Luke 12

CHAPTER XII

Luke 12:1

1 In connection with which things, the myriads of the multitude having been gathered together unto him so that they were treading on each other, he began to say to his disciples first, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

To begin a new paragraph with a relative clause is classical. It is not temporal (our versions and others) but states that what is now reported stands in vital connection with what precedes. But this connection is not restricted to 11:53, 54, because these two verses are only on a summary of what the scribes and the Pharisees did during the next days. The connection is all that precedes, at least from 11:37 onward, and we are inclined to say from 11:14 onward. The connection, too, is obvious, for after speaking to the Pharisees Jesus now speaks of them. In fact, the connection is so close that it seems that what is now reported followed shortly after Jesus left the Pharisee’s house (11:37).

The meal broke up, Jesus walked out. The multitudes mentioned in 11:29 were now gathered thickly about him. Luke speaks of “the myriads of the multitude,” which is hyperbolic for an exceedingly great number; the article should not be overlooked: “the myriads,” not merely “myriads,” because these are “the multitudes” mentioned in v. 29. They kept treading on each other because they were not in the open country but in a city, jammed together in a street.

The entire chapter is a consecutive whole. The great crowd is packed about Jesus, his disciples are closest to him, and the discourse is addressed to one or to the other group as Luke indicates (v. 1, 13, 22, 41, 54). The impression made by the text is that Jesus went to the Pharisee’s house alone and is now again surrounded by his disciples. He speaks to them first. R., W. P., explains, “beware”: προσέχετε (νοῦν understood) put your mind, ἑαυτοῖς (dative) for yourselves, ἀπό (with the ablative) and avoid.

The figure of the leaven refers to secret, penetrating power. It is thus that hypocrisy penetrates and vitiates everything in the Pharisees. They were archhypocrites, and it was this vice that proved so fatal to them. The very preposition in the word (ὑπό) intimates that they were “under” a mask like play actors, without sincerity, acting a part, given to pretense. Jesus in public, before the great crowd, warns his own disciples against this moral perversion. He brands the Pharisees, all are to hear it; but his disciples are not to think that they are immune—remember Judas; all people are to hear this warning which is addressed to Jesus’ own followers.

Luke 12:2

2 Everything that hypocrisy tries to hide and cover up shall be exposed with absolute certainty. Now there is nothing that has been covered up that shall not be revealed, and secret that shall not be known, wherefore, whatever things you spoke in the darkness shall be heard in the light; and what thing you uttered for the ear in the secret rooms shall be heralded on the housetops.

Note the rhythmic parallelism of the clauses in both verses. This is the utter futility of hypocrisy. We regard the perfect participle συγκεκαλυμμένον, “having been and thus now still being covered up completely,” exactly as we regard the adjective κρυπτόν, as the predicate of the copula and not as the participle in a periphrastic perfect. Whether it is actually covered up most carefully (σύν) and kept so or profoundly secret in the first place, whatever the thing may be, it will be uncovered and revealed, it will be known everywhere. The statement is general and is to be applied in general, it is without exception. In Matt. 10:26 Jesus used it with a different application; it here refers to the futility of all hypocritical ways.

Luke 12:3

3 Ἀνθὧν is like ἐνοἷς, a relative clause at the head of a sentence. The clause is idiomatic in the sense of “wherefore” and bases two specifications on the general rule of v. 2; and not the reverse, R., Tr.: “because,” which would base the rule on two examples under the rule. In Matt. 10:27 the examples refer to what Jesus says and to what the disciples hear him say in secret. But the examples cited here refer to what the hypocrites say and imagine will never be known.

First the plural ὅσα, “what things,” then the singular ὅ, “what thing.” First, εἴπατε, declaring a thought, then ἐλαλήσατε, making a mere utterance, the opposite of keeping silence. So also the corresponding verbs, the declaration “shall be heard”; although it is made “in the darkness” where no one but the intended person was supposed to hear it, it shall suddenly be heard “in the light” where the whole world can hear it. The utterance is made “for the ear,” whispered “in the secret rooms,” like storerooms, where no one is present but the two who go there to whisper some secret to each other; suddenly the thing “shall be heralded” to all the world “on the housetops,” the flat Oriental roofs, the whole street being full of people who are listening to the herald’s voice. Confounding to every hypocrite will be this exposure of everything this hypocrisy sought to hide. It will, in fact, be a million times worse than Jesus says. In this life the secrets of hypocrisies are not always exposed; but the day is coming when God shall judge “the secrets of men” before the whole universe (Rom. 2:16), and the Lord “will bring to light the hidden things of darkness” (1 Cor. 4:5).

Luke 12:4

4 Moreover, I say to you, my friends: Fear not those that kill the body and after this do not have a thing further to do. But I will show you whom you shall fear. Fear him who, after killing, has authority to cast into the Gehenna. Yes, I say to you, this one fear!

The connection is close-knit. Fear may cause disciples to dissemble before men, to act the hypocrite, to deny Jesus before men in order to stand in with them, to pretend to be faithful to Jesus while secretly denying him (v. 8, 9). Δέ adds the new injunction as being something that is somewhat different from the preceding but belongs to it. The noteworthy point is that Jesus now calls the disciples “my friends,” φίλοι. This word should be taken in a passive sense: “whom Jesus made his friends,” not in an active sense: “who are making Jesus their friend or themselves friends of Jesus.” In John 15:14, 15 Jesus calls the Eleven his friends because he confides everything to them as one does to a friend; there, too, he is the agent, the Eleven the recipients. In the present connection “friends” is used because of the value that Jesus sets on them and the protection he accords them. Having a friend like Jesus, they are foolish to fear men and to act the hypocrite because of such fear.

We twice have the aorist subjunctive: φοβηθῆτε, and twice the aorist imperative φοβήθητε, note the accents. This repetition of the verb hammers in the idea that the disciples must not fear. It is plain, too, that all four aorists should be regarded as referring to the same time; they are constative, and the first cannot be made different from the rest and regarded as ingressive (R., W. P., and Tr.). The negative command “fear not” requires the aorist subjunctive, but the two positive commands “fear” require the aorist imperative. The indirect deliberative question “whom you shall fear” has the deliberative subjunctive. R. 577 calls the construction with ἀπό a “translation-Hebraism” which expresses that the fear causes one to flee “from” those who are feared.

Why are the disciples never to be afraid of men? Because all that they can do is to kill the body, and they have not “a thing further or beyond that to do.” Killing the body is their absolute limit. When the martyr lies dead, they are done. Jesus speaks with utmost plainness. He himself, as he has said (9:22, 44), will be killed thus, and very soon. He is not telling others not to fear death while no death threatens him.

He certainly does not want his disciples to underrate such a death; we see in the case of Stephen (Acts 7:58–60) and in the case of James (Acts 12:2) what this means. There is danger that they will overrate it. The two present participles express enduring qualities; even one killing makes these men permanently killers; the same is true with regard to “not having.” Μετὰταῦτα is used freely for “after one thing” or “after more,” R. 704.

Luke 12:5

5 But Jesus knows that it is not enough for so many who are of little faith to point only to the causelessness of fear; he must apply stronger medicine and by the fear of God drive out the fear of men. In ὑποδείκνυμι the preposition ὑπό lends the verb the idea of secrecy: “I will show you in confidence a secret I want you to know,” namely, when it comes to fearing, “whom you shall fear.” By “him who, after killing, has authority (the right and the power) to cast into Gehenna” Jesus certainly cannot mean the devil who is only one of the foes not to be feared but only to be resisted, when he will also flee from us, 1 Pet. 5:9. God is referred to, God in his omnipotent power and absolute justice. And the imperative “fear” has the same meaning throughout: “to be afraid of.”

This is not intended to be childlike fear, the motive of filial obedience, but the terrifying fear of God’s holy, burning wrath which would have to strike us if we yielded to the fear of men and denied his Word and his will. Think of Ps. 2:12, “when his wrath is kindled but a little”; Ps. 90:11; Matt. 3:7. This is the fear that really belongs to the enemies of God and of Christ, the fear from which they try to hide by their self-deceptions, which will yet overwhelm them at last. It is really not to touch the disciple’s heart at all save as a last extremity when nothing else will keep him true. What Jesus says is this: “If the disciple is going to yield to the low motive of fear, then let him be scared, not of the minor, negligible danger, but of the supreme, fatal danger.” The sound sense and logic of this word are beyond question.

South of the walls of Jerusalem there lay the valley that had been desecrated by Moloch worship, in which children were burned alive (Jer. 2:23; 7:31; 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6). Josiah declared the place unclean (2 Kings 23:10), and it was then used as a place for the disposal of offal (Jer. 7:32, etc.; 31:40). Thus ge ben-Hinnom, “the valley of the sons of Hinnom,” furnished γέεννα, “Gehenna,” as one of the designations for hell, the place of the damned. The fact that in the present connection Gehenna means hell is rather beyond question. God is to be feared more than men. Man may kill and send a soul into the hereafter; the great plus predicated of God must be that “he is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28), “Gehenna” being understood in this sense.

It is, of course, impossible to refer the eleven passages in which Gehenna occurs to the actual valley near Jerusalem. We have absolutely no evidence for the supposition that the Jews ever burned criminals alive, or that the bodies of dead criminals were dragged out to this valley, or that constant fires were kept going there. The name “Gehenna” or anything else in Scripture that is used to establish more than two places in the hereafter, one for the blessed and one for the damned, is not used in the Scriptural sense. The confirmation “yea” and the terse repetition of the command: “I say to you, this one fear!” are used to intensify this command. Both are still needed by the disciples.

Luke 12:6

6 God’s special providence which watches over the disciples of Jesus is another reason they should not fear men. Are not five sparrows sold for two as? And one of them has not been forgotten in the sight of God. Yea, even the hairs of your head have all been numbered. Have no fear! You excel many sparrows.

