095. Chapter 36 - Further Controversies
Chapter 36 - Further Controversies
Hostile Hearers
Hostile Pharisees in Judaea and Peraea repeated the attacks upon Christ which their colleagues in Galilee had made some years before. This opposition was natural. The lines of attack were strictly limited by His sinless life and His unselfish spiritual teaching. When Jesus cast out a demon during this Peraean ministry, the Pharisees revived the charge that He was in league with the devil and that by the power of the devil He was casting out demons. They followed this with a demand for a sign, or miracle, from heaven. The insulting insinuation was that Jesus had not as yet worked any miracles. Jesus responded with t scorching denunciation of the Pharisees Amid the animated exchange, a woman spoke up out of the audience in praise of the mother of Jesus.
Similar Events
Critics undertake to deny that these events happened and hold that Luke is merely working over and rearranging material which he copied from Matthew and Mark. While some repetition naturally occurred in Jesus’ teaching as He addressed different audiences, there is an abundance of new material in Luke’s report of this ministry in Judaea and Peraea. Those who assail Luke’s account point out that when the charge of Jesus’ being in league with the devil had been recorded in Matthew and Mark, Jesus cast out a demon from a deaf and dumb man
These same attacks must have been made frequently when He healed a dumb demoniac. Distinctly different details in the events appear when comparison is made. The man healed in Matthew’s account of the earlier controversy had been blind as well as dumb. On that occasion the scribes who made the charge that Jesus was in league with the devil were national leaders who had come out from Jerusalem (Mark 3:22). The demand for a sign from heaven was made at various times (Matthew 12:38; Matthew 16:1). There is no indication that the mother of Jesus was present here in Peraea; there is merely a reference to her by a woman in the audience. Similarities in the instruction Jesus gave on different occasions are precisely what we should expect because different audiences needed to hear the same teaching and warnings. The denunciation of the Pharisees has many criticisms similar to those Jesus offered on the great day of questions of the final week in Jerusalem, but again Jesus gave what was needed both times. There are a number of new elements in this discourse. The Demoniac
“And he was casting out a demon that was dumb” (Luke 11:14). The demon had caused the dumbness of the man, hence the demon is referred to as a dumb demon. “The multitudes marveled” because at this time Jesus was evangelizing in a new territory where His miracles had not been seen before. “But some of them said, By Beelzebub the prince of demons casteth he out demons” (Luke 11:15). The spelling in some manuscripts is Beelzebul. Beelzebub was a god of the Ekronites; the name means “god of flies.” Beelzebul means “lord of the dwelling,” or “lord of the dung hill,” i.e., the god of all idolatrous abominations. Jesus had recently been accused of being possessed with a demon, and a heated argument among the Jews in Jerusalem had followed (John 8:48; John 10:20). This new accusation may have had some relation to the recent attack. The Pharisees seem to have been circulating the charge privately this time: “But he, knowing their thoughts said unto them” (Luke 11:17).
Jesus’ Defense
Jesus made no effort to defend Himself against attacks such as the charge that He was a gluttonous man and a winebibber. His life was an open book which all might read. The charge was so manifestly false it could be treated with complete contempt. But there was the strong possibility that people could be led astray by the mysterious charge that He was casting out demons by the power of the devil. He had guarded against anything which could be construed as evidence in support of such a false charge. He had refused to allow the demons to testify to His deity when He had cast them out. If he had submitted them as His witnesses, the charge would have seemed to have had some foundation. The arguments which Jesus used to demolish this charge are similar to the ones He had formerly used in Galilee: (1) Satan would not be fighting against his own subjects, else his kingdom and power would quickly perish. (2) They claimed that their Jewish exorcists were able to cast out demons. If their claim were true, by whom would their sons be casting out demons? Let these sons speak up and judge the charge now made against Him. (3) “But if I by the finger of God cast out demons” puts express emphasis upon the fact that He used no hocus-pocus or magic formula; it had been an instant miracle. “Then is the kingdom of God come upon you (Luke 11:20). The King is in the midst and the kingdom is about to be established, and yet they remain aloof in rebellion against God.
