Luke 10

CHAPTER X

Luke 10:1

1 Now after these things the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them forth by twos before his face into every city and place where he himself was about to go.

“After these things” can hardly refer only to the last three cases mentioned in 9:57–62, the outcome of all of which is not recorded, but must go back to 9:51, etc., the start on the last journey to Jerusalem. Compare also 17:11. Luke again (7:13) uses ὁΚύριος as his designation for Jesus. We see what a following of disciples Jesus had accumulated when he now sends “seventy others,” i. e., besides the Twelve (9:1, 2), on a special mission. A few texts read “seventy and two,” and both numbers have been regarded as being symbolical, but we pass this by as not being sufficiently established. We take it that he commissioned thirty-five pairs (ἀνά distributive) because he wanted the work done quickly.

Jesus sent these men as advance messengers along the route he intended to follow, certainly not into Samaria but along the border of southern Galilee and down along the eastern side of the Jordan through Perea. This was new territory “where he himself was about to come” (ἔμελλε with the infinitive, a progressive imperfect, R. 884).

Luke 10:2

2 Moreover, he went on to say to them (the imperfect as in 7:3): The harvest great, but the workers few. Beg, therefore, of the Lord of the harvest that he throw out workers into his harvest.

Jesus made the same statement in Matt. 9:37, but the occasion is now different. He first states the two great facts: “the harvest great—the workers few.” The beautiful balance of μέν and δέ cannot be reproduced in English; “truly” and “but” in the A. V. is too coarse. Jesus does not say, “The field is large,” i. e., to till and to sow. His vision regards only the harvest. We should keep to the tertium comparationis and not wander off into sowing, cultivating, and producing the harvest. The harvest has already been produced—Jesus sees it.

Strange how “the harvest” is misunderstood. Some think that it refers to all the multitudes that Jesus saw coming to him; but many of these people would not be gathered into the heavenly garner. The great missionary authority G. Warneck sees the harvest through synergistic eyes as do other modern German scholars: the seekers after God, and they think that even among the heathen there is a “better” class of men. Yet all are equally lost, and by nature none seek after God. He is found by them that sought him not, Isa. 65:1; Rom. 10:20; compare John 6:44.

Others think of the gathering of the new congregation from the scattered old congregation, namely its receptive members. But the harvest is the sheep whom the Lord knows, including also “the other sheep,” John 10:14, etc. “The Lord knoweth them that are his,” 2 Tim. 2:19. By the harvest Jesus means all those in whom the work of God’s grace succeeds. And this harvest is πολύς, “much” or abundant. The number of those that will be saved is large. Like a great, ripe field of grain they stand before the eyes of Jesus and need only to be gathered in.

That is why he speaks of “the workers.” Thus far Jesus alone had been working at bringing in the harvest, the Twelve had been sent out only for a short time (9:1, 2), and now the Seventy were going out only on a brief preparatory tour. How small this number considering Palestine alone! The remarkable thing is the asking of the Seventy to be concerned about this paucity of workers, and that in a significant way: “beg the Lord of the harvest to throw out workers into his harvest.” God is “the Lord of the harvest,” its Κύριος, not only the owner but the one who also controls the entire management of the harvest. God has put this harvest and its ingathering into Jesus’ hands. It is his great mission to bring in this harvest. That explains all that he has already done and all he will yet do, including his atoning death and resurrection.

Without him the harvest could not be brought in at all. That is why he recently sent out the Twelve and is now sending out the Seventy, and they are not only themselves to work but to see the need of more workers and to pray for them.

Verbs of praying are construed with ὅπως, which has not yet been crowded out by ἵνα, B.-D. 392, I; R. 995. It is unwarranted to argue that since the Lord of the harvest owns it as he does he will naturally, of his own accord, see to it that it will be brought in. We may be sure that he will do so even without our prayer as Luther remarks on the Second Petition of the Lord’s Prayer. Our prayers do not save the harvest or a part of it. Our prayers join God’s concern for the harvest, make us of one mind, heart, and will with him, partners of Jesus himself.

The matter lies much deeper than rationalizing thoughts are able to penetrate. Jesus does not tell the Seventy to go out and to get workers. This mistake has often been made, and workers are brought in that God never called. The harvest is God’s, and he must provide the workers, ἐκβάλλεινεἰς, “throw them out into the harvest,” i. e., hurry them out. All that we are to do is “to beg” this of God, and we know that this is his will, and he will hear our request. He is the one who will in his own way find and send out the workers.

The wonder will always be that God, the primal cause, uses us and our prayers, the secondary causes, and does not discard them. The secret of this conjunction lies in the infinite grace of the divine will which unites him and us through Jesus. When one note is struck, the other responds, keyed, as they are, to one tone. What a blessed relation between the workers in the harvest and the Lord of the harvest!

Luke 10:3

3 Be going! Lo, I myself am sending you forth as lambs in the midst of wolves.

In Matt. 10:16 the same thing was said to the Twelve, but here we have “lambs” instead of “sheep,” which intensifies the thought. The interjection “lo” marks the surprising nature of what Jesus says. Who would think of sending lambs among wolves? How long would they last? But this is what I (emphatic ἐγώ) am doing, Jesus says. Therefore, go and dismiss all fear and keep me in mind!

This statement is an implied promise that he will protect and preserve these lambs from the wolves. Ἐνμέσῳ is really a compound preposition (R. 648) and is often written as one word: “among.” The idea is not: “into the midst of wolves” but: “as already among wolves.” “As lambs” characterizes the Seventy. They have lost all viciousness that is due to sin and wickedness. “Wolves” characterizes the world of men as being viciously wicked because they are filled and animated by sin. The combination of the two comparisons adds the idea of the helplessness of the Seventy among wicked men. As lambs they have no defense against wolves. But this only shows what lies in ἐγώ—Jesus is their protector. The verb ἀποστέλλω, from which “apostle” is derived, is more significant than πέμπω, “to send”; it means to send as a representative, “to commission.” The verb itself implies that Jesus could not possibly abandon them, and that all they do is the act of Jesus done through them.

Luke 10:4

4 Do not carry a purse nor a pouch nor sandals; and salute no one along the road.

By forbidding the taking of a βαλάντιον, “money-bag,” Jesus wants them to take no money along where with to buy provisions and necessities; by permitting no πήρα or “pouch” he wants them to carry no provisions, etc. The idea that the word means “a beggar’s bag” such as mendicant monks carry is shut out by the context and by all that is related concerning Jesus and his disciples: they never begged, nor were the Jewish rabbis mendicants. “Nor sandals” does not mean that they are to go barefoot; they are to carry no extra pair of sandals but are to go as they are with such sandals as they have on. Nothing is said about other clothing, but the statement regarding the sandals applies also to that: no extra tunic, turban, staff, etc. There was to be no outfitting at all.

This does not involve special hardship but the dismissal of all care about bodily needs. He who sends them out will provide for them in all respects. They are to learn complete trust (Luke 22:35) and are thus to experience the happiness and the contentment that go with such trust. As they trust his doctrine, so they are to trust his word as to their sustenance. The order not to salute anyone on the road only sounds like impoliteness, and any such idea is at once removed by v. 5 The assumption that Jesus gave this order because the Oriental greetings were so elaborate is hardly correct. They were the introduction to conversations and thus to delay on the road.

It is this that Jesus wanted to obviate, for which reason he also sent out so many. The work was to be done with promptness because the time was short.

Luke 10:5

5 Into whatever house you enter say first, Peace to this house! And if a son of peace be there, your peace will rest upon him; but if not, it will come back upon you. Moreover, in that house stay on, eating and drinking the things from them; for worthy the worker of his pay. Do not be changing from house to house.

The idea is not that any two of these messengers would enter any house in a town or village at random or without invitation; Matt. 10:11 corrects that idea as regards the Twelve. When they are preaching in a place, some person would extend the two men an invitation. Now, on entering any such house their orders are, first of all, to say, “Peace to this house!” But the fact that this is not the ordinary greeting current among the Jews ought to be apparent from what follows. Jesus refers to a greeting from them as apostles and bearers of his own divine peace. By their greeting they are to extend this peace as Jesus himself did in John 20:19. This peace is an objective gift, the peace wrought by the gospel, which makes God our friend and us his children so that all is well with us.

It is to be a permanent possession. And from it the subjective feeling and enjoyment of peace are to flow. This feeling may fluctuate, but its source is permanent, and the feeling can thus be renewed again and again.

Luke 10:6

6 Hence Jesus speaks about the remaining of this peace and also of its return to the messengers who extend it. This would be incomprehensible if Jesus referred only to the common Oriental greeting. That greeting was “peace to you,” shalom leqa, like our “good day,” a mere polite formula, whereas Jesus says it shall be: “Peace to this house!” the very form indicating that much more is meant. “If a son of peace be there,” one who truly desires this peace that Jesus offers through his messengers, “your peace will rest upon him.” We see that Jesus speaks of this peace as being something objective, “yours” because you bring it. It cannot stay where it is not desired; hence, “but if not (εἰδὲμήγε, a fixed formula, R. 1025), it will return to you” like an object that is refused and handed back to the givers for them to take elsewhere. All this could not happen in the case of a mere polite greeting.

The messengers may get an invitation from some homeowner who, after all, cares nothing for the real gift which they have to bring him, the peace of the kingdom (v. 9). “A son of peace” has the qualitative genitive in the sense that peace, true peace with God, is his desire which has been wrought in him by the Old Testament promises or by the preaching of the messengers on their arrival. In the future passive form ἐπαναπαύσεται the passive idea is uncertain (R. 334) so that we may translate “will rest.” Jesus is speaking of the head of the house, the man who owns the home and thus decides who shall be its guests. It is unnecessary to complicate the matter by bringing in other members of the family who may possibly be sons of peace.

Luke 10:7

7 This should be plain from the further order that the messengers are to go on staying “in that house,” αὐτῇ demonstrative, R. 709. Only in a house where the housefather, who invited them, is “a son of peace” are the messengers to make their headquarters for the brief time of their stay; if he cares nothing for this peace, which will soon show itself, they are to seek some other house (Matt. 10:11). “Eating and drinking the things from them” (their resources, R. 615) means that they are to be content with whatever food and drink is set before them.

Whether the house be poor or rich, they are entitled to what is offered, “for the worker is worthy of his pay.” In “the worker” we have the representative singular, R. 408. And ἄξιος has the idea of equal weight; the work he does and the pay (μισθός, not reward) he receives balance the scales. This saying is proverbial and admittedly true and is thus applicable in many cases, 1 Tim. 5:18. The thing that Jesus forbids is that they keep going from house to house, hunting out the best quarters, casting reproach on their Lord and his message.

