Luke 11

CHAPTER XI

Luke 11:1

1 And it came to pass while he was in a certain place engaged in praying, when he ceased, there said one of his disciples to him, Lord, teach us to pray even as also John taught his disciples.

When and where this occurred is deliberately omitted by Luke. We can only guess why he does not specify, and there is little use in that. The time and the place, of course, cut no figure in the narrative as such. On ἐγένετο plus a finite verb see 1:8, there also on Luke’s favorite ἐντῷ plus an infinitive. Luke has mentioned the praying of Jesus in 3:21; 6:12; 9:18, 28. Though the disciples are here at hand, we take it that Jesus withdrew from them and prayed by himself, and when he had concluded his prayer, came back to them. We regard προσευχόμενον as modifying αὐτόν, “he engaged in praying,” not as making a periphrastic infinitive with εἶναι, R. 891.

It was then that “one of his disciples” made his request. If this had been one of the Twelve, Luke would have given his name; it must have been one of the Seventy (10:1, 17) or some other one of the wider circle of disciples. This explains how Jesus came to give the Lord’s Prayer a second time and explains the briefer form that was used on this occasion. This man and many others had not been present when the Sermon on the Mount was delivered, in which Jesus taught the Lord’s Prayer, and it is thus that he repeats it briefly. He did not repeat it verbatim from the sermon, for he intended to give no fixed formula; he abbreviated because he had already given the prayer in full once before. It is a fair conclusion that this repetition caused the early church to adopt this prayer for liturgical and individual use, seeing that it was, indeed, a model prayer in every way.

The fact that the church adopted Matthew’s report of the prayer rather than Luke’s is only natural. The church, too, felt free to formulate the prayer in its own way even as Jesus repeated the prayer with variations.

Another view is that Luke reports both the original occasion and the original form of the prayer, and that Matthew himself gave this prayer a fuller form and inserted it into the Sermon on the Mount, which is an address that is composed of sayings that were delivered at various times and in various places. But it is hard to accept this view. Why credit Matthew with the structure of the sermon and take that credit away from Jesus? To make that sermon a mosaic is to fail to see its coherent and closely knit composition, which is one of its grand features. Why credit Matthew with producing the finished form of the prayer instead of Jesus? Jesus frequently repeated as every good teacher does; and what should have excluded repetition in this case? The view that Jesus gave the prayer only once, and in the form that Luke reports, lacks plausibility when it is closely examined.

This is another instance of the early use of Κύριος by the disciples in addressing Jesus; see 7:13. The fact that John taught his disciples to pray, i. e., taught them in a special way that went beyond what Judaism had taught them, we learn only from the statement made here. That he should do so is in no way surprising. He would naturally teach his disciples to formulate their prayers in accordance with the revelation which he brought them. Jesus had taught his disciples as we see from Matt. 6:5, etc. His example, too, had taught them.

What this petitioner wants is some instruction since he and others had not heard previous instructions. The feeling of need in that regard was stirred in him by the way in which he saw Jesus himself offer prayer. Jesus, too, is pleased to have such requests made, which are themselves excellent prayers. He sometimes waits until such desires arise in our hearts, for any desire such as this will cause us to accept his instruction more eagerly.

The present infinitive προσεύχεσθαι is strained when Robertson translates it “teach us the habit of prayer.” The Jews had that habit, and the Pharisees especially were very ostentatious in observing the stated hours of prayer. The present infinitive is in place because it refers to any and to all praying which the disciples would engage in as disciples of Jesus, their Lord. The statement that this man’s request is not clear as to whether he was asking for a form of prayer or for general instruction as to the way to pray, overlooks the answer Jesus gave. Jesus understood the request to include both.

Luke 11:2

2 He said to them: Whenever you pray, go on and say: Father, hallowed be thy name; let come thy kingdom; our needful bread be giving us day by day; and remit to us our sins, for we ourselves also remit to everyone owing us; and do not bring us into temptation.

Jesus’ answer was intended for all the disciples. We leave the textual questions to the text critics. It was natural that copyists should try to make Luke’s record conform to Matthew’s. A study of the brief form given above leads to the conclusion that the abbreviation is in the nature of a condensation and in no way in the nature of a material alteration. For the complete interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer as such we refer the reader to Matt. 6:9, etc. We content ourselves here with what is necessary for an interpretation of the abbreviated version.

The single word of address, “Father,” appears at once as an abbreviation of: “Father of ours, who art in the heavens.” The first two petitions are identical with those found in Matthew; but the third is omitted because its thought lies already in the first two, for it is, indeed, God’s good and gracious will that his name be hallowed among us and his kingdom come to us. This omission is thus condensation.

Luke 11:3

3 The fourth petition is practically the same as that found in Matthew. The imperative is, however, the present in this one petition, “keep giving,” whereas in Matthew it is the aorist. All the aorist imperatives denote “instant prayer” (R. 852) and express urgency, but the present to indicate iterative giving is fitting in this petition because of the adverbial τὸκαθʼ ἡμέραν, “day by day,” which is iterative (distributive use of κατά), whereas in Matthew we have the adverb σήμερον, “this day,” which is not distributive.

The tenses are misunderstood when the two aorists in the first petitions are referred to the end of time, that the Father shall then bring to completion (aorist) the hallowing of his name and the coming of his kingdom, whereas the present imperative takes in the course of time. This peculiar idea regarding the aorist is refuted by Luke’s last two aorists in v. 4, which certainly do not refer to the end of time, and by the unbroken line of seven aorists in Matthew.

The idea that Matthew’s “this day” fits the laborer who earns on one day what he eats the next, whereas Luke broadens this by writing “day by day” so as to include also the rich who in one day get what will feed them for many a day, and that Luke does this as being the inhabitant of a great city like Antioch where wealth abounded, is too specious for serious attention and misunderstands both the word for “needful” bread and the adverbial expressions in question.

Luke 11:4

4 “Our sins” is without a figure and interprets “our debts” used in Matthew. But “everyone owing us” repeats the figure that is used in Matthew and refers, of course, to a debt that is incurred by some sin against us. The singular individualizes Matthew’s plural “our debtors.” But γάρ does not state the reason because of which we ask remission of God; the Jews already knew that the source of remission was the grace of God (Ps. 51:1; Dan. 9:18) but the requisitum subjecti (Calov), without which no believer would venture to appear before God to ask remission for himself. To dismiss a debtor means to cancel his debt and no longer to consider him a debtor. In Matthew the aorist “we did dismiss” stops at the moment the prayer is made; in Luke the iterative present (R. 880) makes this dismissing a course of constant repetition, matching παντί, “everyone,” as instances of this kind may appear. The thought may be expressed in either way, each tense illuminates the meaning of the other.

The seventh petition in Matthew is omitted in Luke, but not because the sixth and the seventh really are one petition, the one stating the matter negatively, the other positively. This omission is again due to condensation, deliverance from the evil being included in the two preceding petitions for remission of sins and deliverance from temptation just as having God’s will done is included in having his name hallowed and his kingdom come.

5–8) And he said to them: Who of you shall have a friend, and shall go to him at midnight, and shall say to him, Friend, lend me three loaves of bread since a friend of mine just came to me from a journey, and I have not what I shall set before him; and he from inside answering shall say, Stop furnishing me troubles! Already the door is shut to stay, and my children are in the bed in company with me, I cannot, on getting up, give to thee? I say to you, though he will not give to him on getting up because he is his friend, at least because of his shamelessness, having risen up, he will give to him as many as he has need of.

This is really not a parable but an illustration that is worded in such a way as to form a strong argument a minori ad majus, or, as Trench states it, from the worse to the better. The details of the illustration are accordingly chosen with this in view: 1) only a friend—whereas God is a Father; 2) at midnight (genitive of time within), the time that offers the best excuse for refusing a request—with God there is no night, no inconvenient time, no intention to use anything as an excuse; 3) asking for a stranger whom the sleeper does not even know and to whom he is under no obligation whatever—we are known to God, are even his own children; 4) a slight need, considering even Eastern customs of hospitality; the friend might well be asked to wait for refreshment till morning—our needs are far greater; 5) a small gift, just a few, small ἄρτοι, “breads,” flat cakes, hence three for one man—our requests are for vastly greater gifts for soul and body; 6) a selfish, unfriendly excuse for refusing the request—whereas our Father is perfect love and kindness and offers us the most abounding promises instead of excuses. The argument is: if this friend could and did succeed with such a friend in such a case, then we can and will most assuredly succeed with our heavenly Father.

This is not an illustration of perseverance in prayer; that is presented in 18:1, etc. Its point lies in the two διά phrases: if not “because he is his friend,” then “at least because of his shamelessness,” Unverschaemtheit (“importunity” in our versions is inexact). This beggar had no shame to bother a friend in such a way; he was stretching friendship too far; yet he succeeded because of his very shamelessness. This illustration is a strong encouragement to prayer, to let nothing deter us from praying; and the encouragement lies in the implied promise that our praying will receive its answer even as Jesus states explicitly in v. 9.

We have ἕξει—πορεύσεται (two futures)—εἴπῃ—εἴπῃ (two aorist subjunctives), all in one construction in v. 5–7. The subjunctives are simply futuristic in this extended question with four verbs, R. 930. The punctiliar παρεγένετο means that the traveler has just arrived, and the relative clause with ὅ is subfinal in force: “what I shall (may) set beside him” (παρά) whereas we say “before him.” In v. 7 the present imperative with μή means “quit troubling me,” an action already begun is to stop, R. 853. “To furnish burdens” is idiomatic for making trouble. Εἰς is plainly static, “in,” not “into,” R. 593.