Of course, sparrows are that cheap, five “little sparrows” cost “two little as,” both words being diminutives. They were caught to be used as food. Matt. 10:29 agrees regarding the price, two for one as; an extra one if you spent two as. The value of this little coin varied greatly, it was generally considered a tenth of a drachma, but it ranged between one and twelve cents in value. The lower value is in place here, two are two cents. The periphrastic perfect tense has its present implication: “Not one of them has been forgotten (and is thus now not forgotten) in the sight of God.” So vast are his providence and care that they include every cheap, little sparrow and all that ever happens to it.

Luke 12:7

7 Is this wonderful? The sparrows fly over our heads, the hairs of our head are a part of us and vastly smaller and individually quite insignificant. The human head has about 140, 000 hairs. Jesus says that each hair is not only counted as one but has its own individual number and is thus individually known and distinguished. So if any one hair is removed, God knows precisely which one it is (21:18; Acts 27:34). These two illustrations exemplify the infinite extent of God’s provident care. The smaller the objects are in our eyes, and the less the value, the greater is the force of the argument when God’s own children are now mentioned. Ἀλλά is not adversative (“but”) but copulative, and it is best to translate it “yea” or “now,” R. 1186.

So the injunction is re-enforced: “Have no fear!” i. e., at any time, durative present. Robertson’s translation: “Cease being afraid!” according to his explanations in R. 851, etc., would be in place only if the disciples were in fear when Jesus spoke, which was not the case. If God keeps such close track of every sparrow he will much more look after us who vastly excel many sparrows, yea, all of them.

Luke 12:8

8 Moreover (δέ as in v. 4), I say to you: Everyone whoever shall confess me in front of men, also the Son of man will confess him in front of the angels of God. But he that denied me in front of men shall be denied in front of the angels of God.

From the idea of fear and its causes Jesus advances to its results, namely, denial of him before men. The confession of Christ (the aorist subjunctive is constative, including all confession) is the cardinal act in the life of every disciple, and Jesus has it in mind from the start. The ἐν with ὁμολογεῖν is due to the Aramaic be with ’odi, R. 108, 475. The verb really means “to say the same thing” as another, to voice agreement with him, and thus to acknowledge and to confess him. “In front of men” emphasizes the public character of this confession; and ἐνἐμοί should not be reduced in any way since it includes Christ in the fullest sense, him with all that pertains to his person, his work, and the teaching and doctrine that present both. The fact that on through life this confession will cost something, in some cases the very life itself, has been already fully indicated, and “in front of men” again touches this point.

Whoever (ὃςἄν) confesses Christ and thus identifies himself with him, with that man Christ will also identify himself by confessing him. The fact that this is no mere even exchange is at once brought out by the Messianic title which Jesus uses to designate himself, “the Son of man,” man and yet infinitely more than man (see 5:24). When the benefactor identifies himself with the beggar, the advantage is entirely on one side. Note the contrast that accords with this one-sidedness: “in front of men”—“in front of the angels of God.” Nothing but men who are on earth for a little while—the world of angels in the heavenly glory at the last day. Who would trade the acclaim of angels at that day for the pittance of the approval of men here for a few days? See how Jesus sets forth the realities so simply and so clearly that no sane mind can help but draw the correct conclusion.

What a prospect to see Jesus calling my name and confessing me as his very own before the eternal angel world! Shall any persecution by men in this transient life ever make me forget that prospect?

Luke 12:9

9 Yet the reverse must be added although it is already implied in the positive statement. Jesus uses the substantivized aorist participle to designate the man who denied him; and this aorist is not past in time but constative, summing up into one the life course of the denier. And we should remember that Jesus is speaking in particular of a disciple who should have confessed but ended up in denying the blessed Son of man. Peter denied Jesus through fear of men and might have ended thus. During the ten great pagan persecutions in the early church many denied by sacrificing to idols or to Caesar because they feared the threats of the authorities. Many fear to lose the favor of men and the profits and the advantages men offer them. Self-deception veils the secret motive in thousands of cases, for the heart is deceitful above all things.

The consequences are terrible beyond words. In Matt. 7:23 we have the very words with which Jesus will in turn deny those who denied him. The agent is not indicated in the passive “shall be denied” (which is, therefore, futuristic, not volitive), but it will be Jesus (Matt. 10:33). Confusion, dismay, consternation, eternal terror will overwhelm them. Would to God that the warning might strike home to all disciples and doubly to the pastors who are to lead others!

Luke 12:10

10 And everyone who shall say a word against the Son of man, it shall be remitted for him; but to him who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit it shall not be remitted.

Luke records this word about the sin against the Holy Ghost in its briefest form. When the Lord spoke it in warning to the Pharisees themselves who were on the verge of committing this sin, his statement was fuller, Matt. 12:31, 32. He here speaks to the disciples, evidently not as though they needed a warning against this the most extreme sin but, as the connection with v. 8, 9, and v. 11, 12 indicates, to point out to what extreme men would go in their opposition to him and to his saving Word. The disciples had already heard the Pharisees and scribes say a blasphemous word against the Son of man (5:24) when they charged that Jesus worked in league with Beelzebul (11:14, etc.).

“To say a word against the Son of man” is meant in the sense of uttering blasphemy against him as this is evident from Matt. 12:31 where all blasphemies except those against the Holy Spirit are pronounced forgivable. “It shall be remitted to him” is not absolute but conditioned on repentance. But in the case of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit no condition is possible because of the nature of this sin. The verb ἀφίημι means “to send away,” to remove the sin from the sinner so that he is free of it, and so that the sin can never be found and charged against him before the judgment bar of God. This verb and its noun ἄφεσις, “sending away,” “remission,” are the most blessed terms in the Scriptures for the sinner. The agent in the two passives is God who alone remits. The future tenses are merely predictive; see R. 873 who discusses their translation by “shall” or “will.”

In the present connection we have no intimation as to why remission is utterly impossible for those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit since Jesus is here not warning against this sin and therefore adds no elucidation. But by comparing all parallel passages we see that this sin cannot be pardoned because it shuts out the very possibility of repentance. Other sins and other blasphemies do not render repentance impossible. It is the Spirit who works repentance, and to blaspheme him bars out him and his work. The point to be noted, however, is that, as far as the symptom of blasphemy is concerned, this need not name the Spirit in its vicious utterance, it may name only Jesus and yet be against the Spirit.

We are unable to judge which blasphemer has gone too far and placed himself beyond remission already in this life; all we can say is that he who fears that he has committed this sin by that very fear furnishes evidence that he has not done so. This sin cannot be committed inadvertently or unconsciously. Its commission is possible only where the Spirit has come upon a man through the Word and has been recognized as God’s Spirit with his divine grace and power to save. When a man deliberately answers him with blasphemy he puts himself forever beyond the Spirit’s reach, into the unalterable condition of the devils and of the damned in hell. This sin thus constitutes his character indelebilis.

Luke 12:11

11 Moreover, whenever they bring you up to the synagogues and the ruling powers and the authorities, do not be distracted as to how or what you shall make defense, or what you shall say; for the Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very hour what it is necessary to say.

This is the final assurance to fortify the disciples against hypocrisy and the fear of men. In three different connections and with strong variations Jesus states this effective assurance (in Matt. 10:17–20; here; and in Luke 21:11–14). Jesus cites the very worst situations in which his disciples will find themselves; they will be arrested and brought to trial before various courts. In the synagogues the local Jewish courts of twenty-three judges tried cases and could decree scourging with rods as a penalty, which was always carried out at once in the synagogue where the court sat (Acts 22:19; 26:11; 2 Cor. 11:24). The next two terms are abstract nouns, used for concrete powers such as exercise rule (rulers) and authority (authorities). Although each term has the article, the three are not exclusive of each other but are only viewed separately (R. 787).

What rulerships and what authoritative courts Jesus has in mind is left indefinite, but both are superior to the synagogue and decree severer penalties. This formulation shows clearly that this statement was spoken exactly as it is recorded and in this very connection and is not transferred from some other time and connection.

The textual authority is in favor of the reading πῶςἢτί although the verb is without the passive idea (R. 334): “as to how or as to what” you shall offer defense. The aorist imperative may be ingressive: “do not grow distracted” (the same verb that was used in 10:41). To be arrested and to be haled before judges low or high are enough to upset anyone. Aside from the shame, fear, and other conflicting emotions, the trial itself, with both the manner and the matter of the defense, would tend to cause terrible anxiety: how and on what point (indirect deliberative questions) shall the defense be made; or what shall they say, i. e., formulate their defense before the court? The idea is not that the disciples may defend themselves in such a way as to escape the infliction of penalties, but that they may defend themselves in such a manner as to cast no dishonor on Christ and the gospel by their mental confusion, by mistakes, by weakness, ignorance, or other handicaps, and thus injure the Lord’s cause. After a sleepless night or more in a foul cell, perhaps, in what condition would they be to do justice to the gospel? “Do not be distracted!” contemplates and meets this situation. And the aorist is peremptory: “Drop all worry completely!” They are not to debate with a divided mind whether to center on this or on that, and whether to say it thus or otherwise.

Luke 12:12

12 Does this sound foolhardy? Ought they not to plan most carefully how to meet every eventuality? Yes, if they were alone and making their defense themselves. But this is not at all the case; the Holy Spirit, the great Paraclete and Advocate, is at their side: “he shall teach you in that very hour what things it is necessary to say.” The promise is unqualified. Without previous thinking, planning, imagining the apostles will in their trials at court receive directly from the Spirit just exactly what they must say to make the defense which God wants them to make. Δεῖ is used to indicate every kind of necessity, here the one that is brought on by the trial. They will make no mistakes and after the trial have no regrets on that score.