Luke 10:8

8 And into whatever city you come and they receive you, be eating the things placed before you; and go on healing the sick in it and say to them, Near has come on you the kingdom of God.

It was not necessary to say that the messengers were to leave the house in which their peace of necessity returned to them; this was understood. When Jesus now speaks of whatever city they may come to and tells his disciples to eat whatever is set before them (the present participle to indicate repetition), we see at once that he is not repeating the injunction given in v. 7 in regard to food. In v. 7 he refers to whatever the people can afford even when they are poor; here to whatever is placed before them in such a city. Most of the cities on their itinerary had a heavily mixed population, Jews and Gentiles lived together. In these places there might often enough be doubt as to the Levitical cleanness of the food even in Jewish houses. The messengers are not to hesitate in regard to eating the food that is served them, much less to refuse it.

Any rabbinical scruples on that score are to be completely set aside. Their work is not to be hindered by anything that is so worthless.

Luke 10:9

9 They are to proceed with their great work, which is briefly summarized. First of all, they are to heal the sick, these miraculous healings being the credentials of their divine message. And the sum of their gospel message is to be: “Near has come (and thus present is now) upon you (as coming from heaven itself) the kingdom of God” (see 1:33, his rule of grace and salvation in Jesus). To be sure, they were to say much more even as the Baptist and as Jesus did when they proclaimed the same theme (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). The message meant that all who heard should accept this rule of grace and allow it to bless their souls for time and for eternity even as its powers blessed the bodily sick by instantaneous healing.

Luke 10:10

10 But into whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, having gone out into its broad streets, declare: Even the dust that stuck to us from your city on the feet we are wiping off against you. Nevertheless, continue to realize this, that there has come near the kingdom of God.

It may happen that, on entering a city and delivering their message there, the entire population may prove hostile and turn against them. The Lord gives them directions as to how to proceed in such a case. They are to go out into the wide thoroughfares (εἰςτὰςπλατείας, supply ὁδούς), not only into one but into several, where the greatest number of people will hear them, and are to make a declaration, ἐίπατε, aorist to indicate a single statement. This shall be the same as the one mentioned in 9:5 which is here worded with more fulness.

Luke 10:11

11 Καί means that they will take nothing from that city with them, not “even” the friendly dust that stuck to them from walking through the streets of the city and adhered to their feet. Right before the people they are to say, “We are shaking it off for you,” i. e., dative of disadvantage, “against you.” Why? So that this dust may testify that we, messengers of the kingdom and of its rule of grace and salvation, were here and had to leave you because you refused us and our message. See 9:5 on the wrong interpretations.

When it is used as a conjunction πλήν is always adversative, R. 1187: “nevertheless.” Here it means that in spite of this shaking off of the dust against the inhabitants they are to keep realizing that the greatest grace has come near, the kingdom of God itself, and some may perhaps realize this so as to regret their present action and to accept that kingdom. They are thus to leave with a final kind word. And this very word may produce its salutary effect. The observation is correct that ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς could not be added here as it was in v. 9. The kingdom had come near, and that is all; they were as far from it as it was from them.

Luke 10:12

12 I say to you, that for Sodom in that day it shall be more endurable than for that city.

It is thus that Jesus backs up his messengers. “I say to you” is the voice of divine authority. As he says, so it will be, for he will make it so. Ἀνεκτότερον (from ἀνέχομαι, “to hold up,” “to endure”) refers to the lighter penalty given “in that day,” the last day, the final judgment. Sodom (and Gomorrah, Matt. 10:15) is a type of extreme wickedness and at the same time a preliminary example of the final judgment itself (like the Flood and the destruction of Jerusalem). Great as its guilt was, the guilt of those who reject Jesus’ messengers and refuse the kingdom is greater, and their final punishment will be harder to bear. To lie in sin and thus to perish is bad; to lie in sin and in addition to reject grace and thus to perish is worse. The fact that this saying of Jesus involves the resurrection should not be questioned.

Hell contains degrees of suffering. To say that the fate of the damned is yet to be definitely determined is to overlook the fact that Jesus has already determined it. What is now long settled in the Word will “in that day” be revealed and pronounced publicly before the universe by Jesus, the Judge himself. In “more endurable” there lies no probation after death; the implication is the very reverse.

Luke 10:13

13 Woe to thee, Chorazin! Woe to thee, Bethsaida! For if in Tyre and Sidon had occurred the works of power that occurred in you, long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes, would they have repented. Nevertheless, for Tyre and Sidon it shall be more endurable in the judgment than for you. And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted to the heaven? To hades shalt thou be cast down!

Matthew (11:20, etc.) records these words as an independent statement. They were, however, part of the charge to the Seventy. The thought that some of the cities to which Jesus was sending these messengers would reject them and their message reminded him of the small results that all his work had achieved in the cities where he had spent so much effort. The Seventy-are to know how these cities will stand “in that day.” To bring this out the more forcefully Jesus states how they will compare with two noted heathen cities. The Seventy will thus realize the gravity of their mission and what it means for any city to refuse their message in unbelief.

These woes were not uttered in anger, nor are they a wish. Like the exclamation “blessed” in the Beatitudes, the woes constitute a judicial verdict which is pronounced in advance by the divine Judge. Yet they are not cold verdicts when they are thus pronounced but are filled with deepest pathos. This is due to the fact that they are so terrible. They reveal the gentle Jesus as also the mighty and the terrible Jesus. All the divine power behind the Beatitudes is equally behind the judicial woes.

The cities named here were the populous centers in Galilee from which the ministry of Jesus radiated. Chorazin is mentioned only here in the Gospels. Bethsaida was the home of some of the Twelve and is mentioned only a few times. Both are close to Capernaum, on the west side of the lake, where Jesus even had his home (John 2:12).

The two woes are established by the ὅτι clause which states the terrible reason for their pronouncement. By a conditional sentence of past unreality (εἰ with the aorist constituting the protasis, and the aorist with ἄν the apodosis) the two pagan cities on the Mediterranean coast are compared with Chorazin and Bethsaida on the lake. Both pagan cities were known as wicked cities, and Tyre was to be left as “a place to spread nets,” was to be completely obliterated. Sidon is now a small place about twenty miles above Tyre.

It should be noted that Jesus says nothing about his Word and his preaching. He calls his miracles δυνάμεις, “powder-deeds,” and not σημεῖα, “signs.” The latter term is usually combined with his person and his Word as the latter is productive of faith. Jesus is not speaking of saving faith; he remains on the lowest level and deals only with the first and natural impression which his works of power ought to produce in men’s hearts. These works ought at least to check men in their careless course of sin as the men of Nineveh halted in their wickedness when Jonah announced the destruction of their city and brought them nothing but the condemnation of the law without a word of the gospel.

The remarkable thing is that Jesus says that these cities “would have repented” if the same works of divine love had occurred in them that did occur in these Jewish cities. God’s omniscience includes all possible actions. Since the possible lies between the absolutely necessary (God himself) and things that are free (such as actual human actions), the knowledge of the possible is called scientia media, under certain conditions certain possible things would become actual, which, however, for lack of the conditions do not become actual; yet God knows all about them and takes them into account.

In the second place, Jesus is speaking of repentance in the sense of outward desistance from gross sins and crimes, the so-called peccata clamantia, for which Tyre and Sidon were notorious; not of the repentance which consists of spiritual conversion. The passage is darkened when repentance is in this instance understood to be the latter. Power-works cannot and are not intended to produce faith; but they ought to produce contrition and terror at the thought of Almighty God. The case of Tyre and Sidon thus lies in the realm of divine providence and not in that of saving grace. This answers the question as to why such works of power did not occur in Tyre and Sidon. This is only the general question as to why any number of possibilities—and they are countless—did not and do not become actualities. They belong to the mysteries of providence which lie beyond mortal comprehension.

Yet all these possibilities, though they never became actualities, are adequately taken into account by the divine Mind, especially also in the final judgment which shall be meted out to every man with absolute justice. If “long ago,” after only a few such works of power Tyre and Sidon would have put on sacking, a dark, rough stuff that was worn next to the skin as the symbol of remorse and deepest humiliation, and would have sat in ashes and covered the head and the shoulders with ashes (Job 2:8) as a second sign of utmost sorrow and mourning, this possibility, though it did not become a reality, will without question not be forgotten in God’s final reckoning.

Luke 10:14

14 Πλήν is again (v. 11) adversative, B.-D. 449: “nevertheless,” although such works were not done, and Tyre and Sidon did not repent, God will make the sentence on these pagan cities lighter than that on the Jewish cities as was already explained in v. 12.

Luke 10:15

15 “And thou, Capernaum,” the worst of all, is the climax. Here Jesus made his home, and here more numerous works of power were wrought—yet here, too, in vain. The interrogative particle μή implies a negative reply on the part of the speaker: “thou surely dost not expect to be so exalted as having been mine own city and so highly favored by me?” Yet the speaker hints that Capernaum may not want to give the negative reply. The hesitation caused by the question is ended with terrific force: “To hades shalt thou be cast down! whatever thou mayest expect.” Note the clashing contrast between the phrases “up to the heaven” and “down to hades” which is doubled by the prepositions for “up” and “down” in the compound verbs. The greater the grace spurned, the more terrible the damnation incurred.

The English hades and hell no more deserve a capital letter than do heaven and the heavens. “Hades,” the unseen place (a privativum plus ἰδεῖν), is here beyond question the opposite of heaven and thus must mean hell. “Hades” is here not used as a translation of sheol, for Jesus is not quoting though he may have used sheol in the Aramaic. Note that Jesus does not postpone Capernaum’s descent into hades until the judgment day. Sodom had already gone down, Tyre and Sidon would follow, and so would Chorazin, Bethsaida, and, the worst of them all, Capernaum.

Yet “hades” cannot mean das Totenreich, the realm of the dead, into which some say all the dead descend. If it is a place that is different from heaven and from hell, a receptacle for all dead men which really existed, it would be pointless for Jesus to declare that obdurate Capernaum shall be cast thither—where else would dead men go? No; hades is the place of the damned. Compare, Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by Hackett, the discussion by Bartlett under “Hell,” II, 1039; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, VI, 57. Speculative thought makes hades a condition instead of a place but only clashes with the words uttered by Jesus; moreover, wherein is a hellish condition different from a hellish place?