The children were, of course, not in the same bed with the father as μετʼ ἐμοῦ also states, “in company with me,” the father also being abed. “Has been shut,” in the sense of has been locked, means that it is still so and intended to stay so; this locking of Oriental doors was an elaborate affair, hence the reluctance to unlock at midnight. The two participles for getting up used in v. 7 and 8 are participles to indicate that these were subsidiary actions, and the verbs for giving are thus made prominent as expressing the main action. In v. 8 εἰκαί = though; καὶεἰ would be “even if.” In ὅσων there lies the accusative ἅ, the object of δώσει, v. 8, and verbs of need have the genitive of what is needed.

Luke 11:9

9 Besides, I myself to you declare: Keep asking, and it shall be given to you; keep seeking, and you shall find; keep knocking, and it shall be opened to you! For everyone asking, takes; and he seeking, finds; and to him knocking it shall be opened.

Καί is usually overlooked and translated with a mere “and” as introducing the application of the illustration. But καί places something else of the same kind on top of a thing. “Besides” the illustration Jesus offers his disciples these literal commands and promises. In Matt. 7:7, 8 they stand alone but occur with the illustration in Luke. So weighty and so precious are these words that, like the Lord’s Prayer, we are not surprised that Jesus uttered them more than once. Ἐγώ has strong emphasis; note that it abuts ὑμῖν and thus forms quite a different combination from the common λέγωὑμῖν, “I say to you.” In addition to the strong illustration no less a person than I, your Lord (v. 1), make to you as my own disciples this most positive and assured declaration—this is the force of the preamble κἀγὼὑμῖνλέγω.

The three present imperatives are iterative: ask, seek, knock today, tomorrow, every time you have need—you cannot come too often. The tenses are usually regarded as expressing protracted action; but it ought to be plain that, when we ask anything of God, mere “repetitions” and “much speaking” (Matt. 6:7) are of no avail. “Continual coming” (18:5) is a different thing, it is iterative as just stated. The three imperatives are synonymous, yet the second seems to be more intense than the first, the third more intense than the other two, and the three together express the deepest and the most earnest desire in prayer.

Yet the idea can hardly be that, if we are not heard when we ask, we are then to seek, and if neither avails, we are then to knock. God often waits before he answers, and our prayers are often so languid that we ourselves cause him to delay answering. Yet the thought is not that just asking sometimes brings the answer, and sometimes nothing less than knocking. The three promises shut that idea out. Our asking should at once be a seeking, and both at once a knocking and also the reverse: when you ask, seek; and when you seek, go and knock. Αἰτεῖν is humble asking, the act of an inferior before a superior, and is used regarding us but never regarding Jesus. The full promise is: “it shall be given to you,” the very verb implying grace. Right asking “seeks” from God and so has the promise: “and you shall find.” Right asking and seeking “knock” for entrance at the heavenly house of God where he dwells and so have the assurance: “and it shall be opened to you,” your petitions shall be favorably received.

The view is not sound that to knock is used only because of the preceding illustration in which the friend goes to his friend’s house at midnight. This view is offered as proof that these words were not a part of the Sermon on the Mount in Matt. 7:7, etc., but were spoken only as Luke records them and were inserted into the sermon by Matthew. But a glance at v. 5 shows that Jesus used none of the three verbs ask, seek, and knock in the illustration. The friend asked and sought as much as he knocked, and no one feels an incongruity on reading “knock, and it shall be opened to you” in Matthew 7.

Note that all three promises are categorical, without an “if” or a “but.” God always hears believing prayer. Yet we must say that every true disciple prays for nothing that is contrary to his Father’s will. The promises seem to be stated in inverse order: “shall be given” seems strongest, “shall find” less, and “shall be opened” still less. But the gift is made when we find, and we find what we need when the door is opened to us. When we enter we find, and the gift is ours.

Luke 11:10

10 “For,” γάρ, proves that what Jesus says to the disciples (ἐγὼὑμῖνλέγω) is undoubtedly true, “for everyone asking takes,” etc. There are no exceptions, never have been, in fact, cannot be. And so the promises are repeated, which impresses them more deeply. If God hears “everyone” who prays he will not make me an exception. In v. 9 we have the plural, in this verse the absolute singular; Paul frequently has the same order.

Luke 11:11

11 Moreover, what father among you shall his son ask for bread, will he hand him a stone? or also a fish, will he hand him instead of a fish a serpent? or he also shall ask an egg, will he hand him a scorpion? If, then, you, though you are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father from heaven give the Holy Spirit to those asking him?

Δέ adds something more but what is somewhat different. The argument is again from the less to the greater, from what faulty fathers do to what the all-perfect Father in heaven does. The fuller reading is textually assured. The structure of the sentence is anacoluthic. When the grammars note this they draw wrong conclusions when they regard the structure as incorrect and as being inferior Greek (B.-D. 469). If Luke had not wanted an anacoluthon he would not have written one or would have rewritten the sentence.

A sentence with a broken structure may be more perfect than one with the common structure—it all depends on the writer. An anacoluthon is a legitimate and often a highly effective type of structure, and the grammarians ought to regard it as such. R. 436 acknowledges the great power though he, too, speaks of “the grammatical hopelessness.”

The questions are dramatic as they were in v. 5, etc., but the first is more so because it is anacoluthic. Jesus begins with the ordinary interrogative form: “What father of you (partitive ἐκ) shall his son ask for bread,” and then, in a startling way, turns the question into a different form, one with an assured negative answer, “will he hand him a stone?” He absolutely will not. Sonship and fatherhood, even among ordinary men, preclude such a thing. Μή is the interrogative word that involves a “no” as the only answer in the speaker’s mind, and it is always difficult to render this particle adequately because we have no corresponding word. From friend to friend Jesus advances to son and father. Much is lost for the English reader when ἄρτος is translated “loaf.” This ἄρτος was a small, flat cake of bread and thus resembled a stone; compare 4:3. A son who is hungry does not ask his parent for a whole loaf in our sense of loaf—he could not eat it all—but for such a cake which he could consume easily.

The illustration is intensified by the addition of two more points just as we have three members in v. 9, 10. A hungry boy may ask for something to eat with the bread, hence the καί, “also,” before “a fish” and before “an egg” in v. 12. The anacoluthic structure with its dramatic strength continues: “or also a fish—will he hand him a serpent?” Especially in the general region of the Sea of Galilee fish were the common addition to bread (John 6:9). A snake may resemble a fish but is unfit to eat. The idea of harmfulness is not implied, for, certainly, the snake would not be alive (as little as the fish), and if it were it would strike the father’s hand before it struck the son’s. The point lies in the deceptions attempted by such a father which reduce his fatherhood and thus the sonship of his innocent and trusting child to an illusion.

Luke 11:12

12 Luke alone has the third section of the question which asks for an egg to eat with the bread (καί) and is handed a dead scorpion curled up, a poisonous creature that was never eaten after it had been killed, in this respect being like a serpent. No father mocks his child in such heartless ways.

Luke 11:13

13 The argument from the less to the greater is unanswerable. It clinches all that precedes regarding the assurance that our prayers to our Father will be heard. As earthly fathers prove themselves fathers by giving “good gifts” to their children, so your Father proves to you that he is, indeed, your Father, and you are, indeed, his children by giving to you, in answer to your asking in your need, ἀγαθά, things beneficial to you, as Matthew has it, or as Luke has it, “the Holy Spirit,” who at once names the highest and greatest spiritual gift that involves every other spiritual gift and certainly thus also every necessary temporal gift, for these lie on the lowest plane. ΠνεῦμαἍγιον is a proper name, hence it may or may not have the article.

The supreme and the extreme are often used in the Scriptures so as to include all that is less. With οὖν Jesus makes the deduction and at once states it in full: your Father simply cannot do otherwise; it would be a thousand times more impossible than for an earthly father to act as indicated. By every good gift a disciple receives the Father acknowledges him as a child. The force of the argument is strengthened by the concessive “you being wicked,” which humbles the disciples and reminds them of all their sins and thus throws into bolder relief “the Father from heaven” who is all-holy and all-righteous. Some texts omit ὁ before ἐξ, but these differ from all the other texts. This is a case of brachylogy, abbreviation of the thought that the gift comes “out of heaven,” R. 1204.

Luke 11:14

14 And he was casting out a dumb demon (see 4:33); and it came to pass (see 1:8), the demon having gone out, the dumb spoke. And the multitudes wondered.

From 9:51 onward only the Samaritan opposition contained a discordant note, and in 11:1–13 Jesus is in intimate converse with his many disciples (the Seventy, 10:1, 17, and others). All this is changed. We see that the opposition has become far more intense and vicious, which foreshadows the end. Luke intends to point out this contrast and thus proceeds with this significant narrative. He considers time and place matters of indifference. The miracle, too, and the astonishment of the multitudes furnish only the occasion and are thus stated with brevity. What follows in the way of vicious slander, together with the reply of Jesus, is the story in which Luke is interested.

Luke 11:15

15 But some of them said, In conjunction with Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, does he expel the demons.

The crowds are astonished, but not “some of them,” namely Pharisees (Matt. 12:24). These have a ready explanation for the miracles that were wrought upon the demoniacs. Having these miracles right before their eyes, they could not, of course, resort to the modernist’s plea: “It is necessary to question the literal accuracy of the narrative”—so one of the latest commentaries. Again, “to the modern mind” the exorcisms “can easily be explained on psychological principles, which are gradually being understood.” These Pharisees had an explanation only for the expulsion of demons, the modernists usually go much farther than that. But the Pharisees offered a better explanation. They put Jesus in league with the devil.

Satan obliges his friend Jesus by withdrawing the demons from their victims when Jesus wants this done. That made everything plain! It did more, it made thorough work of discrediting Jesus. Who would follow a man who is in league with Satan?

