Luke 11

Luke 11:1

1. καθ. κ. Ἰω.…] Of this fact we know nothing beyond the allusion here.

Luke 11:2

2. ὅτανπρος., λέγ.…, more definite than οὕτωςπρος.… in Matt. On the prayer itself, see notes on Matthew 6:9-13. The clauses not found in the text could hardly by any possibility have been omitted by any, had they ever formed a part of it. Stier’s argument, that our text has not been conformed to Matt., because the doxology has never been inserted here, seems to me to tend in quite another direction: the doxology was inserted there, because that was the form in general liturgical use, and not here, because this form was never used liturgically.

Luke 11:3

3. τὸκαθʼ ἡμ.…] for that day’s need, or for that day, i.e. day by day. No substantive need be supplied after τό.

Luke 11:4

4. καὶγὰραὐτ.… expressed here more strongly than in Matt., as the plea for the exercise of the divine forgiveness to us,—‘for it is our own practice also to forgive:’ but notice, the difference—there is no ἁμαρτία here between man and man, only the ordinary business word of this world.

π. ὀφείλοντιἡμ.] This varied expression (see above) may serve to shew how far ‘Luke’s reporter’ (De Wette) was from misunderstanding the words of the Lord; that reporter, as Stier well observes, (Reden Jesu, iii. 126, edn. 2,) being no other than the Holy Spirit Himself, whose special guidance was promised in bringing to mind the things said by Jesus (John 14:26).

Luke 11:5

5. Now follows a parable on continuing instant in prayer, of the same nature as that in ch. Luke 18:2 ff. In both parables, the argument is ‘à fortiori:’ “if selfish man can be won by prayer and importunity to give, and unjust man to do right, much more certainly shall the bountiful Lord bestow, and the righteous Lord do justice.” Trench, Parables, in loc., who further remarks, that here intercessory prayer is the subject of the parable; there, personal. And, that we must remember that all reluctance on the part of God to answer our prayers is not real, but apparent only, and arises from deeper reasons working for our good: whereas the reluctance in these two parables is real, arising from selfishness and contempt of justice.

The interrogative form continues to σοι, Luke 11:7, ‘Who of you shall be in these supposed circumstances?’ λέγωὑμ.… κ.τ.λ.

Luke 11:6

6. παρ. ἐξὁδ.] In the East it was and is the custom to travel late at night, for coolness’ sake.

Why τρεῖςἄρτους, does not appear. I forbear to give the allegorical interpretations of the number, which abound: the significance of the things asked for, see below on Luke 11:13.

Luke 11:7

7. We have an interesting fragment of domestic life here given us. The door is ‘barred,’ not only ‘shut;’ there is the trouble of unbarring it; the father and children are in bed (εἰςτ. κ. εἰσ. ellipt. for ‘have gone εἰςτ. κ., and are ἐντῇκ.:’ see reff.); (observe how in all the parables which place the Father, or the Husband, before us, the Mother, or the Bride does not appear;) and he cannot (i.e. will not, cannot from being overcome by reluctance) rise and give to him.

Luke 11:8

8. ἀναίδεια is too mildly rendered by ‘importunity,’ E. V. It should be shamelessness. It is presupposed here that the postulant goes on knocking and asking.

Luke 11:9

9. What follows is in the closest connexion, and will not bear the idea that it is transferred here merely as being appropriate. The αἰτεῖν, ζητεῖν, κρούειν, all answer to the features of the parable.

Luke 11:10 declares to us not merely a result observable here among men, (in which sense it is not universally true,) but a great law of our Father’s spiritual Kingdom: a clause out of the eternal covenant, which cannot be changed.

Luke 11:11-13

11–13. Our Lord sets forth the certainty of our obtaining the Holy Spirit, (the unspeakable gift, in which all other δόματαἀγαθά are included,) from our Father, by another ‘à fortiori’ argument, drawn from the love of earthly parents, so far less careful and tenderly wise than He is over His children.