This is direct, miraculous aid; and when the Spirit gives a man what he is to say, the proper name for this act is inspiration, verbal inspiration, than which no other exists. And the argument is quite invincible that, if God’s Spirit inspired the disciples when they were subjected to court trials he was certainly able to inspire those whom he desired when it came to the far greater interest of supplying God’s Word to all ages. That he did so is attested in 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19–21; by the long list of διά phrases in Isa. 59:21; Hos. 12:11; Ezek. 3:27, and beginning with Matt. 1:22 on through the New Testament. It is most tremendously attested by the result, the Bible itself, its every page being a product that is beyond human ability. Valuable also is the unconscious negative testimony of the critics and the modernists who go to no such trouble in trying to discredit any other book.

It is unwarranted to call what Jesus promises here mere “presence of mind” at court trials; what Jesus promises is vastly more. The claim that inerrancy is not included is equally specious; or does the Holy Spirit teach the disciples falsities, mistakes, errors in these critical situations? See the further discussion in connection with the more elaborate passage, Matt. 10:17–20; also Mark 13:11.

Luke 12:13

13 Now one of the multitude said to him, Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me. But he said to him, Man, who constituted me a judge or divider over you?

The preceding discourse is a complete unit, so it seems that Jesus paused a moment, and that this man in the multitude, who had probably worked his way up near to Jesus, took advantage of that pause to shout out his request. The subject on which Jesus spoke does not seem to have been interrupted, for he does not return to it. This man’s personal affair was the supreme thing for him and not the teaching of Jesus. As lawyers the rabbis assumed authority to judge and to adjudicate in disputes of the kind here presented, so this man wanted to use the authority of Jesus to his interest by bringing him into the dispute with his brother. Whether his brother was holding the entire inheritance for himself or was curtailing his brother’s portion cannot be determined; nor can we say how just his claims were.

Luke 12:14

14 Jesus offers an indignant refusal as the way in which he addresses him and as the self-answering question of the reply indicate. If this man thought that he was honoring Jesus by appealing to his authority he was really doing the opposite, trying to draw Jesus into an affair that was no concern of his. The Jews had rightful judges for disputes about property. Jesus had no appointment of that kind, his office and his work were vastly higher, and he was the last person to interfere with the secular authorities.

Luke 12:15

15 But this man’s appeal leads Jesus to speak on the subject it suggests to his present audience: Moreover, he said to them, See to it and guard yourselves against all covetousness because when there is abundance for someone, his life is not due to his possessions.

The man’s eagerness to secure his part of the inheritance results in the warning against “all covetousness,” the greedy desire to have and to hold earthly possessions for ourselves, amor scleratus habendi. Whatever form it may take, we must keep clear of it. The καί between the imperatives, R. 1083 thinks, is like the Hebrew υe with the force of ὅτι or ἵνα: “see to it that you guard yourselves,” the Koine innovation of ὅπως with the future indicative (R. 933). One striking reason for the futility of all covetousness is the simple fact that a man’s ζωή, the actual life in him, the life principle (not βίος, the life one lives) is not drawn from his earthly possessions. He will not have a bit more of actual life when he has much or a bit less of that life when he has little. As the parable shows, the possession of life depends on God.

We leave ἐντῷ with the durative infinitive in the ordinary temporal sense in which Luke uses it so often: “when there is abundance for someone” (not the idea of content, R. 979). To have life man must look to something else than abundance and extensive possessions.

Luke 12:16

16 Moreover, he spoke a parable to them, saying: A certain rich man’s ground bore well; and he began reasoning with himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have not where I shall gather together my crops? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my storehouses and greater will I build and gather together there all my grain and good things. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast many good things laid by for many years; continue to rest; eat, drink, continue to be of good cheer!

The antecedent of αὐτούς, “them,” here and in v. 15, is found in v. 1: the disciples (the Twelve, the Seventy, and others) who were surrounded by a packed crowd. In v. 22 the discourse again turns to the disciples. The whole account is thus linked together. The word about covetousness is not at once grasped in its fulness. So Jesus, as he did at other times, makes it vivid by means of a parable which is a comparison and an illustration of his meaning and at the same time the full truth of what he says about covetousness.

No name is given; rich men of this sort have no record in heaven, no names worthy to be remembered. All that could be said for him and of him was that he was rich. “Rich man”—that sounds important among worldly men; great deference is paid to “rich men”; money talks—poor men do not count. It sounds good to hear Jesus drop all this false show and present this man to us as he really is, nothing but “a certain rich man.”

There is, of course, no odium attached to his riches as such. It is no crime to be rich; Abraham was rich, but he was far more than “a certain rich man.” There was no hint of wrongful, ill-gotten riches; rather the contrary—the man owns a fine farm which was probably inherited or rightfully purchased. He is not pictured as an extortioner, an oppressor of poor laborers. He was honest, a man of standing and highly respected in the community; many envied him. His wealth had greatly increased; his land had produced well, so well that his place could not accommodate the new crop.

This is a parable on covetousness and on this deadly vice in its most innocent-looking form. The man is thus painted in fair colors, and we may expand the picture as much as we like. Even his covetousness has nothing repulsive about it. He just lived for these earthly things; they and they alone filled his life and his soul. That was all. The world has any number of duplicates.

Luke 12:17

17 As the substantial and progressive man that he is, he sits down and considers the matter, the descriptive imperfect διελογίζετο picturing him as doing so. The aorist subjunctive in τίποιήσω is deliberative, and the aorist does not refer to a line of action, which would require a present tense, but to a definite measure, what he is to do about storing this grain and produce. And we should at once note the “I” and “my” that run through this conversation with himself and his soul; there are just twelve in these few words of his. They intend to mark the man’s selfishness, and this is his type of covetousness—a type that is repeated endlessly. He is in trouble; he has no place where to store this tremendous harvest. He does not thank God for this abundant gift—God is far from his thoughts.

And he really only acts as though this was a trouble for him; secretly he is full of elation at his increase of wealth. When the selfish rich complain about the worry their growing riches cause them, the complaint is always hollow; not for one moment would they exchange places with the poorer man to whom such worry does not come.

Luke 12:18

18 All the verbs are volitive subjunctives. The deliberation is at an end, the decision is reached, and Jesus lets this man state it in full: “This will I do,” etc.; καθελῶ is from καθαιρέω. He feels that his decision is a wise one. It is certainly progressive to replace the old storehouses with new and greater ones—how people will remark about that! And we see that he has far more than just grain (σῖτος, wheat and barley), he has τὰἀγαθά, “good things” of all kinds, all that belongs to a wealthy farm.

The French painter Eugene Burnaud brings out the inwardness of what is conveyed by Jesus. He paints the rich man as he has come to his decision. He has carefully recounted his gold and his silver, setting aside one sack after another. A certain amount that is to be used for other purposes is placed on a shelf above his head. The money that is to be used for the new buildings is stacked on the table before him. Now he leans back—furrows of thought on his forehead, a faraway look in his eyes—he is thinking of the great change the replacement will make, the money and the work it will mean, and the picture it will make, all the new, fine, grand storehouses, full to overflowing with “all my grain and good things.” What a picture!

But turn the page. There is the same man, cold in death, his hands crossed on his breast!

Luke 12:19

19 This is a parable, and parables present men as they really are. You and I may be afraid to talk aloud to our souls as this man did, but the silent language of our acts may be the same. It will not do to say that Jesus said nephesh in the Aramaic, and that this was used as a reflexive pronoun: “I will say to myself” (the future indicative this time); for the Greek does not use the reflexive pronoun here but ψυχή, nephesh in the sense of “soul.” Delitzsch (Biblische Psychologie, 104) thinks that the stronger and more masculine part of man, his spirit, spoke to “the weaker vessel, the soul.” But this is not the language of the spirit, nor do we need such refinement. Man’s consciousness of himself as a person enables him to think of himself and to speak to himself. That suffices here.

Ψυχή is exactly the proper term since it is the immaterial part of our being which animates the body and makes it alive. Compare further, also on the distinction between ψυχή and πνεῦμα, the notes on 1:46. The English “soul” says a little too much since it is used like our “spirit” to designate our immaterial part as being capable of receiving impressions from God. In the Greek the lower sense prevails so that the adjective ψυχικός means “carnal.” This man addressed his soul life in its dependence on material things and thus speaks of such things only and as if they constituted the whole of life. His πνεῦμα was foreign territory to him.

It is thus that the man boasts to his psyche that it has many good things laid by for years many (the present participle κείμενα being used as a perfect, R. 902) and bids his psyche to take its ease, to eat, to drink, and to keep happy. We see that he knows only this lower, material side of his being, and that he has no higher concern. In this respect he is like millions of men. What he says sounds sensible up to a certain point. He did have the things for this life in great abundance. But he overlooked the fact that even this life of his was dependent, not on his many possessions (v. 15), but on the will of God.

The thought is not that this man would venture to deny God, his presence and his power in this respect; quite the contrary, he may even have acknowledged the bounties of God. What he failed to do was to take God into vital account. The omission seemed slight, but it was nonetheless fatal. The first and the fourth imperatives are present tenses that state conditions, the other two are aorists to denote simple acts.

Luke 12:20

20 But God said to him: Fool! This very night thy soul they are demanding from thee! And what things thou didst get ready, for whom will they be? Thus he that treasures up for himself and is not rich in God.

Why regard God’s speaking in this case as an act? This speaking precedes the act. God is able to express his thoughts by words as well as by acts; take Ps. 2:5 as an example. In this case the terrible thing is that God’s speaking is entirely at variance with this man’s speaking. Woe to the man whose thoughts concerning himself run counter to God’s thoughts. What a contrast: “years many”—“this very night”! “Boast not thyself of tomorrow,” Prov. 27:1. This man had taken for granted the indefinite stay of his soul in his body, and that stay was now already at an end. All his plans had been made on a false basis; he had left the most vital figure out of his calculation.