We take ἐν in its ordinary meaning: “in conjunction with,” “in union with.” The derivation of “Beelzebul” has not as yet been cleared up, the term being wanting in all the old Jewish literature. It is supposed to mean “Lord of the dwelling” and was used as a designation for Satan. It was originally the name of the Philistine god Baal to whom Ahaziah applied to heal his disease. In some manner, at which linguists thus far only guess, the Jews picked it up as a vile term for Satan. Some think that they corrupted it to “Beelzebub,” “Baal of flies” and thus “Baal of dung”; but this is not certain, being due perhaps only to pronunciation. “The ruler of the demons” explains exactly who is meant, the head of the hellish kingdom. In this case the victim was also blind.

These Pharisees plus scribes (Mark 3:22) were from Jerusalem, the seat of the deadly opposition to Jesus. They did not witness the miracle but heard of it and then pronounced their slander. Jesus knew their thoughts by means of the knowledge that was always at his command when it was needed and summoned them in order to confront them (Matt. 12 and Mark 3).

Luke 11:16

16 Moreover, others, trying to tempt, were seeking from him a sign out of heaven.

Luke mentions these “others” at once and gives us the reply of Jesus to them in v. 29, etc.; Matthew does not mention them until he presents the reply (12:38). So there were two groups. Both consisted of scribes and Pharisees, both were equally hostile, the second masked its hostility behind the demand for “a sign out of heaven.” The people were asking, but with grave doubt, whether Jesus was perhaps the Son of David, i. e., the Messiah. This stirred the Pharisees and scribes and led some to declare that Jesus was leagued with the devil and others to demand a sign such as they knew Jesus would never produce—two ways of counteracting any idea current among the people that he might be the Messiah. Jesus meets both challenges at once and most squarely and with crushing effect.

Luke 11:17

17 But he (αὐτός), when he knew their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom, divided against itself, becomes waste, and house falls against house. And if also Satan did come to be divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand—seeing that you are saying that in conjunction with Beelzebul I am casting out the demons?

After they had been summoned (Mark 3:23) these slanderers appear in their defiance, and Jesus knows all their thoughts, not merely their calling him an ally of Beelzebul but all their secret reasons for doing so and all the wicked purposes that lay behind the challenge to do a sign out of heaven. Jesus begins with an observation that sums up a universal experience that no sane person contradicts: “Every kingdom, once divided (this being the force of the aorist) against itself, begins to become waste (going on in this course, present tense), and house falls against house.” Mark leaves out the divided city, and Luke both the divided city and the house. The insertion made by our versions: “a house divided against a house” is untenable, for no house is ever so divided; its division is a split within itself. Luke’s addition: “and house falls against house” is a description of how a divided kingdom goes down in civil war and is pertinent here where demon after demon is expelled. This addition in Luke has nothing to do with what Mark and Matthew report about a house divided against itself.

Jesus presents the major premise in this general proposition.

Luke 11:18

18 The minor premise is introduced by “if” (condition of reality) since it embodies the assertion of these Pharisees: “If it were true as you boldly claim.” The minor reads: “And if also Satan did come to be divided against himself.” The conclusion is stated in interrogative form: “How will his kingdom stand?” meaning that it will not stand. The conclusion is inescapable; and the very thought of Satan’s destroying his own kingdom shows its absurdity—no man believes such a thing. So the Lord’s syllogism is a reductio ad absurdum.

Opposition to Jesus regularly upsets men’s logic, and they often put forth what is absurdly unsound as being convincingly sound. The notion that as a ruse and only as a ruse Satan allows his friend Jesus to expel a demon here and there is made untenable by the fact that Jesus expelled all the demons whom he found in possession of men. To explain that patent fact by saying that Jesus worked in conjunction with Satan is to declare that Satan has come to be divided against himself: at one time he takes possession of men through his demons and anon he expels them through Jesus.

Let it be noted that here as elsewhere Jesus speaks of Satan as being the ruler of a kingdom that is composed of all the demons. They operate in this world as a solidly unified force, and all their purposes and their works are wholly evil, opposed to all God’s work of grace through Christ. To destroy the works of the devil and to abolish his rule in this world are the mission of Jesus. To deny the existence of Satan, the demons, and their kingdom is one of the wicked means by which Satan seeks to maintain his rule among men, but this deception, too, is doomed.

Luke 11:19

19 But if I in conjunction with Beelzebul expel the demons, your sons—in conjunction with whom do they expel them? For this they shall be your judges.

This second proof rests on the first: identical effects prove an identical cause. The emphasis is on the subjects: “I—your sons.” The latter are not physical sons or just pupils of the Pharisees but, like the similar expression, “sons of the prophets,” Genossen eurer Zunft, experts of your own guild, whom you approve and are proud of because they are able to expel demons. We know nothing further about these Jewish exorcists, especially as to what means they used, or what success they had. We know only that exorcism was practiced, that it was not very successful, judging from the many demoniacs that came to Jesus for healing, and that the means used were not objectionable.

The fact that Satan did not and, in fact, could not lend his hand to such expulsions the previous argument has placed beyond question. Whoever drives out demons can do so only by being in the necessary connection with God. What a desperate self-contradiction, therefore, to say: when Jesus drives them out, the connection is Satan; but when their own experts drive them out, the connection is God! Something is viciously wrong with men who ascribe the identical effect to absolutely opposite causes. “Because of this,” i. e., the thing Jesus exposes, “they,” their own associates, “shall be your judges” before God’s judgment bar. God will let these Pharisaic exorcists pronounce the sentence on these blaspheming Pharisees, and what that verdict will be need not be stated.

This second argument of Jesus’ has been divorced from the first and has been turned upside down. This is done on the basis of Josephus, Wars, 7, 6, 3; Ant. 8, 2, 5, the strange story of drawing a demon out through the nose by means of a mythical root called Baaras, which is secured in true magical fashion. Acts 19:13, etc., is quoted—just why, is not apparent. The conclusion is then drawn that in their exorcisms these Pharisaic exorcists used witchcraft and charms which contained the names of demons.

The argument of Jesus is thus said to be the ordinary argumentum ad hominem: your sons drive out devils by means of devils—how, then, can you object to my using the help of the chief of devils—your own sons will convict you of injustice. To say the least, this form of argument would not deny but would rather admit Jesus’ connection with Beelzebul and would prove only that the Pharisees were the last persons who had any right to blame him for such a connection. We trust that no one will assume that in Acts 19:13 the sons of Sceva substituted the name Jesus as one that was more potent for the name of some demon that had thus far been used by them. The way in which they tried to use the name Jesus indicates that they had hitherto used some sacred, not some demon formula. The Son of God cannot admit, even for the sake of argument, that he uses the power of Beelzebul.

Luke 11:20

20 But if I in conjunction with God’s finger expel the demons, then the kingdom of God did already reach to you.

This is the correct view of his expulsion of demons and of the conclusion to be drawn therefrom. Back of this conclusion, as all that preceded shows, there lies the logical dilemma: either a connection with God or one with Satan—tertium non datur. The connection with Satan has already been exploded as being absurd and impossible; hence the connection with God alone is left. For Matthew’s “Spirit of God” Luke has “God’s finger.” All three divine persons are active in Jesus’ work (3:22; 4:1, 2; 4:18; Matt. 12:18), and it is the third person whose special task it is to build the kingdom on earth. Jesus says “finger” (Ps. 8:3, “fingers”), not hand or arm, which indicates that it took only a motion of God’s finger to make the demons flee. It is to be noted that in expelling demons Jesus used no more than a word, and every word of his is filled with the Spirit.

Thus every demon expulsion that was effected by Jesus is so much plain evidence of the Spirit’s presence and work, in other words, so much proof that “the kingdom of God did already reach to you,” φθάνειν, “to overtake” and thus “to reach or arrive,” especially in the New Testament. The tense is interesting: the demon expulsions show that the kingdom is not merely on the way but that it “did already (aorist) reach to you,” we should say, “has reached” (R. 842), i. e., is already in your midst. See 4:43 on the kingdom. Die Koenigsherrschaft, the royal, divine, saving rule of God as King, is present as having arrived for you, and you can see it in the abject defeat of Satan and his demons in every demoniac’s deliverance. Jesus means: you should welcome this rule and open your hearts to its grace. Only devilish minds could deny what was so evident and would attempt to oppose that rule.

Luke 11:21

21 Whenever the strong man, completely armed, guards his own court, in peace are his possessions; but whenever one stronger than he, having come upon him, conquers him, he takes away his panoply on which he had relied and distributes his spoils. Isa. 49:25.

The illustration is so transparent as to need no elucidation. The two “whenever” generalize the illustration: this always occurs as here stated, which no one will deny. The tertium in the illustration is the fact that complete defeat must precede the act of plundering—God’s kingdom must have come before demoniacs could be liberated as Jesus was liberating them. A syllogism underlies the illustration and its obvious application to Jesus and Satan. Major premise: Only complete victory allows plundering at will; minor: Jesus plunders Satan at will; conclusion: Jesus achieved compete victory over Satan. It is this inexorable logic that lends such force to the illustration.

Satan is this powerful brigand or bandit. “Completely armed” with his ὅπλα (the equipment of a hoplite) pictures this bandit as having been and thus still being armed (perfect participle) with all his mighty weapons, which represent his power. His αὐλή is the great court of his house or palace from which he issues and to which he returns; this represents the world under Satan’s sway. Here he guards his possessions, all that he has robbed and violated, like these victims of the demons, and all remains “in peace,” undisturbed, as long as his strength is not crushed.