The construction, as before (Luke 11:5), is a mixed one: half interrogative, half hypothetical. For the rest, see notes on Matthew 7:7 ff. The egg and scorpion are added here. The serpent and scorpion are the positively mischievous: the samples, ch. Luke 10:19, of the δύναμιςτοῦἐχθροῦ:—the stone, that which is simply unfit for food. So that God’s answers to our prayers consist of neither useless nor mischievous things, but of His best gift—His Holy Spirit—in all the various and fitting manifestations of His guidance and consolation and teaching in our lives.

This is (because this takes of and imparts to us by leading us continually to Him who is) the ἄρτος of the parable;—the ‘paterfamilias’ is our Father in Heaven, with whom however the night is as the day, who never slumbers nor sleeps. It has been noticed how by the hungry traveller coming to the man, may be imported, in the depth of the parable, the awakening in a man’s own soul (which is so precious to him) of that hunger which he has nothing to satisfy, and which none but God can satisfy. The student may, as in the foregoing parable, follow out this clue for himself (provided it be done soberly) with much interest and profit.

Notice that when we address God (Matthew 6:9), He is ὁπατὴρὁἐντ. οὐρ.—when He answers us, He is ὁπατὴρὁἐξοὐρ. In the former case we go up into Him and His abode; in the latter He comes down to us. The construction is not (Meyer) ὁἐνοὐρανῷἐξοὐρ. δώσει: but the one so common in good Greek, ὁἐκΠελοποννήσουπόλεμος, denoting the quarter whence the influence implied in the substantive comes, which here is the result of that relation implied in πατήρ.

Luke 11:14

14. κωφόν—and blind, Matthew 12:22, where see notes on all the common matter.

Luke 11:15

15. τινὲςἐξαὐτ.] No inference can here be drawn that these persons were not Pharisees (as Greswell has done), and consequently that the charge proceeded from a different quarter.

Luke 11:16

16. This is not mentioned here by Matt., but further on in the discourse, Luke 11:38. No distinction (Gresw.) can be drawn between σημ. and σημ. ἐξοὐρ., for (1) our Lord answers the demand in both places by the same reply, the sign of Jonas,—see also Matthew 16:1-4; and (2) the ordinary Jewish idea attached to σημ. would imply ἐξοὐρ.,—see notes on Matthew 16:1.

Luke 11:17

17. εἰδώς] So Matt. also, Luke 11:25.

οἶκ. ἐπὶοἶκ.] The ordinary rendering and house (divided) against house, falleth, is certainly right. Before Meyer charged this interpretation with having entirely arisen out of harmonistic considerations, he should have ascertained whether such an expression as a kingdom falling οἶκοςἐπὶοἶκον is even tolerable. The ruling idea of the saying having been given by the βασ. ἐφʼ ἑαυτήν, the emphatic pronoun need not be expressed again. Similarly we have, 1 Corinthians 2:11, τίςοἶδενἀνθρώπωντὰτοῦἀνθρώπου, εἰμὴτὸπν. τοῦἀνθρώτουτὸἐναὐτῷ; the ὁἄνθρ. being the same throughout.

Luke 11:20

20. ἐνδακτύλῳθ. = ἐνπνεύματιθ. Matt. No distinction can be established, as Gresw. attempts. The one expression explains the other. What was done (Hebraistically speaking) by the finger of God, was done by the Spirit of God. We have much greater variations than this in sayings demonstrably the same. And as to what the same author maintains about the relative magnitude of the works of the finger, hand, and arm of God, a reference to ref. Ps., where the heavens are ‘the works of Thy fingers,’ will sufficiently shew how little reliance is to be placed on such subtleties.

Luke 11:21

21. This parabolic sentence is in close connexion with many prophetic sayings, Isaiah 40:10 mar[85]; Isaiah 53:12, and most pointedly Isaiah 49:24-25. It will be remembered that the Baptist called the Lord by this name, ὁἰσχυρότερος—placing after it, it is true, μου, but still using it as indicative of the Almightiness of the Son of God, rather than in comparison with himself.