“Fool!” is the proper name, the nominative form for the vocative. R. 464. The adjective which is used as a noun means devoid of sense, without mind or reason. Wise in his own conceit, his wisdom was blank folly. The world is full of these wise fools. The proof for this judgment is given in one keen, decisive stroke, which leaves no room for argument or evasion: “This very night thy soul they are demanding from thee!” “This very night” is placed forward for the sake of emphasis. Here, too, ψυχή is the proper word, the man’s immaterial part that animates his body, to which the man had just spoken. This night it would cease to animate his body and would pass into another world.

The tense is present: “they are demanding from thee,” because of the immanence, not future (A. V.). The plural, which in a way serves as a passive (R. V.), is also listed as being impersonal, as hiding the identity of those meant, or as a plural of category. But the solution of Trench is better, who refers to Job 33:22. “Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers”; it is the reverse of Luke 16:23: “carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom.” “Like pitiless exactors of tribute, terrible angels shall require thy soul from thee unwilling and through love of life resisting. For from the righteous his soul is not required, but he commits it to God and the Father of spirits, pleased and rejoicing, nor finds it hard to lay it down, for the body lies upon it as a light burden.

But the sinner who has enfleshed his soul and embodied it and made it earthly has prepared to render its divulsion from the body most hard; wherefore it is said to be required of him as a disobedient debtor that is delivered to pitiless exactors.” Theophylact. He went to bed as he did on any other night, with never another thought—alas, even this night—with never another thought!

“What things thou didst prepare” (English idiom: hast prepared) is emphatic by position and includes all the man’s wealth plus the ripening harvest. Yes, he prepared it, and it took his time, thought, effort, strength and filled his life to the exclusion of everything that was higher. And now, when his life is closing: “for whom shall they be?” Not his, that is plain. Laughing heirs will divide what he leaves behind or will quarrel over it like the two brothers mentioned in v. 13. Is this what he worked for and deceived even his own soul? So are all the possessions of the covetous (selfish) even while they hold them in their hands—not true possessions at all though they seem so real and loom so large and grand.

Even our earthly life does not, in the last analysis, rest on things such as this. The man who came to Jesus about his inheritance would live whether he got his part of it or not; but in either case, if his heart knew no higher wealth, he would be—only another “fool.”

Luke 12:21

21 The parable is like a photograph, at the bottom of which Jesus now signs the man’s name. Look closely whether this is perhaps your name. “Thus,” οὕτως, does not mean that every man of this kind is in all outward respects like this man in the parable. He may not die so suddenly, and he may die in the possession of less or of greater wealth. But in every case the inner details will fit and combine, just as they do here, to form the picture of what is a “fool” in God’s eyes. The two points are these: he is one “treasuring for himself and not being rich in God,” two present substantivized participles describe the man’s character. A man generally succeeds when he sets himself to laying up earthly treasures; but it is the effort itself, when this sums up his life, which marks him as a “fool.” This is true because all such treasures, however abundant they may be in any man’s possession, do not enrich but impoverish his soul.

Death shows that fact only too clearly. Not one bit of all the wealth remains for that soul. He laid it up “for himself,” but “for whom” is it at last?

The negation, “and is not rich in God,” is not intended as the complete negation of gathering earthly treasures so that we are to gather no wealth except the spiritual. The negative qualifies the preceding positive; our gathering of earthly treasures is never to bar us from gathering the true riches. But this subordination does not lie in the use of μή instead of οὐ with the participle. The former is the regular negative with the participle (R. 1136–9 at length), and even if the latter were used, the sense would be the same. The thought itself shows how the two participles, which are joined merely by “and,” belong together, and that is both sufficient and clear. Whoever is rich in God will not make earthly riches his concern in life as though even his earthly life could live in them.

Our versions translate “toward God,” understanding εἰς to imply direction or even motion. This blurs the sense and often leads to false interpretations. This εἰς is static as all the newer grammars show. All motion must be indicated in the verb, it never lies in the preposition, and there is neither direction nor motion in being rich. This removes the view of wealth that is devoted to (toward) God or of spiritual excellences that are held out “toward” God for his approval. To be rich in God is to have the wealth that is found in God.

This wealth consists of pardon, peace, and salvation in union with God, and “in God” signifies faith. That individual is rich in God who has the saving gifts which God gives him and holds them with gratitude by faith as his own. Such a man is truly rich, however little he may have of earthly goods; nor will earthly possessions interfere with his true wealth since he will treat them as Abraham, David, and others did by making them wholly subservient to God. Thus linguistic and doctrinal soundness go together.

Luke 12:22

22 Moreover, he said to his disciples: For this reason I say to you, Be not distracted for your life, what you shall eat; nor for your body, what you shall put on. For the life is more than the nourishment, and the body more than what is put on.

Διὰτοῦτο makes it certain that the scene is the same. Jesus again (v. 1) turns to his disciples in particular; the two αὐτούς occurring in v. 15, 16 refer to both the disciples and the very great multitude. So also the thought presented continues what Jesus has been saying though it is now applied to the disciples. “For this reason” means that after covetousness has been removed there should go with it also all worry regarding our daily sustenance. The two are not identical but closely related. “I say to you” is the voice of divine authority.

The negative present imperative often means to stop an action already begun, and this may be the case here; yet previous distraction has not been indicated, and we may also translate: “be not distracted,” marking out a course of action. The verb is the same as it was in 10:41, “to be distracted,” with divided thoughts running this way and that. We again have ψυχή, the dative of advantage, R. 538. The distraction is regarding the keeping of our immaterial part in our body, and the translation “for your life” conveys the sense better than “for your soul,” the article being equal to the possessive “your.” Jesus used this word in Matt. 6:25; he here leaves out “drink.” The two indirect questions have the deliberative subjunctive, which is retained from the direct, and only change the first person to the second. Food is needed daily and is thus placed first, clothes last longer and are thus mentioned last.

Luke 12:23

23 “For” (γάρ) states the reason the disciples should not be distracted about their life and their body. The argument is from the greater to the less. Will he who gave us our life and our body fail to add the little food and the clothing we need? The most elementary logic ought to put every disciple above worry on that score. In πλεῖον the abstract idea of thing is expressed: “a greater thing than.”

Luke 12:24

24 Carefully consider the ravens, that they do not sow or reap, who have neither storeroom (v. 3) nor granary (v. 18); and God nourishes them. By how much do you excel the birds?

The argument is now reversed, it is from the greater to the less (πόσῳμᾶλλον, “by how much do you excel?”). Look at distraction in either way, either way shuts out distraction and worry for the disciples. Διαφέρω means literally “to bear apart” and thus to differ, i. e., advantageously, “to excel.” In Matt. 6:26 we have only the general “the birds of the heaven,” here “the ravens” are referred to as being the most useless type of birds; sparrows could be eaten (v. 6). Like all others, these birds, too, are without our advantages, cannot produce their food by sowing and by reaping, cannot store it up for later use, must live from hand to mouth at all seasons. Do they starve? “God nourishes them,” καί, as often, co-ordinating an adversative thought. Will God nourish ravens and forget the disciples of Jesus?

Luke 12:25

25 Moreover, who of you by being distracted is able to add to his lifetime a single half-yard? If, therefore, you cannot do even a very little thing, why are you distracted about the rest?

Although ἡλικία refers to stature it may refer also to length of life. We have no reason whatever to think of stature here, for this produces a ridiculous thought. Who except a child or a dwarf would want to be half a yard taller? Nor does πῆχυς, the length of a forearm, about 18 inches, compel us to think of bodily height. Ps. 39:5 speaks of the length of life as being “a hand-breadth,” a few inches. Other examples have been found where linear measure is used to designate time. Worry does not lengthen life, it usually shortens life. The participle indicates means: “by means of being distracted.”

Luke 12:26

26 The argument is from the least to the far greater. If one cannot lengthen his lifetime by as much as 18 inches, why should he think of distracting himself about all the rest that concerns his earthly life? In conditions of reality οὐ is the negative; and ἐλάχιστον is a true superlative but is used in an elative sense: “the very least” (R. 670).

Luke 12:27

27 Carefully consider the lilies, how they grow. They do not toil, nor do they spin, yet I say to you, Even Solomon in all his glory did not robe himself as one of these.

Jesus turns from food to clothing. These are the common lilies that grow wild in Palestine. Again there is no effort; they just grow and come to bloom without wearisome labor, without spinning the garment of their bloom, and its beauty exceeds anything that Solomon ever enrobed himself with at the height of his glorious reign. There is here a comparison between two superlatives. To the Jew, Solomon shone in the extreme of royal splendor, yet the wild, untended lilies exceed the texture and the delicate beauty of his finest robes.

Luke 12:28

28 But if the grass in a field, which today exists and tomorrow is thrown into an oven, God thus enrobes, how much more you, men of little faith?

The lilies of which Jesus speaks have a grassy foliage and are thus called χόρτος like all plants of this type. Some think that actual grass is referred to, the lilies growing in a grassy field and thus decorating the grass. But this is shut out by the verb ἀμφιέννυσι, “to clothe round about,” which refers to the flowers and not to ordinary grass. Both the designation “grass” for the little lily plants and the description of their brief life and beauty heighten the contrast with the disciples who are destined for eternal life. In a country where fuel was scarce dried grass and stalks of all kinds were used to heat ovens for baking. The appeal is here from the greater to the less.

If God enrobes the lowly and ephemeral lilies so gorgeously he will surely give common garments to his far higher creatures. The apodosis needs no verb and is thus more incisive: “how much more you?” Ὀλιγόπιστοι is a distinctive New Testament term; it is found four times in Matthew, only this one time in Luke: “men of little trust.” This term grants the trust of the disciples yet reproves the littleness of this trust as it is evidenced by the worry which the disciples still have at times. Our trust ought to make all worry impossible.

Luke 12:29

29 And you on your part do not be seeking what you shall eat and what you shall drink; and be not in suspense. For these things all the Gentiles of the world seek after; but your Father knows that you have need of these things.