Luke 11:22

22 The illustration is general and thus speaks only of “some stronger one,” but the thought refers to Jesus. The condition is one of expectancy (ἐπάν with the subjunctive), but the conclusion is a reality (αἴρει, indicative). The aorist νικήσῃ indicates complete victory. Jesus came upon Satan right in his own stronghold and conquered him (4:1–13) and was even now taking Satan’s panoply, all his armor, from him, rendering him innocuous and distributing his σκῦλα, that of which he had stripped Satan, the spoils of victory, release from his cruel power. The past perfect ἐπεποίθει denotes only a past state of trust, the tense being without perfective force, R. 904.

The objection that the victory referred to in 4:1–13 was only moral whereas the expulsion of demons was physical is pointless since Satan gained his physical power to hurt by his moral victory in enticing man into sin. The victory of Jesus reversed this moral victory of Satan by vanquishing him in another temptation. Thus the kingdom did already reach to you, quod erat demonstrandum as someone has well said. All that Jesus says would be farcical if Satan were not the personal being he is represented as being in the Scriptures from Gen. 3 onward, and if demoniacal possession, like the demons themselves, were ordinary mental ailments.

Luke 11:23

23 He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathers not with me scatters.

The matter is brought to a point. While it is still general, the statement verges on the personal, for every hearer is led to ask: “Where do I stand?” There are, then, two sides: Jesus—Satan; the Victor—the vanquished. Neutrality is impossible. Μετά denotes personal association and attachment, and κατά, “down on me,” hostility. But the idea is not that the Pharisees to whom Jesus is speaking (Mark 3:23) were trying to assume a neutral position, and that their reference to Beelzebul was only an expression of embarrassment, they being at a loss for a better explanation. There is nothing in the narrative to support this view. The Pharisees were against Jesus; from the very moment when they decided not to be “with him” they had swung to the other side.

In the war against Satan every man who does not side with Jesus is against him and for Satan. Luke 9:50 and Mark 9:40 agree with this, for to do a miracle or a kind deed “in Jesus’ name” is neither neutral nor hostile to Jesus.

Both attitudes have their immediate effect on others, the one gathers, the other scatters. No objects are mentioned, the stress is on the actions alone. Of the three possible objects: sheep, grain, fish, we prefer the first (Matt. 9:36; 10:6; John 10:12, where σκορπίζει is also used with reference to sheep). It was the great work of Jesus to gather the lost sheep; the wolf, Satan, scattered them.

Luke 11:24

24 Matthew places this passage later, in connection with the dealing with these Pharisees; Luke places it here in order to complete the account regarding the demons. When the unclean spirit goes out from the man he goes through waterless places, seeking rest; and not finding it, he says, I will return to my house whence I went out! And having come, he finds it swept and set in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and having gone in, they dwell there. And the last conditions of that man are worse than the first.

The demoniac is delivered from the unclean spirit that had taken possession of him. The details of the deliverance are not needed in order to understand what follows. The Greek articles used with “spirit” and “man” indicate only a specific case and not the fact that all healed demoniacs undergo renewed possession. The expelled spirit, now without a fixed abode, wanders from place to place, seeking ἀνάπαυσις, “pause,” some place where he may satisfy his unclean or morally vile desires. Why he flits about “through waterless places,” which are arid and desert localities and not figurative (heretics, unbaptized people), has been asked often but has never been really answered. We are referred to Tobit 8:3; Baruch 4:35 (both apocryphal), and to Isa. 34:14; Rev. 18:2 with the remark that desert places were thought to be the abode of demons. But Jesus is not voicing opinions that were current in his time, he is stating a fact.

It is also unwarranted to say that the expelled demon seeks healing for his wounds. Would these heal more quickly in “waterless places”? Or that he hates the sight of men, who remind him of the fact that he has been driven out. Why does he, then, go back to the man from whom he was expelled? Jesus knows the ways of demons—we do not. Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil, and he now tells us this about demons’ passing through waterless regions. Like other facts for which we have no explanation, we accept also this one.

The context implies nothing about the demon’s having at last recovered from his defeat and wounds; the only implication is that, having become weary of drifting about and being unable to find rest elsewhere, he bethinks himself of his former house and determines to return to it. We may note that even after the vain attempt to gain Jesus, Satan departed from him only “for a season” (4:13). Having been freed does not mean immunity forever from the devil’s assaults. The figure of the “house” is transparent and is continued throughout.

Luke 11:25

25 Luke omits the fact that the demon finds the house “standing empty” (Matthew), literally, “at leisure,” nobody occupying it, although this is implied in the two participles that are used. The point is significant—the Holy Spirit was not occupying the man’s heart. No true spiritual change had been wrought in him. The two perfect participles have present implication and picture the house as having been made ready for a tenant and now being thus: “swept and set in order,” exactly the kind of place the demons delight in, where they can upset and turn everything upside down again in fiendish glee. So the old tenant arrives, anxious to move in again. Since the house has been untenanted, the participles cannot denote sanctification and spiritual gifts, for God’s Spirit would then be dwelling there. All we may say is that this man, who was once the victim of the demon’s violence so that everything in him was unclean and disordered through the demon’s presence, is now quiet and leading an outwardly undisturbed life, yet one that is quite apart from God.

Luke 11:26

26 This demon is not breaking into the house. Hence the view is unsatisfactory that he gets seven more spirits to help him break into the house. Nor are they called “stronger than he.” Quite the contrary. The house is now so inviting that this demon can have the company he wants. He sees that there is room enough for eight and thus goes and gets seven more. Why just seven is another question that has not received a satisfactory answer.

Any imitation of the sacred number seven is ruled out. Whereas formerly one demon played havoc with this man, eight now violate him. No wonder that “the last things of the man become worse than the first”—eight demons instead of one, and seven of them “more wicked” and thus more vicious than the one. Mary Magdalene was freed from seven demons (8:2; Mark 16:9). The two neuter plurals say nothing about the comparative difficulty of freeing this man; they compare only his two conditions, the last being far worse than the first.

In Matt. 12:45 Jesus made the application of the case that is here detailed: “Thus will it be also with this wicked generation.” Jesus is speaking of his own generation which was helped for a time by the Baptist’s work and by Jesus’ own work. It did not help for long. The spiritual state of the Jews was even now worse as witness v. 14, etc., Matt. 12, the entire chapter. This would go on until the judgment would descend in the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the people. It should not be overlooked that Jesus answers the charge of being connected with Satan (v. 15) by at last pointing out that the Jews themselves were like a man who is repossessed by eight demons instead of by one. Yet all that Jesus said was intended to warn and, if possible, to save: “Save yourselves from this untoward generation!” Acts 2:40.

Luke 11:27

27 And it came to pass that, while he was saying these things (for both expressions see 1:8), a woman out of the crowd, raising her voice, said to him, Blessed the womb that bore thee and breasts thou didst suck! He, however, said, Yea rather, blessed they that are hearing the Word of God and are guarding it!

Jesus had called the Pharisees and the scribes to him and had publicly answered the slander they were uttering behind his back. This courage as well as the masterfulness and the stunning effect of the answer which Jesus gave so impressed the people that stood about that a woman, carried away by her admiration, exclaimed aloud and pronounced the mother of Jesus blessed. The aorist participle ἐπάρασα expresses action that is simultaneous with that of the aorist εἶπε; and τίς is used as it was in verses 10, 25, 30, and 38, it is no more than the indefinite article. Κοιλία is the abdominal cavity and thus comes to designate the womb. There was less reticence at that time than there is now regarding terms and expressions of this kind. This woman was fulfilling the prophecy spoken in 1:48. With holy envy she desired to have been in the place of Jesus’ mother in having such a wonderful son. Many a woman has shared her wish.

Luke 11:28

28 Αὐτός, which is so often used without emphasis by Luke, here contrasts Jesus with the woman. Μενοῦν is confirmatory and at the same time corrective (B.-D. 450, 4): “indeed, yet rather.” Jesus affirms this woman’s beatitude as applying to his mother, but it would be misleading not to say much more. To be physically related to Jesus as being his mother is surely a high prerogative and honor, greater even than this woman dreamed, who did not know the mystery of his conception and his birth. Μενοῦν is misunderstood when it is made sharply adversative, which R. 1151 corrects: “obviously without contrast.”

Jesus in no way says that this woman’s beatitude is wrong. But vastly higher is the beatitude which rests on the true spiritual connection with Jesus. He names those who have this connection with him, a connection without which even the motherhood of Jesus would have been nothing: “they that are hearing the Word of God and are guarding it,” 8:21, and still better Matt. 12:50. The present participles characterize these blessed ones, and the two, of course, go together. Both “to keep” and “to observe” fall short as a translation of φυλάσσειν, which means “to guard” the Word of God by keeping it safely in our own hearts as the most precious treasure (faith) and by allowing no contradiction or alteration of it (confession). As far as doing it is concerned, namely in the sense of works, this is included as a matter of course.

The doing mentioned in Matt. 12:50 is a far deeper thing than just good works. Jesus is not turning the woman and all others from himself but to himself when he emphasizes “the Word of God,” for he not only brought that Word but was its very sum and substance.

Luke 11:29

29 Now as the crowds were thronging upon him he began to say: This generation is a wicked generation. It seeks a sign, and a sign shall not be given to it save the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

In v. 16 Luke has already stated that others were seeking a sign from heaven. Comparing Matt. 12:24 (Pharisees) with v. 38 (some of the scribes and Pharisees), the demand for a sign from heaven emanated from the scribes, most of whom were probably also Pharisees. The professional and most authoritative expounders of the Old Testament and the rabbinical tradition (5:17) did not request, they really demanded a sign from Jesus. The view that these men were better than those who placed Jesus in league with Satan is untenable as the stern answer of Jesus shows. These scribes intended to say that all the signs which Jesus had done were insufficient; they must, according to what they as authorities knew about the Old Testament, demand something more convincing from Jesus, some sign from heaven like moving the heavens, making the clouds gyrate, sun, moon, and stars perform antics, visions painted with unearthly colors in the sky, angel hosts parading down the milky way. And these scribes made this demand because they were convinced that Jesus could not meet it and would thus be discredited when these scribes would shout in derision, “We told you so!”

