter (verse 8). By moving the boat a little distance from the shore, the people could see and hear Jesus better. 4 The water was too shallow for fishing with a net where Jesus had been speaking. In bidding Simon to let the net down for a draught (for a "catch"), Jesus assured him that he would not be disappointed. 5 Simon's remarks indicated that his lowering of the net would be through faith in Jesus, even though the appearances were unfavorable. 6 The word brake is from an original that means a complete rending of the net. However, since the fish were not lost, the idea is that a full loss would have occurred had not something been done to prevent it. 7 The loss of the fish was prevented by the help of their partners in the business. Began to sink means the weight of the fish caused the boats to begin lowering, not that they were being submerged as yet. 8 Peter already had expressed faith in Jesus, but the success of the event was far beyond his expectation. Depart . . . I am a sinful man. He was so overawed by the power and wisdom of Jesus that he felt unworthy to be in his presence. 9 Doubtless the net had come into contact with a shoal or school of fish and no equipment would be able to withstand such a mass. But it required the wisdom of Jesus to know when and where to find such a group, hence the people were astonished. 0 This is the same event given notice in Matthew 4:18-21, but that passage omits the items of the net and mass of fish. 1 Forsook all includes their father, who is mentioned by Matthew. 2 Lepers were under perpetual quarantine by the law of Moses (Leviticus 13:45-46), which accounts for the earnestness of this unfortunate man. 3 Leprosy was an incurable disease by any natural means, hence it was cured miraculously by Jesus and the recovery was immediate. 4 Tell no man. He was not to take the time for publishing the event to the people, for he had a personal duty yet to perform in connection with his recovery. The ceremony still remaining for him is described in Leviticus 14:1-32. 5 In spite of the request, the leper spread his report to the deed until it caused the crowds to gather about Jesus to receive his favors. 6 This was the occasion when he walked on the sea towards the apostles to their terrified astonishment (Matthew 14:23-33). 7 These Pharisees and doctors (teachers) of the law were present for the purpose of finding fault with Jesus as we shall soon learn. 8 Sought means refers to the crowd that was in the way about the door. 9 See the comments at Mark 2:4 for the explanation of this verse. 0 A distinction is made between their and him. As far as the passage states, the palsied man did not have any faith to begin with. 1 This verse proves the statement made at verse 17 about the Pharisees. 4 For comments on this paragraph see those on Matthew 9:5-6. 5 Immediately is the important word here. Professed workers of miracles today require patients to have the faith that "holds out" long enough to effect a cure. The true miraculous healing did not call for a prolonged period of time. 6 For ordinary human beings to glorify God means for them to give Him the credit for the wonderful things accomplished. 7 Levi's other name was Matthew (Matthew 9:9). The receipt of custom was the tax office, and Levi was there because he was a publican whose business was to receive the taxes on behalf of the government. 8 At the bidding of Jesus, Levi left his work and followed. 9 Since Levi was a publican by occupation, it was natural that many of his guests at the feast would be from that class. 0 See the notes on Matthew 9:11 about eating with others. 1 If the Pharisees had been as righteous as they claimed, that would have been the very reason for Jesus to associate with the others, on the principle that the sick are the ones who need a physician. 2 This verse continues the same thought set forth in the preceding one. The sinner is the one who needs to be induced to repent. 3 John was dead and his disciples were fasting and mourning his absence. The disciples of Jesus still had him with them and hence had no occasion for mourning. 5 Children of the bride-chamber were the close friends of the bridegroom. After the wedding the bridegroom would leave and then it would be appropriate for them to mourn. In the illustration Jesus likens himself to the bridegroom. 8 This paragraph is explained by the comments on Matthew 9:16-17. 9 This verse has the same lesson that the preceding paragraph teaches, which is one of appropriateness. Incidentally, it also overthrows the theory referred to, that the illustration applied to the Old and New Testaments. According to that notion, Jesus teaches that every man would prefer the Old Testament as being the better. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 6 ABOUT THE SABBATH Luke 6:1-11 Luke 6:1 ---Now it came to pass on a sabbath,— Parallel accounts may be found in Matthew 12:1-14 and Mark 2:23-28 Mark 3:1-6. Another ground of pharisaic opposition to Jesus is here presented ; it is the supposed violation of the law of the Sabbath. The Pharisees condemned the disciples of Jesus, and he defends them because a condemnation of his disciples, when they followed his teaching, was a condemnation of Jesus. Jesus and his disciples were going through the grainfields on a Sabbath “ and his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.” The grain was possibly wheat or barley; as they went along through the standing grain, they plucked some of the grain and ate it. The footpath which they traveled led through the field and it was easy to pluck the grain as they went along. Plucking the grain was not a violation of the rights of property; they were not ac¬cused of trespassing; they were only accused of violating the Sabbath. The grain was eaten raw. Luke 6:2-5 ---But certain of the Pharisees said,—The Pharisees asked: “ Why do ye that which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath day?” In Matthew and Mark this question is addressed to Jesus concerning the conduct of his disciples; the inquiry was probably repeated in various forms in order to show their pious horror at the act; it seems from a comparison of these statements of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that Jesus did not himself eat of the corn; probably his mind was so intent on the great object of his mission as to be insensible to hunger at this time. We have different records of his beipg hungry and fatigued when his disciples were eating and resting; sometimes they were sleeping while he spent the time in prayer. (Matthew 26:40 Matthew 26:43 Matthew 26:45; Mark 14:37 Mark 14:40-41; Luke 9:32 Luke 22:45.) The question is put in the form of an accusation; it charges Jesus as being responsible for the violation of the Sabbath. And Jesus answering them said,—Jesus was the leader; his disciples had done nothing that was virtually a violation of the Sabbath, so Jesus replies to the question or accusation. He knew that the charge was really made against him. Jesus refers them to what David did when he was hungry. (1 Samuel 21:1-6.) They regarded David as the faithful servant of God; they did not condemn David for what he had done, and yet Jesus and his disciples had done just what David had done under similar circumstances. Jesus put the case very emphatically by asking the question. David was fleeing from Saul and came to the tabernacle, which was located then at Nob, a place a little north of Jerusalem. (Isaiah 10:32.) David simply took and ate of the showbread, the bread set forth and exhibited on a table in the holy place. It consisted of twelve loaves, which were changed every Sabbath, when the old bread was eaten by the priests. (Leviticus 24:9.) It seems from 1 Samuel 21:6 that the bread had just been changed, and hence David and his men ate it on the Sabbath. Jesus shows by the example of David, whom all regarded as a faithful servant of God, that things which are unlawful may be done under the law of necessity and self-preservation. Matthew presents a second and third argument, the one derived from the labors of the priests in the temple, the other from the prophet Hosea (Hosea 6:6), who declares that God desires not merely external observances, but the inward conditions of kindness and love. Mark (Mark 2:27) presents an argument not recorded by either Matthew or Luke that the Sabbath was designed for the good of man. And he said unto them,—Here Jesus declares that “ the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.” The final and crowning argument, growing out from the one just stated, and founded upon the relation of the Sabbath to Christ is here given. “ The Son of man” means the Messiah is head of the human race; he does not here deny his divinity. He is “ lord of the sabbath”; since he has come in human nature to redeem man, and all things pertaining to the human race are committed to him as its Head, he is emphatically the Lord of the Sabbath, which was made for the benefit of man. Jesus is indeed Lord of all things pertaining to the kingdom of God, hence he is Lord of the Sabbath. Luke 6:6 ---And it came to pass on another sabbath,—Luke does not mean that this incident occurred on the following Sabbath from that on which they plucked the grain; he is only recording what took place “ on another sabbath.” This time Jesus “ entered into the synagogue and taught”; as opportunity was presented Jesus taught the people. He taught on the Sabbath in their synagogue because they assembled for worship on that day. This time “ There was a man there, and his right hand was withered.” Luke alone mentions that it was “ his right hand” that was withered. This is a very precise way of stating incidents; this accuracy is characteristic of Luke’ s profession ; ancient medical writers always state whether the right or the left member is affected. “ Withered” means that he had lost the use of that hand, that it was diseased so that he could not use it. The “ right hand” was usually the most useful. It was similar to that with which Jeroboam was afflicted. (1 Kings 13:4-6.) Luke 6:7 ---And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him,—The “ scribes” were those who copied the law and finally became teachers of it; the “ Pharisees” were those of that sect or party of the Jews who were particular about the traditions of the fathers. They had a bad motive in observing what Jesus would do. (Luke 14:1; Acts 9:24.) They were watching Jesus maliciously. The growth of opposition is seen in that they now watch intently for an occasion to censure him. Possibly they thought that he would heal this man on the Sabbath; they thought that they had Jesus in a dilemma; either he must heal the man on the Sabbath, or he must refuse to do good when he has the power to do it; they thought that they had the grounds for bringing charges against him whatever he did. Luke 6:8 ---But he knew their thoughts;—This was an evidence of the divinity of Christ. Luke does not stop to prove his divin¬ity, but takes it for granted. In the Old Testament God’ s ex¬istence is treated this way. John expresses it as follows: “ Because he needed not that any one should bear witness con¬cerning man; for he himself knew what was in man.” (John 2:25.) Jesus commanded the man that had the withered hand to “ rise up, and stand forth in the midst.” He did this so that all could see the man with the afflicted hand, and could see when it was healed. The man obeyed him and “ stood forth.” Jesus makes the misery and the healing of the man conspicuous, yet he performs the cure with the word. Luke 6:9-10 ---And Jesus said unto them,—Jesus now put them in a dilemma; he asked them: “ Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good, or to do harm ?” They must admit that it was lawful to do good; they must also admit that it is wrong to do harm or fail to do good when one has an opportunity. Some understand this to mean that the question is used in a general sense other than in a particular sense. However, Jesus first asks in regard to doing good or evil in a general sense on the Sabbath, and then in a particular sense, to destroy life or to save life. Luke 6:11 ---And he looked round about on them all,—Matthew (Matthew 12:11-12) records the reference to a sheep that had fallen into a pit, but Mark and Luke omit this point. Jesus “ looked” “ on them all.” That “ look” of Jesus was very significant. Mark records (Mark 3:5) that Jesus “ looked round about on them with anger”; he had a righteous indignation because of the hardness of their hearts. He silenced his opposer and then pro¬ceeded to heal the afflicted hand. He performed the miracle without any bodily effort, or any word except the command, “ stretch forth thy hand.” The man obeyed and “ his hand was restored.” The enemies of Jesus could not charge him with laboring on the Sabbath; he did no work, but spoke to the man. The healing took place immediately; Jesus had only to speak and the man had to obey. The faith of the man is brought into its natural relation to his obedience and cure. Jesus gave the command; the man believed, and obeyed, and received the blessing. Luke 6:11 --But they were filled with madness;—The scribes and Pharisees were answered before they had expressed their thoughts; Jesus had looked into their hearts and had answered them; they were displeased with this. They were deprived of legal ground of objection since the miracle was performed without any action on the part of Jesus; there was nothing left for them to do except to receive the testimony of Jesus that he was the promised Messiah, or reject him and all the evidence that he had furnished. They could not deny the evidence. They seek to satisfy themselves with a senseless rage; this was a foolish thing for them to do. THE CHOICE OF THE TWELVELuk_6:12-19 Luke 6:12 ---And it came to pass in these days,—Parallel accounts of this are found in Matthew 10 Matthew 1-4 and Mark 3:13-19. “ In these days” designates the period during which the miracles just re-lated were wrought, and the Pharisees and others were seek¬ing how they might destroy him. He went “ into the mountain to pray.” There are several mountains in Galilee on the west side of the Sea of Galilee, some think that it was the same mountain from which the “ Sermon on the Mount” was preached. It is significant that he went there “ to pray” and that he continued “ all night in prayer to God.” Luke makes special reference to Jesus at prayer. (Luke 3 Luke 21 Luk 5:16 Luke 9:18 Luke 11:1.) Jesus resorted to special prayer before great and important events. (Mark 6:46; Luke 22:41-44; John 11:41-42 John 17:1.) Luke 6:13 ---And when it was day,—We must distinguish between the call of these men to discipleship (John 1:35-45), their call to be constant attendants, preachers, or evangelists (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20), and their selection as apostles which is here related. After their selection they were endowed with miraculous gifts and sent out on their “ limited commission.” (Matthew 10:1-4.) The next morning after the night had been spent in prayer “ he called his disciples,” and from his disciples he “ chose from them twelve, whom also he named apostles.” The word “ chose” means “ he made or constituted” to be “ apostles.” From the many disciples which he had made up to this time, he selected twelve of them and appointed them as his “ apostles.” “ Apostle” means one “ sent forth.” Jesus is named or called an “ Apostle.” (Hebrews 3:1.) Luke uses this term more than the other writers do. (Luke 9:10 Luke 11:49 Luke 17:5 Luke 22:14 Luke 24:10.) They are sometimes called “ the twelve” (Mark 4:10 Mark 6:7), or “ the twelve disciples” (Matthew 20:17), or simply “ disciples” (Luke 9:12). Mark (3: 14) gives the reason for their appointment “ that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach.”Luke 6:14-16 --Simon, whom he also named Peter,—There are four catalogues of the apostles, and Luke gives two of the four; Matthew and Mark give the other two. Each catalogue is di-vided into three classes, the names of which are never interchanged, and each class headed by a leading name. Peter heads the first class, Philip the second, James the third, and Judas Iscariot stands the last, except in the Acts, where his name is omitted because of his apostasy and death. Matthew enumerates the apostles two by two, in pairs; Mark and Luke one by one, individually; and Luke in the Acts, mixedly. This shows that the writers wrote independent of each other.Acts 1:13 Simon Peter Andrew, his brother James, son of Zebedee John, his brotherSimon Peter James John AndrewSimon Peter Andrew James JohnPeter John James AndrewPhilip Bartholomew Thomas MatthewPhilip Bartholomew Matthew ThomasPhilip Bartholomew Matthew Thomas Philip Thomas Bartholomew MattthewJames, son of Alphaeus Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus Simon, the Cananaean Judas IscariotJames, son of Alphaeus Thaddaeus Simon Judas IscariotJames, son of Alphaeus Simon Zelotes Judas, son of James Judas IscariotJames, son of Alphaeus Simon Zelotes Judas, son of James Peter stands at the head of the apostles; was given the keys of the kingdom; had a prominent part in the early church; wrote two books of the New Testament. Andrew was the brother of Peter; was born at Bethsaida and afterwards lived at Capernaum; nothing is known of his work. James, the son of Zebedee, was called “ James the Greater,” and is never mentioned in the New Testament apart from John his brother; he was the first martyr among the apostles. (Acts 12:2.) John, the brother of James, ranked next to Peter; he was the beloved apostle; he wrote five books of the New Testament— John, First John, Second John, Third John, and Revelation. Philip was a native of Bethsaida, a disciple of John the Baptist; his labors and death are not recorded in the New Testament. Bartholomew was the son of “ Bar- Tholmai,” or son of Tholmai; nothing is said of his labors. Matthew was also called Levi; he was a publican; he wrote the first book of the New Testament; nothing further is known of his labors. Thomas was also called “ Didymus” (John 11:16), which means “ a twin”; he has been called “ doubting Thomas,” but this should not be applied to him (John 20:24-29). James was the son of Alpheus; he is called “ James the less” (Mark 15:40); some think that he was the cousin of our Lord (Luke 24:10; John 19:25) and that he had a brother Joses (Matthew 27:56). Simon was called the “ Zealot”; Mark calls him “ the Cananaean” ; nothing is known of his work. Judas “ the son of James” was probably the same as “ Lebbaeus” or “ Thaddaeus”; some think he was the same as the author of Jude. Judas Iscariot is always designated as the traitor; he is thought to have been the only apostle who was not by birth a Galilean; the climax of his sins was the betrayal of Jesus and his suicide. Luke 6:17-19 ---and he came down with them,—Jesus now descended from the mountain and further instructed his disciples and taught the multitudes. He is now to be accompanied with his apostles. He “ stood on a level place”; we do not know where this was. Some think that it was near Capernaum. “ A great multitude” of his disciples and many from Judea, Jerusalem, and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon came to hear him. Luke here gives us a glimpse of the great crowds that attended his preaching; Jesus was at this time at the height of his popularity as a teacher; in fact, he was popular with all except those who decided against him with the Pharisees. Judea was south of Samaria and Jesus at this time was in Galilee. Palestine was divided into three divisions at this time— Galilee on the north, Samaria in the middle, and Judea on the south. and they that were troubled with unclean spirits—Those who were “ troubled with unclean spirits were healed”; trou¬bled” in the original first meant “ a crowd or mob” with the idea of “ want of arrangement and discipline,” and therefore of “ confusion” and “ tumult.” It is applied to the noise and tu¬mult of a crowd, and so passes into the sense of the “ trouble” and “ annoyance” caused by these, and of trouble generally. It is a term frequently used in medical language; here again we see evidence of Luke’ s profession. Many were possessed with demons and were harassed with even crowds of evil spirits. It is significant that they were healed. These “ unclean spirits” manifested their power through the bodies of men, and to a greater or less extent caused physical diseases. And all the multitude sought to touch him;—All those who were diseased, and there was a multitude of them, sought to touch Jesus. Their eagerness was so great and their faith in his power to heal was so strong that their touching Jesus was sufficient to affect their cleaning. Theirs was a touch of faith; “ for power came forth from him, and healed them all.” The multitudes were all the while seeking to touch him, for his virtue was going out of him. (Matthew 14:36; Mark 6:56.) Luke is more technical, using the strictly medical term, “ healed,” which occurs twenty-eight times in the New Testa¬ment, and seventeen of these are mentioned by Luke. Luke also uses the two words employed by Matthew and Mark, but always with some addition showing the nature of the saving, or healing. THE GREAT SERMONMat_6:20-34 Luke 6:20 ---And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples,—A parallel of this sermon is found in Matt. 5:1 to 7:28. This “ sermon” is a synopsis of a continuous discourse, spoken at one time; it may have been repeated a number of times and Luke gives a record of the sermon which was repeated at some later time than the record given by Matthew. Many think that Luke’ s account is in chronological order, while Matthew’ s is not. Both accounts in Matthew and Luke represent a great multitude present, but that Jesus spoke directly to his disciples; both Matthew and Luke present the main topics in the same order throughout; both begin with “ the beatitudes” and end with the illustration of the necessity of doing as well as hearing. Matthew records nine beatitudes, while Luke gives only four; yet Luke adds four “ woes” upon different classes of men which Matthew does not record. Luke puts the discourse in the second person, “ blessed are ye,” while Matthew has it in the third person. Blessed are ye poor:—The poor as used here means those who are “ poor in spirit,” and not the penniless. The humble in spirit and the contrite of heart are those who are poor in the spirit. The word here means the same as that used in Isaiah 66:1-3. The poor in this sense may lay just claims to “ the kingdom of God.” “ The kingdom of God” is the same as Matthew calls “ the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew uses “ kingdom of heaven” frequently, and Jesus used that phrase to describe the kingdom. “ Kingdom of heaven” and “ kingdom of God” are equivalent terms, though the pre-eminent title was “ kingdom of God,” since it was expected to be fully realized in the Messianic era, when God should take upon himself the kingdom by a visible representative. “ Kingdom of heaven” had a double meaning with the Jews— the historical kingdom and the spiritual kingdom. Luke 6:21 ---Blessed are ye that hunger now:—Luke adds the word “ now,” that is, in this life and at the present time. Those who earnestly and even painfully desire righteousness “ shall be filled”; that is, they shall be satisfied. They shall find com¬plete satisfaction in Christ, having his righteousness accounted to them and being satisfied and conformed to his image. (Proverbs 21:21; Isaiah 41:17 Isaiah 60:21; 2 Peter 3:13.)Blessed are ye that weep now:—Again Luke gives the word “ now,” its proper emphasis, and restricts the weeping. This is a stronger expression than Matthew uses—“ they that mourn.” It signifies that deep anguish of spirit which mani¬fests itself in groans and tears; it does not include all kinds of weeping, for the sorrow “ of the world worketh death.” (2 Corinthians 7:10.) It includes those who weep over their sins. “ Ye shall laugh”; not only shall they be comforted, as Matthew expresses it, but they shall rejoice with open joy. Their sins shall be forgiven; they shall be supported in trial and cheered with the blessings of God. Their joy shall be complete, both with respect to the present and the future state. (2 Corinthians 1:4 2 Corinthians 4:17; Revelation 21:4.) Luke 6:22 ---Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you,—This expresses in strong terms the enemies of the disciples of Christ; they shall be hated. The disciples of Christ represent the kingdom of God on earth, and the world hates the kingdom of God. The disciples of Christ are hated, reproached, perse¬cuted, and separated from their synagogues, their society, and outcasts among men. They are hated because they are the children of God; they are cast out as evil persons. All this is done “ for the Son of man’ s sake.” “ Son of man” is a phrase frequently used in the Old Testament. It was applied to man in general (Numbers 23:19; Job 25:6 Job 35:8; Psalms 8:4), and is used eighty-nine times in Ezekiel. It had also a Messianic meaning in the Old Testament. (Daniel 7:13.) Jesus most frequently used this phrase when speaking of himself; and there are but two instances in which it is applied to him by another, namely, by Stephen (Acts 7:56) and by John (Revelation 1:13 Revelation 14:14). As “ Son of man” Jesus asserts his authority over all flesh. Luke 6:23 ---Rejoice in that day,—They are to rejoice in the day that they are persecuted, when they are reproached for the name of Christ. They were even to “ leap for joy”; they should be so overjoyed that they were counted worthy to suffer for Christ that they could not contain themselves without a physical demonstration of their job. Christians have reason to rejoice amid persecutions in view of a reward so great and glorious. (2 Corinthians 4:17.) Luke 6:24-26 ---But woe unto you that are rich!—Luke here records four woes which Matthew does not record. These woes are not the expression of anger, but of lamentation and warning. “ Woe unto you” or “ alas for you!” Jesus is not uttering as a judge condemnation, but as the great Teacher and Prophet he declares the miserable condition of certain classes and warns them against it. The first woe is pronounced over those that are rich; this is the opposite of spiritual poverty; it includes those that make this world their possession and wealth and trust in riches. (Mark 10:24; Luke 12:21 Luke 18:24-25; 1 John 2:15.) Worldly riches are deceitful in their influence, chok¬ing the word and rendering it unfruitful. Woe unto you, ye that are full now!—This is the opposite of those who have spiritual hunger. This class has no cravings after spiritual food, but are satisfied with the worldly pleasures which only the earth can give. There is coming a time when they shall “ hunger.” When they are brought to their senses and are bereft of all spiritual food, then they shall famish for need of that which only can make the soul happy in the world to come. This will be an endless hunger. Woe unto you, ye that laugh now!—This woe is the opposite of weeping in verse 21. Those who engage in worldly pleasure, who indulge in frivolity, and dissipation, who live in gaiety and mirth in this world, shall in the world to come “ mourn and weep.” The frivolity will be turned into sorrow when they discover their miserable end, and are cast out into outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Proverbs 1:25-28; James 4:9.) Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you!—This was spoken to his disciples; they should not court the favor of men; neither should they seek to please men. The reason given here is that “ in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets.” This woe is opposite to the beatitudes in verses 22 and 23. “ All men” is a term used to include the world. A Christian should strive to have “ good testimony from them that are without” (1 Timothy 3:7), but when his words and conduct are such as to please and delight the un¬godly, affording no reproof for their wicked practices, he should be alarmed. “ Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:4.) The fathers sought to please “ the false proph¬ets” by encouraging them in their wicked ways, and the false prophets sought to please the people by crying “ peace, peace” ! when there was no peace. (1 Kings 22:6-14; Jeremiah 23:14 Jeremiah 28:10-11; Ezekiel 13:10-11.) Luke 6:27-28 ---But I say unto you that hear,—Jesus here puts in contrast his teachings with that of the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees. He had told his disciples that they would have enemies and would suffer persecution; he now instructs them how they should treat their enemies. He enforces the duty of love, its extent, and its standard. Luke here arranges his account of this sermon very different from that given by Matthew. Jesus enforced this by saying: “ I say unto you” ; he speaks not like their scribes. “ Love your enemies.” This sublime moral precept takes rank at the head of all moral du¬ties toward our fellow beings, for the obligation to love ene¬mies carries with it the obligation to love all who are not ene¬mies, but who are more or less friendly. bless them that curse you,—They would be persecuted and spoken evil against, but they were not to retaliate, and speak evil of their enemies, but were to bless them; speak words of peace, kindness, and love to those who insulted and reviled them. They were to pray for them; that is, pray that their enemies might cease to be enemies and to become disciples of Jesus. Praying for their enemies is the opposite of cursing their enemies. Jesus set the example for them when he prayed on the cross: “ Father, forgive them.” (Luke 23:34.) Stephen prayed the same prayer when he said: “ Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” (Acts 7:60.) Luke 6:29-30 ---To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek—Jesus gives two examples to illustrate the treatment of enemies in addition to enjoining the principle of love. The first example is that of turning the other cheek when smitten on one. “ Cheek” literally means “ the jaw”; the blow intended is not a mere slap, but a heavy blow, an act of violence rather than contempt. It was regarded as an affront of the worst sort to be struck in the face; it was severely punished both by Jewish and Roman laws. It was a proverb to turn the other cheek when receiving injury. (Lamentations 3:30.) This sets forth a prin¬ciple, and is not to be taken too literally. The other example is that if the cloak is taken from one then the coat should be given. This illustrates the same principle. From personal vi¬olence Jesus descends to the demanding of property by legal means. The “ cloak” was the outer garment; it was worn loose around the body; the “ coat” was the undergarment. We are here taught to suffer wrong rather than do wrong; we are to do good for evil. We are not to retaliate; this course, if followed by the disciples of Christ, would win a victory over our enemies. Give to every one that asketh thee;—This is to be inter¬preted by the principles of Christian love; Jesus is here oppos¬ing a retaliating and revengeful spirit; his disciples must not out of revenge withhold help from any who may need it. Christians should be ready and willing to help the needy at all times, even if they are enemies. (2 Corinthians 8:12; Galatians 6:10.) If anyone should take “ away thy goods ask them not again.”The disciples of Jesus are not to show a revengeful spirit, and should not do violence to anyone that despoils their goods; but they should be kind and liberal and strive to win back the offender to right conceptions of living. Christians should show a forbearing spirit at all times and never retaliate. Luke 6:31 ---And as ye would that men should do to you,—This is called the “Golden Rule”; Jesus gives it as a test of love to¬ward others. We should make the case of others our own, and as we would as honest and righteous people that others should do to us, we should do in like manner to them. This was a new requirement, but simply the application of the law to love our neighbor as ourselves. (Matthew 7:12.) Many have quoted similar statements from heathen authors, but those gave the negative part of this command, while Christ gave the positive. Not only are we to avoid doing to others what we in their situation would dislike, but we are to do to them whatever we would in righteousness wish them to do to us. This principle of determining what we shall do to others by first determining what we would have others do to us would keep down many of the difficulties that arise in society. This excludes all selfishness and enforces right thinking about oth¬ers as well as righteous conduct toward them. It is the rule that Jesus gave, and hence is the one that regulates Christian conduct toward each other and all others. Luke 6:32-36 ---And if ye love them that love you,—Sinners do good to others for policy’ s sake, not from principle; they do good to others, hoping to receive good from others, and not for the good that they love to do. Jesus here lays down a higher and nobler course of conduct; Christians are to do good to others with no thought of receiving again any good from others; they are to do it because they love to do good; do it because God does and will provide for those who follow Christ. If Christians only did good to those in the world who did them, good, they would do very little good in this world; if they did no more good than many church members do to each other, again they would be doing very little good. Christ gives a higher standard of conduct for his disciples. He sums up his teachings by saying that his disciples should love their ene¬mies, “ and do them good, and lend, never despairing.” There is no moral credit in simply loving those who love us; the wicked do that much; it is no mark of godliness simply to do good to those who do good to us; many godless people do like that. Be ye merciful,—Prove yourself merciful by the conduct above described that you may be like your Father. Matthew says “ be perfect.” God is the “ Father of mercies” (2 Corinthians 1:3), and as mercy is one of the chief attributes of God shown to man, to be merciful like him is to reach completeness in our sphere, as he is completely “ perfect” in his sphere. “ Merciful” means “ pitiful, compassionate”; it is the feeling produced by the misery and want of others. In James 5:11 it is very properly translated “ tender mercy.”Luke 6:37-38 ---And judge not,—This forbids harsh, censorious judg-ments of the character of others; it also forbids unjust criti¬cisms of the conduct of others. It does not forbid the forming of opinions as to what is right or wrong. It does admonish us that those opinions should be in love, never severe. Christians should not form hasty judgments, nor unkind judg¬ments; they should never form judgments based on jealousy, suspicion, envy, or hate. The Golden Rule should govern one here; one should judge another as he would wish to be judged; one should not condemn with severity, but weigh in Christian love every judgment formed. One should not seek to judge, but if one must, let it be a “ righteous judgment”; consider it as Christian.give, and it shall be given unto you;—There are two things which are forbidden here, namely, “ judge not” and “ condemn not”; one will be judged and condemned with the same degree of severity, both by man and God, that he passes on others. There are also two things commanded here, namely, “ release” and “ give.” One will receive what one gives; the Christians’ law of conduct here is to “ give and forgive.” This rule will keep peace and happiness in the church, in the community, and in the family. If one will follow this rule, one will receive full measure for it; “ good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they give into your bosom.” “ Pressed down” as dry articles, “ shaken together” as soft goods, “ running over” as liquids. Full measure shall be given to the one who so deports himself. This “ good measure” “ shall they give into your bosom.” The gathered folds of the wide upper garment, bound together with the girdle, formed a pouch. In the eastern country people who wore a loose, outer garment used the bosom to pour the contents of grain or other articles into as they would a sack. In Rth 3:15 Boaz said to Ruth: “ Bring the mantle that is upon thee, and hold it; and she held it; and he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he went into the city.” (See also Isaiah 65:7; Jeremiah 32:18.) Luke 6:39 ---And he spake also a parable unto them,—This “ parable” is more like a proverb; it is put in the interrogative form and the original shows that a negative reply is expected. “ Can the blind guide the blind?” The blind were very numerous in that country; Luke uses the word “ parable” some fifteen times instead of “ proverb” and for the longer narrative comparisons. This is the only use of the term parable concerning the metaphors in the “ Sermon on the Mount.” One blind man is very unfit to guide another; so those who undertake to teach others when they do not know the truth themselves are unfit, for they are blind guides. The “ pit” is an emblem of destruction ; the Pharisees are described as “ blind guides.” (Matthew 15:14; Matthew 23:16.) The reference here is to censor¬ious and critical teachers who may have a “ beam" in their eye. If ignorant and unskillful leaders attempt to guide people, they themselves will be the first to fall into the ditch or be de- sroyed. No one who is blind to spiritual truth can guide oth¬ers into it. Luke 6:40 ---The disciple is not above his teacher:—Here Jesus uses another proverbial statement that the disciple, so long as he is a disciple, or learner, cannot be above his master or teacher. The nature of the relationship of teacher and disciple is such that the teacher is above the disciple, and the disciple cannot become wiser and better than his teacher so long as this rela¬tionship exists. “ But every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher." The disciple naturally makes his teacher his model and imitates him. If they are blind and censorious teachers, they would infuse the same spirit into their disciples ; hence they would be unsafe and unfit instructors. “ Perfected" as used here signifies in the original to “ readjust, restore, to set right," whether in a physical or moral sense. In Galatians 6:1 it is used as restoring a brother taken in a fault; in medical language it means to set a bone or joint when it has been broken or dislocated. Luke 6:41-42 ---And why beholdest thou the mote—Jesus here re¬bukes and instructs those who would be teachers; suggestions to those who undertake to teach others are used here, and specific application made to the Pharisees and other religious teachers. In their censorious spirit, they magnify and are quick to see the smallest fault in their neigibor, but do not perceive the enormous faults in their own character. Some can always see the faults of others quicker than they can see their own faults; again the faults in others always seem much larger than their own faults; yet in reality their own faults may be much greater than those in the other person, whom they are criticizing. Jesus uses here “ the mote” and “ the beam” to enforce his teaching. The “ mote” and the “ beam” are proverbial contrasts, the “ mote” being the finest particle of dust or chaff against the “ beam” of timber for a house frame— like the contrast between sawdust and the saw log it¬self. Luke 6:43-44 ---For there is no good tree that bringeth forth corrupt fruit;—The general principle here announced by Jesus was that which all believe. The good tree cannot bear corrupt fruit, nor can a rotten tree bring forth good fruit. The character of the tree is determined by the kind of fruit it bears. The tree and its fruit illustrate the heart and the life; the bad heart yields a wicked life; the good heart, a worthy life. Honest and pure intentions, the sincere purpose to do right, yield naturally the fruit of right doing; so Jesus teaches us to estimate what the inner man is by what the outer man does. Men do not gather figs from thorn trees, nor grapes from a “ bramble bush.” Matthew uses “ thistle,” while Luke uses “ bramble bush.” Some think that Luke was acquainted with the “ bramble bush” and used it for medicinal purposes, as he was a physician. Luke 6:45 ---The good man out of the good treasure—The figure was changed from the general tree to the particular horn tree; the thorn tree was abundant in that country. So the figures are now applied to man’ s character and conduct; out of the good man come good words and deeds, because there is a treasury of goodness in his heart. His thoughts and affections are pure. Out of the evil man comes evil, because the store of things in his heart is evil. Language is the overflowing of the soul and indicates its state and condition. (Matthew 15:18; Romans 10:9-10; 2 Corinthians 4:13.) Jesus has passed by degrees from the conditions of the Christian life, the beatitudes, to the life itself; he has presented first the principle, then the life that is governed by the principle. Luke 6:46 ---And why call ye me, Lord, Lord,—The force of this ques-tion is seen when we look at the meaning of “ Lord”; “ Lord” means master, ruler; it is inconsistent to call one “ Lord” and yet not obey him. The question implies: “ Why do ye admit my right to rule and to lay down the law of your life, and yet not do the things which I command?” It seems that many, both real and professed friends, were thus addressing him; the repetition emphasizes a habitual profession. If they truly ac¬cepted Jesus as Lord, they would do what he commanded them; this was applicable to his apostles, also to his disciples today. The interrogative form makes this a two-edged sword; an emphatic warning, on one hand, against a mere profession, and an emphatic command, on the other, to make their profession and practice agree. Matthew (Matthew 7:21-23) makes a different application of this.--- Luke 6:47-48 ---Every one that cometh unto me,—The one who comes to Christ in the proper sense as used here becomes a disciple or learner. Doing, obeying, comes by hearing and implies faith. (Romans 10:14.) The “ words” as here used include all that Jesus had spoken during this sermon. Hearing is impor¬tant, but there is something else needed; faith and obedience must be added to hearing. “ But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves.” (James 1:22.) The one that both hears and does what Jesus says is like the man building a house, who digged deep, and placed a founda¬tion on the solid rock. Luke 6:49 ---But he that heareth, and doeth not,—The foolish hearer who fails to do what the Lord requires, yet because he has heard, thinks himself secure, finds his professed Christian character swept away in a sudden flood of evil, like the house stuck upon the earth, which the sudden floods undermine and sweep away into ruin. The hearer, who does not obey, has no solid foundation for his character or hope. His hearing is commendable, but his failing to do or obey is condemned. The same figure is used here of the wind, rain, and flood beating against the house of the one who had built his house upon the rock. The difference is great; the one withstood all the furiousness of the storm, but the other went down in hopeless ruin; so it will be with those who hear but do not obey. Verse 1 Luke's account in this chapter reveals: (1) how Jesus refuted the false charge of sabbath-breaking (Luke 6:1-5); (2) that he angered the Pharisees by healing a man with the withered hand on the sabbath day (Luke 6:6-11); (3) Jesus' appointment of the apostles after a night of prayer (Luke 6:12-19); and gives (4) the content of one of Jesus' sermons (Luke 6:20-49). THE FALSE CHARGE OF SABBATH Now it came to pass on a sabbath, that he was going through the grainfields; and his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. (Luke 6:1) On a sabbath ... There is strong textual evidence that this should read, "on a second-first sabbath" (English Revised Version (1885) margin); but the prevailing ignorance of what such an expression means has led to the rendition here. Even a great scholar like Robertson said, "We do not know what it means."[1] To any American boy raised on a farm, however, such an expression is not arcane at all. From April or May into late autumn, farmers customarily gathered for a local auction called "the first Monday," an event taking place each month during a certain season. Thus, the first-first Monday was in April or May, and the second-first Monday a month later, etc. Now there were definitely two first-sabbaths recognized by the Jews: "One at the commencement of the year, which would be called "first-first," and the other at the beginning of the ecclesiastical year, called "second-first."[2]Plucked ... did eat, rubbing ... What Jesus' disciples did here was legal, being specifically permitted (Deuteronomy 23:25); thus, as Summers noted, "It was lawful to eat grain in this way when walking through another man's field."[3] The charge of illegality, brought in the next verse, had regard to when this occurred, and not to WHAT occurred. [1] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 111.. [2] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 139. [3] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books Publisher, Inc., 1972), p. 7O. Verse 2 But certain of the Pharisees said, Why do ye that which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath day?The sabbath commandment given by God in the Decalogue was simple enough. "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy." A cessation of all work was required, travel suspended, except for short distances; and all chores, such as gathering sticks, were forbidden. To divine regulations, the Pharisees had added dozens of others, resulting in the most ridiculous requirements. In their view, Jesus' disciples were guilty of "reaping" by plucking the ears, "threshing" by rubbing them in their hands, and "carrying burdens" by conveying the grains to the mouth. It should be clearly understood, then, that what Jesus was charged with violating was not God's word at all, but the legal doodlings of the Pharisees. Why do ye ...? In the Matthew parallel (Matthew 12:1-14), it is recorded that the charge was leveled against the disciples; but, of course the Pharisees charged both Jesus and the disciples, the latter for the actual deeds they misconstrued as violations, and Jesus for the actions he permitted and condoned. It seems incredible that Christian scholars, in many cases, seem to be blind to the fact that both Christ and his disciples were totally innocent of these false charges. Even Ash writes that "their wrong was not theft,"[4] requiring the deduction that it was presumably something else; but the disciples did nothing wrong. Jesus emphatically said of them that they were "guiltless" (Matthew 12:7). ENDNOTE: [4] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972), p. 111. Verse 3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read even this, what David did, when he was hungry, he, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and took and ate the showbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests alone?The purpose of Christ in this citation was not to equate his actions with those of David. David's actions were "not lawful," as the Lord here stated; Jesus' actions involved no guilt whatever. The Lord in this appeal to the Scriptures stressed the unfairness, hypocrisy, and deceit of the Pharisees, who improperly accepted David's illegal actions as allowable, freely admitting that David's deeds required no reproof; but who nevertheless falsely charged Jesus and his disciples with the capital offense of sabbath-breaking, basing it on actions completely innocent. If this had not been the case, the Pharisees would merely have said, "Ah, so you admit that you are a sinner just like David." See fuller comment on this in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 12:1-12. There is not the slightest hint that Jesus "legalized" David's unlawful actions, thus laying down a new law permitting God's regulations to be abrogated on the basis of "human need." Gilmour's deduction that "Human need can override the letter of the law"[5] is a classical example of fallacious interpretations grafted upon this episode; and yet the same author admitted that "No formal charge of sabbath defilement was ever laid against Jesus."[6] The Pharisees did not allege sabbath-breaking at any of Jesus' trials. [5] S. MacLean Gilmour, Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), Vol. VIII, p. 111. [6] Ibid., p. 113. Verse 5 And he said unto them, The Son of man is lord of the sabbath.There were a number of arguments by which Jesus responded to the Pharisees' false charge. (1) He showed the biased and unprincipled motives of those making the charge, as evidenced by their approval of a real violation on the part of David, and yet alleging against the Son of David a "violation" founded on their hair-splitting interpretations! (2) He showed that "on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless," and that "one greater than the temple" was among them (Matthew 12:5-6). Jesus, the true and greater temple, of which the old temple was merely a type, was being served by his disciples; and, even if their actions were illegal (although they were not) they would have been sanctified by the holy purpose of serving the greater temple. In the old temple, priests continually did things which were not allowed otherwise than in temple service. (3) He showed that the spirit of the ancient law of God should have been heeded, not merely the letter of it. "If ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless" (Matthew 12:7). This quotation from Hosea 6:6 reveals that the Pharisees had failed to read their own scriptures. To make the conveyance of a spoonful of wheat to the mouth a violation of God's sabbath, as carrying a burden, was contrary to the spirit of God's law; and, if the Pharisees had heeded the spirit of it, they would not have condemned Jesus' innocent disciples. (4) Jesus also taught that keeping the sabbath day "holy" was not intended to be fulfilled merely by what men did not do on that day, but by what they actually did. Jesus asked, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good, or to do harm? to save life, or destroy it?" (see under Luke 6:9). (5) Jesus claimed absolute lordship of the sabbath, as in the verse before us. In the Greek, "Lord" comes first in the sentence, and so is emphatic. He controls the sabbath instead of being controlled by it. In the Jewish mind, this was tantamount to claiming deity. Jesus did not in these words set aside the law. He interpreted it in its true meaning.[7]The sabbath ordinance, rightly understood, was an expression of Jesus' own will; and, therefore, his expression of lordship over it was not in order to violate it, but to uplift it and free it from the folly of human abuse, and to restore it as a blessing to mankind. "The true sabbath rest," as Lamar said, "is found in him; it begins here in rest for the soul, and ends hereafter in the eternal rest."[8](6) "The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27). What is true of the sabbath is true of all of God's laws. They were not given to hinder and limit men, but to free and bless men. Jesus in this statement called attention to God's intention in the giving of his holy laws; and it is not a statement that men may do as they please with regard to God's laws, violating them when they wish to do so, on the grounds of "human need." A somewhat fuller treatment of this question has been offered here because, of all the passages in the New Testament, this has become the most popular in the theology of those who would reduce Christianity to a basic humanism, the major premise of which is this: "If human needs are restricted by God's law, it is God's law that should be set aside; and, of course, `human needs' refers actually to `human WANTS'!" This is the great error of our generation. [7] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 111. [8] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), Vol. II, p. 103. Verse 6 And it came to pass on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man there, and his right hand was withered. And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath; that they might find how to accuse him.ANOTHER SABBATH This miracle was performed under test conditions, with avowed enemies of Jesus present and observing it. Jesus, it would appear, healed every malady that came to his attention; for there seems to be no doubt at all on the part of the Pharisees that Jesus would heal this man; they only wondered if he would do it on the sabbath. Verse 8 But he knew their thoughts; and he said to the man that had his hand withered, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth. And Jesus said unto them, I ask you, is it lawful on the sabbath to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or destroy it? He knew their thoughts ... Why downgrade this by a comment that "This required no special knowledge on his part"?[9] The clear intention of Luke, in these words, was that of showing the omniscience of Jesus (John 2:25). To save a life, or destroy it ... Jesus thus announced the principle that the withholding of good that may be done is equivalent to doing harm, and that refusing to save a life that could be saved is the same as destroying it. The Old Testament plainly taught that the life, even of a beast which had fallen into a pit, could be saved on the sabbath; and Jesus extended the principle, as should have been obvious to the Pharisees, as applicable to men also. Here too is subtle appeal to their consciences. The Pharisees had already decided to kill Jesus (John 5:18); and here they were, on a sabbath day, laying a net to capture Jesus with the intent of killing him and yet THEY would allege sin against Jesus for healing a man on that same day. As Miller put it, "While Jesus was saving a life on the sabbath, they were using the sabbath to take counsel how they might destroy him.[10][9] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 71. [10]Donald G. Miller, The Layman's Bible Commentary (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1959), Vol. 18, p. 77. Verse 10 And he looked round about them all, and said unto him, Stretch forth thy hand, And he did so; and his hand was restored, But they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.They were filled with madness ... The expression here is very strong, indicating that those religious bigots were out of their rational minds with malicious fury. And why were they so angry? (1) Because he had shown his power to work a miracle; (2) because he had done so in contradiction of their rules; (3) because he had thus proved that he was from God, making them WRONG in their interpretations; (4) because Jesus had openly condemned THEIR views; and (5) because he had done these things in the sight of multitudes, - these were the reasons.[11]Evidently, Jesus deliberately challenged the religious hierarchy on the question of their sabbath regulations, the same being an excellent example of the manner in which they had made the word of God of none effect by their traditions. Trench observed that there were seven of these sabbatical wonders. These were: (1) Curing the demoniac in the synagogue of Capernaum (Mark 1:21); (2) healing Simon's wife's mother (Mark 1:29); (3) healing of the man at Bethesda (John 5:9); (4) curing the man with the withered hand; (5) giving sight to the man born blind (John 9:14); (6) curing the woman with a spirit of infirmity (Luke 13:14); and (7) healing the man with dropsy (Luke 14:1).[12]Before leaving this, we note the pseudocon arising from Luke's attributing the question, "is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?" to Jesus, whereas in the other gospels, it is the Pharisees who ask the question. As Trench said, "Jesus answers question with question, as was so often his custom (Matthew 21:24; Luke 10:29)."[13] Thus the true record is the composite of all that the sacred gospels recorded. [11] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), Vol. Luke-John, p. 44. [12] Richard Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1953), p. 337. [13] Ibid., p. 346. Verse 12 And it came to pass in these days, that he went out into the mountain to pray; and he continued all night in prayer to God.THE NAMING OF THE TWELVE The humanity of Jesus is emphasized in Luke, the frequent mention of Jesus' prayers evidently having that purpose in view. Since the God-man continued all night in prayer, who is there among his followers who need not to continue steadfastly in prayers? Frank L. Cox wrote: Every great undertaking in our lives should be preceded by a season of solitude and prayer. This will assure us of God's presence and power in our undertaking.[14]ENDNOTE: [14] Frank L. Cox, According to Luke (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1941), p. 17. Verse 13 And when it was day, he called his disciples; and he chose from them twelve, whom also he named apostles: Simon, whom he also named Peter, and Andrew his brother, 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.Whom also he named apostles ... Gilmour is obviously in error in the assertion that "It is an anachronism on Luke's part to assert that Jesus conferred it (the titleAPOSTLES)."[15] It is true, of course, that the word "apostle" is from a Greek term; but Jesus knew at least two languages; and the borrowing of this word from the Greek tongue was exactly what one might have expected of him who clearly envisioned the preaching of the gospel in the whole world (Matthew 14:9). Besides that, if Jesus did not bestow this title, then who did? It would never have been accepted by the primitive church unless Jesus had indeed given it. Simon, whom he also called Peter ... For extended comment on this apostle, whose name appears first in all New Testament lists of the Twelve, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 16:18. Andrew ... James ... John ... Philip ... Bartholomew ... For articles on these individual apostles see index of my Commentary on John. Matthew and Thomas ... See the introduction to my Commentary on Matthew and comments on Matthew 9:9 with regard to the apostle Matthew, and under John 20:25 for discussion of Thomas. James the son of Alphaeus ... This Alphaeus was different from the man who was the father of Matthew. "Had that not been the case, this James would have been more clearly identified as `the brother of Matthew'."[16]Simon who was called the Zealot ... There was a revolutionary group in those days which bore this title; but there is no proof that "Simon the Zealot was a former member of a terrorist group dedicated to the overthrow of Rome."[17] As Ash declared, "(The term) Zealot probably indicated one with a particular zeal for the law ... It is impossible to know if the term was meant in a religious or patriotic sense here."[18] If the word is construed politically, then it must have reference to Simon's former status, not that which he held while an apostle. Judas Iscariot ... On this apostle, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:21; Matthew 26:49; Matthew 27:3-10. Also, see under John 13:2 in my Commentary on John. [15] S. MacLean Gilmour, op. cit., p. 114. [16] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 73. [17] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 115. [18] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 115. Verse 17 And he came down with them, and stood on a level place, and a great multitude of his disciples, and a great number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear him and be healed of their diseases; and they that were troubled with unclean spirits were healed. And all the multitude sought to touch him; for power came forth from him, and healed them all.This is Luke's prelude to the Great Sermon generally identified with the Sermon on the Mount; but the conviction here is that there is no way, logically, to view this as a report of the same sermon Matthew recorded. This sermon followed immediately upon the naming of the Twelve; Matthew's was long before that time. This sermon was on the "plain," Matthew's on the mountain; here Jesus stood, there he sat. This sermon has thirty verses in the record; Matthew's has over a hundred. The beatitudes, as uttered here, are unlike those in Matthew. The woes given here are not in Matthew at all etc., etc. Efforts of commentators to "harmonize" this account with the Sermon on the Mount usually discredit one or the other accounts, sometimes both of them. For example Gilmour suggested that "Luke took over the sermon much as it stood in `Q,' and Matthew expanded it."[19] For those who are not familiar with such things, "Q" is the name assigned by scholars to an imaginary "source" which they fancy was used by the synoptic writers; what they forget to mention when they are referring to this imaginary "source" is that it has no historical existence whatever, has never been seen by anyone, and that it has no existence at all, in fact. See the comments at the close of the previous chapter under "a" for discussion of Jesus' method of preaching the same sermon with variations at various times and places. "There is no reason why a teacher like Jesus would not repeat lessons as the occasion demanded."[20] Furthermore, it is folly to suppose that any gospel author reported everything Jesus said on any occasion. The very idea that the extended sermon recorded here by Luke, and which Jesus delivered in the presence of so great a multitude, was a mere utterance of these thirty verses, and nothing else, cannot be logically supported. These verses may easily be read in less than three minutes! Therefore, if this record in Luke is a report of the same sermon recorded by Matthew, it must be allowed that Jesus said everything recorded in both; but if, on the other hand, these were two different sermons at different places and times, it is still true that Jesus said everything recorded by both authors. Efforts to "harmonize these sermons" as being one discourse are not satisfactory. The agreement here is with Ash who made this "The Sermon on the Plain,"[21] and with Boles, who said, "Luke gives a record of the sermon which was repeated at some later time than the record given by Matthew."[22] Arguments based upon the similarity of content in the two sermons and upon the order and placement of various episodes contained in both are irrelevant, because a similar order and content would also have appeared in any repetitions of the sermon, whenever and wherever preached. [19] S. MacLean Gilmour, op. cit., p. 112. [20] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 116. [21] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 116. [22] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 134. Verse 20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed are ye poor; for yours is the kingdom of God.THE SERMON ON THE PLAINBlessed are ye poor ... The poor of this earth are blessed in that they are not so much tempted to trust in riches which they do not have. Exactly this same truth appears in Mark 10:23, "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God." What Matthew recorded with regard to the "poor in spirit" is equally true; but these beatitudes are not the same. They interpret each other, so that the misapplication of this beatitude by making poverty itself to be the equivalent of salvation is avoided. The kingdom of God ... This is the same as the "kingdom of heaven" elsewhere in the New Testament. Verse 21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.Hunger is a dreaded state among men; but Christ here pointed out that the hungry of earth are to be enriched by his teachings, that the alleviation of their hunger shall follow acceptance of his message. Has not this been true wherever Christianity has gone? The best good news the hungry ever had is that they shall eat. Christ's teaching assures this. A queen said, "Let them eat cake"; but Jesus said to the hungry, "Ye shall be filled." Wherever Christ is preached, there the hardships of the poor are relieved. This beatitude says, in effect, "Blessed are you hungry people; you shall be filled as a result of the compassion that shall flow from Christ's teaching." Verse 22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.This is a variation of the same thought of Mat 5:10-12. "Blessed are the persecuted for righteousness' sake." In such a pronouncement, Jesus had in view the antagonism between light and darkness, the inevitable hatred of the carnal man of all that is holy and spiritual. For the Son of man's sake ... This is the qualifier of the whole beatitude. It is not merely "the hated" who are blessed, but those who are hated because of their acceptance of the Son of man as Lord and Saviour. As Trench noted: In no single passage of the New Testament where "Son of man" occurs (and there are eighty-eight in all) does it mean other than the Messiah, the Man in whom the idea of humanity was altogether fulfilled.[23]ENDNOTE: [23] Richard Trench, op. cit., p. 344. Verse 23 Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy: for behold your reward is great in heaven: for in the same manner did their fathers unto the prophets.See under preceding verse. Your reward is great in heaven ... It has been alleged that Luke's emphasis in this passage is principally social; but this verse disproves such a view. The reason that the poor and the hungry are blessed, in the last analysis, flows out of the eternal reward stored up for them that love the Lord (2 Timothy 4:7-8). If one should take the hope of heaven out of the New Testament, there would be nothing left. Further comment on "heaven" is found in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 6:9-13. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 The Pharisees would not accuse the disciples of stealing, for they knew what the law said on the subject of taking the corn, but pretended to object to their doing so on the sabbath because it was a holy day. 4 This paragraph is explained at Matthew 12:4. 5 God and his Son are one in purpose and were together in giving the law. Therefore Jesus had the right to apply his own law as he saw fit. 6 Jesus was busy every day and taught the people whenever the opportunity came. His reason for entering the synagogue on sabbath days was because on that day the Jews assembled there to read and hear read the law. The man's hand was withered as a result of some obstruction in the circulation of his blood. 7 The scribes and Pharisees pretended to be zealous for the sanctity of the sabbath. That was only a screen for their envy of Jesus because of his teaching against their hypocritical life. 8 Jesus could read their thoughts and decided to head them off from their intended criticism. The man was told to stand, he being normal except the condition of his hand. This brought him into full view of the people in the building. 9 See the comments on Mark 3:4 for the questions Jesus asked. 0 Jesus looked round to make sure of the attention to his work. The man's hand only was afflicted, hence he was able without miraculous help to stretch out his arm. With that act came the complete restoration of the afflicted hand. 1 Madness is from ANOIA which Thayer explains to be a condition in which they were "expressing themselves in rage." This was because they were completely baffled by the unexpected way in which Jesus handled the case. They communed or consulted with each other as to how they might destroy him. 2 Jesus had an important problem to solve, which was the selection of men to appoint over his kingdom that was at hand. It was fitting that he should spend the preceding hours of night in prayer to his Father. 3 Jesus had many disciples, but out of them he chose twelve only to be his apostles, to be sent into the world with the message of salvation through the Gospel. 6 See the notes at Matthew 10:2-4 in connection with this paragraph. 8 This paragraph corresponds with Matthew 4:23-25, which see. 9 Virtue is from DUNAMIS, one of the words rendered by "power" in many places. The crowds sought to touch Jesus to obtain this power to cure their diseases. 0 Luke's account of the sermon -on the mount begins with this verse. That sermon is related with more detail by Matthew, likewise my comments are more extended at that place, which are to be found in Matthew 5, 6, , 7. The reader should consult that account in connection with this chapter of Luke. 1 There is some slight variation in the way Luke words these several verses, from the way Matthew gives them, but the thoughts are the same. 2 Another word for blessed is "happy," and the original is so rendered in many passages. These evil treatments must have been inflicted because of their devotion to the Son of man, in order for the disciples to be given this blessing. 3 The blessing was not to be in this life but after reaching heaven. In suffering for the sake of righteousness, the disciples were classed with the prophets. 4 This is somewhat figurative, meaning to be enjoying the pleasures of this world by neglecting the obligation of a righteous life. 5 Full and hunger, laugh and weep, are figures used for the purpose of contrast. The thought is the same as expressed by comments on the preceding verse. 6 A righteous man is not popular with the majority of mankind. If he does his duty he will condemn sin, and that will cause the guilty ones to speak against him. 7 Love your enemies. See the long note at Matthew 5:43 on "love." 8 To bless means to wish for something beneficial to happen to one. It does not mean anything merely for pleasure, but that which will actually do him good. 9 See the comments at Matthew 5:39. 0 This is explained at Matthew 5:42 with its comments. 1 This verse is popularly spoken of as the "golden rule." It is commented upon at length at Matthew 7:12 which the reader is urged to consult. 2 See the long note on the word "love" at Matthew 5:43. 3 This verse refers to men who bestow favors on others with a selfish motive, thinking chiefly of their own personal gain they hope to get in return. 4 This verse deals with the same selfishness as the preceding one. 5 Love, do good, and the other terms of service to others, are used in the sense of unselfish ministrations for the chief purpose of doing good. If gratitude returns some reward it is right to accept it, but that, should not be the motive. The Highest bestows the blessings of creation on all mankind, and His example is cited as a rule for the disciples to follow. 6 To be merciful means to be more lenient toward an offender than his conduct would entitle him to expect, but not to the extent of encouraging him in wrong doing. 7 Judge not, etc. See the comments at Matthew 7:1. 8 Almost every rule has some exceptions, but usually if a man is kind and generous with others, they will remember him when he gets in need. That is the meaning of Pro 18:24 that has been erroneously applied to Christ. That passage is explained in volume 3 of the Old Testament Commentary. The phrases in our verse are figurative, drawn from the act of crowding out unnecessary space in measuring produce. 9 A parable is a comparison. One blind man following another is like a person closing his mental eyes and letting a false teacher tell him how to go. 0 A disciple is a learner, and such a person could not know more than his teacher. Perfect means complete; if the disciple will absorb all of his master's teaching he will be like him which should satisfy him. 2 See the comments on Matthew 7:3-5. 4 Trees and shrubs are used to illustrate the lives of men. When we see a man practicing evil we know he has an evil heart. (See Matthew 15:19.) 5 Words as well as deeds spring from the heart, whether good or bad. 6 The word "lord" means ruler. It is inconsistent to call Jesus by a name that means one who is in the rule, but then refuse to obey what he commands. 9 This paragraph is explained at Matthew 7:24-27. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 7 THE AT Luke 7:1-10 Luke 7:1 ---After he had ended all his sayings—Having ended his ser-mon, Luke proceeds to narrate other events. A parallel of this account is found in Matthew 8:5-13. Luke’ s account is fuller at the beginning, but Matthew’ s record is fuller at the close; Matthew records some things that Luke omits, and Luke records some that Matthew does not. The context here shows that this discourse which has just been narrated was delivered at one time, and not a mere collection of sayings or detached parts of different discourses. Jesus had ended all of these sayings “ in the ears of the people’’; the discourse recorded in chapter 6 was for the instruction of the people as well as his disciples. “ He entered into Capernaum.’’ The language implies that he was not far from Capernaum when he delivered this discourse; Capernaum was the center of his operations, and to it he frequently returned from his preaching tours. Luke 7:2 ---And a certain centurion’ s servant,—A “ centurion” was a Roman officer commanding a hundred men. This one was probably in the service of Herod Antipas, and stationed at Capernaum as an important provincial town and a place of considerable traffic on the Sea of Galilee, to preserve order there and in the adjacent country. Matthew tells us that he was a gentile (Matthew 8:10), but he seems to have been very strongly attached to the Jewish nation. He may have been a proselyte to the Jewish faith; he would be called a “ proselyte of the gate,” one who lived among the Jewish people and conformed to what were called the seven precepts of Noah, which prohibited blasphemy, idolatry, murder, robbery, rebellion, and eating of blood and things strangled. Those who submit¬ted to circumcision and became naturalized Jews were termed “ proselytes of righteousness.” The New Testament mentions three other centurions, £tnd all of them are favorably men-tioned. (Luke 23:47; Acts 10:1 Acts 27:1 Acts 27:3 Acts 27:43.). His servant was sick and “ at the point of death.” This servant was very dear to the centurion. Matthew reports the servant as being grievously tormented. Luke 7:3 ---And when he heard concerning Jesus,—He heard of the mi-raculous power of Jesus and “ sent unto him elders of the Jews.” They were persons who were elders or magistrates of the city; they may have been officers of the synagogue which this centurion had built. The term “ elder” was first applied to men of age (Genesis 24:2 Genesis 50:7) ; and as persons of right age and experience would naturally be called to the management of public affairs (Joshua 24:31), it afterwards became an official title (Exodus 3:16 Exodus 4:29 Exodus 19:7 Exodus 24:1 Exodus 24:9). The office grew out of the patriarchal system. Matthew makes no mention of the elders of the Jews coming to Jesus. It may be that the centurion followed the elders, or what he did through his representatives may be said of himself as doing. Luke 7:4 ---And they, when they came to Jesus,—The elders were very urgent in their request that Jesus go as quickly as possi¬ble to the centurion’ s house. Luke 7:5 ---For he loveth our nation---They give as their reason that he was “ worthy” that Jesus should do this for him. The Jews pleaded the worthiness of the centurion, but the centurion declared his own unworthiness; truly greatness and humility go together. The elders of the Jews wanted to repay him for what he had done in building a synagogue for them. This centurion had built a synagogue at his own expense. Every town where there were Jews had its synagogue. Luke 7:6 ---And Jesus went with them.—Messengers were sent in succession to an important person of whom a favor was de-sired, making the request in varied form with many expressions of humility in the East. Even when it was known that the request would be granted, it was customary to send again, urging the great one not to put himself to trouble, and offering apologies and expression of unworthiness. So the centurion followed this custom; Luke 7:7 ---the centurion sent friends to Him---he sent his friends to Jesus, saying: “ Lord, trouble not thyself; for I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof.”Luke 7:8 ---For I also am a man set under authority,—Being a cen-turion this man would be under the authority of higher officials, as the centurion had command of only one hundred soldiers; however, he could say to those under him: “ Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh.” He could command his servants to do anything that he wished done, and they would do it. This centurion appears to have regarded the sickness of his servant either as due to some peculiar state of body or to demons, which were under the authority of Jesus, precisely as the centurion’ s soldiers were subject to his order. It is remarkable that while Matthew calls the disease “ palsy,” Luke, a physician, does not name the disease. Luke 7:8 ---For I also am a man set under authority, having under myself soldiers---He recognized that Christ's authority was greater than his. Luke 7:9-10 ---I have not found so great faith,—When Jesus heard what the centurion had said about commanding and having it done, he turned to the multitude that was following him and said: “ I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” These words were spoken to the Jews who followed Jesus. The centurion, a Gentile and a military man, Jesus commended as having greater faith than anyone he had found among God’ s chosen people. This is the first recorded instance of faith in Christ’ s power to heal at a distance; this great faith was not found in some favored Israelite, but in one far less privileged and favored, a Gentile. When those who had been sent to Jesus returned, they “ found the servant whole.” Jesus had healed or restored to health the servant as the centurion had requested. RAISING THE SON OF THE WIDOW OF NAINLuk_7:11-17 Luke 7:11---And it came to pass soon afterwards,—Soon after the restoration of the centurion’ s servant in Capernaum, Jesus and his disciples and the great multitude went to the city “ called Nain.” “ Nain” is not used anywhere else in the Bible; its exact location has not been determined. Many think that it was on the northern slope of Mount Hermon, immediately west of Endor, which lies in a further recess of the same range of mountains. It was probably about twelve or fifteen miles from Capernaum. Luke is the only writer of the gospel that records this miracle, as John is the only one that records the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead. We do not know why others omitted the record of this miracle. Jesus was on one of his preaching tours through Galilee when he went to Nain. Luke 7:12 ---Now when he drew near to the gate of the city,—This small town was a walled city, hence the “ gate” of entrance to it. Most of the towns and villages were walled for protection. As Jesus and his company came near to the gate, “ there was carried out one that was dead.” The burial of bodies within the town or city was forbidden, hence the sepulchers and tombs were located without the limits of the cities and vil¬lages. Luke describes very minutely the scene; it was a “ fu¬neral procession” of “ the only son of his mother” and this mother “ was a widow.” Luke 7:13 ---And when the Lord saw her,—It is significant that the “ Lord saw her” ; no bereaved heart or contrite spirit ever es¬caped his attention. It seems that Jesus and his disciples with a multitude following him were going into the city of Nain and met the funeral procession as it came out of the city. It is very probable that this mother had never seen Jesus before ; he was a stranger to her so far as we know, and yet when he saw her he said in his compassion for her, “ Weep not.” The sympathies of Jesus are in full and lively exercise for this bereaved mother. The word translated “ weep” is that which denotes the outward expression of grief. The people in the East gave vent to their sorrow in loud shrieks and lamen¬tations over the bodies of the dead. Oftentimes they employed persons whose office it was to sing dirges and utter do¬lorous groans and lamentations; they were “ professional mourners.” The louder they would groan and shriek the greater was the grief supposed to be. It is not known whether there were such “ professional mourners” in this fu¬neral procession that Jesus met. Luke 7:14 ---And he came nigh and touched the bier:—“ The bier” was an open frame upon which the dead body, wrapped in folds of linen, was placed and carried on the shoulders of four, and sometimes six persons, to the grave or tomb. Jesus touched the bier as a signal for the bearers to stand still. “ The bearers stood still.” There must have been a dignity and air of authority in our Lord to stop in this way the pro¬cession of such a solemn occasion by a simple gesture, or the mere laying his hand upon the bier. When the bearers stopped Jesus simply said: “ Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.” The authority and power with which Jesus spoke should be observed. There are three records of Jesus’ raising the dead. The first is the raising of the daughter of Jairus (Matthew 9:18-19 Matthew 9:23-26; Mark 5:22-24 Mark 5:35-43; Luke 8:41-42 Luke 8:49-56); the widow’ s son (Luke 7:11-17); and the raising of Lazarus (John 11:35-53). In all of these miracles Jesus’ authority is expressed by “ Damsel, I say unto thee, Arise” ; “ Young man, I say unto thee, Arise” ; and “ Lazarus, come forth.” All of these forms are expressive of our Lord’ s power to perform the act. There are seven instances of restoration to life recorded in the Bible: (1) the child of the widow of Zarephath (1 Kings 17:22); (2) son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:33-36) ; (3) the case of a man raised by touching Elisha’ s bones (2 Kings 13:21) ; (4) Jairus’ daughter (Matthew 9:18-19 Matthew 9:23-26; (5) the widow’ s son (Luke 7:11-17); (6) the raising of Lazarus (John 11:35-53); and (7) Tabitha or Dorcas by Peter (Acts 9:36-42). Our Lord’ s resurrection differs from all these; these all died again, but Jesus arose never to die again. Luke 7:15 ---And he that was dead sat up,—The young man that was dead obeyed the voice of Jesus and sat up and began to speak. His speaking proved the reality of the raising from the dead to the large company. It should be recalled that Jesus and his disciples were present and a great multitude had followed them; again there was a great multitude that was following the funeral procession; putting these two large groups together, we have many witnesses to this resurrection. In no case where the dead were restored to life does the Bible tell us what they said; their experience and their knowledge of anything beyond death are withheld from us. The body was in full view and there was no possible chance for deception in this case. It is a beautiful touch of sympathy described by Luke when he reports that Jesus “ gave him to his mother.” Luke 7:16-17 ---And fear took hold on all:—The people were filled with awe, and praised God for what they had seen. In their praise they said: “ A great prophet is arisen among us; and, God hath visited his people.” They at once recalled Elijah and Elisha and declared that a great prophet like these had arisen “ among us,” and that God had visited his people again with a prophet. It had been about four hundred years since the prophets ceased to bring God's message to the people. And this report went forth concerning him—Such a miracle would be reported quickly and would have a wide circulation; the whole country would ring with the many accounts and rumors of his work. All Galilee, Samaria, and Judea would be talking of this great prophet and of his wonderful power. With the rumor would go the probability that this prophet was the Messiah himself. The crowds that witnessed this would help to norate the report. One crowd followed Jesus and another was following the bier and friends of the widow and her son; both crowds help to broadcast the great miracle which they had witnessed. JESUS JOHN THE BAPTISTLuk_7:18-35 Luke 7:18 ---And the disciples of John told him—A parallel of this is found in Matthew 11:2-19. The whole country was in excite¬ment over Jesus; the report of his wonderful works had reached the ears of both his enemies and his friends. The disciples of John the Baptist learned of the increased fame of Jesus from the reports that went out. John had been cast in prison; we do not know just how long he had been in prison, but his disciples found a way of telling John while he was in prison at Machaerus about the works and fame of this new prophet who seemed to outstrip John himself. Luke 7:19 ---And John calling unto him two of his disciples—John was at this time in prison, but his disciples seemed to have had free access to him; so far as Luke’ s account is concerned we would not know that John was in prison; we learn this from Matthew. John was probably seventy miles away from the place where Jesus was preaching and in prison. We do not know what his purpose was in sending two of his disciples to Jesus; some think that John was in doubt; others think that he sent his disciples to Jesus that they might be strengthened in their faith. John had designated Jesus to his disciples as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29.) It matters not whether John sent these disciples to relieve his own doubts or those of his disciples; the fact remains that he sent two of them to ask Jesus: “ Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another?”Luke 7:20 ---And when the men were come unto him,— Since John was in prison at Machaerus, fifteen miles southeast from the northern extremity of the Dead Sea, and about seventy miles from the cities on the Sea of Galilee, it would take these two disciples of John several days to bring the message from John to Jesus. They were faithful to the trust imposed upon them, and came directly to Jesus and reported that they were messengers from John the Baptist and that John had propounded the question. The question was: “ Art thou the coming one, the Messiah, or should we look for another?” The Greek im¬plies by another, one of a different kind. The point in John’ s mind seems to have been— it is time for the Messiah. Luke 7:21 ---In that hour he cured many of diseases— In the presence of these two disciples that John had sent Jesus “ cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits.” The disciples of John witnessed all of these miracles. Jesus cured diseases of ordinary kind, such as plagues and scourges, which meant diseases that were believed to be sent as special punishments from God. He cast out evil spirits and restored sight to many that were blind. Luke, as a physician, carefully divides the diseased into three classes, and distinguishes each of these from the blind. The three classes are “ diseases and plagues and evil spirits.” Luke 7:22-23 ---And he answered and said unto them,—Jesus gave a very emphatic answer to the messengers of John; they were to report to John what they had seen and heard. There was no mustering of military forces; no gathering of armies; no training of men for carnal war; no preparation for breaking down the towers of the Herods of that day and releasing his prisoners at the point of his conquering sword; no amassing of wealth to finance any great movement. But there was every demonstration of tender sympathy with human woes and of miraculous power, stooping low to touch the blind, the lame, the leper, the deaf, and the dead. The only detailed account of raising the dead in the ministry of Jesus up to this time is that of the widow's son and, possibly, according to a few historians, of Jairus’ daughter; but we do not know how many cases of raising the dead there were that are mentioned. We know that many miracles were performed by Jesus of which we have no detailed account. (John 21:25.) As great as these things were, the greatest spiritual miracle, which is the climax of this list of marvelous works and of evidence, was the poor “ have good tidings preached to them.” Luke 7:24-25 ---And when the messengers of John were departed,— Jesus began his eulogy of John so soon as the messengers of John left. He began by asking some vivid questions about the interest of the people in John. Matthew records the same questions (Matthew 11:7-8). Jesus’ testimony concerning John is one of those tender, earnest, and exquisitely beautiful utterances of our Lord that sparkles like diamonds in the twilight. This testimony is reserved until after John’ s messengers have gone that it may not seem to be words of compliment so common in speeches of flattery. John’ s work was done chiefly in the wilderness of Judea; hence the people went out there to hear him. Jesus asked them if they went out to see “ a reed shaken with the wind?” The “ reed” was a tall, slender plant, easily shaken about by the wind; it grew in abundance along the Jordan where John baptized. John was no slender, trifling character blown about by every new doctrine; he was no deli¬cate, spiritual character, merely amusing himself by turning himself into a preacher; he was more like the sturdy oak which cannot be moved so easily. But what went ye out to see?—This is another one of those questions which Jesus asked about John; it helped to drive home the answer that Jesus gave to it. John was no man clothed in soft raiment; he was clothed in a garment of rough “ camel’ s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins.” (Matthew 3:4.) He was not clothed in fine raiment, neither did he seek any “ soft, easy” places, but his work was done in the wilderness. He did not live in luxury and was not dressed in gorgeous apparel. Luke adds “ in kings’ courts” ; John did not live in idle ease in the palace of kings. His work and manner of dress belonged to the sturdy yeomanry of the wilderness, and those who came out of the cities to hear him. Luke 7:26-27 ---But what went ye out to see? a prophet?—If the people did not go out to see a person living in luxury and dressed in fine apparel, that is, an effeminate person, then what did they expect to find? Anticipating their reply he asks: “ A prophet?” A “ prophet” was not only one who foretold future events, but also one who was divinely commissioned as a reli-gious teacher, or who would instruct men as to the will of God. John was more than an ordinary prophet; he had a message far different from that of any prophet; he had a work far different from the work that any prophet had done. All the people accepted John as a prophet (Luke 20:6), but Jesus ranked John far higher than a prophet. John was the special messenger (Malachi 3:1) to get the people ready for the coming of Christ; therefore he was much more than a prophet; he was the great forerunner of the Messiah. Jesus here points John out as the one who fulfilled the prophecy uttered by Mal- achi. The word “ prophet” in the original means to “ speak before, in front of, in behalf of, or for another.”Luke 7:28 ---I say unto you, Among them that are born—Jesus here means to say that there is none greater than John the Baptist; none enjoyed the distinction that he enjoyed; his relative po-sition to the Messiah placed him far above everyone else who had lived on the earth. This does not mean that John excelled all others in piety and purity of character; it only means that the position John held and his relation to Jesus as the Messiah placed him out of the class of all others. Jesus adds, “ Yet he that is but little in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”Luke 7:29---And all the people when they heard,—Matthew does not record this verse; Luke throws in a brief allusion to the effect of these teachings on his hearers. Many think that verses 29 and 20 belong to the language of Jesus; others think that Luke adds these verses to the speech of Jesus. They do not seem to belong to the discourse of Jesus; their whole diction and form are historical. However, they show the success of John’ s ministry. The people who heard and the publicans “ justified God” by being baptized with the baptism of John. In the strictest sense no one can make God more just than he is, since he is infinitely just; it means that the people per¬ceived, confessed, and declared God’ s justice in all of his acts among men. These had been prepared to make this confes¬sion as they had been baptized of John, and must have openly confessed their sins. Luke 7:30 ---But the Pharisees and the lawyers—There were two classes, Pharisees and lawyers, not included among the first two classes mentioned above, the people and the publicans, who did not join in praising God, but “ rejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized of him.” These Pharisees and lawyers thwarted the good purpose of God toward them by refusing to submit to John’ s baptism. They did not confess their sins, and hence were not baptized by John. They annulled God’ s purposes of grace so far as they applied to them. Had they submitted to John’ s baptism they would have received God’ s blessings, because they would have been carrying out God’ s purpose with them. “Pharisees” were a sect of religionists who were strict conformists to the traditions of the fathers; “ lawyers” were those who were well informed in the traditions of the fathers and the law of Moses; both classes were teachers of the people. They set the exam¬ple of disobedience to God. Luke 7:31-35 ---Whereunto then shall I liken the men—Here again Jesus asks some pointed questions to stimulate an interest in what he is about to say; he does this to make his answers the more emphatic. He answered his own questions by saying that they were “ like unto children that sit in the marketplace, and call one to another.” His illustration here was familiar to the people. The market place was open like our modern city squares, where people trade, hear the news, and the children have their games and sports. The Jews at this time were as foolish and perverse and hard to please as a lot of children at play, calling one to another in the market place, “ We piped unto you, and ye did not dance”; that is, they played on the pipe as at a wedding, but they would not respond. The children were imitating a marriage procession or feast in their play, but some of them refused to respond. Jesus changed the figure; the children first imitated the glad wedding march, but some of them would not play; then they went to the extreme and imiated a funeral procession, and some would not play that either; they were contrary and would not respond to ei¬ther play. Jesus says that these Jews were like these children playing in the market place. For John the Baptist is come—Jesus made his own application ; the point of his illustrations was the unreasonableness common to children and to childish men. John the Baptist came among them with very abstemious habits— his food not bread, but locusts and wild honey; his drink not wine, but probably cold water. They could not bear that, for they said, “ He hath a demon” ; that is, no man would live as he lived if he were not possessed with a demon. “ The Son of man” came “ eating and drinking” like the most of men, but this did not suit them any better; they railed at him and said: “ Behold, a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publi¬cans and sinners!” Neither mode of life would satisfy them; they were sulky, sour, and as unreasonable as a group of dis¬agreeable children. JESUS BY A SINFUL WOMANLuk_7:36-50 Luke 7:36 ---And one of the Pharisees desired him—Luke gives the only record we have of this incident. He records two other incidences of Pharisees who invited Jesus to meals and he alone gives them. (Luke 11:37 Luke 14:1.) Jesus would dine with a Pharisee or with a publican (Matthew 9:10; Mark 2:15; Luke 5:29), and he even invited himself to be the guest of Zaccheus who was a publican (Luke 19:5). In this account two characters are brought together; they are not only di¬verse, but strongly contrasted. Valuable lessons may be learned from these two opposite characters. Jesus accepted the invitation to eat with this Pharisee. This Pharisee seems not to have been as hostile toward Jesus as many other Pharisees were; there is no evidence that he invited Jesus to his table to do him harm. Luke 7:37-38 ---And behold, a woman who was in the city,—It is probable that this woman was from Capernaum. There has been much speculation as to who this woman was. Some have thought that she was Mary Magdalene, others that she was Mary of Bethany, the sister of Lazarus. In some respects this account is similar to the anointing of Jesus by Mary as narrated in Matthew 26:7; Mark 14:3; and John 12:3, but this does not seem to be an account of the same event. The name of the Pharisee who entertained Jesus happens to be the same in both instances; however, the Simon of Bethany was a very different man from the one here mentioned. Nor can this woman, who seems to have been of a notoriously bad reputation, be identical with the Mary of Bethany who had sat at Jesus’ feet, and by her gentle confiding love and won so strong a hold upon his affections. (Luke 10:38-42.) These incidents must have been two distinct events. and when she knew that he was sitting at meat—It was the custom at that time for the guests to remove the sandals before the meal and recline on the left elbow or side with the feet outward from the table. They did not have the custom of sitting in chairs as we have today. It was also customary for anyone to come into the house during a feast and sit and con¬verse with those who were invited to the feast; the invited guests reclined at the table, while the uninvited guests sat around the wall. This woman brought an “ alabaster cruse of ointment,” and anointed the feet of Jesus. It seems that she was standing behind his feet weeping, and was drawn irresis¬tibly by gratitude to Jesus and “ wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head.” It was regarded among the Jews as a shameful thing for a woman to let down her hair in public but she made this sacrifice because of her affection for Jesus. Luke 7:39 ---Now when the Pharisee that had bidden him—The emphasis is put here on “ the Pharisee”; he had invited Jesus to come into his house and dine with him; Jesus had accepted the invitation and the penitent woman had approached Jesus and paid great honor and respect to him. The Pharisee had witnessed the whole affair and was “ saying” “ within himself” that Jesus was not a prophet as he claimed to be. Thoughts passed through his mind, or he reasoned with himself that Jesus could not be a prophet. He had already reached the conclusion that Jesus was not a prophet; if he had been one, as he claimed to be, he would have known “ who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him.” This woman was regarded as a great sinner; she was notorious in person and character. Surely if Jesus had known who she was, the Pharisee reasoned, he would not have permitted her to have touched him. For a woman of such abandoned character to touch one was regarded as the highest species of defilement. The Pharisee thought that Jesus did not know her character, or he would never have permitted her to touch him, much less to remain at his feet kissing them and continuing to express her love for him by such demonstrations. His reasoning was fallacious. Luke 7:40 ---And Jesus answering said unto him,—The Pharisee had concluded that Jesus was not a prophet, because he did not know the life and character of this woman; he had not spoken aloud on this point; he had only reasoned with himself. But Jesus now does the very thing which the Pharisee considered as a mark or characteristic of a prophet— he reads the mind of the Pharisee. Jesus spoke directly to him; he addressed him as “ Simon,” and then stated emphatically that he had something to say to him. The Pharisee is very brief and emphatic in his reply; he said: “ Teacher, say on.” Jesus answers the thoughts and doubts of Simon and shows that he knows about Simon’ s thoughts and therefore knows all about this woman; there is a kind of Socratic irony in the speech of Jesus. Luke 7:41-42 ---A certain lender had two debtors:—A lender of money for interest is here meant as the original shows. The parable which Jesus now proposed for the instruction of this self-righteous Pharisee is based on well-known facts. This lender of money for interest “ had two debtors”; the first one owed him “ five hundred shillings,” while the second one only owed him “ fifty.” The term used here is “ denarius,” which was the chief silver coin of the Romans at this time, and of the value of about seventeen cents. It was the rate of wages for a day’ s work. Five hundred would amount to about eig'hty- five dollars, while fifty would amount to eight dollars and fifty cents; hence expressed in our values one of these debtors owed eighty-five dollars and the other owed eight dollars and fifty cents. When they had not wherewith to pay,—Neither one of these debtors could pay the lender the amount owed him; the lender, out of the kindness and generosity of his heart, re¬leased them of their indebtedness. Favor, kindness, benevolence, compassion, and sympathy are the sole basis of the act, all merit on the part of the recipient being excluded. After presenting this parable in its simplicity to the Pharisee, Jesus asked him: “ Which of them therefore will love him most?” Jesus by this question forces the Pharisee to draw the only conclusion that was possible to draw from the parable, and then Jesus makes the application. The point of the parable then is the attitude of the two debtors toward the lender who forgave both of them. Luke 7:43 ---Simon answered and said,—It seems that Simon began to see the point that Jesus was making; hence he said, “ He, I suppose, to whom he forgave the most.” The Pharisee's reply indicates a descent from his lofty and arrogant tone to one of more humility. Simon saw how his answer would convict himself as he had perceived in part the drift of the illustration. Jesus did not leave him in doubt as to what he had said; he replied to Simon: “ Thou hast rightly judged.” This was the end of the argument; there was nothing further to say. Leaving the matter thus as did Jesus made the point more emphatic. Luke 7:44-46 ---And turning to the woman,—Jesus now directed Simon’ s attention to the woman who had bestowed such gracious favors upon him. It seems that this was the first time that Jesus looked at the woman, and he asks the Pharisee to look at her; she was behind Jesus, hence he would have to turn to look at her. Jesus was an invited guest; the Pharisee had neglected some points of common and customary hospitality; the contrasts here made, scholars tell us, have the rhythm of Hebrew poetry; in each contrast the first word is the point of defect in Simon’ s conduct toward Jesus. “ Water,” “ kiss,” and “ oil” are the points of emphasis. The water which Simon had failed to give was supplied by the tears of the woman; the failure of Simon to show affection for his guest was supplied by the kisses of the woman; and the failure of Simon to honor his guest was supplied by the precious oil with which she anointed the feet of Jesus. Simon had failed as a host to an¬oint the head of Jesus, the nobler part, with ordinary oil, but the woman had anointed his feet with costly oil. This penitent, sinful woman had done far more for Jesus than had the Pharisee; it was expected of the Pharisee to show such acts of customary honor to Jesus as his guest, but it was not expected of this woman to bestow any acts of honor upon him. Luke 7:47-48 ---Wherefore I say unto thee,—Jesus now turns from Simon and speaks to the woman; this seems to be the first time that he has spoken to her. “ Wherefore” introduces the conclusion which is drawn from what has been said. Jesus says, “ Her sins, which are many, are forgiven.” Here Jesus shows that he knew her condition, and that the Pharisee had misjudged him and his ability to know the hearts of people. Jesus not only refers to her public and scandalous sins, but to all which she had ever committed. His forgiveness is most ample, covering the sins of a whole life. Jesus gave the reason for his forgiving her. “ For she loved much” is the assuring statement that Jesus made. All that she had done for Jesus showed her love for him; her coming to Jesus showed her consciousness of a need of a Savior; Jesus’ words to her showed that he was willing to save. Jesus then stated the conclusion from his parable by saying: “ But to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.”Luke 7:49-50 ---And they that sat at meat with him—The friends of the Pharisee who sat at meat with Jesus began to reason with themselves and made inquiry of their own hearts as to who this man was. They thought that he was presumptuous to claim to forgive sins; they did not speak aloud or speak to each other, but they were unanimous in their conclusion that he was a presumptuous sinner. Perhaps their surprise was expressed in their faces. Jesus without answering them or their thoughts changed the form of his address to the woman, perhaps that she might not be misled into thinking that her acts of devotion were misjudged. Jesus said to her: “ Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.” This shows that Jesus knew the full condition of her heart; he knew her life; he knew her faith in him. Jesus ignored the old question which the Pharisaic mind raised about his claim to forgive sins; he had fully answered them, and had taught them an important lesson. They were not disposed to receive the lesson. There was a wide contrast in the faith of this woman and the lack of faith on the part of the Pharisee; the width between these two is emphasized in the contrast between what the woman did for him and what the Pharisee had failed to do. Verse 1 Luke brought the love of Christ into sharp focus in this chapter, along with the ethic derived from it, namely, that it is in the love of God and the love of man that a soul may hope to commend itself to the Lord. First, there is the centurion who loved his servant (Luke 7:1-10); then, Jesus showed his love for the bereaved by raising the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17); next, Jesus offered his love of the afflicted and the poor as proof of his Messiahship to John the Baptist, laying stress on the publicans and harlots who accepted John's message (Luke 7:24-25); and then, he gave the explanation of how publicans and harlots were saved and the Pharisees were not, this explanation growing out of a dinner in the house of a Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50). THE HEALING OF THE 'S SERVANTIn my Commentary on Matthew this miracle was referred to as being identical with the one in Matthew 8:5-13, this view being that of Lamar, Boles, McGarvey, and many others; and it is reaffirmed here that it may be so interpreted, all of the variations in the two accounts yielding easily to harmonizing suggested by many commentators. It should be noted, however, that it is by no means CERTAIN that Matthew and Luke have recorded the same incident. More mature study has convinced this writer that the two episodes COULD be different miracles, and that the higher probability is that they WERE separate wonders. The Greek words translated "my servant" (Matthew 8:6) are from terms which are literally "the boy of me,"[1] an expression which MacKnight affirms would have been translated "my son" except "for the supposition that the miracles are the same."[2] About the only objection to viewing the miracles as separate wonders springs from the alleged unlikelihood that there would have been two centurions, one with a sick son, another with a sick slave, who would have approached Jesus with approximately the same words, manifesting exactly the same attitude. MacKnight, however, suggested that: There might have been two centurions. Both made the same speech to Jesus, one through his friends, and the other in person; but this circumstance may be accounted for. As the faith of the first centurion, who was a heathen, took its rise from the extraordinary cure wrought on the nobleman's son (John 4:46-54), the faith of the second centurion might have taken its rise from the success of the first, which could not fail to be well known both in the town and in the country.[3]MacKnight elaborated the above argument in his harmony of the Gospels in such a manner as to foreclose any logical objections to it. He concluded thus: To conclude that two centurions should have had, the one his son, the other his slave, cured in Capernaum with like circumstances, is no more improbable than that the temple should have been twice purged, the multitude twice fed, and the fishes twice caught by miracle, and with the same circumstances.[4]This consideration has been introduced here, not because of any bearing the question has with reference to interpreting the miracles themselves, but because of the implications bearing on the two great sermons, the one on the mount, the other on the plain. The big argument for making those sermons the same depends upon making these two miracles the same; but it is clear enough that the uncertainty of their being indeed but one wonder totally removes the principal argument for viewing Luke's record of the Sermon on the Plain as merely an abbreviated account of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. Significantly, some of the commentators who treat these two miracles as one refuse to view the sermons as one (Boles, for example). It appears that it is more logical to view the miracles also as separate wonders. [1] The Nestle Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), en loco. [2] James MacKnight, Harmony of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1950), p. 468. [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid., p. 469. After he had ended all his sayings in the ears of the people, he entered into Capernaum. (Luke 7:1) The first clause here, according to Boles, Shows that the discourse which had just been narrated was delivered at one time, and was not a mere collection of sayings or detached parts of different discourses.[5]A great deal of Jesus' teaching was done in Capernaum, which was his residence for a long while; and the event of our Lord's finishing a discourse at some place near the city and then returning to the place where he stayed must have recurred often. Nothing is plainer in the sacred Gospels than the fact that the sum total recorded by all of them put together was merely the tip of the iceberg, compared to all that Jesus said and did. The last word that has come down to us across the long centuries since Jesus walked on the earth is that "the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:25), if men had recorded all that Jesus did and taught! This monumental truth destroys the conceit which would explain similar teachings or miracles of Jesus as inaccurate, garbled accounts of but one event or sermon. ENDNOTE: [5] H. Leo Boles, A Commentary on the Gospel according to Luke (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1972), p. 145. Verse 2 And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear to him, was sick and at the point of death.Centurion ... Even counting the two centurions of these miracles (the one here, and the other in Matthew) as but one man, there are no less than eight centurions mentioned in the New Testament; and it is significant that all of them appear in a favorable light. As Ryle expressed it, "It is worthy of remark that in no case is there the slightest hint that the profession of a soldier is unlawful in the sight of God."[6] The list of centurions listed in the New Testament is: 1. The one whose servant was healed (in this passage). 2. The one who confessed Christ at the cross (Matthew 27:54). 3. The ones who rescued Paul from the mob (Acts 21:32). 4. The one who bore Paul's message to the chiliarch (Acts 22:25). 5. Cornelius, the first Gentile convert (Acts 10:1) 6. Julius, who saved Paul's life on the voyage to Rome (Acts 27:3; Acts 27:43) 7. The centurion who brought Paul's nephew to the chiliarch (Acts 23:17-18). 8. The centurions who escorted Paul to Caesarea (Acts 23:23). Servant ... The word here is "bondservant" or slave; and it is evident that Luke recorded this for the purpose of showing the centurion's love for such a person. "He did not despise slaves as other Gentiles commonly did."[7] The character of this noble soldier was evident, not merely in the love lavished upon a slave, but in his love for Israel, (Luke 7:5), and in his support of the worship of God (Luke 7:5). Some sought the aid of Jesus for a son, or daughter, or for themselves; but this man came to Jesus on behalf of a slave. [6] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House), p. 205. [7] Ibid., p. 200. Verse 3 And when he heard concerning Jesus, he sent unto him elders of the Jews, asking him that he would come and save his servant.And when he heard ... What is more likely than the supposition that this centurion had heard from his fellow officer in the same city of the healing of a son; and that both were familiar with the healing of the nobleman's son in the same city? A vast number of Jesus' deeds were wrought in Capernaum (Matthew 11:23). The "hearing" would also have included the very words and attitude by which the first centurion had approached the Lord; and the second would have adopted the approach which was so successful with the first. The elders ... In this appears one of the differences in the two similar miracles. The first centurion was a heathen; this one was evidently some kind of proselyte to Judaism; for it is hard to believe that he would have built the Jews a synagogue unless he was a follower of Judaism. This officer enlisted the elders of the people to convey his request to the Lord; in the case in Matthew, the centurion himself went to Jesus and made the request. Verse 4 And they, when they came to Jesus, besought him earnestly, saying, He is worthy that thou shouldest do this for him; for he loveth our nation, and himself built our synagogue.Clearly, the centurion had remained at home (Luke 7:6), and the Jewish elders actually bore the request to Jesus. Our synagogue ... McGarvey wrote that: The ruins of Capernaum show the ruins of a synagogue. It was a beautiful structure, built of white limestone, shows by its architecture that it was built in the time of the Herods, and there is little doubt that it is the one which this pious Gentile erected, and in which Jesus taught and healed.[8]Thus, God raised up a devout Gentile to provide a platform from which many of the marvelous teachings of the Lord would be announced (see John 6:59). How strange it is that this Roman centurion, a Gentile, and an officer in the hated army of the oppressors, should have received such a commendation as the Jewish elders in Capernaum delivered to Jesus on his behalf. He was one of a class of persons who rose above the base morals of the ancient empire and who rejected the vanity and falsehood of the pagan religions. He was one among the proselytes, whom the providence of God had so wonderfully prepared in all the great cities of the Greek and Roman world as a link of communication between Gentile and Jew, in contact with both - holding to the first by their race, and to the latter by their religion; and who must have materially helped in the early spread of the faith.[9][8] J. W. McGarvey, The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1914), p. 271. [9] Richard Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 241. Verse 6 And Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof. This is clearly a different circumstance from that of the miracle in Matthew, as the next verses emphasize. Verse 7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say the word, and my servant shall be healed.Such faith as that shown by the centurion is remarkable indeed. Say the word ... It is an attribute of God that his word alone is sufficient unto all things. "He spake, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created" (Psalms 148:5). Read the book of Genesis. God said, "Let there be light. And there was light"! It is amazing that this centurion understood this as being true of Jesus. The next verse shows how he arrived at such a conclusion. Verse 8 For I also am a man under authority, having under myself soldiers: and I say to this one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.Having in his possession the knowledge of how Jesus' word had wrought many cures, this centurion, like his fellow officer, had come to recognize God come in the flesh. As Ryle observed: A greater miracle of healing than this is nowhere recorded in the Gospels. Without even seeing the sufferer, without touch of hand, or look of eye, our Lord restored health to a dying man. He spoke and the sick was cured. He commanded, and the disease departed. No apostle or prophet did a miracle like this. We see here the finger of God.[10]ENDNOTE: [10] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., p. 200. Verse 9 And when Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole.It does not appear that the centurion ever came into the presence of the Lord, physically; but, disclaiming for himself any worthiness that Jesus might come under his roof, he nevertheless received him in his heart, which was a far more glorious reception. No, not in Israel ... That Jesus placed this centurion's faith above ALL that he had seen in Israel is significant. As Taylor said: This centurion placed Jesus on the throne of the universe, regarding him as the ruler of the world, and as having all things under his command. He saw him, not merely as Messiah, but as God Incarnate, and therein lay the superiority of his faith to that of any of the Israelites. Not even any of the apostles, at that time, had reached the lofty altitude on which this Gentile soldier stood.[11]He marvelled ... For an article on the "Marvel of Unbelief," see my Commentary on John, index. It is not recorded very often that Jesus marveled; but his marveling here contrasts with his marveling at unbelief (Mark 6:6). It was an inherent condition of the incarnation that Jesus should have experienced amazement and wonder. How would the Lord, to whom all things were known, have wondered, or marveled? Trench called this question "One of the hardest in the whole domain of theology."[12] Every student of the Holy Scriptures must confess the awareness of the mystery in this which is beyond all human comprehension; but by faith we receive the answer supplied by the apostle who wrote that "He emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a servant" (Philippians 2:6-8). Accepting this account as a second miracle wrought for the benefit of a centurion would also fit the evident purpose in Luke of giving TWO instances of Jesus' mightiest deeds, rather than merely one. Thus he recorded TWO instances of Jesus' raising the dead (no other Gospel did this), the OTHER genealogy (that of Mary), a SECOND anointing, ANOTHER sermon similar to the one on the mount, a SECOND version of the prayer Jesus taught his disciples to pray, the cure of a second woman who had long been afflicted (Luke 13:10); a SECOND lament over Jerusalem, a SECOND parable of the slighted invitation, and even recorded very significant utterances of Jesus from the cross which were not even hinted in the other Gospels. This is clearly a characteristic of this Gospel. [11] William M. Taylor, The Miracles of Our Saviour (New York: Richard R. Smith, 1930), p. 167. [12] Richard Trench, op. cit., p. 246. Verse 11 And it came to pass soon afterwards, that he went to a city called Nain; and his disciples went with him, and a great multitude.THE RAISING OF THE WIDOW'S SON AT NAIN"There are many ancient remains of Nain, proving that the place was once of considerable size."[13] It is located "on the northwestern edge of `Little Hermon,' where the ground falls into the plain of Esdraelon."[14] Just east of the city are the remains of rock sepulchres; and the extensive ruins disprove the notion that the place was merely "a humble village of mud-built houses near Nazareth."[15] Luke was altogether correct in calling the place a "city." Today the village is a rather insignificant place called Nein. Soon afterwards ... may mean "the very next day," as this place reads in some ancient authorities (English Revised Version (1885), margin). Amazingly, only Luke recorded this wonder, the sacred authors having been most certainly restrained by the Spirit of God in what they included or left out. [13]; ISBE, p. 2111. [14] F. N. Peloubet, A Dictionary of the Bible (Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company, 1912), p. 433. [15] Roland de Vaux, The World of Jesus (Washington, D.C.: The National Geographic Society, 1967), p. 304. Verse 12 Now when he drew near to the gate of the city, behold there was carried out one that was dead, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.The gate of the city ... does not indicate that the city had a wall, referring rather to "the opening between the houses, by which the road entered the town."[16]ENDNOTE: [16]; ISBE, p. 2111. Verse 13 And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not.Weep not ... It was not possible, at the moment, for this bereaved widow to respond to such a command; but the Lord never gave a command without supplying the power to obey it. This is still an imperative, with qualification, to Christians of all ages: "Sorrow not, even as the rest, who have no hope" (1 Thessalonians 4:13). Someone has remarked that Jesus broke up every funeral he ever attended! Verse 14 And he came nigh and touched the bier; and the bearers stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.Touched the bier ... Thus, Jesus defied the ceremonial defilement forbidding such a thing; because the dead could not defile him, but conversely he raised the dead! Young man, I say unto thee, Arise ... This corresponds exactly, except for the salutation, with what Jesus said to the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:41); and the spiritual application is the same. See under that reference in my Commentary on Mark. Verse 15 And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he gave him to his mother.The power of the Son of God is truly infinite. Not even the charlatans of earth have ever attempted to fake such a thing as this. That a dead body should respond to the command of Jesus is a wonder of such magnitude as to numb the senses of all who contemplate it. Following the pattern of all his miracles of raising the dead, Jesus here obviously restored the young man to his former condition in life; and, in this, these miracles of Jesus were different from the resurrection of the Lord. He rose to an eternal existence which he already possessed; those whom he raised rose to the life they had previously possessed, but still subject to mortality. Verse 16 And fear took hold on all; and they glorified God, saying, A great prophet is arisen among us: and, God hath visited his people.Fear took hold ... This was the natural result of such a miracle. The souls of men tremble when conscious of the presence of God; and such a presence had clearly demonstrated itself at the gate of Nain. The incarnation was affirmed by the conviction of the people who said, "God hath visited his people." Verse 17 And this report went forth concerning him in the whole of Judaea, and all the region round about.The whole of Judaea ... is inclusive of the entire domain of the Herods (Antipas and Agrippa I) with "all the region round about," thus having reference to the whole of what is today called Palestine. There is no way for men to stretch their minds to fully comprehend the impact of such a miracle as Jesus performed, shocking the entire eastern half of the Roman empire. Nor should it be left unnoticed that this miracle was wrought within a very few miles of Nazareth, whose citizens refused to believe in Jesus. This miracle was close enough that they could not have avoided knowing it happened; and thus Jesus gave his home village another chance to believe on him whom they had despised. There is a progression in the New Testament resurrections. The daughter of Jairus had been dead but a little while; this son of the widow was dead a longer period, the body being carried to the tomb; and Lazarus was dead and buried four days! All of the resurrections Jesus wrought (except his own) have this in common, that no word has come down to posterity of what any of them said concerning the state of death from which they were rescued. As Taylor said, "They uttered no word concerning the state from which they had been recalled. It was not theirs to bring light and immortality to light."[17]; THAT was reserved for Christ. ENDNOTE: [17] William M. Taylor, op. cit., p. 182. Verse 18 And the disciples of John told him all these things. And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to the Lord, saying, Art thou he who cometh, or look we for another?THE FROM JOHN THE BAPTISTJohn's uncertainty is understandable. He had publicly identified Jesus as the Christ; but the Saviour's Messiahship was not being proclaimed with the dogmatic certainty which John might have expected; therefore, he did with his doubts what every true believer in Christ should always do, that is, he brought them to Jesus who answered and relieved them. When God's children are in doubt, let them search the word of the Lord. If John, instead, had taken his doubts to the Pharisees, he would have been confirmed in his doubt, not in his faith; and the same is true today of many religious leaders. For more on this, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 11:1-3. Art thou he that should come ...? Humanity must have a Saviour; God promised one; and, if Jesus is not the Saviour, then who is? John did not say, "Art thou he that should come, or shall we cease looking?" but "shall we look for another?" Such is the state of Adam's fallen race that only a Saviour can avail anything. This desperate need of all mankind surfaces in John's question. This was the text chosen by this writer as his "trial sermon" at Walnut Street Church of Christ, Sherman, Texas Oct. 6,1935; but the speaker was not aware of the reason for the murmur of laughter that swept over the audience when his text was announced. Verse 20 And when the men were come unto him, they said, John the Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another? In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues, and evil spirits; and on many that were blind he bestowed sight.Jesus' answer to John was twofold, including: (1) a demonstration of his messianic power (as here), and (2) a verbal reiteration of it in the next two verses. John the Baptist performed no miracles (John 10:41); and this outflashing of Jesus' miraculous power must have been very impressive to John's disciples; but Jesus went beyond this and quoted the prophecy of Isaiah, who described the times of the Messiah in the terms that Jesus used of his own ministry. See next two verses. Verse 22 And he answered, and said unto them, Go and tell John the things which ye have seen and heard; the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good tidings preached to them. And blessed is he whosoever shall find no occasion of stumbling in me.One passage which Jesus clearly had in mind was Isaiah 35:5, in which the prophet foretold the messianic age. Thus Jesus answered John plainly, but not too plainly, that he was indeed the Christ. The reason for Jesus' avoidance of a more dogmatic declaration concerning himself at that time was to deny on his own behalf the malignant, carnal notions of Messiah's true character which had perverted the popular mind of that day. For more on this, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 11:1-3. The dead are raised up ... has reference to a plurality of resurrections; and here is proof that not all such wonders have been recorded by the sacred authors. Long after the synoptic Gospels were written, John recorded the raising of Lazarus; and there may have been many others whom the Lord raised to life from the dead. Blessed is he ... The clause introduced by these words shows that Jesus expected John to continue in faith; and the passage immediately afterward indicates that Jesus knew he would continue. Verse 24 And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to behold? a reed shaken with the wind?JESUS' EULOGY OF JOHN THE BAPTISTJesus meant by this that John was not a vacillating popularity seeker, preaching only those things that fitted the popular mood, a weather-vane type of preacher, pointing in all directions like a reed in the wind. Verse 25 But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold they that are gorgeously appareled, and live delicately, are in the kings' courts.The rugged nature of the mighty John was well known, as well as his garment of camel's hair, noted for its discomfort, John being the original man in a hair shirt; and Jesus was saying by this reference that John would stand by his identification of our Lord as "the Lamb of God," regardless of the hardships involved. Verse 26 But what went ye out to see? a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet.Significantly, these eulogistic remarks were spoken by Jesus after John's disciples had departed, and were therefore offered for the enlightenment of the multitude, and not for any purpose of flattering John. John was more than a prophet in that he was the herald of the Christ, a man of the most magnificent spiritual dimensions. Verse 27 This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face. Who shall prepare thy way before thee. I say unto you, Among them that are born of women, there is none greater than John: yet he that is little in the kingdom of God is greater than he.Thus Jesus identified John the Baptist as the "Elijah" who was to come (Malachi 3:1 ff), and as the herald of King Jesus. Greater than he ... This seemingly paradoxical statement is resolved by the considerations: (1) that John the Baptist was not in the kingdom of Christ, the same not being set up until after John's death, and (2) that the term "greater" has reference to privilege, rather than to character. Verse 29 And all the people when they heard, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized of him.These are among the most significant words in the New Testament, showing categorically that the refusal to accept baptism at the hands of John was, in fact, a rejection of the counsel of God on the part of the Pharisees. In the preparatory phase of the kingdom of God, no less than in its reality after Pentecost, refusal to be baptized was here pointed out by Jesus as a "rejection" of God's counsel. Water baptism is one of the elements of the new birth, the being "born of water" to which Jesus referred in his interview with Nicodemus (see comments in my Commentary on John, third chapter). It is therefore true in the present era that failure to heed Christ's command that all men should be baptized is no less a rejection of God's will now than it was when those ancient Pharisees and lawyers rejected it. It is in fact a greater rejection, because John's baptism was only water baptism, the Holy Spirit not having at that time been given; whereas, the baptism of the great commission is followed by the reception of the Holy Spirit. Moreover the conceit that men may receive God's Spirit while rejecting his baptism is refuted by this passage. The new birth, without which none shall see the kingdom of God, includes being "born of water," although that is not the totality of it. In this passage lies the reason why the publicans and harlots entered into God's kingdom, whereas the Pharisees did not enter it. Another significant reason also appears in the next episode where the sinful woman is presented as "loving" Jesus more than the proud Pharisee; and, as Jesus said, "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Verse 31 Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation, and to what are they like? They are like unto children that sit in the marketplace, and call one to another; who say, We piped unto you, and ye did not dance; we wailed, and ye did not weep. For John the Baptist is come eating no bread, nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a demon. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold, a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom is justified of all her children.The simile spelled out by Jesus in this passage compares the rejection of both John and Jesus by the same generation to the perverse and unreasonable behavior of spoiled brats sitting in the marketplace, and who would not dance when the piper played, nor mourn when the wailer wailed. They would not play wedding, for that was too happy; and they would not play funeral, for that was too sad! The opposite personalities of John and Jesus were alike rejected by Israel. The last clause, that "wisdom is justified of all her children," shows that both John and Jesus were fulfilling the true mission God sent them to achieve. The criticisms Jesus mentioned here as having been leveled against himself were only a few of the vicious and unprincipled remarks directed against the Saviour. For no less than ten different false charges made against Jesus by the evil men in that generation, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 11:18-19. ANOTHER This anointing which took place in the house of Simon the Pharisee should not be confused with that which took place in Bethany (see my Commentary on John 12:1-8). Verse 36 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he entered into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.This Pharisee was Simon (Luke 7:43); and he may not be identified as Simon the Leper (Matthew 26:6; Mark 14:3; John 12:1 f). The circumstances here do not fit the anointing in Bethany at all. Luke's record of another anointing perfectly fits into the pattern he followed throughout the Gospel. See under Luke 7:10. This Simon was doing what might be called "slumming." He had invited Jesus out for the purpose of studying him; but before the evening ended, Simon found himself the one studied, analyzed and found wanting. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 A centurion was a man having charge of a hundred soldiers. 3 The centurion was a Gentile, but was in good standing with the Jews, for they had their elders to take a message of request to Jesus from the officers. 4 Jesus had taught the principle of favoring those only who were worthy (Matthew 7:6), hence that point was stressed in their appeal for his help. 5 Synagogues were places built for assembling to hear the law read. Strangers are not to be solicited for contributions to the Lord's cause, but their voluntary offerings may be accepted. Paul accepted help from non-Christians (Acts 28:2; Acts 28:7; Acts 28:10). 6 This Gentile felt unworthy to have Jesus in his house. 7 He did not even think he was good enough to make a personal contact with the Lord, but sent others to speak for him. He expressed faith in the power of Jesus to heal his servant by just speaking the work. 8 This reasoning was to show that his remarks were not in flattery. (See the comments at Matthew 8:9.) 9 The Jews had not produced any example of faith that was as great as this. Jesus announced this truth to the people who were following him. 0 The faith of the centurion was rewarded with the immediate healing of his servant, for the messengers found him well upon their return. 1 Nain was a village of Galilee, the same district that contained Capernaum. As usual, as Jesus journeyed toward this place the crowds followed him. 2 The death of this young man was especially saddening by the circumstance that he was the only support of his widowed mother; this explains why much people was with her and thus showing their sympathy for her. 3 Compassion means pity, and Jesus felt that way toward this sorrowing mother. (See Isaiah 53:4.) In his sympathy for her he bade her cease weeping. 4 Jesus touched the bier (casket) to indicate he wished the pallbearers to stop. He then spoke to the dead man, showing he had power over inanimate objects. 5 n response to the command of Jesus the man came to life and sat up. It was not merely a mechanical performance upon a dead body for the young man spoke to them and then rejoined his mother. 6 This fear was that of deep respect, for they glorified God which means they gave Him credit for the deed performed by Jesus. It meant to the people that he was a great prophet, else God would not. have enabled him to perform this deed. 7 This rumor means the report of what had been done for the dead. 8 John's disciples reported this deed to him, which would be of special interest to him in view of his preparatory work for Christ. 2 This paragraph is so much like Matthew 11:2-5 which is commented upon at length, that I shall ask the reader to consult that place in explanation of this. 3 This is explained with the lexicon definition at Matthew 11:6. 4 The importance of John and his work will be the subject of some verses, all of which will show that Jesus had a high regard for him. A reed is a tall and slender stem that would be swayed easily by the wind. Such would illustrate a man with little stability and one who could be easily influenced. The question of Jesus implies that John was not that way. 5 A man who was accustomed to the soft and luxurious life of royal palaces would be unsuited for work out in the wilderness. But the prophets had predicted the forerunner of Jesus was to operate in the wilderness, hence no surprise should be felt over the rough outdoor raiment of the Baptist. 6 More than a prophet. John not only uttered prophecies, but his life and work in preparing a people for Christ constituted a fulfillment of the sayings of other prophets, which made him more than a mere prophet. 7 This prediction is recorded in Malachi 3:1. 8 See the comments on Matthew 11:11. 9 Justified God means they acknowledged God to be just in authorizing John to baptize the people. They expressed their belief on this subject by being baptized. 0 To reject an ordinance of God is interpreted as rejecting Him. The lawyers were men who were acquainted with the law of Moses and interpreted it to others. 5 This paragraph is explained at Matthew 11:16-19. 6 The Pharisees were a sect of the Jews who were prominent in the time of Christ. See a description of them in the comments at Matthew 16:12. 7 All people are sinners in a general sense, but there were certain outcasts who were called thus as a class. This incident must not be confused with the one in Matthew 26:7; that woman was Mary a sister of Lazarus (John 11:2). 8 Kissing the feet of Jesus was an act of worship (Matthew 2:2) that was prompted by the spirit of humility. It also indicated reverence for Jesus as a holy man. Another custom of those times was the washing of the feet of a guest. This will be explained when we come to John 13. 9 Jesus knew the thoughts of men, whether they were expressed or not. This Pharisee was thinking of the woman in the light of the class she supposedly represented. 0 Jesus called for the attention of his host. The word master is from an original that properly means "teacher," and Simon used it in that sense. 1 A pence would be worth about sixteen cents in our money. The value of the individual coin is unimportant, the illustration being drawn from the difference between fifty and five hundred. 2 The question was based on the comparative favors each debtor received. 3 Simon answered the question correctly that Jesus asked. 4 Simon had other guests (verse 49), and evidently they were "rating" a little higher than Jesus, and had received the regular attention usually paid to visitors. For some reason, Jesus had been neglected and he decided to make a lesson of it. 5 The kiss was the customary form of greeting in those days. But Simon did not give Jesus the usual kiss on the mouth, while this woman kissed his feet often. 6 As a matter of refreshing, a guest was anointed on the head with olive oil. Jesus had been neglected in that by his host, while the woman anointed his feet. 7 Jesus did not deny that the woman was of the lower class and had many sins. But she was given a higher rating than the debtor who owed five hundred pence. He gave his love after receiving the favor of being forgiven the debt, but the woman loved Jesus because of her sincere faith in him even before having received any favor. In return for that attitude Jesus gave her the great reward of complete forgiveness. 8 No further condition was mentioned, for she was forgiven her sins as a reward for her loving service and her simple trust in the grace of Jesus. 9 This is the question raised by the people in Matthew 9:1-6. 0 Her faith saved her, but it does not say faith alone. She had performed the works for which her sins were forgiven. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 7 THE WOMENLuk_8:1-3 Luk 8:1 ---And it came to pass soon afterwards,—Luke is the only writer that gives an account of these events. From the account of the forgiven woman (Luke 7:45-50), Luke naturally goes on to narrate the ministering of other women to Jesus during the preaching tour that was made about this time. Soon after the events recorded in chapter 7 Jesus “ went about through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good tidings of the kingdom of God.” “ Soon afterwards” means “ in the order” or “ succession”; the same word is used in Luke 1:3, and is rendered “ in order,” and means “ in close succession.” This is probably the second tour that Jesus made through Galilee. He went “ about through cities and villages” on this circuit. He took city by city and village by village on this tour. Luke in this brief paragraph covers the entire circuit. The first circuit may be referred to in Luke 4:42-44, and more definitely in Matthew 4:23-25 and Mark 1:35-39, before the formal selection of the twelve. This second circuit is mentioned only by Luke and was made after the twelve apostles were chosen. A third circuit in Galilee seems to be referred to in Matthew 11:1 and Mark 6:6, though it is not certain that there were three distinct circuits in Galilee. The purpose of Jesus in traveling through the cities and villages was to preach and bring the good tidings of the kingdom of God to the attention of the people. Luke 8:2 ---and certain women who had been healed—These women are referred to again in Luke 23:55 Luke 24:10; and the names of some are given in Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40. They seem to have been attached to the company of Jesus and his disciples; they were very grateful for the remarkable cures that they had received. The first mentioned is “ Mary that was called Magdalene”; she is the one out of whom Jesus had cast seven demons. This fact is stated also in Mark 16:9. The presence of seven demons in one person indicates special malignity. (Mark 5:9.) See Matthew 12:45 for the parable of the demon who came back with seven other demons worse than the first. It is not known where Magdala was, from whence Mary gets part of her name. There is no valid reason for identifying her with the sinful woman in chapter 7. She was terribly afflicted with demons and Jesus cured her. She was truly grateful to him and showed her gratitude by minis¬tering to him. Luke 8:3 ---and Joanna the wife of Chuzas Herod’ s steward,—Joanna is mentioned here as the wife of Chuzas who was steward of Herod; some think that he was a nobleman (John 4:46-53) who believed on Jesus and all of his house. It is notable that Jesus had a disciple from the household of Herod Antipas who had such curiosity to see and hear him; again there was later Manaen, “ the foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch,” who was a disciple . (Acts 13:1.) Joanna is mentioned again with Mary Magdalene in Luke 24:10. These women with “ many others” ministered unto Jesus and his company. The very fact that Jesus now had twelve men going with him called for help from others, and these women of means responded to the demand. They ministered with “ their substance.” They ministered with the things which belonged to them; their gratitude and zeal were such that they were willing to do everything that they could to help Jesus and his company. They were benevolent, full of good deeds, and gentle ministrations. Through the gratitude for blessings received these women contributed freely to the necessities of Jesus. They appear again in the scenes at and after his crucifixion; they provided costly spices for his body after his death; they may be classed with the godly women who “ adorn themselves in modest ap¬parel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works.” (1 Timothy 2:9-10.) THE PARABLE OF THE SOWERLuk_8:4-18 Luke 8:4 ---And when a great multitude came together,—Parallel ac-counts of the “ parable of the sower” are found in Matthew 13:3-23 and Mark 4:3-25. A study of all these records will show that Mark has the fullest account in detail, and that Luke has the least number of details. The great points of the parable are found in all, and yet the three accounts should be studied in order to obtain a clear and connected view of this important scripture. A fuller comment on this parable may be had in the author’ s “ Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew,” pages 285-295. Mark and Luke place this parable before the stilling of the tempest, the cure of the demoniacs of Gadara, and the raising of Jairus’ daughter; this seems to be the correct chronological order for it. When a great multi¬tude came together, and especially “ they of every city resorted unto him,” Jesus taught “ by a parable.” This multi¬tude may have come together as a result of his “ preaching” circuit mentioned in verses 1-3. The parable was a very easy and simple style of teaching. Mark uses “ parables” as does Matthew (Matthew 13:3; Mark 4:2), while Luke uses “ a parable.” There are ten of these parables in Matthew and Mark, but only two recorded in Luke; Luke uses the expression “ in par¬ables” in verse 10. Luke 8:5 ---The sower went forth to sow his seed:—The scene described here was very familiar to the hearers of Jesus. The sower went out from his house, from the village or city into his field or country to sow his seed. The time is indefinite, but the fact was of common occurrence. It may be that a sower was present or near at hand in a field, making the preparation for the sowing of his seed; this would make the parable more striking and impressive. Some of the seed fell “ by the way side.” Fields were very commonly unenclosed, or separated only by a narrow footpath. The ordinary roads also were not fenced; hence the seed of the sower was liable to fall beyond the plowed ground upon the hard ground, path or road which formed the “ way side.” The seed was thus exposed to a double danger. “ It was trodden under foot” by those who passed along and “ the birds of the heaven devoured it.” The birds, such as the lark, sparrow, and raven “ devoured it.”Luke 8:6 ---And other fell on the rock;—“ The rocky ground” (Matthew 13:5) was “ the rocky places,” or the places where the soil was very thin over the rock. The grain sprang up quickly above the surface, and then quickly died; the hot sun soon scorched it and “ it withered away, because it had no moisture.” There was no chance for the plant to grow, as the soil was not deep enough above the rock, hence it withered away. Luke 8:7 ---And other fell amidst the thorns;—This seed fell in the midst of or among the thorns, where the roots of the thorns remained, not having been carefully taken away. When the seed germinated it could not grow because it was choked by the thorns. These thorns stifled the grain by pressing upon it, overtopping it, shading it, and exhausting the soil. Thorny shrubs and plants abounded in Palestine. Luke 8:8 ---And other fell into the good ground,—The “ good ground” was the rich, deep soil, which was free from rocks, thorns, and hard surface of the wayside. The seed therefore sprang up and brought forth “ fruit a hundredfold.” Matthew and Mark give the different increase, thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold; Matthew begins with the greatest and descends to the lowest, thirty; while Mark begins with the lowest and ascends to the highest; Luke records only the greatest increase. “ Hundred¬fold” is used with respect to the increase which Isaac received when he sowed in the land of the Philistines. (Genesis 26:12.) Of the four kinds of soil only one was fruitful. When Jesus presented this parable “ he cried” and said: “ He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” “ He cried,” that is, with a loud voice he spoke this last warning to the people; both Matthew and Mark record this statement of Jesus. Luke 8:9-10 ---And his disciples asked him—His disciples asked him the meaning of this parable; they did not ask him what the parable was, for they knew what it was, but did not know its meaning. This is one of the parables of Jesus that we need not misunderstand its meaning, for Jesus here gives the mean-ing of it. His disciples were perplexed over this parable; it was a new mode of teaching for Jesus to use; so when the twelve and a few others were alone (Mark 4:10) they asked him several questions as to what the meaning of the parable was and why he had spoken in parables. Jesus replied that it was given to them “ to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to the rest in parables.” He meant to say that his disciples had a desire to know the truth, and that these truths could be understood by them. A similar thought was expressed at another time when Jesus said: “ If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching.” (John 7:17.) The “ mysteries” or secrets, the hidden power of spiritual truth, are revealed to those who sincerely desire to know them. “ Mysteries” is from “ musterion” and means to close or shut. The disciples had been initiated into the secrets of the kingdom of heaven; so Jesus here explains that this parable is open to the disciples, but shut to the Pharisees with their hostile minds. In the gospels “ musterion” is used only here and in the parallel passages. (Matthew 13:22; Mark 4:11.) If the truths were explained to those having no heart to receive them, the truths would not be appreciated nor understood; they would tend to harden the heart, and would be as pearls cast before swine. Luke 8:11 ---The seed is the word of God.—Jesus now proceeds to in-terpret his own parable. The word of God is the seed of the kingdom; the phrase “ the word of God” does not appear in Matthew and only once in Mark (Mark 7:13) and John (John 10:35), but four times in Luke (Luke 5:1 Luke 8:11 Luke 8:21 Luke 11:28) and twelve times in Acts. In Mark 4:14 we have only “ the word.” In Mark 3:35 we have “ the will of God,” and in Matthew 12:50 “ the will of my Father” where Luke 8:21 has “ the word of God.” Luke means the word that comes from God. The truths of the gospel mean the same thing as the word of God; hence the same thing as the seed is “ the word of God.” (1 Peter 1:23.) The word of God or gospel is preached, people hear it, believe it, and obey it, and are brought into the kingdom of God; hence it is the seed of the kingdom. “ Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth.” (James 1:18.) “ So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17.) “ Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God.” (1 John 5:1.) These explain how the word of God is the seed, because it is essen¬tial to one’ s becoming a Christian. Luke 8:12 ---And those by the way side—This parable has long been known as the “ Parable of the Sower,” but some in recent years have suggested that a more appropriate name would be the “ Parable of Different Soils,” and others have called it the “ Parable of Different Hearers.” The first kind of hearers Jesus represents by those who hear but when they have heard the devil cometh and “ taketh away the word from their heart, that they may not believe and be saved.” The word of God finds no entrance and Satan taketh it away as a bird picks up the grain which falls by the wayside. These hearers do not care to believe; the word of God is good, the teacher is faith¬ful in preaching it, but the heart is not prepared for it. Luke 8:13 ---And those on the rock—Other hearers are compared to the thin layer of earth which covers a ledge of stone; seed which fall into such soil spring up quickly because warmed by the underlying rock; but as the roots cannot go to any depth, the blade soon withers beneath the hot sun. Some hearers “ receive the word with joy”; they give the impression at first that they will make faithful children of God; “ who for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.” They are impulsive, demonstrative, and ardent for a little while, but when trials and testings come through putting their profession into practice, they give up and go back into the world. They can¬not stand persecution and trials; they quickly desert the Christ in the hour of temptation. Luke 8:14 ---And that which fell among the thorns,—Other hearers are compared to seed which fall where thorns are growing; the seed springs into life, but it has no room for development; it is robbed by the thorns of its needed nourishment. So some Christians are so preoccupied by “ cares and riches and pleasures of this life” that they “ bring no fruit to perfection.” They may have some evidence of bearing fruit for a time, but the spiritual fruit is blasted and never comes to rightness or completeness. They have conviction of sin, show signs of sorrow and repentance, but the heart is divided, and the full powers of body and soul are not given to Christ. They are not thoughtless hearers, like those of the first class, neither like those of the second; they hear, hear seriously, enter upon a conflict with the world, but fail to conquer. They are not fully consecrated and hence they let the riches and pleasures of this life draw away their heart from God. Many are in the church today like this class of hearers. Luke 8:15 ---And that in the good ground,—This class of hearers are like seed which fell on “ good ground” and “ brought forth fruit a hundredfold.” They receive the truth “ in an honest and good heart,” and patiently and perseveringly they produce in their lives a golden harvest of grain. Of the four kinds of hearts or hearers, only one kind really is profited by the hearing of the word of God. This class with constancy of purpose, with a consistent perseverance, through a life of discouragements and trials “ bring forth fruit with patience.” Luke 8:16 ---And no man, when he hath lighted a lamp,—Jesus here uses a very vivid figure; it was contrary to custom, and even to reason, to light a lamp and cover it with a vessel or put it under a bed. Mark 4:21 has a more definite figure; he uses “ under the bushel” as does Matthew 5:15. The purpose of a light is to enable one to see something else, not the light. Jesus had told his disciples that it was given to them to know “ the mysteries of the kingdom of God,” but the unbelieving multitude could not know; hence one reason for his speaking in parables. The apostles might infer that these “ mysteries” of the great truths of his kingdom were to be kept secret, and that instruction in parables is, in its very nature, adapted to darken and becloud truth rather than enlighten people. Jesus at this time dispels any such ideas by this figure which he used. It is the nature of truth to enlighten; if truth darkens, it is the fault of the hearer and not the truth. The truths of the gospel are like the lamp; they are designed, not to cover up, but to be made known, so as to give light to the world. Luke 8:17 ---For nothing is hid,—Here Jesus gives the use of his figurative language; it is to enlighten and instruct. It is not the teaching of Jesus to say that secret sins will be revealed, though that is a truth elsewhere taught; he teaches here that everything pertaining to the kingdom of God shall be revealed ; nothing shall be kept back that may enlighten and instruct those who are anxious to know. All the truth pertaining to the kingdom of God which was spoken in parables should be revealed and broadcast to the world. Luke 8:18 ---Take heed therefore how ye hear:—The manner of hear¬ing is important; Mark 4:24 gives the warning to take heed “ what ye hear.” Putting these two records together, the disciples were to give heed to how they heard what they heard. They were to take heed how they heard, for now they are hearing for themselves, and for others, since they must teach what they heard to others. The manner of hearing and the matter heard are both supremely important; some things possibly should not be heard at all; others that are heard should be forgotten; still others heard should be treasured and practiced. Those who had the truth and taught it to others would receive a clearer conception of the truth themselves; “ for whatsoever hath, to him shall be given.”THE KINDRED OF JESUS Luke 8:19-21 Luke 8:19 ---And there came to him his mother and brethren,—Parallel records of this incident are found in Matthew 12:46-50 and Mark 3:31-35. The place of this visit is not mentioned, but it is generally supposed that it was in or near Capernaum. “ His mother and brethren” came to see him. Both Matthew and Mark place the time of this visit before the speaking of the parable of the sower; usually Luke follows Mark’ s order, but he does not do so here. At first the brothers of Jesus, who were younger sons of Joseph and Mary, were not unfriendly to the work of Jesus, as seen in John 2:12, when they with the mother of Jesus are with him and the small group of disciples in Capernaum after the wedding in Cana. But as Jesus went on with his work and was rejected at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-31), there developed an evident disbelief in his claims on the part of the brothers who ridiculed him six months before the end (John 7:5). It seems that at this time they had come with Mary to take Jesus home out of the excitement of the crowds, perhaps sharing in the sentiment of others, that he was beside himself. (Mark 3:21.) Luke 8:20 ----And it was told him,—Jesus was in the crowd; he was busy teaching and healing; someone brought him word that his mother and brethren were desiring to speak to him. Who the “ brethren” were has caused much discussion. Many think that they were only “ cousins” or near relatives, but not “ brothers,” that is, sons of Mary. Others think that they were sons of Joseph by a former marriage, hence only half brothers in a legal sense. The natural meaning would be that they were his own “ brothers.” There is no evidence that Mary had no other children, and the easy, natural construetion of this and the parallel accounts is that they were his brothers in the flesh. This view must be accepted until some valid objection is established against it. Luke 8:21 ---But he answered and said unto them,—Here Jesus makes spiritual ties take precedence above fleshly ties; family ties are at best temporal, but spiritual ties are eternal. Luke gives a very brief statement of Jesus and makes it clear that those who “ hear the word of God, and do it,” are mother and brothers to him. No one is a child of God because of human parentage. (John 1:13.) Luke emphasizes that they must “ hear” the word of God and “ do” it in order to be called his brethren. Jesus makes “ doing” a test of friendship for him. (John 15:14.) Hence those who hear the word of God and do it are the nearest relatives of Jesus; this spiritual relation¬ship outranks in tenderness the natural or fleshly relationship. The spiritual kinship is more vital than any relationship of blood or of nature; it results in a fellowship at once blessed which is possible for all. The reply of Jesus could not have offended his brethren even though it did contain a delicate rebuke. JESUS THE STORM Luke 8:22-25 Luke 8:22 ---Now it came to pass on one of those days,—Parallel ac-counts of this are found in Matthew 8:18-27 and Mark 4:35-41. Luke is not definite with respect to the time; “ on one of those days” is a very indefinite time. Jesus was preaching in Galilee and Luke places the time during his Galilean ministry. Jesus and his disciples entered into a boat in the Sea of Galilee ; he desired to go to the other side; hence he said: “ Let us go over unto the other side of the lake.” He had entered a ship in order to discourse to the people. (Matthew 13:2; Mark 4:1.) It seems from Matthew that after preaching from the boat, he retired for a short time to the house, probably where he resided at Capernaum (Matthew 13:36); then he returned to the boat and possibly discoursed again for some time; but seeing the multitude continuing (Matthew 8:18), he commands to depart to the opposite side, which was the east side of the lake. Luke 8:23 ---But as they sailed he fell asleep:— Luke describes the details very accurately; his graphic and accurate language makes him a good historian. Jesus had been busy all day, and this was probably about sunset when they left the coast near Capernaum. He needed sleep, like other men, especially after a day of hard work. However, the storm which came upon them simultaneously with his sleep was not an accident. His disciples needed to feel their extremity and be the more deeply impressed with his power over the elements. Like Jonah, he slept in the midst of the storm; but how different from Jonah was the Christ! Luke describes the storm as coming “ down” “ on the lake.” The rain from the heavens and the surrounding mountains upon the lake fits Luke’ s description. It was one of those sudden, violent whirlwinds, at¬tended with some rain, which Luke here describes. The boat was “ filling with water” and all were in jeopardy. Matthew says “ that the boat was covered with the waves.” (Matthew 8:24.) ^ Luke 8:24 ---And they came to him,—It seemed strange to his disci¬ples that Jesus would be sleeping amidst such danger. His disciples aroused him by saying: “ Master, master, we perish.” Matthew records their saying: “ Save, Lord; we perish.” (Matthew 8:25.) Mark (Mark 4:38) says: “ Teacher, carest thou not that we perish?” Jesus in this incident is spoken of as “ Master,” “ Teacher,” and “ Lord.” The disciples recognized in Jesus one who filled all three of these offices to them. They appealed to him for help. Jesus arose, rebuked the wind and the surging of waves, and they ceased and there was a calm. Luke narrates all of these events with simple dignity; there is no effort on his part to amplify, give needless details, or excite wonder; there is a sublimity of truth. Luke 8:25 ---Where is your faith?