Luke 17

Luke 17:1-2

Vers. 1 and 2. Offences.—“Then said He unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences (scandals) will come: but woe unto him through whom they come! 2. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. Take heed to yourselves.” The formula εἶπεδέ, then said He (aor.), has not the same weight as the ἔλεγεδέ, He was saying to them, the significance of which in Luke we have often remarked. It is the simple historical fact.—᾿Ανεκδεκτόν, inadmissible. The absence of offences is a supposition which cannot be admitted in the sinful state in which the world is plunged. The determining particle τοῦ is authentic. The form, (the) offences (τά), denotes the entire category of facts of this kind. The reading μύλοςὀνικός, a millstone moved by an ass, is undoubtedly borrowed from Matthew; we must adopt, with the Alex., λίθοςμυλικός, a millstone of smaller dimensions, moved by the hand (Luke 17:35). The punishment to which Luke 17:2 alludes was usual among many ancient peoples, and is so still in the East. The reading of several copies of the Itala, which is also found in Marcion, “It were better for him that he had never been born, or that a stone…,” arises, no doubt, from an ancient gloss taken from Matthew 26:24. This is confirmed by the fact that Clemens Romanus combines in his 1 Cor. 46 the two passages, Matthew 18:6-7 (parallel to ours) and Matthew 26:24. The little ones are beginners in the faith. The final warning, Take heed…, is occasioned, on the one hand, by the extreme facility of causing offence (Luke 17:1); on the other, by the terrible danger to which it exposes him who causes it (Luke 17:2). The lost soul, like an eternal burden, is bound to him who has dragged it into evil, and in turn drags him into the abyss. The same warning is found Matthew 18:6 and Mark 9:42. The offence which gave rise to it may be in this context, either that which the disciples had given one another in the strife which had taken place between them, or that which they had caused to the man in whom faith had just dawned (one of these little ones), and who was manifesting it by curing the possessed. Luke evidently did not know this connection; for he would not have failed to indicate it,—he who seeks out historical situations with so much care. Had he not, besides, himself mentioned those two facts (Luke 9:46-50), and might he not have connected this admonition with them as Mark does? Luke, therefore, did not possess this original Mark, which Holtzmann regards as one of his principal sources; otherwise he would not have detached this saying from the fact which gave rise to it. But the account given by Matthew and Mark proves the truth of Luke’s introduction, “He said unto the disciples,” and the accuracy of the document from which he derived this precept.

Luke 17:3-4

Vers. 3 and 4. The Pardon of Trespasses.—“If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. 4. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent, thou shalt forgive him.” Holiness and love meet together in this precept: holiness begins with rebuking; then, when the rebuke has once been taken, love pardons. The pardon to be granted to our brethren has no other limit than their repenting, and the confession by which it is expressed. Matthew (Matthew 18:15-22) places this precept in the same discourse as the preceding; it probably referred also to the altercation which had taken place between the disciples on that occasion. But there what gives rise to it is a characteristic question of Peter, which Luke did not know; otherwise he would not have omitted it; comp. Luke 12:41, where he carefully mentions a similar question put by the same apostle. Mark omits this precept about pardon; but at the end of the same discourse we find this remarkable exhortation (Mark 9:50): “Have salt in yourselves (use severity toward yourselves; comp. Luke 12:43-48), and have peace with one another,”—a saying which has substantially the same meaning as our precept on the subject of pardon. What a proof both of the radical authenticity of the sayings of Jesus and of the fragmentary manner in which tradition had preserved them, as well as of the diversity of the sources from which our evangelists derived them!