Luke pictures the scene when this demand was made and Jesus gave his answer. When he gave the reply mentioned in v. 17 Jesus had summoned the Pharisees (Mark 3:23), and v. 27 shows that a crowd of others was present. Luke does not say that this crowd was now augmented but that “they were thronging upon him,” surrounding him in a compact body, all anxious to hear what he would reply. Jesus certainly met this expectation. “Began to say” is weightier than just “he said” and indicates the importance of what follows. The reply is, indeed, lofty and authoritative and at the same time powerful and severe.

Jesus ignores the scribes, he makes a public announcement, one about “this generation” as a whole; it is entirely objective, and its tone is highly judicial. The demand of these scribes is only a symptom of the Judaism of that day. This entire generation had lost contact with God and his Word. These leaders of the people showed this openly. They knew nothing of the blessedness of hearing and guarding the Word of God (v. 28), or else they would never think of brushing aside all the signs of mercy and grace and saving help that had been wrought by Jesus as being worth nothing and fasten on a sign “out of heaven” that, if it were wrought, would be nothing but a prodigy, a sign only of the fact that Jesus, too, had lost contact with God. Here was this packed crowd, waiting whether, perhaps, it would now get to see (Matt. 12:38) such a sign.

The whole thing displayed the fact that this generation was “wicked,” πονηρά, which always means, “actively wicked,” and Matthew adds “adulterous,” unfaithful to its covenant marriage vow given to Jehovah. Wickedness by no means consists only in open crimes, it is even more the base rejection of God’s Word, grace, and Savior as here displayed. Here, indeed, was the wickedness starting on the course that would bring Jesus to the cross.

The kind of sign these scribes demand “shall not be given” to them. The passive verb leaves the Giver veiled and states only the cold fact. It is morally impossible for God or for Christ to grant such a sign. They cannot discredit the signs which Jesus was giving, and they cannot give a sign that would signal only the fact that God had abandoned his plan of grace. God and Christ cannot respond to the evil motive in the hearts of these scribes.

Yes, these men had hit it this time—Jesus is unable to meet their demand. But let them not smile and say, “See, we told you so!” For Jesus adds a word: “save the sign of Jonah.” Ah, God has a sign, a very special sign for just such people as these are. Do they pretend to be aggrieved because the sign they demand is denied them? The most significant sign is waiting for them, one in which their own guilt will culminate (crucifying Jesus), one in which their own judgment will be indicated (the resurrection and the glorification of Jesus). It is “the sign of Jonah,” which is marked by the article as being the one that is well known to all who are acquainted with the book of this prophet.

Luke 11:30

30 Luke condenses and abbreviates, compare Matt. 12:40, etc. All he reports is that, as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of man (see 5:24) shall be (a sign) to this generation of Jews. Matt. 12:40 states fully what this means. The view that this sign was the preaching of Jonah is untenable. All the prophets preached, and not only Jesus but also his twelve and his seventy disciples had preached, and preaching would go on to the end of time.

The typical feature which Jesus brings out is this: when Jonah disappeared in the maw of the sea monster, his career seemed to be ended—it was not; he returned alive and warned the Ninevites according to God’s will. So when the Jews would see Jesus laid in the tomb they would think that his career was ended—it would not be; he would return, and his mighty work would go on according to the divine will. The sign of Jonah, what happened to him, was the very sign which these Jews would in a very brief time receive in what would happen to Jesus, in his resurrection and his glorification—he whom they were rejecting would rule in glory forever, and then what about those who were rejecting him? This sign of Jonah proclaimed their judgment in advance, and when it was wrought in Jesus it would descend upon them, and many of those present would live to see this, Matt. 16:28.

All unbelief that still rejects the signs of Jesus and all else that he offers in grace shall finally, when it is too late, get the sign that shall more than satisfy, the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven to judgment. And that will, indeed, be a sign “out of heaven” (v. 16). Some make a point of the fact that in v. 29 the phrase “out of heaven” is omitted, but they only confuse the reply of Jesus by thinking of some other sign and arrive at impossibilities; v. 16 and v. 29 go together.

Luke 11:31

31 A queen of the south will arise in the judgment together with the men of this generation and will condemn them because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and lo, something more than Solomon here!

This queen is left unnamed, but the reference is to 1 Kings 10:1–13. She came a thousand miles from Arabia, from what were then literally the ends of the earth. Danger, hardships, time, and expense were as nothing to her compared with the wisdom of Solomon which she desired to hear. The aorist ἀκοῦσαι means that she heard and appropriated Solomon’s wisdom. Nothing is stated in regard to the religious character of Solomon’s wisdom, but that is certainly not excluded, for the queen found far more than had been reported to her.

Note the points: a benighted Gentile and a woman at that—in a far distant land—with only more or less uncertain reports to inform her—undertakes a journey of such proportions—to hear the wisdom of one who is a type, though only a type, of Christ. Hence the exclamation because of the telling contrast, “and lo, something more than Solomon here,” the neuter πλεῖον being used for all that is embodied in Jesus. People of the covenant—here in their own land—with Wisdom itself come to dwell among them—and yet they will not hear. The reference to “wisdom’ is especially pertinent to the scribes whose very profession it was to seek and to dispense the true wisdom of God from his Word.

Jesus sees these two, this queen and the men of this generation of Jews, in the judgment, she standing up together with them (μετά), both side by side. Then not these Jews will condemn this Gentile woman, but this Gentile woman these Jews. When both appear before God’s judgment bar, and their cases are laid before the Judge, in the eyes of the Judge her case will serve as a condemnation of the case of the Jews. And the Judge will, of course, so recognize and pronounce. This is what the sign of Jonah, the resurrection of Jesus, means for this wicked generation: judgment and condemnation at the hands of the glorified Jesus.

Luke 11:32

32 Men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment together with this generation and shall condemn it because they did repent at the proclamation of Jonah, and lo, something greater than Jonah here!

The absence of the article leaves the stress on the fact of their being from Nineveh. In the great judgment their case shall equally condemn this generation of Jews. These Ninevites repented when they had nothing but the law and the threat of Jonah’s proclamation whereas “lo,” just look at it, “more than Jonah here,” πλεῖον again includes all that the Jews had in Jesus. The case is doubly bad: the Ninevites had so little and repented—the Jews not only had so much, they refused to heed it at all. The thought is the same as it was in 10:13–15, but we now have Gentiles that did actually repent, namely as described in 10:13–15, which see.

The points are these: wicked Gentiles—to whom a strange prophet is sent from a foreign land—one who was miraculously rescued from a terrible death by God’s hand—who brought nothing but the dire threatenings of the law—yet these Gentiles believe that prophet—repent by fasting in sackcloth and ashes—desist from sin and amend their ways. On the other hand, these Jews—who in addition to all their other prophets now have the Messiah himself—whom God would glorify by the resurrection from the dead—who came with the gospel and its consummation in his own resurrection—and these Jews spurn it all.

Jesus does not indicate what God will do in the judgment with that queen and with these Ninevites. On that day we shall witness the mercy as well as the justice of God in his dealings with the Gentiles. It is to be noted that in the contrast sketched here the Jewish guilt in crucifying Jesus is omitted; Jonah typifies only the resurrection of Jesus. The promised sign is thus one of the crowning grace, which, however, on its rejection is turned into the terrible sign of judgment and seals the fate of the Jews.

Luke 11:33

33 No one, after lighting a lamp, places it into a cellar, neither under a peck measure, but upon a lampstand, in order that those coming in may see the light.

This entire passage (v. 33–36) nonpluses the commentators, and their efforts at interpretation are labored and unconvincing. So already this self-evident opening statement, which states nothing but the ordinary universal fact about the use of a lamp, is variously interpreted. Because in 8:16 and in Matt. 5:15 the κρύπτη) is not mentioned, this is referred to the crypt or tomb in which the body of Jesus lay, and the lamp and its light become Jesus, the light of the world.

Efforts such as that throw all that follows out of gear. Why make so much of the crypt, which means only a cellar, and pass by the modion, the peck measure? Jesus simply lays down an undisputed proposition: the one use and purpose of a lamp is to enable those that come into the room where the lamp rests on its proper stand to see its light; it is silly to light the lamp and then to clap a vessel like a peck measure over it or to put the lamp in the cellar where its light would serve no one and in such ways to leave the people in the room of the house altogether in the dark.

This statement itself does not indicate what use Jesus intends to make of this statement about the lamp; all that follows will show that. Here, too, it ought to be plain that Jesus certainly did repeat things, and that the efforts to make all repetitions just one utterance that is only variously and incorrectly placed in the records, is unwarranted, compare in this case 8:16 and Matt. 5:15, where also the further details regarding the lamp, etc., are stated.

Luke 11:34

34 The lamp of the body is thine eye. Whenever thine eye is single, also thy whole body is full of light; but whenever it is wicked, also thy whole body is full of darkness.

We now see what use Jesus makes of his opening statement about the lamp. Like that lighted lamp is the eye of the human body; it furnishes the light for the entire body. That is quite simple and would already say something of special importance. Yet some stop here and think that Jesus says only this: the eye furnishes the light for all “bodily actions” whereas Jesus says nothing at all about actions.