“When the strong man fully armed guardeth his own court...” (Luke 11:21). Satan is the strong man, fully armed and guarding his own domain. This parable of his defeat by One who is stronger and invincible illustrates the Overwhelming disaster which Satan is facing at the hands of the Son of God. A solemn warning is given to all who refuse the Messiah or neglect to join Him in His campaign of the ages: “He that is not with me is against me” (Luke 11:23). It is not possible to occupy a neutral position in this critical conflict. The Empty House A further parable, of the demon who voluntarily left the home which he had gained in taking possession of a man, describes the restless wandering of the demon in the desert places. This reminds one of the fateful meeting of Jesus and the devil in the wilderness at the very beginning of His ministry. There is so much we do not know about the spirit world that we cannot tell why this demon should have sought the desert places. He found no resting place and returned to find that the man he had formerly possessed had left his heart unoccupied. Although he had renovated, he had not dedicated. The saying, “An empty brain is the devil’s workshop,” probably had its inspiration in this passage. The demon took seven other demons “more evil than himself” and possessed this man again. “The last estate of that man becometh worse than the first” (Luke 11:26). When Jesus used this parable on a former occasion, He had applied it to the nation, with its state growing constantly worse in the midst of hesitating, faltering refusal to accept His Messiahship. Jesus now applied it to the individual who hoped to reform, but had not the courage to dedicate Himself to the service of God. A Woman’s Praise The marvelous character of Jesus’ words and deeds and His divine personality so impressed a woman in the crowd she spoke up in praise of Him with reflections of how wonderful it must have been to have been His mother. “And it came to pass as he said these things, a certain woman out of the multitude lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou didst suck” (Luke 11:27). This interruption is typical of the democracy in His teaching sessions. A lawyer could stand up and challenge Jesus. A woman in the midst of a throng could cry out with such a tribute as this. Her remark reminds one of the predictions of Elizabeth (Luke 1:42) and of Mary (Luke 1:48). Some commentators would connect her statement with some previous event in her own home where a demon had been cast out, but there is no hint of this in the text. As he said these things seems to underscore the masterful nature of His reply to the false charge which had been made. If her home had merely been one where a tragic experience of demon possession had occurred, she could have been expected to express a lament and an appeal for help, or a thanksgiving, if a miracle had already been granted.
Luke’s Gospel has been called “The Gospel of Women” because of many beautiful characters and incidents peculiar to Luke’s account. Looking over the Gospel narratives, we find no record of a woman condemning or assailing Jesus. In light of John the Baptist’s murder by Herodias, many wicked women in the throngs may have demanded the crucifixion of Jesus, but no mention is made.
Worship of Mary In His reply to the woman’s praise Jesus accepts her declaration as true, but corrects her false emphasis. Everything possible has been done in the Gospel narratives to warn the followers of Christ away from any special veneration of Mary. The very predictions that all generations would realize her godly character, her tribute of faith and devotion to God, and would call her “blessed” is fulfilled in this incident; and the negative reaction of Jesus is significant: “Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it” (Luke 11:28). Yea means “yes”; thus Jesus agrees that Mary had been accorded a unique privilege in being chosen by God to become the mother of the Messiah. But the reason for this choice was the nobility of character which Mary had achieved. The open door of heaven is before all who hear the word of God and keep it. Therefore Jesus pronounced the superior blessing upon those who rise up in faith to meet God’s universal call.
Demand for a Sign
“This generation is an evil generation: it seeketh after a sign” (Luke 11:29). The Pharisees had demanded “a sign from heaven” (Luke 11:16), by which they meant some such prodigious miracle as when God parted the Red Sea before Moses or sent down from heaven fire to consume Elijah’s sacrifice on Mount Carmel. The implication had been that Jesus had not actually worked miracles. They had openly argued this proposition (John 6:30.). They had just charged that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the devil. The evil character of the generation was thus shown by their rejection of God’s supreme messenger and of the miracles He had wrought.