Luke 17:5-6

Vers. 5 and 6. Faith.—“And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith. 6. And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.” This request of the disciples must have been called forth by some manifestation of the extraordinary power of Jesus, with which Luke was unacquainted. The literal force of the word which the disciples use, “Add to our faith,” assumes that they think they have some. Jesus does not deny it; but He reduces this having to the feeblest imaginable quantity, since the smallest organic body is too large as an emblem of it. The only real power in the universe is the divine will. The human will, which has discovered the secret of blending with this force of forces, is raised, in virtue of this union, to omnipotence; and from the time it becomes conscious of this privilege, it acts without obstruction, even in the domain of nature, if the kingdom of God so requires. Perhaps the sycamine to which Jesus points is, in His view, the emblem of the kingdom of God, and the sea (here the shore, the pure sand) that of the heathen world, that, till now, barren soil in which, by the faith and the prayers of the disciples, the divine work is henceforth to be planted and to prosper. Matthew twice presents a saying similar to that of Luk 17:6, and both times in a definite situation; first, after the healing of the lunatic son, and in contrast to the apostles’ lack of faith (Luke 17:20-21). Only in the two cases it is a mountain which is to be cast into the sea. Mark, who in narrating the cursing of the fig-tree shows himself the most accurately informed, there reproduces this parable almost in the same way as Matthew; only he prefaces it with the words, “Have faith in God,” and connects with it an exhortation to pardon as the condition of prayer being heard. No doubt, owing to the proverbial character of this saying, it may have been frequently repeated. But there is a very remarkable dovetailing between Luke and the two others, Mark especially. Do not the words of Jesus in Mark, Have faith in God and…, perfectly explain the prayer of the apostles in Luke, Increase our faith?

Here, as at Luke 12:41 (comp. with Mark 13:37), the one evangelist has preserved one part of the conversation, the other another. With a common written source, is that intelligible? As to the admonition regarding pardon, which in Mark follows this exhortation to faith (Luke 11:24-25), it sustains to the question of Peter (Matthew 18:21), and the exhortation in Luke (Luke 17:3-4), a relation similar to that which we have just observed between Luke 12:41 and Mark 13:37. They are fragments of one whole, the grouping of which it is not difficult to restore.

Luke 17:7-10

Vers. 7-10. The Non-meritoriousness of Works.—“But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? 8. And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? 9. Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. 10. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.” This saying, which has no connection with what immediately precedes, does not the less admirably close this series of exhortations given by Jesus, which almost all relate to pharisaism; it is peculiar to Luke. A slave returns in the evening, after having laboured all day in the fields. Does the master give himself up to extraordinary demonstrations of pleasure? No; everything goes on in the house according to the established order. From the work of the day, the servant simply passes to that of the evening; he dresses the viands, and serves at table as long (ἕως, or better still, ἕωςἄν) as his master pleases to eat and drink. And only then may he himself take his meal.

So the most irreproachable of men must say to himself that he has done nothing but pay his debt to God; does not God on His side provide for all his wants? From the standpoint of right, they are quits on both sides. The word ἀχρεῖος, unprofitable, here signifies: one who has rendered no service (beyond what was due). This estimation of human work is true in the sphere of right where pharisaism plants itself, and it crushes this system in the dust by denying, along with all human merit, all obligation on God’s part to recompense man; and this estimate should remain that of every man when he values his work in the presence of God. But there is a sphere higher than that of right, that of love; and in this latter another labour on man’s part, that of joyful devotion, and another estimate on God’s part, that of the love which is rejoiced by love. Jesus has described this other point of view, Luke 12:36-37.

Holtzmann thinks it impossible that this exhortation should have been addressed to the disciples (Luke 17:1). But is not the pharisaic tendency ever ready to spring up again in the hearts of believers? and does it not cling like a gnawing worm to fidelity itself? The words: I trow not, are mistakenly rejected by the Alex. Perhaps the οὐδοκῶ has been confounded with the οὕτω which follows. How are we to explain the position of those four exhortations in our Gospel, and their juxtaposition, without any logical bond? According to Holtzmann, Luke is about to return to his great historical source, the proto-Mark, which he had left since Luke 9:51 to work the collection of discourses, the Logia (comp. Luke 18:15, where the narrative of Luke begins again to move parallel to that of the two others); and hence he inserts here by anticipation the two exhortations, Luke 17:1-4, which he borrows from this document (A); then he relates further (Luke 17:5-10) two sayings which he had forgotten, and which he takes from the Logia (Λ), which he is about to quit. But, 1. Why in this case should he not have put these last in the first place (which was the natural order, since all the preceding was taken from Λ), and the two first afterwards (which was not less natural, since Luke is about to return to A)? Besides, 2.