Luke 10:16

16 The final statement clinches the fact that what Jesus said about these three Jewish cities applies to all others who act toward the gospel like them although it is brought by his messengers instead of by himself in person. He that hears you hears me; and he that sets aside you sets aside me; but he that sets aside me sets aside him that commissioned me.

This is a double equation: you = me; me = my Sender (as in 9:48). This holds true because these messengers say what Jesus bids them say, and Jesus says what his Sender commissioned him to say. This word naturally applies to those who today preach and teach what Jesus bids them say and not to those who alter his Word in any way. The conclusion is also evident: to accept what these messengers say is to accept what Jesus says in person, what his Father says. Yet Jesus emphasizes the negative conclusion: he that sets aside, etc. Note that already setting aside damns.

One does not need to curse the Word or to persecute its bearers. Jesus spoke of cities, but he makes it plain that this does not refer to masses but to individuals: “he that,” etc. All that was stated from v. 8 onward impresses the Seventy with the greatness and the gravity of their mission. Heaven and hell depend on their words. God himself is back of them.

Luke 10:17

17 Now the Seventy returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are submitting to us in thy name.

They do not seem to have been away a long time. We conclude this, not from the fact that Luke reports their return immediately after their commissioning, but from their number, thirty-five pairs, the territory in which they worked (Perea mostly), and the general situation, Jesus’ now facing Jerusalem (9:51). A meeting place and a time for their return must have been fixed in advance as was done in the case of the Twelve (9:10). We do not know where they gathered, but it was probably somewhere south of the lake along the general route that Jesus intended to take as he traveled southward. All alike returned with joy; there is no note of failure or of disappointment in their report. What elated them especially was the fact that even the demons were submitting to them in Jesus’ name. Καί, “even,” shows that diseases also yielded to Jesus’ name.

Jesus had not laid such stress on expelling demons, in v. 9 only the healing of diseases is mentioned, the expulsion of demons was apparently tacitly included. But the Seventy regard this as being especially noteworthy. See 4:33 on demoniac possession.

They rejoice, not so much because they were received with open arms, or because their message about the kingdom and its nearness found ready acceptance, or because they were accounted worthy to be the missionaries of Jesus, or because they themselves felt the full blessedness of the kingdom, but because devils obeyed them. “In thy name” is explained in 9:48: “in connection with the revelation of Jesus.” The Seventy give all credit to Jesus.

Since demons are concerned, we note that the “name” was not used as a charm. Charms forsake God, use the holy names in forbidden ways, and are, therefore, employed in cases where prayer in Jesus’ name seems to bring no results. There is no power of Jesus and his name in any charm. These are only subtle, cunning means of the devil himself by which he holds men’s minds and makes them turn from God. And no charm ever healed a disease or drove out a demon.

Luke 10:18

18 But he said to them: I was beholding Satan fall like lightning out of the heaven. Lo, I have given you the authority to trample upon serpents and scorpions and on all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall in any way harm you. Nevertheless, in this stop rejoicing that the spirits are submitting to you but go on rejoicing that your names have been enrolled in the heavens.

This answer of Jesus intends to correct the faulty view of the Seventy as it appears in their great joy over their ability to cast out demons. Jesus reveals what lies back of this ability which he had conferred upon them. It is the complete fall of Satan himself, the head and ruler of the demon kingdom. This does not mean merely that some demons are defeated by the name of Jesus; this phenomenon is only part of the evidence that Satan himself has fallen in defeat. And this explains all other phenomena on the victorious course of the disciples. The joy of the disciples should thus reach much farther and include especially the real cause that is back of the powerlessness of the demons.

Jesus speaks dramatically. A far look comes into his eyes as he says: “I was beholding Satan,” etc. The imperfect ἐθεώρουν, followed by the predicative aorist participle πεσόντα, makes the tenses stand out. The former is descriptive and thus dramatic. This beholding is one that fits the object, namely Satan, a spirit, and does not refer to the physical eye but to Jesus’ supernatural sight. The participle is timeless (R. 1114), which is better than to call it constative (R. 864 and W.

P.). Jesus was not beholding the progress of Satan’s fall but the fall as a flash of lightning, an instantaneous fall and flash. It is well to remember that Satan is a spirit, and that this fall occurred in the supernatural world where no time exists. In connections such as this “out of the heaven” does not refer to place or space but to supernatural blessedness or to supernatural power, here to the latter. “All his power evanesced,” Leyser. This does not mean that Satan had his abode in heaven and was ejected and thus fell like a flash of lightning, but that his power was exalted as high as heaven, and that from that height he fell in terrific defeat, Isa. 14:12. He is conquered and cannot rule as he pleases and carry out his diabolical designs.

When this occurred is not stated. Two periods deserve our attention: one, when Satan lost his first estate and was cast out of heaven; the other when he met his decisive defeat at the hands of Jesus at the time of the temptation in the wilderness. The latter is the better in every way. It is hard to conceive that Jesus is speaking of something that he beheld in his pre-existent state in heaven; he would hardly say regarding that, “I was beholding.” He speaks as one who himself caused that fatal fall, who struck the blow that hurled the prince of evil down, as one who thus stood as victor and in triumph beheld him fall. Moreover, Jesus mentions this fall as the cause that the demons must now leave their victims when they are commanded by the disciples “in Jesus’ name”; this points decidedly to Jesus as being the cause of Satan’s fall. Some of the ancient fathers thought of the incarnation as the cause; others have thought of the success of the Seventy in their mission; still other opinions are held.

Luke 10:19

19 Because Satan fell thus in defeat before Jesus, therefore Jesus can bestow the spoils of victory upon his disciples. Not because Satan was thrown from heaven, but because Jesus had defeated him and thrown him out of his rule and dominion does he now say: “Lo, I have given you authority,” etc., and the perfect tense implies that this gift is still in force. “Authority,” ἐξουσία, includes both the power and the right to exercise that power. This authority is “to trample upon serpents and scorpions and on all the power of the enemy” with the effect that “nothing shall in any way hurt you.” The infinitive τοῦπατεῖν is the complement of the noun (R. 1076): “authority to go on trampling.” Whether we prefer the reading that has the future indicative ἀδικήσει or the one that has the aorist subjunctive ἀδικήση is only a textual matter, and the readings generally vary where such forms are concerned; both refer equally to the future, and both may have the strong negative οὐμή, to which in this case there is added a third negative οὐδέν, the neuter subject: “nothing shall in any wise hurt you.”

We see at once that “all the power of the enemy” is comprehensive, and that “the enemy” is here Satan, and that “enemy” is to be understood in its usual sense of personal antagonist. Moreover, “the enemy” is a generic term which has come to designate a specific person because it is his very nature to be an enemy. Whose enemy he is does not need to be stated. He, indeed, has “power,” but the Seventy have authority from Jesus “to trample or tread” on it, which means more than to defeat that power, it includes the scorning and the derision of that power and of “all” of it, in both the physical and the spiritual domain.

Thus “serpents and scorpions,” that are noted for their deadliness, are named only as specimens and illustrations of that power. They recall Ps. 91:13, 14: “Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder, the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet; because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.” Rom. 16:20: “The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” “To trample on serpents and scorpions” is not so much figurative as symbolical. We have no record that any disciple ever trampled on a venomous snake or a scorpion. In Acts 28:5 an adder fastened itself on Paul’s hand but never harmed him. That this escape is included in Jesus’ words seems plain. We thus regard Jesus’ words as applying to all such creatures and such forces as Satan might use to stop the victorious mission of the messengers of Jesus. Countless instances of this kind of escape have occurred and still occur.

But this does not mean that Jesus lifts his messengers above all the destructive forces of nature. Nor does it mean that they may in a foolhardy way disregard all natural dangers, which would be nothing but playing into Satan’s hands by tempting God (4:10). Nor does this symbolism lift the disciples above all persecution that is stimulated by Satan and above a possible martyr’s death. All the passages that speak of persecution declare the contrary. But the words of Jesus mean that Satan cannot inflict persecution and death at will. Only when Jesus himself wants us to suffer and to die in the interest of his kingdom do such things come upon us.

Then we accept them as being sent by him. And even then we trample on all Satan’s power as did all the martyrs who died in triumph and by so dying defeated Satan. Thus the symbolism of “serpents and scorpions” extends much farther, namely to all the deadly delusions, deceptions, and poisonous falsehoods of Satan, “that old serpent, the devil.” These spiritual powers are destroyed by the divine power of the message of Jesus’ disciples. This is the supreme ἐξουσία that Jesus bestows on his gospel messengers. The defeated enemy shall constantly display his defeat before the divine Word in the hands of Jesus’ messengers.

Luke 10:20

20 See v. 11 on πλήν. “Nevertheless” means that, although all this is true as just stated by Jesus, and although all this affords much cause for joy to the Seventy, not in this are they to go on rejoicing, “that the demons are submitting to you.” Why not rejoice in this? Because it would be dangerous. Matt. 7:22 shows that one may even prophesy, cast out devils, and do wonderful things and yet be lost. It is not the exercise of some charism that saves but this fact that our names are written in the book of life. Casting out ever so many devils does not insure our own escape from the devil. This joy may lead to pride, to false notions of merit, and to other dangers to ourselves.

We must be careful not to slip “rather,” μᾶλλον, into the text (A. V.), for it would change the sense. We are not to rejoice at all over our ability to conquer demons. That is something outside of us, something that is really not done by us but by Jesus, in which we are only his tools.

We are to go on rejoicing in something that is, indeed, personal to ourselves and not as having been done by us but as having been done for us. The second ὅτι is declarative like the first which it matches; and ἐντούτῳ is to be repeated in thought. Our constant and abiding joy (durative present imperative) is in this “that our names have been enrolled in heaven,” the perfect denoting that they now stand so enrolled. Note well the passive: God enrolled them, this he did for us. The figure may be taken from the genealogical records that were kept by the Jews, in which only their people’s names were entered. To get the force of the expression compare the passages on blotting out (negative) and on being written in (positive): Exod. 32:32; Ps. 69:28; Isa. 4:3; Phil. 4:3; Dan. 12:1; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 20:12; 21:27.

To be enrolled in the heavens means to be justified by God and to be accepted by him as one of his children; and to be permanently so enrolled means that we are among the number of the elect. The book of life is Christ, in whom all are written who are brought to faith by his gospel. Compare, Concordia Triglotta, 1066, 13, 25, 66, 70, 89, where the book of life is presented as Christ, and where it is shown what it means to be written in that book. Our joy over being written in this book is to increase until in heaven itself we see our names written there. To have our names thus written is the greatest victory over Satan. Valerius Herberger chose Luke 10:20 as his funeral text and requested the following outline: 1) Who the writer is that records our names in heaven; 2) what is meant by the ink; 3) what the pen is; 4) what the book is; 5) what the writing itself is.