[85] Margin. ‘marg-eccles’ denotes that the reading cited is given on the margin as an alteration to be made in reading the passage in church, e.g. the name of our Lord, where the pronoun would otherwise stand at the beginning of a ‘Gospel for the day.’

The ἰσχυρός is the adversary, Satan; his αὐλή, this present world,—John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11. His goods, or tools, or spoils,—τὰὑπάρχοντα = τὰσκεύη = τὰσκῦλα,—are the sons of men,—2 Timothy 2:26; 1 John 5:19 (Greek). With these is he clothed and armed, or rather with their evil capacities, which he furbishes and brightens for his use: with the πανοπλίατοῦδιαβόλου, compare by way of contrast, the πανοπλίατοῦθεοῦ, Ephesians 6:11-20. Without these arms and tools he would be powerless: the evil one must have evil men—something receptive of evil—to work upon. But these the ἰσχυρότερος takes from him, and divides his spoils, Isaiah 53:12. He divides his spoils—turns to His own use and that of His followers all that good which the enemy had corrupted into evil.

The Stronger had already come into the strong man’s house—the Saviour, into the world—and was robbing him of his captives, and making them into His own disciples—e.g. Mary Magdalene and others: but the work was not fully completed yet, till the Lord, by and in His death, overcame him that had the power of death, i.e. the devil. And that His great victory is still proceeding;—He is still taking from him one and another,—rescuing the sons of men by the power of His gospel, till the end, when He shall (Revelation 20:1 ff.) bind him in the abyss; and though he be loosed for the final conflict by His sufferance, shall cast him overthrown into the lake of fire for ever. Revelation 20:14.

Luke 11:23

23. See on Matthew 12:30.

Luke 11:24-26

24–26. See on Matthew 12:43.

Luke 11:27-28

27, 28. This little but most instructive incident, here interposed, serves to shew the originality of Luke’s account, and that, whatever its position may be, it is itself of the highest authority. The woman apparently was influenced by nothing but common-place and unintelligent wonder at the sayings and doings of Jesus:—and she broke out, with true womanly feeling, into a blessing of the mother who bare such a wonderful Teacher. Such seems to be the account of the incident itself.

Our Lord’s reply is indeed wonderful:—(1) In reproof. He corrects in her the un-apprehensiveness of his word, which had caused her to go no further into the meaning of it than this ordinary eulogy imported,—and gives her an admonition how to profit better by it in future.

(2) In humility. He disclaims all this kind of admiration for his humanity: and says not ‘my word,’ but the word of God, which is in fact the same, but takes the view off from Him in his abasement, unto the Father who sent Him.

(3) In truth. He does not deny the honour hereby pronounced upon his mother, but beautifully turns it to its true side—viz. that which was given her long since—μακαρίαἡπιστεύσασα, ch. Luke 1:45.

Her blessedness consisted not so much in being His mother, as in her lowly and faithful observance of the word of the Lord spoken to her: see ch. Luke 2:19; Luke 2:51. Nor again does He deny that to have borne Him was an honour—μὲνοὖν is ‘imo vero’—‘yes, indeed, but.’

(4) In prophetic discernment. It will be seen that this answer cuts at the root of all Mariolatry, and shews us in what the true honour of that holy woman consisted,—in faith and obedience. As the mother of the Lord, she represents our human race, unto whom a child is born, a son is given; no individual exclusive honour is due to her, any more than to Cornelius, who was singled out from the Gentile world, and honoured by an angelic message relative to the divine purposes:—if she were, as there is every reason to conclude she was, a believer in her Son, the Son of man, she bore Christ in a far higher and more blessed sense than by being His mother in His humanity. And this honour may all believers in Him partake of with her; therefore the Lord says not ἡἀκούουσατ. λ.… but οἱἀκούοντες. The last and boldest perversion of these words of our Lord by Father Newman, viz. that He thus does but still further exalt her honour, in that, besides being His mother, she heard His word, and kept it, need only be mentioned, to shew the follies to which able men are abandoned, who once desert truth and simplicity.