Has not the exegesis convinced us at every word that Luke certainly did not take all those sayings from the same written source as Mark and Matthew? The only explanation which can be given of the fragmentary character of this piece appears to us to be the following: Luke had up to this point related a series of exhortations given by Jesus, the occasion of which he was able to a certain extent to indicate; but he found some in his sources which were mentioned without any historical indication.

It is this remnant scrap at the bottom of the portfolio, if I may so speak, which he delivers to us as it was, and without any introduction. Hence follow two consequences: 1. Luke’s introductions in this part are not of his inventing. For why could not his ingenious mind have provided for these last exhortations as well as for all the preceding? A historical case like those of Luk 11:1; Luke 11:45, Luke 12:13; Luke 12:41, etc., was not difficult to imagine. 2. There is no better proof of the historical reality of the sayings of Jesus quoted in our Syn., than this fragmentary character which surprises us. Discourses which the disciples had put into the mouth of their Master would not have presented this broken appearance.

Luke 17:11-19

1. The Ten Lepers: Luke 17:11-19. Vers. 11-19. Luke 17:11, even in its construction, reminds us of Luk 9:51. The καὶαὐτός has here, as well as there, peculiar force. The caravans of Galilee took either the Samaritan route or the Peraean. Jesus follows neither; He makes one for Himself, the result of His deliberate wish, which is intermediate between the two,—a fact which seems to be expressed by the so marked resuming of the subject (καὶαὐτός). The phrase διὰμεσοῦ may signify in Greek: while travelling through both of those provinces, or while passing between them. Olshausen takes the first sense: he alleges that from Ephraim, whither Jesus retired after the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:54), He visited Galilee once more, thus traversing from south to north, first Samaria, and then Galilee. Gess (p. 74) also regards this return from Ephraim to Capernaum as probable. But the governed clause to Jerusalem would in this sense be real irony. The second sense is therefore the only possible one: Jesus was passing along the confines of the two provinces. This meaning is confirmed by the absence of the article before the two proper names: Samaria and Galilee. He directed His steps from west to east, toward the Jordan, which He must cross to enter Peraea,—a fact which harmonizes, as we have seen, with Matthew 19:1, Mark 10:1, and even John 10:40-42. Luke probably recalls here this general situation in view of the following narrative, in which we find a Samaritan leper mingling with Jewish lepers. Community of suffering had, in their case, broken down the national barrier. Less bold than the leper of chap. 6, those unhappy men kept at a distance, according to the law, Leviticus 13:46. The space which a leper was bound to keep between him and every other person is estimated by some at 4, by others at 100 cubits. The cry which they uttered with one voice on perceiving Jesus, draws His attention to the pitiable sight. Without even telling them of their cure, He bids them go and give thanks for it. There is a dash, as it were, of triumphant joy in this unexpected order. As they go (ἐντῷὑπάγειν), they observe the first symptoms of the cure which has been wrought.

Immediately one of them, seized with an irresistible emotion of gratitude, turns back, uttering aloud cries of joy and adoration; and arrived in the presence of Jesus, he prostrates himself at His feet in thanksgiving. The difference is to be observed between δοξάζειν, glorifying, applied to God, and εὐχαριστεῖν, giving thanks, applied to Jesus.