Luke 10:21

21 In that very hour he exulted in the Holy Spirit and said: I openly confess to thy honor, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth, that thou didst conceal these things from the wise and intellectual and didst reveal them to babes. Yes, Father, because thus it was good pleasure before thee!

Matt. 11:25 offers only the general connection that Jesus spoke these words “at that season”; Luke, however, connects closely by writing “in that very hour,” namely when he told the Seventy in what to rejoice. He himself not only rejoiced but actually exulted and exclaimed in overflowing joy. “In the Holy Spirit” is not a locative dative (R. 524), nor the instrumental, for it names neither the place where the exultation occurred nor the instrument by which Jesus exulted—no person, least of all the person of the Holy Spirit, is treated in that manner. This is the dative which names the originator (B.-P. 5): the Holy Spirit caused this exultation and jubilant outburst on the part of Jesus. The Spirit had been poured out upon Jesus and wrought with him, 4:18. The verb ἐξομολογεῖσθαι and this significant dative mean much more than “to thank” (our versions) or even “to praise” (R. V. margin). The intensification by means of ἐκ adds to the idea of acknowledging or confessing the notion of greatness or of openness: “I openly confess (or acknowledge) to thy honor”; and ὅτι states what is thus acknowledged.

As the essential Son, Jesus used the unqualified address, “Father.” He is speaking to this Father in the presence of the assembled disciples and others (v. 23) for them to hear. But another relation is to be noted, one which reveals the supreme majesty of this Father of Jesus: “Lord of the heaven and of the earth,” i. e., as the Creator and Ruler of the universe. This majesty is made to stand out in overwhelming contrast to “wise and intellectual men,” who in their superior wisdom close their hearts against his revelation, and in another contrast to “babes” who are blessed with this revelation. What a marvel that the eternal Father and the eternal Son with the Spirit, to whom all heaven and earth bow in submission, should condescend to people who are nothing but helpless infants and babes! Yet in the very word νήπιοι there lies the hint of the reason that he thus blesses them.

The act for which Jesus gives the Father such credit is a double one: concealing certain things from wise and intellectual men and revealing them to men who, compared with these, are nothing but babes. The absence of the articles with σοφοί, συνετοί, and νήπιοι keeps the stress on the qualities indicated. The first two terms apply to one general class, and the verbal συνετός is one of the few that are used in an active sense in the New Testament, R. 1097. While the scribes and the Pharisees are the types referred to, all others are included who are filled with the sufficiency of their own intellectual and educational acquirements in matters of religion. Being wise and intellectual like the rabbis with their false theology and its equally false application to life, nothing of the true revelation and theology of God can be conveyed to them though it come from him as the supreme Ruler of the universe itself. Hence Jesus says that the Father concealed these things from them.

He made and fashioned them for poor sinners, i. e., only such could receive them; he could not have made them otherwise. There is no need to specify what ταῦτα and αὐτά mean; they are “the things” of which Jesus speaks in v. 18–20, the gospel by which men’s names are recorded in heaven.

The aorists are important: ἀπέκρυψας, ἀπεκάλυψας, and ἐγένετο. This proceeding is something that is settled from the very start, a fixed and unalterable thing that was determined by God in the beginning when he designed his grace for our fallen race. Only the great fact is stated by these aorists, and no reason is added why God did as he did. Yet in the designations “wise and intellectual,” on the one hand, and “babes,” on the other, the reason for God’s act is intimated. The wise and intellectual are filled up with their own learned ideas, and thus God, finding them filled, satisfied, and puffed up with what they have by their own abilities, can give them nothing. He has no grace that he can bestow on them.

The babes, however, are such as have everything to acquire and as such realize their emptiness. They are the poor, the hungry, the weeping ones (6:21, 22), that are as children (Matt. 18:3), are like Paul (Phil. 3:8). Having nothing, God can fill them with everything by his revelation. It is thus that God found that he could extend grace; he found no other way. He arranged it so that nothing was required of us, that all should come from him. If high intellectual attainments were required on our part, this would automatically shut out all who have no such attainments.

If we had to bring something on our part, grace, too, would be only partial and not complete on God’s part. Moreover, the fact is that no man can bring anything, and if he thinks he can, he only deceives himself. The Father had to proceed as he did.

We must, however, add that no man is a νήπιος by nature, be his education ever so primitive. And 1 Cor. 1:26 makes it plain that the sense of Jesus’ word is not that the gospel is intended only for the ignorant and not for the educated. “Wise,” “intellectual,” and “babes” are used here, not as antecedent to the gospel, but as subsequent to its work upon men. Every man, the most ignorant as well as the most learned, has some pet religious wisdom of his own with which he at first reacts against the gospel of grace. It is this gospel which abolishes that pet wisdom by its power and makes men infants (John 3:3) so that they receive everything from God. This work succeeds in the case of some of the most learned and highly educated. But some, ignorant or learned, cling to their foolish wisdom in spite of all the efforts of grace.

These were not only the scribes and Pharisees but hosts of unlearned Jews as well, who let these leaders sway them. So today some of the worst opponents of the gospel are those who hang to the coattails of the scientists and advanced religious thinkers. All these are the “wise and intellectual” that are spoken of by Jesus.

With “yea” Jesus emphatically affirms what he has just said. The Father’s action has the fullest approval of Jesus. The article may be used with the vocative as the Hebrew and the Aramaic use it regularly, the vocative then takes the nominative form ὁπατήρ whereas we before have πάτερ. Is ὅτι “because” (“for,” our versions) or a repetition of the preceding ὅτι? Have we here the reason that God concealed and revealed as he did or simply a repetition of what he did stated in other words? Grammar has no way in which to decide.

The commentators usually prefer “that” (declarative ὅτι) and supply ἐξομολογοῦμαι; both particles are made causal in the A. V. The simple fact is that in the case of verbs of this kind it makes practically no difference whether we state why we praise or what we praise; the thing we praise is the reason for the praise.

Yet the reason that the Father did what he did would seem to need some explanation. One explanation we have noted, the one that lies in the designation of the persons. But that takes us only halfway. The profoundest explanation lies in the Father himself. And Jesus gives this by saying that it was his εὐδοκία. The objection that the incomprehensible acts of God are not made comprehensible by being traced back to his equally incomprehensible will misunderstands the εὐδοκία, a standard term in the New Testament. This is not an arbitrary, incomprehensible will or decree but the “good pleasure” or “good thought” of God, his gracious purpose and will of salvation as all the clear passages show, Eph. 1:5, 9; Phil. 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:11; also Luke 12:32; 2 Pet. 1:17. “In Christ he saves us out of pure mercy, without any merit or good works of ours, according to the purpose of his will.” Concordia Triglotta, 1092–3.

The ultimate source of our salvation is this great εὐδοκία. When God’s acts (concealing, revealing) are traced back to this source, the ultimate point is reached. If man was to be saved, God had to save him, and by his “good thought” he devised means and ways for doing this that were in harmony with his own being and nature. Since οὕτως refers to the acts of concealing and revealing, we regard ὅτι as giving the reason for these acts: “because it was eudokia in thy sight.” And who in all the world could suggest a better plan or method than this that found the Father’s approval? In the Hebraic ἐμπροσθένσου, “in front of thee,” the majesty indicated in “Lord,” etc., again comes out.

Luke 10:22

22 All things were given to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father; and who the Father is except the Son and he to whom the Son may will to reveal him.

Luke (and Matthew) records some of the deep things that pertain to divine relationships in which John delights, R., W. P.: “No sane criticism can get rid of this Johannine bit in these Gospels, written long before the fourth Gospel was composed.… It is idle to whittle away by fantastic exegesis the high claims made by Jesus in this passage. It is an ecstatic prayer made in the presence of the Seventy under the rapture of the Holy Ghost on terms of perfect equality and understanding between the Father and the Son in the tone of the priestly prayer in John 17. We are justified in saying that this prayer of supreme fellowship with the Father in contemplation of the final victory over Satan gives us a glimpse of the prayers with the Father when the Son spent a whole night on the mountain alone with the Father.”

In view of Matt. 28:18; John 3:35; 13:3; 17:2, “all things” admits of no restriction. Those who attempt the restriction “all things connected with the eudokia, or with the kingdom, or with the work of salvation,” are answered by Eph. 1:10, 22. Since establishing the kingdom involves power over all hostile forces on earth and in hell, nothing is left to be exempted from πάντα. “All things: earth, heaven, and hell; men, angels, and devils; time, death, and eternity; all things: salvation and damnation; grace and judgment; life and death; all things: truth, righteousness, glory, peace and joy, consolation and refreshing, rest and hope, deliverance from sin, victory in temptation, overcoming the world, communion with God, the life in God—all things have been delivered unto him. He is the almighty Lord, the Giver of divine gifts of grace, the Executor of all divine works, the Prince of life, and, therefore, the Captain of our salvation.” Petri.

The passive παρεδόθη has the agent added in the regular manner by ὑπό: “were handed over by my Father.” “By this he indicates that he is true man, who has received them from the Father. For neither would God deliver all things to one who was only man, nor would one who was only God receive them from another. For neither is it possible for one who is only man to be over all things, nor for one who is only God to be beneath God. Thus in this one person true God and true man are joined together.” Luther. The aorist cannot refer to the exaltation of Jesus’ human nature but goes back to the act of incarnation. Then there “was given” to him all divine power and majesty, which he, however, used only as these were needed in his ministry during the days of his humiliation (as in performing the miracles), and he did not enter upon their absolute use until he arose from the dead in the exaltation of his human nature.

As the Son he was equal to the Father, but as man he was beneath the Father and received “all things” from him. Concordia Triglotta, 1033, 55.

Καί coordinates; we do not regard it as being equal to γάρ. We first had the human nature, of which we must know that all things were given to it when it was joined to the divine. We now hear of the divine nature as it was joined to the human. Between the Son and the Father there exists a peculiar relation: these two alone “know” each other—all others are shut out. Matthew uses the stronger compound ἐπιγινώσκει whereas Luke is content with the simplex. Either verb becomes exalted when the subjects and the objects are noted, the Son and the Father, and their divine relation to each other.