Luke 11:29

29. This is now in answer to those who sought of Him a sign from Heaven.

τῶνὄχλ. ἐπαθρ.… perhaps in expectation, as He paused in His discourse, that the sign was now about to be shewn:—see notes on Matt. for the main subject.

Here we have one part of the sign of Jonas brought out, which is not touched on in Matt., viz. his preaching after his resurrection to the Ninevites, announcing—for that would necessarily be involved in that preaching—the wonderful judgment of God in bringing him there,—and thus making his own deliverance, that he might preach to them, a sign to that people; which sign (Luke 11:32) they received, and repented;—but a greater than Jonas, shewing and preaching a greater sign by far, this generation shall reject.

Luke 11:32

32. πλεῖονἸωνᾶ] Not ‘a greater than Jonas,’ or ‘than Solomon:’ but Jonah = the sign of Jonah,—so that πλεῖον is He who is the sign to this generation:—a sign, πλεῖον, both in its actuality, its significance, and its consequences. The order, here, seems to be for the sake of climax;—for the undervaluing and not appreciating His wisdom, will not lie so heavy on them in the judgment, as the rejection of His preaching of repentance.

Luke 11:33

33. κρύπτην (for so it should be accentuated), a crypt, or covered passage; τὴνἀπόκρυφονοἰκίαν, Euthym[86] Athenæus, ver. 205, describing a splendid ship built by Ptolemy Philopator, speaks of a κρύπτηφραγμοῖςκαὶθυρίσιπεριεχομένηπάντοθεν.

[86] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

Luke 11:35

35. σκόπει … μὴ …, take heed, lest …, and the ἐστιν, more forcible than ᾖ, implies the actual existence, in the hearers, of the state against which they are cautioned:—σκόπειμὴὁνοῦςὁφωταγωγὸςτῆςψυχῆςσουσκοτισθῇὑπὸτῶνπαθῶν, Euthym[87]

[87] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

Luke 11:36

36. “Tautological: the second member contains the same assertion as the first.” (De Wette.)—Let us examine this. ‘When thine eye is single (Luke 11:34),—i.e. simple,—straight and single-seeing,—thy whole body will be light.’ Then (Luke 11:36),—‘if this be so,—if thy whole body be light, having no part dark,—then it shall all be light as when a lamp with its brightness illuminates thee.’ Of what is our Lord speaking? Of His teaching, as apprehended by the simple, single-seeing soul. If then the soul be so,—having no part darkened by prejudice or selfish lusts, and approach thus to His teaching, it shall be wholly illuminated by it, as by the candle of the Lord, searching its inward parts. So this saying, which, even as it stands, is not tautological,—for the second clause expresses the further result and waxing onward of the shining light, arising from the singleness of the eye,—becomes, in its spiritual significance, a weighty declaration of truth, answering to ch. Luke 8:15:—see also John 8:12.

Luke 11:37

37. ἀριστήσῃ, the morning meal.

εἰσελθ. δὲἀνέπεσεν, i.e. without any delay; as soon as He had entered, He sat down.

Luke 11:38

38. The expression of this wonder is not stated, but is probable. Our Lord would hardly have so suddenly begun, ὑμεῖςοἱΦ., unless something had been said, to which by assent they were parties. See His proceeding when nothing was said,—ch. Luke 7:39-40.

ἐβαπτ.…] This use of the word shews that it did not imply necessarily immersion of the whole body;—for it was only the hands which the Pharisees washed before meat.

Luke 11:39

39. There is not the least improbability or incongruity in our Lord’s having thus spoken as a guest at a meal (as Strauss, Schleiermacher, De Wette, &c., maintain);—His solemn work of reproof and teaching was never suspended out of mere compliment,—nor were the intentions of the Pharisees towards Him so friendly as these invitations seem to imply. They were given mostly from deference to popular opinion, and from no love to Him;—sometimes even with a directly hostile object. See Luke 11:53-54, and compare also ch. Luke 7:44-46. Observe also, that the severest parts of the discourse in Matt. (Luke 11:13-22; Luke 11:33) were not uttered on this occasion.