The admonition given in v. 22 is repeated, the present imperative is to be understood in the same sense; and an argument is now added, not from our constitution (v. 23), nor from nature (v. 24–28), but from a comparison with “all the Gentiles of the world.” Hence we have the emphatic ὑμεῖς, “you on your part,” to impress that contrast. “What you shall drink” is added because in the hot climate of Palestine and in its rugged and dry sections water was a vital element and often hard to obtain. Μετεωρίζεσθε is passive; from it we have “meteor,” and in its metaphorical use it is best translated “be not in suspense,” i.e., about where food and drink are to be obtained.

Luke 12:30

30 Worry about supplying earthly needs is the outstanding mark of “all the Gentiles of the world,” of all the pagan nations who know not God and the Father of the disciples (11:2). Do the disciples want to descend to their abominable level? In speaking to Jews this comparison with the Gentiles is highly effective. Pagan people imagine that they themselves must provide for their needs, hence their seeking is bent upon (ἐπί in the verb) “these things all.” The disciples live in a higher world, they have one who is “your very own (ὑμῶν emphatic by position) Father.” As such “he knows that you have need of these things” (“before you ask him,” Matt. 6:8). He is omniscient and almighty, full of love especially for his children, and will always act accordingly. Knowing that and trusting him, all worry and suspense will disappear.

Luke 12:31

31 But be seeking his kingdom, and these things will be added unto you.

This supreme seeking is described as hunger and thirst in Matt. 5:6, and it is the distinctive mark of all true disciples. The present imperative commands constant seeking. The desire for the kingdom (see 1:33) is constantly satisfied, for what we seek is given to us by grace; and yet the seeking is always to continue, for the object of our desire can always be more fully attained. This seeking is, of course, in no sense synergistic but the desire of the regenerate and believing heart to enter ever more fully into union with God. Grace kindles the desire and keeps it ever active in this life. There follows the promise that it is to remove finally and down to the very roots every kind of earthly worry: “and these things will be added to you,” they will be thrown in for good measure with the gift of the kingdom. He who gives us all the divine blessings of the kingdom will regard as nothing the addition of “these things” for our short earthly life.

Luke 12:32

32 Have no fear, little flock, because it did please your Father to give to you the kingdom.

Luke alone reports this assurance. Jesus called the disciples his “friends” in v. 4 when he bade them not to fear men; here, when he again bids them not to fear, he speaks as their Shepherd and calls them “little flock” (the article is often used with vocatives). They are a little band, but as Jesus’ flock they need have no fear. The word “flock” recalls Matt. 9:36; 10:6; 15:24, passages in which Jesus describes the Jews, not as a flock, but as shepherdless and sadly scattered sheep. His disciples he had gathered as a flock under his shepherd care so that we recall John 10:14. “Little” is, therefore, not in comparison with the Gentile nations (v. 30) but in comparison with the Jewish nation. And the injunction not to fear (durative like all the previous present imperatives) is broad and general and forbids all fear whatsoever.

This is an advance beyond v. 4 and not a repetition; and certainly an advance beyond v. 22, etc., and not a repetition of those injunctions. The little flock is completely under Jesus’ care.

In v. 32 Jesus tells the disciples to seek the kingdom, here he assures them that it was the Father’s good pleasure to give it to them. On the εὐδοκία of God see 10:21; and on the verb 3:22 and Matt. 17:5. “The good pleasure of God” is his will of grace. The tense of the verb in all three passages is the aorist and not the present as our versions translate it. “It did please God” in his counsel of grace to bestow the kingdom upon “the little flock” and upon it alone. God knew all who would be won for this flock by Jesus in all the ages. While Jesus is addressing “the little flock” which was at that time assembled around him, it is evident that his word applies to all who would in afteryears be joined to that flock. The aorist reaches back to eternity, and thus the aorist infinitive δοῦναι is constative, all the giving to all the flock in all the ages is summed up into one comprehensive act.

The idea that either in v. 31 or here “the kingdom” means only the kingdom of glory in the eschatological sense is an unwarranted restriction. No one receives the kingdom of glory save by way of the kingdom of grace. “To give” denotes pure grace through Christ and for Christ’s sake. They who are receiving this gift are simply to rejoice and to have no fear of any kind.

Luke 12:33

33 Sell your possessions and give alms! Make for yourselves purses that age not, a treasure unfailing in the heavens, where a thief does not come near, nor a moth destroy. For where is your treasure, there also your heart will be.

Jesus does not say, “Sell all your possessions, give everything as alms,” although he has been understood to say just that. If this were put into practice, all believers would in short order themselves need alms. The parable recorded in v. 13–21 presents a man who covetously and selfishly kept everything for himself; the disciple will do the opposite. “As God hath prospered him” (1 Cor. 16:2) he will dispense alms, especially “in ministering to the saints” (2 Cor. 8:4) after the example of the women mentioned in 8:3. This is no consilium evangelicum for meritorious poverty; nor is this a special command only to the apostles, that they give away all their property because of their office, for the words are addressed also to the Seventy and to other disciples before the great multitude as is shown in v. 1.

We cannot place the “purses that age not” in heaven, nor identify their contents with the “treasure unfailing in the heavens.” Whereas one verb is used with both, this verb merely combines what the disciples are to do with their earthly wealth, and what they are at the same time to secure in heaven. By the way in which the rich fool in the parable treated his wealth he made himself a purse that soon grew old, worn, having holes, out of which all his wealth dropped. Zahn says aptly of him: Wie gewonnen, so zerronnen, and all his new structures remained air castles. Not so the disciples and their purse that ages not. The figure of the purse refers to the way in which they view and treat their earthly wealth, be it small or great. Instead of becoming its slave they remain its master and apply it as their divine Master bids them do. So it is not lost but made to serve them in their calling as disciples on the way to heaven.

Strange confusion results when the “treasure” is placed in the “purses,” the latter in heaven like the former, and the “treasure” is turned into merit of some kind that is acquired by the disciples by almsgiving or by voluntary poverty. This treasure is ἀνέκλειπτος, it never gives out as did that of the rich fool “that night.” No thief can even get near it as is the case with earthly treasures; no moth can spoil it as was the case with even Solomon’s fine garments. The moth is added because of v. 27, 28. This marvelous treasure is the one we are bidden to seek in v. 31, hence also ποιήσατε is used regarding it. The idea is not that the verb means that we are to create this treasure; the verb is used in a zeugmatic way for both “purses” and “treasure.” We make for ourselves a treasure in heaven when our heart is in the kingdom, yea, in heaven, to which grace leads.

Luke 12:34

34 Hence we have the striking final statement that where our heart is, there our treasure will be. In Biblical language the heart is the center of our personality. If that is where the rich fool’s was, our treasure will be only on earth and will slip through our fingers at death. If our heart is in the kingdom, we shall not only use our possessions aright, our treasure will be in the kingdom, safe forever, for this kingdom’s consummation is in the glory of heaven. What a treasure! Who would exchange it for that of the rich fool?

Luke 12:35

35 When their hearts are in the kingdom, the disciples will constantly look for and be ready for its consummation. Let your loins be as having been girded, and the lamps burning, and you on your part like men expecting their own lord when he may depart from the wedding in order that, on his having come and knocked, they at once may open to him. Blessed those slaves whom the lord, on coming, shall find watching. Amen, I say to you, that he will gird himself and will make them recline at table and, having come, will wait on them. And if in the second, and if in the third watch he shall come and shall find it thus, blessed are those!

This virtual parable turns from the second person and the direct address to the disciples to the third person and continues thus to the close. The key to the parable is thus furnished at once and not withheld till the end. The disciples are pictured by these slaves, and this lord is Jesus himself. The first is a periphrastic perfect imperative, the copula with the long ending σαν instead of ν: “having been, let them continue to be girded.” By adding a present participle to the copula a second periphrastic imperative results which is present and simply durative: and “let the lamps be burning.”

“Your” is emphatic: your loins must be girded, whatever others think or do. Besides, the loins are theirs whereas the lamps are a part of the palace and are not called “your” lamps. The Oriental dress consisted of a long, loose, flowing robe. This was in the way when quick action became necessary and was either laid aside altogether as when the witnesses against Stephen “laid down their clothes” at Saul’s feet while they proceeded to stone this martyr, or was girded up by a belt about the waist as when the Israelites ate their first Passover in haste, ready for instant departure from Egypt. So when they were travelling men girded up their loins, and men who were serving at table where quick movement was necessary also did so. The λύχνοι were, no doubt, grander than the ordinary lamps and consisted of a bowl for oil with a snout or nozzle for the wick; the conception is one of a great palace.

It is fanciful to seek special meanings such as that all temporal possessions and gifts are the long robes, and truth is the girdle (Eph. 6:14), and faith the burning lamps. All these constitute one image only, namely constant readiness for the return of the Lord on into the night.

Luke 12:36

36 “And you on your part (emphatic ὑμεῖς, matching ὑμῶν in v. 35) like men expecting their own (proper) lord” brings out the fact that Jesus is presenting a parable about his disciples and himself as their divine Lord to whom they belong as his slaves. The key word is the participle “expecting”: the disciples meet the will of Jesus when, after his leaving them, they live in constant hope and expectant readiness for his great return. So the parable is completed by explaining how this expecting comes to be. The lord of these slaves has gone to οἱγάμοι, “the wedding” (for which the plural as well as the singular is used). We need not change the word to mean “the feast” since nothing would be gained; nor need we see in “the wedding” some other kind of feast, a celebration that would hold the guests a longer time; for the point of the parable is the complete uncertainty in regard to the hour of the return. The article should be noted: “the wedding,” and this would remain if we made it “the feast.” What is meant is clear: the celebration and the jubilation in heaven to which Jesus ascended over the glorious redemption which he worked out for the world.