Although the mutual knowledge of these two is ineffable in its divinity, Luther rightly points out that this knowledge is mentioned here with reference to us and our saving knowledge of the Son and of the Father. He calls it theological and not at all philosophical and by this means what especially concerns us, namely that the Father and the Son know each other’s will, mind, and thought as these pertain to us.

And so the third statement follows: “and he to whom,” etc. Luther writes that there is no reluctance on the part of the Son to reveal the Father but the vast condescension of the Son of this Lord of heaven and earth (v. 21). It is he to whom all things were given who speaks here. “He to whom,” etc., means the “babes.” In βούληται we have the εὐδοκία; the Father’s good pleasure and the Son’s will are one. This is no arbitrary selection of persons who are admitted to this knowledge but the pure grace which fills all whom it can bring to discard their own empty and haughty wisdom. The idea is an experimental knowledge and revelation and not one that is merely intellectual—as children know their father from all the manifestations of his fatherhood and love. This is supreme spiritual blessedness but a closed book to the wise and intellectual of the world.

Only by the Son’s revelation can anyone ever know the Father and by no wisdom of his own. “Here the bottom falls out of all merit, all powers and abilities of reason, or the free will men dream of, and it all counts as nothing before God; Christ must do and must give everything,” Luther. Jesus wills to reveal the Father only through his own person, work, and Word, John 14:6, 9–11; for in no other way can a poor sinner ever come to know the Father.

Luke 10:23

23 And having turned to the disciples, he said in private: Blessed the eyes that see what you are seeing! For I say to you, That many prophets and kings wanted to see what you are seeing and did not see, and to hear what you are hearing and did not hear.

Jesus said to the Seventy what he said to the Twelve in another connection, Matt. 13:16, 17. The action of turning to the disciples (here the Seventy, v. 17) and speaking to them privately (κατʼ ἰδίαν, an idiomatic phrase) means that others, too, were present, but that this beatitude applies only to the disciples and not to others. Μακάριοι is used exactly as it was in the great beatitudes recorded in Matt. 5; compare Luke 6:20. The verdict of blessedness is pronounced upon all the eyes which are seeing what the Seventy are seeing; in Matthew, Jesus speaks only of the eyes of the Twelve and in more marked contrast to the eyes of others who see and yet fail to see, and in Matthew he also mentions the ears of the Twelve.

The source of the blessedness has been indicated in the previous verses; the means are named here and the source and the means belong together. God uses the ordinary eyes (and ears) of the disciples when he is bestowing and increasing the blessedness of the disciples. So only the ordinary functions of the eyes (and ears) are mentioned, βλέπειν and ἀκούειν. As far as the Seventy and any other disciples are concerned, they do no more than the unbelieving Jews do, they just see and hear. The fact that by this means they obtain the heavenly blessedness is, of course, not due to their eyes or their ears but to the divine Giver who uses these bodily senses for his bestowal; all other men might obtain the same blessedness in the same way, but they prevent this by their wilful and obdurate unbelief.

Luke 10:24

24 With γάρ Jesus explains how great the blessedness of the disciples really is. “I say to you” is the voice of authority which no one can rightly contradict. The greatness of the disciples’ blessedness appears when it is compared with that of “the prophets and kings” of all past times. The prophets were certainly highly blessed by receiving immediate, direct revelations from God. They had the Messianic promises at firsthand. Luke writes “kings” whereas Matthew has “righteous ones,” and, of course, only the righteous kings of Israel are referred to such as David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah, etc. “Kings” are mentioned because, next to the prophets, they were best known individually. As true believers in the old covenant they accepted the revelations of the prophets and anxiously longed for the fulfillment of the great Messianic promises.

Greater than the unquestioned blessedness of all these—and they were “many”—is that of the disciples of Jesus. The ancient saints had only the promises, shadows, types, etc., on which to rest their faith and with which to delight their souls. No wonder “they wanted to see what you are seeing” and “to hear what you are hearing!” The aorists ἰδεῖν and ἀκοῦσαι are constative, and ὑμεῖς is emphatic by placing the Seventy over against all those prophets and kings. But they all died before the time came in which all they longed for is being seen and being heard (progressive present tenses) by the disciples. They did not see and did not hear (historical aorists which state the negative facts as such). The great blessedness of the disciples lies in seeing and in hearing the actual fulfillment of what the ancients possessed only in promises. They ought to recognize and to prize this abounding grace.

Luke 10:25

25 And lo, a lawyer stood up, tempting him by saying, Teacher, by doing what shall I inherit life eternal?

The incident of the lawyer appears to have occurred immediately after Jesus spoke his exulting prayer and then turned to the Seventy with his beatitude (v. 21–24). This means that other people were present and had learned everything, also what Jesus said to the Seventy in particular. Among them was this νομικός, “lawyer,” one learned in the law, Rechtskundiger. The γραμματεῖς, “scribes,” seem to have been the great class of which the lawyers were a part and the νομοδιδάσκαλοι, “law teachers,” another class, C.-K. 759. This man was well versed in all that the Old Testament and the Jewish tradition had to say about the law. The addition of τίς is like our indefinite article: “a lawyer,” and says nothing more about him. Just how he was “tempting” or tying out Jesus does not appear from the narrative, and various answers are given, beginning with the idea that he wanted to see only what Jesus would say to this question, and grading up to the evil intention to elicit an answer from Jesus that would be in conflict with the conceptions the Jews had of the law.

Another difference plays in: some think that this incident has no connection with the preceding, others that it certainly has. Some think that this lawyer thought up his own question, others that it was caused by the prayer of Jesus and by the beatitude that had been pronounced upon the Seventy. Καὶἰδού substantiates the latter view since Luke never uses it elsewhere to introduce a narrative that is disconnected from what precedes. So we take the tempting point to be the fact that this man was disconcerted by what he had heard and offered his question to show that more was required for life eternal than just to see and to hear what Jesus was showing the Seventy. In determining our answer we should also note the way in which Jesus treats this lawyer, namely with kindly patience by showing him that doing the law requires a new heart.

“Teacher” is not the address of one professional man to another but the ordinary form of address to one who preached and taught constantly. The man does not ask how he may obtain life eternal as if he were at a loss as to the way and the means. On the contrary, he thinks that he knows how quite well, it must be by doing something, hence he uses τίποιήσας with its aorist participle: “By having done what?” The lawyer feels uncertain as to what he ought to do but certain that he must do and perform something. What, then, will Jesus name? This lawyer is by no means ready to accept what Jesus may name; on the contrary, his tempting Jesus indicates that he expects an answer which he will challenge and with which he will charge Jesus. We thus see that his own head is filled with nothing but Pelagianism, with bald work-righteousness. The best feature about the man is that he is concerned about obtaining eternal life.

It is John who uses ζωή thirty-four times in his writings, and this word always refers to the life principle itself which makes us spiritually alive just as ψυχή makes us physically alive. No science has fathomed what natural life really is, and the essence of spiritual life is naturally still more mysterious. Both natural and spiritual life are known by their functions and their acts. The reception of the ζωή is that regeneration of which Jesus spoke to Nicodemus at length. This life is αἰώνιος, “eternal,” going on through the eons unaffected by temporal death which only transfers this life into the heavenly world. It may be lost, and it ceases in us when we wickedly and wilfully cut ourselves off from its divine source, Christ, the Life. Just what conception the lawyer had of this life that he desired so much we are unable to say.

An issue is often made of the verb κληρονομεῖν as derived from κλῆρος or “lot” by declaring that the lawyer’s question involves a contradiction, doing and inheriting exclude each other. But we note that Jesus finds no fault with the question and does not correct this supposed contradiction. He himself interprets the man’s meaning when he says, “This be doing and thou shalt live!” The verb is used specifically when sonship and heirship are stressed, which is not the case here; in other connections it is used in the general sense of obtaining or having a portion in something. But inheriting need not exclude all idea of merit as many a last will and testament shows when a larger portion is bequeathed to a more faithful child, or when a friend, a benefactor, a person who has rendered some valuable service are remembered.

Luke 10:26

26 But he said to him: In the law what has been written? How dost thou read?

The mastery of this double counterquestion is not always perceived. Jesus lets the lawyer answer his own question and directs only that he do so from the law. The counterquestions are so natural and simple that the lawyer could raise no objection. He had said, “Teacher,” and now the “Teacher” was asking him something that he certainly ought to know and, in fact, did know as a lawyer. And so the intent to tempt Jesus is completely wiped out. The more one thinks of how simply and naturally this was done and done at once, the more one marvels at the mind that did this. The very first phrase disarms this νομικός by referring him for his answer to the νόμος and not to some abstruse and intricate thing in the law, of which he had never heard, but to something, as the question of Jesus implies, that he himself most certainly well knew.

Note the emphasis: “In the law—what has been written?” i. e., in the Torah of Moses, and the perfect tense implies that, once written, it stands so for all time. “How readest thou?” merely asks the lawyer to quote the words. Jesus credits him with knowing and with being able to quote the words from the law, and that, too, was masterly on his part. Jesus bids the lawyer cooperate with him; Jesus is ready to agree with him; with these little questions he removes anything like differences or antagonism between them. The psychology is simply perfect.

Luke 10:27

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, out of thy whole heart, and in thy whole soul, and in thy whole strength, and in thy whole mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.

This is a quotation from Deut. 6:4, 5 and Lev. 19:18; the Hebrew and the LXX agree, the latter adds the phrase “and in thy whole mind.” This lawyer reveals that he has, indeed, studied the law to some purpose and has discovered the two commandments which are the very heart of what God requires of us. Note ἀγαπᾶν in “thou shalt love the Lord, thy God,” which expresses the love of intelligence and purpose and is thus far above φιλεῖν, the love of mere liking and affection. It would be impossible to use the latter here. The former implies that we know the true God in all his greatness and grace, and that we accordingly turn to him with all our being. It would be impossible to apply to φιλεῖν the deep phrases: “out of thy whole heart,” etc.; ἀγαπᾶν really involves them. The future tense ἀγαπήσεις is used in legal phrasing as a substitute for the imperative (R. 330), and the future is volitive, (R. 943) and here also expresses the lawgiver’s will.

Κύριος is Yahweh, “I am that I am,” the unchanging covenant Lord; and ὁΘεόςσου is Eloheka, the God of power and might who employs all his power in behalf of “thee,” his covenant child. In Yahweh we have the covenant grace and in Eloheka with its possessive “thy” another expression of grace, the Omnipotent in association with thee and with me. Both names of God constitute one comprehensive name, and both are gospel names and thus furnish the motive which is to actuate us in doing the law, the motive of trust in his grace and of love because of that grace. This is constantly overlooked also by this lawyer with his idea of work-righteousness.