As He recognises him to be a Samaritan, Jesus feels to the quick the difference between those simple hearts, within which there yet vibrates the natural feeling of gratitude, and Jewish hearts, encrusted all over with pharisaic pride and ingratitude; and immediately, no doubt, the lot of His gospel in the world is presented to His mind. But He contents Himself with bringing into view the present contrast.—Εὑρέθησαν has not for its subject the participle ὑποστρέψαντες, taken substantively, but ἄλλοι understood. Bleek refers the last words: thy faith hath saved thee, to the physical cure which Jesus would confirm to the sufferer by leading him to develope that disposition of faith which has procured it for him. But have we not here rather a new blessing, of which Jesus gives special assurance to this leper? The faith of which Jesus speaks is not merely that which brought him at the first, but more still that which has brought him back. By this return he has sealed for ever the previous transitory connection which his cure had formed between Jesus and him; he recognises His word as the instrument of the miracle; he unites himself closely to the entire person of Him whose power only he had sought at the first. And thereby his physical cure is transformed into a moral cure, into salvation. Criticism suspects this narrative on account of its universalistic tendency. But if it had been invented with a didactic aim, would the lesson to be drawn from it have been so completely passed over in silence? We must in this case also suspect the healing of the Gentile centurion’s servant in Matthew; and that with more reason still, because Jesus insists on the general lesson to be derived from the event.

Luke 17:20-18

2. The Messiah’s Coming: Luke 17:20 to Luke 18:8. This piece embraces: 1 st. A question put by the Pharisees respecting the time of the appearance of the kingdom of God, and the answer of Jesus (Luke 17:20-21); 2 d. A discourse addressed by Jesus to His disciples on the same subject (Luke 17:22-37); 3 d. The parable of the unjust judge, which applies the subject treated practically to believers (Luke 18:1-8).

Luke 17:22-25

Vers. 22-25. “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. 23. And they shall say to you, See here! or, see there! go not after them, nor follow them. 24. For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in His day. 25. But first must He suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.” The course of thought is this: The kingdom, in the sense understood by the Pharisees, will not come immediately (Luke 17:22); and when it shall come, no uncertainty will be felt about His appearing (Luke 17:23-24). Luke 17:25 returns to the idea of Luk 17:22. ῾Ημέραι (Luke 17:22), days, long days, during which there will be time to sigh for the visible presence of the Master. Comp. Luke 5:35. The desire to see one of the days of the Son of man may refer either to the painful regret of the Church when she recalls the happiness enjoyed by her while He was present on the earth, or to her impatient waiting for some manifestation from on high announcing that the day is at length near. Substantially, the first meaning leads to the second, as regret does to desire; but the second idea is the dominant one, according to the context. When the apostles or their successors shall have passed a long time on the earth in the absence of their Lord, when they shall be at the end of their preaching and their apologetic demonstrations, and when around them scepticism, materialism, pantheism, and deism shall more and more gain the ascendency, then there shall be formed in their souls an ardent longing for that Lord who keeps silence and remains hid; they will call for some divine manifestation, a single one (μίαν), like that of the old days, to refresh their hearts and sustain the fainting Church.

But to the end, the task will be to walk by faith (οὐκὄψεσθε, ye shall not see). Need we be astonished if in such circumstances the faith of the great majority verges to extinction (Luke 18:8)? With this heightening of expectation among believers there will correspond the seducing appeals of falsehood (Luke 17:23). Literally taken, this verse is in contradiction to Luke 17:21. But Luke 17:21 related to the spiritual kingdom, whose coming cannot be observed or proclaimed, while the subject now in question is the visible kingdom, the appearing of which shall be falsely announced. Why shall those announcements be necessarily false? Luke 17:24 gives the explanation. Gess exhibits the application of this teaching, on the one hand, to the folly of the Romanists who will have no Church without a visible head, and, on the other, to that of Protestant sectaries who expect the appearing of the kingdom of God to-day in Palestine, tomorrow in Russia, etc. Ver. 24. The Lord’s coming will be universal and instantaneous. Men do not run here or there to see a flash of lightning: it shines simultaneously on all points of the horizon. So the Lord will appear at the same moment to the view of all living. His appearances as the Risen One in the upper room, when closed, are the prelude of this last advent. But if He is to return, He must go away, go away persecuted. This is the subject of Luk 17:25. This generation can designate no other than the Jewish contemporaries of the Messiah. A separation is about to supervene between Israel and its now present Messiah. And this rejection of the Messiah by His own people will be the signal for the invisibility of His kingdom. Comp. the antithesis Luke 13:35 (the faith of Israel bringing back the Messiah from heaven). How long will this abnormal state last? Jesus Himself knows not. But He declares that this epoch of His invisibility will terminate in an entirely materialistic state of things, Luke 17:26-30, which will be brought to an end suddenly by His advent.