Jonah and Nineveh This new phase of the discussion seems to have come after a break in the preaching service: “And when the multitudes were gathering together unto him, he began to say.” As the service was resumed, Jesus took up the second attack which had been made. “There shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah” (Luke 11:29). No sign differing in character from the miracles they had already been granted could be expected from His ministry except the climactic sign of His own resurrection. Jesus continually cited this as the final proof.
“Even as Jonah became a sign unto the Ninevites….” There is no record of Jonah’s having worked any miracles in Nineveh to confirm his preaching, but he undoubtedly testified to them of his disobedience to God, the punishment God had given him, and how he had finally been spared from the living death in the fish after he had repented. He was appealing to the people of Nineveh to repent and was warning them of imminent destruction. The most convincing evidence he had was his own recent experience. Thus Jonah became a miracle to the Ninevites by the testimony of the great miracle God had just wrought in his own experience.
“So shall also the Son of man be to this generation” (Luke 11:30). This prediction would come to pass in the sublime miracle of His resurrection. “The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and shall condemn them” (Luke 11:31). What a picture is given of the final judgment when those who had smaller opportunities to know the will of God shall stand up and testify against those who had the greatest revelation and the most impelling evidence and yet scorned God’s mercy. The Queen of Sheba came from a great distance to the south. This place is generally held to be in the southern section of Arabia. Ethiopians like to claim that she came from their country. “A greater than Solomon is here.” This is not some peculiar record in the Gospel of John, but the continual proclamation of deity by Christ recorded in the Synoptics (cf. Matthew 12:42). “The men of Nineveh….repented at the preaching of Jonah” (Luke 11:32). The preposition in the Greek is eis. It does not mean “because.” The primary meaning of eis fits completely in this passage. The men of Nineveh repented into a state of harmony with the preaching of Jonah. Eis ordinarily meant into ; it can mean “to,” towards”; it sometimes means “against”; but it never means ‘because.” Plummer translates the statement they repented at the preaching of Jonah, “they turned towards it and conformed to it.”
Light and Its Use
Jesus closed the discussion with one of His favorite parables of the proper manner in which to use a lamp when it has been lighted. As in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus used this illustration to cause the unbelieving generation to open its eyes and see that the Christ was in the midst. “A lamp is for lighting; the eye for seeing; the soul for spiritual discernment; but the soul may be blinded by sin within.” Under the bushel suggests the bushel always present in the house for instant use, but not this kind of use. It would set the bushel on fire. This is not the point Jesus makes. He speaks only of the folly of failing to use the light. In another exchange Jesus had spoken of the absurdity of putting a light under a bed (Mark 4:21). It has remained for people in our present generation to exhibit the folly of burning themselves alive by taking the light to bed with them as they go to sleep smoking a cigarette.
“When thine eye is single….” Single means, “Free from distortion, normal, or sound” (Plummer). Each object is seen clearly in single vision. It is the drunken man who sees double and undertakes to walk between the two automobiles he sees approaching.
Faith, when diseased, becomes the darkness of superstition; just as the eye, when diseased, distorts and obscures….Those whose spiritual sight has not been darkened by indifference and impenitence have no need of a sign from heaven. Their whole body is full of the light which is all around them, ready to be recognized and absorbed (Plummer, Commentary on Luke, p 108). The Dinner Guest The current debate shifted to the home of a Pharisee who invited Jesus to dine with him. A large group of his select associates, lawyers and scribes, were also present at this banquet (Luke 11:45, Luke 11:52, Luke 11:53). We are not told whether the apostles were invited, but the invitation was probably limited to Jesus. “He went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first bathed himself before dinner” (Luke 11:38). It is not certain that this scene followed immediately upon the preceding discussion. A considerable interval and change of location may have occurred, but the fierceness of the controversy was still in evidence. The Pharisee seems to have invited Jesus to an early meal of the day rather than the evening meal. There is no clear declaration that the Pharisee invited Jesus into his home in order to entrap Him, rather than as a sincere effort to study Jesus at close range. The denunciation of Jesus, however, implies that his motives had been evil. This censure indicates that the amazement of the Pharisee that Jesus did not take a bath before dinner (Luke 11:36) was probably feigned and hypocritical. The terrible bitterness of the Pharisees at the close indicates the failure of a carefully laid plot, which had reacted disastrously against them. Some of the denunciations Jesus gave here He repeated in Jerusalem five or six months later on the great day of questions (Matthew 23:1-39).