—After all the miracles they had witnessed, after all the wisdom and power Jesus had shown, and after all his teaching for months past, why should they not have had faith? They should have had faith enough to feel secure in the presence of Jesus; they should have known that if they perished Jesus would also perish with them. They should have understood that the work of Jesus had not been completed, and that nothing could prevent his complet¬ing the Father’ s will. They marveled and said one to another : “ Who then is this, that he commandeth even the winds and the water, and they obey him ?”THE HEALED Luke 8:26-39 Luke 8:26 ---And they arrived at the country of the Gerasenes,—Parallel accounts are found in Matthew 8:28-34 and Mark 5:1-21. Of the three accounts of this miracle Matthew speaks of two demoniacs, while Mark and Luke speak of only one. This slight discrepancy is of no importance since Mark and Luke give attention to the one which was the most fierce. The old maxim: “ He who tells of two includes the one, and he who tells of the one does not deny the two” holds good as an explanation in this case. There are two difficulties presented here. One is with respect to the exact name of the place, and the other is with respect to its location. The name is “ Gadarenes,” “ Gerasenes,” “ Gergesenes.” Matthew uses “ Gadarenes,” while Mark uses “ Gerasenes” as does Luke. Its location is on the east side of the Sea of Galilee; however the exact location cannot be determined. Students of Bible geog¬raphy are not agreed as to its exact location. Many think that it was not far from “ Gadara.” It was a political district extending to the southeast shore of the Sea of Galilee with Gadara as its capital. Luke 8:27 -And when he was come forth upon the land,—It seems that Jesus and his disciples had sailed down the coast and came “ forth upon the land.” Luke, like Mark, fixes attention upon one of the demoniacs and says that “ there met him a certain man out of the city.” The man belonged to, or had lived in one of the towns which was called “ Gergesa” until this affliction of demons came upon him; after his affliction he dwelt in the caves also used as burial places for the dead. Luke is very minute in describing the man, and says, “ for a long time he had worn no clothes, and abode not in any house, but in the tombs.”Luke 8:28 -And when he saw Jesus,—When the demoniac saw Jesus “ he cried out, and fell down before him.” There seems to have been a dual or double will in this poor man; he had consciousness of his own, and there seems to have been a con-sciousness of the demons manifesting themselves in his speech and in his acts. When the two wills came into collision, the man fell down before Jesus; he recognized the superior authority and power and divinity of Jesus. He said: “ What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High God?” He then added a request in the words “ torment me not.” The demons knew Jesus; they knew who he was and the power that he possessed. They made confession of their knowledge and feared his mighty power.Luke 8:29 -For he was commanding the unclean spirit—The man possessed with the evil spirit is described as having an “ unclean spirit,” or possessing a demon. While in this verse Luke speaks of the “ evil spirit” in the singular; in the next verse he speaks of demons in the plural. This possession gave the man extraordinary strength at times, and caused him to break the “ chains and fetters” and bands with which the guard had attempted to keep him bound. After breaking the bands he would rush away from the guards into the wilderness or “ into the deserts.” Matthew describes the man as being so dangerous “ that no man could pass by that way.” (Matthew 8:28.) Mark describes him as being so that “ no man had strength to tame him.” (Mark 5:4.) Luke 8:30 ---And Jesus asked him, What is thy name?—We do not know why Jesus asked his name; it may have been asked to bring the man himself to a consciousness of his state; the an¬swer of the demon was “ Legion”; for many demons were entered into him. “ Legion” means many; it was a military term used by the Romans; a full Roman legion had 6,000 men. This may not have been a full legion, for Mark 5 and Mark 13 notes that the number of hogs was “ about two thousand.” The demon answered rather than the man; it is best to consider the general meaning of “ legion” to mean “ many.” Some think that there was one chief demon which was superior and a number of inferior ones under him. This shows the over¬whelming power over the entire nature of the man. Luke 8:31 ---And they entreated him—The demons earnestly besought him; they feared the power of Jesus; they recognized him as being the Son of God, and hence they knew that he was opposed to them. Their entreaty was that “ he would not command them to depart into the abyss.” There is no evidence that the demons meant by “ the abyss” the deep sea or “ abyss” of the Sea of Galilee; they meant the place or prison of evil spirits. The same Greek word occurs in Romans 10:7, and in Revelation 20:3. They did not wish to be sent into the abyss of torment or special punishment. They were willing to go any place to get out of the fearful presence of the Son of God. Luke 8:32-33---Now there was there a herd of many swine—The de-mons made the further request that they be permitted to enter the swine; Jesus granted their request. The herd of about two thousand were “ feeding on the mountain.” Jesus did not forbid or restrain them from going into the swine; the Greek word for “ suffered’ or “ gave leave” means primarily “ to turn over,” hence to suffer, allow, or permit. We do not know why Jesus did not restrain the demons from entering the swine, which led to the drowning of the herd. When granted the permission, the “ demons came out from the man, and en¬tered into the swine.” When they entered the swine, they caused the herd to rush “ down the steep into the lake,” and they were “ drowned.” They were feeding on the mountainside and rushed down into the sea and were strangled which resulted in their death. This miracle and that of the withered fig tree which Jesus cursed (Luke 11:12-14 Luke 11:20) are the only ones which resulted in any destruction of property. Luke 8:34-35---And when they that fed them—The feeders of the swine were astonished and frightened; nothing had occurred in all of their experience like this; the frenzied destruction of the whole herd in the sea was enough to frighten those who kept them; so they fled and reported in the city what had taken place. Their report reached far into the country and all who heard it were astonished. They came out to verify the report, and when they did so they “ found the man, from whom the demons were gone out” acting in a normal way. He was no longer a demoniac. Matthew records (Matthew 8:34) that “ all the city came out to meet Jesus” ; they were anxious to see one who had such authority. The man who had been afflicted was “ sitting, clothed and in his right mind, at the feet of Jesus.” He was clothed like others; his mind was sound and sane; he was sitting at the feet of Jesus and learning of the great Teacher. Luke 8:36-37 ---And they that saw it told them—Those who had been eyewitnesses, and others who may have gathered through cu-riosity, reported how the man who had been afflicted with the demons was “ made whole.” The keepers of the swine who had fled and told the owners may have returned with others and related what had taken place. “ And all the people of the country of the Gerasenes round about asked him to depart from them.” The effect of this miracle brought together a great multitude of people from the surrounding country. When they saw and heard what was done they made a unanimous request or entreaty that Jesus “ depart from them.” They were afraid of him; they were not only filled with a superstitious awe at such exhibition of power, but with fear that similar results might attend other miracles. Other owners of swine may have thought their traffic in danger. (Acts 19:24-31.) It may be that the loss of the swine concerned the people more than did the curing of this unfortunate man. Luke 8:38-39 ---But the man from whom the demons were gone— There is a wide contrast between the request of the people of the community and that of the man who had been made whole. This man “ prayed him that he might be with him.” Jesus was entering the boat (Mark 5:18) when this man came to him and asked to accompany him. There may have been several reasons for the man making this request; he had a warm desire of gratitude and love for what Jesus had done for him; the mean and selfish request and treatment of the Gerasenes strengthened his feelings for Jesus. It may be that this man feared a repossession by the demons after Jesus departed. (Matthew 12:43-45.) The demons prayed, and their prayers were granted to their own discomforture (verses 10, 12); the Gerasenes prayed, and their prayer also was granted by Jesus leaving them to their own destruction; the man made whole prayed and his petition is not granted for it was not best and he had a work to do. Return to thy house,—Jesus instructed the man to return to his house and declare all that “ God hath done for thee.” The man returned and published “ throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done for him.” This man had a great message to tell and he could tell it with power. The young ruler was required to sell his possessions and follow Jesus (Matthew 19:21); this young man did not obey. The leper was charged to say nothing to any man, but to go show himself to the priest (Mark 1:44); but he went out and published abroad what was done for him. The disciple was not allowed to go home and bury his father. (Matthew 8:21.) But this man was sent home to his friends to publish abroad what had been done for him. The whole country had stoutly urged Jesus to leave their country so that he could not spread the news of his kingdom there; but the healed man was sent to the same people to tell the story of his miraculous cure. He obeyed; he published in the whole city how great things Jesus had done for him. Mark 5:20 says that he spread the news in Decapolis, the region of the ten cities. JAIRUS’ RAISED; THE WOMAN WITH AN ISSUE OF BLOODLuk_8:40-56 Luke 8:40 ---And as Jesus returned,—Parallel accounts of this miracle are recorded in Matthew 9:18-26 and Mark 5:21-34. Mark gives the fullest account; Luke comes next in detail. According to Matthew, this miracle was performed immediately after Jesus’ discourse on fasting at Matthew’ s feast. For some reason un-known to us Mark and Luke deferred giving an account till after the healing of the demoniac. There is a wide contrast between the multitude that “ welcomed him” and the one that he had just left who had earnestly besought him to leave their country; one multitude almost drives him away, but the other was waiting to welcome him ; driven from Decapolis, he is wel¬comed in Capernaum. Luke 8:41 ---And behold, there came a man named Jairus,—Mark says that he was “ one of the rulers” (Mark 5:22); the synagogue was under the direction of an officer who sometimes exercised judicial power. According to Matthew (Matthew 9:10 Matthew 9:14 Matthew 9:18) Jesus seems to have been in the house of Matthew. It is not cer¬tain, however, as to the exact house. The ruler of the synagogue was sometimes an elder; it was his duty to convene the assembly, preserve order, invite readers and speakers. (Acts 13:15.) Jairus was probably a Jew, as his name seems to be the same as the Hebrew name “ Jair” (Numbers 32:41), meaning “ whom Jehovah enlightens.” He came to Jesus and prostrated himself at his feet in a very reverent and earnest manner. He entreated him to come into his house. Luke 8:42 ---for he had an only daughter,—Luke gives the reason that Jairus besought Jesus to come to his house. He had an only daughter and she lay dying. She was “ about twelve years of age.” Mark says (Mark 5:23) that she was “ at the point of death.” However, Matthew records (Matthew 9:18) that she was “ even now dead.” Jairus on reaching Jesus may have first given vent to his fears by the strong statement that she “ is even now dead,” or rather has just now died, and then have explained himself by saying that she was at the point of death. His strong faith is shown by his leaving his dying daughter to seek the aid of Jesus, and by his earnest entreaty for him to come at once. It is to be noted that he made this request for his “ daughter”; in the East daughters were and still are regarded as of small im-portance in the family; but the birth of a son is cause for great congratulation. This incident shows how Jewish life differed from ordinary Eastern ideas in esteem for girls in the family. Luke brings out the touching fact that this was an “ only daughter.” So he mentions an “ only son” of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:12), and the “ only child,” the lunatic boy (Luke 9:38). Luke 8:43-44 ---And a woman having an issue of blood—As Jesus had responded to the entreaties of Jairus, he started to his house, but as he crowded through the multitude, a woman having a chronic disease which, according to the law, rendered her unclean (Leviticus 12:5 Leviticus 15:25), came near enough to touch the border of his garment. Her hopeless case and the incurableness of her disease are shown in the fact that she had been afflicted for twelve years, that she had spent “ all her living upon physicians,” and they had failed to cure her. As a physician, Luke strongly puts her case as incurable. The woman had heard of Jesus and had faith in his power to heal her; she approached him in the crowd from behind. Perhaps she felt her unworthiness and was timid. Some think that “ the border of his garment” was that which the law required to be worn. (Numbers 15:38-40.) It may have been a fringe or tassel which was worn at each of the four corners of the outer garment. Luke 8:45 ---And Jesus said, Who is it that touched me?—The question implies neither ignorance nor deceit in Jesus; he asked it in order to call forth the confession of the woman for her own good and the good of others. Jesus asked questions of the two on their way to Emmaus. (Luke 24:17-19.) These ques¬tions were asked, not for his own information, but to draw out a statement of their views. All near Jesus denied touching him, and “ Peter said, and they that were with him, Master, the multitudes press thee and crush thee.” There was no unconscious healing virtue in Jesus; he was conscious of all things about him. When healing went forth from him he willed it to go. When all the disciples denied any knowledge of a special touch, Peter in his naturally impulsive way, speaking for the others, reminded Jesus of the crowd that were pressing and crushing upon him. The question to Peter seemed unreasonable since there was such a multitude press¬ing upon him from every side. Luke alone mentions the name of Peter in this connection. . Luke 8:46 ---But Jesus said, Some one did touch me;—Jesus knew that someone had touched him; he even knew who had touched him; nothing was hidden from him. He gave as his reason that he perceived “ that power had gone forth from me.” Jesus felt the senation of power already gone; he was conscious of the afflicted woman and her touch; he knew her faith. Her cure was the result of an answer of her touch of faith, which reached beyond the fringe of his garment to his divine nature. Luke 8:47 ---And when the woman saw that she was not hid,—Mark 5:32 says that “ he looked round about to see her that had done this thing.” This shows that Jesus knew, and now by his look he brings out her confession. The woman came “ trembling, and falling down before him,” and declared in the presence of all the people that she had touched Jesus and that “ she was healed immediately.” In humility and reverence she came to him and prostrated herself before him, giving herself up to his power and mercy. The woman publicly acknowledged what she had done, why she did it, and the blessings that she received. Luke 8:48 ---And he said unto her,—After the woman had made her confession public, Jesus now spoke words of comfort to her. He said: “ Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole.” It was not the touch of Jesus that healed her, neither was it the touch of the woman that brought the cure; her faith was the ground of her blessing. Having made this open confession Jesus bids her depart with his blessings completely healed. Jesus spoke tenderly to her. He said: “ Go in peace.” Matthew records him as saying “ be of good cheer.” (Matthew 9:22.) “ Go in peace” was a usual form of parting salutation, especially to inferiors; it expressed the friendship and good wishes. (Exodus 4:18; 1 Samuel 1:17; Luke 7:50; James 2:16.) Luke 8:49 ---While he yet spake,—Jesus had started to the house of Jairus, but was delayed by the curing of the woman with the issue of blood. This took some time; we know not how much. A messenger arrived from “ the ruler of the synagogue’ s house,” which said: “ Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Teacher.” It appears that Jairus had come with the knowledge and consent of his family; they seem to have known why he had gone to Jesus. Since the child died Jairus received word from his house that he need not trouble Jesus as his daughter was dead. Luke 8:50 ---But Jesus hearing it,—While the messenger brought the word to Jairus, and reported it to him, yet Jesus heard that the daughter was dead. He then said to Jairus: “ Fear not: only believe, and she shall be made whole.” While Jesus was talking with the woman this messenger came to Jairus, and Jesus, in deep sympathy for him, as he was for the afflicted woman, gave him assurance that his daughter should be made whole. This must have astonished those who thought that he might cure her, but could not raise her from the dead. Luke 8:51 ---And when he came to the house,—Jesus proceeded on his way to the house, and when he came to the house “ he suffered not any man to enter in with him, save Peter, and John, and James, and the father of the maiden and her mother.” Peter, James, and John are now privileged to go with him and Jairus into the house, and into the apartment where the body of the daughter was lying. (Mark 5:37 Mark 5:40.) The multitude and other disciples remained on the outside; possibly some, after learning that the daughter was dead, had not followed him to the house. Luke 8:52 ---And all were weeping,—All were expressing loud lamentations. According to Matthew, Jesus saw in the house “ the flute-players, and the crowd making a tumult.” (Matthew 9:23.) They were making doleful music according to their custom of mourning for the dead. When Jesus saw this he said: “ Weep not; for she is not dead, but sleepeth.” Jesus said that they should not regard her as dead, but as though she was sleeping. Matthew records them as laughing him to scorn. Jesus used a similar expression when he said “ Lazarus sleepeth,” which he explained to mean death. (John 11:11 John 11:14.) Jesus allowed the parents and others to regard the damsel as really dead and raised to life again. Luke 8:53-54 ---And they laughed him to scorn,—The company of mourners was certain that the child was dead. The people did not understand the language nor the power of Jesus, hence they “ laughed him to scorn.” They thought that he ought to know that she was dead. They reasoned that he claimed to be a prophet, the Messiah, the Son of God, yet he did not know the difference between one who was asleep and one who was dead. They thought that he either knew the difference or did not know the difference; if he knew the difference, he was falsifying when he said that she was asleep. In either case he was not what he claimed to be. But he, taking her by the hand,—Some authorities say that he put all out of the house, but this clause is omitted in the best translations. Jesus took the maiden by the hand and then said: “ Maiden, arise.” Mark gives the exact Aramaic words which Jesus used: “ Talitha cumi.” (Mark 5:41.) Luke 8:55-56 ---And her spirit returned,—At the command of Jesus her life came back to her at once; this was the actual return of her spirit. She had been really dead, but now has full life and in normal condition. Jesus commanded that they give her something to eat. This would be proof positive that she was healed as well as restored to life. If one is able to eat, one is in normal condition. It is probable that she had not eaten for some time as she had been sick. Her parents “ were amazed,” but Jesus charged them that they should “ tell no man what had been done.” The parents did not obey Jesus, for Matthew tells us (Matthew 9:26) that “ the fame hereof went forth into all that land.” Verse 1 In this chapter, there is a unique glance at Jesus' ministry, disclosing certain women as financial backers of his ministry (Luke 8:1-3), followed by events common to the other of the holy Gospels: the parable of the sower (Luke 8:4-15), lessons from the lamp (Luke 8:16-18), spiritual kinship more important than fleshly kinship (Luke 8:19-21), stilling the tempest (Luke 8:22-25), the Gerasene demoniacs (Luke 8:26-39), the raising of Jairus' daughter and the included wonder of healing the woman with an issue of blood (Luke 8:40-56). CERTAIN WOMEN WHO HELPED JESUSAnd it came to pass soon afterwards, that he went about through the cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good tidings of the kingdom of God, and with him the twelve, and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary that was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, who ministered unto them of their substance.(Luke 8:1-3) Only Luke gives this glimpse of the part women played in supporting the ministry of Jesus. This must not be thought of as a small group. There were "many others" besides the three mentioned. These faithful women, from their own resources, ministered unto Christ and the Twelve. Mary Magdalene ... This means that Mary came from the town of Magdala, thought to be the same place as Magadan on the west side of the sea of Galilee, today called El-Mejael and consisting of some twenty residences, and pointed out as the traditional home of Mary Magdalene. It is built on the water's edge at the southeast extremity of the sea of Galilee.[1]"There is not the least bit of evidence, either here or elsewhere in the New Testament, that Mary Magdalene was an immoral woman."[2] The sevenfold demon possession and the serious physical or mental condition that accompanied such a condition do not suggest immorality; nor can the fact of her being included in this remarkable group of women who were permitted to accompany the Lord and the Twelve be reconciled with the allegation that this woman had been a prostitute. As Adam Clarke said: There is a marvelous propensity in some commentators to make some of the women in scripture appear as women of fame. The opinion that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute is a vile slander.[3]There are seven Marys mentioned in the New Testament,[4] but this was one of the most signally honored. She was the first person to whom Jesus appeared after the resurrection and was entrusted with the announcement that Christ would ascend into heaven. Joanna ... and Susanna ... Nothing is known of these ladies, except what is said here. Joanna, whose husband was Herod's steward, may have been wealthy; and it must be assumed that Chuza himself was friendly to Jesus, perhaps a disciple, indicating that the court of Herod Antipas contained followers of the Lord Jesus. Preaching and bringing the good tidings ... It is not enough merely to preach the kingdom of God; it must also be "brought" in the lives of its adherents. The glory of Jesus was double in that his marvelous words were always illustrated and made actual by his holy life. [1] F. N. Peloubet, A Dictionary of the Bible (Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company, 1925), p. 379. [2] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), 489, [3] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Whole Bible (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1829), Vol. V, p. 417. [4] William P. Barker, Everyone in the Bible (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1966), p. 229. Verse 4 And when a great multitude came together and they of every city resorted unto him, he spake by a parable: The sower went forth to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden under foot, and the birds of the heaven devoured it. And other fell on the rock; and as soon as it grew, it withered away, because it had no moisture. And other fell amidst the thorns; and the thorns grew with it, and choked it. And other fell into the good ground, and grew, and brought forth fruit a hundred fold. As he said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.THE PARABLE OF THE SOWERThis parable was commented on rather fully in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 1:1-23, and in my Commentary on Mark, Mark 4:1-20. This is, in fact, The Master Parable, being given and explained by Jesus as a pattern of all the parables, so that men may "know all the parables" (Mark 4:13). It has the distinction of being recorded in the first three Gospels. It is perfectly safe to reject the opinions of scholars who object to finding more than "one point" in a parable. Jesus found and expounded a dozen points in this one! It is not clear just who started the intellectual fad that would deny any more than one point to the parable; but the knee-jerk acceptance of it by so many has elements of humor in it. For example, Hobbs prefaced his interpretation of this parable with the statement that "a parable usually illustrates one truth";[5] and then presented at least half-dozen "truths" founded on the parable! Evidently, he could not decide which was the one truth. The scholarly prejudice against interpreting the parables allegorically, as Jesus did, and as he plainly indicated his followers should do, is so ingrained that some of them have even denied the allegorical interpretation of this parable by Jesus, making it the "mistake" of the early church, retrospectively interpolated into the Gospels by all three synoptics; and, of course, an error in all three! A plague upon all such unbelievers! It is a source of the greatest encouragement that C. E. B. Cranfield, one of the greatest of the modern scholars, categorically refuted the denials which would make the allegorization of the parables the work of the early church, saying, "Jesus certainly allegorized this one."[6]The metaphor of this parable is that of a farmer sowing grain in the old-fashioned manner, striding through the plowed field, scattering the seeds by handfuls taken from a bag carried over his shoulder, and spreading them in an arc before him as he walked. The hard beaten path along or through the field, as well as the thorns were common features of such a field. Such a scene as this has been witnessed by millions in all ages; but only Jesus our Lord ever viewed it in the cosmic dimensions set forth here. His explanation is as follows: [5] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 137. [6] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), p. 158. Verse 9 And his disciples asked him what this parable might be. And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God; but to the rest in parables; that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand. Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. And those by the way side are they that have heard; then cometh the devil and taketh the word from their heart, that they may not believe and be saved. And those on the rock are they who, when they have heard, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. And that which fell among the thorns, these are they that have heard and as they go on their way they are choked by cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. And that in the good ground, these are such as in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, hold fast, and bring forth fruit with patience.It will be noted that Luke's account, though not as full as the others, is nevertheless effective. Here the same multiple analogies noted in Matthew and Mark are drawn by the Saviour. In fact, Luke more fully identified the thorns in their threefold character of riches, cares, and pleasures. To understand the parable in its fullest implications, it is necessary to read and study all three accounts. Critical scholarship has more trouble with Jesus' words giving his reason for speaking in parables, "that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand," than with anything else in this passage. Some are simply incredulous that Jesus would have used a device specifically to blind and harden some of his hearers; but such was undoubtedly the case. The explanation is in Matthew, where that sacred author quoted at length from Isaiah 6:9-10, thus explaining the use of parables as God's means of bringing about the hardening of Israel, the parables, of course, not being the cause of the hardening, but the occasion of it. The real reason of the blindness and unbelief of Israel lay in the fact that they had "closed their eyes" to the truth. Summers missed the point altogether when he accused Matthew of elaborating on "the idea to the extent of quoting Isaiah,"[7] that quotation deriving not from Matthew's "elaboration" but from Jesus' announcement of it in connection with his explaining why he taught in parables. Of course, erroneous Markan theory blinds some scholars on this, Matthew's account being original, older, and fuller than the others in this section. Furthermore, what is said of the parables here is true of the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ. It was so designed that stubborn, willful, and self-deluded, hardened hearers of it will actually be destroyed by the holy Gospel itself. Paul said: We are indeed the incense offered by Christ to God, both for those who are on the way to salvation, and for those who are on the way to perdition: to the latter it is a deadly fume that kills, to the former a vital fragrance that brings to life (2 Corinthians 2:16, New English Bible). There can be no wonder then that Jesus cried with a loud voice and said: "Take heed how ye hear!" The dual quality of the parables: (1) enlightening them of right spirit, and (2) blinding and hardening the ones who were evil, must therefore be understood as pertaining to the entire Gospel itself. The same sunshine melts butter and hardens putty; and the same glorious Gospel saves some and destroys others; but the difference lies, not in the Gospel, but is found inherently within men themselves. It is what a man IS that determines, more than anything else, what he gets out of the Gospel. For a list of analogies, and line-by-line comment, see the parallel accounts in my Commentary on Matthew and my Commentary on Mark. ENDNOTE: [7] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974), p. 93. Verse 16 And no man, when he hath lighted a lamp, covereth it with a vessel or putteth it under a bed; but putteth it on a stand, that they that enter in may see the light.LESSONS FROM THE LAMPBy this Jesus indicated his true purpose of enlightening all men by the parables he was bringing. The blinding and hardening were not something Jesus desired, but a necessary result, a side-effect, of the truth's impact upon wicked hearts, As Summers said, "Jesus' main purpose in using parables ... was to make his teaching easier to grasp."[8] Thus, this verse has an application to Jesus himself; but there is also an application to Jesus' disciples. A true follower of the Lord, upon lighting a lamp, that is, by becoming religiously and spiritually enlightened through obedience to the Gospel, should not hide it under a bed, symbolizing either laziness or licentiousness; nor under a vessel, symbolizing the cares and preoccupations of life; nor under a bushel (Matthew 5:15), symbolizing business, industry and commerce; but he should display his light upon the "stand." The Scriptures do not leave us in the dark as to what this stand is. It is a local congregation of the Lord's church (Revelation 1:20). ENDNOTE: [8] Ibid., p. 92. Verse 17 For nothing is hid, that shall not be made manifest; nor anything secret, that shall not be known and come to light.This too has a dual application: (1) to the fact that Jesus' purpose was to reveal the whole Gospel to men, not to conceal it, and also (2) to the hidden secrets of every life. These shall be made known in judgment; but more immediately, the choices men make with reference to believing and obeying are likewise great revealers of the secret hearts of men. Verse 18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he thinketh he hath.The person who has the honest and good heart and responds by faithfully hearing and obeying the saving words of Christ shall be given the riches of the kingdom, even unto eternal life; but the person who has an evil heart, even though like the Pharisees glorying in the law of God, shall have what they think they have (the word of God) taken away from them. Verse 19 And there came to him his mother and brethren, and they could not come at him for the crowd. And it was told him, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. But he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these that hear the word of God, and do it.HIS MOTHER AND HIS There is no need to suppose that this visit to Jesus by his mother and brethren was due to any sinister purpose on their part. It is true that, at first, Jesus' brothers did not fully believe in Christ (John 7:3); but, as Summers noted. "There is nothing else in the Gospels to indicate her (Mary's) opposition to what he was doing."[9] Nor is there anything to the contrary here. As Hobbs put it, "In all likelihood they merely came to see Jesus and for no other reason."[10]The great lesson uttered by Jesus on this occasion was to the effect that spiritual kinship with the Lord through hearing and obeying him is far more desirable than any fleshly relationship. [9] Ibid., p. 95. [10] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 140. Verse 22 Now it came to pass on one of those days, that he entered into a boat, himself and his disciples; and he said unto them, Let us go over unto the other side of the lake: and they launched forth. But as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm of wind on the lake; and they were filling with water, and were in jeopardy. And they came to him and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish. And he awoke and rebuked the wind and the raging water: and they ceased, and there was a calm. And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And being afraid they marvelled, saying one to another, Who then is this, that he commandeth even the winds and the water, and they obey him? THE TEMPESTThe purpose of the Gospel authors in relating this wonder is apparent from the manner in which they closed the narrative (see also Matthew 8:27; Mark 4:41). It was their purpose to demonstrate the ground upon which the holy apostles hailed Jesus as a supernatural person. The parallel accounts add significant information to what is written here. Matthew placed some of the words attributed to Jesus BEFORE he rebuked the winds and waves, indicating that a great deal more might have been said by both Christ and the apostles, in addition to the few key words given here. Mark indicated clearly that there were a number of other boats which attempted the late crossing to the east shore, thus providing additional witnesses to this wonder, and also stressing the fact that the Lord here saved not only the apostles but a great many other people as well. This miracle proved the authority of Jesus over the forces of nature; and, for Christians who believe that Jesus of Nazareth was (is) the incarnation of Almighty God himself, the attempts to rationalize it are far more unbelievable than the wonder itself. Rebuked the wind ... This action on Jesus' part showed that in at least some natural disorders Satan must be recognized as able to work in such things. As Geldenhuys said: He actually rebuked the powers of Satan which at that moment were active in the elements. The earth "and the fullness thereof" belong to the Lord, and he guides the courses of wind and weather. But nevertheless, God sometimes permits the evil one to exercise power over the forces of nature within certain limits.[11]Trench and many others have pointed out the same thing. See parallel passages in Mark and Matthew with their comments in this series of commentaries. Where is thy faith ...? Of course, a composite of the three Gospel accounts shows the following words were spoken by Jesus: "Why are you afraid; O men of little faith" (Matthew 8:26). "Why are you afraid; have you no faith?" (Mark 4:40). "Where is your faith?" (Luke 8:25). All of the clucking over which Gospel author correctly quoted what Jesus said is laughable. Of course, he said all of these things, a total of some twenty-one words; and even these must be viewed as a most abbreviated report of all that occurred and all that was said during the savage onset of the storm that threatened the lives of the sacred group. Master, master, we perish ... Exactly the same is true here. Each of the Gospels gives a different word in reporting the address to Jesus by the apostles. Matthew, Mark and Luke have "Lord," "Teacher" and "Master," respectively; but what is so strange about twelve terribly frightened men in the emergency of a violent storm using different words of address in their spontaneous and disorganized cries for help? And what is so strange that some would have remembered and reported one term, and another a different term? There is plenty of evidence that the apostles freely used all three of these terms of address to Jesus. It is only an ignorant, captious question which suggests that one, and only one, of these words, was addressed to Jesus on such an occasion as this. But why did Jesus rebuke the apostles for lack of faith? In their fear of death they failed to demonstrate confidence that Christ was fully able to take care of them. It was impossible for that ship with the Redeemer of the world on board to founder, no matter what happened; and the Lord's followers today need to take account of a similar truth. It is equally impossible for the church of Christ, the body of which he himself is the Head and Preserver, ever to be destroyed, notwithstanding all the forces of hell that continually assail it.[12]Let the holy church make sure that Christ the true Head is aboard; and if so, no matter what storms may rage against it the institution and all on board are assured of safety. Before leaving the account of this miracle, it should again be observed that a composite of all that is written in the New Testament is the only source of fully understanding what happened. Jesus himself thus used the sacred Scriptures; for it will be remembered that during his temptation in the wilderness, Satan quoted certain Scriptures; but Jesus said, "Again it is written" (Matthew 4:1-4). This set the pattern for all who would truly interpret the Holy Scriptures. Unlearned preachers were once criticized for their reliance upon isolated texts; but Satan has achieved a breakthrough by his instigating exactly the same method among the disbelieving scholars of certain intellectual communities who have been duped into using a "proof Gospel" (Mark); and their conclusions based upon such a monstrous error are just as unscientific and unreliable as the postulations of some unlettered frontier preacher with his proof text. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). [11] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 252. [12] Ibid. Verse 26 And they arrived at the country of the Gerasenes, which is over against Galilee.THE It is merely a pseudocon that Luke has "Gerasenes," whereas Matthew has "Gadarenes." One author referred to the whole district, of which the city of Gadar was dominant; and the other referred to Gerasa, the more particular location. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 The closing sentence of the preceding verse is continued in this to include certain women, etc. One of them was Mary Magdalene who had been possessed of seven devils until Jesus relieved her of them. She was present at the cross when Jesus was crucified (Matthew 27:56). 3 The women had been favored by Jesus miraculously, and they showed their appreciation by ministering to him of their substance, which means necessities of life. 4 These parables were spoken to the people, not his disciples. The reason for teaching them in this manner is explained at Matthew 13:11. 5 This is the beginning of the parables, and the full explanation is given in Matthew 13 which will not be repeated in detail here. However, a few of the items of this passage will be noticed. Thorns means a bramble, and is the same plant of which the soldiers made a crown and placed upon the head of Jesus in mockery (Matthew 27:29). Devil is from which is applied to Satan as the chief of demons. Good ground is defined as an honest heart that causes good fruit to be produced. 6 The teaching of this verse is that a man should not hinder the influence of righteous deeds by some unwise action otherwise. (See Romans 14:16.) 7 As a candle is not supposed to be covered, so the good things learned from Jesus should be permitted to go out for the benefit of others. 8 That which he seemeth to have. (See Matthew 13:12; Matthew 25:29.) 9 The press means the crowd that pressed about the door. 0 The brethren means the same as the word ordinarily denotes. Had Luke meant his spiritual brethren (as the Romanists teach), there would have been no reason for mentioning his mother, for that is a fleshly relationship. 1 See the comments at Matthew 12:47-48. 2 This lake means the Sea of Galilee which Jesus wished to cross, where he was going to do more teaching and perform his great deeds. 3 Filled with water is explained by the closing words, were in jeopardy. We know that if the boat had been literally filled they would have perished then, but instead of that they were in danger of perishing. 4. We perish means the same as the preceding verse about being in great danger. Rebuked the wind indicates control over inanimate objects by miraculous power. 5 They had heard him command intelligent creatures such as the demons, but were astonished to see him control things that have no consciousness. 6 Gadarenes (also called Gergesenes) was situated near the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and that is where Jesus went ashore. 7 These tombs were cavities in the rocks, such as were sometimes used as burial places. This man was possessed with devils, which made him abnormally strong. h. 8 The devils knew Christ because they were fallen angels and had seen him before they were cast out of heaven. (See 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6.) Torment me not. The devils knew that if they had to leave this world they would have to go back to the place of torment into which they were cast when they first sinned. 9 The man was under the control of the devils. (See the note at Matthew 8:28.) It explains the condition of being possessed with the devil. 0 Legion means an indefinite but great number of beings. But one of the devils was spokesman for the others Is why the pronoun is in singular number sometimes. 1 Deep is from ABUSSOS which is defined by Thayer as follows: "Bottomless, unbounded; the pit; the abyss." He also explains it to mean, "The immeasurable depth; a very deep gulf or chasm in the lowest of the earth; the common receptacle of the dead, Romans 10:7, and especially as the abode of demons, Luke 8:31; Revelation 9:1; Revelation 11:7; Revelation 17:8; Revelation 20:1; Revelation 20:3." 2 The devils did not know the swine would perish, so they requested to be let go into them rather than go back to this deep where they had been tormented. 3 The possession of devils made the swine mad and induced them to destroy themselves by drowning, thus forcing the spirits out of the world. 7 It will be well to read the comments on Matthew 8:28-34. 9 Gratitude prompted the man to wish for the privilege of accompanying Jesus, but the Lord preferred to make a messenger of him among the people of his own house. He did so and even extended his report throughout the whole city. 0 After the miracle of casting out these devils, Jesus entered the boat again and recrossed the sea, when he found people waiting for him with joy. 6 For detailed comments on this paragraph see the ones on Matthew 9:18-26. For the reader's convenience, I shall make some remarks on various specific items in the present paragraph. A ruler was one presiding over a synagogue. The woman had a chronic hemorrhage of twelve years' standing. She was cured immediately which was always the case with miraculous healing. Not dead but sleepeth is explained in the passage cited above at Matthew 9:24. H.Leo Boles Commentary On Mark 9 THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE Luke 9:1-9 Luke 9:1 ---And he called the twelve together,—Parallel accounts of this incident are found in Matthew 10:1-42 and Mark 6:6-13. Luke hastily passes over several months, touching only upon the leading points. It is thought that this took place while Jesus and his disciples were making their third general preaching tour throughout Galilee. It is not known at what place these events occurred. There is but little variation in the different accounts. The apostles had been called and appointed for their work; they had been with Jesus for some time and are now to be endowed with miraculous power. Jesus called “ the twelve together,” and gave them power to perform miracles to confirm that which they preached. The number twelve is significant in the scriptures. Jacob had twelve sons; there were twelve tribes of Israel; twelve stones in the breastplate of the high priest (Exodus 28:17-21); twelve loaves of showbread (Leviticus 24:5-8); the altar and the twelve pillars which Moses erected at Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:4); the altar of twelve stones of Elijah (1 Kings 18:31); the twelve spies who went to search the promised land (Numbers 13:1; Deuteronomy 1:23) ; twelve stones taken from the bed of the Jordan (Joshua 4:3). The woman with a crown of twelve stars (Revelation 12:1) and the new Jerusalem with twelve foundation stones (Revelation 21:14) are mentioned. Luke 9:2 ---And he sent them forth to preach—The purpose of their being endowed with “ power and authority” was that they might preach “ the kingdom of God” with the greatest effect. In doing this they would heal the sick and cast out demons. They had a double office of proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing the sick. Their first business was “ to preach,” in the sense of proclaiming the kingdom of God; that is, proclaim that the kingdom was near. The healing was to attest the preaching. Luke 9:3 ---And he said unto them,—Luke agrees with Matthew in telling what they were to take; there is a slight variation in the record given by Mark (Mark 6:8). Mark records that they could take a “ staff,” but Matthew and Luke omit that. This discrepancy has given trouble to commentators; however, it may mean the second staff. The record as given by Matthew and Luke would forbid an extra staff, while the record given by Mark mentions only the common staff that everyone carried on his journey. They were to take nothing extra; no extra staff, no wallet, no bread, no money, no extra coat. They were to make no preparation for the journey, but go just as they were. The “ wallet” was generally made of leather for carrying provisions. This has been called the “ limited commission” of the twelve. The entire “ outfit” of these twelve shows that they were plain fishermen, farmers, or shepherds. Luke 9:4-5 ---And into whatsoever house ye enter,—When they arrived at any town or village they were to go into the house as invited and welcome proclaimers of the coming kingdom; they were to make that house their temporary abode until they should depart; they were not to go from house to house, shifting their place of abode. They were to seek first a suitable place to lodge and there abide till the work in that city was accomplished. Mark tells us that they were sent “ forth by two and two” (Mark 6:7); hence when they went into a house they were to remain there and preach the tidings of the kingdom in that town. And as many as receive you not,—This tells how they should act toward the rejector of their message as well as themselves. If any person or persons, family or city, rejected them they should “ shake off the dust” from their feet as a testimony of the condemnation. The Jews were accustomed to shake off the dust of the heathen when they returned from a foreign country to their own land. This meant that they renounced all fellowship with those who rejected them. Paul shook off the dust from his feet against his persecutors at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:51), and shook out his garments against the Jews at Corinth (Acts 18:6). Luke 9:6 And they departed,—After receiving their commission, they followed the instruction of Jesus and “ went throughout the villages.” The names of the villages are not given. It seems that they went through the southern and southeastern portion of Galilee. Jesus cautioned them against entering a city of the Samaritans (Matthew 10:5), which implies that they would at least come near the borders of Samaria. It also seems that Herod had his attention directed to Jesus by this mission of the twelve. (See verse 7.) It is probable that they visited Tiberias or its vicinity, the capital of Galilee, where Herod resided most of the time. As they went they preached “ the gospel.” They announced the glad tidings to the people, individually and collectively, as they had opportunity. Mark records that they preached that men should repent. (Mark 6:12.) They healed the sick in all of the villages. Luke is brief, but comprehensive. Mark 6:13 says “ they cast out many de-mons, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.” Luke 8:7-9 ---Now Herod the tetrarch—Herod’ s opinion of Jesus may be found also in Matthew 14:1-12 and Mark 6:14-29. Mark’ s record is the fullest; Luke comes next in detail; but Matthew as well as Mark relates the recent beheading of John the Baptist, which Luke omits. “ Tetrarch” is a Greek word meaning “ a ruler of the fourth part,” which became a common title for those who governed any part of a province, subject only to the Roman emperor. In popular language, and from courtesy, he is styled “ king.” (Matthew 14:9; Mark 6:14.) This was Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great. He ruled over Galilee, Samaria, and Perea. He first married a daughter of Are tas, king of Arabia, but afterwards took Herodias, his brother Philip’ s wife. Aretas, indignant at the insult offered his daughter, waged war against Herod and defeated him. When Herod heard of Jesus he was at a loss to know what to think of it; he was in a state of painful uncertainty. by some, that Elijah had appeared;—They were willing to assign Jesus any place but his rightful place. Some thought that Elijah had been brought back to earth according to a misinterpretation of Mal 4:5. Still others thought that he was “ one of the old prophets” who had been raised from the dead. There were those who were not ready to regard him as John the Baptist, neither would they regard him as Elijah, but they thought that he was some prophet who had come from among the old prophets. The people, however, accorded to Jesus a higher mission; some higher than others, but none so high as that of the Messiah. His Messiahship was perceived by faith. (Matthew 16:16-17.) And Herod said, John I beheaded:—Herod reluctantly beheaded John the Baptist. This is the only reference by Luke to the death of John, which at first seems remarkable, since he gives so particular account of his birth. However, Luke gives John’ s history only as he was connected with Jesus as his forerunner. John’ s death occurred about seventeen months after his imprisonment. Herod in his perplexity now inquires: “ Who is this, about whom I hear such things?’’ Matthew (Matthew 14:2) and Mark (Mark 6:14) do not record the doubt in Herod’ s mind as the feelings and convictions of a guilty conscience. THE FIVE FED Luke 9:10-17 Luke 9:10 ---And the apostles, when they were returned,—The twelve returned in twos, as they went out, and told Jesus what they had done. They gave a faithful report of what was done, but neither of the writers of the gospels tells us what their report was or what they did. Some think that their success was small compared with that of the seventy. If it had been great, and had excited their wonder, it would have been natural for some of the writers to have recorded that fact. Jesus took them away from the multitude and went to “ a city called Bethsaida.’’ Here Luke speaks of the twelve as “ apostles’’ ; the word means “ persons sent forth.” Jesus gave this title (Luke 6:13) to the twelve when he selected them from among Tiis disciples. Mark appropriately applies this title now to the twelve just returning from their mission. “ Bethsaida” means “ house of fish”; it was the native place of Andrew, Peter, and Philip. (John 1:44 John 12:21.) It was on the east side of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus and his disciples had gone there for rest, but the multitude would not let them have time to rest. Luke 9:11 ---But the multitudes perceiving it followed him:—This miracle of feeding the five thousand is recorded by all four of the writers of the gospels. Compare Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; John 6:1-14 with Luke’ s record. Jesus had withdrawn with his disciples from the people without making known the place where he would go. Matthew and Mark state that the people followed him on foot, which was easy enough to do if Jesus went by boat across the lake. The popularity of Jesus among the common people and their eagerness to hear his teaching and witness his miraculous power are here very briefly presented. Jesus welcomed them instead of being dis¬pleased that they should encroach upon his retirement. Matthew and Mark state that he was moved with compassion at the sight of the multitude; instead of dismissing them that he and his disciples might enjoy quiet, he spoke unto them concerning the kingdom of God. The idea of the original is that he continued the work of “ teaching” and “ healing” till the day was far spent. Luke 9:12 ---And the day began to wear away;—The fact that it was near the close of the day suggested to the twelve that Jesus should dismiss the multitude that they might go and find food and lodging in some of the villages not very far away. This implies that there were villages and places not far away suffi-cient to provide for a crowd of five thousand men with their women and children. The disciples reminded Jesus that they were “ in a desert place.” This means that they were away from villages and thoroughfares where lodging and food could be obtained. Luke 9:13-15 ---But he said unto them,—Jesus commanded his disci-ples to give the multitude something to eat, declaring that there was no necessity for sending Ihem away. (Matthew 14:16.) This was done to excite their expectation and to strengthen their faith. Philip was addressed in order to try his faith; he was asked where food could be obtained; he an¬swered that two hundred pennyworth, or about thirty dollars, would not be sufficient. (John 6 John 5-7.) The twelve apostles then asked if they should go and buy that amount. (Mark 6:37.) They had discovered that there were five loaves and two fishes, but they observed that this was a very small amount to feed such a multitude. However, Jesus commanded that the five thousand men be seated in companies of about fifty in each company. The disciples followed his instruction and the multitude was seated. Luke gives only the number of men present; Matthew 14:21 records that there were five thousand men “ besides women and children.” Some have estimated that there were probably seven or eight thousand in all. It will be observed that Jesus commands order even in feeding the multitude. The plain where they were seated was covered with grass. Luke 9:16 ---And he took the five loaves and the two fishes,—Jesus took the loaves and fishes and implored the blessings of God on them. John 6:11 says that he gave thanks. The giving of thanks is included in blessing. The word translated “ bless” is used in praising God for favors (Luke 1:64) ; also in invoking God’ s blessing (Luke 2:34) ; also in God’ s conferring favors (Hebrews 6:14; Acts 3:26). These three senses really met in Jesus. He praised God and implored his blessing. The same diversity is seen in the account of the Lord’ s Supper. Matthew (Matthew 26:26) and Mark (Mark 14:22) have “ blessed”; Luke (Luke 22:19) and Paul (1 Corinthians 11:24) have “ gave thanks.” The usual way of preparing bread for eating was by breaking it; the scriptures speak of “ breaking bread,” but never of “ cutting it.” Luke 9:17 ---And they ate, and were all filled:—Jesus “ blessed” the food, gave it to his disciples, and they distributed it to the multitude. There are three facts stated here that should be noted, namely: (1) “ they ate”; (2) “ were all filled”; (3) twelve basketfuls were taken up of the broken pieces. John 6:12 records the fact that Jesus told them to gather up the fragments so that nothing should be lost. We know the number of baskets was twelve, and that each basket was filled, but we do not know the size of the baskets. There remained of the loaves and fishes much more than was had at the beginning. Probably the baskets were the small provision baskets in which a Jew commonly carried his food to avoid pollution when going abroad, or among other people. In the miracle of the four thousand soon after, the basket was the larger rope basket. In the larger basket Paul was let down from the wall at Damascus and escaped from the fury of his enemies. (Acts 9:25.) JESUS HIS DEATH Luke 9:18-27 Luke 9:18 ---And it came to pass,—Compare Matthew 16:13-28 and Mark 8:27-31 with the record given here by Luke. Both Matthew and Mark give more details of this scene than Luke does, both locating it on the “ coasts” or “ towns” of Caesarea Philippi. There was a Caesarea on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, but Caesarea Philippi was on the extreme northern boundary of the ancient land of Israel, near the latitude of Tyre, and at the head of one of the principal tributaries of the Jordan. Jesus and his disciples had retired to this remote district of Galilee to evade and forestall the uprising of the people to “ take him by force, to make him king.” (John 6:15.) He had just performed the miracle of feeding the five thousand and was very popular with the people at this time. Luke 9:19 ---And they answering said,—Jesus had asked his disciples: “ Who do the multitudes say that I am?” Jesus did not ask this question to gain information; he knew the minds of all; he did not ask his disciples to learn what they thought of him. He knew their mind. He asked the question that he might correct the views of his disciples and to strengthen their faith. The disciples answered that some of the people thought that he was John the Baptist, others that he was Elijah, and still others that he was “ one of the old prophets.” Herod was one who believed that he was John the Baptist; in fact, Herod seems to have started this report. (Matthew 14:2.) Some thought that he was Elijah, while others placed him among the old prophets. It is not clear whether they thought that an old prophet had arisen from the dead, or that Jesus as a prophet had the spirit of one of the old prophets. It seems strange that they did not in their various answers think that he was the Messiah. Probably they did not class him as the Messiah because he did not fulfill their preconceived notions of the earthly dignity and glory of their coming king. Luke 9:20 ---And he said unto them,—Jesus was not so much con-cerned about what the multitudes thought of him as he was about what his disciples thought of him. Hence he put the question directly to them and said: “ But who say ye that I am?” So soon as they answered his first question, he asked a second personal and pointed question. This is an emphatic question; it means “ but ye, who do ye say?” It should not have mattered much to the disciples as to what the multitudes thought of Jesus, but it was a matter of great moment as to what they thought about Jesus. Peter answered for the group and declared, “ The Christ of God.” Each writer records Peter’ s confession differently. Matthew records him as con¬fessing: “ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16.) Mark records the confession: “ Thou art the Christ." (Mark 8:29.) “ Christ” is the Greek word for “ anointed” ; “ Messiah” is the Hebrew word which means the same. “ The Christ of God” would mean the anointed of God. Luke 9:21-22 ---But he charged them,—The disciples were to be si¬lent now about his Messianic nature; the time had not arrived for them to proclaim it. Perhaps they did not clearly under¬stand it, and hence could not successfully proclaim it to oth¬ers. There were some things which must befall him before they were to proclaim him as the Son of God. The things which he now enumerates, when they behold, will deepen their faith in him as “ the Christ of God.” Jesus does not say here, but it is implied, that after he shall have suffered these things, they may then proclaim him as the Christ. Among the things which he mentions that he must suffer, are that he should “ be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes,” “ be killed,” and “ be raised up” on the third day. The “ elders” were the rulers of the people; “ chief priests” were the heads of the twenty-four courses or classes of the priests. David had divided the priests into the twenty-four classes. “ The scribes” were those who transcribed the law and were also teachers of the people; since they transcribed the law, they were supposed to know it and teach it. All of these would reject Jesus; the verb for “ rejected” in the origi¬nal means to reject on scrutiny or trial, and therefore implies deliberate rejection. “ The third day” means “ after three days,” as Mark expresses it. (Mark 8; 31.) “ After three days” is just another way of saying “ on the third day” and does not mean “ on the fourth day.” Luke 9:23-24 ---And he said unto all,—Jesus wanted all to understand the lesson of self-sacrifice; they could not yet understand the full meaning of the words of Jesus as applied to his approach¬ing death of which he had been speaking. The shadow of the cross is already across the path of Jesus, but his disciples do not see it. Jesus said to his disciples if ye would continue to be followers of the Messiah that ye call me, you will need fur¬ther denial of self. There are no high positions, no places of ease and honor, no wealth or power to gratify the earthly am¬bitions of men as you might expect in the company of an earthly king; but there are daily crosses, a life of hardship, ob¬scurity, persecution, and dishonor in the world if you follow Jesus. (Romans 8:36; 1 Corinthians 15:31.) If his apostles shared in the delusions of the scribes in respect to the glorious temporal reign of the Messiah, this language of Jesus must have dazed and bewildered them. For whosoever would save his life—Here Jesus presents a remarkable paradox to impress and to fasten the truth upon all his disciples. In an attempt to save the present life, the body, one risks and often loses the true life, the soul. We gain the pleasure of time and lose the bliss of eternity. The natural life is doomed to death; we strive to save it, we lose it, and do not gain spiritual life in Christ. But losing this life in Christ we save it by having it transformed into a new life in him who is the life and light of the world. Luke 9:25 ---For what is a man profited,—Here Jesus puts the case in a very common-sense question of profit and loss. If a man gains the world, yet forfeits his own self, his true self, becom¬ing a castaway in God’ s great kingdom, what a sorrowful bar¬gain ! The loss is eternal. There can be no means of profit to the one who loses heaven, it matters not what he may gain on earth. Loss as a consequence of seeking the world and not following Jesus cannot recompense for gain of all of this world. Luke 9:26 ---For whosoever shall be ashamed of me—Jesus identifies himself with his word; he said that those who were ashamed of him and his word that he would be ashamed of them. The cross, the trials, the persecutions, the loss of life itself are awful tests of Christian faith and fidelity. No wonder some stop and stagger in the face of such a thorny pathway to heaven. To turn aside, to waver is to be “ ashamed” of Christ, and of such he will be ashamed in the day of his glorious ap¬pearance. Jesus endured the shame of the cross. (Hebrews 12:2.) The man at the feast who had to take a lower seat did it with shame. (Luke 14:9.) Paul declared that he was not ashamed of the gospel. (Romans 1:16.) Onesiphorus was not ashamed of Paul. (2 Timothy 1:16.) Jesus speaks of himself here as he often does “ as the Son of man.” He is going to come again; at his next advent he will come “ in his own glory.” His first advent was attended with humiliation and suffering, but the next time he will come in all of his glory with his angels. He will be accompanied with “ the glory of the Father” and the glory of “ the holy angels” when he comes the second time. This makes a threefold glory that shall at¬tend Christ when he comes again. Luke 9:27 ---But I tell you of a truth,—Jesus speaks with the greatest emphasis when he says that he tells of a truth. He gives as-surance that some who were standing in his presence at that time should not “ taste of death” until they should see the kingdom of God; that is, the kingdom of God would come be-fore some who were present would die. The word “ taste” is used in the sense of “ experience.” It is often used in this sense in classical Greek. It is used in the New Testament only with respect to Christ here and in the parallels, Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; Hebrews 2:9. This shows that the kingdom of God had not at this time been established. THE Luke 9:28-36 Luke 9:28 ---And it came to pass—This remarkable scene of the trans-figuration of Jesus is recorded with only the slightest diversities by Matthew 17:1-8 and by Mark 9:2-8; it is alluded to also by Peter in 2 Peter 1:17-18. The time was one week after the conversation just previously recorded. The place is a point of quiet subordinate importance. Commentators are not agreed as to the mountain on which the transfiguration took place. Tradition has located it on Mount Tabor, but the probabilities are that it was on some of the peaks of Mount Hermon imme-diately adjacent to Caesarea Philippi, where, as we learn from Matthew 16:13 and Mark 8:27, this conversation commencing with Luke 9:18 was held. However, a full week had inter¬vened before the transfiguration, and no record remains to show whether they had or had not been traveling during this time. Jesus took Peter and John and James with him “ up into the mountain to pray.” Luke is the only one who re¬cords the purpose of their going into the mountain; they went up there “ to pray.” Jesus had taken these three apostles with him on other occasions; they were with him when he raised the daughter of Jairus (Luke 5:37) and they alone were the witnesses of his agony in the garden of Gethsemane (Luke 14:33). Luke 9:29 ---And as he was praying,—He had gone into the mountain to pray, and now as he was engaged in prayer the transfigura¬tion took place. The transfiguration of Christ is closely asso¬ciated with his predictions both of his death and his return in his threefold glory. His countenance was altered; that is, the appearance of his face became different; Matthew 17:2 says that “ his face did shine as the sun.” Luke does not use the word “ transfigured,” but Matthew and Mark do. His raiment be¬came white and dazzling; Mark 9:3 says that it was “ exceed¬ing white,” and Matthew 17:2 says it was as “ white as the light.” His face did shine as the sun, and his garment was white as the light. The texture of his garment was not changed, but it was bright with a radiant light of his glorified body. Luke 9:30 ---And behold, there talked with him two men,—Glory was not only manifested in and around the person of Jesus, but heavenly visitors attended him. “ Moses and Elijah” were there and “ talked with him.” Matthew and Luke say “ Moses and Elijah/' while Mark says “ Elijah with Moses.” Moses was the representative of the law and Elijah was the representative of the prophets; Luke presents them as both talking with him. We need not ask hozv Peter, James, and John knew Moses and Elijah; the records do not inform us. There were many ways by which they could have had this knowledge. Jesus could have saluted them by their names, or conversation may have indicated it, or they may have known them through the Holy Spirit. Moses had died more than fourteen hundred years before this on Mount Nebo and Jehovah “ buried him in the valley in the land of Moab over against Bethpeor; but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.” (Deuteronomy 34:6.) Elijah had been translated nine hundred years before this event. (2 Kings 2:11.) Luke 9:31 ---who appeared in glory,—As Jesus was praying he was suddenly transfigured, and as suddenly there appeared Moses and Elijah who were similarly robed in glory and began talk¬ing with Jesus; these three, Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, were holding a conversation. What was their subject? Luke is the only one who tells us the subject of their conversation. They were talking about “ his decease which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.” Jesus had announced his death to his disciples six days before this; now these messengers from heaven are speaking upon the same subject. Their thoughts and conversation were of heaven, but they spoke in the lan¬guage of earth. They spoke of the work which Jesus was to complete at Jerusalem for the redemption of man. We do not know just what words were spoken. Luke 9:32 ---Now Peter and they that were with him—The three apostles were weighted down with sleep. This is almost the same condition that we find recorded of them in Matthew 26:43 and Mark 14:40. The same expression is used in Acts 20:9, where actual sleep is meant. This is the most natural meaning here. Peter is made prominent, being the only one mentioned in this connection. When they were fully awake from the sleep they passed through the state of drowsiness into that of full wakefulness. Luke makes it clear that it was not a dream, but an actual sight that they had seen. They saw the glory of Jesus and the “ two men that stood with him.” The glory of the scene may have had something to do with their awakening. But now when they were aroused and awake they saw what was before them, and hence they are competent witnesses. It seems that they had not seen the be¬ginning of the transfiguration. Luke 9:33 ---And it came to pass,—While Moses and Elijah were leav¬ing Jesus, Peter made the suggestion that it was good to be there. The departing of Moses and Elijah apparently accom¬panied Peter’ s remark as given by all three of the records. Peter addressed him here as “ Master,” while Matthew records him as saying “ Lord” (Matthew 17:4), and Mark records him as saying “ Rabbi” (Mark 9:5). It was near the feast of the tab¬ernacles, which came the middle of the seventh month of the Jewish year. So Peter proposed that they celebrate the feast upon the mountain instead of going to Jerusalem. However, Peter did not understand the full import of his remark. “ For he knew not what to answer; for they became sore afraid.” (Mark 9:6.) Peter acted according to his impulsive nature and spoke up even though he did not know what to say or even what he was saying when he spoke. Luke 9:34 ---And while he said these things,—Two more wondrous events occurred— the cloud and the voice. The cloud came and overshadowed them ; it seems that all six were overshad¬owed by the cloud. The three apostles feared as they en¬tered into the cloud. Matthew 17:5 says that it was a bright cloud; it was the symbol of the divine presence, as was the cloud over the tabernacle in the wilderness. (Exodus 40:38.) The cloud also overshadowed Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:16-17), and the cloud overshadowed Solomon’ s temple (1 Kings 8:10-11.) It was similar to the cloud that was present at the as¬cension of Jesus. (Acts 1:9.) Some claim that only Jesus, Moses, and Elijah were overshadowed by the cloud; others claim that only the disciples were overshadowed by it; still others claim that all six were overshadowed. It seems that all six were in the cloud. Luke 9:35 ---And a voice came out of the cloud,—This voice was the voice of the Father, like that at the baptism of Jesus. (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22.) It was also like the voice when the people thought it was a clap of thunder or an angel. (John 12:28-30.) The voice said: “ This is my Son, my cho¬sen: hear ye him.’’ Matthew 17:5 records the voice as saying: “ This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” Mark 9:7 records the voice as saying: “ This is my be¬loved Son: hear ye him.” Both Matthew and Mark use the words “ my beloved.” The words, “ hear ye him,” are added to what the voice said at his baptism. These disciples were com¬manded to hear Jesus as the Son of God, even when he pre¬dicts his death. Moses as a representative of the law was pres¬ent and passed away; the time was when they could hear the law, but now they are to hear Jesus. Elijah was present as a representative of the prophets; the time was when they could hear the prophets, but now they are to hear Jesus. This is an important lesson impressed in a most emphatic way. Luke 9:36 ---And when the voice came,—As the voice spoke no one was present but Jesus and his disciples. After hearing the voice, the prostrate disciples were gently touched by Jesus, and they saw that he was again alone; the heavenly visitors had disappeared and left Jesus alone to occupy the prominent place in the great scheme of the redemption of man. God had pointed him out as his Son and heaven had commanded that he, and he alone, be heard. In Matthew 17:9 and Mark 9:9 Jesus commanded Peter and James and John not to tell the vision until after his resurrection from the dead. Luke notes that they in awe obeyed that command, and they finally forgot the lesson of this night’ s great experience. THE BOYLuk_9:37-45 Luke 9:37 ---And it came to pass, on the next day,—Parallel records of this miracle are found in Matthew 17:14-20 and Mark 9:14-29. Jesus and the three disciples spent the night on the mount of transfiguration; in the morning they came down to the foot of the mountain where the nine disciples and a great multitude were assembled. The miracle which followed is peculiar, as a case of failure on the part of the disciples; it gave the occasion for our Lord to rebuke their unbelief, and to manifest at the same time his own power. Mark, whose account is fuller, adds that the scribes were around the nine disciples troubling them with perplexing questions and taunting them about their failure to cure the demoniac child. Luke 9:38 ---And behold, a man from the multitude cried,—This man addressed Jesus as “ Teacher” ; Mark 9:17 records the same address; while Matthew 17:15 records the address as “ Lord.” He besought Jesus “ to look upon” his son; he wanted Jesus to heal his son. Luke adds that he was an “ only child.” This is peculiar to Luke as we have seen on other occasions. (See Luke 7:12 Luke 8:42.) This father cried unto Jesus as soon as he appeared. The agony and the earnestness of the father were very intense. Luke 9:39 ---and behold, a spirit taketh him—The father describes the terrible handling of the child by the demon. He said that “ a spirit taketh him” ; Mark records that it was a “ dumb and deaf spirit.” (Mark 9:25.) In Matthew 17:15 the boy is de¬scribed as an “ epileptic, and sufTereth grievously.” He was “ possessed” with a demon which caused deafness, dumbness, and fits of epilepsy; it was a severe and complicated case. His dumbness consisted in his inability to utter articulate sounds. This evil spirit seized him as if to destroy him; at any time the demon might exert his frenzied power upon the child, producing sudden and violent paroxysms. The child would suddenly cry out, which showed that dumbness was an inability to articulate correct words. The demon, having pos¬session of the child, would tear him, causing him to foam at the mouth, and cause bruising the body of the child. Matthew 17:15 says that “ oft-times he falleth into the fire, and oft- times into the water.” Mark records that the dumb spirit would “ dash him down” and cause him to foam at the mouth and grind his teeth. The three descriptions taken together form a fearful picture of the frenzied paroxysms which were added to his afflictions. Luke 9:40 ---And I besought thy disciples—Apparently while the scene of the transfiguration was transpiring this very severe case of demonical possession was brought before the nine apostles ; they attempted to cast out the demon, but were un¬able. There is no other record of any case of sickness which the disciples, apart from the Master, could not cure by the power which he had given them. Here is a case of signal fail¬ure ; it is a case of complex afflictions; demoniac, and a “ luna¬tic,” or, judging from the symptoms more accurately, it was epilepsy. The cure baffled the nine disciples; the severity of the disease may have filled them with distrust. Luke 9:41 ---And Jesus answered and said,—This was in the presence of the scribes and the multitude and his disciples. It showed his nine disciples up in a bad light. However, Jesus rebuked the faithless and perverse generation. The rebuke must be applied to the multitude as well as to the scribes; it applies also to his disciples, though perhaps with not the same force as to the scribes. Jesus asked how long he should be with them and bear with them. Here the two questions of Mar 9:19 (only one in Matthew 17:17) are combined in one sentence. After asking the question Jesus commanded the father and his friends to bring his son to him. Luke 9:42-43 ---And as he was yet a coming,—As the child was brought to Jesus “ the demon dashed him down” and con¬vulsed him grievously. Luke’ s description as a physician is very vivid; the description seems to be an attack by the demon and by a fit of epilepsy. Mark adds the piteous plea of the father: “ If thou canst do anything [after thy disciples have failed], have compassion on us.” Mark also gives the response of Jesus and his answer to the “ if.” Jesus showed that the “ if” was not his to remove, but belonged to the father. “ If thou canst! All things are possible to him that believeth.” (Mark 9:23.) Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and “ healed the boy, and gave him back to his father.” All were astonished at the “ majesty of God.” Calmness, dignity, sympathy, and power were blended in this act of Jesus. People were compelled to ascribe all these to the majesty of God; though nine disciples had failed, the Master had with a word prevailed. Luke 9:43-44 ---But while all were marvelling at all the things—This verse shows a poor division in verse division; the division should have been at the end of the sentence with the words “ majesty of God.” The latter part of verse 43 has nothing to do with the first part of the verse. Mark 9:30 relates that they now departed from the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi and passed through Galilee; Matthew 17:22 speaks of Jesus abiding in Galilee; and from John 7:1-9 we may infer that Jesus, during this whole period, rather sought retirement. While the multitude was wondering Jesus spoke to his disciples and said: “ Let these words sink into your ears.” It is probable that his disciples were nearest to him and that he could give them special instruction. The words which he was about to speak he wanted to lodge permanently in the minds and hearts of the twelve apostles. Again he announced that he should be “ delivered up into the hands of men.” He should be betrayed by Judas and given up by the Father to men in order that he may suffer and die. (Acts 2:23.) The divine plan of his sufferings and death had formed the topic of dis¬course on the mount of transfiguration, and now it is the topic of his nearest circle of disciples. Luke 9:45 ---But they understood not this saying,—They did not understand what Jesus meant. The original Greek may be translated “ it was concealed from them” ; this may relieve in part the disciples to some extent of the full responsibility for their ignorance about the death of Jesus. They were afraid to ask Jesus about what he meant. It may be that they were not allowed to understand, but that they would more fully understand later. After the resurrection and ascension they saw the truth very clearly; the Holy Spirit guided and enlightened their minds, and wrought a great change in their perception of Christ’ s teaching. There is a natural diffidence in speaking to a person regarding near approaching death. And this diffi¬dence was increased to fear by the all-inspiring presence and power of Jesus. It may be that the personal dignity precluded questions. JESUS TRUE Luk_9:46-50 Luke 9:46 ---And there arose a reasoning among them,—The parallel passage of this is Mark 9:33-37, and Matthew 18:1-15 is analogous to it. As they went along the way a dispute arose, or “ a reasoning among them,” as to who would be the greatest in this earthly kingdom that they supposed Jesus would estab¬lish. It seems that this argument followed immediately after the words of Jesus about his death. They were afraid to ask Jesus about that subject, but Matthew 18:1 states that they came to Jesus to settle it. Luke makes it plain that it was not an abstract problem about greatness in the kingdom of heaven as they put it to Jesus, but a personal problem as to who would be the greatest in their own group; rivalries and jealousies had arisen and now sharp words had been spoken. A little later James and John became bold enough to ask for the first places for themselves in this political kingdom which they ex¬pected to be established. (Matthew 20:20; Mark 10:35.) Luke 9:47 ---But when Jesus saw the reasoning of their heart,—Jesus looked into their hearts and saw their ambitions and motives; he did not need that they should tell him what they were dis¬cussing along the way. The disciples seem to have gained some vague and indefinite idea from the predictions of Jesus that he would soon be declared the Messiah and would as¬sume his royal power and set up his kingdom as an earthly ruler would do. Hence, the occasion of the “ reasoning” among the disciples; they desired to know who would have the highest and most honorable place in this kingdom and who would have the greatest authority. If Jesus had intended that Peter should become the “ pope,” this would have been the time and the place for his declaring it. Jesus rebuked their worldly ambitions and their jealousies by taking a little child and placing “ him by his side.” Literally he took a child to himself, as Mark 9:36 has it, “ in his arms,” and as Matthew 18:2 says “ in the midst of them.” All three attitudes follow one another as the disciples were probably in a circle around Jesus. Some have conjectured that this child belonged to Peter, since it is supposed that they were in the home of Peter. There is no evidence as to the truthfulness of this tra-dition. Luke 9:48 ---Whosoever shall receive this little child—The links of the chain are stated here; those that receive the child “ in my name,” said Jesus, and those who received Jesus, received God, as God had sent him. The honored disciple is the one who welcomes little children “ in my name” upon the basis of the name and authority of Jesus. This was a rebuke of the selfish ambition of the twelve. Ministry to Jesus is a mark of true greatness; ministry to children in the name of Jesus is a mark of greatness; ministry in the name of Jesus to anyone is a mark of greatness. True greatness is in service; those who serve most unselfishly are the greatest in the kingdom of God. The disciples of Jesus had not learned this, and many of his disciples have not yet learned this lesson. Luke 9:49 ---And John answered and said,—There is some difficulty in locating the order of events here. Some place these events later in the ministry of Jesus as occurring on the way to the feast of tabernacles. (John 7:2-10.) There were persons among the Jews who attempted to exorcise demons by various methods, and some, like this person and the sons of Sceva in Acts 19:13-14, did it by using the name of Jesus. It is proba¬ble that John introduced this at this time because he wanted to change the subject after the embarrassment of the rebuke for their dispute concerning greatness. John addressed Jesus as “ Master” ; Luke has already recorded this address four times. (Luke 5:5 Luke 8:24 Luke 8:45 Luke 9:33.) The disciples of Jesus were intolerant; they had a zeal for Jesus which was narrow and biased. Joshua forbade Eldad and Medad to prophesy be¬cause he was jealous for Moses. (Numbers 11:27-29.) Moses and Jesus were more tolerant than their followers. They for¬bade this man because he would not follow this special group of disciples of Jesus. Luke 9:50 ---But Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not:—Luke is the only writer that expresses so briefly this incident. Mark 9:38-40 develops the words of Jesus somewhat more fully. The incident is related here by Luke because it is connected with the suggested link “ in my name.” This man did not belong to the group of apostles, so John relates to the Master that they forbade his doing that work in the name of Jesus because he would not follow them. We are not told as to what result the apostles had in forbidding this man to do the work in the name of Jesus; we only have Jesus rebuking his disciples for forbidding him. Jesus said: “ For he that is not against you is for you.” THE Luke 9:51-56 At this point Luke begins to narrate a new portion of the ministry of Christ, which is not found in the other writers of the gospel. Only a few notes of time and place as recorded by Matthew and Mark are parallel to Luke’ s history. This por¬tion of Luke’ s record has been regarded as one of the most difficult parts to harmonize and bring into chronological order; some have regarded the task as impossible, while oth¬ers have supposed that Luke from this point to Luke 18:15 has thrown together a mass of discourses and incidents with¬out reference to chronology or order. However such a suppo¬sition in regard to about one-third of Luke’ s record is hardly consistent with the accuracy, research, and order proposed by Luke in chapter 1, verses 1-4. It seems easy to find order and connection, but little apparent chronology. Luke’ s record has been found regular and orderly thus far when compared with the records of Matthew and Mark. Why should we not ex¬pect the same characteristic in this portion of Luke’ s writ¬ings? During the last six months of Christ’ s ministry John re¬cords our Lord’ s journey to the feast of tabernacles (John 7:10), his presence at the feast of dedication (John 10:22), his going down from Perea to Bethany to raise Lazarus (John 10:40-42 John 11:1-17), and his final journey to Jerusalem from a city called Ephraim (John 11:54 John 12:1). Luke 9:51 ---And it came to pass, when the days—The language of Jesus makes it clear that he was fully conscious of the time of his death; it was rapidly drawing near to the close of his min¬istry. The time when “ he should be received up” means the time of the ascension of Jesus after his resurrection. Luke as well as John 17:5 reveals a yearning on the part of Jesus to return to the Father; this was in the mind of Christ at the transfiguration. He now “ stedfastly set his face to go to Jeru-salem.” This is emphatic; Jesus himself with fixedness of purpose set his face against the difficulties and dangers that would befall him. This look on the face of Jesus as he went to his doom is noted later in Mark 10:32. Luke three times mentions Jesus making his way to Jerusalem; here and in Luke 13:22 Luke 17:11. John mentions three journeys to Je¬rusalem during the later ministry. (John 7:10 John 11:17 John 12:1.) It is natural to take these journeys to be the same in each record. However, Luke does not make definite location of each incident, and John merely supplements here. Luke 9:52 ---and sent messengers before his face:—Jesus was going from Galilee; it seems that he would pass through Samaria and he sent messengers before him to make ready. These messengers went into Samaria to fulfill the orders which they had received. The Samaritans did not object when people went north from Jerusalem through their country, but they objected seriously to the Jews going through their country up to Jerusalem. Jesus repudiated Mount Gerizim as the place of worship by going to Jerusalem. This was an unusual pre¬caution by Jesus, and we do not know why he sent messen¬gers before him at this time. Luke 9:53 ---And they did not receive him,—Jesus was going to Jeru-salem, and the Samaritans refused to receive him “ because his face was as though he were going to Jerusalem.” This was the reason that they refused to receive him. When the Sa¬maritans found that it was a Jewish party going to one of the Jewish feasts, they refused to entertain Jesus and his com¬pany. The Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans, and the Samaritans naturally retaliated in the same spirit upon all who accepted the Jewish place of worship to the neglect of the Samaritan place on their sacred mountain. Luke 9:54 ---And when his disciples James and John—Perhaps the re-cent appearance of Elijah on the mount of transfiguration re-minded James and John of the incident in 2 Kings 1:10-12. These two disciples, who afterwards showed great moderation and love, here exhibited the fiery zeal of their misguided loy¬alty to Jesus by asking should they call “ fire to come down from heaven, and consume them ?” This may be why they were called “ Sons of thunder,” or “ Boanerges.” (Mark 3:17.) They were indignant at the failure of the Samaritans to receive their Lord. There was no love between the Jews and the Samaritans at any time, and now for them to treat their Lord in such a wray was more than James and John could stand. The allusion seems to be to the attempt of Ahaziah to capture Elijah. Luke 9:55-56 But he turned, and rebuked them.—Certain it is that here Jesus rebuked the bitterness of James and John toward the Samaritans, as he had already done to John for his intoler¬ance in forbidding the man to cast out demons in the name of Christ, because he had refused to follow them. Jesus taught them a spirit of tolerance. The disciples of Jesus were to learn that his spirit was not that of Elijah, not that which would burn and destroy to make converts. THE COST OF Luk_9:57-62 Luk 9:57 ---And as they went on the way,—Matthew 8:19 calls this man “ a scribe” ; he said that he would follow Jesus wherever he* would go. There is a certain kind of zeal in the proposi¬tion of this man which is to be commended; but it does not sound like one who had carefully counted the cost. It may be that the scribe was looking for a life of ease and comfort in following a teacher of such power and popularity; however we know that Jesus impressed upon him the fact that it was not an easy life to follow him. It seems that this man re¬garded Jesus as the Messiah, but, like his disciples in general, had wrong conceptions of the nature of the kingdom of God. Luke 9:58 ---And Jesus said unto him,—Jesus knew the measure of the scribe’ s enthusiasm; he knew that the scribe did not ap¬preciate the full meaning of his own words. Jesus pictured to him the extreme condition that might be imposed upon one who would be his disciple. “ The foxes have holes” means that they had a lurking hole or place to which they could go for safety and for rest. “ The birds of the heaven have nests,” which means that they had a place to roost and rest at night. But in contrast to the foxes and the birds, “ the Son of man” did not have any place “ to lay his head.” Jesus often speaks, of himself as the “ Son of man.” Others do not speak of him as such; they do not refer to him as “ the Son of Man,” but Jesus frequently uses that term with respect to himself. It may be that Jesus had reference to the fact that the Jews were seeking to destroy him; that there was no place where he could go for rest or safety from the scheming and plotting Jews. Luke 9:59-60 ---And he said unto another, Follow me.—The scribe volunteered an offer to follow Jesus, but in this instance Jesus commands this one to follow him. Matthew 8:21 does not give the command of Jesus to follow him, and seems to make this man also volunteer instead of responding to a command. There is no contradiction between the two records. The man excused himself by requesting that he be allowed sufficient time to bury his father. One of the problems of life is the relation of duties to each other, which comes first. The burial of one’ s father was a sacred duty (Genesis 25:9), but this man is to learn that the first duty that man owes is his duty to God. It is not known that this man’ s father was dead at this time; many think that he wanted to wait and take care of his father, and after his father died then he would give all of his time to following Jesus. This is probably the meaning; Jesus means to teach that there is nothing that should come between one and his obedience to God; that the first and highest and most important duties of all are those which we owe to God. Luke 9:61-62 ---And another also said, I will follow thee,—This case is like the first; this man volunteers to follow Jesus. Luke is the only one that records this case. This man had something that he wanted to come “ first” ; he wanted to bid farewell to those who were at his house. Within itself that was a good thing to do, but he needed to know that he must put the things of God “ first.” Perhaps he meant that he would like to have a formal parting with his friends by setting a feast; how¬ever it does not matter what his motive was; he is to learn the lesson that nothing can come first but God and his work. This is a lesson that many need to learn today. Jesus an¬swered this one by quoting an old proverb taken from agricul¬tural life: “ No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” It has always been the ambition of the plowman to run a straight furrow; in order to do this one must look straight forward; he must look to the things which are in front. Looking back would be fatal to a plowman in running a straight furrow. This is a very vivid picture; while engaged in labor, the plowman must keep his eye clear and straightforward. The application that Jesus makes is clear and simple. Verse 1 There is a definite break in this chapter (Luke 9:51), where Luke begins a large section of teachings and events not recorded elsewhere in the New Testament. Up to that point, he related a number of incidents reported in the other Gospels. These are: the Twelve sent forth (Luke 9:1-6), Herod's perplexity (Luke 9:7-9), feeding the five thousand (Luke 9:10-17), Peter's confession (Luke 9:18-27), the transfiguration (Luke 9:28-36), curing the epileptic boy (Luke 9:37-43), a prophecy of Jesus' being delivered up (Luke 9:44-45), on "Who's the greatest?" (Luke 9:46-48), the one who followed "not us" (Luke 9:49-50); and then follows material largely unique to Luke: the proposal to call down fire (Luke 9:51-55), and the story of three prospective followers of Jesus (Luke 9:56-62). And he called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. And he sent them forth to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staff, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats. And into whatsoever house ye enter, there abide, and thence depart. And as many as receive you not, when ye depart from that city, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony against them. And they departed, and went through the villages, preaching the Gospel, and healing everywhere. (Luke 9:1-6) SENDING FORTH OF THE TWELVEBoth Matthew and Mark record this preaching mission of the Twelve (Matthew 10:5 ff; Mark 6:7 ff); and despite the fact of Luke's narrative partially following Mark's order, it actually is unlike both the others, indicating the independence of the sacred authors. There is more than a mere possibility that Jesus sent forth the Twelve twice, this possibility resting upon the fact that Matthew records such a mission BEFORE the deputation of John the Baptist came to Jesus, and Luke recorded it substantiallyAFTER that event. It seems to this student that it is arbitrary to conclude that there was only one "sending forth" of the Twelve, and that this or that Gospel erred in the placement of it in the holy record. In keeping with Luke's style of relating TWO of many typical acts of Jesus, rather than merely one, it would not be exceptional if he did the same thing here. In the very nature of training Jesus gave the Twelve in preparation for their worldwide mission, a training that extended over a period of about four years, it appears that there easily could have been two, or even more, occasions when the Twelve were sent out to preach. See under 7:10. For a line-by-line comment on this event see my Commentary on John, at John chapter 10, and in my Commentary on Mark, under Mark 6:7 ff. Neither staff ... Matthew stated that Jesus said, "Get you ... no staff'; (Matthew 10:10), that is, "Do not procure, or purchase one"; and Mark reported Jesus saying, "Take nothing ... save a staff only." The obvious meaning of all this taken together is, "Go as you are." As Ash noted, "Mark's account meant to take only the staff they had, whereas Luke's referred to taking another staff. The basic meaning in all three Gospels is `Go as you are'."[1] Such a variation as is evidenced here loses all significance when it is considered that Jesus might have said one thing on one occasion, and something else on another. Regarding the propensity of some to hunt a contradiction, the burden of proof must rest upon them, requiring that they should show how it was impossible for Jesus to have sent the Twelve forth more than one time, with the slight variation of his instructions (if they are variations) revealed in the sacred records. ENDNOTE: [1] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972) p. 152. Verse 7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done: and he was much perplexed, because that it was said by some, that John was risen from the dead; and by some that Elijah had appeared; and by others, that one of the prophets was risen again. And Herod said, John I beheaded; but who is this, about whom I hear such things? And he sought to see him.THE OF HEROD ANTIPASHerod's guilty soul trembled at the messages reaching him with regard to the mighty teachings and deeds of Jesus, indicating the tremendous impact of Jesus' ministry upon the total population. Significantly, the popular answers of the people, with regard to Jesus' true identity, here formed a topic of conversation in the court of Herod, as well as being a matter of discussion in the sacred company of the Lord and his apostles (Luke 9:19). So great were the deeds of Jesus that the popular mind was required to seek a comparison only in the lives of the righteous dead, among the great names of Hebrew history. For additional comment on this passage see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 16:14, and my Commentary on Mark, Mark 6:15. Verse 10 And the apostles, when they were returned, declared unto him what things they had done. And he took them, and withdrew apart to a city called Bethsaida. But the multitude perceiving it followed him: and he welcomed them, and spake to them of the kingdom of God, and them that had need of healing he cured. And the day began to wear away; and the twelve came, and said unto him, Send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages and country round about, and lodge, and get provisions: for we are here in a desert place.THE FIVE WERE FEDThis miracle, recorded in each of the four New Testament Gospels, has received line-by-line comment in Matthew, Mark, and John, in this series of commentaries, and a somewhat more brief account will be repeated here. City called Bethsaida ... here in a desert place ... The reference to Bethsaida is to the city nearest the grassy plain where the actual wonder took place, which is somewhat southwest of the city, and several miles distant, called Bethsaida-Julius. The audience and participants in this bounty from the Lord were Jews; and a later miracle of feeding the four thousand benefited a Gentile multitude. Thus, Christ revealed himself as the bread of life to both Jews and Gentiles. John's account gives more of the background. Long before the apostles had come to Jesus with the request to send the multitudes away, Jesus had tested Philip with a question of how the people were to be fed. Verse 13 But he said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they said unto him, We have no more than five loaves and two fishes; except we should go and buy food for all this people. For there were about five thousand men. And he said unto his disciples, Make them sit down in companies, about fifty each. And they did so, and made them all sit down. And he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake; and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude. And they ate, and were all filled; and there was taken up that which remained over to them of broken pieces, twelve baskets.Attempts to rationalize this miracle are futile. Four sacred evangelists have provided the historical records of an astounding wonder, and one that is rich with spiritual overtones. The power and Godhead of Jesus are dramatically affirmed by this event. That it actually happened is proved by the response of the multitude who wanted to make Jesus king (John's account) in a purely secular sense, of course, and with the evident purpose of using the Lord to supply an army of insurrection against Rome. That the multitude believed Jesus could have done such a thing could have resulted only from what they had seen him do, as related here. The wealth of detail, such as the reclining of the throng in companies of fifty, the pitifully small source of five loaves and two little fishes, and the twelve baskets of crumbs gathered up after the feast, the Lord's giving thanks, and the hard-heartedness of the Twelve, whose sympathies were in tune with the wishes of the crowd, and the Lord's sending them on ahead, despite threatening weather - there is no way to explain all this, except on the basis that it all actually happened, exactly as recorded in the New Testament. With the great passover throng which made up the multitude, and with the miracle having been wrought outdoors, and far from any inhabited place, there was simply no way that a thing like this could have been faked. Five thousand men, besides the women and children, had eaten all they wished, all the bounty coming out of that little lad's basket, passing through the hands of Jesus, and from him to the apostles and the multitudes. Time can never diminish the impact of such a sign; and it is no wonder that the apostle John made it one of only seven signs that he recorded, nor that everyone of the Gospel writers included it. Verse 18 And it came to pass, as he was praying apart, the disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Who do the multitudes say that I am?PETER'S OF CHRISTPraying apart ... These words indicate the secluded scene of this episode, more fully identified as the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13) The multitudes ... stresses the widespread, near universal interest of the people in the identity of one such as Jesus, who was demonstrating in the most emphatic manner his supernatural power. Luke alone recorded the detail that prayer was the purpose in our Lord's withdrawal to this unfrequented place. Verse 19 And they answering said, John the Baptist; but others say Elijah; and others, that one of the old prophets is risen again.See under Luke 9:9. Significantly, the multitudes were no longer suggesting that Jesus was the Christ, due to the vicious and unrelenting campaign of the religious hierarchy against the Lord. At the very beginning of his ministry, John the Baptist had announced Jesus as "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world," and, at first, Jesus was widely hailed as the Messiah, as fully detailed in the early chapters of John. However, having determined that Jesus was not the type of Messiah they wanted, the priestly leaders of the people exhausted their resources of cunning and deceit in an all-out campaign to convince the people that Jesus was not the Christ. Here is a summary of their charges: They said Jesus was a glutton (Matthew 11:18-19). They said he was a winebibber (Matthew 11:18-19). They said he cast out demons by the prince of demons (Matthew 9:34). They called him Beelzebul (Matthew 10:25). They called him a sinner (John 9:24). They said he had a demon (John 7:20). They said he violated the sabbath (Matthew 12:2). They said he was a Samaritan (John 8:48). They referred to him as a deceiver (Matthew 27:63). They accused him of friendship with publicans and sinners (Luke 15:2). They said that no prophet could come out of Galilee (John 7:52). They accused him of leading the multitude astray (John 7:12). They said that since Elijah had not risen from the dead, it was impossible for Jesus to be the Christ (Mark 9:11). They said he had an unclean spirit (Mark 3:30). They said, "He is beside himself' (Mark 3:21). They said he transgressed the tradition of the elders (Matthew 15:2). They said, "This man is not from God" (John 9:16). They said he forbade to give tribute to Caesar (Luke 23:2). They said that he made himself a king (Luke 23:2). They said he was an evildoer (John 18:30). They said that Jesus claimed he would destroy the temple of God and build it in three days (Matthew 26:61). These evil slanders were a composite of lies, insinuations, misquotations, false interpretations of Scripture, racial slurs, outright falsehoods, garbled half-truths, and arrogant snobbery. This satanic campaign against Jesus was launched from the most impressive social platform in antiquity. The men who indulged in this malignant crusade against the Lord of Life were the exalted rulers of the people, led by the high priest of the chosen people. They were the learned, the wealthy, the well-favored, the intellectual aristocracy, the accepted interpreters of sacred law. Moreover, their crusade was pressed forward with all the cunning, deceit, and vituperation that could be mustered. The marvel of ages is that in the face of such a hellish blast of opposition the people still clung to the conviction that Jesus was someone sacred, no living person being worthy of comparison with him, and that he must be Elijah, Jeremiah, or John the Baptist risen from the dead! Nor can it be any wonder that, in view of such vicious slanders, the conviction that Jesus was the Christ had been somewhat eroded in the popular mind. The evil campaign of the leaders of Israel had, in that degree, succeeded for the moment. Therefore, these judgments of the people, as to who Christ was, cannot be made the basis for denying the popular acclaim of Jesus as the Christ at the beginning of his ministry, as reported in John. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 The primary object of the work was to preach the news of the kingdom; the miracles were to prove the apostles were genuine. 3 A scrip is a provision bag, used as a modern lunch basket. No extensive provision needed to be made while Jesus was in the world to insure their care. 4 There abide and thence depart means for them to make only one house call in each city, except where the first one proved to be unworthy. 5 After finding one proper house for their work, they were to leave for another city. As they were leaving, they were to shake the dust from their feet. That was an ancient custom of showing disapproval of the place where they had got the dust. 6 The gospel they preached was the good news that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. They did the healing to prove they were not false prophets. 7 This Herod was a son of Herod the Great. A tetrarch was a ruler over a division of a general territory. John was risen from the dead is explained at Matthew 14:2. 8 Elias is the same as Elijah in the Old Testament. Nothing is said about his rising again for he had not died (2 Kings 2:11). 9 The beheading of John is reported in Matthew 14:1-12 and Mark 6:17-29. Desired to see him was accomplished as recorded at chapter 23:8. 0 There were times when Jesus wished for private consultation with his apostles. Bethsaida was a city on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee. 1 It was not long until the people knew of the presence of Jesus and followed him. In his compassion he received them and gave them both spiritual teaching and physical cure for their ills. 2 The desert was on the east side of Jordan, but the country in general was unsettled and not equipped with many markets at which to buy food. 3 Jesus opened the exercises of the occasion by telling the apostles to feed the multitude. They explained how small was their supply of food at hand. 5 Jesus prepared to feed the multitude by a miracle of the food. For the sake of orderliness he had them sit down in convenient groups. 6 Looking up to heaven was in recognition of the source of all blessings. (See James 1:17.) The breaking was necessary because more than one person was going to partake, which was the only reason that Jesus broke the bread in Matthew 26:26. 7 The twelve baskets of fragments remaining proves that being filled was not imaginary on the part of the multitude. 8 See Matthew 16:13 on why Jesus asked them this question. 9 These statements of the people were made on the basis of an erroneous theory called "transmigration of souls." (See Matthew 14:2.) 0 Peter's confession means "the Anointed one of God." 1 This is explained in the comments at Matthew 16:20. 2 Luke's account omits the conversation about the church, but he mentions the vital fact on which it was to be built, which was to be proved by His resurrection. 3 To deny one's self means to disown one's earthly interests. Take up his cross is figurative and is based on the practice of compelling a doomed man to carry his own cross to the place of crucifixion. 4 Two kinds of life are considered here, the temporal and the spiritual. The temporal is the one meant first. If a man neglects his duty to Christ for the sake of his temporal or worldly life, he will lose his spiritual or eternal life. 5 The thought is that the things of this world altogether are not as valuable as the soul of man. If he exchanges his soul to gain the world it will be a transaction in which there will be no profit. 6 To be ashamed of one means to feel humiliated at the thought of associating with him. Christ does not expect us to become his equal in the degree of our goodness and dignity, because we are human while he is divine. But if we will obey him and do him the honor of fashioning our lives after his, he will regard it as a compliment and hence will not feel humiliated in associating with us even in the presence of his Father and the angels in the glory world. 7 If the kingdom of God has not yet been set up (as certain people teach), then the world has in it somewhere a number of persons who are many centuries old! 8 See comments at Matthew 17:1 in connection with this verse. 9 Fashion is from EIDOS which Thayer defines, "Properly that which strikes the eye, which is exposed to view; the external appearance, form, figure, shape." Matthew (chapter 17:2) says Jesus was "trans. figured," and the definition is given at that place. The words used by each of the evangelists were true of Jesus then. 0 See the description of this scene at Matthew 17:3. Elias was the Elijah of the Old Testament, and a faithful prophet of God. 1 Matthew does not tell what these men talked about, but Luke gives the subject of their conversation. Decease is from EXODOS which Thayer defines, "Exit, i. e., departure; departure from life, decease." This word is interesting from being the name given to the second book of the Bible. Accomplish is from PLEROO and the lexicon of Thayer defines it, "To make full, to fill, to fill up." The idea is that in his death Jesus completed the sacrificial service that was allotted to him by his Father. That is why he declared "it is finished" just as he was dying (John 19:30). 2 Peter and his group were under an oppressed feeling during the conversation between Jesus and his distinguished visitors. But upon being aroused they saw the trio of glorified beings. 3 As they departed. That is, the conversation was ended and the guests were preparing to leave. Peter wanted to detain them and proposed that provision be made for housing them. Not knowing what he said. He did not realize that beings from the unseen world would not dwell in material tabernacles. 4 The word cloud is used a great many times in the New Testament but seldom in connection with rain. Instead, it is used to represent something that has nothing to do with moisture which would form an object that is dark. True, this verse says the cloud overshadowed them, but the same event is recorded in Matthew 17:5 where it is called a "bright cloud," which would not suggest one that was leaden with condensed vapor and ready to drop rain. The idea is that something of a miraculous character was used to indicate the presence of God. 5 The words hear him are in addition to what was said at the time of his baptism (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11). They were said because the life's work of Jesus was nearing completion and he had proved his worthiness of the distinction. 6 They told no man was because of the instruction that Jesus gave them as they were coming down from the mountain (Matthew 17:9; Mark 9:9). 7 Hill and mountain are used in the same sense in the New Testament. The people were generally-on hands whenever Jesus reappeared from his places of privacy. 8 The word master means "teacher," a term Jesus acquired among the people because of his many talks to them upon the subject of his kingdom. This son is the same case explained at Matthew 17:15-18. 9 Spirit is from a Greek word that could apply to any disembodied being. In the present case it applies to the devil that had taken possession of the child. 0 See the comments on Matthew 17:20-21 for the present verse. 1 The faithless generation was said about the disciples, according to the statements in the verses cited at 38 and 40. 2 This devil is the same spirit mentioned in verse 39 and so termed in this. It had supernatural power and tare the boy. The original word for this and also in verse 39, means he was thrown into convulsions. It was an affliction, hence the Lord rebuked the unclean spirit, not the lad. 3 The words mighty power are from a Greek original that means "majesty," and it is so translated in 2 Peter 1:16. This impression of amazement was caused by the powerful circumstance of the boy's recovery from so distressing an ailment. 4 The sayings include what Jesus had been expressing, also the one about his expected betrayal into the hands of men. 5 The disciples had thought from the start that Jesus was going to set up an earthly kingdom. Such a government would require the bodily presence of the king, hence they were confused over this prediction that he was to be delivered unto men. 6 Their mistaken idea of the kingdom explains why they could have these thoughts about the different ranks in it, for such distinctions exist in earthly powers. 7 Jesus could always read the thoughts of his disciples. 8 Jesus loves little children because they are pure and humble. To receive such a child in his name is to do so because Jesus loves him. But no one will do that as long as he is filled with the pride of his own importance. While the man who will thus humble himself eis great in the true sense according to the mind of the Lord. 0 See the comments on Mark 9:38-39. 1 The time was come means it was getting near the time when Jesus was to leave the earth and ascend to heaven. That made it necessary for him to be in Jerusalem, hence he turned his steps in that direction. 2 Jesus was in Galilee at this time which would make it necessary to go through Samaria. He sent some ahead to find a place for him to stop on the way. 3 The Samaritans were not on good terms with the Jews (John 4:9), and for that reason they had a prejudice against Jerusalem. Hence they did not welcome Jesus when they learned that he was heading in that direction. 4 The brothers, James and John, were angered over the slight and suggested some physical destruction for them, citing the case of Elias (Elijah) in 2 Kings 1:10; 2 Kings 1:12. What they suggested would have been the action that is meant by pulling up the tares in the parable of the tares. (See Matthew 13:28.) 5 This means the brothers did not realize what kind of a spirit they were manifesting. It was just the reverse of what they should have shown. 6 The kind of spirit they should have manifested was that of Jesus, desiring to save men from spiritual destruction. And that could not be done if their lives were destroyed by physical death as these brothers wished to do. 8 See the comments at Matthew 8:19-20. 0 This paragraph is explained at Matthew 8:21-22. 1 Following Jesus here means the bodily traveling as explained in verse 57. This man was at that very time absent from his "loved ones," and hence had not shown any great concern for them. His sudden interest in them betrayed at least a divided state of mind between them and Jesus. 2 Ploughs were made with one handle according to Smith's Bible Dictionary, hence the mentioning of a single handle. To make a success of the work a, farmer should keep his eye on the ground ahead of him. The work is used to illustrate what should be the attentive devotion of those professing to follow Jesus. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 10 MISSION OF THE SEVENTY Luke 10:1-24 Luke 10:1 ---Now after these things—The mission of the “ seventy” is given by Luke only. Jesus was probably near Capernaum when this was given. Many think that the seventy were sent out before the incidents recorded in Luke 9:51-56, and there¬fore before Jesus left Galilee for the feast of tabernacles at Jerusalem. (John 7:2-10.) The places to which the seventy were sent are not known; they were probably in lower Galilee and along the Jordan valley in Perea and Judea. “ After these things” simply means after the general series of events narrated in the previous chapter. They were to go in twos. The number seventy reminds us of the seventy elders appointed by Moses (Numbers 11:16) and the Jewish Sanhedrin, which was composed of seventy or seventy-two. These seventy were appointed in addition to the other disciples or apostles which had been selected. Their mission was to go before him and announce his coming. Luke 10:2 ---And he said unto them,—As they were to go by twos, they had a specific mission. He said to them, “ the harvest in-deed is plenteous,” but there were very few laborers. The language used by Luke here is the same that was used in sending the twelve. (Matthew 9:37-38.) They were to pray that “ the Lord of the harvest” should send forth sufficient laborers to take care of the harvest. Christ was the Lord of the harvest; it is he who sent them out. “ The harvest” refers to the great multitude of people who were eager to learn of his teaching. This is another passage which very vividly represents the need of laborers to work for Jesus. Luke 10:3 ---Go your ways; behold, I send you forth—These seventy likewise were sent as lambs among wolves; notice that here the word is “ lambs,” while in Matthew 10:16 it is “ sheep,” but the thought is the same, only intensified by lambs. These seventy were to go in gentleness and simplicity as lambs, and as defenseless as they, among the rough people who would act like wolves toward them. Lambs and wolves are natural enemies ; the lambs are innocent and defenseless, the wolves are malicious and cruel. It is a pathetic picture of the risk and dangers that they had to endure. It is like taking one’ s life into one’ s own hands. It was necessary that these dangers be made emphatic to them so that they would know what they would have to meet. Luke 10:4-5 ---Carry no purse, no wallet,—The provision for their journey was very much like that of the twelve when sent out on their limited commission. “ Purse” means moneybag; “ wallet” was a bag for carrying provisions; they were to take no extra shoes or sandals. These sandals were fastened to the bottom of the feet with straps passing over the foot and ankle. They were to go just as they were, without making preparation, and depend on the hospitality of the people. They were to salute no man on the way; the King’ s business required haste. The greeting or salutation to the house was the common Jewish greeting. To salute one by the way after the Eastern custom would consume much time, but this greeting to a house when they entered it was brief, and required no waste of time. The brief salutation was “ peace be to this house.” Whatever house they should happen to enter, they were to greet it with this usual salutation. (1 Samuel 25:6.) This salutation was both a prayer and a blessing, and which indicated the gracious mission which they had in coming to that house. Luke 10:6-7 ---And if a son of peace be there,—“ Son of peace” means one who is inclined to peace and properly belongs to the household. The figure here is that the peace and blessing which they pronounced upon this household would return to them; they would receive blessings for blessing the household. However if the head of the house did not receive them, their blessings should not abide with that house; it should return “ to you again." If they had a favorable reception, they were to remain in that house until they had finished their work in that village. They were not to go “ from house to house" in their abiding; it does not mean that they should not go from house to house in their teaching. The laborer is worthy of his hire. It would be easier for them to do their work by remaining in the same house, and avoid waste of time with such elaborate entertainments as might be offered them. Luke 9:8-9 ---And into whatsoever city ye enter,—The same rules were to apply to them on entering a city that applied to them on entering a house if they had a welcome; they were to remain there and to eat such things as would be set before them; they were not to expect a great feast, but were to live a simple life so that they could render the most efficient service. To eat to gluttony and to drink to drunkenness would unfit them for the work that they were to do; they were not to be gormandizers. They were to heal the sick that were there and to preach that “ the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." Healing is here placed before preaching; this was an emphatic way of demanding attention to their message. Luke 10:10-11 ---But into whatsoever city ye shall enter,—Jesus knew that his cause would have enemies; he knew that some would not accept his disciples; he knew that some would not believe, as he knew that some would believe and receive his message. Hence, he tells them how to deport themselves in the presence of those who refused to believe their message. Dust was a plague in the East; they should shake off the dust as a witness against those who rejected them. There was to go with this a condemnation because they had refused to accept the mes¬sage. The kingdom of God had come nigh to them, and they had spurned it, and invited the condemnation of the kingdom upon themselves. As those who received them invited the blessings of the kingdom, so those who rejected the message invited the condemnation of the kingdom upon them. Luke 10:12 ---I say unto you,—Jesus had just given instruction to the seventy, and had told them that if a city refused to receive them that they should wipe off the dust from their feet as a testimony against that city. He now says that it will be “ more tolerable” in the day of judgment “ for Sodom” than for the city that rejects the messengers of Christ. Lot witnessed against the evil of the Sodomites, but he was a less perfect and clear witness than were the seventy in their mission to the towns of Palestine; hence the greater light rejected, the greater condemnation. This rule holds good now since it expresses a general truth: the more light and truth rejected, the greater the condemnation. (See Luke 12:47.) The many and the few stripes suggest this principle. Sodom was situ¬ated where the southern portion of the Dead Sea now is. Its wickedness was great. (Genesis 13:13 Genesis 18:20; Jude 1:7.) Its ret¬ribution was also great. (Deuteronomy 29:23; Isaiah 13:19; Jeremiah 49:18; Amos 4:11; 2 Peter 2:6.) Luke 10:13-14 ---Woe unto thee, Chorazin!—Chorazin is not mentioned save here and in Matthew 11:21. Its exact location is not known. The cities mentioned here were probably located west of the Jordan. Bethsaida was at the north end of the Sea of Galilee and probably on the west of the Jordan. It was evidently not far from where the Jordan flowed into the Sea of Galilee. Jesus evidently did many notable miracles in Chora¬zin and Bethsaida. Jesus did many mighty works of which we have no special record. (Matthew 4:24 Matthew 8:16 Matthew 9:35.) Bethsaida is supposed to be the name of two towns, one on the east and the other on the west of the Sea of Galilee. The name means “ a house of fishing or fishery.” The Bethsaida on the northeastern border of the lake may be referred to in Mark 6:32 Mark 8:22; Luke 9:10. The one mentioned here was on the west side near Capernaum, the birthplace of Andrew, Peter, and Philip. (John 1:44 John 12:21.) Tyre and Sidon were located on the Mediterranean coast. They were the two principal cities on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. “ Sidon” means “ fishery” and was one of the oldest cities of the world; it is thought to have been founded by Sidon, the oldest son of Cain. (Genesis 10:15 Genesis 49:13.) Tyre means “ a rock” and was about twenty miles south of Sidon; it was not so old as Sidon, but grew in importance and became a greater city. They were the subjects of much prophecy and of divine judgments. (Isaiah 23; Ezekiel 26:27, 28; 29:18.) These old heathen cities of Tyre and Sidon would have repented long ago had such works been done in them as have been done in Chorazin and Bethsaida. “ Sackcloth and ashes” were sym¬bols of penitence. “ Sackcloth” was a coarsely woven cloth; it was made of goats’ or camels’ hair, and was a material similar to that which Paul used in making tents. It was used for rough garments of mourners (1 Kings 21:27; Esther 4:1) in which the sackcloth was put next to the flesh in token of extreme sorrow. “ Ashes” was a sign of mourning, and the defiling of oneself with dead things; sometimes this was done by using dirt. Luke 10:15-16 ---And thou, Capernaum,—Capernaum was situated on the northwestern coast of the Sea of Galilee. It had exalted privileges; Jesus had resided there for some time; its privileges and honors were great. (Matthew 9:1.) It was situated on the hill that rises from the plain of the sea; it could boast of being a great city. The prophecy of Christ is that it should be brought down “ unto Hades.” Hades is not the same as Gehenna; “ Hades” was originally the name of the god who presided over the realm of the dead; hence the phrase, “ house of Hades." “ Shed" has a similar meaning. The classical “ Hades" embraced both good and bad men, though divided into “ Elysium,” the abode of the righteous, and “ Tartarus," the abode of the wicked. In the New Testament, “ Hades" is the realm of the dead; it is not merely the place for the wicked. Capernaum would be reduced from its high and ex¬alted state to the lowest state. He that heareth you heareth me;—These solemn words close the instruction that Jesus gave the seventy. The fate of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum will befall those who set aside the mission and message of those sent out by Christ. To receive these seventy would be to receive Christ; to reject the seventy and their message would be to reject Christ. Those who rejected Christ rejected God. Today when people reject the word of God they reject Jesus, and those who reject Jesus reject God. To reject the New Testament today is to reject God. Luke 10:17 ---And the seventy returned with joy,—They had followed the directions of Jesus, and had gone into all of the cities where he had directed them to go. They now returned with joy and rejoicing. They had been given power over demons; the demons were merely one sign of the conflict between Christ and Satan. The twelve had been endowed with this power when they were sent out (Luke 9:1), but the seventy were only told to heal the sick as stated by Luke in 10: 9. Not only did they heal the sick which Jesus commanded them to do, but their faith was so active and strong that they cast out demons. This was the more remarkable, as even nine apostles had sometime before this failed to cast out a demon. (Luke 9:40.) There is great simplicity and honesty in their report. Luke 10:18-20 ---And he said unto them,—With a prophetic eye Jesus saw the downfall of Satan. The demons being subject to the seventy gave the occasion for Jesus to utter this prophecy. The fact that demons were subject to the disciples of Jesus in¬dicated that Satan himself should be defeated by Christ. As a flash of lightning out of heaven, so quick and startling, so the victory of the seventy over the demons, the agent of Satan, forecast his downfall and Jesus in vision pictured it as a flash of lightning. Jesus now enlarged their authority over evil. They were to have authority “ to tread upon serpents and scorpions,” and all phases of their enemies’ efforts to harm them. Jesus gives them power to do the work that he had for them to do; they were qualified to do his work, and Satan should not have power to prevent their successful work. The power to tread upon serpents is repeated in Mark 16; 18, and exemplified in Paul’ s case in Melita. (Acts 28:3-5.) Protection from physical harm is not the main point in this struggle with Satan. (Matthew 13:25; Romans 16:20; 1 Peter 5:8.) Nothing can realty “ hurt” God’ s people; they may be perse¬cuted, but their spiritual life cannot be touched by any of the agents or weapons of Satan. (Romans 8:27-39.) “ Serpents” were poisonous reptiles; “ scorpions” were large insects, several inches long, with a poisonous sting at the extremity of the tail; they live in warm climates and are found in dry and dark places. Luke 10:21---In that same hour he rejoiced—Jesus had just told his disciples to rejoice and he now sets the example as “ he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit” and prayed to his Father. Similar sublime words were spoken on another occasion. (Matthew 11:25-27.) The thanksgiving as expressed here by Jesus acknowl¬edges God as “ Lord of heaven and earth.” The thanksgiving arises from the wisdom of God in hiding these things from the wise and understanding, those who fancied themselves to be so, and having revealed them to babes in wisdom and understanding. The Holy Spirit expressed through Paul a similar thought. (Romans 9:11-17. See also Matthew 16:17 Matthew 18:3-4; Luke 9:47-48; 1 Corinthians 1:21 1 Corinthians 1:26; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4.) This result was not a mere arbitrary act of God; it follows a law of mind and of truth. People who refuse to see and accept spiritual truth gradually render themselves unable to understand it; those of little spiritual apprehension, mere babes in experience, yet willing to get and use what they can, gain more and more capacity to apprehend that kind of truth; thus it is hid¬den from the first and revealed unto the latter class. Luke 10:22 ---All things have been delivered unto me—Jesus was given all power and authority on earth and in heaven; he is Re- vealer, Creator, Redeemer, and will be final Judge of all man-kind. (Matthew 28:18; John 1:1-5 John 1:41 John 17:2.) No one knew the Father except as revealed through Christ; Christ knew the Father and revealed him. The Father knew Christ and revealed him to man; each revealed the other to man. We read of no patriarch or prophet, or priest, or apostle or saint of any age, who ever used words like these; they reveal to us the mighty majesty of our Lord’ s nature and person. They reveal the very intimate relation between the Father and Son; both are incomprehensible, and are understood only so far as they are revealed. Luke 10:23-24 ---And turning to the disciples,—The prayer that Jesus uttered was a soliloquy, spoken in the presence of the seventy on their return. Jesus now turned and spoke “ privately,” or to his twelve disciples. It may have been on this same occa¬sion or a little later. “ Blessed” here introduces a beatitude, a beatitude of privilege. Their eyes were blessed because they saw; they understood in some degree what Jesus was saying. They were indeed blessed in contrast to the blinded scribes and Pharisees around them, who both hated and rejected the truth; these humble followers of Jesus, having teachable spir¬its, had beheld him as the Messiah, and had received from him lessons of heavenly wisdom. many prophets and kings desired to see— The Old Testa¬ment prophets like Isaiah, and kings like David, Hezekiah, Je- hoshaphat, and Josiah longed to see the fulfillment of the promise in the coming Messiah, and to hear the wonderful truths he would reveal, but did not see the one nor hear the other. They lived and died in the hope and faith that these things would be accomplished. We live in the full light of that kingdom already set up, and yet how little do we realize the force of these remarkable words of Jesus! (2 Samuel 23:5; Job 19:23-24; Isaiah 52 Isaiah 7; 1 Peter 1:10.) THE GOOD Luke 10:25-37 Luke 10:25 ---And behold, a certain lawyer stood up—This parable is peculiar to Luke. “ A certain lawyer,” that is, one who was skilled in the law of Moses, one who could interpret the law and who could teach it. The lawyer “ stood up,” which showed this was some formal meeting or gathering. His purpose was to make trial of Jesus. He was not wanting to know the truth; the question of the ensnaring lawyer and the an¬swer with their explanatory parable were fitted to give truer views of God’ s law, further break down Jewish exclusiveness, and to prepare the way for the acceptance of the universal brotherhood of man. The question asked was “ What shall I do to inherit eternal life?”Luke 10:26-27 ---And he said unto him,—The lawyer’ s question im¬plied that he knew what the rabbis taught, but you are a new teacher; what do you say? Jesus did not ask what the law taught, but he asked, “ What is written in the law? how read est thou?” Jesus asked how do you understand the law to teach regarding this? How would you sum up the law respecting this particular matter? The lawyer answered by quoting Deuteronomy 6:3 Deuteronomy 11:13, which were written on the phylacteries. The second part of his answer was from Leviticus 19:18 and shows that the lawyer knew the law. At a later time Jesus himself in the temple gave a like summary of the law to a lawyer who wanted to catch him by his question. (Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34.) Luke 10:28-29 ---And he said unto him,—The rich young ruler had asked the same question and this lawyer was not as sincere as the ruler. Jesus gave an unexpected turn and said: “ This do, and thou shalt live.” The lawyer was not prepared for this answer of Jesus; he expected Jesus to give a different answer. He did not see that following the law in its deep significance would lead him to accept the Messiah; he did not see that every sacrifice offered unto the law pointed to Jesus as the great sacrifice for the sins of the world; he did not see that the law was tutor to bring one to Christ. The lawyer seeking to justify himself, asked: “ Who is my neighbor?” The law¬yer admitted that it was hard to keep this law fully, and that Jesus had answered him correctly. He was seeking a loophole by which he could escape. He had come to ensnare Jesus, but had been caught in his own trap; hence he sought to justify himself by asking a question which diverted the mind from the main question. The lawyer asked whom he was to love as himself. He was hoping, perhaps, that Jesus would limit the word neighbor to the Jews. (Matthew 5:43.) The Pharisees restricted the term so as to exclude not only Gentiles and Samaritans, but also publicans and those who shared not their own peculiar views. If Jesus should make a different application, the lawyer would have hope to refute Jesus. The word “ neighbor” signified one living near, and was used in a limited sense to mean a friend; in its broader sense, Jesus shows that it meant a fellow man in need. Luke 10:30 ---Jesus made answer and said,—This is a very good point with respect to the teachings of Jesus. The lawyer had given this turn to his question and asked whom he is to love as him-self. How near must he live to him; how near in the grada¬tions of social life; how exactly on the same plane of social rank? This shows that the astuteness of the lawyer was brought to his aid in this conversation; he presents the many difficulties of interpreting the second table of the law so as to make it thoroughly practical. Jesus presents the case of a Jew who was journeying from Jerusalem to Jericho. This road was indeed a going “ down,” for Jericho was about eight hundred feet below the Mediterranean Sea, while Jerusalem was about two thousand five hundred feet above it, making a descent of three thousand three hundred feet in about sixteen to eighteen miles. This road to Jericho was through a nar¬row, deep ravine with holes, caves, and hiding places for rob¬bers. Luke 10:31 ---And by chance a certain priest—It seems accidental, yet there are no accidents in God’ s arrangements. Jericho was a city of priests, where twelve thousand lived. As they served at Jerusalem, it would be no uncommon thing for a priest to be traveling that road, even though they more commonly took the longer route by Bethlehem. When the priest saw this man wounded and dying, he passed by “ on the other side.” This presents a vivid and powerful picture of the vice of Jew¬ish ceremonial cleanliness at the cost of moral principle and duty. This priest was under obligation to help this man, but he did not do so. Luke 10:32 ---And in like manner a Levite also,—“ A Levite” was one who belonged to a class, the descendants of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari; these were the sons of Levi who assisted the priest in sacrificing and other services; they also guarded the temple. (Numbers 3:17 Numbers 8:5-22.) The Levite was probably re¬turning to Jericho from the temple service at Jerusalem. When he drew near to the wounded man, he just looked at the miserable object and got an idea of the critical condition of the poor, wounded sufferer. He immediately crossed the road, passing on without doing anything to relieve the man. The priest had showed great and even selfish indifference, but the Levite showed a cool and calculating selfishness; both acted in a manner unbecoming humanity and utterly unworthy of their sacred professions and office. Their conduct was a striking violation of the law. (Exodus 23:4-5; Deuteronomy 22:1-4; Isaiah 58:7; Malachi 2:6-7.) Luke 10:33-35 ---But a certain Samaritan,—The wounded man was ap-parently a Jew, and the Jews had no dealings with the Samar-itans. (John 4:9.) This Samaritan traveling the same road found the man who had been robbed and wounded; he had mercy on him; he took him up and gave him treatment, “ pouring on them oil and wine,” and put him on his own beast and took him to an inn. Of all men in the world to do a neighborly act, a Jew would not expect this of a Samaritan. The Samaritan did not side-step or dodge the wounded man, but had compassion on him. Oil and wine were used for me¬dicinal purposes in the East. (Isaiah 1:6.) They were very commonly carried by travelers. (Genesis 28:18; Joshua 9:13.) The wine may have been used for bathing and cleansing the wounds, and the olive oil for relieving the pain and for its healing qualities. Jews also used a mingling of oil and wine together for healing wounds. The Samaritan was not contented with merely taking him to the inn and seeing that he had a place of safety, but he took care of him during the re¬mainder of the day and night, attending to his wants, nursing him, and thus denying himself of needed rest and sleep. Luke 10:36-37 ---Which of these three,—Jesus is now ready to have the lawyer answer his own question. The lawyer had asked who was his neighbor and the great Teacher has led him up to the point that he can answer his own question. So Jesus asks the lawyer which of the three “ proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers?” The lawyer answered promptly and said: “ He that showed mercy on him.” The Master Teacher had changed the lawyer’ s standpoint and put it up to him to decide, and the lawyer could not answer the question incor¬rectly ; the lawyer could not say that the priest or the Levite acted neighborly toward the wounded man; such an answer would have stulified his own intelligence; he had to answer the question correctly; there was no way to evade. He had come to ensnare Jesus, but is now entangled in his own net. Jesus then said to him: “ Go, and do thou likewise.” He had asked what he should do to inherit eternal life, and he now has his answer. He avoided in answering Jesus’ question, saying “ the Samaritan” proved neighbor, and used the clause, “ he that showed mercy on him.” MARY AND MARTHALuk_10:38-42 Luk 10:38 ---Now as they went on their way,—Jesus was traveling to-ward Jerusalem; they came to “ a certain village.” We learn from John 11:1 that this was Bethany. The time is not defi¬nite; there is nothing in the language to indicate just when this event took place. As Jesus and the twelve were on their journey whither the seventy had already gone, they came to Bethany— Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. The characters of the two sisters as here presented agree with those described in John. Lazarus is not named here by Luke; it seems that Luke’ s design was merely to present these two sisters with their different traits and their relations to Jesus. Bethany was situated less than two miles from Jerusalem on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. Jesus went into the house of these sisters Many think that this was before the sickness and death of Lazarus. Luke 10:39 ---And she had a sister called Mary,—Martha was probably the older of these sisters, and had charge of the domestic du¬ties of the house; she received Jesus to her hospitalities. Very little is said about Mary; in fact, these sisters are men¬tioned only three times in gospel history. Mary “ sat at the Lord’ s feet, and heard his word.” Pupils were accustomed to sit at the feet of their teacher; Paul sat and learned at the feet of Gamaliel. (Acts 22:3.) Mary is described as sitting in John 11:20, in contrast to the active Martha. In Mary we see a quiet, childlike, teachable, and contemplative spirit eagerly seeking after the truth. The good Samaritan presents us an example of active love; Mary of devoted and receptive love. Luke 10:40 ---But Martha was cumbered about much serving;—In contrast to Mary at her Master’ s feet is Martha bustling amid anxious cares and overburdened with much labor. She is “ cumbered,” which means “ perplexed, overoccupied”; with her domestic duties weighing heavily upon her in preparing the table for the entertainment of Jesus, she complains to Jesus about her sister Mary. Jesus frequently visited this home; hence he was not a stranger. Martha came with some haste to Jesus into the room where he was sitting and asked that he bid her sister to help her. There seems to be a re¬proach to Jesus in her speech as she asked if he did not care that Mary had left her alone to serve. It was an explosive act of Martha to so speak to Jesus. Jesus overlooked the appar¬ent rebuke that Martha gave him, and looked into her heart and answered according to her good and his own wisdom. Luke 10:41-42 ---But the Lord answered and said unto her,—Jesus said: “ Martha, Martha.” This was an impressive and emphatic repetition, calling her attention to the important truth he was about to utter. Martha was fretted with work, and Jesus kindly and calmly answered her outburst of feeling and said that she was “ anxious and troubled about many things.” The manifold cares in providing for his entertainment were not necessary. Jesus reproved her, not so much to the entertaining him as to her state of mind; not to the mere providing for the company, but to her needless solicitude and restless agita¬tion of spirit which could well have been spared on that occa¬sion. Martha was anxious about “ many things,” but Jesus informed her that only “ one thing is needful.” Here Jesus puts in contrast the “ many things” with the “ one thing”; that con¬trast is not only in regard to number, but also in regard to kind. Martha was absorbed with the physical and earthly. Jesus points her to the spiritual and heavenly. The one thing needful was a proper state of heart for receiving Jesus, and also the receiving of his truth. With proper attention to the one thing needful, Martha as well as Mary could have done well in attending to her household duties. Jesus commended Mary because she had “ chosen the good part,” and he adds that it should “ not be taken away from her.” Verse 1 With this chapter begins the great body of material unique to Luke, comprising some of the most glorious teachings the Saviour delivered to mankind, and making this some of the most interesting writings in the sacred Scriptures. The sending forth of the seventy (Luke 10:1-16), their return (Luke 10:17-20), the rejoicing of Jesus (Luke 10:21-24), the account of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), and an incident in the home of Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42) are narrated in Luke 10. THE SENDING OF THE SEVENTYNow after these things the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself was about to come. (Luke 10:1) Seventy others ... It is of no consequence that some ancient authorities add "and two," making this place read "seventy and two"; the teaching is not altered by such a slight variation. Others ... This word derives from [@heterous], meaning "others of a different kind,"[1] thus distinguishing this group from the Twelve. Two by two ... This plan provided courage, companionship, and credibility on the part of those delivering the message, and also afforded protection for the messengers from both physical and moral dangers. Every city and place ... The time for the crucifixion of Christ was rapidly approaching; there were many places which Jesus had not been able to visit; and the sending of this group provided an extension of his ministry possible in no other way. Also, Dummelow thought, "He wished to train his followers to act alone after his departure."[2]It is significant that Jesus was able to command such a large group of men in such a mission, indicating the power his ministry had already generated. Jesus followed up their visits by going personally to all those places. The number sent on this mission (whether seventy or seventy-two) had spiritual and symbolic overtones. The Jews held that the Gentiles were made up of seventy nations; and at their feast of Tabernacles, "seventy bullocks were offered on behalf of the Gentile nations ... to make atonement for them."[3] The cities and places to which these seventy were dispatched were in Trans-Jordan[4] where Gentile population predominated. [1] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 178.. [2] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 751. [3] Ibid. [4] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952), p. 299. Verse 2 And he said unto them, The harvest indeed is plenteous, but the laborers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of harvest, that he send forth laborers into his harvest.The harvest metaphor was often used by Christ. There is always a great harvest, but the laborers have always been in short supply. As Childers expressed it: The laborers have always been tragically few; it is man's fatal lack of concern for his fellowmen that keeps the numbers so small; but the Master makes it clear throughout his Gospel that this concern is a test of discipleship.[5]ENDNOTE: [5] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 498. Verse 3 Go your ways; behold, I send you forth as lambs in the midst of wolves. Carry no purse, no wallet, no shoes; and salute no man on the way.The similarity of these instructions to those given to the Twelve has been made the basis of denying this mission of the seventy as historical by scholars like Easton, Klostermann, Creed, Luce, and many others.[6] Such denials, however, are but arrogant, unscientific prejudice; and as Geldenhuys commented: Such opinions are mere subjective conjectures, at variance with the available data, as well as with Luke's express purpose to relate only actual facts (Luke 1:1-4). No conclusive evidence can be adduced to prove as unhistorical Luke's description of the mission of the seventy.[7]Carry no purse, wallet ... The meaning here is clearly that of eliminating baggage, as if Jesus had said, "Go just as you are." These are essentially the same restrictions imposed on the Twelve. No shoes ... The Cambridge Bible Commentary translates this clause, "Carry no purse, or pack; and travel barefoot!"[8] And this is just the type of crooked exegesis that mars so many works of critical scholars. The verb in this clause which is applicable to "shoes" is "carry" not "wear"; and the meaning is undeniably a prohibition of carrying "extra" shoes. Gilmour went out of his way to muddy the meaning when he wrote: "Carry no (extra) sandals would be a forced interpretation."[9] This is not, however, a "forced" interpretation at all, but the only intelligent and natural interpretation of Jesus' words. If the Lord had meant for them to go barefoot, would he not have said so? The trouble that prevents some from accepting this obvious meaning of the instruction is that it takes away all excuse for claiming contradiction in the synoptics. Matthew (Matthew 10:10) says, "no staff"; Mark (Mark 6:8) says "staff only"; and the true harmony of these lies in the fact of Matthew's reference to "extras" and Mark's exception for what was already in use. This passage in Luke gives the key of understanding all three synoptics. Salute no man on the way ... This means that "They were not to waste their time along the road through long-winded salutations as is customary in the East."[10][6] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 302. [7] Ibid. [8] E. J. Tinsley, Commentary on Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 111. [9] S. MacLean Gilmour, The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), Vol. VIII, p. 185. [10] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 300. Verse 5 And into whatsoever house ye shall enter, first say, Peace be to this house. And if a son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon him: but if not, it shall turn to you again.Son of peace ... is a Hebrew idiom meaning "a person inclined to peace"; and the use of it in this context shows that no positive or righteous action is ever lost. An expression of good-will will bless the receiver of it, but if rejected will return to bless the giver. As Summers wrote: "No prayer for God's peace or blessing is wasted ... if one upon whom the blessing is pronounced rejects it, it will return to bless him who sincerely offered it."[11]ENDNOTE: [11] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1973), p. 127. Verse 7 And in that same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the laborer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.See below for comment. The Lord expressly forbade these representatives of himself to shop around, as it were, for more convenient or comfortable accommodations. Verse 8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you.Found only in Luke, this admonition was especially appropriate in view of the Gentile character of the area (Trans-Jordan) where the seventy were sent. Even many of the Jews in that area were not very scrupulous in observing the restrictions imposed by their law; and, as those restrictions were shortly to disappear altogether in the approaching kingdom, there could have been nothing gained by Jesus' messengers making any big point of their observance. Other New Testament passages bearing on this question are 1 Corinthians 9:7; 1 Timothy 4:8; 1 Corinthians 10:27; and Matthew 15:10-20. The seventy were thus instructed "to eat what they were served without causing inconvenience to their host by requiring `kosher' food."[12]ENDNOTE: [12] Ibid., p. 128. Verse 9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.There was no admonition to the seventy to "raise the dead," as in the case of sending forth the Twelve (Matthew 10:7); and this is proof of the inferior nature of the mission upon which the seventy were sent forth. Allegations that the sacred gospels are merely giving confused accounts of the same mission are inaccurate and unreasonable. The kingdom of God is come nigh ... It had come nigh in two dimensions: first, the King himself had appeared and was soon to visit in the communities where the seventy went; and again, that Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, when the kingdom would come, was less than a year in the future. Verse 10 But into whatsoever city ye shall enter, and they receive you not, go out into the streets thereof and say, Even the dust from your city, that cleaveth to our feet, we wipe off against you: nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh.No gospel mission has any valid purpose beyond that of giving men the opportunity to hear and know the truth. The foregone certainty that countless souls shall reject the message cannot invalidate or change the message, nor impose any further responsibility upon the messengers beyond that of faithfully declaring the word of God. In these instructions, Jesus clearly recognized the right of cities to reject the truth if they wished to do so; but such a rejection entailed also their suffering of the penalties and consequences of their choice. The message was exactly the same to those who received and those who rejected God's messengers: "The kingdom of God is come nigh." The carryover from this Scripture has wide applications in the church of all ages. God does not command that any specific individual or city be "won for the Master," but rather that the message be proclaimed in its full integrity; the rest is left up to the hearer. We wipe off against you ... Adam Clarke has the following with regard to this: The Jews considered themselves defiled by the dust of a heathen country, which was represented by the prophets as a "polluted land," Amos 7:17, when compared with the land of Israel, which was considered as a "holy land," Ezekiel 14:1; therefore, to shake the dust of any city of Israel from off one's clothes or feet was an action, signifying a renunciation of all further connection with them, and placing them on a level with the cities of theHEATHEN. See Amos 9:7.[13]The practice of this symbolical action was continued into the apostolic age; Paul and Barnabas, for example, "Shook off the dust of their feet against them and came unto Iconium" (Acts 13:51). The relevance of this for present-day missionaries lies in the fact that if God's word is rejected in one place, the message should then be declared in another. Of course, this is also true regarding individuals; and no preacher of the word should consider it his divine mission to nag any man into the kingdom of God. ENDNOTE: [13] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1829), Vol. V, p. 119. Verse 12 I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.In that day ... is a reference to the final judgment which shall terminate the dispensation of grace. The Saviour's use of "that day" in this passage, where its primary reference would appear to apply to the "coming nigh" of the kingdom, shows that the kingdom of God will "come" in a more exalted state at the final judgment. Peter's reference to Christians entering into "the external kingdom" (2 Peter 1:11) also sheds light on this. Sodom ... was a grossly wicked city whose very name came to be associated with depravity; but their carnal sins in the sight of God were actually less reprehensible than the arrogant rejection of the Redeemer by the cities of Israel. Sodom was destroyed by fire from heaven (Genesis 19:1-26). The greater sin of the cities of Israel derived from their refusing to see the Light of all nations, an opportunity Sodom did not have. Verse 13 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which were done in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment, than for you.Chorazin ... Bethsaida ... The New Testament does not record the mighty works done in these cities, making no mention of them at all, with the exception of a single miracle of healing a blind man (Mark 8:22). Again, here is the most conclusive evidence that only a small fraction of the miracles of Jesus are recorded in the New Testament. Chorazin is mentioned only one other place in the New Testament (Matthew 11:21); and while Bethsaida is mentioned several times as the residence of Peter, Andrew, Philip, etc., only one miracle was reported there, and even it was done outside the city. The feeding of the five thousand was only a few miles from it, but still not in it. Tyre and Sidon ... Like Sodom, these cities were considered as the most wicked of antiquity; and the prophets of the Old Testament had spoken God's judgment against them in most somber accents; and the Jews fully believed that those cities deserved the awful judgments that fell upon them. The point Jesus was making here was that Jewish cities rejecting their rightful King were more wicked than proverbial Tyre and Sidon. Sodom, Tyre and Sidon all fell, being overwhelmed with total destruction; and Christ's words here foretold a similar destruction of the cities of Israel; but he went far beyond this and spoke of the ultimate accounting which all men shall face in the final judgment. The physical ruin of such cities was only a part of the eternal consequence of their sins; all must confront God's final judgment on the Great Day. They would have repented ... This shows that the depravity of such cities as Sodom and Tyre were due in part to lack of opportunity; for Jesus says here that if they had seen such wonders as Jesus performed in Jewish cities, they would have repented. This raises a question of why they did not receive a greater opportunity; and, coupled with the projection of a more endurable status in eternity for Tyre and Sidon than for the cities of Israel, these become elements of a mystery which lies totally beyond the perimeter of human understanding. Obviously, there shall be many surprises in the judgment. J. W. McGarvey pointed out that "When the time came for evangelizing the Gentiles, Tyre and Sidon accepted the gospel and verified the words of this text (Acts 21:3-6; Acts 27:3).[14] For more on Tyre and Sidon, see in my Commentary on Mark, under Mark 7:24. In sackcloth and ashes ... Clothing oneself in the coarsest of garments and sitting dejectedly in ashes was from the remotest times a symbolical expression of repentance, as exemplified by Job (Job 2:8) and by Nineveh (Jonah 3:6). ENDNOTE: [14] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Company), p. 100. Verse 15 And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? thou shalt be brought down unto Hades.Capernaum ... This was the home of Jairus whose daughter was raised from the dead, and of the centurions whose son and servant were healed, and of the nobleman whose son was healed of a fever; but the implication is clear that many such wonders were wrought in addition to these which found their way into the sacred gospels. Shalt thou be exalted unto heaven ...? Favorably situated in Galilee, a strong commercial city, gateway to Palestine from the East, beneficiary of the payroll afforded by a strong military outpost of the Romans, this city might have imagined that nothing but increasing prosperity and glory would mark their future; but Jesus did not see their future in such a favorable light. As a consequence of rejecting Jesus, Capernaum and all the cities of Israel would be utterly destroyed. Hades ... Geldenhuys wrote that in the New Testament, "Hades does not mean the abode of the dead (the good and the wicked) but a place of punishment and condemnation."[15] Summers, however, while conceding that "Hades" sometimes has this meaning (as in Revelation 20:14), insisted that the usual meaning is "the place of the dead. In the sense of the realm of the dead it was used for the idea of extinction."[16] Perhaps we might reconcile scholarly opinions by supposing that both meanings appear in the word here. Certainly the character of Capernaum which deserved a judgment of extinction would also project a final overthrow in hell itself. [15] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 305. [16] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 131. Verse 16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you, rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me.Many passages in John emphasize the facts stated here. This verse has been called a Johannine thunderbolt in a synoptic sky; and of course those scholars who allege irreconcilable differences between John and the synoptics have cause enough to view this verse as a thunderbolt. It proves the teaching of John to be one with that of the synoptics. The thesis maintained in this verse is that of the identity of God with Jesus and of Jesus with his servants, a major tenet of Holy Scripture. The same relationship appears in Acts 22:8, where Paul's persecution of the church is made the equivalent of persecuting Jesus. In this also appears the responsibility of men to receive the word of God when delivered through God's messengers. Verse 17 And the seventy returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us in thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven.THE RETURN OF THE SEVENTYSatan fallen as lightning ... The power of Jesus' disciples over Satan, in that they were able to cast out demons, was proof to Jesus that Satan was defeated. "Satan is a conquered enemy; and where action is taken in the name of Jesus, victory is gloriously assured."[17] Here Jesus was both reminiscing and prophesying. Satan had suffered some major defeats, notably in connection with Christ's temptation; but Jesus was looking forward to Satan's final fall, his complete defeat at Christ's hands."