The four phrases that follow are not condensed: “out of thy whole heart, soul, strength, and mind,” but spread out so as to put equal emphasis on each one. Yet the heart is first, the soul next, and the strength and the mind last. On this psychological order read Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, 248, etc. The Biblical conception of the leb, καρδία, “heart,” makes it the very center of our being and personality; here dwells also the ψυχή, “the life” or “soul”; here resides the “strength,” and here functions the “mind.” The nephesh or ψυχή is the life which animates the body, the consciousness of which is in the “heart”; and the διάνοια is the reason together with all its functions, namely its thoughts, ideas, convictions, according to which the heart and the personality act. The ἰσχύς is named last in Mark 12:29 but third in the present quotation, “strength” in the sense of a possession, whether it is put forth or not, the energy which the personality is able to put forth at any time. Since this is God’s own commandment which was uttered by his own mouth, we have here man’s psychology as this is conceived by man’s own Creator who certainly knows man better than man can know himself now that sin has darkened his reason.

In Matt. 22:37 all the phrases are construed with ἐκ, in Mark they are construed with ἐν (as is done in the LXX). Although “in” and “out of” seem to be opposites they here express the same idea with only a formal difference. “In” denotes sphere; “out of” denotes source. The love that is “in” this sphere comes “out of” it as its source. Luke has ἐκ only with reference to the heart; this is followed by three ἐν. It is probably correct to say that he uses the former only because it is common with reference to the heart so that no difference is intended. But the adjective “whole” is stressed in all four phrases, its very repetition hammers it in.

God will have no mere part of, allow no division or subtraction of our love. Not even the smallest corner is to be closed against him and reserved for another. Do we ask why? Because none other and nothing other can be placed beside God; no one and nothing bear the relation to us that the Lord, our God, does. For us to give part of our heart, etc., to someone or something else would be to pretend that someone or something really does stand toward us as God does, which would be a monstrous lie. This quotation constituted the shema which was inscribed on parchment and placed in the capsule of the phylacteries.

From the long list given in Lev. 19 the lawyer adds the eighteenth verse but omits the verb: “and thy neighbor as thyself.” The verb is already expressed, it is the same intelligent and purposeful love as that which is shown toward God. Since this is the love of man to man, its degree cannot be the same as that which is shown toward God but can be only “as thyself.” Every man naturally loves himself, and all he needs to do is to measure his love for his neighbor by that love for himself. To the degree that the latter falls short of the former his self-love is selfishness; and there is no danger that his love for his neighbor will ever exceed his love for himself. Ὁπλησίον (the adverb made a noun which is used also as a noun without the article in v. 20 and 36, R. 726) is one near us, i. e., one with whom we come into contact, no matter who he may be. It is unwarranted to extend this so as to include all men, for how can I love one of whose very existence I know nothing?

This love to our neighbor could not be expressed by φιλεῖν for the simple reason that liking would not be enough, and that we could not possibly like everyone with whom we come in contact. We could not embrace and kiss some vicious individual, but we can love (ἀγαπᾶν) him with the intelligence that comprehends his evil state and with the noble and true purpose of altering that state. This love always makes the true interests of the neighbor its own. The love to God and that to the neighbor are placed side by side as one divine command, yet the natural order of love to God and then love to man is conserved.

Luke 10:28

28 And he said to him: Rightly didst thou answer! This keep doing and thou shalt live!

“You are perfectly right,” Jesus says, “all you have to do is to live up to your answer and you will surely live!” This instant and complete agreement on the part of Jesus probably surprised this lawyer. And more so did the direct answer which Jesus gave him, which fitted his question exactly in regard to doing what would secure life eternal for him: “This keep doing,” and as a result “thou shalt live,” i. e., have life eternal as thy lot. The present imperative “keep doing” means without a single break, for one failure would bring in sin and guilt and would thereby raise an entirely different question. The answer of Jesus is directed ad hominem by regarding the law as this work-righteous lawyer understood its purpose. That answer intended to show him his fatal mistake regarding the law as a means of securing life. The trouble with the self-righteous is that they overlook the name of grace in the law: “the Lord, thy God,” which is at the very head of the law and establishes the fact that this God never intended to offer the law to a sinner as the way to eternal life, Gal. 3:21. The work-righteous also alter the law and suppose that a partial and an outward doing of its precepts is all that the law requires.

Luke 10:29

29 Jesus spoke as if the matter were ended. What more was there to say? The lawyer’s tempting purpose had turned to water. The matter had turned out to be entirely too simple as it, indeed, always is for the work-righteous—just let them do what they themselves must say that the law requires. If this cure does not work, nothing else will. But he, wanting to justify himself, said, And who is my neighbor?

The lawyer wanted to justify himself for asking his original question. If the answer was as simple as Jesus had made it, it appeared as if a man who was a lawyer and versed in the law should have known that answer himself without needing to ask Jesus. The fact that he did ask with an ulterior purpose the man would, of course, not want to betray. It is thus that he now tacks on the second question about who his neighbor is as if meaning to say regarding the answer which Jesus had given him that it was not quite so simple after all. It is because he wanted to justify himself for asking his original question that he joins his new question to the other with καί. Πλησίον is used as a noun without the article and not as an adverb: “And who is near to me?” for this would not fit the context of the last clause in v. 28. Δικαιῶσαι is forensic as it always is, the lawyer acts as his own judge. The idea that he was justifying himself as having fulfilled the entire law all his life is out of line with the answer of Jesus and even with the question itself as this is now put forth.

Luke 10:30

30 Taking it up, Jesus said: A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among robbers, who after both stripping him and laying blows on him went away, leaving him half-dead.

The aorist participle ὑπολαβών naturally indicates action that is simultaneous with that of εἶπεν; Jesus took up the question in order to give this lawyer the answer he needed. It was, indeed, a question with the Jews, and we see one of their answers in Matt. 5:43, which excludes one’s enemies. In general, no Gentile and certainly no Samaritan would be termed “a neighbor” as being included in Lev. 19:18 which had just been quoted by the lawyer. Trench quotes Emerson, Essays (Essay 2) as holding the same view: “I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me, and to whom I do not belong (poor people). There is a class of persons to whom by all spiritual affinity I am bought and sold; for them I will go to prison, if need be; but your miscellaneous charities,” etc. It is still a question that deserves to be taken up.

Jesus again lets this lawyer himself give the answer save that he this time furnishes the man an illustration that leads him to the answer and even to the correct form which that answer must take. And this new answer is exactly the same as the one that had already been given by the law that the lawyer quoted, but it is now made to stand out with striking clearness.

When Jesus begins: “A man went down,” etc., (τίς as in v. 25) he is using an illustration that is drawn from what was known to happen on this road between Jerusalem and Jericho, which led through a rugged, uninhabited mountain stretch that was infested by bandits long after the days of Jesus. Whether Jesus sketches an actual case that had occurred recently and was generally known, or, as is much more probable, sketches a case such as might have occurred, makes no difference, and the arguments one way or another need not detain us. Only this is certain, that he uses an illustration and not a parable in the usual sense of the term and, most assuredly, no allegory although many allegorize the story.

The Jews always went up to Jerusalem and came down from it, speaking ethically and not merely physically. This unnamed man—certainly a Jew if we need this detail—took this dangerous road and suffered for it. He fell among robbers (the dative after περί in the verb, the robbers surrounded him, R. 521), and they made a thorough job of it. They even stripped the man of his clothes and, when he tried to resist, beat him up completely and then went off, leaving him half-dead (the action of the aorist participle again coincides with that of the main verb). This was the absolute opposite of “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Note, too, that Jesus pictures an extreme case of need. This is done purposely here and elsewhere in order at the same time to cover all lesser cases. Compare murder in Matt. 5:21 as including hatred, etc.

Luke 10:31

31 Now by coincidence a priest was going down on that road and, on seeing him, passed by on the other side. Likewise, moreover, also a Levite, having come down to the place and seeing, passed by on the other side.

Κατὰσυγκυρίαν is found only here. It was a coincidence that this priest (τίς as in v. 25 and 30) came along that little-used road and intends to say that the man might otherwise have lain there without anybody’s discovering him. This priest saw the naked sufferer and, we may add, heard him groaning and, on coming alongside (παρά), deliberately stepped over to the other side (ἀντί) and so passed by. He, too, came from Jerusalem, his week of Temple service being ended, and was going, as we may assume, to his home in Jericho where we are told a colony of priests lived. The view that he feared Levitical contamination and thus went to the other side seems farfetched; only actual touch would contaminate, and then the man who was touched had to be unclean (a leper, for instance), which this sufferer was not. This priest passed by as far away from the sufferer as the road allowed because his heart was as far away as possible from any thought of help.

A priest, and even one who was fresh from the Sanctuary where the law of love is taught the people, so frightfully violated this love. Here was one of his own people in the extremity of need—if the sufferer had not been a Jew, Jesus would have had to say that, for the priest would have justified his heartless action by that fact—and this priest’s own exposition of the law made the sufferer his “neighbor.” But he hurried by, for nobody saw him, perhaps not even the sufferer—nobody but God.

Luke 10:32

32 The Levite did the same thing. Whether “having come down to the place” means that he actually went to the sufferer and then, after looking at him, left, or whether this means only that he in general, like the priest, came to the part of the road where the sufferer lay, is hard to decide. We prefer to think the latter; he repeated the action of the priest, and that is bad enough. Used and trained to the heavy work in the Temple as a Levite, also near all its sacred teaching, this man, too, passed by on the other side. This expression in the illustration has become proverbial for refusing aid to sufferers.

Both men had their excuses: robbers were near, and they might be assaulted; the man was too far gone, and what could they do? To be found near the man might cast suspicion on them.

Luke 10:33

33 Now a Samaritan, being on a journey, came down to him and, on seeing him, was moved with compassion; and having come to him, he bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; moreover, having set him on his own beast, he brought him to an inn and took care of him.

We naturally lose much of the force of this illustration because we cannot enter into the feeling of hostility that existed between the Jews and the Samaritans. The latter were of pagan stock and not of Jewish blood; were cursed publicly in the synagogue with the prayer that they might have no part in the resurrection of life; were never accepted as proselytes; to eat their food was equal to eating swine’s flesh; it was better to suffer than to accept their help; the Jew wished never to see a Cuthite (base name for Samaritan); and other evidence of this extreme hatred. In John 8:48 the name “Samaritan” was hurled at Jesus. The Samaritans retaliated in kind (9:53). The fact that Jesus made the man who showed love so perfectly in this illustration “a Samaritan” must have caused a sensation.