Luke 17:26-30

Vers. 26-30. “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27. They did eat, they drank, they married, and were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark; and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28. Likewise also, as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29. But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.” While believers sigh with growing ardour for the return of their Lord, carnal security more or less complete takes possession of the race. It is an epoch like those which have preceded all the great catastrophes of history. The business of earthly life is carried through with regularity; but religious feeling gradually disappears from the heart of men who have become secularized. The days of Noe denote the 120 years during which the ark was a-building. ᾿Εξεγαμίζοντο strictly means, were given in marriage, that is to say, young daughters by their parents. The finite verbs ἤσθιον, ἔπινον (Luke 17:28), ἔβρεξε (Luke 17:29), are in apposition to ἐγένετο, and, as such, are still dependent on ὡς. The apodosis does not occur till Luke 17:30.

This form is analogous to the Hebrew construction which we have so often observed in Luke (ἐγένετο, with a finite verb for its subject). ῎Εβρεξε is generally regarded as active: God caused it to rain. Comp. Genesis 19:24, καὶκύριοςἔβρεξεν (Matthew 5:45). But as in this case the ἀπ᾿οὐρανοῦ would be pleonastic, and as βρέχω is found in Polybius and the later Greek authors in a neuter sense, it is more natural to adopt this sense here, by which we at the same time preserve the parallelism between ἀπώλεσεν (subject, πῦρκαὶθεῖον) and the ἀπώλεσεν, Luke 17:27 (subject, κατακλυσμός). The word ἀποκαλύπτεται supposes that Jesus is present, but that a veil conceals His person from the view of the world. All at once the veil is lifted, and the glorified Lord is visible to all. This term occurs again in the same sense, 1 Corinthians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:7; and perhaps 1 Corinthians 3:13. The point of comparison between this event and the examples quoted is the surprise caused in the bosom of security. Matthew 24:37-39 contains a passage parallel to Luke 17:26-27 (the example of Noe). The idea is the same; but the terms are so different, that they forbid us to assume that the two editions proceed from the same text.

Luke 17:31-37

Vers. 31-37. “In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. 32. Remember Lot’s wife. 33. Whosoever shall seek to save his life, shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life, shall preserve it. 34. I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36, 37. And they answered and said unto Him, Where, Lord? And He said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.” Here is the practical conclusion of the discourse. Jesus describes that disposition of mind which, in this last crisis, shall be the condition of salvation. The Lord passes with His heavenly retinue. He attracts all the inhabitants of the earth who are willing and ready to join Him; but it transpires in the twinkling of an eye. Whoever is not already loosened from earthly things, so as to haste away without hesitation, taking flight toward Him freely and joyously, remains behind. Thus precisely had Lot’s wife perished with the goods, from which she could not part.