[18][17] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 302. [18] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 131. Verse 19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall in any wise hurt you.Tread upon serpents ... This was not an inducement to snake-handling, either for the seventy or to the Christians of all ages, but rather an affirmation of God's providence as exerted upon behalf of his servants in all generations. The symbolical meaning of "serpents and scorpions" is primarily "the works of the devil." The key to this verse is the last clause, "nothing shall in any wise hurt you." This is equivalent to the promise in the great commission. "Lo, I am with you always" (Matthew 28:20). Any presumption on the part of God's children is not to be grounded in these promises. While it is true that the apostles and prophets of the New Testament did actually take up poisonous serpents and were bitten without harm (Acts 28:5), there is utterly no example where any person ever did such things on purpose and presumptuously. Verse 20 Nevertheless in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.Rejoice not ... That is, rejoice not in these victories as your own personal triumph; although through you, they are nevertheless victories of the Lord. Names are written in heaven ... The names of God's servants are inscribed in the Lamb's book of life; and for a full discussion of this book, who are inscribed in it, when the inscription takes place, and who may be blotted out of it, see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 12:23. Verse 21 In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes: yea, Father; for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight.THE OF CHRISTSignificantly, this rejoicing of Jesus was "in the Holy Spirit," indicating that even his emotions were in harmony with that Spirit which, without measure, dwelt in him. The true joy of the redeemed issues automatically in the outpouring of prayers of thanksgiving to the Father. Hide these things ... God did not hide capriciously his revelation from the wise and understanding of earth; for they received exactly the same revelation as the "babes," with this difference: "The revelation to those with the wrong attitude, when they persistently rejected it, was taken away from them, and they were permanently confirmed in their spiritual blindness."[19]ENDNOTE: [19] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 308. Verse 22 All things have been delivered to me of my Father: and no one knoweth who the Son is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.This verse is of incredible importance in showing that the Christology of the gospel of John is fully equaled by that of the synoptics. As should have been expected, the radical scholars who deny both the divinity of Christ and the inspiration of the Scriptures have greeted this verse with screams of outrage, many of them having had resort to the last refuge of unbelief, that of making this verse an interpolation. But, in the words of Geldenhuys: Plummer's words remain true: "It is impossible upon my principle of criticism to question its genuineness, of its right to be regarded as among the earliest materials used by the evangelists; and it contains the whole of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel." As regards the theory of a later interpolation, even Creed writes: "It is precarious to desert the evidence of the manuscripts." It is only because there are persons who refuse to recognize the divinity of Jesus, or at any rate to believe that he proclaimed it so explicitly, that they try to get rid of this verse. They have, however, not the slightest real basis of proof for their "a priori" views.[20]ENDNOTE: [20] Ibid. Verse 23 And turning to the disciples he said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things which ye see: for I say unto you, that many prophets and kings desired to see the things which ye see, and saw them not; and to hear the things which ye hear, and heard them not.No king or prophet in Israel's great past had been so blessed as these humble men. Though picked from the lower ranks of society, they went out to proclaim the establishing of the kingdom of Christ - the good news of salvation.[21]Although Christ might not have had in mind any specific examples of kings and prophets who were not so privileged as the seventy, one naturally thinks of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Solomon, David, and Hezekiah, none of whom received the glorious revelation which came to Jesus' followers. ENDNOTE: [21] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 501. Verse 25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and made trial of him, saying Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?THE GOOD Trench held that "We may not ascribe to this lawyer any malicious intentions,"[22] basing his argument upon the revelation that another lawyer, also described asTEMPTING Christ, nevertheless received encouraging words, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God" (Mark 12:34). What shall I do to inherit eternal life ... It is erroneous to deny that Jesus answered this question; because the ensuing conversation shows that, when requested to answer his own question, the lawyer accurately did so, Jesus receiving his answer as true, thus confirming it. ENDNOTE: [22] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 311. Verse 26 And he said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?How readest thou ...? A number of important deductions are mandatory from this response of Jesus. First, there is the premise that one may find in the sacred Scriptures the true answer to the question of what must be done to inherit eternal life. Second, there is the deduction that every man is responsible for reading the answer himself. Third, there is the implication that the sacred Scriptures give the same answer to all who faithfully read them. This verse has the impact of saying, "Look, Lawyer; God has told men what to do to be saved; it is written in the Scriptures; and you, like every other man, may surely read it. What does the Bible say?" This is still the only way to receive the correct answer to so important a question. Verse 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: do this, and thou shalt live.On another occasion, a lawyer (not the same as this) was given this very reply by Jesus to the effect that loving God and loving one's neighbor fulfilled all the law and the prophets, saying, "On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40). Significantly, both there and here, the attainment of eternal life depends absolutely upon keeping perfectly the entire law of God. Salvation has never been possible except on the basis of doing God's will, all of it; but of course, this has always been impossible for every man, save one alone, the God-man, Jesus Christ our Lord; he kept the law, all of it, in uttermost perfection; and the man who would be saved must be saved as Christ, in Christ, and completely identified with him, such a thing being achieved by membership in Christ's spiritual body of which he is the head. Membership in that body is free to all mankind upon their fulfilling the preconditions of faith, repentance, and baptism (into the one body, 1 Corinthians 12:13); but the grounds upon which God accounts man as righteous must be identified as the perfect faith and obedience of the Son of God. The full scope of this marvelous truth does not come into view in this passage; but the manner of Jesus' referring the lawyer back to all the commandments in the law and the prophets most certainly points toward it. In his conversation with the rich young ruler, Jesus reiterated the principle in view here, namely, that eternal life depends upon keeping the commandments of God (Matthew 19:17; Luke 18:20). This mountain fact sends every man to Christ for salvation; only he kept God's commandments perfectly. Every soul seeking salvation must: (1) keep perfectly the sum total of God's commandments, or (2) accept identity with Christ, absolutely, who did observe all of the Father's commandments. Only Christ can save; for only he fully obeyed. The lawyer who asked the question of how to win eternal life, seeing the true answer, quailed in Jesus' presence, and then sought to justify himself on a technicality. Verse 29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?It was in answer to this question of "who is my neighbor?" that Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan, and not in answer to the question of how to inherit eternal life. The questions are related, but certainly are not identical; and the significant thing is that the lawyer's conscience condemned him in the knowledge that he had not loved God fully nor his neighbor as himself. The more acute distress in his conscience related to neighborly relations, hence, the direction of his inquiry about "who is my neighbor?"; but it should not be thought that his conscience was totally at ease with regard to loving God. The parable of the Good Samaritan was given for the purpose of demonstrating to this lawyer that he did not have a clear conscience and that under no circumstances was he an heir of eternal life, having failed, as all men fail, to live perfectly in keeping all of God's commandments. Verse 30 Jesus made answer and said, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance a certain priest was going down that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion, and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine; and he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow he took out two shillings, and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee.The method of interpreting this parable which is usually followed in these times is that of contrasting religious people (the priest and the Levite) with non-religious people (the Samaritan), making the non-religious humanitarian superior to the uncharitable religious person: then construing the whole as an answer to the question of how to inherit eternal life, with the conclusion that the only thing needful in order to inherit eternal life is for one to do good to his fellowmen. This parable teaches no such thing. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 There were so many people who needed help that neither Jesus or any other man could be bodily present with all of them. That is what he meant by saying the harvest is plentious but the laborers are few, and prayed that they might increase. 3 A lamb among wolves would be in great danger. But by great care he might not attract needless attention to himself and so would escape harm. 4 A scrip was a provision bag used as a lunch basket, and a purse was a money bag. Note they were not to carry these, which is also said about shoes. It means not to take any "spares" as will be explained at verse 7. Salute no man might seem unfriendly. Thayer explains the word for salute as follows: "As a salutation was made not merely by a slight gesture and a few words, but generally by embracing and kissing, a journey was retarded by saluting frequently." 5 Their call at a house was to begin by offering their peace to it. 6 Son (of peace) is from HUION which Thayer defines, "One who is worthy of a thing." The Lord was with these disciples in spirit, and if the people in a house were not worthy of the favors that were offered them, the Lord would see that none would come to them and the wishes of the disciples would return to them. :7 The work of the disciples in spreading the news of the kingdom entitled them to their living. That explains the instructions In verse 4 about not taking along their own provisions. Go not from house to house. They were to make only one call in each city because of the shortness of time. (See Matthew 10:11; Matthew 10:23.) 8 Eat such .things us are set before you. This is similar to Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 10:27. Conscientious Jews were often afraid to eat of things unknown to them because of the restrictions of the law of Moses. Jesus did not overlook the law, yet he was about to give a new one to the world, and certain parts of the old one were to be discontinued. 9 The disciples were to preach the news of the approaching kingdom of God. By healing the sick they would prove they were true prophets. 0 A city that would not give the disciples a welcome was to be considered unworthy. The disciples were to get out of the house and into the street. 1 Shaking off the dust was an ancient custom and was used to indicate disapproval of a place. Notwithstanding. Even though they rejected the teaching of the disciples, that would not stop the program of the Lord, for the kingdom of God was going to come into their midst in due time. 2 In that day is indefinite as to date, but the same subject is handled in other passages in which the day of judgment is specified. (See Matthew 10:15; Matthew 11:22; Matthew 11:24; Mark 6:11.) It should be noted that the tolerance is to be shown on that day, not afterward. 3 This is the same as Matthew 11:21. 4 At the judgment is explained at verse 12. 5 Exalted to heaven is a figure of speech, based on the fact that Jesus was an inhabitant of Caper-naum by choice (Matthew 4:13), and hence it had the advantage of his presence. See the comments on Matthew 11:23 for the meaning of hell. 6 Jesus ordained the apostles and the seventy and hence whatever attitude was shown to them was equivalent to showing it to Jesus. On the same principle, that attitude also pertains to God since he sent Jesus into the world. To despise Jesus and God means to disrespect them or belittle their authority. 7 The disciples looked upon their work of controlling the devils as an exploit of which to boast. It was much like the spirit of the Corinthians which they exhibited over the possession of spiritual gifts. 8 I beheld Satan as lightning fall from, heaven. Moffatt renders this, "I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning." John refers to this event in Revelation 12:9. The thought is that Jesus would have more to boast of than the disciples, since he saw the chief of devils fall from heaven. But he was not making any such use of it as a personal advantage. 8 9 Jesus had given his disciples the ability to perform these miracles so they could prove they were not a group of false teachers. 0 This power was not intended for their personal distinction over which to rejoice. What counted the most was a spiritual favor, that of having their names written in heaven. (See Hebrews 12:23; Revelation 21:27.) 1 See the comments on Matthew 11:25 for the present verse. 2 The complete mutual knowledge of the Father and Son of each other was not shared by the world. But such information as would be deemed necessary for others was to be revealed by the Son in his own manner. 3 The disciples were enjoying some bits of information that had not been granted to preceding generations, and for this Jesus called them blessed or happy. 4 It was not the time for those ancient prophets and kings to receive that information, although they had a desire for it. (See Ephe-sians 3:9-11; 1 Peter 1:10-12.) 5 A lawyer was a man informed in the law of Moses and who taught it to the people. The question he asked was a proper one as far as its form was concerned. But the inspired writer tells us the man's motive was wrong, that he wished to tempt Jesus. 6 How readest thou? This was a direct allusion to the profession of the lawyer. That being his business he should have known what he was expected to do to be saved if he had been reading the law carefully, hence the question Jesus asked him. 7 The lawyer correctly cited the requirements of the law. 8 Thou shalt live is equivalent to inheriting eternal life, the thing the lawyer inquired for. Under whatever dispensation people lived, if they did the things required by its law they were promised salvation. 9 The young man of Mat 19:20 affirmed he had kept all the commandments from his youth. The lawyer did not make that claim which he evidently could not do truly. To justify means to show one's self to be righteous. The lawyer thought he would clear himself of coming short of his duty by the use of a quibble over the interpretation of terms, so he asked who is my neighbor? 0 This entire story is told in answer to the lawyer's question, but there are some bits of information incidental to the main subject that will make it worth while to consider. The misfortune of this traveler co8uld happen to any man, so that part of the story is not unusual. 2 All priests were Le-vites, but not all Levites were priests (Exodus 29:9; Exodus 40:12-16; Numbers 4:1-4), which is the reason for using the terms priest and Levite separately. But they were both Jews and considered themselves as being followers of the law which this inquirer also professed to follow. 4 The Samaritans were a mixture of Jew and Gentile blood, the origin of which is recorded in 2 Kings 17:24-33. The Jews had no dealings with them (John 4:9), and thought that very little good ever came from them. That is what makes this part of the story significant; for the Samaritan was the one who showed a neighborly feeling toward the injured man. 5 The assistance given by the Samaritan did not consist in words of sympathy only, but he assumed the full expense of the case. 7 Which . . . was neighbor? Jesus switches the direction of the subject from the neighbor to be loved to the one acting the part of a neighbor. Upon the lawyer's answering the question of Jesus correctly, he was told to go and do likewise. It all sums up the matter by answering the lawyer's question stated in verse 29 by showing that whoever needs our help is our neighbor. 8 This certain village was Bethany, the town of Lazarus and his sisters (John 11:1). Martha seems to have been head of the house as to domestic affairs. 9 The teaching of Jesus absorbed the attention of Mary. 0 The original for cumbered is defined by Thayer as "distracted." Martha was so interested in the entertainment of her guest that she let it crowd out her attention to spiritual things. Frequently today professed Christians will actually plan to be absent from the assembly of the saints in order to prepare a meal for expected guests. Such women are in the same class as Martha and deserve the same rebuke as she. 2 Jesus does not teach that it is wrong to perform the duties of the home, but he does frown upon one's allowing them to overwhelm him with undue care. Needful is from a strong word meaning very necessary. The food that sustains the body will cease to exist at the same time that the fleshly body is destroyed (1 Corinthians 6:12-13), but the spiritual nourishment will not be taken away. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 11 JESUS’ ABOUT PRAYER Luke 11:1-13 Luke 11:1 ---And it came to pass, as he was praying—Jesus had taught his disciples to pray by precept (Matthew 6:7-15) and example (Luke 9:29). The example of Jesus on this occasion stirred them to fresh interest in prayer and reminded them of the teachings of John the Baptist. (Luke 5:33.) Jesus gave them the substance of a model prayer as recorded in Matthew 6:7-15. Jesus was praying “ in a certain place”; this indefinite statement shows that Luke did not make a definite time or place, but that his “ order” is one of thought. This occasion may have followed close upon the visit at Bethany, the “ one of his disciples” in that case perhaps being a later one, and Jesus here repeating what had been taught the twelve disci¬ples in Matthew 6:9. The “ certain place” would then be near Jerusalem. This disciple said: “ Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples.”Luke 11:2-4 ---And he said unto them, When ye pray,—Two causes may be listed for this request— the example of Jesus and the fact that John had taught his disciples to pray. Many think that his form is different in time and place from that given in Matthew 6:9-13; however this is of little consequence. The importance of prayer justifies a repetition of teaching concerning it. In Matthew the suggestive occasion is the habit of “ vain repetitions”; in Luke the occasion is a direct request. In Matthew the prayer is followed with a fuller statement of the condition of forgiveness, while in Luke Jesus gives encourage¬ment to persevering in prayer. The simplicity, brevity, beauty, directness, generality, and spiritual fitness make this prayer a model one. Father, Hallowed be thy name.—God is to be addressed, not as Creator, or Ruler, or Almighty, or as the Omniscient One — but as “ Father.” This form of address is comprehensive enough to include all the rest. It puts in the foreground his love and care, and is chosen to suggest our relation to him and his relation to us. His name is to be hallowed; this means that we are to give reverence, honor and homage to it; it forbids our using his name in an irreverent way; we are to hold it with majesty, purity, and glory. “ Thy kingdom come.” The first petition is not for ourselves, but for the in¬terest of his kingdom; his kingdom must be put first. Our in¬terests are to be identified with the interests of his kingdom. At the time that this prayer was taught, the kingdom had not been established; it was still in the future, and they were to look forward with prayer to its coming. Give us day by day our daily bread.—This phrase or peti¬tion may have been suggested from the daily gift of the manna in the wilderness. After we have sought first the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, we may make request for bread, daily needs for the body, and daily bread for the soul may be fairly understood as included in this prayer. We are dependent on God, and the petition of this prayer for daily bread keeps before us our dependence on him. The asking each day for the bread of the day carries with it efforts on our part to earn our daily bread. We are to work for it. When we pray for the kingdom to spread, we obligate ourselves to work for the spreading of the kingdom; so when we pray for our daily bread, we are pledging ourselves to cooper¬ate with God through all of the laws that he has given for the production of bread. And forgive us our sins;—Jesus teaches us here to ask God for forgiveness, as we ourselves have already forgiven those who have sinned against us. One ground, and apparently the only ground, except the mercy of God, on which we can ask to be forgiven, is that we have forgiven all— every one from our heart. It is useless to ask God to forgive us when we have neglected or refused to forgive others. Jesus teaches emphatically and clearly the conditions of God’ s forgiving us, and one of these conditions is that we already have a forgiving heart toward others. We pray that we may not be led into temptation. Jesus and God may permit us to be tempted but we ask not to be led into temptation, and not to be tempted above that we are able to bear. (1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Peter 2:9.) Luke 11:5-6 ---And he said unto them,—This has a close connection with the prayer which just precedes it. The request made of Jesus was “ Lord, teach us to pray”; Jesus not only gives instruction, but gives an illustration which puts the greatest stress upon persistent importunity. One had a friend who came to his house “ at midnight,” and requested the loan of “ three loaves” to set before his guest who was on a journey, and had stopped to remain overnight with him. This request came at an unusual hour; his friend must arise from slumber, tear himself from his little ones, unbolt his well-fastened door, and hand out three loaves of bread. The man had come for the bread and would not return without it. Some have suggested that “ three loaves” were asked for, because of a custom — one loaf for the guest, one for the host, and one to show abundance. Luke 11:7-8 ---and he from within shall answer and say,—The man awakened at midnight is severely tested; he responded to the call of his friend in a vexed tone. He did not wish to be bothered; his door was shut; his children were in bed with him or in the same sleeping place. The Greek word for bed applied to any room or place used for sleeping, as well as to a bed or couch. There were so many obstacles in the way, and it would be so much trouble to unbar the door, find the loaves, and disturb the children that the friend answered that he could not be bothered with him. His friendship would not move him to grant the request, but the importunity, literally “ the shamelessness” of the caller would cause him to “ arise and give him as many as he needeth.” Luke 11:9-10 ---And I say unto you, Ask,—“ Ask,” “ seek,” and “ knock” represent the three ways of striving to have our wants supplied. Not content with asking, we are to follow it by seeking and searching (Deuteronomy 4:29), and to add to that knocking. When asking does not bring all that is needed, we continue seeking, as well as asking (John 15:7 John 16:23); and when there are obstacles as locked doors, barred gates, knock for help , that the difficulties may be removed and a door opened for spiritual blessings and spiritual opportunities. The three¬fold repetition—“ ask,” “ seek,” and ‘ knock”—comes naturally from the illustration that has just been given. Ask and seek as the man who went to his sleeping friend at midnight; “ knock” at the door earnestly as he did; for to such asking, seeking, knocking, God’ s door of mercy will be opened. These three repetitions of command are more than mere repetitions; since to seek is more than to ask, and to knock more than to seek. These emphasize the deep earnestness and persistency that must be exercised in prayer. Luke 11:11-12 ---And of which of you that is a father—This is another illustration emphasizing prayer. A loaf of bread in the East bore resemblance to a flat stone, suggestive of this comparison ; some fish also resembled a serpent in form, as an eel. These two illustrations are given by Matthew. (Matthew 7:9-10.) Luke only gives the third illustration of the comparison between the egg and scorpion. The scorpion was a crabshaped animal, and some species were exceedingly poisonous. If a child should ask for any form of food, an earthly parent would not give him a hurtful thing in answer to the child’ s request; hence God would not give harmful things to his children who ask him in earnest prayer. Some think that “ a scorpion for an egg” was a proverbial expression. Jesus now makes his own application of these illustrations. Luke 11:13 ---If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts—There is no longer a comparison, but a contrast; the contrast is between man and Jehovah as our Father. It may also signify the contrast between Jehovah God and the gods of the heathen. If earthly parents know how to give “ good things” to their children, how much more shall God our Father “ give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” It is worthy of notice that the argument for persevering prayer increases. First from a friend, then from a father, who is more than a friend, and now from the relation of heavenly Father, who is infi¬nitely more than an earthly father. AND REBUKEDLuk_11:14-36 Luke 11:14 ---And he was casting out a demon—The demoniac spirit in the man seems to have made the man dumb. If this is the same case as that noticed in Matthew 12:22 he was blind also. When the demon was cast out by the power of Jesus, the man’ s powers of speech were restored to him, and the people marveled at this power in Jesus to drive out evil spirits. Others think that this was a different case to that mentioned by Matthew 12:22 and Mark 3:19-30. The greatness of the mir¬acle excites the astonishment of many; this leads to the charge and the demand in the next two verses. Luke 11:15-16 ---But some of them said,—As presented here by Luke, there are two classes of objectors: (1) those who charged him with working through Beelzebub, the prince of demons, and (2) those who, discrediting all the testimonies he had given in support of his claims, demanded yet other signs from heaven. When this demon was cast out of the man he had instanta¬neous relief. “ Beelzebub” comes from the Aramaic, and was the name for the chief of demons; Beelzebub was a Philistine god of the flies, and this title may not unnaturally have been transferred to Satan. The issue between Jesus had his ene¬mies was too vital to be omitted, hence all three of them give a record of this accusation against Jesus. We have it in Matthew 9:32-34 and much more fully in 12: 22-32. Luke 11:17-20 ---But he, knowing their thoughts,—Jesus first answered the charge that his power came from Satan. The kingdom or a house divided, filled with discord, strife, dissension, and an¬archy cannot stand; a kingdom is destroyed by internal civil war. If Jesus cast out demons because he was in league with Satan, then his kingdom was divided against itself; Satan is casting out Satan; how can his kingdom stand? (Mark 3:23.) To ask the question was the most forceful way of saying it cannot stand. But if Satan cast out demons, by whom did their sons cast them out? The pretended power of the Phari¬sees to cast out evil spirits belonged to their sons. This was a keen and justifiable term of the charge upon them, popularly known as “ argumentum ad hominem.” Even your sons will become your judges to condemn you on the charge; demons to do cast out demons. But if I by the finger of God—If he, by “ the finger of God,” or power of God, or Holy Spirit, cast out demons, then the kingdom of God had come unawares upon them. On the phrase, “ finger of God,” compare the expression of the magi-cians to Pharaoh—“ this is the finger of God.” (Exodus 8:19.) The “ kingdom of God,” not kingdom of heaven, is the uniform phrase used by Luke. It will be noticed here that Satan is represented as a real personal being, not a mere principle of evil. Luke 11:21-23 ---When the strong man fully armed—The reasoning here is clear and forceable. So long as Satan, the strong man armed kept his palace and no mightier foe assailed him, he had things his own way and his household goods were undis¬turbed ; but when the Son of God came down upon him with far mightier forces, he wrests from him his old weapons and quickly divides his spoils. Jesus, if he had been in league with Satan, would have left him to keep his power over men in peace; but by his casting out demons, he showed that he is an enemy to Satan and superior to him— that he had himself overpowered Satan and conquered him. He that is not with me is against me;—This is a proverbial saying and was probably repeated often by Jesus; it was suited to the various classes of his hearers, many of whom were secret enemies or undecided and wavering or timid friends. Jesus emphatically declares that there can be no mid¬dle ground. He that does not take part with God and Christ must take part with Satan. Luke 11:24-26 ---The unclean spirit when he is gone—Here Jesus teaches the law of Satanic operations; this especially relates to demonical possessions. When a spirit of Satan is cast out of one person or place, it seeks another favorable place. The meaning here is that the evil spirit wanders about and finds no rest; then it decides to return, and taking to itself seven other evil spirits does return. The evil spirit returns to its house, the human soul, and finds it swept and garnished as a reformed, yet unconverted, person might be. Luke 11:27-28 ---And it came to pass,—“ A certain woman” was im-pressed with the wisdom and moral grandeur of Jesus as a great Teacher, and in true womanly ways cried out aloud in the multitude and gave expression to her praise. Tradition says this woman was a maidservant to Martha and Mary; there is no evidence of the truthfulness of this tradition. The woman’ s expressions indicate that she was a mother, as she voices motherly instincts and feelings. Her beatitude is simi¬lar to that of Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. (Luke 1:42.) This good woman is fulfilling Mary’ s own prophecy. (Luke 1:48.) One way of praising Jesus was to praise his mother. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they—The instant re-sponse of Jesus turns the thought to the far higher blessedness of those who “ hear the word of God, and keep it.” The woman’ s sentiment was a true expression of her heart, but Jesus showed who should receive the richest blessings. She was blessing Jesus through his mother, but Jesus in contrast turns attention to others and gives them a beatitude. Jesus gives praise to his mother, but he never intended that she be worshiped; he does not deny the woman’ s words, but points out who, rather than his natural mother, are to be counted as blessed, even those who hear and keep the word, the whole counsel, commands, and will of God. Hearing is not enough; one must hear and do or “ keep” the commandments of God. Luke 11:29 ---And when the multitudes were gathering—When the multitudes were thronging together, or assembling, Jesus an-nounced certain truths. Matthew 12:38-45 may be compared with Luke’ s record here. Luke does not state a definite time; he does not tell us when the multitudes were assembling. It is very probable that frequent gatherings during Christ’ s min¬istry were had. Jesus now answers those noticed in verse 16, who were seeking a sign from heaven. The generation was an evil one, for it was unbelieving, and demanded unreasona¬ble evidences of the divinity of Jesus; they wanted a heavenly sign, but the only sign granted was that of Jonah. The preaching of Jesus ought to have been sign enough as in the case of Jonah. Luke 11:30 ---For even as Jonah became a sign—As Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so Jesus and his preaching should have been sufficient sign to his generation. Jonah had been com¬manded to go to Nineveh and warn them against impending destruction; but instead of going to Nineveh he went in the opposite direction, and went aboard a vessel. A storm arose and Jonah was thrown overboard by the crew; Jehovah had prepared a great fish and Jonah was swallowed and remained in the fish for three days and nights; he was then thrown out of the fish on the dry land, and was then instructed to go to Nineveh. He went to Nineveh and preached to the Ninevites. Jonah came forth from the sea monster to preach to the Nin¬evites; so Jesus came forth from the heart of the earth to send forth the gospel to every creature. Jonah’ s remaining in the belly of the fish became a type of Jesus remaining in the grave. This is the sign that Jesus gave as his proof of his Messiahship. Luke 11:31 ---The queen of the south shall rise up—“ The queen of the south” was the queen of Sheba (1 Kings 10:1); Sheba is sup-posed to be the southern part of the Arabian peninsula. It is called here “ the ends of the earth” ; this is an expression to denote a great distance. (Jeremiah 6:20.) She came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and was filled with admiration. She had faith; she was not unbelieving; for she made the long journey to hear the wisdom of Solomon. There was in the very pres¬ence of the people something or a sign greater, or superior to that of Jonah or to Solomon. The miracles and preaching of Jesus were more significant and superior in kind and degree than those in the day of Jonah or of Solomon when the people believed. Luke 11:32 ---The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment—Je-sus passes on in his discourse and contrasts that generation with the Ninevites, whom they despised as heathens and Gentile sinners. They would be witnesses against that generation for rejecting Jesus; the unreasonableness of the impenitent of this generation would be condemned by the example of the Ninevites and the queen of Sheba. The Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah, who only made them a temporary visit and performed no miracles. Jesus was living among them and preaching the gospel of the Messiah, yet they did not believe him. Jonah preached to the Ninevites about 840 B.C. Jesus as recorded by Luke here contrasted the Nine¬vites and the queen of the south; the climax is greater; it was more terrible to be condemned by the Ninevites than by the queen of Sheba. Luke 11:33 ---No man, when he hath lighted a lamp,—In the discourses of Jesus this illustration occurs repeatedly, being used for var-ious purposes, yet always appropriate. (See Matthew 5:15 Matthew 6:22; Mark 4:21; Luke 8:16.) Jesus uses a very apt illustra¬tion ; a lamp was used for light, and no one would put it in a secret place, or “ in a cellar,” or “ under the bushel” ; when lighted, it was placed on the stand that it might give light to those who were in the room. The Greek word for “ secret place” or “ cellar” means any concealed place, like a vault, crypt, or covered way, or place like a cellar, a mere hole where persons would not enter. The “ bushel” was a common house¬hold measure holding about a peck. Luke 11:34 ---The lamp of thy body is thine eye:—As the lamp is made for light and its useful purposes, so the eye was made for vision, needing therefore to be in perfect condition so as to ful¬fill its functions well. In like manner the moral light of God comes into this world through Christ to be accepted by men honestly and with unprejudiced mind. For as a blurred eye dooms the whole body to darkness, so does a prejudiced, worldly heart shut off the light of God and doom the misera¬ble man to the darkness of delusion and death. The “ eye is single” when it is undimmed and has its natural and proper powers for straight and clear seeing; when the eye is evil, that is, it lacks its powers of clear and correct sight, the body is full of darkness. Luke 11:35-36 ---Look therefore whether the light—If the only source of light be darkness, great indeed is the darkness. The eye gives expression and radiance to the face and person; when the eye is dark the whole person is gloomy and sad. The eye has been called “ the window of the soul” ; hence through the eyes the different moods of the soul are expressed. Disputing and questioning the work and authority of Jesus as these Pharisees and others were doing, and demanding unreasona¬ble signs, and disbelieving the signs which he had already given them, was like having an eye that is dark; the whole spiritual man is soon filled with evil, with deep spiritual dark¬ness. (John 3:19; 2 Corinthians 4:4.) OF Luke 11:37-54 Luke 11:37-38 ---Now as he spake, a Pharisee asketh him—A Pharisee invited Jesus to dine with him. This Pharisee was more friendly than many of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were a religious sect among the Jews who were very particular about the ceremonies of the law; in fact, they had added many of their traditions to the law; they were as careful to observe their traditions as they were to observe the law. This Phari¬see was not a disciple of Jesus. Jesus accepted the invitation. The original shows that it was an early meal, perhaps “ breakfast.” It was less formal than a dinner. Who the Pharisee was, or why he asked Jesus, we are not informed; some think that he invited him to criticize his teachings and his life. And when the Pharisee saw it,—Jesus accepted the invita¬tion and went into the house and dined with the Pharisee. It was the Jewish custom to dip the hands in water before eating and often between courses for ceremonial purification. In Galilee the Pharisees and scribes had criticized Jesus severely and often because he ate with unwashed hands. (Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23.) On this occasion Jesus had reclined at the breakfast without this ceremonial dipping in water his hands. This neglect of Jesus to follow the custom of the Pharisees caused them to wonder. It became an occasion for Jesus to teach them a lesson. Perhaps this Pharisee was hor¬rified, not that the hands of his guest were unclean, but that he had not conformed to the Pharisaic ceremony of washing before the meal. Luke 11:39 ---And the Lord said unto him,—Though Jesus was a guest in the house and at the table of this Pharisee, yet he did not hesitate to condemn the tradition which had been added to the law, and which stood in the way of this Pharisee accepting the truth. Jesus charged the Pharisees with making the out¬side clean, but neglecting the inside. He did not object to cleansing the outside, but his objection was the cleansing of the outside and leaving the inside unclean; the Pharisees would substitute the outside cleansing for the inward clean¬sing; this Jesus severely condemned. Jesus used the common illustration of “ the cup and of the platter” because these were on the table while they were eating. It was a severe charge to say that they were “ full of extortion and wickedness.” The Pharisees kept the external regulations, but their hearts were full of plunder and wickedness. The psalmist had said: “ Thou desirest truth in the inward parts.” (Psalms 51:6.) A cleansed body does not make a pure heart any more than fine clothes make a noble character. Luke 11:40-41 ---Ye foolish ones, did not he that made—God had made the outside and the inward part also; he required cleanliness of both parts. They are called “ foolish ones” because they put the emphasis on the wrong thing; at other times Jesus called them hypocrites. The Pharisees gave alms and thought that they were acceptable to God because of their mere giving of alms. They gave alms of what they had and then claimed that all things that they had were clean because they had given alms of it. It mattered not how they had ob¬tained their possession, they acted as though their fraudulent gains were sanctified because they gave a part of them to Je¬hovah. They thought that they could use lawfully and enjoy all things of which they gave alms. (Luke 19:8-9; Romans 14:14; 1 Timothy 4:4-5; Titus 1:15.) Luke 11:42 ---But woe unto you Pharisees!—A curse is pronounced upon the Pharisees; Jesus was not talking “ about” the Phari¬sees, but he was talking “ to” them. The reason assigned is that they carefully “ tithe mint and rue and every herb,” and fail to appreciate the full significance of this. To “ tithe” meant to take a tenth of anything and give it to Jehovah. “ Mint” was a garden plant like our spearmint” ; “ rue” was a shrubbery plant about two feet high and was grown in their gardens; “ herb” was a general term to include similar plants. Matthew 23:23 has “ anise” and “ cummin.” These were garden plants used principally for flavoring purposes. They were careful to tithe these things, but neglected the important things of “ justice and the love of God.” Matthew adds “ faith.” It was right for them to tithe these things, but wrong for them to neglect the important things. These things ye ought to do, said Jesus, but you ought not to have left undone “ the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith.” (Matthew 23:23.) Luke 11:43 ---Woe unto you Pharisees!—This “ woe” is pronounced upon these Pharisees because they loved to occupy the “ chief” or “ first” seats in the synagogue. The chief seats were ele¬vated in a semicircle at one end of the synagogue and facing the congregation. Sometimes these seats were sold to those who were able to pay the best price for them. Matthew 23:6 has also the chief place at feasts, given by Luke (Luke 14:7 Luke 20:46) as a mark characteristic of the Pharisees. The Pharisees loved these positions of honor; they also loved reverential salutations, titles of honor, and praise of men. They liked to re¬ceive the plaudits of men in the market places. In all these places they appeared to be very pious and wanted praises for their pretended loyalty to the law. Luke 11:44 ---Woe unto you!—This condemnation is pronounced upon them by Jesus for their hypocrisy. Matthew includes the scribes and other hypocrites with the Pharisees. “ Hypocrites” were like stage actors who put on masks and as¬sumed characters that did not belong to them; they were base pretenders. They were like graves or tombs that are hidden from view by age or the growth of grass or weeds and men passing over them are defiled. So people were spiritually de¬filed by these hypocrites, whose pretended righteousness hid from view their depraved character. These hidden graves would give ceremonial defilement for seven days. (Numbers 19:16.) Luke 11:45 ---And one of the lawyers answering saith—The “ lawyers” were generally Pharisees; they were oftentimes the same as the “ scribes.” This lawyer felt the reproach that Jesus had given to the Pharisees and so informed him. He felt that what Jesus had said was an insult to the lawyers or to his class. They were interpreters of the law, and were not law¬yers in our modern use of that word. He was shrewd enough to see the force of what Jesus had said and felt that the de¬nunciations applied to the lawyers as well as to the Pharisees; he felt that his dignity had been insulted as well as that of the Pharisees. Luke 11:46 ---And he said, Woe unto you lawyers also!—The “ lawyers,” one of whom now rebuked Jesus, justly merited the condemnation, and Jesus pronounced three woes upon this class. Jesus showed them to be hypocrites, for they by their interpretations and traditions placed heavy burdens upon the people, but they did not get under the load and help bear them; they would not even touch the burden with their fin¬gers. While they made the law fearfully burdensome to the people they touched not those burdens themselves with one of their fingers; but, on the contrary, they exempted themselves by their interpretations entirely from those burdensome con¬structions which they imposed upon the people. To make law bear heavily on the people, but light as air upon the lawyers and Pharisees, was the uttermost moral abomination. Luke 11:47 ---Woe unto you! for ye build the tombs of the prophets,— Sepulchres among the Jews were often caves, or were hewn out in rocks on the sides of hills and the entrance decorated with ornaments. (Genesis 23:9; Isaiah 22:16.) Some interpret this speech of Jesus as being severe irony. They now pretend greatly to honor the prophets, but their fathers had killed the prophets, and they were walking in the footsteps of their fathers ; they did not condemn their fathers for killing the prophets, but went to great trouble and expense to adorn heir graves. This sounds very much like much of our modern hypocrisy, both as individuals and as nations. Luke 11:48 ---So ye are witnesses and consent—The generation to which Jesus was talking became guilty of the sins of their fa¬thers by consenting or endorsing the crimes which they did in killing the prophets. Jesus knew that these Pharisees and lawyers were getting ready to destroy him. Their fathers killed the prophets, and now they were building tombs of costly stones, and were adding endless burdens by their traditions. Their fathers had disobeyed the prophets and had destroyed them; the present generation was concealing them under their whitewash of tradition, so that men could not rec¬ognize them nor their teaching. In this way they were wit¬nesses and consenting unto the works of their fathers. It is a high crime against God to persecute and destroy God’ s prophets of the present generation, but destroy those of a former generation. Luke 11:49-51 ---Therefore also said the wisdom of God,—“ The wisdom of God’’ as used here does not refer to any book of the Old Testament; it has reference to Jesus as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:30. Possibly it may mean that God in his wisdom said what Jesus now states; hence there is no reference to a previous revealed “ saying.” This wisdom of God now announced that God would send his prophets and apostles to them and that they would persecute and kill them. The generation to which Jesus was speaking was no better than the generation that killed the prophets of God; the present generation was seeking to do even a greater crime than their fathers had done; hence, the condemnation that fell upon their fathers would come with greater force upon them. The sins of the fathers should be visited upon the children (Exodus 20:5), espe¬cially of that generation which sanctioned the sins of the past, and even went beyond them. from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zachariah,—Abel, the second son of Adam, was the righteous martyr, and the first recorded in the Bible, and Zachariah, the son of Jehoiada, is the last one recorded, according to the Jewish arrangement of the Old Testament. (2 Chronicles 24:20-22.) His last words were: “ Jehovah look upon it, and require it.” However there is some difficulty in determining definitely who this Zachariah was. Many of God’ s prophets between Abel and Zachariah had been slain. Some think that this Zachariah was the son of Barachiah; however the usual explanation is that it has reference to Zachariah, the son of Jehoiada, the priest who was slain in the court of the temple. Matthew 23:35 gives Zachariah as the son of Barachiah. Some think that in some way “ Barachiah” as used by Matthew should be “ Jehoiada”; they think these names have been interchanged. Chronologically the murder of Uriah by Jehoiakim was later (Jeremiah 26:23), but this climax is from Genesis to Second Chronicles. Zachariah was slain between the altar and the sanctuary; that is, between the brazen altar in the court and the temple. The condemnation should be cumulative, bringing the blood or the guilt for shed¬ding the blood of all of the prophets upon this generation. Luke 11:52 ---Woe unto you lawyers!—This is the third woe pronounced upon the lawyers. This woe is pronounced upon them because they had taken away “ the key of knowledge.” Spiritual wisdom is represented as a treasure in a room or house, on which were lock and key; the lawyers had locked the door, and either carried, that is, “ kept” the key, or it may mean, they had taken it away. In either case they were responsible as teachers of the law for the ignorance of the people. They had not entered in, neither had they permitted others to enter in. Jesus was revealing the will of God unto the people; these lawyers had refused to accept this teaching and were hindering the people from accepting it. Luke 11:53-54 ---And when he was come out from thence,—The maliciousness of the scribes and Pharisees is clearly and strongly described here. The original Greek may mean that they terribly pressed him, enraged, and plied him with questions concerning more things, setting a trap for him, to catch (or “ hunt artfully”) something from his mouth. So soon as Jesus went out from the Pharisee’ s house (verse 37) these scribes and Pharisees were ready to spend all of their fury upon him. Jesus had in no uncertain terms very severely rebuked their hypocrisy; they were enraged against him and now sought to take some word and pervert it into some accusation against Jesus. What became of the breakfast that Jesus went in to eat, we know not, but the rage of both Pharisees and lawyers, together with the scribes, knew no bounds. Jesus had pronounced three woes upon the Pharisees and three upon the lawyers. They were “ laying wait for him”; this vivid picture of the anger of these Pharisees and lawyers which Luke draws presents them as treating Jesus as if he were a beast of prey. Verse 1 This chapter gives Jesus' instruction on prayer (Luke 11:1-13), recounts his refutation of the Pharisees' insinuation that Christ was in league with Satan (Luke 11:14-26), records his reaction to a compliment (Luke 11:27-28), details another instance of his reference to Jonah (Luke 11:29-32), stresses his warning against spiritual blindness (Luke 11:33-36), tells of his lunch with8 a Pharisee (Luke 11:42-44), includes an additional three "woes" against the lawyers, and concludes with Luke's summary of the intensified evil cabal against Jesus by the scribes and Pharisees (Luke 11:53-54). Much of the material in this chapter is suggestive of very similar teachings found in Matthew; but this must not be understood as variable accounts of the same events and teachings, colored by the individual viewpoints of the narrators, and therefore being inaccurate or deficient in one or another of the sacred evangelists. The holy Gospels are totally accurate in all of their details; and the conviction that underlies this series of commentaries makes it impossible to receive as valid any type of exegesis that fails to respect this viewpoint. It is absolutely certain that Christ repeated, over and over again, all of the sacred teachings regarding himself and the message which he brought from the Father; and in the light of that certainty, how inane and puerile are the speculations regarding the Lord's prayer, recorded both in this chapter and in Matthew, and the pontifications of scholars about which is the "true" account! The same may be said of many other things in this Gospel. How natural, and how impossible to suppose that it could have been otherwise, that Jesus would have returned again and again to the principal teachings that made up the burden of his four-year campaign of enlightenment! THE LORD'S PRAYERAnd it came to pass, as he was praying in a certain place, that when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples. (Luke 11:1) He was praying ... Prayer was a characteristic habit of the Lord Jesus Christ; and no prayerless person has any kinship whatever with the Saviour. "That man is a brute, a monster, who never prays, never gives glory to his Maker, nor owns his dependence upon him."[1]When he ceased, one of his disciples said ... The circumstances here are utterly different from those in which the similar Lord's prayer was given in Matthew. Jesus repeated it "on two or more occasions"[2] for the instruction of his followers; and it was most natural that the prayer should have been repeated in different words, "for Jesus' view of prayer was that it should not be mechanical."[3] The respect of that unnamed disciple who made the request for instruction should be noted; he waited until Jesus had finished praying. Lord, teach us to pray ... "This itself is a good prayer, and a very needful one; for it is a hard thing to pray well."[4]As John taught his disciples ... No other record of such action on John's part has come down from that age. [1] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 692. [2] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 318. [3] Ibid. [4] Matthew Henry, op. cit., p. 692. Verse 2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Father, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Give us day by day our daily bread, And forgive us our sins; for we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation.And when ye pray, say ... According to Geldenhuys, this means that prayer should be used "as nearly as possible in the form in which he taught it";[5] but the more accurate exegesis is that "Christ8 did not design that we should be tied up to these very words, for then there would have been no variation"[6] from the account given in Matthew. Father ... Harrison commented that: (Here) Jesus uses a child's word for Father, which appears also in Romans 8:15. It is used by modern Hebrews within the family circle, and implies familiarity based on love.[7]Hallowed be thy name ... The first concern in every prayer should be the honor and glory of God. The third commandment in the Decalogue forbade taking God's name in vain (Exodus 20:7); and the Christian also is instructed to hold the name of God in highest reverence and awe. Thy kingdom come ... Later in this same chapter, Jesus said, "Then is the kingdom of God come upon you" (Luke 11:20); and from this it is mandatory to see a double meaning in "come." There was a sense in which the kingdom had already "come upon" the people of that day; and yet this petition has respect to something future. Anthony Lee Ash noted that: There is a sense in which the kingdom is to come in any age, since not all have owned the sovereignty of God ... Even after the kingdom came at Pentecost (Acts 1:5-8; Acts 2:1-4), the prayer remained a valid one for Christians. If it were not, Luke would not have preserved it in a gospel written for post-Pentecost disciples. And if it were a valid prayer for them, it remains so for Christians of any age.[8]In connection with this, the Greek word translated "kingdom" in this prayer is rendered "kingly power" or "royal sovereignty" by practically all recognized expositors of recent times, and not by "kingdom" in a spatial sense.[9] For further thoughts on praying for the kingdom to come, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 6:9-13. Our daily bread ... This indicates that basic necessities alone are proper objects of petition from the Father. This prayer shows that the Christian should be content with a simple life-style. Forgive us our sins ... presupposes that all Christians shall be continually guilty of falling short of God's will, a fact which some find hard to admit. As an example of this, Childer's explained the popularity of Matthew's account of the Lord's prayer by the reference to his use of "debts" instead of "sins," saying, "We who believe strongly that Christians do not commit sins and remain Christians sometimes avoid this form of the prayer!"[10] The Lord's teaching here is to the effect that there are no Christians who do not need to pray for the forgiveness of their sins. For we ourselves also forgive ... Geldenhuys has a profound comment on this, as follows: "FOR indicates here, not the ground upon which God grants forgiveness, but the condition with which we ourselves must comply if we are to enjoy forgiveness from God."[11] John Wesley confessed the same thing: "This does not note the meritorious cause of our pardon; but the removal of the hindrance which would otherwise render it impossible."[12] These comments, of course, are the most obvious and dogmatic truth; and this student has never been able to understand the reluctance of commentators like those just quoted (and including them) to admit the same obvious and dogmatic truth as applied to Christian baptism. Baptism is not the grounds for pardon, but it is an absolutely essential and necessary prerequisite to the pardon of alien sinners. Just as forgiveness is impossible for the unforgiving, salvation is impossible for those refusing to submit to a commandment which Christ himself made a precondition of it. And bring us not into temptation ... This does not imply that God tempts any man, because "God tempts no man" (James 1:13); but this is a plea that the Christian may not encounter temptation that will cause him to fall (1 Corinthians 10:13). LESSONS FROM THE PRAYER1. Prayers should be short. 2. They should be concerned first with the honor and glory of God. 3. Human needs are basically three: (a) bread (with all related things included), (b) forgiveness, and (c) deliverance from temptation. 4. As indic8ated by the word "Father," this is a prayer to be prayed by members of God's family. 5. Long, bombastic prayers and vain repetitions are sinful. 6. This teaches that even Christians are presumed to be, in a sense, sinful, that is, not totally free of wrongdoing. 7. The very highest priority belongs to God's kingdom. 8. Temptation should be as much dreaded and as carefully avoided as sin itself. 9. If Christians hope to be forgiven, they must also forgive. Before leaving this prayer, it should be observed that it is no more unreasonable that Christ should have given the Lord's prayer twice than that the Father should have given the Decalogue twice. Even the variations are instructive and subtly appropriate. THE FRIEND AT In this paragraph, Jesus gave extensive encouragements to his followers to pray, promising, in the most positive language, the certainty of their prayers being heard and answered. First, there is the example (a parable) of the friend at midnight, then the analogy and contrast between earthly fathers and the heavenly Father, and then the dogmatic promise that the heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him. Thus, there is a progression in the words, friend, father, and heavenly Father, a leading from the lesser to the greater in each verse. [5] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 319. [6] Matthew Henry, op. cit., p. 692. [7] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 230. [8] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972), Vol. II. p. 23. [9] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 323. [10] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 508. [11] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 323. [12] John Wesley, One Volume Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), en loco. Verse 5 And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say to him, Friend, lend me three loaves; for a friend of mine is come to me from a journey, and I have nothing to set before him; and he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee. I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him because he is his friend, yet because of his import8unity he will arise and give him as many as he needeth. The friend (in contrast) = the Father in heaven. The borrower = all who would be a blessing to others. His importunity = the perseverance and urgency of true prayer. The friend's reluctance = (the apparent) reluctance of God to answer Christians' prayers. The final procurement of the loaves = God's eventual response to his children's prayers. The number of loaves received (not three, merely, but "as many as he needed") = God's blessing his prayerful children, not merely by supplying what they ask, but what they need. The midnight = the ultimate of all human need. The success of the mission at such an inappropriate time = the fact God is ready to bless his children in any situation, regardless of the direst extremities. All of these analogies, it will be noted, are related to the great lesson Jesus pointed out in the next two verses. A friend ... at midnight ... Alas, how utterly hopeless would be the state of mortal man, if in the darkness of human wretchedness and sin there was no friend to whom he might go for help and relief. It is precisely the thesis of infidelity that mankind has no friend beyond the veil, no one to whom he might go to solicit aid, no higher power to supplement his weakness, and no Person to understand his woes. How glorious is the Christian teaching that in the blackness of whatever midnight may engulf him, there is a Friend who will rise up and bless him. Let it be particularly noted that the supplicant did not set out to seek a friend; (he already had one!) "The answer to prayer is, therefore, only certain in cases where one who prays stands in a relation of friendship to God, and loves and serves him."[13]Children are with me in bed ... As Boles observed, "The Greek word for bed applied to any room or place used for sleeping, as well as to a bed or couch."[14] The mention of such details as the shut door, the midnight hour, the sleeping children, etc. was to emphasize the reluctance of the friend to respond to the borrower. Because of his importunity he will arise ... This is the center of the message of the parable. Trench has this: It is not his only; it is his ; for we are to suppose many askings, each more urgent than the last; although only that one is recorded which at last extorts the gift.[15]Such shamelessness in prayer (for that is what the Greek word means) is exemplified by Abraham who pleaded for Sodom and the cities of the plain (Genesis 18:23 ff), by Jacob who wrestled with the angel of the covenant (Genesis 32:28), and by pleading of the Syro-Phoenician woman (Matthew 15:21). But WHY did God honor such persistence, and by this parable command us to emulate it? The answer appears in a comment by Matthew Henry: "We prevail with men by importunity because they are with it, 8but with God because he is PLEASED with it!"[16] The teaching here relieves every man of any thought that God can be troubled by the number and urgency of his petitions. Let men pray ALWAYS. It is wrong, therefore, to think of prayer as overcoming the reluctance of God. "It is never an overcoming of God's reluctance, but a laying hold of his highest willingness."[17][13] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 324. [14] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 231. [15] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 333. [16] Matthew Henry, op. cit., p. 694. [17] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 330. Verse 9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.These words, in a different context, are also found in Matthew 7:7-8; and reference is made to my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 7:7-8; but the purpose is the same in both passages, that being that men should not cease to pray, and ever with greater and greater urgency. There is an ascending urgency in the successive imperatives, ask, seek, and knock; because to seek is more than to ask, and to knock is more than to seek. It was for the purpose of underlining the precious promises in these teachings that Jesus had just given the parable of the friend at midnight; but he did not stop with that. He next appealed to the readiness of an earthly father to grant a son's request; and, in that illustration, as in the friend at midnight, the analogy is one of contrast rather than likeness. Verse 11 And of which of you that is a father shall his son ask a loaf, and he give him a stone? or a fish, and he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask for an egg, will give him a scorpion?The teaching here is that carnal man will honor the request of his children, and that it must be received that God, whose loving righteousness is infinitely beyond any loving-kindness of a mere earthly father, will, in a far greater degree, respond to the just petitions of his spiritual children. The things contrasted here: loaf and stone, fish and serpent, egg and scorpion, are superficially alike. "The scorpion is a small, poisonous, crab-like animal, which, when at rest is round like an egg."[18] Stones, serpents and scorpions could by no means be acceptable as Revelation 8 propriate gifts in place of food; and the teaching is that God will not reward the petitions of his children with useless or dangerous things, but will supply what they truly need and desire. ENDNOTE: [18] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 752. Verse 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?Here the contrast between evil men and the righteous Father is stressed; there is also a contrast between the "good gifts" of earthly fathers (such as food) which are surpassed by the greatest of gifts, that of the Holy Spirit, the gift which includes all others. In the similar record of Mat 7:11, the Saviour represented the Father as giving "good gifts," as distinguished from "the Holy Spirit" here. This emphasizes the difference in the two occasions. As Childers noted: This discourse in Luke comes later in Jesus' ministry and nearer to Pentecost than does the Sermon on the Mount, in which the passage cited in Matthew occurs. Therefore, Jesus can be more specific with reference to the needs of his disciples.[19]From the passage here, it is clear that God's children should not hesitate to pray to the Father for the measure of the Holy Spirit which has been promised to baptized believers (Acts 2:38), and which is called "an earnest" of our inheritance (Ephesians 1:13). ENDNOTE: [19] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 509. Verse 14 And he was casting out a demon that was dumb. And it came to pass when the demon was gone out, the dumb man spake; and the multitudes marvelled.THE CRAVING FOR SIGNS REBUKEDDemon that was dumb ... "That is, the demon made the man dumb."[20] This was another in the countless miracles of healing wrought by the Son of God, the marvel of the multitudes suggesting that perhaps the "sons of the Pharisees" had tried in vain to exorcise the evil spirit which was so easily cast out by the Saviour. Evidently, this was a celebrated case. ENDNOTE: [20] John Wesley, op. cit., en loco. 8 Verse 15 But some of them said, By Beelzebub the prince of the demons casteth he out demons.This portion of the chapter appears to be descriptive of some of the same incidents and teachings recorded in Matthew 12; but this may not be affirmed dogmatically. How natural it was that the Pharisees would have renewed a charge ascribing Jesus' power to Satan, and how logical that Jesus would have replied to it with strikingly similar words and illustrations. If the two passages are indeed accounts of a single occasion, the entire event may be known by melding the two, and not by an arbitrary preference for either as "the original." We may be very sure that every word recorded in the Gospels was truly spoken by Jesus, and that every event related is truly grounded in a historical occurrence. All three synoptics are similar at this point. See Mark 3:20-30. In Matthew's record, the slander that Jesus' power was derived from Beelzebub followed the suggestions of the multitude that Jesus indeed was the Messiah; but here it would seem that the campaign of the Pharisees had succeeded in dimming this perception of the crowds that thronged around Jesus, and that here the slander was preventive, in their view, and designed to foreclose any such exclamations by the crowd. This teaching is in an entirely different context in Mark. Beelzebub ... This name is the same as Baalzebul, being derived through a mocking Hebrew corruption of the name of the old Canaanite god, Baalzebul, meaning "lord of the high place"; the Hebrew alteration of it, Baalzebub, meant "lord of flies" or of "the dunghill." Baal was actually not one god, but many, more accurately referred to as the Baalim. When the Israelites entered Canaan, they found that "every piece of land had its own deity; thus there were many Baals."[21] This was "the name of innumerable local gods controlling fertility of the soil and domestic animals."[22] The name Beelzebub, as used by Luke, however, means "Satan." The Hebrews had developed this insulting name of the old Canaanite god into a common synonym for the devil; and their application of this shameful word in connection with the holy Christ was as vulgar and evil as anything the Pharisees ever did. [21] The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), p. 115. [22] Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, Inc., 1972), Vol. 3, p. 71. Verse 16 And others, trying him, sought of him a sign from heaven.A sign from heaven ... This was repeatedly demanded by the Pharisees, although they are not named here: and what they probably meant was some spectacular wonder, without moral value, which would cater to human curiosity. Jesus never allowed himself to be maneuvered by such evil requests. Not only were the Pharisees incapable of judging such signs, if they had been given; but they were already the sworn enemies of the Lord, intent on killing him; and they would most surely have rejected anything that even the Son of God might have done. Furthermore, their conceit that some sign in the sky was necessarily from God was erroneous. Satan caused fire from heaven to fall on the animals that belonged to Job. Jesus would indeed give them a sign; but it would be of his choosing, not theirs. As Harrison said, "The utter unreasonableness of his enemies is demonstrated by their demand for a sign when they had just witnessed one." [23]ENDNOTE8: [23] Everett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 231. Verse 17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.The amazing similarity of the synoptic Gospels in their records of the teaching here, coupled with the equally amazing differences, presents a problem that may be resolved fully and satisfactorily only by understanding them as independent, trustworthy records of different events; and this writer agrees with A. T. Robertson, who, in his "Harmony of the Gospels," made Mark and Matthew parallel and Luke independent in this section.[24] See the introduction to this chapter. Hobbs also observed that although some of these events and teachings are recorded in Mark and Matthew as having taken place in Galilee, "There is no reason why they could not have taken place in Judea also. His enemies followed him here, as in Galilee; the hearers were different and had not heard the teaching before."[25]Every kingdom divided ... etc. The argument here is that Jesus' action was not BY the devil, but AGAINST him, and that if Satan was working through Jesus he was working against himself. [24] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 124. [25] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 192. Verse 18 And if Satan also is divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out demons by Beelzebub.This verse startlingly reveals some things about Satan. Spence said: Throughout this argument, Jesus assumes the existence of a kingdom of evil, all armed and thoroughly organized to carry out its dread purposes. He concedes, too, in language which admits of no questioning, the existence of a chief of this evil confederacy.[26]Further, as Boles noted, "It will be noted that Satan here is represented as a real person, not a mere principle of evil."[27]Now it happened that some of the Pharisees themselves professed to cast out demons, an action which they advocated as holy, helpful, and righteous; and Jesus quickly moved to point out that, judged by their own approval of exorcism, they had already admitted such deeds as he had performed before their very eyes to be of God. [26] H. D. M. Spence, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 303. [27] H. Leviticus 8 o Boles, op. cit., p. 235. Verse 19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.There was no logical way for the Pharisees to view exorcism by their own followers as being of God and at the same time allege that the exorcisms by Jesus were by the power of Satan. Furthermore, there were vast differences in the claimed exorcisms by the sons of the Pharisees and the real miracles wrought by Jesus. The example before them which had caused such marveling by the people was evidently wrought upon a celebrated case wherein the sons of the Pharisees had failed to produce a cure. There is no admission here by Jesus that the pretended exorcisms of the Pharisees' disciples were in fact genuine. On the other hand, Christ was merely showing that those bigots were condemning him and charging him with being in league with Satan for doing what their own followers professed to do. "It is gross hypocrisy to condemn that in those who reprove us which yet we allow and applaud in those who flatter us."[28]ENDNOTE: [28] Matthew Henry, op. cit., p. 696. Verse 20 But if I by the finger of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.The finger of God ... This was a master stroke. When Moses performed great wonders before Pharaoh, and when for a time the magicians duplicated the wonders, then came the plague of lice. Aaron stretched the rod upon the land, and the dust of the earth became lice in man and beast (Exodus 8:17). Attempting to do this they failed; and they went and told Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God" (Exodus 8:19). Jesus' use of the same language here stresses the superiority of his miracles over the professed cures performed by the sons of the Pharisees. Then is the kingdom of God come upon you ... This is not a declaration that Christ's church, or kingdom, had at this time been established, an event that took place on Pentecost. The kingdom had come in the sense that the King had appeared and was gathering out of secular Israel, the spiritual remnant, the true Israel, who, along with Gentiles, would form the nucleus of the new institution. See under Luke 11:4. Verse 21 When the strong man fully armed guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh f8rom him his whole armor wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.This little jewel of a parable is most instructive, nor should we hesitate to draw the several analogies which are most certainly in it. The following analogies are by Dummelow:[29]The strong man fully armed = Satan. His court = the whole world under his usurped dominion. His goods = the souls whom Satan holds captive. His armor = the devices by which he enslaves men. The Stronger Man = the Lord Jesus Christ. The spoils = the souls rescued from Satan by the Lord. Overcoming the strong man = the total victory of Christ. Taking his whole armor = the frustration of all Satan's devices through the gospel of Christ. There can be no neutrality in such a conflict as that which appears in these verses; and Christ at once stated that key truth. See next verse, (Luke 11:23). ENDNOTE: [29] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 753. Verse 23 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.This means that any man who does not work with Christ and aid his mission of salvation is in fact working for his defeat. The Pharisees, so intent in their hatred of Jesus, were here warned that the defeat of Christ's purpose for Israel would "scatter." What an ominous word, and how dramatically it was fulfilled! As Geldenhuys said: Within one generation from their final rejection of Jesus, the Jews of Palestine were overwhelmed by Rome; and ever since then, until our own times, the Jews have continued to be scattered over the world, ... and have constantly been the prey of the powers of darkness.[30]And Jesus' words are still true, both of men and of nations. What a pity it is that America does not seem to be listening. This verse contrasts with its opposite (Luke 9:50); but as Harrison explained it, "There Jesus was speaking of a man who was unconsciously cooperating with him, while here he was speaking of those who consciously opposed him."[31] Also, the man in Luke 9:50 was operating in the name of Jesus, a far different thing from that in view here. [30] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 330. [31] Ev8erett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 232. Verse 24 The unclean spirit when he is gone out of the man passeth through waterless places, seeking rest, and finding none, he saith, I will turn back unto my house whence I came out. And when he is come, he findeth it swept and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more evil than himself; and they enter in and dwell there; and the last state of the man becometh worse than the first.This parable of the wandering demon, like all the words of Jesus, is true either in or out of context; and out of context, this is a marvelous teaching of the futility of negative morality, or religion. Barclay titled this section, "The Peril of the Empty Soul," stressing (1) that a man's soul may not be left empty, (2) that a genuine religion cannot be erected on negatives, and (3) that the best way to avoid evil is to do good.[32]However, it is a mistake not to see more than moralizings in the parable before us. Jesus had already spoken this parable, much earlier in his ministry (Matthew 12:43 f), making it a prophetic warning of Israel against rejecting her King; and here it is spoken again, near the close of his ministry, and at a time when the final rejection of himself by the secular Israel was rapidly approaching. The man in whom the evil spirit was = Israel. The going out of the demon = the rebirth of the nation under the preaching of John the Baptist. The swept and garnished period = the emptiness of Israel's inadequate regeneration. No meaningful change in the people occurred. The restlessness of the demon = the relentless and unresting hostility against Jesus of the evil powers. His repossession of the victim = total repossession of national Israel by Satan's evil forces. This refers to the judicial hardening of Israel. The state "worse than the first" = the hardened secular Israel, as fully expounded in Romans 9-11. In the earlier incident recorded in the other two synoptics, Christ warned the Pharisees of the unpardonable sin; here Christ warned them of the judicial hardening that would accompany their rejection of the Lord. In the earlier episode, the wandering demon was used as a prophetic warning; here it was repeated as an explanation of what had already occurred. ENDNOTE: [32] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), p. 151. 8 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 4 For comments on this prayer see those at Matthew 6:9-13. 8 7 This parable compares an earthly friend with the disciple who wanted to know how to pray. The outcome of a proper prayer is the lesson of the illustration. 8 No illustration is intended to apply at all angles. God is not to be regarded as this householder is described, for that is not the point of the parable. The comparison is in the word importunity which means persistence. We are taught to have a faith that will not shrink because we do not receive what we think we need, or do not receive it as soon as desired. 3 This paragraph is explained in detail at Matthew 7:7-11, which is a part of the "sermon on the mount" delivered to the disciples. 4 It was dumb means the devil had caused the person to be dumb, for after it was cast out the dumb spake. Being possessed with a devil did not affect all people alike, the reason for which is not given in the scripture. 5 See the comments at Matthew 12:24. 6 These people were clamoring for some miracle that they imagined would be a test of the power of Jesus. Their motive was a desire to tempt the Lord. 8 This is explained at Matthew 12:25-26. 9 See the explanation at Matthew 12:27. 0 Explained at Matthew 12:28. 2 See the comments on Matthew 12:29. 3 There is no "neutral" ground in matters of right and wrong. Regardless of how inactive a man may be, if he is not active for Christ he is his enemy. 6 This unusual passage is explained at Matthew 12:43-44. 7 This woman meant that the mother of Jesus was to be considered in a special sense. The Ro-manists make a great ado about the Virgin just as this woman did, except she did not even suggest that any worship should be offered to her. 8 Jesus did not go even to the extent of endorsing what the woman said, but stated what he would rather be done, which was to keep the word of God. 9 Because it was an evil generation, Jesus refused to perform any miracle at the time. However, he was willing to stake his reputation as a true prophet on an event yet to come. 0. Thayer defines the original for sign, "A sign, prodigy, portent," and he explains his definition to mean "an unusual occurence, transcending [going beyond] the common course of nature." Jonah lived three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, which was certainly something unusual. And Jesus predicted that he would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40) and live again. 1 See the comments on Matthew 12:42. 2 The point of the verse is one about responsibility based on opportunity. See the comments on Matthew 12:41. 3 The common judgment shown by a man after lighting a candle, is used to compare that which disciples should show about their influence. 4 The natural eye is used for the same purpose as the candle in the preceding verse. A man has but one means of seeing and that is by his natural eye. If it is single (not defective) the owner will be able to see. Likewise, a man has only one life that he can live, and he should so conduct it that it will shed spiritual light upon the world about him. 5 This verse denotes that by an improper life, a man's influence will be turned into one that is for evil or spiritual darkness. (See Romans 14:16.) 6 This verse has a thought similar to verse 23. A man is counted either for or against Christ. His influence is either one of darkness or of light. 7 Jesus accepted the invitation to dine with the Pharisee, which was not considered strange since they both were Jews. Went in and sat down to meat, indicates that he did this without any previous ceremony. 9 The Pharisee was surprised that Jesus did not wash before coming to the table. This does not refer to ordinary cleanliness, but to a ritual the Jews had that was a mere formality. Jesus knew the mind of the Pharisee and accused him and his class of hypocrisy in the exercise of their formalities. 0 It is true that God made the outward man and wants him to be kept clean. But he also made the inner man and requires that he be kept clean, which means that he should not be defiled with pride of tradition and with acts of hypocrisy. 1 If we are helpful toward others with our good things of life, we will be edifying the inner man and will need have no fears of harm from imaginary defilement. 2 See the comments at Matthew 23:23 for explanation of this verse. 3 These uppermost seats were the front pews that faced the audience. The markets were public gathering places, and these Pharisees craved special attention there. 4 Appear not means that the use being made of them is not apparent. Men walking over or about them do not realize that corruption is contained within. Jesus used the fact to compare the hypocrite trying to hide his wickedness. 5 Thus saying refers to the general denunciation Jesus has been uttering against leaders among the Jews. The lawyer may have thought he would bring an apology from Jesus by complaining in this way, relying, perhaps, on the dignity of his profession. 6 With one of your fingers is a figure of speech, for a burden that could be moved with one finger would not be very heavy. It means they were not willing to exert themselves in the least toward practicing the commandments of the law. 7 The Jews were influenced much by the traditional respect for their forefathers. The devotion to their sepulchres indicated a sentimental feeling for them, and this notwithstanding their guilt of having murdered the prophets. 8 Jesus verifies the remarks on the preceding verse. 1 This is explained at Matthew 23:34-36. 2 Key is from KLEIS, and Thayer explains it to mean, "the ability and opportunity to obtain knowledge." Robinson gives virtually the same comment. Entered not in, etc. They were not willing to accept the truth nor let others have it. 3 Urge him means to irritate him in the hope of provoking him to say many things in reply to them. 4 Their motive was to lead Jesus into saying something that would be subject to criticism. Had he done this, they would have gone to the authorities with it. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 12 A CHARGE TO HIS Luke 12:1-12 Luke 12:1 ---In the mean time, when the many thousands—“ In the mean time” is a classic idiom to start a sentence, or even a paragraph; Luke has no expressed antecedent other than the incidents of Luk 11:53-54, and is frequently found in Luke’ s writings. Some think that what Luke here presents is com¬piled from several discourses of our Lord spoken at different times and places. However, this seems to introduce the events which follow; Luke gives an accurate account of events without giving the chronological order of them. The report of the public attack upon Jesus by the scribes and Pharisees brought together “ many thousands of the multitude,” and there were so many that, in their excitement and wonder, “ they trod one upon another.” Jesus addressed him¬self to his disciples. What he relates now may be found in Matthew 16:6 with respect to the Sadducees, and in Mark 8:15 what is said about the Pharisees. The occasion was oppor¬tune for what Jesus warned his disciples against the hypocrisy of the leading Pharisees; their hypocrisy was hidden by a pro¬fessed sanctity of heart. The “ leaven of the Pharisees” was their hypocrisy. Luke 12:2 ---But there is nothing covered up,—We have a parallel of this in Matthew 10:26-33. Jesus had warned them against the “ leaven” or the hypocritical influence of these Pharisees; he now tells them that there is nothing covered up, whether false or true, that shall not be revealed. Jesus used here a proverbial saying which meant that hypocrisy would be unmasted, truth would be displayed and vindicated. The secret designs of his enemies would be made known, exposed to the light of truth, and condemned at the judgment. (1 Corinthians 4:5; Ephesians 5:13.) Luke 12:3 ---Wherefore whatsoever ye have said—The thought in the preceding words is expanded here and applied to the words of the apostles. Whatever may be spoken privately, secretly, as in the darkness of night, or whispered as it were in the retired chambers, shall be made public. The roofs of their houses were flat and the people were accustomed to sitting on them in the evening and talking to each other in neighborly conversation. Hence whatever might be spoken in secret should be proclaimed from the housetop; this means that whatever may be told to them in secret or in the secret room should be pro-claimed in public conversation on the top of their houses. Luke 12:4-5 ---And I say unto you my friends,—Jesus is here still addressing his disciples; he calls them “ friends” in opposition to the scribes and Pharisees. “ No longer do I call you servants’ but friends. (John 15:14-15.) The furiously angry attack of the Pharisees which had just been made seems to suggest the coming persecutions of his disciples. Jesus spoke comforting words to them; they were not to fear those who could only destroy the body; they were to fear only him who was able to destroy both body and soul. Socrates is reported as saying when they were about to kill him: “ Slay me, they may; hurt, me, they cannot. The body is not the ‘ me,’ not the ‘ real being.’ ’’ The soul and body are together not said to be killed, but “ cast into hell.” “ Gehenna” is the place of future torment, which punishment is distinctly stated to be everlasting. (Matthew 25:46.) Luke 12:6-7 ---Are not five sparrows sold for two pence?—Sparrows were very abundant in Palestine; there were many species of them. These birds were caught, strung together, and sold in the market at the exceedingly small price of five for two far¬things, or about three cents in our money. Matthew says: “ Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?” (Matthew 10:29.) Luke says: “ Are not five sparrows sold for two pence?” The variation in price depends upon the number purchased. They are not forgotten in the sight of God, though they are small and bring an insignificant price. In like manner the “ very hairs of your head are all numbered.” Nothing is too small for God to take note of it; God made the small and insignificant things as well as the planets and satellites; hence one need not think that God overlooks the minutest details that affect his children. His care is so minute as to number every hair of our heads. Luke 12:8-9 ---And I say unto you, Every one who shall confess—This is similar to Matthew 10:32; the time is at hand when disciples must take a stand; they must confess Christ or deny him. The time would come when confessing Christ would cost the confessor persecution and even death. To give courage to his disciples to make the confession in the presence of men, Jesus first reminds them of God’ s minute care of his creatures, even of the almost worthless sparrows, and now adds the reward of such confession. If his disciples would confess him before men, he would confess them “ before the angels of God.” On the other hand, if they should deny him “ in the presence of men,’’ he would deny them “ in the presence of the angels of God.” “ In the presence of men” and before “ the angels of God” are put in contrast. To confess Jesus was to own him as Lord and Master; it meant to place oneself as a servant under Christ as a Master. Luke 12:10 ---And every one who shall speak a word against the Son—From the denial of Jesus, he passes to blasphemy; he brings the two classes of blasphemy into prominence— the blasphemy against the “ Son of man” and the blasphemy “ against the Holy Spirit.” There are gradations of blasphemy: to blaspheme primarily means “ to speak evil of, to rail, or to slander.” Hence the word in scripture, when applied to God, took upon itself the strongest meaning; to blaspheme means to speak irreverently and impiously to God, or of God, or of sacred things. One can speak evil of or to a fellow man; this implies a malicious purpose, so blasphemy presupposes an impious intention to detract from the glory of man or God; it means to alienate the minds of others from the love and reverence of God. An idea of this sin may be seen in Leviticus 24:10-16; other instances are recorded in 2 Kings 18:28-35 2 Kings 19:1-6, where Je-hovah and his perfections are maliciously reviled. What is it to blaspheme “ against the Holy Spirit”? Some call it “ unpardonable sin”; some call it the “ sin unto death.”God spoke to man through the law of Moses; the time came when he next spoke to man through his Son. (Hebrews 1:1.) Some who heard Christ could and did blaspheme him; they spoke evil to him and of him; they even attributed the power that he used in casting out demons to Beelzebub; this was speaking evil against the “ Son of man.” Jesus was crucified, buried, raised from the dead, and ascended back to the Father; he then sent the Holy Spirit. Jesus stated that his testimony was incomplete, and that he would send the Holy Spirit to complete or further perfect the testimony that God furnished. (John 16:7-8 John 16:13-14.) The Holy Spirit came and perfected the testimony by guiding the apostles into all truth, and inspiring those who wrote the New Testament. If one finally rejects the Holy Spirit and the teaching that he gave in the New Testament, there is no hope for that one. The Holy Spirit with his teachings is the last that God has to offer man. If one blasphemes the Holy Spirit by rejecting the words of the New Testament, there is no chance for forgiveness be¬cause no other agency from heaven will be given. Luke 12:11-12 ---And when they bring you before the synagogues,—The apostles, after Jesus ascended to heaven, would be brought before the rulers of the synagogue and before the Sanhedrin; in the hour of peril the Holy Spirit would be present with them to assist them in their confession of Jesus and defense of what they preached in his name. They should be brought before all kinds of tribunals, but they should not fear, as the Holy Spirit would be with them. (See Acts 4:8-12.) They should be so completely under the influence of the Holy Spirit that they needed not to be anxious how or what they should say; the Holy Spirit would speak through them. Here is a promise that the Holy Spirit should be given to the apos¬tles and should inspire them on occasions to speak for Jesus. (Matthew 6:34; 1 Corinthians 7:34; Philippians 4:6.) The Holy Spirit is here promised to be the divine teacher and guide to the aposties. Paul was brought before Agrippa, but he spoke more of Jesus than he did of his own defense. WARNING AGAINST Luk_12:13-21 Luk 12:13 --And one out of the multitude said unto him,—This volunteer from the crowd drew attention to the multitude; he does not ask for arbitration, and there is no evidence that his brother was willing to settle the matter that way. This man wanted a decision from Jesus against his brother. The law of Moses (Deuteronomy 21:17) divided the estate, giving the elder brother two-thirds and the younger one-third. Some think that this was the younger brother who was complaining; others think that it was the older brother who had not received his two-thirds according to the law. The man probably had a just claim, or he would not have appealed to one so well known to oppose injustice as Jesus. The man appealed to Jesus as “ Teacher" but there was nothing unusual in his appeal. Luke 12:14 ---But he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge—Jesus emphatically refused to become an arbitrator or umpire in secular matters. He repudiated the position of judge in family fusses and lawsuits. Jesus here is rendering unto Caesar the things of Caesar (Luke 20:25), and showed that he had nothing to do with worldly affairs, that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). Jesus frequently corrected mistaken views of his mission, and while he gave rules to guide disciples in worldly matters, he declined to decide dis¬putes, or to assume authority concerning temporal things. This gave Jesus an occasion to give a warning against the sin of covetousness; the eager request of the man is made the oc¬casion for this warning. “ Covetousness" means greedy and unlawful desire for anything; Jesus warns against “ all covetousness,” against all kinds and degrees of greediness or grasping for gain; covetousness is greedily keeping one’ s own as well as desiring and grasping for the things of others. It takes the affections and the heart which belong to God (Colossians 3:5), and unites with it trust in uncertain riches (1 Timothy 6:17.) Luke 12:15 ---Jesus said unto them,---"Take heed and keep yourselves from all covetousness." Therefore the Lord accused them of covetousness, and tells them that the things a man possesses do not constitute the main part of his life. Luke 12:16-19---And he spake a parable unto them,—This parable shows that abundance of earthly possessions did not save the rich man, but his earthly possession became the means of his condemnation. This rich man gained his wealth honestly from the fruitfulness of his grounds. He had such an abun¬dance of things that he did not know what to do with his in¬crease ; finally he decided what he would do. He decided to pull down his barns, and build greater; he would store away all of his goods in his new barn, and then he would take things easy and “ eat, drink, be merry.” In pulling down his barns and building greater ones he was not directly injuring anyone, neither was he doing anything mean; he may have been helping some by giving them employment. Neither did he purpose a life of drunkenness, dissipation, nor crime. He withheld giving to the poor, as the rich young ruler was re¬quired to do. (Matthew 19:21; Luke 18:22.) He proposed to hoard selfishly everything for himself; he was planning to enjoy ease, not considering the ease of anyone else; he planned to eat, drink, and make merry, whether anyone else had the necessities of life or not; he planned a life of respectable comfort and pleasure. Luke 12:20-21 ---But God said unto him, Thou foolish one,—This man was foolish because he lacked sense, or good judgment. (Luke 11:40; 2 Corinthians 11:19.) This man was foolish because he was not living with the right aim or motive; he was a mis-erably misguided man; his mistake was fatal. While the rich man was telling his soul of the abundance stored up for years, the swift messenger of God came and said to him: “ This night is thy soul required of thee.” This was a striking rebuke of this man’ s soliloquy. How awful do these words of God peal forth, as thunder from the bosom of a dark cloud, darkening the heavens, which but a few moments previous were glowing with the splendor of the noonday sun. How disappointed this man was! Jesus then asks who shall possess the wealth that the rich man left. The implication is that his wealth will no longer be his. It is true that we brought nothing into this world, and that we can take nothing out of it. Furthermore it is true that shrouds have no pockets. Earthly possessions can give no comfort in the hour of death, but may be the means of condemnation. (Job 27:16-19; Psalms 39:6; Eccles. 2:18, 19, 26.) EARTHLY ANXIETY Luke 12:22-34 Luke 12:22-23 ---And he said unto his disciples,—Jesus now turns from the crowd to his disciples; the material presented here appears in Matthew, but not in the connection that it appears there. Jesus has rebuked the hoarding of possessions, as the rich man did, and now turns to his disciples and instructs them with regard to the interest that they should take in food and clothing. They should trust God for food and clothing; their first thoughts belong to the kingdom of God. They should use wisely the powers and opportunities granted them, and believe that God would bless their plans and labors by adding such temporal things as they needed. Luke 12:22-31 corresponds to Matthew 6:25-33. It seems that the parable of the rich fool was spoken to the crowd, but this instruction was given to his disciples. It is to be noted that this is given in the negative form, teaching what not to do; how not to feel. The life is more, that is, of greater importance, than food, and the body than raiment. We should place the greater importance on things of the greatest value; we should give to the higher and better things the greater care and labor. Luke 12:24---1Consider the ravens, that they sow not,—“ Ravens” in-clude the whole crow group of birds. Matthew 6:26 has only “ the birds” ; Matthew puts the statement in an interrogative form. The raven abounds in that country and is frequently referred to in scripture. Noah sent one from the ark (Genesis 8:7), and the ravens fed Elijah (1 Kings 17:4-6). (See also Job 38:41; Psalms 147:9; Proverbs 30:17.) The ravens neither sow nor reap; they have no “ store-chamber nor barn,” yet they live; they have no anxiety about their food for God feeds them. God’ s people are of far greater value, and he will take care of them. Though the birds neither sow nor reap, yet they build their nests and seek their food; Jesus is not discouraging work and industry, but does discourage undue anxi¬ety in regard to our temporal needs. Luke 12:25-26 ---And which of you by being anxious— The birds or ravens illustrate God’ s universal care and wisdom as to the lower animals; his intelligent children should remember his care and refrain from anxiety. They cannot by worry add to their stature or measure of life. If they cannot change what is comparatively of least importance, that is, how tall or how old they shall be, then why should they worry about these other things? Luke only adds the conclusion found in verse 26. The argument is from the less to the greater; to add a little to life is a small thing with God, but to give life and to sustain it year after year, to give the fruits of the field and the animal creation for food, belong to the greater exercise of infinite power. Why should one be distressed about the greater things when anxiety about the less can accomplish nothing? These are unanswerable questions and put a strong argument in the interrogative form. Luke 12:27-28 ---Consider the lilies,— The lily group of plants is very numerous in Palestine. Some of them are very brilliant in color, and very beautiful; more than a dozen varieties are pe¬culiar to that country. Jesus now passed from food to rai¬ment ; he might have drawn his illustration here also from the animal creation, but he descended to the vegetable kingdom, and presented his instruction in a more impressive way. Some have speculated as to the kind of variety that Jesus had in mind here; no one knows, as liles grew wild in the fields and were noted for their beauty and fragrance. (Son 2:1 Son 2:16 Son 5:13 Son 6:2-3.) The lilies did not toil nor spin, yet “ even Solomon in all his glory” was not to be compared in beautiful array to the lily. The external splendor of Solo¬mon’ s reign, and especially his royal state and dress as he sat upon his throne of ivory, was proverbial. (1 Kings 10:18; 2 Chronicles 9:15-28.) Solomon and his servants were continually striving to keep up the beauty and splendor of his attire; yet even any one of the lilies of the field was regarded as being more beautiful and fragrant. But if God doth so clothe the grass— Matthew uses “ the grass of the field” instead of “ the grass in the field.” (Matthew 6:30.) The wild flowers were cut down with the grass; their existence at best was very brief. Dried grass and stalks of flowers were used for fuel. The Jews had a kind of earthen or iron oven, shaped like a large pitcher, open at the top, in which they made a fire. When it was well heated they made a paste of mingled flour and water and applied it to the outside where it was quickly baked and taken off in thin layers. The flowers and the grass had a brief existence, yet God made them and they served a useful purpose; the disciples of Christ have a much longer existence and a more important work so they may expect God to take care of them. Those who do not see this have but little faith in God. Luke 12:29-30 ---And seek not ye what ye shall eat,—It is foolish to spend the most of one’ s strength and time on what one shall eat or drink or wear. The application of the argument from the two illustrations just given of God’ s care over the birds of the air and the lilies of the field is very evident. Jesus warns against seeking with anxiety after things which perish with the using. Neither should they be of “ doubtful mind” ; that is, they should not be held in suspense, wavering, fluctuating with unsettled mind between hope and fear; they should have firm faith in God and not be disturbed with the material things of life. The Gentiles who have no God to trust are seeking after all these things with restless anxiety; but the disciples of Jesus should not be unstable, fickle, or changeful; they should let the nations of the world have their care and anxiety, but should not share in them. People of the world live only for the present; they ignore God, and have no trust in him; but they are continually seeking to get pleasure and satisfaction out of the possession of worldly affairs. God knows what one needs, and he has promised to take care of his children. Luke 12:31 ---Yet seek ye his kingdom,—The disciples of Jesus are to put the emphasis of their life on the spiritual side of things; they are to seek the interest of God’ s kingdom; they are to put these things first, and God has promised to provide the lesser things or material things for them. The world seeks first the lower, less important things; his disciples should not. God knows what they need, and if they will put his kingdom first and all the righteousness of his kingdom, he will give those things which are needed in the physical realm. No one can in extravagance and idleness seek the kingdom of God first; putting the interests of the kingdom of God first implies giving necessary attention to the lower things of life. God will support the earthly life and will give eternal life to those who seek his kingdom first and the righteousness of that kingdom. Luke 12:32 ---Fear not, little flock;—Jesus here uses a term of endear-ment; and speaks words of love and tenderness to them. They are called “ little flock” ; that is, my sheep and my lambs; they are encouraged not to fear. Jesus is a Good Shepherd, and will take care of his flock. It is his delight to “ give you the kingdom.” Disciples are not to worry about their spiritual food and support; they are a little flock, helpless in a great world; yet how assuring when Jesus says to them “ fear not” ! The kingdom had not at this time been established; hence, he could speak of it in the future; that it would be given to them. He means his church with its privileges and blessings; they are encouraged to seek his kingdom, and now he promises that it shall be given to them. The apostles became the charter members of that kingdom. Luke 12:33-34 ---Sell that which ye have,—The disciples of Christ should not hoard their riches but should distribute to those who have need. Christians of the early church sold their possessions and gave to such as had need; earthly provision bags or purses, like the possessions, become old and worthless; the bags would decay with the wealth that it contained. Christians should regard that which they hold as God’ s, not their own; they are only stewards for God. This does not mean that a Christian should give up everything that he has to those who are not trying to serve God; neither does it mean that a Christian should give up what he has to those who are living a life of idleness and wickedness. Lazy, useless, trifling beggars are not to be supported by Christians giving up what they have to them; Christians must use what they have to the glory of God, which means that it must be used to accomplish the greatest good. Instead of laying up treasures on earth, Christians are to lay them up in heaven. Treasures on earth contained all kinds of material possessions ; thieves then as now would break through and steal; moths would consume and destroy some of the wealth. For where your treasure is,—The treasure and the heart go together; hence, the Christian’ s chief good should be in God; the heart will be fixed supremely on the highest good in lay¬ing up treasures in heaven. If one’ s treasure is in this world, one’ s affections are fixed upon it; Jesus gives the reason for laying up treasure in heaven that it may draw the heart thither, and so make heaven more precious to the soul. This is another way of saying “ set your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are upon the earth.” (Colossians 3:2.) TO Luk_12:35-48 Luke 12:35-36 ---Let your loins be girded about,—In verses 22-30, Jesus gives the negative side of things, but from verse 31 onward he has the positive duties of his disciples. To gird the loins about was to fasten the garments with a girdle; the long garments of the people then made speed difficult; it was im-portant to use the girdle before starting on a journey. They could travel better with the long garment girded up so that it would not interfere with rapid motion. Another exhortation is that they should keep their “ lamps burning.” The lamps were to be kept burning, like those of a company of servants waiting for the coming of their lord from a wedding feast at night. They should be watching that they might be ready to open the door for him at the first knock. This is the same point in the parable of the ten virgins. (Matthew 25:1-13.) They were not only to be girded, ready for active service, but their lamps were to be burning, prepared for immediate use. They were not to be anxious about food and raiment, but they were to be alert and ready to do their duty to their Master in faithful watching and service. Constant readiness is enjoined as well as constant watchfulness. They should be ready to receive Christ at the first signal. Luke 12:37-38 ---Blesse,d are those servants,—Jesus encourages watch-fulness by describing the happy condition of those servants who shall be thus found at his coming. Jesus uses very emphatic language in expressing these important truths. By their fidelity the servants become guests, waited upon by the lord himself. The condescension is great here; first the lord girds himself; next he causes them to recline at the table; then he comes forth to minister to their wants and wait upon them. In this he treats them not as servants, but as honored guests. Jesus gave an example of this when he washed the feet of his disciples. (John 13:4-8.) And if he shall come in the second watch,—The Romans divided the night into four watches; the first watch is not named here, as it would be too early to expect one from a wedding feast in that watch; the fourth is omitted, perhaps because it was unusual for one to return so late as that watch; the teaching of Jesus here is that all should be ready when the Lord comes. The time of his coming is uncertain. The mas¬ter of the house does not know what hour the robber will come, or he would watch, and not allow him to dig through the earthen cover of his roof. At an earlier period the night had been divided into three equal parts or watches. Those servants are blessed who are awake, faithful to duty, and watching for the master. Luke 12:39-40 ---But know this, that if the master of the house—Jesus here illustrates the necessity of constant readiness and watchfulness by the case of theft. We find a parallel of this in Matthew 24:43-51. Eastern houses were built of stone or clay; sometimes the roofs were made of clay or thatch. Thieves could easily break through and plunder. This shows how thieves planned to come and dig through and plunder the house while the master of it was away. Had the master known when the thief would come, he would have been ready to prevent his plundering his house. Jesus makes his own ap¬plication when he exhorts his disciples to be ready, “ for in an hour that ye think not the Son of man cometh.” The application of this warning is to the coming of the Son of man; it applies to every individual in principle, for no one knows when death will come. Luke 12:41 ---And Peter said, Lord,—This entire paragraph from verse 22 to verse 40 had been addressed directly to his disciples; hence Peter asked this question. He wanted to know if Jesus meant the parable to belong to the disciples exclusively, or if it was general, belonging “ even unto all.” It seems that he knew that the disciples were included in the teaching, but he did not know whether it belonged to others. Peter’ s question gave occasion for the reply that Jesus now gave. Luke 12:42-44 And the Lord said, Who then is the faithful—Peter was impulsive, frank, and inquisitive; Jesus did not directly answer Peter’ s question, but added another parable of a stew-ard, whom his lord put in charge of his house during a tempo-rary absence. This was a common occurrence in the East. Jesus still enforces his teaching on watchfulness and a con¬stant readiness for his coming by the parable of a servant left in charge of his master’ s house. The question was asked as to who was the faithful and wise steward. The interrogative form makes the sentence the stronger, and leads every hearer and reader to reflect more and to make a personal application. The duties and responsibilties of the apostles and others are involved in this. Jesus answered in an indirect way the ques¬tion that Peter asked, but he never attempted to satisfy the curiosity of people. His teachings were given for the spiritual profit, not only of his apostles, but all of his disciples in all ages. The steward was a slave or a bond servant; the servant that had charge of his master’ s things would be blessed when the master returned and found him faithful in his duties. Luke 12:45-46 ---But if that servant shall say in his heart,—After blessing the faithful servant, Jesus then gives the other side; the unfaithful servant is described as one who said “ in his heart” that his master would not return for some time, and began to treat the servants under him in a shameful and bru¬tal way. He used the time which belonged to his master and the money which the master had left in his care eating and drinking; he even drank to drunkenness; he spent his time in revelry. He took advantage of the absence of his master, be¬trayed the trust imposed in him, and proved himself unworthy of the position that he held. While the servant was in charge and beating his fellow servants and living an idle, drunken life, the master returned and saw his servant in the height of his folly. The master will punish with terrible affliction this unfaithful servant. This is a vivid picture of the sudden and terrible punishment that shall be brought upon the unfaithful servant. There is a wide contrast in the treatment of the unfaithful servant and the faithful one. “ Cut him asunder” is an expression of fearful punishment. (1 Samuel 15:33; Daniel 2:5 Daniel 3:29; Hebrews 11:37.) required to use that many; the one who has ability to use only one talent is held responsible if he does not use that one talent. OF JESUS Luke 12:49-59 Luke 12:49 ---I came to cast fire upon the earth;—There has been much discussion as to the difficulties involved in this verse; it has received a variety of interpretations and many conflicting comments. No speculation need be advanced as to the mean¬ing of this verse. Jesus had just stressed the necessity of watchfulness and readiness; this led him to refer to one object of his coming, to the sufferings he should endure, and the ef-fect of the gospel in producing divisions among people. He simply declared that he came to “ cast fire upon the earth.” Fire was a powerful purifier. (Malachi 3:2.) There have been many different meanings given to “ fire” as used here. Some think that it may mean the fire of destruction; others the fire spoken of by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:11) ; still others think that it refers to the fires of persecution. “ Fire” cannot here be a symbol of blessings; Jesus had just emphasized the fact that punishment would be meted out to those who were un¬faithful ; the fire would represent the process of purification, and also the judgment. Luke 12:50 ---But I have a baptism—Jesus here calls his suffering a baptism; it is an overwhelming in suffering. He had chal¬lenged James and John, when they asked for the chief seats in his kingdom, if they could be baptized with his baptism. (Matthew 20:22; Mark 10:32.) The cross was before Jesus at the time that he spoke these words and he said: “ How am I straitened till it be accomplished!” The Greek word “ bap- tizo” means overwhelm, plunge, dip, immerse; hence, Jesus on the cross was to be overwhelmed with sorrow, suffering and death. There is implied in this figure not only the painful submersion, a dying, but also a joyful rising. Jesus was “ straitened” until this should be accomplished. “ Straitened” means pressed, as it were on every side with anxiety; Paul ex-presses the same idea in Philippians 1:23. Jesus lived daily with the cross in view. Luke 12:51-52 ---Think ye that I am come to give peace—Here Jesus teaches that strife and persecution are to be expected as a con-sequence of his proclaiming the will of God to the people; one should not shrink from the fear of disturbing people by preaching the truth. Christ is the Prince of Peace; but in a sinful world, a righteous king can have and give peace only by destroying error and evil; to do this will bring war; not because Christ and his people have the spirit of strife and war, but because the truth they urge is resisted, and made the occasion for strife, division, and contention by others. The con¬flict that may be waged among the different advocates of error will often unite in their opposition to the truth. The truth taught by Jesus is opposed to error; there can be no com¬promise between truth and error. When one member of the household accepts the truth and others reject it, there is oppo¬sition and antagonism. Luke 12:53 ---They shall be divided, father against son,—The purifying process of the truth of God would occasion division among those bound by the closest and most sacred ties. Some in the house would accept the truth and some reject; then the divi¬sion would fall between even father and son, the tender affec¬tion of mother and daughter would be broken, and so stoutly would the gospel be resisted that angry persecutions would follow, as is sadly pictured here by the words of Jesus. This teaching of Jesus has caused divisions in many homes; almost in every community there may be found sad illustrations of the divisive teachings of Jesus. Terrible commotions must arise; old social affinities be broken up; the ties of household be rent asunder; some will love more strongly than ever be¬fore ; but the many will hate with bitterness. Jesus wanted his disciples to know that such would be the result when the truth of God was preached. We need not be surprised to see the same resulting today. Luke 12:54 ---And he said to the multitudes—Jesus now turns to the multitudes again as in verse 14. There are similar teachings in Matthew 5:25; Matthew 16 :11. There is some difference in the phraseology, but the teaching is similar. In Matthew the Phari¬sees and Sadducees were asking for a sign from heaven as they often did. These signs of the weather are given; they have a more or less general application. Jesus does not verify the signs and make them invariable; he recites the signs which they were accustomed to giving in conversation with each other. They claimed to be able to discern the weather conditions, but were unable to understand the signs of the time with respect to the Messiah; hence, Jesus rebukes them. Luke 12:55 ---And when ye see a south wind blowing,—The south wind came from the Arabian desert and reached Palestine from the south; it was extremely hot. (Job 37:17.) Jesus here continues his rebuke to the multitudes. They could read the signs of rain in the rising of the cloud from the Mediterranean Sea on the west (1 Kings 18:44); they also knew that a south wind soon brought heat; but they did not know the signs of the time with respect to the Messiah; they should have known both from the prophets and from the work that Jesus did among them. Luke 12:56-57 ---Ye hypocrites, ye know how to interpret—A “ hypocrite" is a pretender, a dissembler; one who assumes to be what he is not. This statement of Jesus refers to verse 1 of this chapter. These people could read the signs of rain in the clouds and foretell the heat waves by the wind from the south, but they could not see the clear and sure signs of the presence of the Son of God among them. He had taught them as never man taught; he had worked signs and wonders in their presence; the miracles of healing which he had wrought among them all bore witness to his claim as the Messiah; the spotless purity of his life and the wisdom and perfection of his teaching emphasized his claim. They were rebuked and condemned for their pretended wisdom. Luke 12:58-59 ---For as thou art going with thine adversary—A man under indictment for crime against his adversary and on his way for trial is admonished to settle the case before the trial comes on; it can be settled easier out of court than to be fol-lowed by a long-drawnout lawsuit, in which animosity is stirred up. The process of trial may move on with such intri-cacies that the outcome, though the claim be just, may result in condemnation; hence, it is wise to settle it, if it can be done, before the judge or jury pronounces sentence. If one is on the way to the magistrate with his adversary in law, whom he has wronged, it is right to become reconciled with him before he drags him to the judge and the judge pass the sentence and inflict the punishment. The application is that they should be reconciled to God and be discharged from the punishment due for their sins. The multitude to whom Jesus was speaking understood the physical facts concerning the wind and rain, but they were ignorant of the signs of the times about the Messiah. Thou shalt by no means come out—This is the conclusion of the application that Jesus made of his parable. The Jewish nation was under indictment for great national sin against God; it was at that time being brought to issue on the momentous question of receiving their long-promised Messiah, and through him, making peace with their offended God. They were at that time moving on to the courtroom of the Great Judge; the hour of trial for the nation as well as for individuals was at hand. They should make peace with their adversary while they had opportunity to do so. Some think that Jesus makes the application only to the nation, while othrs think that the principle is the same whether applied to a nation or an individual. Verse 1 This chapter is a well-organized sermon appropriately spoken by Jesus Christ shortly after he walked out of the Pharisee's house, which was attended by uncounted thousands of people. The scholarly allegation that "We have here a group of discourses loosely put together in a framework ascribed to Luke"[1] is superficial, unsustained by any valid argument, and contradicted, absolutely, by the logical arrangement and order of the sermon itself, as well as by its obvious and appropriate connection with the events of the occasion. As Geldenhuys said, "From Luke 12 we receive no other impression but that the Lord spoke all these words on one occasion."[2] There are in this remarkable sermon a series of nine warnings, as follows: Warning against the leaven of the Pharisees (Luke 12:1-7). Warning against the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Luke 12:8-12). Warning against covetousness (Luke 12:13-21). Warning against anxieties (Luke 12:22-34). Warning against failure to "watch" (Luke 12:35-40). Warning against unfaithfulness (Luke 12:41-48). Warning against divisions due to God's word (Luke 12:49-53). Warning against ignoring the signs of the time (Luke 12:54-56). Warning against failure to make peace with God now (Luke 12:57-59). Here is an example of the most careful organization, the most perfect order and progression in a discourse, so beautiful and persuasive that the disorganized sermons and books men produce today are unworthy of comparison with such a discourse as this. Even scholars who seem doubtful of Jesus' use of the same, and similar, pronouncements in various situations are willing to confess that this discourse fits the situation perfectly. Dummelow said, "This speech is not unsuitable to the context in Luke."[3] Many of the sayings in this chapter are closely similar to passages recorded in the other synoptics as having been uttered in other contexts, or with a different emphasis, or for the support of different teachings; but as often stated in this work, it is absolutely certain that Jesus, like any other speaker, would have done exactly that. [1] J. M. Creed, The Gospel according to St. Luke (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1942), en loco. [2] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 350. [3] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 753. In the meantime, when the many thousands of the multitude were gathered together, insomuch that they trod one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. (Luke 12:1) I. Warning against the leaven of the Pharisees. In the meantime ... refers to the time-lapse following Jesus' rising up and leaving the Pharisee's house where he had just dined. The leaven of the Pharisees ... is plainly identified here as hypocrisy; but Jesus used the same word in Matthew 16:6 as a reference to the teaching of that group (see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 16:5-6). Why should not Jesus have done this? The word is fully applicable to both. As Godet said, "Leaven is the emblem of every active principle, good or bad, which possesses the power of assimilation."[4]Hypocrisy ... This is a "literary term used in connection with Greek drama and means `play-acting'."[5] Long usage of the word in a Christian context refers it to insincere pretensions to religious piety. Lamar pointed out that our Lord's use of leaven as an emblem of both the teaching and the hypocrisy of the Pharisees shows that "The essence of their doctrine was hypocrisy; that being at once leaven and hypocrisy, its inevitable effect being to make hypocrites, to reproduce itself."[6]Unto his disciples first of all ... This has the meaning that "He addressed himself first to his disciples, that is, to the Twelve. First here means primarily."[7] Some of the teaching in this chapter applies especially to the twelve apostles. [4] F. A. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clarke, n.d.), II, p. 89. [5] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 517. [6] J. S. Lamar, Commentary on Luke (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), p. 173. [7] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974), p. 151. Verse 2 But there is nothing covered up, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. Wherefore whatsoever ye have said in the darkness shall be heard in the light; and what ye have spoken in the ear in the inner chamber shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.This had the effect of warning the Twelve that they should not be guilty of any dissimulation with regard to the Pharisees; but it goes far beyond that and points to the final judgment when all the secrets of men shall be exposed. This underscores the foolish stupidity of hypocrisy. "Since God knows all and will ultimately reveal all, how foolish it is for one to be content with the form and shadow without the reality."[8] When the Lord comes, "He will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall each man have his praise from God" (1 Corinthians 4:5; see also Ephesians 5:13). ENDNOTE: [8] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 518. Verse 4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will warn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.In this passage, "Jesus makes it clear that mortal life is by no means man's most valuable possession."[9] The body is not the real "I." Although I have a body, the body is not I. Men should learn, therefore, not to accord fear to men or any earthly powers, which have jurisdiction over the body alone, but not over the soul. My friends ... Jesus here contrasted his disciples, through this term of appreciation, with his Pharisaical enemies. "Fear him ..." The one to be feared in not Satan, as some have supposed, but Almighty God. "The power to cast into hell belongs to God, not to Satan."[10] The usage here is similar to "the condemnation of the devil" (1 Timothy 3:6), which has reference not to any condemnation the devil may bestow, but to the condemnation which God has pronounced against him. This is also the view of Harrison, "This refers to God and not to Satan, for Satan cannot determine the destiny of a human soul."[11]After he hath killed ... Do these words then have reference to God's KILLING? In a sense, they do. "It is appointed unto men once to die" (Hebrews 9:27); and that appointment is surely of God. It is a failure to see this which leads some to see Satan as the one to be feared; but the whole thesis of the Bible is "Fear God!" Power to cast into hell ... This word, hell, is a translation of [@gehenna], a Greek word used by Matthew, Mark, James (James 3:6), and Luke for the place of final punishment of the wicked. It is the most dreadful word in the Bible. For a full discussion of the doctrine of eternal punishment, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 25:41. As Hobbs observed, "If hell is not real fire, as some insist, then it is worse than fire; for the reality is always greater than the symbol."[12][9] Ibid. [10] Ibid., p. 519. [11] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 234. [12] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 201. Verse 6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pence? and not one of them is forgotten in the sight of God.Matthew recorded Jesus' use of a variant of this same illustration (Matthew 10:29), "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?" and, as Boles said, "The variation in price depended on the number purchased."[13] If one purchased four, the fifth was thrown in. This affords an interesting sidelight on a commercial practice prevailing through the ages. For Benjamin Franklin's historic use of this thought, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 6:30-31. ENDNOTE: [13] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 248. Verse 7 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not: ye are of more value than many sparrows.Like the preceding verse, this was spoken to encourage the Lord's followers not to be intimidated by the fulminations of the Pharisees. God's care of such members of his creation as these small birds is indeed a marvel to contemplate. When it is remembered that these tiny creatures have descended through countless thousands of years, unaided by men, and in fact destroyed by men, it is evident that the most careful Providence should have protected them through centuries and cycles of time. The lesson, of course, is that God will do more for men than for sparrows. The emphasis in Luke 12:6-7 is designed to allay the fears of the disciples, and it is an essential part of the warning against the Pharisees. The disciples must not be afraid of them, but on the other hand should not hesitate to confess Jesus. Verse 8 And I say unto you, Every man who shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: but he that denieth me in the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God.Christ must have stated this teaching dozens of times in the years of his ministry; for in this appears one of the key principles of the kingdom he came to establish. For an article on the good confession, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 10:32. Verse 10 And every one who shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven.II. Warning against blaspheming the Holy Spirit. At the conclusion of the previous writing, Christ instructed that men should confess him, the converse of that being that some would deny him; and it was that habit of Israel's denying God through long ages, and now denying the Christ himself, which prompted the warning here that there was a final and irrevocable sin about to be committed by them in denying the gospel about to be launched through the apostles under the power of the Holy Spirit. This warning here was brief, but additional light on it is available from Jesus' other pronouncements of it on another occasion ( Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29). The three dispensations of God's grace are in view here. Blaspheming God in the patriarchal period, or Christ as the culmination of the Mosaic period, or the Holy Spirit in the age of the gospel were in the ascending order of seriousness. "The Holy Spirit with his teachings is the last that God has to offer man; and, if one blasphemes the Holy Spirit by rejecting the New Testament, there is no chance for forgiveness."[14] Jesus is God's last word to men. For discussion of the unpardonable sin, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 12:31-32. As Ash viewed this verse, "One could reject Jesus during his personal ministry and still accept him by accepting Spirit-inspired preaching. But reject the latter and there would be no further overture from God."[15][14] Ibid., p. 250. [15] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), II, p. 39. Verse 11 And when they bring you before the synagogues, and the rulers, and the authorities, be not anxious how or what ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: for the Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very hour what ye ought to say.This fitted perfectly into the second warning, because by these teachings Jesus identified the gospel to be preached by the Twelve as the message of the Holy Spirit. Here is also solid ground for viewing the New Testament as inspired of God. This promise pertained, not to all Christians, but to the Twelve; see under Luke 12:1. III. Warning against covetousness. The interruption by the man who wanted Jesus to divide the inheritance prompted the teaching here; and it was included extemporaneously along with the other warnings; but how it fits! Verse 13 And one of the multitude said unto him, Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me.Under Jewish law, the older brother would have inherited two-thirds of the estate, and the younger brother one-third; since the older brother would have been executor of the estate, the appeal here would seem to be that of the younger brother, implying either of two problems: (1) either the elder brother had not given him his share, or (2) the younger brother was thinking of breaking the ancient custom of primogeniture which gave the double portion to the oldest son. Thus, we may not be certain whether this was an appeal for redress under the existing law, or if it was a bold movement toward social reform. Significantly, Jesus refused to be involved either way. As Boles viewed it, the man "probably thought he had a just claim,"[16] or he would not have taken it to Jesus. First of all, this verse teaches that "Christ's kingdom is spiritual, and not of this world. Christianity does not intermeddle with rights."[17] "Too often the church is asked to step into disputes between people, groups, or even races";[18] but "The Master knew that a changed world would not solve man's problems as long as his biggest problem, sin in his heart, was within him."[19] This is a period in history when the ancient wisdom of Christ is being challenged and ignored; but men shall find through bitter experience that Christ was right in all that he said and did. Although no fault could be found with this man's request, Christ absolutely refused to accede to it. Jesus did not approach the problems of social injustice by an assault upon established institutions. He did not take the man's part against those who had wronged him. Just as Jesus refused to accept criminal jurisdiction in the case of the woman taken in adultery (John 8:3-11), or take sides in a political problem, as in the question regarding the tribute money (Matthew 22:17), he carefully avoided the snare and the rock upon which so many religious reformers have made shipwreck. Trench summed it up thus, "It was from the inward to the outward that he would work."[20] And so should his church take heed that they follow in the Master's steps. [16] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 251. [17] Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 269. [18] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 204. [19] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 521. [20] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 337. Verse 14 But he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you? And he said unto them, Take heed, and keep yourselves from all covetousness; for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of things which he possesseth.Christ clearly implied by such a reply to the man who demanded redress against his brother that the problem was not social injustice, but covetousness, laying down the dictum that "a man's life does not consist in the abundance of the things he owns," a premise that flatly contradicts all of the political axioms of every nation on earth. A man's "standard of living," calculated by prevailing yardsticks, is in reality no such thing. "The world in every age has bypassed or refused to acknowledge the truth of this principle, and yet every age has abounded with proofs of its truth."[21]He said unto them ... This plural indicates Jesus went on teaching the multitude, not that both brothers were present. Covetousness is the great cancer eating out the heart of mankind; and the Lord in his teaching here moved to lead men away from it. Human wants are insatiable; and getting only adds to the appetite for more. Paul associated it with moral uncleanness (Ephesians 4:19), calling it "idolatry" (Colossians 3:5). THE PARABLE OF THE RICH FOOLThis parable was spoken to illustrate Jesus' teaching, just spoken, on covetousness. ENDNOTE: [21] Charles L. Childers, loc. cit. Verse 16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: and he reasoned within himself, saying, What shall I do, for I have not where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do; I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat drink, be merry. But God said unto him, Thou foolish one, this night is thy soul required of thee; and the things which thou hast prepared, whose shall they be? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.First, let it be observed that when blessings were multiplied upon this man, it only served to increase his covetousness. "Experience teaches that earthly losses are remedies for covetousness, while increases in worldly goods only arouse and provoke it."[22]Behold also the blight of covetousness, signaled by the use of the first person singular pronouns eleven times in these few times! Barclay had a priceless analogy: "Edith lived in a little world, bounded on the north, south, east, and west, by Edith."[23]I have not where to bestow my fruits ... A very ancient commentator has this: It is mischievous error with which he starts, "I have not where to bestow my fruits"; and he (Ambrose) has answered well, "Thou HAST barns, - the bosoms of the needy, - the houses of the widows - the mouths of orphans and of infants."[24]This man forgot God, his eternal soul, and others. The parable enables us to know what he said to himself, "Soul, ... take thine ease, etc." But the parable also enables us to know what God was saying at that very same time, "Fool, this night is thy soul required of thee." Particularly, this man failed to recognize his status, not as the true owner of his goods, nor even of his soul, which were "his" only in the sense of his being temporarily a steward of them. The loan of an immortal spirit from God was about to be recalled, and the stewardship of his worldly possessions would pass, that very night, to others. This night is thy soul required! "How awful do these words of God peal forth as thunder from the bosom of a dark cloud."[25] The contrasts in the parable are dramatic: "many years" vs. "this night," "much goods laid up" vs. "Whose shall these things be?" etc. So is he that layeth up ... for himself, and is not rich toward God ... The person who is not rich toward God is poor indeed, due to the ephemeral nature of all earthly wealth, as well as of life itself. How pitifully brief is the span of life; how suddenly does the sun of life sink into the void; how quickly does the hope of mortal life decline! And, in the light of all this, which every man certainly knows, how obtuse must he be accounted who vainly imagines that he is assured of many years of pleasure, ease, and prosperity! The most logical deduction that could be drawn from such a tragic story as that of the parable is that human anxieties about earthly possessions are futile and unrewarding. Christ promptly made that deduction the basis of the fourth warning in this sermon. [22] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 340. [23] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), p. 168. [24] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 341. [25] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 253. Verse 23 And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. For the life is more than food, and the body than raiment.IV. Warning against anxieties. Much of the material in this paragraph is also found in Matthew in the sermon on the mount; but as Plummer noted: It does not follow, because this lesson was given immediately after the parable of the rich fool, that therefore it was not part of the sermon on the mount; any more than that because it was delivered there it cannot have been repeated here.[26]The argument Jesus made in these lines and the following is that God who cares for the grasses of the field and the myriad creatures of the lower creations will certainly not fail to look after his children. Surely God would not take better care of sparrows than of his beloved family. A second argument in the paragraph directed against anxieties includes the thoughts that anxiety is a lack of trust in God and also that it cannot do any good anyway. The rich fool just mentioned did not prolong his life by means of his hoarded abundance. ENDNOTE: [26] Alfred Plummer, The Gospel according to St. Luke (New York: T. and T. Clark, 1922), en loco. Verse 24 Consider the ravens, they sow not, neither do they reap; which have no store-chamber nor barn; and God feedeth them: of how much more value are ye than the birds.This is another of the Saviour's illustrations teaching the same lesson as that based upon his reference to the sparrows (Luke 12:6-7). It is easy to see in these passages how the Lord varied and adapted his teaching at various times and places. Verse 25 And which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to the measure of his life? If then ye are not able to do even that which is least, why are ye anxious concerning the rest?Some versions read "his stature" instead of "his life" in this place; and Ash says that "the Greek word could refer to stature";[27] but this presents no problem, being true either way. The argument is from the less to the greater; and if one cannot add a trifling eighteen inches to the span of his life, why not trust God for all of it? ENDNOTE: [27] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 42. Verse 27 Consider the lilies, how they grow: they toil not, neither do they spin; yet I say unto you, Even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothe the grass in the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven; how much more shall he clothe you, O ye of little faith?It should be remembered that Christ was not here denouncing the textile industries. The problem addressed was anxiety; and the argument is that for all of man's feverish anxieties about his clothes, he really doesn't come out any better than the grass of the field, clothed in beautiful flowers! The teaching regards the futility of anxiety. The term "grass" used here is from "a Greek word that means all sorts of herbs and flowers."[28]ENDNOTE: [28] John Wesley, Notes on the New Testament (Naperville, Illinois: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1950), p. 250. Verse 29 And seek ye not what ye shall eat, and what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: but your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.This is not teaching that a Christian should renounce thoughtful prudence in making a living for himself and family; but it is a demotion of even such basic things as food and drink to a lesser priority than that of seeking the kingdom of God. That such basic things are indeed legitimate needs is indicated in the last clause. "Christ was by no means suggesting that faith makes work for a living unnecessary."[29] Believers are not expected to be drones. "Honest toil and the fulfillment of one's temporal obligations are not only consistent with faith; they are prerequisite to faith (2 Thessalonians 3:10; 1 Timothy 5:8)."[30][29] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 524. [30] Ibid. Verse 31 Yet seek ye his kingdom, and these things shall be added unto you.This verse is the climax of the teaching. Seeking God's kingdom should be made the supreme goal of every life; and coupled with the admonition is God's promise that the seeker shall not lack for basic necessities. The kingdom had not at this time been established; hence he could speak of it in the future; that it would be given to them. He means his church with its privileges and blessings ... The apostles became charter members of that kingdom.[31]ENDNOTE: [31] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 257. Verse 32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.There is a glimpse in this verse, "the only verse in this section not paralleled in Matthew,"[32] of the circumstances under which the sermon was delivered. The Pharisees, like one of their number at a later date, were breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the Lord; but Jesus calmly assured his chosen that, despite all that, the kingdom would indeed occur and that they should possess it. In Luke 12:31, the kingdom is to be sought; here it is to be given; but "Both are possible, since God gives men the possibility of seeking, and finding God's gift."[33][32] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 43. [33] Ibid. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 The persecutors perform their evil work in an underhanded and cowardly manner. But their deeds will finally be exposed and all false accusations be disproved.9 3 See the comments on Matthew 10:27 for this verse. 4 Men can cause physical death but can do nothing against the soul of the man who serves God with a righteous life. 5 God is the one who can cast the entire being into hell, hence our conduct should be such that He will not regard us as deserving that awful doom. The full definition of the word hell is quoted at Matthew 5:30. 6 The thought is that God is mindful of everything He has created, even to the comparatively unimportant case of the sparrow. He certainly will not overlook the being made in His image. 7 The thought in the preceding verse is continued in this. Each hair (a small portion of man's being) is counted by the Creator, which denotes that the whole person is of more value than the sparrows. 9 See the comments on Luke 9:26. 0 This refers to what is commonly referred to as the "unpardonable" sin. For a full discussion of this subject see the comments at Matthew 12:24-32. 1 This does not mean they were to be unconcerned about the matter, but they were not to be planning what they were going to say. 2 The reason for the preceding verse is shown here. The Holy Ghost was to dictate the speeches as the case demanded, hence it would be in the same hour. 3 The subject of personal rights is an important one, but not one that should be regarded as worthy of absorbing the main interests of a man's life; certainly not worthy of claiming the attention of the busy Son of man, who was here in the interests of the kingdom of heaven and the salvation of the souls of men. 4 Jesus rebuked the man by this question which amounted to the refusal to "take the case" as a wise judge might say if asked to interfere in an outside affair. 5 A man with only a proper interest in his temporal possessions would not have thought of disrupting the work of Jesus by the subject. Therefore the Lord accused him of covetousness, and told him that the things a man possesses do not constitute the main part of his life. 6 Jesus frequently emphasized his lessons by telling a story that was adapted to the case. The man in the present instance had an unusually large crop. 7 The yield was so great that his graneries were not sufficient. 8 It was necessary to build larger facilities for the crops. 9 Up to this point there was nothing wrong in what the farmer did and said, for it is not only right but necessary to care for the product of the soil that it may not be wasted. But his mistake was in the use he was proposing to make of his crops. He thought to relax and live an indolent and luxurious manner of life, as if that were the main purpose of the good things of nature. 0 Soul is from PSUCHE (Psyche), and Thayer's first definition is, "Breath, i. e., the breath of life; the vital force," and he adds by way of explanation, "which animates the body and shows itself in breathing." The verse does not necessarily mean that God performed a special act to take the man's life from him because of his selfishness. But the uncertainty of this life is a result of the edict of God after the sin of the first man. It was in that sense that God took the rich man's life from him that night. 1 So is he verifies my comments on the preceding verse, and shows that no special miracle was done to punish the farmer. The lesson of Jesus applies to all men who hoard their riches, or who trust in them for selfish enjoyment (1 Timothy 6:17-19.) 3 See the comments on Matthew 6:25. 4 This is explained at Matthew 6:26. 6 Undue anxiety will not add the slightest amount to one's size, hence it is useless to be concerned to the extent of unreasonable worry about life. 7 See the comments on this thought at Matthew 6:29. 8 God's care for comparatively unimportant things such as the flowers, and hence His greater care for man, is the lesson of the verse. (See Matthew 6:30.) 9 Seek ye not means not to be overanxious about it. 0 The nations of the world have only the temporal things in mind, but the disciples of Christ should make such interests secondary. 1 This is commented upon at Matthew 6:33. 9. See Luke 12:32. 4 See the comments at Matthew 6:19-21. 5 Loins be girded is an allusion to the practice of soldiers who put a belt around their body as a brace for their strength. (See Ephesians 6:14.) Lights burning is a figurative admonition to be prepared. (See Matthew 25:1-13.) 6 In the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25) the waiting was for the lord to come to the wedding. In this one the waiting is for him to return from it. The lesson is the same in both, which is the necessity of being prepared. 7 If a servant is watching he will not be caught with surprise, but will be ready to open the door to let him in. The happy bridegroom will regale his faithful servants by serving them with the wedding feast. 8 The second and third watches were at nine and twelve o'clock. If the servants do not go to sleep, they will be ready for their lord when he gets back home. 9 This verse is given for the same purpose as the preceding one; the necessity of watching. Incidentally, however, another lesson is taught here. Jesus speaks favorably of this householder who would resist having his house attacked. But the only way he could do so would be to oppose force with force, which shows it is right to use force if necessary in defending one's home and family. 0 This verse is the lesson of the preceding ones. 1 Much of the teaching of Jesus was to the apostles only, hence Peter asked for the application of the parable. 2 Instead of a direct answer, Jesus replied in a manner that made it apply to all who profess to be his servants. The activities described per tain to some customs in connection with weddings, but the point is in reference to the favors that Jesus will bestow on his faithful servants when he comes back to the earth. 4 This is still figurative as in the preceding verse. 6 This paragraph is explained at Matthew 24:48-51. 8 It would be impractical not to consider these two verses in one paragraph. A popular notion is that it teaches different degrees of punishment after the judgment. By the process of elimination we know it cannot mean that. The ones on the left of the judge (Matthew 25:45) were guilty of only neglecting their service to needy disciples, yet they are to be cast into the same fire that is prepared for the devil and his angels. So if the mildest and strongest classes of evil will get the same punishment, it is foolish to talk about "degrees" for any of the intervening classes. The Bible speaks of but one Gehenna; one lake of fire; one hell; into which the devil and his angels and all other unsaved persons will be cast after the judgment. Being beaten with many or few stripes has nothing to do with the punishment after the judgment, but refers to the judgment itself. Jesus makes his own application of the figurative stripes and begins it with the word for. Then he says unto whom much is given, of him shall much be required. Nothing said about what will be given to the man after the judgment, but it is what was already given to him before the judgment. Upon the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of the servant in making the required use of these goods (talents) will depend the decision as to which of the TWO sides (not several) he will be assigned at the judgment. After that is done, only one sentence will be pronounced upon all in whatever group a man is placed. 9 Fire is from PUB. Thayer defines it in this place by, "dissension," and he explains the definition to be because "fire disorganizes and sunders things joined together and compact." Robinson says the word symbolizes "strife and disunion." These definitions and comments agree with the statements of Jesus in verses soon to follow. He does not mean that he wished people to be divided among themselves, but he did come to bring the teaching he knew would cause the dissension. Already kindled. Even as Jesus was speaking, there were conflicts among the people over his doctrine. 0 It might be asked why Jesus would persist in his teaching when he knew it would bring opposition: this verse answers that question. Baptism is used figuratively and refers to the sufferings he was destined to experience in order to fulfill the scripture (Matthew 26:54). That is why he says how am I straitened (made completely to suffer), (according to the predictions), until it (the baptism of suffering) be accomplished. 1 Jesus continues the same line of thought but is more literal or direct in his language. Not that his motive was to cause division just for the sake of division, but he did mean to put his teaching out among people although it was bound to bring division. 2 House means household and it was destined to be divided. 3 The division was not to come between comparative strangers only, but the closest of relatives would be arrayed against each other. That would be because a father would accept the truth while his son would not, and so on through other relatives. 5 Jesus referred the Jews to their own study of the conditions in nature, in which they professed to know how to figure out the future by present signs. 6 The signs of the times were as clearly portrayed in the Scriptures as were the weather signs, yet they pretended there was nothing on record to indicate the work and purposes of Jesus. 7 Right is from DIKAIOS and Thayer's definition at this place is, "rendering to each his due; passing Just judgment on others." Robinson gives virtually the same definition. The verse reflects on the three preceding this one. If they would treat the teaching of the Scripture with the same reasoning and fairness they did the weather signs, they would be able of themselves to decide their duty without any miraculous signs from Jesus. 9. See the comments at Matthew 5:25-26. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 13 THE NEED OF Luke 13:1-9 Luke 13:1 ---Now there were some present at that very season—This is connected with the discourse that has just been recorded. “ At that very season” means on that same occasion. A pause or interruption in the discourse was made by some who were present. They evidently made no application of the truth that had been spoken by Jesus to themselves, but like the covetous man (Luke 12:13), were thinking of other things which had recently taken place. They may have related to Jesus the oc¬casion of Judas of Galilee referred to in Acts 5:37. However, we do not know who these Galileans were, neither do we know on what occasion the soldiers of Pilate had killed these and “ mingled with their sacrifices” the blood of them that were slain. Uprisings and rebellions were common at that time and especially on feast days. It was considered a great curse to have the blood of the worshiper mingled with the sacrifices of the worshiper. Luke 13:2 ---Think ye that these Galilaeans were sinners—Evidently those who told Jesus of this incident were breaking the force of his teachings as applied to themselves; they attempted to divert attention to something else. Many are prone to talk about the death of others rather than about their own death; they rather speak about the sins of others than their own sins. But Jesus does not let them escape the force of his discourse. These Galileans had suffered and the idea was prevalent then as now that sufferings were brought on because of sin. Job’ s friends had this idea. Jesus does not deny that these Gali¬leans were sinners; neither does he deny that the calamity that befell them was because of their great sin; he does not deny that divine judgment is visited because of sin. He raises the question as to whether they were greater sinners than those who were present. Luke 13:3 ---I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent,—In answer to the question that Jesus raised, he said of them that no such pre-eminence in sin is to be attributed to them. It is wrong to conclude that their fate was due to any great wickedness that they had committed. “ Except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish.” This declaration brings their attention to their own sin; it is emphatic and solemn. It is a warning that a similar or greater punishment would be brought upon them if they did not repent. This is a severe rebuke to these men who reported this to Jesus and to all others who may be in sin; no one can ward off the force of the truth here spoken by Jesus. “ Repent” is used many times in the New Testament. It means a change of mind, disposition, governing purpose; unless one changes from an impenitent heart doom certainly awaits one. The suffering of these becomes a warning to all others to repent or to perish. There is no alternative; it is ei¬ther repent or perish. Luke 13:4-5 ---Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell,—Jesus further forcibly impresses this truth upon his hearers by citing another example. There were eighteen persons who were killed by the fall of the tower in Siloam. It is not known the exact location of this tower; probably it was near the pool of Siloam which was near the foot of Mount Zion. There were large porches around the pools where many sick lay. On some occasion some building had fallen upon certain persons and the hearers of Jesus were familiar with the incident. This building is referred to by Jesus as “ the tower in Siloam” and was probably the one mentioned in John 9:7, and which may have included the dwellers in Jerusalem. Some have conjectured that these eighteen were confined in the tower as prisoners, but does not matter why they were in or near the tower; the point that Jesus makes is that they had perished and that they had not perished simply because of their great wickedness. Their death came, not from the dis¬criminating judgments of God, nor the bloody hands of men, but by the falling tower in Siloam; it was not necessary for them to trace the fall of the tower and its consequences to any judicial act of God. Luke 13:6 ---And he spake this parable;—Luke seems to be the only writer that records this parable; it is called “ the parable of the barren fig tree.” Figs were native to that country; this tree was planted in a “ vineyard,” or a place of vines. Isaiah and David used a parable like this to describe the Jewish people. (Isaiah 5; Psalms 70:5.) Jesus applies the same truths by the idea of a fig tree growing in a sheltered field and protected and carefully cultivated, but fruitless. The doom pronounced upon the Jewish nation, unless it was averted by timely re¬pentance, is still more forcibly illustrated by this parable. The long-suffering of God, as well as the threatened destruc¬tion of the wicked, is clearly set forth. Luke 13:7-9 ---And he said unto the vinedresser,— A “ vinedresser” was one whose duty it was to take care of the vines. “ These three years” has been used by many to represent the three years of the personal ministry of Jesus on earth; however, there is no reference to this in the text. For three years after this fig tree should have borne fruit, its owner came each year and sought fruit in vain. Why should he waste both time and labor upon a worthless fig tree? The land was cumbered with it and something else could be produced upon the plot that this tree occupied. The gardener begged for one more year of trial; he would nurture it and fertilize it and wait and see the results before destroying it. Increased culture might help it, but left to itself, it had failed to bear fruit. God had waited patiently on the Jewish nation for the fruits of righteousness; so far it had failed. One more period was now set for the Jews to avoid the punishment of their sins. While the fig tree refers primarily to the Jewish nation, in a secondary sense it refers to every impenitent sinner who enjoys the opportunities of salvation, but fails to avail himself of them. Evidently, there is a limitation to divine forbearance; unless averted by timely repentance, the threatened destruction will come, and there will be no power to escape the dreadful doom. It is clear that the Jewish people brought on their own destruction by their obstinate neglect of all the messages which God sent to them; John the Baptist had warned them and predicted that the kingdom of God was at hand; Jesus was in their midst and giving them the opportunities to repent. If ever there was a people that had been spared for a long time and patiently in¬structed and warned, and had such opportunities to be fruit¬ful, that was the Jewish people. HEALING ON THE SABBATH Luke 13:10-21 Luke 13:10 And he was teaching in one of the synagogues—It seems that Luke passes over some incidents and takes up that which Jesus had done after his final leave of Galilee and had retired to the region beyond the Jordan or in Perea. Some place this incident after John 11:47-54, where we are told that in conse-quence of the counsel of Caiaphas against Jesus, he retired from Jerusalem to a city called Ephraim, near the wilderness. (John 11:54.) Jesus frequently taught in the synagogue; it was while he was teaching in the synagogue that the following miracle took place. It appears that this woman was a reg-ular* attendant at the synagogue worship. Luke 13:11 ---And behold, a woman that had a spirit of infirmity—This woman was a Jewess; she had access to the synagogue worship, being “ a daughter of Abraham.” She was afflicted with ‘‘ an infirmity eighteen years”; we are not told the nature of her affliction. Luke was a physician and would naturally refer to this miracle of healing. Her disease caused physical debility and deformity; it may have been caused by the wicked spirits, as she had “ a spirit of infirmity.” She was “ bowed together, and could in no wise lift herself up.” Her disease was spinal and extending down to the loin; she was so bent down as to be totally unable to raise herself up, or even to look up. Luke 13:12-13 ---And when Jesus saw her,—Jesus was in the syna¬gogue teaching and evidently this woman came in; many were worshiping in the synagogue and this woman seems to have been one among the many. Jesus called her to him; oth¬ers observed him, and the ruler of the synagogue saw it. It seems that Jesus abruptly said to her, after she responded to his call, that she was “ loosed from thine infirmity.” In a moment when the woman least expected it, her prayers had been answered and she was released beyond her expectation. Jesus struck at the root of the evil; the miracle was evident to all and it was most merciful. And he laid his hands upon her:—She showed her faith by her gratitude; she glorified God. It should be noted that this miracle was one of those which our Lord worked unsolicited and unasked; the widow at Nain is another instance (Luke 7:11-17.) ; in both cases the person to whom kindness was shown was a woman. The miracle was wrought instantaneously; there was no gradual inprovement in her condition, but she was made whole immediately. Luke 13:14 ---And the ruler of the synagogue,—Each synagogue had its ruler; it was his duty to take care that all things were done decently and in order in the services of the synagogue; how-ever, there was no occasion for this rebuke. The woman had not come there to be cured; she had not solicited Jesus to cure her, but Jesus had done so on his own initiative. If any re¬buke was due, it should have been administered to Jesus, as he was entirely responsible for it. The ruler was “ moved with indignation” because she had been “ healed on the sab¬bath.” The ruler seems to have vented his indignation upon the worshipers, as he said to them: “ There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the day of the sabbath.” There was no labor, no toil, no violation of the Sabbath law in any respect; but the ruler administered a severe rebuke to the multitude; it seems that he was afraid to rebuke Jesus. Luke 13:15 ---But the Lord answered him,—Jesus was ever ready to answer his critics; he was always in the right, and those who opposed him were in the wrong. He used a very strong word in his condemnation of the ruler and those who sympathized with him : “ Ye hypocrites, doth not each one of you on the sab¬bath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?” The ruler had said one thing and had meant another. He had rebuked the woman and her sympathizers, when in reality he meant to rebuke Jesus; hence, he was a hypocrite. He envied Jesus and desired to injure him and his influence, but not daring to show it, he pretended a most pious interest in the observance of the Sabbath. Many of those who were present had, doubtless, that very morning led an ox or an ass to water, and did not think of violating the Sabbath, but they were growling at Jesus for healing this unfortunate woman on the Sabbath. Luke 13:16-17 ---And ought not this woman,—If they could lead an animal to water without breaking the Sabbath law, why could not Jesus heal this woman without breaking the Sabbath law? Why should they criticize Jesus for doing such a merciful deed to this unfortunate woman, when they had done a less merciful act to one of the lower animals? Jesus represents this woman as being bound by Satan for eighteen years; she had been in need of help for these many years; her needs were far greater than the needs of the animals that day for water. They had done a merciful deed to an animal in giving it water on the Sabbath, but he had done a far greater deed by healing this woman who was far more valuable than an animal; why then should they criticize him? His adversaries were “ put to shame,” and in contrast the “ multitude rejoiced for all the glo-rious things that were done by him.” Luke 13:18-19 ---Unto what is the kingdom of God like?