Luke 10:34

34 The sketch of this man’s action is the perfection of love to a neighbor in need. First of all, when he was on his journey, riding on an ass, and came upon the man and saw his condition “he had compassion on him.” The Greeks place the emotions in the nobler viscera, heart, lungs, and liver (σπλάγχνα) and thus get the verb σπλαγχνίζομαι, to be moved as to the viscera, i. e., to be filled with pity and compassion. This word is used with regard to Jesus (Matt. 9:36; Luke 7:13; and elsewhere). It is this emotion that is essential in the illustration; it lies back of all the following acts, which omit nothing. Oil and wine (the one soothing, the other antiseptic because of its alcoholic content) were standard ancient remedies; the physician Hippocrates, for instance, prescribed for ulcers: “Bind with soft wool and sprinkle with wine and oil.” A well-equipped traveller would probably carry both on a journey, especially when he was riding. “His own beast” means the one he had been riding. He himself went afoot in order to guide the beast and to hold the man.

The priest and the Levite, too, rode as well as the man who was robbed, the robbers took his beast with all else that he had. A πανδοχεῖον is an inn, literally a place where all are received, hence had a host or an innkeeper. Here the Samaritan himself took care of the sufferer, which includes clothes and provision for all the man’s needs.

Luke 10:35

35 And on the morrow, having taken out two denarii, he gave them to the innkeeper, and said, Take care of him, and whatever thou mayest spend in addition I myself at my coming back will duly give to thee.

This is the final touch in this illustration of love to our neighbor. Not even now, on leaving, does this Samaritan think that he has done enough, and that the innkeeper or someone else ought to finish the task. This man sees an opportunity in the victim of the robbers and makes use of that opportunity to the full limit. It seems that it is imperative for him to proceed with his journey, and so he draws out sufficient money to pay the innkeeper for the care he is to bestow upon the injured man.

It is a mistake to think that the sum of two denarii is rather small for this purpose; the Samaritan was not niggardly, which would spoil the parable. Zahn reports from Polybius II, 14, 6 that at his time (140 A. D.) complete lodging and food in the inns in upper Italy cost ½ assarion per person, which Isaiah 1/32 of a denarius. According to that the Samaritan paid two months’ care in advance. The fact that a denarius is rated at only 16c in our money should not mislead us as to the ancient purchasing values.

“Take care of him” is the same verb that was used with reference to the Samaritan’s own care. In addition to this payment he gives the promise with the emphatic ἐγώ that on his return he will pay any additional amount over and above the two denarii that may be required for the man. Luke loves ἐντῷ with the infinitive as a temporal phrase; ἀπό in the verb means, “I will duly give or pay.” The implication is that the Samaritan was known to the innkeeper as one who regularly travelled this route and as a man whose word was good. We involuntarily ask: “What more could the Samaritan have done?”

This brings the other questions: “Was there ever such a Samaritan? And whence could a Samaritan obtain such perfect love?” Jesus drew an ideal picture. He had a special reason for making this man a Samaritan, namely to indicate what lies back of his command, “This do!” in v. 28, namely that no man can by nature possibly reach the perfection of love that is pictured here. That takes grace, yea, much grace. Many allegorize the entire illustration and find an added “charm” in it when they do so. Trench is an example.

But the attempt defeats itself because it ends in a double meaning, the obvious one that fulfilled the purpose of Jesus toward the lawyer, and a hidden one that no one understood at the time, and that was wasted on the lawyer. The illustration is so beautiful and effective in its native sense that it ought to be left unspoiled by any attempt at turning it into allegory.

Luke 10:36

36 The illustration is finished for the purpose in hand. So Jesus points to the tertium comparationis on which the whole story turns with a question: Which of these three does it seem to thee has become neighbor of him who fell among the robbers?

Jesus purposely turns the question of the lawyer around. To ask only who my neighbor is tends to lead to theorizing and to seeking abstract answers. We must ask as Jesus does here, to whom we on our part can become neighbor, and that person will, indeed, be our neighbor. How many golden opportunities had this lawyer passed by where he might have become neighbor to someone in need? There were his neighbors, but he failed to see them as such. What, then, about the sins he had thus committed? Could he inherit life eternal with such sins reckoned against him?

Luke 10:37

37 And he said, He that did the mercy on him.

Was it the old Jewish feeling that made the lawyer refrain from saying frankly, “The Samaritan”? But he does most adequately describe him, which is giving the credit to the Samaritan in so many words and thus means more than just to have said, “The Samaritan.” But most commentators think that the lawyer balked at mentioning the name.

But Jesus said to him, Go on and do thou keep doing likewise!

It is the same ποίει that was used in v. 28, and Jesus might have added: “Rightly didst thou answer.” In this little word “do” there lies the crux of the entire matter. The law says it plainly enough, and Jesus illustrates how much it means, and we all must consent that it, indeed, means no less. But where is the power in us to do and to keep doing without a break all that even the second table of the law requires, to say nothing of the first? Jesus is touching this lawyer’s conscience. His command, which is so brief and simple, if it is acted on by this lawyer will soon show him all his selfish lack of love, all his inability to win life eternal by means of love, and thus make him ready to see what prophets and kings longed to see, what the disciples did see (v. 24), the blessedness of the grace which the Messiah Jesus brings to all who accept him by faith.

Luke 10:38

38 Now while they were going he himself went into a village; and a woman with the name Martha invited him to her home.

There is no connection of either time or place with the preceding narrative. Luke omits even the name of the village. This is a plain example of how Luke combined his material by freely placing together narratives that carry forward the thought. Here it is the thought of hearing aright the Word of Jesus which follows the thought of rightly understanding the law. The suppositions that Luke’s authority did not furnish him the name of the village and other pertinent data, and that Luke thought that the village was in Galilee, and that he thought that the time was subsequent to that indicated in 9:51, are untenable. They arise from the idea that from 9:51 onward Luke furnishes a Reisebericht, a travel journal; but this is not the case.

When, as in this instance, he relates events that occurred earlier, it is his intention that they be viewed from the angle indicated in 9:51. We see this when we glance at John 11:1, etc. Lazarus was raised shortly before the death of Jesus, and this visit of Jesus that is recorded by Luke was to help to prepare the sisters for the trial of faith that awaited them. So Luke places it at this point in his Gospel.

It is a trait of the Gospel writers that they do not give all the information they have in detail; they nearly always confine themselves to the essentials. So the name Bethany for the village and its proximity to Jerusalem are left out, likewise the fact that these sisters had a brother by the name of Lazarus. Luke names the two sisters because Jesus used their names, and because by naming them the narrative is made simpler from the start. Jesus is with his disciples, probably before the Festival of Dedication, and is proceeding to observe this festival at Jerusalem. When the company arrives at Bethany it divides, the disciples go on, Jesus enters the village by himself; αὐτός has the emphasis because it contrasts with αὐτούς. The entire narrative makes the impression that Jesus knew this little family in Bethany well and had known it for some time, and that it was now his intention to visit this home and to lodge there for the night.

Speculation has been busy with Martha. She has been regarded as being the wife or the widow of Simon, the leper, in whose house the supper was given in honor of Jesus; some have concluded that she was the oldest in the family circle of three, and that she owned the house in which they lived, for Luke says that she invited Jesus “to her house.” These are conjectures, and it is best to be content with what Luke offers. Judging from the many friends who came out to the sisters even from Jerusalem to condole with them on the death of their brother, the family had some prominence. We cannot be sure that the family was wealthy though there were certainly means enough. We may picture the home as being refined and quiet, “not wholly in the busy world, nor quite beyond it,” where Jesus paused for a little rest on his travels. The time was about four months before his death, not so long a time before death would invade also this pleasant home.

As the story is told, Jesus met Martha somewhere in the village. Was it in the market place; or had she gone on some errand? She at once invited Jesus and received him in her home, ὑπό in the verb with the idea of hospitality, received him “under” her roof, R. 633. These words imply a great deal: all the previous connection of Jesus with the family, the most friendly relation, Jesus’ own desire to pay a brief visit. We can almost see the eagerness of Martha once more to have Jesus as a guest in her home.

Luke 10:39

39 And for her there was a sister, called Mary, who also, after being seated by the side at the feet of the Lord, began to hear his word.

The dative with “to be” is used regularly to indicate possession: “she had a sister,” and that is all the information that is needed for the setting of the story. This simplicity of narration throws all the weight on the action that follows. We learn at once that this sister sat beside Jesus, at his feet as a pupil, and went on to hear his word (not “talk,” R., Tr.). Καί is important as it points to other things that Mary did when Jesus entered, she welcomed him, etc. None of these other things are mentioned, they are of small importance in comparison with this thing which she “also” did.

Martha would probably have turned this around and would have considered this last act as idle and unnecessary on her sister’s part. There is nothing to indicate that Jesus was already at table, we must rather conclude that Martha’s preparations were not yet advanced that far. The idea that Jesus reclined on the couch to eat while Mary sat on the outer edge of the couch to the right near Jesus’ feet, is incorrect. “To be seated (passive aorist participle) at the feet,” especially to hear someone’s word, is to act as a pupil. And that is the situation portrayed here. Oriental houses had divans that were raised about two feet from the floor and stood along the wall and were covered with soft material and decked with cushions. We imagine Jesus sitting cross-legged on such a divan while Mary sat in the same fashion on the rug-covered floor. The writer saw the hearers sitting in this fashion in a Damascus mosque, the speaker likewise sitting on the raised platform.

The imperfect ἤκουε may be ingressive: “she began or went on to hear.” The tense is, of course, also descriptive and intimates that presently something happened in regard to this hearing. It should be noted that this action on the part of Mary is all that we hear about her in this narrative; yet it is the chief thing for which the narrative is told. By her attentive hearing Mary helped to make the seat of Jesus a pulpit, her own humble place at his feet a pew, and the whole room a chapel in which the mercy of Jehovah was proclaimed, yea, a very sanctuary where God himself drew nigh to the sinful heart with grace.

In an entirely natural way Mary sits and listens like a lily that is lifting its chalice to the sun. The moment Jesus indicated that he had something to impart Mary turned from everything else to sit and to be absorbed in what he said. This natural, devoted, devout, complete attention to Jesus’ Word stands through all the ages of the church as the true mark of discipleship. To receive the doctrine of Jesus with a docile heart is better than any work, labor, sacrifice, or suffering. To close the ear, to turn the heart away, no matter what the cause, is bound to be fatal, for it shuts off the life stream on which our faith depends.