This may be compared to a wedding as well as to a feast in general. In either case it is the celebration appointed unto Jesus on his return to the Father. It is now in progress. This marriage feast of the Lamb began with the ascension and will continue forever. We need not make it start at the last day. Ἀναλύω is derived from breaking camp or loosing the moorings of a ship and thus means “to depart.”

The expectation has in it the purpose that the slaves may open to him the moment their lord returns and knocks. The two aorist participles are genitive absolutes, aorists to indicate momentary acts as also the opening act is an aorist. The stress is on εὐθέως, “at once.” But this is no ordinary man returning to his house at night. He would then need only one servant to sit up for him, to unlock the door, and to let him in. This lord has the grandest palace with a host of slaves, and on his return with his retinue (Jesus returns with his angels) he is to be received in state with great ceremony. The greatness and the grandness are required not only to image the gloriousness of Jesus when he comes back to earth but also to give proper weight and value to his condescension when he makes his slaves lords and himself their slave. So, too, the parable stops with the thought of these slaves’ opening the door for their lord and is not expanded to their making another feast or wedding for him.

Luke 12:37

37 The wonder of this parable begins right here when Jesus exclaims: “Blessed those slaves,” etc. Why, it was the ordinary duty of these slaves to be thus watching and ready (γρηγορέω = to be awake and thus to watch), no matter how long their lord delayed his return. We are right, there is no merit or worthiness on the part of these slaves (17:10); and the Lord’s verdict “blessed” is in no way based on what these slaves have done but altogether on what their returned lord now does for them. No wonder Jesus exclaims once more: “Amen, I say to you” (see 4:24), verity and authority seal his statement.

Jesus takes the human imagery of a great lord’s returning to his palace and his slaves’ receiving him back in state at night and gives it a turn that is unheard of among earthly lords and grandees. He does the same in other parables. This lord does not seek his ease and retire for the night. He changes his slaves into lords, he makes as grand a feast for them as was the one from which he came, he has them recline to dine and—wonder of wonders!—he does not order other slaves to serve them but makes himself their slave and “ministers” to them. Many waiters and helpers are needed at a great feast, but this lord needs none. This lets the reality peep through that this is the almighty, heavenly Lord himself.

One should collect all the beatitudes of the Scriptures; they are all different like the many facets of a diamond that yet belong to one stone. In this instance the blessedness consists of the joys and the glories of heaven. “As no Israelite dared to see the ark of the covenant uncovered, so no one ought to look at this passage without first having wrapped himself entirely in the blanket of humility” (quoted by Besser). Yet, in a way, this heavenly act need not surprise us. Did Christ not humble himself unto death for us (Phil. 2:7, 8)? So, then, without laying aside his divine glory he will gird himself and serve us. What this really means is reserved for us to learn when the great hour comes.

Then Ps. 126:1–3 will be fulfilled in a new way; also Ps. 23:5. Chiliasts bring in their millennial views. The pagan participation of slaves in the Saturnalian feasts was far from Jesus’ mind; and even his washing the disciples’ feet the night before his death in no way foreshadowed this heavenly act.

Luke 12:38

38 The beatitude is so great that Jesus repeats it together with the point that is essential for us: “if he shall come and shall find it thus,” i. e., that we are watching; for all depends on that. It is true faith that keeps disciples watching, faith in the Lord and in his promise of return; when the watching ceases, faith will be gone, and the blessedness will be lost. But Jesus adds: “if in the second, and if in the third watch” and regards the night of twelve hours as being divided into four three-hour periods. Jesus does not intend to say that he will not come in the first or in the fourth watch. For that matter, he could have named the first and the fourth watch just as well as the other two. As far as the reality is concerned, the imagery of the watches intimates only one thing, the complete uncertainty regarding the actual time of the Lord’s return. And that is the point in regard to watching and preparedness; he may come at any moment, and our readiness must be constant.

Luke 12:39

39 Moreover, this realize, that if the house-lord had known in what watch the thief comes he would not have let his house be broken through. And you on your part be ready because in what hour you do not think the Son of man comes.

The connection is obvious: in the first parable Jesus seeks to make his disciples watchful by holding before them a great promise; in this added illustration he warns them against failure to watch. The positive is thus rounded out by having the negative placed beside it. This negative also sounds the note of judgment for him who does not watch. The illustration operates with the contrary: a houseowner had failed to watch only for the reason that he did not know in which of the four watches the thief would appear of whose coming he had had a general warning. The result was that he slept, and the thief broke through a door or a window and stole what he wanted. Jesus puts this into the condition of past unreality: “if he had known he would not have let,” etc., (εἰ with the aorist indicative, followed by the aorist indicative with ἄν).

Some texts add as they do in Matt. 24:43: “he would have watched.” The past perfect ᾔδει, which is so often used as an imperfect, in the protasis leads some to think that the condition is mixed: “if he knew (present unreality) he would not have let,” etc., (past unreality), a strange mixture. But the imperfect and not always the aorist is also found in past unreality, and this quite plainly (as in the case of the present verb) where the aorist is not in use. In the Greek the direct discourse: “in what watch the thief comes,” is retained with the tense remaining unchanged when it is made indirect after a past tense of the verb.

Luke 12:40

40 The disciples are not to repeat this house-lord’s mistake; ὑμεῖς, emphatic: “you on your part.” The present imperative with its durative sense means “be ever ready.” The reason (ὅτι) for this only sane and safe course is that in the very hour (period, ὥρα) you feel sure he is not coming, in that very hour he will come. That is the astonishing thing about the uncertainty regarding the time. Even those who are constantly on the watch will be completely surprised, for in their watching they feel sure that at this or at that time he will not come, and one such time will be chosen for his coming. One may state it paradoxically: when we expect him least we must expect him most. This does not, of course, say that the disciples will not be watching when they think he is not coming, but that in all their watching they will occasionally have this thought. “The Son of man” (see 5:24), he who is man and yet vastly more than man, fits both the promise and the warning of the Lord’s coming. On the comparison with a thief note Rev. 3:3; 16:15; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Pet. 3:10, all illustrating the unexpected manner of the Lord’s coming. What Jesus said here and in the following he repeated in the great discourse recorded in Matt. 24 (42, etc.).

Luke 12:41

41 Now Peter said, Lord (see 7:13), art thou saying this parable to us or also to all?

We see at once that Peter’s question is explained by v. 1. Here the Twelve plus the Seventy and other disciples are surrounded by a closely packed multitude; in Matt. 24:45 no such question could have been asked, for there Jesus is alone with the Twelve, sitting on the Mount of Olives. As he does so often, Peter speaks up, and his question is natural enough. What Peter asks is whether these urgings and warnings of Jesus were intended only for the disciples as the ones who alone will sit at the heavenly table, or whether also others from the great multitude about them might apply these words to themselves and thus also come to that heavenly blessedness. The answer of Jesus is given in his usual manner. He explains more fully so that Peter is able to find his answer and able to find it in a way that is especially necessary for himself. The answer is briefly: The parable is for all, but let each one look well to himself in the station assigned to him in the Master’s house.

Luke 12:42

42 And the Lord said: Who, then, is the trustworthy, the sensible steward-slave, whom the lord shall set over his service to be giving at proper time the due portion? Blessed that slave whom, on coming, his lord shall find doing so. Truly I say to you, over all his possessions he will set him.

The connection with ἄρα indicates the correspondence with v. 40: “according to” the unexpectedness of the coming of the Son of man. The οἰκονόμος was usually a slave or a freedman (here the former) who was placed in charge of an entire estate or of an entire θεραπεία, “service” or “service-body” which was composed of all the other slaves, Gesinde, Dienerschaft. He superintends everything and gives out the stores for the running of the place as these are needed: σιτομέτριον, literally, “measure of grain,” the article denoting the due amount.

Jesus first asks about “the trustworthy” slave-manager and adds “sensible” with a second article like an apposition and a kind of climax (R. 776). Jesus merely asks who this slave is and lets Peter and the others each think of himself, whether he fills this specification. Jesus evidently has in mind the ministers and pastors of his church, whose obligation is a double one, including that of the household that is committed to them. It is a great distinction to be taken from the common ranks of the slaves and to be made the manager over all the rest. The trust thus imposed ought to act as a strong incentive to be “trustworthy” in return and “sensible” in managing the entire trust perfectly.

Luke 12:43

43 Instead of describing this head slave any further Jesus exclaims because of his blessedness. This “blessed” is the same verdict as that pronounced in v. 37, 38. Note the emphatic forward position of ἐλθών, for this blessedness is one that is fully revealed at the coming of his lord. The idea of this lord’s leaving his house for some time lies in his appointing this slave as the manager. The idea of v. 36 is repeated, but it is now modified so that our attention is fixed only on the one slave. Jesus and Paul, too, often place the plural and the singular side by side, or vice versa.

Watchfulness is one thing (v. 36, etc.), but it includes faithfulness and sensibleness: “doing so” as the lord has bidden him. This applies to all disciples, whatever their station and their responsibility may be, but especially to those who hold office in the church.

Luke 12:44

44 This is the blessedness that Jesus assures such a slave, and he adds his seal of verity and of authority, “truly I say to you”: “over all his possessions (forward for the sake of emphasis) he will set him.” His lord will elevate him from managing only the “service” in the one estate to managing the entire estate with all that belongs to it. The reality referred to is pictured only dimly and goes beyond our conception in this life; compare Matt. 25:21, 23; Luke 19:17, 19.

Luke 12:45

45 And now the opposite. But if that base slave shall say in his heart, Delay doth my lord to come! and shall begin to beat the menservants and the maidservants, to eat also and to drink and to get drunk, come shall the lord of that slave in a day in which he does not expect and in an hour in which he does not realize and shall cut him in two, and his portion he shall place together with the faithless.