—A parallel of this is found in Matthew 13:31-33 and Mark 4:31-32. Matthew records the parable of the leaven in connection with the para¬ble of the mustard seed, but Mark records only the parable of the mustard seed. Matthew states particularly that this seed is the least of its class, and that the plant becomes the greatest of herbs, so that the sense of the parable becomes obvious. From the smallest beginning its rapid growth carries it to the greatest size; such is the kingdom of God. In its nature it must grow; the law of growth and progress is its most vital element; in its nature love moves to activity; begets labor; and such labor as cannot fail of success. This kingdom belongs to God; it is owned of God; it is recognized by him, and his power is an element of glorious vitality. Luke 13:20-21 And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God?—This parable is also recorded by Matthew (Matthew 13:33); its meaning is evident. “ Leaven” was very common in the houses of that day; it is yeast and an element used in making bread. The kingdom of heaven is like “ leaven,” for it will permeate and influence all with which it comes in contact ; leaven hid in meal will diffuse itself by its very nature and will permeate the entire mass. The term “ three mea¬sures” was the amount usually used for one meal; it has no further significance. The parable simply means that the truth of God when planted in the heart will influence the life, and that life will continue to influence others until society is affected by it. Some have seen an allegorical meaning in the “ woman,” the number “ three measures,” and the “ meal.” However, there seems to be no significance attached to these words other than it was customary fpr the women to bake the bread. THE NARROW DOOR Luke 13:22-30 Luke 13:22 ---And he went on his way through cities and villages,—Jesus now has his face set toward Jerusalem; Jesus now makes a fourth circuit through the villages and towns of Galilee pre-vious to his going up to Jerusalem to attend the feast. Many think that this was the summer and fall before he was cruci¬fied, and that the “ cities and villages” mentioned here are the cities and villages in Perea. If they mean the cities in Galilee, it was the fourth time that he had visited the cities in that country; but if it is meant that he visited the cities and villages in Perea he did not make the long circuit to Galilee. Authorities differ with respect to the meaning of these “ cities and villages.” He could have gone through Galilee on a circuit and then crossed the Jordan south of the Sea of Galilee and visited Perea and then proceeded to Jerusalem; it is possible for him to have visited the cities on both sides of the Jordan, and thus visited Galilee and Perea. However, the point is clear that he was headed toward Jerusalem and that he vis¬ited cities and villages on the way to Jerusalem. It is to be noted that he taught in all of these villages. Luke 13:23-24 ---And one said unto him,—Jesus is here asked a question. We are not told what city Jesus was in at this time. Someone asked Jesus: “ Lord, are they few that are saved?” He seems to inquire if there are few that be saved or many. The Jews are said to have had many curious theories on this subject. Some supposed all Israelites would be saved; others, that very few would escape, as of all who came out of Egypt, but two entered Canaan. The question clearly means whether the saved would be few or many, and it is supposed that he had reference to the Jews. Jesus did not answer the curiosity of this inquirer, but gave answer to an infinitely more vital question: “ How could they themselves be saved?" Jesus directed his answer not to the one who made the inquiry only, but to “ them,” or to the masses who were about him. He exhorts all to strive “ to enter in by the narrow door.” This is similar to the teaching in Matthew (Matthew 7:13-14), where Jesus contrasts the two ways. “ Strive” is the word used in con¬tending for a prize in the games, and denotes the utmost effort put forth. It takes all that one can do to enter heaven; no one need think that he can work only part of the time and enter heaven. Many will “ seek to enter in,” but “ shall not be able.” Many seek halfheartedly, while others will put forth their utmost. Luke 13:25-27 ---When once the master of the house is risen up,—It is difficult to determine the connection of this verse. “ The master of the house” is the one who controls the house; when he has arisen from his seat in order to shut the door, all comers are shut out. The figure of a wedding feast is still preserved, and the guests are called; the doors are left open for their en-trance ; the servants are sent out to call them, and when the feast begins the doors are shut upon those who refused to come or those who came too late. The late-comers knock and ask admission, but the master answers them and turns them away. This teaches that the gospel call has its limitations of time; the door of mercy is open for a time, but not indefi¬nitely ; if men would enter they must pass in while the door stands open. The master will rise in his dignity and authority and close the door and will say: “ I know not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.” These Jews had heard Jesus; he had taught in their streets; they had witnessed his wonderful miracles, but had rejected him, and had judged themselves unworthy of his blessings. “ Workers of iniquity” mean those who do evil; they are the ones who have followed unrighteous practices as a trade; their occupation was sin. Luke 13:28 ---There shall be the weeping—The “ workers of iniquity,” those who were hired for the wages of sin to do evil, shall reap their reward in due season. The weeping, the gnashing mentioned here, expresses intense and unexampled anguish. In this life pain is not pain as compared to the anguish of soul in perdition. They shall weep because they have lost their favor with God, and shall gnash their teeth in anguish because others enter in and they are rejected. Those who by procrastination and inaction suffer the time of admission to the gospel feast to pass by, will mourn and lament when they see from afar the banquet of bliss where Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the prophets are permitted to feast, while they are excluded from the presence of God. Luke 13:29 ---And they shall come from the east and west,—Salvation will be extended to the Gentiles; not only those who were near, but all those most distant, from all parts of the earth shall be called. (Isaiah 45:6 Isaiah 49:6.) They shall come from all quarters and recline at the table according to the prediction of the prophets and the commission given by Jesus. To recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was to the Jewish mind a representation of the highest honors and the greatest happiness. Many Gentiles shall become spiritual descendants of the fathers in faith (Hebrews 11:8-10), participators of the kingdom of God below (Colossians 1:13) and above (2 Peter 1:11). Some think that this has reference to the second coming of Christ, while others that it has reference to the privileges and blessings of the gospel. Luke 13:30 ---And behold, there are last who shall be first,—Jesus used this expression at the close of the parable of the “ laborers in the vineyard.” (Matthew 20:16.) It seems that there will be such a reversal of present relations; that many of those who seemed most likely to have been the favored guests will be excluded ; while others, whose prospects for such an honor were far less favorable, will be selected as the recipients. The last are first in being permitted to enjoy a banquet from which the others were excluded. MESSAGE TO HEROD AND OVER Luke 13:31-35 Luke 13:31 ---In that very hour there came certain Pharisees,—The Pharisees were enemies of Jesus; they came to him at this time with an appearance of friendship, but in reality upon the wicked suggestion of Herod. Luke is the only one that records this incident. This was Herod Antipas; he had slain John the Baptist and was jealous of the influence which Jesus had gained over the people. Great multitudes followed Jesus and many supposed that he would at some favorable juncture proclaim himself king and set up his kingdom on earth; this would make him a rival of Herod, and Herod thought that he would destroy Jesus. He adopted this plan of sending the Pharisees to him, to induce Jesus to leave Galilee and hasten to Jerusalem, and there to be in greater danger from the Sanhedrin. Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great; he had now ruled over Galilee and Perea for thirty years. Herod did not want to kill Jesus as he had John the Baptist, for he feared the people; but he thought that he would drive Jesus out of his territory and that the Jews would kill him at Jerusalem. Luke 13:32-33 ---And he said unto them, Go and say to that fox,—Jesus was not afraid of any earthly power; he had a work to perform, and he did that without fear. Some think that the Pharisees were as anxious to get Jesus to Jerusalem as was Herod. It was a cunning warning from Herod and from the Pharisees; it was more cunning than friendly; hence, Jesus tells them: “ Go and say to that fox.” This shows the steadfastness and fearlessness of Jesus in carrying out his purpose to remain in that region until he had finished his work there. Herod was cunning and crafty; some think that the people had already given him the name “ fox.” While Jesus applied this term to Herod, in reality it also applied to the crafty efforts of the Pharisees to effect his ruin or at least his disgrace. I cast out demons and perform cures to-day and to-morrow, —Again Jesus uses proverbial phrases and designates the time as being short for his work. It is parallel to John 11:9-10. Jesus meant to say that he had an appointed time in which he would continue his work with fearlessness and without interruption. “ The third day I am perfected.” This seems to refer to his death. In the plan of God Jesus must die at Jerusalem; he must finish his work before that time. The time was definitely marked and Jesus had set his face toward Jerusalem, where he would finish his work. The time was to be very short, during which he must accomplish the remainder of his work on earth. “ The third day” does not mean within three days, but a very short time. It is thought that Jesus went up to Jerusalem to the feast of the tabernacle, and was seen no more in Galilee.; but from Jerusalem he went through Samaria and Galilee to the regions beyond the Jordan. it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.—So cruel and bloody had been the conduct of the Jews toward their prophets that it was beyond probability that a prophet could perish out of Jerusalem; hence, Jesus did not feel any fear of malice from Herod in his territory. He knew exactly how his hands were tied by a fear of offending the people of Galilee; he could have easily excited sedition; he gave assurance to Herod that he had no such design, but looked rather to a brief ministry, and a bloody end. A prophet was tried only by the Sanhedrin, which met in Jerusalem. Jesus foretold that he would be tried by that court. Luke 13:34 ---O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,—This exclamation seems to have the same meaning as Matthew 23:37-39. The repetition of Jerusalem is emphatic, and was repeated by Jesus at a later time in Jerusalem itself, as his closing sentence before his retirement to the sacrifice of himself for the sins of the world. Some think that Jesus made this lamentation only one time, and that Luke has the lamentation out of its chronological order; there is no reason why Jesus could not have spoken the lamentation more than once. Jerusalem had killed the prophets and the leaders were then plotting to kill him. Jesus at a single glance reviews the whole history of Jerusalem in which the persecution of prophets was common and often repeated. Luke 13:35 ---Behold, your house is left unto you desolate:—Jesus had earnestly longed to gather the sons and daughters of Jerusalem unto himself as a hen gathers her brood for comfort and protection; but they would not accept him. Their house is now left desolate; the temple that has long been desecrated is doomed to destruction. To be left “ desolate” is like land thrown up as no longer worth cultivating. Verse 1 On the final tour preceding his crucifixion, Jesus worked and taught the things recorded in this chapter: the double call to repentance (Luke 13:1-5), the parable of the fruitless fig tree (Luke 13:6-9), another sabbath miracle (Luke 13:10-17), twin parables of the mustard seed and the leaven (Luke 13:18-21), the narrow door (Luke 13:22-30), the threat from the Pharisees (Luke 13:31-33), and the lament over the Holy City (Luke 13:34-35). THE OF FOR ALLNow there were some present at that very season who told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. (Luke 13:1) The sacred author, Luke alone, has documented this tragic episode from the violent, bloody period of which it was typical. Therefore, all that is known of this incident is in this verse. Such a conjecture as that of Henry, who supposed this act of Pilate "caused the enmity between Pilate and Herod"[1] (Luke 23:12), is logical but unproved. Furthermore, Luke's account does not need corroboration from profane history. "That Josephus makes no mention of this instance of Pilate's cruelty is of no importance."[2] The ruthless act of Pilate in this glimpse is fully consonant with Pilate's evil character, as invariably attested by all the histories of those times. The implication here is that Pilate had sent a detachment of soldiers into the temple itself to execute bloody wrath on certain Galileans in the act of worshipping, their blood mingled with that of the sacrifices they were offering. Who told him of the Galileans ... There was manifest a certain self-righteousness in the bearers of this message to Jesus, as if they had been saying," Of course, we are not wicked sinners like them." Christ had been demanding repentance of the multitudes; "and evidently those who told Jesus of this incident were breaking the force of his teaching as applied to themselves."[3][1] Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 272. [2] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952), p. 371. [3] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 267. Verse 2 And he answered and said unto them, Think ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered these things?Think ye ... ? Of course, this is exactly what they thought, having in themselves the ancient prejudices reaching as far back as Job, and which attributes every calamity upon men as the just punishment of their sins. Job's friends accused him of sin, their accusation being based on his sufferings; and likewise the citizens of Malta supposed Paul to have been a murderer, solely upon the basis of their observance that a poisonous serpent had bitten him (Acts 28:4). As Summers said, "This verse suggests that Jesus detected a note of pious superiority in the report";[4] inasmuch as Jesus' audience had not suffered such a terrible fate as the Galileans, they were glorifying in the misassumption that they did not deserve punishment. Even the Twelve were infected with the same false views, as evidenced in John 9:2; but whether in the Twelve or in the multitude, the false philosophy which came into view was vigorously condemned by the Master. In that deep human prejudice to the effect that great sufferers are receiving only what they deserve lies a germ of truth, namely, that all human sorrow and suffering derive, in the last analysis, from human sin; but it is a gross untruth that all disasters befalling men must be attributed to their immediate, specific sins. Many suffer through the sins of others, and some for no apparent reason at all. ENDNOTE: [4] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, Inc., 1974), p. 165. Verse 3 I tell you, Nay; but, except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish.The great truth uttered here, and repeated in the same words two verses later, was for the purpose of removing the false security of his hearers, both Galileans and dwellers in Jerusalem. Israel had rejected God's call to repentance as delivered, first by John the Baptist and again by Jesus Christ; and the impact of this verse is that God rejects the human device of supposing that some are righteous in a relative sense, because they are not like such notorious sinners as the Galileans, and that the Almighty demands repentance of all men. Shall likewise perish ... This prophecy focuses on the fact that Israel is the primary target of this commandment, although, of course, in the general sense it applies to every man on earth. These words mean that Israel would "perish in the same way that the Galileans did, that is, by the Roman sword."[5] As Wesley said: And so they did. There was a remarkable resemblance between the fate of these Galileans and of the main body of the Jewish nation ... They were slain by the Roman sword ... perished in the temple itself, and literally buried under its ruins.[6]However, it is a serious mistake to see God's call to repentance as a directive for Israel alone. Christ was here stimulating "all thoughtful people to repentance facing the prospect of judgment."[7][5] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary, Vol. II (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), p. 185. [6] John Wesley, Notes on the New Testament, (Naperville, Illinois: Alec. R. Allenson, Inc., 1950), p. 253. [7] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 165. Verse 4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them, think ye that they were offenders above all men that dwell in Jerusalem?The tower of Siloam ... points to some construction with the pool of that name, and having to do with the aqueduct that brought water into it, and perhaps also with the Roman fortifications of the city. Josephus wrote that "Pilate expended the sacred treasure which is called corban upon the aqueducts, whereby he brought water from a distance of four hundred furlongs."[8]Upon the presumption that the eighteen men were workers on the construction when the tower fell, it is easy to see how the Jews would have accounted them especially sinful; for not only were they working for the hated Romans, but they were being paid with money that Pilate had robbed from the temple treasure. However, Jesus rejected the notion that such conduct was the reason they were killed. Significantly, this terrible accident was introduced into the conversation, not by his hearers, but by Christ himself; but he used it in exactly the same manner as he used the other incident, demanding of all people (and specifically including Israel) that they should repent or perish. ENDNOTE: [8] Josephus, Flavius, The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whiston (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), p. 677. Verse 5 I tell you, Nay; but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.The verbatim repetition of this verse in a single short paragraph shows: (a) that Christ frequently repeated sayings, as indicated throughout the Gospels, (b) that the necessity of repentance on the part of all who would be saved is absolute and invariable, and (c) that Christ thus avoided any implication that Galileans should repent, whereas the Jews were in any manner exempt from it. Before leaving this paragraph, the universal command that all should repent should be identified as the most important thing in it, a fact attested by its repetition. In the light of this divine imperative, what becomes of the notion that people are justified "by faith alone," which by any definition is faith without repentance? Along with faith and baptism, repentance is established as one of the preconditions of salvation, as clearly enunciated by the apostle Peter (Acts 2:38). Just as those ancient Jews supposed that they did not need to repent, since Pilate had not murdered them and no tower had fallen upon them, there are people today who suppose the same thing on the basis that they have believed in Christ; and regarding both suppositions, one is as logical as the other. To be sure, in the sense of the ultimate, justification is based upon nothing that a sinner either believes or does, but upon the merit of Christ alone. Repentance, however, stands between every man and the merit which is in Christ Jesus. Christ's call to repentance was next extended to include a third warning, that of the parable of the barren fig tree. Verse 6 And he spake a parable; a certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came seeking fruit thereon, and found none. And he said unto the vinedresser, Behold these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none; cut it down; why doth it also cumber the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, until I shall dig about it, and dung it: and if it bear fruit thenceforth, well; but if not, thou shalt cut it down. IN THE PARABLEOwner of the vineyard = the heavenly Father The vinedresser = the Lord Jesus Christ The vineyard = the world The fig tree = the Jewish nation Three years = the first three years of Jesus' ministry Fruitlessness = Israel's rejection of Jesus This year also = Jesus' final year of preaching Thou shalt cut it down = God's judgment against Israel There is nothing in this parable that requires us to consider that fig tree as being only three years old. The Greek text in this place uses the past perfect "having been planted,"[9] that is, having been planted long ago in the call of Abraham. "These three years" refer to the special anticipation upon the part of the Father that when the Son of God appeared Israel would receive and acknowledge him. The whole history of the chosen people was epitomized by what took place in the ministry of Jesus. Although the fig tree in this parable primarily stands for Israel, "the fig tree symbolizes also every individual who remains unrepentant."[10]Most modern commentators, due to the "one parable, one point" philosophy, are very reluctant to assign any meaning to the "three years"; but Christ's use of such an expression could not have been coincidental. It came first in the sentence, and coincided with a number of other "threes" in this chapter, the parable itself being the third call to repentance. Also, the three measures of meal ( Luke 13:20) point to some definite meaning. Russell's concise explanation of the parable is the following: In this, the fig tree is the Jewish nation, God the owner, Christ the vinedresser. The fig tree is condemned for fruitlessness, but the vinedresser asks for more time ... in order that it might yet bear fruit. If not, that is, if the Jewish or any other nation or individual fails to bear fruit ... it is to be destroyed.[11][9] Nestle Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), p. 296. [10] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 373. [11] John William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 173. Verse 10 And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath day.ANOTHER SABBATH HEALING"This is the last instance in Luke where Jesus appears teaching in a synagogue."[12] However, Bruce and others have interpreted this to mean that there was an extended period when Jesus "was teaching," that is, "he continued to teach" in synagogues. ENDNOTE: [12] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 374. Verse 11 And behold, a woman that had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years; and she was bowed together, and could in no wise lift herself up.If this had been all that was recorded on the object of this miracle, hers could be understood as a natural disability, one of the ailments to which all flesh is susceptible. However, the Lord's declaration (Luke 13:16) that this woman was one whom Satan had bound casts it in a different light. As Trench said, "Her calamity had a deeper spiritual root; though her type of possession was infinitely milder than others, as is plain from her permitted presence in God's worship."[13]ENDNOTE: [13] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 350. Verse 12 And when Jesus saw her, he called her, and said to her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.Although the woman's presence in that assemblage could have been a silent plea for the help of God, it was Jesus who saw her, signaled her to come near, and announced her healing, the initiative clearly being with Jesus throughout. Verse 13 And he laid his hands upon her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.All miracles of Jesus had the qualities in evidence here, being effortlessly performed with total authority, and also instantaneous. Verse 14 And the ruler of the synagogue, being moved with indignation because Jesus had healed on the sabbath, answered and said to the multitude, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the day of the sabbath.It was a day of rejoicing and glorifying God by the woman who had been healed, and indeed by the whole community; but there was one whose face clouded with anger and resentment. The petty sabbath regulations which his class had imposed upon God's worship had been set aside; and he moved at once to protest, not against Jesus directly, for he was afraid to do that, but striking at our Lord through the multitude whom he rebuked for coming on the sabbath day to be healed. Ruler of the synagogue ... "(This was) probably the head of the council of ten men who controlled the synagogue."[14]ENDNOTE: [14] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 538. Verse 15 But the Lord answered him, and said, Ye hypocrites, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?Ye hypocrites ... This is plural and shows that Jesus included all the managers of the synagogue in this condemnation, and not merely the one who had spoken against him. And, in what were they hypocrites? As a matter of fact, they were thoroughly hypocritical in practically everything. As Spence put it: Every possible indulgence was to be shown in cases where their own interests were involved; no mercy or indulgence was to be thought of, however, where only the sick and the poor were involved.[15]They pretended that it was in harmony with God's law to do more for an animal on the sabbath day than for a human being. It should ever be borne in mind that Christ perfectly kept all of God's true sabbath laws; it was only the human additives thereunto that he denounced and openly flouted. Those who make Jesus' actions in thus contradicting human religious rules to be the equivalent of setting aside divine law and making it subserve human and fleshly interests are no less hypocritical than the object of Jesus' rebuke in this passage. ENDNOTE: [15] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke II, p. 3. Verse 16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan had bound, lo, these eighteen years, to have been loosed from this bond on the day of the sabbath?Daughter of Abraham ... These words forbid any imputation of gross sin and immorality to the woman Jesus healed, but at the same time they deepen the mystery of how Satan had bound one of the true spiritual seed of Abraham. However it was, Jesus had the power to heal her. The contrast is vivid. The sinful rulers of the synagogue loosed an ass on the sabbath; Jesus loosed this precious woman. As Ash noted: His critics would allow more for an animal than for this woman. Was it more important to loose an animal or to loose a person (note the parallel betweenUNTIE and LOOSED)? Jesus made his case more vivid by calling the woman a daughter of Abraham and by noting how long she had been afflicted.[16]ENDNOTE: [16] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972), p. 51. Verse 17 And as he said these things, all his adversaries were put to shame: and all the multitude rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.Here surfaces one of the outstanding characteristics of the writings of the evangelist Luke, who so frequently stressed the rejoicing that followed the works and teachings of the Master. Summers said: The people rejoiced at all the things Jesus was doing. This is a pattern in Luke and in Acts - the success of Jesus and his cause versus the failure of the opposition.[17]ENDNOTE: [17] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 168. Verse 18 He said therefore, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I liken it? It is like unto a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his own garden; and it grew, and became a tree; and the birds of the heaven lodged in the branches thereof.THE PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD IN THE PARABLEThe small seed = the small beginning of the church The large tree = the size of the historic Christendom The birds = evil, extraneous elements associated with the kingdom The garden = the world The one who sowed the seed = Christ, or God The seed sown = the word of God The mustard tree = the visible church of all ages This parable and that of the leaven immediately following are not exactly like those in Matthew 13, "garden" instead of "field" being used by the Lord here. As Childers noted, Luke's account of these two parables does not come from the discourse reported in Matthew and Mark. "There, the parables are reported as part of Jesus' Galilean ministry; on the other hand, Luke is reporting another and later ministry,"[18] the Perean. Barclay also stated that "This is an illustration which Jesus used more than once, and which he used for different purposes."[19]An amazing characteristic of interpreters of this parable is the near unanimous agreement that "usually each parable was spoken to make only one point,"[20] followed at once by their presentation of several points. Thus, it is agreed by all that the garden is the world where the kingdom has been planted by the Father, that the growth represents the spread of the kingdom, and that the great size of the mustard tree shows the future might and power of Christianity. Also, it is invariably pointed out that just as a mustard seed is small, so were the beginnings of the Lord's kingdom. If all this is "one point," then a porcupine is one quill! For further exegesis on this parable, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 13:31-32. [18] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 540. [19] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), p. 183. [20] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press), p. 238. Verse 20 And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like unto leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all leavened.THE PARABLE OF THE LEAVEN (YEAST) Despite the fact that "leaven" often is used of something evil, such as the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees, the declaration is that "the kingdom of God is like leaven," forcing the conclusion that it stands for the opposite of evil in this passage. This and the parable of the mustard seed are in fact twin parables, setting forth different characteristics of the kingdom of God. The mustard seed which produced the great plant teaches the ultimate mighty extent and power of the kingdom as it would appear visibly to all mankind. The parable of the leaven however, stresses the invisible power "hidden" from all human observation, but producing such marvelous results. It also indicates the transforming effect of the kingdom, tending to assimilate into itself all who receive its influence. IN THE PARABLEThe leaven = the teaching of Christ The meal = the people who receive the truth The quality of leaven that changes the whole mass into one kind = the transforming power of the gospel Leaven rising silently = nature of church's progress A little leaven, given time, can change a great mass = the vast power of historical Christianity A woman took the leaven = the church as the teacher of the kingdom message Three measures = three divisions of humanity. The three measures of meal ... are usually understood by interpreters as an inert factor in the parable (and well they may be), Boles, for example, affirming that three measures of meal was "the amount used for one meal";[21] however, Summers calculated the amount of meal in the three measures as "four and one-half pecks,"[22]which goes beyond any ordinary meal. Likewise, Tinsley made the three measures to be "half a hundredweight of flour."[23] Thus it is clear that the three measures must be understood as something significant. In the analogy above, the flour is seen as representing humanity; and since there is a threefold division of humanity in the three sons of Noah - Shem, Ham, and Japheth - it appears quite logical to see the three measures as the threefold posterity of Noah. Trench was not unfavorable to this analogy, admitting that they "do indeed answer to three elements"[24] of humanity. Barclay gives an outline of the teaching of this parable thus: 1. God's kingdom starts from the smallest beginnings, a tiny pinch of leaven. 2. The power of the kingdom works unseen, as leaven. 3. The kingdom's power works from inside, as leaven. 4. The power to change humanity (the lump) must come from outside itself, the leaven being a power not of the lump at all, but from without. It is not in man to transform himself. The leaven of God from without must do it.[25]Note: It will be observed that there is here a different position taken with reference to the "three measures" than in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 13:33; but the change is due to more mature study of the parables. In both of these remarkable parables, there is evidenced the ultimate power and extent of Christ's kingdom. The teaching in both of them is stamped with an originality and power which only Christ could have imparted. As Major said, "There is a quality in this teaching which marks it as HIS; it is above the level of his contemporaries and his reporters."[26][21] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 274. [22] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 169. [23] E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 148. [24] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 120. [25] William Barclay, op. cit., pp. 186-187. [26] H. D. A. Major, T. W. Manson, and C. J. Wright, The Mission and Message of Jesus (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1940), p. 72. Verse 22 And he went on his way through cities and villages, teaching, and journeying unto Jerusalem.Journeying ... should not be understood as taking the most direct route to Jerusalem; for, actually, this journey required several months, and involved a circuitous progression which would allow Jesus to visit as many places as possible on this final tour; and yet, all the while, his invariable purpose remained that of proceeding to Jerusalem where he would fulfill his purpose of dying to save all men. He interrupted this journey no less than three times, going to Jerusalem each time, and then returning to resume the journey. See under Luke 17:11. Verse 23 And one said unto him, Lord, are there few that are saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in by the narrow door: for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say to you, I know you not whence ye are; then shall ye begin to say, We did eat and drink in thy presence, and thou didst teach in our streets; and he shall say, I tell you, I know not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast forth without. And they shall come from the east and west, and from the north and south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. And behold, there are last who shall be first, and there are first who shall be last.Are there few that are saved ...? Jesus did not answer that question, rather stressing the fact that every man should make it as sure as he can that he himself is saved. The questioner who proposed this was not further mentioned, for Jesus did not address him, but "them." Strive to enter in by the narrow door; for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able ...CASUAL SEEKERS AT THE STRAIT (NARROW) GATE I. Behold here is a door which it is most desirable that man should enter. A. Because it is the gate of man's spiritual home, 1. Our citizenship is there (Philippians 3:20). 2. Our treasure is there (Matthew 6:20). 3. The hope of every man is there (Hebrews 6:19). 4. Our Lord is there (John 14:1-3). 5. Our names are written there (Luke 10:20). B. Because it is the gate of the city of refuge (Hebrews 6:18). C. Because it is the gate of eternal life. D. Because it is the gate of escape from the fate of the wicked. II. How is it that some shall seek to enter and not be able? A. Some may not enter because of the pride of life (1 Peter 5:6). B. Procrastination will prevent some from entering (2 Corinthians 6:2). C. The casual seeker cannot enter. The word "strive" in the text means "agonize." D. Some carry contraband. Many things must be abandoned by all who would enter this door. E. Some wait until the "door is shut." F. Some never try at all, thinking they are already in. Illustration: The case of Abner (2 Samuel 3:33). - adapted from Charles H. Spurgeon And hath shut to the door ... These words have the effect of placing the scene Jesus spoke of here at the final judgment. Only then, may it be said that the door is shut. "Jesus does not say that many strive in vain to enter, but that there will be many who seek in vain to enter, after the time of salvation is past."[27] Lamar also taught the same thing, "Jesus does not say nor mean that many will seek to enter in at the strait gate and not be able; - but that they will seek to enter heaven without going through the strait gate."[28] "STRAIT is an old English word meaning NARROW."[29]The east and the west, and north and south ... The universality of the kingdom of God is seen in these words which are similar to Isaiah 49:12. Abraham ... Isaac ... and all the prophets ... Here is a categorical statement by the Christ that these ancient worthies are to be reckoned among those eternally saved; and, in view of the sins of which these, and other Old Testament worthies, were guilty, there must be found a vast ground of encouragement for disciples of all ages. Not sinlessness, but the proper repentance and acknowledgment of their need of forgiveness were their dominant characteristics. Sit down with Abraham ... etc. "This graphically portrays the messianic banquet, a symbol of the joys of the age in which the Messiah shall rule";[30] but the passage goes beyond that to include the eternal joys of the redeemed in heaven. Weeping and the gnashing of teeth ... The expression regarding eternal punishment is found six times in Matthew, but only here in Luke. They indicate, as far as merely earthly words and symbols can, the utter misery of those unhappy ones who find themselves shut out from the kingdom in the world to come.[31]And ye yourselves thrust out ... Many of the fleshly seed of Abraham, through their rejection of Christ, shall fail to attain unto the promise of Abraham. Last who shall be first ... and first who shall be last ... These words mean that the final judgment will bring many surprises, a fact Jesus often stressed. [27] Alfred Plummer, Gospel according to St. Luke (New York: T. and T. Clark, 1922), en loco. [28] J. S. Lamar, op. cit., p. 189. [29] Everett H. Harrison, op. cit., p. 239. [30] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 171. [31] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 5. Verse 31 In that very hour there came certain Pharisees, saying to him, Get thee out, and go hence: for Herod would fain kill thee. And he said unto them, Go and say to that fox, Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I am perfected. Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.THE WARNING FROM THE Jesus was somewhere in the area of Trans-Jordan, or possibly still in Galilee, both being within the political jurisdiction of Herod; but the idea is rejected which would view this blunt word from the Pharisees as anything but a lie. As Russell said, "They were not telling the truth. There was no reason for thinking that Herod, although a man of base character, wished to kill Jesus."[32] When Jesus finally appeared before Herod Antipas (Luke 23:11), that ruler initiated no action against him, except to mock him and send him back to Pilate; and by including this in his record, Luke documented the Pharisees' falsehood. There is no ground whatever for supposing, as Geldenhuys thought, that "The Pharisees' warning may have been perfectly sincere and prompted by a concern for Jesus' safety."[33]What the Pharisees really intended, of course, was to frighten Jesus into returning to Jerusalem, where of course, the Pharisees planned themselves to kill him. Go tell that fox ... The Greek word used here means, literally, "she-fox," an epithet described by Spence as "perhaps the bitterest and most contemptuous name ever given by the pitiful Master to any of the sons of men."[34] By choice of a feminine word, Jesus might have intended a reference to Herodias, Herod's consort, whose wicked influence had caused the murder of John the Baptist. Childers noted that the Greek word for "fox" is basically a feminine noun, and that for that reason it cannot be known that the female sex was intended; "but at least it shows that Greek-speaking people regarded a fox as the opposite of bold and courageous."[35] Jesus' epithet evaluated the wicked Herod as a small, weak, sly, and cunning character, unworthy of honor and respect. Today and tomorrow, and the third day ... This was relatively but a short while; and, by these words, Christ was saying that he did not plan to be in Herod's territory very long anyway. Although the Lord would not be frightened into leaving, his plans already called for his progression on to Jerusalem. It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem ... Jesus fully knew that going to Jerusalem would not procure safety for himself. On the other hand, he had repeatedly prophesied that his death would occur in that city; and, by these words, Christ signaled the Pharisees that he knew all about their wicked plans to murder him. The construction of his words here has the effect of saying that our Lord enjoyed greater safety anywhere other than in Jerusalem. [32] John William Russell, op. cit., p. 174. [33] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 382. [34] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 6. [35] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 545. Verse 34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her own brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.JESUS' LAMENT OVER There is a glimpse in this of the fact that Jesus made a number of trips into Jerusalem during his last circuit. Note the words, "how often would I have gathered thy children." This lament was delivered at least twice, and perhaps as many as three times, as indicated by the placement of it in the Gospels. Luke did not give the date of the lament nor the occasion when it was uttered. How often ... Regarding these words, Geldenhuys said: This is a reference to the fact (as expressly stated by John) that Jesus, especially during the last period of his public appearance, visited Jerusalem on more than one occasion. There is a tendency nowadays, even among the more liberal critics, to admit that the fourth Gospel was, after all, correct.[36]As a hen gathereth her own brood ... The literature of all ages reveals nothing that compares with the tenderness and love of Jesus as manifested toward the Holy City. By so humble a metaphor, the Lord revealed his love and heartbreak over the rejection of his mission by the chosen people, a heartbreak not for himself, but forTHEM. And ye would not ... Deeply as Christ desired the redemption of Jerusalem, the sovereign will of humanity was nevertheless respected; and it was the will of Israel to reject her King. Your house ... is a reference to the sacred temple, the pride of every Jew; but a change of status in that magnificent building appeared in these words. At first, the temple was God's house; but when it no longer served the ends God intended, it became "theirs." This shows that all religious things are God's only so long as the observance of God's will is connected with them. As Tinsley said, "The temple of the Jews has now become more theirs than God's."[37]Desolate ... What a dreadful word! Once the holy Shekinah was there within the Holy of Holies; but after Christ was rejected, there was nothing within. Nor would the temple long survive Jesus' pronouncement against it. Within the generation it would fall forever. Blessed is he that cometh ... etc. Some have seen in this verse, especially with reference to "until that day," a promise referring to "far future, to the day of the penitence of Israel."[38] However, despite the fact that "until" "could have" such meaning, there can be no certainty of it. It was apparently by design that the Holy Spirit uses a word which is, by definition, indefinite and ambiguous. Likewise, Paul in Romans 11:25 spoke of the hardening of Israel "until" the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. See full discussion of this in my Commentary on Romans, Romans 11:25-26. The meaning is that God has not closed the door upon Israel; they have closed it upon themselves; nor shall God's favor be lavished upon them any more "until" they change, a change that is neither affirmed as certain nor denied as possible. Christ closed his last public discourse with these same words. His use of them here seems to have been prompted by the lying warning of the Pharisees whose intent on his murder was crystal clear to the Son of God. [36] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 384. [37] E. J. Tinsley, op. cit., p. 150. [38] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 7. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 131. What report was given to Jesus? 2. Tell what authority Pilate had over Galileans. 3. What did they have to do with sacrifice ? 4. What had the reporters supposed in this case? 5. Who were likewise in danger ? 6. How only could it be avoided ? 7. What incident did Jesus suggest? 8. State his conclusion on this. 9. What plant is used in his parable? 10. How had the owner found it to be? 11. What did he propose doing? 12. For what reason would he do this ? 13. Who pleaded for the tree? 14. Tell what he proposed doing first. 15. After that what? 16. Who is represented by the fig tree? 17. What was Christ doing on the Sabbath? 18. Tell who was there. 19. For how long had she been afflicted ? 20. What did Jesus do? 21. Tell who objected. . 22. To whom did he address his objection ? 23. State what Jesus called this man. 24. What made him such ? 25. Of what nation was this woman? 26. How long had she been bound ? 27. Had the ox been bound that long when led away 28. Who had bound the woman? 29. Who had bound the ox? 30. Yet which would the ruler loose on the Sabbath? 31. How did Christ’ s lesson affect the adversaries? 32. Tell how the people were affected. 33. To what is the kingdom likened ? 34. Tell the behaviour of this seed. 35. Who are to lodge in the kingdom? 36. What is next used as a comparison ? 37. How does it affect its surroundings ? 38. How is this like the kingdom ? 39. Toward what was he journeying? 40. State the question asked him. 41. Did he give direct answer? 42. What gate is proposed? 43. Tell what is necessary to enter through it. 44. What disappointment is awaiting many? 45. When will that be? 46. Who is this master ? 47. When will he close the door ? 48. Then what can be done to enter? 49. State the answer to be given them. 50. What kind of knowledge will they think is meant ? 51. What kind do yon think he means? 52. How will he describe these workers? 53. What will they behold ? 54. They will then do whnt? 55. From where will the kingdom be recruited? 56. What reversal will take place? 57. Of whom, did the Pharisees warn Jesus? 58. With what title did Jesus name him? 59. Was Jesus caused to alter his plans? 60. How much work was yet to be done? 61. Why must he keep on the move ? 62. What wrongs had Jerusalem done? 63. Tell what Jesus would have done. 64. Why did he not do so? 65. State the desertion predicted. 66. What recognition did he predict ? 1 There was more or less friction between the Jews and the Romans, although, the former were suffered to carry on their religious practices. Something had occurred that angered Pilate, and he enforced his penalties upon them even while they were engaged in their sacrificial devotions. The reporters came to Jesus with the news, thinking the incident was a sort of "judgment" sent upon them by the Lord. 2 Jesus informed them that the Galilaeans were not any worse than other sinners in God's sight, even though this misfortune had come to them. 3 Likewise does not mean they were to meet the same fate, but that they would perish just as surely if they did not repent of their sins. 4 Jesus then added another event which they doubtless knew about, though we have no other account of it. He then asked them the same question as in verse 2. 5 He gave the same answer as he did to the question about the Gall-laeans. All sinners look alike to God, when it comes to dealing with them concerning their future after their stay on earth is ended. (See comments at chapter 12:47, 48.) 6 This certain man in the parable represents God, and the fig tree and vineyard is the Jewish nation (Isaiah 5:1-6). 7 The dresser of the vineyard is Christ to whom God announced his determination of destroying the nation, meaning he would disown it. 8 The Jews were given many opportunities to render acceptable service to God. They were given the assistance of prophets and other teachers of truth. 9 When they proved unworthy of the favor of God, they were given over to the outside forces who laid them even with the ground. This has reference to the overthrow of the nation by the Romans. 0 The use of synagogues is explained at Matthew 4:23. 1 Spirit of infirmity means the woman was bent over from weakness to such an extent that she could not straigthen herself up. 2 Her to him is not in the original text. The passage means Jesus called to her and told her that she was released from her infirmity. 3 The woman was cured immediately as all miraculous cures were done. People who demand "plenty of time" for their so-called divine performances are frauds. 4 The Jews pretended to be offended at the desecration of the sab-bath. But note that the ruler did not have the fairness to attack Jesus direct, although he was the one who had done the work, but condemned the people. This was cowardly, for there was no evidence that they had come to be healed. 5 Jesus had respect for the sabbath and for all other items in the law. But he knew that it was not reverence for the day that prompted the ruler to criticize him, but a desire to have a pretext for condemning him. Because of this Jesus called him a hypocrite. He further exposed the insincerity of the critic, by reminding him of his own practice of attending the care of his beast even on the sabbath. 6 Satan hath bound. The devil has supernatural power when God suffers him to exert it. The reader should see the comments on this subject at Exodus 8:16-19, in volume 1 of the Old Testament Commentary. Yet there is no evidence that the present case of infirmity was a direct act of Satan. Diseases are in the world because of the sin of Adam, and it was the devil who induced him and his wife to commit it and thus bring disease and death into the world. 7 The argument of Jesus was unanswerable, which caused his critics to be ashamed. The people were truly glad to see the afflicted woman relieved. 8 To be like or resemble a thing does not mean identical in, every particular. That is why the precaution was offered at Matthew 13:3. 9 See the comments on Matthew 13:32 for the present verse. 1 Leaven has been misunderstood by many readers of the Bible. The same parable is discussed at Matthew 13:33. 2 City and village are often used interchangeably in the New Testament. When named together as in this place, the former is somewhat the larger. 3 We are not told just why this question was asked Jesus by the man in the audience. It is reasonable to conclude it was because of the strict teaching he had been doing. 4 To enter in all comes from one Greek word, and the meaning is "to be among or of the number." That is, to be among the saved ones, since that is the question asked of Jesus. Strive is from which Thayer defines, "To enter a contest; contend in the gymnastic games. To contend with adversaries, fight. To contend, struggle, with difficulties and dangers. To endeavor with strenuous zeal, strive." The word originated with the athletic performances in which opposing persons engaged against each other. It is used by Jesus with reference to the struggle for salvation, because Satan and his followers are arrayed against the man who wishes to serve the Lord. To enter in is the same as in the beginning of the verse, and means that many will seek to be among the saved but will not be able. There is no account of a case where sinners tried to obey the commands of the apostles or other evangelists of the Gospel, and found it impossible. Hence we must look further for the date when this disappointment will befall human beings. 5 This verse tells when the disappointment will come that was spoken of at the preceding verse. It will be when Jesus closes the door to salvation which will be at the judgment day. This is proved by the passage of Mat 25:31-46. I know you not is explained at Matthew 25:12. 6 They thought Jesus meant he would be literally unacquainted with them, hence they made the argument about their personal association with him. 7. I know you not is used in the same sense as in verse 25. 9 Abraham and the others named had been dead for centuries, and the kingdom on earth had not been set up when Jesus said those words, hence we know he meant the kingdom after the judgment. This paragraph is discussed at length at Matthew 8:11-12. 0 First and last are explained at Matthew 19:30. 1 The Pharisees were enemies of Jesus and wanted to get him out of the community. They thought they could frighten him by a threat about Herod (Antipas). 2 Jesus disregarded the insincerity of the warning, because there was no doubt that Herod would be disposed to do the very thing the Pharisees suggested. He therefore proposed sending him a message to let him know that the good work being done would continue regardless of any supposed danger. Fox is used figuratively and when so used is explained by Thayer to mean, "a sly and crafty man." 3 Jesus announced that he had a three-day journey to make soon in order to arrive at Jerusalem. And that was necessary because it was determined by the Lord that he should die by violence (Acts 2:23), yet the Jews could not lawfully condemn a man until he had been brought before the Sanhedrin which was in that city. (See Josephus, Antiquities, Book 14, Chapter 9, Section 3.) 5 This is a fundamental statement and prediction. It occurs almost verbatim in Matthew 23:37-39, which is commented upon quite fully at that place. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 14 HEALING ON THE SABBATH A GUEST ON THE SABBATH Luke 14:1-24 Luke 14:1 ---And it came to pass, when he went into the house—Jesus was probably still in Perea at this time. He had been invited into the house of “ one of the rulers of the Pharisees.” Some think that this was a chief man among the Pharisees and some have even said that he was a member of the Sanhedrin; we cannot determine whether he was a man of such prominence; his house seems to have been in Perea, and Jesus was his in¬vited guest. He was a man of distinction and probably wanted to satisfy himself concerning Jesus and what he taught. It was on the Sabbath. The Jews were accustomed to meet as families in social converse on the Sabbath and other holy days; they thought it proper and lawful to spend part of the Sabbath in quiet conversation. (See Nehemiah 8:10.) Jesus did not hesitate to accept the invitation. Others were watching Jesus to see what he would so; they were seeking an occasion to accuse him of violating the Sabbath. They ob¬served him closely as spies, bent on finding fault, if he vio¬lated any of the customs or rules governing conduct on the Sabbath. Luke 14:2-3 ---And behold, there was before him a certain man—These words seem to inply that this man was there by design of those who watched Jesus; he was put there to meet Jesus; perhaps the man himself knew of their evil designs and lent himself to the occasion. He was afflicted with “ dropsy.” Luke, being a physician, singles out this case and records the healing of this man. This seems to be the only case on record where Jesus healed one with the “ dropsy.” This disease seems to have been produced by an accumulation of water under the skin, in various parts of the body, often the result of a previous disease, and generally incurable. And Jesus answering spake—Jesus spoke to the “ lawyers and Pharisees.” It seems that these were the ones who had arranged this affair. If Jesus healed the man at once, they were ready to accuse him of laboring on the Sabbath; if he did not heal him, they were ready to report abroad a failure to ex¬tend mercy, or a sign of fear. It is interesting to note how Jesus spoiled their dilemma. He asked: “ Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not?” This question of Jesus put the law¬yers and Pharisees to flight. If they answered that it was lawful to heal the man, it would spoil their chance of accusa¬tion against him; but if they answered in the negative, they would be considered unmerciful, unsympathetic, and unhelp¬ful to one in distress. They knew that certain things must be done on the day of rest; sickness and natural exigencies con¬stantly compel men to do some work; they must do some work other than that of healing. Luke 14:4 ---But they held their peace.—On the one hand they could not deny the benevolent act of healing the man on the Sab¬bath ; and on the other, they were fearful of compromising themselves with him in some way, if they replied in the af-firmative. Hence, they prudently kept silent; this was the cowardly way out of the dilemma that they were in. Jesus thus exposed them to all who observed. He then took the man “ and healed him, and let him go.” Jesus took hold of the man and healed him; he put himself in physical contact with the man according to his usual custom. There is a striking antithesis between this heartless silence in regard to the cure of the man and the readiness with which Jesus healed him. Luke 14:5-6 ---And he said unto them,—Jesus had already completely routed his enemies, but he further presses them to greater em-barrassment. He now forces them to break their silence by asking them a direct question. “ Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a well, and will not straightway draw him up on a sabbath day?” This is similar to the argument that Jesus made in Matthew 12:11, where the argument is fully expressed, but is left here to be mentally supplied. What Matthew uses as a sheep, Luke uses an ass or an ox; but the term Matthew uses is comprehensive enough for all kinds of domestic animals. (Exodus 20:17; Isaiah 1:3.) They would immediately draw out an ass or an ox if it had fallen into a well; this would require great labor and the services of several men to pull an ox or an ass out of a well. They would not let the animal remain in the well until after the Sabbath passed. The argument put in the interrogative form here is made complete by substituting Matthew 12:12 : “ How much then is a man of more value than a sheep?” Luke 14:7 ---And he spake a parable unto those that were bidden,—Jesus now gives three parable as he dined at the table of the chief Pharisee who had invited him. The first (verses 7-11) refers to the conduct of those who are invited to a feast; the second (verses 12-14) is directed against the selfishness of inviting those only who are able to give entertainments in re¬turn ; the third (verses 16-24) is designed to correct false views with respect to the blessings of the Messianic kingdom. While Jesus sat or reclined at the feast “ he marked” how those who were bidden selected the chief seats. The Greek word for “ marked” means “ gave attention,” or “ observed”; it is sometimes translated “ gave heed.” (Acts 3:5.) They had spied on Jesus when he went into the feast with the purpose of criticizing him; he now observes their conduct that he may help them and teach others. “ The chief seats” were the best seats; they did not have seats as we have at the table, but re¬clined on couches. The most honorable station at an entertainment among them as well as among the Romans was the middle part of the middle couch, each couch holding three. Luke 14:8-9 ---When thou art bidden of any man to a marriage feast,—Jesus now proceeds to point out how different dispositions and traits of character are manifested by the conduct at this feasts. One when invited should come and “ sit not down in the chief seat,” but should occupy a humble place and let the one who has invited arrange according to his own judgment and inclination. It shows egotism, self-conceit, and haughti¬ness to go into a feast and occupy the chief place without an invitation. Humility would suggest a different course. and he that bade thee and him shall come and say—Humility and modesty should be practiced. If one enters and occupies the chief seat, another more honorable might come in and the host would have to humiliate the one who has occupied the chief place by inviting him to take a lower, or less honorable seat. It is better to be invited to a higher place than to be requested to take a lower place. “ Begin with shame to take the lowest place” means that one reluctantly does so with shame. The one who is ousted from the self-se¬lected honorable seat must be requested to take the lowest place with shame. All the higher and more inviting seats were already occupied; no seat was vacant for his use except the one furthest removed from the chief place. He was not told to take the lowest seat, but he must do this from neces¬sity. Luke 14:10 ---But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest place;—Jesus has given negative teaching; he has told them what not to do, and now he tells what they should do. “ Sit down” literally means “ lay yourself back” in a convenient place or couch and wait until invitation is given to come up higher. Jesus does not teach hypocrisy here, neither a mock humility, which takes the lowest seat in order that the eyes of the whole company may be directed to the efforts of the mas¬ter of the feast, to prevail upon the person who does this to go up higher; there is no greater evidence of pride than such an overdoing of humility. Luke 14:11 ---For every one that exalteth himself—This is Jesus’ con-clusion which he draws from the parable; its application is easily made. Jesus frequently repeated this. (Matthew 23:12.) Pride and a haughty spirit come before a fall. This principle is applicable alike in the affairs of men and in the kingdom of God; Jesus probably intended to direct their mind, not merely to abasement and exaltation among men, but also in a higher, spiritual sense in his kingdom and before God. This principle is taught throughout the Bible. (Proverbs 16:18; Ezekiel 21:26.) Luke 14:12 ---And he said to him also that had bidden him,—This second parable of chapter 14 is intended as a rebuke to those who in a selfish way invite others to a feast. Usually people invite those who will later invite them. This parable seems to be addressed to his host as the former one was addressed to his guests. It gave Jesus the occasion to give correct teaching on inviting people to a feast. It is customary to invite friends and kinspeople; but Jesus says not to invite “ thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen, nor rich neighbors.” These four classes will very likely invite you because you have in¬vited them. Jesus tells why they should not invite them— “ lest haply they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee.”Luke 14:13 ---But when thou makest a feast,—Again, Jesus presents the negative teaching and then follows that with the positive teaching; he tells who should not be invited, and then tells who should be. Jesus does not mean that we should make a feast for the “ poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind” to mock their misery, but to extend to them the charity which they need. We need to give attention to the distressed and relieve them as far as we may be able. It is far better to give to relieve the distressed than to set a feast for those who do not need it and expect to be entertained in return. One should exert himself to feed the poor, help the maimed, heal the lame, and guide the blind rather than merely satisfy a selfish pride in entertaining those who do not need it. Luke 14:14 ---and thou shalt be blessed;—One will not receive a reward merely for an exchange of entertainments, but will for helping the distressed in the name of Christ. The exchange of entertainments shows a selfishness that is to be condemned, but to help others, when no earthly reward may be had, is to lay up treasures in heaven. One should plan to do all the good possible to the suffering and helpless; Jesus counts all that is done to the distressed in his name as deeds done to him. (Matthew 25:31-46.) One who helps those who need help shall be blessed here and hereafter. “ Recompensed in the resurrection of the just” means that one shall be rewarded at the day of judgment when the righteous shall be raised from the dead. The unselfish and charitable believer in Christ shall then receive his reward in that resurrection where will be found multitudes of the poor and distressed of earth. Luke 14:15 ---And when one of them that sat at meat—It should be remembered that Jesus was still in the house “ of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a sabbath” (Luke 14:1), and that he was an invited guest. He had spoken the two parables above mentioned and one of the fellow guests heard and said: “ Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.” Much discussion has been had by commentators as to why this one should have so spoken; there is also a diversity of opinion as to what his words man. Some think that he meant literal bread eaten in Jerusalem at the great feast, while others think that he had reference to eating bread in the Messianic kingdom, which, he thought, was an earthly kingdom. The Jews believed that the kingdom of the Messiah would be ushered in with a magnificent festival, at which all the mem¬bers of the Jewish families should be guests. Some think that this one understood Jesus’ reference to the resurrection as being the resurrection of the old kingdom of Israel. It is thought that Jesus gave the following parable to correct that false view. Some think that this man gave utterance to a religious thought because he was in company where religious things were being discussed; however, we need not speculate as to what he meant or what prompted him to so express himself. It remains as a fact that he did say what is recorded here. Luke 14:16 ---But he said unto him,—Jesus here gave the third parable at this time. It is called the parable of the “ great supper.” This parable seems to be designed to correct the idea that it was the prerogative of the whole Jewish nation to be partakers of the blessings of the Messianic kingdom, irrespective of a change in life or character. Jesus was still at the feast and the figure of a supper is continued in order to teach a funda¬mental truth. Jesus did not contradict others by opposing assertions, yet his teachings were obviously opposed to false teaching. One of the guests had just spoken about eating bread “ in the kingdom of God,” as if all Jews were to do this by right of their Jewish birth; Jesus takes the words from him to lift his mind to a better kingdom, into which he was in¬vited. Luke 14:17 ---and he sent forth his servant at supper time—This servant was to announce to the invited guests that all things were ready. This parable implies that the man who made the supper belonged to the wealthy and to the nobility of the Jews. This was the second and final summons, the invita¬tions having been previously given. (Compare Esther 5:8 Esther 6:14.) This servant was to announce to those invited that the supper was now in a state of readiness, and that they should at once come to enjoy it. Luke 14:18 ---And they all with one consent began to make excuse.—“ Consent” is not in the original; some think that it would be better to supply “ mind,” “ spirit,” or “ accord.” There was the same temper of mind manifested in the various excuses which these persons, made; they all exhibited an utter contempt for the honor done them, and showed their preference to things of comparatively trivial importance. They had not come to¬gether and formulated unanimous excuses, but their excuses were all of the same nature, and revealed the same disposition of heart and attitude of mind. The first said unto him,—This represents the man of landed estate who pleads necessity. He said: “ I have bought a field” and that he must needs go out and see it. Land was very valuable ; this man must go from home and look after the real es-tate that he had purchased; this would be regarded as one of the most valid and reasonable excuses for not attending the feast. It was the best excuse that he could give; and if any excuse would be accepted this would come in that class. He would have to go out from the city in order to complete the trade, and would be away from home at the time of the feast. He courteously asked to be excused, thinking that he had a good reason for rejecting the invitation. Luke 14:19 ---And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen,—This was a man of business and he pleaded a bargain which he had made. “ Yoke” means two or more animals yoked together; he has purchased “ five yoke of oxen” and had to go and “ prove them.” The spirit of this excuse is the same as the former; the language seems to be less polished, as it is that of a rustic. “ To prove” them is to try them by putting them to the plow; he wished to test their strength, endurance, and ability. It is evident that he could have deferred this until after the supper; his excuse seems to represent men in the excitement of business, and he did not have the time to attend the supper. He politely asked to be excused. Luke 14:20 ---And another said, I have married a wife,—This man did not plead any business engagements, but offered domestic en-joyment and pleasure. “ I have married” puts this in the past tense; it refers to an act gone by in contrast to a present action. Here we have the force of temptations which lie in the field of difficulty of reconciling conflicting duties. Attendance on the feast did not entail the violation of any duty arising out of his new relation, but simply the holding it of inferior im¬portance on a given occasion. A newly married man has special favors granted him. (Deuteronomy 24:5; 1 Corinthians 7:33.) He bluntly stated that he could not attend the feast. Luke 14:21 ---And the servant came, and told his lord these things.—The three classes of excuses are drawn from the different phases of life; they are not “ flimsy” excuses, ridiculous ex¬cuses, as some have sought to make them; they were the most important excuses that could be given. They are taken from the honorable stations of life in business and social inter¬course. Yet, it was considered an insult to refuse to accept the invitation. These reasons assigned could be put aside; they could have been attended to at another time; those mak¬ing them could have attended the supper, and later attended to the business and social affairs. Go out quickly into the streets—No time was to be lost; the supper was ready, provisions abundant and should not be wasted; every place at the table must be filled without delay. He was to go into “ the streets and lanes of the city.” The servant would go first into the city. The better class of people will be passing to and fro in the streets or broad ways, and the poor would naturally be found in the “ lanes of the city” or narrow streets and alleys. It is evident that both rich and poor are included in the terms and conditions of this invitation. The rich will be passing to and fro in the broad streets and the poor would be in the lanes and alleys. Instead of a select company of invited guests, a promiscuous company was now to be invited; however, the prominence is given to the poorer class in the words “ the poor and maimed and blind and lame.” This is the same class as mentioned in verse 13. “ Bring in hither” does not mean that he was to compel, but rather the invitation was urgent. Luke 14:22-24 ---And the servant said,—The servant obeyed. He was commanded to “ go out” quickly, and he did this. It seems that after his urgent invitation not enough guests were found to occupy all of the places at the table; there was yet room for others. This shows that there was provided sufficient food for a great many; hence it is called the “ parable of the great supper”; a very large hall was made ready for this banquet. The servant was then commanded to “ go out into the highways and hedges” and “ constrain” others to come in. “ Highways” meant public roads which led into the city, and “ hedges” meant the narrow hedge paths, the vineyards and gardens. “ Hedges” may mean either a “ hedge” or a “ place inclosed with a hedge.” The vagrants usually rested along the hedge. For I say unto you,—None who had despised his offer and had rejected the invitation should enjoy this feast. They had showed themselves unworthy of the honor and blessings which had been offered them; hence they were not to receive or enjoy that which had been prepared for them. Various in¬terpretations and applications have been made of this parable. It is obvious and undeniable that not a man of all those first invited should partake of this supper; the master of the house had fully determined that somebody should enjoy it, but not one of those who had spurned his invitation should have ac¬cess to it. Jesus had offered the blessings of the gospel to the Jews; they had refused his invitation; they had offered vari¬ous excuses, and had rejected him. The Gentiles and others more worthy of the blessings of God should receive the bless¬ings first extended to the Jews. THE COST Luke 14:25-35 Luke 14:25 ---Now there went with him great multitudes:—Be it remembered that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem; he had paused in the house of the Pharisee and had remained there at the feast and had spoken the three parables discussed above. It seems that he is now proceeding toward Jerusalem and a great multitude is following him. The Jews traveled in companies to Jerusalem to attend the feast. (Luke 2:44.) This discourse is recorded only by Luke; there are similar declarations in Matthew 10:37-38; Mark 9:50. This is another proof that Jesus repeated many of his sayings and interwove them into different connections and discourses. As Jesus proceeded on the way the multitude that followed him increased; how¬ever, it is not necessary to infer that the crowds followed him all the way to Jericho and thence to Jerusalem. Luke 14:26 ---If any man cometh unto me,—Jesus here shows the cost of being his disciple; the great multitude that enthusiastically followed him at this time thought that the would establish an earthly kingdom, and that they would receive all of its bless¬ings without an change of life. They are to know that they cannot follow Jesus without taking up their own cross, without bearing burdens and suffering persecution. One must hate “ his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life” in order to be a disciple of Jesus. “ Hateth” does not mean that one must do them evil or hold malice against them; Jesus taught other¬wise. (John 19:25-27.) “ Hate not” frequently means to love less. (Genesis 29:31; Deuteronomy 13:6 Deuteronomy 33:9.) Matthew records Jesus as saying: “ He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:37.) This shows that “ hate” is to be taken in a comparative sense. “ To hate” stands for “ to love less”; when a choice between relatives or one’ s own life and Christ is before us, we must choose to follow Christ; in doing this, we are hating our relatives and loving Christ more. Luke 14:27 ---Whosoever doth not bear his own cross,—We are to see here that everything is to be given up for Christ; we must not let anything come between us and Christ. To choose between relatives and Christ is a cross that many must bear; to choose between one’ s own life and Christ is a burden placed upon us. Jesus tells whose cross one must bear; it is “ his own cross”; all must bear a cross, but not all the same cross; each one must “ bear his own cross.” One cannot be a disciples of Christ without taking this cross and following Jesus. Luke 14:28 ---For which of you, desiring to build a tower,—Jesus had just taught the conditions of discipleship— one must take up his cross and follow Jesus; he now teaches the cost of disci¬pleship. This is illustrated by a man building, or proposing to build a tower. Before doing this a wise, prudent man will “ first sit down and count the cost.” The word “ tower” may designate a military tower, or one to command a view of the surrounding country, or a watchtower of a mansion, combin¬ing adornment with utility. We are not able to determine the kind of tower, for it does not matter; the point is just the same. “ First sit down” shows deliberate calculation; it ex¬cludes haste and requires ample time and trouble to learn the approximate cost before proceeding. A prudent man will count the cost of building the tower and evaluate all resources and determine whether he has sufficient funds to complete the work. Luke 14:29-30 ---Lest haply, when he hath laid a foundation,—If one does not take sufficient time to estimate his resources as well as the cost of building, one may start the building and be una-ble to complete it. If he can build only the foundation or any part of it, but unable to complete the building, the unfinished building will stand as a monument to his folly and lack of good judgment and deliberation in the affair. Those who look upon the unfinished building will “ begin to mock him.” They will deride and scoff because he had so little judgment to begin that which he could not complete. They will say, “ This man began to build, and was not able to finish.” The impru¬dent tower builder will be put to shame before his fellows be¬cause of his foolish attempt at that which he was unable to do. The enemies of Jesus scoffed at him while he was on the cross. (Matthew 27:40-42.) The folly of this man is also seen in the waste of money in laying a foundation upon which he could not complete the building. Luke 14:31 ---Or what king, as he goeth to encounter another king— The same thought is illustrated more vividly in two kings planning to engage in battle. No king will plan a military campaign without estimating the forces on both sides. He will estimate the number of soldiers that he can command; then he will seek to estimate as far as possible the number of men that he will have to meet; he will seek to find out the strength and weakness of the opposing king. Any other course would be foolish and rash. Like the man planning to build a tower, the king will “ sit down first and take counsel” as to whether he will be able to meet his opponent. Again, the term “ sit down” means to take deliberate counsel as to the wisdom of taking ten thousand men and arraying them against an opposing king with twenty thousand. It would be very unwise for any king with only ten thousand soldiers to go against one who has twenty thousand; it would be rash folly to do so. Wisdom and prudence would suggest that he not rush blindly against such odds. Luke 14:32 ---Or else, while the other is yet a great way off,—Good judgment and keen foresight would suggest that he seek some compromise before the enemy engages in battle; it would be too late then. He would not wait until the opposing forces were at his gate, but would make overtures before his enemy discovered his weakness; he would get better terms if he would act before the battle is really joined. While the enemy is afar off, he may meet with his ambassadors on an equal footing with the one who has double his strength. Luke 14:33 ---So therefore whosoever he be of you—Here Jesus draws his own conclusion and makes his own application. The one who does not renounce all cannot be a disciple of Jesus. One must “ renounce” all; here the principle in the two parables of the rash builder and of the rash king is applied; the minor de¬tails do not matter; the spirit of self-sacrifice is the point. One should neither make a false start nor a hopeless stand, but give up all at once for Christ, and give his life to him. The cost is great; one must give his influence, his money, his energy, his life, his all, if he would be a disciple of Jesus. Luke 14:34---35 ---Salt therefore is good:—These two verses seem to have been thrown in without any close connection with what precedes them. Some think that they are intended to emphas¬ize that the disciple of Jesus must keep active in his service. He had already compared them to salt. (Matthew 5:13; Mark 9:50.) Jesus shows the uselessness of a false profession and in¬timates the end of false professors; in this light these two verses further emphasize what he has just taught. Salt is good in its place and for that which it was intended. Salt may lose its savor; it may lose its saltness; it may become in¬sipid and tasteless. There is a true similitude existing between the faithful disciples of Jesus and the properties of salt; hence, Jesus frequently used this likeness to enforce and illustrate the great and important truths that he had just announced. It is fit neither for the land—When salt has lost its saltness, it has lost its true nature; when it has lost its nature, it can¬not function as salt and is unfit for that which people use salt. It is good for nothing and is cast away. Salt that has lost its savor does not make good fertilizer; rather it destroys the fertility of the soil and kills vegetation. There is no place about the house, yard, or garden where it can be used; no one will allow it to be thrown into his field, and the only place for it is in the street, and there it is cast to be trodden under foot of men. “ Dunghill” is used here for “ manure”; this is its only use in the New Testament; it is used a few times in the Old Testament. Jesus used strong terms to emphasize the worth¬lessness of a mere professor in his discipleship. He concluded with an oft-repeated saying: “ He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 11:15 Matthew 13:43; Luke 8:8.) Verse 1 This section of Luke (Luke 14:1 to Luke 17:10) is made up practically altogether of "material which Luke alone reports."[1] This chapter recounts the healing of the man with dropsy at the Pharisee's feast (Luke 14:1-6), the teaching on humility which Jesus addressed to the guests (Luke 14:7-11), advice to the host regarding his list of guests (Luke 14:12-14), the parable of the slighted invitation (Luke 14:15-24), and Jesus' pronouncement on the cost of discipleship (Luke 14:25-35). THE HEALING OF THE MAN WITH DROPSYAnd it came to pass, when he went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a sabbath to eat bread, that they were watching him. (Luke 14:1) Went into the house of one of the rulers ... In view of the opposition of the Pharisees and rulers to Jesus, it is a little surprising that he should have been invited and that he should have accepted such an invitation; but this is clear in the light of two considerations. First, as Barclay said, "Jesus never refused any man's invitation to hospitality, ... and never abandoned hope of men."[2] Second, the Pharisee intended to use the occasion against Jesus. As Clarke said: Professing friendship and affection, he invited our blessed Lord to his table, merely that he might have a more favorable opportunity of watching his conduct, that he might accuse him, and take away his life.[3]On the sabbath ... The following miracles were performed on the sabbath day: The healing of Simon's wife's mother (Luke 4:38) The healing of the man with the withered hand (Luke 6:6) The healing of the woman crippled eighteen years (Luke 13:14) The healing of the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:9) The healing of the man born blind (John 9:14) The healing of the demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mark 1:21) The healing of the man with dropsy, as recorded her Thus, the Pharisees had every reason to believe that if confronted with the opportunity Jesus would surely heal on any sabbath day; therefore they contrived the incident before us. The invitation for Jesus to have a sabbath meal, the dramatic appearance of a man with dropsy, and the presence of many distinguished guests "had been carefully preconcerted among the Pharisees as a trap for Jesus."[4]"The Jews took only two meals on week days, but they had three meals on the sabbath";[5] that extra meal was celebrated after the morning worship and was the big meal of the entire week. "The only restriction upon those feasts was that the food had to be cooked the day before."[6][1] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 386. [2] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), p. 194. [3] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Whole Bible (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1829), Vol. V, p. 451. [4] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary, Vol. II (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), p. 191. [5] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 387. [6] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 546. Verse 2 And behold, there was before him a certain man that had the dropsy.Spectators often entered the house to witness an eastern banquet";[7] but as Russell noted, "Other schemes of the Pharisees on like occasions make it very probable that the Pharisees had placed him there."[8]Of course, all eyes were fixed upon Jesus; as the previous verse said, "They were watching him." The word used for watching in the text means "interested and sinister espionage."[9][7] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 756. [8] John William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 175. [9] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 194. Verse 3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not?Significantly, Jesus answered not the words of his watchers, but their thoughts. Like human vultures, those evil men were waiting for Jesus to fall into their trap; but he took it all in at a glance, snaring them with one of their own devices, a dilemma. If they said, "Yes," they had no case; if they said, "No," they would have spoken a lie. "The law did not condemn such acts of mercy; and they undoubtedly saw the point of the Master's question."[10]ENDNOTE: [10] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 546. Verse 4 But they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go.Astounded by the position in which Jesus had placed them, and being unable to discover some means of saving face, they simply remained silent; whereupon, Jesus healed the man; and, since the man was evidently not one of the guests invited to dinner, the Lord sent him on his way. Verse 5 And he said unto them, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a well, and will not straightway draw him up on a sabbath day?It was well known that the Pharisees would indeed do such things on the sabbath; and here Christ pointed out the first of three reversed ethics in the Pharisees' thinking, the first being that they valued property above a man. "Jesus did not condemn this act of mercy (to animals); but he did condemn their attitude toward men."[11]ENDNOTE: [11] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 227. Verse 6 And they could not answer again unto these things. As Hobbs said, "They did not want to admit that they valued their law and property more than they valued a man; but their attitude spoke louder than their words."[12] There is no New Testament example of an episode in which the Pharisees were able to answer Jesus' words in open debate. ENDNOTE: [12] Ibid. Verse 7 And he spake a parable unto those that were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief seats; saying unto them.JESUS' LESSON FOR THE GUESTSA parable ... "This word PARABLE is an elastic word. Here it means a piece of advice, inculcating humility."[13] This is not therefore the usual type of parable with clear analogies. The chief seats ... As Plummer said, "In the mixture of Jewish, Roman, Greek and Persian cultures at that time, we cannot be sure which were the `chief seats'"[14] The Talmud ranked three seats on a couch by making the center chief, the one on the right second, and the one on the left third! Whatever were accounted the most honorable seats, there was a vulgar scramble among the guests on that occasion, each man jockeying with others for the better places. [13] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 757. [14] Alfred Plummer, The Gospel according to St. Luke (New York: T and T Clark, 1922), in loco. Verse 8 When thou art bidden of any man to a marriage feast, sit not down in the chief seat; lest haply a more honorable man than thou be bidden of him.A more honorable man than thou ... What an irony is this! To egotistical social climbers like those guests, it was an unheard-of-consideration that a "more honorable" man than any of them might have been invited. Verse 9 And he that bade thee and him shall come and say to thee, Give this man place; and then thou shalt begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when thou art bidden, go and sit in the lowest place; that when he that hath bidden thee cometh, he may say to thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have glory in the presence of all that sit at meat with thee.It should be noted that in Luke 14:8 preceding, Jesus begins with the postulate of being invited to a "marriage feast"; and since the feast where this admonition was spoken was not that kind of feast, it is not amiss to look for the analogy Jesus had in mind. Was the Lord merely passing out some advice, or is there a deeper meaning? In watching the selfish scrambling for the chief seats, it suddenly appeared to Jesus that the unseemly thing going on in his presence was typical of a far greater sin on the part of that same class of people. Had they not indeed usurped the chief seats in the theocracy for themselves, the honor always going not to the worthy, but to the arrogant usurper? Furthermore, note the inference in "When he that hath bidden thee cometh"! Who is this, if not Christ? The Master of the messianic banquet was indeed before them, and he was confronted with the harsh necessity of demoting the proud, arrogant, and unspiritual priests from the chief seats they had usurped and conveying them to "publicans and harlots" instead, such persons being more honorable than the usurpers. A decent humility on the part of the ruling priesthood would have saved them the shame which came upon them. Verse 11 For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.In these words, Jesus concluded this remarkable teaching; and it is one which all men should heed. A little later, Jesus would return to this same subject by relating the story of the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:9 ff); but here he announced the eternal ethic of humility. How may men cultivate humility? They can do this in two ways: (1) They can consider the facts. No man is wise in any ultimate sense, good in any heavenly sense, or powerful in any eternal sense. Man's life is ephemeral; his days are few and full of trouble; at his best, man is above only a few of his contemporaries, and that only for a brief moment in time. "O why should the spirit of mortal be proud?" (2) They can look at the lives and achievements of others which exceed their own in excellence and glory. As Barclay suggested, "Many a man has decided to burn his clubs after watching the Golf Open Championship."[15] For further comment on the grace of humility, see under Matthew 23:12 in my Commentary on Matthew,Matthew 23:11-12. JESUS' SPECIAL WORD TO THE HOSTThe Lord had naturally included his host in the remarks addressed to the guests; but he reserved a very special word for the host himself. ENDNOTE: [15] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 196. Verse 12 And he said to him also that had bidden him, When thou makest dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen, nor rich neighbors; lest haply they also bid thee again and a recompense be made thee.Geldenhuys said this means "One should not invite such persons ."[16] Adam Clark wrote: Our Lord certainly does not mean that a man should not entertain at particular times his friends, etc.; but what he indicates here is charity to the poor.[17]Spence thought that "Jesus did not mean to forbid our entertaining those whom we love. He means, simply, `In view of the life to come, thou canst do better still'."[18]Lamar believed that: Jesus does not mean here to prohibit the invitation and entertainment of those who might be able to reciprocate the courtesy; but to condemn (1) the motive with which it is some times done, and (2) the exclusiveness growing out of such motive, which limits the invitation of this class.[19]All of the above softening of the impact of this passage would appear to be valid! However, there is far too much of the same thing that Jesus condemned in the hospitality one sees today; and, in not a few churches, there are little cliques engaged almost exclusively in entertaining themselves; and that, we are certain, is wrong. John Wesley, also, like practically all commentators on this passage, diminished the impact of it in this manner: "That is, I do not bid thee call thy friends or thy neighbors. Our Lord leaves those offices of humanity and courtesy as they were, and teaches a higher duty."[20]We may not be too certain, however, that the commentators have fully understood what Jesus meant here. Perhaps Jesus was outlining here just what true righteousness and genuine hospitality actually are; and if that is the case, one confronts here a righteousness that is above all human achievement of it. This is what man SHOULD do, regardless of the fact that all men find themselves unable, absolutely, to live up to this ethic, thus making the passage similar to the command, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). [16] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 391. [17] Adam Clarke, op. cit., p. 452. [18] H. D. M. Spence, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke II, p. 24. [19] J. S. Lamar, op. cit., p. 193. [20] John Wesley, Notes on the New Testament (Naperville, Illinois: Alec. R. Allenson, Inc., 1950), p. 257. Verse 13 But when thou makest a feast, bid the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind.Boles' comment on this is: "It is far better to give to relieve the distressed than to set a feast to those who do not need it."[21] A man is not in the true sense hospitable who entertains only those who can entertain him. "Such interested hospitality is not wrong, but it does not lay up treasure in heaven."[22]With this word to the host, Jesus pinpointed the third of three distortions, or reverse ethics, which marked the conduct of his hearers. In Luke 14:5, it was love of property elevated over love of men; in Luke 14:7, it was pride and conceit elevated above humility; and here in these verses it was selfishness elevated above genuine hospitality. [21] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 285. [22] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 757. Verse 14 And thou shalt be blessed; because they have not wherewith to recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed in the resurrection of the just.This verse clearly shows that Jesus had in mind the instruction of his audience in how to lay up treasures in heaven. The resurrection of the just ... Despite the fact that Harrison believed this verse supports the idea of a double resurrection, one of the righteous and one of the wicked, separated by an interval of time,"[23] there is no agreement with that here. The men of Nineveh and the Queen of the South, separated by centuries of time, will nevertheless arise in judgment with the contemporary generation of Jesus (Matthew 12:41-42). Geldenhuys affirmed that this verse does not deny either a resurrection of the wicked or the fact of its being simultaneous with the resurrection in view here. Likewise, Matthew Henry stated: The exclusive mention in this place of rewards to the righteous, does not in the least imply that the wicked shall not receive their reward, which is so clearly stated elsewhere.[24][23] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 241. [24] Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), Vol. 5, Luke, p. 276. Verse 15 And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.THE PARABLE OF THE Trench explained what was probably in the mind of that guest who thus spoke in Jesus' presence: When we keep in mind what were the Jewish hopes concerning the setting up of the kingdom of God (that it would be ushered in by a glorious festival), it is easy to perceive how this man's mind passed on to the great festival which (in their view) was to accompany the resurrection.[25]Such a carnal view of God's kingdom was wrong, of course; but there was an even greater wrong in the assumption of the guest that himself and all the other Jews would enjoy such a messianic banquet to the exclusion of all others, especially Gentiles. In the following parable, Jesus moved to correct such false views and to warn that his hearers were in danger of missing the kingdom of God altogether. ENDNOTE: [25] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 362. Verse 16 But he said unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and he bade many.The man = God The great supper = God's kingdom Many = the Israelites Verse 17 And he sent forth his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.The servant = God's messengers such as the Twelve and the Seventy Supper time = The advent of the Messiah Theophylact understood "the servant" to be none other than the Suffering Servant, Jesus himself; and others have supposed him to represent John the Baptist; but Trench is obviously correct. He said: We behold in him, not the heralds who preceded, but those who accompanied the King, the evangelists and apostles ... who bade the Jews to enter on the enjoyment of those good things, no longer far off, but near.[26]All things are now ready ... The fullness of time had come. The Messenger of the Covenant had arrived and would shortly make an atonement for sin. The first invitation (Luke 14:16) was the call of the Hebrews to be the chosen people and to receive the promises made to Abraham. This renewal of the invitation (Luke 14:17) through Christ and his apostles was the final call of Israel to the feast of the kingdom of God. Such a second invitation was customary in the East, and it would have been a serious breach of etiquette to have omitted it, a breach that Plummer described as "equivalent to canceling the more general invitation. To refuse the second invitation was an insult, equivalent among the Arab tribes to a declaration of war."[27][26] Ibid., p. 364. [27] Alfred Plummer, op. cit., en loco. Verse 18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a field, and I must needs go out and see it; I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them. I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I have married a wife and therefore I cannot come.Boles insisted that "These are not flimsy and ridiculous excuses, as some have sought to make them, but the most important excuses that could be given."[28] But Summers called them "ridiculous and humorous."[29] As far as these excuses may be weighed as justifying the refusal of those bidden to attend the feast, they are worthless and therefore ridiculous; but from the standpoint of the carnal man, they did pertain to the things men of the world hold to be most important: real estate, business, and family relations. There is evident a progressive unwillingness to attend in the excuses offered: (1) One pleads necessity; (2) the next pleads his will not to go; and (3) the third said flatly, "I cannot," but did not bother to ask any release from his obligation. In the case of this last, a marriage did exempt the bridegroom from the war (Deuteronomy 24:5; Deuteronomy 20:7), but not from a feast it was his duty to attend. It has been often noted that there was really no compelling reason behind any of the excuses. Viewing land or proving oxen which had "already been purchased" cannot be looked upon as valid reasons for their refusal; and, in the case of the man with a bride, where was there ever a bride who would not have wished to attend a feast in the home of a rich man? The three excuses have this in common, that "They all plead something that pertains to self, and all place the gratification of selfish desires above duty and obligation."[30]In the aggregate, these three who made excuses stand for the Jews who rejected the invitation to receive the kingdom. There had come about, through ages, a deterioration of what the concept of the kingdom meant to the chosen people. Especially among the leaders, a malignant carnality had distorted their thoughts of what God's kingdom would be; and, for that reason, they insultingly rejected Christ. [28] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 288. [29] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974), p. 179. [30] J. S. Lamar, op. cit., p. 195. Verse 21 And the servant came and told his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor and maimed and blind and lame. The man giving the feast here moved to a wider circle than before; and this corresponds to the call of the publicans, harlots, and others of those classes despised by the leaders of Israel. The anger of the master of the house is the same as the anger of the king (Matthew 22:7), and in both parables it is the anger of God for their rejection of the Son of God which is indicated. Verse 22 And the servant said, Lord, what thou didst command is done, and yet there is room.Not even the inclusion of that wider circle of beneficiaries had the desired effect of filling the feast with guests; and God, no less than nature, abhors a vacuum; nor will the purpose of the Almighty be frustrated by willful and rebellious men. Verse 23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and constrain them to come in, that my house may be filled."This time the master of the house invites to his banquet the Gentiles."[31] As this had not yet been accomplished at the time of this parable, it is clear that the parable was prophetic at this point, moving altogether beyond the narrow circle of Israel, either of its leaders or its less noble classes. All men will be laid under tribute to provide guests for the Father's kingdom banquet. Constrain them ... is translated "compel them" in some versions; but only a moral and rational force is indicated. Despite this, these words are a favorite text of the persecutor and inquisitor. Long ago, Augustine used this text as a justification for religious persecution. It was used as a defense, and even as a command, to coerce people into the Christian faith. It was used as a defense for the inquisition, the thumb-screw, the rack, the threat of death and imprisonment - and for all those things which are the shame of Christianity.[32]Christ never intended that kind of constraint to bring people into his kingdom; and "The church which tolerates, encourages, and practices persecution is not the Church of Christ; and no man can be of such a church without endangering his salvation."[33]That my house may be filled ... These words are a definite suggestion that God intends to redeem from earth "a certain number of souls." "The invitation will therefore be continued, and consequently the history of our race prolonged, until that number be reached."[34][31] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 26. [32] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 200. [33] Adam Clarke, op. cit., p. 455. [34] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 27. Verse 24 For I say unto you, that none of those men that were bidden shall taste of my supper.As Jesus frequently did, he abandoned the metaphor here and stood forth in the majesty of his own right. He no longer addressed a servant (as did the lord in the parable), but said, "I say unto you (plural)," meaning those very men in his presence, that "none of those that were bidden (and refused) shall taste of my supper." Thus Jesus identified himself with the Father in heaven and himself as the one giving the supper, and the supper as the kingdom he came to set up. Summers pointed out that Jesus did not mean "that no Jews would participate in God's mercy, but that none of those who rejected it would experience it."[35]The application of this parable is not restricted to the immediate situation of Israel's rejection of Christ, for it is also descriptive of men in all ages who place personal, selfish desires above the kingdom obligations in Christ. In this parable, God's greatest gift, the salvation of the soul, appears in the analogy of an invitation to a great feast, the unspeakable tragedy being man's blind, foolish rejection of it. Countless thousands of people were following Jesus, but the vast majority of them had no practical understanding of what following Jesus actually entailed. "He desired to check this light-hearted manner of following him, ... so he lays down the absolute demands for everyone who wishes to be his disciples."[36] What Jesus did in the next paragraph strongly suggests what Jesus did to that great throng in Capernaum who had followed him after the miracle of feeding the five thousand; and what was that? He stunned them with that metaphor of eating flesh and drinking his blood (John 6:52 f). That cooled their superficial ardor; and the same effect was achieved by Jesus in this multitude through the equally hard sayings of the next paragraph. [35] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 179. [36] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 397. Verse 25 Now there went with him great multitudes: and he turned and said unto them, If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also he cannot be my disciple. THE COST OF The simple meaning of this astounding declaration is that one, in order to be a disciple of Christ, must love him more than any other being, not even excluding self. Hateth ... as applied here to father, mother, wife, etc., means "to love less," and is void of the sentiments usually associated with that word today. The Biblical use of this word becomes clear when it is recalled that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (Genesis 29:30), and that the next verse says that "The Lord saw that Leah was hated." The truly difficult part of the requirement in view here is in the words, "yea, and his own life also," Loving the Lord more than self is the plan of salvation. Verse 27 Whosoever doth not bear his own cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.Long familiarity has softened the meaning of this for modern disciples, the usual notion of it being that the reference here is to a patient, submissive acceptance of the ills and misfortunes of life; but Jesus plainly meant that to be his disciple one would have to hate his own life to the extent of willingness to accept crucifixion at the hands of the Romans for the sake of fidelity to Christ. The background against which Jesus spoke these words proves this to be true. Only twenty-four years previously, about A.D. 6, "The Romans crucified hundreds of followers of the rebel, Judas the Gaulonite ... Crucifixion was a common spectacle both before and after that date."[37] Therefore, Jesus' mention of bearing a "cross" could not have failed, in the audience which heard him, to mean the most horrible of deaths. ENDNOTE: [37] Ibid., p. 400. Verse 28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, doth not first sit down and count the cost, whether he have wherewith to complete it? Lest haply, when he hath laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all that behold begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.As Henry said, "All that take upon them a profession of religion, undertake to build a tower."[38] The Saviour's teaching here is that the endeavor should be attempted in full view of the enormous cost of it. Men must bid farewell to the dearest earthly ties, mortify the lusts of the flesh, set their affections on heavenly things, and subordinate all earthly prospects to the will of the Master. All of the details of this parable and the one following are inert factors. "They simply enforce the one idea that it is folly to undertake a serious business (here, becoming a disciple of Christ), without counting the cost.[39][38] Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, op. cit., p. 276. [39] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 757. Verse 31 Or what king, as he goeth to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and asketh conditions of peace.The meaning of these two parables is similar; but the unusual nature of the illustration here suggests the possibility that there might have been a historical basis of it. Spence pointed out that Herod had divorced his first wife, the daughter of a powerful Arabian prince, in order to marry Herodias, which precipitated a war between them. "The results were disastrous to Herod."[40]A significant difference appears in the fact that the first of these two parables regards building, and this regards fighting, the same being two phases of the Christian life. The great London preacher, Spurgeon, made these the sum and all of true faith. He named his newspaper, "Sword and Trowel." And, while it is true that there is much fighting in the Christian life (1 Timothy 6:12), such is not in view in this parable. Hence, the situation demands that an ambassage be sent and peace negotiated, and with whom? Certainly not with Satan? The Mighty One with whom the soul must be careful to make peace while there is time, is God. Therefore, the second of the twin parables strongly suggests that while counting the cost of following Jesus Christ, the soul would do well also to count the cost of becoming Christ's enemy! And what an overwhelming cost that is! Let the man who will not follow Jesus consider that his refusal is a denial of the only hope of redemption. Let it be considered that all of the sobbing tides of human mortality converge in the abyss of the grave, that all of the strength, beauty, and glory of life are only for a moment, that only Christ has provided the remedy for sin, stabbed the gloom of death with eternal' light, planted the lilies of the resurrection upon the tomb, and arched every cemetery on earth with a rainbow of promise. The parable had an application to Israel. Just as Herod was shamefully beaten by Aretus, Israel stood to be destroyed by Rome, unless they accepted the Saviour; they would have done well, therefore, to have made peace with Christ; but there is also application to every man: with his mortal resources as his only strength, does man really wish to be the enemy of God? ENDNOTE: [40] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 28. Verse 33 So therefore whosoever he be of you that renounceth not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. In the light of this, who is truly a disciple of Jesus? Every soul that contemplates the terms of discipleship as outlined here must fall on his knees and say, "Lord, I am a disciple; help me to be a disciple." Just as the Lord helped Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, mentioned in the preceding chapter, so will he help all who truly desire to be his followers. Verse 34 Salt therefore is good: but even if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be seasoned? It is fit neither for the land nor for the dunghill; men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.For a more detailed study of the salt metaphor, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 5:13. The use of the metaphor here is different from that in Matthew. Christ used many of his illustrations on various occasions and for the purpose of making different points. Spence declared that: Here "salt" stands for the spirit of self-sacrifice, self-renunciation. When in a man, or in a nation, or in a church, that salt is savourless, then that spirit is dead; and there is no hope remaining for the man, for the people, or the church.[41]Likewise Dr. Ash wrote that: "SALT represented disciples who would count the cost and pay the price. Men who would not were as worthless as tasteless salt."[42]This passage has no bearing whatever upon the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, or impossibility of apostasy; but that does not prevent the allegation that it does. Based upon the chemical fact that sodium chloride CANNOT lose its taste, that salt "(cannot) ever lose its peculiar pungency and power to hinder corruption," Bliss concluded that "no true subject of regenerating grace ever has or ever will become utterly void of new life."[43] However, Christ said nothing of sodium chloride, the salt of that day being an utterly different product, which not only COULD but frequently did lose its taste (see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 5:13). The illustration as here given by Christ posed no impossibility at all. "If even the salt have lost its savor" was certainly a development that Christ held to be possible, for he went further and declared that "It is fit neither for land nor for the dunghill." Whereas in Matthew Christians are viewed as "the salt of the earth," here it is the spirit of renunciation and sacrifice within Christians which is the salt. Strict and demanding as the conditions of true discipleship assuredly are, the rewards are abundantly sufficient to justify any and all sacrifices required in following the Lord Jesus Christ. [41] Ibid. [42] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972), p. 63. [43] George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press,), Vol. II, Luke, p. 239. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 141. Into whose house did Jesus go? 2. Why did they watch him ? 3. Tell what patient was there. 4. What question did Jesus ask the lawyers? 5. Repeat their answer. 6. What did Jesus then do? 7. To what practice did he refer? 8. And what did they say to this? 9. What called forth his next lesson? 10. Give his advice about choosing seats. 11. Lest what? 12. How might honor be obtained? 13. Who will be exalted or abased ? 14. Who should be invited to a dinner? 15. Why not the rich? 16. At what time will the favor be returned ? 17. What remark did this lesson bring forth ? 18. State the subject of his next parable. 19. To whom were servants next sent? 20. Which guest came first? 21. Which made the first excuse? 22. State the second excuse. 23. And the third. 24. What effect did this have on the host? 25. Tell what he directed to be done. 26. Did this take up the room? 27. State the further directions. 28. When were the first guests to be reinvited ? 29. State who went with Jesus as he journeyed? 30. Whom should we love less than Jesus? 31. If not, what can we not be ? 32. What also must be borne for Him? 33. Before building what should be done? 34. Otherwise what might be said? 35. What other man is used for illustration? 36. What was he about to do? 37. Tell what he first considers. 38. If doubtful what move does he make? 39. To what subject does he liken this ? 40. How much must be forsaken for Christ? 41. Can salt become useless? 42. What is done with it then? 43. Who are required to hear? 44. Which parable in this chapter teaches consistency? 45. And which teaches humility? 46. Which teaches unselfishness? 47. What nation made these excuses ? 48. How may people be compelled to come? 49. Show weakness of the excuse about land. 50. And about the oxen. 51. Why was the new wife no valid excuse? 1 The Pharisees were ever on the alert to discover something in the work of Jesus for which to condemn him. Their most convenient pretext usually came on the sabbath day. Since Jesus was always busy, it was not unusual to see him performing some act of kindness on that day. 2 Sure enough, there was a man in the group who was afflicted with dropsy. That word is from HY-DROPS, meaning "water." It is related to the word from which we get our English word "hydrant." 3 Jesus answering. The text says nothing about whether the people said anything openly, but Jesus could read the thoughts of men, and he knew they were thinking of criticizing him. He anticipated them by speaking on the very subject of their wicked motives. But he did not put the question in the form they would have wished. He could have asked if it was lawful to do anything on the sabbath, but that form of question would have implied its own answer which would have been negative. So he put it on the humane basis of healing a man on the sabbath day. 4. The Pharisees were too wise to say that it would ever be wrong to heal an afflicted person, and they were too prejudiced to say yes to the question of Jesus. He then pro-ceded to heal the man and release him cured. 6. Referring to their own practice, Jesus asked them another question which they could not answer. It means they could not harmonize their practices with the criticism they made against Jesus in their hypocritical hearts. 8 Chief rooms means the same as highest rooms, the expression used in this verse. More honorable means from a social standpoint, not in the sense of character. 9 The host might wish to prefer the more honorable in assigning a seat. It would be humiliating to be directed to step down with the other guests looking on. 0 A guest would be running no risk of embassassment to take a low place voluntarily, even should he be left there; instead, he would stand a chance of being promoted. Worship in this place means "honor" according to the note at Matthew 2:2. 1 This verse states a principle that applies to human beings in general, whether in their relation to each other, or to that under the Lord and His treatment of human servants. (See Esther 7:9-10; Daniel 4:37; James 4:10.) 2 We recall that Jesus spoke the present group of parables while at the feast mentioned in verse 1. We know Jesus did not condemn showing hospitality to persons who were not actual cases for "charity," for he was at that very time enjoying a meal given for the sake of sociability and friendship. Lest a recompense be made denotes he should not restrict his feasts to those who would be able to repay him. 3 The classes named could not "return the call," hence if a man offered them a feast, it could be for no selfish motive as to temporal things. 4 It is right to do good to the unfortunate with a view of reward after the resurrection, for that would mean one is expecting his reward from the Lord. 5 Jesus had just spoken of the future reward for one giving a dinner to the poor. This fellow guest thought it was to be in the form of another meal in the kingdom of God, meaning a spiritual feast in heaven. With such an idea in view, he pronounced a blessing on whomsoever would have that privilege. 6 This group was evidently of the Jewish race since it was by invitation of a chief Pharisee (verse 1) that the meal was being served. Knowing the attitude the Jews as a nation were going to take toward the Gospel, Jesus saw the need for an important lesson in which a spiritual meal (the Gospel) would be served long before the one this guest had in mind, and he spoke a parable in the form of a great supper. 7 Them that were bidden means the Jews to whom the invitation was first given. (See Matthew 10:5-6; Acts 13:46; Romans 1:16.) 8 In an illustration some items need to be told to make the story intelligible, even though they are not literally applicable. Make excuse is rendered "excuse themselves" in the Englishman's Greek New Testament. Much speculation has been done over these "excuses," but we should see in them only a part of the parable that was intended to portray the unfavorable attitude of the Jews to the Gospel. 9 If I cared to moralize on this subject, I would say this man was more interested in his temporal products than in the good things offered by the "certain man." 0 Marriage is a divine institution, but a man should not let love for his wife be greater than the things offered him by the Lord. 1 The servant who was sent to call the invited guests was one of the preachers of Christ. He reported the cold reception he had been given by the ones originally invited. It made the master of the house angry, and he decided to extend the invitation to others who had not been previously favored. They would be Jews, but of the lower class, such as the "publicans and harlots" (Matthew 21:31). 2 There is room enough in the plan of salvation for the whole world, hence the servant told the master that yet there is room. 3 Highways and hedges means the regions of the Gentiles. Compel means to use the force of truthful persuasion in bringing them into the house of the Master, which means the kingdom of heaven on earth. 4 This is explained at verse 17. 5 The crowds that walked after Jesus did not all have the same motives (John 6:26), and that called forth the teaching of several verses following. 6 Hate is from MISEO which Thayer defines at this place, "to love less, to postpone in love or esteem, to slight." It is clear, therefore, that. Jesus does not contradict other passages that require us to love our parents. He means for us to love the Lord above all earthly beings. 7 This is explained at Matthew 10:38; Matthew 16:24. 8 The lesson of the parable, beginning with this verse, is that following Christ should not be a matter of carelessness or light concern. Whoever thinks of being a disciple of Jesus should realize it will cost him many sacrifices. 0 In temporal matters a man usually manifests the good judgment expressed in the preceding verse. That is not only because it is good business, but to avoid the belittling remarks that might be made by the observers. They would criticize a man for starting something before he learned whether he would be able to finish it. 1 This parable teaches the same lesson as the preceding one. A wise commander would not declare war against another until he had studied the comparative strength of the two armies and other military resources. 2 Even after hostilities have started, if he realizes that the outcome may be doubtful, he will not rashly proceed without first trying to make a settlement with the opposing forces. Verse 33. We need not speculate on all the details of the story. Jesus gives us his own interpretation of the parable by repeating what he had previously taught, namely, that one who proposes to follow Him must sacrifice everything that would hinder. 5 This is commented upon at Matthew 5:13. SOME : LOST SHEEP, LOST COIN, SONLuk_15:1-32 Luk 15:1 ---Now all the publicans and sinners—It is thought that these parables were spoken the next day after the dinner with the “ ruler of the Pharisees.” (Luke 14:1.) This was probably in Perea near one of the fords of the Jordan and not far from Jericho, where publicans were numerous on account of trade centers. “ Publicans” were tax gatherers; there were two classes of “ publicans”— the first were Roman knights, who usually lived in Rome; the second class were subordinate collectors, each of whom was required to pay a certain sum to his superior with the privilege of raising as much more as he pleased for his own profit. Publicans were very odious in the sight of many Jews. They are usually classed with “ sinners,” who were depraved characters or open transgressors of the law of Moses. The publicans were infamous among the Jews by their occupation and sinners were notorious offenders against the tradition of the law. They had a noble purpose in coming to Jesus; they came “ to hear him.” They did not come through curiosity, but keenly felt a need of his blessings and had a strong desire to be instructed by him. There is a wide contrast between the purpose of their coming to Jesus and that of the Pharisees and scribes. Luke 15:2 ---And both the Pharisees and the scribes murmured,—The Pharisees were a religious party or sect which originated about a hundred and fifty years before Christ; their name means “ separatists”; they separated themselves from traditional impurity. To become a Pharisee one had to agree to set apart all the sacred tithes and refrain from eating anything that had not been tithed; they believed in the resurrection of the dead. “ Scribes” were learned men who preserved, copied, and expounded the law and the traditions. (Ezra 7:12; Nehemiah 8:1; Matthew 15:1-6.) They were called lawyers and doctors, or teachers of the law. (Matthew 22:35; Luke 5:17-21.) Both classes “ murmured” ; the original means that they were mur¬muring among themselves against him; the form of the verb in the original is intensive, implying frequency, or in groups among themselves, with mingled indignation. Their murmur¬ing was because Jesus received and ate with sinners. He received them into his presence, instruction, and favor; he went into their houses and ate with them. The Pharisees separated themselves from such classes and would not even eat with them. Luke 15:3-7 ---And he spake unto them this parable,—This parable is also recorded by Matthew (Matthew 18:12-13) ; there are some points of difference in the two records. The parable is addressed to these murmuring scribes and Pharisees and in the presence of publicans and sinners. This parable and the one following it are introduced by questions. “ What man of you, having a hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?” The interrogative form served to fix attention at once; Jesus appealed directly to that human feel¬ing which leads a man to seek that which is lost, and rejoice when he has found it. This flock consisted of one hundred sheep in round numbers; a flock of this number would show that the man was in very good circumstances. If one of them is lost, the others are left while search is made for the lost one. Very likely there were present some who had had such experience as Jesus here related. The people were familiar with such incidents in the life of shepherds. (Ezekiel 34:12.) The seeking after the lost sheep shows the eager desire to find it; it does not show that he thinks more of the one sheep than he did of the ninety-nine. The ninety-nine were left and the concern about them was suspended until the lost one was found. The ninety-nine are left “ in the wilderness,” or the rural section of pasture land. The search continues until the lost is found, and then he “ layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.” The shepherds of the east often carried on their backs the lost sheep of the flock; this could be done with less trou¬ble than driving the sheep. When the shepherd returned home with the lost sheep, he and his friends and neighbors gathered in and rejoiced together. say unto you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven— Here Jesus draws his own conclusion and makes the applica¬tion of the parable. There is rejoicing “ in heaven over one sinner that repenteth”; the word “ sinner” here points to verse 1; these sinners were repenting; the lost sheep were being brought to the fold; the joy in heaven is in contrast with the grumbling Pharisees and scribes. There is more rejoicing over that which has been found than over “ ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance.” Jesus does not mean to say that the Pharisees and scribes did not need to repent ; he, for the sake of argument, accepts their claims about themselves and by their own words condemns them for their criticisms of his efforts to save the lost sheep. This is the same point that he made against them when they criticized him and his disciples for being at the feast of Levi. (Luke 5:31 ff.) They posed as “ righteous”; they were not, but on their own claim, Jesus condemns them for murmuring against him in receiving and eating with sinners. Luke 15:8-10 ---Or what woman having ten pieces of silver,—This parable is recorded only by Luke; it is introduced by a question, and has the same general meaning as the parable of the lost sheep. This parable advances the thought; the coin was lost and the place where it lay was concealed from the eye. The original word for “ pieces of silver” was “ drachma” and had a value of about sixteen or eighteen cents in our money. The name “ drachma” is a term used in weighing medicines, but here it is applied to the value of the coin. The former parable represented a scene in the country and had to do with sheep; this was especially interesting to men. This parable is a scene in a house; the woman in the house usually kept the small treasury; hence this parable would be interesting to the women who were present. A woman had lost one of her ten pieces of silver. She lighted her candle, used her broom, and searched diligently until she found the coin. She then re¬joiced and called her friends and neighbors to rejoice with her. Even so, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels—In the former parable there was rejoicing “ in heaven,” but in this there is “ joy in the presence of the an¬gels” ; however, the context shows that the two parables have the same meaning. The first parable is founded upon the affection, manifested by a shepherd toward a lost sheep; the second parable relates to a poor woman who had lost a piece of money, which she could not afford to spare from her scanty treasury. The joy in the presence of the angels is the same as the joy that shall be in heaven. Emphasis is put again upon the “ sinner that repenteth.” This does not mean that God finds more satisfaction in a repentant sinner than in a sinless saint; Jesus was here referring definitely to the penitent publi¬cans and to the self-righteous Pharisees. God did not take de¬light in the sins of the publicans, nor did he regard the state of the Pharisees and scribes as perfect, even taking the Phari¬sees at their best. Luke 15:11-12 ---And he said, A certain man had two sons:—This parable is recorded only by Luke. It is said to be the most beautiful of all the parables; it is full of human sympathy and love. Some have objected to calling this a parable; however, it seems that no violence is done in classing it as a parable. By common consent it has been called the “ Parable of the Prodigal Son,” yet the word “ prodigal” is not used in the narrative. The parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin help to introduce this parable. The three parables were spoken in the pres¬ence of “ publicans and sinners” and the “ Pharisees and the scribes” ; the first class had come to Jesus “ to hear him” teach, but the last class had come to spy, criticize, and accuse him. It is well to keep these two classes in mind as we study the parable. This may be called the “ parable of the lost son” as the other two and called the “ lost sheep” and “ lost coin.” and the younger of them said to his father,— The father had two sons. In the first parable the lost sheep strayed of itself, but a piece of money could not be lost of itself; in the one the attention is fastened upon the condition of the thing lost, while in the second case attention is fastened upon her sor¬row of the one who lost it; but in the parable of the prodigal son there is blame to be attached to the one that is lost. There were two sons, and, according to Jewish law of inheri-tance, the older son would receive two portions; the younger son would receive only one-third of the inheritance. According to the custom, the father might, during his lifetime, dispose of all his property by a gift as he may wish. Luke 15:13---And not many days after, the younger son—The father graciously gave the son his share, and soon this son, after gathering all his possions together, “ took his journey into a far Country.” The father may have divided the estate in such a manner that the younger son could take his property away with him if he desired; or the son may have made such dispo¬sition of it as to convert it into money and other valuables. He “ took his journey,” which shows that he resolved and acted deliberately; he not only went from home, but he went “ into a far country.” He not only wanted to be out of sight, but beyond the influence and control of his father; he was as far away in character as he was in geographical situation. He had taken all of his possessions out of his father’ s hands, and now he is placing himself beyond the reach of his father. We are not told into what country he went. and there he wasted his substance with riotous living.—He “ wasted.” That is, dissipated, squandered; this was the very opposite of “ gathered together.” It means more exactly that he scattered his property like winnowing grain. (Matthew 25:24.) We know how he “ wasted his substance”; it was done “ with riotous living.” This means that he lived dissolutely or profligately; he was a spendthrift, a profligate, a prodigal. He plunged recklessly into extravagance, dissipation, and disso¬lute living. (Proverbs 28:19; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 4:17-19.) This is a very dark picture and shows the depravity to which he had fallen; he was not so much a disturber of the peace, but had wasted his substance in “ riotous living,” and probably as the elder brother accused him later, he had “ devoured” his substance by “ living with harlots.” And when he had spent all,—He soon spent all that he had; one spends recklessly when one lives a dissipated life; he had no income, and all that he spent diminished his capital; he did not use good judgment even in spending what he had. There is an end to be reached and this son soon reached that end. After spending all in his riotous living, “ a mighty famine” arose in that country. Famines were terrible scourges in the east; they were caused by lack of rain in season, wars, and pestilences. In ancient times there were no means of reliev¬ing the wants of a country by the products of another. They did not have railroads, trucks, or other means of transporting products from one country to another, as we now have; the ships could go only along the water courses and caravans would convey the products to the interior; but this was done only on special occasions. People had to suffer. This son “ began to be in want.” Luke 15:15-16 ----And he went and joined himself to one of the citizens—He moved now from his haunts of vice and dissipation and put himself in the service of some man of that country. He “ joined himself” to “ one of the citizens of that country.” The verb here means to “ glue or cement” ; this implies that he forced himself upon the citizen, who was unwilling to engage him and who took him into service only upon persistent entreaty. This unhappy and miserable young man is now a useless appendage to a stranger who did not care for him. He was sent “ into his fields to feed swine.” Presumably this young man was a Jew; swine were unclean animals with the Jews; this once proud and wealthy Jewish son is now the feeder of unclean animals; it is worse than that, for he associates with the swine and “ would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat.” He had wanted the wrong thing all along, and it was no better now; all he wanted before was to fill his belly, and he now must fill it with that which gives him no satisfaction. “ Husks” generally signifies a covering of grain, a dry and useless substance, which is hardly fit for food for any animal. This means that his food was so scanty that even the pods which the swine were eating were the object of his craving appetite; but these were denied him probably by the overseer. Luke 15:17---But when he came to himself—He had been deaf to all reason; his state was a form of reckless living, devoid of all good reason; he had lost sight of all that was good, reasona¬ble, and just; he had lost sight of his better nature and the virtues of righteous living. His eyes were blind to all that was good, his ears were deaf to wise counsel, and his appreciation of the better things of life was lost. Some describe his state as being a state of insanity. The time came when he “ came to himself”; he comes back to his better self; he re¬gains his good judgment and opens his eyes and unstops his ears and heightens his appreciation of the better things of life; the spell of his youthful infatuation is broken and he begins to take a sensible view of his own situation. When he thus came to himself he remembered that even the servants in his father’ s house had sufficient bread to eat and to spare, while he was perishing with hunger. For the first time in his life he now sees the folly of calling for his portion of the estate, going into a far country, and spending his estate in riotous living. While the servants in his father’ s house had plenty, he, a born son, was starving; he had no one to blame but him¬self. His mind was soon made up. Luke 15:18-19 ---I will arise and go to my father,—When he came to himself and made up his mind, he resolved to play the fool no longer. There was no delay in making up his mind as to what he would do; if he stayed longer, he would be too weak to make the journey, as he was perishing at that time. He had deserted his father, but now he is resolved to return to him. He framed what he would say to his father: “ I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight.” He will make no apology for his sin, but frankly and fully confess his sins; he would blame no one for his sin. No apology, no attempt to deceive, nothing but a frank confession of sins repented of would he say to his father. Sincere and humble confession is connected with repentance. (2 Samuel 12:13; Proverbs 28:13; Hosea 14:2; 1 John 1:9-10.) I am no more worthy to be called thy son:—This expressed a true state of mind; he had not shown the love and respect of a child to his father; he had reasonably forfeited all claim to support as a son; he had been an ungrateful sinner, who had remained among strangers until poverty and hunger had forced him to change his course. He was willing to be taken and treated as one of the hired servants. This shows how deeply penitent he was. Though a son, he would not claim that relationship; he would gladly act and be treated as any one of the hired servants. He will gladly take whatever may be offered him. Luke 15:20 ---And he arose, and came to his father.—“ He arose”; that is, immediately put his resolution into action. He “ came”; that is, he went directly to his father. We know not how long it took him to go from this “ far country” to his father’ s home. “ His father” in the original means ‘ his own father.” The picture is emphatic; he left the herd of swine and his association with it and came to his father— what a change in environment ! Though forced by circumstances, yet it was an exercise of his own will power in putting into execution his good resolution; his decision and his execution of it were vol¬untary acts of this son. But while he was yet afar off,—The father seems to have been waiting and expecting his son; though he was at a distance in space, yet his son and the father were together in thought and spirit. We do not know whether the worn and dimmed eyes of his venerable father had been watching for the return, but we do know that at some eminent place his father caught sight of his prodigal son and “ was moved with compassion” to receive his wayward son back into his home. His eagerness is shown in the fact that he “ ran” to greet him. There is an eastern proverb which says: “ Whoever draws near to me (God) an inch, I will draw near to him an ell; and whoso walks to meet me, I will leap to meet him.” This expresses the eagerness with which the father ran to meet his son and the glow of affection with which he greeted him. The father “ fell on his neck, and kissed him.” Old man as his father was, yet he ran and fell on the neck of his son and kissed him. “ Fell on his neck” refers to the act of embrace with which he greeted his son. (Genesis 45:14.) Luke 15:21 ---And the son said unto him, Father,—The son as quickly as he could free himself from the affectionate embrace of the father began to recite his oft-repeated confession that he had framed in his resolution to return to the father and had re¬peated over and over as he wearily wended his way back home. His confession was full and open as was the outburst of paternal love at the greeting. The son began his confes¬sion, and with trembling tones and many sad sobs had re¬peated the first part of his confession. He had sinned in the sight of God against his father and against heaven. Every sin is in some sense against God; it may be also against self or others, but always against God. It may be that this was the first awakening of filial love on the part of this prodigal son. Some ancient authorities add here: “ Make me as one of thy hired servants.” However, it is omitted from the manuscript from which the Revised Version was made. This phrase was in the resolution that he formed (verse 19), but it seems that he did not get to recite it to his father. Luke 15:22-24 ---But the father said to his servants,—“ Bondservants” is used here in the original, and there is a fine touch in bring¬ing in the “ bondservants” immediately after “ my son.” He commanded the servants to “ bring forth quickly the best robe” and put it upon his son. There was to be no delay; the “ best robe,” the first and most honorable one, was to be placed upon his son. This was a long flowing robe, a festive garment. (Mark 16:5; Luke 20:46.) The father commanded that “ a ring” be put upon his hand, “ and shoes on his feet.” The “ ring” was a symbol of restored sonship. Pharaoh placed a ring upon Joseph’ s hand to honor him. (Genesis 41:42.) A “ gold ring” on the hand was a distinguished honor. (James 2:2.) Sandals were placed upon his feet. These were to take the place of the ragged garments with which his son was now clad. The son was a changed son and deeply penitent and affectionate, and the honorable dress in which he is now to be clad signifies the changed and forgiven son. The fatted calf was to be killed. This was the custom; an animal was kept for guests, and a refusal to kill the animal was an insult to the guest. The law of hospitality required the killing of the fatted calf. for this my son was dead,—To the father he was dead, but now is very much alive. Here is an open and explicit ac-knowledgement of “ this my son” ; he was dead to the father, dead to all that was good and righteous, but now is alive in warm affection to the father, and alive to all that is good. He “ was lost” in all that pertains to virtue and happiness; he is now found at home and restored to an honorable station. No wonder the joy of the father was expressed in a feast. “ They began to be merry.” This merrymaking took place at the close of the feast; in this joyful celebration the son himself doubtless took a prominent part, and in this there was a great advance on the preceding parables, the lost sheep and piece of money being insensible of joy which their recovery had in¬spired. Luke 15:25 ---Now his elder son was in the field:—We now come to another scene in this most interesting and fruitful study of the parable of the prodigal son. There are several well-arranged scenes that complete the picture— the first scene is in the home with the younger son asking for his portion of the in¬heritance ; the second scene is the prodigal son in a far country living riotously; the third, the prodigal son reduced to poverty, feeding swine, and friendless, and homeless, coming to himself and resolving to return home; the fourth, the meet¬ing and greeting of the father and son, the making merry and rejoicing together; the last scene, the elder brother coming to the house, discovering what was doing on, rebuking the father, and his cool treatment of his brother. Many conflict¬ing interpretations have been given about the elder brother’ s part in the scene. Some have regarded him as a type of the angels in heaven; others have said that he represents the Jew¬ish nation; still others make him represent the proud Phari¬sees. The music which the elder son heard was of that kind which he knew to be accompanied with a dance; hence both music and dancing are joined to the verb “ heard.” At wed¬dings, birthdays, and all other festal gatherings music was their chief entertainment. Luke 15:26-27 ---And he called to him one of the servants,—Instead of entering the house, as his position in the family would have justified, upon learning what was going on, he called a servant and inquired as to the particulars. His cool and calculating selfishness betrays itself in this little incident. There are three words in the Greek for servants in the parable; there are “ hired servants,” “ servants,” and “ footboys” or “ lackeys”; the elder brother called one of the “ lackeys.” These three classes of servants may indicate the wealth and high standing of this family. The servant reported: “ Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.” This should have been good news to the elder brother. This servant seems to have thought that the elder brother would receive the announcement with like emotions of the father; hence he says: “ Thy brother” and “ thy father” are rejoicing together, and that the father had “ killed the fatted calf.” No mention is made of the robe, ring, and shoes with which the younger son had been clothed; only “ the fatted calf” was mentioned, which was enough to indicate that great honor was bestowed upon the returned son. He was “ safe and sound,” which was an added reason for the merry¬making ; the returned son was in a healthful condition. Luke 15:28 ---But he was angry,—The original means that he was not angry with a mere temporary fit of passion, but with a deep- seated wrath. “ But” puts the elder brother’ s attitude and dis-position in direct contrast with what the environments of the occasion would seem to indicate. He “ would not go in”; that is, he was unwilling to go in the house and celebrate with his father and brother; he refused in his anger to lend himself to the joy of the occasion. While the house was resounding with music and merrymaking, the elder brother stood sullenly out and nursed his anger. He showed not only a lack of brotherly love, but also of sympathy with the joy of his father at the return of the son. When he refused to go in, his father ‘ came out, and entreated him.” The father went forth to meet the prodigal son; now he goes out to entreat the elder son to lay aside his anger and enter the house; his happiness was not complete even on the return of the prodigal, while his other son stood without angry, displeased, and unhappy. The father leaves the company within, in the presence of his long- lost son, and condescends to go forth to plead with the elder brother and to urge him to enter the house. Luke 15:29-30 ---But he answered and said to his father,—The elder son was “ in the field” and missed the affection at the scene of the meeting of the aged father and the now penitent son; in his deep anger he does not respect his venerable father when he came out and entreated him to enter the house, but in his reply he reflected upon his father. He said: “ Lo, these many years do I serve thee, and I never transgressed a command¬ment of thine.” This seems a boastful statement, for such an ugly disposition that he now showed would lead one to think that he was not so good and obedient as he claimed. He puts the “ many years” which he had served his father in contrast with “ when this thy son came” that moment the father began to make merry. The elder brother represents his own life in as favorable way as he can, and puts his younger brother’ s conduct in as unfavorable light as is possible; to him the contrast is very wide, and he has some ground to justify him in the contrast. According to his statement, he had not only served many years as a “ slave,” but he had “ never trans¬gressed a commandment” of his father, while his younger brother had “ devoured thy living with harlots.” Again, according to the elder brother, the father had never given him a kid that he, also a son, who had served him so long, might “ make merry with” his friends. But, so soon as the prodigal son returned, the father killed the fatted calf and now was making merry; to the elder brother this seemed to be unfair; it showed that the father did not appreciate the elder brother’ s service, and seemed to put a premium on the dissipation and prodigality of the younger son. The elder brother thinks that he has made out a clear case of ungratefulness on the part of the father toward himself and convicted him of sanctioning the life that the younger son had lived. The elder brother speaks to his father of his brother as “ thy son,” not “ my brother”; he puts the emphasis upon the dissolute life that the younger son had lived. In his own heart he thinks that he had been grossly neglected and abused. Again, the elder brother had accused the younger son of devouring “ thy living with harlots.”Luke 15:31 ---And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me,—Note the calm and conciliatory address of the father; he speaks tenderly, which is a contrast between his manner and that of his elder son. The elder son did not begin his address by saying “ Father” ; but this did not prevent his father from addressing him affectionately as “ Son.” True, “ a soft answer turneth away wrath; but a grievous word stirreth up anger.” (Proverbs 15:1.) The father not only addressed his son in this affectionate way, but he reminded him of the fact that “ all that is mine is thine.” This was another conciliatory statement; the father is the mediator between the two. He had given the younger son the portion that belonged to him, and as he had only two sons, all that he now possessed belonged to the elder brother; the father did not propose to take the portion that belonged to the elder brother and give it to his younger son. The father was just and fair, tender and affectionate, merciful and forgiving. This was a beautiful example for this elder brother. Luke 15:32 ---But it was meet to make merry and be glad:—The last words of the father are at once truthful, temperate, and tender ; they were calculated to destroy the force of the contemp¬tuous and sneering words uttered apparently by the elder son with the express purpose of wounding the feelings of the father. It was fitting to “ make merry and be glad,” said the father. This was a very tactful way of rebuking the elder son’ s attitude. The father gives the reason for the rejoicing. “ For this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.” The father tactfully refers to the younger son as “ thy brother”; this was a gentle rebuke and reminder of the close relation of his two sons. It seems that the father has quoted from his son’ s language; the elder son had said: “ This thy son.” But the father says: “ This thy brother.” He was “ dead”; he was as one dead to the father and to the elder brother; vicious persons are represented as dead. (1 Timothy 5:6.) He was not only dead, but now “ is alive again” ; he is represented as being raised to a new life. He was lost to his father and to all that was good, lost to his elder brother, but now he is “ found.” The father said the one long dead to us now lives again; the one long lost to us is now found and restored to us. The parable seems to end abruptly. Verse 1 This, one of the most beloved chapters of the word of God, is an account of what was probably a single discourse of Jesus Christ, the whole theme of which was "The Lost." First there was the lost sheep (Luke 15:1-7), then the lost coin (Luke 15:8-10), and finally the two lost sons. It was the Saviour who rescued the lost sheep, the church (under the figure of a woman) who sought the lost coin, and the Father who patiently awaited the return of the prodigal, reinstated him with honor, and then went out and entreated the older brother. Since the church is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19), the activity of the entire Godhead appears here as engaged in the redemption of the lost. There are four ways to become lost, and all of them are evident in this remarkable sermon. The sheep was lost by wandering away from the flock, the coin was lost through no fault of its own, but through the inability or carelessness of the woman. The prodigal was lost by overt and willful disobedience; and the elder brother was lost through pride, selfishness, and self-righteousness. Now all the publicans and sinners were drawing near unto him to hear him. And both the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, this man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. (Luke 15:1-2) "Jesus had already expounded the reasons for his moving "into the streets and lanes of the city" (Luke 14:21) to include the sinners and publicans as objects of the divine mercy; and, in this great chapter, the rationale behind his holy actions was revealed. Even a single sheep, or a single coin, was something of eternal value in the eyes of the Father. God loves every man. This man receiveth sinners ... Unconsciously, his enemies spoke in these words the Master's highest praise. Intended by them as a slander, the words have been treasured by the church of all ages as glorious and eternal truth. Set to music, and sung in ten thousand congregations of worshipers, these words have blessed millions. Sinners Jesus will receive; Sound this word of grace to all Who the heavenly pathway leave, All who linger, all who fall. Sing it o'er and o'er again: Christ receiveth sinful men; Make the message clear and plain: Christ receiveth sinful men![1]And eateth with them ... See under Luke 9:19 for an extended list of the slanders against Jesus. The attitude of those self-righteous leaders of the people who held themselves to be so far above the common class of sinners was in itself the worst of sins, and Jesus made it the climax of this sermon on the lost, as exemplified by the older brother in the third parable. ENDNOTE: [1] Translated from Neumeister, "Sinners Jesus Will Receive," Great Songs of the Church (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1937), No. 210. Verse 3 And he spake unto them this parable, saying, What man of you, having a hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and his neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you that even so there shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, who need no repentance.THE PARABLE OF THE LOST IN THE PARABLEThe man with one hundred sheep = Christ the Good Shepherd The sheep which wandered away = backsliders from the faith Finding the lost sheep = Christ saving sinners Elevating it to his shoulders = uplifting the fallen The rejoicing of the shepherd = joy in heaven over the saved The fact of there having been only a single sheep is not an indication of how few were lost, but of the Lord's concern even for a single lost person. As a matter of fact, the lost sheep stands for countless millions of people. Nothing is to be made of the wilderness except that the uninhabited country that surrounded Palestine was the place where the shepherds kept and pastured their flocks. I. This parable may be viewed, first of all, as an argument. Jesus was being criticized by the Pharisees for associating with sinners; and Christ here showed that any of them would leave ninety and nine sheep safe in the fold and go seeking for a single lost sheep, thus demonstrating that they valued an animal more than they valued a man. Far from being critical of Jesus' efforts to restore lost men, the Pharisees should have fully engaged themselves by cooperating with such efforts. II. The parable also has utility as a warning. The lost sheep, separated from the flock and from the shepherd, is a warning of the state of any child of God who wanders away from the church and away from the Shepherd. Sheep, as used by Jesus, always meant followers of God, goats being the designation for the sinful and rebellious. Therefore, the lost sheep here is a type of the backsliding Christian. But notice the following facts about a lost sheep: (1) it is absolutely defenseless, not even having the gift of swiftness in flight from danger, its very cries being but the signal for the closing in of its enemies. Let the backslider behold here his danger and helplessness. (2) The lost sheep is without any sense of direction. A carrier pigeon would find its way home, and a dog might do so; but a sheep never! (3) The lost sheep is surrounded by dangers. There are beasts of prey, poisonous shrubs and weeds, and even the elemental forces of nature are hostile to a lost sheep. Manifold and insurmountable are the dangers confronting the lost sheep; and it is no less true of the Christian who has forsaken the flock and the shepherd. III. This parable may be looked upon as an outline of the work God expects of his church, the Good Shepherd appearing here as the example to be followed by every Christian. (1) The shepherd's emotions were aroused with reference to the lost. He did not merely say, "Oh well, I still have ninety-nine left!" It should be the work of every Christian to become aroused over the fate of the lost brother. It is a brother who is lost, a man made in God's own image; to despise him, or set him at naught, is to despise oneself. (2) The shepherd went himself; he did not merely send another. Men are wrong who suppose that they may merely send their minister or elder to seek out the lost. God has commanded: "Ye that are spiritual restore such a one" (Galatians 6:1). (3) The shepherd stayed with the search until it was successfully concluded. Here is the divine pattern for perseverance in well-doing. The search can have only one desire, that of finding and recovering the lost; not till then did the shepherd give up the search. IV. This parable is also an epitome of salvation. The whole doctrinal spectrum of the Christian religion is briefly but powerfully suggested here. (1) Just as the shepherd left the fold and the ninety and nine to seek the lost sheep, Christ left heaven with its glory to seek the lost of humanity (John 3:16). (2) It will be noted that there was no safety for the lone sheep. Its safety was in the flock and with the shepherd. There is safety for the Christian only in the church and with the Good Shepherd. It may be doubted that there is any such thing as a Christian who does not belong to the church, despite the fact that such a conceit is obviously deceiving millions. Of old, "The Lord added to the church daily such as were being saved," and he has never stopped doing so (Acts 2:47). (3) Just as the lost sheep was elevated to the shoulders of the shepherd, so the lost soul is elevated to new heights of eminence and rejoicing in Christ Jesus. "He shall exalt you" (James 4:10) is the promise to Christians; and just as the sheep found rest on the shoulders of the shepherd, men find rest in Christ (Matthew 11:29-30). (4) Heaven itself is concerned with the salvation of the lost. "Joy in heaven!" is a pledge that the unseen creation is interested in the rescue of fallen men. There is no one who confesses Christ that angels do not hear it; and there is none who enters the fold of Christ, but there goes forth on his behalf the angels of God, "to do service for them that shall inherit salvation" (Hebrews 1:14). Verse 8 Or what woman having ten pieces of silver; if she lose one piece, doth not light a lamp, and sweep the house, and seek diligently until she finds it? And when she hath found it, she calleth together her friends and neighbors, saying, Rejoice with me, for I have found the piece which I had lost. Even so, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.THE PARABLE OF THE LOST IN THE PARABLEThe woman = the church throughout all the ages The lost coin = the "dropout" from church The lighted lamp = the word of God The broom = the church's concern for true virtues and morality The diligent search = the church's urgent activity to save souls The rejoicing = the joy in heaven over one who is saved Which I had lost ... This is a significant acceptance of blame on the part of the woman for having lost the coin, which inherently is incapable of losing itself. This stands for people in all ages who, in a sense, are lost from God's service through sin or ineptitude within the church itself. Volumes could be written on the things which churches do or leave undone, causing the loss of precious souls. I. Note the coin as the type of a man. (1) Both are from the earth, silver being refined from earthly ore, and man having been created of the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7). (2) Both are valuable. Silver coins have ever been recognized as items of value, but sometimes men have been accounted as cheap in the eyes of their fellows. Earth's warlords have ever looked upon men as mere pawns in the struggle for power; and historically, the rich and the powerful have often held human life as cheap indeed (Matthew 10:29-30). (3) Both may be exchanged for something else. Man may exchange himself for eternal life (Luke 16:9). On the other hand, he may sell himself to do evil in God's sight (1 Kings 21:20). Esau sold his birthright for one mess of pottage (Hebrews 12:16). A man, like a coin, may be exchanged for something else. (4) Both are stamped with the image of the maker, the coin with the likeness of the emperor, and man in the likeness of God who created him (Genesis 1:27). The image of God in every man distinguishes him from the lower creations, and proves that he is not a mere brother to a beast. II. The lost coin is very like a sinner, or backslider. (1) Both were lost through no fault of their own. The woman lost the coin; and all men are in a condition of loss and death through the sin of Adam (Romans 5:14-15). Death reigns over all men, even over those who have not sinned as Adam sinned. We are using the term "lost" in this connection with regard to man's mortal condition, and not as endorsing the speculation concerning original sin. (2) The lost coin and the lost man are alike fallen. That the coin in the parable was upon a lower level is evident in the use of the broom; and the sinner too is said to be fallen. It is said of Judas that "he fell" (Acts 1:25); and the sinful church was declared to have "fallen" from its first love (Revelation 2:25). (3) Both the lost coin and the lost man suffer increasing damage. The lost coin becomes tarnished, even chemically altered, losing eventually the superscription upon it; and likewise the lost man finds the image of God in his soul progressively effaced and tarnished by sin and shame. (4) Both the lost coin and the lost man become increasingly difficult to recover. The longer each is lost the harder it is to find. Every child should be saved as soon as possible after the age of accountability (Ecclesiastes 12:1). Well does the Spirit of God teach that the earliest possible instant is none too soon to seek salvation in the name of the Lord. III. This parable also reveals valuable lessons on how to find the lost. (1) First, the woman lighted a lamp; and the church would do well to follow that example. Without a lighted lamp, one would never find a lost coin in a dark place; and unless the church shall hold aloft the lighted lamp of the word of God, the lost shall not be recovered. The only light is the Bible. Churches seek in vain to light up this world's darkness by preaching human philosophies, legends, political convictions, social schemes, or anything else other than the holy word revealed in the New Testament. "Thy word is a lamp ... and a light" (Psalms 119:105). (2) The woman searched diligently for the lost coin. The church should be diligent in the program of evangelization, the same being the church's most urgent business. (3) The woman used a broom to sweep the whole place. Churches which have allowed the whole atmosphere within their fellowship to be polluted with unrebuked sin, open immorality, or any other defection from the path of duty should take a lesson from the broom. Both the lamp and the broom are necessary. The church cannot be effective in the saving of souls until it has lighted the lamp and employed the broom. IV. This parable, like the preceding one, stresses the joy of the angels of heaven over the salvation of the lost. Seeing that the angels of God are interested in the salvation of souls, how diligent all men ought to be in looking after the one thing needful, namely, the soul's redemption. Nor is the rejoicing over sinners saved restricted to the courts of heaven. The woman with her friends and neighbors rejoiced; and so will the church which works to save men. The saving church is a happy church. THE PARABLE OF THE SONActually, this is the parable of two sons, the elder brother being no less lost than was the prodigal; but, by the consent of all mankind, it is known by the title above. This writer once delivered a sermon before four hundred men in prison; and, upon the announcement of this parable as the subject, a mighty groan went up from the four hundred vigorous masculine throats; and after the sermon, the chaplain revealed that upon four successive Sundays the guest speakers had based their remarks upon this parable! There are two applications of it. First, the prodigal son represents the Gentiles who rebelled against God and departed from the Father's house. The elder brother represents the Jewish religious establishment who remained, nominally, in the fold of God, but who nevertheless became proud, self-righteous, unfeeling recipients of the Father's mercy, having lost all contact with the Father. Significantly, the older brother went to the servants, instead of to the Father, with questions about the joyful celebration. The love of God for both Jews and Gentiles is seen in the Father's reception of both sons, his reinstatement of the prodigal, and his entreating of the older brother. The second, and more general, application of the parable has regard to the men of every generation. That this parable is an unqualified tragedy, first to last, may not be doubted, despite the rejoicing over the return of the prodigal; and, as is the case in many of Jesus' teachings, the total unworthiness of the human race in the sight of God is plainly taught. To be sure, people are precious in God's sight; God loves them; God offered His Son upon Calvary for their redemption; and one redeemed soul is valued above the world and everything in it (Mark 8:36-37); but Jesus was careful to use illustrations, such as this parable, in such a manner as to show beyond any shadow of doubt that no man salvation through his own merit. The prodigal son did not merit the honorable reinstatement he received of the father; nor did the hard-hearted elder brother deserve the father's entreaty at the end of it. In the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-6), both those workers who came in the eleventh hour and received reward, and those who worked all day and complained against the householder, proved themselves to be without merit. The same situation is seen in the parable of two sons (Matthew 21:28-32); who would wish to have a son like either one of them? Likewise, in the parable of the marriage of the king's son (Matthew 22:12-14), neither the nobility who scorned the invitation, nor the rabble that accepted it, had any quality of character that could have merited the invitation. See comment on those parables in my Commentary on Matthew. This most beloved of the Master's parables is here discussed line by line; and, after Luke 15:24, is a condensed sermon this writer has preached in forty states and several foreign countries. Verse 11 And he said, A certain man had two sons: and the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of thy substance that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.Jewish law did not require the father to honor such a request, but in keeping with the analogy that God allows men to choose their ways without coercion, this father honored the request. As the younger son received one-third of the estate and the older brother two-thirds, after the custom of the times, the father simplified things by giving to both sons their inheritance. Verse 13 And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together and took his journey into a far country; and there he wasted his substance with riotous living.The undisciplined life of the younger son quickly resulted in the waste, extravagance, and sinful living recounted here. This scene of irresponsible youth wasting the inheritance assembled at such cost of tears and labor on the part of their ancestors is repeated again and again in every generation, by countless thousands of people. Verse 14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that country; and he began to be in want.This was the intrusion of the unexpected. Such things as wars, disasters, pestilence, and famine were far away from the prodigal's thoughts; but, alas, the unforeseen disaster laid him low and reduced him to want. The wisdom of the father which had seen the family through many similar perils was not in him, with the result of his being utterly unable to cope with the situation that came upon him. Verse 15 And he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.This acceptance by the prodigal of such a despised, menial position in the establishment of one of the citizens of that country shows the extent of his reduction and want. He who had found the benign government of a father so unbearable was reduced to submission as one of the lowest menials under that citizen. A Jewish prince in a swine pen! What a disastrous development that was! Verse 16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.The husks ... These were the pods of the carob bean,[2] a coarse, locust-like bean with a certain sugar content, still used in the East for feeding swine. The seeds of this bean are strangely uniform in size and weight, and they were used as the measure of a "Carat" by gem merchants, weight of one seed equaling one carat, that term being directly derived from "carob."