So also the very terms by which Jesus reveals that he is speaking of the eye and of the body with reference to spiritual conditions, the adjectives ἁπλοῦς and πονηρός, are regarded as still being a part of the figure of the natural eye, as meaning first “a healthy eye” and then the opposite, “a diseased eye.” So Jesus is thought to say: “A healthy eye gives light to the whole body, but a diseased eye leaves the whole body in darkness.” That this is not true seems to escape notice; a diseased eye does not by any means prevent some sight—that would require a blind eye, nay, two blind eyes. Jesus speaks only of “the eye”—one, and does not speak of blindness as he ought to according to this view.

The effort to prove that ἁπλοῦς and πονηρός are used to designate “healthy” and “diseased” is unconvincing. No example has been found of the former and of the latter only Plato’s expression πονηρίαὀφθαλμῶν. We are also informed about the eye disease to which Jesus is thought to refer, namely ophthalmia, and we are given descriptions of this disease. To these views others add eyes (note the plural) that are out of focus or that cannot stand the bright light and are blinded by it (forgetting that Jesus says that the eye itself is the light).

Misunderstandings such as this have led to alterations of the text itself from early days onward; the reading was changed to suit the interpreter. Although this has now ceased, one constantly meets remarks which claim that the figure and the reality in Jesus’ words do not match exactly, that the whole passage is “difficult,” etc.

“The lamp of the body is thine eye” puts the predicate forward for the sake of emphasis, and the article used with it shows that the predicate is identical with the subject, R. 768; there are not two lamps and not two eyes. Jesus is speaking of the function of the eye as being identical with the function of the lamp. One eye, one lamp because Jesus is referring to the heart which directs the entire body. This is put beyond question by the two opposite adjectives which are used with reference to the two eyes. In one man the eye (heart) is “single,” in the other it is “wicked.”

Both are plainly moral terms. Nothing is said directly about the object that these eyes see, for that object has been strongly presented in advance: “something more than Solomon here,” “something more than Jonah here” (v. 31, 32). Why do these scribes and Pharisees fail to see what is thus before their very eyes? Because the organ of sight (the heart) is not “single” but “wicked.” Ἁπλοῦς means “without fold,” without duplicity, without ulterior motive hidden back in some fold. When that kind of an eye looks at Jesus it sees “something more” than Solomon and Jonah in him, something that draws to him in joyful faith. Πονηρός means actively wicked, hostile to God and his gracious will. When an eye of that kind looks at Jesus it sees nothing of this “more than Solomon,” etc., in him, it sees only what these Jews saw, a man who is in league with Beelzebul (v. 15), a man who has insufficient sign-credentials (v. 16, 29, 30).

The fact that is often overlooked is this mode of expression, which weaves the figure and the reality (the interpretation of the figure) together. The Old and the New Testament are full of this way of speaking. Trench has fully analyzed it in the introduction to his Notes on the Parables, 1:4; it is Biblical allegory. No more beautiful and striking passages than these occur even in Scripture, and yet their nature is often not understood. We know that everything depends on the eye (heart) with which a man looks at something or at somebody. If his eye is single, bent only on discovering the reality, the truth, he will soon see it; but if his eye is wicked and full of vicious motives, we all know what he sees, and we dread it.

Have you not been looked at in these ways? Jesus is speaking of the same thing regarding himself. He might, of course, have spoken of sight and blindness as he did in John 9:39, etc., (though even there a certain seeing is allowed to the blind); he chose to speak as he did in Matt. 13:14–16 by going to the root of the two ways in which men see.

In the present case he brings out the effect that is produced on the person himself when he is using these two kinds of eyes. He with the “single” eye not only has that kind of an eye, he “also” (καί) has “his whole body full of light” (φωτεινόν); the man with the “wicked” eye “also” (καί) has “his whole body full of darkness” (σκοτεινόν). The eye does not see for its own sake, it sees for the entire body. “The whole body” is thus retained in these clauses, in other words, the original proposition at the head of v. 34 is left unchanged. The eye refers to the heart, so the body is not conceived as being without its soul but as the soul’s organ. All the bodily members, mouth, hands, feet, etc., will act as the eye (heart) sees and directs. The eye that sees “more than Solomon,” etc., will draw the whole body into the light to follow, trust, worship, obey Jesus; the eye that sees a friend of Satan, a man discredited, will put the whole body into darkness, the mouth to oppose him with words, the feet to dog him, the hands at last to drag him to the cross—darkness indeed.

Luke 11:35

35 We are prepared for the stunning paradox: Keep looking, therefore, whether perhaps the light, the one in thee, is darkness!

In Matt. 6:23 Jesus has the same paradox but in a terse form which includes Luke’s v. 36: “If, therefore, the light in thee is darkness, how great that darkness!” We are constantly (present imperative) to look at the eye—for what? The eye is called “the light,” the function of which is to illumine you and me, and the addition of the phrase “in thee” with a second article makes it equally emphatic with the noun it modifies (R. 776). The fact that this light (eye) is “the one in us” certainly makes it plain that Jesus refers to the heart. The indirect question with μή (R. 1045), μή also with the force of “perhaps” (1169), tells us what we are to keep guarding against: “whether perhaps the light in us is darkness,” the indicative as in Attic when there is fear regarding something past or present (R. 995). To have this happen would be a calamity indeed.

Such a thing never exists in nature that “light” is “darkness,” and that is what makes the paradox. A lighted lamp always lights up the room where it is placed on its stand. The natural eye of the Pharisee and of the scribe sees just as perfectly as that of the disciple. But remember the abnormal, irrational thing Jesus added in v. 33, a vessel turned over the lamp, the lamp down in the cellar—then, indeed, the living-room is in dense darkness.

And so the paradox is solved, the light may be darkness; put evil motives over your powers of eye and heart, immerse these powers completely in such motives, and though you have these powers you will have nothing but black darkness. And irrational and crazy as such acts seem—which never occur in nature—thousands perpetrate them in the world of the spiritual—right here the scribes and Pharisees are doing so. Look to your own light! And here as in so many other places Jesus brings out the irrationality and thus the fearful guilt of unbelief.

Luke 11:36

36 If, therefore, thy whole body is full of light, not having any part full of darkness, it will be wholly lighted up as when the lamp keeps lighting thee with brilliance.

This is the conclusion (οὖν) of the figurative and self-interpreting presentation. It rounds out the whole by carrying us back to the “lamp” mentioned in v. 33. The point of the whole statement is found in the last clause: “as when the lamp keeps lighting thee with brilliance.” In v. 34 we are pointed from the cause to the effect (the single eye makes the whole body full of light, the wicked eye full of darkness); here the effect points us to the cause (the body’s being wholly full of light is due to the brilliance of the lamp). An emphasis runs through the statement on the effect: the whole body is lighted up wholly (positive), not having any part full of darkness (negative); and this is matched in the last clause by the brilliance with which the lamp lights thee (present tense: right along). The eye (lamp, heart) that sees “more than Solomon,” etc., in Jesus directs no mere corner of our being but fills us completely and leaves no part dark. The mouth does not confess Jesus while the hands disobey him; the head does not bow in worship before him while the feet walk in the counsel of the ungodly. No; the brilliance of the lamp illumines us altogether.

Ἀστραπή used with reference to lightning, but the momentary idea of a flash is absent here with a verb of duration; lightning ought not to be brought in, “brilliance” is the thought. This verse, too, has suffered at the hands of interpreters, what with changes in the reading, artificial emphasis, and cutting off the εἰ clause and attaching it to v. 55. The supposed tautology between the “if” clause and the apodosis with ἔσται disappears when the ὡς clause is not made a belated addition but, as its very position at the end indicates, the climax of the entire sentence.

Luke 11:37

37 Now as he spoke (see 3:21) there requests him a Pharisee that he eat the morning meal with him; and having gone in, he reclined at table.

We should note that the aorist λαλῆσαι indicates no time but only the fact of speaking. Jesus had in v. 14, etc., and in v. 29, etc., spoken to Pharisees (Matt. 12:24) and to scribes from Jerusalem (Mark 3:22). This makes it the more remarkable that a Pharisee, one living in the place, should now ask Jesus to take the morning meal with him. The verb is derived from ἄριστον, not the meal after rising but one that is eaten after the return from synagogue prayers, toward noon. We note no hostile motive in the invitation although Luke is brief. Jesus accepts.

That others, too, were invited and dined is indicated by the plurals that Jesus uses, by the lawyer in v. 45, and especially also by v. 53. We are in the last few weeks of Jesus’ life, and as v. 15, 16 show, the relations are strained to the utmost.

Luke 11:38

38 But the Pharisee, when he saw, marvelled that he did not first wash himself before the morning meal.

See 5:17 on the Pharisees. The aorist of βαπτίζω is used also in the sense of the middle as it is here, “did not wash himself.” In Mark 7:1, etc., the Pharisees and the scribes take exception to the disciples on this point. The disciples are not present here, the situation is entirely different, and Jesus himself is the offender. This ritualistic washing of the hands was part of the tradition of the elders, a requirement that was considered more binding than those of the divine law itself. The subject is fully treated in the interpretation of Mark 7:3. For this very reason Jesus could not observe the practice.

This Pharisee and the others present would have thought that Jesus, too, considered the practice to be binding. So Jesus did not wash his hands before he reclined to dine. Already his action spoke with no uncertain voice. It is unwarranted to think of a complete bath in this connection and to imagine that the company may have passed a public bath on the way to the Pharisee’s house. Was Palestine full of baths, in which all the Jews submerged themselves before each meal of the day, villages, farms, places along the road for travellers, too? Think of the floods of water this required!

John 2:6 tells a different story.

Did this Pharisee by act or by word express his objection to this omission on Jesus’ part, or did Jesus read his thoughts? Luke does not say. He tells us only how Jesus met this man’s objection, in which, no doubt, all the rest joined.