Luke 10:40

40 Now Martha was getting worried about much serving; moreover, stepping up, she said: Lord, dost thou not care that my sister has been leaving me to serve alone? Tell her, therefore, to take hold at her end together with me!

This is a different picture indeed. Περιεσπᾶτο suggests no idea of being cumbered or loaded down but means “was getting distracted,” ingressive imperfect, was drawn hither and hither. In 1 Cor. 7:35 we are told to attend upon the Lord ἀπερισπάστως, “without distraction.” “About much serving” or ministering refers to the elaborate preparations that Martha was making for the honored guest. This was due to her love for Jesus. She was secretly vexed with herself and with Mary because the latter enjoyed the privilege of hearing Jesus whereas she could not bring herself to do the same for fear that the meal she intended to serve Jesus would not be good enough. We must do justice to Martha in this matter, otherwise we shall not understand Jesus’ own word to her aright. He did not chide Martha for serving elaborately but for allowing her mind to be distracted and drawn away to things that for the moment were unimportant. So many still have a thousand things to which to attend and no quiet hour for the Scriptures, for prayer, or for public worship.

The aorist participle ἐπιστᾶσα has the idea of suddenness: all at once she stepped to Jesus, and to him she says: “Lord, dost thou not care?” etc. On the early use of this title for Jesus among the disciples and on its use by Luke, as in v. 39, see 7:13. The texts vary between the aorist κατέλιπε and the imperfect κατέλειπε; the aorist would mean that Mary at first assisted Martha and then left her in order to sit at Jesus’ feet; the imperfect, that Mary all along let Martha alone do the ministering (the present infinitive). We translate the imperfect with the English perfect. Martha strongly disapproved of this course of her sister’s, in fact, she did not even understand it. We may assume that by making signs she tried to indicate her wishes to Mary while Jesus was speaking, but in vain.

So she finally interrupts by speaking out herself. “Tell her, therefore, (because leaving me thus to serve alone is evidently wrong) to take hold at her end together with me” (λαμβάνομαι, middle, I myself take hold; ἀντί, at my end of the task; σύν, together with someone else). This verb expresses Martha’s wish most exactly.

Martha’s action is not always understood. We cannot accept the view that she burst in upon Jesus; she stepped up until Jesus saw her and paused until she spoke. She did not intend to wound her sister’s feelings by speaking to Jesus instead of to her; Jesus would then have answered quite otherwise. We decline to consider Martha jealous of the attention which Mary was receiving; such an idea is foreign to the text. The idea that Martha spoke jokingly is unworthy of attention. A quite prevalent idea is that Martha was faulting Jesus himself for detaining Mary as he did.

But this would have been open impoliteness and rudeness, and Jesus’ reply indicates nothing of this kind. Some have found open disrespect in the words “carest thou not” but forget Martha’s address, “Lord,” and the obvious reply that Jesus would have had to make, namely promptly to withdraw.

In her eagerness to serve and to honor Jesus with all that the house afforded Martha took it for granted that Jesus thought as she did and really deprecated Mary’s indifference to her sister’s efforts. She simply misunderstood. She knew that Jesus often had not where to lay his head, that he was beset by enemies, wearied with travel, preaching, controversy, work of all kinds. And now that she had him safely under her roof she intended to vie with those other women who ministered to Jesus of their property (8:2, 3). But she forgot that Jesus had come himself to serve and not to be served; and that, although he willingly accepted the hospitality of his friends as long as he did not feel himself burdensome to them, he yet always came to them in order first to give to them and to give more than could be offered him in return. Martha saw too much the recipient, too little the Giver; too much the object of her motherly care, too little the great Host who cares for us all. This is the very point of Jesus’ reply to her, which is decisive as far as the significance and the tone of her question are concerned.

We, therefore, say: Martha does find fault with Mary for not sharing her motherly view but presumes that Jesus understands her feelings, and that he finds them justified. She probably expected Jesus to say, “Do not trouble yourselves so much on my account!” and thereby release Mary to aid Martha. Martha certainly did not expect what actually occurred, namely that, after all, Mary’s idea should be commended as being the right one and her own be treated as one that rested on a misunderstanding. The more closely the author views the situation, the more this analysis seems correct to him. It is somewhat like the scene that occurred in Simon’s house a few weeks later when, by anointing Jesus, Mary again shows that she is far in advance of all others in appreciating the significance of the hour and of the last and only opportunity it afforded for discerning love. It is so here when Jesus was the guest of the sisters.

It is Mary who apprehends aright, it is Martha who is left behind. She is at fault, but ignorantly. Therefore Jesus is exceedingly kind and gentle, he explains, and the entire tone of his words shows that Martha, too, will accept his words and, though more slowly than her sister, will learn of him.

Luke 10:41

41 The Lord, however, answering said to her: Martha, Martha, thou art distracted and troubled concerning many things. But one thing is needful, for Mary did choose for herself the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

This doubling such as “Martha, Martha,” occurs repeatedly in the Scriptures, for instance: “O Absalom, my son, my son!” “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how oft would I have gathered,” etc. This doubling always voices love in some intense way. Here it is like saying, “Child, child!” and gently reaching toward Martha’s heart. He first sketches her condition. The verb is derived from μέρος, “a part,” and means to be distracted even as “about many things” follows; compare περιεσπᾶτο in v. 40. And so with her mind divided by this and that to which she tried to attend at the same time she “is troubled,” tossed about, the verb θορυβάζομαι being found nowhere but here.

The words of Jesus contain reproof, for they imply that Martha should not be distracted and troubled. The reproof is gentle because Martha is trying to show her love, and because she will comply with what Jesus says.

Some commentators take it that, although Jesus reproved Martha for her distraction, he, nevertheless, intended to acknowledge her efforts in his behalf, mistaken though they were for the moment. They then draw an application for those who are indifferent and slothful in the service of the Master and wish that these might wake up and be anxious and troubled about many things. Yet this application shows that this thought is wide of the mark. The slothful are not to become distracted and troubled; one mistaken course is not to be set in place of another. Both must be corrected. Zeal without understanding is not commendable zeal.

He who preached singleness of heart and who here emphasizes one thing as needful, i. e., only one, cannot contradict himself by covertly praising the divided and troubled heart. Sloth is corrected only by having true life and energy put in its place by Jesus through the Word; anxiety and a troubled mind are corrected only by having Jesus substitute the one needful thing which then works calmness and quiet assurance from above and, when the proper time comes, directs zeal along the right course.

Luke 10:42

42 “There is need of but one thing” means the one thing that Martha failed to have and Mary had. The assured Greek text is: ἑνὸςδέἑστινχρεία: the reading translated in the R. V.’s margin is to be discarded. Jesus does not say outright what this “one thing” is, but his words and the situation furnish the answer. Jesus says that Mary “did choose for herself the good part.” The word μερίς, “part,” is not suggested by the food about which Martha worried but matches the verb μεριμνᾷς which is itself derived from μέρος and μερίς. Instead of being distracted and divided between many parts Mary chose for herself one part that ended all distraction and division in her heart, and this was the “good” part, ἀγαθός in the sense of truly beneficial.

This “good part” and the “one thing,” ἕν, are certainly the same. There is much variety and some difference in the way in which it is defined chiefly because so many answer the question abstractly without reference to the narrative, and also because some do not distinguish between the objective thing chosen and a lot of subjective activities regarding the chosen part and thing.

“The good part” is best defined as the WORD. The whole context points to this answer, for Mary sat at Jesus’ feet and heard his word, and it is to this that Jesus draws Martha’s attention by saying that what Mary has done was to choose the good part. This word is something objective. As far as the subjective points are concerned, faith, hearing, undivided attention, eager appropriation, all these lie in the verb “she did choose for herself.” But this correct answer is misapplied when we are told that it was this good part about which Martha was “to be anxious and troubled” instead of the cooking and the serving. It is unwarranted to say that Mary chose the one thing for her anxiousness and troubling. The very opposite is true: he who chooses the one thing needful is thereby delivered from all worry and trouble.

As the “one thing” is placed over against “many things,” so “the good part” (as one) is placed over against the divided mind (μεριμνᾷς), and Mary’s one act (ἐξελέξατο, aorist because it is one act) over against Martha’s continuous distraction and being troubled (present, durative tenses). Mary’s choice was rest for her soul, and her very picture, sitting at Jesus’ feet and drinking in his word, is the picture of rest.

It is to assure Mary that Jesus adds: “which shall not be taken away from her” (ἀπό should be dropped from the text), and at the same time to invite Martha. Jesus will not let Martha draw Mary from the Word, λόγος, to worry about πολλά, many things. To allow that would be to plunge Mary into Martha’s distracted condition. And Martha could see and feel that Jesus wanted her to join Mary—all this distraction was wrong, both sisters should rest and be happy in the good part.

We list some superficial interpretations: Mary prepared just one dish for the meal, and Jesus says that is enough (R., W. P., and translation); again, Mary picked out for herself the best-tasting dish of all those brought by Martha, or took out the largest portion for herself. These interpretations seem impossible, but they have been offered.

Martha and Mary have often been allegorized or treated as types: Martha is typical of the Jewish zeal for the law, Mary of the Pauline πίστις; Martha, the Roman Catholic Church, Mary, the Evangelical Lutheran Church; Martha, the active life, Mary, the contemplative; Martha, the energetic character, Mary, the deep, quiet, serene nature. In a good many of these comparisons Mary herself comes short of the true ideal by lacking somewhat in the energy and the business activity of Martha, the true ideal being conceived as a combination of the two sisters.

As regards this whole proceeding it should be said that it rests on a wrong conception of the point of the narrative, which aims to place before us, not so much Martha and Mary as the one thing needful, the good part, i. e., the blessed, saving, soul-satisfying Word of Christ. Where this is chosen all else follows; where this is set aside and neglected all else is useless, empty, deceptive, vain. There is nothing good in Martha’s anxious and troubled agitation; the only good thing is her love for Jesus, but this must be cleansed of the mistaken ideas which threaten to spoil it and must be directed into the one correct channel, all will then come out right. Jesus had succeeded in this in the case of Mary and, no doubt, now also in the case of Martha although Luke adds nothing more. We picture them as both sitting at Jesus’ feet until, after he had finished his giving to them, he allowed them both together to serve him in a way that delighted his heart.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.