[3] It was only the pod, or husk, of the bean which was edible, the seeds being very hard and worthless as food. This product is still sold in Manhattan, New York City, the flour made of the pods having a sweet, chocolate-like taste, not being in any way very delicious, but it is supposed to be healthful. No man gave unto him ... Nothing disappears any more quickly than the friends who have drunk the liquor and helped waste the substance of a man like the prodigal. His plight was altogether pitiful. [2] English Revised Version, margin, en loco. [3] Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Verse 17 But when he came to himself he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare and I perish here with hunger. The glory of this prodigal is that he told himself the truth. Instead of a false braggadocio by which he might have screwed up his courage to stick it out, he simply faced up to the facts of his hunger, loneliness, and hopelessness. The "life" which he no doubt expected when he left home had turned into "death" for him. Verse 18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight: I am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.A good resolution is the beginning of a better life; and all of the ultimate restoration of this prodigal turned upon this resolution and his prompt execution of it. I have sinned against heaven ... There is a great depth of perception in this. Sin has a dreadful recoil against the sinner, being against himself, and also against his family, against society and against every good and beautiful thing on earth; but primarily sin is "against God." It was the perception of Joseph that the suggested sin with the wife of Potiphar was not so much against his master, or against the master's wife, as it was against God. "How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" (Genesis 39:10). Verse 20 And he arose, and came to his father. But while he was yet afar off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight: I am no more worthy to be called thy son.The inimitable Charles Hodge, distinguished preacher and author, has written a book on, "Will God Run?" giving the answer as "Yes! Yes! God will run! To save them who come unto him." The only one who came to meet the returning prodigal was his father. God did not save him because he repented, nor because he walked all the way back home, but for one reason, and get this, people, He forgave him because he was his son! We are saved by grace, and don't you forget it![4]ENDNOTE: [4] Charles Hodge, Will God Run? (Dallas: Christian Publishing Company, 1965), p. 45. Verse 22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: and bring the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat, and make merry: for this my son was dead, and is alive again; and he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.It will be noted that the prodigal never came out with the intended request to be made as one of his father's hired servants. It would appear that the father interrupted him before that part of his speech to the father could be made. The ring, the robe, the shoes ... All these were the signs of the sonship which the father restored to him, the signet ring, in particular, indicating that the father undertook to pay all of his debts. The new clothing and the status at the father's table are fitting emblems of the salvation which God bestows upon his returning children, And they began to be merry ... signifies the joy in God's house over the salvation of the lost. TRAGEDY IN THE FAR COUNTRY: A SERMONIntroduction: Most of those standing by when this prodigal took passage for the far country would probably have admired him. He was not only young and rich, but he was what many would have called "progressive"! Contrasted with this scene of his leaving home is the dark picture of the tragedy that befell him in the far country. Before moving to view that squalid scene in the swine pen, we should remember that the prodigals are still with us, still enraptured with that mysterious allure that the fire has for the moth. This tragedy is reenacted somewhere on earth every day. I. The extent of this tragedy. The whole episode was tragic. The rebellious son, the father's grief, the waste of his inheritance, the type of companions he chose, the famine that fell upon that country, and the harsh bargain he made with the citizen - all these were tragic, but to behold the full extent of this tragedy, only one place supplies the proper vantage point, that of the swine pen. Note the following elements of the tragedy: A. The prodigal is alone. Far from being the popular way which Satan always promises travelers who accept his suggestions, the route the prodigal traveled proved to be one of utter loneliness; and many a derelict whose body has been drawn from the river, or discovered under a bridge, has also tasted the loneliness of evil ways. B. The prodigal had a shameful job. Citizens of Satan's kingdom have swine to feed, and many a hapless prodigal has ended in a disgraceful, humiliating task of tending earth's swine pens, its brothels, its low places of entertainment, and its saloons. This contrasts with what the prodigal doubtless imagined he would be doing in the far country. Illustration: A man and his wife were in a Western city and stopped for a cup of coffee across the street from a noted gambling center. The place was crowded, and a young man came over from "The Golden Nugget" and sat at the same table. It turned out that he was a Christian; his father was an elder in a Tennessee church; and he was ashamed of his work; but he insisted he could not change it, saying, "I'm in too deep to change now!" He was only another prodigal sent into a task he despised. C. He was hungry. Oddly, there was plenty for swine but nothing for the son of the loving father. For all who contemplate an excursion into the far country, it would be well for them to take into account the inevitable hunger of the soul engaged in employment under Satan. "Our souls, O Christ, were made for thee; and never shall they rest till they rest in thee!"[5]D. He was tortured by burning memories. Memory is not a thing which may be turned off and on like electricity. "How many hired servants of my father have bread enough and to spare." The swine pen itself was no refuge from the memories of that lost relationship. Many a soul today hardly dares to think of those memories of the days of faith and worship which graced their youth. Hell itself is no refuge from memory (Luke 16:27-28). II. What was the cause of this tragedy? The cause of every accident is investigated with a view to finding its cause and preventing a recurrence. A. One root cause of this tragedy was the "give me" attitude of the prodigal. That soul which makes getting the goal of life is headed for disaster. Note the contrast between his attitude at first and that of the penitent prodigal who said, "Father, make me" instead of "Father, give me"! B. The prodigal's unwillingness to submit to the benign government of the father's house was a second cause. Many who wish to lead the good life seem to be unaware that restraints are involved. The plane bound for London must go in that direction. Fellowship with God is possible only for the obedient. His attitude was "Don't fence me in!" and apparently he did not realize that Esau's life is the classical example of a life with no fence around it (Hebrews 12:16). C. Then, there was the influence of the prodigal's companions upon his life. The elder brother alleged that these included "harlots," and there is nothing in the parable to deny it. Without any doubt, one's companions have a great deal to do with the life he leads. D. Lack of vision was also a fundamental cause of this tragedy. The prodigal might have taken the privilege of the Psalmist who said, "I thought on my ways and turned unto thy testimonies" (Psalms 119:59); but thinking upon one's way is difficult for the profligate. Swine pens are nothing new in this world, and a little serious forethought might have spared the hero of this story the tragedy that befell him; but, like many in all generations, he proved to be unaware of the swine pen until he could hear the grunting in both ears! III. The cure of the tragedy. A. The cure began when the prodigal told himself the truth. The unique utility of the Bible is that it reveals what men say to themselves (see more on this under Luke 16:3). Instead of lying to himself about how he would surely make a good recovery, or how something would surely "turn up," he simply faced up to the shame and disgrace of his life, and to the fact that he was "perishing." Countless thousands today should face up to the soul's bankruptcy. B. The second phase of the cure was a good resolution. He said, "I will arise and go to my father." But it should be noted that a good resolution did nothing except point the way home. He doubtless felt a lot better after such a noble resolve, but he was still in the swine pen. C. He arose and came to his father. Men must come "unto" the Father in order to be saved. This is done by learning the truth (John 6:44), by believing in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:10), by repenting of their sins (Acts 11:18), and by confessing Christ (Romans 10:10). But this prodigal was still separated from the father until he came all the way home. Just so, the sinner is still in his sins even after coming "unto" the father by his learning, believing in Christ, repenting of his sins, and confessing the Lord. There was one more thing the prodigal had to do before he was restored; and there is yet another thing the sinner must do to receive the robes of forgiveness and the ring of sonship. D. He came to the father and submitted to the father's government which he had once spurned, he accepted the robe, the shoes, and the ring, and took his place once more at the father's table. All of this corresponds to a sinner's being baptized into Christ, whereupon he receives the robe of forgiveness, accepts his place at the father's table by a faithful observance of the Lord's supper. People who might fancy that the plan of salvation is not in the parables should look again. THE CASE OF THE ELDER BROTHERThis, of course, is the climax of the parable. ENDNOTE: [5] Augustine, from the tomb of William Rockefeller, Tarrytown Cemetery, New York. Verse 25 Now the elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing. The logical thing for the elder son to have done would have been to go at once to the father; but apparently something was missing from the rapport which he should have had with the father. He was living the life of a slave in the house of his father; and it is to be feared that many a child of God is doing the same thing. Verse 26 And he called to him one of the servants, and inquired what these things might be. And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.And he called to him one of the servants ... The elder son was closer to the servants than to his father; and although this is not an outright break with the father, it is a small incident that shows the broken fellowship. Through the passage of time, the elder son had not maintained communication with the father; and, in this, he became a type of the Christian who, while attending to all of the outward duties of faith, nevertheless drifts away from the love of it. The vital prayer line becomes neglected; the heart grows cold, indifferent, and proud; and, at last, such a Christian becomes as much estranged from the heavenly Father as was this elder son from his father in the parable. Thy brother is come, ... etc. The servant, of course, anticipated that the older son would welcome the good news; but such was not the case. "The very kindness of the father to the returned prodigal was a wrong to HIM; for he was rightfully, so he thought, entitled to it all."[6]ENDNOTE: [6] J. S. Lamar, New Testament Commentary, Vol. II, Luke (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), p. 206. Verse 28 But he was angry, and would not go in: and his father came out, and entreated him.The persons primarily in view, as represented by the elder son, were the scribes, Pharisees, and other religious leaders of Israel. It was their anger at the Lord's inclusion of publicans and sinners as objects of heavenly grace which, in a large degree, motivated their hatred of Jesus. The fierce religious pride and exclusiveness of the leaders were but the metastasis of the cancer of selfishness within them; and their attitude toward others was an inherent contradiction of the purpose of God, whose love of all men Jesus had come to proclaim. The selfishness of the religious leaders manifested itself in their despising the Gentiles, but it did not stop there. Inherent in the nature of selfishness is the constant restriction and withdrawal flowing out of it; and the progression of selfishness in Israel's leaders had, in the times of Jesus, reached a level in which most of the chosen people themselves were also despised by their leaders. On one pretext or another, they hated everybody but themselves. Even of the multitudes of their own people, the Pharisees said, "This multitude that knoweth not the law are accursed" (John 7:49). And entreated him ... This speaks of the tireless efforts of Jesus to persuade the Pharisees to believe in him. All of the gospels are eloquent in detailing the constant preaching of Jesus to this very class. Verse 29 But he answered and said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, and I never transgressed a commandment of thine; and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends.The distorted views of the selfish soul are evident in this verse. The older brother had received the double portion of the divided estate (Luke 15:12); and he was in fact the owner of the whole estate (Luke 15:31), therefore it was his duty to have given to the father, not the other way around. If this elder brother had wanted to share a banquet with his friends, it was surely within his power to have done so; but as a matter of obvious fact, he did not wish to share anything with anybody, even resenting the slaughter of the fatted calf for the return of his brother. Verse 30 But when this thy son came, who hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou killest for him the fatted calf.The charge of immorality against the younger son is not denied by anything in the parable, but neither is it affirmed. Selfishness always alleges unworthiness against those who should have been the beneficiaries of charity. The big point in the older brother's mind had nothing to do with a brother rescued, but with the relative value of a kid vs. that of the fatted calf! This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 Pharisees and scribes, as well as the publicans and sinners, were all Jews but in different classifications according to the social castes devised by the self-righteous Jewish leaders. On the significance of eating with others, see the quotation from the works of reference at Matthew 9:11. 3 This parable and the others in this chapter were occasioned by the complaint of the Pharisees and scribes in verse 2. The reader should bear in mind as he studies these three parables, that the lesson pertains to the two classes of Jews designated above, and not to the Jews and Gentiles. All have the same lesson, that of the Father's love for his wayward or otherwise unfortunate creatures. It is the same subject as that shown by the physician and the sick in Matthew 9:12. However, since the stories needed to be told to make the point of application clear, I shall comment upon the verses in their order. 4 The 99 sheep, like the Pharisees and scribes (according to their pretentions), were not needing any special attention because they were within the care of the shepherd. The one that was lost (as the Pharisees considered the publicans and sinners), was the one that needed and received the attention of the shepherd. 5 Layeth it on his shoulders indicates a tender regard for the wandering sheep, also a willingness to help it get back to the flock. 6 It is natural for one to wish others to share with him in the event of good fortune. Paul tells Christians to "rejoice with them that do rejoice" (Romans 12:15). 7 Joy does not mean love or esteem. God and the angels will always love the righteous with a divine affection. Joy denotes a spirit of active gratitude for some satisfactory event or truth, such as the recovery of an article of value that was lost. 0 Substitute a lost sheep for the piece of silver, and this parable is identical in thought with the preceding one. 1 The remainder of this chapter, beginning with this verse, was spoken for the same purpose as the two preceding parables, and none of the details were intended to teach any special lesson besides. Yet it will be necessary to consider the parts of the story, especially since so much speculative use has been made of it. It is commonly called "the parable of the prodigal son," but it is not so named in the text. The word "prodigal" means extravagant or wasteful, and that characteristic is given to this younger son in verse 13. 2 The younger son did not want to wait until the usual time for settling up of the estate of his father, for he did not intend to remain at home that long. 3 True to the indicated plans, the son left home with all of his part of the estate. Riotous is from ASOTOS and this is the only place in the New Testament where the word occurs. Thayer defines it, "dissolutely, profligately," which has the same meaning as "wastefully." 4 The famine came just after he had spent all his money. 5 Employment became scarce as it commonly does in hard times. This young man accepted a very humble job, that of a swineherd. 6 His wages evidently proved insufficient for he became hungry in spite of his job. Husks is described by both Thayer and Smith's Bible Dictionary as the podded fruit of a locust tree. They also say this product was used for fattening swine, and for food among the poor people. This "prodigal son" was so hungry he would gladly have supplemented his own scanty diet with this article, but due to the famine it was denied him because the owner reserved it for his swine. 7 Came to himself is rendered "came to his senses" in Moffatt's translation. The meaning is that he was made to realize his true condition. He recalled that even the servants at home had plenty of the good things of life. 8 He knew he could not justly request more of his father's estate for he had already received his full share. He would have to return and throw himself upon the mercy of his father. Sinned against heaven. When anyone does wrong, the sin is an offense against the Lord regardless of who may be affected among men. 9 This is an expression of one who realizes his unworthiness of favors. 0 The father observed his son at a great distance before he arrived at the home and ran to meet him. This detail truly represents God's attitude toward sinners. He is always casting a loving glance toward them. Fell on his neck is an expression that denotes affectionate feelings for another, instead of the formal kiss upon the mouth merely as a salutation that was the custom in old times. 1 This act of affection encouraged the repentant son to go on with the confession he had decided upon when he came to himself. 2 The father did not assign him to the low position he so humbly suggested. Penitence brings forth forgiveness instead of strict justice from the offended parent. The robe and other articles to be worn would not satisfy the hunger of the famished son, but it indicated the fullness of the father's forgiveness. The hunger will be cared for in another way. 3 It was usual for families to keep a fattened animal in readiness for any occasion of a feast that might arise, and the arrival of the "lost" son furnished one. 4 These words may have been used figuratively only, and yet this son had been dead to his father's home, since death means "separation." 5 The elder son represents the Pharisees and scribes in verse 2, and their envious attitude toward the younger son who represents the publicans and sinners of the same verse. As the elder son was coming in from his work he heard the music and dancing. Some have tried to see a significance in the mention of dancing. It has no moral application in the least since that is not the subject of the parable. It is put into the story only because it indicates the condition of joy being felt in the household. 6 When the elder son went to work, the return of the "prodigal" had not occurred, hence he did not understand the cause of the merriment. 8 This elder son (the Pharisees and scribes) began to pout and refused to go into the house. That was not because he objected to the things being done as though they were wrong, but because of his jealousy against his brother. Ordinary human nature would have prompted the father to be "independent" and just ignore his son's action. But since this father represents the Father of mercies, the parable shows him manifesting his love for the son by making a move toward pacifying him. 0. The elder son had no just ground of complaint. His brother had done wrong, but it was against his father and God only. This son was not being deprived of anything that was due him, so his attitude could be explained only on the basis of jealousy. He made two comparisons in his protest; they were between the conduct of himself and that of his brother, and between what his father had done for each son. He had always been at home and faithful, while his brother had been away living a life like that of a spendthrift. Also, his father had never as much as given him a kid (a rather inferior animal), but had given this wasteful son the choice of food animals. 1 The favors being shown the returned son did not deprive the elder one of a single possession, hence his objections were the result of his jealousy only. 2 It was meet or fitting for the father and his household to be glad. But it was not on the ground of the worthiness of the younger son for he had no just claim to the favors being accorded him. The reason assigned by the father was that a son that was lost had been found. Likewise, the Father in heaven is concerned about the spiritual safety of the lowest of human beings and is always ready to receive them as soon as they repent. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 16 THE STEWARD Luke 16:1-13 Luke 16:1 ---And he said also unto the disciples,—This parable has been called the “ Parable of the Unjust Steward” ; it is here called the “ Parable of the Unrighteous Steward.” This para¬ble is peculiar to Luke. Jesus had put to silence the murmur¬ing Pharisees by the three foregoing parables; he now contin¬ues his discourse to his disciples, in the presence of the publi¬cans and sinners, Pharisees and scribes. He introduces the parable with “ a certain rich man” who had an unfaithful stew¬ard. “ Steward,” in the original, means one who distributes or dispenses affairs of a house; he is one who is a house manager or overseer of an estate (Luke 12:42); the steward kept the household stores under lock and seal, giving out what was re¬quired ; he was usually given a signet ring from his master to show his authority; he could execute bonds and notes in the name of his master by using the signet ring. and the same was accused unto him—This servant was “ accused,” which, in the original, meant “ to throw across,” or “ to carry across”; hence to carry reports from one to another; to carry false reports, and to culminate or slander. The word implies “ malice,” but not necessarily falsehood. The accusation against him was that he “ was wasting his goods.” He was wasting that which belonged to his master. “ Wasting” is from the same root word as “ wasted” in Luke 15:13, as used of the prodigal son, in wasting his substance in riotous living. The accusation against him may have come from jealous tenants and other servants in the house. The steward is not represented as denying the accusation or attempting to prove it to be false. Luke 16:2 ---And he called him, and said unto him,—The day of reckoning had come; the steward was to be discharged. He was asked: “ What is this that I hear of thee? render the account of thy stewardship.” These words in the original imply anger. “ Render the account of thy stewardship” literally means “ give back” that which you have fraudulently taken; there is also implied “ and now give back my signet; for thou shalt no longer be my steward.” The proprietor must dismiss him from his service because he has proved himself to be unfaithful. Some think that there is implied that if the steward should successfully prove his innocence he might be retained in his position. Luke 16:3-4 ---And the steward said within himself,—It seems that the steward was conscious of his guilt and began to reflect as to “ what” he should do; as a shrewd and prudent man he will strive either to hold his place or he will seek to provide for himself a comfortable living. It seems that he chose the latter alternative. He began to make preparation for a comfortable living. He was not yet dismissed and he had opportunity to further his unrighteous practices. In reasoning with himself he said: “ I have not strength to dig; to beg I am ashamed.” He either had to go to work or beg; he felt that he did not have strength to work; that is, he was not able to engage in manual labor which in agricultural pursuits consisted largely in upturning the earth by digging. He may have been strong enough to do that kind of work, but he was not inclined to do so, and thus persuaded himself that he was not able “ to dig.” The other alternative was that of begging, but he was “ ashamed” or had a sense of pride, and did not wish to put himself in the class of mendicants. It was better to beg than to practice dishonesty, but he had nursed his pride and did not wish to beg. He was not “ ashamed” to cheat or lie, but he was “ ashamed” to beg. I am resolved what to do,—He had fully made up his mind, and continues to soliloquize and expresses himself in a positive way as to what he will do, he had just thought of a plan that he could execute, and he is determined to do it. His plan was that when he was dismissed from his stewardship he would be received into the houses of those whom he had befriended. He planned to make friends so that they would receive him into their hospitality, out of gratitude for what he had done for them; he still hoped to enjoy life in the homes of those whom he had laid under obligation to him by an unrigh¬teous use of his master’ s affairs. His plans as they are now revealed confirm the report that he was dealing falsely with his master’ s goods. Luke 16:5-7 ---And calling to him each one of his lord’ s debtors,—He began speedily to execute his plan; he did not know just when he would be dismissed, so he must act in haste while he had the authority as a steward. He called each one of his “ lord’ s debtors”; that is, he called them one by one. It is not known whether one debtor knew what he had done for the other debtor; his plans are to deal with each one separately. The first debtor was asked how much he owed his lord. He answered : “ A hundred measures of oil.” Literally, a “ measure” means a “ bath.” The “ bath” was a Hebrew measure, but the amount is uncertain, as there were three kinds of measurements in use in Palestine. The original Mosaic measure corresponded with the Roman; that of Jerusalem was a fifth larger, and the common Galilean measurement was about a fifth larger than the Jerusalem. The first standard made the bath consist of about fifty-six pints, or about seven gallons. Some make the bath to contain between eight and nine gallons. This is supposed to be olive oil, as it was used for various purposes— food, cosmetics, embalming, light, surgery, etc. It was a great article of trade. (Revelation 18:13.) The steward said to the debtor to sit down and write quickly “ fifty.” He reduced the debt one-half. He called another and asked the same question. This one said that his debt was “ a hundred measures of wheat.” He was told to “ write fourscore” instead of the one hundred. The original for “ measure” here is different from that in verse 6; a measure here means a “ cor” or “ homer,” and was the largest Hebrew dry measure, equal to ten “ baths” or about eleven bushels. (Ezekiel 45:14.) Luke 16:8 ---And his lord commended the unrighteous steward—The lord admired the shrewdness of his steward, though he himself was defrauded; he commended, or praised, not the injustice or dishonesty of the steward, but his prudence and practical shrewdness. (Psalms 49:18.) He had shown worldly foresight and had acted upon it. The unrighteous steward had been cunning in dishonesty; he had been prudent, though selfishly, and wrongly so. It should be kept clear that Jesus does not commend the dishonesty and trickery of this unrighteous steward; he does not commend the steward for his in¬justice or wrongdoing. “ For the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light.” The lord of the steward does not excuse him from guilt, and he was apparently dismissed from his service; his shrewdness consisted in finding a place to go after he was dismissed; he was still an unrighteous steward even though his shrewdness was commended. “ The sons of this world” are those who are studious and plan for the greatest possessions and pleasures of this world; they are opposed to “ the sons of the light,” who are those who are walking in the light. Men of the world act with better judgment oftentimes with respect to worldly affairs than do the disciples of Jesus with respect to spiritual affairs. This parable is spoken “ unto the disciples.” (Verse 1.) Luke 16:9 ---And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends—Jesus makes his own application of the parable. We should be sat-isfied with his explanation; sometimes the thought is lost amidst the drapery of the parable. The master of the unrighteous steward commended him for his prudent foresight, and Jesus, speaking to his disciples, said to them that they should use a like forethought in regard to their spiritual and eternal interests. Surely Christians should show better judgment in their relations with one another than “ crooks” do in their dealings with one another; the devotees of material goods often use more sense in handling them than do Christians as custodians of eternal things. by means of the mammon of unrighteousness;—“ Mammon” is a word applied to wealth or riches; its probable derivation means trust; so the description of wealth, not merely as a pos-session, but also as something which is so generally made a ground of confidence. “ Riches” is here personified as the “ mammon of unrighteousness,” which is about equivalent to unrighteous mammon. There is a contrast between the “ mammon of unrighteousness” and “ true riches.” “ The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Timothy 6:10) because it leads into every form of sin. Achan was tempted to his de-struction by the “ wedge of gold” and the goodly Babylonish garment. (Joshua 7:21.) Judas betrayed the Savior for thirty pieces of silver. (Matthew 26:15.) Ananias and Sapphira “ lied to the Holy Spirit” and perished for the love of money. (Acts 5:3.) Demas, the companion of apostles, forsook them, “ having loved this present world.” (2 Timothy 4:10.) There is a right use of money and a wrong use; Jesus teaches the right use of money. He here teaches that his disciples should make such a use of their possessions as to secure heavenly treasures and gain friends, who, having gone before, would welcome them in the world to come to everlasting habitations. Luke 16:10 ---He that is faithful in a very little—Jesus further in¬structs his disciples in lessons of faithfulness as stewards. The right use of money, which is seeking the welfare of others with it, applies not only to the rich, but also to the poor; the one who is faithful in a very little may be faithful in much; but if one is not faithful with little things, one will not be with larger things. The one who is unfaithful in the use of money here will not be faithful in dealing with spiritual and eternal things. One’ s conduct in little things is a sure test of what he is likely to do with greater things; we do not expect one to be faithful in important things, if he has not been faithful in little things. Luke 16:11 ---If therefore ye have not been faithful—If the disciples of Jesus have not been faithful “ in the unrighteous mammon’’ then who will want to trust them with “ true riches’’ ? Here “ unrighteous mammon’’ is put in contrast with “ true riches.’’ Riches are deceitful, fleeting, and uncertain; while “ true riches’’ are real, substantial, spiritual, and eternal. If the disciples of Jesus are not faithful in a righteous use of money, the Lord could not trust them with the eternal verities of his gospel. The one who is dishonest and unfaithful in the discharge of duties with respect to earthly possessions must not expect to have heavenly treasures entrusted to him. One must prove oneself to be faithful with the proper use of mate¬rial things before one can be trusted with spiritual things. Anyone who will not handle material things honestly will not handle the truth honestly. Luke 16:12-13 ---And if ye have not been faithful in that which is an-other’ s,—This argument is further expanded and enforced by Jesus. Here reference is again had to the mammon of unrigh-teousness ; our faithfulness in that which God will make our own may be judged by our care of the things of others. Jesus repeats a self-evident truth when he says, “ No servant can serve two masters.” These masters have different wills and purposes; they contradict each other in their demands; hence, it is impossible for one servant to serve two such masters. It is like attempting to travel in two directions at the same time, or attempting to love two entirely contradictory characters. A servant is supposed to obey .his master; this obedience is called love. If one attempts to serve two masters, he will hate one and love the other; or he will honor one and dishonor the other. ; RICH MAN AND LAZARUSLuk_16:14-31 Luk 16:14 ---And the Pharisees, who were lovers of money,—Jesus had dined with a Pharisee (Luke 14 Luke 1), and had received publicans and sinners. He had been criticized by the Pharisees (Luke 15:2) and had answered them with three parables, and had instructed his disciples on the righteous use of money. The Pharisees had heard what he had taught his disciples. They “ were lovers of money.” “ Lovers of money” is from the Greek word which is used only twice in the New Testament — here and 2 Timothy 3 2 Timothy 2— it is closly connected in meaning with “ covetousness.” (1 Corinthians 5:10-11 1 Corinthians 6:10.) When the Pharisees heard what Jesus had said about the use of money “ they scoffed at him.” “ Scoffed,” in the original, is used only here and in Luke 23:35. Literally it means “ to turn up the nose at one”; the Romans had a similar phrase, “ to hang on the hooked nose,” that is, to turn up the nose and make a hook of it on which (figuratively) to hang the subject of ridicule. These Pharisees mocked him and ridiculed his teaching with respect to the use of money. Luke 16:15 ---And he said unto them, Ye are they—The Pharisees made great professions of righteousness and holiness before men, while their hearts were full of wickedness and covetousness. Jesus knew their hearts; he exposed the hypocrisy and covetousness of the Pharisees. He reminded them that “ God knoweth your hearts.” They might deceive men, but they could not deceive God; Jesus let them know that he knew what was in their heart; they were an abomination in the sight of God. These Pharisees were past masters at justifying themselves; Jesus rebuked their scoffing hearts with a withering scorn. They could deride his teaching and mock him personally, but he could show what the end would be with them. Luke has introduced some other matters before Jesus spoke his parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Luke 16:16 ---The law and the prophets were until John:—Jesus here introduces the idea of a new dispensation which was drawing nigh. “ The law and the prophets” belonged to the old dispensation. The entire testimony under the old dispensation is sometimes expressed more fully by “ the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms.” (Luke 24:44.) The law and the prophets were the sole fountains of religious truth down to John the Baptist; then the kingdom of God began to be preached, first by John, next by Jesus, and then by his disciples. The Pharisees boasted of being righteous according to the law and the prophets; they were in reality not so faithful to the law as they were faithful to their traditions of the law Jesus did not set aside the law, but fulfilled it. “ Every man entereth violently into it.” This is similar to Matthew 11:12. This seems to mean that everyone was striving to enter the preparatory state of the kingdom; people were attempting to force their way into the kingdom of God; they did not understand its nature, and were doing violence to the kingdom that Jesus preached by perverting and misapplying his teachings with respect to it. Luke 16:17 ---But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away,—Jesus did not destroy the law; he did not set the law aside; he came to fulfill the law, and to take it away by fulfilling it or “ nailing it to the cross.” (Colossians 2:14.) The Pharisees had implied that he was destroying the law, but in reality he was establishing the law and giving the principles of righteousness by which all should be judged. Heaven and earth will pass away sooner than the law should fail; not the least part of the law, not “ one tittle of the law” should fail. Matthew uses “ one jot or one tittle” (Matthew 5:18), while Luke uses only “ one tittle.” “ Tittle” is from the Latin “ titulus,” and means a term signified by a small point or line of the Hebrew letter. I indicates that the smallest requirements of the law must be fulfilled before it is taken out of the way. Luke 16:18 ---Every one that putteth away his wife,—For other state-ments of Christ on this subject see Matthew 5:32 Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11-12. The connection of this verse with what precedes or what follows is obscure. Jesus simply teaches the sanctity and binding force of the marriage bond; marriage with either of the separated parties involves the crime of adultery. It is adultery to marry the wife who is put away by her husband or to marry the husband who is put away by the wife. It seems that there is one exception to the rule here laid down, given by Jesus in Matthew 5:32 and perhaps another by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:15. Here Paul says that there may be grounds for separation other than that of fornication, but this does not grant the party the privilege to marry another. Many hold that, even when the one cause for separation exists, the innocent party may marry another. Luke 16:19 ---Now there was a certain rich man,—Some have thought that this is not a parable, but a record from real life; they say that the name of one of the principal characters is given, which is not done in any of the parables of Jesus. Others claim that it is a parable; commentators generally have treated it as a parable. It does not matter whether it is regarded as a parable or not; the lesson taught by Jesus remains the same. There is no change in the points or in the lesson taught by regarding it as a parable or regarding it as a simple narration in real life. It is treated here as a parable. Luke records this, and he is the only one who does; he places it in his record in close connection with what Christ had taught with respect to the proper use of riches and the ridicule and scoffing of the covetous Pharisees against his teaching; it may be regarded as a further reply to the scoffing of the Pharisees. At least, it exposes their sin and folly and points out to them their future and appalling doom. A “ certain rich man” is given as one of the principal charac-ters of the parable; he is mentioned first. Some have thought that “ Dives” is the name of this character in the parable; however, “ Dives” is the Latin word for “ rich man.” He is de-scribed as being “ clothed in purple”; this is one of the marks of wealth. “ Purple” is a term used by the ancients to include three distinct colors— namely, a deep violet, with a black or dusky tinge; a deep scarlet or crimson, the Tyrian purple; and the deep blue of the Mediterranean. The dye of the purple was fadeless and retained its freshness of color. Purple is also an emblem of royalty. “ Fine linen” was a yellowish flax and the linen made from it was considered to be of the finest quality. It was used in making the tabernacle. (Exodus 25:4 Exodus 28:5 Exodus 35:6.) Some of the Egyptian linen was so fine that it was called “ woven air.” Later this term was applied to cotton and silken goods. He fared “ sumptuously every day.” Literally he made “ merry in splendor each day”; some have translated it “ he ate each day shiningly.” He was a Jew, a descendant of Abraham whom he addressed as “ Father Abraham” (verses 24, 30) and to whom Abraham responded, “ Son” (verse 25). He is described, as many Pharisees lived and thought, as thinking he was entitled to every blessing because of his “ father Abraham.”Luke 16:20-21 ---and a certain beggar named Lazarus—This is the only parable of our Lord where a character has received a proper name. “ A certain beggar” sets him apart from many beggars of that day. The term “ beggar” designates his destitution of the necessary things of life; he was dependent upon charity for food. The original indicates deep poverty. “ Lazarus” is an abbreviated form of “ Eleazar” and means “ God a help.” This was a common name among the Jews. He “ was laid” at the rich man’ s gate; literally, “ was thrown,” or cast carelessly down by his bearers and left there; he did not place himself there; he was unable to handle himself. He was placed at the rich man’ s “ gate,” or “ gateway”; sometimes it is rendered “ porch.” To make the description more vivid and pathetic, Lazarus is described as being “ full of sores.”and desiring to be fed with the crumbs—He was not fed from the crumbs, but “ desired” to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’ s table. He was humble and was asking only for the bare necessities of life. He asked only for the crumbs from so much abundance of the rich man. Eagerly he desired the things that fell from the table, but he did not receive what he desired. The same thing is implied in the record of the prodigal son, where the same word is used, “ he would fain” have been filled (Luke 15:16), but the pods did not satisfy his hunger. Moreover, “ even the dogs came and licked his sores.” This description reaches the climax in the dogs licking his sores. The only medical attention that this poor, helpless, hopeless man had was that from the dogs which came and licked his sores. It is not clear whether the licking of the dogs increased his misery or whether he received mo¬mentary relief by it. His very existence was a scramble with the dogs. Luke 16:22 ---And it came to pass, that the beggar died,—Death was the first and the last relief that came to such a sufferer as Laz¬arus; the grace receives all alike. We do not know how long the suffering had continued; nothing is said of his burial, for that was of no moment in comparison to what immediately occurred to his soul at death. If he had a burial, it was so brief, obscure that no one knew of it. However, “ he was carried away by the angels into Abraham’ s bosom.’’ The angels took him in charge and bore his soul away. “ Abraham’ s bosom’’ is equivalent to being with Abraham in paradise. Abraham, to the Jew, seems to be the personal center and meeting point of paradise. Some think that “ Abraham’ s bosom” was a name given to that part of the unseen world, or place of departed spirits, where the patriarchs and the righteous were in happiness. It is similar to the expression used by Jesus in Matthew 8:11. This description fully met the view of the pharisaic Jew with respect to the future blessedness of the good. Abraham was the father of the faithful and the head of the whole Jewish family, and to be with him after death implied happiness. “ And the rich man also died, and was buried.”Luke 16:23 ---And in Hades he lifted up his eyes,—Finally they both died; the rich and poor meet in death; there is the meeting place for all. Death brings the rich and poor, the high and the low, the good and the bad, the wise and the foolish, all to a common level. They did not both dwell together here, and they are separated in their death. “ In Hades” the rich man lifted up his eyes. “ Hades,” in the New Testament, is a broad and general conception, with an idea of locality bound up with it. It is the condition following death, which is blessed or the contrary, according to the moral character of the dead, and is divided into different realms, represented by “ paradise” or “ Abraham’ s bosom,” and “ Gehenna.” It simply means the unseen world, or the underworld. “ Hades” in the Greek has the same meaning as “ Sheol” in the Hebrew, both represent¬ing the region of the departed. “ Hades” occurs ten times in the New Testament. (Matthew 11:23 Matthew 16:18; Luke 10:15 Luke 16:23; Acts 2:27 Acts 2:31; Revelation 1:18 Revelation 6:8 Revelation 20:13-14.) The story here needs no comment, nor rhetoric to make it awfully im-pressive. “ Being in torments” designates the place to which the rich man had gone; “ in torments” is put in contrast to “ Abraham’ s bosom”; Jesus puts this case in such terms as to make the great facts clear and unmistakable; he shows that the rich man is in misery, and that Lazarus is among the blessed and happy. The rich man was buried; it is natural to suppose that he was buried with the usual ceremonies that belong to the rich. “ In Hades” he lifted up his eyes and saw “ Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” “ He lifted up his eyes” shows that the rich man is conceived as being in the abyss, in the lower region of Hades, and looking up toward paradise. “ Afar off” represents the distance, or a bridgeless gulf that separated him from Lazarus. He saw Lazarus in Abraham’ s “ bosom.” Lazarus was reclining in honor at the banquet of bliss, while the rich man was agonizing in the misery of eternal punishment. Luke 16:24 ---And he cried and said, Father Abraham,—Jesus repre-sents the rich man as a Jew, as he addresses Abraham as “ Father.” He longs for relief from his sufferings and begs for at least a moment of relief from his anguish. He asks that Lazarus be sent with the smallest means of comfort; he even pleads for Abraham to have mercy on him in giving him a moment’ s relief from his anguish. He wishes water to cool his tongue and says that he is “ in anguish in this flame.” He is continually and eternally tormented. We have here material and physical imagery of spiritual anguish, soul misery. It matters not what may be our views on the nature of this suffering, we must admit that it is terrible beyond anything we can imagine. The mind shrinks back aghast from the horrible torment which is here described. Luke 16:25 ---But Abraham said, Son, remember—Abraham is repre-sented as answering the rich man; he addressed him as “ Son.” This word literally means “ child.” The answer of Abraham is in great kindness, yet it was frank and severe, calm and firm. The rich man had addressed him as “ Father Abraham,” and Abraham does not deny the relationship. Joshua spoke to Achan and addressed him as “ my son.” (Joshua 7:19.) “ Remember” is a fearful word at this time; there was nothing that the rich man could remember that would be a satisfaction to him now. Memory keeps alive the unpleasant as well as the pleasant things of life. The rich man had only to be re¬minded of the past to understand the reason of his present misery. The rich man is told plainly that retribution has come. He has to remember that in his “ lifetime” or earthly life he received his “ good things,” and that “ Lazarus in like manner evil things.” This is another contrast; he had in life exhausted his store of happiness; he had no more claim on the good things which were for him, and which he made the sole object of life. He had enjoyed to the fullest not only the ne¬cessities of life, but the rich abundance of luxuries; Lazarus had not enjoyed the meager necessities of life, and had none of the luxuries; the rich man had reveled in his wealth and Lazarus had suffered in his poverty. In this way Lazarus had received his “ evil things.” Abraham did not say “ his” evil things, but just “ evil things."Luke 16:26 ---And besides all this, between us and you—In addition to all these things Abraham calls attention to a second reason why the request of the rich man could not be granted. It was literally impossible to comply with the request. “ Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed.” “ Gulf” is the original word for “ yawn,” “ or chasm,” a “ gaping opening.” In medi¬cal language, which Luke frequently employed, it meant the cavities in a wound or ulcer. This “ great gulf” separated the rich man and Lazarus; the separation was greater in their destinies than it could possibly have been in their lives on earth. It was a “ great gulf,” and was too deep to be filled up, too wide to be bridged over, too great for any passage from one side to the other. It was “ fixed” ; it could not be changed. The word in the original conveys the idea of fixedness. It was unchangeable in nature, unalterable in condition, and eternal in its establishment. they that would pass from hence to you—It is not meant that any would want to cross from the side where Lazarus and Abraham were to the side where the rich man was if they knew the conditions on that side; it is not implied that they were ignorant of the conditions on the side of the rich man. Abraham simply means that there can be no passing from one side to the other. It might be that all who were on the side of the rich man would like to pass to the side where Lazarus was; but no one can do that. At death the destinies are determined ; there can be no further preparation made, as there can be no passage from one side to the other. It simply means that when one goes to hell there is no way to get out. Luke 16:27 ---And he said, I pray thee therefore, father,—This is the second request that the rich man makes of Abraham. The rich man now understood that his case was desperate, his des¬tiny and doom sealed. There is no chance for repentance and salvation in the “ intermediate state.” In fact, the Bible is not clear as to whether there is an “ intermediate state.” The rich man had prayed first for himslf to Abraham, and his second prayer is for others. He remembered his brethren and the example that he had set them; he seems to have thought that they might come to that place of torment through his influence, and this added more to his misery and anguish. Their presence would give them an opportunity to reproach him and thus increase his own torment. Hell will be the more miserable because those who have influenced others to go there will forever be reproaching them and adding to their misery if possible. This time he asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his father’ s house. He had nothing in common with Lazarus while on earth, but now he is pleading for Lazarus to render service to him. He knew that he could not escape from his place to go and warn his brethren, but he relied on the mercy of Abraham to send Lazarus to them. Luke 16:28 ---for I have five brethren;—Perhaps these were five Pharisees who were following in the footsteps of the departed brother. Nothing can be inferred further than that they were headed in the direction of the rich man. His five brethren were still living. It has been argued by some that the rich man’ s anxiety about his five brethren was a sign of improvement in him, and that his punishment had already purified his heart, and made him love his brethren; hence, the notion of “ purgatory” has some endorsement in the Bible. However, such an idea is destitute of any truth. He did not want his five brethren to come to his doom. He thought perhaps they would turn if they were warned. Luke 16:29 ---But Abraham saith, They have Moses and the prophets;— Abraham’ s answer here is also decisive. The law of Moses was still in force. The expression, “ Moses and the prophets,” has reference to the Old Testament scriptures, and since they were still under the law, they should hear and do what the law required. “ Let them hear them”; the verb “ hear” is often used in the sense of “ obey.” They should take heed to follow Moses and the prophets. We have here one of the many testi¬monies of Jesus, including that of Abraham from the heavenly world, that the Old Testament scriptures are the word of God. Luke 16:30 ---And he said, Nay, father Abraham:—The rich man argues the question with Abraham; he pleads for his brethren more than he pleaded for himself. He seemed to think that if one should return from the spirit world his brothers would surely listen to the message. Hence, he said: “ If one go to them from the dead, they will repent.” The meaning here seems to be that if one should come “ from within,” they would come nearer repenting than if one should go to them “ from the outside.” Arising from among the dead was more than a messenger going “ from” the dead. The rich man was ignorant of the results from miraculous visions and messages; he had false views of repentance, supposing that something sudden and miraculous would produce it. Luke 16:31 ---And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,—The answer of Abraham is positive and final; the rich man had affirmed that “ they will repent” if one should go to them from among the dead. Abraham tells him that they would not. If they would not hear God at one time, they would not hear him at another time. He had spoken to them through “ Moses and the prophets”; if they would not hear them they would not “ be persuaded, if one rise from the dead.” As proof of this, Jesus was crucified, buried, and arose from the dead, yet the Jewish leaders still rejected him. The truth of God brought to the heart is necessary to repentance; and if it fails vain will be the efforts of men, living or dead, however miraculous. No stronger inducement now can be presented to men for repentance than that which God has presented. Verse 1 This chapter relates Jesus' continued discourses to the disciples in the presence of the public and the Pharisees particularly. The great parables of the unjust steward (Luke 16:1-13) and the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) are both related to the conflict with the Pharisees; but the connective teaching between them was abbreviated by the sacred author. However, the positive connection is still clearly discernible (Luke 16:14-18). And he said also unto the disciples, There was a certain rich man, who had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he was wasting his goods. (Luke 16:1) THE PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARDHe said also unto his disciples ... These words do not remove the obvious fact that the unjust steward in view here represents the religious leaders of Israel. True, the parable was spoken "to" the disciples, but "about" the Pharisees, etc. "The rich man represents God";Luke 2 p. 247.">[1] and among all classes of people in that ancient world, only the hierarchy of Israel would qualify as stewards of God's house. To them were committed the oracles of God (Romans 3:2); they alone sat "in Moses' seat" (Matthew 23:2); and they only were custodial heirs of the religious economy of Israel. A certain rich man ... stands for God, as the vast majority of commentators agree; and despite the objection of Barclay that "The rich man himself was something of a rascal,"[2] and Plummer's opinion that "The rich man has no special significance,"[3] it is nevertheless the standing interpretation of the Coccian school,[4] stated by Vitringa, that "The rich man is God, and the steward the ecclesiatical leaders of Israel."[5] Albert Barnes stated that "By the rich man here is doubtless represented God."[6] Objections to this view derive from a failure to understand WHY the rich man commended the unjust steward. Only God has the power over men to dismiss them from life and custodianship of heavenly gifts, the very things clearly typified by the prerogatives enjoyed by this unjust steward. Furthermore, the allegation against the rich man, to the effect that he was a rascal, or that he endorsed the steward's dishonesty, is not logically taken. "The Emperor Julian (the bitter apostate) said this parable proves Jesus a mere man, and hardly a worthy man";[7] but apostates are blind, by definition, and without any spiritual perception whatever. When it is clearly understood why the steward was commended, all difficulties disappear. In another parable, an unjust judge bore an analogy to the heavenly Father (Luke 18:1-6); and Christ himself likened his second coming to "the thief" (Matthew 24:43). This comparison did not embarrass the holy apostles; for Paul used it (1 Thessalonians 5:2); Peter used it (2 Peter 3:10); and Christ himself repeated it from glory (Revelation 16:15). In the light of this, the tender consciences of modern commentators who find something "amoral" in this parable's representation of God under the figure of this rich man are not at all convincing! That he was wasting his goods ... As Trench said, "All attempts to explain away the dishonesty (of this steward) are hopeless."[8] His own behavior in context was a positive admission of guilt on his part. Luke 2 p. 247.">[1] George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press,), Vol. II, Luke 2 p. 247. [2] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), p. 216. [3] Quoted by Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 418. [4] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 431. [5] Ibid. [6] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), Luke, p. 109. [7] S. MacLean Gilmour, The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), Vol. VIII, p. 280. [8] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 435. Verse 2 And he called him, and said unto him, What is this that I hear of thee? render the account of thy stewardship; for thou canst be no longer steward.This that I hear ... The accusers of the religious hierarchy were the prophets of God such as Ezekiel (Ezekiel 23:2) and Malachi (Malachi 2:8), and finally, Christ himself (Matthew 23:1-5). Render the account ... Here is the positive indication that the rich man is a figure of Almighty God. He is the one who summons men to render the account of their earthly lives and possessions. Verse 3 And the steward said within himself, What shall I do, seeing that my Lord taketh away the stewardship from me? I have not strength to dig; to beg I am ashamed.Said within himself ... This was the first commendable thing the steward did. Like the prodigal who also said "to himself" that he would arise and go to the Father, this man also faced bitter, unwelcome truth about HIMSELF. He lied to the Lord and to the debtors, but he told himself the truth. Many a hapless soul today simply does not have the courage to face unwelcome truth. The lost soul will hardly admit it; the man on his deathbed speaks of what he will do when he gets well; and countless sinners tell themselves the falsehood that they are really all right, in no danger at all, or that they will turn and serve God at some future time. This steward was no such character. He laid it on the line with himself. "I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg!" Nor did he question the fact that he faced eviction from office. The day of reckoning in view here, according to Tinsley, is an analogy of "God's summons to Israel through Jesus Christ."[9]Regarding the alternatives open to the steward, "J. B. Chapman once wrote an article on it, entitled, `Dig, Beg, or Steal'."[10] Wesley noted that the steward had what men would call a "sense of honor! by men called `honor' but by angels, `pride',"[11] as evidenced by his being ashamed to beg. Ashamed to beg, sure! Ashamed to steal? No! [9] E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 159. [10] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 562. [11] John Wesley, Notes on the New Testament (Naperville, Illinois: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1950), p. 264. Verse 4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.Hobbs said that this place might be rendered, "I've got it; I know what I will do!"[12] His dishonest purpose was soon revealed. He would involve all the debtors in defrauding the lord, and then presume upon their charity when he needed it. Human gratitude for past favors is a broken reed indeed; and that is possibly the reason why the parable allows the presumption that he received it to stand, without regard to what might really have happened afterward. ENDNOTE: [12] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 239. Verse 5 And calling to him each one of his lord' s debtors, he said to the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, A hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bond, and sit down quickly and write fifty. Then he said to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, A hundred measures of wheat. He saith unto him, Take thy bond, and write fourscore.The size of this operation is evident in the large amounts owed. The measures used here for oil and wheat were "the bath, which was about 9 gallons, and the cor, which was about 11 bushels."[13] Thus, the transactions mentioned involved some 900 gallons of olive oil and about 1,100 bushels of wheat. Summers is doubtless correct in the view that "This was a business venture in which the steward helped several retailers cheat a wholesaler with whom they traded."[14] Certainly, these amounts are much greater than would have been expected of mere tenants on the lord's estate. This lowering of the bills is the perfect analogy of the manner in which the scribes and Pharisees lowered the standards of righteousness as a device for keeping their hold upon the people: allowing divorce on any pretext (Luke 16:18), and by countless devices making void the law of God (Matthew 23:16). And, although the scribes and Pharisees were the deceitful stewards in view here the analogy may be extended throughout Christian history to include countless others who have marked down the gospel and perverted God's law. This crooked device of the unjust steward was known to Pharaoh who proposed to Moses that God's command to go three days' journey into the wilderness might be honored by going "not very far away" (Exodus 8:28). It is, of course, a device of Satan; and it is still being employed against the truth. Jesus Christ commanded faith, repentance, confession, and baptism into Christ as preconditions of salvation; but the unjust steward still offers salvation to men for "faith only" or "confession only." The moral requirements of Christianity are still being marked down in the matter of easy divorce for any cause, or none at all, just as the Pharisees were doing. The worship of Jesus Christ is demanded of all who would be saved, in terms of a full hundred measures of oil, or of wheat. That worship requires that men sing, pray, study God's word, give their means to support the truth, and faithfully observe the Lord's supper. And, despite this, there are great systems of "Christian" religions that reduced the requirements in various particulars. It should be noted that the unjust steward moved with all possible dispatch and diligence to put his evil plan in operation. That same line that records his resolution defines also his summary action to fulfill it. He acted then and there, not putting it off a single day. Furthermore, he exhibited the most efficient thoroughness in the implementation of his scheme. "He called EVERY ONE of his lord's debtors." None was skipped, or overlooked. Sit down quickly ... emphasizes the urgency of the steward's plans and the speed with which they were prosecuted. Thus it is clear enough that in quite a number of the most important qualities, that unjust steward was fully entitled to commendation, not for his dishonesty, BUT FOR THOSE . And what were they? 1. He told himself the truth. 2. He took account of his own need which would not diminish merely because he had lost his job. 3. He accurately appraised the necessity to make some provision against that future need, even as Christ himself commanded (Revelation 3:18). 4. He used those things which he yet controlled in order to meet that inevitable future need. 5. He acted at once with all possible speed. 6. He acted with brilliant efficiency and thoroughness. It is in these qualities that the steward provides an example of what all men should do with reference to the eternal needs of the soul; and, sadly enough, these are exactly the things that countless millions of men will not do with reference to those very needs. [13] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 759. [14] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1973), p. 190. Verse 8 And his lord commended the unjust steward because he had done wisely: for the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light.Childer's comment that "Christians often use less prudence in handling money than do men of the world,"[15] while true enough, is not the point here. It is the Christian's imprudence in handling spiritual things which Jesus condemned. The teaching is not that owls can see better than eagles, but that "Owls see better than eagles, IN THE DARK"![16]The Lord commended the unjust steward ... All of the tedious explanations insisting that it was not Jesus, but the lord in the parable, who commended the unjust steward, are completely frustrated by the fact of the lord in the parable being a representation of God. Certainly Jesus, who was one with the Father in all things, commended this rogue, not for his dishonesty, but for his prudent handling of his worldly interests; and if Jesus had not intended this to be understood, there is no way to believe he would have spoken the parable in the first place. As Matthew Henry noted, "This unjust steward is to us an example, not in cheating his master, ... but as an example for our attention in spiritual things."[17] Jesus incurred no risk whatever in using such an example. Throughout the parable, and as always, Jesus unconditionally condemned in every action and every word, every suggestion of fraud and dishonesty, categorically calling the steward "unjust." As Geldenhuys said, "There was no danger that Jesus' hearers would interpret his words as a recommendation of dishonest methods."[18][15] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 563. [16] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 439. [17] Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), Matthew-Acts p. 284. [18] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 416. Verse 9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles.Mammon of unrighteousness ... This refers to wealth and all earthly treasures; but why is it called unrighteous? It would appear that they are in error who suppose that the implication requires us to believe that wealth may not be accumulated except through dishonesty, fraud, etc.; for, while it is true that much wealth is thus acquired, there are countless instances of persons acquiring wealth innocently. But all wealth of this world is unrighteous, however acquired; and by this the wealth itself, not the possessor, is meant. 1. Wealth deceives the owner into believing that it is his. 2. It strongly tempts him to trust in riches. 3. "In making a man depend on them for happiness, riches rob him of salvation and the glory of God."[19]4. It estranges him from earthly friends. 5. It surrounds him with false friends. 6. Wealth promises much and delivers nothing. 7. It is a constant hazard to his spirituality. The clear meaning here is that "mammon of unrighteousness does not mean wealth unrighteously acquired, but deceitful wealth."[20]When it shall fail ... is a reference to the ultimate failure of all worldly assets, which under no circumstances can ever continue any longer than the lifetime of the holder; and it is the end of life in view here, because of the Savior's reference to being received into eternal tabernacles. They may receive you ... Some have viewed these "friends" as poor people helped during the life of the one received; but this is a forced view, derived from the error of making this parable primarily a teaching on the Christian's responsibility for the proper use of his wealth; but, despite the fact of such teaching being included, the parable lays special stress on making the proper spiritual preparations prerequisite to being received into heaven. IN THE PARABLEThe rich man in absentia = the heavenly Father. The unrighteous steward = the scribes and Pharisees. The accusations = the protestations of the prophets and last of all, of Christ. The day of accounting = the first advent of Christ. The lowering of the bills = the corruption of God's law by the religious leaders. The impending eviction of the steward = the impending removal of Israel as a chosen nation. The corruption of the debtors = the ruin of the vast majority of Israel by their leaders. The lord's commendation = a tribute to the persistence and ability of the evil leaders. On the last of these analogies, a further word is appropriate. The mystery of iniquity has always been an awesome wonder. When the apostle John saw the vision of the apostate church, he "wondered with a great wonder" (Revelation 17:6), the true meaning being "wondered with a great admiration."[21] It is the same wondering admiration which surfaces here. The steward's evil genius was so original, daring, and thoroughly crooked, yet serving his personal ends, that the lord in the parable, ignoring all loss to himself, commended the scoundrel. If there was ever a class of religious leaders entitled to the same kind of praise, the Pharisees and their crowd were that class. The satanic achievement of that class in engineering the rejection of the Messiah sent from God was truly a marvel of adroit cunning, deceit, and persistent energy. Our Lord at once extended the analogies in the parable to encourage the same quality of skillful and persistent efforts on the part of all men who would attain spiritual values (though, of course, without the dishonesty and deceit). In the comparisons pointed out by Jesus, the great lord in absentia is still the only God; every man, like the unjust steward, controls certain assets such as life, talents, and property; and like the case with the unjust steward, all must give an accounting of their use. Jesus admonished that all men, as the steward did, should use whatever is in their control now, and, unlike him, use it to receive approval from God, that is, make to themselves friends, by the wise and faithful administration of God's gifts. Friends ... It was noted above that some have supposed these to be the recipients of the Christian's charity; but the fact of their preceding him to glory and being on hand to welcome the Christian's arrival compromises that view. As reasonable a view as any makes the friends envisaged here to be the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and the angels of God. [19] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1829), Vol. V, p. 462. [20] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 760. [21] Nestle Greek Text, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959). Verse 10 He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much: and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much.Geldenhuys supposed that Christ included this verse in the parable in order "to prevent a possible misunderstanding owing to the commendation of the unjust steward. Here Christ insists upon the necessity of fidelity in dealing with earthly possessions."[22] A man's faithfulness is measured by what he does with whatever amount of it there may be. People who suppose that if they were rich they would give large sums to charity, and who yet give nothing from their meager possessions, are deceiving themselves. What a man does with a little is a fair measure of what he will do with much. ENDNOTE: [22] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 419. Verse 11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches.Every man is but a steward of God's gifts, even including life; and if he should misuse these which, in a sense, are only loaned to him, how would God give to him, as his very own possession, such a thing as eternal life? On the "unrighteous mammon," see under Luke 16:9, above. Verse 12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own?See under preceding verse, where the same thought is given a little differently. This verse lays down, unqualifiedly, a law which makes the right use of one's possession a condition of eternal life, for giving unto a man of that "which is your own" can mean nothing if not eternal life. Concepts like "accepting Christ," "surrendering to Christ," and "taking up the cross," etc., are meaningless unless related to the use of one's material possessions. Verse 13 No servant can serve two masters: either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.This contrasts God and Mammon (personified) as deities between whom every soul must choose. Any attempt to serve both is actually the service of Mammon. Summers pointed out that Luke here used a word for "servant" which actually means "house servant"; [23] and this gives an equivalent meaning that "nobody can be a house boy in two different mansions at once!" For the attention of some who always insist that a parable has only one point, it should be observed that Jesus made no less than four, basing them all upon this parable. Barclay summarized these thus: (1) children of this world are wiser than children of light (Luke 16:8); (2) material possessions should be used to cement ... eternal friendships (Luke 16:9); (3) a man's way of fulfilling a small task is proof of his fitness for a larger one (Luke 16:10-11); and (4) no slave can serve two masters.[24][23] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 191. [24] William Barclay, op. cit., pp. 216-217. Verse 14 And the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things; and they scoffed at him. Lovers of money ... One finds it simply impossible to understand why some commentators strive to question a statement of this kind. Ray Summers, for example, implied that the other synoptics do not fully support Luke's charge here that the Pharisees were lovers of money; but he neglected to explain why the sacred historian needed any such support. If there had not been another word in the whole New Testament regarding this, Luke's statement here is more than enough to guarantee the unqualified truth of it. Summers went on to remark concerning the passage in Matthew 23:14 (KJV), in which the Pharisees were charged with devouring "widow's houses," that "It is not in the best manuscripts, so it can be used only in a qualified support of Luke's statement."[25] He evidently overlooked the fact that in that same chapter (Matthew 23:26), Matthew quoted Jesus Christ as saying that the cup and platter of the Pharisees were "full of extortion," the same being a total endorsement of what Luke said about the Pharisees here. His error, however, is not in overlooking such a confirmation of Luke's words, but in supposing that the record of two or more Gospels is more authentic than the statement of only one of them. The thesis maintained in this commentary is that each of the Gospels is totally reliable in all that they contain. Over and beyond Luke's statement here, however, is the total picture of the Pharisees that emerges from the New Testament record. Their devious handling of money by application of the device of "Corban," which Jesus so emphatically condemned, their making the temple itself a "den of thieves and robbers," and their merciless exploitation of the poor, and their having more regard for an animal than for a human being - all of these things demonstrate the indisputable fact that Luke's simple declaration here, to the effect that this class were "lovers of money," is in perfect harmony with all the word of God. As Frank L. Cox said, "No one scoffs at a scriptural lesson on giving but the lover of money."[26]Scoffed at him ... "The term scoffed indicates to turn up the nose at a thing."[27][25] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 192. [26] Frank L. Cox, According to Luke (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1941), p. 50. [27] Anthony Lee Ash, Living Word Commentary (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), Vol. 4, p. 73. Verse 15 And he said unto them, Ye are they that justify yourselves in the sight of men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.The men Jesus addressed here "tended to connect earthly prosperity and goodness. Wealth was a sign that a man was a good man."[28] However, mere material prosperity, unsanctified by spiritual motivation and consciousness of stewardship under God, is here called an abomination in the sight of God. ENDNOTE: [28] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 218. Verse 16 The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached; and every man entereth violently into it.It is a mistake to view Matthew 11:12-13 as a parallel with this. Why could not Jesus on two occasions or still more have made statements about John as a transitional person and about the violent pressing into the kingdom?[29]Whatever is meant by "violently," this must be viewed as improper and reprehensible on the part of those thus seeking to enter the kingdom. Some of the Ante-Nicene writers viewed the "violence" here in a favorable fashion as indicating the zeal with which men should seek to enter the kingdom; but the scholarly J. W. McGarvey, it appears, has a far better understanding of this admittedly difficult passage. He said: The gates of Christ's kingdom were not opened until Pentecost (Acts 2); but men, hearing it was about to be opened, sought to enter it prematurely, not by the gates which God would open, but by such breaches as they themselves sought to make in its walls.[30]The type of violence with which men sought to force the kingdom is illustrated by the multitude's action in trying to make him king by force; and the Pharisees, particularly, thought the kingdom would be a secular restoration of the old Solomonic throne; and they were at that very moment trying to force Jesus to conform to their secular and materialistic views of the kingdom, all of which is indicated by their scoffing at him. (See more elaborate discussion of this in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 11:12) Geldenhuys also concurred in the view of McGarvey that the kingdom was not established. He said: Although the kingdom has not yet come in final completeness, it nevertheless came into the world as a mighty actuality, already in and with Jesus' public appearances on earth.[31][29] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 422. [30] J. W. McGarvey, The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, Ohio: The Standard Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 283. [31] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 422. Verse 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fail.This statement of Jesus has in view the changing and perversion of God's law by the Pharisees, who had perverted the moral requirements of it (as in the case of easy divorce, mentioned a moment later) in many ways, even seeking to change the nature of the kingdom God had promised to set up. They wanted an earthly kingdom, a Messiah on a white horse who would throw out the Romans! Jesus here reminded them that not one of the tiniest provisions of God's law would be waived in favor of their materialistic views. Tittle ... "The tittle, `little horn,' was a small projection, or hook, that distinguished one Hebrew letter from another similar letter."[32] Jesus was saying that even down to the smallest point, the law of God would be totally maintained. The very close and logical connection of this whole paragraph between the two great parables of this chapter is quite obvious and enlightening; and it is safe to reject such a view as that of Gilmour who said "(These are) three scattered sayings that have little or no connection with one another or with the rest of the material in this chapter."[33][32] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 246. [33] S. MacLean Gilmour, op. cit., p. 287. Verse 18 Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.Jesus' purpose in the introduction of this saying was clearly that of condemning the Pharisaical perversion of God's law; and, in context, there was no necessity for Jesus to note the exception, as in Matthew 19:9. This verse affords the most positive proof that one cannot ever know what Jesus taught unless he shall take into account ALL THAT JESUS SAID, whether reported by one evangelist or another. Geldenhuys spoke of the "absolute impossibility of basing detailed rules ... upon isolated sayings of Christ."[34] There can be no excuse for scholars and theologians premising whole systems of thought on portions of the Gospels, or upon one Gospel, as distinguished from other Gospels. One hardly enters the New Testament until the words of Jesus thunder from the sacred page: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). That principle, laid down by Jesus, is alone sufficient grounds for rejecting the basic assumption underlying a great deal of modern critical exegesis. God gave his people four Gospels; and in that gift is the certainty that one cannot understand the whole corpus of truth unless he shall take all of them into consideration. Ryle caught the implication of Jesus' words in this verse, thus: "With all your boasted reverence for the law, you are yourselves breakers of it in the law of marriage. You have lowered the standard of the law of divorce."Luke 2 p. 211.">[35] Barclay also discerned the connection between this and the preceding verse, saying that "As an illustration of the law that would never pass away, Jesus took the law of chastity."[36]For further discussion of Jesus' teaching on marriage and divorce, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 19:1-10. [34] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 423. Luke 2 p. 211.">[35] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.), Vol. Luke 2 p. 211. [36] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 219. Verse 19 Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, faring sumptuously every day.THE PARABLE OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUSThe Latin word for "rich man" is dives, and this is sometimes used as a proper name; but Jesus left him nameless. Clothed in purple ... Ancient craftsmen of Tyre discovered a process of making a very expensive and durable purple dye from the murex shell;[37] and, due to its cost, it could be afforded only by royalty and the very rich. From this, "royal purple" has entered into the vocabulary of all nations. Fine linens ... faring sumptuously ... These are additional touches to show the extravagant luxury in which the rich man lived. It should be noted that there is no hint of any unrighteous acquisition of wealth, nor of any overt, sinful action against Lazarus, nor even any hint that he denied the crumbs desired by the beggar. It is his total indifference to human suffering at his very gate which looms so ominously in the parable. And is this a parable? It would appear to be certain that it is; the placement of it alone is sufficient grounds for understanding it as a parable. Besides that, the element of Abraham presiding over Paradise forces one to seek an analogy. It is God, not Abraham, who has custody and control of the departed dead. ENDNOTE: [37] Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: William Benton, 1961), Vol. 22, p. 653. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 Give an account stands for the warning that all mankind will have to give an account of personal conduct to God (Romans 14:12). 3 The anxiety of the steward about how he could meet the accounting, represents the concern that men should feel over the coming judgment before God and Christ. 4 The pronoun they in the application of the parable, refers to God and Christ as we shall see farther down in the chapter. 5 The steward still had charge of his lord's goods and the accounting of them, and he decided to manage the bookkeeping in a way to be an advantage to himself. 6 Upon payment of half the debt, this man was given full credit as if he had paid off his entire indebtedness. 7 This man's bill was marked "paid in full" upon his producing 80 per cent of the real account. The way the steward handled these accounts was wrong, but that was not the subject that Jesus had in mind when he spoke this parable as we shall see at the next verse. 8 The Lord (Jesus) did not commend the steward for his unjustness, but because he had done wisely. And that wisdom was shown by using his present opportunities to prepare against future needs. By favoring these debtors in this way, the steward won their good will; and when he was finally thrown out of a job and home, they would gratefully give him a place in their houses. Children of this world are wiser means the people of the world generally manifest more good judgment than professed Christians in many cases. 9 In this verse Jesus makes his application of the parable. The friends are God and Christ, and mammon of unrighteousness means the talents and opportunities bestowed upon men in this life. The exhortation is for us to make such use of these things that we will gain the favor of these friends by being friends to them ourselves. (See John 15:14.) Then when we fail, which will be when the earth and all things therein pass away, we will be invited to enter into the mansions that are in the Father's house (John 14:1-3). 0 We will not be judged by the amount of good we can do, but by whether we are faithful in doing what is within our power and opportunity. 1 Unrighteous mammon means the temporal things of this life. If we have misused these things, we will not be regarded as worthy of those in the next life. 2 If a man is careless in handling the goods of another, he would be still more unappreciative of his own, and would feel free to do as he pleased with them. 3 See the comments on Matthew 6:24. 4 The Pharisees had not been named in the preceding parable, yet they applied it to themselves and hence they derided (sneered) him. They could not make any just reply to the teaching of Christ without exposing their own covetous heart, therefore they only made fun of him. 5 To justify means to declare or make it appear that one is just. The Pharisees did this and deceived the public into thinking they were benevolent men by their apparent deeds of kindness. But these things that men admired (because they did not know the motive back of them), God regarded as abominable, knowing their hearts. 6 Law and prophets until John. After the last prophet (Malachi) laid down his pen, the world heard no more revelation from God until John broke the silence by his preaching in the wilderness. Since then the kingdom of heaven was preached, but that does not say it was set up by him. Every man presseth into it. The kingdom of God existed in preparation before it was in existence in fact. (See Matthew 11:12.) Presseth into it means those who accepted the preach. ing of John did so under the pressure of conscience, and in spite of opposition. 7 The reference to heaven and earth is for comparison, to indicate the permanence of the law until it had accomplished its purpose under God. 8 This is discussed in detail at Matthew 19:9. 9 I do not deny this story being a parable on the ground that it says a certain rich man. The word certain is used elsewhere where we know a parable is being spoken (chapter 20:9). A parable requires a comparison while there is none in this case, not even any words that necessarily have to be taken figuratively. Furthermore, there are so many facts of a circumstantial nature that it shows Jesus had some particular case in mind. It was a literal fact that rich men lived in such luxuries as are described of this one. 0 Sores is from a Greek word that is defined "ulcers" in the lexicon. Lazarus was afflicted so badly he had to be carried to be laid at the gate of the rich man. He was placed there as an object of charity, even as beggars today seek a prominent place on the streets where they can be seen by the public. 1 In addition to what he might receive from the crowds that would be passing in and out of the gate of such an estate, he might be given the crumbs or scraps taken up from the table of this rich man. The dogs licked his sores. That was no discomfort to the afflicted man, but the fact indicates his helpless condition. There was no one to treat and bind up the sores, but they were left to run openly, else the dogs would not have cared for it. 2 Abraham's bosom. In old times people reclined while eating, at tables only a few inches higher than the floor. The diners would lie on their sides and rest the head on one hand while serving themselves with the other. They lay at a 45-degree angle with the table, which placed the head of one person virtually in the bosom of the one behind him, and in very intimate cases the two would be very near each other. (See John 13:23.) Since the situation of Lazarus on earth pertained to food, it was fitting to represent him as lying in the bosom of Abraham, where he could partake with him of the good spiritual things in Paradise. Nothing is said of what disposition was made of the body of Lazarus, but. the rich man was buried, which is to remind us that his body remained on the earth after his spirit was placed in Hades. 3 We have just read that the rich man was buried after his death. People are buried in the earth only, hence this man had something in his being besides his body that went elsewhere, and that could feel the sting of torments. For information about hell, see the note at Matthew 5:30. Abraham's bosom is explained in the preceding verse, and afar off will be considered at verse 26. 4 Father Abraham was said because he was a descendant of that patriarch. The rich man's brothers had Moses and the prophets (verse 29), which were given to the Jews only, hence we know he was of that race. Objectors criticize this verse on the ground that the rich man's body was buried on the earth, therefore he had no tongue to be tormented. The objection shows the utter lack of considering the subject fairly. The only part of a human being that has any feeling is the inner man. While body and soul are united, the latter exercises itself through the former as a vehicle only, for the body itself has no feeling. If it did have, a dead man, or one under an anesthetic would flinch from pain caused by contact with any disagreeable object. Therefore, when the inner man is freed from the in-cumbrance of the flesh, it will still maintain its ability to experience feelings. 5 Abraham addressed the rich man as son on the same basis as the latter called Abraham his father, as was explained at the preceding verse. Abraham told the rich man to remember some things that he had experienced while living on the earth. This indicates that persons in Hades or the intermediate state, will be able to recall their experiences which they had on the earth. Whether the same will apply when they enter the eternal state after. the judgment, is not revealed in the Scriptures. 6 Gulf is from CHASMA, which Thayer defines, "A gaping opening, a chasm, gulf." He then explains the definition to mean, "Equivalent to a great interval." Since this gulf is impassable, it separates the objects on each side virtually as much as if they were a great distance apart. This explains the phrase afar off in verse 23. Another truth that is taught here, is that no change can be made in the spiritual classification of human beings after death; this agrees with Revelation 22:11. 8 There is nothing said about what the five brothers were to do as to their manner of life. Lazarus was to be asked to testify, which means to bear witness as to the kind of place in which their dead brother was being tormented, to the end they might so live that they would avoid it. The rich man took for granted his brothers would know what changes they would have to make in their lives; also, that if they heard from one who had seen the fate of their brother, they would take warning and make the necessary reformation. 9 The brothers had the law of Moses which would lead them in the right way of life, if they would hear (heed) its teaching. 0 The object the rich man thought of accomplishing was the repentance of his brethren. The evidence shows that here was a family of the prosperous ranks of society, abusing their wealth and being unconcerned about the less fortunate ones. 1 Neither will they be persuaded. Again there is nothing said about being convinced of facts already taught in the Scriptures, but that the brothers might be induced to do what they knew was their duty. Rose from the dead. The rich man understood that in going back from Hades to the earth, one would need to be raised from the dead, and Abraham endorsed that idea by repeating it without any correction. This all proves that no communication ever takes place between men on earth and the spirits in the unseen world, hence the theory of spiritualism is a fraud. Even those who have been permitted to rise from the dead never said anything about information gained while dead. God expects men to be convinced by the testimony furnished them by living persons; that was verified by the miracles performed before their eyes. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 17 TO HIS Luke 17:1-10 Luke 17:1 ---And he said unto his disciples,—This chapter was probably spoken while Jesus was still in Perea, or on his way from Perea to Jerusalem; some, however, think that he was in Galilee. It does not matter, as we cannot trace the steps of Jesus with accuracy; it is not necessary to do this. This was spoken to his disciples; some of them had proved unfaithful; this may have called up the warnings given to the disciples at this time. The wickedness of men is such that it cannot well be otherwise than that “ occasions of stumbling should come.” The original from which “ impossible” comes is only found here in the New Testament. The wickedness of men, the snares and temptations of the devil, give rise or produce the occasion to cause people to stumble. (Romans 14:13.) A condemnation is placed upon the one “ through whom they come.”Luke 17:2 ---It were well for him if a millstone—“ Millstone” here means a common hand stone, not a large millstone which was turned by an ass, as in Matthew 18:6. Meal was ground in ancient times by taking one stone in the hand and pounding the grain on another stone which was firmly fixed on the ground or pavement; this was a hand mill. However, the stone was large enough to hold one down in the water. It was better then and is now that one suffer physical death rather than to cause any of God’ s children to stumble, even the least one of them. Hence, it is a fearful thing to cause any of God’ s people to stumble. Luke 17:3-4 ---Take heed to yourselves:—Here the warning comes with great force. They are to “ take heed” to themselves; it is well to watch the conduct of others that one does not stumble, yet it is better to take heed to ourselves. Christians may be the occasion of other’ s stumbling. Jesus had just spoken of the causes of stumbling and the fearful consequences that await the one who causes stumbling; he now warns his disciples that they need not look so far away from themselves; that they will find these occasions among themselves. “ If thy brother sin, rebuke him.” The word “ rebuke” is the same here in the original as in Luke 9:21; it implies an emphatic and solemn charge; strictly, it means to “ lay a penalty upon one” or “ to charge under penalty.” This rebuke should be administered in such a way as to bring about repentance. “ If he repent, forgive him.”And if he sin against thee seven times—“ Seven” is a term that must be taken indefinitely; it means “ very frequently,” “ very often.” (Matthew 12:45 Matthew 18:22; Luke 11:26.) “ Seven” is often used to denote a complete number; it is called a sacred number and is closely connected in the scriptures with for-giveness and retribution. (Leviticus 4:6 Leviticus 16:14 Leviticus 26:18 Leviticus 26:21 Leviticus 26:24 Leviticus 26:28; Psalms 79:12; Daniel 4:16; Revelation 15:1.) The meaning is that as often as one sins and repents and asks forgiveness, so often shall forgiveness be extended. The disciples of Jesus should exercise forbearance and forgiveness at all times; by keeping in this frame of mind, one will not be caused to stum¬ble by others sinning against him. Mutual concessions and mutual forgiveness are generally needed. It is well to com¬pare this precept for the private intercourse of Christians. (See Matthew 18:15-18.) Luke 17:5 ---And the apostles said unto the Lord,—The apostles felt that they were deficient in this spirit of forgiveness, which Jesus had enjoined upon them; this has been pointed out as the only instance that we have of “ the apostles” as a body saying anything to our Lord, or making any request. Doubtless they did make requests “ as a body”; Matthew 17:19 and Acts 1:6 seem to be other instances when they made requests of Jesus. Their request here is that their faith be increased. It is a prayer: “ Lord, increase our faith.” Jesus had frequently rebuked the lack of faith. (Matthew 8:26 Matthew 14:31 Matthew 17:19-21.) This is a prayer that all should pray; the literal meaning of the Greek seems to be “ add to us faith”; that is, “ give us more faith.” Possibly these disciples could have an¬swered their own prayer. Luke 17:6 ---And the Lord said, If ye had faith—Jesus now shows what faith would do; this was his way of answering their prayer. If they could see what faith could do, they could see how they could increase their faith. Jesus does not deny that they have faith, but said, “ If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye would say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up, and it would be rooted up." ‘‘ Grain of mustard seed” was a term used to indicate a very small degree of faith. (Mark 11:23; Luke 13:19.) “ Sycamine tree” was similar to the mulberry tree; it was different from the “ sycomore tree” in Luke 19:4; however, the names are sometimes confused, but a physician, as Luke was, would make a distinction, as both were used medically. In Matthew 17:20 we have “ mountain” in place of “ sycamine tree.” This faith manifestly has reference to that special fatih which was necessary to work miracles. It seems that the least degree of this faith was sufficient to perform such a miracle. Luke 17:7 ---But who is there of you, having a servant plowing—It is difficult to see the relation of these verses with that which precedes. However, it is introduced with “ but” which institutes a contrast. Yet as it is brought by Jesus in this connection, we may see that it comes in close connection. Even if the disciples should have such faith as to perform miracles, they should not be elated over such achievements and filled with pride. In exercising such faith and such an unselfish spirit as to forgive a penitent brother, though he should sin against one seven times a day, and one should think that he did not merit anything, yet one has only done his duty when forgiveness is extended. So in exercising miraculous faith, one has only done one’ s duty and merits no reward and should not be puffed up. A servant is supposed to obey his master, and when he is commanded to do anything when he has come into the house from the field, and is told to do something else, it is only his duty to do that. Luke 17:8 ---and will not rather say unto him,—The plowing and feeding the sheep were common duties of servants; serving the master in the house may be considered extra duties imposed on those who have served in the field; yet it is the duty of the servant to serve his master in the house. The additional service to the laborers of the field illustrates the patience and untiring obedience of the servants. The field labor was ordinary service; the preparation for the evening feast demanded of them, when they returned weary with toil, tested the principles of their zeal and fidelity to their master. We are to take this parable or illustration in the sense which lies on its surface, of the obligations strictly implied in the relation of a servant to a master. A faithful servant will obey promptly every command of the master. Luke 17:9 ---Doth he thank the servant—No special thanks are to be extended the servant for doing his duty. Being a faithful servant, he gladly gave the extra time and the larger measure of service, expecting nothing except the good will of the master. The servant will provide his master's meal and serve him while eating it, and then consider that he has done only his well-understood duty, but nothing that calls for special gratitude from his master. Luke 17:10 ---Even so ye also, when ye shall have done all the things— Jesus makes his own application. His disciples are to serve him faithfully; it matters not what the service may be; some services will be delightful— such as worshipping God and praising him; other services will be unpleasant— such as bearing burdens, suffering persecutions in his name, and ministering to the afflicted. With the apostles there were services of the ordinary disciple of Jesus; then there were the special works of the apostles, and miraculous gifts and other work of the Holy Spirit. However, after they had done everything, they were to say: “ We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do." “ Unprofitable” does not mean “ useless,” but having rendered no service beyond what was due. THE LEPER Luke 17:11-19 Luke 17:11 ---And it came to pass, as they were on the way to Jerusa-lem,—It seems that Jesus was on the border between Samaria and Galilee; others think that these things occurred as Jesus went through Galilee and Samaria. Some think that Jesus at this time traveled a more unfrequented route to avoid the conflicts that he might have when traveling the routes that the Jews usually traveled. Jesus was going from Ephraim north through the midst of Samaria and Galilee so as to cross over the Jordan near Bethshean and join the Galilean caravan down through Perea to Jerusalem. (John 11:54.) The Samaritans did not object to people going north away from Jerusalem, but did not like to see them going south toward the city. (Luke 9:51-56.) It is thought that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem to attend the feast of the tabernacles, which occurred in the seventh month of the Jewish year. Luke 17:12-13 ---And as he entered into a certain village,—We are not told what village this was; it is designated with the indefinite phrase “ a certain village." Lepers were considered unclean by the law; they were not allowed to enter towns and villages, but were often found near the gates begging of the travelers who passed by. (Leviticus 13:46; Numbers 5:2-3.) Oftentimes lepers went together; they were bound by common interests and sympathetic cords. There were ten lepers at the gates of this village as Jesus entered; they “ stood afar off." They were required by law to keep themselves from others so that others would not be defiled by them. They stood far off from the highway in order not to pollute anyone by contact with him. The law for this separation is found in Leviticus 13:45-46 and Numbers 5:2. We have an illustration of it in 2 Kings 15:5. and they lifted up their voices,—Being afar off they would have to lift “ up their voices," or speak loud enough or shout to those who pass by. They cried for mercy; they wanted help; this time they were not asking for alms. They said : “ Master, have mercy on us.” At another time a leper came to Jesus and asked to be healed. (Matthew 8:2-3.) Bartimaeus called Jesus “ son of David,” and asked for mercy. (Mark 10:47.) They asked Jesus to take pity on them, which included his healing them; while their prayer was gentle, the particular thing they wanted was to be healed. Luke 17:14 ---And when he saw them, he said unto them,—They got the attention of Jesus by their loud cry for mercy. The eyes and ears of Jesus were ever open to the cry of the distressed. They asked with a certain degree of faith; Jesus tested their faith by commanding them to go and show themselves “ unto the priests.” A leper, according to the law, when cured, was to show himself to the priest, who would admit him into the congregation, giving him a testimony or certificate of his cure. (Leviticus 13:1-6 Leviticus 14:1-32; Luke 5:14.) As they went their way, “ they were cleansed.” This was a severe test of their faith; they were not cleansed the moment Jesus spoke to them; they heard his command, and they began to obey him; they had started to the priest and were cleansed as they were thus obeying the command of Jesus. When they arrived at the house of the priest, they were ready for him to pronounce them healed. Luke 17:15-16 ---And one of them, when he saw—We are not told how far they had gone before they discovered that they were healed. It was sufficient distance to test their faith; possibly they had gone some distance from Jesus before one of them turned back, and “ with a loud voice” glorified God. This one was so overwhelmed with joy and gratitude that he wanted to give God the glory for his cleansing. The other nine did not return. The one who did return to give thanks was “ a Samaritan.” It was least expected that the Samaritan would praise God and thank Jesus; however, from the one from whom it was least expected came the greatest gratitude and praise. He not only gave open and loud expression of his praise to God, but “ he fell upon his face” at the feet of Jesus. It is remembered that the Jews and Samaritans had no dealings with each other. (John 4:9.) The one man who felt grateful enough to return and thank Jesus and praise God for his cleansing was a despised Samaritan. And Jesus answering said,—Only ten per cent of those who received the blessings here showed gratitude. There is something pathetic in the question that Jesus asked: “ But where are the nine?” Ten had been cleansed; one had returned to praise God and thank him; this one was a Samaritan — the least expected of the number. Jesus remembered everyone whom he blessed; he did not forget that he had cleansed ten, and he noticed that only one had returned. All were ready to receive a blessing; all cried for mercy; but nine were not as anxious to give praise and thanksgiving. Many today are far too much like the nine lepers. Luke 17:18-19 ---Were there none found that returned—This verse continues the thought introduced in the preceding verse. Some have thought that this Samaritan returned because he was not permitted to approach the priest and worship with the other nine. Jesus received no answer to his query, and he thus asks another one in this verse. “ Were there none found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger?” “ Stranger” here means an alien, foreigner, belonging to another nation. This “ stranger” probably had stronger faith than the other nine, or he would not have appealed to a prophet of the Jews, who were his enemies. After receiving no answer to his question Jesus said to the Samaritan who was prostrate at his feet (verse 16): “ Arise, and go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.” The Samaritan who had been cleansed was humble, grateful, and full of faith; it was according to his faith that he was made whole. It has been argued that Jesus cleansed the leper both in body and soul. THE COMING OF THE KINGDOMLuk_17:20-37 Luke 17:20-21 ---And being asked by the Pharisees,—Jesus had preached, as did John, that the kingdom of God ‘‘ was at hand”; he had taught his disciples to preach the same mes¬sage. Now the Pharisees come to him and ask him particularly “ when the kingdom of God cometh.” “ The kingdom of God” is equivalent to “ kingdom of heaven” in Matthew 3:2. “ The kingdom of God,” as a phrase, may have special reference to the owner of the kingdom, while “ kingdom of heaven” has special reference to its central locality. It is the same as “ kingdom of Christ,” or simply “ kingdom.” (Ephesians 5:5; Hebrews 12:28.) The prophets had foretold of a spiritual kingdom, but the Jews had misunderstood the nature of the kingdom and perverted the meaning of the prophecy so they were ex¬pecting an earthly and temporal kingdom. This kingdom of which Jesus taught was the same as his reign or administra¬tion, and was spiritual in its nature. (John 18:36; Romans 14:17.) We do not know what prompted the Pharisees to ask this question at this time; we are persuaded that they had no good motive in asking it. The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:—The original Greek from whence we get “ observation” is used only here in the New Testament. There is some measure of rebuke to the Pharisees in this statement; the progress of the kingdom could not be determined by visible marks like that of an earthly kingdom; its approach could not be observed by the senses, or its progress watched by its outward manifestations. This spiritual kingdom is not to be judged by outward show, political and military triumphs, or the glory of an external and conquering kingdom. This kingdom is not of such a nature that they could, with the fleshly senses, locate it either here or there. This kingdom “ is within you." Some translations put it “ among you," but “ within you" seems to be a better translation. Some think that “ within you" means that the kingdom was not within the Pharisees, and that Jesus is not speaking of the “ inwardness" of the kingdom, but of its “ presence."Luke 17:22 ---And he said unto the disciples,—Jesus now turns from the Pharisees and speaks to his disciples. He said that the day would come when they should “ desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it." It is difficult to determine just what Jesus means here; to what special event or clutter of events does Jesus here refer? It is thought that he had reference to the severe trials and struggles and progress that his kingdom would have; the time would come when they should “ desire to see one of the days of the Son of God.” “ One of the days" that they should desire to see may refer to one of the days that was then passing when mercy was offered by Jesus. During the life of Jesus the fate of the nation hung in the balance. If the disciples in times of dis¬couragement and despondency should wish again the earthly presence of their Lord, how much more would this be true of the Pharisees and the unbelieving Jews in the days of their dreadful calamities, when they shall discern and acknowledge too late the character and claim of the Messiah whom they rejected. Luke 17:23-24 ---And they shall say to you, Lo, there!—Jesus knew that after his departure from earth there would arise many false Christs whom his disciples would be urged to recognize and follow; he plainly warns them to give no attention to these false claims, nor endeavor to satisfy their longing desire for the personal presence of the Messiah by giving heed to those pretenders, who would throng the land, as the time of the righteous retribution of the nation drew near. for as the lightning,—The coming of the Messiah would not be from the earth, but from heaven; it would not be mani¬fested only in a certain place, but everywhere conspicuous, like the lightning, which “ shineth unto the other part under heaven.” The earthly presence of Christ while on earth was as clear and manifest as the lightning which flashes over and illuminates the whole heaven; so also his second coming will be manifest so that no one need be mistaken. (Matthew 24:30-31 Matthew 25:31.) No doubt or uncertainty will accompany his coming. The second advent of Christ will be so sudden, so clearly marked, and so unmistakable that true believers shall at once recognize it as the coming of their King; all should be ready for his coming. Some have thought that Jesus meant nothing more than the march of the Roman armies to destroy Jerusalem. This is entirely unsatisfactory as an explanation. Luke 17:25 ---But first must he suffer many things—The second advent must come after the cross. Here Jesus predicts his further persecution, his suffering, his crucifixion, his burial, his resurrection, and his ascension back to heaven. Since his coming is “ from” heaven, he must of necessity ascend back to heaven. He would be “ rejected of this generation”; in his condemnation to death and demanding his crucifixion he emphasized their rejection of the gospel and his kingdom. (Luke 23:18-21; John 19:15; Acts 3:13-15 Acts 7:51-52 Acts 13:46 Acts 28:25-28.) This rejection of Jesus was foretold by the prophets and fulfilled by the generation among whom Jesus moved at that time. In this rejection there was also implied the necessary sufferings of his disciples. (Matthew 10:24-25; Romans 8:17; 1 Peter 4:13.) Luke 17:26-27 ---And as it came to pass in the days of Noah,—The parallel record of this is found in Matthew 24:37-41. It has been argued by some that this has reference only to the second ad-vent of Christ, while others have argued that it has reference to the establishment of his kingdom and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army. A similarity exists between the condition of the people during the days of Noah and the condition that will exist when Christ comes again. Noah warned the people and told them of the impending flood; they refused to heed his warnings and went along in the daily affairs of their sinful life; they gave no heed to his warnings; “ they ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark.” They followed their sinful ways without giving any heed to his warning and were all destroyed. They ridiculed the idea of a flood and their own destruction. So their destruction came upon them when they least expected it. Luke 17:28-29 ---Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot;—Luke records two comparisons between the conditions at the second coming of Christ and former times; first he brings in contrast the manner of living just before the flood, and then the manner of living during the days of Lot. Lot was a sojourner of Sodom; the people were very wicked at that time. (2 Peter 2:5-6; Jude 1:7 Jude 1:14-15.) The suddenness of the doom of Sodom is recorded in Genesis 19:1-29. The people were eating, drinking, buying, selling, sowing, reaping, and building when the sudden destruction came upon the Sodomites. The suddenness of the destruction is indicated by its raining “ fire and brimstone from heaven.” Burning brimstone and sulphu¬rous flames came from heaven; God controls the elements as he wills. The account of the destruction of Sodom is given in Genesis 19:24 : “ Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Go-morrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven.”Luke 17:30 ---after the same manner shall it be in the day—With the same suddenness and unexpectedness shall the Son of man be revealed; when he shall appear the second time with all of his power and glory manifested, it will be with such suddenness that no one will have time to make further preparation; hence, the importance of watching and being ready. Many refer this to the destruction of Jerusalem; they claim that in such a manner will the sudden, unexpected, and tragical destruction of Jerusalem come. It seems that the destruction of Jerusa¬lem is first and typical of the coming of Christ and the destruction of all earthly things. Luke 17:31 ---In that day, he that shall be on the housetop,—A parallel of this may be found in Matthew 24:17-18. “ In that day” evidently means the day when “ the Son of man is revealed”; this would appear to refer primarily to his second coming, but may also be applied to its type, the destruction of Jerusalem, when the power of Christ, the King of kings, was revealed in judgment upon a wicked and unbelieving people. “ Housetop” literally means “ upon the house.” The houses in Palestine were built with flat roofs, and were close enough together that one who was on the housetop could travel from one house to another and finally reach the walls of the city and escape without coming down into the street. Many dwelt on the housetop as we now occupy “ the living room.” The admonition is not against “ coming down,” but against coming down “ to take” away “ his goods in the house.” There would be no use in attempting to save what household goods one had, when the sudden destruction came upon them. Luke 17:32 ---Remember Lot’ s wife.—Jesus again refers to the destruction of Sodom and reminds us that in addition to the destruction of the Sodomites Lot’ s wife was destroyed. She began to flee through the urgency of the angels, but she hesitated, looked back with longing desire, and even turned her face toward the doomed city, and perished in its destruction. Instead of following closely the steps of her husband, she turned her face toward the home she was unwillingly leaving and was destroyed. She became “ a pillar of salt.” (Genesis 19:26.) Thus she became a monument of the fearful consequences of delaying or refusing to obey God. Luke 17:33 ---Whosoever shall seek to gain his life shall lose it:—Here Jesus still further warns against any effort to save material things, or even one’ s life; when the destruction comes, whether it be that of Jerusalem or the destruction at the second coming of Christ, one should not give so much concern to earthly life or the material things that sustain it. Jesus here uses a proverbial saying that he frequently repeated. (Matthew 10:39 Matthew 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; John 12:25.) “ But whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.” The one who seeks to preserve his life by neglecting or refusing to do God’ s will shall lose his life; but the one who is willing to sacrifice his own life for the sake of Christ shall gain eternal life. He shall not, if he is faithful to God, perish among those who are wicked at the second coming of Christ. Luke 17:34-35 ---I say unto you, In that night—“ In that night” or “ on this night” when Christ comes. It is equivalent to “ in that day.” (Verse 31.) In representing the close and intimate fellowship denoted by two occupying the same bed, it would be natural to say “ in that night” being the time when persons were accustomed to being in bed. Christ is represented as coming “ as a thief in the night” (1 Thessalonians 5:2) and at a time when no one is expecting him (Matthew 24:44). “ Two men on one bed,” may be a “ dining couch,” so some think. One of them shall be taken and the other forsaken; one may be faithful to the Lord and the other unfaithful. Another illustration is given—“ two women grinding together”— one of them should be taken and the other left. Grain was ground by a hand mill, and as women generally prepared the meal, the grinding was done by women. Luke 17:36 --Some ancient authorities add verse 36: “ There shall be two men in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.” This verse is recorded in Matthew 24:40. The Revised Version omits verse 36 on good authority. It carries with it the same force as the other two illustrations, and does not add anything to the teachings. Some think that it is an interpolation from Matthew since the oldest manuscripts do not contain it; it is omitted by the highest and best critical authorities. Luke 17:37 ---And they answering say unto him, Where, Lord?—The question here asked by his disciples is: “ Where shall this take place?” Where shall this separation for life and death take place? The disciples could not appreciate the spiritual truths of their Master’ s teaching. They did not understand the nature of his kingdom, or the nature of his first advent; they could not comprehend his teaching on his second advent. Jesus replied that where there is a carcass there will be the eagles to devour it; wherever there may be these great sins, crying to God for retribution, there the agents of God’ s retribution will come down and pour their vials upon the place. Luke, more than Matthew or Mark, notices the questions which gave rise to the teachings presented here. The disciples seem to have been excited with mingled surprise and fear; their question gave Jesus an opportunity to declare that punishment will not be confined to any one spot, but will be inflicted where sin may be found. The simple meaning seems to be that as surely as the eagles gather around a lifeless body, so surely will the Son of man come to judgment. Verse 1 In this chapter, the teaching of Jesus is continued by four definite pronouncements, which are perhaps highlights of an extensive discourse, the exact connection of which is difficult to discern, (Luke 17:1-10), the healing of ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19), and the teaching concerning the second coming of the Lord (Luke 17:20-37). Between Luke 17:10 and Luke 17:11, Christ made a journey to Jerusalem for the purpose of raising Lazarus from the dead; and yet the only notice of that journey here is found in the words, "As they were on the way to Jerusalem" (Luke 17:11). The marvelous significance of this will be noted under that verse. And he said unto his disciples, It is impossible but that occasions of stumbling should come; but woe unto him through whom they come. It were well for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, rather than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.(Luke 17:1-2) This is the first of four sayings, held by many to be independent teachings of Jesus, unconnected with the discourse or circumstance in which Luke has placed them. Of course, if that is what they are, there can be no finding fault with such an arrangement by the sacred historian; because Mark also frequently reported such independent items of Jesus' marvelous teaching. This writer, however, strongly feels that there is a connection which will be noted in each of the four sayings. Jesus had just finished the parable of Dives and Lazarus, which closed with the implication that Dives had influenced his five brothers to follow a sinful course, an error which he vainly sought to correct from the spirit world. Jesus quite logically moved to warn those yet living against such a sin. Spence agreed that "There does seem a clear connection here with the narrative immediately preceding."Luke 2 p. 86">[1] After noting the opinions of many to the contrary, Geldenhuys also said, "It appears to us that there is a unity between the various pronouncements and that (although Luke does not say so) they were uttered on one and the same occasion."[2]Hobbs thought the four sayings might be entitled "Four things of which the Christian should beware." These were enumerated by him as "the sin of tempting others (Luke 17:1-2), ... the sin of an unforgiving spirit (Luke 17:3-4), ... the sin of overlooking the power of faith in this (Luke 17:5-6), ... and the sin of supposing that one may merit salvation (Luke 17:7-10).[3] We fully agree with Hobbs that there are four pronouncements here, not merely two, as indicated by the paragraphing in the English Revised Version (1885). The Pharisees, who were constantly on the fringe of every audience Jesus ever addressed, were at that very moment trying to cause the Twelve themselves to stumble; and Jesus spoke in the most stern manner against those who would pervert the faith of others. Occasions of stumbling ... Bliss observed that the Greek word rendered "meant the trigger of a trap, contact with which would cause the trap to spring."[4] Therefore, although addressed to his disciples, this warning far exceeded anything that the Twelve might have needed. It is God's pronouncement of eternal wrath against those who lay a trap to destroy the faith of others. One of these little ones ... is a characteristic reference of Jesus to those who are "babes in Christ," whose faith is young and weak. Millstone ... The teaching here is that physical death is a far more desirable fate than that which is reserved for those whose intent is to destroy the faith of others. The millstone in view here weighed about forty pounds; and, although Matthew quoted the Lord as referring to "a millstone drawn by an ass," a much larger stone, those commentators who style that a contradiction must be kidding. A forty-pound stone around the neck would have the same effect as a stone ten times as large, if the wearer of either were thrown into the sea. Luke 2 p. 86">[1] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke 2 p. 86 [2] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 431. [3] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 245. [4] George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press, n.d.) p. 258. Verse 3 Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent forgive him. And if he sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times turn to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.Jesus often taught on the subject of forgiveness. Just about the longest parable in the New Testament regards this very thing (Matthew 18:20-35); and there is no need to make Luke's account here a "variable" of other teachings of Jesus in similar words and different circumstances. In fact, there is a little different thing in view here, namely, a warning against withholding forgiveness (when it has been asked for). Nor can we agree with Wesley that "forgiveness is due only to real penitents."[5]Summers was nearer the true meaning of Jesus when he wrote: It is foreign to the intent of Jesus to ask, "But what if he does not repent?" ... The follower of Jesus is not justified in holding a spirit of unforgiveness just because no apology is offered. That would put the responsibility for the Christian's attitude upon the offender; and that Jesus would never do.[6]This subject is more extensively developed in this writer's my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 6:14-15. As a matter of fact, if one is going to forgive only those sinners against himself who repent and request it, he will not forgive anyone ten times in a lifetime! Besides that, what about those cases in which men sin against othersWITHOUT EVER BEING AWARE that they have done so? And in religious matters, many sins are committed unintentionally (see John 16:2). [5] John Wesley, Notes on the New Testament (Naperville, Illinois: Alec. R. Allenson, Inc., 1950), en loco. [6] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974), p. 197. Verse 5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith. And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye would say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou rooted up, and be thou planted in the sea; and it would obey you.This is the third of the four pronouncements. The apostle's reaction to the command of Jesus for what amounts to unlimited forgiveness appeared to them such a monstrous task that they supposed they needed a special measure of faith to be able to comply with it. The teaching here is that the faith they had was more than enough to enable it, provided only that they got on with the DOING of it. Apostles ... Lord ... Those commentators who suppose that these terms were retrospectively incorporated in Luke's Gospel at a time long after the events, and at a time when the early church had "developed" these words are wrong. Jesus himself named the Twelve "apostles" (Luke 6:13); and they referred to Jesus as "Lord," using the word as a reference to the Godhead. Drowning Peter cried out, saying, "Lord, save me," and this student of the word of God will never consent to view these words as the equivalent of "Rabbi, save me" (Matthew 14:30). Sycamine tree ... "This word sometimes means the mulberry tree, sometimes the sycamore."[7]What did Jesus means by this promise? There are two things in it: (a)the forgiveness of those who sin against us is, humanly speaking, an impossibility, comparable to the outlandish wonder in view here; and (b) the faith of Christians, without any providential increase of it, is more than enough to enable it to be done. Miller was right in affirming that such a wonder as Jesus promised here suggests "that genuine faith can accomplish what experience, reason, and probability would deny, if it is exercised within God's will."[8] Hobbs was sure that no miraculous ability was promised Christians in this; because, said he, "We cannot even transplant violets in a garden, to say nothing of transplanting trees from the land into the sea."[9] Jesus' true meaning is found in the Jewish usage of such extravagant figures of speech. "Rabbis of intellectual eminence were often called `uprooters of mountains' in allusion to their powers of solving difficult questions";[10] and, significantly, Matthew quoted Jesus using the term "mountain" in this same context on another occasion (Matthew 17:20). This, of course, is the same figure and should be understood spiritually. [7] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 762. [8] Donald G. Miller, The Layman's Commentary (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1959), p. 125. [9] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 247. [10] John William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 182. Verse 7 But who is there of you, having a servant plowing or keeping sheep, that will say unto him, when he is come in from the field, Come straightway and sit down to meat; and will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, until I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank the servant because he did the things that were commanded? Even so ye also, when ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do.This remarkable parable is clearly a lesson designed to teach humility, obedience, and a sense of lacking any merit in the sight of God. The apparent connection in context is this: the apostles contemplating the marvelous spiritual attainments indicated by Jesus' promise that they had the faith to move trees into the sea would naturally be tempted to pride and vainglory by such envisioned achievements. This parable was to show that no man can merit salvation. This parable is hailed by Trench as one of "great difficulty";[11] especially because it presents the relationship of Jesus and his followers in a much sterner aspect than in most of his teachings. Did the Lord not say, "I have called you friends," and that "no longer do I call you servants"? (John 15:15). While this is true, Paul did not hesitate to call himself the "bondservant" of Jesus (Romans 1:1); and this sterner aspect of the Christian's relationship to the Lord needed stress then, and it needs it now. For example, the glaring misuse of this parable surfaces in a comment like this: "Men who only carry out God's commands have no claim on any reward!"[12] Jesus said, "If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17); and there is absolutely nothing in this parable to indicate that the obedient servant was denied his true reward. As a matter of fact, there was never a servant on earth who did "all that was commanded," as did this one; and therefore he should be called the "hypothetical servant," for that is exactly what he is, as indicated by the supposition (for the sake of the hypothesis) that the twelve apostles would have been bondservants (Luke 17:7)! It is the failure to discern this key fact that has confused the exegetes. Some have tried to get around the difficulty Trench mentioned by supposing that this is a parable of the religious establishment, so clearly discernible in practically all of the parables in this section. Both Grotius and Venema were cited by Trench as alleging the parable as a representation of the scribes, Pharisees, etc.;[13] but that is absolutely impossible. To view them as having "done all that was commanded, contradicts everything Jesus said about that class of leaders. But is it not true also that no Christian who ever lived did "all that was commanded"? Indeed it is. The message of this hypothetical servant is, therefore, that even if any person whosoever, Jew or Gentile, should actually do "all that was commanded" (repeated twice in the parable), he would not by such obedience place Almighty God in a position of being debtor to him. Salvation is by grace. No man ever did, or ever could, merit God's redeeming love; but, make no mistake about it, this is no promise that God will overlook the principle of obedience in them that hope to be saved. If one performing all that God commanded, if such a thing were possible, is saved by grace, as appears here, how utterly beyond redemption is that man who fancies that there is no requirement for him to obey? Ash summarized the teaching here thus: Man can never repay God's natural blessings, much less those bestowed by grace. The claim of love can never be fully discharged. Man cannot earn heaven.[14]Russell, in his summary, expressed it thus: "This rebukes the self-satisfied Christian who thinks that in obeying God he has done something especially meritorious."[15]THE HEALING OF THE TEN LEPERSInterpreter's Bible denies this miracle as having happened, stating that "It is probably a variant of Luk 5:12 f ... (Luke) has increased the numbers of lepers from one to ten!"[16] There is no way to justify such a comment; and there is no way to justify churches in purchasing such comments and making them available as "authentic Christian literature" in their libraries. [11] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 476. [12] S. MacLean Gilmour, The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), Vol. VII, Luke, p. 297. [13] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 478. [14] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972), p. 78. [15] William J. Russell, op. cit., p. 182. [16] S. MacLean Gilmour, op. cit., p. 297. Verse 11 And it came to pass, as they were on the way to Jerusalem, that he was passing along the borders of Samaria and Galilee.On the way to Jerusalem ... This is the third and final of the three references in this long section of Luke, in which it is mentioned that they were on the way to Jerusalem. The three references to the fact that Jesus was on the way to Jerusalem are Luke 9:51; Luke 13:22, and this verse Luke 17:11. Ash's comment that "Jesus is always on the way but is no closer to Jerusalem at the last than at the first"[17] discloses an amazing failure to integrate this portion of Luke with the Gospel of John. Robertson said: John gives us three journeys, - the Feast of the Tabernacles (John 7:2), the journey to raise Lazarus (John 11:17), and the final Passover (John 12:1). Luke likewise three times in this section speaks of Jesus going to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51; Luke 13:22; and Luke 17:11). It would seem possible, even probable that these journeys correspond. ... This plan is followed by various modern scholars.[18]There was, of course, one mighty, well-coordinated journey to Jerusalem during the last few months of Jesus' ministry; and all of this long Lukan section deals with what Jesus did in that thorough campaign. However, three different times, Jesus interrupted the journey to go into the great religious capital of Israel on specific missions, each time returning to take up the final campaign as before. It is to that which this verse refers. Between this and Luke 17:10, Jesus had gone to Bethany to raise Lazarus from the dead, after which he withdrew for a while to Ephraim in the hills north of Jerusalem, later going through Samaria and Galilee to resume that campaign trip to Jerusalem. Along the borders of Samaria and Galilee ... It will be noted that the English Revised Version (1885) margin renders this place "through the midst of Samaria and Galilee"; and, according to Robertson, that is correct. Regardless of which reading is used, what Jesus did was to go through Samaria (first) and then through Galilee to the point where he took up the "journey." Robertson has this comment on that journey: When the Passover was approaching, Jesus went from that region (Ephraim, John 11:54) northward through Samaria into the southern and southeastern part of Galilee, so as to fall in with the pilgrims going from Galilee through Perea to Jerusalem. We again combine Luke's account with that of John in easy agreement.[19]Thus, Luke 17:11 appears as one of the key references in understanding the harmony of the Gospels. Interrelated with the corresponding passages in John, Luke's mention of Jesus' going to Jerusalem is understood, not as mere verbosity, but as accurately related to the three great journeys of the Gospel of John. According to Robertson, the first great scholar to uncover this exceedingly important connection was Wiesler.[20][17] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 7. [18] A. T. Robertson, Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 278. [19] Ibid., p. 139. [20] Ibid., p. 278. Verse 12 And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, who stood afar off.Ten lepers ... The dreadful malady of leprosy was a terrible scourge of Mid-East cities in the times of Christ; and, for that matter, still is. The disease itself was considered a type of sin, not necessarily related to specific sins of the victims. Their standing afar off was required by the Old Testament law (Leviticus 13:45 f). Verse 13 And they lifted up their voices, saying, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.These men made common cause in their wretchedness. Cox said: Think what their affliction had done for them! (a) It brought them to a common level, causing them to forget racial hatred. Sin reduced men to a common level before God. (b) It made them unclean, (c) isolated them, and (d) made them hopeless.[21]ENDNOTE: [21] Frank L. Cox, According to Luke (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1941), p. 52. Verse 14 And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go and show yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, as they went, they were cleansed.The marvelous diversity of methods in Jesus' miracles is a mark of their divine originality. Some were healed in one circumstance, some in others; most were healed instantaneously; one or two were healed in stages; some were touched by Jesus, others were not; some were commanded to tell it, others forbidden to tell it; some upon the basis of their own faith, others upon the faith of friends; some were healed in his presence, others in absentia; and, true to such diversity, there is a unique angle here, in that they were commanded to go show themselves to the priests (a necessary requirement of the Law, before they could be pronounced cured and reenter society); and they were healed en route! No forger could have imagined a circumstance like this. Verse 15 And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, with a loud voice glorifying God.Loud voice ... An almost total failure of the voice is one of the symptoms of leprosy; and, as Trench remarked, "It is not for naught that we are told that he returned `with a loud voice glorifying God'."[22]ENDNOTE: [22] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 360. Verse 16 And he fell upon his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan.This gratitude of the Samaritan, Ash rightly understood as typical of "the future acceptance of the Christian mission by Gentiles."[23] The obduracy of Israel also appears in the ingratitude of the nine. ENDNOTE: [23] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 80. Verse 17 And Jesus answering said, Were not the ten cleansed? but where are the nine? Were there none found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger?Sadness seems to have been the dominant emotion as Jesus contemplated the ingratitude of the nine. How could men be so thoughtless and unappreciative of God's favors? Why, it may be asked, did the nine not return? One waited to see if the cure was real. One waited to see if it would last. One said he would see Jesus later. One decided that he had never had leprosy. One said he would have gotten well anyway. One gave the glory to the priests. One said, O well, Jesus didn't really DO anything. One said, just any rabbi could have done it. One said, "I was already much improved." "How often do the love and life of the pardoned sinner fail to respond to the grace that saved him!"[24]These lepers had come to Jesus in the extremity of a most loathsome and pitiful disease; they pleaded with him to help, and he healed them; but nine of them never even said, "Thanks." Barclay developed a sermon on ingratitude from this text stressing: (1) the ingratitude of children to their parents, (2) the ingratitude toward our fellow men, and (3) man's ingratitude toward God.[25]Except this stranger ... Significant words indeed are these. This very word, "foreigner" ([@allogenes]) is found on the limestone block from the temple of Israel in Jerusalem. It was placed in the court of the Gentiles next to the Court of the Women. "Let no foreigner enter," it said. Alas, a foreigner might not be permitted to enter the Jewish part of the temple (upon penalty of death); but one "foreigner," or "stranger," found grace with the Lord of the temple![26]Twice in this episode, the worship of the healed Samaritan, was called "giving God the glory" (Luke 17:15; Luke 17:18); and as it was Jesus whom he worshipped, we must understand that Jesus is God in human form; worshiping Jesus is worshiping God. Both the sacred historian and the Christ himself teach this in this passage. [24] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), Vol. II, p. 219. [25] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), p. 226. [26] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 250. Verse 19 And he said unto him, Arise, and go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.Ingratitude was punished, and gratitude was rewarded. The nine received physical healing; the one received in addition the salvation of his soul. "Jesus commended only the faith which said, `Thank you'!"[27]ENDNOTE: [27] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 80. Verse 20 And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them, and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you.Being asked by the Pharisees ... Some have made it out that these were sincere questioners; but all of the evidence is against it. "Their question amounted to a request for a `sign from heaven'."[28] Ash also saw this as "a rejection of the `signs' Jesus had already performed, and of what he had (already) said upon the subject."[29] Geldenhuys thought the Pharisees might have been sincere; but the view here is that these old enemies of Jesus were up to their old tricks. "The question was probably a mocking one, `When is this kingdom of God of which thou sayest so much, and of which thou claimest to be King, visibly to appear?'"[30]Cometh not with observation ... means that the kingdom would not visibly appear at all. There would be no proclamation of a king, in the political sense, no definition of boundaries, no setting up of any kind of material state at all. Hobbs noted that the word here translated "observation" is from the vocabulary of Greek medical writers (Luke being a physician), and that the word meant "closely watching the symptoms of heart disease."[31]The kingdom of God is within you ... Special attention is due this statement, because of the error that is associated with it in popular thought. Summers declared: "One thing only can be derived from this ... Jesus' emphasis of the kingdom as internal and spiritual, not external and material."[32] There is an element of truth in such a comment; but it must not be understood as teaching that the kingdom is simply something that gets into men. Summers appears to have had something like that in mind, basing his conclusion upon the fact that the word here translated "within" occurs only twice in the New Testament, the other instance being Matthew 23:26 where "the word refers to the inside of a cup or a dish." This, however, is not the whole story. The word in Matthew (used with an article) is a noun, and here it is an adverb; and W. E. Vine particularly stressed that, in Luke 17:21, "The English Revised Version margin, "in the midst of," is to be preferred. The kingdom of God was not in the hearts of the Pharisees!"[33]Geldenhuys has an especially pertinent comment on this, thus: The contention of some critics that the Saviour by these words taught that the kingdom of God is merely an inner, spiritual condition in the human heart, must very definitely be rejected. Such a condition may qualify for entrance into the kingdom, but it is not itself the kingdom ... It is not ... a state of mind ... nor a disposition of men. The kingdom of God is a fact of history, not psychology ... Jesus speaks everywhere of men entering the kingdom, not of the kingdom entering men!"[34]Lo here ... lo there ... In the next paragraph (Luke 17:22-37), Jesus explained that the external, visible "signs" so desired by the Pharisees were to be seen, not during the forthcoming church phase of the kingdom of God, but at the Second Advent. We agree with Barclay that " Luke 17:22-27 speak of the Second Coming of Jesus."[35]That there are, in the very nature of such a passage, difficulties that we cannot fully understand should not deter us. The things here prophesied shall surely come to pass. [28] E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 166. [29] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 80. [30] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 762. [31] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 251. [32] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 202. [33] W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1962), p. 224. [34] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., pp. 443-444. [35] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 229. Verse 22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.This verse is a reference to the present dispensation, during which Christians, oppressed by temptations and tribulations, will, like the Pharisees of old, desire to see just such cataclysmic events as they wanted to see, and which they erroneously understood would usher in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus shows here that those great physical, cataclysmic disorders and cosmic signs shall indeed come to pass (at the Second Coming,) but not now. Like the martyred saints, Christians who find themselves a conscious, hated minority in society, reviled, and set at naught by a hostile secular world, will cry, "How long?" (Revelation 6:10); but the end is not yet. Verse 23 And they shall say to you, Lo there! Lo, here! Go not away, nor follow after them: for as the lightning, when it lighteneth out of the one part under the heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall the Son of man be in his day.The word here is clear enough. The Second Coming of Christ will be an event that all men shall see and recognize instantly. It will in no manner resemble the unostentatious, concealed, unrecognized coming of the Saviour in the First Advent. Like a stroke of lightning at midnight, saints and sinners alike shall see it; and "all the tribes of the earth shall mourn for him" (Matthew 24:30). The Second Advent will be bad news for the vast majority of mankind; but it will not be the kind of news any man will be able to ignore. Verse 25 But first must he suffer many things and be rejected of this generation.The satanic insinuation that Jesus expected his glory in the final phase of the kingdom to come shortly to pass is here refuted. The Lord envisaged a time-lapse, measured not in years, but in generations. There is an abundance of this in the New Testament; but some seem unwilling to see it. Jesus here clearly predicted that his contemporaries would reject the message he came to deliver. See under Matthew 26:13. Jesus in this verse announced that a gloomy state of things would prevail on earth before his Second Advent. As Spence said: The torch of religious feeling will have waned in that unknown and possibly distant future when Messiah shall reappear, and will be burning with a pale, faint light. The bulk of mankind will be given up to sensuality .... They will argue that the sun rose yesterday, and on many yesterdays, and of course it will rise again tomorrow, etc.[36]Some have vainly supposed that Christianity, like some conquering army, will sweep over every land, capturing the whole world for Jesus, binding all the world, and laying it in golden chains at the blessed Redeemer's feet. Would to God it could be true. Jesus, however, did not look forward to any such results. "When he cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8). The next few verses tell how it really will be. ENDNOTE: [36] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 90. Verse 26 And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it also be in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise, even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.Significantly, these were cataclysmic physical disasters. The Dead Sea today lies on the site of the cities of the plain which were destroyed by the cataclysm mentioned here. The ravages of the flood were genuine, worldwide, and attested not merely in the word of God, but by the legends of fabled Atlantis and many others. Moreover, there is hardly a hill on earth that does not show signs of once having been beneath the sea. The fact that Jesus selected these two great physical phenomena from the Old Testament, making them comparable to the Second Advent, is a clear word that the Second Advent will also be such a physical thing; a cataclysm of unbelievable and unprecedented destruction; and that in the midst of the Great Disaster, the Son of man will appear to redeem the faithful from the earth, who shall be caught up with the "Lord in the air" (see 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). Men either believe this or they don't; and this writer, striving to read the word of the Lord aright, it, with no pretensions whatever of being able to EXPLAIN it. We shall not detail all of the incidents relative to Noah and Lot; those Old Testament narratives should be well known to every Christian; and the lesson here is not what happened to those generations, but what is going to happen to all the world and the generation that abides when the Lord shall come. Verse 30 After the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed.Harrison pointed out that "Both in the case of Noah, and that of Lot, God's people were taken away from the scene of Judgment before it occurred."