Agreeably to His habitual method, Jesus characterizes this disposition of mind by a series of external acts, in which it is concretely realized. The Revue de Thιologie (passage quoted, p. 337) condemns Luke for here applying to the Parousia the counsel to flee, which has no meaning, except as applied to the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24). This accusation is false, for there is no mention of fleeing from one part of the earth to another, but of rising from the earth to the Lord, as He passes and disappears: “Let him not come down (from the roof); but, forgetting all that is in the house, let him be ready to follow the Lord!” So he who is in the fields is not to attempt to return home to carry upwards with him some object of value. The Lord is there; if any one belongs to Him, let him leave everything at once to accompany Him (Matthew 24:18 : the labourer should not even return to seek his dress, which he laid aside to work). This saying, especially in the form of Matthew, evidently referred to the Parousia, which shall come suddenly, and not to the destruction of Jerusalem, which will be preceded by an armed invasion and a long war. Luke’s context is therefore preferable to Matthew’s. Ver. 33. To save one’s life, by riveting it to some object with which it is identified, is the means of losing it, of being left behind with this perishing world; to give one’s life, by quitting everything at once, is the only means of saving it, by laying hold of the Lord who is passing. See on Luke 9:24. Jesus here substitutes for the phrase to save his life, the word ζωογονεῖν, literally, to give it birth alive. The word is that by which the LXX. express the Piel and Hiphil of ηָ ?ιָ ?δ, H2649, to live. Here it is having the natural life born again, that it may be reproduced in the form of spiritual, glorified, eternal life. The absolute sacrifice of the natural life is the means of this transformation. Here is a word of unfathomable depth and of daily application. At this time a selection will take place (Luke 17:34),—a selection which will instantaneously break all earthly relations, even the most intimate, and from which there will arise a new grouping of humanity in two new families or societies, the taken and the left. Λέγωὑμῖν, I tell you, announces something weighty. Bleek thinks, that as the subject under discussion is the return of the Lord as judge, to be taken is to perish, to be left is to escape. But the middle παραλαμβάνεσθαι, to take to one’s self, to welcome as one’s own, can only have a favourable meaning (John 14:3). And St. Paul certainly understood the word in this sense; for it is probably not without relation to this saying that he teaches, 1 Thessalonians 4:17, the taking up into the air of the believers who are alive at the return of Christ; it is the ascension of the disciples, as the complement of their Master’s. ᾿Αφιέναι, to forsake, to leave behind, as Luke 13:35. The image of Luk 17:34 supposes that the Parousia takes place at night.

Luke 17:35, on the contrary, supposes it happening during the day. It matters little. For one hemisphere it will be in the day; for the other, at night. The idea remains the same: whether he is sleeping, or whether he is working, man ought to be sufficiently disengaged to give himself over without delay to the Lord who draws him. Handmills were used among the ancients. When the millstone was large, two persons turned it together. Ver. 36, which is wanting in almost all the Mjj., is taken from the parallel passage in Matthew. Thus the beings who shall have been most closely connected here below, shall, in the twinkling of an eye, be parted for ever. The apostle’s question (Luke 17:37) is one of curiosity. Although Jesus had already answered it in Luke 17:24, He takes advantage of it to close the conversation by a declaration which applies it to the whole world. The natural phenomenon, described by Job 39:30, is used by Jesus to symbolize the universality of the judgment proclaimed. The carcase is humanity entirely secular, and destitute of the life of God (Luke 17:26-30; comp. Luke 9:60, Let the dead…). The eagles represent punishment alighting on such a society.

There is no allusion in this figure to the Roman standards, for there is no reference in the preceding discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem. Comp. also Matthew 24:28, where this saying applies exclusively to the Parousia. The eagle, properly so called, does not live in flocks, it is true, and does not feed on carrion. But ἀετός, as well as ‡ֶ ?πωֶׁ ?ψ, H5979, Proverbs 30:17, may (as Furrer shows, Bedeut. der Bibl. Geogr. p. 13) denote the great vulture (gyps fulvus), equal to the eagle in size and strength, which is seen in hundreds on the plain of Gennesareth. Some Fathers have applied the image of the body to Jesus glorified, and that of the eagles to the saints who shall accompany Him at His advent!