The picture is extreme, purposely so, and is thus intended to include all lesser cases of unfaithfulness. This is the Scriptural way which is clearly illustrated in Matt. 5:21 (murder includes anger, etc.) and 5:27 (adultery includes lustful looks). Alas, the condition is one of expectancy, Jesus thinks that such cases may occur. One adjective suffices to describe this slave who is also made slave-manager, κακός, “base,” nichtswuerdig, good for nothing; ἐκεῖνος designates the fellow Jesus has in mind. “To say in the heart” is to think without betraying oneself, and this base slave’s thought is: “Delay doth my lord!” the emphasis being on the verb. He accepted his lord’s trust, he promised faithful and competent service, and now see what his secret thought reveals—base hypocrisy (v. 1).

Since his lord is gone, he casts off restraint and lets out the baseness of his inner nature, which has been only hidden hitherto. He plays the tyrant by abusing all the slaves under him, even with blows. Is this a picture of the ministers in the church who play the pope? He gives rein to his passions which were held in restraint while his lord was present. He now carouses by eating, drinking, and getting drunk. Is this a picture of the ministers who are self-seekers and also indulge their flesh, even its basest side, when they think they can do so with safety?

Luke 12:46

46 What will happen? He will be caught in his folly. “Come shall the lord of that slave (the verb is placed forward for the sake of emphasis) in a day in which he does not expect (and Jesus adds for the sake of emphasis) and in an hour in which he does not realize,” (the Greek needs no objects, “hour” is to be understood in the wider sense of “time”). Many have thought themselves shrewd enough to indulge their wickedness and have imagined that they could call a halt in time and thus escape. But every yielding to indulgence blinds the moral sense and helps only to make a greater fool. His end will be his execution, he will be cut in two (2 Sam. 12:31; 1 Chron. 20:3) with a horrible saw, and thus his portion placed with the faithless, i. e., he will have the same portion the unbelievers have.

Luke 12:47

47 Now that slave who knows the will of his Lord and does not prepare and do according to his will shall be flayed with many lashes; but he that knows not and does things worthy of lashes shall be flayed with few. Moreover, to everyone to whom much was given, from him much will be sought; and with whom they deposit much, more will they ask of him.

To be cut in two (executed, put to death) and to have one’s portion assigned among the unbelievers are evidently to land in hell. But Jesus now brings out the thought that this is by no means all for such a slave. There are great differences even in hell. Jesus thus describes two servants that end in hell. The one knew his lord’s will but never made ready (i. e., for his lord’s coming), never did his will. The emphatic ἐκεῖνος points forward to what is said about this slave and not backward to v. 45.

The aorist participles are timeless and state merely the fact of the acts, R. 1114; this should be held fast however we translate, whether with past or present tenses. This slave “shall be flayed (or hided) with many lashes,” πολλάς (supply πληγάς), the accusative after a passive verb (R. 485), an analogous cognate (R. 479). The language is figurative and refers to times of slavery when the slaves received lashes for their disobedience; it is a continuation of the figure that was used in “cut in two,” the cruel form of executing criminal slaves in more ancient times; the Romans crucified slaves. But this figurative excessive lashing refers to the hereafter, the punishment in hell. The characterization of this slave is transparent: any disciples who knew Christ’s will and did not prepare for his return did not do his will.

Luke 12:48

48 Now the other, who did not know (supply his lord’s will). There is no need to add that because of his ignorance he did not prepare; it is enough to say that he, too, did things that were worthy of lashes. He, too, shall certainly receive them, but they shall certainly be in just proportion, only few, ὀλίγας (πληγάς). As regards the final fate of these two and the number of their lashes compare 10:12–15; 11:31, 32.

The justice that lies back of this fate of the two slaves is made clear by two axiomatic statements which are universally acted on by men themselves. “To everyone to whom much is given, much will be sought from him.” Παντί brings out the universality. The point is that the person receives a free and generous gift; he is highly favored in being so blessed. The result is that he is to act accordingly. To the degree that he has been blessed, to that degree he ought to be grateful, use what has been given him according to the nature of the gift and according to the giver’s gracious will. For him to be ungrateful, act as if this was not a gracious gift, abuse it, etc., is abominable and contrary to every proper human expectation. The antecedent of παρʼ αὐτοῦ is left in the dative that is required by ἐδόθη.

What applies universally among men and is right and true naturally, applies also when grace showers its gifts upon a disciple and perhaps makes him an apostle like Peter. But the two πολύ may vary in quantity. Not all are given as much as the Twelve received; in ordinary life some have less. But in every case the measure of what one receives is and must be the measure of what is expected of him. In all cases the gift will be “much.”

But another side must be shown. “With whom they deposit much, more will they ask of him.” The indefinite plurals are only a variant of the preceding passive singulars. This statement, too, is of universal application as the plurals show: people always act on it, and rightly so. The best commentary is found in 19:15–19 and in Matt. 25:20–23. The idea in παρέθεντο is that of a capital which is deposited with someone in order that he may do business therewith, and in αἰτήσουσιν that the return of this capital together with the proper interest on it are rightfully asked. Hence we have πολύ and περισσότερον; more than was deposited is to be returned. The original sum may, of course, vary and accordingly also the increase that is rightfully asked. But for one to take a trust fund like this, squander and waste it, or even to let it lie idle (19:20–24; Matt. 25:24–30) is universally condemned and entails guilt in proportion.

What this means for the disciples is plain. They receive not only gifts that are to be used with due gratitude according to the intent of the Giver; they receive from the Lord a capital deposit to invest and to do business with in order that they may increase that capital and return it to the Lord with his increase. They receive all their spiritual gifts as a precious and an honoring trust and must administer them accordingly. And there will be an accounting of the gift and the deposit. Blessed is he who can meet that accounting joyfully, but woe to him who proves faithless.

So Peter has his answer. What Jesus says applies not only to the apostles and the ministers but to all the disciples down to the humblest and even to all men (v. 48, first statement). Even this is not all. Peter and the rest must know that all that Jesus has said will not move along smoothly in this world until the day of his return but will move through the worst disturbances, beginning with Jesus himself and by him brought also upon his disciples in the entire world.

Luke 12:49

49 A fire came I to throw upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! And a baptism have I to be baptized with; and how I am straitened until it be finished!

The two exclamatory statements are due to the intense feeling with which they were uttered, and they are thus by no means an indication that this paragraph was inserted here by Luke from some other connection; for how would Luke introduce a foreign section that begins with strong exclamations without a word of explanation? The two statements about the fire and the baptism are worded alike, which should have helped in the translation. It was not understood that τί as well as πῶς are exclamatory (R. 1193, and 739) and the former not an interrogative (R. 1176); and one does not see why R. 302 and W. P. add a doubt. So also εἰ after θέλω is not “if” or anything of that nature but merely introduces the thing toward which the wish or desire is directed.

“A fire,” like “a baptism,” is placed forward for the sake of emphasis. The aorist “I came” includes the entire mission of Jesus and not merely his incarnation. Jesus is now in the midst of that mission, and its severest part is still before him. The great purpose of that mission is to throw fire upon the earth, and when no new subject is introduced for the infinitive, its subject is necessarily the same as that of the main verb. Jesus is not commanding or praying that God shall throw this fire on the earth, but his own hand throws this fire. The mission of Jesus did start a conflagration on earth, one that has never subsided and will burn on until the end of time. It was not yet kindled (ἀνάπτω) when Jesus spoke, and he says that he desired that it were already kindled.

It seems strange that, when the fire is now burning all around us, some are content to say that what Jesus means is not clear, or that what the fire signifies is to be left indefinite, while others misconceive this fire as being one that is intended to burn up everything that is contrary to God and leave only the real substance—forgetting that the whole world lies in wickedness and has no fireproof substance in it. Why separate the fire from the baptism when Jesus combined them by the parallel wording and made the fire clear by means of the baptism? Fortunately, we have unanimity regarding the latter; it describes the passion and the death of Jesus. And it thus brings out what the fire and its moment of kindling are, namely this death on the cross. It is the offense of the cross that has set the world ablaze, that has started the division and the strife. We may also define the fire as the gospel of the cross.

But it is not enough to say just the gospel in general, or the Holy Spirit, or the purifying power of the Word, or the testing fire of persecution, or merely dissension under the figure of fire. When the cross is viewed as fire, we should note that this illustrates just one function of the cross and no more. That cross and its gospel are also the power of salvation, and a number of figures are required to reveal it fully.

Luke 12:50

50 The figures are opposites: fire—baptism (water). It is the height of paradox to have a baptism kindle a fire, and yet this is not strange at all in the realities. Christ’s death on the cross kindled the fire of the offense of the cross. The figure of baptism to denote the suffering and the death of Jesus has been traced back to Jesus’ baptism by John in the Jordan. By placing himself alongside of sinners and asking for John’s baptism Jesus did signify that he would take up the load that was resting on these sinners and remove it forever. Yet it may be questioned whether it is for this reason that Jesus here and in Matt. 20:22, 23 (Mark 10:38) likens his sufferings and his death to a “baptism.” The figure would hold true even if John had never baptized Jesus. Any water that is poured upon Jesus would picture the sufferings and the death that were poured out upon him.

It ought to be plain that this baptism of blood, as the fathers called it, was not an immersion, and that Jesus never said, “An immersion have I to be immersed with.” Jesus was only stained with blood; the wrath was only poured out upon him; the blows, stripes, etc., were only laid on him; our iniquities likewise. We only spoil the figure by saying that Jesus was immersed in suffering. Here again those who would insist on immersion as being the only meaning of “baptism” and “to baptize” find the water too deep.

Συνέχομαι is passive, and the translation “how am I straitened,” pressed upon, distressed and troubled, gives us the sense. Jesus longs to see the fire kindled, but the severity of his coming baptism makes him exclaim and wish it were finished, τελέω in the passive, the same word that was uttered triumphantly on the cross. Yet Jesus did not hesitate because of the severity. The stereotyped phrase ἕωςὅπου means literally “until which time.”