νῦν, i.e. as instanced by your present conduct—Here is an instance of your, &c.

τοῦποτ. κ. τ. πίν.] Understand, ‘in the proverb’—or perhaps the application is left to be enthymematically filled up, for the next clause presupposes it.

τὸἔξωθεν and τὸἔσωθεν of a man, are not the outside and inside of the body—but the outside apparent conduct, and the inner unseen motives.

Some difficulty has been found in the parallelism of τὸἔξωθεντοῦποτηρίουκ. πίνακος, and τὸἔσωθενὑμῶν: and a proposal has been made (to which I am surprised to see Bleek giving his adhesion) to take ὑμῶν with what follows: “the inside (of the cup and platter) is full of your plunder and wickedness.” But surely all verisimilitude is against this, as well as the emphatic position thus given to ὑμῶν. The simple fact is, that the parable and its interpretation are intermixed throughout the whole, the mind of the hearer being left to find its own way in allotting each its part.

Luke 11:40 seems clearly to me to be a question, and to mean, as E. V., Did not He, who made the outside, make the inside also?—i.e. if His works have become unclean and polluted through sin, what is the use of only partially purging them,—not accomplishing the purgation?—must not the cleansing, to be good for any thing, extend to the whole?

The making ὁποιήσας to mean, ‘he who has cleansed,’ and a negative, instead of an interrogative sentence—‘ye fools, he who has cleansed the outside has not cleansed the inside also’—gives, especially as the same was more strongly implied in Luke 11:39, the most frigid sense imaginable; and I can only (still, after his second edition) wonder that Stier, after Kuinoel and others, should have adopted it.

Luke 11:41

41. Here again I am compelled entirely to differ from Stier, who, with Erasmus, Lightfoot, Kuinoel, Schleiermacher, &c., understands this as ironical—‘but ye give alms of their contents, and behold, all things are clean (in your estimation) to you.’ But (1) this is inconsistent with the imperative δότε. (2) It would require ἐκτῶνἐνότων, for the Pharisees did not give τὰἐνόντα in this sense. (3) It would be altogether irrelevant to the matter in hand, which was reproof to the Pharisees for their care about outward cleanliness, when the inside was left unclean. (4) It would be inconsistent with the emphatic position of τὰἐνόντα, which are thus pointed out as the true material, out of which to give alms. It would be altogether contrary to our Lord’s usual habit of speaking about giving alms, to make Him cast a slur on it, as this would do: see Mark 10:21; ch. Luke 12:33, where the expression is very similar to this.

The command is a rebuke for their covetousness (see ch. Luke 16:14), which follows in close connexion with ἁρπαγή and πονηρία, Luke 11:39. The τὰἐνόντα are the contents of the vessel, which vessel (Luke 11:39: see note above) is ὑμεῖς: = therefore, in its meaning, the τὰὑπάρχοντα of ch. Luke 12:33,—and the πάντακαθαράἐστιν answers to the θησαυρὸςἐνοὐρανῷ of that verse, the result of which is the καρδίαἐνοὐρανῷ: and such persons being καθαροὶτῇκαρδίᾳ,—to them, as τοῖςκαθαροῖς, πάντακαθαρά (Titus 1:15).

Luke 11:42

42. But woe unto you, for ye do not this,—but make the most trifling payments, &c. The connexion, which is thus so close, is quite destroyed by the ironical interpretation of Luk 11:41. See note on Matthew 23:23.

Luke 11:43

43. Matthew 23:6-7. There doubtless was ample illustration of this at the time and place when it was spoken.

Luke 11:44

44. See Matthew 23:27;—but here the point of comparison is different. There (see note) the sepulchres are whited, that men may not pass over them unawares: and the comparison is to the outside fairness, and inside abomination. Here, the graves are not seen, and men thinking they are walking on clean ground are defiled by passing over them. Perhaps the difference of expression may have been occasioned by the greater wealth and splendour and display of the Pharisees in the metropolis, where Matthew 23 was spoken.