“He had not first bathed himself.” The Greek verb is baptidzo, which means to immerse. The Greco-Roman palaces of the rich Pharisees had abundant facilities for taking a bath. The Pharisee evidently had been very meticulous about taking a bath to rid himself of any possible ceremonial defilement from having touched sinful people in the midst of the crowd that thronged about Jesus. Jesus refused to keep these traditions of the Pharisees in protest against their concentration on such matters to the neglect of the weightier matters of the law, which brought defilement to the soul. “For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the marketplace, except they bathe themselves, they eat not” (Mark 7:3, Mark 7:4).
Hypocrisy Unveiled
“And the Lord said unto him,” evidently answering the thoughts of the heart of this Pharisee. There may have been whispered scoffing or unspoken sneers. In surroundings where false human traditions and super-fastidious ceremonialism were used to the bring the great Teacher into ridicule, Jesus stood forth and spoke as only the Lord could. He had a message to deliver to this jeering Pharisee. “Ye the Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter; but your inward part is full of extortion and wickedness” (Luke 11:39). In the final denunciation in Jerusalem Jesus contrasted the pious ceremonial cleansing of the outside of the platter and the wicked neglect of the fact that the inside contents of the platter had been gained by robbery and excess. Here the cleansed exterior of the vessel is contrasted to the wicked hearts of the Pharisees.
“But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, all things are clean unto you” (Luke 11:41). Jesus had just asked the question, “Did not he that made the outside make the inside also?” Did not God, who made the material universe, make men’s souls also? in other words, what folly to imagine that they could please God by cleansing material things while neglecting God’s choicest creation, as they left their souls polluted and full of corruption. Some would make the comment about giving alms of the contents of the vessel ironical: “Give to the poor out of your luxuries, and then (as you fancy) all your robbery and wickedness will be condoned” (Erasmus, Schleiermacher, etc.). But either of the two following interpretations is better: (1) “Benevolence is a better way of keeping meals free from defilement than ceremonial cleansing of vessels.” This urges, “The contents of your cup and platter give ye to the poor, it is better than washing the outside of the vessel.” (2) “Those things which are within your own heart (not the pot or kettle) give to the work of God.” If you will give your own heart to the poor in their misery, you will find yourself free from robbing them or indulging in excess.
“Ye tithe mint and rue and every herb” (Luke 11:42). Mint grows in abundance in Asia Minor. There are several species. Horsemint, one of the most common, grows wild on all the hills of Syria. The particular variety cultivated in the gardens of the Jews is not known. Rue was “a half-shrubby plant, two or three feet high with pinnated bluish-green leaves, all dotted over with odoriferous glands.” Mint was sweet-scented, but rue had a much more powerful odor. Rue was cultivated in Palestine as a medicine and probably as a condiment for food (Davis, Dictionary of the Bible).