[37] Paul indicated that the same will be the case with Christians when the final Disaster falls (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). Other analogies which we are perhaps justified in drawing are: (1) faith will virtually have ceased on earth; (2) men will be busy in the same old ways, pursuing their same old interests; (3) materialism will have won the minds of men; (4) the utmost security shall be felt by men; (5) all appeals regarding the worship of God shall be scoffed at; (6) the Second Coming shall be an instantaneous thing, like lightning; (7) it shall be worldwide, occurring everywhere simultaneously, and therefore involving the totality of the earth and its enveloping atmosphere; (8) the Christians shall be caught up out of the "conflagration" and shall suffer no harm from it; (9) Jesus and his holy angels shall deliver them; they shall ever be with the Lord. These analogies, some of which are in the text here, and some of which have been imparted into it from the writings of Paul, are all nevertheless true. ENDNOTE: [37] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 249. Verse 31 In that day, he that shall be on the housetop, and his goods in the house, let him not go down to take them away: and let him that is in the field not return back. Remember Lot's wife.Jesus used some of this teaching when he gave the combined answers regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world; but here it is their application to the latter event which is in view, the application being, not so much to the prohibiting of anyone's wishing to turn back AFTER the Great Event has begun to unfold, as it is to the PRIOR temptation to turn back, in their hearts, to secular and material things, even as Lot's wife did, a temptation that will be unusually strong in the society that shall prevail at the end. Verse 33 Whosoever shall seek to gain his life shall lose it: but whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.This is a reiteration of the gospel message to all people. Those who run their lives as they please shall be lost. Those who submit to the lordship of Jesus Christ shall be saved. Verse 34 I say unto you, In that night, there shall be two men on one bed; and the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. There shall be two women grinding together; ... Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.In that night ... contrasts with "in that day" (Luke 17:31); and some of the ancient skeptics scoffed at the idea that Jesus' coming could be both at night and in the daytime also; but present knowledge of the fact that it is always night on part of the earth, and always day on the other part, has eliminated the question from the writings of modern critics. Shall be taken ... shall be left ... Which of these refers to the saved, which to the unsaved? From 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, it would appear that the saved are the ones who shall be "taken." Harrison, however, cautioned that "TAKEN is often applied to saints, but it may refer to the gatherings of offenders to judgment (Matthew 13:42)."[38] The evidence, however, favors the other view. ENDNOTE: [38] Ibid., p. 250. Verse 37 And they say unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Where the body is, thither will the eagles also be gathered together.This enigmatic statement is difficult of understanding; and perhaps it was not intended to be otherwise. Even the word "eagles" is stoutly maintained by some to be "vultures," and other scholars, as in the English Revised Version (1885), insist on translating it "eagles." The body ... In all probability, this refers to the body of mankind, at last completely dead in sin, demanding by their sins and rebellion against God that the final judgment be executed upon them; just as a dead body would draw vultures, so humanity that is morally dead will inevitably draw the judgment of God upon them. "As surely as a carcass draws birds of prey, so sin would draw judgment, and there would the Messiah be found."[39] Also Bruce wrote, "Where there is a situation ripe for divine judgment, the executors of that judgment will unerringly find it out, just like vultures find the carrion."[40] However, it should be remembered that Jesus was not here speaking of just any situation ripe for judgment, but of the final and terminal situation with the posterity of Adam, when at last, their day of grace expired, God shall make an end of all human probation, summoning all people to the judgment of the Great White Throne. [39] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 84. [40] F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), p. 56. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 The foregoing paragraph does not excuse any particular man who causes another to stumble. Being drowned will not exempt a guilty man from the punishment that will otherwise be due him after the judgment. The statement is used only as a contrast, to give an idea of the severity of that punishment. Little children, in the ordinary sense of that word, are not responsible and hence cannot stumble over wrong doing. Therefore the little ones are those described at Matthew 18:5; Matthew 18:10. 3 This verse corresponds in thought with Matthew 18:15. 4 This verse means the same as Matthew 18:21-22. 5 From the strictness of the law that Jesus just gave the apostles, they realized it would require a strong faith to comply with it, and hence made this request. 6 This verse is explained at Matthew 17:20. 7 he question Jesus asked was an introduction to an important lesson. 8 The question in the preceding verse implied a negative answer; this verse states the positive answer. 9 The servant would not even expect to be thanked for what he had done, knowing it was in line with his regular duty. Trow is an obsolete word for "think." 0 Unprofitable servants means they did nothing beyond their duty. To be profitable, one must contribute more to another than he receives from him. That could not be done by any human being in rendering service to an infinite God. 1 Galilee and Samaria were between where Jesus was and Jerusalem. The significance of Samaria will be brought out at verse 16. 2 Which stood afar off is explained at Matthew 8:2. 3 Since they were standing off at the proper distance, the lepers had to raise their voices in order (as they thought) for Jesus to recognize their cry for mercy. 4 Show yourselves to the priests. This was in accordance with a law of Moses, and it is commented upon at Matthew 8:4. 5 One of the lepers, all of whom were healed, showed his gratitude by returning to Jesus and attributing to the Lord the credit for his recovery. 6 In eastern countries, to fall at the feet of another was an expression of humility and respect. He was a Samaritan is a significant phrase. The Jews had a dislike for the Samaritans, and thought they were about incapable of performing anything of importance. The mere mention of this man's nationality, in connection with his exceptional conduct of gratitude, was intended at. a rebuke for the Jews. 8 Jesus then called this lone thankful one of the group a stranger because he was from an "outside" nation, that being the meaning of the word stranger. 9 Made thee whole included his spiritual salvation. The ten were all healed, but this blessing was not pronounced upon the nine. 0 The Pharisees thought Jesus was going to set up a kingdom like those of the world, and they were curious to see the signs of its approach. Observation is rendered "outward show" in the margin, which is correct. 1 It not being a kingdom with literal boundaries and material symbols, it would not be possible for any man to point to such evidences. Is within you. This phrase has been perverted by those who ma7ntain that the kingdom was set up in the lifetime of Christ, because the present tense (is) was used by Jesus. The kingdom as a government in fact was not built then, but one phase of the word did exist as Jesus was speaking. (See the long note at Matthew 3:2.) The heart of man is the territory of the king from heaven, and that territory was and still is within or on the inside of human beings. Just when that territory was fully taken over by the king is another question. That fact took place on the day of Pentecost, recorded in Acts 2. 2 From this verse through the end of the chapter the subject matter corresponds with Matthew 24, except it is much more brief. It will be well for the reader to examine that chapter with the comments, before going further in the present place. Like the chapter in Matthew, this one considers the destruction of Jerusalem and the second coming of Christ as two separate events, and he warns his disciples not to get the two mixed. During the siege of Jerusalem the distresses were to be so great that the disciples would long for the days when Jesus was with them. That is what is meant by one of the days of the Son of man which they would remember and long for. 3 Some would take advantage of the disturbances to declare it to be the approach of Christ in his second coming. 4 The comparison between lightning and the second coming of Christ is commented upon quite fully at Matthew 24:27. 5 The preceding verse predicts the second coming of Christ, an event many centuries in the future when Jesus was here. Like it is in Matthew's account, Jesus alternates between the two periods. In the present verse he drops back from the second coming to predict another important fact to occur first (or before the second coming), which was his own personal sufferings. That experience was to end in his crucifixion and death, all of which would be a factor in the distress referred to above. (See Matthew 27:25, with the comments.) 7 These verses are identical in meaning with Matthew 24:37-38. 8 The remarks about what the people were doing in the days of Lot, receive the same comments that are cited from the preceding verses. 9 From this verse through 32, the Lord is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem. He is making the point that, when the evidences of that event are apparent, the disciples should lose no time in "fleeing to the mountains" (Matthew 24:16), because there would not be much more time for escape. As an argument on that point, he states that the raining of fire on Sodom came the same day that Lot escaped from the city. 0 Son of man is revealed means when Jesus will be represented by the fulfillment of his predictions against the wicked city of Jerusalem. 1 In that day, etc., means the day of the destruction of Jerusalem. 2 The preceding verse closes with the words not return back, and the present one recalls the fate of Lot's wife because she was too much interested in the city from which she had just escaped. Likewise, when the disciples see the destruction of Jerusalem is virtually at hand, they should flee without delay, lest a fate overtake them as serious as that of Lot's wife; not just like it, but as bad. 3 The Saviour here has in mind the spiritual preparation for the second great event, so that it may not find a man among those that will be left. The two kinds of life are explained at Matthew 10:39. 6 For the meaning of this paragraph, especially on the words taken and left, see the comments at Matthew 24:40-41. 7 Jesus comes back to the destruction of Jerusalem. The significance of the eagles in connection with the event is explained at Matthew 24:28. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 18 THE JUDGE Luke 18:1-8 Luke 18:1 ---And he spake a parable unto them—Luke is the only writer that records this parable. It is thought that Jesus was still in Perea when he gave this parable, and that it grew out of the preceding conversation. It was given “ to the end that they ought always to pray, and not to faint.” It is observed that Luke, more than any of the other writers, notices Jesus at prayer; he relates several parables of Jesus on prayer. (Luke 11:5-10 Luke 18:9-14.) The disciples of Jesus can pray at all times; they should pray at regular and stated times; there is no time when they may not pray. The spirit of prayer should be kept constant and alive by exercise. (1 Thessalonians 5:17.) They should pray and faint not; they should not languish and fail and become discouraged because of opposition. It does not mean that one should be incessantly performing the act of prayer. Luke 18:2 ---There was in a city a judge,—In a certain city there was a certain judge. According to the law of Moses, all the cities of Israel were to have their judges who were to administer justice without partiality. (Exodus 18:21; Deuteronomy 16:18; 2 Chronicles 19:6-7.) Jesus gave a very vivid picture of this judge; he “ feared not God, and regarded not man.” He was an unprincipled man and reckless in his depravity; he stood in no awe of God— had no reverence and respect for God, neither did he have any mercy or respect for man. He acted contrary to all of the requirements of the law. (Exodus 23:6-9; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:16-17.) To disregard and disrespect the law that God had given was to disrespect God. Luke 18:3 ---and there was a widow in that city;—This parable brings the unrighteous judge into sharp contrast with the widow. The condition of widows was indeed desolate, helpless, and friendless; God has legislated in favor of the widow because man has been prone to impose upon them. (Exodus 22:22; Deuteronomy 10:17 Deuteronomy 24:17 Deuteronomy 27:19; 1 Kings 17:9 1 Kings 17:12; Malachi 3:5; Mark 12:40.) This widow was without influence and unable to bribe; she had little to hope for from this wicked judge. She lived in the same city with him, and “ came oft unto him” begging him to avenge her of her adversary; she was asking justice against those who had mistreated her; she was asking to be delivered from the oppression of her adversary. Luke 18:4-5 ---And he would not for a while:—The judge was unwill-ing to give her justice and put her off from time to time and refused to hear her petition. He finally came to a decision “ within himself” that though he feared not God, nor regarded man, nevertheless, because the widow continued to trouble him, he decided that he would give her justice, “ lest she wear me out by her continual coming.” He decided to give her justice because he did not want to be troubled longer with her; his reasoning was entirely selfish; not for her sake, nor for the sake of right, but in order to get rid of her, he would grant her petition. Even in doing right from such a motive, he loses by his selfishness the praise of a sense of justice. (Galatians 6:9.) The judge feared lest her continued importunity might finally culminate in personal violence. Luke 18:6-7 ---And the Lord said, Hear what the unrighteous judge saith—It seems that Jesus paused in his discourse a moment so that due attention would be given to what he said. He asked them to reflect upon what the “ unrighteous judge” had concluded to do; this includes his motive, his selfishness, and his final actions. They should note the power of importunity even upon an unrighteous and faithless man, when applied by a weak and defenseless widow. Jesus then asks a question which carries the force of the truth that he wished to teach: “ Shall not God avenge his elect, that cry to him day and night, and yet he is longsufifering over them?” God is just, and it is impossible for him to reject or neglect his chosen people. The argument is “ a fortiori,” which is establishing a stronger conclusion even than ordinary premises need to warrant us. If so wicked a judge would grant justice, how much more will the Judge of all the earth do right? Luke 18:8 ---I say unto you, that he will avenge them speedily.—Jesus here, as he frequently does, draws his own lesson from his parable, and makes the proper application of it. “ Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” It has been frequently argued as to whether this coming of the Son of man is to be understood to have reference to his final coming to judgment; or whether it may mean only that whenever he shall come among men to look for faith, he will find a lack of faith upon the earth. Some think that Jesus asked this question, meaning to convey that there would be little faith among men during the Christian age; others seem to think that he means to say that there will be but little faith on the earth when he comes the second time. THE AND THE Luk_18:9-14 Luke 18:9 ---And he spake also this parable—Luke is the only writer that records this parable. There are two principal characters in this parable also; another contrast between two characters is brought out here. In this parable we have a comprehensive account of two representative characters who are praying; we have their prayers that we may see the manner of their worship. This parable was addressed to “ certain who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at nought.” It seems to have been spoken, not so much to the disciples, but to the Pharisees. The Pharisees thought that they were righteous before God, and that they could by their righteousness merit an answer to their prayers. This man “ set all others at nought,” or considered all others as amounting to nothing. He looked down on all others as being sinners and outcasts. He has the wrong attitude toward others and toward God.Luke 18:10 ---Two men went up into the temple to pray;—Both of these men had access to the temple worship; they were both in covenant relation with God; presumably both were Jews. They do not represent an alien sinner and a Christian; the parable was not given to teach the difference between the prayers of an alien and a Christian; such an application does violence to the teachings of our Lord. The Jews attended daily the services at the temple; these two went up for that purpose, and met in the court of the Israelites, near the sanctuary. They are types of opposite classes of worshipers. The temple was the place of prayer as well as the place of sacrifice. “ A Pharisee” was one of the two principal sects of the Jews at that time; the Pharisees originated about one hundred fifty years before Christ; they were noted for their rigid observance of the letter of the law and of their traditions; among their leading characteristics were formality, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy. “ A publican” was one of the collectors of revenue and taxes under the Roman government. Publicans were classed with the outcasts or sinners. These two men thus classified are now presented individually by their prayers. Luke 18:11-12 ---The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself,—“ Stood,” in the original, means that he struck a pose, or assumed an attitude where he could be seen; the condemnation is not so much upon the standing in prayer as it is upon the posture assumed merely to be seen of men; he manifested no humility, piety, or reverence. He prayed “ thus with himself”; some think that this means that he only prayed mentally or in silence; others think that it means that the Pharisee standing by himself prayed these things. He first gave thanks, which was an important part of his communication with God. He thanked God that he was “ not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.” He thanked God that he was made separate from sinners, as he thought; he did not feel any need of God’ s pardon, for he counted himself as being righteous; he trusted in himself that he was sufficiently righteous to merit God’ s favors. “ Extortioners”—the original means a robber and plunderer, grafters, like the publicans. “ Unjust” means one who deals unfairly with his fellows; one who is unjust in feelings and attitude toward others. “ Adulterers”—those who have transgressed the law in relation to others; those who have violated the law that requires a pure life. He seemed to reach the climax when he thanked God that he was not “ even as this publican.” There is no evidence that he knew anything about the man except that he was a publican. He sustained an attitude of contempt toward the publican. After looking at himself negatively, and feeling that he was righteous, he then began to tell the Lord about his good deeds. He said: “ I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get.” In his egotism and self-righteousness he has used the pronoun “ I” five times in this short prayer. The only fast positively enjoined was on the day of atonement, the tenth day of the seventh month. (Leviticus 23:27.) Luke 18:13 ---But the publican, standing afar off,—What a contrast between the two! The Pharisee struck a pose so that everyone could see him and know that he was praying, while the publican “ standing afar off” made his prayer. In his humility he “ would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven.” He stood at a distance from the Pharisee, not from the sanctuary; he was not wanting to be seen of men; he was contrite in heart and humble in life. He was timid in attitude; merely standing afar off, while the Pharisee was posing to be seen of men. He “ smote his breast" a natural gesture, which the heart dictates to all men; it was a proof of the sincerity of his grief and an open confession of his sins. He prayed: “ God, be thou merciful to me a sinner.” We have here a full confession and an anxious cry for mercy; he not only makes a general confession, but singles himself out as “ a sinner.” He seems to .acknowledge himself as the sinner that the Pharisee charged him of being. He simply pleads for God to be merciful to him. The Pharisee thought of others as sinners; the publican thinks of himself only as the sinner, not of others as did the Pharisee. It is a matter of dispute among critics as to whether it should be “ a sinner” or “ the sinner”; there is but little difference, as the publican acknowledged himself to be a sinner in the sight of God and in the sight of men; whether he was the particular sinner that the Pharisee accused him to be is of little consequence. Luke 18:14 ---I say unto you, This man went down to his house—Here, again, Jesus draws his own lesson from the parable. He commented briefly on the parable and said that the publican “ went down to his house justified rather than” the Pharisee. The word “ rather” here is to be explained by such scriptures as Ephesians 4:28 Ephesians 5:4 Ephesians 5:11; Hebrews 11:25; the word excludes comparison and includes contrast. The Pharisee was not justified at all; he offered no petition and requested no blessing. The publican was conscious of his sins and confessed them. To him belonged the promise: “ But to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at my word.” (Isaiah 66:2.) Jesus makes his own application here and emphasizes a fundamental truth: “ For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”JESUS LITTLE Luk_18:15-17 Luke 18:15 ---And they were bringing unto him also their babes,—It is thought that Jesus was still in Perea when this was spoken. Parallel records of this event are found in Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16. Mark gives a fuller record of this event than do the other writers. Matthew and Mark say that they brought to him "Little children,” while Luke says ‘‘ their babes”; the word that Luke uses means ‘‘ babe” or “ an infant.” They were evidently little children of tender age; they were too small to “ come” to Jesus and were “ brought” to him; they were carried in their arms, or were led to Jesus. We are not told who brought them; probably the fathers and mothers or those who had them in charge. Some think that Jesus was about to depart from the place where he was, and hence the parents may have sought his blessings on their children before he left. They wanted Jesus to “ touch them,” according to Luke; “ that he should lay his hands on them, and pray,” according to Matthew. The disciples of Jesus rebuked those who brought the children. The disciples probably felt that the various duties of Jesus were too urgent for him to turn aside to bless little children. Luke 18:16 ---But Jesus called them unto him,—Some think that Jesus called the parents with the children to him and addressed them, while others think that he addressed the disciples who had rebuked them. The context seems to indicate that he called the parents with the children to come closer to him and then rebuked his disciples for rebuking the parents. “ Suffer the little children to come unto me.” The plea of Jesus is that the children be allowed to come to him and receive his blessings. No one has a right to forbid anyone’ s coming to Jesus. “ For to such belongeth the kingdom of God.” The thought seems to be from that which follows this statement, and the parable which precedes it, that Jesus was teaching the beauty of a humble and childlike spirit, and to commend such a spirit to his disciples for imitation. Evidently he does not say that the kingdom of heaven belongs to children, but “ to such” does the kingdom of heaven belong. This idea is strengthened by the record given by Mark: “ For to such belongeth the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:14.) Luke 18:17 ---Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive—This makes it clear that Jesus is here speaking of those who have the characteristics of a little child are the ones to whom the kingdom of God belongeth. If one does not have these characteristics “ he shall in no wise enter therein.” No one can be saved without these characteristics; one can enter the church or the kingdom of God on earth only by receiving Christ. The meek, humble, and childlike disposition is characteristic of a citizen in the kingdom of God. Jesus here describes the spirit and frame of mind which are absolutely necessary to salvation; pride, self-righteousness, and self-exaltation must be laid aside; all must be converted and become as little children to enter the kingdom of God. (Matthew 18:3.) THE RICH RULER Luke 18:18-30 Luke 18:18 ---And a certain ruler asked him,—Matthew and Mark give parallel records of this event. (Matthew 19:16-26; Mark 10:17-27.) In both Matthew and Mark we have the same setting with what precedes and with what follows; the salient points of the case are the same in all the records. Mark adds a new feature by saying that “ there ran one to him, and kneeled to him” ; Mark also records the fact that Jesus “ was going forth into the way” when this “ certain ruler” came to him. (Mark 10:17.) Mark also records that “ Jesus looking upon him loved him” (Mark 10:21), and that the disciples were astonished at his word. He addressed Jesus as “ Good Teacher,” or “ Master,” as some translations have it. He came with a very- important question: “ What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” This is the same way that Mark records the question, but Matthew records it, “ What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16.) We do not know how much he knew about “ eternal life.” Sometimes the word “ ar chon” means a chief, sometimes a magistrate, sometimes prince, counselor. (Matthew 20:25; Luke 12:58; John 14:30; Acts 7:27 Acts 16:19.) “ Inherit” means possess or enjoy; “ eternal life” may have been borrowed from Daniel 12:2, the only place where it occurs in the Old Testament. It implies ever¬lasting happiness. Luke 18:19 ---And Jesus said unto him,—Jesus promptly replied to the young ruler to teach him something of God. He asked: “ Why callest thou me good?” And then he said there is none good “ save one, even God.” Matthew 19:17 represents Jesus as saying: “ Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?” It is a matter of controversy as to what Jesus meant by this question. Some think that he meant to say that no one except God is originally, essentially, infinitely, and independently good. Here Jesus makes no reference to his own divinity, but shows the young ruler how vain are his thoughts of doing an absolutely good thing; this was the first blow to his self-righteousness. Luke 18:20-21 ---Thou knowest the commandments,—Matthew records Jesus as saying: “ Keep the commandments,” and the ruler asked, “ Which?” Mark’ s record is the same as that of Luke. Jesus proceeded to enumerate some of the command¬ments as found in Exodus 20:12-16 and Deuteronomy 5:16-20. The rich young ruler was a Jew and was instructed in the law. Jesus enumerated five of the six commandments of the Decalogue, which regulated man’ s duty to his fellow man. “ Thou shalt not covet’’ is the one omitted here by Jesus. Mark records the six commandments and gives the one that Matthew and Luke omit as “ do not defraud.’’ (Mark 10:19.) The commandments are not given in their order as found in Exodus. The seventh commandment is put first, then the sixth, then the eighth, then the ninth, and last of all the fifth. Matthew gives the sixth first and then the seventh, but Mark the same as Luke. Some think that the fifth is placed last because it is a positive command. Matthew adds, “ Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” a positive summary of the second table. Mark adds “ defraud not” by covetousness or any dishonest act, which appears to be a brief summary of the tenth com¬mandment. (Exodus 20:17.) The young man replied that he had observed all these commandments “ from my youth up.” Luke 18:22 ---And when Jesus heard it,—Jesus heard the young man’ s reply and answered his question: “ What lack I yet?” Mark tells us that Jesus loved the young man and said: “ One thing thou lackest yet.” If the young man desired to have moral completeness and lack nothing, if he would “ be perfect and entire, lacking in nothing” (James 1:4) he should “ sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor,” in order that he should “ have treasure in heaven”; then he should “ come, follow me.” Jesus touched the weak point in the young man’ s character; he placed before him a perfect standard; he must deny himself, sell his goods, distribute them to the poor, take up his cross and follow Jesus. This was the answer that Jesus gave to his question as to what he should do to inherit eternal life. Luke 18:23 ---But when he heard these things,—The young man had honestly inquired as to what he should do; Jesus plainly and simply told him what he should do. There was pointed out only one way for him to inherit eternal life; no alternative was offered him ; it was do what Jesus commanded him to do or refuse and be lost. The young man “ became exceeding sor-rowful” when he heard what Jesus had told him. Matthew says that “ he went away sorrowful” (Matthew 19:22), while Mark says that “ his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful” (Mark 10:22). The record adds an explanation to his sorrow: “ For he was very rich.” Matthew says that he “ had great possessions”; Mark makes about the same statement. The test of his faith was now put to him; he must part with his possessions or with Jesus; he chose to remain with his earthly possessions. Luke 18:24 ---And Jesus seeing him said,—Jesus saw the young man turn to his riches and go away from him; he saw the struggle that the young man had and he saw the decision that the young ruler had made. Jesus “ looked round about, and saith unto his disciples” : “ How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” Matthew records Jesus as saying, “ It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven,” while Mark uses about the same words. Jesus says that it is exceedingly difficult for a rich man to become the subject and attain the blessings and honors of the new dispensation. Luke 18:25 ---For it is easier for a camel to enter in through a needle’ s eye,—Some consider this as a current proverb for the impossi-ble; the Talmud speaks twice of an elephant passing through the eye of a needle as being impossible. It is similar to the statement in Jeremiah 13:23; it expresses the greatest conceivable difficulties, the greatest human impossibility of a rich man en-tering the kingdom of God. A needle’ s eye being very small and the camel being very large, the proverb well expresses an impossibility. (See Matthew 23:24.) Some think that there is an allusion here to the low gateways through which camels were forced on their knees; and it is said that an opening of this sort is called the eye of a needle. The simple teaching of Jesus is that it is as impossible for a rich man who trusts in his riches to go to heaven as it is for a camel to go through a needle’ s eye. Luke 18:26 ---And they that heard it said,—The disciples of Jesus and others who were present asked the question: “ Then who can be saved?” The disciples were poor men themselves and thoroughly familiar with the ills of poverty and accustomed to look at the bright side only of the rich man’ s case; it was sim¬ply amazing to them and unaccountable that salvation should come so hard to the rich man; what can the poor man do if the rich man cannot go to heaven? If the way of life was so difficult, they asked, who can be saved? It was usually considered that the rich men acquired merit by their deeds of charity and gifts to the temple. Luke 18:27 ---But he said, The things which are impossible with men —It is a human impossibility for one to save himself in the absolute; he can do so only by doing what God teaches him to do. It is God who saves. It is beyond human power for any to be saved, and especially those who are surrounded with the dangers and difficulties of wealth. The truth of God can break the spirit of covetousness, purify the heart by faith in the truth, and make the rich humble. In this way, that which is impossible with man is possible with God. Jesus has in mind the illustration that he has just given; the human impossibility of the camel going through the needle’ s eye has become possible with God. Luke 18:28 ---And Peter said, Lo, we have left our own,—Matthew records Peter as saying that “ we have left all, and followed thee; what then shall we have?” (Matthew 19:27.) When the apostles were called they left all, their property and business, and followed Jesus as personal attendants. (Mark 1:16-20 Mark 2:14.) This may have been suggested to Peter by what Jesus had commanded the rich young ruler to do: “ Sell that which thou hast” and come and follow me. Peter was not boasting; if he had been boasting he would have received a different an-swer from Jesus. Peter was always quick to see and to speak and apply a new thought. Luke 18:29-30 ---And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you,—Jesus kindly answered Peter’ s question. “ There is no man that hath left house, or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children, for the kingdom of God’ s sake” but that will receive his reward. The enumeration of various family ties indicates that the self-denial must be complete, that consecration to the kingdom of God must be supreme. The one who does this has been promised blessings here, in self-denial for Christ, and in his kingdom. He shall receive “ manifold more in this time” than the things which he leaves behind, and “ in the world to come eternal life.” Life here means not merely existence, but existence in its right relation to God and truth, hence holy and happy existence. Physical life consists in certain connections of soul and body; so spiritual life consists in certain connections of the soul with God. The reward for leaving all and following Christ begins in this world, but has its greatest realization in the life to come. HIS DEATH AGAINLuk_18:31-34 Luke 18:31 ---And he took unto him the twelve,—Matthew and Mark record Jesus’ prediction of his sufferings and death repeatedly ; the first instance we have is in the regions of Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13-21), and then again while they abode in Galilee (Matthew 17:22-23). Matthew and Mark give records of this prediction. (Matthew 20:17-19; Mark 10:32-34.) Jesus and his disciples were still in Perea on their way to Jerusalem. Jesus said: “ We go up to Jerusalem, and all the things that are written through the prophets shall be accompoished unto the Son of man.” It seems that Jesus took the “ twelve” apart from the other followers. We should note that Jesus said: “ We go up to Jerusalem.” Jerusalem is about four thousand feet higher than the Jordan valley. (Psalms 122:3-4.) The prophets had testified beforehand of the crucifixion of Jesus. (Read Isaiah 53.) Everything that was spoken by the prophets must be fulfilled in Jesus. Luke 18:32-33 ---For he shall be delivered up unto the Gentiles,—Jesus, by the treachery of Judas and by the Sanhedrin, should be delivered to the Gentiles. “ Gentiles,” the Greek word, here means “ nations”; that is, “ all nations” except the Jews, hence it is equivalent to our use of the word “ heathen.” In particular it refers here to the Romans, to Pilate, and to the Roman soldiers. He should “ be mocked and shamefully treated, and spit upon.” The Romans, who bore rule in Judea, executed Jesus; he was delivered by the Jews into the hands of the Romans. The Jews would have executed him if they could have done so; their mode of punishment to death was stoning, while the Roman mode of execution was crucifixion. Jesus knew that they would mock him, treat him with insolence, and spit upon him; this was considered the grossest insult. They would “ scourge and kill him.” After whipping him and punishing him severely, they would put him to death. “ Scourging” usually preceded crucifixion. On “ the third day he shall rise again.” On the third day after his death he would be raised from the dead. Luke 8:34 ---And they understood none of these things;—It seems strange that his disciples would not understand him. His language is plain and simple; it is not adorned with figures of speech; yet they fail to understand him. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus did not fit into their scheme of the establishment of his kingdom; they would not understand that which did not fit into their conception. It may be that they did not attempt to understand him; they did not desire to understand him here. Under such circumstances we are slow to understand that which we do not want to understand. It seems that they received the facts into their minds, but did not understand them. THE BLIND MAN AT JERICHO Luke 18:35-43 Luke 18:35 ---And it came to pass, as he drew nigh unto Jericho,—Matthew and Mark record this event. (Matthew 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52.) Mark gives the fullest record of this event, but Luke is the only one that records the effect of the miracle on the people. (Verse 43.) Matthew says: “ And behold, two blind men sitting by the way side.” Hence, Matthew men¬tions two blind men, while Mark and Luke describe one; probably they describe the more conspicuous one. It seems that the one named Bartimaeus by Mark was the principal one and that he had a companion; hence, Matthew mentions Bartimaeus and his companion, while Mark and Luke mention only Bartimaeus. Matthew and Mark record the event as “ they went out from Jericho,” while Luke records the incident as taking place when “ he drew nigh unto Jericho.” The seeming discrepancy may be explained by the fact that they came to the blind man and his companion as they went into Jericho, and the healing occurred after they left the old Jericho and approached the new Jericho which Herod the Great had built at some distance away. History gives a record of the two Jerichos. Some have offered a possible explanation of this apparent discrepancy by the fact that the blind men made application for help when Jesus approached the city, but were not then healed until after they left the city. Compare Matthew 15:23 fF. and Mark 8:22 f. “ Jericho” means “ the fragrant place,” and was a city of Benjamin (Joshua 18:21), situated about eighteen miles northeast of Jerusalem, and seven miles west of the Jordan; it was situated on the highway. It is also called “ the city of palm-trees.” (Deuteronomy 34:3.) Jericho has quite a lengthy history in the Old Testament. This blind man was a beggar; probably his blindness accounted for his poverty. Luke 18:36-37 ---and hearing a multitude going by,—While he could not see, yet he was blessed with the faculty of hearing. He heard the multitude going by, and made inquiry as to the cause of the tumult. Jericho at this time of the season, being on the highway, would be full of people who were going up to Jerusalem to attend the Feast of the Passover. The number would be greatly increased by those coming from Galilee by the way of Perea to avoid passing through Samaria. In an¬swer to his inquiry as to the cause of the great confusion, he was told “ that Jesus of Nazareth passeth by.” "Jesus of Nazareth” had become famous now as a prophet. Nazareth was about midway between the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterra¬nean Sea; it was about seventy miles from Jerusalem. Here Jesus lived with his parents for about twenty-eight years; he early acquired the title of “ Jesus of Nazareth” to distinguish him from others of the same name and to show his lowly life. Luke 18:38 ---And he cried, saying, Jesus,—Some of the multitude had told the blind man that “ Jesus of Nazareth” passed by, but the blind man addressed him as “ Jesus, thou son of David.” Jesus was a descendant of David; he was a successor to the throne of David. The angel of the Lord had previously applied this title to Joseph. (Matthew 1:20.) This title was a common designation of the Messiah (Matthew 22:42), and by the use of it this blind man acknowledged the Messiahship of Jesus. Jesus did not apply this title to himself. The titles, “ the Son of man,” “ the Son of God,” and others were of deeper significance and less liable to be perverted. He cried for the Messiah, or “ son of David,” to have mercy on him. Luke 18:39 ---and they that went before rebuked him,—Those who ac-companied Jesus and who led the procession did not wish to be disturbed and interrupted on the journey; hence, they rebuked the beggar and asked him to hold his peace. But, as Luke gives an account of only one, “ he cried out the more a great deal.” The more they tried to quiet him the louder became his cry for mercy; the rebuke of the multitude only aroused his earnestness, for he believed that Jesus would be willing to heal him. It was a trial of his faith, and he continued to cry: “ Thou son of David, have mercy on me.” The poor man understood the difficulty of the situation and the ability of Jesus to help him, hence his more earnest plea for help. He was determined to surmount every barrier and to get the attention of Jesus; he was not to be outdone, even by the multitude. Luke 18:40-41 ---And Jesus stood, and commanded him to be brought—Jesus “ stood”; Matthew says that he “ stood still,” as also does Mark; Jesus stopped the procession. This would arrest the .attention of the multitude that was accompanying him; all eyes would be fixed on the cause of the halting of the procession. Jesus then “ commanded him to be brought unto him.” Jesus recognized the title by which he was called and stopped to hear further particulars of the request. Jesus commanded those who led the blind man to bring him to him, or commanded those who were in the way to move so that the blind man could approach him. Mark is more graphic in his description. He represents the multitude as calling to the blind man and saying: “ Be of good cheer: rise, he calleth thee.” (Mark 10:49.) When the blind man heard this, he cast away his outer garment, “ sprang up, and came to Jesus.” When he came near Jesus asked him: “ What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?” The blind man immediately replied: “ That I may receive my sight.” Luke being a physician records most of the salient points in a practical way; he shows the intense earnestness of the blind man, the warm compassion of Jesus, and his promptness in meeting the request. Luke 18:42 ---And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight:—It was a beautiful and impressive scene to see Jesus stop the dense crowd in order that the case of this beggar, smitten with unfortunate blindness, should be ministered to. With swift promptness Jesus said: “ Receive thy sight.” He then added: “ Thy faith hath made thee whole.” The faith of the blind man was such that he cried the more earnestly for mercy, believing that Jesus had the power to heal and would exercise his power in healing him. His eyes were opened because of his strong faith. Luke 18:43 ---And immediately he received his sight—There was no delay; the promptness with which Jesus granted the request showed his interest in this unfortunate man. The multitude who winessed this could know just what was done; they knew that the man was blind, and now they knew that he had received his sight. The man not only received his sight, but he “ followed him, glorifying God.” The multitude who at first rebuked the man now joined in his praising God for his great goodness and power in giving him his sight. At the very word of Jesus the man received his sight; he wished to be with Jesus, and mingle in the joyous procession as it moved on toward Jerusalem. Verse 1 The content of this chapter deals with two parables on prayer, that of the unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8), that of the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:9-14), bringing children to Jesus (Luke 18:15-17), the account of the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-30), another prophecy of his Passion (Luke 18:31-34), and the healing of the blind man at Jericho (Luke 18:35-43). THE PARABLE OF THE UNJUST JUDGEAnd he spake a parable unto them to the end that they ought always to pray, and not to faint. (Luke 18:1) Dummelow listed the lessons from this parable, thus: (1) The duty of continual prayer; (2) the answer to prayer, persisted in, is certain; (3) in the end, God will maintain the cause of his elect against their adversaries; and (4) a warning against the failure of faith in times of seeming abandonment by God.[1]And he spake a parable ... is literally, "And he spake also a parable ..."[2] This indicates that this is actually a part of the preceding discourse. Ought always to pray ... This has no reference to a ceaseless bending of the knee, or a continuation without intermission in the utterance of petitions to the Almighty, but to an attitude of unbroken fellowship with God. As Augustine said, "There is another interior prayer without intermission, and that is the longing of thy heart."[3] It was to this that Paul referred: "Pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17). And not to faint ... There is a remarkable analogy in this comparison of spiritual failure to physical fainting. Physically, men can faint from shock, disease, hunger, fear, etc.; and for a development of the application to spiritual things, see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 12:3. [1] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 763. [2] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 576. [3] Quoted by Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 485. Verse 2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, who feared not God, and regarded not man.Such a judge would have been one of those notorious magistrates appointed by either Herod or the Romans, and of whom Barclay said, "Unless a plaintiff had money and influence to bribe his way to a verdict, he had no hope of ever getting his case settled."[4]Feared not God and regarded not man ... "These things go together. He that has no regard for God can be expected to have none for man."[5][4] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 230. [5] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 126. Verse 3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came oft unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.This was not a plea on the widow's part for vengeance in a vulgar sense, but a plea for justice against an enemy who had wronged her. Verse 4 And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God nor regard man; yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest she wear me out by her continual coming.He said within himself ... As frequently noted, one of the unique features of God's word is that it gives the truth of what men are saying inwardly. I fear not God ... nor man ... This evil judge was boastful and arrogant in his infidelity and disregard of all considerations except those touching his selfishness. I will avenge her ... As Barnes exclaimed: How many actions are performed from the basest and lowest motives of selfishness, that have the appearance of external propriety and even goodness.[6]This shows that even a righteous deed, undertaken upon selfish and evil motives, cannot be well-pleasing to God. Lest she wear me out ... This means, literally, "Lest she give me a black eye";[7] but from this, we should not conclude that "The judge supposed she might do him bodily harm."[8] A proverb known to all generations makes the destruction of one's good reputation to be "giving him a black eye," and it is clearly his reputation that concerned the judge, and not his physical safety. [6] Ibid. [7] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 250. [8] George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley Forge: The Judson Press), p. 266. Verse 6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unrighteous judge saith. And shall not God avenge his elect, that cry to him day and night, and yet he is longsuffering over them? I say unto you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on earth?Jesus here contrasted the unrighteous judge's hearing the widow's plea with God's hearing the prayers of his elect. Therefore, the unjust judge stands for God in the analogy. No moral problem is involved in this, because Jesus frequently used such analogies, not only to show similarities but to point up the contrast also. The concept of a suffering and persecuted church is also evident in these verses, making this parable a prophecy of the persecutions and tribulations that should come upon the church in ages to come, looking forward to so remote a time as the Second Coming (Luke 18:8). He is longsuffering over them ... This is a caution against expecting a sudden answer to all prayers, no matter how persistent. As Wesley said, "God does not immediately put an end, either to the wrongs of the wicked or the sufferings of good men."[9]Shall not God avenge his elect ... The power and wrath of the eternal God are ever against those who persecute his people. Lactantius has twenty pages of the most interesting discussions of the awful punishments, judgments, and miseries that befell the famed persecutors of the church, giving in detail the things that happened to Nero, Domitian, Decius, Valerian, Aurelian, Diocletian, etc.[10] As Dummelow said, Jesus' words here were literally fulfilled "in the calamities which overtook the Jews and the chief heathen persecutors of the Christians."[11]Shall he find faith on the earth ...? These words are variously understood, but there seems to be a definite foretelling of the decline of faith before the end. Trench thought that: We have other grounds for believing that the church, at that last moment, will be reduced to a little remnant; yet the point is here, not that the faithful will be few, but that the faith even of the faithful will have almost failed.[12]Wesley saw this as a statement that, when Jesus shall appear, "how few true believers will be found on earth."[13] As Lamar asked, "The JUDGE will be ready, but will theWIDOW be there?"[14]The parable of the unjust judge was to teach persistence in prayer; but Jesus immediately gave another parable to show that something more than persistence is required for prayers to be answered. [9] John Wesley, Notes on the New Testament (Naperville, Illinois: Alec. R. Allenson, Inc. 1950), p. 271. [10] Lactantius, "Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died". The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951). Vol. VII. pp. 301-322. [11] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 763. [12] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 493. [13] John Wesley, op. cit., p. 271. [14] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), Vol. II, p. 224. Verse 9 And he spake also this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at naught.THE PARABLE OF THE AND THE TAX With the strange reversal of values which is the hallmark of evil in all ages, the people in this generation who "set others at naught" are not the careful observers of the outward forms and ceremonies of holy religion; but they are the gross sinners who "set at naught" those people who are striving to live as Christ commanded, styling them "self-righteous bigots"! Significantly, in this parable, there is no indication whatever that the publican "set at naught" the Pharisee; and those who seek the publican's reward by "setting others at naught" are on very precarious ground. It is just as easy to set others at naught because "we are not self-righteous like them" as it is to set them at naught for gross sins. Much of the comment one encounters with reference to this parable fails to note this significant fact. Verse 10 Two men went up to the temple to pray: the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.The character of both classes of men represented by these two has frequently been noted in this series. For comment on "Pharisees," see my Commentary on Matthew,Matthew 3:7. The publicans were the tax collectors, particularly odious to the Jews because they were willing agents of Roman oppression; and besides that, many tax gatherers were dishonest. The very name "publican" passed into the popular vocabulary as a designation for one who was hated and despised. Verse 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus unto himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get. But the publican standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be thou merciful to me a sinner. I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.Before noting specific words and phrases in this passage, the following discussion is presented: THE AND THE TAX . The Contrast between the Two Men in the Temple. A. The Pharisee belonged to the aristocracy of his time, a member of the ruling class; and both his virtues and his sins were those of the class to which he belonged. His good points were many. He was not an adulterer, nor an extortioner, nor unjust. He avoided the outward, gross sins into which many fall. On the positive side, he was outwardly religious, as he should have been, keeping all the ceremonies of the law and paying tithes even beyond what the law required, and observing a hundred times as many fasts each year as God had commanded. He was superior to many of his own times, and also of our own times. His failure was a lack of humility, a proud and selfish arrogance having developed within him that made him unsympathetic to others. Furthermore, he had fallen into the fatal error of supposing that he had placed God in his debt, that God owed him salvation on the basis of the good deeds that he did and his outward observance of the commandments in the law. B. The publican, on the other hand, was a social outcast, ashamed of the part he was playing in the oppression and humiliation of his own nation by the Romans, and pitifully aware of his neglect of all sacred duties. His standing "afar off" shows that he did not consider himself worthy to stand near the lordly Pharisee, whom he no doubt considered to be a righteous man. II. The Contrast between the Prayers They Offered. A. The prayer of the Pharisee was a monologue, acknowledging no need, seeking no blessing, confessing no lack, admitting no sin, and beseeching no mercy; it was as cold and formal as an icicle. It enumerated the virtues of the Pharisee and closed with an insult cast in the direction of the publican! It showed that he had a big eye on himself, a bad eye on the publican, and no eye at all upon God! Although God was mentioned, the prayer was actually with himself, presumably rising no higher than where he stood. B. The prayer of the publican, on the other hand, was short, informal, and warm with the earnestness of a soul burdened with sin. It confessed his sin, besought the Lord for mercy, and was attested by the sorrow and shame that smote his breast. This was one of few prayers Jesus ever commended. III. The Contrast in the Results of These Prayers. A. The Pharisee failed to receive anything at all; after all, he had not requested anything. All of the pompous language of the Pharisee amounted to net nothing. His prayer was not merely useless and futile, but it was also an affront to God. B. The prayer of the publican resulted in his "justification." This is a big word which shows that God had received him, accounting him righteous to the extent this was possible under the law. It should be noted, however, that he had already enjoyed a covenant relationship with God; and, therefore, it is an abuse of this passage to make this prayer of the publican a statement of what an alien sinner should do to be saved. IV. Lessons Drawn From These Contrasts. A. Humility is taught, a virtue which is so important that all of the goodness of the Pharisee could not save him without it, and all of the shame and unworthiness of the publican could not condemn him as long as he had it. People need eternally to be reminded that Jesus was born in a stable, not in a palace; his apostles were fishermen, not Pharisees; it was the common people who heard him, not the leaders; he preached not from a throne of gold or ivory, but from the hillside and a fisherman's boat; the central message of his gospel is for the poor and lowly, not for the proud and worldly; the clarion call of the ages is that with which Jesus concluded the parable, "Every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted!" B. These teach the vanity and emptiness of self-righteousness. All people are sinners. Although it is true that some like the Pharisee are not sinners of grosser type, yet their respectability only emphasizes the sins they do have. None are righteous (Romans 3:10); all have sinned (Romans 3:23); and all human righteousnesses are "as filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). C. These teach some vital facts about prayer. A short prayer is better than a long one (Matthew 6:7-8; Matthew 23:14). Also, prayers should be directed, not to ourselves, nor to the audience, but to God. Many prayers remind one of a quotation from Barclay, describing a certain prayer as "the most eloquent prayer ever offered to a Boston audience."[15]D. These contrasts teach that only the humble are truly great. Earth's genuine heroes are its humble souls, walking in the fear of God, lifting up holy hands in prayer. Earth's selfish and pompous overlords, ever seeking the chief seats, ever walking in the livery of pride, and ever trimming their words and deeds to accommodate what they fancy to be the spirit of the age, - such are not heroes at all, but are to be pitied. Like Shakespeare's "poor players," they strut and fret their hour upon the stage and then are heard no more. On the contrary, the humble shall be exalted. "I will make them to come and worship before thy feet" (Revelation 3:9). The tumult and the shouting dies. The captains and the kings depart. Still stands thine ancient sacrifice, An humble and contrite heart.[16]I fast twice a week ... God had commanded only one day of fasting each year, on the Day of Atonement; and the Pharisees had extended this to twice a week! I give tithes of all that I get ... "Tithes were not due from all gains, but only from the production of the fields, and cattle."[17] The Pharisees, however, "even tithed what they bought."[18] In such things as these, one can see the extent to which they had "improved" (in their view) upon God's law! The publican, standing afar off ... Our English translation does not make clear the distinction between the posture assumed by the Pharisee, as contrasted with that taken by the publican. Boles noted that "STOOD (in the case of the Pharisee) in the original, means that he struck a pose, or assumed an attitude where he could be seen."[19]God be merciful ... This is one of only two places in the New Testament where this word "propitiation" or the verb "propitiate" is used, the other being Hebrews 2:17; and, according to Vine, it has the meaning here of "be propitious to," or "merciful" to the person as the object of the verb. Justified ... is undoubtedly the verb spoken by Jesus which registered so indelibly in the mind of the apostle Paul, whose writings found so much use for it. We disagree with those who think that Luke, through long companionship with Paul, retrospectively injected this into Jesus' words. It is far more likely that from this Paul received his first knowledge of the word, developing it extensively in his writings. Be thou merciful to me a sinner ... The brevity of this prayer is astounding. Cox said: The Pharisee's prayer is composed of thirty-five words, that of the publican eight words (Revised Version). As a rule, the deeper the feelings the fewer the words ... We should have the attitude of the publican.[20]He that exalteth himself ... This is a maxim which Jesus repeated often. See Luke 14:11. We conclude this study of the parable with a perceptive word from Summers: There is something a bit terrifying about this parable. There is within every person that which makes it possible for him to do the same thing the Pharisee did. He can go to the place of worship and go through the forms of worship and still go home the same person he was![21][15] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 232. [16] Rudyard Kipling, The Recessional. [17] George R. Bliss, op. cit., p. 269. [18] Donald G. Miller, The Layman's Bible Commentary (Richmond, Virginia: The John Knox Press, 1959), p. 129. [19] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 343. [20] Frank L. Cox, According to Luke, (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1941), p. 55. [21] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974), p. 210. Verse 15 And they were bringing unto him also their babes, that he should touch them: but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, saying, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for to such belongeth the kingdom of God. For verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein. TO JESUSThis saying was commented upon under Matthew 19:13 and under Mark 10:13; and "Luke differs from Matthew only in the word which he uses for children."[22] Luke's word is "babes." See my Commentary on Matthew, my Commentary on Mark, (en loco). Summers said that the word here used for "babes" was used of "unborn and very young babies. Paul used it of Timothy who had received religious instruction from babyhood (2 Timothy 3:15)."[23]It should be pointed out here, as Lamar said, that: There is no baptism here, and no hint of any; and I think it is unfortunate that this beautiful and tender incident was ever transferred to the arena of controversy, especially as the lesson the Saviour draws from it is of so different a character.[24]Ash said that "At this point the material unique to Luke comes to an end, and the Gospel resumes the outline found in Mark." This is not, however, strictly true; for, after recording the incident of the children being brought to Jesus, the account of the rich ruler, another prediction of his Passion, and the healing of the blind man at Jericho, Luke again resumes the narrative of two other episodes peculiar to himself, the story of Zacchaeus and the parable of the pounds. Also, there are some who believe, with good reason, that the prediction of the Passion here is not the third instance, as in the other synoptics, but a fourth, peculiar to Luke. In the pericope before us, the harmony and agreement in the three synoptic accounts are as nearly perfect as could be imagined; but certain schools of criticism, intent on finding some disparity, have resorted to such a comment as this: Both Matthew and Luke omit Mark's statement that Jesus was "much displeased" (with the disciples for rebuking the ones who brought the children), as well as the detail in Mark 10:16 that he embraced the children and blessed them. They hesitated to attribute the human emotions of anger and affection to the Lord of the church.[25]There is positively no way that such a comment can be true. In this comment, there is the assumption that Matthew and Luke were ashamed of Mark's statement that Jesus was "displeased," the assumption that they "changed Mark" by omitting such a word, with the necessary corollaries that (a) they had Mark before them as they wrote, and (b) that they did not consider Mark inspired, plus still another assumption, the most amazing and arrogant of all, that Matthew and Luke considered the human emotions of anger and affection to be, in some unaccountable manner, of the Lord of the church! There is no need to examine all of these subjective guesses, since all of them self-destruct upon a little reflection; but as an example of their reliability, we shall note just two of them. 1. The notion that Luke (and Matthew) considered anger and affection to be human emotions unworthy of the Lord of the church is a monstrous contradiction of Scriptural thought. The Old Testament refers to the anger of God literally hundred of times. "He is angry with the wicked every day"; and Luke recorded the parable of the slighted invitation in which the "master of the house" bears an analogy with the heavenly Father himself, saying, "The master of the house being angry," etc. (Luke 14:21); and in the parable of the pounds (Luke 19:12-27), in which the nobleman must be understood as Jesus Christ himself, the parable concludes with the words of Christ (the nobleman), "But those enemies that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me!" It is as plain as the sun at perihelion at high noon on the equator that if Luke had edited Mark's Gospel to get out of it so mild a word as "displeased," he could never have recorded the two passages just cited. 2. As for the assumption that Mark was before Luke as he wrote his Gospel, such is disproved by the fact that he left out of his Gospel some 53 verses that are in Mark, and by the further fact that when Luke mentioned his sources, it is simply inconceivable that he would have left off mentioning Mark if indeed Mark was one of his sources (Luke 1:1-5). Many of the greatest scholars who ever lived have simply been unable to see Mark as a Lucan source, among them the immortal James MacKnight. The Markan theory is not merely unproved, but unprovable. THE RICH YOUNG RULERNote: this incident has already been commented upon fully in both Matthew (Matthew 19:16 f) and Mark (Mark 10:17 f), and for fuller discussion see in my Commentary on Matthew and my Commentary on Mark (en loco). [22] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 579. [23] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 211. [24] J. S. Lamar, op. cit., p. 226. [25] S. MacLean Gilmour, The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), Vol. VIII, p. 311. Verse 18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?Geldenhuys was right in declaring that: Taken together (Matthew 19:16, and the verse before us) the complete question may have been: "Good Master, what good thing, etc." and Jesus may have replied, "Why callest thou me good and askest me about good things?" Thus the Gospels supplement one another. It is unwarranted in such cases to speak of a contradiction between them."[26]To such a comment, we are delighted to say, "Amen, and Amen!" All of the alleged contradictions in the variable synoptic accounts are of as little importance as a flyspeck on Michelangelo's MOSES! The great message of the Gospels is perfect, complete, and overwhelming. The word of God has indeed revealed to us his Christ in these precious Gospels; and the truly devout soul will be little inclined to heed the insinuations of them that make a business of finding fault with the Word. ENDNOTE: [26] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 461. Verse 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, even God.Hobbs caught the import of these verses perfectly: No pupil ever addressed a rabbi as "good." So the young man paid Jesus the supreme compliment; but he called him only a "teacher." Jesus reminded him that only God is good. Thus either he had used the term loosely, or else he must think of Jesus as more than a great Teacher. By subtle suggestion Jesus was leading him to think of him as deity, not simply as a great man.[27]ENDNOTE: [27] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 262. Verse 20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother.Salvation was always, is now, and ever shall be dependent upon obedience to the commandments of God. Matthew explicitly stated this in his account, and Luke implies as much here. As Summers said, "Implicit in Jesus' answer is the meaning that to obey these commandments is to have eternal life ... This was good Jewish religious thinking."[28] In Summers' final sentence (above), however, there is the implication that, of course, "this is not Christian thinking, at all, but Jewish thinking." On the other hand, this is an eternal and invariable law. Of course, human beings being utterly unable to keep God's law perfectly, they must unite with Christ, being baptized into him; and as Christ, in Christ, they are total, perfect keepers of all God's commandments (Colossians 1:28). This does not, however, negate the principle laid down here that eternal life is directly and irrevocably related to keeping God's commandments. ENDNOTE: [28] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 213. Verse 21 And he said, All these things have I observed from my youth up. And when Jesus heard it, he said unto him, One thing thou lackest yet: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.Matthew has the significant question of this young ruler, "What lack I yet?" And, since that is the question that Jesus here answered, we have another example of the supplementary nature of the Gospel accounts. Cox mentioned the "soul hunger" of this young man. "It was a case of youth asking for life, the rich seeking a treasure, hunger amidst plenty. Life was before him and wealth around him, yet he hungered."[29] Tinsley remarked that "In this particular instance, Jesus obviously thought discipleship must involve renunciation of possessions."[30] The true explanation lies much more probably, however, in the fact that this young man was called to accompany Jesus and the Twelve, perhaps as some kind of an apostle; and apostleship did require renunciation of possessions, a test that all of the Twelve met, as Peter mentioned a bit later. At any rate, it would have been the height of folly for Jesus to have invited him to "follow" in THAT company without meeting the test they all had met and passed. The allegation that one cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ except on condition of selling and distributing all of his earthly possessions is based partially upon Jesus' words here; but it is impossible to sustain such a thesis, either from this or any other passage in the New Testament. It has just been noted that Christ's word here was to this young man, and not to all; and the reason for this requirement in his case is easily discernible. In order to be an apostle, or to accompany Jesus, as this young man was invited to do, it was absolutely necessary to renounce all earthly possessions; but such was never made a universal requirement of Christianity (see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 19:21). Lamar was correct in the deduction which he made from this, saying: Our Saviour, in all these wonderful lessons about worldly goods, means nothing tending to the disorganizing of society, or to the undervaluing of earthly riches, but to infuse a principle that shall uplift them to higher uses, and consecrate them to worthier objects.[31][29] Frank L. Cox, op. cit., p. 56. [30] E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel According to Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 169. [31] J. S. Lamar, op. cit., p. 229. Verse 23 But when he heard these things, he became exceedingly sorrowful; for he was very rich.In turning away from the Master, this young man not only made the wrong decision regarding his eternal state, but alas with regard to his earthly state. He would have been far better off in this present world if he had obeyed Jesus. The whole Jewish nation was, within his lifetime, to go down to utter ruin and destruction, a calamity that no Christian suffered. The deepest instincts of his heart were such that he knew the tragedy of his decision, hence the sorrow. Verse 24 And Jesus seeing him said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!Abraham, Job, David, and most of the mighty patriarchs of Israel were men of very great wealth; yet Jesus affirmed that these shall be in the everlasting kingdom (Luke 13:28). Moreover, the inspired evangelist Philip, and other distinguished persons in the New Testament church, were men of extensive means; and, therefore, what Jesus taught here is not the impossibility of a rich man's being saved, but the difficulty of it. Wealth itself is "unrighteous," no matter how innocently it might have been acquired, being inherently charged with temptations few find the strength to overcome. See under Luke 16:9. Verse 25 For it is easier for a camel to enter in through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.The sheer impossibility of a camel going through the eye of a needle forces the deduction that this is a hyperbole, employed to stress the difficulty of a rich man's being saved. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 The character of this judge was revealed to show why the prayers made to him had to be persistent. 3 The justness of this widow's complaint was not questioned. 5 The judge was not prompted by any regard for any being, human or divine, but because he did not want to be troubled by the widow's persistence. 6 The strength of this verse will be better realized by emphasizing unjust. Even that kind of a judge was finally moved to action because the widow insisted. 7 The just Judge will certainly be moved to regard the prayers of His children in the proper time, if their faith does not weaken and they continue to pray. 8 Shall he find faith on the earth? We must not interpret one passage in such a way that it will contradict others. It is clearly taught in the New Testament that the church with its faithful members will be here when Jesus comes. (See Matthew 24:40-41; 1 Corinthians 15:24; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 4:17.) Therefore the question of Jesus should be understood as a kind of warning, stirring up his hearers to beware lest their individual faith should fail them. 9 Trusted in themselves denotes they considered themselves righteous on the ground of the great display they were making of their deeds. On the same principle they would despise (belittle) others who could not boast of such actions. 0 It was perfectly in order for both Pharisees and publicans to pray, and to go into the temple for the purpose of prayer (Isaiah 56:7; Matthew 21:13). 2. This paragraph contains the prayer of the Pharisee. Even if all of his claims were true, his prayer would have been objectionable because it did not include a single request; only a boastful statement of his deeds. 3 There were generally many people in the temple at "the hour of prayer" (Acts 3:1). The publican modestly stood away from the crowd, feeling that .his presence might be objectionable to them, due to the common opinion of that class. He made no claim of 'goodness, but instead, he classed himself with sinners and prayed for mercy. 4 Rather is printed in italics in the King James Version, but the. American Standard Version and Mof-fatt's translation both use the regular type. That is evidently correct according to the reasoning of Jesus. He follows his statement about who was justified, with the declaration that he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. If the publican was not justified, then no one in the verse was exalted. 7 This paragraph is explained at Matthew 19:13-14. 7 This group of verses is almost identical with Matthew 19:16-26. To conserve space, let the reader examine those verses and the comments. 8 This is commented upon at Matthew 19:27. 0 See the comments on Matthew 19:28-29. 1 The prophetic writings referred to are in Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53. 2 Spitting on one was to show the greatest of contempt. 3 It was customary to scourge all prisoners before executing them or otherwise disposing of them. The victim was stripped of all his clothing and a thong of leather was lashed across his back. 4 The apostles were baffled over these predictions about the death of Jesus. That was because they had a temporal kingdom in mind, and that would require the king to live and be present upon his throne. 5 Being blind, this man was depending upon alms for a living. 6 This wayside was a common place for people to travel, else the blind man would not have been occupying such a place to be seen by the people. Asked what it meant indicates that some unusual commotion was going on. 7 The fame of Jesus was frequently connected with his humble home life. It was surprising that the product of such a community could perform the deeds attributed to him. (See John 1:46.) 8 The people told the blind man it was "Jesus of Nazareth" who was passing by, while he called him the son of David. This shows that at least some persons understood the Scriptures, that a descendant of David was to be called a Nazarene. (See the notes at Matthew 2:23.) 9. As to why they rebuked him, see the notes at Matthew 20:31. 0 It would have been a hardship for the blind man to get into the immediate presence of Jesus unaided, therefore the people were commanded to lead him to the spot. 1 A large gift of money or some regular income would have relieved the blind man of his financial worries. But instead of requesting such a favor, he asked for the restoration of his sight, which would enable him to care for himself afterwards. 2 Saved is from sozo, which Thayer defines at this place, "To make well, heal, restore to health." This favor was given the blind man because he believed in Jesus. 3 The recovery from blindness was immediate, which was always the case with miraculous healing. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 19 AND THE PARABLE OF THE POUNDSLuk_19:1-28 Luke 19:1 ---And he entered and was passing through Jericho.—Luke is the only one that records the events connected with Zac chaeus. As Jesus was passing through Jericho, this event oc-curred. The apparent discrepancy between Luke and the other writers was removed by the explanation that Jesus en-tered the old part of the town, and passed through and entered the new part of the town; as the road passed through the city or some suburb of the city, Jesus came in contact with Zacchaeus. Luke 19:2 ---And behold, a man called by name Zacchaeus;—“ Behold” is a term used to call attention to the incident about to be re-lated. “ A man,” the Greek word here interpreted as “ man” means “ a man indeed,” which shows clearly that Zacchaeus was a person of importance and great consideration. He was a Jew as is seen from his name, which is the same as “ Zaccai.” (Ezra 2:9; Nehemiah 7:14.) “ Zacchaeus” means “ pure,” just, or innocent; he was a Jew and a son of Abraham. He was “ a chief publican” ; Jericho was close to the fords of the Jordan and was therefore an appropriate seat for an officer of superior rank to preside over the collection of revenues. Zacchaeus had superior wealth and was able to receive the highest offices of his trade. He was a chief collector of taxes, and was despised as the publicans were by the Jews; there was nothing wrong in his occupation; taxes were necessary, and someone had to collect them. Luke 19:3-4 ---And he sought to see Jesus who he was;—He “ sought” ; that is, he continued to get a view of Jesus; probably he had heard much about Jesus and now, since he was passing that way, he desired earnestly to see Jesus. He not only desired to see him, but he was determined to see him. We do not know whether it was through curiosity or from some other motive; we do know that he was determined to see Jesus. He could not see Jesus because of the crowd; Zacchaeus was “ little of stature,” and could not look over the heads of the crowd and see Jesus; hence “ he ran on before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him.” The words “ ran” and “ climbed” showed that Zacchaeus was not to be outdone; he was a man of energy, forethought, and determination. “ Sycomore” was similar to “ fig tree” or mulberry; the fig-mulberry resembled the fig in fruit and mulberry in foliage. It grows with its large branches down and open so that Zacchaeus could easily have climbed into it. Jesus was to pass along by this tree so Zacchaeus took advantage of it to see Jesus. Luke 19:5-6 ---And when Jesus came to the place,—It may be that Zacchaeus thought that he could see Jesus, but that Jesus could not see him; but as Jesus came to the place, “ he looked up, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down.” Perhaps Zacchaeus was surprised when Jesus spoke to him. Jesus not only saw Zacchaeus, but he saw the secret history of his heart, and the desire which had brought him to this place of prominence where he could see Jesus; Jesus saw his soul and saw what it needed. If Zacchaeus was surprised when Jesus saw him and spoke to him, how much greater was his astonishment when Jesus told him that he would abide at his house. Although Zacchaeus was a man of authority, prominence, and wealth, yet Jesus commanded him to come down from the tree, and imposed himself upon Zacchaeus as a self-invited guest. This was enough to impress Zacchaeus with the fact that Jesus could and did speak with commanding authority. Luke 19:7 ---And when they saw it, they all murmured,—When the Pharisees and others of the multitude saw what Jesus had done and heard what he had said, they “ all murmured” ; some think that the word “ all” included the disciples of Jesus. They did not think that it was becoming in a teacher, prophet, or one who claimed to be the Messiah, to go into the house as a guest of a publican. It seems that they kept murmuring; they were haters of the publicans and murmured because Jesus turned aside to become a guest that day of such a man as Zacchaeus. They said among other things that Jesus had gone “ in to lodge with a man that is a sinner.” It seems that those who murmured here had no enmity against Jesus, but that they doubted the propriety of his being a guest of so notorious a publican as Zacchaeus. Some, however, have classed these murmurers with the Pharisees who seem to have attended Jesus to watch his words and actions to discover some ground of accusation against him. Others think that the murmuring came only from his friends. Luke 19:8 ---And Zacchaeus stood,—Probably Zacchaeus heard the murmurings, and bethought himself and the reputation that publicans had, so he at once began to make confession. Zacchaeus “ stood”; that is, he took a posture as of one who is about to make a solemn declaration; he was like the Pharisee in attitude, but different in spirit, though the same word describing the Pharisee’ s posture is used of the publican. Zacchaeus, noting the murmuring of the people, seeks to justify Jesus in entering his house. He denies being an extortioner or unjust, and declares that he has given half of his goods to help the poor; that is, he had given half of his income to help the poor. Some think that Zacchaeus had not been so liberal, but that he now declares his liberality by saying that he would give half of his goods to feed the poor. It seems that he was expressing what he had done and that what he purposed to continue to do. He was willing to restore ac¬cording to the law anything that he had “ wrongfully exacted” of anyone, and restore “ fourfold.” The law of Moses required only the addition of one-fifth to the amount of which the person had been defrauded. (Numbers 5:7.) Zacchaeus was will¬ing to observe the extreme requirements of the law. (Exodus 22:1) Luke 19:9-10 ---And Jesus said unto him,—Jesus saw his heart and knew his penitence and his faith. He said: “ Today is salva¬tion come to this house.” Salvation had come to this house because Jesus was present as a welcomed guest; it had come to Zacchaeus in that he was penitent and willing to receive instruction from Jesus. Zacchaeus, Joseph of Arimathaea, Nicodemus, and others remained in the situation in which Jesus found them for the time being. Probably other members of his household became disciples of Jesus. Zacchaeus was a descendant of Abraham and thus entitled to the blessings of the ministry of Jesus. Jesus then announces to Zacchaeus and all others the purpose of his mission: “ For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.” Zacchaeus was one of the lost sheep of the house of Israel; hence, Jesus came to save him. (Matthew 10:6 Matthew 15:24; Luke 15:1-6.) Luke 19:11---And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable,—It seems that this parable was the conclusion of his discourse in the house of Zacchaeus, or as he left the house and went along the way toward Jerusalem. “ He added and spake a parable” to what had already been said; this form of expression is equivalent to saying that he continued his discourse. There are two reasons assigned here for giving this parable: (1) “ because he was nigh to Jerusalem” ; (2) “ because they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear.” Jesus and his disciples were on the way to Jerusalem, followed with great throngs of excited people; everything betokened the approach of great and stirring events; the nearer the approach to Jerusalem, the more crowded the thoroughfare with excited people. They thought that the kingdom of God was to be announced as set up when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem. Luke 19:12-13 ---He said therefore, A certain nobleman—Some have confused this parable of the pounds with the parable of talents recorded in Matthew 25:14-30. They are two different parables spoken at different times and different places. The parable of the pounds was spoken in Jericho or on the way from Jericho to Jerusalem; the parable of the talents was spoken on the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem; the parable of the pounds was spoken before Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, while the parable of the talents was .spoken about the third day after his entrance into the city. The parable of the pounds was spoken to the multitudes as well as his disciples, while that of the talents was spoken to the innermost circle of his trusted followers. The scope of the parable of the pounds is wider and more complex than that of the talents. They differ in every essential and important point. “ A certain nobleman went into a far country” to receive a kingdom; this was customary; it is said that Archelaus had done this very thing; hence there was historical basis for this parable. The nobleman called “ ten servants of his” and gave to each of them a “ pound,” or ten pounds to ten servants; they were to trade with these pounds and get gain for their master. The original Greek for pound is “ mimas,” and was equal to about one hundred drachmas, or between sixteen and eighteen, dollars. This was rather a small amount to be committed to the servants, and is small compared to a “ talent.” A “ talent” was equal to 6,000 denarii, or about a thousand dollars, or 240 pounds. In the parable of the talents the Lord is transferring to his servants his entire property, while in the parable of the pounds he is putting into the hands of his ser¬vants only a small amount to test their faithfulness. All prominent men in Rome had many servants; sometimes they had a servant to do each particular task. This nobleman called “ ten” of his servants to him and committed to them this trust. Luke 19:14 ---But his citizens hated him,—This actually occurred with Archelaus; when Herod died he was followed by his son, Archelaus; he had no right to the throne until he obtained the sanction of Caesar. He took ship with certain attendants and went to Rome that he might receive the kingdom and return; the people were tired of the Herods; while he was on the way, his citizens who hated him sent an ambassage after him with the message that they would not submit to the reign of Arche laus. Jesus here could recite history with which the people were familiar. It is worthy of note to observe that this decla¬ration was twice made by the Jews: “ We have no king but Caesar,” and “ Write not, The King of the Jews.” (John 19:15 John 19:21.) Luke 19:15 ---And it came to pass, when he was come back again,—This nobleman had gone to the proper authority to receive sanction for his reigning over a certain province or kingdom; while he was gone, the people of that kingdom sent to the au-thority from whence the nobleman was to receive sanction, and prejudiced him against the nobleman; however, the noble¬man received “ the kingdom,” and returned. He then “ commanded these servants, unto whom he had given the money,” to come before him and give an account of their stewardship. The day of reckoning had come for them. He first took account of his servants and afterward inflicted judgment on his enemies. Judgment is to “ begin at the house of God.” (1 Peter 4:17.) The reckoning was made to determine who had gained by trading and how much was gained. There is sug¬gested here the stern character of justice. Luke 19:16-17 ---And the first came before him,—We know not the order in which he called these servants; we do not know which one ranked first. The first one who had been summoned to give an account to his lord had a very favorable report to make. He reported that “ thy pound hath made ten pounds more.” He had so used what was entrusted to him that it had gained ten other pounds; literally, this means that the one pound had “ worked out” ten other pounds, which was a tenfold increase; this was accomplished because of the wise and energetic management of the servant. This was a splendid report for this servant to make; he was not boasting, but modestly gave a faithful report. The master pronounced a blessing upon his servant and said: “ Because thou wast found faithful in a very little” he would give him “ authority over ten cities.”Luke 19:18-19 ---And the second came,—The second servant that re-ported had gained five pounds. The verb “ came” is different in the original and signifies a less intimacy and a less nearness of approach. The same personal merit is recognized in this servant as that one who had gained ten pounds. The implication is that he had been as faithful as the other, but his ability was not as great as that of the first servant. People with different abilities may be equal in faithfulness or the one with less ability may be even greater in faithfulness. He had gained fivefold, and his reward was in proportion to his faithfulness. He was placed “ over five cities” because he had been faithful. His ability showed that he was qualified to manage five cities. Luke 19:20-21 ---And another came,—This one was unfaithful; he was either indolent and did not use his pound to gain for his mas¬ter, or he was dishonest with his gain, or used bad judgment. His report was that he “ laid up in a napkin” the pound and kept it until his master returned. “ Napkin” as here used means a cloth for wiping off the sweat; this servant had been indolent and did not need a napkin for that purpose, hence he used it to wrap around his money. He gave as his reason for not using his pound that he feared his master, “ because thou art an austere man.” It seems that he feared his master unwisely, for he should have been afraid of punishment if he did not use the pound as directed. “ Austere" comes from the Greek which means “ to dry,” hence “ dry,” and thence “ hard”; it means here harsh, stern, unforgiving; in Matthew the word “ hard” is used. The servant proceeded to give some characteristics of his master; he said that he took up that which he did not lay down, and that he reaped where he did not sow. Luke 19:22-23 ---He saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth—“ Out of thine own mouth”; that is, on the very principle of the excuse that the idle servant offered for his unfaithfulness, he should be judged. The master will judge this servant according to the principle that he attributed to his master. This is not an acknowledgment on the part of the nobleman that the servant’ s description was correct. The master then told him how he could have handled the matter, since he was too indolent to use the pound in a way to gain; he could have put the “ money into the bank” so that the master would have had in¬terest on it when he came. “ Bank” as used here means the “ table” of the money-changers. The exchangers were the bankers of that day, who sat at the counter or table to transact the necessary business. Luke 19:24 ---And he said unto them that stood by,—“ Them that stood by” means his officers of justice, or other servants whose du-ties were to execute the will of the lord; the day of reckoning had come; it always comes. The master commanded that they take the pound from this unfaithful servant and give it to “ him that hath the ten pounds.” No mention is here made of positive punishment inflicted on the unfaithful servant, such as we find inflicted on the man who buried his talent in the parable of the talents. The privation of all privileges and taking away of all gifts and subjecting the servant to such humiliation is punishment to him. The servant that should make good use of his master’ s property should be entrusted with greater honors; this one pound was taken away from the idle servant and given to the one who had ten pounds, because he had proved himself able to manage a larger share of his mas-ter’ s goods. Luke 19:25-26 -----And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.—They were surprised that the one who had gained ten pounds should be given more; this was expressed as implying a doubt in the fairness of the distribution. This verse seems to be parenthetical; some think that it was spoken by those who heard the parable, and hence, it was a criticism against Jesus for his unfairness in distributing affairs. Still others think that his verse forms a part of the parable itself and was spo¬ken by Jesus. In either case the lesson is the same; it shows that the honor placed on faithfulness is in proportion to the trust and responsibility. I say unto you, that unto every one that hath—Jesus here gives point to his parable. He who has neglected to use the trust, however small, committed to him, shall lose it, but he who has diligently used that which was entrusted to him and has thus increased it, to him more shall be entrusted. Fidelity and ability, as shown in the use of the trusts or events, are the tests according to which Christ will bestow trusts in his spiritual kingdom. Here Jesus assigns the reason for the principle; it furnishes a reply to the wondering exclamation of the bystanders; some consider this language as an admonition to the disciples. Those who have acquired by industry and economy shall have more; they are worthy and capable of handling more; but the one who does not have the ability and faithfulness to handle shall lose even that which he has. Even that which was originally entrusted to one, and which he failed to improve, shall be taken from him. Jesus repeated this frequently. (Luke 8:18.) Luke 19:27 ---But these mine enemies,—Jesus here reverts to his ene-mies (verse 14). The unprofitable servant represents those Jews who persisted in unbelief when Christ came among them. When this King comes into power the enemies who resisted his claim must be treated as rebels. They assumed this risk when they put themselves in hostile attitude against Jesus; now they must meet their doom; the day of retribution will come and final judgment will be meted out to them. There seems to be three classes of people as represented in the parable; first, those who were open opposers of Christ and the gospel; second, those who were faithful disciples; and third, those who were unfaithful disciples. Luke 19:28 ---And when he had thus spoken, he went on before,—Jesus now resumes his journey toward Jerusalem. “ He went on before.” Jesus led the way with determination to meet his ene-mies in Jerusalem; we cannot think of Jesus trailing behind anyone. He knew what awaited him at Jerusalem, but steadily marched, leading the way on to Jerusalem; he did not falter in his purpose, although he knew the suffering that awaited him. Again, he went “ up to Jerusalem.” The road from Jericho leads “ up” to Jerusalem. Jerusalem was geographically several thousand feet above the Jordan plain where Jericho was located. ENTRYLuk_19:29-48 Luke 19:29 ---And it came to pass, when he drew nigh—Parallel rec¬ords are found in Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11; John 12:12-19. We come to the last movements and teachings of Jesus; the close of his public ministry, except the little that he said during the Jewish and Roman trials, is brought within the scope of the last week. His final teachings are given to his disciples. There is a close verbal resemblance between all the writers of this remarkable portion of our Lord’ s history, yet there is enough diversity of expression to establish their claims to independent authorship. Between this triumphal entry into the city and the visit at the house of Zacchaeus, many place the visit of Jesus at Bethany. (John 12:1; John 12:9-11.) “ Bethphage and Bethany.” These places are mentioned to-gether and may have designated different parts of the same village. “ Bethphage” means “ place of figs,” while “ Bethany” means “ the place of dates”; the first place denotes a fig orchard, while the other denotes a palm grove. Bethany was about a mile and a half from Jerusalem, corresponding to the “ fifteen furlongs” of John 11:18. “ Mount that is called Olivet” is the well-known eminence facing Jerusalem on the east and separated from it by the narrow, deep valley of the Kidron. Luke 19:30 ---saying, Go your way into the village— Jesus sent two of his disciples and commanded them to “ go into the village that is over against you,” and that they should find “ an ass tied and a colt with her” ; they should “ loose them and bring them” to him. (Matthew 21:2.) The dam was probably brought because they would go better in company. Jesus fur¬ther describes the colt as one “ whereon no man ever yet sat.” Neither the Jews nor heathen employed in sacred use animals that had been employed for secular purposes. (Numbers 19:2; Deuteronomy 21:3; 1 Samuel 6:7.) Luke 19:31--32 ---And if any one ask you,— If anyone should inquire why they were thus taking the animal, they were to reply: “ The Lord hath need of him.” Matthew has “ the Lord hath need of them.” Mark gives the same answer that Luke re¬corded. Jesus who knew that the colt was there also knew that the owner would send him for his use; the man may have been a disciple of Jesus, and would gladly send the colt to him. The disciples “ found even as he had said unto them.” This showed that Jesus had divine wisdom. This must have strengthened the faith of these two disciples in the divinity of Jesus. Luke 19:33-34 ---And as they were loosing the colt,— The owner or some of his servants or someone else standing by asked why they should loose the colt; Luke represents the owner of it as asking this question, while Mark represents those “ that stood there” (Mark 11:5) asking the question. They promptly re¬plied that “ the Lord hath need of him.” This was exactly what Jesus had told them to answer. It is very probable that the owner with the others understood this as referring to Jesus. Mark represents them as saying that Jesus commanded them to take it. (Mark 11:6.) The faith of the two disciples should have been strengthened because the owner or others asked the very question that Jesus had predicted. Luke 19:35-36 ---And they brought him to Jesus:— Matthew tells us that they “ brought the ass, and the colt” (Matthew 21:7), while Mark and Luke mention only the colt. They put their “ garments,” or mantles upon the colt as .a saddle; the disciples seem to have put their mantles upon the colt, while the multi-tude spread their garments on the highway or along the way. “ And set Jesus thereon.” This is the only case on record in which Jesus “ rode” any animal; it is presumed that he always walked on his tours throughout Galilee, Perea, and Judea. The ancients were accustomed to placing their clothes, branches of tree, flowers, and other objects of adornment along the way before kings and conquerors in their trumphant marches. (2 Kings 9:13.) Luke 19:37 ---And as he was now drawing nigh,—The procession was moving from Bethany westward toward Jerusalem; there was a valley between the Mount of Olives and Jerusalem; they had passed down the western slope of the Mount of Olives, and had crossed the narrow valley and were ready to proceed on into Jerusalem. At this point the multitude raised a shout and “ began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works which they had seen.” Some describe the descent from the Mount of Olives as going down the southern slope and then making a turn. As they turned down to the city the view of Jerusalem stirred the crowd to rapturous en-thusiasm ; this was the first sight of the city on this route which is soon obscured in the descent. The second view burst upon them. (Verse 41.) This praise was a long pent- up enthusiasm which had gathered all along the way from Jericho; now it was unrestrained. Luke 19:38 ---Blessed is the King that cometh in the name of the Lord:—Matthew records their saying: “ Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.” (Matthew 21:9.) Mark records their saying: “ Hosanna, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of our father David: Hosanna in the highest.” (Mark 11:9-10.) Here the praise is a quotation from Psalms 118:25-26. John represents a multitude coming out of Jerusalem and meeting the procession and joining in the praise as they con-tinued the march into Jerusalem. “ For this cause also the multitude went and met him, for that they heard that he had done this sign.” (John 12:18.) The chorus of praise started by the procession that accompanied Jesus was swelled by the multitude that came out of the city and joined them. The leaders in this movement were his disciples, yet many who were not so closely associated with him joined in the move-ment; this served to bring his claims prominently before the people of Jerusalem, and in this respect it was of supreme im-portance at the closing stage of his public ministry. Matthew 21:10-11 suggests this: “ When he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, Who is this? And the multitudes said, This is the prophet, Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.”Luke 19:39-40 ---And some of the Pharisees—The enemies of Jesus were on hand watching his movements, and they caught some word or expression, which they made the ground of accusation. They took offense at the application to Jesus of the prophetic words which could be used only of the Messiah. They were not willing for the people to ascribe to him the honors of the Messiah. In the same spirit of unbelief the chief priests and scribes rebuked Jesus after he came into the temple for permitting the application to himself of such ascriptions of praise. Some think that these Pharisees had hypocritically disguised their enmity to Jesus and had followed him from Jericho as his friends. They asked Jesus to rebuke his disciples for ascribing to him the praise. Jesus promptly answered them and said: “ I tell you that, if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out.” Luke is the only one that records this. Luke 19:41-42 ---And when he drew nigh,—The procession led by Jesus descended the slope of Olivet, and when the city ap-peared in view the guilt and future ruin of Jerusalem gave the occasion for the mingled weeping and lamentation over the city; in pathetic sympathy Jesus said: “ If thou hadst known in this day, even thou, the things which belong unto peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.” Jesus seems to mean that if Jerusalem and the multitude even who were acclaiming him King had known that he was the Christ, they could have saved the city and themselves from much misery and destruction. Jerusalem had rejected God’ s messengers, the prophets in former times; from the time of their departure from Egypt, they had been a rebellious people; yet if they had at least known in his day they could have done something to avoid the impending destruction. Their prejudice, their ignorance, their unbelief had blinded their eyes to the truth. Truly their hearts had “ waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should turn again, and I should heal them.” (Matthew 13:15.) Luke 19:43-44 ---For the days shall come upon thee,—Jesus now points out clearly the doom that awaited the city. Their enemies should “ cast up a bank about thee.” “ Bank” here means stake, palisade, rampart; the ancient mound raised against cities was constructed of earth thrown up and set with sharp stakes or a palisade; the excavation made by the earth thus removed was called the “ trench,” and was on the side of the rampart next to the city. The enemy should “ compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side.” The city was to be completely surrounded, there was no hope of escape. Those who are familiar with the description of the siege of Jerusa¬lem as given by Josephus know how effectively the city was besieged. The manner of destruction was also described by Jesus; the enemies would dash them upon the ground; de¬stroy their children; should not leave one stone upon another because they were ignorant of the time “ of thy visitation.” The erection of the temple was described as the laying of stone upon stone (Haggai 2:15), hence the destruction of it is described as not leaving “ one stone upon another.” The utter ruin of the city and temple was predicted; this vivid description and prophecy of Jesus of the destruction of Jerusalem was so completely fulfilled that critics have denied the predictive prophecy, and said that Luke wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke 19:45-46 ---And he entered into the temple,—Jesus after this de-scriptive destruction of Jerusalem entered into the temple. We have parallel records of this in Matthew 21:12-13 and Mark 11:15-18. “ Temple,” as used here, means the sacred place, in-cluding all the enclosure, as well as the temple proper. It is not to be understood that Jesus went into the temple as did the priests; they went into the holy place and the high priest into the most holy, but Jesus did not go into these places. When he went in he “ cast out them that sold”; according to Mark (Mark 11:11-15) this was not done the first day, for he says that Jesus looked round upon all in the temple, and then retired to Bethany as the evening had come. Those who bought and sold animal sacrifices were present and Jesus drove them out and overthrew “ the tables of the moneychangers.” It is probable that they obeyed Jesus here, not only because the multitude were on his side, which does not appear to have been the case when he first came to the temple (John 2:13-22) and cleansed it the first time. This cleansing is the second cleansing of the temple; he cleansed it at the first of his public ministry and now again at the close. And my house shall be a house of prayer:—This is a quotation from Isaiah 56:7; Luke gives the meaning of the quotation, but not the words; Mark gives more nearly an exact quotation. The Jews had violated the sanctity of the temple by bringing these animal sacrifices into the courts and porches of the temple; they were not so much interested in the sacrifices that the people made as they were the profit that they would gain by selling the animals as sacrifices. This vigorous cleansing of the temple was an assertion of the prerogative of Jesus as the temple of God. Jesus so quotes the prophet. It seems that Jesus here quoted Jeremiah 7:11 and applied the epithet of “ a den of robbers” to these money-changers. Their disregard for the sacredness of the temple and their lack of interest in the welfare of the worship, together with their dishonesty, made them “ a den of robbers.”Luke 19:47-48 ---And he was teaching daily in the temple.—This is the last week of the earthly life of Jesus; it appears that he spent each night in Bethany, returning to the city and teaching through the day, and then returning to Bethany at night during the last week of his ministry. He continued his teaching every day of that week up to the time of his arrest; it appears from Matthew 21:14 that he worked miracles also; he occupied the outer court of the temple. “ Chief priests” were those at the head of the twenty-four courses, and probably included the high priest. (2 Chronicles 36:14; Ezra 8:24; Nehemiah 12:7.) David had divided the priests into twenty-four courses, and had appointed a head of each course called a “ chief priest.” (1 Chronicles 24:1-31; 2 Chronicles 22:8.) “ Scribes” were those who transcribed the law; after the Jews were carried into Baby-lonian captivity, they began to build synagogues, and each synagogue needed a copy of the law; this required somebody to write copies of the law; these men were called “ scribes.” They were also teachers of the law; as they transcribed the law they were supposed to know the law, hence became teachers. “ The principal men of the people” included the elders and rulers of the people; all the dignitaries were thus determined to destroy Jesus. They sought to find a way that they might destroy him. They were afraid of the people, as the people believed in Jesus and “ all hung upon him, listening." Verse 1 In Chapter 19, we have the record of Jesus' announcement of himself as the Messiah of Israel, the hope of all nations and the King of God's kingdom. Actually, the public declaration of his Messiahship began with the healing of the blind man, a sign which Jesus did as "the Son of David," as twice proclaimed by the beggar (Luke 19:18:37,38): (1) This first "announcement" (it was actually that) was founded on the fact that restoring sight to the blind was one of the prophetic signs of the Messianic age (Luke 19:4:18; Luke 7:21; Isaiah 29:18; Isaiah 35:5). (2) Jesus' calling of Zacchaeus, a prominent publican, as a "son of Abraham," stressed the religious rather than any political quality of his kingdom (Luke 19:1-10). (3) He then gave a great parable (the pounds), identifying himself absolutely as the one receiving from God a kingdom, and affirming his intention of ruling that kingdom without regard to the opposition of enemies who would eventually perish at his command, and also including significant teaching for his own servants (Luke 19:11-27). (4) He staged the triumphal entry, the most dramatic proclamation of his Kingship that could be imagined (Luke 19:28-40). (5) His weeping over the Holy City proved his knowing in advance of his rejection and the consequences of that rejection to Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44). (6) The second cleansing of the temple was an open assertion of his right to rule in Israel (Luke 19:45-46). The chapter closes with Jesus teaching daily in the temple, the great masses hearing him gladly, but with no full understanding of his mission, and with the chief priests and scribes setting in motion the apparatus for his murder (Luke 19:47-48). And he entered and was passing through Jericho. And behold, a man by name Zacchaeus; and he was a chief publican, and he was rich. And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the crowd, because he was little of stature. And he ran on before him, and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way. (Luke 19:1-4) Jericho ... This city, dating back to prehistoric times, is some 17 miles east-northeast of Jerusalem on the plain of the Jordan river. The old city (Tell es Sultan) is a mile northwest of er-Riha village (modern Jericho). Either location is properly called "Jericho." In the times of Jesus, Herod the Great (40/37 B.C.) and his successors built a winter palace with ornamental gardens, near the famous palm and balsam groves that yielded lucrative revenues.[1]In 1952 this city had a population of about 41,000. It is situated 835 feet below sea level; and the 17-mile road to Jerusalem rises to 2,500 feet above sea level, the altitude of Jerusalem, which Isaiah 3,800 feet above the Dead Sea level.[2] Thus, the road that lay before Jesus was a steep one, literally as well as spiritually. Zacchaeus ... The meaning of this name is "pure";[3] and there is nothing known of this man which would entitle men to deny his right to wear it. Chief publican, and ... rich ... Zacchaeus was not a tax collector, but a superintendent of tax collectors, nor is there any hint here of how Zacchaeus had become wealthy. Herod might have appointed a man independently wealthy to administer the tax system. The idea that "Zacchaeus had amassed his wealth by fraud"[4] is foreign to this passage. As Ryle noted, "Here we see the camel passing through the eye of the needle, and the rich man entering the kingdom of God!"[5]Could not for the crowd ... Zacchaeus' small stature and the press of the crowd effectively shut off Zacchaeus' view, so that he could not see Jesus; but there was something else that blocked his way. "According to the Judaism of that time, his calling excluded him from membership in the people of God who would benefit from Messiah's coming."[6] The Pharisees had categorically excluded all publicans. It could be that Zacchaeus had heard of Jesus' calling the publican Matthew to the apostleship, or perhaps of Jesus' compliment paid to the penitent publican in that parable of the Pharisee and the publican. These might well have been stimulants prompting his curiosity to see the Saviour. Climbed up a sycamore ... Spence identified this tree as the "Ficus Sycomorus," the fig-mulberry, having fig-like fruit and leaves like the mulberry.[7] Such trees are strong, with great lateral branches, and are easily climbed. That a man of this chief publican's dignity would have resorted to such a maneuver suggests his foresight, energy, determination, and ingenuity. It would be well if all men exhibited such qualities in their pursuit of knowledge of the Lord. [1] The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), p. 613. [2] The Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: William Benton Publisher, 1961) Vol. 13, pp. 1,6. [3] F. N. Peloubet, Peloubet's Bible Dictionary (Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company, 1925), p. 746. [4] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974), p. 223. [5] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House), p. 290. [6] Donald G. Miller, The Layman's Bible Commentary (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1959), p. 132. [7] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 135. Verse 5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for today I must abide at thy house. And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully.Said unto him, Zacchaeus ... "The Lord's perfect knowledge is clearly shown in this case. He knew not only the name of the man in the sycamore tree, but the state of his heart."[8] We are unable to find any grounds of accommodation with those who question whether or not the omniscience of Jesus is in view here, asking, "Did someone identify the rich tax collector in his unusual perch for Jesus?" nor with the conclusion that "In the synoptics, there is none of the emphasis in John on Jesus' remarkable intuitive knowledge of men."[9] On the contrary, there is such an emphasis here. Furthermore, the synoptics repeatedly stress it: And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? (Matthew 9:4) And knowing their thoughts, he said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself, etc. (Matthew 12:25). But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why make ye trial of me? (Matthew 22:18). Behold, I tell you beforehand (Matthew 24:25). And straightway Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, saith unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? (Mark 2:8). And Jesus, perceiving in himself that the power from him had gone forth, turned him about in the crowd ... to see her (he already knew it was a woman, that she had been healed, that she was a woman of faith, and that he would save her soul) (Mark 5:30). But Jesus perceiving their reasonings, answered and said unto them, Why reason ye in your hearts? (Luke 5:22). But he knew their thoughts (Luke 6:8). But when Jesus saw the reasoning of their heart, etc. (Luke 9:47). Furthermore, the incident before us, as well as that in Luke 22:10, makes it absolutely certain that the Gospel authors intended that we should understand that Jesus was omniscient. Of Jesus' knowing Zacchaeus, Henry said, "Commentators in general rightly refer our Lord's knowledge of the name and circumstances of Zacchaeus to his divine omniscience."[10][8] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., p. 295. [9] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 222. [10] Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), Matthew-Acts p. 294. Verse 7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, He is gone in to lodge with a man that is a sinner."The moment Jesus ran counter to their prejudices, all else was forgotten."[11] That great multitude, clamoring for the kingdom of God to start, did not have the slightest conception of what God's kingdom truly would be. In just a moment, Jesus would address that epic ignorance with a great parable. ENDNOTE: [11] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), p. 233. Verse 8 And Zacchaeus stood and said unto the Lord, Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have wrongfully exacted aught of any man, I restore fourfold.Conclusions of scholars with reference to this verse are radically different, some insisting that this refers to what Zacchaeus promised to do on that occasion and in the future, and others being equally certain that it refers to a rule of life that Zacchaeus had already long followed, the latter view being preferred here. As Bliss said, "(This view) has in its favor the present tense of the verbs - `I give, I restore.'"[12] Since the Lord Jesus himself made a momentous argument for the immortality of the soul to turn on the tense of a single verb (Matthew 22:32 f), they must be rash indeed who set aside the present tense in this passage in favor of future tense. Nevertheless, it has been quite popular to do this. As Clarke said, "(The passage means that) probably he had already done so for some time past, though it is generally understood that the expressions only refer to what he now proposed to do."[13] Spence has the following: The chief publican's words do not refer to a future purpose, but they speak of a past rule of life which he had set for himself to follow, and probably had followed for a long period. So Godet, who paraphrases thus: "He whom thou hast thought good to choose as thy host is not, as is alleged, a being unworthy of thy choice. Lo, publican though I am, it is no gain with which I entertain thee."[14]H. Leo Boles also concurred in this interpretation: "It seems that he was expressing what he had done and that which he proposed to continue doing."[15] Furthermore, the arguments against this interpretation are unconvincing, as noted below. 1. "There is the absurdity of giving half one's goods and remaining rich."[16] This is an argument from preconceived guesses regarding how rich Zacchaeus actually was. Besides that, the meaning could not possibly be that on regularly stated occasions Zacchaeus delivered half his estate to charity, but rather that total of half his goods had been expended in such activities. 2. "He would then be justifying himself (like the Pharisee in the temple), and Jesus would not have stated that he was saved."[17] The weakness of this is that it could be applied with even more force to a statement of what Zacchaeus merely to do. If there was self-justification in his statement of what he had already been doing, why would not there also be even more self-justification in bragging about what he to do? 3. "No one will extort anything from anyone if he knows that afterward he will have to compensate him fourfold."[18] This argument leaves out the consideration of Zacchaeus' position as "chief' of the Jericho tax administration. Through improper action of subordinates, it would have been, as Spence noted, "easy to commit involuntary injustice."[19] In view here is a godly administrator of the tax revenues, who, when a case of injustice had been brought before him, habitually restored, not merely the amount exacted, but fourfold. With such an administrator, there would not have been many violations; and therefore, we must reject the notion that "There was not one (in that vast concourse of people) who had not been robbed by this chief publican through exorbitant taxes."[20]4. Summers insisted that this verse should be translated, "Since I have defrauded," thus making Zacchaeus here confess that he was a defrauder; but while it is true that such a conditional statement in Hebrew idiom as "If I have defrauded" might be understood as an affirmation of the thing suggested, there is no evidence that such is the case here. Such conditional statements are often used in their primary sense of being conditions. Thus Paul said, "If (Timothy) come shortly, I will see you" (Hebrews 13:23). 5. Some have sought to support their views by the allegation that the murmuring of the crowd proved Zacchaeus to be a public robber, inferring that if Zacchaeus had been accustomed to give great wealth to the poor and make fourfold restitution of extortion, the crowd would not have murmured against Jesus' association with him. However, that was not a Jericho crowd, but was made up of many pilgrims from all over Galilee and other provinces on the way to Passover. They would have known of Zacchaeus only that he was a publican. 6. "Today has salvation come to this house ..." "TODAY confirms the conclusion that Zacchaeus' financial resolution had just been made."[21] The error in this conclusion is in the idea that, if Zacchaeus had already been doing such charities, he would, therefore, have been saved already. It was not his giving money that saved this man, however; it was his joyful reception of Jesus Christ into his home and heart. Regardless of former charities, the event of that reception had just taken place, and thus Jesus quite accurately said, "Today, has salvation come." We have pursued this far enough, somewhat more than necessary, because of the interest intrinsically attached to it. Those who desire to look at this incident differently may do so, dogmatism not being possible in a situation where so many students of God's word have been unable to agree; but the preferable view here is that of Clarke, Boles, Godet, Spence, Dean Plumptre, etc. [12] George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press, n.d.), Vol. II, Luke, p. 278. [13] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1829), Vol. V, p. 476. [14] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 135. [15] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 360. [16] George R. Bliss, op. cit., p. 278. [17] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 472. [18] Ibid. [19] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 135. [20] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 270. [21] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972), II, p. 94. Verse 9 And Jesus said unto him, Today is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.Jesus' singling out Zacchaeus as the only man with whom the Lord ever invited himself to lodge, and the further compliment here to the effect that Zacchaeus was a "son of Abraham," indentifies the chief tax collector as a part of the true Israel of God, "an Israelite indeed," as the Saviour said of Nathaniel (John 1:47), and, in such quality, contrasting dramatically with those who were sons of Abraham only by fleshly descent (as were the Pharisees), and further establishing the likelihood that Zacchaeus was a man of rugged honesty, piety, and devotion. It should be noted that Jesus did not say that "Today has this man become a son of Abraham!" He was already that, in the highest and truest sense of the words. He was like aged Simeon, and others who waited for the kingdom of God. "He was a son of Abraham, in spirit as well as by descent. The Jews denied the right of a publican to be considered a son of Abraham."[22]Dean Plumptre has an interesting suggestion that Zacchaeus the publican was the same as the publican in the parable (Luke 18:10-14), who in the temple, smote upon his breast, saying, Lord be merciful to me a sinner. "Is it too bold a conjecture that he who saw Nathaniel under the fig tree had seen Zacchaeus in the temple, and that the figure in the parable is, in fact, a portrait?"[23]Salvation has come to this house ... As Ryle expressed it, "Salvation comes to a house when the head and master of it is saved."[24]To seek and save that which was lost ... Significantly, even so upright a person as the chief tax collector, a true spiritual seed of Abraham, was nevertheless "lost" until he should be saved by the Lord of life. All men are alike lost in sin, and without hope whatever, until they shall joyfully receive Jesus and love him. Barclay's insistence that "In the New Testament, this word `lost' does not mean DAMNED, or DOOMED," is obviously wrong. He said, "It simply means `in the wrong place.'"[25]Vine defined the meaning here as "spiritual destitution and alienation from God"; and in other New Testament passages, the word means, "the loss of eternal life."[26]It was the great mission of the Redeemer to seek and save the lost; and that was to be done by the sacrifice of himself on Calvary; and there could be no other objective which would justify so great a sacrifice, except that of saving men from eternal damnation. Thus, in what it took to save the lost, one may read the pathetic nature of their state. THE PARABLE OF THE POUNDSThe name of this parable is a little misleading (the name has been assigned by men), because there is much more in it than the analogy concerning the pounds. [22] James William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 187. [23] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 136. [24] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., p. 297. [25] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 245. [26] Vine's Greek Dictionary (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1940), II, p. 18. Verse 11 And as they heard these things, he added, and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear.The reasons why Jesus spoke this parable are suggested here. As Geldenhuys noted: It was to teach that the kingdom of God will not take place immediately, that the kingdom will not bring with it a Jewish political triumph, that all of Jesus' followers must work faithfully until he comes, and that the final judgment is the time when the faithful will be rewarded, and the unfaithful and hostile punished.[27]The parable is as follows: ENDNOTE: [27] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 474. Verse 12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom, and return. And he called ten servants of his, and gave them ten pounds, and said unto them, Trade ye herewith till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent an ambassage after him, saying, We will not that this man reign over us. And it came to pass, when he was come back again, having received the kingdom, that he commanded these servants, unto whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by trading. And the first came before him saying, Lord, thy pound hath made ten pounds more. And he said unto him, Well done, thou good servant; because thou wast faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath made five pounds. And he said unto him also, Be thou over five cities. And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I kept laid up in a napkin: for I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that which thou layest not down, and reapest that which thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant, Thou knowest that I am an austere man, taking up that which I laid down, and reaping that which I did not sow; then wherefore gavest thou not my money into the bank, and I at my coming should have required it with interest? And he said unto them that stood by, Take away from him the pound, and give it unto him that hath ten pounds. And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds. I say unto you, that every one that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him. But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. It would be just as reasonable to declare this parable as "resembling that of the Ten Virgins" as to declare that it resembles Matthew's parable of the talents. After all, were there not ten virgins and ten servants! This parable is unique to Luke, and encompasses a wide spectrum of teaching far beyond that found in any other parable. One portion of this parable (the detail of the ten servants and the ten pounds entrusted to them) does, in fact, recall Matthew's parable; but the lessons and analogies in view are utterly different. As Summers said, "The parable contains much allegorical material."[28] We shall not be concerned with the radical criticism which tries to find here a clumsy melding of two different parables; because the analogies which shall be noted, and the perfect, interlocking unity of the whole parable are devastating to any such notion. IN THE PARABLEThe nobleman = Jesus Christ our Lord His going into the far country = his ascension to God in heaven His receiving of a kingdom = reigning over the church His citizens refusing him = secular Israel's rejection The ambassage they sent = "We have no king but Caesar." The ten servants = all of the servants of Christ "Trade ye ... till I come" = the faithful work of Christians The ten pounds = the trust God gives to every man The one who gained ten = the faithful Christian The one who gained five = the faithful Christian of less ability The one who hid his pound = the wicked and unfaithful Christian Ten cities and five cities = different kinds of employment in heaven Taking away the pound = punishment of unfaithful servants Slaying his enemies = judgment of Jerusalem as a type of eternal judgment The return of the nobleman = the Second Coming of Christ Extended absence of nobleman = the long period of time before the Second Coming There are collateral analogies in most of the above which will be noted below, making this by far the most extensive of Jesus' parables, as far as the comprehensive nature of its teaching is concerned. A certain nobleman ... What an appropriate comparison for Jesus, who was of the royal seed of David, heir to the theocracy, and legitimate holder of the Davidic throne of Israel. As Barclay said, "This parable is unique among the parables of Jesus, because it is the only parable whose story is based on an actual historical event."[29]Many of Jesus' hearers could no doubt remember the occasion, following the death of Herod the Great, when his son Archelaus made the long journey to Rome to have his rule over Judea confirmed by Augustus Caesar. While Archelaus was on that journey, Josephus relates that the Jews "greatly complained of Archelaus, and desired that they might be made subject to Roman governors; but when Caesar had heard what they had to say, he distributed Herod's dominions among his sons, according to his own pleasure."[30]Of course, there is a clear reference, in this mention of a nobleman going into a far country to receive a kingdom, to the historical fact of Archelaus having done so, and with the additional fact of the Jews' having sent messages to Caesar against him. The point, left out of sight in the parable, is also true that their ambassage did no good; Archelaus reigned anyway! So would Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the very place where Jesus spoke this parable was at Jericho, "where this very Archelaus had built himself a royal palace of great magnificence."[31]"Notice that the story is not about a nobleman who set up a kingdom, but who went into the far country to receive one."[32] Jesus did not set up the kingdom while on earth; the kingdom began on Pentecost, after he received it in heaven. "The crowning of Jesus is still to come,"[33] at the time Jesus spoke this. This occurred in heaven (Matthew 28:18-20; Matthew 19:28; 1 Corinthians 15:25, etc.). Citizens hated him and sent an ambassage ... This received a most illuminating comment by Trench: Before yet he had gone to receive his kingdom, the Jews cried to Pilate, "We have no king but Caesar," and again, "Write not King of the Jews" (John 19:21). But the strictest fulfillment was in the demeanor of the Jews after his Ascension in their antagonism to Christ in his infant church.[34]Ten servants ... The number "ten" stands for an infinitely greater number, such use of numbers being common among the Hebrews. "His citizens ..." mentioned in the next verse (Luke 19:14) were also his, and under obligations to acknowledge this rule; but the servants were especially "his" in the sense of being redeemed by him. The citizens were his because he had created them and was their rightful lord. Ten pounds ... Each servant received the same trust, the pound standing for life with all of its emoluments. Literally, "the pound" was "a mina, worth 100 drachmas ($20.00)."[35]The three servants who reported are typical of all, and as Trench declared, "The three are adduced as specimens of classes,"[36] the other seven being passed over for the sake of brevity. We will not that this man reign over us ... (Luke 19:14) Of this, Cox remarked, "Servants, what are you doing with the pound entrusted in your keeping? Citizens, we beg you to let this man reign over you, that you may reign with him."[37]The portion of this parable dealing with the pounds is significantly different from Matthew's account of the Talents. As Boles said, "They are different in every essential and important point."[38] In Matthew, a much larger sum was entrusted, a talent being vastly greater than a mere pound; but there the apostles were in view, and their trust was greater than that of other Christians. There each received, not the same, as here, but according to his ability, etc. Of the unfavorable opinion of his lord, held by the man who hid his pound, it should be observed that the irreligious always have an antagonistic view of God. The king's answering him out of his own mouth shows that men will not be able to complain if God condemns them. To every one that hath shall be given, etc. ... This was a saying of Jesus, intrinsically true, and used on several occasions. Only those who employ their God-given abilities shall keep them and find them expanded. Bring hither, and slay before me ... "This pictures the terrible fate of Jerusalem, indicating the inexorable judgments of God in history";[39] but it prefigures also the Second Coming and final judgment scene. The fact that the unfaithful servant was merely deprived, contrasting with the capital punishment executed here, has led some to suppose that: A distinction is drawn between the reproof of a servant and the execution of an enemy. The judgment of believers for reward and that of the opposing world for condemnation seem to be distinguished here.[40]Such a speculation would seem to be unjustified on the grounds that in Matthew, the Lord said, "Cast ye out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 25:30). This bringing of his enemies and slaying them must not be understood as merely inert matter in the parable. As Trench said, "It belongs to the innermost kernel of the parable,"[41] showing the unmitigated wrath of Almighty God as it shall finally be vindicated upon the wicked. In this great parable, it is of the greatest significance that Jesus is the nobleman who went to receive a kingdom. Therefore, Jesus is Lord and King, and such this parable was designed to declare him, no less than it was designed to show that no immediate political victory for the Jews would mark God's kingdom. The arrogant assertion of many to the effect that Jesus fully expected a glorious kingdom at that point in history is refuted by the implications of this parable, which envisages a time-lapse of centuries. The very fact of Jesus' prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem, as he undeniably did, an event forty years future from his crucifixion, and making that to be a type of the final judgment, as the overwhelming number of Bible scholars agree, shows that the holy Saviour fully knew, and revealed it beforehand, that centuries were involved in the progress of his kingdom to the final judgment. [28] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 226. [29] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 246. [30] Flavius Josephus, Wars, Book II, chapter 6. [31] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., p. 303. [32] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 583. [33] E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 173. [34] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 509. [35] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 583. [36] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 511. [37] Frank L. Cox, According to Luke (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1941), p. 60. [38] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 362. [39] Donald G. Miller, op. cit., p. 134. [40] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 256. [41] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 512. Verse 28 And when he had thus spoken, he went on before going up to Jerusalem.The verses of Luk 19:28-44, beginning here, "form a transition from Luke's central section (Luke 9:51 to Luke 19:27) to the final events in Jerusalem."[42] Jesus will enter Jerusalem as King of Israel, knowing already that he would be rejected and crucified; and yet he would do so in such a manner that all ages would see and understand perfectly his purpose and intention. ENDNOTE: [42] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 98. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 The publicans had access to the money of the people, and by reason of that fact they could increase their own possessions. This prominent group of citizens is described at Matthew 9:10. 3 The press means the crowd, which was so great that Zacchaeus could not see Jesus, he being little of stature, which means he was not very tall. 4 Zacchaeus knew the usual path of travel, hence he found a tree along the route and climbed up into it. The sycamore tree was planted by waysides because it had wide-spreading branches which afforded a good shade. 5 Since Zacchaeus was a Jew (Verse 9), he was a proper subject to be commanded by Jesus, for He was sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). 6 Received him joyfully. Zacchaeus evidently was surprised (and honored) to be called upon to entertain the great Teacher, knowing the general estimate that was placed on publicans as a class. 7 The thing that happened was usual under such circumstances. The people murmured (among themselves after Jesus had gone with Zac-chaeus) because Jesus went to be a guest of one whom they classed as a sinner. That was because he was a publican, most of whom were justly charged with taking unlawful amounts of taxes from the people. 8 The speech in this verse was made after reaching the home of Zacchaeus, for in his response (next verse) Jesus refers to this house. This helps us to understand the phrase Zacchaeus stood, the second word of which is defined by Thayer, "To place one's self, to stand." He evidently took a position where all that were in the house could see and hear him as he made his promises to the Lord. It is significant that he was to give half of what he had to the poor first, and then reimburse any who were wronged after the division. That adjustment would hence be made out of his half of the original stock. False accusation means, "To exact money wrongfully; to extort from, defraud." Such a practice was commonly done by the publicans. As this agreement was made in the hearing of the group, any man who had a complaint was given opportunity to state it. 9 Salvation is come to this house. Not that every member of the household was saved, for Zacchaeus was the only one who repented; it means that salvation had come to a member of that household. A son of Abraham entitled him to salvation on the basis of the statement of Jesus to the woman (Matthew 15:24). 0 This verse states a truth that will apply generally. 1 People are inclined to go to extremes with their conclusions. Jesus had frequently told them that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. They concluded, therefore, that it was just upon them, especially because He was headed toward Jerusalem and was even then very near the city. Immediately is from , and Thayer defines it, "On the spot; immediately, forthwith, instantly." 2 The inspired writer tells us why Jesus spoke this parable, that it was because the people thought the kingdom was to be set up as soon as Jesus reached Jerusalem. Were that to be done, virtually all of the preliminary details showing true devotion to the King would be over. That would be possible only under a worldly kingdom like what they expected. Jesus considered it necessary, therefore, to give this parable that would show it was to be a spiritual kingdom, and that its citizens would be placed under strict responsibility. The nobleman is Jesus, and the far country is Heaven. If he must go to that far country in order to receive a kingdom, it follows that he would not set it up in a few days, or as soon as he arrived at Jerusalem. 3 The specific lesson intended by this parable is the same as that of the talents in Matthew 25, namely, individual responsibility. The details of the story should not be strained into any other meaning. When Jesus or his apostles select any par-.ticular subject for the purpose of illustration, they will give the details in order to make the main point stand out, but no other use should be made of such items. However, the items that are properly related to the principal subject under consideration will be explained accordingly. The pounds corresponds with the "talents" in Matthew 25, and occupy till I cone is the same as developing one's talents. 4 This verse applies to people in the kingdom who deny the authority of King Jesus. Such persons will not make the proper use of their opportunities. 5 This verse refers to the day of judgment, when all mankind will be held to account for the way they have lived and used their talents. 7 This corresponds with Matthew 25:20-21. In that place the faithful are told to "enter into the joy of their Lord." In our present passage it is expressed by having authority over ten cities, but the meaning is the same. 9 This is equivalent to the man with two talents and the reward is to be based on the same principle, namely, faithfulness. 0 This man is in the same class as the one who buried his lord's talent, and he will be condemned for his unfaithfulness. (See Matthew 25:24-28.) 6 The paragraph preceding this somewhat overlaps it, but it will be well to consider the present paragraph in connection with Matthew 25:25-26. 7 This corresponds with Matthew 25:30. 8 Went before. He took the lead in journeying toward Jerusalem. 5 See the notes on Matthew 21:1-7. 6 This is explained at Matthew 21:8. 8 See Matthew 21:9-11. 9 Evidently these Pharisees were envious of Jesus because he was receiving so much honor from the disciples. Their suggestion that He rebuke his disciples was on the pretense that it was an unnecessary disturbance, but in reality it was because of their envy. (See Matthew 21:15-16.) 0 The reference to the stones is figurative, to illustrate the worthiness of Jesus to be thus honored. John told the Jews that God was able to make the stones give birth to offspring for Abraham (Matthew 3:9), and if necessary we are sure He would cause the inanimate stones to express praises for Jesus, should the devoted disciples be forced to maintain silence. 4 See the notes on Matthew 23:37-39; Matthew 24:1-2. Visitation as used here means "inspection, investigation," and applies to the time when Jerusalem was to be visited with distress, as an investigation into her history would justify. 6 See Matthew 21:12-13. 7 He taught daily, also the chief of the leaders sought to destroy him. The connection between these statements is not revealed here. We know, however, it was because Jesus rebuked them for their hypocrisy. 8 The people had great respect for Jesus, and these priests and scribes did not want to lose the esteem of the public lest they fail in their own popularity. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 20 JESUS Luke 20:1-8 Luke 20:1 ---And it came to pass, on one of the days,—We are now in the last week of the earthly life of Jesus; it is not necessary to attempt to outline what he taught each day of this week; some have attempted to classify what he did and what he taught according to each day of the week. “ He was teaching the people in the temple.” Parallel records of this are found in Matthew 21:23-27 and Mark 11:27-33. This was a day of controversy; the chief priests and scribes and elders drew him into controversy at many points; this as many think was the last day of the temple teaching. The leaders had determined to attack Jesus on this morning, both Sadducees, from whom came most of the chief priests, and the scribes who were for the most part Pharisees. Jesus “ was teaching” and “ preaching the gospel”; the “ teaching” the people included the “ preaching the gospel.” To “ teach” means to instruct, while to “ preach” means to proclaim; however, this distinction is not kept throughout the New Testament. Luke 20:2 ---and they spake, saying unto him,—These chief men, who were now becoming bolder enemies of Jesus, asked him “ by what authority doest thou these things?” They are attempting to get Jesus to make some declaration by which they can condemn him; they are not wanting the truth. They had rejected the evidence that Jesus had given them; they had ignored the miracles that he worked, even the one of raising Lazarus from the dead; they now ask for the authority under which he acted. Jesus had given the highest authority and had presented the strongest proofs. He had been with them for more than three years, and in the face of the three years, during which he had taught and worked miracles, they still asked for proof and authority for what he was doing. Their question was double; they wanted to know where he got this authority, or the source of his power. Luke 20:3-4 ---And he answered and said unto them,—There is a dig-nity and authority in his reply; he does not quibble with them; his answer showed that they had not disturbed or disconcerted him by their question. He proposed to answer their question on the condition that they would answer a question which he asked them. He answered by giving them a question as to the authority of John the Baptist. He asked: “ Was it from heaven, or from men?” That is, was John’ s authority to baptize from men or was it from God? John had called upon them to repent and to believe on the Messiah who was to come; where did he get his authority to demand repentance and baptism? This question put them in a dilemma. This question threw the responsibility back on them as to the source of authority; John had testified of Jesus; he had pointed him out to the people; what can they do now with respect to this question? Luke 20:5-7 ---And they reasoned with themselves,—They saw the di-lemma and felt the clutches of it. It seems that they went aside and reasoned “ with themselves.” The original for “ reasoned” is used only here in the New Testament, and it not only means “ with themselves,” or “ together,” but denotes a very close conference. If they, they said, should say that John’ s baptism was “ from heaven,” then he would reply: “ Why did ye not believe him?” They had rejected John’ s baptism, and to admit that John’ s baptism was from heaven would be to admit that they had rejected the authority of God. On the other hand, if they should deny God as the authority of John’ s baptism, they would be antagonizing the people for “ they are persuaded that John was a prophet.” They were anxious to retain the favor of the people; they must seek some way to get the people to turn against Jesus. These leaders had resorted to mob violence and had encouraged the people in acts of violence when argument and reason had failed them. Later they practiced this in the death of Stephen (Acts 7:54-60), and at a still later period with respect to Paul (Acts 21:27-36). At this time they feared the people; if they deny to John, whom the whole nation honored as a holy man, the claim of being a teacher sent from God, the people might turn with violence upon them. Luke 20:8 ---And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I—They had convicted themselves of moral dishonesty; they had shown that they did not want the truth. They were not wanting to know by what authority Jesus taught, preached the gospel, cleansed the temple, and worked miracles; they must have known, but would not acknowledge. It was useless for Jesus to give them further evidence. If they rejected John, they would reject Jesus; if they would not believe John’ s testimony in his favor (John 1:15 John 1:29-36 John 5:33-36), they would not believe that which Jesus would offer for himself. PARABLE OF THE Luke 20:9-18 Luke 20:9 ---And he began to speak unto the people this parable:— Parallel records of this parable are found in Matthew 21:23-46 and Mark 12:1-12. This parable is similar to the parable in Isaiah 5:1-7. “ He began to speak unto the people this parable”; this cannot mean that he spoke only at this time in parable, neither can it mean that he “ began” to speak this parable at this time, but finished it later. Luke has all of the essential features of the parable but his record contains fewer of the particulars, especially the description of the vineyard. Luke is the only writer of the parable that mentions the time in which the lord of the vineyard was absent. The details of the parable are simple enough; a man planted a vineyard and rented it to others called husbandmen; the man then went into another country and remained there “ for a long time.” The vineyard is planted, rented to others, a body of laborers, who are to pay their rental out of the products. Luke 20:10 ---And at the season he sent unto the husbandmen a servant,—It was customary then to rent vineyards and collect the rent. “ At the season” means the vintage time or the time when the fruit ripened and the harvest gathered. The harvest of the vineyard was converted into wine. The landlord sent his servant to receive his share of the product. Those who had rented the vineyard “ beat him” and “ sent him away empty.” They scourged the servants to intimidate him so that he would not come back; he was sent away without any part of that which belonged to the landlord. Evidently they thought that they would get to keep the rent which should have been given to the owner. Luke 20:11-12 ---And he sent yet another servant:—It is not known whether the first servant returned to the master and reported all that had been done; but the landlord sent another servant, and instead of honestly paying over all that was due the owner, they abused him shamefully, and beat him as they had the other servant, and sent him away empty. They treated this servant even worse than they treated the first one; finally a third servant was sent “ and him also they wounded, and cast him forth.” Matthew records that they “ took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.” (Matthew 21:35.) Luke 20:13 ---And the lord of the vineyard said,—The owner of the vineyard saw that the wicked men to whom he had rented his vineyard cared nothing for his servants; they had shamefully treated them, beating and killing some of them; so the owner thought that they would surely respect his son. He was an only son, and is described as “ my beloved son.” If there was left in them any respect for the master, they surely would respect his only son. The owner of the vineyard dearly loved his son and felt that others ought to respect and love him; but he was to be disappointed in this. Luke 20:14 ---But when the husbandmen saw him,—When the husbandmen saw the son coming, they reasoned among them-selves and said: “ This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.” (Mark 12:7.) They thought that by destroying the heir they would then claim the vineyard. These wicked husbandmen reached the climax of their crime by murdering the son. They thought they would own the vineyard instead of being tenants. Jesus thus outlines clearly and emphatically the conduct of these Jews; they were planning to do just as Jesus here describes these tenants of doing. Luke 20:15-16 ---And they cast him forth out of the vineyard,—They killed the son. Their crime grew worse; they began by beating and shamefully treating the servants, but have ended in killing the son and the heir; they began by withholding the rent of the vineyard from its proper owner and ended by an attempt to seize the vineyard; they began by robbing the owner of the vineyard and they ended in an attempt to take the vineyard from him. “ What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them?” Jesus answered this question; there could be but one answer to it; he would destroy them and take the vineyard away from them and give it to others who were more worthy. Jesus had asked the question to give point to his parable, and, according to Matthew, those who heard him answered his question. “ They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.” (Matthew 21:41.) Luke 20:17 ---But he looked upon them, and said,—Here Jesus quotes Psalms 118:22. They had said that his parable could not be true, or that it was impossible, and Jesus referred them to this scripture, and asked to what then does it refer? Peter quotes the same psalm in 1 Peter 2:4-7. “ The stone,” a stone, one which the builders had cast aside as not fit to go into the building, was later found to be “ the head of the corner.” This has been applied to Christ in prophecy and in fulfillment. (Isaiah 28:16; Ephesians 2:20.) It is strange that these leaders could have always referred this scripture to the Messiah, yet did not see that it was fulfilled in the case of Jesus who was rejected by the scribes and priests. (Acts 4:11.) Though the Jews rejected Jesus, yet God has made him the headstone of his spiritual temple, uniting both Jews and Gentiles in himself. (Galatians 3:28.) Luke 20:18 ---Every one that falleth on that stone—Jesus added another word of warning to them by still using and applying the figure of a stone. Everyone that shall stumble “ on that stone shall be broken to pieces.” This signifies that everyone who stumbles at Christ and his gospel, and refuses to accept him, such a one will be “ broken” or destroyed. On the other hand, everyone “ on whomsoever it shall fall,” or shall be found unbelieving when Christ appears, shall be destroyed. The first seems to describe the doom of all those who are offended in Jesus and will not accept him; while the last part of the statement describes a more sudden extermination of those upon whom the awful retributions of justice must fall for their sins against the Son of God. It seems that Jesus has here presented himself in four aspects under the figure of the stone: (1) a rejected or disallowed stone; (2) the headstone of the corner; (3) a stumbling stone; (4) the stone of retribution. AS TO PAYING TRIBUTE Luke 20:19-26 Luke 20:19 ---And the scribes and the chief priests—The scribes and chief priests are more determined to bring the issue to a climax. They have two major tasks: first, to get some charges against Jesus; second, to get the people on their side. They attempt to accomplish these two purposes by forcing Jesus to make some decision against the people. They are maddened into rage at the plain application of the parable that he has just announced. “ In that very hour” they would have taken him, for they saw that the parable was leveled against them, but their fear of the people compelled them to defer their actions. Luke 20:20 ---And they watched him, and sent forth spies,—Parallel records of this are found in Matthew 22:15-22 and Mark 12:13-17. Matthew tells us that the Pharisees went and “ took counsel how they might ensnare him in his talk.” (Matthew 22:15.) Mark states that the “ Herodians” joined the Pharisees in this attempt to “ catch him in talk.” (Mark 12:13.) It is probable that the Pharisees took the lead in this. Though the Pharisees and Herodians hated each other, yet they hated Jesus so much more that they could unite in their opposition to him. They “ sent forth spies,” who hypocriti¬cally acted as though they were friends of Jesus; they desired in pretense to have a great regard for the law and to know how to reconcile their duties to it with respect to the Roman government. They sought by the expression of a single word to get something against Jesus that they might involve him in trouble with the Roman authorities. Luke 20:21-22 ---And they asked him, saying, Teacher,— They affirm here what is true, but they do so hypocritically. Nicodemus used about the same speech, but he was sincere. They came to Jesus not as Pharisees, or Herodians, but just as honest searchers for the truth, hoping by their words to hide their character and purpose, and by flattering Jesus to put him off his guard and lead him into a snare that they had set for him. They pretended to believe him to be all that he claimed and to be ready to abide by his decisions, since they would be absolutely true and just, independent of the influence and author¬ity of men. They hypocritically acknowledged his doctrine to be true and righteous; to encourage him, as they thought, to give a decision that would incriminate him before the Roman authorities, that he would render such a decision without re-spect of persons; they thus attempted to encourage him to give the very decision that they wanted him to give, which they thought would incriminate him before the Roman authorities. Their question was artfully, skillfully, and adroitly framed: “ Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” Mark adds: “ Shall we give, or shall we not give?” (Mark 12:14.) Luke 20:23 ---But he perceived their craftiness,—They thought that they had Jesus in a dilemma; it matters not which horn of it he should take; they thought they would condemn him. If he said that they Luke 24:27 ---And beginning from Moses— Jesus presented a compre-hensive view of all the Messianic prophecies from the first of the series of predictions in the writings of Moses down through the prophets to the time of his appearance; then the fulfillment of these predictions in himself; Jesus thus declared that he was the heart of the Old Testament scriptures. In ac¬cepting the scriptures with the prophets, they should have un¬derstood that Jesus was their long-looked-for Messiah. should pay tribute to Caesar, he would render himself unpopular with the people. This was what the Jews wanted; they wanted to turn the people against him so that it would be easier for them to condemn him. If he said that they should not pay tribute to Caesar, they would condemn him for being in rebellion against the Roman authorities; and they were anxious to have the Roman authorities condemn him and put him to death. Jesus perceived their “ craftiness." He knew the thoughts and intentions of their hearts. The original for “ craftiness" means “ any deed done in wickedness." The Greek, so translated, is found only five times in the New Testament; it is the same word that is used in de¬scribing Satan’ s “ subtlety" in tempting Eve. (2 Corinthians 11:3.) Luke 20:24 ---Show me a denarius.—This was a Roman silver coin, worth about fifteen to seventeen cents. The Jews had a maxim that “ wherever a king’ s coin is current, there his sovereignty is acknowledged.” This coin was evidence of the Roman dominion over the land, and by using it the Jews acknowledged their subjection to the Roman power. When he received the “ denarius" he asked: “ Whose image and superscription hath it?" The “ image" was probably the likeness of the Roman emperor, Tiberius Caesar; the “ superscription” was the motto of the coin, the title of the emperor declarative of his sovereignty. The image showed that it was not a Jew¬ish coin, for the Jews put no images on their coins; they did put inscriptions on them. Luke 20:25 ---And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things— They had correctly answered his question about the image and the superscription on the denarius. He then made this reply to them. “ Render unto Caesar" means “ pay off," or “ render a gift," or “ render what is due." If they had Caesar’ s coin in circulation, they should render unto Caesar that which belonged to him. No one could dispute what he had said; everyone should give to the government under which he serves that which is justly due it. Sometimes governments claim of their citizens that which is not right; in such a case as this, the citizen does not owe the government that which is wrong. It is a common principle of honesty to give all their dues and no one can dispute this; so they should give unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’ s. This principle was expanded in Romans 13:1-7. The Jews even taught that a king ought to have his dues. The second part of the answer was that they should render unto “ God the things that are God’ s.”Luke 20:26 ---And they were not able to take hold—They were unable to pervert his language and do damage against him at any time. They were astonished and “ marvelled at his answer,” but they held their peace. His reply was so unexpected, so apt, so true, and so wise that they were caught in a snare— the one that they had thought to impose upon Jesus. He com¬pletely put them to silence; they “ held their peace” and “ left him, and went away.” (Matthew 22:22.) AS TO THE Luk_20:27-40 Luke 20:27 ---And there came to him certain of the Sadducees,—Parallel records of this are found in Matthew 22:23-33 and Mark 12:18-27. There is but little difference in the three records of this event. The Pharisees and Herodians had tried their hand to ensnare Jesus, but had been defeated and humiliated before the public. We should not lose sight of the fact that we are now in the midst of the last week of the earthly life of Jesus. The Sadducees now make an attack on him. The Sadducees were a Jewish sect, and were so called either from “ righteousness,” the meaning of the name “ Zadok,” or from their great zeal for righteousness. This sect originated about 260 B.C. They were opposed to the Pharisees and rejected the tradi¬tions which the Pharisees promoted; they denied the resurrec¬tion and the existence of angels or spirits. (Acts 23:8.) They laid stress on the freedom of the will. As a sect they disappeared from history after the first century; they were men of rank, wealth, and education; the priestly families in the days of Jesus belonged to the Sadducees. They had one great argument with which they had frequently defeated the Pharisees; it was a stock conundrum with which they had often gotten a laugh on the Pharisees. They volunteered to try it on Jesus. Luke 20:28 ---and they asked him, saying,—They approached Jesus with an apparent regard as a prophet or religious teacher; they also approached him with an air of great respect for the law of Moses. They presented him their problem based on Deuteronomy 25:5-10. The case that they cited required a brother to take his deceased brother’ s wife and raise a son unto his brother that his brother’ s name might not perish in the genealogy. The Sadducees thought to show from the law the manifest absurdity of the doctrine of the resurrection, because they presumed that the present relations of life must continue in the future state. Luke 20:29-31 ---There were therefore seven brethren:—It is very likely that this was a fictitious case; it was a favorite argu¬ment of the Pharisees with the Sadducees, and illustrates the manner of their opposition to the resurrection. The first born of the wife of the deceased brother was to perpetuate the name, provided the first born was a son. The Sadducees pre¬sent this case as an actual fact, for they said: “ Now there were with us seven brethren” (Matthew 22:25), which presents the case as an actual fact. The number of brethren who had the same woman as a wife presented a very complex problem so the Sadducees thought; the Pharisees were not able to meet the argument. While it may have been a fictitious case, all grant the possibility of such a thing happening, but the im-probability of it is very evident. Luke 20:32-33 ---Afterward the woman also died.