οἱἄνθρ. οἱπερ. ἐπ., the men who walk over them …; οἱἄνθρ. περ. ἐπ., men, when they walk over them.

Luke 11:45

45. This man appears to have been not a common Pharisee merely, but besides, a νομικός, whose duty it especially was to interpret the law. Perhaps he found himself involved in the censure of Luk 11:42; or generally among the other Pharisees.

Luke 11:46

46. See on Matthew 23:4.

Luke 11:47

47. See on Matthew 23:29-32.

Luke 11:48

48. See on Matthew 23:34-36.

We have here a remarkable variation of expression in Luke 11:49, ἡσοφίατοῦθεοῦεἶπεν here = ἐγώ Matt. Various explanations have been given of this. The difficulty is not the variation just noticed, so much as that no such passage exists in the O.T. But I have little doubt that the true explanation is this:—the whole saying is a reference to 2 Chronicles 24:18-22, and so marked a one, that I am surprised no Commentators but Olshausen and Stier should have observed it, and they not thoroughly. That passage opens with remarks of the sacred historian on the delinquency of Judah and Jerusalem after the death of Jehoiada the priest: then Luke 11:19, ‘He sent prophets to them, to bring them again to the Lord; and they testified against them: but they would not give ear. And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them.… And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the Lord.… And when he died, he said, The Lord look upon it, and require it.’ The words in our text are not indeed a citation, but an amplification of Luk 11:19 there—a paraphrase of them, giving the true sense of what the wisdom of God intended by them;—enlarging the mere historical notice which laid hold of God’s purpose only by one thread let down to the earth, into the divine revelation of the whole purpose of God as the counsel of His will in heaven. In Matt. the Lord Jesus Himself, as became the solemnity of that final and awful close of His testimony to His own who received Him not, stands forth as the doer of this work, the sender of the Prophets and Apostles. (On ‘son of Barachias’ see on Matthew 23:35.)

Perhaps the strangest solution of the difficulty above noticed is that of Meyer (second ed.), who supposes the words to have been inserted here from Matthew, and introduced as a quotation by ἡσοφ. τ. θ. εἶπεν, which Luke puts into the mouth of Jesus Himself, lasst hier Jesum selbst reden.

Bleek attributes the fact of our Lord having made this event the terminus historicus of their murders of the prophets to the position of the books of Chronicles at the end of the Hebrew Canon: and uses it as a proof that they then held the same place as now.

Luke 11:52

52. ἤρ. τὴνκλ. τῆςγν. = κλείετετὴνβασ. τ. οὐ. ἔμπροσθεντ. ἀνθ. Matthew 23:14, which words are the best explanation of our text:—the key of knowledge (i.e. not of, as admitting to, knowledge—but the key is the knowledge), being that right understanding of the Law and Prophets, which should shew Him to the people, of whom they testified; this the expounders of Scripture had taken away, neither themselves entering, nor permitting those to enter who were otherwise doing so,—and thus shutting the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces.

Luke 11:53

53. ἐνέχ. (αὐτῷ understood, see reff.) to press vehemently upon Him with a hostile view; a sense confined apparently to N.T. and LXX.

ἀποστ.] ἀποστοματίζεινφασὶτὸνδιδάσκαλον, ὅτανκελεύειτὸνπαῖδαλέγεινἄτταἀπὸστόματος. Suidas. So it will mean, to examine Him,—to question Him,—especially, we may suppose, on such things as would require answers out of, or expository of, the Law, as they catechized in schools.

Luke 11:54

54. ἐνεδρ. αὐτόν] The accus. is Hellenistic, instead of the usual dative: so ἐνήδρευσαντὰςπαρθένους, Jos. Antt. ver 2, 12.