Tithing
These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone” (Luke 11:42). “Justice and the love of God” are the weighty matters of life which the Pharisees had neglected. Jesus did not condemn them for their finesse in cutting off a tenth part of garden herbs to present them to the Lord. He did not condemn the Pharisees for tithing, but their legalistic tithing of tiny garden vegetables was hypocritical display. The refusal to surrender their hearts to God was what brought His denunciation. Justice would have kept them from robbing their fellowmen; the love of God should have led them to dedicate themselves to His service. The use of this passage and Matthew 23:23 to prove that the Christian is commanded to tithe in the New Testament overlooks the critical question as to when and to whom this was spoken. This event occurred before the cross. These Jews were under the law and should have been obedient to it. The law was nailed to the cross. We are not under the compulsion of command in our giving, but under the urgent impulse of love. Certainly a Christian should give more than a tithe else he places a shameful estimate on his redemption in Christ. A tithe is a good, practical working minimum. We can learn this much from the Old Testament. Only when we go beyond a tithe and any legalistic counting do we gain the deeper joys of giving.
“Ye love the chief seats in the synagogue” (Luke 11:43). The Greek word is singular: the chief seat. This seat was “the semicircular bench around the ark and facing the congregation.” They desired the most prominent place where they could be seen and praised by men. They desired prominence rather than the approval of God which comes to the humble and the devout. “Ye are as tombs which appear not, and the men that walk over them know it not” (Luke 11:44). It caused ceremonial defilement to touch a tomb (Numbers 19:16). For this reason it was customary to whitewash the tombs so those passing by might be warned and avoid contact. The hypocritical nature of the Pharisees gave those around them no warning, and thus they were constant sources of defilement. The people associated with them imagining they were pure and noble, while they became corrupted by their example. In Matthew 23:27 the reference is given a different application; the Pharisees are compared with graves that have been carefully whitewashed on the outside, but on the inside are full of corpses and all manner of uncleanness. The Scholars
“And one of the lawyers answering saith unto him, Teacher, in saying this thou reproachest us also” (Luke 11:45). The very highest scholars of the Pharisees were responsible for the customs and traditions that prevailed. The lesser Pharisees, who were not lawyers or scribes, followed the teaching and example of these leaders. The lawyer felt his group was the “holy of holies” of the nation; “thou insultest even us.” Instead of apologizing to this lawyer and retracting aught He had said, Jesus proceeded to give forth a blistering denunciation of them: “Woe unto you lawyers also! for ye load men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers” (Luke 11:6). The interpretations which the scribes placed upon the law made it more severe and exacting than had been intended. They built up an intricate system of ceremony which would require all the time and energy of a rich man and which a poor man could not hope to observe. Instead of leaving many details to the good judgment of the individual and the particular circumstances he faced, they undertook to lay down foolish discriminations and impossible regulations. They had no sympathy or mercy for the poor and unfortunate who could not keel) their system. They would not even reach out with their finger to lift this ceremonial burden they had attempted to bind on the nation. They were more interested in theoretical discussion than in practical living. They loved themselves rather than God and humanity. Some hold Jesus means that they tried to bind these traditions on others but with the clever legalism of the lawyer they found shrewd ways to evade the regulations themselves.
“Ye build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them” (Luke 11:47). Their ostentatious erection of elaborate tombs to the prophets who had been murdered by their fathers was another false claim they were making, for they refused to obey the injunctions of these very prophets they pretended to honor. They were rejecting in this very hour the Great Prophet, Priest, and King. These tombs they built could not conceal their disobedience to God. The Martyrs
“Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto them prophets and apostles; and some of them shall they kill and persecute” (Luke 11:49). Some suppose that Christ is here quoting words which He had uttered on former occasions as He later spoke them in Jerusalem (Matthew 23:34), but Christ does not in any other place call Himself “the Wisdom of God.” It is not certain that He is referring to Himself here, even though Paul later applies this title to Him (1 Corinthians 1:24, 1 Corinthians 1:30). It seems rather that Jesus means by the wisdom of God simply God’s counsel which He knows perfectly; thus He is referring to the whole Old Testament revelation, which is summarized in the dark picture which He paints. Particularly in point are such passages as Proverbs 1:20-31; Proverbs 8:1-36; 2 Chronicles 24:20-22; 2 Chronicles 36:14-21. Jesus couples the apostles with the Old Testament prophets, showing the continuity of God’s revelation in His chosen messengers and of Israel’s rejection of the prophets and the Messiah and His chosen messengers. The deity of Christ is clearly affirmed as His authority in sending forth His apostles is identical with the divine authority which had sent the prophets.