Luke 11:39

39 The Lord, however, said to him: Now, you, the Pharisees, clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but the inside of you is full of pillage and wickedness. Fools! Did not he that made the outside make also the inside?

What Jesus meant when he did not wash he states in no uncertain terms now that it has drawn hostile attention. On Luke’s use of Κύριος as a designation for Jesus see 7:13; here Jesus indeed speaks as “the Lord.”

The entire proceeding of Jesus, which includes everything up to v. 52, has been sharply criticized on the score of bad manners. Jesus was a guest, we are told. He should have conformed to his host’s customs, and he certainly should not have attacked his host and his fellow guests. But the washing was no mere custom, otherwise Jesus would have washed as he observed the custom of reclining at table. It was a matter of principle that was at stake. Too many pocket their principles on occasion, not so the Lord.

The condescension was on the Lord’s part by joining this company at all. He did it, not to make a gracious gesture or to receive a favor, but to tell these Pharisees exactly what was wrong with them in words so stunning that, if there was any hope of saving any of their souls, this hope might be realized. The Lord could not pocket his mission for an hour or so and let these Pharisees go on undisturbed just because one of them had asked him in for a meal.

This is the logical “now” and refers to the marvelling of the Pharisees. “You, the Pharisees,” means those present and their entire party, who were sticklers for the tradition to the extent of disregarding all that God had laid down in his law. At first blush it appears as if Jesus is not at all speaking about the washing of hands before meals, but it only appears so. “Cleaning the outside of the cup and of the dish,” i. e., cleaning this alone and leaving the inside unclean, is manifestly figurative when one notes that he adds: “but the inside of you is full of pillage and wickedness.” This little ceremony of washing the hands was such a sacred and essential act that it transcended the very moral law itself, and these Pharisees deemed themselves vastly holy before God and led the people to think them holy for thus washing this little bit of their outside while they let their inside, the heart, will, and thought continue full (γέμει, durative) of this and that vice (pillage, snatching from others), yea, of the whole mass of wickedness. Could Jesus condone that when it became evident right before his eyes in the very host who had invited him?

Luke 11:40

40 It is of little use to tone down single terms in these discourses when translating them. The adjective ἄφρονες refers to people who are devoid of sense. “Fools” is correct (A. V.), not “ye foolish ones” (R. V.). Men who practiced what Jesus mentioned could not be called anything else by the Lord. They were acting as if God had made only the outside (their hands, to be ceremonially washed) and not the inside (the heart that must be kept clean of wickedness). The answer is, of course, that God made both. But this by no means says that the Pharisees should therefore do both, i. e., practice their hand-washing in the way they did.

Luke 11:41

41 Jesus therefore adds: But give as alms the things that are within; and lo, all things are clean to you.

When it is used as a conjunction πλήν is always adversative; ἐνόντα is the neuter plural participle from ἔνειμι, “to be within or inside.” The difficulty is to decide to what the expression refers as the translations in our versions and their margins show. Some think that “the things inside” refer to the contents of the dishes on the table; but cup and dish were used figuratively, nor were any contents mentioned, besides the mention of these vessels lies too far back. Jesus, too, could not intend to say that the very meal which he was eating should be given away as alms; what about other meals? When basket or some other word is added, the meaning is “contents”; but the word is here found by itself. It seems best to take it in the sense of τὰὑπάρχονταὑμῖν (Theophylact); was da ist (Luther), das Vorhandene, “such things as ye have.”

Then, however, Jesus would not be speaking ironically as some have thought: “With your hearts full of rapaciousness and wickedness only go on giving something of what you thus have, and everything will be quite clean for you!” The other idea, that almsgiving could produce cleanness in God’s sight, is shut out because it is contrary to Scripture. What Jesus demands is a new heart, “the inside of you” (v. 39) so renewed that in place of rapaciousness and wickedness it is now filled with true love and charity. When that is attained, then, “lo,” to the surprise of these Pharisees themselves, “everything is clean for you.” And, indeed, a clean heart makes everything else clean.

Luke 11:42

42 But woe to you Pharisees because you go on tithing the mint and the rue and every garden herb but pass by justice and the love of God! But these it was necessary to do and those not to dismiss.

The torrent of woes hurled against the scribes and Pharisees in Matt. 23:13–39 in the Temple was the culmination of scenes such as this in the Pharisee’s house. Even some of the very words that were uttered then had their beginnings here. When it appears at the head of a new line of thought, at times at the opening of a new paragraph, ἀλλά states that the speaker breaks off the previous line of thought and turns to another. “Woe” is the Lord’s own verdict upon these Pharisees (see 6:24–26; 10:13). The Pharisees were rigorists when it came to the easy features of the divine regulations. They strenuously tithe even the small flavoring herbs, of which a family might grow just a few like mint and rue (dill, cumin, Matthew), and, in fact, every garden herb. But the mighty requirements of God they pass by as though they did not exist.

Thus κρίσις, the act of judging a fellow man righteously (not merely rightly), is a κρίνειν that ever defends those that are wronged (Prov. 31:8, 9) and is thus synonymous with δικαιοῦν and parallel with σώζειν, C.-K. 629. Beside this comprehensive mercy to man Jesus places the ἀγάπη toward God (objective genitive). In the Greek abstract nouns may have the article. This is the love of true comprehension and of corresponding purpose and is thus full devotion to God. These features of the law are the supreme ones even as they are valid for all men and for the church of all times; beside these, Levitical regulations such as tithing, which were intended for the Jews alone, to say nothing of the tithing of mere flavoring herbs, amounted to a triviality.

One of the plain facts is that the Gospels mention tithing only three times, in three condemnations of the Pharisees, and all three are scathing in their severity. Three other references are found in Hebrews 7:5–9 and are merely historical. Although all the apostles were originally Jews and reared to tithe, with not one word did any one of them even intimate that in the new covenant the Christians might find tithing a helpful method of making their contributions to the work of the church. This strong negative is re-enforced immensely by the totally different method suggested by Paul when he called on the churches for a great offering, 1 Cor. 16:1, etc.; 2 Cor. 8:4, etc. Exegetically and thus dogmatically and ethically the New Testament is against tithing as being valid in the new covenant. Desire for more money, also for more money in and for the church, should not blind our eyes to the ways that are employed for getting it.

But Jesus leaves no room for misunderstanding. The new covenant is not yet established; he as well as these Pharisees are still under the old covenant, and for that God himself appointed tithing (Lev. 27:30, etc.; Num. 18:21; Deut. 12:6; 12:22–27). That tithing be done conscientiously even in little things—but why of tiny herbs?—Jesus is thus the last to forbid a Jew. Jesus safeguards himself when he adds: “But these it was necessary to do, and those not to dismiss,” both infinitives being effective aorists. The imperfect ἔδει is neither like our present nor like the ordinary imperfect; it was a necessity though not lived up to, and, as was the case here, the necessity still remains, R. 919.

Luke 11:43

43 Woe to you Pharisees because you love the chief seat in the synagogues and the salutations in the markets!

From their unholy rapacity Jesus turns to their unholy pride, compare Matt. 23:6. Luke mentions only two points, both regarding public places. The Pharisees loved the most prominent seats in the synagogues, up in front beside the rulers of the synagogue, where everybody would be duly impressed by their holy prominence. They also counted on being called upon to offer their wisdom during the services. The salutations in the markets, where they paraded in order to be seen, were the greetings with deep bows which called them by the most honored names and titles. Besides perverting God’s Word, they demanded the highest honors for doing so. Luke has ἀγαπᾶν (Matthew only φιλεῖν), which means that they thoroughly understood what they were doing and did it with the corresponding purpose (see 6:27).

Luke 11:44

44 Woe to you because you are as the tombs, the ones indistinct, and the people who walk about over them do not know it.

From what the Pharisees pretend to be Jesus turns to what they are; from the honors they love to the avoidance that should be accorded them. He at the same time indicates how alone they maintain their standing, only through the ignorance of people (ἄνθρωποι, Menschen). All tombs and graves were whitewashed before the Passover so that people might not touch them, for this was considered defiling. These Pharisees are like old, forgotten tombs, and the adjective which is added by a second article is emphatic (R. 776), “the ones indistinct,” no longer apparent as tombs. People walk around over them not knowing that they are walking over tombs and thus unconsciously become defiled. So the Pharisees contaminate all who come in contact with them.

Jesus reverts to the point of un-cleanness mentioned in v. 38–41, which started the entire invective. But this uncleanness is now greatly intensified by likening the Pharisees and their holiness to tombs that enclose the foulness of rotted dead bodies. The severity is crushing. The whole nation is rendered unclean by the great party of the Pharisees.

Luke 11:45

45 But one of the lawyers, answering, says to him, Teacher, by saying these things thou dost insult also us.

So lawyers, too, had been invited to this meal (v. 37); regarding them compare 10:25. By far the greater part of them were Pharisees, and it is thus that this lawyer felt that his entire profession was also berated by what Jesus was saying. He objected. He felt that Jesus was insulting (speaking outrageously) also “us,” the entire class of men who had made a profession of studying the Old Testament and the rabbinical traditions in order to teach the people aright. The Pharisees followed this teaching, and thus in striking at them Jesus certainly struck also at their teachers, the nomikoi, the law experts.

This was the only interruption, the only objection offered. Why did the entire company not at once break up in violent turmoil? Why did they allow Jesus to go on making each crushing statement stronger than the preceding one? We know only one answer: the power of Jesus’ personality, the impressiveness of his presence. All these woes were delivered, not in heat, but in cold, deliberate, absolutely masterful calmness. The ὅτι states the reason for each woe which is full, complete, yet brief, with not one unguarded word, with not one overstatement, each word being driven home with unerring aim. I do not think that much was eaten at that meal; Jesus was serving food for the conscience.