Luke 12:51

51 Do not think that I came to give peace on the earth; no, I tell you, nothing but (B. D. 448, 8) division!

In the dramatic question and answer form Jesus proceeds to make plain what he means by his mission to throw fire on the earth. The implication is that one would suppose that Jesus came to bring peace, just peace on the earth. Is he not the Prince of peace, his church the haven of peace, his greeting, “Peace to you!” and that of his apostles, “Grace and peace”? All this is true, indeed. But “on the earth” takes in the world of men, and the effect of Christ’s mission on the earth in general is quite the opposite of peace, namely division, or, as Jesus expressed it in Matt. 10:34, “a sword,” symbolizing war.

This contrast shows that “peace” is meant in the sense of harmony and an undisturbed condition. The idea is that, if Jesus had not come, the earth would have gone on undisturbed in its sin and guilt until the day of its doom. But he came to take away that sin and guilt by the cross. There was at once division, many refused to have their sin and their guilt removed by the cross. In Matthew’s word there was war, men fought the cross, there came to be two hostile camps. Jesus foresaw it. He declares emphatically that this is exactly what he came to give on the earth: division. It is better that some accept the cross than that all the earth should perish in its sin.

Luke 12:52

52 Jesus specifies with γάρ and helps to make the matter still clearer: For there shall be from now on five in one house as having been divided, three against two and two against three. There shall be divided father against son and son against father; mother against daughter and daughter against the mother; mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law.

This is a sample of the worst division that Jesus brought, the rending of intimate family ties. Few seem to ask why Jesus mentioned just five in one house. Jesus takes one of the smallest Jewish families which consisted of father, mother, married son and his wife, and one unmarried daughter. According to Oriental custom the son brings his wife to live in his father’s house. The daughter who is still at home is unmarried, for after marrying she would live with her husband’s people and no longer be at home. These are split into two parties, three against two, and two against three, since the mother is on one side and both the daughter and the daughter-in-law on the other.

Jesus does not indicate whether the three or the two are on his side—the case may be either way; nor are we able to say that the three young people stand against the two older ones. All this is immaterial. In Matt. 10:35 the sides are marked. All that Jesus brings out is the bad division. We decline to regard the perfect participle as being joined with the copula to form a periphrastic perfect (R. 375); this participle is predicative to “five”; “as having been divided.”

Luke 12:53

53 The verb is placed forward because it is emphatic, and it appears here for the third time. Here and in v. 52 the future tenses refer to what shall occur after Jesus has undergone the baptism of blood; the cross shall divide in this manner. The details: “father against son,” etc., are added in full in order to bring out the complete painfulness of the division. No member of this family is neutral, which is, of course, intended to be only typical.

Luke 12:54

54 Every effort to prove that these verses were not spoken on this occasion but on some other and were inserted by Luke for inner reasons is unfounded. Thickly packed crowds were assembled about the disciples in v. 1. Luke again mentions these as being now especially addressed. καί shows that Jesus speaks “also” to the multitudes after having spoken to the disciples in what precedes. Also the inner connection proves that these verses were not inserted. The time for the great division was fast approaching, but these people “do not discern the time,” they live on like the blind rich fool (v. 16, etc.).

Moreover, he went on to say to the multitudes: Whenever you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, A shower is coming. And so it happens. And whenever a south wind blowing, you say, There will be a hot wave. And it happens. Hypocrites! The face of the earth and of the heaven you know how to test, but this season of time how do you not know to test? Moreover, why do you not also of yourselves judge the right thing?

The fact that Jesus should refer to the weather signs that were current in Palestine more than once in his discourses goes without saying; in Matt. 16:2 he uses the morning and the evening signs but here the signs for rain and for hot waves.

In Palestine the rain comes from the west, from the Mediterranean. The desert on the east and the south and the mountain ranges to the north furnish no rain. So it required little wisdom to know that a shower was coming when a cloudbank began to rise in the west, ἐπὶδυσμῶν, the plural is usually found in this phrase, the word means “setting” or “going down.”

Luke 12:55

55 The same was true regarding the wind, especially that coming from the south, coming over the hot southern desert. It took little wisdom to prognosticate that there would be καύσων, “burning heat,” a hot wave.

Luke 12:56

56 This reference to two outstanding weather signs is the more appropriate for the purpose of Jesus since the weather, rain and hot waves, are beyond man’s control. All that men are able to do to this day is to watch the weather indications, and they do that assiduously. They are concerned only with what affects their superficial lives. Hence the judgment of Jesus: “Hypocrites!” show actors, dissemblers, pretenders. But why? Because they know how to test the face of the earth and of the sky and to tell what the signs mean, and what weather is on the way and to act as though this were all that they needed to concern themselves about. But since this season of time, καιρός, in which they are now living is so plainly marked as it is, “how do you not know to test?” as coins were tested to prove their genuineness and their quality, δοκιμάζειν.

Jesus is not scoring the inability of these Jews to test the time in which they were living. They knew how to test the weather signs means that they did test them; the question that they knew not to test the signs of the times means that they could just as easily have done so but did not do so. Every means and every aid were given them that were just as plain as the cloud in the west and the wind from the south. There were the baptism and the preaching of John; there were the wonderful person of Jesus, his preaching, and his miracles. Yet they knew not how to test these. This was pretense—they knew well enough but would not act on their knowledge.

Jesus chose the two weather signs to match the two great signs of that time, and the underlying thought is that, as easy as it is to judge the former, so easy is it to judge the latter. These men could see the beneficent shower coming, and it did come; but here was the rain of grace in the Messiah himself, and could they not see that? Πῶς marks the question of surprise. These men knew the blasting effects of the southern simoon even before the effects arrived; but why was it that they could not see, as they pretended, the presaged judgment of God in the rejection of their nation because they would not see his grace? Jesus saw through them completely and tells them what he saw.

Luke 12:57

57 What the question asked in v. 56 means is plainly brought out by the added question: “Moreover (on top of what I thus ask), why do you not also of yourselves judge the right thing?” The emphasis is on the phrase “of yourselves.” The implied contrast is not: apart from the signs of the times; for Jesus means the contrary: to judge the right thing in connection with what they see at this time. So also the verb used is κρίνειν, to pronounce a verdict on what is so plainly the right thing, τὸδίκαιον, a verdict that shall stand for them, and on which they will act. Jesus does not mean “of your own ability,” for he is thinking of what God is doing for them through him. “Of yourselves” is in contrast to others, in particular to the wicked Pharisees apart from their coaching. God was giving them the clear truth so that under its influence and its power they could of themselves decide the right thing to do, namely to believe in his grace and to flee from the wrath to come since the heavens of their time were full of the signs of both. Why did they not judge the right thing?—yes, why? They could, but they would not.

They remained as they were, unsoftened by grace, unmoved by the approaching judgment. These were sharp words, but they still contained the call of grace if only these people would at last hear.

Luke 12:58

58 Jesus warns his hearers with another illustration as to what “the right thing” is that they should do in view of “this season of time” in which they live. Instead of living on thoughtlessly like the Rich Fool (v. 16, etc.), considering only the weather indications and not the equally easily tested signs of grace and of judgment to come, let them be like the man who, while it is still time, gets rid of his opponent at law and escapes the prison where he would have to languish hopelessly.

When, for instance, thou art going with thy opponent at law before a ruler, on the way take pains to be wholly rid of him lest he hale thee before the judge, and the judge turn thee over to the court officer, and the court officer throw thee into prison. I tell thee, in no way shalt thou come out thence until thou hand over the last lepton.

The use of ὡς is temporal, and γάρ introduces an example: “for instance.” The case of these Jews is like that of this man who is on the way to the ruler with his opponent at law (ἀντίδικος). Jesus advises him to do his best (δὸςἐργασίαν, a Latinism, da operam, B.-D. 5, 3, which is now fully established as such and is so translated in the old Latin versions) to be fully rid of him (the perfect passive ἀπηλλάχθαι, not to express antecedence, as R. 909 views it, but a state of completion, R., W. P.). The Jews knew “of themselves” (v. 57) that a judgment awaited them, and Jesus points out to them what they had better do before it is too late, namely do diligence to get rid of their accuser before the ruler and judge is reached, namely God. Among the Jews the ruler acted also as a judge.

Jesus implies that the Jews can get rid of their accuser and of the debt they owe. The very imperative δός, an aorist, indicates this. The way to this riddance is not stated here, Jesus has pointed it out often enough, and his disciples have found that way, all their debt is gone. Otherwise, as the law takes its course in the case of a penniless debtor, so will judgment descend upon them. The πράκτωρ is the executor who carried out the judge’s orders. After μήποτε we have first a subjunctive and then two future tenses; this construction occurs often in the Koine.

Luke 12:59

59 The prison points to hell. Roman Catholicism fastens on the clause: “until thou hand over the last lepton,” 1/8 of a cent, compare 21:2; meaning the last particle of the debt. This clause refers the prison to purgatory and suggests ways and means for paying off our guilt and being released from purgatory. The Catholic contention is that ἕωςοὗ (ἕωςἄν in Matt. 5:26) always introduces something that is expected to happen and often does happen. This should no longer be contested, not even on the basis of Matt. 18:30, 34, which are like the present clause. It is true, many a common debtor who was thrown into prison has somehow managed to pay his debts, even to the last lepton, this Greek word being used also by the Jews.

But this possibility pertains only to the figurative language of Jesus. It pictures no actual possibility for a sinner to find escape after death and judgment because the Scriptures know of no such possibility. The clause raises the question: “But how will he pay at all in the prison to which God will remand him, to say nothing of paying down to the last lepton?” The only answer of the Scriptures is: “Any and all payment will there be impossible.”

Jesus uses these last verses to illustrate a different admonition in Matt. 5:25, 26.

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.