Jesus predicted the persecution and martyrdom the apostles and His other chosen messengers would receive at the hands of these unbelieving Jews. “That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation” (Luke 11:50). Instead of being warned by the disobedience of their parents and the dreadful fate which both the northern and the southern kingdoms had met, they deliberately rejected God’s Messiah and took upon themselves the iniquity of their fathers. As they now had the added advantage of seeing and hearing Christ and God’s final revelation, they heaped upon themselves the responsibility of the preceding generations for all the combined revelation and appeal they now faced. The reference obviously is to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, which would exceed in tragic suffering and in its finality anything in the old Testament.
Zachariah
“From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zachariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.” Abel is cited as the first of the prophets. Paul refers to the fact that Abel is still speaking out for God, even though he has been dead for so many centuries (Hebrews 11:4). The fragmentary nature of the accounts makes it difficult to be sure of the identity of the Zachariah to whom Jesus refers. It is natural to think of the prophet Zechariah, who carried on his ministry at the close of the Old Testament. This would make the sweep of history, Abel to Zechariah, complete. We do not know how Zechariah died, but we do know that it was the common fate of the prophets to be murdered in the most shocking manner. In His later use of this trenchant denunciation Jesus says, “Zachariah the son of Barachiah” (Matthew 23:35). The prophet Zechariah was the son of Barachiah. Some have pointed out that Josephus tells of Zechariah, son of Barachiah, who was killed in the temple by the Zealots at a later time than this, but Jesus is reviewing past history and not predicting a murder as yet not committed. From 2 Chronicles 24:20 we learn that Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, was slain thus between the altar and the sanctuary. Andrews suggests that Barachiah may have also had the name Jehoiada as it was a common practice for Jews to have two names, or that Barachiah may have been the father of Jehoiada and thus suggest that the name Barachiah in Matthew 23:35 is a scribal error and that it should be Jehoiada. The martyrdom of this Zechariah also occurred close to the end of the Old Testament period. A call for vengeance is recorded in the death of both Abel and this Zechariah: “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10); “Jehovah look upon it, and require it” (2 Chronicles 24:22). McGarvey favors the solution that it was the prophet to whom Jesus refers. The fact that the manner of his death is not known to us is of no moment. The reference of Jesus was clear to His hearers, and the general meaning is clear to us. The exact details of the reference are unimportant. The Key of Knowledge The climax of Jesus’ denunciation of the lawyers was the charge that they had taken away “the key of knowledge: ye enter not in yourselves, and them that are entering ye hindered” (Luke 11:52). By their lifelong study of the Scripture the lawyers possessed the key of knowledge, for God’s revelation opened the door to life everlasting. But in rejecting the Messiah, they were refusing to enter the door, and they even tried to prevent others from entering by their vicious attacks upon Christ. The key which opened the door to knowledge was the superior educational advantage they had over the common people. By exercising their leadership, they could help turn the whole nation to God. By their false interpretations of the law, their idea of a political Christ, their wicked lives, and by their selfish and proud contempt for the common people, they had taken away the key of knowledge.
“And when he came out from thence, the scribes and the Pharisees began to press upon him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things” (Luke 11:53). The banquet ended in a most exciting manner. The Pharisees in their fury followed Him out of the house and crowded around Him, seeking desperately something which they might use against Him. Their effort to assail Him for His failure to keep their traditions of ceremonial cleansing had brought forth such a searching presentation of their sins that they became like a fighter who loses his head and strikes out blindly in all directions. They sought to upset Jesus with all sorts of questions and traps. The character of Jesus’ denunciation and their bitterness at the close show how hypocritical and malicious had been the session planned by the Pharisee who had invited Him into his home.