—There was no surviving husband and the wife died. The woman had married, according to supposition, successively to seven brothers, from each of whom she was separated by death. The Sadducees thought that Jesus would either deny the belief as to the resurrection, or that he would make some statement contrary to the law of Moses. If he denied the resurrection, he would incur the enmity of the Pharisees, who believe in the resurrection ; if he denied the law of Moses or contradicted it, he would be condemned for perverting the holy law. They did not care which Jesus did; they were only seeking an opportunity to condemn him. Whose wife would she be in the res¬urrection? The problem was squarely put to Jesus, and from their point of view, there was no escape for him. But they did not know Jesus of Nazareth. Luke 20:34-35 ---And Jesus said unto them,—Both Matthew and Mark preface Jesus’ reply by: “ Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matthew 22:29.) “ The sons of this world” marry and are given in marriage; “ sons of this world” simply means the present state of being as confined to mortals; the expression simply means that in this life the marriage relation obtains. In the future life, or life after death, there are no regulations of sex. Sex belongs to this fleshly state, and ceases when the fleshly state ceases. Sex belongs to this physical body and was ordained to perpetuate the physical existence. Marriage belongs to the physical existence, or to the physical body for the procreation of the animal part of man; but when the earthly existence and the fleshly body shall have ceased, marriage will have ceased as all the physical elements of marriage have ceased. In the future existence those who have attained unto the resurrection of the dead “ neither marry, nor are given in marriage”—there is no such thing as marriage after death. Luke 20:36 ---for neither can they die any more:—After the resurrection there is no death, hence no need of procreation. Here we die physically, and the human race would soon become extinct if there was no generation going on to perpetuate the race; but in the future state where there is no death there is no need of marriage to perpetuate the beings there. “ They are equal unto the angels”; that is, angels do not die; they have an eternal existence; so after the resurrection we have an eternal existence, and in that sense, we are equal to the angels. The existence, relations, and state are equal to that of the angels. In the resurrection there is not an earthly state which is sensual and mortal, but heavenly, spiritual, and immortal. They are “ sons of God,” which means that they share in the resurrection of the just, and are in possession of a new life. It is evident here that Jesus is speaking only of the resurrection of the just; the resurrection of the wicked does not come into view here. Luke 20:37-38 ---But that the dead are raised,—Jesus gives an invinci-ble argument for the resurrection; he holds that the words spoken to Moses concerning the burning bush (Exodus 3:6) prove the feet of a resurrection. Jesus meets the error of the Saddu- cees fundamentally; he strikes at the very mistake on which their error is founded. These Sadducees were “ materialists”; they held that man was no more than an animal; that death ended all of men. They based their argument against the res-urrection on the ground that man has no spirit, and, therefore, no life after the death of his body. Matthew puts this argument in an interrogative form: “ Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?” (Matthew 22:31-32.) Jesus in commenting on this says that God is not “ the God of the dead, but of the living.” This shows that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still in existence; they were dead physically, but their personality and identity continued; hence there is a life after death, and if a life after death, there is a resurrection. Luke 20:39-40 ---And certain of the scribes answering said,—The scribes belonged to the Pharisees; they enjoyed seeing Jesus put the Sadducees to silence, for they had often encountered their error, and apparently had never been able to refute it so successfully. They complimented Jesus for having answered well, and thought it wise for themselves to ask him no more questions. The courage of the Pharisees, Herodians, and Sadducees now vanished; they will now have to follow some other course in order to destroy Jesus. A AND A WARNINGLuk_20:41-47 Luke 20:41 ---And he said unto them, How say they—Parallel records of this are found in Matthew 22:41-46 Matthew 23:1-13; Mark 12:35-40. The Pharisees, Herodians, and Sadducees had been plying questions to Jesus, attempting to ensnare him; they had been unsuccessful. Jesus had put them to silence and they thought it wise not to ask him any more questions. Jesus now puts a question to them; he turns the tables on them. He asked them : “ How say they that the Christ is David’ s son?” Matthew gives a fuller record and says: “ What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he?” (Matthew 22:42.) They answered that he was “ the son of David.” And Jesus then put another question to them and asked how then could David call him Lord, if he was the son of David. They were not able to answer him. Luke 20:42-44 ---For David himself saith—Jesus now quotes Psalms 110:1 and makes three points in his argument. First, all the prophets hold that the Messiah is to be in the line of David. (2 Samuel 7:12-29; Isaiah 11:1-10 Isaiah 55:3-4; Jeremiah 30:9; Ezekiel 34:23-24 Ezekiel 37:24; Hosea 3:5; Luke 1:69; Revelation 22:16.) Second, David himself calls this Messiah “ Lord” in the passage here quoted from Psalms 110:1. Third, “ Lord” is a title of dignity, superiority, used appropriately by a son of his father, but never by the father of his son. How then is this enigma to be solved— that a father speaks of his son as his Lord? What sort of son must this be? All Jews held David in high honor, but what of this yet greater Son? The Jews referred this quotation to the Messiah, yet they could not tell how he could be a descendant of David, and yet be his Lord, not knowing that beside his human nature, which descended from David (Revelation 22:16), he possessed a divine nature as the Son of God (Romans 1:3-4). The deity and humanity of Jesus disturbed the Jews at that time and is still a matter of much discussion by critics today. Luke 20:45-46 ---And in the hearing of all the people—In the presence of all, while the people were listening, Jesus gave a warning to his disciples, saying: “ Beware of the scribes.” Matthew adds “ and the Pharisees.” (Matthew 23:2.) Jesus then describes these scribes and Pharisees; he states their ruling passion, which was the love of display and honor “ to be seen of men.” (Matthew 23:5.) The seven woes pronounced upon them, recorded in Matthew 23:13-25, are among the most scathing denunciations that Jesus pronounced upon any class. They desired “ to walk in long robes” ; that is, to go about in long, flowing robes such as were worn by priests and kings and by persons of high rank and distinction. They loved “ salutations in the marketplaces.” They loved the complimentary salutations which were performed in a formal and ceremonious way. “ The marketplaces” were the places to which people were accustomed to resort. They loved these public greetings in the public place; they were vain and haughty. “ Chief seats in the synagogues” means the first seats nearest the reading desk where the sacred books were kept; and they occupied “ chief places at feasts.”Luke 20:47---who devour widows’ houses,—They were like cunning, ferocious beasts; they devoured the substance of widows who were the most defenseless of the poor and the most deserving of sympathy and kindness. They influenced widows to give them of their property as an act of piety, or to bequeath it to them. As spiritual advisers of men, and sometimes as the executors of their wills and the guardians of their children, they had special opportunities to rob widows of their property. “ For a pretence make long prayers” is another characteristic of their hypocritical conduct. They made religion a mask in order to gain the confidence and property of even the most helpless. It is said that some of the rabbis would spend nine hours in prayer in a day. Jesus stated that “ these shall receive greater condemnations.” Verse 1 In this chapter, which details Jesus' teachings on Monday of the final week, there are the following units; the Pharisees questioned Jesus' authority (Luke 20:1-8); he gave the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Luke 20:9-18); he answered the question of tribute to Caesar (Luke 20:19-26); he exposed the question of the Sadducees regarding the resurrection (Luke 20:27-40); he confounded them with a question of his own (Luke 20:41-44); and he uttered a sharp condemnation and warning against the scribes (Luke 20:45-47). All of this chapter is contained in the parallel accounts of both Matthew and Mark; and twice already in this series, a line-by-line exegesis of these teachings has been presented. To avoid needless repetition, the several units of this chapter are discussed in a more general manner. I. The Pharisees questioned the authority of Jesus, their purpose no doubt being to embarrass the Lord. That Jesus had no authority from THEM was certain; and, supposing that they alone could grant authority to religious teachers, they must have felt rather smug in propounding their question. And it came to pass on one of the days, as he was teaching the people in the temple, and preaching the gospel, there came upon him the chief priests and the scribes and the elders; and they spake unto him, saying unto him, Tell us: By what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? And he answered and said unto them, I also will ask you a question; and tell me: The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, From men; all the people will stone us: for they are persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that they knew not whence it was. And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. (Luke 20:1-8) Parallels: Matthew 21:23-27; Mark 11:27-33. Their question was snide, as was evident in the malice and dishonesty of them that asked it; and yet, despite this, the question itself is the most important that any man may ask concerning the authority of Jesus. Whence is it? That question must be answered by every person hoping to enter into eternal life. There is a dramatic contrast in the manner of Jesus' feeding the same words of those hypocrites back to them. They demanded that Jesus "Tell us"; but Jesus threw their hand grenade back into their own faces, saying "TELL ME!" By such a shocking refusal of their rights to pass on the credentials of the Christ, the Lord exposed them before all the people. John the Baptist's authority was indeed from God (John 1:5); and the chief priests, scribes and elders of Israel well knew this; for the mighty herald had unequivocally identified Jesus thus: The Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29) He that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit (John 1:33) He that hath the bride is the bridegroom (John 3:29) He ... cometh from above, is above all (John 3:31) He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God (John 3:33) God hath given to the Son all things (John 3:35) He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life (John 3:36) He that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him (John 3:36) With a corpus of testimony like that, well known to all the people, and coming from a man even the priests recognized as universally hailed a true prophet of God - the name "John the Baptist" must have struck fear and embarrassment into the hearts of Jesus' challengers. So great was the impact of Jesus' question that it appears they withdrew somewhat, and held a council among themselves on the answer they would give. It quickly appeared that not Jesus, but they, were trapped. The best thing they could come up with was an open profession of ignorance, and that before the multitudes! Verse 9 And he began to speak unto the people this parable: A man planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country for a long time. And at the season he sent unto the husbandmen a servant, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. And he sent yet another servant: and him also they beat, and handled him shamefully, and sent him away empty. And he sent a third: and him also they wounded and cast him forth. And the lord of the vineyard said, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; it may be they will reverence him. But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying, This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance will be ours. And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He will come and destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. But he looked upon them, and said, What then is this that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner? Every one that falleth on that stone shall be broken to pieces; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust. Parallels: Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12. THE PARABLE OF THE WICKED . This great parable is the central member of a trilogy of magnificent parables, all three of which were spoken by Jesus to set forth the rebellious behavior of official Israel. The full trilogy is found only in Matthew (Matthew 21:28 to Matthew 22:14). The independence of the synoptic Gospels (and all of them, for that matter) is nowhere more evident than here. This trilogy of parables is arranged in ascending order of power and dramatic effect (see full discussion of this in my Commentary on Matthew,Matthew 22:14). They are the Parable of Two Sons, the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, and the Parable of the Marriage of the King's Son. If either Mark or Luke had access to Matthew's Gospel, or if either one of them had ever seen it, there can be no logical explanation of why they would have selected the central member of the trilogy and left out the other two. On the other hand, there is no logical device by which it may be supposed that Matthew took Mark's (and Luke's) single parable and formed it into a trilogy, because the trilogy carries within itself the most positive and overwhelming proof of originality, an originality that plants it undeniably in the authentic words of Jesus our Lord. The ancient convictions that all of the sacred authors wrote independently of each other is justified by many such things in the Gospels. Analogies in the parable are easily seen. God, the householder, let out his vineyard, which is the chosen people with their privileges and protection from the Father, to the husbandmen who are the leaders of Israel. Such things as the planting of the vineyard, the hedge, the winepress, etc., represent the establishment of Israel as the chosen people and such religious devices as the law, the temple, etc. The servants whom God sent to Israel to receive the fruits of his vineyard were the prophets of the Old Testament, leading up to and including John the Baptist. Maltreatment of the servants represents Israel's rejection, abuse, and even murder of the prophets. The householder's (God's) desire for fruits in season was God's desire for true spiritual fruits from Israel, including especially a recognition on their part of the need of salvation. The beloved Son in the parable is Jesus Christ. Their casting him forth and killing him prophesied the hierarchy's crucifixion of Jesus without the camp of Israel. The fact of the Son's coming last of all shows the finality of God's revelation in Christ who is God's last word to man. God's taking the vineyard away from the wicked husbandmen and giving it to others is the replacement of Israel with Gentiles in the main possession of the gospel. The householder's going into another country for a long time stands for the absence of God, in a sense, during the long ages when Israel was left unpunished for countless rebellions against God, in the period required for the bringing of Christ into the world. This is the heir; let us kill him ... This parable shows very clearly that the leaders of Israel recognized Christ as the true heir of the throne of David, the head of the Theocracy, and as the promised Messiah. The only flaw in their identification of Christ was in this, that they failed to see that he was GOD come in the flesh. He will destroy these husbandmen ... is a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. In the third member of the trilogy, this prophecy took the form of a king sending his armies, killing those murderers, and burning their city (Matthew 22:7). The stone which the builders rejected ... By this, Christ referred to himself. He is the chief cornerstone; the builders (those wicked leaders) rejected him, but they are not through with him; he will be the head cornerstone of the New Covenant. For article on "Christ the Living Stone," see my Commentary on Romans, Romans 9:33. Every one that falleth on that stone ... This means "all who stumble at the teachings of Christ." On whomsoever it shall fall ... The imagery here appears to be from Daniel 2:34; Daniel 2:44, in which the little stone "cut without hands" smote the kingdoms of the world and ground them to powder. The Jews were still dreaming of the secular kingdom; and by such a word as this Jesus called their attention to what God would do with their worldly kingdoms. Jesus himself is the little stone; and in the figure he warned the leaders that, although they were planning to kill him, there would come the time when he would fall upon them. Scatter as dust ... The scattering of Israel is in this. Frequently that word appears in the New Testament, and not a few times it refers to God's judgment and scattering of the chosen people because of their rejection of Christ. Too little is made of this prophecy, the fulfillment of which is before the eyes of all generations. III. The theme of events being narrated in this chapter is that of the leaders of Israel seeking to "destroy" Christ. In the question regarding authority, they had been completely frustrated; and likewise in the parable of the wicked husbandmen, it was quite obvious at last, even to the wicked leaders, that Christ was speaking about them. They rallied and came back with a series of trick questions, hoping to procure some word from Jesus that they could use as a pretext for formal charges against him. The most likely area for them to explore was the political issues of the day. This they did at once. Verse 19 And the scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him in that very hour; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he spake this parable against them. And they watched him, and sent forth spies, who feigned themselves to be religious, that they might take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor. And they asked him, saying, Teacher, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, and acceptest not the person of any, but of a truth teachest the way of God: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Show me a denarius. Whose image and superscription hath it? And they say, Caesar's. And he said unto them, Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. And they were not able to take hold of the saying before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace. Parallels: Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17. The purpose of the leaders was clearly stated by Luke in this paragraph. They planned to trip Jesus up with a dilemma. If Jesus said it was unlawful to give tribute to Caesar, he might have lost much of his popular following; and if the Pharisees could have turned the vast multitudes away from Christ, they could have killed him without causing the uproar they feared. On the other hand, if he said that it was not lawful to give tribute to Caesar, they were planning to prefer charges before the Roman governor against him as a seditionist, that is, a man rebelling against lawful authority and forbidding the people to pay taxes. The hypocrisy of the leaders is seen in the spies and their flattering approach to Jesus, but his omniscience is seen in the perfect understanding of his questioners and their wicked devices. Kings and rulers in all ages, as well as all governments, held that the coinage of the realm was the property of the issuing authority. This is still true today in the United States of America. Thus Christ's reaction to this trick question was: (1) to establish that Caesar's coinage was in circulation, which he did by inquiring for a coin; (2) then to point out that it could not be wrong to "give back" to Caesar that which was already his! The powerful thrust of this is implicit in two words that surfaced in the confrontation. The Pharisees spoke of "paying" tribute; Jesus spoke of "giving back" what already belonged to the central authority! (3) Next, he took a step forward from this and demanded that those hypocrites also "give back" to God what was his, namely the temple which they had usurped and made a den of robbers, and themselves, created in God's image, they should "give back" to God. The ages have not diminished the glory of this astounding answer. IV. One is a little surprised at the Sadducees appearing in this cabal against the Lord; and the desperation of the Pharisees' case is evident in their including those old enemies of theirs in the contest. This was due to the fact that the Sadducees were the stronger political party, holding most of the high offices, including that of high priest; and these were in fact, the principal architects in the plot to kill Jesus. At any rate, they tried their luck against the Lord of Life. Verse 27 And there came to him certain of the Sadducees, they that say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Teacher, Moses wrote unto us, that if a man's brother die, leaving a wife, and he be childless, his brother shall take the wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died childless, and the second, and the third took her; and likewise the seven also left no children, and died. Afterward the woman also died. In the resurrection therefore whose wife of them shall she be? for the seven had her to wife. Verse 34 And Jesus said unto them, The sons of this world marry, and are given in marriage: but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: for neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the place concerning the bush when he called the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Now he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. And certain of the scribes answering said, Teacher, thou hast said well. For they durst not any more ask him any question.Parallels: Matthew 22:22-33; Mark 12:18-27. The Sadducees' question regarded a projection that was theoretically possible, but actually quite unlikely and ridiculous on the face of it. It is impossible to see how they considered this any greater problem than if only two brothers had been involved in the marriage of one woman. Nevertheless, because, under the Levirate marriage required in Moses' law, such a development was not impossible, Jesus ignored the unlikelihood of it and answered it. First, regarding marriage, such an institution will not be found in the eternal world. In this connection, one cannot help wondering about "marriage for eternity" as taught in Mormonism! Just as other fleshly relationships shall have been left behind, so marriage also will not exist in the next world. Two worlds are clearly spoken of by Jesus in this passage. "This world" (Luke 20:34) and "that world" (Luke 20:35) are the designations Jesus used of the "here" and the "hereafter," nor is there the slightest hint of anything unreal about the future world. The Lord spoke with full authority of conditions there; and his words should illuminate all who heed them. They are equal to the angels ... The Sadducees had raised no question about angels, although, of course, as a matter of fact, they denied that any such beings existed; but Jesus applied the stretchers to their brains in this department also. The Lord not only spoke of angels as actual beings, but he revealed that men shall be equal to angels in the hereafter (see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 1:14). Sons of God ... sons of the resurrection ... This use of the two expressions synonymously is a pledge of a resurrection for the sons of God. The doctrine of the resurrection is a fundamental of Christianity; and no faith is adequate which denies it (see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 6:2). Even Moses ... taught the resurrection of the dead; and the ignorance of the Sadducees of this was the reason for their not believing. Jesus said, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). Christ at once cited an example of Moses' teaching on the resurrection; and the incident referred to brings in focus Exodus 3:6 : And he (God) said, I AM the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Significantly, Jesus made the argument for the resurrection to turn upon a single verb, AM, and the tense of the verb at that! Such faith in the Scriptures on the part of Jesus should inspire his followers to trust the Bible. It is also significant that Jesus applied these words, I AM, to himself, referring to himself as "I AM" in Mark 6:30; Mark 14:62, and John 18:5; and there can be no understanding of Jesus' use of this expression except as an affirmation of his Godhead. Naturally, after such a devastating defeat at the hands of Jesus, the questioners withdrew, no more daring to ask any question of the Lord. However, Jesus would turn the tables and ask them a question. Verse 41 And he said unto them, How say they that the Christ is David's son? For David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. David therefore calleth him Lord, and how is he his son? Parallels: Matthew 22:41-46;Mark 12:35-37. V. Jesus himself asks his questioners a question. As seen from the parallels, this is an abbreviation of a very significant question which Jesus' questioners were utterly unable to answer. Its importance merits some further study of it. 1. The question itself. This was simple enough. In Psalms 110:1, which Jesus quoted, David had referred to the coming Messiah as "My Lord," and, despite this, the most widely received title of the Messiah, and one used throughout Israel in those times, was that which entered into the first verse of the New Testament, "Jesus, the Son of David." This was the title used by the Syro-Phoenician woman, and the beggar at Jericho. Jesus, therefore, said to the religious leaders, "How can the Christ be BOTH the Lord of David and the Son of David at the same time?" 2. The true answer to the question. AS GOD, Jesus is the Lord of David; and in the flesh, he is the Son of David. In God's great promise of the Saviour coming into the world, the GOD-MAN who would save from sin, it was mandatory that the prophecies reveal both natures of the Holy One. Implicit in such a revelation was the built-in necessity of apparent contradiction, due to the antithetical natures of God and man. He who was BOTH would naturally possess antithetical attributes. It is this which led to the Old Testament prophecies that Jesus would be Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, etc., and, at the same time, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. This dual nature of the promised Messiah the Jewish leaders never understood. Their pride led them to dwell upon the more glorious qualifications of the Messiah revealed in prophecy and to rationalize the prophecies of Messiah's sufferings, rejection and death. They even projected two Messiahs, one the Conquering Hero and the other the Suffering Priest. This misunderstanding of holy prophecy was the undoing of Israel's leaders, for it led them to reject the Christ. 3. Jesus' purpose in bringing up this question was apparently that of finding one last means of breaking through their unbelief; but they would not consent to learn anything from him. Not knowing the answer to his question, they nevertheless did not ask him the meaning. VI. Jesus' question which fingered the precise point of the leaders' ignorance was scorned by them as something they did not care to know; and in this their inherent evil was glaringly evident. There could be no divine accommodation with such willful and arrogant sinners. The Lord responded to their obduracy by giving the people a warning against them. Verse 45 And in the hearing of all the people he said unto his disciples, Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes, and love salutations in the marketplaces and chief seats in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts; who devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: these shall receive greater condemnation.How trifling are the things men love. Honorable greetings in the markets of the world, seats at "the head table" at dinners, "the Amen Corner" in churches, medals, titles, a ribbon, a red hat, or a surplice. Looking across nineteen centuries, how insignificant do those special seats at the front of ancient synagogues appear! Yet it was for things like these that the priestly hierarchy of Israel bartered away their love for the Lord of Glory. Nor were such embellishments of their vanity the only trouble with those leaders. With bold selfishness they "devoured widows' houses." Just how they did this is not known but there may be a glimpse of this in the parable of the unrighteous judge, who for private reasons heard a widow's plea; but left in the background is the impression that this instance of "justice" stood isolated in his conduct. Through their influence with such men, the Pharisees had many opportunities to pervert justice. Long prayers ... Capping the picture of Israel's self-serving rulers is this detail of the "long prayer," uttered on street corners or other public stands, full of hypocritical piety, an affront to God and man alike. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 201. Where did Jesus now do his teaching? 2. Who came against him one day ? 3. State their question. 4. To what did he refer? 5. In answering, what did Jesus ask him? 6. Did they answer it? 7. Was it humanly possible to answer? 8. How many difficulties were facing them ? 9. Why not answer the question correctly ? 10. What did a certain man plant ? 11. To whom did he let it out? 12. Whom did he send at the season? 13. How was he treated ? 14. Tell how many servants he sent. 15. Which did he treat best? 16. Why did he send liis son? 17. How did they reason on the matter? 18. What did they do? 19. State the question Jesus now asked. 20. And the answer. 21. What scripture did this suggest? 22. Who is the stone? 23. Who were the builders? 24. Which fall will be more disastrous? 25. Who made application of all this teaching? 26. They wished to do what with Jesus? 27. By what means did they next tempt him? 28. If successful what would they do to him? 29. With what flattery did they approach him? 30. What did they then ask him? 31. Who was Caesar? 32. What did Jesus perceive in them? 33. For what did he call? 34. What ownership did they admit for it? 35. What things are God’ s? 36. To whom should an owner’ s property be delivered ? 37. How did all this affect them? 38. What did the Sadducees deny? 39. State the question they asked. 40. On what theory was it based? 41. What will not take place after the resurrection ? 42. Will the righteous become angels? 43. What can they not do then? 44. How did Moses show that the resurrection was true ? 45. Why was Abraham said to be living? 46. Who endorsed this teaching of Jesus? 47. Who questioned him next? . 48. Tell the question he asked them. 49. Did they answer? 50. Will you answer the question? 51. Of whom did he warn his disciples ? 52. State what these people craved. 53. Whom did they oppress ? 54. How did they seek to hide it ? 55. What shall they receive for this? 1 The priests were a religious group, the scribes were those who copied the law for the people, and the elders were the seniors, members of the Sanhedrin. 8 This paragraph is explained at Matthew 21:23-27. We should remember that Jesus never evaded answering any proper question, but He knew these people were insincere in their questioning; it was prompted by an evil motive. 7 The reader will find this explained at Matthew 21:33-43. 8 The stone is Christ who had been rejected by the Jewish leaders. The significance of falling on or being fallen upon is explained at Matthew 21:44. 9 The priests and scribes properly applied the preceding parable to themselves. They would have tried to do bodily harm to Jesus but for public sentiment. 0 The priests thought they could mislead Jesus into saying something that would get him into trouble with the secular government. Spies which should feign means men who were hired to act the hypocrite in pretending to be just men. That means they were supposed to be concerned about the dignity of the government. 1 These spies really did know all the things they claimed to know, and their statements were the truth. But their motive in saying them was to flatter Jesus, which they should have known would be a failure. 2 In their ignorance of the nature of the kingdom of heaven, they thought Jesus would be opposed to all other governments. Were that the case he naturally would oppose giving them financial aid. Had he answered them to that effect, it would have been ground for accusing him of disloyalty to "the powers that be." 3 Craftiness means trickery which Jesus recognized to be their purpose in the question they asked him. 4 Jesus met the situation in a manner that was doubtless unexpected. Instead of answering their question with a direct yes or no, he asked for a piece of the very kind of money that was being used in paying for tilts government's financial support. He then asked about the image and wording on it, as to whose it was. They said it belonged to Caesar, the ruler involved in their question. 5 In their answer they committed themselves beyond recall, for they directly said the whole thing belonged to Caesar, the very thing he was asking people to give him as tribute. No one would say it is not. "lawful" to give to a man what belongs to him. They had said this money belonged to Caesar, hence it would be lawful to give it back to him. And by the same token it would be right to give to God what belongs to him, namely, their religious devotion. 6 Could not take hold means they had no reply they could make to the reasoning of Jesus. Marveled is defined by Robinson, "To wonder, to be astonished, to be amazed," not that they were favorably impressed with the wisdom of the Teacher. 7 The Sadducees are described at Matthew 16:12. 6 See the comments on Matthew 22:23-30. 8 This is explained at Matthew 22:31-32. 9 Since it was the Sad-ducees who had been baffled in their attempt to entrap Jesus, the scribes doubtless found much satisfaction in complimenting Him. 0 See the comments about the end of their questioning, and the reason for it, at Matthew 22:46. 4 See Matthew 22:41-45. 5 The audience included the masses of the people and the disciples, but in this part of his speech Jesus was speaking to his disciples. 6 Long robes were worn to attract attention, and obtain special salutations in public, such as in marketplaces where many people resorted. Highest seats were the front pews that faced the audience. Chief rooms means favorite places at the table. 7 Devour widows' houses is figurative, referring. to advantages those hypocrites took of the needy and helpless among the people. (See Matthew 23:14.) Greater damnation is explained at the same passage in Matthew. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 21 THE WIDOW’ S MITES Luke 21:1-4 Luke 21:1 ---And he looked up, and saw the rich men—A parallel record of this is found in Mark 12:41-44. It seems that Jesus had taken his seat after the debate was over and his enemies had retreated; even his disciples were not very close to him. He had taken a position near the treasury, “ over against the treasury.” (Mark 12:41.) The word for “ treasury” is a compound in the original and means guard or protection. Jesus was observing, according to Mark, the rich who put in their gifts. This was the last occurrence in the public ministry of Jesus except the trial and crucifixion; this is his last appearance in the temple. His public teaching is over except the few sentences of his defense in his trial and the seven state¬ments that he uttered on the cross. The Pharisees and Sad ducees had been defeated and had withdrawn from the scene, and even the disciples were at some distance as Jesus sat alone by the treasury. Luke 21:2 ---And he saw a certain poor widow—As Jesus sat there and observed the rich “ cast money into the treasury,” there came a “ certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.” “ Mite” was the smallest coin in circulation during the ministry of Jesus; its value has been variously estimated from one-eighth to one-fifth of a cent. Mark says: “ There came a poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing.” (Mark 12:42.) The value of the “ two mites” was estimated at less than half a cent in our money. The coin was bronze. Luke 21:3-4 ---And he said, Of a truth I say unto you,—Mark records that Jesus “ called unto him his disciples” (Mark 12:43), and said: “ This poor widow cast in more than they all.” He compares or contrasts what the widow cast in with, not what one rich man cast in, but with what all the rich men cast in. Her contribution is thus contrasted with the sum total of the con¬tributions of all who contributed on that occasion. Jesus knew how to evaluate gifts and he evaluated her gift as being “ more than all they that are casting into the treasury.” He tells the ground or basis of his evaluation; they cast in “ of their superfluity,” but “ she of her want did cast in all the living that she had.” Of their abundance they contributed a little, but of her meager and scant supply, she gave all. Hers was real self-denial; she felt what she gave; in love she devoted all to God, and trusted in his providential care. OF ; THE COMING OF CHRISTLuk_21:5-38 Jesus foretells the destruction of Jerusalem, the persecution of his disciples, and his second coming. Parallel records are found in Matthew 24:1-51 and Mark 13:1-37. We have here a remarkable prophetic discourse of Jesus, which has been vari-ously interpreted and explained; it has been considered one of the most important and difficult discourses recorded of Jesus. It is given most fully in Matthew; verses 5 and 6 were spoken as he was leaving the temple; the remainder of the discourse was spoken as he sat upon the Mount of Olives over against the city and temple. Between the incident of the widow’ s casting in her two mites, and his leaving the temple, we are to place what is related in John 12:20-50. This discourse is the background of the death of Jesus; the destruction of Jerusa¬lem is recorded as punishment in part of the crucifixion of Christ. This catastrophe is itself a symbol of the punishment of the world at the second coming of Christ. Jesus predicts his own second coming. The various aspects of this discourse should be noticed as it is studied. Luke 21:5-6 ---And as some spake of the temple,—These verses were spoken as Jesus left the temple. Some of the disciples ob¬served the adornment of the temple “ with goodly stones and offerings.” Mark tells us that this remark was made by one of his disciples as Jesus went out of the temple. (Mark 13:1.) “ Goodly stones” has reference to the arches of the bridge which spanned the valley of Tyropoeon, and connected the an-cient city of David with the royal porch of the temple, and measured twenty-four feet in length by six in thickness; these were not the largest in the masonry of the temple; both the southeastern and southwestern angle stones have been found measuring from twenty to forty feet long and weighing more than one hundred tons. Jesus replied that the days would come when “ there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” This prediction of Jesus was literally fulfilled about forty years afterward, A.D. 70, when Titus, a Roman officer, destroyed Jerusalem. Josephus relates that Titus gave orders to demolish the entire city and temple except three towers and part of the western wall. The rest of the wall was laid so completely even with the ground by those who dug it up from the foundation that there was nothing left to make those believe that came thither that it had ever been inhabited. It is recorded that after the destruction by Titus, Terentius Rufus, an officer in the army of Titus, ordered the site of the temple to be furrowed with a plowshare, thus nothing was left but parts of the massive foundations which still remained. (Jeremiah 26:18; Micah 3:12.) Luke 21:7 ---And they asked him, saying, Teacher,—There are two questions asked here by the disciples, namely: “ When therefore shall these things be?” and “ What shall be the sign when these things are about to come to pass?” The first question is the same in all three of the records, but the second question is different in Matthew’ s record. Matthew records the second as: “ What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” Evidently Luke and Mark mean the same thing as the question recorded by Matthew; hence, the second com¬ing of Christ and the destruction or “ end of the world” mean the same thing. Mark records that Peter, James, John, and Andrew “ asked him privately” (Mark 13:3-4) about these things. Obviously the rest of the twelve came after them and heard the discourse; or it may be that these four disciples asked for themselves and the rest of the apostles. “ These things” mean the destruction of the temple, the judgment of God upon Jerusalem, and upon the Jews. “ What shall be the sign?” If the temple was to be destroyed, they should natu¬rally expect his coming immediately when, after destroyng his enemies, he should establish his kingdom. (Matthew 24:21; Acts 1:6.) such terrible events as Jesus predicted naturally aroused their desire to know definitely more about it; hence, they ask for the time and the sign of “ all these things.” The two questions should be kept in mind as the discourse is studied and the answer to each question should be clear to the stu¬dent. Luke 21:8-9 ---And he said, Take heed that ye be not led astray:—At first Jesus gives a warning to his disciples; they should “ take heed” that they be not led astray. There would arise different ones claiming to be the Messiah or representing the Messiah who would lead them astray. There were many such; Josephus, a Jewish historian, not converted to Christianity, but an eyewitness of the calamities of the destruction of Jerusalem, gives in minute detail the wonderful fulfillment of this prediction. He speaks of the country being overrun with magicians, seducers, and impostors, who drew the people after them into the wilderness, promising to show them signs and wonders; thus Theudas, not the one mentioned in Acts 5:36, but a later one, persuaded a large body of people to follow him to the Jordan, promising to divide the river as Elijah and Elisha had done. However, he was captured and taken prisoner before he arrived at the Jordan and was beheaded. An Egyptian also pretended to be a prophet (Acts 21:38) and deluded thirty thousand men. After the destruction of Jerusalem Bar- Cocheba and Jonathan appeared; in almost every age there have been false Christs. Jesus further warns them that when they heard “ of wars and tumults,” they should not be deceived or terrified; all these things must come to pass, “ but the end is not immediately.” Every generation has known of wars and rumors of wars; some have been terrified by them and some have supposed that these wars were signs of the second coming of Christ. Luke 21:10-11 ---Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise—It seems that the prophecy beginning with verse 10 and concluding with verse 19 admits of a double interpretation; primarily it applies to the wars connected with the destruction of Jerusa-lem, and the afflictions of Christians after the death of Jesus; secondarily; it applies to the times immediately preceding the destruction of the world. “ Nation shall rise against nation” ; that is, race against race and kingdom against kingdom. In verse 9 Jesus had said: “ Ye shall hear of wars,” but now he states what will actually take place— a difference between the rumors that they shall hear and what shall occur. National struggles and political upheavals and revolutions shall take place. These shall be accompanied with physical catastro¬phes ; “ great earthquakes,” “ famines,” and “ pestilences” shall afflict the earth and its inhabitants. Historians speak of sev¬eral famines in different parts of the world, one of which was very severe in Judea about A.D. 44 to 47. (Acts 11:28.) “ Pestilences” were common attendants of famines then as now. History records one at Rome in the autumn of A.D. 65, which carried off thirty thousand persons. Luke 21:12 ---But before all these things,—Before the things predicted in verses 10 and 11 occur, Jesus tells what will be done to his disciples. “ They shall lay their hands on you,” “ shall persecute you,” “ delivering you up to the synagogues,” and bringing them into the civil courts because of their faithfulness to their Lord. They should be persecuted in the ecclesiastical courts of the Jews and the civil courts of the Romans. All of these persecutions should be prompted and encouraged by the Jews, and the motive that prompted the persecutions would be because of Christ. The context seems to limit the persecu¬tions mentioned here between the ascension of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem. The Acts of the Apostles records a number of these persecutions. (Acts 4:3 Acts 5:27 Acts 22:19 Acts 25:23 Acts 26:10.) Luke 21:13 ---It shall turn out unto you—It will come off, turn out for you, seems to be the meaning here. It would give an oppor-tunity for them to bear testimony of Jesus; an opportunity would be given them to preach the gospel to persons who would not otherwise listen to them. Paul before Agrippa and other Roman officials is an example of this. Jesus means here that the harm which the enemies would seek to do his disciples should be overruled and prove to be an advantage to his cause and kingdom; they would prove the sincerity of his dis¬ciples, purify their lives, and make of them more efficient wit¬nesses for him. Luke 21:14-15 ---Settle it therefore in your hearts,—This was spoken to encourage Christians while they are persecuted; the disciples were to resolve to endure the persecution without faltering. They need not “ meditate beforehand” how they should answer their enemies; they need not give attention to their defense; they need not be concerned about the outcome of the persecution. All these things would be taken care of in due time. The very answer which they should make would be given them. “ I will give you a mouth and wisdom” is the promise that Jesus made to his disciples at this time. Their answer when given would be complete, and would be such that their adversaries would not be able to “ withstand or to gainsay” it. This should be a great encouragement to his dis-ciples ; it was demonstrated in the case of Stephen, who so reputed his enemies that “ they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake.” (Acts 6:10.) Luke 21:16 ---But ye shall be delivered up even by parents,—We have no case on record in the Acts illustrating this; however, the early Christians suffered all sorts of betrayals and persecution. There were cases of betrayal in families; Tacitus reports that in the persecution under Nero many were convicted by testimoney of persons from among themselves. Jesus had said: “ Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”Luke 21:17-18 ---And ye shall be hated of all men—The disciples of Jesus were not popular with the world; they were to be hated by the world. Jesus said of his disciples: “ I have given them thy word; and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” (John 17:14.) Again he had said: “ If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath hated me before it hated you.” (John 15:18.) The early history of the church as given in the Acts bears witness that the disciples of Jesus were “ hated of all men.” “ For as concerning this sect, it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against.” (Acts 28:22.) Christians have been perse¬cuted and hated far beyond the persecution heaped against any other religion. (1 Peter 2:12 1 Peter 3:16 1 Peter 4:14.) They were to be hated “ for my name’ s sake.” We see here the reason of Christians being so universally hated, not only in every age, but also in the apostolic age. God is a jealous God, and Christ is a jealous Savior; all other religions are wrong; Christianity opposes all sects and parties in religion; hence, it incurs the enmity of all these. Christianity will not share with any other religion; other religions will share with each other, and at times persecute each other, but finally they will all unite in their opposition to Christianity. “ And not a hair of your head shall perish.”Luke 21:19 ---In your patience ye shall win your souls.—Even if death should come, or if they should be put to death, in their patience they would sin their souls. The word “ patience” may be rendered “ perseverance.” It is expressed by Matthew and Mark in this way: “ But he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.” (Matthew 24:13; Mark 13:13.) By their endurance they should preserve their souls; it has been applied to Christians during the destruction of Jerusalem, for it is claimed that no Christian perished at that time. Luke 21:20 ---But when ye see Jerusalem compassed—It is reported that Christians fled from Jerusalem to Pella before it was too late; they followed the instructions of Jesus as here recorded. Here is a sign for them as they had requested in verse 7. Just so sure as Jerusalem would be encompassed with armies, just so sure would she be destroyed. It is a matter of history that the Roman army first under Cestius Gallus besieged Jerusalem about A.D 66, and then withdrew from it; again, the city was besieged by Vespasian about A.D. 68; the devastation continued until the final overthrow and destruction by Titus in A.D. 70. The disciples were to know that when the city was compassed with armies that meant that it would be destroyed; hence, as they believed the words of the Savior, Christians were prepared and escaped from the city. Luke 21:21 ---Then let them that are in Judaea flee—Palestine during the personal ministry of Christ was divided into three divi¬sions— Judea on the south, Samaria just north of Judea, and Galilee north of Samaria. When the disciples were to know that the destruction of Jerusalem was at hand, those in the country, towns, and cities of Judea were to flee to the “ mountains,” where there were caves affording a safe retreat. For some cause unknown now to historians, the Roman general, Cestius Gallus, after taking a portion of Jerusalem, withdrew without capturing the entire city; this gave the Christians an opportunity to escape; the same warning was given to those who were in the country— they were not to go into the city. Luke 21:22 ---For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Days of vengeance---"Vengeance is Mine saith the Lord, I will repay." Luke 21:23---Woe unto them that are with child—There is an exclamation of pity expressed for mothers and prospective mothers; these would not be in condition to flee or to endure the hardships of the siege. Josephus relates that the houses at the siege of Jerusalem were full of women and children who perished in the famine; mothers snatch the food out of their infants’ mouths; and Mary, daughter of Eleazer, of a rich and illustrious family, boiled her child and ate him. The miseries of women in the siege of Jerusalem are probably foretold in Deuteronomy 28:56-57. Vengeance and wrath referred to here is the divine vindication which had been foretold. Luke 21:24 ---And they shall fall by the edge of the sword,—The fear¬ful punishment inflicted by the enemy on the inhababitants of Jerusalem is here minutely described. According to Josephus eleven hundred thousand perished during the siege at Jerusa-lem by the sword, pestilence, and famine. The city was full of people attending the Passover festival when the last siege of Titus commenced; thousands had come from remote parts of the earth, not only to attend the festival, but to assist in the defense of their religion, country, liberties, city and temple; ninety thousand were taken prisoners and sold into perpetual bondage; during this time nearly three hundred thousand Jews perished elsewhere, in addition to a vast multitude who died in caves, woods, common sewers, banishment, and various ways, of whom no computation could be made. Some suppose that Josephus greatly exaggerated the number of sufferers; Tacitus gives six hundred thousand as the number within the city at the time of the siege. “ Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles.” Jerusalem was captured again about A.D. 135 in consequence of an insurrection, which brought most terrible sufferings upon the Jews, who were utterly driven out from the land of their fathers. Judea was sold by Vespasian, and Jerusalem has been successively under the dominions of the Romans, Saracens, Franks, Mamelukes, and Turks. A temple of Jupiter was erected on the site of the temple; afterwards, A.D 635, the mosque of Omar was built upon the same site. The distress of the Jews still continues, and Jerusalem is still trodden under foot by the Gentiles. “ Until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” has been variously interpreted. Some think that Jerusalem will be desolate until it is rescued from the Gentiles by the Jews; others think that it will continue as it now is until all the Jews are converted; still others think that it means that the Gentiles will control it until Christ comes again. It is observed here that the learned and pious have differed widely in their views, and perhaps it is wise not to speak too positively about the fulfillment of obscure proph¬ecies. Those who find here a plain prophecy that Jerusa¬lem will be rebuilt during a millennium, and then be reoccu¬pied by the Jews, and have Christ come and occupy the literal throne and reign over the Jews in Jerusalem, have great diffi¬culty in proving their interpretation to be the correct one. Luke 21:25-26 ---And there shall be signs in sun and moon and stars;—As here observed this great prophetic discourse of Jesus is adorned with figurative language and symbolic terms. Whatever else the language may teach, we do know that it means that great calamities and revolutions among the nations of earth will occur. It is difficult to determine how much of this may be taken literally; it is best to take this language of Jesus literally unless there is some just grounds for regarding it figuratively. There are to be terrific phenomena and changes in nature; just when these would take place is not clear. Some think that they occurred immediately after the Jewish people were destroyed at the destruction of Jerusalem; there were, during the crucifixion of Jesus, some great catastrophes ; the powers and forces of nature, the elements of the heavens, were agitated and convulsed like the waves of the sea. It seems there will be a repetition of these at the end of the world when Christ shall appear in his glory. (2 Peter 3:12; Revelation 21:1.) Fear and distress and trembling shall take possession of the stoutest as they realize the symptoms of ap-proaching dissolutions. The powers and the forces of nature, the elements of the heavens, shall be shaken, agitated, and convulsed. (Hebrews 12:26.) Luke 21:27-28 ---And then shall they see the Son of man coming—It seems clear that Jesus here has reference to his second coming. The coming of Christ is frequently spoken of as actual and visible. (Acts 1:9 Acts 1:11; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; 2 Peter 3:10 2 Peter 3:12; Jude 1:14; Revelation 1:7.) Jesus is frequently represented as coming in a cloud and great glory; he ascended back to heaven in a cloud (Acts 1:9), and he will return in a cloud with power and great glory. At this time when others will be terrified the disciples should “ look up” and not be disturbed, but be encouraged; the disciples of the Lord should turn themselves to face the Lord and greet him as a Friend and Deliverer. The disciples should know at that time that their “ redemption draweth nigh.” Their redemption and complete deliverance is just at hand; they will have waited long and patiently ; now they are to greet the glorified Lord as he comes to elevate them to glory unspeakable. “ Redemption” is here used in the same sense as in Romans 8:23; Ephesians 1:14 Ephesians 4:30. It signifies that full and complete redemption of the believer which will be accomplished at the resurrection. Luke 21:29-30 ---And he spake to them a parable:—Matthew and Mark say: “ Now from the fig tree learn her parable.” (Matthew 24:32; Mark 13:28.) Jesus means to say that they can learn what he has said from the fig tree; that it represents or illustrates the circumstances and signs preceding these great events; he simply says learn the illustration which the fig tree affords. Jesus and his disciples were on the Mount of Olives, where there were many fig trees; it was convenient and apt for Jesus to point to the fig tree and illustrate what he was saying. They knew enough about nature to know that when this tree put forth its buds and foliage summer was near; this was a simple and direct prophecy and pledge of summer; so when they saw these signs that he had mentioned, they would know that the end was near. Luke 21:31 ---Even so ye also, when ye see these things—Jesus makes his own application of the parable; as they know that summer is nigh by observing the leaves on the fig tree, so they know that the “ kingdom of God is nigh” when they see the signs which he has mentioned. Luke 21:32-33 ---Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass—Many of the things which Jesus had mentioned would occur before that generation should pass. This shows that much that he had said belonged to the destruction of Jerusalem. The word of God as expressed by the prophets and by Jesus himself must be fulfilled; “ all things” must be accomplished; the word of God should not pass away until everything has been accomplished. The heavens and the earth were generally regarded as firm and unchangeable (Psalms 89:37; Jeremiah 33:25), but these should pass away before the word of God should pass; this was another way of saying that the word of God would not pass or fail in anything. The word of God is more certain than the established order of nature. (Isaiah 40:8 Isaiah 51:6; 1 Peter 1:24-25.) Luke 21:34-35 ---lest haply your hearts be overcharged—Jesus now warns his disciples that they be found faithful; their salvation, as does our salvation, depended upon their remaining faithful. The important thing that Jesus makes clear here is that his disciples be on their guard when the fulfillment of his prediction takes place. They should not eat to gluttony, drink to drunkenness, and sleep to stupidity; the cares of this life should not so engross their attention that they would not be ready. Jerusalem would be besieged and a great number would be destroyed; drunkenness would prevent their being watchful and being ready; they are to be alert to all dangers. The Lord has promised to take care of his own, but they must do their part in avoiding all unnecessary things and be alert to detect quickly any danger. The suddenness of that time would come upon them like a snare. “ Surfeiting” is a word common in the vocabulary of medical writers for the nausea that follows a debauch. “ Drunkenness” in the original is from the word “ methu,” which means wine, and is used in the New Testament only here and Romans 13:13 and Galatians 5:21. “ Cares of this life” means the anxieties of life, while “ as a snare” means to make fast as a net or trap; Paul uses this word several times in speaking of the devil’ s snares. (1 Timothy 3:7; 2 Timothy 2:26.) God’ s judgment comes unlooked for, “ suddenly,” as a trap or “ snare” upon the careless. Luke 21:36 ---But watch ye at every season,—In wisdom and mercy Jesus exhorts his disciples to “ watch.” “ Watch” in the original means “ to hunt”; the picture is of one in pursuit of sleep, and therefore wakeful, restless. Some translate it: “ See! Wake ye and pray ye!” Keep awake and be ready is the admonition given by Jesus. “ Making supplication” means to be praying; watchfulness without prayer is not sufficient; neither praying without watchfulness is sufficient. They are to watch and pray that they “ may prevail to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.” If the disciples of Jesus are watching and praying, they will be ready and will be able to stand with no fear before the Son of man. Those who were watching and praying escaped the destruction that came upon Jerusalem and were ready for service in the name of the Lord, and were approved by him for the most valiant service. Those who retained their faithfulness throughout the troublesome times were honored with exalted positions in the kingdom of God, which was established on Pentecost, while the overthrow of the Jewish state met its doom. Luke 21:37-38 ---And every day he was teaching in the temple;—This does not mean that Jesus taught in the temple after the delivery of this discourse; it simply means that up till this time that week, he had been teaching in the temple during the day and retiring to the Mount of Olives at night. Luke sums up the teaching of this day with the general statement of the program that he followed. After teaching during the day he went for rest at Bethany, which was less than two miles from Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives. Matthew tells us that he went to Bethany. (Matthew 21:17.) Mark also records that he went to Bethany. On the other days, Mark says: “ Every eve¬ning,” or whenever evening came, “ he went forth out of the city.” (Mark 11:19.) Some think that the Greek word for “ abode” or “ lodged” here means primarily “ lodge” in the open air; hence the three nights of this week, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, Jesus and his disciples may have “ lodged” in some place on the slope of Olivet, possibly in the Garden of Gethsemane. Hence, Judas would know where to find him on the night of the betrayal, for John says: “ Jesus oft-times resorted thither with his disciples. ” (John 18:2.) It was not unusual for people at that season of the year in that climate to sleep out of doors wrapped in an outer cloak, as Jerusalem and the villages near were crowded with people who had come to attend the Feast of the Passover. No satisfactory exposition of this great prophetic discourse of Jesus as recorded by Luke can be given without a very careful and thorough comparison of it with Matthew 24 and Mark 13; these chapters are essentially parallel with Luke 21, and evidently are the same discourse, spoken on the same occasion, and having the same questions calling forth the discourse. The chief points of the report of the discourse given by Mat¬thew, Mark, and Luke which are common may be summed up as follows: (1) The occasion was the calling of Jesus’ attention to the magnificent stones and gifts of the temple; (2) the reply of Jesus that the day would come when not one stone would be left upon another; (3) the earnest and prompt ques-tions, involving two main points— when? and what are to be the foregoing signs? (4) All agree that this discourse was spoken after they had retired to the Mount of Olives, where they were in full view of the city and temple. (5) The three statements agree substantially in making up the first class of foregoing events—“ Be not decieved,” false Christs shall rise, rumors of war, actual wars, persecution of Christians. (6) A special sign is given, namely, Jerusalem encompassed and destroyed. (7) Each of the writers reports the parable of the fig tree to show that the signs were very soon to follow. (8) All three give admonition of constant watchfulness and being ready. It seems clear that a correct interpretation of ihis discourse makes Jesus predict the fall of Jerusalem before the Roman army; this was consummated in A.D. 70. That event meets all the conditions of this prophecy most fully, entirely, and unquestionably unless it be the brief passages in Matthew 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27; and Luke 21:25-28. The difficulty here is pointed by these questions: Do these brief passages re¬late to the fall of Jerusalem or must they be referred to the coming of Christ and the final judgment? The language seems to clearly indicate that they refer to the second advent of Christ; they seem to say more than can be legitimately ap¬plied to the destruction of Jerusalem; their symbolic language is too emphatic and the points made are too far reaching to be exhausted in the scenes connected with the fall of Jerusalem. However, many commentators make them refer primarily to the destruction of Jerusalem. The reasons that they assign for this are as follows: (1) These passages stand precisely where we naturally look for an outbreak of vengeance upon the doomed city; (2) it is definitely said by Matthew (24: 29) that the scenes of these three verses follow immediately after the “ tribulation” described in the previous verses; (3) all these events, not only those of the previous verses, but those por-trayed in these identical verses (Matthew 24:29-31). brought within the lifetime of that generation: (4) all is described as coming within the personal experience of the disciples of whom Jesus was then speaking; (5) all is illustrated by the parable of the fig tree, in which leaves and blossoms fore-shadow fruitage near at hand, showing that not merely some, but all of these events were to follow closely after the foregoing signs which he had fully described; (6) emphatic and strong as these symbols in this contested passage are, yet they present a very different scene from that of the final judgment; (7) the passage under special discussion in each of these three accounts is quite too closely connected both with what precedes and what immediately follows, to be wrested out of its context and referred to the final judgment, when all that precedes and what immediately follows must so manifestly and certainly refer to the fall of Jerusalem; (8) that two events so unlike as the fall of Jerusalem on the one hand and the final judgment on the other, and with all so remote from each other in time, should be purposely de¬scribed by the same symbols and in the same words, cannot well be supposed rational or even possible. Verse 1 Except for the first four verses detailing Luke's account of the widow and her two mites, this whole chapter recounts Jesus' Mount Olivet discourse regarding the destruction of the temple, the destruction of Jerusalem, the Second Coming of Christ, and the end of the world. It is well to keep in view throughout the chapter that the prophecies involve multiple future events and that the distinction of what is meant in every instance is hard to determine. That such multiple prophecies are indeed commingled here is clear from Matthew 24:3, where three separate questions by the apostles are given as the subject of the discourse. "In this passage the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the age so blend that the features of each cannot be precisely determined."[1]For an outline of the chapter, the following has been adopted from Spence.Luke 2 p. 184.">[2] 1. The episode regarding the widow's mites (Luke 21:1-4) 2. Jesus' prophecy of the temple's destruction, and by inference, the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:5-6) 3. The disciples' request to know the sign and when (Luke 21:7) 4. Apparent signs not to be mistaken for real (Luke 21:8-18) 5. The true sign, with destruction to follow at once (Luke 21:20-24) 6. Signs of the Second Coming and the End (Luke 21:25-27) 7. Practical applications and warnings (Luke 21:28-36) 8. Summary of Jesus' final actions before the Cross (Luke 21:37-38) This chapter regarding Jesus' prophecies uttered from the slopes of Olivet is paralleled in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. Matthew's account is the fullest; but it is easier to make a separation of the prophecies regarding Jerusalem and those regarding the Second Coming, in the account here. [1] Donald G. Miller, The Layman's Bible Commentary (Richmond, Virginia: The John Knox Press, 1959), Vol. 18 (Luke), p. 145. Luke 2 p. 184.">[2] H. D. M. Spence, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke 2 p. 184. THE WIDOW'S TWO MITESThis wonderful story has captured the imagination of every generation, and this woman's sacrificial gift has been the inspiration for countless gifts in all ages since then. And he looked up and saw the rich men that were casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw a certain widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, This poor widow cast in more than they all: for all these did of their superfluity cast in unto the gifts; but she of her want did cast in all the living that she had. (Luke 21:1-4) The omniscience of Jesus appears in his knowledge of the financial condition of all the givers, this being another example of the emphasis on this attribute of Jesus on the part of the synoptic writers. The treasury ... Bliss stated that "The exact position of the treasury is not certainly known";[3] but, following the studies of Lightfoot, most scholars have located it in the Court of the Women, in which were placed "thirteen boxes in the wall, for the reception of the alms of the people."[4] These are called "trumpets" because of the trumpet shape of the metal devices on top of the boxes, flaring out at the bottom and narrowing upward to a small opening at the top where the monies were deposited. Two mites ... The word for this coin is noted by Barclay thus: A LEPTON was the smallest of all coins; the name means "the thin one"; it was worth one-sixteenth of a penny; and therefore the offering of the widow was only half a farthing. All she had in the world was two LEPTA.[5]Plummer revealed that "According to Jewish law at the time, it was not permissible to cast in less than TWO gifts."[6] Thus, this woman's gift was the very smallest legal gift possible! More than they all ... Jesus commended this gift, making it larger in his sight than all of the other gifts combined, evidently basing such an evaluation upon the following: (1) it manifested trust in God, being all that she had; (2) it was given in harmony with God's laws, even to the point of the Pharisaical rule that it had to be plural (two); (3) it was sacrificial, there being nothing at all left. If God still measures gifts by the rule of what the giver has left, many a handsome gift must appear deficient. Of course, we must believe that God does so evaluate all gifts to his kingdom. Spence observed that, "As far as we know, Jesus' comment upon the widow's alms was his last word of public teaching."[7][3] George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press, n.d.), Vol. II, Luke, p. 299. [4] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 182. [5] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953), p. 265. [6] Alfred Plummer, The Gospel according to Luke (New York: T. and T. Clark, 1929), en loco. [7] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 183. Verse 5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and offerings, he said, As for these things which ye behold, the days come in which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.THE OF THE TEMPLE'S There cannot be imagined a more shocking statement of Jesus, as this must have been viewed by the apostles. Mark identified the ones speaking here as Peter, James, John, and Andrew. To every Jew, the temple was the most sacred and beautiful thing ever seen on earth. Josephus (Book V, Chapter 5) described the snow-white stones of such great size, some of which were overlaid with pure gold, and the magnificence of this structure which required the labor of thousands of men from 20-19 B.C. to 64 A.D. to build. Although not completed until long after Jesus' words, it was nevertheless sufficiently built, even then, to justify what is said of it here. In addition to the fundamental structure, there were adornments of the most extravagant and expensive kind, given by people out of gratitude to God for various deliverances, or by such people as Herod for political considerations. Herod's gift was a golden vine with clusters larger than a man. Spence thought there might have been some kind of connection between Jesus' praise of the widow's gift and the apostles' calling attention to the precious stones and adornments within the temple with an implication in their remarks that "If only such gifts as you have just praised had been made, never had that glorious pile been raised in the honor of the Eternal King!"[8]Jesus' mention of the stones that would be "thrown down," however, focuses attention, not on the adornments, but upon the foundations. All three synoptics mention this prophecy that not a stone would be left intact in the temple; and this must rank as one of the greatest prophecies ever uttered among the sons of earth. There can be no quibbling about this prophecy. Jesus made it, much to the astonishment of his disciples, and against all probabilities that such a thing was even possible. Why should every stone be moved, especially in view of their size? The occasion for this was the gold plating, which when the temple burned, ran down into the crevices; and the soldiers of Titus made a thorough search for the yellow metal. Also significantly, the temple was destroyed contrary to Titus' orders.[9] After the fire, however, Titus ordered the destruction to be completed.[10] See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 24:1-2. There cannot be any doubt of Titus' making every conceivable effort to spare the glorious temple. Near the end of the siege, when he was trying to negotiate with some of the Jewish leaders, he said, "I will endeavor to preserve you your holy house, whether you will or not."[11] Jesus, however, had condemned the temple to destruction, and not even the word of a man so powerful as Titus could stand against the word of Jesus. Although the destruction of Jerusalem itself is not mentioned in these verses, it is clearly implied; and so the apostles understood it. The temple was the last link between God and the hardened Israel. "How gloriously God had revealed himself there to his faithful worshipers!"[12] Isaiah was called to his prophetic work in the temple (Isaiah 6); and in the temple an angel of the Most High had appeared to Zachariah with the announcement of the birth of John (Luke 1:11 ff). [8] Ibid. [9] James MacKnight, A Harmony of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1950), p. 412. [10] Flavius Josephus, Wars and Antiquities (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), p. 831. [11] Ibid., p. 814. [12] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 524. Verse 7 And they asked him, saying, Teacher, when therefore shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are about to come to pass?Jesus went far beyond answering the question recorded here. He did indeed give the sign that signaled the end of Jerusalem and the temple (Luke 21:20); but as Geldenhuys noted: So terrible, the Saviour warns them, will be the judgments soon to burst forth over the people of Jerusalem, that the judgments upon the guilty city will be the foreshadowing of the Final Judgment at his Second Advent.[13]In the meanwhile, for Jesus clearly foresaw that the destruction of Jerusalem was not to occur for a whole generation, the Lord carefully warned the Twelve not to be deceived by many developments that would only appear to be signs; but as reiterated in Matthew, "The end is not yet." Luke 21:8-19 inculcate the warnings against false signs. ENDNOTE: [13] Ibid., p. 523. Verse 8 And he said, Take heed that ye be led not astray: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and, The time is at hand: go ye not after them. And when ye shall hear of wars and tumults, be not terrified; for these things must needs come to pass first; but the end is not immediately.There were many historical fulfillments of the things mentioned here in the forty years preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. Such things as "wars and tumults," however, were but the normal state of humanity; and even the earthquakes and natural disasters mentioned a moment later were all "par for the course," as far as this world is concerned. One thing that has occasioned some questioning among scholars is Jesus' prophecy of the many false christs who would come claiming to be "I AM," and that "the time (of the End) is at hand." Geldenhuys said; As far as can be ascertained, there were no persons who represented themselves as Christ during the years between the Ascension and 70 A.D. ... this refers to the last days before his Second Advent.[14]Boles, however, mentioned that the whole country (during those years) "was overrun with magicians, seducers, impostors, etc., who drew the people after them into the wilderness, promising signs and wonders.[15] There was also a pretended prophet, an Egyptian (Acts 21:38). If there were indeed no such people claiming to be "Christ" during the interval, Geldenhuys is correct in referring the words to the times prior to the End; but it is rash to conclude that there were no such claimants to Messiahship, whether or not we may be able to identify them. Spence stated that: Many of these pretenders appeared during the lifetime of the apostles ... Simon Magus was one (Acts 8). His rival Dositheus, and his disciple Meander were such ... Many of these false Messiahs appeared in the interval between the Ascension and the destruction of Jerusalem.[16]In view of the prophecy of Jesus, and the known condition of the times, it would appear that the preponderance of evidence favors Spence's view. By the very nature of this double prophecy, the same condition of false pretenders to Messiahship and deity will mark the approach of the final judgment; and it must be observed that our generation has already seen many such pretenders to divine honors. [14] Ibid., p. 530. [15] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 394. [16] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 184. Verse 10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be great earthquakes, and in divers places famines and pestilences; and there shall be terrors and great signs from heaven.The famines, pestilences, earthquakes, etc. were to be expected as invariable phenomena characteristic of all generations. Again, these are not the true sign of the end. They are in a sense NORMAL. It is futile to cite historical examples, which are plentiful. Terrors and great signs from heaven ... Impressive as these most assuredly will be, nevertheless, these also are not THE SIGN. As to what Jesus foretold here, one may only conjecture. Certainly Josephus has the most amazing catalog of wonders that preceded the fall of Jerusalem, such as a cow giving birth to a lamb, the appearance in the skies of legions of marching soldiers, etc. Whatever was the cause of these things, and whatever was their nature, real or imaginary, they were certainly "terrors" to those who experienced them, thus vindicating Jesus' prophecy. Verse 12 But before all these things, they shall lay their hands on you, and shall persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for my name's sake.The application of these verses through Luke 21:19 are primarily to the twelve apostles, this being implicit in the fact of four apostles being named by Mark as precipitating this prophecy; and when Jesus said to them, "They shall lay their hands upon YOU, etc." there can hardly be any way to avoid the inference that the Twelve are meant. Of course, as throughout the discourse, it applies also to the times of the End. Synagogues ... kings and governors ... Thus the persecuting power against the Twelve and the infant church would be doubly prosecuted, by both Jews and Gentiles. The Book of Acts, in its entirety, is an inspired comment on the prophecy here. These things all came to pass exactly as Jesus said. Verse 13 It shall turn out unto you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate beforehand how to answer: for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or gainsay.This promise of inspiration for the occasion was never to all Christians, nor was the recommendation that they should not meditate beforehand what they would say. The Twelve are clearly in view here. Give you a mouth and wisdom ... These are symbolical words with the meaning that they would have the Spirit of God speaking through them (Matthew 10:20) Verse 16 But ye shall be delivered up even by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. And not a hair of your head shall perish. In your patience ye shall win your souls.John Wesley's comment on these verses is correct and impressive; he said: "`Not a hair of your head shall perish' is a proverbial expression (meaning that ye shall not perish) - that is, without the special providence of God, and not before the time, nor without full reward."[17]Summers declared flatly that " Luke 21:18-19 contain words of assurance which appear to be contradictory to what is contained in Luke 21:16!"[18] Some of the Twelve, Jesus said, would be "put to death"; yet here he says, "Not a hair of your head shall perish ... ye shall win your souls." Of course, the ancient Pharisees would have been sure this is a contradiction; but one is always surprised when a Christian falls into such error. Jesus' teaching here is that, even though the Twelve are put to death, nevertheless, neither their soul nor their body (from mention of hair) shall perish! Some of the Twelve were put to death, but have they perished? No. They sit upon twelve thrones judging twelve tribes of (spiritual) Israel (Matthew 19:28). William Barclay had a beautiful understanding of this, thus: Jesus spoke of a safety that overpasses the threats of earth. In the days of the 1914-1918 war, Rupert Brooke, out of his faith and his ideal, wrote these lines: War knows no power, Safe shall be my going, Secretly armed against all death's endeavor: Safe though all safety's lost; safe where men fall; And if these poor limbs die, safest of all. The man who walks with Christ may lose his life, but he can never lose his soul.[19]In your patience, ye shall win your souls ... We should not leave this passage without regarding the admonition to patience. The apostles needed it; Jesus was here telling them that a whole generation would pass before even the first phase of this vast prophecy would begin to unfold, and that some of them would not live to see even the type enacted before men's eyes, to say nothing of the anti-type. When this writer was engaged in efforts to construct the church of Christ complex on Madison Avenue, New York City, at a time when things were discouraging, Berry Brown, the great elder of the church of Wichita Falls, Texas, sought him after a lecture at Abilene Christian College and handed him a slip of paper on which were written these words in the old KJV version, "In your patience, possess ye your souls!" Here is a fountain of strength for every mortal who must endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. [17] John Wesley, Notes on the New Testament (Naperville, Illinois: Alec. R. Allenson, Inc., 1950), p. 282. [18] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974), p. 257. [19] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 270. Verse 20 But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand.THE SIGN AND WHAT SHALL FOLLOW ITThe sign was to be the encirclement of Jerusalem with hostile armies. This was a sign no one could miss; and when it came, they were to expect utter desolation of the city. There is absolutely no evidence here that Luke was writing long after the facts, or that he retrospectively included these words in Jesus' prophecy. Such a conceit exists in the critical schools, but it is unfounded in any evidence whatever, and must be written off as totally unacceptable. Note this: There is nothing in this passage that is not also in Matthew, who mentioned the "armies" that would burn the city (Matthew 22:7), and the "desolation" that would follow (Matthew 24:15); and it is certain that Matthew thus quoted Jesus' words which were spoken forty years prior to their fulfillment. The only word in this verse that is not in Matthew is "encompassed," and such an encompassing is inherent, absolutely, in the fact of the king's "armies" destroying those murderers and burning "their city." One cannot help being wearied by the type of criticism reviewed here; because, more and more, the inherent dishonesty of such criticisms is apparent. The people who make them cannot be so stupid as to be ignorant of the refutation of their theories. As an editorial from "Christianity Today" expressed it: When scholarly objections to particular texts are raised, it is proper to meet them with scholarly evidence on the other side. If we then discover, however as frequently happens - that even when we have shown their criticism of a passage to be unfounded, certain critics continue to reject its reliability, we recognize that their objections are based on anti-Biblical presuppositions and must be seen as a kind of faith or (anti-faith) rather than as scholarship and science. The road that one takes at the beginning of a journey determines the goal he will reach. Starting with the conviction that the Bible is unreliable leads us not merely to mistrust it but to misunderstand it. The prolonged misreading of the evidence ultimately leads to views that are as unreal, abstract, and incommunicable as those of Bultmann and other "modern" theologians. The first need of Christians and the Church today is to start at the beginning, to reaffirm the historic Christian assertion that the Bible is true and trustworthy in the whole and in all its parts. (January 17,1975) A case in point is this verse. The allegation of a late date (after the destruction of Jerusalem) for Luke, and the insistence that he here put words in Jesus' mouth which Jesus never spoke is not serious scholarship at all, but prejudice. There is a whole volume of evidence which refutes such prejudice; but the simple affirmation of the sacred author, Luke, that he gave us an account "of all things accurately" ( Luke 1:3) is far more than sufficient refutation of it. Matthew and Mark in the parallels used the words "the abomination of desolation," both of them being Jews; but Luke the Gentile, while using "desolation," selected another word that Jesus used in the discourse, which was "armies." That Jesus did indeed use that word is seen in the fact that when the armies of Rome surrounded the city, all the Christians fled to Pella (see under Luke 21:21). All of the language Luke used in this verse may be found in the Old Testament, and there is no word or phrase in this whole paragraph which requires one to believe Luke was writing history as a prophecy, an act of dishonesty in itself. Scholars who have spent years of study on the questions raised here affirm that "There is no single trait of the forecast which cannot be documented directly out of the Old Testament.[20] C. H. Dodd was certain that "Luke's reference to Jerusalem being encompassed by armies stands on its own feet, and is not coloured by the event of A.D. 66-70."[21]We repeat, the critical allegations based on this verse are not scholarship at all, but prejudice, grounded in the a priori bias that there is no such thing as prophecy. [20] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 533. [21] C. H. Dodd, "The Fall of Jerusalem and the `Abomination of Desolation'," Journal of Roman Studies, 37 (1947), pp. 47-54. Verse 21 Then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains; and let them that are in the midst of her depart out; and let not them that are in the country enter therein. For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.Flee unto the mountains ... History records that no Christian lost his life in the incredible devastation that overtook Jerusalem, the certainty that they did escape being the only authentication of Jesus' prophecy that is necessary. Eusebius tells how: The Christians fled to Pella, a town in Trans-Jordan to the south of the Sea of Galilee. Pella was one of the Greek towns of the Decapolis, and there the Christians remained free from the Roman warfare and Jewish persecution.[22]All things that are written may be fulfilled ... The great chapter of Deu 28:15-68 is surely included in this. Almost no form of calamity which was visited upon the Jews during the Roman war was left unmentioned in this chapter; but many of the prophets were just as specific (see Leviticus 26:31-33; Deuteronomy 32:35; 1 Kings 9:6-9; Daniel 9:26; Micah 3:12; and Zechariah 11:6). These are the days of vengeance ... At last, as Jesus said, "All of the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of Abel" to the very time Jesus spoke, was coming upon the doomed city. Their greatest sin of all was in rejecting God's Son; and the penalty of that last act of rebellion was summarily executed upon Israel in the total destruction of their city. ENDNOTE: [22] Eusebius, the ancient church historian, was thus quoted by Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 535. Verse 23 Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! for there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath upon this people.As Ash observed: (These) touches depict the horror of a nation scattered by God's wrath (Deuteronomy 28:64). The siege would work particular hardship upon pregnant women and those with babies still nursing.[23]There is no way to entertain any reasonable doubt either: (1) that Jesus uttered this prophecy, or (2) that it came to pass as he said. Here indeed was the Prophet like unto Moses. ENDNOTE: [23] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), Luke, II, p. 115. Verse 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.Fall by the edge of the sword ... Josephus gives the names of the tribes and villages with the numbers put to death, arriving at the fantastic total of 1,100,000; and as Josephus was a Jewish historian, his record must be received as the most reliable that has reached us concerning this disaster. Led captive into all nations ... Titus alone deported some 97,000 at one time; and the scattering of Israel, as often promised by Jesus, was most thoroughly accomplished. Trodden down of the Gentiles ... means occupied by the Gentiles. They did not tread down the city during the siege, nor as they devastated it, but as they occupied it for more than nineteen centuries. The times of the Gentiles ... is here named as the period of time during which the Holy City would be subject to Gentile domination, and it is far easier for Christians now to know what this meant than it was for the apostles who first heard it. The historical record of that period is spread upon the chronicles of nearly two millennia. The proper understanding of "the times of the Gentiles" must take into account the following: (1) The fact that nineteen hundred years were clearly a part of the period indicated, that much time having already elapsed. (2) The fact that these words "are to be understood as the antithesis of the season of Jerusalem" (Luke 19:44).[24] The Times of the Gentiles will be comparable to the times during which Jerusalem held the favored position. (3) The fact that the apostle Paul used a very similar term, "the fullness of the Gentiles," and prophesied that Jewish hardening would continue until that period was concluded (see Romans 11:25, and also comments in my Commentary on Romans, en loco). In the light of the above considerations, the true meaning of "the times of the Gentiles" would appear to be as expressed by various writers thus: The interval between the fall of Jerusalem and the End of the Age is called "the times of the Gentiles," during which the gospel is announced to the Gentiles and the vineyard is given to others than the Jews (Luke 20:16; Luke 13:29-30).[25]To the Jews God granted a time of privilege and gracious opportunity. Near the close of that time the Son of man wept over Jerusalem, saying, "If thou hadst known ... in this thy day." In like manner, the Gentile nations are now having their times, which in due course are to be fulfilled, as was the case with Jerusalem.[26]The times of the Gentiles may mean the Gentiles' "Day of grace," that is, the church age.[27]"The times of the Gentiles" signify the whole period or epoch which must elapse between the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and the beginning of the times of the end when the Lord will return ... In other words, these denote the period during which they, the Gentiles, hold the Church of God in place of the Jews, deposed from that position of favor and honor.[28]There is not much disagreement among commentators that the "times of the Gentiles" represents a very long period of time; but there are many radically divergent views on when those times will be terminated. For example: Dummelow thought they would close "when Israel is converted."[29] Barnes mentioned some who believe they will end "in the millenium"[30] or "when all the Gentiles are converted."[31] Wesley said these times shall terminate "in the full conversion of the Gentiles."[32] Harrison supposed they would close "with Israel's future restoration to favor,"[33] etc. All such interpretations of this passage are rejected here. As Geldenhuys said: Christ nowhere implies that the "times of the Gentiles" will be followed by Jewish dominion over the nations. The kingdom of this world is to give place to "the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ" (Revelation 9:15).[34]Furthermore, the times of the Jews did not mean their "full conversion," and neither will the times of the Gentiles be their "full conversion," but just the opposite. The times of the Gentiles means the period when Gentiles are being saved; and there is a powerful inference in this text that, just as Israel finally rebelled completely against the Lord, so will the Gentiles, bringing on the time of the End. A VERY FACTToday, after over nineteen centuries of Gentile dominion over Jerusalem, during which the Romans, the Saracens, the Franks, the Mamelukes, the Turks, and the British have, in turn, held authority over Jerusalem, (the city is today controlled by secular Israel.) If the interpretations which we have advocated above, the same interpretations that have been in vogue among Christian commentators for centuries - if those interpretations are true, then there is a powerful indication in the current status of Jerusalem that suggests the awesome possibility, if not the certainty, that "the times of the Gentiles" have about expired. The current status of true faith in Christ in our troubled world is weak and precarious. Multiplied billions of the Gentile nations have either not heard the gospel at all, or have totally repudiated Christianity, as has Russia. The truth that men cannot foresee the future, and the fact of uncertainty in all such interpretations as those undertaken here, preclude any dogmatism; but the six-day war that lifted the Gentile yoke from Jerusalem in 1967 is in some manner related to this prophecy. The practical applications of his words which Jesus at once propounded should now concern people more than ever, lest "that day" come upon them unawares. [24] George R. Bliss, op. cit., p. 304. [25] Donald G. Miller, op. cit., p. 148. [26] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary, Vol. II (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), p. 251. [27] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 591. [28] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 185. [29] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 766. [30] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 143. [31] Ibid. [32] John Wesley, op. cit., p. 283. [33] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 262. [34] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 536. Verse 25 And there shall be signs in sun and moon and stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, in perplexity for the roaring of the sea and the billows; men fainting for fear, and for expectation of the things which are coming on the world: for the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. But when these things begin to come to pass, look up; and lift up your heads; because your redemption draweth nigh.The signs spoken of here refer to the Second Advent when Christ shall appear in glory, all the dead who ever lived shall be raised to life, and the Judgment shall occur. Just as the sign of the destruction of Jerusalem was something that all could "see" (the encompassing armies), so also the sign of the Second Advent shall be when they shall "see the Son of man," coming with power and glory. And then shall they see ... The event spoken of is very remote in time; the Lord did not say, then shall "you" see. Of course, in a little different sense, "every eye shall see him"; and no man shall "sleep through" such an event as this. The certainty that great signs will appear, not their exact nature, is revealed here. Exactly what these will be will not be known until the final events begin. The things prophesied surely appear to be vast and cataclysmic disturbances in the physical universe. The sun's light failed at the first Advent of Christ, and similar cosmic signs may be expected in the Second Advent. A good summary of this place was given by Barclay thus: "The Christian conception of history is that it has a goal; and, at that goal, Jesus Christ will be Lord of all. That is all we know, and all we need to know."[35]ENDNOTE: [35] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 272. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 The widow cast in two mites instead of one as is generally stated. According to Robinson's lexicon, a mite was equal to about one fifth of a cent. The widow contributed about one half of a cent to the good work. The actual amount of money was not the main point as Jesus explains. 4 Jesus stated in literal language what he meant figuratively. Our contributions to worthy causes are valued in the Lord's sight on the basis of our ability to give, not in literal "dollars and cents." (See 2 Corinthians 8:12.) 5 This adornment of the goodly stones was by way of "remodeling," which was done at various times through a period of 46 years (John 2:20). 6 The Jews were vain in their admiration of the temple. They-had the idea that it was "titanic" and hence indestructible; but Jesus rebuked their pride by predicting its utter destruction. The completeness of this destruction and the manner in which it was to be accomplished, is related in chapter 19:43, 44. 7 According to Matthew 24:3, it was the disciples who asked Jesus the question. But in that passage it may be seen that they really asked two questions, although they had in mind what they thought would take place as one event. It will be well for the reader to reexamine the comments on that entire chapter. 8 This corresponds with Matthew 24:4-5. 9 The conflict between the Jews and the Romans did not begin in Judea. Hence the people of Jerusalem would hear about wars in the farther territories, some time before it reached the capital of the nation against which Caesar was at war. 0 The Roman Empire was composed of many nations, and when the war against the Jews broke out, it threw the whole empire into commo-tions. 1 A state of war often produces shortages in the necessities of life, which brings famine and pestilence as a natural consequence. A literal earthquake is never caused by warfare, but God has brought them about at various times to mark His concern for the conditions. In the present case it was to be one of the signs the disciples were given by which they could see the approaching storm. 2 Many of the Christians were Jews and others were Gentiles. The disturbances of the time stirred up the Romans against them which led to persecutions. 3 This means that when the disciples undergo these persecutions, it will turn out to be a testimony for them. They will recall that Jesus foretold it and thus it will prove to them that He was a true prophet. When a prediction becomes history, it amounts to a verifying evidence. (See Exodus 3:12.) 5 See the comments on this kind of assurance at chapter 12:11, 12. 6 Some members of various families were disciples of Christ and some were not. In the disturbed conditions, these individuals would be arrayed against each other. 7 Some would blame the war on the influence of the teaching Christ, and in spitework would per-secute the disciples. 8 Not an hair perish is a figurative form of speech, meaning that not the least harm would come to the disciples who heeded the instructions of Jesus. A note on Jo-sephus, Wars, Book 2, Chapter 19, Sections 6, 7, shows how it came about, that an unexpected retreat of the Roman forces from Jerusalem, for a brief period, gave the Christians an opportunity to escape from the city. "This they did on this occasion and were preserved." 9 Christians should not let persecutions or other trials cause them to lose patience. If they will endure through to the end they will possess or save their souls. It means the same as Matthew 24:13; endurance and patience are the same. 0 Compassed with armies will mean the siege is on. 1 Those who are outside of Jerusalem will have no difficulty as far as the hostile army is concerned, in escaping to the mountains, for the war will be directed against the cities only. 2 Things . . . may be fulfilled. It was predicted in Daniel 9:27. 3 An expectant or nursing mother would find it very difficult to make a hurried escape out of the land. Jesus was not pronouncing a woe, just predicting it. 4 Times of the Gentiles. Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish nation, both for its political and religious government. It continued to be such for the political government, and when the church was set up the Jews first accepted the Gospel, then they recognized it as their model (not capital) for religious government. But the Jews as a nation turned against Christ and the church, having already rejected Him and had him crucified. As a punishment, their city was doomed to be overthrown and they deprived of the possession of it. Until would imply that when the times of the Gentiles had been completed, the Jews would again come back to Jerusalem. But, they were to come back as Christians, which is predicted in Romans 11:25. 6 This paragraph is figurative and is to be explained in the same way as Matthew 24:29; referring to the period called the "Dark Ages" in history. 7 See the notes on Matthew 24:30. 8 Your redemption draweth nigh is equivalent to the gathering of the elect (the faithful) predicted in Matthew 24:30-31, at the second coming of Christ. 1 This corresponds with Matthew 24:32-33. 3 This paragraph refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. See the notes on Matthew 24:34-35, giving special attention to the word "generation." 4 Surfeiting is from KRAI-PALE which Robinson defines, "A seizure of the head; hence intoxication, debauch, giddiness; reveling and drunkenness." The verse is a warning to disciples not to be absorbed in loose and worldly living, so as to let the day of Christ slip up on them. (See 1 Thessalonians 5:1-8.) 5 A snare is something that takes a victim unexpectedly. The day of Christ will come upon the masses of human beings in the same way. 6 If Christians lead a prayerful and watchful life, they will be looking for Christ and will be ready to stand before him in peace. 8 This was a "series" of meetings, something like some that are conducted today. An incidental difference is that ours generally are conducted in the nighttime, while that of Jesus was in the day. H, Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 22 , ARREST, TRIALS, OF JESUSLuk_22:1-21 and Luke 23:1-56THE OF JUDASLuk_22:1-6 Luke 22:1 ---Now the feast of unleavened bread drew high,—Parallel records are found in Matthew 26:1-5 and Mark 14:1-2. Luke states ”’ the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh”; Mat¬thew and Mark record the fact that “ after two days” the Passover cometh. Matthew does not speak of the “ feast of unleavened bread,” but only of the “ passover”; Mark speaks of “ the feast of the passover” and “ the unleavened bread.” The difference between Mark and Luke is that Luke makes the “ feast of unleavened bread” “ the passover,” while Mark speaks of “ the feast of the passover” and “ the unleavened bread.” In the Old Testament there were two feasts: the Passover, which came on the fourteenth day of the first month, and “ the feast of unleavened bread,” which began immediately after the Feast of the Passover and continued seven days. (Leviticus 23:5-6; Numbers 28:16-17.) Josephus made a distinction between these two feasts; but in later times they were regarded as one feast. The Passover came on the fourteenth day of the first month; at this feast they were to put away all leaven. The feast of unleavened bread began on the fifteenth day of the first month; hence one followed the other and later one name was applied to both feasts; sometimes “ the feast of unleavened bread” included the Passover and sometimes “ the passover” included the feast of unleavened bread. Luke 22:2 --- And the chief priests and the scribes—Luke and Mark mention “ the chief priests and the scribes,” while Matthew mentions “ the chief priests, and the elders of the people.” (Matthew 26:3.) Matthew states that they “were gathered together” “ unto the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas.” They took counsel “ together that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him.” (Matthew 26:4.) Jesus had predicted that “ the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.” (Luke 9:22.) Since, according to Matthew, they assembled at the palace of the high priest, it seems very probable that the Sanhedrin held a brief session to determine what should be done. They had purposed to put him to death, but “ they feared the people.” Their problem was to put him to death without incurring the condemnation of the people; they did not want to put him to death on the feast day, for the popular feeling strongly supported Jesus, and the rulers feared a tumult of the people. They “ sought”; that is, they were seeking the ways and means of destroying Jesus. “ Sought” in the original is in the imperfect tense, “ were seeking,” and means contemporaneously with the approach of the feast. At this stage they planned to “ take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him.”Luke 22:3 ---And Satan entered into Judas—Frequently “ Satan” is called “ the devil.” This statement is peculiar to Luke. As the rulers were seeking an opportunity to destroy Jesus, it soon presented itself; it comes from Judas, who was one of the chosen apostles. He is called “ Judas Iscariot” to distinguish him from other men of that name. Some think that he was a native of Karioth, a small town in the tribe of Judah. “ Satan” means “ adversary,” the Old Testament name of the chief of fallen spirits; “ devil” means “ slanderer.” Both names are descriptive of his character and work. He is known by the name Beelzebub, “ prince of the demons” (Matthew 12:24), “ the prince of the powers of the air” (Ephesians 2:2), and “ the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world” (Revelation 12:9). It seems that Judas had taken offense at the rebuke of Jesus (John 12:4-8), and he yielded to the temptation of the devil, who worked upon his avaricious disposition (John 12:4-8). Judas being one of the twelve aggravates his crime and fulfills the prophecy in Psalms 41:9. Luke 22:4 ---And he went away, and communed with the chief priests and captains,—Judas went off under the impulse of Satan and after the indignation over the rebuke of Jesus at the feast in Simon’ s house to confer “ with the chief priests and captains.’’ It is thought that between this and the preceding section the supper at Bethany (Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:2¬8) occurred; this is the supper at which Judas with others murmured against the use of the expensive ointment and Jesus’ rebuke to Judas and others. “ The captains’’ were in charge of the temple. (Verse 52; Acts 4:1.) It was the duty of the captains to maintain order in the temple; they were especially busy during the feasts when crowds would be present. Judas sought the captains and the chief priests to pro¬pose his plan for betraying Jesus secretly into their hands. Luke 22:5 ---And they were glad,—The chief priests and captains were glad that one of the twelve had offered to betray Jesus into their hands. “ Glad’’ with a hellish glee; they were pleased to know that one would assist them who could be of real help, but they must have had no respect for the traitor; they lost no time in completing the arrangements. They “ covenanted to give him money”; Matthew says: “ They weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver.” (Matthew 26:15.) Thirty shekels was the price of a slave (Exodus 21:32) ; some think that this was a fulfillment of Zec 11:12. The “ thirty pieces” was equal to about fifteen dollars in our money. If this was all that was paid, it shows the contempt of the chief priests for Jesus as well as the sordid meanness of Judas who betrayed his Lord for so small a sum. Luke 22:6 ---And he consented, and sought opportunity—Judas agreed to the price that the chief priests offered. There were five steps in the corrupt bargain: (1) Judas sought the chief priests; (2) he offered to betray Jesus; (3) they gladly made a bargain with him for money; (4) Judas agreed to the bargain; (5) he sought to fulfill his wicked pledge. He knew, as did the chief priests, the popularity of Jesus, and he adroitly sought an occasion when the multitude could not be used to defend him against assault. Judas sought to keep his betrayal a secret, and the chief priests sought to do their dastardly deed “ in the absence of the multitude’’; they desired that a tumult of the people be avoided. It seems to have been a part of the bargain to work “ under cover” or secretly. THE LAST SUPPERLuk_22:7-23 Luk 22:7 ---And the day of unleavened bread came,—Parallel records of this are found in Matthew 26:17-19 and Mark 14:12-16. Some think that Jesus anticipated the Passover; that is, ate it the day before the regular time for it; however, Luke seems to make it clear that Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover at the regular time. The law required the sacrifice to be made upon that day “ between the evenings” (Deuteronomy 16:5-6) or “ at the even.” The Passover came on the fourteenth day of the first month, Nisan or Abib. (Exodus 12:2 Exodus 13:4.) This Jewish month corresponded to the last half of March and the first half of April. All leaven had to be removed from every Jewish house. The lamb was known as the paschal lamb; it had to be slain by the head of the family. (Exodus 12:6.) The controversy about the day when Christ ate the last Passover meal has given much concern to many; however, there is no valid reason for concluding that there were any irregularities with Jesus and his disciples. Luke 22:8 ---And he sent Peter and John,—Luke is the only one who names the disciples who prepared the Passover; they were to get the room, the lamb, the bitter herbs, the wine, and whatever else would be required. Mark 14:13 has only “ two” disciples, while Matthew 26:17 makes the disciples take the initiative. “ The passover” as used here means either the meal, the feast day, or the whole period of time, while “ eat the passover” refers to the meal as here or to the whole period of celebration in John 18:28. The task of making ready the Passover was an important one; hence, Peter and John were entrusted with that responsibility. They had to select the room, search diligently and remove all leaven, kill and roast the paschal lamb, and make such other arrangements as were necessary Luke 22:9-10 ---And they said unto him,—The disciples asked him where they should make the preparation; this was an intelli¬gent question for them to ask; they wished to please their Lord. Jesus then told them that when they entered Jerusalem they would meet a man “ bearing a pitcher of water,” and that they should follow him. The specific direction that Jesus gave Peter and John would enable them to find the exact place where the Master wanted to eat the Passover. It was the custom in the East for women to bring water; hence this sign was a peculiar one; this man would have a “ pitcher” of water; the original for “ pitcher” here means an earthen vessel. Water was usually carried in leathern vessels, or vessels made of the skins of animals; but this was another peculiar thing, this “ man,” not a woman, should have an “ earthen” pitcher, not a leathern pitcher. This man was probably a slave and Peter and John were to follow him into the house, or central court, and then make their wishes known. An entrance thus far into an eastern house was not an intrusion. Luke 22:11-12 ---And ye shall say unto the master of the house,— Many think that this man was one of the disciples of Jesus, and that he would recognize Jesus as the “ Teacher”; however, it is not necessary to suppose that any previous arrangements had been made between Jesus and the master of the house. They were to ask him: “ Where is the guest-chamber” that Jesus and his disciples could eat the Passover. Peter and John, having followed the man bearing the pitcher of water into the house, would ask the master of the house for the guest-chamber. It was customary for Jews to be very hos¬pitable, and, according to the Talmud, they would not let rooms for hire at the Passover Feast. Jesus shows his divinity by telling them in detail what the master of the house would say to them. They were told by Jesus that he would show them “ a large upper room furnished.” They were to make ready the Passover to be eaten in that “ upper room.” They were to ask for the “ guest-chamber,” or small lodging room, but the master of the house will offer them “ a large upper room”; they were to make ready the room, but the master of the house would show them a room that was already “ furnished” ; that is, prepared for the Passover. Luke 22:13 ---And they went, and found—Peter and John found every¬thing as Jesus had predicted; this should have strengthened their faith in him. “ They made ready the passover” ; that is, the paschal supper was prepared. They slew the lamb, or had it slain, in the temple; its blood was sprinkled at the foot of the altar, and its fat burned thereon, the bitter herbs, the unleavened bread, and the wine were prepared. Luke 22:14 ---And when the hour was come,—What hour? The usual time of eating the paschal supper, on Thursday evening, after sundown. This showed that there was no irregularity in the time of their eating the Passover. “ He sat down”; the usual posture was to “ fall back” or recline. They did not sit on chairs or benches, as the celebrated painting of Leonardo da Vinci represents them as doing. The early custom was to stand, but this had been long departed from, and they now reclined. According to Exodus 12:11 the Passover was to be eaten standing with loins girded, as if they were going on a journey ; but the Jewish doctors introduced reclining, the usual posture at meals, as it symbolized the rest which they sought in leaving Egypt and found in Canaan. It may be that the first Passover eaten in Egypt should have been eaten standing as they were to march out of Egypt that night, but no stress was placed on the posture as they kept the feast; the law given upon Mount Sinai did not require any particular posture. Luke 22:15-16 ---And he said unto them, With desire—Here Jesus expresses a very strong desire, an intense desire, “ to eat this passover” with them before his crucifixion. The expression “ with desire I have desired” is similar to rejoiceth with joy (John 3:29) and threatened with threatening (Acts 4:17) in the original. This was to be his last Passover with them, the time when he should institute the Lord’ s Supper. He would not eat again the Passover in its literal use any more, but in a spiritual sense he would eat it “ in the kingdom of God.” The law with all of its types and shadows found their fulfillment in Christ and his kingdom; hence he would not eat it “ until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” The “ until” does not mean that he would again eat the Passover after the establishment of the kingdom; but it does mean that the type was to vanish in the presence of the antitype; the type should be superseded by the antitype, by the sacrifice of the true paschal Lamb. Christ is declared to be our Passover. (1 Corinthians 5:6-8.) Luke 22:17-18 ---And he received a cup,—There has been some contro-versy as to whether Luke departs from the order of Matthew and Mark and mentions the institution of the supper earlier in the evening; many think that Luke brings the supper before Judas left the company, while others think that the supper was not instituted until after Judas left. The wine used at the Passover was generally mixed with water in the proportion of one part wine to two of water. “ A cup” was given him and he gave thanks. The “ cup” here named was probably the last cup that was passed: it was called the “ cup of blessing.” This was drunk after the lamb was eaten. A cup was passed at different intervals; they would eat for a while, then pass the large cup or vessel that contained the wine, and each one would fill his own cup, and as they drank, different scriptures would be recited. Luke 22:19 ---And he took bread,—The original means “ a loaf”; hence, he took a loaf of the bread that they used at the Passover, which was unleavened bread; he gave thanks, broke the loaf, and gave unto the disciples, saying: “ This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” There has been much discussion as to the meaning of this: “ This is my body.” This is similar to the expression, “ the seven good kine are seven years” (Genesis 41:26), and “ the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom” (Matthew 13:38), the rock was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4), “ this Hagar is mount Sinai” (Galatians 4:25). In all of these expressions it is clear that the word “ signify” is to be understood; so when Christ said of the loaf that it was his body, he meant that it represented or signified his body. “ This do in remembrance of me” means that they were to remember him in the eating of this loaf; this is repeated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24. Matthew and Mark omit this command. Luke 22:20 ---And the cup in like manner after supper,—Having offered thanks to God for it as he did for the bread, he gave instruction to his disciples. This signified a covenant or promise on the part of God to his people sanctioned with the blood of vic¬tims. (Exodus 24:3-12; Deuteronomy 5:2.) The same wine or fruit of the vine that was used at the Passover was used here; as the unleavened bread was Used at the Passover, so that kind of bread was used here. However, the Lord’ s Supper is a New Testament ordinance, and nowhere in the New Testament do we find the definite kind of bread or wine specified to be used; hence, the controversy as to the kind does not come within the scope of revealed things. It is left to the good judgment and pious conviction of those who are to use these in commemorating the death and sufferings of our Lord. “ This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” The old covenant that was sanctified by the blood of animals was fulfilled, and now a new covenant is given which is sealed and sanctified by the blood of Christ. Luke 22:21 ---But behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me—Some think that verses 21-23 are transposed; in order of time these verses should be placed before verses 19 and 20. However, no violence was done to the truth if we consider them transposed, or if we consider them in their consecutive order. Luke merely refers to the traitor after relating the institution of the Lord’ s Supper, which makes a central point in his narrative, and which the mention of the first cup at the Passover may have led him to introduce. In John 13:30 we are told that Judas went out immediately after receiving the sop. So if this fact is here recorded in its true order by Luke, we must surely conclude that Judas was present at the institution of the Lord’ s Supper, as well as at the beginning of the Passover; many hold this view. At that time Jesus said to Judas: “ What thou doest, do quickly.” (John 13:27.) If Judas was pointed out before the supper, we must place his departure before it. This was the first announcement that Jesus had made to his disciples that one of them would betray him at that time. Luke 22:22-23 ---For the Son of man indeed goeth,—The Messiah was to go in the path of humiliation, suffering, and death; this was according to the prophecies. (Isaiah 53:4-12; Daniel 9:26; Zechariah 12:10 Zechariah 13:7.) “ But woe unto that man through whom he is betrayed!” In the original we have the present participle form—“ is now engaged in betraying.” It was “ determined” that Jesus should go this way, but the purpose of God in no way released those who participated in his crucifixion of the guilt of those who put Jesus to death. This statement greatly excited the disciples and “ they began to question among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.” The anxious, surprised, and troubled faces of his disciples showed their anguish of soul. It seems that they had not suspected Judas; this brief reference to the traitor warrants the inference that Luke adds these facts here to his account to complete his sketch of these events, but without intending to place them in chronological order. The woe upon the traitor points him out as an object both of pity and of wrath; God’ s purpose was foretold by the prophet, yet the murderers and betrayer were without excuse. (Acts 2:22-24.) STRIFE ABOUT RANK Luke 22:24-30 Luke 22:24 ---And there arose also a contention—It is strange that this contention should be renewed at this time; it had frequently been raised among the apostles as to who should be the great-est in the kingdom. (Matthew 18:1-4 Matthew 20:20-28; Luke 9:46-48.) They were still at the Passover supper; Jesus had an-nounced that one of them should betray him ; yet at this late hour the apostles raised the question and argued among them-selves as to who would be the greatest. Jesus had mentioned his kingdom in connection with the institution of the Lord’ s Supper; this mention of the kingdom gave the occasion for the old question to be raised. It shows that the disciples were still laboring under an erroneous conception of the kingdom ; they thought that it would be an earthly kingdom, and there were still ambitious for positions of honor in that earthly kingdom. They were thinking of royalty, high positions, worldly states, and ranks in an earthly kingdom. At the supper John appears to have had a place next to Jesus; Peter was not very far from him; we do not know how the others were arranged. Possibly the arrangement at the supper renewed the old question and gave rise to the contention among them. Luke 22:25---And he said unto them,—It seems that their contention was in the presence of Jesus; he gives them further instruc¬tions as to the nature of his kingdom. He calls attention to the fact that “ the kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them” ; this is the spirit of all human governments. Those who exercise the lordship over their subjects are puffed up by flattering titles such as “ Benefactors.” Jesus had given a sim¬ilar rebuke in Matthew 20:25-26. The title “ Benefactor” as used here means a “ doer of good,” or one who had brought a blessing to them. Rulers like for the people to think that they are “ benefactors” to them. Luke 22:26-27 ---But ye shall not be so:—The “ shall” is not in the original, and Jesus simply says: You are not to be as these Gentile kings; though they are distinguished by grace, yet they are not to love and seek superiority. On the contrary, the “ greater among” them is the one who renders the greatest service to them. They should avoid the appearance of lordship ; each one should be ready to do anything that will accommodate and serve a disciple. Jesus illustrates this principle by simply calling their attention to a common custom and courtesy among them. The one that sits at the table is honored by the one who serves; and since greatness is to be determined by service, the one who serves the most is greatest among them. He further emphasized this truth by stating: “ I am in the midst of you as he that serveth.” Evidently they ascribed greatness to Jesus; he was greater, in their own conception, than all the others; yet he was serving them in a way that others had not served them. Luke 22:28-29 ---But ye are they that have continued— His disciples had now been following him for many months; they had witnessed his many temptations, and had continued with him in his temptation. “ Continued” here means “ have remained through” his temptation. The life of Jesus was full of temp¬tation. His temptation had begun soon after his baptism, and he was never free from temptation; he was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15.) When Satan tempted Jesus, “ he departed from him for a season” only. (Luke 4:13.) “ I appoint unto you a kingdom” means that they should come into possession of the kingdom from the Father; they should attain through trials and service, even as Jesus had experienced, unto his kingdom. Jesus bequeathed as by will or testament to them the kingdom that he came to establish. This shows that they were not at this time in his kingdom, neither were they in full possession of the blessings of that kingdom ; but they should through trials and sufferings attain unto it. The new dispensation was inaugurated on the first Pentecost after the ascension of Jesus; at that time the kingdom was established and these apostles became the charter members of it. Luke 22:30 ---that ye may eat and drink at my table—Jesus has said to his disciples that since they had been with him through all of his earthly toils he would give to them high places in his kingdom of service. In the blessings and blessedness of such service, they would be pre-eminent, sitting upon thrones, as it were, and administering judgment. This seems to be the same thought as expressed in Matthew 19 Matthew 28. Eating and drinking “ at my table” in this kingdom does not merely refer to the Lord’ s Supper, but the promise is that they may partake of the kingly feast upon the merits of the Redeemer, and enjoy the pleasures of the table prepared for the supply of all spiritual blessings in Christ. They should “ sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” There have been various inter-pretations given to this. Some think that it means that all would be judged by the teachings of the apostles; others think that the apostles will condemn the Jews, as the Nine- vites and the queen of Sheba did in former days (Luke 11:31-32) ; again others think that it means that the apostles should be cojudges with Christ in the judgment; still others think that it means that the apostles should be preeminent after the second coming of Christ. Paul expressed a similar thought: “ Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world?” And “ angels?” (1 Corinthians 6:2-3.) There may be some truth in all of these positions; the apostles were invested with authority over the true spiritual Israel, and by their teachings all will be judged; through their teachings they continue to exercise their authority. In the final judgment they will virtually judge, for all are to be judged by the will of God expressed through the writers of the New Testament. PETER’ S DENIAL Luke 22:31-34 Luke 22:31 ---Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you,—Parallel records of this event are found in Matthew 26:31-35; Mark 14:27-31; John 13:36-38. This is one of the few events recorded by all four of the writers of the gospel. This prediction to Peter was a forewarning that he would deny the Lord. Matthew and Mark, with Luke, locate it after the institution of the Lord’ s Supper and immediately before the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. Some think that the record in John 13:31-38 was a prediction before this one, and that Jesus here foretells the second time the denial of Peter and the dispersion of the disciples. Jesus calls Peter “ Simon” and repeats his name to emphasize that which he is predicting; he does not use the name “ Peter” which signifies a more stable character. “ Satan” had asked to have Peter; he had demanded Peter as he had demanded Job. (Job 1:6-12 Job 2:1-6.) “ To have you” is in the plural, and means “ you all,” or includes all the disci-ples. Luke 22:32 ---but I made supplication for thee,—In the Greek the word for “ you” is plural in fact as well as form, and may apply to all the disciples; but Simon is solemnly addressed and warned, since he was foremost in the strife. Jesus did not invest in Peter any preeminence or sanctity, as is claimed by those who worship the pope at Rome; Peter is regarded as being fallible. When he had “ turned again,” or when he had recovered from his fall, then his work would be to “ establish” or “ strengthen” his brethren. The act of returning is Peter’ s; he should correct his wrong, and then teach and encourage others to do likewise. He should confirm others in the faith, especially those who might be influenced by his own fall. Jesus had prayed for him that his faith should not fail; that his trust and conviction that Jesus was the Son of God should not falter. Luke 22:33 ---And he said unto him, Lord,—Peter was still full of self-confidence ; he little knew his own heart, neither did he know the wiles and snares of the devil. He could now face prison and death for Jesus; a few hours later he could not face the taunts of a housemaid without denying the Lord. Oftentimes, we boast about what we will do or will not do, but when faced with the realities of the situation, we act differently. Peter needed to learn the lesson of depending on God, and not on himself. Luke 22:34 ---And he said, I tell thee, Peter,—It is strange as we read this distinct and terrible warning that Peter was off his guard in less than twenty-four hours after this. It has been affirmed that the Jews around Jerusalem were forbidden fowls because they scratched up unclean worms; hence, it is said that this statement was out of harmony with the facts in the case. However, the Roman residents, over whom the Jews had no authority, might keep fowls. Mark says: “ Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice” (Mark 14:72), and Matthew says, “ Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice” (Matthew 26:34). The first crowing was about midnight, and the second about three o’ clock in the morning; the second crowing more generally marked time, and was the one meant when only one “ cockcrowing,” as here, was mentioned. Peter would deny or disown Christ three times. Jesus simply says that before a single cock shall be heard, early in the night, Peter would deny him. There was a wide contrast in what Jesus predicted and what the self-confident Peter thought he would do. FURTHER Luke 22:35-38 Luke 22:35 ---And he said unto them, When I sent you forth—Jesus had sent out his apostles on their “ limited commission” (Matthew 10:5; Mark 6:7 : Luke 9:2); they were to go not in the way of the Gentiles nor among the Samaritans, but rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The instructions there given are compared with those he now mentions; the circumstances have changed. At that time they were to go “ without purse, and wallet, and shoes.” They were to be wholly dependent on those with whom they labored; they were to make no provision whatever for their wants, but throw themselves for support upon such friends in every place where they went. Jesus asked them if they lacked anything. They answered, “ Nothing.” Their wants were fully supplied. Their answer to his question was frank and sincere; they had no complaint to make; they had gone forth with no means of support, and yet there was not a single need which was not fully supplied. Conditions have changed and new require¬ments are to be met. Luke 22:36 ---And he said unto them,—Since conditions and circum-stances have changed, Jesus now tells them that they are to take their purse and wallet, and if they have not these things they should sell their cloak “ and buy a sword.” This verse has given much difficulty to commentators. Does Jesus command his disciples to arm themselves? Is he speaking only with reference to danger that night? It seems that Jesus here is impressing upon them the impending crisis; that there will be need of every resource because of the peculiar dangers. We are not to infer that Jesus commanded his disciples to’ arm themselves against the perils just of that night; it is better to consider this as a proverbial expression conveying the idea of imminent danger from enemies; they must be prepared for the worst. The time was swiftly approaching when his disciples would have to defend themselves without the visible presence and leadership of Jesus. We cannot allow that Jesus meant for each of his disciples to sell his garment and buy a sword. This idea is utterly precluded by the universal doctrine which Jesus taught—“ resist not evil.”Luke 22:37 ---For I say unto you, that this which is written—Luke quotes Isaiah 53:12. The predictions of his sufferings and death are now to be fulfilled; he was ready to be brought to the cross, and his disciples would be involved in trouble; so they should be prepared for it. Jesus was crucified between two malefactors, which was a fulfillment of the prophecy concerning him. The things which were predicted of Jesus had an end; this is true about the predictions of his kingdom ; all prophecies must be fulfilled. Jesus died the death of one who had been convicted of crime, and was crucified between two malefactors to heap ignominy upon him; all this was in fulfillment of the prophecies. Luke 22:38 ---And they said, Lord,—The disciples understood Jesus to mean that they should be prepared to fight in his kingdom with carnal weapons. We do not know when his disciples obtained these swords. If they had been obliged to depend on swords for their defense, not a hundred would have been sufficient ; but for the lesson of that awful night two swords were enough. It may be observed that the impetuous Peter had one of these. It seems that his disciples failed to understand his prediction of his death in the fulfillment of prophecy; al¬though he had made the announcement several times to them. It is difficult to understand just what he meant by “ It is enough.”THE AGONY IN Luke 22:39-46 Luke 22:39 ---And he came out, and went, as his custom—Parallel records of this event are found in Matthew 26:30-46; Mark 14:26-42; John 18:1. Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not give the record of the discourse and prayer of Jesus found in John 14-17; the Synoptics record only the fact of Jesus’ leaving the upper room and going to Gethsemane after the institution of the supper. We know not how long they tarried in the upper room before they sang the hymn. Jesus was now entering into the greatest conflict that has ever been known to man; it was the awful contest of the powers of hell with the powers of heaven; by prayer Jesus would put himself into direct communion with the Father as the best preparation for the conflict ; hence, he sought his accustomed place of retirement in the field or Garden of Gethsemane. “ Mount of Olives” literally means “ the mount of the olives,” being descriptive of the olive trees which grew there. Olive trees still grow there, but not so many as did anciently. This mount is frequently mentioned in the Bible. (2 Samuel 15:30; Nehemiah 8:15; Ezekiel 11:23; Zechariah 14:4.) This mount is also called “ Olivet” (Acts 1:12), a place set with olives, an olive yard. Luke 22:40 ---And when he was at the place,—“ The place” means the Garden of Gethsemane; “ Gethsemane” means “ olive press,” a name prophetic of the agony of Jesus, where he trod the wine press alone (Isaiah 63:3), without the city (Revelation 14:20). The eleven disciples were present; Judas had gone to betray him. Eight of the apostles were left near the entrance of the garden, and three of them, Peter, James, and John, were taken further into the garden with him. The eight were directed to remain where they were and pray for deliverance from temptation. Jesus left Peter, James, and John and went still further into the garden; they were also instructed to watch and pray. A great test was just before them and they needed prayer. Luke 22:41-42 ---And he was parted froiii them about a stone’ s cast;— He retired of his own will from Peter, James, and John “ about a stone’ s cast.” “ Stone’ s cast,” “ arrow’ s flight,” with the an¬cients, were in common usage, as we now have “ within gunshot” and “ within a stone’ s throw.” “ He kneeled down and prayed.” Matthew says: “ He went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed” (Matthew 26:39) and Mark says: “ He went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed” (Mark 14:35). It is very likely that he first knelt, and as his agony increased he fell forward as Matthew says “ on his face.” This posture was indicative of his extreme humiliation and anguish. The different postures that he assumed can be true at different stages of his experience; one writer recording one posture and another recording another posture. His prayer was: “ Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” “ This cup” means the bitter cup of anguish. “ Cup” is a common figure of scripture, sometimes representing joy (Psalms 16:5 Psalms 23:5 Psalms 116:13), and sometimes sorrow (Psalms 11:6 Psalms 75:8; Isaiah 51:17; Jeremiah 25:15; Revelation 16:19.) This cup with Jesus signified his great sorrow and anguish and death. Some think that it did not include his death, but just his great anguish of soul. This prayer uttered in deep humility and reverence shows that the will of Jesus was in harmony with the will of God; his human nature naturally shrank from the terrible pain and death; Jesus willingly submitted to God’ s will in this awful hour. “ Nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” The resignation of Jesus to the will of God both as priest and victim is swallowed up in the divine will. Luke 22:43 ---And there appeared unto him an angel—This was in keeping with the prediction: “ For he will give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.” (Psalms 91:11.) The anguish was not removed, but Jesus was strengthened to bear it; he was made “ lower than the angels.” (Hebrews 2:7.) We do not know how angels ministered to him, whether by sympathy, words of cheer, wiping away the sweat, or by worshiping him to signify recognition of his lordship. His human nature must be upheld so that a full atonement may be made; this angel assisted in doing this. “ Mine arm also shall strengthen him” (Psalms 89:21); the Father sent this angel to sustain him. Angels visited Jesus at the close of the three temptations at the beginning of his ministry. (Matthew 4:11.) Luke 22:44 ---And being in an agony he prayed—Luke is the only writer that records this fact; only Luke records the visit of the angel. The original here denotes progressive agony; he progressed from the first prayer into an intense struggle of prayer and sorrow. “ Agony” is only found here; it is used by medical writers, and the fact of a “ sweat” accompanying an agony is also mentioned by medical writers; this is another evidence peculiar to Luke, the physician. Cases of great mental anguish, causing drops of blood to ooze from the body like sweat, are known to medical authorities. Luke 22:45-46 ---And when he rose up from his prayer,—Luke does not record, as do Matthew and Mark, that he prayed three times, “ saying the same words,” and that he returned to his disciples three times for sympathy, but found them asleep. Luke tells why they were asleep; they were found “ sleeping for sorrow.” This seems to be common among those who have sustained great and prolonged grief; no excuse is given for the apostles’ being asleep on this eventful occasion; but an explanation is given for their being found asleep. The strongest will be overcome, and fall asleep, under the strain of great grief. Jesus was in sympathy with them and said: “ Why sleep ye? rise and pray, that ye enter not into temptation.” Jesus, who was alert, may have heard the approach of Judas and his company. He enjoins prayer with special reference to themselves that they might not fall under the power of “ temptation.” The hour of trial was at hand, and they needed both to watch and to pray. Jesus commands that his disciples arouse from their sleepy posture and pray, as their only safeguard at this crisis was in prayer; and if they neglected this means of defense against the adversary, they were lost. THE ARREST OF JESUSLuk_22:47-53 Luk 22:47 ---While he yet spake,—A “ multitude” led by Judas at this hour of the night came into the garden. This “ multitude” consisted, first, of “ the band” (John 18:3; John 18:12), or Roman cohort, which consisted of from three to six hundred armed men; they were kept in the tower of Antonia, overlooking the temple, and were kept ready to put down any tumult or arrest any disturber. It is not known whether the entire band was present. Then there were the “ captains of the temple” (verse 52) with their men who guarded the temple and kept order; it is not known how many of these were present. Also there were some of the chief priests and elders (verse 52), and finally some servants, such as Malchus and others (John 18:10), who had been commissioned by the Jewish authorities. “ Judas, one of the twelve,” led the company; he had agreed to betray Jesus into their hands; it is an ugly picture to see this apostolic criminal leading this mob at night into the garden of sorrow to arrest Jesus. Judas “ went before them” as their guide and leader. (John 18:3.) When they arrived, Judas “ drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.”Luke 22:48 ---But Jesus said unto him, Judas,—This verse is found only in Luke; the kiss of Judas is here placed in strong contrast with the betrayal which it subserved, in order to show how devoid of all noble and generous feeling was the traitor, who could prostitute to so vile a purpose, that which among all nations was regarded as the pledge and token of intimate friendship. There seems to be sympathy with the rebuke which Jesus used when he said: “ Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” Do you dare to bring those polluted lips in contact with mine and play the hypocrite? Away with your hypocrisy! Do your fiendish work! (John 18:4-9 .) Luke 22:49-50 ---And when they that were about him saw—Those who were “ about him” were his disciples; they now seem to sense the danger; they thought that Jesus would enable them to defeat the mob and vindicate him by means of the “ two swords” which they had. How little did they understand the situation! They asked: “ Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” They had not learned the lesson at this time. After the agony had passed, Jesus with Peter, James, and John whom he had chosen to accompany him (Matthew 26:37; Mark 14:33), returned to the eight disciples, whom he had left at the entrance of the garden. It seems that immediately after he had joined them the band sent to take him with Judas as their guide, and probably a little in advance of the main body, was discovered approaching. It was at this time that the disciples asked if they should use the sword; and “ a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his right ear.” It seems that Judas was stung by the words of Jesus, and understood that his treachery was known; he seems to have fallen back again to his band (John 18:5) so that when they came to Jesus they were somewhat at a loss to identify him (John 18:4-9). This shows that Judas so cowered beneath the searching glance and calm, severe language of Jesus that he retreated from his side, where he had probably intended to remain until the band came fully up, in order that there might be no possible mistake in regard to the apprehension of the right person. In the midst of this confusion, the disciples may have asked whether they should smite with the sword; they stood ready against such fearful odds to defend their Lord. Peter, still impetuous, rushed forward and smote off the right ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest. Peter struck at his head, and miss his aim, and cut off his ear. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record the incident without naming Peter; John alone says that the disciple that cut off Malchus’ ear was Peter. Some think that when the first three wrote, perhaps it would have unduly exposed Peter to have named him, but when John wrote, Peter had probably already suffered death, so that no harm would follow from giving the name. Luke 22:51 ---But Jesus answered and said,—There has been some controversy as to whom Jesus addressed this language; some think that it was addressed to the captors, and meant that they should allow his disciples to go away, and he would heal the man. Others think that it was addressed to his disciples to restrain them, and meant that his disciples should permit, without defense, the band to take him. It seems from the full account as given by Matthew and John that Jesus addressed this to his disciples. Jesus “ touched his ear, and healed him.” Of course, Jesus could have healed the ear without the touch, and the decided reproof of the disciples for the rashness of this act closely follows the act, and indicates that all his con¬versation was addressed to them. Luke 22:52 ---And Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains— “ The chief priests” were so eager to take Jesus that they had accompanied Judas and the band of Roman soldiers. Jesus now rebuked them and the Jewish officers for their cowardice and wickedness; they had come secretly and were basely hounding his footsteps to arrest him by night as though he were a common robber or desperate character. If they really believed that he was a bad man, why did they not take him in the daylight while he was in the temple? They had come out against him “ as against a robber, with swords and staves.” It was an indignation that Jesus with such peaceful habits should be surrounded with a band of soldiers and others with an array of weapons of all sorts, as though he were a robber to be hunted down and captured like a wild beast. They were armed with “ swords and staves”; that is, they were armed with all sorts of sticks and cudgels. Luke 22:53 ---When I was daily with you in the temple,—The last week had been spent by Jesus in the temple teaching; at night he would retire to Bethany or to the Mount of Olives. This was a rebuke to them for coming secretly by night, when they could have come to him while he was in the temple teaching daily; this was an indictment against them for their cowardice. They made no attempt to arrest him while he was in the temple; they feared the multitude. “ But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.” The time predicted had arrived; it was now permitted of God that the powers of evil should vent their rage against Jesus, and for a time triumph in the apparent success of their plans to crush Jesus and his disci¬ples. Some think that Jesus had reference to the time of night, but this inference does not justify the statement. PETER’ S DENIAL Luke 22:54-62 Luke 22:54 ---And they seized him, and led him away,—Parallel accounts of Peter’ s denial are found in Matthew 26:57-75; Mark 14:53-72; John 18:15-17. Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane and they “ led him away.” He was “ seized” and bound and brought “ into the high priest’ s house.” Literally it means that after seizing Jesus in the garden by ruthless force, they took him to the house of the high priest; we have no way to determine the hour of night that he arrived at the “ house of the high priest.” It has been a matter of discussion as to who the high priest was. Some think that he was Caiaphas; others think that he was Annas. John relates that they led him first to Annas, and then “ Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.” (John 18:24.) Annas had been high priest for several years and had been deposed by Roman authorities; he was still the legitimate high priest according to the law of Moses since the high priest was to serve during life. (Numbers 20:28 Numbers 35:25.) Jesus was examined in an informal way before Annas (John 18:12-14), and then, in order to have him officially tried and condemned in the eye of the Roman law, he sent him to Caiaphas. Peter is the only one mentioned here as following Jesus, and he followed him “ afar off”; he was near enough to see what became of Jesus, but far enough away from him to be out of danger; he seemed to show more courage than any of the eleven except John. Luke 22:55 ---And when they had kindled a fire—Luke does not mention an earlier examination or trial, but at once describes the conditions upon which Peter denied his Lord. The high priest’ s palace was between the upper city and the temple; it was to this place that Peter followed “ afar off,” while John went into the palace with Jesus and the guards, as he knew the high priest; Peter lingered without, but John spoke to the maid at the door and Peter was admitted. (John 18:15-16.) The usual meeting place of the Sanhedrin was the “ court,” or an apartment in one of the courts of the temple; some have described it as being at the southeast corner of the court of Israel. In cases of emergency, or in this case, where great secrecy was desired, it was at the house of the high priest, who generally presided over the court. The nights at Jerusalem at this season were frequently cold; John states that the fire was made because “ it was cold.” (John 18:18.) John also states that Peter stood with them around the fire, but Luke says, they “ sat down together, Peter sat in the midst of them.” There is no contradiction, since John could describe their standing around the fire at one time and Luke having in mind another time would describe them as sitting. Luke 22:56-57 ---And a certain maid seeing him—This maid appears to have been the one who let him in. (John 18:17.) Mark tells us that this maid was a servant of the high priest. (Mark 14:66.) John speaks of her as the one who kept the door of the porch; she seems to have observed Peter as he came in, and afterward, when he was seated with the servants of the high priest she recognized him ; something about his appearance or manner excited her suspicion; again she thinks that she remembered seeing him with Jesus. She approached him and looked intently upon him and said: “ This man was also with him.” Matthew and Mark both record that she told Peter that she recognized him as one of the disciples of Jesus, while John records that she asked Peter if he were not one of the disciples of Jesus. (John 18:17.) Peter very bluntly denied and said: “ Woman, I know him not.” This was Peter’ s first denial. Luke 22:58 ---And after a little while another saw him,—This is Peter’ s second denial. At this time a man identifies Peter. Matthew and Mark mention a maid who charged Peter with being one of the disciples of Jesus, while John says: “ They said.” At this time Peter had gone from the light to the gate or entrance. (Matthew 26:71.) It is easy to understand the harmony of all of the writers; that a maid, a man, and others of the crowd in the palace court joined in the charge almost simultaneously; this would be a natural thing at such a time. Peter’ s denial is emphatic: “ Man, I am not.” Peter denies as though he was just one of the company who had come through curiosity to learn the cause of the excitement. This denial is stronger than the first, and is a step in advance of the first denial. At the first Peter was probably surprised and possibly somewhat confused; but now he had reflected somewhat and his denial is more emphatic. Possibly the number of those who accused him prompted him to make this denial more em¬phatic. Luke 22:59-60 ---And after the space of about one hour—Matthew says, “ After a little while” (Matthew 26:73), so also Mark (Mark 14:70); Matthew and Mark both state that “ they that stood by” accused Peter of being one of the disciples of Jesus; but Luke says “ another confidently affirmed” that Peter was with Jesus, “ for he is a Galilaean.” John states that a servant who was a kinsman “ of him whose ear Peter cut off” made the charge. (John 18:26.) This is the third charge made against Peter, and it was “ about an hour” after the other charge; someone recognized that Peter was a Galilean; they said that his speech betrayed him. The peculiarities of the Galilean dialect are shown and example given by Peter; these help to identify Peter as one of the disciples. He could not hide his speech if he talked. This time Peter’ s denial was still the more emphatic. He said: “ Man, I know not what thou sayest.” He meant: “ What are you talking about?” He claimed to be totally ignorant of the man and the matter. Peter not only denied and thus lied, but began to curse and to swear, saying: “ I know not this man of whom ye speak.” (Mark 14:71.) Peter solemnly invoked curses on himself, taking solemn oaths in confirmation of his previous assertions that he did not know who the prisoner was. Luke 22:61-62 ---And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter.—What a look of sorrow and pain it must have been! Who can reproduce or describe that look? Was it an angry, disdainful, indignant look? Was it a look of pity and regret? Jesus could not stretch forth his manacled hands to Peter and save him as he did when Peter was sinking while walking on the water, but he did give him a look of tender sympathy for his weakness and a look of love that saved Peter. Peter never forgot that look; it has its desired effect at this time on him, for it called to his mind what Jesus had said to him. How that look must have pierced the heart of Peter, when he remembered the terrible warning which Jesus had given him; he also remembered that he had stoutly affirmed that others might forsake him, but that he was willing to die for him. Peter rushed from the place “ and wept bitterly.” He could stand no longer the look of Jesus, and he needed to get out and give expression to his sorrow. The bitterness of his penitence knew no relief until the assurance of forgiveness came. JESUS BEFORE THE Luke 22:63-71 Luke 22:63 ---And the men that held Jesus mocked him,—The officers and soldiers treated Jesus as they would treat a common slave who had committed some heinous crime and was worthy of death with all the cruelties that they could impose upon him. They “ mocked him” with insulting language and accusations. While Peter was shamefully denying his Lord in the court¬yard, the night examination and trial of Jesus before the high priest went on, and the guards were permitted to heap all sorts of cruelties upon the prisoner. Judas had “ received the band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees” (John 18:3), when he betrayed Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane; hence, these officers were the ones who helped to mock Jesus. They “ beat him” with their fists and with other things they smote him severely. The guards permitted others to mock, beat, blindfold, smite, and revile the Son of God. Matthew and Mark record these insults before the account of Peter’ s denial; Luke records the three denials of Peter together, while the other writers record what occurred between the denials. While Peter was denying his Lord, the enemies reviled him and smote him. Possibly no common slave received worse treatment than did our Lord. Luke 22:64-65 ---And they blindfolded him,—Matthew records that some smote him with their fists, and Mark records that the servants struck him. They made sport of him by imitating the children’ s play of “ blindman’ s bluff.” After he was blind¬folded they struck him and asked him to “ prophesy” or tell them who hit him ; this was a mockery on his claim to be a prophet. Little did they know how much he knew, but he chose not to gratify their curiosity; he permitted them to do what they would with him. They smote him on the face; they spit in his face and buffeted him. (Matthew 26:67; Mark 14:65.) “ And many other things spake they against him, reviling him.” Luke is the only writer that records this verse; it shows that their hatred found outlet not only in acts of violence and insult, but in the most abusive language. They had pronounced condemnation on him for blasphemy, yet they were the only ones who spoke blasphemous words, and that too of the most appalling nature. Strange that they were guilty of the very things with which they charged Jesus. Luke 22:66-71 ---And as soon as it was day,—Matthew and Mark say: “ Now when morning was come” (Matthew 27:1; Mark 15:1) they led Jesus away to the Sanhedrin. The trials before Annas and Caiaphas that night were not legal; the Jewish Sanhedrin did not meet at night for legal procedures; so after daylight the Sanhedrin assembled in formal meeting to confirm what had already been determined. There had been a smaller meeting in the night; the Sanhedrin formerly met in the hall Gazith, the hall of square stone, in the temple area, for blasphemy was based on 2 Kings 18:37. The unexpected answer of Jesus, declaring his divine glory and judgeship, aroused the hatred, rage, and horror of the high priest to the utmost bounds, and he rends his garments as if too narrow to contain his exasperated emotion; he does this as if in holy indignation and horror; terribly excited feelings and hypocrisy were mingled. He accused Jesus of blasphemy. Verse 1 The magnificent drama of our Lord's Passion rapidly unfolds in this chapter. The Passover came on (Luke 22:1-2); Judas bargained to betray the Saviour (Luke 22:3-6); the last Supper was eaten (Luke 22:7-23); the apostles disputed about rank (Luke 22:24-30); Peter's denial was foretold (Luke 22:31-34); the changed condition of the apostles was announced (Luke 22:35-38); an angel strengthened the Lord in Gethsemane (Luke 22:39-46); Jesus was arrested (Luke 22:47-53); Peter denied him at the arraignment (Luke 22:54-62); the Lord was mocked (Luke 22:63-65); he was condemned to death by the Sanhedrin (Luke 22:66-71). Now the feast of the unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might put him to death; for they feared the people. (Luke 22:1-2) Feast of unleavened bread ... the Passover ... The terminology used here is strictly in keeping with the common usage of those times; but it is nevertheless rather loosely used. As Boles said: The Passover, as used here, means either the meal, the feast day, or the whole period of time. "Eat the passover" refers to the meal, as here, or to the whole period of celebration in John 18:28.[1]Furthermore, "the feast of unleavened bread" was used in several senses: The feast of unleavened bread was the day the Passover lamb was slain. According to Mosaic law, this was called the Passover and was followed by seven days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Leviticus 23:5-6). But at this time the whole period was known by this name. Josephus says: "We keep a feast for eight days, which is called the feast of unleavened bread."[2]Gilmour, referring to the latter seven days of the feast said: The feast of unleavened bread at sundown on Nisan 14 (which was) the beginning of the fifteenth day by Jewish reckoning, and lasted for a period of seven days (Leviticus 23:5-6). The Passover coincided only with its first day. The Paschal lambs were slaughtered on the afternoon of Nisan 14, and the solemn meal itself was eaten during the evening that constituted the beginning of the fifteenth day.