Luke 11:46

46 But he said: To you lawyers, too, woe because you load men with loads hard to carry but yourselves do not with one finger touch the loads.

Did this lawyer hope that Jesus would qualify his severe words or retract them as far as the lawyers were concerned? He only precipitated more crushing woes that were directed against this specific class of hypocrites and perverters of the divine Word. “To you lawyers woe!” for you are the worst of all. Note φορτία, the cognate accusative with φορτίζετε. These loads are usually understood to be the rabbinical traditions, which certainly were “hard to carry.” But the trouble is that both the Pharisees and the Pharisaic lawyers did observe them with great scrupulosity; Jesus says so himself in v. 42 (tithes) and in v. 39 (ceremonial cleanness). Yet Jesus here asserts that the loads these lawyers pile on others they themselves do not pretend even to touch with as much as one finger, namely to lift and to carry them in the very least.

Jesus is speaking of what these lawyers did with the Old Testament. They turned all the delightful, uplifting, saving gospel in the Old Testament into nothing but law, law, law, burden upon burden, and so loaded down the poor souls of men. But how about themselves? Did they live up to this mass of law? Absolutely not! Even the real law, judgment and the love of God (v. 42), they absolutely ignored. Jesus scores the lawyers for their false doctrine and for their hypocrisy in connection with that doctrine.

Luke 11:47

47 Woe to you because you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

The interpretation is found in Matt. 23:29, 30; but the intervening thought is omitted, that these lawyers claim that they would not have killed the prophets. As in Matthew, Jesus declares the scribes to be true sons of their murderous fathers who fill up the measure of their fathers, so he here at once combines the lawyers with their fathers; the latter killed the prophets to get rid of them, and the former build their tombs as being dead men whose voice they are glad is hushed forever.

Luke 11:48

48 So you are witnesses and approve of the works of your fathers because they killed them, and you build their tombs.

Far from testifying that they deplored the deeds of their fathers in killing the prophets, their building the tombs of the prophets is the very reverse: it makes them witnesses to the fact that they approve this awful series of murders. Jesus says that there is no deception about it at all. How true this is appears in the following. There was only one way in which these lawyers could condemn these bloody deeds of their fathers, namely to believe and to do what the prophets had said. Without this, all building of the tombs of the prophets, all outward honor they paid to them, was just what Jesus said it was.

Luke 11:49

49 For this reason also the Wisdom of God said: I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute in order that there may be required of this generation the blood of all the prophets that is being shed from the world’s foundation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias who perished between the altar and the House. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation!

Jesus expands this woe by pointing out to the lawyers the full guilt they are incurring by their perversion of the teaching of the prophets while they hypocritically build their tombs, i. e., erect fine structures over the places where they are said to be buried. This is the force of διὰτοῦτο, “for this reason.” We need not puzzle about “the Wisdom of God” which simply means “God in his Wisdom” (compare 7:35), namely in his foreknowledge and the divine counsel which he formed. Jesus does not call himself “the Wisdom of God” and with εἶπε (aorist) refer to some previous statement he had made. Nor is this a formula of quotation which refers to some Old Testament passages. Even an allusion to Jer. 7:21–29 is questionable. What Jesus says about this Wisdom’s utterance is found in substance in various places in the Old Testament; but here all is so specific that we must say that by his own supernatural knowledge Jesus here states the very counsel of God’s Wisdom regarding “this generation” of Jews.

In this connection we may note a sample of modern critical exegesis. Διὰτοῦτο means that “God must have some valid excuse” for destroying the Jews, and so he secures it by the sending of these messengers regarding whom he knows beforehand that the Jews will kill them. This, we are told, is Old Testament theology. But Jesus never said such a thing. The whole passage is interpolated from “a work otherwise unknown, The Wisdom of God,” somebody put the passage into the mouth of Jesus because he supposed that Jesus is meant by “Wisdom.” So the whole passage is cancelled as being spurious.

In Matthew, Jesus says: “I myself will send,” here that the Wisdom of God will send (commission). Both are true, for the works ad extra are regularly ascribed to any one of the three persons. “Prophets and apostles” are especially the Twelve and those who were associated with them in the promulgation of the gospel; still other terms are used in Matthew. “Prophets” are added to “apostles” to indicate that these messengers are in the same class with the Old Testament prophets. They will share the fate of those ancient ones by being killed and persecuted by these sons of their murderous fathers. God will urge the final work of grace upon the Jewish nation. These lawyers and others, true sons of their fathers, will then rush to their great opportunity to complete the work of their fathers with all speed and bring on their great judgment. This is the real teaching of both Testaments. Up to a certain point the Lord’s hand restrains them with warnings that are ever more intense like those of Jesus that are being spoken now; the restraint ceases at last, the doom begins, the gates are thrown open—the sinner is speeded to destruction; the word goes forth: “That thou doest, do quickly!” John 13:27.

Luke 11:50

50 The ἵνα clause states the divine purpose. When all God’s grace is spurned, God’s final intention is judgment. Moreover, guilt and penalty are cumulative. Whereas each individual and also each generation receives the due reward of its deeds, when one generation after another duplicates the wickedness, the pent-up wrath of outraged justice bursts forth as a volcano. Divine justice is not as superficial as is ours; it demands more than a reckoning for individual and separate crimes. When it is re-enacted, each crime involves a guilt that reaches back to the beginning. The last acts approve all the former that are of the same type, and so the last acts involve guiltiness for all.

In this way there came upon the last generation of the Jews “the blood of all the prophets that is being shed from the world’s foundation.” “Blood—blood—blood,” three times in this sentence, and the vivid present participle “being (continually) poured out,” makes us see the red flood being constantly augmented. Some texts have the perfect participle: once shed and now present as thus shed. “From the world’s foundation” implies that God laid that foundation when he called the world into being, and the phrase is used to denote the beginning of time. “To require,” ἐκζητέω, “to search out,” is used in the legal sense, when the judge examines fully into the case and thus pronounces his verdict.

Luke 11:51

51 Jesus names the first and the last blood that were involved in the judgment for “this generation.” That of Abel is the first as it is in Heb. 11:4 because Cain slew him because of his “more excellent sacrifice” and thus obtained “witness that he was righteous.” Not any and all red blood is included in this indictment but that of all whose blood was shed for righteousness’ sake. Jesus confines himself to the Scriptures and refers to its first and its last book, the latter being 2 Chronicles (24:20–22) in the Hebrew Bibles. Zachariah’s martyrdom was a very terrible murder, his blood was actually shed in the priests’ court between the great altar of burnt sacrifice and “the House,” the so-called Sanctuary (Holy and Holy of Holies), the ναός as distinguished from the ἱερόν, thus in the very presence of God so that even the Talmud deplores it as being one of the most heinous of Jewish crimes against God’s servants. When Zachariah died he exclaimed: “The Lord look upon it and require it!” This dying call for just retribution makes the reference of Jesus to Zachariah’s martyrdom the more effective. Historically the martyrdom of Urijah (Jer. 26:23) came 200 years later, but it is not used as the terminus because it was not recorded in the book that is placed last in the Old Testament canon. It is almost a response to Zachariah’s cry when Jesus adds with strong confirmation: “Yea, I say to you (with all the authority that is in me), required it shall be of this generation (because it is filling the cup of Jewish guilt to overflowing).”

Luke 11:52

52 Woe to you lawyers because you took away the key of knowledge. You yourselves did not go in, and those trying to go in you effectively hindered. Matt. 23:10.

This caps the climax. Terrible as the guilt of bloody persecution is, more terrible still is the guilt of keeping a nation from the Word of God and its salvation. “The key of knowledge” refers to the Scriptures. They are like a house with a door that requires a key. That key unlocks the door and permits entrance to all that this heavenly house contains. The key is the knowledge (appositional genitive), but, as the figure indicates, that specific knowledge which unlocks the Old Testament, the knowledge of the Messiah. We may say that Christ is the key.

This key these professional teachers of the nation “took away” (a few texts read “hid”), i. e., made away with altogether. God put it into the door of the Word for all men to use in order to get into the Scriptures, but these lawyers made away with it so that those trying to enter (conative present participle) could not do so (ἐκωλύσατε, effective aorist). The lawyers did this by treating the Scriptures as nothing but law and a terrible legal burden. What they left of the Messianic promise was a political hope of worldly exaltation. That meant that they themselves did not enter the Scriptures—the entire gospel was foreign to them, they hated it; and they kept the nation out, for they were its religious rulers. Thus this lawyer (v. 45) received his full due.

53, 54) And having gone out thence, the scribes and the Pharisees began to set themselves vehemently against him and to provoke him to speak concerning more things, lying in ambush for him, to capture something out of his mouth.

This describes what followed during the next days. The lawyers were a section of the scribes (10:25), the larger class being now mentioned. “They began,” etc., describes their new course of action. This was “to be vehemently urged against him”; some render ἐνέχειν “to be enraged,” but this seems to require an addition like χόλον, in which rage or anger is added. They passionately made him their mark and kept after him. The next infinitive means that they tried to get him to say something unguarded, on the spur of the moment, “concerning more things” (the comparative: more than those they had already brought up). They kept after him on this and that, anything that seemed to offer them a hold.

“Lying in ambush” points out their cunning; to which is added the infinitive that is used for hunting and taking wild animals: “to capture something out of his mouth” in some unguarded utterance, wherewith to ruin Jesus by using it as an accusation before the authorities. This betrays their viciousness and shows how truly Jesus spoke in v. 50. The opposition became extreme, the end was not far off. Luke does not need to add that these damnable efforts were in vain. Here, too, is the answer to those who think that Jesus spoke too severely in the Pharisee’s house (v. 42).

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.

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