[3]The following chronological arrangement of the events of this exceedingly important week is adapted from J. R. Dummelow, with the changes required by understanding the crucifixion to have been on the 14th of Nisan, the same day the Paschal lambs were slain, and the same day when the Passover meal was eaten after sundown (technically the fifteenth of Nisan), that fourteenth of Nisan having been a Thursday. See my article, "What Day Was Jesus Crucified?" in my Commentary on Mark, underMark 15:42. A.D. 30 Sabbath, Nisan 9th ... Jesus arrived at Bethany (John 12:1), supper in the evening (John 12:2-8; Matthew 26:6-13). Sunday, Nisan 10th ... triumphal entry (Matthew 21:1), children's Hosannas, healings in temple (Matthew 21:14-16), return to Bethany (Matthew 21:17). Monday, Nisan 11th ... return from Bethany (Matthew 21:18), withering fig tree (Matthew 21:19), cleansing temple (Matthew 21:12), retires to Bethany (Mark 11:19), conspiracy of his enemies (Luke 19:47). Tuesday, Nisan 12th ... they find fig tree withered (Mark 11:20), his authority challenged, tribute to Caesar, brother's wife, first commandment of all, and "What think ye of Christ?" (Matthew 21-22). Woes on Pharisees (Matthew 23), Jesus in treasury, the widow's mite (Mark 12:41), visit of Greeks (John 12:20), final rejection (John 12:37), triple prophecy of fall of Jerusalem, Second Advent and final judgment (Matthew 24-25), Counsel of Caiaphas (Matthew 26:3). Wednesday, Nisan 13th ... in the afternoon preparations for the last supper (Matthew 26:17), that night (technically the 14th of Nisan), the last supper with the Twelve in the upper room (Matthew 26:20), the foot washing (John 13:2), departure of Judas, institution of the Lord's Supper (Matthew 26:26), farewell discourses, the true vine, Comforter promised, intercessory prayer (John 13:31 through John 17), Gethsemane and the one-hour agony (Matthew 26:27; Mark 14:87). Thursday, Nisan 14th ... midnight arrest (Matthew 26:47), before Annas (John 18:18), Peter's denials about 3:00 A.M. (John 18:27), before Caiphas (John 18:24), before Sanhedrin about 4:00 A.M. (Matthew 27:1), sent to Pilate at 6:00 A.M. (Matthew 27:2), from Pilate to Herod, and back to Pilate (Luke 28:7,11), delivered to be crucified (John 19:16) Jesus crucified at 9:00 A.M. (Mark 15:25), darkness from 12:00 to 3:00 P.M. (Matthew 27:45), death of Jesus at 3:00 P.M. (Matthew 27:50). The paschal lambs were being sacrificed at this hour (John 19:36). Jesus was buried about sundown. That night was the Jewish Passover meal, Jesus having eaten it by anticipation 24 hours earlier. Burial of Jesus (Matthew 27:57). Friday, Nisan 15th ... Jesus was in the tomb. Saturday, Nisan 16th ... Jesus was in the tomb. Sunday, Nisan 17th ... Jesus rose from the dead.[4]In the above understanding of the day our Lord was crucified, it is not necessary to suppose Wednesday as having been "a day of retirement,"[5] or that Wednesday, a day of rest, was apparently spent with the disciples at Bethany."[6] The New Testament says nothing of any day of rest or retirement; but, on the contrary, it is repeatedly stated that he was "daily in the temple" (Luke 22:53). "Every day he was teaching in the temple" (Luke 21:87); and there is no way such expressions can mean that Jesus ran off and hid for a whole day. The following diagram will reveal the reason why "the third day" is frequently used by sacred authors to designate the day our Lord rose from the dead. Jesus' own promise that he would be in the heart of the earth "three days and three nights" (Matthew 12:40) could not have been fulfilled in its entirety except by his resurrection at sunset on Sunday, which would have given three full days and three full nights in the grave; however, Jesus said that he would rise "the third day," meaning that he would not be in the grave but two days. Now look at the chart. He was buried at sunset on Thursday and rose very early on Sunday, the first day of the week. Thursday Night Friday Night Saturday Night Sunday period in the tomb -> 1st day 2nd day 3day begins The arguments in favor of viewing Friday as the day our Lord suffered have been thoroughly studied by this writer; and there seems to be no way that they can harmonize with "what is written" in the word of God. We believe that Jesus was in the heart of the earth "three days and three nights," rising on the third day. Sought how they might put him to death ... The death of Jesus had long ago been determined by the hierarchy, and the thing in view here was merely the manner of their bringing it about. From Matthew 26:1-5 it is learned that they actually preferred to kill him secretly, because of their fear of the people, as mentioned here. However, the treachery of Judas induced them to change their plans. [1] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 411. [2] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), Matthew, p. 233. [3] S. MacLean Gilmour, The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), Vol. VIII, Luke, p. 373. [4] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 692. [5] Ibid. [6] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 189. Verse 3 And Satan, entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went away and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might deliver him unto them. And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. And he consented, and sought opportunity to deliver him unto them in the absence of the multitude.What probably triggered Judas' treachery was the rebuke administered to him by the Lord during the incident of the anointing in the house of Simon the leper (Matthew 26:6 ff). With Judas on their side, as they supposed, the chief priests then thought that they would procure ample evidence to warrant a public trial and judicial execution. As it turned out, Judas returned the money in bitterness and remorse, refusing to have any further part with the religious leaders; but it was too late for them, as well as for Judas. The whole shameful episode would be spread upon the public record of the ages. Verse 7 And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed.This "day of unleavened bread" was Nisan 13th; and the preparations here mentioned took place in the afternoon, just prior to the beginning of Nissan 14th, at sunset. The supper was held after sundown and technically on the 14th by Jewish reckoning. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 Sought how means they wanted to plan the death of Jesus in some way that would avoid a riot among the people. (See Matthew 26:4-5; Mark 14:1-2.) 3 Then entered Satan. This does not mean that Satan here for the first time began to influence Judas, for he was called a devil by Jesus before this (John 6:70-71). But Judas had been rebuffed in his covetous attitude toward the woman with the ointment (John 12:3-6), and began at once to plan a wicked scheme against Jesus, which was under the impulse of Satan. (See notes on Matthew 26:14-16.) 4 Judas began his wicked plan by contacting the chief priests and captain, making a proposition to betray Jesus into their hands. 5 They were glad because they hated Him for his exposure of their hypocrisy. 6 In the absence of the multitude. This was because they did not want to get the multitude stirred up in protest against the persecution of Jesus (Mark 14:2). 7 Day of unleavened bread means the first day of the entire eight, during which no leaven was to be used. This 8-day period began with the day on which the passover was killed. (See the notes at verse 1.) 8 Go and prepare. Special arrangements had to be made because Jesus and his apostles were to eat their Passover two days before the regular time (Matthew 26:2; Matthew 26:17). 0 Jesus gave the two disciples instructions about preparing for their Passover, which they did according to Matthew 26:18-19. 3 Jesus was divine and knew just what conditions the disciples would find in the house, and also what the disposition of the men would be who were concerned in the appointment. Guestchamber is from the same word as "inn" in chapter 2:7. 4 The events of this night are not all recorded in any one of the Gospel records, nor in strict chronological order. Before going any further at this place, I urgently insist that the reader see the comments at Matthew 26:20, and keep his book open for frequent reference as he follows the comments at this verse and on through verse 23. I shall now comment on these verses as they come, making my remarks in view of the paragraph in Matthew cited above. He sat down. This phrase is from ANA-PIPTO, which Thayer defines, "To lie back, lie down; to recline at table." (See the comments at chapter 16:22.) 5 This was the fourth Passover Jesus ate after his baptism, according to John 2:13; John 5:1; John 6:4; John 13:1. 6 Jesus predicted that when he ate the Passover again, it would be of a spiritual nature, for it would be in the kingdom of God (the church). 7 Took the cup. According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, and Funk and Wagnalls' Standard Bible Dictionary, the Jews added the drinking of wine to the celebration of the Passover. It was this cup that Jesus took in this verse. 8 Not drink takes the same comments as not eat in verse 16. 9 Jesus is now instituting his supper that is to become the weekly "breaking of bread" in the church (Acts 20:7). This is my body was not said while they were in the Passover activities (see the notes in Matthew cited above). This do in remembrance of me could not apply to the Jewish feast. 0 After supper means after the Passover supper. "A testament is of force after men are dead" Hebrews 9:16-18. As the animal sacrifices constituted the testament under the Mosaic system, so the blood of Christ (which will have been shed in his death), was to constitute the new tesa-ment in my blood. 1 The writer now goes back to the activities of the Passover. (See the notes and comments cited in Matthew 26, from verse 14 here.) 2 The betrayal and slaying of Jesus had been determined upon by the counsel of God (Acts 2:23), to which the reference is made here. 3 Began to enquire. See the comments at Matthew 26:22. 7 See the notes on Matthew 20:25-28. 8 Throughout the public ministry of Jesus, he was subject to the trials of his life which he overcame completely. (See Hebrews 4:15.) 9. See Luke 12:32. 0 The privilege of eating at the table of another was regarded as a great favor. Jesus used the circumstance figuratively to designate the close relationship the apostles were to sustain with Christ in his kingdom. See Matthew 19:28 for comments on judging the twelve tribes. 4 While the wording is a little different, the thoughts and subject matter of this paragraph are the same as Matthew 26:31-35. 6 See the comments on Matthew 10:10. Sell his garment and buy one [a sword]. Jesus never did forbid the use of force in defence where life or home was threatened, but rather spoke favorably for it (chapter 12:39); hence He advised his apostles to provide themselves with the necessary weapon. It might be objected that Jesus rebuked Peter when he used his sword (John 18:10-11). That is true, but that was not an act of defence, for no one's life was being even threatened by the use of weapons, hence Peter's act was an aggressive one. Besides, he proposed to use his sword in defence of the plan of salvation, while in our verse it was only for the purpose of defence against bodily harm. (See again the passage in chapter 12:39.) 7 This verse was to show why the apostles would have to go on without the personal presence of Jesus; he was going to be taken from them. Things concerning me hath an end, means the things predicted of Him (including his death) were to be fulfilled to the end, or to be fully accomplished. 8 This is an incidental item. Jesus had instructed them to procure a sword, and they told him they already had two, which was found to be sufficient. 9 As he was want denotes it was a regular practice for Jesus to go out to this mount, which was the location of Gethsemane (John 18:1-2). 0 On this particular occasion there was a special event about to take place, the betrayal of Jesus into the hands of the chief priests and elders. 2 See the comments at Matthew 26:41-42. 3 After Jesus had resisted Satan in the wilderness (Matthew 4:11), God sent an angel to minister to him. Now an angel comes to his assistance in the garden. 4 Agony is defined, "Severe mental struggles and emotions." It was a part of the "cup" of which Jesus prayed to be relieved in verse 42. As it were is from HOSEI, which Thayer defines, "As if, i. e., as it were, as though, as, like as, like." Jesus did not "sweat blood" as it is so often said. His sweat was gathered upon the surface of the body in great drops that were compared to clotted blood. The condition was caused by the intense nervous agitation over the experiences He knew were soon to be thrust upon him by the powers of darkness. 5 Sleeping for sorrow. It was wrong for the apostles to be sleeping even for this cause, but it was not as bad as if it was from pure indifference. A like situation exisited once with the Israelites in Egypt (Exodus 6:9). 6 This verse gives an admonition that would be good for general guidance. In other places it is worded "watch and pray" (Matthew 26:41). 7 Judas had left the company of Jesus and the other apostles just after eating of the Passover. See the comments at Matthew 26:47. 8 The salutation of a kiss was a common practice in old times, hence there should not have been any surprise at the mere fact that Judas kissed Jesus, under ordinary circumstances. But it had been but a short time since he left the upper room where Jesus was with the other apostles, so the usual occasion for salutations was wanting. Besides, a salutation as an act of social courtesy would have been appropriate for the apostles also, for Judas had been absent from all of them the same length of time. But Jesus exposed the hypocrisy of the traitor by this statement, in question form, but really in order to show him that his Lord knew what he was doing. 9 Neither of the other records says anything about this conversation. 0 John 18:10 tells us it was Peter who did this. 1 In this account Jesus said to Peter, "Suffer ye thus far," mean ing that he should not resist the crowd that was coming to take his Master. The event is the same as recorded in Matthew 26:52. 3 This paragraph is the same in meaning as Matthew 26:55-56. 5 See the comments at Matthew 26:57-58. 2 This paragraph has to do with Peter's threefold denial of Christ according to predictions made by Him. The sad affair is explained at Matthew 26:69-75. 3 These actions against Jesus were to show their disrespect of Him. 4 Prophesy is used in the sense of a test for the superior wisdom of Jesus. If He was divine, he should be able to know who did the striking. 5 Blasphemously spake means they said many things in a way that would injure the good name of Jesus, were they to be heard and believed by others. 6 The council was the Sanhedrin, which was the highest court the Romans permitted the Jews to have in the time of Christ and the apostles. 8 Jesus let the men in the council know that He regarded their question as being insincere, and not from a desire for information. 9 Jesus made a prediction they were not expecting. 0 Taking the remark of Jesus in the preceding verse as an indirect answer to their question, they repeated it in a slightly different form. Ye say that I am is a Biblical form of an affirmative answer. 1. This verse is explained at Matthew 26:65-66. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 23 JESUS BEFORE PILATE AND HERODLuk_23:1-25 Luke 23:1 ---And the whole company of them rose up,—Parallel ac¬counts of this event are found in Matthew 27:2 Matthew 27:11-14; Mark 15:1-5; John 18:28-38. Jesus had been subjected to a threefold trial before the Jews— first, before Annas, next before Caia- phas with a few members of the Sanhedrin present, and last before the entire Sanhedrin after daylight. They condemned Jesus as a blasphemer, but as they could not put him to death without the permission of the Roman authorities, they brought him before Pilate. The Roman trial also comprised three stages: (1) the first appearance before the Roman governor, Pilate; (2) the appearance before Herod Antipas, the native ruler of Galilee appointed by the Romans; and (3) the final appearance before Pilate. “ The whole company” means “ the assembly of the elders of the people” which composed “ their council.” (Luke 22:66.) The Sanhedrin had held its session “ as soon as it was day” that morning in order to ratify the previous decision; it was probably held at the palace of Caiaphas as John says: “ They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium: and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.” (John 18:28.) Pilate was the Roman procurator, or governor. Matthew speaks of him as “ the governor.” (Matthew 27:2.) Matthew often speaks of him simply as the governor, but Mark never so speaks of him; Luke speaks of him only once as the governor. (Luke 3:1.) It is very probable that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea, members of the Sanhedrin, were not present. When Pilate became governor his first act was to bring the silver ea-gles of the Roman legion to Jerusalem, and to use money from the temple treasury for secular purposes; this greatly enraged the Jews. Luke 23:2 ---And they began to accuse him,—The account of the charges against Jesus is recorded by Matthew, Mark, and John as well as by Luke. Matthew and Mark record about the same facts that are given by Luke, while John gives a much fuller record. The Sanhedrin would not enter into the praetorium, but made their charges to Pilate who came out to them. They simply wanted Pilate to ratify their decision; this he refused to do without knowing their accusation and the evidence that they had to give. The Jews felt that this was an insult to their high tribunal, the Sanhedrin. It is to be noticed that the charges they preferred against Jesus before Pilate were different from the ones they preferred against him in their own court; before the Sanhedrin he was charged with the crime of blasphemy, but before the Roman governor he is charged with “ perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king.” These three charges before Pilate were false; Jesus had neither perverted the Jewish nation, nor had he forbidden to pay tribute to Caesar, neither was he a “ King” aspiring to an earthly throne. Luke 23:3 ---And Pilate asked him,—Pilate simply asked Jesus if the charges were true, and especially if he was “ the King of the Jews.” Before Jesus answered Pilate, he brought out clearly the distinction between a civil and a spiritual kingdom, declar¬ing that his kingdom was “ not of this world.” (John 18:36.) Jesus answered: “ Thou sayest.” This was an affirmative an¬swer. (See Luke 22:70.) All four of the writers of the gospel record Pilate’ s question to Jesus in the same language. (Matthew 27:11 : Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3 : John 18:33.) Matthew, Mark, and Luke record Jesus’ answer in the same language, while John gives a fuller answer.Luke 23:4 ---And Pilate said unto the chief priests—Here Pilate declares the innocence of Jesus; his judgment was not pro¬nounced until after the private interview Pilate had with Jesus. Only John relates this interview. (John 18:33-38.) It seems that thus early in the day a multitude had now assembled, and was present with the Sanhedrin. This is the first mention of “ the multitude”; it was now after daybreak; the procession of the Sanhedrin would naturally draw a crowd; some of them may have come to ask for the release of Jesus. (Mark 15:8.) There was need of haste if the condemnation went through before friends of Jesus came. Luke 23:5 ---But they were the more urgent,—The Jews kept insisting that Pilate pass judgment on Jesus; it seems that they thought that Pilate had taken the matter too lightly; hence, they were more vigorous in repeating the charge that he perverted the nation or stirred up the people. Pilate had been convinced that Jesus had committed no crime of treason against the Roman government; he was not concerned about their being aroused over any religious teaching. In fact, Pilate did not like the Jews, and he did not care who disturbed their peace of mind so long as they remained peaceful citizens of Rome. The Jews had found that their charge against Jesus as a king did not disturb Pilate, hence they emphasized the charge that he was an insurrectionist. Luke 23:6-7 ---But when Pilate heard it,—The Jews had mentioned the fact that Jesus had disturbed their nation “ throughout all Ju-daea, and beginning from Galilee,” hence Pilate is prompted to ask if Jesus “ were a Galilaean.” It is probable that the Jews intended to excite prejudice against Jesus by mentioning Galilee, knowing that Pilate had no love for Herod or the Galileans. If they thought that they would excite prejudice against Jesus by speaking of Jesus as a Galilean, they were again disappointed. So soon as Pilate learned that Jesus was a Galilean, he sought to evade any responsibility by referring Jesus to Herod. Herod was in Jerusalem at that time. Some think that Pilate was not seeking to get rid of a troublesome case, but that he was seeking for an occasion to become reconciled to Herod. At any rate, Pilate sent Jesus to Herod. It was easy for Pilate to do this, as Herod was in Jerusalem at that time, probably to attend the feast. Luke 23:8---Now when Herod saw Jesus,—Herod had longed to see Jesus; he had recovered from his fright that Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead. (Matthew 14:1-2.) Herod was still selfish; he wanted to witness some miracle; he was not interested in Jesus as the Messiah or as a Savior; he was weak and sensual and cunning, but superstitious and cruel; he was revengeful. (Matthew 14:9; Luke 3:19 Luke 9:9 Luke 13:32.) Herod’ s curiosity had been excited greatly by the reports that he had heard of the miracles of Jesus; he wanted to be entertained by Jesus’ working miracles; he had no further interest than to gratify his vain curiosity. Luke 23:9-11 ---And he questioned him in many words;—Jesus had no desire to satisfy the wicked curiosity of Herod; he asked Jesus questions; we know not what the questions were, save than to know that he was not searching for the truth. Doubtless they were weak and frivolous questions, corresponding to the character of Herod. Jesus made no reply to Herod; he knew Herod’ s motive, and he had no intention of satisfying his curiosity. When Herod propounded his questions to Jesus the “ chief priests and the scribes stood, vehemently accusing him.’’ These Jews were afraid that Herod would not render a verdict in their favor; hence they loudly and piously accused Jesus; what they lacked in facts they attempted to make up in their vehement charges. Herod and his soldiers “ mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate.” Herod was greatly disappointed, and he is willing to let his bodyguard join with the Jews in reviling him. The Son of God stood before them, but they could see in him only an object of contempt and derision! Luke 23:12 ---And Herod and Pilate became friends—Luke does not state why enmity existed between Herod and Pilate; neither does profane history record the cause of enmity between them. Some have thought it arose from some encroachment of Pilate upon the jurisdiction of Herod. Herod seems to have regarded the case of Jesus as beneath his judicial notice, and Pilate wished to escape judging the case; yet it becomes the occasion of the reconciliation between Herod and Pilate. Pilate had performed an act of courtesy toward Herod, which gave him an opportunity to become friendly with Pilate We find that Luke is the only writer that records the part that Herod had to do with this transaction. We notice that before Herod, Jesus maintained persistent silence, having not the least respect for his character, and being by no means disposed either to gratify his curiosity or recognize his authority in the matter. It is a strange affair for two Gentile rulers at enmity with each other to become reconciled in the trial of Jesus. It is probable that they both agreed in despising Jesus, and in insulting him; it is common today to see the enemies of Jesus agreeing in their opposition to the church. Luke 23:13-15 ---And Pilate called together the chief priests—Herod sent Jesus back to Pilate, and Pilate called “ the chief priests and the rulers and the people” together; we are not told why he called “ the people” with the rulers; perhaps he thought Jesus might have some friends among the people who would help him plead for Jesus. Pilate was about to deliver his de¬cree or judgment, hence if the people were present and in sympathy with Jesus, it would make it easier for Pilate to release Jesus. When they were assembled Pilate plainly told them that they had brought “ this man” to him and had preferred certain charges against him, but that he had examined him in their presence and had “ found no fault in this man”; he told them that their accusations against Jesus had not been sustained. Furthermore, he told them that he had sent Jesus to Herod, and that Herod had examined him, and had returned him without any charges proved against him. Pilate thus strengthens his own decree by the official judgment of Herod. He was not worthy of death; he had done nothing which seemed to be a violation of Roman law. Pilate delivers his judgment with emphatic words which imply that the Jews themselves could see that there was nothing to the charges which they made. Luke 23:16 ---I will therefore chastise him,—Pilate was convinced that Jesus had done nothing worthy of death, or even worthy of any punishment; but in order to satisfy the Jews, he offers to “ chastise” Jesus and release him. “ Chastise” in the original means “ to bring up a child,” hence “ to instruct,” “ to discipline or correct.” This word is not synonymous with “ punish,” but since it always inplies an infliction, it gradually took the meaning of “ punishment.” ’’ chasten” is derived from this word and properly means to “ purify.” Instead of punishing Jesus with death, Pilate thought to “ chastise” him in order to teach him better. The chastisement that Pilate suggested here was that of scourging. It was a Roman custom to inflict upon criminals before crucifixion such punishment; sometimes during the trial of a prisoner, the Romans inflicted scourging in order to make the prisoner confess to the crime. The Roman scourging was more severe than the Jewish; the number of lashes was not limited to forty among the Romans. The whips were fitted with bones or lead to render the blow more fearful and to tear or lacerate the flesh. The criminal was generally bound to a low block, in a stooping posture, and received the fearful blows upon the naked back. The scourging before crucifixion was generally exceedingly cruel, and victims frequently died while being scourged. Luke 23:17 ---The American Revised Version omits verse 17; it seems not to occur in the best manuscripts now available. In the King James Version it is inserted and inclosed in parentheses. It is found in Matthew 27:15; Mark 15:6; John 18:39. “ Now he must needs release unto them at the feast one prisoner.” Though this verse is omitted from Luke, yet the other writers and history fully establish the custom established by the Ro¬mans of releasing a prisoner at the feast; the custom was established to conciliate the Jews and make them more submis¬sive to Roman law at their feast; the Jews gathered from all countries at Jerusalem to keep their feast, and oftentimes they were rebellious. Many insurrections among the Jews occurred at their feasts. Luke 23:18-19 ---But they cried out all together,—Matthew and Mark particularly describe the character of Barabbas; Matthew records the dream and message of Pilate’ s wife. (Matthew 27:19.) “ They” include the chief priests, the rulers, and the people; the rulers had “ persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.” (Matthew 27:20.) Mark mentions only the “ chief priests” as being the ones who stirred up the multitude to ask the release of Barabbas. (Mark 15:11.) From Matthew we learn that Pilate himself had suggested the release of Barabbas. (Matthew 27:17.) The Jews who claimed to be sticklers for the law deliberately violate their own law in preferring to release a murderer and put to death the Messiah. (Leviticus 24:17; Numbers 35:16-24.) Peter said later in accusing the Jews of the death of Jesus that they had delivered him up, “ and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him.” He further charges them that they had denied “ the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted” unto them. (Acts 3:13-14.) The multitude was made up of those who had come to-gether during the arrest and trial of Jesus, and those who had gathered from the streets as they marched Jesus as a prisoner to Pilate’ s court. Luke 23:20-21 ---And Pilate spake unto them again,—Pilate, like most weak men, was evidently superstitious, as the tone of his wife’ s message implies. (Matthew 27:19 Matthew 27:24.) He desired to re¬lease Jesus because he knew that he was innocent and that the Jews were envious of him. The people had made their choice; it was opposed to the judgment of Pilate; Pilate asked them what he should do with Jesus. Pilate had hoped that they would choose to release Jesus; he had put up one of the worst criminals that was held in prison at that time, thinking that surely they would choose to release Jesus rather than Barabbas; but now when they chose to release Barabbas, Pilate seeks another way of releasing Jesus. Hence, according to Matthew and Mark, he asks what he should do with Jesus. They, in answer to this query, “ shouted, saying, Crucify, crucify him.” Their clamor was so loud and so persistent that Pilate is swayed by their choice; however, he knows that Jesus is innocent. Luke 23:22 ---And he said unto them the third time,—Pilate was persistent in his attempt to release Jesus. He asked them the third time what wrong he had done; they had proved none of their charges; Pilate had let them know that he did not accept the evidence that they gave; furthermore, he let them know that he did not believe that Jesus had done anything worthy of death. In asking them the third time the reason for their demand, Pilate was rejecting all former charges and evidence formerly given. The Jews were as persistent in demanding the death of Jesus as Pilate was in desiring to release him. Instead of acquitting Jesus, Pilate partially laid aside his rights as a judge and asked the decision of the people. (Mark 15:12.) Pilate now, having heard their decision, accepts the situation, but strives to reason with them. If they insist on his death, they must show some crime meriting such a punishment. Jesus had done nothing worthy of crucifixion. Instead of stopping to reason with them, Pilate should have retraced his steps and acted the part of a righteous judge and released Jesus. However, he again offered to “ chastise him” and release him. Though he had found no evil in him, yet as a matter of expediency, he again proposes to conciliate the Jews by the milder punishment of scourging. The Jews saw their advantage and made the most of it. Luke 23:23-24 ---But they were urgent with loud voices,—The Jews with loud and importunate cries demanded that Jesus be crucified. The people led by the rulers prevailed upon Pilate to comply with their wishes. “ Prevailed” implies great and persistent effort before they could induce the governor to pass sentence upon him who they knew and Pilate knew was inno-cent. Nothing short of death by crucifixion would satisfy their rage and bitter hatred. Pilate gave his judicial sentence after the renewed efforts to release Jesus. He had tried every means and method that he knew to release Jesus; he was too weak to exercise his own good judgment; he was too wicked to uphold a righteous judgment. He had no right to pro¬nounce what he knew to be an unrighteous condemnation, and to relieve himself of the responsibility of a judge was impossible. At this time Matthew records that Pilate took a basin of water and washed his hands before the multitude (Deuteronomy 21:6-9) and said: “ I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man: see ye to it” (Matthew 27:24). Pilate could not have escaped full legal and moral responsibility for his cowardly surrender to the Sanhedrin; the guilt of the Pharisees and Saddu cees unites in the demand for the blood of Jesus, hence they are not free from his blood. This was a bitter mockery of justice in the sentence that Pilate passed; his sentence is not according to the guilt of the prisoner, not in harmony with the testi-mony, but was a yielding to the hatred of the Jews toward Jesus. Luke 23:25 ---And he released him that for insurrection and murder—The Jews had asked for the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus; they knew the character of Barabbas; they chose him, not so much because they preferred or endorsed murder, but because they hated Jesus so much. Luke omitted from his record the scourging of Jesus, the mockings of the soldiers, Pi-late’ s appeal to the sympathy of the Jews, their declaring him worthy of death because he made himself the Son of God, Pilate’ s greater fear and his bringing Jesus again into the judg-ment hall, Jesus’ speaking of Pilate’ s power and the greater sin of the Jews, Pilate’ s seeking again to release Jesus, the declar-ing of the Jews that Pilate is not Caesar’ s friend if he let Jesus go, Pilate’ s bringing Jesus to his judgment seat on the pave-ment, the Jews’ answer to Pilate’ s final appeal. THE Luk_23:26-38 Luke 23:26 ---And when they led him away,—Jesus was led away to be crucified; Pilate had given his judicial sentence; the rulers of the Jews were now satisfied; they had won a victory. Luke’ s account of the crucifixion is the fullest; Mark describes Simon of Cyrene more fully than do the others. Parallel records may be found in Matthew 27:31-34; Mark 15:20-23; John 19:16-17. As they led Jesus away, “ they laid hold upon one Simon of Cyrene.’’ He was led out of the city, for the crucifixion took place without the gates of the city. (Leviticus 16:27; Hebrews 13:12.) Criminals were executed outside the city, and ejsus was crucified as a criminal. (Leviticus 24:14; Numbers 15:35; 1 Kings 21:13; Acts 7:58.) The four soldiers (John 19:23) under the direction of the centurion, who usually rode on horseback, led the procession; the victim to suffer followed. Simon of Cyrene came along as Jesus bore his cross; Matthew and Mark record that they compelled Simon to bear the cross of Jesus. We know nothing further of this Simon; Cyrene was an important city in northern Africa between Egypt and the territory of Carthage; many Jews resided there at this time. Probably Simon with others had come to Jerusalem to the feast; we know that some Jews attended the feast from Cyrene. (Acts 2:10 Acts 6:9.) We know not the weight of the cross; the cross was in various forms. It was originally a simple stake; afterwards it was made of two pieces of wood crossed like the letter T; sometimes it was in the form of the letter X. The transverse beam crossed the upright beam a short distance from the top. Luke 23:27 ---And there followed him a great multitude—This multitude was mingled with friends, foes, and those who were cu-rious to see what was to be done. The women who followed lamented; they evidently were not of the company who shouted: “ Crucify, crucify him.” The original conveys the idea that they “ bewailed,” literally “ beat themselves,” and “ lamented,” literally “ wept aloud” for him. Luke is the only writer that records this scene. Usually wailing was accompanied by beating the breast in token of grief. Women were the only ones recorded as weeping for Jesus as he marched to the place of crucifixion; women were the last at the tomb and the first at the tomb on the morning of the resurrection. Luke 23:28 ---But Jesus turning unto them said,—This shows that the women were weeping for Jesus, and that they were not from Galilee, but Jerusalem. Jerusalem was soon to be destroyed and these women were to suffer untold evils themselves; Jesus in tenderness and loving-kindness foretold these sufferings. He was going to a glorious victory through death, not for himself, but for others, and they need not weep for him. They should weep for themselves and their children because their children would be involved in the destruction of Jerusa-lem. The sorrow which they were now experiencing was only the beginning of that which would soon come upon them. Luke 23:29-30 ---For behold, the days are coming,—The prediction here admits of application to any times of distress and calamity in the history of the Jews; but it seems to have direct reference to the sufferings that should come upon them in the destruction of Jerusalem. “ Blessed are the barren” because, if they had children, they would have to see them suffer the destruction that awaited the doomed city. Such intense sufferings would characterize those days that those who had never borne children would be regarded as fortunate. Among the Jews it was considered very unfortunate for wives to be barren ; but the time would come when this would be reversed. The universal dread of barrenness was felt by every Jewish female in ancient days, but the time would come when they would be glad that they were barren. This language seems to have been taken from Isaiah 54:1. Luke 23:31 ---For if they do these things in the green tree,—Jesus here uses a common proverb to convey more vividly the awfulness of their coming sufferings. The green tree is the symbol of the righteousness and the dry tree of the wicked. (Psalms 1:3; Ezekiel 20:47.) If an innocent man should so suffer, what would be the fate of the wicked? The green tree is represent¬ative of one which bears fruit, while the dry tree represents the one that does not bear fruit, but is ready to be burned. The Jewish people were now rejecting him and leading him forth to the death of the cross; upon them would come fearful judgment. They were more guilty than those who would take no part in the crucifixion. (1 Peter 4:12-18.) Luke 23:32 ---And there were also two others, malefactors,—“ Malefactor” means evildoer; Matthew and Mark call them “ robbers” (Matthew 27:38 Matthew 27:44; Mark 15:27); they were guilty of some crime, probably that of robbing. Some think that they belonged to the band of Barabbas; however, we cannot determine this. We do not know when the malefactors were condemned ; it seems that they had been condemned previous to the condemnation of Jesus, and were awaiting their execution. It was prophesied that Jesus should be numbered with the transgressors, but nowhere is he called a malefactor. (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 22:37.) These malefactors were conducted by the soldiers to the place of execution and were compelled to bear their own cross. Luke 23:33 ---And when they came unto the place—The corresponding word for “ skull” in the Aramaic or Hebrew is “ Golgotha,” while in the Latin it is “ Calvary.” It is thought that it was called “ skull” because the shape of the mountain or hill resembled a skull. Jesus was crucified between the two robbers and on the cross probably that Barabbas was to have suffered on. The governor was accustomed to crucify criminals at the Passover; it was a suitable time, as it would impress on the multitude the importance of submitting to the Roman law. They nailed Jesus to the cross; it is not known whether he was nailed to the cross before it was erected, or after it was erected; both methods were used at that time. Death did not ensue in most cases until many hours after the victim was thus affixed to the cross. Luke 23:34 ---And Jesus said, Father, forgive them;—There are seven recorded statements that Jesus made while on the cross; this is the first one that Luke records. We do not know the chronological order of the seven recorded utterances made by Jesus on the cross; they are called “ the seven words.” They are as follows: “ Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34) ; “ Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43); “ Woman, behold, thy son!” “ Behold, thy mother!" (John 19:26-27) ; “ My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46); “ I thirst" (John 19:28); “ It is finished" (John 19:30); “ Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46). They were ignorant of the enormous crime that they were committing; this ignorance, though it did not excuse.them, may have mitigated somewhat their sin. (Acts 3:17; 1 Corinthians 2:8.) “ Parting his garments among them, they cast lots"; criminals were crucified naked; some think that a linen cloth was bound about the loins; from John 19:23-24, it appears that the four soldiers who are engaged in the crucifixion divided some of the garments among themselves, but cast lot for his coat, as it was without a seam and woven throughout. Luke 23:35 ---And the people stood beholding.—Both Matthew and Mark speak of the people scoffing him as they pass by; Luke does not deny this, but adds that the “ rulers also scofTed at him." Luke tells us just what they said: “ He saved others; let him save himself, if this is the Christ of God, his chosen.” The rulers could not let him die in peace; they were not willing for him to have a quiet moment in which to die. They had been compelled to acknowledge his supernatural power in saving others, and should have believed on him; but they now taunt him with having lost that power when he needed it for his own deliverance; they treated him as an impostor. They thought that if he was what he claimed to be he would be able to save himself; they mocked his claim as the Son of God. They sneered at him and heaped all indignities upon him in his dying moments. How great was their sin! Luke 23:36-37 ---And the soldiers also mocked him,—The soldiers joined in the popular excitement and clamor. They were willing in their cruel and crude way to add to the humiliation suffering of Jesus. We are told that they brought him vinegar to drink and derided him ; they mocked him and his claims to be King of the Jews. They used almost the same language that the chief priests used. (Matthew 27:42.) The rulers derided Jesus as the Christ, while the soldiers jeered him as the King of the Jews. “ The Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together, to do whatsoever” they could against Jesus. (Acts 4:27-28.) They meant that Jesus pretended to be a king and that now was the time for him to show his authority ; they did not understand the nature of his kingdom. Luke 23:38 ---And there was also a superscription over him,—It was the custom to write the crime for which the victim was dying and place it over his head on the cross. Sometimes a public crier announced it; he would follow the victim as he bore his cross and announce to the people along the way the crime for which he was to die. It seems that Pilate had written this in-scription. (John 19:22.) Sometimes the inscription was written on a white tablet and hung about the neck of the criminal. In some instances all three methods were followed: one would follow or lead and announce the crime, then the victim would have a placard bound around his neck telling the crime, and then another would be placed on the cross. This inscription was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew so that all could read it. All four writers of the gospel give this inscription ; they differ as to the wording of the inscription. This difference is accounted for in the fact that it was written in three languages; one writer would give the translation in one of the languages, another in another language. The writers could give only the meaning of the inscription and not the words of it. THE THIEF ON THE CROSSLuk_23:39-43 Luk 23:39 ---And one of the malefactors—Both Matthew and Mark say that the “ robbers” or “ they that were crucified with him reproached him.” (Matthew 27:44; Mark 15:32.) Luke speaks of only one who railed upon him, and records that only one asked him if he were “ the Christ,” and if he be the Christ to save himself and “ us.” This is harmonized by the fact that both at first may have joined in the reproaches hurled at Jesus by the rulers and people; but one of them, being afterward convinced of the Messiahship of Jesus, repented. It seems that the climax of the picture is reached in the reproaches of his fellow sufferers. The agonies of crucifixion did not suppress nor subdue the enmity toward Jesus. If he be the Christ, then he should show his power by coming down from the cross. Luke 23:40-41 ---But the other answered, and rebuking him said,—The rebuke was conveyed in the question: “ Dost thou not even fear God?” The meaning seems to be that those who were railing upon Jesus among the rulers and chief priests did not fear God, and this malefactor, by railing upon Jesus, put himself in the class of those who did not fear God. The meaning is, have you no fear of divine justice, that at this awful moment you can taunt and jeer at an innocent man? This robber confessed that he and his fellow robber were suffering justly; that they, by their crimes and wickedness, merited in a judicial sense the punishment that they were suffering. “ But this man hath done nothing amiss. Both were soon to appear before God; Jesus had nothing to answer for, but the other had added to his former sins the sin of reviling an innocent man in his death. Even in the mind of this malefactor the commission of one of the greatest crimes that the human mind could conceive would not justify such taunts, jeers, and insults as were being heaped upon Jesus by the rabble who had gathered around the cross. Luke 23:42 ---And he said, Jesus, remember me—The penitent malefac-tor now turns to Jesus and pleads that he may be remembered when Jesus comes into his kingdom. He seems to pray to Jesus, not for deliverance from the cross, nor for any present good, but for a blessing which can be conferred only after his death, which he recognized as inevitable. Some think that he had a misconception of the nature of the kingdom that Jesus was to establish, and that he thought, in some way, that Jesus would come into possession of his earthly kingdom, and that he might save him from the cross. If he understood the nature of the kingdom that Jesus was to establish he had a deeper insight into the spiritual nature of the kingdom than did the apostles, or anyone else, at that time. This penitent malefactor had confessed his sins, reproved his companion, defended Jesus, and now asked Jesus to remember him. We do not know how much knowledge of Jesus and his claim this robber had. We only have Luke’ s record of the account. The kingdom had not been established at this time, and this robber lived and died under the law of Moses; he must be judged by it. Luke 23:43 ---And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee,—The an¬swer that Jesus gave to this penitent malefactor has received many different interpretations. Jesus used his familiar form of speech to preface his answer. Jesus said to him: “ Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” Jesus had observed the most profound silence amidst the jeers of the rulers and multitude, but now he is ready to make reply to this penitent, dying man. The statement that Jesus gave him can be understood when we know the general teachings of the Christ. “ Today,” not at some time in the distant future, but this very day, you are to be associated with me in the pains and death of the cross and are to be associated with me in “ Paradise.” “ Paradise” originally meant “ an enclosed park or pleasure-ground.” In the Septuagint Version (Genesis 2:8) it means the Garden of Eden. We are told that in Jewish theology the department of Hades where the blessed souls await the resurrection is calld “ Paradise”; it is equivalent to “ Abraham’ s bosom.” (Luke 16:22-23.) It occurs three times in the New Testament— in this passage, 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7. It always seems to mean the abode of the blessed. Some doubt that the evidence in the scripture is strong enough to warrant a belief in the intermediate state of the dead. Whatever may have been the conception of the early Hebrews with regard to the separation between the righteous and the wicked in Sheol, those of a later period did conceive a separation; hence to them Hades and Sheol designated the place of the righteous and the wicked dead; Hades was the place for the blessed and called Paradise, while the wicked dwelt in the abyss called Tartarus. Evidently Jesus did not mean that this robber would go with him to heaven that day, as it seems clear from other statements that Jesus did not go to heaven that day. His day of ascension came about forty days after that time. After Jesus was raised from the dead and appeared to Mary, when she recognized him he said to her: “ Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father.” (John 20:17.) THE BURIAL OF JESUS Luke 23:44-56 Luke 23:44 ---And it was now about the sixth hour,— Parallel records of this are in Matthew 27:45-50; Mark 15:33-37; John 19:28-30. It seems that Jesus was crucified or nailed to the cross about nine o’ clock Friday morning, as Mark says that “ it was the third hour, and they cricified him.” (Mark 15:25.) The first three hours that Jesus remained on the cross would bring the time to twelve noon; some think that only three of the sayings of Jesus were spoken during these hours, which seems to be correct. “ About the sixth hour” or twelve o’ clock noon, "a darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour.” That is, darkness came over the land of Palestine from twelve o’ clock to three o’ clock in the afternoon. The darkness began at “ the sixth hour”; that is, twelve o’ clock, and lasted until three o’ clock in the afternoon. The heavy veil of the temple which separated the holy from the most holy place in the sanctuary of the temple was rent from top to bottom; this signified that a new, “ living way” was consecrated, whereby all believers might come into the presence of God. It is not claimed that this darkness was caused by an eclipse, nor was it the natural darkness that precedes an earthquake; it was a miracle; this is the only way that we can account for it. Luke 23:45-46 ---the sun’ s light failing:—we can only account for the physical phenomena that occurred by saying that a miracle was worked; the Son of God was dying and the physical ele¬ments were drooped in mourning of the awful occasion; after the darkening of the earth the sun and moon were obscured; during this time the veil of the temple was rent, which signified that the end of the temple service had come. This veil separated the temple into the two parts—holy and most holy. When this veil was rent, the distinction between the two places was destroyed, and that signified the services of the high priest and other priests were at an end. The high priest entered into the most holy place only once in the year to make an atonement for the people. (Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 16:15-17; Hebrews 9:7.) So the rending of the veil destroyed the sanctity of these two divisions of the temple. Jesus, our great high priest, entered into the most holy place to make atonement through his blood for our sins. (Hebrews 9:12-14 Hebrews 9:25-26.) Luke 23:47 ---And when the centurion saw what was done,—Matthew records that the centurion “ and they that were with him watching Jesus” “ feared exceedingly.” (Matthew 27:54.) We do not know how much the centurion knew of God; he is recorded as glorifying God and saying: “ Certainly this was a righteous man.” His conclusion was drawn from the physical phenomena which accompanied the death of Christ. Luke mentions several centurions who were good men. (Luke 7:2 Luke 23:47; Acts 10:1; Acts 22:26-27) He felt that Jesus was a righteous man when he saw the forgiving spirit and the earthquake and heard all that Jesus had said on the cross. Luke 23:48-49 ---And all the multitudes that came together—The people had been urged on to their course by the chief priests and rulers; it seems that some had been held back. When they saw the remarkable character they were troubled and left the scene smiting their breasts as an expression of extreme grief and deep mental anguish. Jesus had died earlier than some die on the cross. Sometimes the victim on the cross would not expire for one or two days; the Jews wanted to hasten the death of Jesus and the two who were crucified with him by breaking their bones. (John 19:31-32.) However, when they came to examine Jesus’ body they found that he was dead, and they broke the bones of the two malefactors to hasten their death, so that they would not remain on the cross over the Sabbath. It is strange that they would be so particular about the Sabbath when they were committing the high crime of crucifying the Son of God! They were fulfilling the state¬ment that Jesus had made to them when he said that they were “ blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!” (Matthew 23:24.) A study of those who were present at the crucifixion leads us to group them into four classes. They were as follows: (1) the centurion and his soldiers; (2) the Jewish leaders; (3) the women who were his disciples, and who “ stood afar off”; (4) and the crowd or multitude that gathered around the cross. This group of women who had “ followed with him from Galilee” appeared to be a different group of women from those who followed him as he bore his cross. (See verse 27.) This group of women included the mother of Jesus. Luke 23:50-52 ---And behold, a man named Joseph,—Parallel records of the burial of Jesus are found in Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; John 19:31-42. All of the records recite that Joseph of Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus. John records that he was a disciple, “ but secretly for fear of the Jews” was not an open disciple. However, Mark records him as going to Pilate “ boldly” and asking for the body of Jesus. He was a member of the Sanhedrin, a good, just, and rich man. He had not voted with the council to condemn Jesus; he alone is named as not agreeing to the verdict of the council, but it is probable that Nicodemus, who is present, must have voted against the decision of the Sanhedrin. It is not known whether Joseph or Nicodemus were present, though it is specifically stated that Joseph “ had not consented to their counsel and deed.” The exact location of Arimathea is not known, but some think that it was about six miles north of Jerusalem. Luke describes the faith of Joseph by saying that he “ was looking for the kingdom of God.” This shows that he expected the Messiah and expected the kingdom of God to be set up. His boldness in asking Pilate for the body of Jesus is put in contrast with his being a secret disciple of Jesus; it is hard to understand why he should be so timid during the life of Jesus, yet so bold as to ask Pilate for his body. John is the only writer who informs us that Nicodemus was with Joseph in the burial of Jesus. (John 19:38-39.) We have only three mentions of Nicodemus in the New Testament, and John is the only writer that mentions Nicodemus. (John 3:1-9 John 7:50 John 19:39.) Luke 23:53 ---And he took it down, and wrapped it—Joseph had “ asked” or made an urgent request of Pilate for the body of Jesus. He was aided by Nicodemus and perhaps by some servants, as he was a “ rich man.” He took the body from the cross and “ wrapped it in a linen cloth.” This was a “ winding sheet” in which the body of the dead was wrapped; the mummies of Egypt were wrapped in “ fine linen”; the body of Jesus was wrapped “ in a clean linen cloth,” according to Matthew. Mark records that Joseph “ bought a linen cloth” (Mark 15:46), and John records that Nicodemus brought “ a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds” (John 19:39), and in this way they embalmed the body of Jesus and placed it in Joseph’ s new tomb. Both Matthew and John state that it was a “ new tomb” ; this “ new tomb” was hewn out of rock. The tombs of the Jews were generally cut out of solid rock; some-times they were below the level of the ground, but often they were above the ground on the sides of hills and mountains. It seems that the tomb of Joseph was the family vault. Joseph being a rich man could give the body of Jesus such a burial. The prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled here, “ and they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death.” (Isaiah 53:9.) Luke 23:54 ---And it was the day of the Preparation,—The day before the Sabbath was called the day of Preparation; hence this was the sixth day of the week, or what we call Friday. Matthew and Mark say nothing about the “ day of the Preparation,” but both Luke and John mention it. The Sabbath “ drew on,” or literally “ began to dawn,” meaning the evening light of the Sabbath, not the morning; it was the dawn at sunset, for the Sabbath began at sunset. The women of Galilee observed where and how the body of Jesus was placed. Luke does not here speak of the twelve-hour day which began with sunrise, but the twenty-four-hour day which began at sunset. Luke 23:55 ---And the women, who had come with him—These women had followed from Galilee; they watched where the body of Jesus was placed. Evidently the Jews had also observed what Joseph and Nicodemus had done; they were little concerned now since Jesus was dead as to what would be done with his body. It seems that while Joseph and Nicodemus were bury¬ing the body the Jews had gone to Pilate and asked that a guard be placed around the tomb. Though Matthew did not speak of that day as being “ the Preparation” day as did Luke and John, yet Matthew speaks of “ the day after the Preparation.” (Matthew 27:62.) This group of women from Galilee had often ministered to Jesus; they were standing afar off during the dreadful scene of the crucifixion, and are now observing the burial of his body. Luke 23:56 ---And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments.—Luke (Luke 23:54) notes that “ the sabbath drew on” after the burial on Friday afternoon; the Sabbath began at 6:00 P.M.; then Luke notes that the women rested during the Sabbath, which would be Friday night and Saturday. The spices and perfumes that they prepared would complete the proper em-balming of the body; these were bought and prepared, but owing to the late hour, seemed to be laid aside until after the Sabbath. They rested on that day according to the command-ment of Moses. (Exodus 12:16 Exodus 20:8-11; Deuteronomy 5:1-15.) The teachings of Jesus served to make them careful observers of the moral law as well as the law regulating the Sabbath. Some think that the two Marys remained too long at the tomb to make purchases on Friday. Matthew (Matthew 27:62-66) records the sealing and guarding of the tomb, the chief priests and Pharisees asking Pilate to make the sepulchre secure, and his granting their request. Verse 1 Here is Luke's record of the final trials of Jesus before Pilate (Luke 23:1-7), before Herod (Luke 23:8-12), and before Pilate again (Luke 23:13-25), Simon of Cyrene bearing the cross, the prophecy to the daughters of Jerusalem, and the crucifixion of the malefactors (Luke 23:26-32), the crucifixion of our Lord, three sayings from the cross, the inscription, and the death of Jesus (Luke 23:33-49), and the entombment (Luke 23:50-56). And the whole company of them rose up, and brought him before Pilate. (Luke 23:1) Pilate was the fifth procurator of Judea, holding office from 28-36 A.D. In view of all that is known of this evil ruler from the writings of Philo, and from the New Testament itself, it is incredible that one would say that "There is not enough information about him to make a valid judgment of the kind of man he was"![1] Luke recorded that Jesus himself mentioned Pilate's mingling the blood of Galilean worshipers with the blood of their sacrifices in the temple itself (Luke 13:15); and what is in this chapter alone provides ample information upon which to form a definitive judgment regarding what kind of man Pilate was. The Sanhedrin had just concluded the formal daylight trial at which they had condemned Jesus to death; but since they were prohibited by the Romans from the execution of such a sentence (John 18:31), they were compelled to pursue their objective in the court of the pagan governor. ENDNOTE: [1] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1973), p. 294. Verse 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king.There was no mention by those hypocrites of the true reason for their condemnation of Jesus, which was this, that he claimed to be the divine Messiah, the Son of God. Concerning the triple allegations in this verse, Barclay accurately said: They charged Jesus: (a) with seditious agitation; (b) with encouraging men not to pay tribute to Caesar; and (c) with assuming the title king. Every single item of the charge was a lie, and they knew it.[2]ENDNOTE: [2] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), p. 300. Verse 3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest.Luke's record, like all of the Gospels, omits some things found in the others and includes some things not found in the others, the only proper understanding of such records being found in the composite record of all four Gospels. As Spence noted, the very first thing Pilate did was to attempt an avoidance of condemning Jesus, or even judging him at all. "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law" (John 18:31); to which the Sanhedrinists replied that they were not allowed to put any man to death ... revealing their deadly purpose in the case of Jesus.[3]Some have understood this verse as indicating Pilate's willingness to accept the third charge against Jesus (that he laid claim to being a secular king), that being the reason for the question here; but that simply cannot be true. As Ash observed: "Pilate knew the Jews would follow a king, not deliver him up."[4] Thus, the third charge was as clearly false in Pilate's understanding of it, as were the others. If Jesus had been what the Sanhedrin said he was, a claimant of secular kingship, they would have followed and supported him unto death. In fact, some of those very hypocrites had spent an entire day trying to get Jesus to be the quartermaster of a secular army against Rome (see in John 6). Thus Pilate's pinpointing the third charge had no reference to his being taken in by such a lie, but rather shows his astonishment at it. Thou sayest ... This has been interpreted as noncommittal, a denial, and as an affirmation of Jesus' kingship, the latter being the true meaning. From John, it is learned that the Lord explained thoroughly to Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world. There is no evidence at all that Pilate ever doubted Jesus' word on this. See underLuke 23:38. This is proved by Pilate's immediate announcement of Jesus' innocence. [3] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 235. [4] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972), p. 135. Verse 4 And Pilate said unto the chief priests and the multitudes, I find no fault in this man.This is another effort of Pilate to avoid condemning Jesus, there having been at least seven of these in all. See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:13-24. This was the point at which Pilate should have dismissed the charges, called out the soldiers in the tower of Antonio, and dismissed the mob; but in the meantime he had a brilliant idea, prompted by what the Sanhedrinists next said. See under Luke 23:5. Verse 5 But they were the more urgent, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place.Stirreth up the people ... had, in context, connotations of sedition and was as false as all the other charges. Again and again, Jesus had carefully avoided arousing any inordinate enthusiasm of the people. Galilee ... That was the word that caught Pilate's attention, giving him what he hoped would be a means of avoiding responsibility. Verse 6 But when Pilate heard it, he asked whether the man were a Galilean. And when he knew that he was of Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him unto Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem in these days.Tinsley, after observing that this incident appears only in Luke, said, "Some scholars have doubted whether this trial before Herod ever took place.[5] It may be assumed that Tinsley is among that group of scholars. However, such opinions lose their force when it is recalled that "some scholars" deny God; some scholars deny the New Testament; some scholars deny the supernatural; some scholars deny the existence of angels, or prophecy, or the resurrection of the dead, or any such things as heaven and hell or the final judgment. The sheep of God, however, know their Shepherd's voice. Every word in the sacred Gospels is historical truth. Pilate's maneuver here, in sending the Lord to Herod, was a skillful political ploy, resulting in a reconciliation between these contemporary Roman subalterns (see underLuke 23:12). ENDNOTE: [5] E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 198. Verse 8 Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was a long time desirous to see him, because he had heard concerning him; and he hoped to see some miracle done by him.Luke alone recorded the "friendly" warning of the Pharisees to Jesus that "Herod would fain kill thee" (Luke 13:31); and it was fully in keeping with Luke's thoroughness and dependability as a historian that he should have included this incident, proving, absolutely, that the Pharisees who thus addressed Jesus were lying. Herod indeed wanted to see Jesus, but it was from curiosity, not from intent to murder. As Frank L. Cox commented: "The frivolous Herod, looking upon Jesus as a juggler or magician, was eager for him to satisfy his vulgar curiosity."[6]ENDNOTE: [6] Frank L. Cox, According to Luke (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1941), p. 7O. Verse 9 And he questioned him in many words; but he answered him nothing. And the chief priests and the scribes stood, vehemently accusing him.The false charges of the Jewish leaders were so obviously impossible of being true that the Lord did not need to say anything: and, in addition to that, the known character of Herod was such that it would have been an unnecessary waste on the part of Jesus to have honored any of his questions with a reply. Verse 11 And Herod with his soldiers set him at naught, and mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate.Herod's conduct in this episode suggests what many in all ages have done with regard to Jesus; they have set him at naught. Herod, in the false security afforded by his palatial residence, his bodyguard of soldiers, his wealth and human eminence, saw nothing in the lowly Jesus that he should either honor or respect; but ironically, that evil man's place in history is due altogether to the fact that Jesus the Christ stood before him for a brief while during that eventful week. Herod, after indulging in the shameful business of the mockery, acquitted Jesus and sent him back to Pilate. Verse 12 And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day: for before they were at enmity between themselves.Cause of the enmity is not known, but it is commonly believed to have been Pilate's slaying of the Galileans mentioned in Luke 13:1-2. It was Pilate's civility and deference to Herod which healed the breach.[7]It has often been noted that old enemies often become friends when there is a common opportunity to wound the Lord in the person of his followers. In this whole episode, Herod appears as the most contemptible. Hobbs agreed that "In all this horrible picture, no figure appears so ignominious as Herod."[8]Before leaving this unit of teaching, attention should be directed to the slander that this episode "was included as part of (Luke's) attempt to remove responsibility for the death of Jesus from the Roman authorities."[9] Not only is there no such attempt in this paragraph, nor in the whole New Testament, to do such a thing; but, on the other hand, the culpability, dastardly cowardice, unfeeling injustice, and utter incompetence of Pilate are overwhelmingly evident throughout the chapter. THE SECOND TRIAL BEFORE PILATEThe six trials of Jesus were: before Annas, before Caiaphas, before the Sanhedrin at daybreak, before Pilate, before Herod, and again before Pilate. Some twenty pages of comment regarding these six trials are given in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:57 ff. The trial here is the last of the six. [7] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 605. [8] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 328. [9] E. J. Tinsley, op. cit., p. 198. Verse 13 And Pilate called together the chief priests and the rulers of the people, and said unto them, Ye brought unto me this man as one that perverteth the people: and behold, I, having examined him before you, found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accused him: no, nor yet Herod: for he sent him back unto us; and behold, nothing worthy of death hath been done by him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him.In the last sentence of this passage is the shameful injustice of Pontius Pilate. Having declared Jesus to be without "fault," and further announcing Herod's corroboration of such a verdict of innocence, Pilate proposed that he would "chastise him"! Translating the paragraph into the vernacular, Pilate said, "The man is absolutely innocent, and I will beat him half to death!" The scholars who find in this some exoneration of Pilate find what is not in it. Verse 17 Now he must needs release unto them at the feast one prisoner. But they cried out all together, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas.Luke 23:17 (the first sentence) has been removed from the text on sufficient grounds; but it is true nevertheless, being valuable as a commentary. The full teaching of this omitted verse is found in John 18:39, where its authenticity cannot be denied. Spence commented that: As a Hebrew custom, it is never mentioned save in this place. Such a release was a common incident of a Latin Lectisternium, or feast in honor of the gods. The Greeks had a similar custom at the Thesmophoria. It was probably introduced at Jerusalem by the Roman power.[10]There is every evidence that Pilate tried to utilize such a custom in his efforts to find a way of releasing Jesus. The wicked hierarchy, however, merely stirred up the people to clamor for the release of Barabbas, a notorious robber, murderer and seditionist, as mentioned in the next verse. ENDNOTE: [10] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 236. Verse 19 (Barabbas) one who for a certain insurrection made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.Barabbas ... This name is usually understood to be patronymic, meaning "son of father"; but Spence pointed out another possible meaning which seems to be more probable, Bar-Abbas indeed meaning "son of father," but Bar-Rabbas means "son of Rabbi."[11]The choice of Israel in their preference of this wicked criminal instead of the holy Jesus eventually came down upon the whole nation like an avalanche. See the article, "Why God Destroyed the Temple" in my Commentary on Mark, under Mark 13:2. ENDNOTE: [11] Ibid. Verse 20 And Pilate spake unto them again desiring to release Jesus; and they shouted, saying, Crucify, crucify him.Summers has a very interesting comment on this, in which he pointed out that the mob took up a chant, as also indicated in Luke 23:18 in the words "all together." He said: Transliterated into English-character syllables it is: [Greek: Stau-rou], [stau-rou-ton]! [Greek: Stau-rou], [stau-rou-ton]! Even in English words, the cadence of a chant is present: Cru-ci-fy, cru-ci-fy-him! Cru-ci-fy, cru-ci-fy-him! That was the most dreadful "one-two - one-two-three-four" beat ever to sound in the ears of men.[12]One can only stand in amazement at the cowardice and injustice of a weakling governor who had the legions of the Roman army under his command, but who nevertheless yielded to a mob's rape of justice by any such device as this. ENDNOTE: [12] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 299. Verse 22 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath this man done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him and release him. But they were urgent with loud voices, asking that he might be crucified. And their voices prevailed.Far from Luke's attempting to exonerate Pilate, he omitted a number of efforts on the part of the pagan governor to release Jesus. Here is a list of the efforts Pilate made to release the Lord: PILATE'S EFFORTS TO AVOID JESUS1. He asked that the Jews take him and judge him according to their own law (John 18:31). 2. He announced a verdict of innocence (Luke 23:4). 3. He sent him to Herod. (Luke 23:5-10). 4. He announced Jesus' innocence had been confirmed by Herod also (Luke 23:13-15). 5. He twice offered to substitute a lighter punishment (chastisement) (Luke 23:16; Luke 23:22). 6. He offered a choice between Barabbas and Christ, hoping the people would choose Jesus to be released (Matthew 27:15 ff). 7. He suggested that they take Jesus without legal process and crucify him (John 19:6), promising to "look the other way" if they did. 8. He even appealed to Jesus to perform some wonder, by implication, that would make it easy to release him (see in my Commentary on John underJohn 19:11). 9. He "sought the more" to release him (John 19:11). In view of the above, there can be no justification for the notion that Luke in any manner colored his narrative to improve the image of Pilate. As a matter of fact, Pilate's image appears starkly ugly enough in the chapter before us. And their voices prevailed ... Prevailed over what? Over a cowardly governor who, with an army at his back, allowed himself to be bullied by the evil priests. Pilate signed the death warrant of a man he had repeatedly declared to be innocent; and, if there is anything worse than this that a governor might be guilty of, it is surely unknown to this writer. Verse 24 And Pilate gave sentence that what they asked for should be done. And he released him that for insurrection and murder had been cast into prison, whom they asked for; but Jesus he delivered up to their will.There was no extenuation for such a crime on Pilate's part, his knowledge of Jesus' innocence, as proved by his repeated efforts to release him, only aggravating his guilt, not diminishing it. As Luke said, "He gave sentence ... Jesus he delivered up," the same being the Crime of the Ages, nor does Luke's record soften or excuse it in any manner whatsoever. Verse 26 And when they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, and laid on him the cross, to bear it after Jesus.SIMON OF CYRENEMost commentators identify this Simon as the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21) and with Rufus and his mother (Romans 16:13). The inference is that Simon became a Christian, that his sons Alexander and Rufus were distinguished members of the church in Rome, and that Simon's widow (?), the mother of Rufus (Romans 16:13), was a close friend and associate of the apostle Paul. Although incapable of being proved, such assumptions are quite reasonable. Cyrene ... "This was a principal city of northern Africa, between Carthage and Egypt, corresponding with modern Tripoli."[13] "The Jews formed one of the four recognized classes in the city ... it was represented in the Pentecost crowd (Acts 2:10) and evidently had its own (or shared) synagogue in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9).[14]Coming in from the country ... Summers thought that Simon might have been "traveling to Jerusalem for Passover and arriving late."[15] However, the Passover was held that night, not the night before (John 18:28). This is another example of numerous New Testament verses which have been misinterpreted due to the Friday crucifixion tradition. [13] F. N. Peloubet, Peloubet's Bible Dictionary (Chicago: The John C. Winston Company, 1925), p. 132. [14] New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), p. 285. [15] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 300. Verse 27 And there followed him a great multitude of the people, and of women who bewailed and lamented him.JESUS' TO THE OF "The warm feeling with which all classes of women regarded Jesus is especially marked in this `the Gospel of womanhood'."[16]ENDNOTE: [16] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 768. Verse 28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.Daughters of Jerusalem ... indicates that the vast majority of these were residents of that city; and significantly, Jesus thought more about the woe which was coming upon the Holy City than of his own terrible sufferings. Such selflessness was never known except in Jesus. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 3 Thou sayest it is the "good confession" referred to by Paul in 1 Timothy 6:13, showing there is no set form in making the confession. 4 I find no fault in this man. This is virtually the same thought that is worded in Matthew 27:23. 5 According to Thayer, Jewry means "all Palestine." 7 This was Herod Anti-pas, who was governor over the territory of Galilee, but was in Jerusalem at this time because of the Passover. If he could turn Jesus over to him, Pilate thought he might get rid of the problem that was worrying him, which was that of disposing of the case against Jesus. He did not believe that Jesus was guilty of any wrong, yet was hesitating about declaring him free because of political reasons (John 19:12). 8 The desire of Herod to see Jesus was prompted largely by curiosity about His miraculous works; in chapter 9:9 this desire is mentioned the first time. 9 Jesus knew that Herod had no just reason for his curiosity, hence He maintained the same silence before him that Pilate had received. 0 The chief priests and scribes had followed Jesus as he was escorted into the presence of Herod. But their clamor against Jesus did not have much effect on Herod, at least it did not induce him to attach any legal charge against Him. 1 The actions listed in this verse were for the purpose of belittling Jesus, not to constitute any formal accusation against Him. (See verse 15.) 2 The usual interpretation of this passage is that Pilate and Herod dropped their personal differences, in order to unite against Christ. They did not unite because of any common enmity against Christ, for neither of them had any such a feeling. But Herod wanted to see Jesus, and Pilate granted the courtesy of a personal interview with his noted prisoner. It was this judicial recognition that broke down the long-standing feud between the two political rulers. 3 This group which Pilate called together was composed of all the persons who were interested in the case. The chief priests were the ones to get Jesus into the courts (Mark 15:10), and the people were those who had the voice about what prisoner was to be released under the custom (Matthew 27:15), hence it was a representative audience to which Pilate was preparing to speak. 5 A brief reference is made to this paragraph at verse 12. Here were two court rulers, former personal enemies, but agreeing on the innocence of Jesus. 6 It was customary to chastise all prisbners before being released, regardless of whether they were considered "guilty as charged," or not. 7 Of 'necessity denotes it was an established custom to release a prisoner at that time (Matthew 27:15), and Pilate thought it would furnish him a way out of his problem of guarding his political interests, without directly upholding Christ. 8 They cried out means the people, for they alone had the legal right to speak on that subject. However, their choice was influenced by the priests and elders and scribes (Matthew 27:20). 9 Sedition is from the same word as "insurrection" in Mark 15:7. The meaning is an uprising against a legal government, of which Barabbas had been guilty. 0 Willing to release Jesus means his personal feelings were favorable to Jesus. He wished the people would call for His release, so that Caesar would not blame him as a dis loyal officer in the Roman government. 1 This cry was the demand of a mob. 2 It is an established rule of justice that no man should be punished who is not guilty of doing wrong. Pilate realized that nothing could truly be charged against Jesus, hence his personal conclusion was that he should be discharged, after the customary chastisement, which means the scourging mentioned in other places. 3 The two classes in the audience (priests and people), united in the demand for the crucifixion of Jesus. The inspired writer says their voices prevailed. There was no addi tional evidence produced; just the pressure of public sentiment. 4 It is bad enough to punish a person when a court is only doubtful of his guilt; but Pilate never expressed a single doubt as to the innocence of Jesus. Not only that, but three attempts to get an expression from the audience as to His guilt had failed. So this unworthy judge condemned Jesus to the cross on the sole motive that it was as they required. 5 A seditious murderer was released on the same motive that Jesus was condemned, namely, he was the one whom they desired. 6 After is from , and Thayer defines it, "Adverb of place, from behind, on the back, behind after." It is clear, therefore, that. Simon and Jesus carried the cross together, Simon bearing one end of the instrument but walking after Jesus. See the notes at Matthew 16:24. 7 These persons following toward the place of crucifixion were genuine sympathizers. They were not ashamed to be seen showing deep sentiments on behalf of Him, even to the extent of going with him to the place of shame. (See Hebrews 13:13.) 9 This shows a case of misplaced grief. Jesus was going to suffer the ordeal of the cross, which would be the last of all his sufferings. These people were destined to meet with distress unequaled by any case in history (Matthew 24:21). Blessed are the barren, etc. When parents are forced to see the suffering imposed upon their children, they will wish that no children had been born to them. 0 Mountains, fall on us. This is figurative, meaning it would be a milder fate to be crushed by a mountain, than suffer the distress caused by the Romans. 1 Green and dry are used figuratively, meaning trees that are alive or dead. In the application, they represent a righteous and an unrighteous person. If such distress will be imposed upon a righteous person (Christ), what may be expected to be done to a wicked nation, and its helpless citizens were destined to share in the general calamity, brought about by the wicked leaders. 2 These malefactors (criminals) were thieves (Matthew 27:38). 3 Calvary is explained at length at Matthew 27:33. 4 This ignorance of which Jesus speaks, applies to the Jews as well as the Gentiles (Acts 3:17). Such ignorance, therefore, does not mean they were to be excused at that time regardless of any repentance on their part. In Acts 2:23, Peter still held the murder of Jesus against this same people. But no forgiven sin is ever "remembered against" a person who has been forgiven. The meaning of the prayer of Jesus, therefore, is that even His murderers were to be given the same access to the benefits of His death that the rest of the world would have. That prayer was answered on the day of Pentecost when hundreds of them were promised "remission of sins" upon repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38). Parted his raiment. (See Matthew 27:35.) 5 Had it been a matter of power or strength only, Jesus could have even prevented their nailing him to the cross. But the deed had to be performed in order to fulfill the scripture predictions (Matthew 26:54). 7 The soldiers were the executioners for the government; four of them (John 19:23). 8 Superscription is explained at Matthew 27:37. 9 One of the malefactors. This is more definite than the account in Matthew 27:44, and it should be used as a guide in interpreting that one. 0 The fact that the one thief rebuked the other indicates he had not joined in the reproaching of Jesus. However, we can be certain that one of them took the right view of the situation at the last. 1 This man hath, done nothing amiss. The thief who spoke the above words knew that truth when he was first placed on the cross, as well as he knew it when he made the statement. That is one of my reasons for believing he was not partaking in the reproachful language against Jesus at all. 2 This man had been leading a sinful life, yet all the circumstances indicate he had known something of the work and plans of Jesus. They both were on the cross and soon were to die, yet he believed that both would live again. The request he made of Jesus was based on his faith of a resurrection. The wish was to be granted at some date farther in the future than the one at hand. 3 Jesus granted the penitent a promise to be fulfilled sooner than the favor he requested. Paradise is from and Thayer's general definition is, "A garden, pleasure ground; grove, park." In our passage he defines it, "That part of Hades which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls of the pious until the resurrection." Robinson, Groves and Hickie define it virtually in the same way. We have previously learned (notes at chapter 16:26) that persons who are assigned to this place will always be among those who are "comforted" or saved. The conclusion is, then, that the thief was saved on the cross. That does not affect the subject of baptism or any other of the specific requirements of the Gospel. The Jewish Dispensation was still in force, hence the things that are now required through the apostles were not then binding. While Jesus was living, he had the right to forgive and save people on any terms He saw fit, or without any terms at all as far as the sinner was concerned. He forgave the woman of chapter 7:47 because of her great love, and we have no evidence that the palsied man of Mat 9:1-2 even had any faith, yet the Lord forgave him. But after the church was set up in Acts 2, no case is recorded where anyone was saved except upon obedience to the Gospel. 5 The sixth hour is the same as our noon, which was the hour that darkness settled over the land. The event was prophesied in Joe 2:30-31. 6 See the comments on Matthew 27:50. 7 In this account the centurion describes Jesus as a righteous man. The account in Matthew 27:54 describes him as the Son of God; both statements are true. 8 Smiting the breast was an ancient custom in times of mourning or humble anxiety. (See chapter 18:13.) 9 The women were faithful to the last, but with feminine timidity they stood some distance away watching. They had come from the same district were Jesus was brought up, Galilee, and had served Him on various occasions. 3 The notes on Matthew 27:57-60 are pretty full, covering the subject matter of the present paragraph. To conserve space, I request the reader to see them. 4 The preparation is ex. plained at Matthew 27:62. 5 These women saw the manner of burying for the body of Jesus, including the rolling of a "great stone" up to the entrance (Matthew 27:60). That explains their concern about the stone as they were going to the sepulchre (Mark 16:3). 6 Returned and prepared spices. That is, they made such preparation that same day, for the next day was a sabbath or holy day, it being the regular Passover day (Leviticus 23:4-5), which explains the statement about resting the sabbath day according to the commandment. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 24 , , OF JESUSLuk_24:1-53THE EMPTY TOMBLuk_24:1-12 Luk 24:1 --- But on the first day of the week,—The Jewish Sabbath had passed, which corresponds to our Saturday; “ the first day of the week,” or our Sunday had now arrived. Jesus arose early on the first day of the week; he was buried shortly be¬fore sunset on Friday, and at sunset the Sabbath began. His body lay in the tomb a small part of Friday, all day Saturday, and about ten or eleven hours on Sunday. This corresponds with the seven times’ repeated statement that he would or did rise “ on the third day,” which could not possibly mean after seventy-two hours. The phrase, “ after three days,” naturally denoted for Jews, Greeks, and Romans a whole day and any part of a first and third, thus agreeing with the phrase, “ on the third day.” The “ three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40) need not, according to Jewish usage, mean more than what is here designated. All these expressions can be recon¬ciled with the phrase “ on the third day,” and with all the facts as recorded, but the phrase “ on the third day” cannot mean after seventy-two hours. Luke states definitely that Jesus was buried just before the Sabbath “ drew on” (our Friday evening) ; that the women rested during the Sabbath (our Saturday), and that Jesus was already risen early Sunday morning when the women came to the tomb. Mark names the women as “ Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome.” (Mark 16:1.) Matthew mentions “ Mary Mag¬dalene and the other Mary” (Matthew 28:1) as coming to the tomb that morning. Some versions insert the clause “ certain others with them,” but this is omitted in the Revised Version. Luke mentions “ Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the But on the first day of the week,— The Jewish Sabbath had passed, which corresponds to our Saturday; “ the first day of the week,” or our Sunday had now arrived. Jesus arose early on the first day of the week; he was buried shortly be¬fore sunset on Friday, and at sunset the Sabbath began. His body lay in the tomb a small part of Friday, all day Saturday, and about ten or eleven hours on Sunday. This corresponds with the seven times’ repeated statement that he would or did rise “ on the third day,” which could not possibly mean after seventy-two hours. The phrase, “ after three days,” naturally denoted for Jews, Greeks, and Romans a whole day and any part of a first and third, thus agreeing with the phrase, “ on the third day.” The “ three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40) need not, according to Jewish usage, mean more than what is here designated. All these expressions can be recon¬ciled with the phrase “ on the third day,” and with all the facts as recorded, but the phrase “ on the third day” cannot mean after seventy-two hours. Luke states definitely that Jesus was buried just before the Sabbath “ drew on” (our Friday evening) ; that the women rested during the Sabbath (our Saturday), and that Jesus was already risen early Sunday morning when the women came to the tomb. Mark names the women as “ Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome.” (Mark 16:1.) Matthew mentions “ Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” (Matthew 28:1) as coming to the tomb that morning. Some versions insert the clause “ certain others with them,” but this is omitted in the Revised Version. Luke mentions “ Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James; and the other women with them” (24: 10); they were the women who had followed him from Galilee. Luke 24:2-3 ---And they found the stone rolled away—The stone served as a door to the tomb (Matthew 27:60; Mark 15:46), or the stone was rolled against the door of the tomb. Matthew is the only writer that records the circumstances of the remo¬val of the stone; he states that there was a great earthquake and that “ an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it.” (Matthew 28:2.) The women were deeply concerned about the stone and discussed it as they went along the way. (Mark 16:3.) It seems the stone was heavy, as it had been described as “ a great stone.” (Matthew 27:60.) It was too heavy for the women to remove, and yet they wanted to enter the tomb, but when they arrived there early that morning, the stone had been rolled away and they entered the tomb, but “ found not the body of the Lord Jesus.” Luke 24:4-5 ---And it came to pass, while they were—The vacant tomb was not expected; those who visited it were at a loss to ac¬count for what had occurred; they were “ perplexed.” The women saw the empty tomb and “ two men stood by them in dazzling apparel.” They were “ men,” not “ women” ; Mark 16:5 speaks of a young man while Matthew 28:5 has “ the angel.” There is no contradiction here, but perfect harmony. The angel looked like a man and some of them remembered seeing two. In verse 23 “ angels” are mentioned. Matthew and Mark mention one angel. Angelic beings often appeared to have the power to become visible and invisible at will. Matthew and Mark represent the angel as sitting, while Luke represents them standing; no contradiction here as they could at one moment be sitting and at another be standing, or they could have been sitting when the women approached and standing while talking to them. Frightened by the sudden appearance of the forms in shining garments, they fell upon their faces in fear and awe; the angels spoke tenderly unto them and asked: “ Why seek ye the living among the dead?” This was another way of saying that Jesus had risen from the dead; Jesus’ body had been placed in the grave; he had been among the dead, but was now, and forevermore, among the living; those who seek him today must seek him among the living. Luke 24:6-7 ---He is not here, but is risen:—In addition to the testi¬mony of the angels, the physical surroundings bore evidence of his resurrection. The empty tomb, the earthquake, the sol¬diers on guard falling at the sight, the stone rolled away, the orderly folded napkin which was placed in proper order, all were added evidence of the resurrection. The evidence given by the Holy Spirit through the different writers of the New Testament emphasizes the resurrection of Jesus. (Acts 1:22 Acts 2:31 Acts 4:2 Acts 17:18; Romans 6:5; 1 Corinthians 15:1-42; 1 Peter 1:3.) “ Alive for evermore.” (Revelation 1:18.) The message to them was that they should “ remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee.” (See Matthew 17:23; Luke 18:33; John 11:25.) Jesus had predicted his death and also his resurrec¬tion. In order that they should not forget his prediction Luke here repeats it. Luke 24:8-9 ---And they remembered his words,—For the first time it seems that they now understood in a vague way the signifi-cance of his language repeatedly made predicting his death and resurrection. This company returned from the tomb to the city, which was only a short walk requiring fifteen or twenty minutes; they reported all that had been seen and heard at the tomb to the eleven disciples and other disciples in Jerusalem. It seems that Mary Magdalene went from the tomb before this company and told Peter of the rolling away of the stone and of the angel. (Matthew 22:8; John 20:2.) The company lingered, went into the tomb, and so had other facts to report besides those observed and reported by Mary Mag-dalene. Luke seems to omit what is related by Matthew and Mark; no discrepancy is seen, as one writer records one point and another writer records some other; putting all the records together we have the full account. Luke 24:10-11 ---Now they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna,—This shows that Mary Magdalene was one of the company, but when she saw the stone rolled away, she ran to tell Peter, while the others remained to look into the empty tomb. It should be remembered that Mary Magdalene was at one time terribly afflicted with demons and that Jesus had cured her. (Mark 16:9.) It seems that she was in good circumstances, and that as a disciple of Jesus, she ministered to Jesus and the disciples the temporal things for their conduct. There is no evidence that she was at one time an unchaste woman. Joanna was the wife of Chuzas who was Herod’ s steward; we do not know any more of her; Susanna is associated with Mary Magdalene and Joanna. The loving ministry of these women is recorded by Luke. (Luke 8:2-3.) This extraordi¬nary report of the resurrection of Jesus demanded that the names of some who reported it should be given; three are mentioned, which was a sufficient number to establish legally the truth of the report. (Deuteronomy 19:15.) Luke 24:12 ---But Peter arose, and ran unto the tomb:—The conduct of Peter is described in graphic language; he “ arose,” “ ran” to the tomb, stooping and looking in, he saw the “ linen cloths by themselves,” and then “ departed to his home,” and “ wonder-ing” at what he had seen. The graphic mention of his successive acts are brought out in an impressive way. He ran in his eagerness to see the basis for the report that the women had brought; when he stooped down and saw everything in order in the empty tomb, he knew that the body had not been stolen and that there were deliberation and care in the leaving; he was full of surprise; his mind was confused with doubt, yet the evidence was so clear that he could not reject it; he was in this frame of mind when he returned to his home. Peter was impulsive; he and John both ran together to the tomb, and John outran Peter and arrived first, but did not go into the sepulchre, but just stooped down and looked in and saw the cloths placed in order in the empty tomb; but when Peter arrived, true to his impulsive nature, he went into the tomb and saw the things which are here described. (John 20:3-10.) There was no necessity for them to remain at the tomb, for it was empty. THE WALK TO EMMAUSLuk_24:13-35 Luke 24:13 ---And behold, two of them were going—Mark (Mark 16:12-13) records a very brief account of these two disciples and their walk; the other writers do not mention this event. It seems that Jesus had made five appearances on the day of his resurrection. These appearances were (1) to Mary Magdalene (John and Mark); (2) to other women (Matthew); (3) to the two going to Emmaus; (4) to Simon Peter (Luke 24:24); (5) to ten apostles and others. Emmaus was a village “ threescore furlongs from Jerusalem,” or about seven miles from Jerusalem. There have been many suppositions as to which of the two disciples are mentioned here; it has been supposed that these two were on the way to Galilee. The evidence seems to be clear that these two were not of the apostles, for it is said that these two disciples “ returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together.” (Verse 33.) Judas had committed suicide, hence the “ eleven.” This was the same day, the first day of the week, or Sunday, that Jesus arose from the dead. Emmaus is not located; its site is unknown. Luke 24:14 ---And they communed with each other—One of these two disciples is named Cleopas. (Verse 18.) Some have sup¬posed the other one to have been Luke, but there is no evidence of this. They were discussing the strange incident that had taken place that day. They “ communed” or talked together in an animated conversation; one suggested one fact and another suggested another; they compared their views and conjectures as to the meaning of all that had taken place that day. Luke 24:15-16 ---And it came to pass, while they communed—While they walked along they argued the question of the resurrection of Jesus; they could not account for the facts of the empty tomb, and they did not as yet understand the predictions that Jesus had made about his resurrection. It was such a new and astounding thing that they were confused about it. While they were thus discussing the matter. “ Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.” They did not know Jesus; he had joined the two as they journeyed along, but they had not recognized him. Mary Magdalene did not recognize him, neither did the disciples on the Sea of Galilee at first. The reason the two disciples here did not recognize him was partly because he appeared in another form from that which they were accustomed to. (Mark 16:12.) Another reason they did not recognize Jesus was that “ their eyes were holden that they should not know him.”Luke 24:17 ---And he said unto them, What communications—As yet they did not know that they were in company with the risen Lord; he asked them, by way of getting into the conversation, “ What communications are these that ye have one with another, as ye walk?” Literally, the word here for “ communications” means “ to exchange with” or “ throw back and forth to each other,” as one may throw back and forth like a ball, from one to another; it was a game of words; his question seemed to astound them, for he betrayed, they thought, ignorance of the great events that had just transpired. So they stopped suddenly in the road and looked with sadness upon him for being so ignorant of the events that had just transpired. They looked sad. Their melancholy looks and argumentative discussion were what one coming up might naturally notice first. Jesus knew what was taking place, but he asked the question to get them interested in what he was going to say to them. Luke 24:18 ---And one of them, named Cleopas,—This is not the same name as “ Cleophas,” in the Greek, Clopas. (John 19:25.) The question is one of surprise that even a foreigner could lodge in Jerusalem and not know what things had taken place; it does not mean, “ Have you just come to Jerusalem,” or “ Art thou only a lodger,” but is more explicit—“ Dost thou alone sojourn,” and knowest not these things? That is, are you the only one who sojourns as a stranger in Jerusalem and who does not know the great events that have so recently occurred ? Luke 24:19-20 ---And he said unto them, What things?—Jesus at once puts the main question as to facts, not as a confession of ignorance, nor as a necessary implication that he did not know, but to induce the heavy heart to express its grief. The ques¬tion was designed to evoke more specific statement of the events referred to, and Jesus neither admits that he is a stranger in Jerusalem nor denies any knowledge of the events which had taken place. They at once replied that they were discussing the “ things concerning Jesus the Nazarene.” “ Nazarene” here simply means that Jesus was from the city of Nazareth; this is where Joseph and Mary made their home, and where Jesus grew up. (Luke 1:26 Luke 2:39 Luke 18:37.) These two disciples think that they are informing Jesus of the prophet who was “ mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.” It should be noted that Jesus was “ mighty” in the eyes of these two disciples, both in “ deed” or miracles and “ word” or teaching. He had the power of God in his deeds and in his words. (John 12:17.) He performed powerful miracles and delivered powerful discourses. (Acts 2:22 Acts 7:22.) Jesus was “ mighty” not only “ before God,” but be¬fore “ all the people.”Luke 24:21 ---But we hoped that it was he—These disciples still thought of Jesus as a temporal deliverer; they had the right idea about Jesus as a deliverer, but they made the wrong ap¬plication of it. Jesus was the deliverer of Israel from their sins, but was not the deliverer of them from the Roman government. They speak this in despair. They added that “ it is now the third day since these things came to pass.” They speak as if something remarkable had been predicted, but had not been understood; it looked to them that if Jesus was to be raised from the dead, he should be doing something toward the establishment of his kingdom, for it was now “ the third day” since he had been crucified. They were not expecting his resurrection on that day, but that so long a time had passed without any relief to their anxieties. Luke 24:22-23 ---Moreover certain women of our company—These two disciples now reported to the risen Lord just what they had heard through “ certain women,” who had visited the empty tomb and had seen that it was empty and that they had “ seen a vision of angels,” who reported that Jesus was alive. These two disciples reported some of the minor points of the testimony of the women, but did not report to him the main point of the testimony of the women— namely, that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Luke 24:24 ---And certain of them that were with us—Luke had already recorded (verse 12) that Peter had gone to the tomb, but here he records that “ certain of them” had also gone to the tomb and found that the report of the women was true, but “ him they saw not.” They did not see Jesus as others had reported seeing him. This explains why they were so confused ; it seemed to them that their hopes were to be blasted, for he is dead. However, they had rumors that the body had disappeared; this they believed to be true; but what should they believe? Some said that Jesus was alive; others that the tomb was empty, but they had not seen him; so these two disciples did not know what to believe. Luke 24:25 ---And he said unto them, O foolish men,—Jesus calls these two disciples “ foolish men” ; he did not call them “ fools” in the sense that we speak of people as being fools; the original means “ dull of perception.” They had read what the prophets had spoken, but had failed to make the application to Jesus; he further represented them as “ slow of heart” in believing all that the prophets had said concerning the Messiah. They did not see that the sufferings of Jesus, his crucifixion, and his res¬urrection all were predicted by the prophets. Here the risen Lord declares that the Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah of prophecy; he linked the two together. Luke 24:26 ---Behooved it not the Christ—So far they had utterly failed to understand the prophets or what Jesus had predicted of himself; are not these the “ things” which by the necessity of the case Christ must suffer, and then enter into his glory? In view of what the prophets had foretold, the Messiah should suffer all the things which Jesus of Nazareth had suffered. Luke 24:28 ---And they drew nigh unto the village,—The risen Lord suddenly appeared on the scene in company with two disciples to Emmaus; he joined in the conversation which was about himself; the two disciples did not recognize him even after he had rebuked them for their slowness to believe what the prophets had taught of the Messiah. When they came to the vil¬lage of Emmaus, Jesus made as though he would not stop, but would go on. Luke 24:29 ---And they constrained him, saying, Abide with us;—Jesus had not said that he would go on, but was simply passing on, as any traveler would do; yet he was willing to abide with them, if they invited him. Jesus never forces himself upon anyone; people must desire him and invite him. “ Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” (Revelation 3:20.) They “ constrained” or compelled with courteous words, him to sojourn with them. By their gentle pressure of hospitality, they urged him to abide there, giving the reason that the day was far spent and that evening was very near. They were grateful to him for teaching them of the Messiah, and had learned from a stranger, as they thought, much about the prophets; they were ready to show hospitality to him as a token of their gratitude toward him. Luke 24:30-31 ---And it came to pass, when he had sat down—They had taken a long walk together; when the simple meal was prepared, Jesus was invited to eat with them. We are not told whether they asked him to “ give thanks,” but when he “ took the bread” and “ blessed” or gave thanks for it, he gave to them to eat. They reclined on couches and did not sit at the table as is our custom. While he was in the act of distributing to them, in an instant, their eyes “ were opened” and they immediately recognized their Lord. “ Their eyes were opened” is put in contrast with “ their eyes were holden that they should not know him.” (Verse 16.) If their eyes were “ holden” through some miraculous power, “ their eyes were opened” by the same power; whatever had kept them from recognizing him all along had now been removed and they “ knew him.” It seems that so soon as they recognized him “ he vanished out of their sight.”Luke 24:32 ---And they said one to another,—Jesus had not simply suddenly departed from them, but he had passed away from them invisibly; so after his disappearance they recalled that their hearts burned within them while he was talking to them; this strange experience could not be explained or ac¬counted for at the time; there was a strangeness to them that they did not know its cause, but now they knew the cause of the strange feeling that they experienced in the presence of the risen Lord. They recognize now that “ he opened” to them “ the scriptures.” They saw the deeper and true spiri¬tual meaning of the scriptures; they had read the words of the prophets, but had not understood the meaning and applica¬tion. (See 2 Corinthians 3:14-18.) Some have thought that Jesus had spent three or four hours with them on the journey from Jerusalem to Emmaus; however, we do not know just where on the way he joined them, and hence cannot estimate the time that he was with them. Luke 24:33-34 ---And they rose up that very hour,—These two disciples had left Jerusalem, about seven and a half miles or “ threescore furlongs” (verse 13) from Emmaus, and had walked leisurely along conversing together about the strange things that had recently occurred in Jerusalem; the risen Lord had joined them without their recognizing him, and he had expounded to them the prophecies concerning the Messiah ; their eyes had been opened and they now recognized their Lord. He had suddenly vanished from their presence and sight; they lost no time in returning to Jerusalem, the scene of the strange incidents which had so stirred them. These disciples were now full of amazement and joy; “ they rose up that very hour, and returned to Jerusalem”; they had intended lodging in Emmaus, but they now returned to Jerusalem with haste. It must have been nine o’ clock that evening with they arrived in Jerusalem, for they did not get to Emmaus until the day was far spent. We are not told how they got through the gates at this late hour into the city, but the gates were not closed until late during the week of the Passover. They “ found the eleven gathered together” and others who were with “ the eleven.” They at once reported: “ The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.” John records that “ the doors were shut” for fear of the Jews. (John 20:19.) Paul mentions his appearance to Simon. (1 Corinthians 15:5.) His appearance now seems to have more deeply impressed the eleven than the other appearances on the morning of that day, as these two disciples added their testimony of the other evidences that had been manifested. Luke 24:35 ---And they rehearsed the things that happened in the way, —These two disciples add their enthusiastic testimony to the resurrection; they related how he had appeared to them and had revealed himself. The evidence of these two disciples was confirmatory, not revolutionary; the testimony of the women was true and should be believed after all; they did not recognize Jesus in his exegesis, but they did in his “ breaking of the bread.” Some have applied this “ breaking of the bread” to the Lord’ s Supper; however, there is no justification for this application. The light gradually dawned on the disciples and they finally believed in the risen Lord. The minds of “ the eleven” and other disciples were now ready to receive fuller light and more abundant truth— the Christ had been raised from the dead. OF JESUS IN Luk_24:36-43 Luk 24:36 ---And as they spake these things,—Parallel records of this event are found in Mark 16:14 and John 20:19-25. John gives a fuller record than Mark, so we have three records of this appearance. Mark says that they were reclining at a meal; John adds that they had the doors shut for fear of the Jews, and that Thomas was not with “ the eleven.” (John 20:19 John 20:24.) His appearance was mysterious, for the narratives imply that no one knew how he entered. Without any intimation of his coming, he suddenly stood among them; they heard his voice, recognized his greeting. Luke gives the ap¬pearance with accuracy and clearness. The disciples were as¬tonished, terrified, and affrighted at the sudden appearance of the risen Lord. Luke 24:37 ---But they were terrified—The manner of the appearance of the risen Lord filled the disciples with awe, and caused them to withdraw, for the moment, from his presence. While they were discussing his resurrection and what they had just heard from the two disciples from Emmaus, he suddenly appeared in their midst; they had just heard of his appearance some miles away, but now he appears in their midst. Luke 24:38 ---And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled?— They were perplexed and hesitated to believe that he had risen, and yet they were unable to deny the testimony of others and the evidence of their own senses; they were slow to accept the truth of his resurrection, and could not deny it. Hence, the Lord rebukes them for the doubts and hesitations which arose in their hearts. They were doubting or hesitating about a matter which their spiritual perception ought to have recog¬nized at once. Jesus helps them to make up their mind on the question; when once convinced, they can then preach with the highest degree of certainty his resurrection. Luke 24:39 ---See my hands and my feet,—The risen Lord made them look at his pierced hands and feet, and handle his flesh, using the senses both of sight and feeling; they could hear his voice and recognize him from his speech; hence three of their physical senses were called into action to convince them. Surely a look at his hands and feet would be sufficient to convince them; but to clear the matter he tells them that he is not just a spirit, for “ a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having.” There was reality present that they could not deny, neither was it possessed by a ghost or a spirit. Luke 24:40 ---And when he had said this,—Jesus not only demanded that they look at his hands and feet, but he showed them his hands and his feet pierced with the cruel nails. They used the sense of sight and then they were called upon to “ handle” him and thus use the sense of touch; they had used the sense of hearing; they knew his voice. The risen Lord thus offered his scarred and mangled hands and feet for particular examining to convince them that he was alive. Luke 24:41 ---And while they still disbelieved for joy,—His disciples were slowly convinced; they were overjoyed and were slow to accept the facts as real. After imposing unmistakable evidence upon their sight, touch, and hearing, the risen Lord now gives another evidence of his resurrection and reality. He asked: “ Have ye here anything to eat?” He called for food and ate before their eyes. They were eating when he appeared in their midst at this time. (Verse 35.) Luke 24:42-43 ---And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish.—This was possibly a remnant of the meal that they had just eaten. Many ancient authorities add “ and a honeycomb.” Honey in the comb was a common article of food with the ancients. (Psalms 19:10; Proverbs 24:13 Proverbs 27:7; Song of Songs 51:1.) Jesus took the food and ate in their presence. His eating food was additional evidence that he had been raised from the dead. They are now to believe in his resurrection; it was no dream, no conjuring of a worried brain, no fancy of a grieved mind, no hallucination; they must believe, although so diffi¬cult to be convinced. Having thus minutely described this bodily appearance of Jesus after his resurrection, Luke passes over the other appearances, and gives his farewell words and final appearance at his ascension. A tabulated list of the appearances of our Lord after his res surrection is here given, together with the time, place, and record. THE AFTER HIS OrderTimeTo WhomPlaceRecord1Early Sunday morningMary MagdaleneNear the tomb at JerusalemMark 16: 9 John 20: 11-182Sunday morningWomen returning from the tombNear JerusalemMatt. 28:9, 103SundaySimon Peter aloneNear JerusalemLuke 24: 344Sunday afternoonTwo disciples going to EmmausBetween Jerusalem and Emmaus, and at EmmausLuke 24: 13-315Sunday eveningApostles, except ThomasJerusalemJohn 20: 19-256Sunday evening of next weekApostles. Thomas being presentJerusalemJohn 20: 26-297UnknownSeven disciples fishingSea of GalileeJohn 21:1-138 UnknownEleven disciples on mountainGalileeMatt. 28:16-209 UnknownAbout 500 brethren at onceGalilee1 Cor. 15:610 UnknownJames onlyProbably Jerusalem1 Cor. 15: 711UnknownAll the apostles at ascensionMount of Olives near BethanyLuke 24: 50,51 Act 1: 6-12 Three times we are told that the disciples of Jesus touched him after he.arose. (Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:39; John 20:27.) Twice we are told that he ate with them after his resurrection. (Luke 24:42; John 21:12-13.) THE Luke 24:44-49 Luke 24:44 ---And he said unto them, These are my words— Luke omits other appearances of Jesus during the forty days after his resurrection; he gives here a summary of what Jesus taught the disciples between his resurrection and ascension. The "and" here does not necessarily denote close connection, hut only a general continuation of the account and a brief statement of what Jesus said; this might be at different times before his ascension; here is given the substance of his last conversation with his disciples; it includes the commission. "All things must needs be fulfilled," which had been prophesied of Jesus, or what had been "written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms." This includes all of the Old Testament, for here is mentioned the three divisions into which the Hebrews divided the Old Testament. "The law of Moses" included the first five books, or Pentateuch; "the prophets" included the books of Joshua, Judges, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings, three of the major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel), and the twelve minor prophets; "the psalms" included the poetical and all the other Old Testament books sometimes called "the scriptures." (John 5:39.) This group contained, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and First and Second Chronicles. When Jesus declared that all things must be fulfilled which were written of him, he included the entire Old Testament. Luke 24:45 ---Then opened he their mind,— Jesus taught his disciples that all that was written of him in the Old Testament was fulfilled; he took the different passages that referred to him and showed how they were fulfilled in him; in this way he "opened" "their mind," so that they could understand. Some think that he gave them unusual power to perceive the truth of the "scriptures"; however, it is not necessary to infer that they needed any divine aid to understand his language. They could easily recall the bitter experience through which they had gone in the arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus; his resurrection was so fresh in their minds that they could now see the meaning of the Old Testament passages. They had been slow and dull in understanding these truths, but now their minds were clear on these things. The Holy Spirit afterward brought these teachings to their remembrance. The doctrine of the Old Testament scriptures with regard to the suffering, dying, rising of the Messiah, they now understood. Luke 24:46-47 ---and he said unto them, Thus it is written,— It was according to the divine plan that Christ should die and rise again; God in his wisdom had seen it necessary for his own highest glory, and had so arranged the sacred plan from the beginning. There seems to be no direct quotation given here; but the divine plan was carried out. (See Isaiah 53; Hosea 6:2.) "Thus it is written" is a general expression meaning that it was written in the scripture that the things which had taken place concerning him had been predicted; it was "written" that it should be so, and it was necessary therefore that it should he. If Christ had not suffered and risen again, the scriptures would not have been fulfilled. "Repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nation." These words are a brief summary of the doctrine of the gospel; they constitute the commission that Jesus gave to his disciples. The necessity of repentance and the promise of remission of sins are included in the gospel. The gospel was to be preached by the authority of Christ "unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem." The risen Lord here not only pointed out that the Old Testament predicted his suffering, his death, and his resurrection, but he also found in the Old Testament the preaching of repentance and forgiveness of sins to all nations. Two things were taught here; first, the apostles and first proclaimers of the gospel should not shrink from offering salvation to the greatest sinner; they were not to regard even the city where Jesus was crucified as hopelessly wicked, and too bad to be benefited by the gospel; the Jewish leaders who crucified Jesus were to have opportunity of hearing the gospel and being saved. The second lesson learned here is that the first offer of the terms of the gospel should be made to the Jews. Luke 24:48-49 ---Ye are witnesses of these things.— The apostles had been with him from the beginning, "all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us." (Acts 1:21.) They were to go forth and testify to all men the things which they had seen and been taught they were to commit the same to faithful men, record it in the gospels, epistles, and pass them on to others. One duty of these disciples was to be witnesses for Christ; he did not send forth orators or enthusiasts, but simply teachers who would bear faithful witness to all that they had seen. They are promised the Holy Spirit which should come to them. They are instructed to "tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high." God had promised in the Old Testament prophecies to send the Holy Spirit which came on the day of Pentecost. (Isaiah 44:3; Jeremiah 31:33-34; Ezekiel 36:27; Joe 2:28.) This shows the certainty of the coming of the Holy Spirit; it should be noted that Jesus said: "I send forth," which can refer only to a person. It should further be noted that the risen Lord here unites himself with God the Father in sending the Holy Spirit. They were to wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit came; they were to "be clothed" with power from God. "Clothed" literally means to be "invested with" something which one did not naturally possess. (Romans 13:14; 1 Corinthians 15:53; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 3:9-10.) The command for them to tarry in Jerusalem was repeated just before his ascension. (Acts 1:4.) Luke 24:50 ---And he led them out until— The risen Lord "led his disciples out until they came to a point on the Mount of Olives which was over against or opposite Bethany Bethany was in sight. He "led" them by going before them and their following him; he had frequently visited this place with them; he was now on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. He had recalled Lazarus to life near this place it was here that the prophet of old had seen him coming. (Zechariah 14:4.) Mark 16:19-20 gives a parallel record of this event Luke relates more fully here and in Acts 1:9-12 what Mark briefly states. Here Luke takes no account of the forty days through which the risen Lord met frequently his disciples and spoke to them many things concerning the kingdom of God. Luke passes over the appearances of Jesus to the eleven, when Thomas was present (John 20:24-29); also his appearance in Galilee to seven of his disciples (John 21:1-24), and again to above five hundred (Matthew 28:16-20; 1 Corinthians 15:6), the appearance to James (1 Corinthians 15:7), and then to all the apostles (Acts 1:3-8). As he lifted up his hands he "blessed" his disciples; and as he was in the act of blessing them, he disappeared out of their sight. The last vision that they get of him is as he is in the act of blessing them; he came to earth to save man, and he leaves the earth as he blesses his followers. Luke 24:51 ---And it came to pass, while he blessed them,— While the risen Lord was blessing his little faithful group of disciples, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. The simplicity and dignity with which Luke describes this great event are impressive; there is no speculation about how the body of Jesus could go up; he simply says that "he parted from them." "He parted from them" and was seen rising till a cloud received him from the view of their strained eyes; they can think of him henceforth only as having gone into the heavens. "Lift up your heads, O ye gates; And be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors And the King of glory will come in. Who is the King of glory? Jehovah strong and mighty, Jehovah mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O ye gates; Yea, lift them up, ye everlasting doors And the King of glory will come in. Who is the King of glory? Jehovah of hosts, He is the King of glory."(Psalms 24:7-10.)Luke 24:52-53 ---And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem — The risen Lord remained on earth "by the space of forty days" (Acts 1:3), after his resurrection, before he ascended. His repeated appearances during the forty days had comforted his disciples, cleared this spiritual vision, reestablished and confirmed their faith, corrected their former views of his kingdom, and gave them an understanding of the scriptures pertaining to his mission to earth. Later Peter wrote: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (1 Peter 1:3.) This apostles now saw in the crucified but risen and ascended Lord, the Christ, the long-expected Messiah; hence they worhiped him and returned to Jerusalem in obedience to his command ,and waited for further developments. This is the first formal act of adoration which we ever read of the disciples' paying to our Lord; their knowledge of his Messiahship and divinity was now clear and distinct; hence, the "great joy" which they had as they returned to Jerusalem. The darkness was past and the true light was now shining upon them. (1 John 2:8.) Their worship continued; they went to the temple as was the custom and there blessed God. The temple was a place for all pious Jews in Jerusalem; in its spacious courts all sorts of worshipers met daily without interruption, or interference with one another. Even later, when the church was established, "every day, in the temple and at home, they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ." (Acts 5:42.) It seems to have been such an established custom for all pious Jews to assemble in the temple that the apostles could even preach the gospel there. Luke began his account of the earthly life of Jesus by describing a scene in the temple when Zacharias had his vision and now he leaves us in his narrative in the temple with the disciples worshiping God— so he ends his narrative as he begins it by a scene in the temple at Jerusalem. Verse 1 This final chapter of Luke briefly summarizes the astonishment and perplexity of finding the empty tomb, giving the experience of the Galilean women (Luke 24:1-12), then giving a full and vivid account of an appearance of Christ to the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). Luke then recounted the appearance of Jesus to the Eleven and them that were with them, including the disciples returned from Emmaus (Luke 24:36-43), concluding with a summary statement of Jesus' last words and a brief account of the ascension (Luke 24:44-53). And on the sabbath day they rested according to the commandment. But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came unto the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. (Luke 24:1-3) See the article at end of chapter on "The Four Witnesses Agree." Sabbath day ... This was Saturday, the second of the back-to-back sabbaths intervening between the crucifixion and the first day of the week. See under Mark 15:42 in my Commentary on Mark. They came unto the tomb ... The antecedent of the pronoun "they" is "the women who had followed him from Galilee" (Luke 23:55); and, from a comparison with Luke 24:10, these seem to have been ANOTHER group of women, not necessarily the same as those mentioned elsewhere in the Gospels, though many of both groups were from Galilee. The stone rolled away ... The seal on the grave, placed there by the Roman government, had obviously been broken, which would have required a deputation from the governor's office to investigate it. Furthermore, the military authorities would have thoroughly investigated the fantastic lie of the guard concerning what happened "while they were asleep"; and with the activities of the Lord's followers beginning at the crack of dawn the same day, and increasing as the day progressed - all of these things, and may others of which we know nothing, made the day of Jesus' resurrection one of the busiest in history. The Sanhedrin, would they have not investigated? They bribed the soldiers to lie about what had happened, for they had witnessed some of the phenomena attending the resurrection; but it may be counted certain that they made their own investigation, decided that they had no case against the soldiers, and attempted to cover up the truth with lies. Something of the nature of the rock-hewn sepulchre is evident in the stone that closed it, the same having been a large wheel-like rock fitted into a groove parallel to the entrance. It was so large that even a whole group of women would not have been able to move it. And found not the body ... The empty grave of Jesus, along with the undisturbed grave clothes within, proved the resurrection of Jesus to be a fact; but to minds so long schooled against any possibility of a resurrection from the dead, it was a fact which they, at the time, could not fully believe. Verse 4 And it came to pass, while they were perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel: and as they were affrighted and bowed their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?Two men stood by them ... These were angels, as indicated by the dazzling raiment; and it is interesting that commentators generally set themselves in motion immediately to show that this does not contradict the other two synoptics' mention of but "one" angel. Thus, Lamar: Matthew and Mark mention but one of these, for the reason, perhaps, that only one of them spoke. But in doing so he both, and therefore it was virtually, as in our text the speech of both.[1]If indeed this episode is the same as that mentioned in Matthew and Mark, Lamar's words are surely applicable; but the conviction maintained here is that this was a totally different episode, like the appearance to the disciples on the way to Emmaus. As noted under Luke 24:3, the women here were those who "followed him" from Galilee; but of those women mentioned in Matthew and Mark (and also by Luke in Luke 24:10), it is evident that they Jesus in the same manner as the Twelve. See Luke 8:1-3, where this is plainly stated of Mary Magdalene, Joanna the wife of Herod's steward, and Susanna, these being women of wealth who funded the travels of Jesus and the Twelve. It is reasonable to suppose that this particular group of affluent women remained with the Twelve during the first day of the resurrection. Certainly, there were OTHERS besides the Eleven present in that upper room when the disciples returned from Emmaus; for Luke says they "returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together and "them that were with them" (Luke 24:33)! An element of conjecture is in such an interpretation, but certainly far less than in supposing that these women reported two angels, if in fact there had been only one. During those two years of Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea, Luke had ample opportunity to visit some of the women who were in that company; and it must be concluded that these were among the eyewitnesses mentioned in his introduction. It is also significant that Mary Magdalene, blinded by grief and inattentive to anything else, was not impressed by the angel at all, but here the women were frightened and fell upon their faces. If all of the intensive activities of that day were known, such problems would disappear; but it was part of the Father's wisdom to give men just the amount of revelation which would leave them free to make their own moral decision. Why seek ye the living with the dead ...? These words particularly impressed Barclay who said: There are many who still look for Jesus among the dead. There are those who regard Jesus as the greatest man and the noblest hero who ever lived, who lived the loveliest life ever lived on earth and who then died. That will not do! Jesus is not dead; he is alive! He is not a hero of the past, but a living presence today![2][1] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary, (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), p. 276. [2] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 305. Verse 6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.Angels of heaven announced the resurrection of Jesus, because no human eye beheld the wonder. The fact certified by the heavenly messengers here is the most important of all human history. Hobbs said: Luke's medical training would have prejudiced him against a bodily resurrection. Yet, having traced all things accurately, he was so convinced of its reality that he recorded one of the most beautiful and complete accounts of it. ... This man of science, this historian of the first rank stands as a bulwark against those who would deny this Miracle of Miracles in which Jesus was declared to be the Son of God with power by his resurrection from the dead.[3]The resurrection is the central fact of the gospel. "Without it the words of Paul would stand as the epitaph of a dead Christianity, `Your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins' (1 Corinthians 15:17)."[4][3] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 346. [4] Donald G. Miller, The Layman's Bible Commentary (Richmond, Virginia: The John Knox Press, 1959). Verse 8 And they remembered his words, and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.To the eleven and all the rest ... is a reference to the apostles and to the other persons with them, the strong likelihood being that the women whose names are given in the next verse were included in "the rest." Verse 10 (Now they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James). And the other women (with them) told these things to the apostles.The above verse has been re-punctuated to show what is believed to be its meaning. All punctuation is of men; and it is well known that the punctuation of this verse is by no means agreed upon by scholars. The rest ... Luke at once injected the parenthesis to show who "the rest" were, being the women mentioned but including others whose names were not given. And the other women ... By understanding this as another parenthesis, the antecedent of "them" is Mary Magdalene, etc., the affirmation then being that the testimony of both groups concurred; thus, in that understanding of it, the testimony of the Galilean women agreed "with them" who reported separately. Verse 11 And these words appeared in their sight as idle talk; and they disbelieved them.The disbelieving apostles are in view here. Far from having concerted a series of lies to claim a resurrection that never occurred, the Eleven refused at first to believe it, and were not convinced until that night of the resurrection day when Jesus appeared to them (and a certain number of others) in that upper room. Inherent in the unbelieving stance of the Eleven was their "hardness of heart" (Mark 16:14), a fact given only in the second Gospel and probably reflecting the testimony of the apostle Peter. From this, it is natural to suppose that one of the impediments to the belief of the Eleven was the fact of our Lord's appearing first to Mary Magdalene, and to at least one other company of women, and very probably to two other companies of women (if those in Luke 24:1-9 are different), and again to two ordinary disciples on the way to Emmaus "before he appeared to the Eleven." The apostles who had been so bothered about who would be the head man in the kingdom, it would appear were personally slighted by those first appearances for the sake of teaching them a lesson of humility; and, when the Lord finally appeared to the Eleven, the disciples from Emmaus were present, and probably Mary Magdalene and certain other women also. Most assuredly, this verse teaches that the Eleven were of a mind to reject the testimony thus far received; and it is equally sure that they were wrong in so doing; for Jesus upbraided them for it (Mark 16:14), Verse 12 But Peter arose, and ran unto the tomb; and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths by themselves; and he departed to his home, wondering at that which was come to pass.Here Luke abbreviated the whole incident so fully presented in John 20:1-9, omitting not only John's participation in it, but also, the fact of Peter's having actually entered the tomb. This abbreviation cannot be viewed as a contradiction of the longer account, being rather an abridgment of it, focusing upon the extremely important key fact of the episode, namely, the position of the linen cloths, of which Harrison, said, "They kept the same position they had when the body was in them."[5] See more on this in my Commentary on John, under John 19:40-41; John 20:5; and in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:52. The linen cloths ... In Luke 23:53, Luke mentioned Joseph's wrapping Jesus' body in a "linen cloth" (singular)"; but here it is quite evident that before the wrapping was done, the cloth was reduced to strips. B. F. Westcott said: The exact word for CLOTHS is the diminutive form which is used in Greek medical writings for bandages. This distinguished these swathes in which the body was bound from the linen cloth.[6]JESUS' TO THE ON EMMAUS ROADInstead of giving a list of appearances, Luke here described one particular appearance fully; because, as Geldenhuys said: In it there is so strikingly depicted what was going on in the hearts of the Saviour's followers on that day, and how Jesus, by word and act, as he appeared to them, removed all their pangs of despair.[7]Summers described this as "the most beautiful of all the post resurrection accounts";[8] and Barclay denominated it "another of the immortal short stories of the world."[9][5] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 273. [6] B. F. Westcott, Commentary on the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 281. [7] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 632. [8] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974), p. 322. [9] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 308. Verse 13 And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was threescore furlongs from Jerusalem.Emmaus ... Childers noted that: This village is now called Kolonieh, so called from the emperor Titus having made of it a colony for some of his veterans. It is located, as Luke says, about sixty furlongs or stadia from Jerusalem. One [@stadion] Isaiah 606.75 feet. Thus, the village was about six and three-fourths miles from Jerusalem.[10]Two of them were going ... One of these was Cleopas, there being no other mention of him in the New Testament; and the other is not known. Some have sought to identify the other as Luke himself; but Luke 24:20 forbids that. Luke, a Gentile, would not have referred to "our rulers," in speaking of the authorities. The fact of these two disciples having been obscure, ordinary disciples without any particular distinction in the fellowship of the Lord's followers, as Dummelow noted, "is a pledge of authenticity of the narrative."[11][10] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 611. [11] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 769. Verse 14 And they communed with each other of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, while they communed and questioned together, that Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.The conversation of these two indicates their deep interest and concern in the knowledge of things pertaining to Jesus; and the fact of their not recognizing Christ indicates that Jesus did not intend them to recognize him. One of the mysterious qualities in the resurrection body of our Lord was this quality of remaining unrecognized until it was fully intended by the Lord. Verse 16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. And he said unto them, What communications are these that ye have one with another as ye walk? And they stood still, looking sad.It was so incredible, in the view of these two, that any person whosoever in the environs of Jerusalem should have been unaware of the stupendous events unfolded there so recently, or that such a person would not have known anything about them, that they stopped walking, astounded at what appeared to them incredible. Of course, Jesus did know all about those events, far more than they knew; nor was Jesus' question here for the purpose (a) either of procuring information for himself, or (b) of professing any need of enlightenment from them. It was a means of inviting himself into the conversation which had evidently continued for some little while after Jesus fell in step with them. God asked Adam, "Where art thou?" not to procure information but to induce a confession. Verse 18 And one of them, named Cleopas, answering said unto him, Dost thou alone sojourn in Jerusalem and not know the things which are come to pass there in these days?Such wonderment was natural. Here is spontaneous testimony to the fact that all men were conscious of the dramatic events related to the Passion of Jesus Christ. "This thing was not done in a corner" (Acts 26:26). The highest officials of government, both religious and secular, the total population of Jerusalem, with more than a million others there to observe the passover, from all over the Roman Empire - all were interested, as either observers or participants, in the world-shattering drama of the crucifixion of Jesus our Lord. Verse 19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people; and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him.Thus the two disciples responded, as Jesus had intended, by focusing attention upon the solemn events connected with his great sacrifice for sins. Verse 21 But we hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel Yea, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things came to pass.We hoped ... Tragic is the use of the past tense; for by it these two confessed that hope had vanished. How could a dead prophet redeem Israel? The third day since ... If Jesus was buried about sunset on Friday, there is no way that these men would, on Sunday, have said, "This is now the third day since." Sunday was not the third day since Friday; but it was the third day since Thursday. See the chart under Luke 22:2. Their mention of this would seem to imply their remembering Jesus' promise about "rising again the third day," but rather vaguely and without conviction that it would indeed occur. Verse 22 Moreover, certain women of our company amazed us, having been early at the tomb; and when they found not his body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. And certain of them that were with us went to the tomb, and found it even so as the women had said; but him they saw not.At the time these two disciples had left the circle of believers, the Lord had not appeared to any of them. Of course, the Lord had appeared early that day to Mary Magdalene; but it appears this was discounted by all of the disciples, as it certainly had been by the Eleven. Verse 25 And he said unto them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken.O foolish men ... "This is not the same word as the one used in Matthew 5:22, where we are forbidden to say `Thou fool' to our brother."[12] This was Jesus' dramatic way of emphasizing their failure to accept the plain teachings of the Old Testament prophecies. It seems incredible that after all that was written in the Old Testament concerning the suffering Servant of God, his being despised and rejected, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and even the exact scenes of the crucifixion having been spelled out in Psalms 22, the Jewish people remained almost totally blind to that phase of Messiah's character. "Artificial and even ridiculous explanations were applied to Old Testament prophecies of Messiah's sufferings and death."[13] And as Geldenhuys further said: At all costs they reasoned away all the prophecies of the expiatory death of the Messiah and defended their own earthly view of a triumphant Jewish Messiah.[14]This is precisely the fault of all generations of men who have rejected what they did not like in God's word, accepting only those portions of it which pleased them. Such persons say, "I believe in heaven, but I do not believe in hell and the devil!" Inherent in the Lord's statement here is the fact that, in order to know God's teaching in any sector, it is mandatory to take account of "all that the prophets have spoken" on any given subject. Thus, in the understanding of the sacred Gospels, it is absolutely necessary to believe "all" that is written in all four of them. The scissors-and-paste method which is so much in vogue among critical scholars is utterly incapable of revealing the true teaching of God. [12] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 613. [13] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 637. [14] Ibid. Verse 26 Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?Thus, the Gospel of Luke confirms the view often expressed in John that Jesus was glorified in his crucifixion. Upon the departure of Judas to betray Jesus, the Lord said, "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him" (John 13:31). It was only by his sufferings that Christ could be made perfect ( Hebrews 5:8-9); and only "by his stripes" could men be healed (Isaiah 53:5). Verse 27 And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.There are one-third of one thousand prophecies in the Old Testament regarding Jesus Christ, and this leads to the conclusion that a measure of hyperbole is in Luke's statement here; but a long walk of some six or seven miles would have afforded time enough for mentioning a very large number of the glorious prophecies fulfilled in Jesus our Lord. Spence has suggested the following as having probably been included in the interpretations given by the Lord: The promise to Eve (Genesis 3:15) The promise to Abraham (Genesis 22:18) The Paschal lamb (Exodus 12) The scapegoat (Leviticus 16:1-34) The greater Prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15) The star and scepter (Numbers 24:17) Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14) "Unto us a child is born" (Isaiah 9:6) The Good Shepherd (Isaiah 40:10-11) The meek Sufferer (Isaiah 50:6) He who bore our griefs (Isaiah 53:4-5) The Heir of David (Ezekiel 34:23) The Ruler born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2) The Branch (Zechariah 6:12) The lowly King (Zechariah 9:9) The pierced Victim (Zechariah 12:10) The smitten Shepherd (Zechariah 13:7) The Messenger of the Covenant (Malachi 3:1) The Sun of Righteousness (Malachi 4:2)[15]Of course, there were many other things also that could have been included in the Lord's instructions to these two disciples. ENDNOTE: [15] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 271. Verse 28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go further. And they constrained him, saying, Abide with us; for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to abide with them.As though he would go further ... There was no deceit in this, because Christ would have gone further had they not invited him to be their guest. See comments in my Commentary on Mark, under Mark 6:48, where the Lord would have passed by even the Twelve themselves if they had not invited him to come aboard. The Lord's blessings are always to be asked for and sought after by the men who would receive them. Verse 30 And it came to pass when he had sat down with them to meat, he took the bread and blessed; and breaking it he gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.Speculations are plentiful with regard to just how "their eyes were opened," some supposing that the familiar pattern of Jesus' breaking bread and offering thanks as he had so frequently done in the presence of all his disciples was what did it; but it is safer to conclude that the Lord willed their recognition of him at that particular moment, and accordingly it occurred. There can hardly fail to be a deep spiritual overtone in this to the effect that the Lord is still known to his disciples in the breaking of the bread of the Lord's Supper, which continues to be in all ages the great separator between the saved and the unsaved. Verse 32 And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened unto us the scriptures?The study and meditation upon the word of God is ever the cause that produces the glowing heart in mortal men; and if ministers of the Lord's gospel would have audiences of burning hearts, the means of achieving such a thing is here. The exposition of the Holy Scriptures exceeds in importance all other tasks of the ministers of Christ. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 They found the stone rolled away because the angel had descended from Heaven and removed it, to open the way into the sepulchre (Matthew 28:2). 3 They entered in. The description of ancient sepulchres may be seen in the notes on Matthew 23:27-28. They entered the main cavity and looked for the spot where the body had been laid. They had seen when Joseph placed the body there (Matthew 27:61; Mark 15:47), and were disappointed at not seeing it as they entered. 4 These men were angels in human form (Matthew 28:2). 5. Living among the dead. This was the angel's way of saying the One who was dead was then living, to assure the women they need not be afraid any longer. 7 The conversation referred to is in Matthew 17:22-23. 8 They remembered. This is more significant than might be at first realized. One form of evidence relied upon in the Bible, is the accomplishment of predictions that were made some considerable time previously. (See Exodus 3:12 with 24:12, 13; Matthew 3:11 with Acts 11:15-16.) 9 The eleven leaves out Judas who had killed himself. 0 Mary the mother of James was also the mother of Jesus. 1 They believed them not. See the comments at Mark 16:17-18. 2 This event will be commented upon at John twentieth chapter. 3 The most important item in this verse is the words that same day. Verse 1 shows it was the first day of the week, the day of the resurrection of Christ 4 These things refers to the report about the disappearance of Jesus from the tomb, that had been reported by the women returning from it. 6 Holden is from KRATEO, which Thayer defines at this place, "To hold in check, restrain." In Mark's account of this circumstance (chapter 16:12), he says Jesus appeared in another "form." That word is defined in the lexicon, "The form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance." The two passages considered together makes the matter clear. The person of Jesus was not literally changed, but since the eyes of the disciples were restrained, it caused Him to look like some other human being with whom they were not acquainted. 7 The changed "form" of Jesus did not make him appear as any unusual creature, for there is no indication that his speaking to them confused them. 8 A stranger is one from the outside, or one lately arrived at any place. Cleopas thought a regular resident would have known about these things. 9 Jesus never had to ask men for information, for He knew all about what was in man (John 2:24-25). By asking this question He induced the disciples to express their belief in the One from Nazareth. 0 The disciples correctly placed the blame for the death of Jesus on the chief priests and rulers. They had caused Him to be brought into the Sanhedrin, and there the rulers pronounced a sentence of death upon Him. 1 The disciples still had a temporal kingdom in mind regarding the plans of Jesus. Third day since these things were done; meaning the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus (verse 20). Since (or after), gives us an important key to the day on which Jesus was crucified. The disciples said today (the day of the resurrection, verse 1), was the third day since the crucifixion. Then Saturady would be the second day since the crucifixion; Friday would be the first day since the crucifixion, and hence, Thursday would be the day of the crucifixion. This disproves the Romanist doctrine of Good Friday as being the day of the crucifixion. 2 Certain women are the ones mentioned in verse 10. 3 These disciples were gradually unfolding their story as it was told by the women. They seemed impressed with the idea that it was a report that could not be questioned, yet was a puzzling circumstance. 4 The story of the women had been confirmed by certain ones who went to the sepulchre afterwards, namely, Peter (verse 12), and John (John 20:2; John 21:20; John 21:24). 6 Jesus then chided them for being so unmindful of what had been foretold, and for speaking as if the whole event was unheard-of. 7 Expounded unto them in all the scriptures, means He cited them to the Scriptures which predicted those things concerning Himself. The pronoun is the word of Luke, for the disciples did not yet recognize Him. 8 Jesus did this to test their spirit of hospitality. 9 Their kindness was from a pure motive of hospitality, and not just because of the importance of the person, for they still did not know Him. 0 One part of Thayer's definition of bless, is "to ask God's blessing on a thing, pray Him to bless it to one's use." This act of Jesus was the same as any one of His disciples can do for the good things of life. The main point in this verse is the fact that Jesus changed from being a guest, and took the position of host. The purpose of it will be seen in the next verse. 1 Eyes were opened. This reversed the condition that had been over their eyes which "restrained" them. No physical miracle was performed by the act of Jesus as host. But it was such an unusual procedure for a guest, especially one who had seemed reluctant to visit with them (verses 28, 29), that it aroused their attention and stirred up their memory. they doubtless had been with Him before his death, on various occasions, and had beheld just such a performance. This, together with His conversation on the way, in which the prophecies were cited, brought them "to themselves" and they recognized Him. Having accomplished the purpose of the visit, Jesus disappeared. 2 Robinson defines the original for burn at this place, "to be greatly moved," and Thayer gives virtually the same explanation. These disciples turned to each other after Jesus disappeared, and recalled how they had been impressed by the re marks which he made to them by the way; and that was before they realized the identity of the speaker. The whole subject flowed over their minds and filled them with a restlessness that was born of genuine interest. Under such a condition they could not be still, but must go and contact others with the interesting news. 3 Yes, these happy disciples arose the same hour, and leaving the village of Emmaus, they returned to Jerusalem where they found the eleven (apostles) and others gathered together, engaged in earnest conversation. 4 The two disciples arriving from Emmaus found this group talking about the great subject of the hour, namely, the resurrection of Jesus. They related to the two new arrivals the same news they had themselves heard from the report of the women. 5 Then they (the two) joined in with their story of how Jesus had appeared to them in the way. There could be no mistake about it, for He had sat down with them to a meal, at which He was made known to them. 6 It required only a miracle for Jesus to appear in this way among them, even as a similar feat was performed when he disappeared unobserved (chapter 4:29, 30). 7 The human mind does some strange things. This group had just been rejoicing over the report that Jesus was alive and had been seen of a number of disciples. Now when He actually appeared in their midst they were frightened. In John 20:19 is this same event recorded, and it states the doors were closed for fear of the Jews. They evidently had the doors fastened for safety, hence when Jesus appeared in spite of the secured shutters, they considered it was a spirit that entered. 8 Jesus knew their minds and that they thought He was a spirit. 0 The body of Jesus came out of the grave in the same condition it had when it entered therein. That was necessary to furnish evidence that He was the same person who was crucified. An instance of this truth is what is recorded in this paragraph. And He retained that form as long as he was on earth because the disciples were in the flesh and could profit by association with Him only in that form. But we know it was changed before He reached heaven, for Paul says (1 Corinthians 15:50) that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. (See notes in the following paragraph about his having no blood.) Also, 1 John 3:2 says, "It doth not yet appear what we shall be," and later in the verse he says that when He appears we shall be like Him. John knew what His appearance was like while on the earth, which shows that Jesus was changed between the time of the ascension from Mount Olivet and that of His arrival at the gates of heaven. From the above considerations, we know the popular theory about knowing Him "by the prints of the nails in his hand," is an erroneous notion, which should be classed with the materialistic heresies of the Sadducees. 3 Believed not for joy is an accommodative expression, used in the same sense as a familiar phrase, "too good to be true." He called for food and partook thereof, as a further proof that He was in the same form that went into the grave. This raises the question as to how He could live and make use of food when verse 39 indicates He had "flesh and bones" only, but not blood. It is true the Bible teaches that "the blood is the life," and we know also that animal creatures cannot normally live without air. But Jonah lived three days and nights in the body of the whale without normal air conditions; likewise the Father saw to it that the Son could live forty days and forty nights without blood. "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" 4 Some commentators think this verse goes over the interval of forty days, to the time of the ascen-sion. That idea seems reasonable to me as it applies to most of the remaining verses. However, Acts 1:3 tells us He was with his apostles throughout the forty days, during which time He spoke to them about these great subjects. Doubtless Jesus concluded His 40-day period of teaching with the verses from this through the end of the chapter, and I shall comment upon the verses in their order, with our minds centered on the last hours of the Saviour with the apostles. The law and prophets and the Psalms is one classification of the parts of the Old Testament, all of which contained prophecies of Christ. (See Deuteronomy 18:18-20 for the law; Isaiah 53 for the prophets, and the Psalms 16:8-10 for the Psalms.) 5 Opened he their understanding. This statement does not re quire any miracle upon the minds of the disciples. The scriptures referred to were the Old Testament, with which they were familiar as to its wording. The means Jesus used to get the disciples to understand them consisted in quoting them in connection with facts which they knew had been and were happening. Such an effort was accomplished in John 2:22; Paul used this method in Acts 17:2-3, and Apollos used it in Acts 18:28. The specific passage that Jesus used for this purpose will be considered in connection with the following verse. 6 Thus it is written. We know this refers to Psalms 16:8-10, for Peter quotes it in Acts 2:25-32, and applies it in the same way that Jesus does in our verse. Since this is the only place in the Old Testament where the prophecy of the third day is said to be written, the question would be raised about how that phrase is connected with it, when the words are not found in that text. The answer is found in the statement that Jesus was not to remain in the grave long enough for his body to begin decaying, or see corruption. In John 11:39 we learn that a body would begin to decay after four days, hence Jesus must rise before that many days to prevent his body from decaying. And the other requirement of scripture was that He be in the grave three days and three nights. All of this brings the conclusion that Jesus was to rise from the dead the third day, according to the present verse. Behoved is from a word that means, "it was necessary and proper." In order to fulfill what was written, it was necessary for Christ to accomplish these things. 7 Repentance and remission of sins could not have been preached in the name of Christ, had He not met all the requirements of this important prophecy. Among all nations signifies that Jesus died for the whole world, not the Jews only. Beginning at Jerusalem. That city was the capital of the Jewish kingdom, both religiously and politically, and it was to be the model and beginning place (but not the capital) of the kingdom of Christ. 8 This work of being witnesses for Jesus is stated more fully in Acts 1:8. The territory of their operation was to include Jerusalem as the beginning place, then reach unto "the uttermost part of the earth." According to Romans 10:18 and Colossians 1:23, that commission was finally carried out. 9 The promise of the Father pertained to the outpouring of the Spirit, and it had been made in Joe 2:28-32. The exact date of that event was not stated to them, hence it was necessary to tarry in Jerusalem until it came. Be endued is from enduno, and means "to be clothed with." Power is from DUNAMIS, and means might or strength. This qualification was to be upon the apostles so they would be able to "preach the Gospel to every creature," as Mark 16:15 words it. This is why it must be said that none but the apostles were able to carry out the "Great Commission." 0 Mathew says nothing about the ascension; Mark merely mentions it, and our passage precedes it with the name of the location, which was Bethany, the home town of Lazarus and his sisters (John 11:1). 1 Before starting his journey toward heaven, Jesus lifted up his hands to bless the apostles, thereby adding dignity and solemnity to it. He was carried up. Jesus could have soared through space independent of any visible vehicle, but this phrase indicates He did not do so. Acts 1:9 states "a cloud received Him out of their sight." 2 They worshiped Him. This was after He had disappeared, which reminds us of the various meanings of the word "worship." (See the note at Matthew 2:2.) The great joy was not over the disappearance of Jesus, of course, but for the assurances of the angels that are recorded in Acts 1:11. 3 The temple was the headquarters of the Jewish system, and the place where the national worship was conducted. It was natural for them to be spending the time at that place, waiting for the coming of the power promised by Jesus. Their activities consisted in praising and blessing God, because they believed He was the One "From whom all blessings flow."